Marine Oil Pollution (Preparedness, Response and Cooperation) Bill: public hearings; Railway Safety Bill: proposed amendments

Meeting report

The Chairperson noted apologies from the Deputy Minister, Ms N Nolutshungu (EFF), Mr M Zwane (ANC), and Adv F Jenkins, Parliamentary Legal Services.

The Chairperson said that only one organisation had requested to make an oral submission on the Marine Oil Pollution (Preparedness, Response and Cooperation) Bill [B10-2022] which was the Southern African Foundation for the Conservation of Coastal Birds (SANCCOB).

SANCCOB submission
Ms Monica Stassen, SANCCOB Manager, said that overall SANCCOB was pleased with Bill. It was a significant step in improving South Africa’s preparedness and was happy about the inclusion of a wildlife response. SANCCOB was concerned about government’s capacity to implement the Bill and indicated that there were many ambitious deliverables. SANCCOB did not want the Bill to be unimplementable.

In terms of the risk assessment, SANCCOB felt that specificity was necessary and that ship-to-ship fuel transfers should be included. SANCCOB felt it was necessary to have a set risk assessment methodology.

SANCCOB cautioned that a simple paragraph on an oiled wildlife response was not adequate and recommended that a contingency plan for oiled wildlife had to be included as an appendix. It was recommended that this plan be in line with international best practice guidelines.

SANCCOB welcomed the inclusion of oiled wildlife response training requirements. It was necessary for all owners and operators to have a basic understanding of an oiled wildlife response.

SANCCOB felt that IMO meeting biannually was insufficient. It recommended quarterly meetings.

Discussion
The Chairperson invited the Department to respond to the submission. She noted that the Bill did not necessarily deal with administrative processes. Ms Stassen raised items that could potentially be included or catered for in the Bill, including resources and timeframes.

Mr Dumisani Ntuli, Department of Transport: Chief Director of Maritime Transport Policy and Legislation, expressed appreciation for the SANCCOB submission. SANCCOB provided insight and background into the matters concerning the Bill. The Department would present a detailed response to SANCCOB submission at the committee meeting next week. He commended SANCCOB for the submission and for their assistance and work in the sector.

Mr C Hunsinger (DA) thanked SANCCOB for the work they do. Often legislation was very confined; he found it refreshing to hear something not related to trains and movement. He thanked them for dealing with the implications of the work done in the transport sector in terms of vessels and movement.

Mr Hunsinger noted the emphasis on the need for protection. This highlighted the concern not only for disasters, but also for ordinary movement. Was there a deterioration in the health and condition of marine wildlife over time as a result of the ordinary movement of vessels, excluding disasters?

Mr Hunsinger referred to the SANCCOB suggestion in clause 5(5). SANCCOB had welcomed the procedure of risk assessment that had to be undertaken but had highlighted a lack of specifics and indicated that the current description was vague. What did SANCCOB recommend should be added about the risk assessment.

Mr Hunsinger referred to clause 7(2) on adequate protection, rescue, rehabilitation and release procedures as part of a contingency plan. SANCCOB suggested additional considerations – what would this entail?

In clause 8(2) on oil and wildlife response equipment and personnel, SANCCOB had noted a lack of specifics. What would further details entail, given that there was a component of voluntary staff and a potential expiry date for some of the products. Was it a matter of having this at the right location such as the hotspots that had been referred to? What should be thinking on management of the contingency plan?

The Chairperson asked Mr Hunsinger to be mindful that other members still had to speak. She indicated that Mr Hunsinger could finish his questions.

Mr Hunsinger asked if he could continue.

The Chairperson said he could proceed. She noted that there would be an opportunity for a second round of questions once other members had the opportunity to ask questions if needed.

Mr Hunsinger felt that if he concluded his questions in the first round it would save time.

The Chairperson indicated that Mr Hunsinger could proceed.

