Children’s Amendment Bill: Committee Report on public hearings; Committee report on oversight visit to KZN and Gauteng; Committee Programme

Meeting report

Nomination of Acting Chairperson

The Committee Secretary notified the Committee that their Chairperson, Mr M Gungubele (ANC), had become a Minister [in the Presidency]. The rules of the National Assembly required that the Committee elect an Acting Chairperson in his absence. 

The Committee Secretary facilitated this process of electing an acting chairperson. She cited rule 159 of the National Assembly rules, stating that the Members of the Committee are required to elect an Acting Chairperson from amongst itself. She requested nominations.

Ms J Manganye (ANC) moved for Mr D Stock (ANC) to fulfill the role of Acting Chairperson.

Ms N Mvana (ANC) and Ms A Motaung (ANC) seconded this movement.

Without further nominations, the Committee Secretary congratulated Mr Stock on his election as Acting Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Social Development, until another appointment of a full-time Chairperson. The Secretary confirmed that the meeting process was facilitated with a quorum of the Committee, as there were eight Members present.

Acting Chairperson Stock extended a word of gratitude and appreciation for the Members’ confidence in him. He thanked the Members for their commitment and discipline, and opened the meeting.

The Committee Secretary recorded the attendance. Apologies were sent by Ms M Sukers (ACDP), who would join later on.

Ms K Bilankulu (ANC) let the Acting Chairperson know that she has two meeting commitments, the South African Development Community (SADC) meeting and the Portfolio Committee on Social Development meeting.  She excused herself, letting the Acting Chairperson know what she would sometimes need to miss the Portfolio Committee on Social Development meetings to attend and to facilitate SADC meetings.

Ms Mvana congratulated the Acting Chairperson. She also congratulated Minister Mondli Gungubele for his new position in the Presidency. She then moved for the acceptance of the apologies.

Ms Bilankulu seconded the acceptance of the apologies.

The Committee Secretary presented the agenda.

Ms Manganye and Ms Mvana moved to adopt the agenda.

Report of the Portfolio Committee on Social Development on the Impact of the Civil Unrest in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng on Social Development Services and the Department of Social Development’s Response for Urgent Food Relief to the Affected Communities

The Acting Chairperson assumed that Members received the report in advance, and that they would not need to analyse the report word-by-word.  He proposed that they summarise the report, and then go through the observations and recommendations. The Committee could deliberate it thereafter.

Ms L van de Merwe (IFP) supported this proposal.

The Committee Researcher gave an overview of the draft report on the oversight visit.

He noted that the objective of the Committee’s visit to KZN and Gauteng was to receive briefings from all stakeholders in the Department of Social Development’s portfolio in order to consider the social relief response to hunger and food insecurity as exacerbated by recent violent protests in KZN and Gauteng. The visit was also aimed at considering the financial implications of social development programmes, such as the social relief of distress programme. The Committee also received a briefing on the interventions put into place by the Social Development sector, which ensured business continuity and the enhancement of the quality of life for affected communities. The Committee also visited the Department of Social Development’s facilities affected by violent protests in order to assess the magnitude of damage to public property.

Discussion

Ms van der Merwe referred to the part of the report regarding the objective to prevent ‘double-dipping’ into food vouchers and social relief packages. During the COVID-19 lockdown, the Committee was assured that the Department of Social Development (DSD) would move to an electronic type of monitoring system which would allow better data storage. This would eliminate ‘double-dipping’. She referred to the sentence in the report which stated that, ‘The Minister should ensure that there is a realignment within Social Development and the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) systems in order to address the issues of double dipping’. Ms van der Merwe thought that the Committee report should include a reference to the planned, expeditious roll-out of the new electronic system that could help the Department to alleviate those issues of ‘double-dipping’.

Ms van der Merwe also asked whether the Committee should pursue an investigation into the SASSA office where debtors’ files were stolen. These files were the only thing stolen. This must have been an inside job by the people who owe money to SASSA. Informal looters would not be so specific in their choice of theft. It was important that these missing files be investigated.

The Acting Chairperson agreed with Ms van der Merwe. There was an issue of missing files, as well as an incident where community members came into the office and attained the keys to the garage, in order to steal cars.

Ms B Masango (DA) noted that the Committee has consistently advised that the recommendations enforce the use of the word ‘must’ instead of ‘should’. How did the other colleagues feel about this language technicality? Ms Masango felt that Minister Lindiwe Zulu needed to understand her requirements, as counselled by the Committee.

Ms Mvana said that the law must take its course. When the Committee looked at the office damage, there was a similarity between cases. There was suspicion of the police who were reluctant to open cases for these damages. The police should be forced to open reports for these common cases. If it was possible, the police’s reluctance should be reported to Minister Zulu.

