BELA Bill: Northern & Eastern Cape Public Hearings Reports

Meeting report

The Chairperson acknowledged the quorum and reminded Members and that they had legislation to process based on their respective constituencies. She extended her condolences to Mr Hubert Mathanzima Mweli, DBE Director General, as he lost his mother in July 2023.

She thanked the Parliamentary staff for their efforts in keeping things running smoothly during the break in July when the Members were tired and busy with political work on the ground. The Chairperson acknowledged the political developments from various parties and congratulated those that had shown improvement in their conferences.

The Committee had previously agreed to meet physically in Parliament from 15 to 18 August 2023. The meeting would involve the Department of Basic Education (DBE) and other stakeholders with an interest in joining. The preparations for the meeting were at an advanced stage, and itineraries were being finalised.

BELA Bill: Committee Report on Northern Cape Public Hearing
Ms Portia Mbude-Mutshekwane, Committee Content Advisor, read out her report page by page.

Introduction:
The Portfolio Committee on Basic Education conducted public participation hearings on the Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill (BELA Bill) in the Northern Cape Province from 2nd to 4th June 2023. The report summarizes the key findings and outcomes of the hearings held in three municipalities: Dawid Kuiper, Ga-Segonyana, and Sol Plaatje.

Public Participation Process:
The Public Participation process for the BELA Bill involved multiple strategies to ensure public awareness and engagement. Information sessions, educational publications, and social media platforms were utilised to inform the public about the hearings. Media statements and press releases were published on the Parliament website to announce the dates and venues of the hearings.

Preparations were made in advance, and a Zoom meeting was conducted with internal stakeholders from Parliament, including Language Services, Supply Chain Management, Logistics, ICT, Parliamentary Communications Service, and others. A mobilisation team was formed to raise awareness and support from various organizations and stakeholders.

Stakeholder and Youth Involvement:
The public hearings attracted a diverse range of stakeholders, including political parties, community leaders, school governing bodies, disability health sector representatives, teacher unions, and members of the provincial legislatures. Youth organizations and learner representative councils also actively participated, with learners attending to make their voices heard.

Attendance and Participation:
The hearings witnessed a total of 1,060 public attendees, with 196 individuals making oral submissions. Dawid Kuiper Municipality had the highest number of attendees (441) and the fewest speakers (53). Ga-Segonyana Municipality had 232 attendees and 57 speakers, while Sol Plaatje Municipality recorded 387 attendees and 86 speakers.

Views on the BELA Bill:
Of the 196 speakers, 95 (48.4%) expressed support for the BELA Bill, while 94 (47.9%) did not support it. A small percentage (3.5%) expressed partial support, and 3% did not declare their position. The public's views were evenly divided between support and opposition to the proposed changes in the education sector.

Youth and Children's Participation:
The hearings also saw active participation from youth and children. Across the three municipalities, an average of 20 youth/children participated as speakers. Sol Plaatje Municipality had the highest youth/children participation, with 11%, followed by Ga-Segonyana (5%) and Dawid Kuiper (4%).

Quality of Participation and Concerns:
The level of attendance and inputs from stakeholders demonstrated a significant public interest in the BELA Bill. However, concerns were raised about pamphlets potentially misleading the public and providing incorrect information about the Bill. Stakeholders urged the Committee to address these issues and ensure a fair and informed public participation process.

The public participation hearings on the Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill in the Northern Cape Province witnessed a diverse and engaged audience. Stakeholders from various sectors and youth representatives actively expressed their views on the proposed changes. The Committee's efforts to create awareness and engage with the public were commendable, though concerns about misleading information needed to be addressed to uphold the integrity of the process. The Committee was asked to carefully consider the inputs received before finalising the Bill.