Mr Hunsinger referred to clause 11(8) on the IMO bi-annual meeting cycle. Should the frequency be increased? He was unclear on the SANCCOB position on the matter.

The Chairperson requested that members be mindful of time. She apologised for offending Mr Hunsinger and explained that it had not been her intention. She had been concerned about the time allocated for this agenda item. She reiterated that members should be considerate of the time and other members when making their contribution. The Department and SANCCOB also had to respond and the time allocated was limited.

Mr T Mabhena (DA) suggested setting an expectation at the beginning of the meeting stating the specific time a member was allocated to speak. It was unpleasant for a member to be interrupted while speaking. It made the opposition feel suppressed. This has not happened previously in the Committee. He noted that the Chairperson did not have a malicious intent behind the interruption. Setting a timeframe may be useful in the future.

The Chairperson noted Mr Mabhena’s suggestion. In previous meetings, she had cautioned members to be considerate of time. If it was necessary to be strict in time allocation for each member, the Committee would engage on this and come to a decision.

Mr Mabhena said that it could be helpful moving forward as some members were comprehensive in their readings of reports and presentations and expected to engage fully.

The Chairperson asked to redirect focus to the submission.

Mr Mabhena welcomed Mr Zwane to the meeting, indicating that it had been a while.

Mr L McDonald (ANC) raised a point of order saying Mr Mabhena should proceed in engaging with the submission. Other comments should be left until after the meeting had concluded.

Mr Mabhena replied that if Mr McDonald had arrived early, these issues could have been dealt with.

Mr Mabhena referred to clause 9(2) on owners and operators of port facilities, oil-handling facilities or offshore installations and third parties. He acknowledged the recommendation that this should include oil wildlife response training. He agreed that 9(2) was vague. He read the clause for clarity. How could this be monitored and enforced? What would happen if there was an incident and an organisation/company denied accountability due to having undergone third party training? He noted that anyone could register as a training authority and provide the training. How would it be addressed if there was an incident, despite the company/organisation having received training?

Mr Mabhena referred to clause 11(8) on the IMO bi-annual meeting. SANCCOB was of the view that twice a year was insufficient and suggested that the meetings should occur quarterly. What were the financial implications of meeting four times a year, or would it only be an administrative change in procedure that did not have financial implications? In his view, it was an internal structure and therefore should not have further financial implications. If it were the case that there were no financial implications, he recommended accepting the SANCCOB suggestion of quarterly meetings.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) expressed his appreciation for the submission. He asked for clarity on the capacity of government. Government was failing at the various activities mentioned in the Bill. He asked the Department for clarity on expanding the capacity.

Mr Sithole asked for clarity on the risk assessment methodology.

Mr McDonald said that most of his concerns had been covered by the questions of other members. SANCCOB was correct that there needed to be legislation on ship-to-ship transfers. Most big oil spills were caused during ship-to-ship transfers. The inclusion of this would not hurt the Bill.

Mr McDonald highlighted to self-monitoring. This meant making someone the policeman of their own pockets. It would never work. He said for example a Chinese trawler could be allowed to do its own self-monitoring but he doubted the likeliness of hearing about oil spills that occurred.

Mr Hunsinger raised a point of order saying Mr McDonald should reconsider the specific reference to a country that could be responsible for an oil spill. It was not necessary to single out particular countries.

Mr McDonald withdrew his reference to China. He stated that it could be a ship from any country, including South Africa. He reiterated that self-monitoring was not a good option.

Mr McDonald said there should be clear outlines in the Bill on big spills. Big spills cost billions. If there was not a clear outline of the process and from where funding would come, it could take six months before the spill was cleaned up, which would have a significant impact on marine life.

Mr P Mey (FF+) thanked SANCCOB for the work they do. His concerns had largely been covered by other members. He was from the Nelson Mandela Bay metro which had wildlife rehabilitation centres. What role did the private sector play in assisting SANCCOB? He noted that there was a private rehabilitation centre in Jeffrey’s Bay.