Ms A Abrahams (DA) suggested that Minister Zulu and the Acting Director- General provide a regular status update on the progress of the reconstruction of departmental offices, and implementation of the Committee’s recommendations going forward. In the past, the Committee has completed oversight trips, adopted reports and made recommendations which were not followed up on. It was important to the affected communities and staff that the Committee ensures that Minister Zulu consistently reports on the progress of these measures.

Ms Manganye added to Ms Mvana and Ms van der Merwe’s comments. The looting incidents observed by the Committee were very similar. Looters must have been organised and led to commit these crimes. In all of the SASSA offices, the Committee saw that the stolen data was very particular. Those looters must have known the SASSA offices very well, which is why that issue of criminality must be investigated.

The Acting Chairperson stated that the issues posed and the recommendations made by the Committee should be added to the report. The report should use ‘must’ rather than ‘should’ when dictating the Minister’s requirements. It is the Minister’s responsibility to implement the Committee’s proposals on a departmental level.

The Committee was unanimous on the issue of investigation. The law must be enforced and people who were responsible for property destruction and theft in KZN and Gauteng need to be acted against. According to the draft the Committee received on their oversight trip, looters also got keys to steal cars from the garage. There must be a proper investigation for this too. The Committee suspected that the robbery of SASSA was an orchestrated, inside job. There needed to be a proper investigation. All of the proposals discussed should be included in the recommendations.

Ms M Sukers (ACDP) raised a point concerning the budget for food aid in KZN. The cost of food was the largest portion of the KZN aid budget. She asked what the estimate of the province’s budget was based on. It was important for the Committee to understand where these food relief figures came from within the KZN Social Development Department. She highlighted the need to seek more information regarding this budget estimation.

The Committee Secretary brought attention to the Members' recommendation that the report use ‘must’ instead of ‘should’. In terms of cooperative governance, the position taken by Parliament is that ‘must’ could not be used to instruct the Executive. ‘Should’ is persuasive enough to ensure that the Executive implements Parliament’s recommendations. The Committee recommendations would be directed to the Minister. The Speaker will then follow up with the Committee. The resolutions communicated will use language such as ‘should’. The Secretary said since started working in Parliament, all of the reports have used ‘should’ because it is persuasive enough.

The Acting Chairperson asked whether the Committee understood the Secretary’s advice on the report’s language. The Committee should agree that ‘should’ would be used instead of ‘must’, based on her explanations that ‘must’ would be too instructive for the Executive.

Ms Mvana understood the explanation. However, why does Parliament need to ‘persuade’ the Executive? Parliament should not have to be polite or persuasive. Instead, Parliament needed to tell the Executive what was required of them. Otherwise, the report was good. Ms Mvana moved for the adoption of the report.

Ms Bilankulu seconded the adoption of the report.

The Acting Chairperson said that the issue of ‘must’ versus ‘should’ would be advanced to further consideration.

Committee Report of the National Hearings on the Children’s Amendment Bill

The Committee was taken through the report by its Content Advisor, Mr Yolisa Khanye.

Discussion

Ms Abrahams noted that the Department of Social Development had not secured a child psychologist to counsel the Department on the Amendment Bill and its legal contents. Had the Department contacted the Children’s Institute and asked for a recommendation or referral to a child psychologist? Would the Department be willing to accept referrals to child psychologists from the Committee?

Ms Masango said that there were a number of incidents when Ms Khanye needed to stop and explain certain paragraphs in the report. Would it be possible to expand on those paragraphs, since the reader would not have the opportunity to receive Ms Khanye’s explanation? Also, when Ms Khanye said, “The Committee highlighted the feasibility of placing the social workers within communities and amongst mothers”. She pointed out that the Committee had rather ‘questioned’ the feasibility of these placements, instead of ‘highlighting’ the placements. The paragraph needed to emphasise the shortage of social workers. Ms Masango proposed gently that the report uses ‘questioned’ instead of ‘highlighted’.

Ms Mvana understood Ms Masango’s points – she asked if Ms Khanye could rephrase certain paragraphs in the report that required her explanation, so that the report could be easier to read.  

There was some uncertainty on the way forward, and the next steps in the process. The process had been prolonged, and the Committee would need to meet deadlines before they could finalise the report and the Amendment Bill. Could the Secretary and Ms Khanye explain the oncoming processes?

Ms van der Merwe said that normally, after the Committee completes public hearings, they would receive one consolidated report. It seemed as though there was a new report being produced after each of the Committee’s sessions and debates. Would there be a report for the online virtual hearings? Would there be a report for the various provinces? Would the Committee debate these reports within the House each time? The Committee had not been through reports in that manner before. It was also noted that a lot has been said during the hearings regarding the lack of social workers and the need for the Department to absorb trained social workers. If this point was not included in the current report, it should be mentioned in the next report.