General Observations
There is a consensus among School Governing Bodies (SGBs) that the Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Bill is essential for enhancing excellence in education and rectifying the injustices of the past. They emphasize the need to respect South Africa's redress policies and address the historical imbalances. However, there are differing opinions, with some participants calling for the complete scrapping of the Bill. Transformation in education is seen as long overdue, and there is a call for a holistic approach to child development. Some suggest that the Bill should focus on promoting the standard of life and finding solutions to reduce crime rather than introducing new legislation.

Public Participation Concerns
Participants expressed concerns over the limited time provided for reading and understanding the Bill. There were frustrations with submitters who solely focused on one aspect of the Bill, like abortion, rather than addressing its broader content. Some participants warned against being misled by racist agendas and emphasized the importance of respectful conduct during the hearings. There were objections to baseless rejection of the Bill without valid justifications. Calls were made to avoid politicising and bringing religion into the public participation process.

Summary of Views Across Northern Cape Province
Supporters
Those in favour of the BELA Bill highlight its long-overdue measures to address equality, access, and redress in the education system. They welcome provisions like compulsory attendance of Grade R, monitoring learner attendance, and prohibition of initiation activities in schools. Supporters also appreciate the focus on eliminating discriminatory practices and promoting transparency in school finances. The proposed quarterly financial reporting cycle is seen as a crucial tool to prevent corruption and improve resource management.

Opponents
Opponents of the Bill argue that centralising power is problematic for the education system and advocate for the retention of decision-making authority by School Governing Bodies, especially on language and admission policies. They express practical concerns about quarterly financial reporting and raise objections to clauses related to learner pregnancy and sexual education. The regulation of home-schooling is met with resistance due to concerns about parental rights and limited support for alternative education options.

Partial Supporters
Some participants offer partial support for the Bill while expressing reservations about specific clauses. They caution against the risk of undermining employees' right to strike, advocate for empowering SGBs in procurement decisions, and have divergent views on clauses related to language, admission policies, learner pregnancy, and home-schooling.

Conclusion
The public participation process for the Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill highlighted the diverse perspectives and concerns on South Africa's education system. While there is a consensus on the need for redress and improvement, different stakeholders hold distinct views on the best approaches to achieve these goals. The Committee recognizes the importance of carefully considering all feedback to strike a balance between addressing historical injustices, ensuring transparency and equality, and respecting the rights and concerns of various stakeholders.

Discussion
Ms M Sukers (ACDP) wanted to rectify some of the things mentioned in the report presented. The allegations of misleading information were primarily made by two unions and the Provincial Education department, not by the public. In Clause 27 on the closure of small schools, the objection was to the requirement that the MEC did not have to provide reasons for closing them. The report mentioned various comments made across the three municipalities.

Moving on to Clause 37, there was a highlighted aspect brought up by a homeschooling mom in the Northern Cape, specifically related to homeschooling for special needs learners.

As for Clause 41, the report did not include the reasons some members of the public referred to the Bill as an "abortion Bill." They were concerned about the regulations for managing pregnancies, and they stated they would continue calling it an abortion Bill until those details were disclosed. It is worth noting that most people opposed the clause, not only committee members.

In Clause 13, the report only mentioned supporters of the clause, and there was no mention of the rejections. Detailed accounts of the hearings showed that many speakers called it the "abortion law" and expressed opposition to Comprehensive Sexual Education (CSE), which they believed had not been thoroughly researched or explained.

She further alerted the Committee that homeschooling was not implemented uniformly across the provinces. Only two, Gauteng and Western Cape, of the nine provinces had established joint committees for homeschooling, while the rest did not have any. This meant that there was a lack of consistent and regular meetings between officials in other provinces.

The Chairperson interjected that a request had been made to all Members to refrain from making additions to the report. Instead, they were asked to comment on what was misstated or left out.

Ms Sukers said that as a Member of the Committee she was allowed to add comments that were not mentioned in the report.