Ms M Ramadwa (ANC) appreciated the submission. Her concerns had mostly been covered. On the IMO meetings, she understood the rationale for the suggestion of quarterly meetings. It was important that they meet frequently to strengthen the relationship and evaluate the work that had been done.

Ms Ramadwa agreed that self-monitoring did not add value. If monitoring was done it should be from outside of the company.

The Chairperson said that the Department could respond followed by SANCCOB. The Department would provide a detailed response at a later stage.

Mr Ntuli reiterated that the Department would submit a response to the Committee. He noted the timeframes for IMO meetings. The language used ‘at least’ had previously been accepted. This indicated that there was a minimum of two meetings but did not prohibit more frequent meetings – weekly, monthly, or quarterly. In terms of funding for meetings, the meetings were self-funded. Membership was made up of voluntary organisations.

Mr Ntuli highlighted the powers given to the incident commander and noted that this did extend to financial responsibility. It was an international practice that in response to incidents, that this be given effectively.

Mr Ntuli clarified that the Bill was about preparation and response. Funding for this was not covered anywhere in international instruments and was being introduced through this Bill. This would ensure a guaranteed source of funding. He pointed to the provision for the amendment of the South African Maritime Safety Authority Act in order to upgrade the Maritime Fund to serve preparedness and response. The Fund would be specifically dedicated to preparing the country’s response to incidents.

Mr Ntuli highlighted the issue of monitoring. The Incident Management Organisation provided the mechanism of monitoring because all parties responding to incidents were members of the organisation.

Mr Ntuli said an in-depth response to the submission would be provided at the next Committee meeting. He noted that the Bill closed the gap in terms of preparedness and responsiveness.

SANCCOB response
Ms Stassen was thankful for the engagement. She replied that the rehabilitation centre in Algoa Bay was located in the Cape Recife Nature Reserve near the lighthouse.

Ms Stassen indicated that SANCCOB was an NPO that was primarily self-funded and relied on donations from a range of stakeholders – primarily international – and fundraisers through donations and grant applications. Some money was made through consultancy work in the private sector.

Ms Stassen said that there had been a decline in the condition of wildlife due to sea vessel traffic. There were scientific studies that depicted this across the world. A recent study showed that an increase in vessel traffic in Algoa Bay resulted in increased noise level which further resulted in the decreased number of African penguins in the area. This was definitely a trend. Unfortunately, many harbours were built in sheltered locations – potentially in front of islands, because the islands provided shelter to the harbours. It was a benefit to humans but posed risks to animal life. SANCCOB had noted a steep decline in seabird numbers over the years.

Ms Stassen replied that there were many best practice guidelines across the world on how ecological risk assessments should be done. An example of this of this could be seen in the environmental impact assessment regulations which had been published by the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE). These provided guidelines on how environmental impact assessments should be conducted to ensure that it was not merely a ‘tick-box exercise’ with people cutting corners; rather it would ensure that the correct processes were followed. There were international guidelines and recommendations that could provide a framework. SANCCOB was concerned that if there was not a recommended framework to follow, companies/individuals could say that they had considered their risks and decide that they were fine. Guidelines provided a good comparison between what the practices did, the impact on the environment and the risks and sensitivities in the environment. There was a lot of information globally to draw on.