Responses

Responding to Ms van der Merwe, Ms Khanye explained that when she brought the report to her manager, he explained that it had to be finalised through the procurement process. The office itself handled the advertisement of hearings for interested people. She was unsure if the Committee could go ahead and have the consolidated report yet. He said that the House Chairperson needed to be informed before this happens. Ms Khanye suggested returning to her manager to get advice.

Responding to Ms Masango, Ms Khanye noted that the additional explanations she offered were only meant to provide the Committee with context and jog the Members’ memories. However, these observations were already included in the report.

Ms Khanye accepted Ms Masango's suggestion to rephrase the paragraph that used ‘highlighted’ instead of ‘questioned’.

Responding to Ms van der Merwe’s question, Ms Khanye said that the report which was presented contained details of the virtual public hearings. The DSD would also produce the reports from the provincial visit. The Department had a draft report for Limpopo and Mpumalanga. However, they would only distribute these reports once they were completed alongside the reports from other provinces. If the Members wanted to see it, it could be provided. However, it was only a draft. There would still be another big, consolidated report on all of the provincial hearings which the Department conducted. To summarise, there will be two reports - the current report on the virtual hearings, which the Committee was presented with, and the upcoming consolidated report on all provincial hearings.

Ms Khanye was not sure of the processes for debating reports in the National Assembly. She called on the Secretary to help her with this question.

The Secretary said that the national and provincial public hearing reports are Committee records of public engagement. However, the report debated in the House will contain all of the clauses, recommendations and observations proposed by the Committee. The current report they were considering, formed part of the public participation process. This report would assist Members when they are in the next stages of the process. It would allow them to consider certain organisations’ proposals in advance, thereby preparing them for the House debate.    The debated report would be the finalised report of the Amendment Bill, which would contain a clause-by-clause analysis of the Bill.

Ms Khanye recognised Ms Abrahams’ input about the acquisition of a child psychologist. She agreed to ask her manager about this.

The Acting Chairperson tabled the report for adoption.

Ms Abrahams and Ms Bilankulu moved for the adoption of the report.

Report of the Portfolio Committee on Social Development on the Third Quarter Performance and Expenditure Report for 2020/21 Of The Department of the South African Social Security Agency (Sassa) and the National Development Agency (NDA)

Ms Khanye took Members through the report.

The report was adopted.

Consideration and Adoption of the Third Term Committee Programme

The Secretary said that after the revision of the parliamentary programme, the Committee’s programme was also revised for realignment. This schedule was distributed amongst the Committee.

She briefly relayed the third term programme to the Committee.

Discussion

Ms Masango asked about the plan for Wednesday, 25 August, when the Portfolio Committee of Social Development and the Portfolio Committee of Basic Education would receive an update on the Early Childhood Development (ECD) programme. In the public hearings report, there was mention of the public hearings for the Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill (BELA Bill).  Would it be possible for the Portfolio Committee on Social Development to receive a progress update on the BELA Bill? Or is it an overreach to ask for another Committee to brief the Portfolio Committee on Social Development’s Members on their progress?

Secondly, Ms Masango mentioned that the timetable referred to the ‘Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund’ as the ‘Nelson Mandela Children’s Foundation’. This needed to be fixed.

Thirdly, the Committee needed to receive regular updates on the foster care backlog. The Children’s Amendment Bill processes were being taken care of, but there were issues and realities on the ground too which needed monitoring. Could the Committee receive an update from the DSD or from SASSA? Could this update be programmed?

Ms Abrahams asked whether the MECs would be present in the briefing on the ECD migration programme so that they could offer the Committee a state of readiness update for their own provinces. 

Regarding the acceptance of submissions from the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund, Ms Abrahams thought that the closed session, which the Committee conducted for these children, was the most powerful sessions they had during the public hearings processes. It was a first for Parliament to include children in this process. But will the meeting contain new submissions? Were these submissions accepted after the public submissions deadline? If so, would this not negatively impact the public submission process? If the Portfolio Committee on Social Development opens the submissions after the deadline, then other parties would also be able to receive submissions after their deadlines. Although, receiving more input from children would be very helpful to the Committee.

Lastly, Ms Abrahams noted that the Committee had not touched on the Victims Support Services Bill, whose submissions closed in 2020. It was a jam-packed programme for the quarter, but when could the Committee expect to start with this programme?