Mr P Moroatshehla (ANC) said on a point of order that Ms Sukers raised matters that were not relevant to the discussion. The Members were expected to add what might have been left out accidentally or remove information that was not relevant to the report. Ms Sukers was out of order for bringing matters that were “alien” – information that was not about the report presented.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Moroatshehla for his input.

Mr B Nodada (DA) sought clarity from the Chair on the agreed-upon process for dealing with the reports. He inquired if the same process would be followed for the written submissions, as they were currently addressing the public oral submissions.

Mr Nodada mentioned that changes may be needed based on the inputs from the reports, including the one presented by the Content Advisor. It was important to clarify any legal or constitutional ambiguities that may exist. The financial implications of passing the law had already been communicated by DBE. He emphasised the need to handle the Bill properly and avoid potential challenges in the future.

He noted errors such as names being incorrectly recorded in the report, which needed correction. He asked how the elements of the Bill were presented in the report and if they were quantified both qualitatively and quantitatively or merely listed based on the opinions of a few individuals. The report was well-crafted but suggested that some corrections were necessary to accurately reflect what transpired during the hearings. He requested full answers to his questions on the report.

Mr Moroatshehla stated that the preamble by Mr Nodada would not be helpful for the meeting's progress. He urged Committee members to focus on the report. If Members had additions, he suggested they could make them at a later stage, as the main concentration should be on correcting errors in the report.

The Chairperson asked if Mr Nodada had anything else to add, as his hand was still raised.

Mr Nodada explained that having differing comments from Members was not unusual, even when the Minister was present. He believed Members should be patient with each other during the process, as they had already asked questions on the report. He requested the Chairperson to rule on the matter to prevent Members from going back and forth.

The Chairperson restated that she had requested Members to understand that the typos and other inputs had been noted, including incorrect spellings of surnames, and she asked for the report's adoption. She assured Mr Nodada that she would address his question separately.

Ms Sukers said that she had not finished her remarks. She expressed gratitude to the Content Advisor for not disclosing that she was the Member accused of spreading false information. However, her name had been mentioned by several union members and provincial executives, and she believed her name should be included for the accuracy of the report. She stood by the accuracy of the description of the Bill as an "Abortion Bill" and expressed concern about a covert and insidious clause that could impact the policy on managing learner pregnancies.

The Chairperson thanked Ms Sukers and asked Members to adopt the report.

Ms N Adoons (ANC) proposed the adoption of the report with amendments.

Mr Moroatshehla seconded the motion, affirming that the report accurately reflected what transpired in the Northern Cape.

The Chairperson thanked the Members for their inputs and asked the Content Advisor to comment.

The Content Advisor acknowledged the feedback from Members. She clarified that typographical errors in the report were unintentional. She explained that due to a medical condition, she faced limitations in fully executing her duties to the best of her abilities.

On the report's format, she outlined the process for handling public oral comments. Upon receipt, the comments are transcribed, summarized, and represented graphically to analyse service delivery. The Content Advisor emphasized the significance of capturing the concerns as these reflect the public's sentiments and should be duly noted.

Mr T Letsie (ANC) interjected to note that when members of the public attend the BELA Bill meetings, their role is to observe rather than to provide comments. He specifically mentioned Ms Charlene Chauvet-Swart, Chairperson of the Gauteng Association for Homeschooling (GAHS) who had made comments. He requested that she be reminded of her role to observe and not actively participate by making comments.

The Chairperson acknowledged this saying she had noticed this but refrained from responding due to time constraints and the need to proceed with the adoption of the report.

BELA Bill: Committee Report on Eastern Cape Public Hearings
The Portfolio Committee conducted public hearings on the Basic Education Amendment Bill in three municipalities in the Eastern Cape: King Sabatha Ndalindyebo (KSD) Municipality at Mthatha City Hall in OR Tambo District, Enoch Mgijima Municipality at Thobi Kula Indoor Sports Complex in Chris Hani West District, Nelson Mandela Municipally at Nangoza Jebe Community Hall in New Brighton. The public hearings were held from 9 to 11 June 2023. The Chairperson provided an overview of the Bill and addressed attendees.