Ms Stassen responded to about alternatives beyond rescue and rehabilitation by means of developing a wildlife contingency plan. SANCCOB noted that there was a national contingency plan that covered a national strategy. SANCCOB advocated for location-specific contingency plans which would account for the specific nature of the risks involved in different regions or under different operators. There was an oil wildlife contingency for Robben Island due to it being a risky location with a history of catastrophic spills. Robben Island was also a remote area, and a contingency plan was necessary to ensure, that in the case of a spill, resources and personnel could get to the Island in the quickest amount of time. The greater the risk, the more difficult it was to get resources and therefore the greater the need was for a contingency plan. SANCCOB created a very basic plan for a company that was drilling up the West Coast in an extremely remote area. It would take approximately seven hours for SANCCOB to get to the site and therefore a contingency plan had to be in place. The more remote an area was, the higher the need for a contingency plan. SANCCOB had equipment and resources in Cape Town to deploy immediately, in cases with remote spills this was not possible – there would be a time-lag. Training, capacity and resources should be developed to address this time-lag or gap. There should be equipment near or on-site at remote locations. The personnel operating the equipment at remote locations should have sufficient training so that they knew what to do in case of a spill, i.e., how to safely catch a bird, ensure that the bird did not suffocate, etc, until trained personnel arrived to takeover. The risk assessment would make these areas of big risks visible. SANCCOB encouraged that wildlife be given more consideration than a paragraph and that these plans could be put into action. These plans should provide details into an operational response and recommendations. She noted the point of having wildlife response services on retainer, so that SANCCOB could keep up with its services and staff training.

Ms Stassen said that globally there were standards for equipment and personnel. In the United States there was the Recognised Oiled Wildlife Response Personnel. The personnel underwent very specific training before they could be considered responders. SANCCOB has used this training as a benchmark and aimed to get SANCCOB personnel to this level. There was no South African benchmark yet. SANCCOB was pushing for the training of personnel that could be relied upon. SANCCOBs response relied heavily on volunteers but trained personnel were needed to provide a skilled response, including catching the birds, and washing birds and other wildlife. The washing of birds and wildlife was an extremely stressful process and required specific skills in order to protect the animal and oneself. Globally, the success of a response was linked to the level of training of personnel, how equipped personnel were and the resources they had access to. She highlighted an example where SANCCOB had responded to a spill and due to the isolated location of the incident, it took approximately five days to arrive. This case highlighted a gap in the response efforts in that the island had no response equipment, resources or trained personnel able to assist with the response. Since this incident, the government there has invested in equipment and training, this meant that people on the island were able to respond to spills while waiting for help.

Ms Stassen referred to the issue of capacity. South Africa did not have very in-depth aerial pollution monitoring. SANCCOB often reported spills or suspected oil spills and found that there were no resources available to confirm this and had to rely on external stakeholders for assistance. External stakeholders have been very helpful in this regard; vessels were asked to look out for and report any oil spills. She noted that government’s pollution response was a small unit and should be much bigger. She acknowledged that there were shifts happening, but SANCCOB did not want these efforts to fall short due to limited resources in implementing these measures. She noted that the Department had indicated that the Maritime Fund would be amended to address some of these concerns and felt that this was a positive step.

Ms Stassen said that the costs of big spills were very large. Many big vessels had mandatory insurance that could be claimed from. It would be useful to have planning in this regard, especially in the case of mystery spills.

Ms Stassen said that she would make her details available for any further questions or engagement.

The Chairperson thanked Ms Stassen and the DoT for the engagement.

Mr Hunsinger said that he had a follow-up question and noted that the opportunity for follow-up had been made available earlier in the meeting.

The Chairperson requested that Mr Hunsinger submit his follow-up question in writing due to time constraints. The Department would respond on the SANCCOB submission at the next meeting.

Mr Mabhena said that it had been previously indicated that there would be a second round of questions. The agenda stated that the item would conclude at 09:45am. The Chairperson had set an expectation that there would be a second round of questions.

The Chairperson said that she thought Mr Hunsinger had concluded his questions.

Mr Hunsinger asked if Ms Stassen could share the study she had mentioned on ship-to-ship transfers. He felt this would be beneficial to the Committee.

The Chairperson indicated that she would allow a second round of questions and that Ms Stassen could respond in writing.

Mr M Zwane (ANC) stated that he had followed the discussions and had no questions at this point.

Ms L Tito (EFF) thanked SANCCOB for the submission. Her concerns had been covered and she would wait for the Department’s response before further questions.

Mr Sithole and Mr Mey had no further questions.