Ms van der Merwe said that during various levels in Lockdown, the Committee had a standing item in the programme schedule. This item was a 5-minute update by the DSD. The Committee requested this as a means to stay updated on the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) Grant. Since the process had been reopened, perhaps the Committee should have an update when SASSA and the DSD come to the Committee on 8 September. Minister Zulu was seen on ENCA giving an update on the applications received and how the process has been unfolding. The Committee kept an eye on this process during various levels of lockdown, and they should not drop the ball now. If the Committee did want a standing item, then they should ask SASSA and the DSD to start with an update on the SRD Grants at the beginning of that meeting. This would also be a good opportunity to receive an update on the foster care backlog.

Ms van der Merwe knew that the programme was full for the term. However, during the Committee’s public hearings in Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal, they heard a lot of concerns about the lacking responsibility and unfulfilled roles of Home Affairs. Could Ms Khanye and the Secretary schedule a briefing with the Department of Home Affairs for the next term?

Lastly, going back to the issue of ‘must’ versus ‘should’ as raised by Ms Mvana and Ms Masango, Ms  van der Merwe reminded the Committee that they were tasked with holding the Executive accountable. The Executive was not supposed to hold the Committee accountable. It would be preferable that the report use ‘must’ because the Executive should not have a choice in implementing the Committee’s recommendations. The Committee should not be pleading or begging for the Executive to take the Committee’s work seriously. However, Ms van der Merwe did respect the Acting Chairperson’s ruling that the issue would be discussed at a later stage.

Responses

In response to Ms Masango’s question regarding updates on the BELA Bill, the Secretary said that she would wait for the Department to respond with more information. Perhaps during the following week’s deliberation, they could ask for an update. Other alternative routes included writing to the Department of Basic Education (DBE) and requesting an update, or checking in with the DBE secretary. Any information received would be passed over to the Committee.

Responding to a question about the foster care backlog, the administrators took note of Ms Masango’s request to schedule a meeting and an update on this issue. The Committee’s programme was very full, but if there was any space in the fourth term programme, the secretary would try to fit it in then or in the current quarter, as this was a critical update for the Committee.

Responding to Ms Abrahams’ question about the submissions made by the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund, the Secretary said that by the time submissions were received, they were still within time limits. Since the Committee had not begun their formal deliberations, they were still able to receive submissions from stakeholders. The processes of those submissions were thus supported.

Regarding the Victims Support Services Bill, the Bill had not been tabled in Parliament. The Secretary had not yet received any referral for the Bill. Perhaps it was still with the Executive and they were adapting it to public gazettes.

The request from Ms van der Merwe was very important. The Secretary said that perhaps she could kick-start this process the following week. She would send an urgent correspondence so that when the DSD came to present the quarterly report of DSD and its entities they could begin with a brief on the SRD grants before the other presentation.

The administrators recognised the proposal to organise a meeting with Home Affairs.  In the next term, they would organise this.

Responding to Ms Abraham’s question about the following week’s meeting, the Secretary said that no MECs would be present in the meeting between the DSD and the DBE. MECs were not invited.

The Acting Chairperson tabled the programme for adoption.

Ms Masango and Ms van der Merwe moved to adopt the programme.

Committee minutes dated 2 June 2021

The final item on the agenda was the adoption of the minutes from the Committee’s meeting on 2 June. 

The Committee Secretary briefly took Members through the minutes.

The Committee deliberated on the presentation of the Fundraising Amendment Bill. Two resolutions were made: The Department must present the Disaster Relief and National Social Development Fund to the Committee. They also requested comments on the fund, which the Secretary had already forwarded to the Committee.

The Acting Chairperson tabled the minutes for adoption.

Ms Abrahams and Ms Mvana moved to adopt the minutes.

Closing Remarks

Ms Khanye offered feedback on the suggestions raised by the Committee. The Committee suggested approaching the Children’s Institute or other networks to seek out a referral to a child psychologist. Having asked her manager, Ms Khanye said that he approved of this exercise. However, he hoped that no charges would be incurred in this process. If there was a cost, the child psychologist’s hire must be involved in the procurement process.

Also, regarding the Victims Support Services Bill, Ms Khanye noted that it was gazetted by the DSD in 2020 around July. She had not received it, as it was still open for comments at an Executive level.

In terms of Home Affairs, the DSD and other departments will be called to participate in the provision of feedback on this issue.

Ms Masango asked if the current term’s programmes were still aligned to the timeframes of the Children’s Amendment Bill as per the Committee’s deadline to finalise the Bill.

The Secretary said yes, the Committee was still within the deadlines. The final deadline was in 2022 November, and the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) only takes six weeks to process the Bill once submitted. As long as the Committee starts the formal discussions on the Bill within 2021, they will still be in time.

The Acting Chairperson officially congratulated the former Chairperson, Mr M Gungubele, on his new responsibility within the Cabinet and with the Presidency. The Committee respected his leadership, and his contribution to the Department. He left a good foundation for change in the Department as well as people’s individual lives. He thanked the Members for engaging in the meeting.