Key issues from the OR Tambo and Chris Hani West hearings:
Various significant issues related to education and school governance were addressed. The participants expressed their views and recommendations on a wide range of topics, including revising the definition of corporal punishment in the Bill, the implementation of compulsory Grade R education, and the formulation of admission and language policies that prioritize the use of mother tongue languages. Concerns were raised about the sale of alcohol on school premises, and there was strong support for the abolishment of corporal punishment in schools.

Other critical matters discussed during the hearings included the extent of power given to Head of Department (HOD) in procurement decisions, the closure of small and non-viable schools, and the role and stipends of School Governing Bodies (SGBs). Inclusive education and home education were also subject to intense debate, with participants sharing their views on how these approaches should be regulated and supported. The management of learner pregnancy emerged as an essential topic, with calls for clear guidelines and support systems for pregnant learners within the education system.

The Committee acknowledged and appreciated the inputs and engagement from all participants during the public hearings. They emphasized that the perspectives shared by the public would play a vital role in shaping the final decisions on the Bill. The collaborative effort of participants, staff members, Department of Basic Education (DBE), stakeholders, and all involved in the public participation process was recognized as contributing to a better South Africa and a promising future for all children.

Service delivery issues raised included:
During the public hearings, several critical issues were raised, highlighting the need for comprehensive action in the education system. Participants emphasized the importance of conducting a Special Environmental Impact Assessment (SEIA) for Home Education to ensure that the rights and needs of home-schooled children are adequately addressed and protected.

Learner dropout rates were identified as a pressing concern, and participants called for effective strategies to reduce dropouts and ensure that all children have access to quality education. Re-opening teacher colleges was suggested as a solution to address the shortage of qualified educators and improve the quality of teaching in schools.

Scholar transport and safety and security in schools were identified as areas needing immediate attention. Participants stressed the importance of providing safe and reliable transportation for learners, particularly in rural areas, to facilitate access to education. Additionally, ensuring a safe learning environment for both learners and educators was deemed crucial.

Infrastructure improvements were another key issue raised during the hearings. The phasing out of pit latrines and the provision of proper school infrastructure were emphasized to create conducive learning environments for all students.

Promoting values in education emerged as a topic of discussion, with participants advocating for the inclusion of strong value systems that reflect the cultural diversity of South Africa and promote positive social cohesion among learners.

The role of educators in managing learner pregnancies was also debated, with participants calling for clear guidelines and support systems to assist educators in handling such sensitive situations effectively and compassionately.

Overall, the public hearings provided valuable insights and recommendations on these critical aspects of the education system, and it is hoped that these inputs will contribute to positive changes and improvements in South Africa's education landscape.

During the hearings, various clauses of the BELA Bill were discussed, along with recommendations and motivations from the participants. Some clauses involved compulsory Grade R education, language policies, corporal punishment, the role of teachers in learners' discipline, alcohol sale on school premises, SGB powers, school closures, home education, and the management of learner pregnancy.

Attendees expressed the need for clear guidelines and the importance of considering viewpoints of all stakeholders, including parents, learners, and educators. They highlighted the importance of adequate resources and support for schools to ensure effective service delivery. The possibility of online submissions was suggested to ensure broader representation, particularly for learners.

Key Emerging Issues from Nelson Mandela Local Municipality
1. Compulsory Grade R:
Participants expressed mixed views on compulsory Grade R admission. While some attendees appreciated the transformation, others opposed it, citing the lack of funds for implementation and concerns about parental responsibilities.

2. Admission Policy:
The proposed changes to the admission policy, especially on the enrolment of children at a younger age in Grade R, were met with opposition, with attendees arguing for the non-discriminatory admission of undocumented learners.