Mr Mabhena noted that the Department would provide a detailed response in the next meeting. South Africa’s lack of aerial capacity to locate spills was a big red flag. In terms of technological advancement, this was concerning. The state should not be relying on the private sector to fulfil this role. The deeper into the ocean the spill was, the weaker its capacity was. What was government’s plans to procure drones to deal with this. Aerial capacity should not be limited to helicopters and aeroplanes; drone technology was working well in other sectors and should be utilised.

Ms F Khumalo (ANC) said that her questions had been covered. She had concerns on training and the financial implications of quarterly meetings. These questions had been raised by the other members.

Mr McDonald reiterated his appreciation for SANCCOB and said he had no further questions.

Railway Safety Bill
The Chairperson said that the Committee had received the A-List and possible B-List that could be adopted. The Committee would deal with the A-List in the meeting. By the end of the session the Committee would need to write to the Speaker.

Ms Veounia Grootboom, State Law Advisor, asked if she should read through the entire A-list clause-by-clause or just the clauses that had been amended.

The Chairperson responded that she should not repeat what had been covered in previous meetings. All members had received the A-List. She suggested that Ms Grootboom read the heading and if no members responded it would mean that the clause was accepted.

Ms Grootboom highlighted Clauses 1 to 69.

The Committee accepted these and the A-List was adopted.

Committee business
The minutes of the meetings of 24 and 29 August 2023 were considered and adopted.

In the 24 August minutes, Mr Mabhena noted it stated that the ‘Committee may meet with the taxi industry in future engagements.’ It had taken a conclusive decision to meet. It should read, “will meet.”

The Chairperson agreed. She stated that the Committee had spent 15 minutes waiting for the South African National Taxi Council (SANTACO) Western Cape and had decided that future meetings would be necessary. A decision should be taken about extending engagements to the whole country, not just Western Cape.

The Chairperson said the draft programme would be presented by the Committee Secretary. She noted a message from Mr Mabhena that indicated he would like to raise an issue with the Committee.

The Chairperson said that the third quarter was very short. She noted the suggestion to include some more items in the programme, but some of these additional items would need to stand over until the fourth quarter. Previously the Committee had agreed that when the need arose, the Committee might need to engage on Zoom. Some members had indicated that they would have difficulty meeting in-person for future meetings.

The Chairperson raised the concern of not confusing the departments in terms of being overstretched on oversight for the current financial year. The Management Committee (MANCO) had noted that there would likely be a need for the Chairpersons of the Portfolio Committee on Transport and Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) on the role of SCOPA and noted that some matters would be carried over to the Portfolio Committee on Transport. This would be undertaken in order not to stifle the work of either committee. She noted Mr Zwane had been allowed to participate in the meeting.

Mr Mabhena agreed with the Chairperson’s statement.

The Chairperson excused the Department and other officials from the meeting, indicating that the Committee would be dealing with in-house matters.

Standing agenda item

Mr Mabhena said that the Chairperson had shown a great interest in the Committee not only meeting in the boardroom but getting the Committee out to deal with real issues. He asked if it would be possible to have a standing item on additional issues that popped up. One such issue was that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the South African Maritime Safety Authority (SAMSA) and the SAMSA board had met with the Committee and answered some questions, but the CEO had still not responded to several questions that had been raised. All members had asked questions but had not received a response. SAMSA had indicated that the issues were subject to litigation. The SAMSA CEO was still being paid approximately R3 million and was sitting at home and doing nothing.

Mr Mabhena indicated that an additional concern was that Airports Company of South Africa (ACSA) had a bungle-up with a contract for technical services which may mean that it would not be ready for the festive season.

Mr Mabhena commended Adv Alma Nel (Committee Content Advisor) for providing the Committee with insight into topical issues which occurred in the transport sector.