The Acting Chairperson adjourned the meeting.

Nomination of Acting Chairperson

The Committee Secretary notified the Committee that their Chairperson, Mr M Gungubele (ANC), had become a Minister [in the Presidency]. The rules of the National Assembly required that the Committee elect an Acting Chairperson in his absence. 

The Committee Secretary facilitated this process of electing an acting chairperson. She cited rule 159 of the National Assembly rules, stating that the Members of the Committee are required to elect an Acting Chairperson from amongst itself. She requested nominations.

Ms J Manganye (ANC) moved for Mr D Stock (ANC) to fulfill the role of Acting Chairperson.

Ms N Mvana (ANC) and Ms A Motaung (ANC) seconded this movement.

Without further nominations, the Committee Secretary congratulated Mr Stock on his election as Acting Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Social Development, until another appointment of a full-time Chairperson. The Secretary confirmed that the meeting process was facilitated with a quorum of the Committee, as there were eight Members present.

Acting Chairperson Stock extended a word of gratitude and appreciation for the Members’ confidence in him. He thanked the Members for their commitment and discipline, and opened the meeting.

The Committee Secretary recorded the attendance. Apologies were sent by Ms M Sukers (ACDP), who would join later on.

Ms K Bilankulu (ANC) let the Acting Chairperson know that she has two meeting commitments, the South African Development Community (SADC) meeting and the Portfolio Committee on Social Development meeting.  She excused herself, letting the Acting Chairperson know what she would sometimes need to miss the Portfolio Committee on Social Development meetings to attend and to facilitate SADC meetings.

Ms Mvana congratulated the Acting Chairperson. She also congratulated Minister Mondli Gungubele for his new position in the Presidency. She then moved for the acceptance of the apologies.

Ms Bilankulu seconded the acceptance of the apologies.

The Committee Secretary presented the agenda.

Ms Manganye and Ms Mvana moved to adopt the agenda.

Report of the Portfolio Committee on Social Development on the Impact of the Civil Unrest in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng on Social Development Services and the Department of Social Development’s Response for Urgent Food Relief to the Affected Communities

The Acting Chairperson assumed that Members received the report in advance, and that they would not need to analyse the report word-by-word.  He proposed that they summarise the report, and then go through the observations and recommendations. The Committee could deliberate it thereafter.

Ms L van de Merwe (IFP) supported this proposal.

The Committee Researcher gave an overview of the draft report on the oversight visit.

He noted that the objective of the Committee’s visit to KZN and Gauteng was to receive briefings from all stakeholders in the Department of Social Development’s portfolio in order to consider the social relief response to hunger and food insecurity as exacerbated by recent violent protests in KZN and Gauteng. The visit was also aimed at considering the financial implications of social development programmes, such as the social relief of distress programme. The Committee also received a briefing on the interventions put into place by the Social Development sector, which ensured business continuity and the enhancement of the quality of life for affected communities. The Committee also visited the Department of Social Development’s facilities affected by violent protests in order to assess the magnitude of damage to public property.

Discussion

Ms van der Merwe referred to the part of the report regarding the objective to prevent ‘double-dipping’ into food vouchers and social relief packages. During the COVID-19 lockdown, the Committee was assured that the Department of Social Development (DSD) would move to an electronic type of monitoring system which would allow better data storage. This would eliminate ‘double-dipping’. She referred to the sentence in the report which stated that, ‘The Minister should ensure that there is a realignment within Social Development and the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) systems in order to address the issues of double dipping’. Ms van der Merwe thought that the Committee report should include a reference to the planned, expeditious roll-out of the new electronic system that could help the Department to alleviate those issues of ‘double-dipping’.

Ms van der Merwe also asked whether the Committee should pursue an investigation into the SASSA office where debtors’ files were stolen. These files were the only thing stolen. This must have been an inside job by the people who owe money to SASSA. Informal looters would not be so specific in their choice of theft. It was important that these missing files be investigated.

The Acting Chairperson agreed with Ms van der Merwe. There was an issue of missing files, as well as an incident where community members came into the office and attained the keys to the garage, in order to steal cars.

Ms B Masango (DA) noted that the Committee has consistently advised that the recommendations enforce the use of the word ‘must’ instead of ‘should’. How did the other colleagues feel about this language technicality? Ms Masango felt that Minister Lindiwe Zulu needed to understand her requirements, as counselled by the Committee.

Ms Mvana said that the law must take its course. When the Committee looked at the office damage, there was a similarity between cases. There was suspicion of the police who were reluctant to open cases for these damages. The police should be forced to open reports for these common cases. If it was possible, the police’s reluctance should be reported to Minister Zulu.