3. Language Policy - Mother Tongue:
The issue of language policy saw disagreement between the HOD and SGB powers in decision-making. Participants advocated for mother tongue language to be given priority and the preservation of SGB powers.

4. Alcohol Sale in School Premises:
The proposal to allow alcohol sales in public schools was met with strong opposition. Concerns were raised about the negative impact on learners and the community, with attendees urging the prohibition of alcohol sales on school premises.

5. Undocumented Learners:
Participants voiced concerns about the exclusion of undocumented learners from accessing education. They called for assistance in providing education access to all learners, regardless of their documentation status.

6. Corporal Punishment Clause:
The abolition of corporal punishment faced criticism from some attendees who believed that learner discipline had declined without alternatives. They suggested measures to protect teachers and discipline ill-behaved learners.

7. Centralisation of Procurement:
Opposition was expressed against centralizing procurement, as it was seen as promoting potential corrupt practices. Attendees emphasized the importance of empowering SGBs and investing resources in school facilities and staff.

8. Decentralization of Power - Roles of SGB, Principal, and HOD:
Participants advocated for preserving the powers of SGBs in school governance matters. They called for clear role definitions and proper training for SGB members to handle budget and governance aspects effectively.

9. Suspension on Closure of Small and Non-viable Schools:
Concerns were raised about the closure of small schools without considering transport provisions. Attendees recommended support for such schools through public-private partnerships and the implementation of the Draft Rural Education Policy.

10. SGB Stipend and Training for Recruitment of Personnel by SGBs:
Participants urged that SGBs should receive stipends and proper training to handle personnel recruitment. They emphasized the need to compensate SGB members for their work.

11. Home Education:
The topic of home education elicited various opinions. Some recommended a thorough consultation and research process to avoid unnecessary prescriptions, while others emphasized the right of parents to decide on their children's education.

12. Management of Learner Pregnancy:
Concerns were raised about teachers being burdened with managing pregnant learners. Attendees suggested appointing healthcare workers to support pregnant learners and emphasized the importance of parental responsibility.

Service Delivery Issues and Other Concerns:
During the public hearings on the Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill, participants expressed a strong belief in education as a fundamental human right. They emphasized the significance of providing Grade R education and called for proper resourcing to ensure that all children have access to quality early childhood education. The inclusion of compulsory Grade R education in the Bill was seen as a step towards providing a strong educational foundation for young learners and aligning with the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goal 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all.

Special needs education was another critical area of concern raised during the hearings. Attendees highlighted the need for inclusivity in mainstream schools to accommodate learners with special needs (ELSEN). They called for better support and induction for educators in the inclusive education system to ensure that these learners receive the appropriate attention and resources for their development and learning needs. Additionally, participants advocated for an inclusive skills curriculum in special schools to equip learners with practical skills that would benefit them in their future endeavours.

Several concerns were raised about specific clauses in the Bill. Participants expressed worries that certain provisions might allow the Department of Education to take authority away from School Governing Bodies (SGBs) in determining language and admission policies, potentially leading to exclusion based on racial and language grounds. The proposed centralization of procurement in the Bill also raised concerns about corruption and the potential delivery of substandard materials to schools. Furthermore, there was unanimous rejection of the clause legalizing the possession, consumption, or sale of alcohol on school premises due to concerns about substance abuse among students.

The hearings also brought attention to the issue of learner pregnancy and its management at schools. Teachers expressed unease about their preparedness to handle such situations, and attendees called for the Department of Education to provide adequate alternative measures for disciplining learners, addressing concerns about learner assaults that have reportedly been on the rise. Overall, the public hearings provided a platform for diverse perspectives on the Bill, with supporters emphasizing the importance of regulation to ensure quality education and qualified teachers, while opponents voiced concerns about potential violations of parental rights and privacy in monitoring home education.