Mr Mabhena noted the available avenues such as written submission, Questions for Oral Reply, Questions for Written Reply. It was important that the Committee was seen as coordinated and not pushing from a purely political point of view. The Committee served the interests of South Africans.

Mr Mabhena referred to the Zondo Commission Report on the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) which did not have a glowing review of the Chairperson. He felt that this was unpleasant. He did not agree with the terms used in the report. He did not want this to loom over the Committee. He highlighted the Committee’s legacy report. He wanted it to be reflective of the spirit of the Committee.

Mr Mabhena noted the driver’s licence backlog. There was the additional issue that when people went to renew their driver’s licences, they were denied due to outstanding fines. People were told to pay the outstanding fines before they could renew their licence. The matter had been taken to court, but the courts ruled that this was not the case.

Mr Mabhena was raising these issues to convey the need for a standing item to deal with these issues as they arose.

Mr Mabhena pointed out that SCOPA had been dealing with the Road Accident Fund (RAF) challenges. He felt that this Committee was not attending to this in the way that SCOPA had. It led to statements such as “SCOPA was very firm,” “SCOPA was working and holding RAF officials accountable.” RAF was an entity under the Portfolio Committee on Transport. The Committee should be at the forefront of dealing with RAF; it should not be left to SCOPA. The Committee had to be seen to be working.

Mr Mabhena noted that the Committee had previously made a resolution to visit KwaZulu-Natal due to the floods. This behaviour should be carried throughout the Committee’s work. It had been the first instance where the Committee had decided that it needed to be present to deal with the crisis on the ground. Based on this resolution, other issues should be dealt with in a similar way. He noted that the Speaker had said that portfolio committees would be deployed as part of the response to the Johannesburg fire. Having a standing item for such issues would be useful because it would mean that the Committee would not need to start from scratch for each issue. It would reflect the Committee’s responsiveness.

Mr Mabhena again thanked Adv Nel and the work she did in keeping the Committee up to date with issues in the transport sector.

Mr Mabhena said that the Committee’s Legacy Report would have to be produced in less than eight months. It should be something that members could be proud of.


The Chairperson noted the comments made by Mr Mabhena.

The Chairperson referred to the previous suggestion that the Committee apply to meet from 26 September to 9 October during the constituency period. This would allow time to deal with these other issues. The Committee may be granted an exemption to meet during the first week of October. The Committee had to visit RAF and PRASA to perform oversight. She would check if there was a possibility of holding the meetings at the office of the entity. This would be confirmed once the Committee had dealt with the draft programme.

The Chairperson said that the Committee did not want to be seen as being in conflict with SCOPA. SCOPA sometimes made other committees dormant. She would not allow the Committee to be made dormant by SCOPA.

Mr Hunsinger agreed that the Chairperson was tolerant and lenient but was ready to toughen up depending on the circumstances. He agreed that it was necessary to engage on the exchange of functions between SCOPA and Portfolio Committees. In the formal definition of the function and role of SCOPA, it was concerned with a retrospective look at financial issues. The oversight visit to RAF exposed issues that the Portfolio Committee on Transport should have had jurisdiction over. It was important that the roles of various committees were kept in line. If these roles were not kept in line, it would introduce an issue due to the perception that was created – that SCOPA had an oversight role over other committees and portfolio committees. This issue needed to be addressed. While it could sometimes be seen as a contribution to the role of Parliament, there was a misconception that was developing.

Mr Hunsinger supported the proposals made by Mr Mabhena. These were critical for this time of year.
Ms Ramadwa supported the proposal that the Chairperson should meet with the SCOPA Chairperson to convey the concerns of this Committee.

The Chairperson noted this and requested Adv Nel’s assistance in doing this.

Committee Programme
Adv Nel noted the 12 September meeting agenda item on expenditure would be moved to allow for the printing of the final version of the Railway Safety Bill. DoT would present a response to the submissions made on the Marine Oil Pollution Bill, and a report on the DoT first quarter expenditure.