Ms A Abrahams (DA) suggested that Minister Zulu and the Acting Director- General provide a regular status update on the progress of the reconstruction of departmental offices, and implementation of the Committee’s recommendations going forward. In the past, the Committee has completed oversight trips, adopted reports and made recommendations which were not followed up on. It was important to the affected communities and staff that the Committee ensures that Minister Zulu consistently reports on the progress of these measures.

Ms Manganye added to Ms Mvana and Ms van der Merwe’s comments. The looting incidents observed by the Committee were very similar. Looters must have been organised and led to commit these crimes. In all of the SASSA offices, the Committee saw that the stolen data was very particular. Those looters must have known the SASSA offices very well, which is why that issue of criminality must be investigated.

The Acting Chairperson stated that the issues posed and the recommendations made by the Committee should be added to the report. The report should use ‘must’ rather than ‘should’ when dictating the Minister’s requirements. It is the Minister’s responsibility to implement the Committee’s proposals on a departmental level.

The Committee was unanimous on the issue of investigation. The law must be enforced and people who were responsible for property destruction and theft in KZN and Gauteng need to be acted against. According to the draft the Committee received on their oversight trip, looters also got keys to steal cars from the garage. There must be a proper investigation for this too. The Committee suspected that the robbery of SASSA was an orchestrated, inside job. There needed to be a proper investigation. All of the proposals discussed should be included in the recommendations.

Ms M Sukers (ACDP) raised a point concerning the budget for food aid in KZN. The cost of food was the largest portion of the KZN aid budget. She asked what the estimate of the province’s budget was based on. It was important for the Committee to understand where these food relief figures came from within the KZN Social Development Department. She highlighted the need to seek more information regarding this budget estimation.

The Committee Secretary brought attention to the Members' recommendation that the report use ‘must’ instead of ‘should’. In terms of cooperative governance, the position taken by Parliament is that ‘must’ could not be used to instruct the Executive. ‘Should’ is persuasive enough to ensure that the Executive implements Parliament’s recommendations. The Committee recommendations would be directed to the Minister. The Speaker will then follow up with the Committee. The resolutions communicated will use language such as ‘should’. The Secretary said since started working in Parliament, all of the reports have used ‘should’ because it is persuasive enough.

The Acting Chairperson asked whether the Committee understood the Secretary’s advice on the report’s language. The Committee should agree that ‘should’ would be used instead of ‘must’, based on her explanations that ‘must’ would be too instructive for the Executive.

Ms Mvana understood the explanation. However, why does Parliament need to ‘persuade’ the Executive? Parliament should not have to be polite or persuasive. Instead, Parliament needed to tell the Executive what was required of them. Otherwise, the report was good. Ms Mvana moved for the adoption of the report.

Ms Bilankulu seconded the adoption of the report.

The Acting Chairperson said that the issue of ‘must’ versus ‘should’ would be advanced to further consideration.

Committee Report of the National Hearings on the Children’s Amendment Bill

The Committee was taken through the report by its Content Advisor, Mr Yolisa Khanye.

Discussion

Ms Abrahams noted that the Department of Social Development had not secured a child psychologist to counsel the Department on the Amendment Bill and its legal contents. Had the Department contacted the Children’s Institute and asked for a recommendation or referral to a child psychologist? Would the Department be willing to accept referrals to child psychologists from the Committee?

Ms Masango said that there were a number of incidents when Ms Khanye needed to stop and explain certain paragraphs in the report. Would it be possible to expand on those paragraphs, since the reader would not have the opportunity to receive Ms Khanye’s explanation? Also, when Ms Khanye said, “The Committee highlighted the feasibility of placing the social workers within communities and amongst mothers”. She pointed out that the Committee had rather ‘questioned’ the feasibility of these placements, instead of ‘highlighting’ the placements. The paragraph needed to emphasise the shortage of social workers. Ms Masango proposed gently that the report uses ‘questioned’ instead of ‘highlighted’.

Ms Mvana understood Ms Masango’s points – she asked if Ms Khanye could rephrase certain paragraphs in the report that required her explanation, so that the report could be easier to read.  

There was some uncertainty on the way forward, and the next steps in the process. The process had been prolonged, and the Committee would need to meet deadlines before they could finalise the report and the Amendment Bill. Could the Secretary and Ms Khanye explain the oncoming processes?

Ms van der Merwe said that normally, after the Committee completes public hearings, they would receive one consolidated report. It seemed as though there was a new report being produced after each of the Committee’s sessions and debates. Would there be a report for the online virtual hearings? Would there be a report for the various provinces? Would the Committee debate these reports within the House each time? The Committee had not been through reports in that manner before. It was also noted that a lot has been said during the hearings regarding the lack of social workers and the need for the Department to absorb trained social workers. If this point was not included in the current report, it should be mentioned in the next report.