Proposed Recommendations
Attendees proposed various recommendations, including considering Grade R in Post Provisioning Norms, making early childhood development compulsory, and ensuring funding for Grade R implementation. They called for further research on home education, preserving the right to use home-schooling curriculum, and enhancing public participation in the legislative process. Recommendations also covered issues related to budget and finance, governance, infrastructure, safety, management of learner pregnancy, and the promotion of Christian values in education.

Summary of Views Across the Eastern Cape Province
Support for Compulsory Attendance of Grade R:
Participants welcomed Clause 2 of the Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill, which proposes compulsory attendance of children in Grade R. Supporters believe that this measure will have positive impacts on both teachers and learners, providing a strong educational foundation. There are hopes that the inclusion of Grade R will lead to improved remuneration for early childhood development practitioners and acknowledgment of the vital role of Grade R teachers in a child's development.

Support for Other Clauses:
Participants endorsed the clause outlining the process for determining school language and admission policies to prevent exclusion based on racial and language grounds. Clause 14, which emphasizes good administration on financial affairs at schools, also received support. Additionally, there was backing for Clause 34, which proposes the submission of quarterly income and expenditure reports of schools for prudent management of resources.

Opposition to Specific Clauses:
Some participants expressed opposition to clauses 8, 16, 27, 37, and 41 of the Bill. Concerns were raised that these clauses might enable the Department of Education to take authority away from School Governing Bodies (SGBs) in making language and admission policies, potentially leading to centralized decision-making. There were worries about centralization of procurement, which could result in corruption and the delivery of substandard materials to schools. Participants unanimously rejected Clause 8, which legalizes the possession, consumption, or sale of liquor on school premises, citing concerns about substance abuse among students. Furthermore, teachers expressed concerns about Clause 41, feeling ill-equipped to manage learner pregnancy at schools.

Protection of Teachers and Alternative Disciplinary Measures:
Participants voiced concerns about the Bill's silence on protecting teachers against learner assault, which is reportedly on the rise. They called for the Department of Education to provide adequate alternative measures for disciplining learners in schools, emphasizing the need for a safe and supportive learning environment for both educators and students.

Controversial Clause 37: Registering Home-Schooled Learners
The debate surrounding the Bill on home-schooling had two distinct perspectives. Supporters of the Bill emphasised the importance of regulating home schooling to ensure that the quality of education provided is of a high standard and that qualified teachers are involved in the process. They believed that regulation is necessary to maintain consistency and accountability in the home-schooling system.

On the other hand, opponents argued that the Bill infringes upon parents' right to choose the best form of education for their children. They believed that parents should have the freedom to decide how their children are educated without interference from the government. They also expressed concerns about the monitoring of home schooling through home visits, which they view as an invasion of privacy.

The debate between supporters and opponents reflects a fundamental tension between the need for regulation to ensure educational quality and the desire to protect parental rights and autonomy in deciding their children's education. Finding a balance between these perspectives will be crucial in shaping the final version of the Bill and addressing the concerns raised by both sides.

Mixed Views and Concerns
Mixed views were expressed on the Bill. Some participants supported the Bill for its efforts to promote equity and equal treatment of official languages in schools, which is seen as an essential step towards creating a more inclusive and diverse education system.

However, there were also concerns raised about the Bill's silence on blended and online education, which is becoming increasingly prevalent in the modern educational landscape. Participants highlighted the importance of addressing this aspect to ensure that the education system remains relevant and adaptive to the changing needs of learners in the digital age.

The public hearings revealed a range of perspectives on the Bill, with both positive aspects and areas that require further attention. The feedback from the hearings will likely be considered in shaping the final version of the Bill to address the various concerns and ensure a more comprehensive and effective education policy for South Africa.

Conclusion
The Committee expressed gratitude for the active participation of all attendees during the public hearings held in the Eastern Cape. It assured the public that all inputs shared during the hearings have been carefully considered and will play a vital role in shaping the final decisions on the Bill.