Adv Nel noted the proposal of holding an evening meeting from 7pm to 9pm on 14 September due to the House plenaries that were occurring. The meeting would be with the City of Cape Town and the Western Cape SANTACO representatives. This meeting would occur on Zoom.

On 19 September the Committee would do clause-by-clause deliberations on the Railway Safety Bill and the consideration and adoption of the report on the Railway Safety Bill. It would be a short report based on public engagement. Clause-by-clause deliberations on the Marine Oil Pollution Bill was also on the agenda. This would be the last meeting before the constituency period and the training trip to Brussels.

The Chairperson indicated that Friday’s would be used for plenaries. In terms of proportional allocation of tasks, there were some political parties that were due for their own motions for debate. On the e-training, the Committee Secretary was in communication with the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) team to find a suitable date to do this. Parliament planning dictated that all voting would be done through e-voting moving forward.

The Committee programme was adopted.

Ms Ramadwa stated that the matters raised by Mr Mabhena should be included in the agenda of the meetings in the first weeks of October.

The Chairperson noted this and said that ways on how to include these items would be considered. She highlighted an approach taken by other committees and suggested dividing the Committee into two groups in order to deal with all the issues. This was a possible suggestion, but at this point the Committee would proceed as the full Committee. There would be an issue where there was only one member from a particular political party.

Time allocations
The said engagement in meetings could not be pre-empted. In most cases all members had an input to make and that limiting time or engagement within the Committee would not be fair. There was a danger in allocating time because there could be an instance where only one member had an input to make, and a large amount of time had been allocated. She was worried that enforcing a time allocation would restrain responses or engagement. Members should be mindful that other members also had contributions to make. She suggested that each member could initially raise three points, thereafter she would check if other members had an input. If this was the case the member could resume after other members had an opportunity to speak. She also gave an example of where each member was allocated three minutes to share questions. She requested suggestions from members on how to deal with this.

Ms Khumalo agreed that time should not be allocated. The suggestion of three minutes per member would constrain the progression of the meeting and stifle engagement. She suggested that members should be considerate of other members that also needed to have the opportunity to engage. A three-minute allocation might hinder the activeness and responsiveness of the Committee.

Mr Hunsinger agreed. He had served in the Committee for nine years and there had never been a time limit. He had served under the leadership of six chairpersons. It might be the case that every committee has a particular culture or approach but it has not been the custom in the Portfolio Committee on Transport to have a time limit on the engagement of members. The culture of the Committee was reflective of encouraging engagement. Other chairperson have managed this and ensured that all members had an opportunity to engage and ask questions. He suggested changing the sequence or order in which members spoke. This included not letting the same members start with questions and allowing different members to begin the discussion. He said that it had been a strange experience to be interrupted as had happened earlier in the meeting; this had never happened before. He apologised for his response in the moment but felt that it was not in line with the culture of the Committee. Nonetheless, the Chairperson determined the culture, and it was her prerogative to make these changes if deemed necessary. He expressed appreciation that the issue was opened for discussion. Restricting times would likely result in disinterest and a lack of engagement.

The Chairperson responded that she did not want to discuss how she chaired meetings. She raised the issue because it had been raised in the meeting. What had been good in the past, may no longer be good for the present.

Mr Zwane appreciated this engagement. Members had different opinions. He recommended that these issues should not be raised in front of officials and guests. There would always be an opportunity to deal with such when they were not in attendance, or after they had left. He agreed that members should be considerate and allowing others to have time to engage. The programme was full, and this meant that the Chairperson may suggest being considerate of other members due to time constraints.

Ms Ramadwa said that the meeting agenda should guide members on the length of their engagements.

The Chairperson said it would be problematic to be compared to other chairs. Chairpersons come and go, but the work of Parliament remained. People could be patronising. She acknowledged that this period was a silly season – the period before elections. People acted differently during these times. She would chair the meeting as she saw fit. She had raised the matter to avoid future issues.

The meeting was adjourned.