Responses

Responding to Ms van der Merwe, Ms Khanye explained that when she brought the report to her manager, he explained that it had to be finalised through the procurement process. The office itself handled the advertisement of hearings for interested people. She was unsure if the Committee could go ahead and have the consolidated report yet. He said that the House Chairperson needed to be informed before this happens. Ms Khanye suggested returning to her manager to get advice.

Responding to Ms Masango, Ms Khanye noted that the additional explanations she offered were only meant to provide the Committee with context and jog the Members’ memories. However, these observations were already included in the report.

Ms Khanye accepted Ms Masango's suggestion to rephrase the paragraph that used ‘highlighted’ instead of ‘questioned’.

Responding to Ms van der Merwe’s question, Ms Khanye said that the report which was presented contained details of the virtual public hearings. The DSD would also produce the reports from the provincial visit. The Department had a draft report for Limpopo and Mpumalanga. However, they would only distribute these reports once they were completed alongside the reports from other provinces. If the Members wanted to see it, it could be provided. However, it was only a draft. There would still be another big, consolidated report on all of the provincial hearings which the Department conducted. To summarise, there will be two reports - the current report on the virtual hearings, which the Committee was presented with, and the upcoming consolidated report on all provincial hearings.

Ms Khanye was not sure of the processes for debating reports in the National Assembly. She called on the Secretary to help her with this question.

The Secretary said that the national and provincial public hearing reports are Committee records of public engagement. However, the report debated in the House will contain all of the clauses, recommendations and observations proposed by the Committee. The current report they were considering, formed part of the public participation process. This report would assist Members when they are in the next stages of the process. It would allow them to consider certain organisations’ proposals in advance, thereby preparing them for the House debate.    The debated report would be the finalised report of the Amendment Bill, which would contain a clause-by-clause analysis of the Bill.

Ms Khanye recognised Ms Abrahams’ input about the acquisition of a child psychologist. She agreed to ask her manager about this.

The Acting Chairperson tabled the report for adoption.

Ms Abrahams and Ms Bilankulu moved for the adoption of the report.

Report of the Portfolio Committee on Social Development on the Third Quarter Performance and Expenditure Report for 2020/21 Of The Department of the South African Social Security Agency (Sassa) and the National Development Agency (NDA)

Ms Khanye took Members through the report.

The report was adopted.

Consideration and Adoption of the Third Term Committee Programme

The Secretary said that after the revision of the parliamentary programme, the Committee’s programme was also revised for realignment. This schedule was distributed amongst the Committee.

She briefly relayed the third term programme to the Committee.

Discussion

Ms Masango asked about the plan for Wednesday, 25 August, when the Portfolio Committee of Social Development and the Portfolio Committee of Basic Education would receive an update on the Early Childhood Development (ECD) programme. In the public hearings report, there was mention of the public hearings for the Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill (BELA Bill).  Would it be possible for the Portfolio Committee on Social Development to receive a progress update on the BELA Bill? Or is it an overreach to ask for another Committee to brief the Portfolio Committee on Social Development’s Members on their progress?

Secondly, Ms Masango mentioned that the timetable referred to the ‘Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund’ as the ‘Nelson Mandela Children’s Foundation’. This needed to be fixed.

Thirdly, the Committee needed to receive regular updates on the foster care backlog. The Children’s Amendment Bill processes were being taken care of, but there were issues and realities on the ground too which needed monitoring. Could the Committee receive an update from the DSD or from SASSA? Could this update be programmed?

Ms Abrahams asked whether the MECs would be present in the briefing on the ECD migration programme so that they could offer the Committee a state of readiness update for their own provinces. 

Regarding the acceptance of submissions from the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund, Ms Abrahams thought that the closed session, which the Committee conducted for these children, was the most powerful sessions they had during the public hearings processes. It was a first for Parliament to include children in this process. But will the meeting contain new submissions? Were these submissions accepted after the public submissions deadline? If so, would this not negatively impact the public submission process? If the Portfolio Committee on Social Development opens the submissions after the deadline, then other parties would also be able to receive submissions after their deadlines. Although, receiving more input from children would be very helpful to the Committee.

Lastly, Ms Abrahams noted that the Committee had not touched on the Victims Support Services Bill, whose submissions closed in 2020. It was a jam-packed programme for the quarter, but when could the Committee expect to start with this programme?

Ms van der Merwe said that during various levels in Lockdown, the Committee had a standing item in the programme schedule. This item was a 5-minute update by the DSD. The Committee requested this as a means to stay updated on the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) Grant. Since the process had been reopened, perhaps the Committee should have an update when SASSA and the DSD come to the Committee on 8 September. Minister Zulu was seen on ENCA giving an update on the applications received and how the process has been unfolding. The Committee kept an eye on this process during various levels of lockdown, and they should not drop the ball now. If the Committee did want a standing item, then they should ask SASSA and the DSD to start with an update on the SRD Grants at the beginning of that meeting. This would also be a good opportunity to receive an update on the foster care backlog.