Discussion
Ms Sukers extended her appreciation to the Content Advisor and the team's diligent efforts. She acknowledged an omission in the report on the Northern Cape, and commended the team's hard work. Highlighting Figure 7.2 of the Eastern Cape report, she emphasised the noteworthy participation of homeschooled youth in Nelson Mandela Bay. In 8.1, Ms Sukers drew attention to the discrepancy where most speakers were not supportive of the Bill, contrasting with the majority's support.

Ms Sukers requested the relocation of the last column, which had been wrongly placed, to Clause 37. Additionally, she suggested that Clause 36 address the need for independent micro-schools to have appropriate regulations to avoid potential registration challenges. Like Mr Nodada, she stressed the importance of adequately referencing the scale of comments. For instance, in Nelson Mandela Bay, 25 speakers had rejected Clause 37.

On equality in learning, Ms Sukers proposed that education should provide necessary assistance and resources to learners facing learning challenges or with different abilities. She cited Figure 8 on Clause 41 from the Nelson Mandela Bay hearing, suggesting its inclusion in Clause 37.

Ms Sukers highlighted an objection raised by SADTU on educators' roles as midwives or nurses for pregnant learners, particularly referencing Clause 37.

Turning to matters for the Department of Education to take note of, she underscored broad support for stipends and training for School Governing Bodies (SGBs), while expressing concerns about insufficient consultation as raised by home schoolers. The home schoolers also argued that they had deemed the research conducted as inadequate.

Ms Sukers emphasised the need for appropriate regulation of cottage schools, specifically independent micro-schools. She pointed out a significant moment in the Nelson Mandela Bay hearing, where two members of the public, one from the Democratic Alliance, accused DBE Director, Mr Ndlebe, of misleading the public, by mentioning the Committee in his introduction of the Bill.

Ms Sukers moved to discuss State Law Advisor, in Clause 3: Objections were raised about the inappropriate uses of penalties to address school attendance issues and the invasion of privacy through home visits in Clause 37. Some speakers rejected the entire Bill. Some said they did not have enough time allotted to go through each clause and raise concerns clause by clause so they had to limit their comments. They said that the Bill was focusing on the wrong issues and therefore fundamentally flawed as it was not learner-centric.

Ms Sukers concluded by stating it was not right to say that the people were opposed to only 13 clauses. She had more general comments but would defer to the Chairperson’s guidance for further discussion.

The Chairperson reiterated that the Members' attention must be on the corrections needed for the report. She emphasised that general comments had already been included in the report extracts. Members were informed that if they had additional general comments, they should submit them in writing to the Content Advisor. The Chairperson invited any other Members who wished to contribute to the report's corrections.

With no hands raised, the Chairperson suggested that the Committee proceed to adopt the report.

Mr Moroatshehla commended the comprehensive and accurate representation of the Eastern Cape hearings in the report. He then moved for the adoption of the report.

Ms M Moroane (ANC) seconded the motion for the report's adoption.

The Chairperson extended appreciation to the Members who supported the adoption of the report. This marked the culmination of the reports from all provinces. She noted that some reports underwent modifications to address identified discrepancies.

Way forward on BELA Bill
Looking ahead at the remaining legislative process, the Chairperson announced an 8 August virtual meeting focusing on the national perspective on the BELA Bill. This discussion would encompass the written submissions from various provinces, reflecting the collective sentiment of South Africans. The Chairperson acknowledged Mr Nodada's concern on the assessment in the report on quality and quantity, clarifying that the national report would maintain consistency by adhering to the same format as the provincial outlooks.

The 15 August meeting would feature responses from the Department of Basic Education on the public input, particularly addressing the crucial aspect of funding the Bill. From 15 to 18 August, the Committee would engage in a detailed examination of each clause. The Department would present its views, and the Committee would carefully analyse and provide feedback. This process aimed to determine which clauses should be rejected based on the votes received.