Ms van der Merwe knew that the programme was full for the term. However, during the Committee’s public hearings in Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal, they heard a lot of concerns about the lacking responsibility and unfulfilled roles of Home Affairs. Could Ms Khanye and the Secretary schedule a briefing with the Department of Home Affairs for the next term?

Lastly, going back to the issue of ‘must’ versus ‘should’ as raised by Ms Mvana and Ms Masango, Ms  van der Merwe reminded the Committee that they were tasked with holding the Executive accountable. The Executive was not supposed to hold the Committee accountable. It would be preferable that the report use ‘must’ because the Executive should not have a choice in implementing the Committee’s recommendations. The Committee should not be pleading or begging for the Executive to take the Committee’s work seriously. However, Ms van der Merwe did respect the Acting Chairperson’s ruling that the issue would be discussed at a later stage.

Responses

In response to Ms Masango’s question regarding updates on the BELA Bill, the Secretary said that she would wait for the Department to respond with more information. Perhaps during the following week’s deliberation, they could ask for an update. Other alternative routes included writing to the Department of Basic Education (DBE) and requesting an update, or checking in with the DBE secretary. Any information received would be passed over to the Committee.

Responding to a question about the foster care backlog, the administrators took note of Ms Masango’s request to schedule a meeting and an update on this issue. The Committee’s programme was very full, but if there was any space in the fourth term programme, the secretary would try to fit it in then or in the current quarter, as this was a critical update for the Committee.

Responding to Ms Abrahams’ question about the submissions made by the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund, the Secretary said that by the time submissions were received, they were still within time limits. Since the Committee had not begun their formal deliberations, they were still able to receive submissions from stakeholders. The processes of those submissions were thus supported.

Regarding the Victims Support Services Bill, the Bill had not been tabled in Parliament. The Secretary had not yet received any referral for the Bill. Perhaps it was still with the Executive and they were adapting it to public gazettes.

The request from Ms van der Merwe was very important. The Secretary said that perhaps she could kick-start this process the following week. She would send an urgent correspondence so that when the DSD came to present the quarterly report of DSD and its entities they could begin with a brief on the SRD grants before the other presentation.

The administrators recognised the proposal to organise a meeting with Home Affairs.  In the next term, they would organise this.

Responding to Ms Abraham’s question about the following week’s meeting, the Secretary said that no MECs would be present in the meeting between the DSD and the DBE. MECs were not invited.

The Acting Chairperson tabled the programme for adoption.

Ms Masango and Ms van der Merwe moved to adopt the programme.

Committee minutes dated 2 June 2021

The final item on the agenda was the adoption of the minutes from the Committee’s meeting on 2 June. 

The Committee Secretary briefly took Members through the minutes.

The Committee deliberated on the presentation of the Fundraising Amendment Bill. Two resolutions were made: The Department must present the Disaster Relief and National Social Development Fund to the Committee. They also requested comments on the fund, which the Secretary had already forwarded to the Committee.

The Acting Chairperson tabled the minutes for adoption.

Ms Abrahams and Ms Mvana moved to adopt the minutes.

Closing Remarks

Ms Khanye offered feedback on the suggestions raised by the Committee. The Committee suggested approaching the Children’s Institute or other networks to seek out a referral to a child psychologist. Having asked her manager, Ms Khanye said that he approved of this exercise. However, he hoped that no charges would be incurred in this process. If there was a cost, the child psychologist’s hire must be involved in the procurement process.

Also, regarding the Victims Support Services Bill, Ms Khanye noted that it was gazetted by the DSD in 2020 around July. She had not received it, as it was still open for comments at an Executive level.

In terms of Home Affairs, the DSD and other departments will be called to participate in the provision of feedback on this issue.

Ms Masango asked if the current term’s programmes were still aligned to the timeframes of the Children’s Amendment Bill as per the Committee’s deadline to finalise the Bill.

The Secretary said yes, the Committee was still within the deadlines. The final deadline was in 2022 November, and the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) only takes six weeks to process the Bill once submitted. As long as the Committee starts the formal discussions on the Bill within 2021, they will still be in time.

The Acting Chairperson officially congratulated the former Chairperson, Mr M Gungubele, on his new responsibility within the Cabinet and with the Presidency. The Committee respected his leadership, and his contribution to the Department. He left a good foundation for change in the Department as well as people’s individual lives. He thanked the Members for engaging in the meeting.

The Acting Chairperson adjourned the meeting.