To ensure a balanced and fair process, it was decided that approximately 15 clauses would be discussed each day. On 18 August, the finalised Bill would be submitted for consideration.

The Chairperson extended gratitude to all attendees, acknowledging the commitment of Members who managed to participate despite their demanding parliamentary and political obligations.

Discussion
Mr Nodada thanked the Chairperson for the guidance on the process. It does assist to know about the process as the Portfolio Committee had never dealt with a Bill of this nature before.

Mr Nodada noted that in an upcoming meeting, regardless of circumstances, the Committee needs to consider a crucial aspect. He appreciated that there was a prior indication to the Department of Basic Education that it must present how the Bill will be funded. It is essential for the Committee to understand the proper and constitutional position. He highlighted the significance of including a comment from the National Treasury to explore possible funding mechanisms. Drawing from his research on similar Bills in other communities, he suggested that Parliamentary Legal Services should assess the constitutionality challenges that may arise. This would prevent the Committee from passing a Bill that would be constitutionally challenged at a later stage.

It is prudent to ensure the Bill's integrity throughout the procedure. To achieve this, a presentation by the Parliamentary Legal Services should be made before we delve into clause-by-clause discussions. This presentation would aim to ensure that there are no contradictions with the Constitution or any other legal requirements, thereby allowing the process to proceed seamlessly. This approach would ensure that our deliberations are informed by thorough legal scrutiny.

Mr Nodada also addressed the qualitative and quantitative analysis of the submissions received. He clarified that his reference to these terms might sound academic, but he raised this concern to emphasise the necessity of a comprehensive evaluation. He proposed that a qualitative analysis should encompass a detailed assessment of the comments and opinions expressed by the public. Moreover, a quantitative analysis should quantify the level of support or opposition for specific clauses. This approach ensures that the final report reflects a well-rounded understanding of public sentiments.

In addition, Mr Nodada mentioned the potential public interest in the Bill and suggested that relevant communication channels should be utilised to ensure transparency and engagement when the Bill is being assessed clause by clause. He acknowledged the constraints of physical space in Parliament but emphasised the importance of virtual platforms or televised broadcasts to keep the public informed about the Bill's progress.

In conclusion, Mr Nodada underscored the significance of a comprehensive and well-informed by approach to the legislative process. The Bill must fully informed by the financial, constitutional, qualitative, and quantitative process.

Ms Sukers brought up a point on the previously discussed gap and the point of order raised by Mr Moroatshehla that had been upheld. She suggested that the matter of joint liaison committees on homeschooling, particularly the concern over Provincial Education Departments (PEDs) like the Northern Cape not following DBE instructions, should be added to the agenda for future discussions. She emphasised the importance of addressing this, as it adds credibility to the claims made by home schoolers about inadequate consultation. These claims are directly relevant to the matters highlighted in the two hearings. Out of the nine provinces, only two have established these committees that meet regularly.

The Chairperson noted that the issue had not been brought up during the hearings but rather originated from observations made by Ms Sukers from home schoolers. She emphasised the need to differentiate between this issue and the ongoing meeting discussions. If there was a necessity for consultation or a meeting between home schoolers and the Department of Basic Education, arrangements could be made outside of the report adoption process. The Chairperson clarified that the Department was open to engaging with home schoolers.

The Chairperson said that Ms Sukers was kindly requested to refrain from raising points that were not directly relevant to the current adoption of the reports. However, her input was acknowledged as valuable, albeit not the inappropriate timing. It was acknowledged that home schoolers’ concerns should be dealt with, like other stakeholders, and a proper procedure should be established to address these matters.

Ms Sukers thanked the Chairperson for her comment. She indicated her intention to provide further clarification in writing to the Chairperson. She emphasised that there had been a misunderstanding on the intent behind her points and reiterated their relevance to the ongoing report discussion.

Concluding the proceedings, the Chairperson took note of Ms Sukers' suggestion and extended her appreciation to all participants.