Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Bill: Negotiating Mandate

Meeting report

Negotiating mandate extension request

The Chairperson informed the Committee that the Western Cape Provincial Parliament (WCPP), via the Education Committee, had submitted four letters to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) requesting an extension. She noted that as of 7:00 am on the day of the meeting, 26 March, there had been no reply from the NCOP regarding the extension request for the negotiating mandate. The NCOP had scheduled a meeting for the following day, 27 March.

As of 20 March, the Committee had received 5 287 submissions, excluding oral submissions from public hearings. These included 3 281 written submissions, 1 604 online submissions, and 402 WhatsApp submissions. She said 2 710 individuals had attended public hearings across various locations, with Beaufort West having 138 people, Plettenburg Bay 336, George 1 132, Mossel Bay 514, Paarl 415, and Saldanha Bay 175. One more public hearing, consisting of two sessions, was scheduled for 4 April in Cape Town. The deadline for written submissions would be on 4 April.

The Chairperson expressed regret at the necessity for the meeting due to the mandate requiring provinces to submit negotiating mandates on Section 76 legislation. She emphasised the importance of not overlooking or “losing” public opinions due to the lack of an extension on the request. She had been advised to submit the full matrix to date, accompanied by a legal covering letter, to indicate the insufficiency of time to conclude. She expressed confusion over the reasons for the delay, considering the three-week gap between the upcoming March 27th meeting and the April 17th meeting in the NCOP to finalise the mandate. She found it perplexing that the mandate could not be submitted either on 5 April or 8 April. She invited input from the Committee on the matter.

Discussion

Mr C Fry (DA) expressed his agreement with the advice received, acknowledging the necessity of the meeting with a heavy heart. He suggested following the advice and waiting for the NCOP to respond. He expressed hope that they would receive a response shortly.

Mr C Poole (DA) seconded Mr Fry's suggestion. He shared his firsthand experience of attending two public hearings, and witnessing the anger and frustration expressed by the public.

The Chairperson noted the absence of any other raised hands, and proceeded to request input from the procedural officer, Ms Wasiema Hassen Moosa, and Adv Romeo Maasdorp, the legislature's legal advisor. She sought clarification from a procedural and legal perspective on the submission they would be making to the NCOP.

Ms Moosa clarified that they had never submitted a negotiating mandate that had not completed the public participation process. Based on the advice received, they intended to submit what they had, along with a covering letter indicating the ongoing public hearings scheduled for 4 April, and the submissions received thus far. She mentioned that in their last letter, they had also outlined to the NCOP chairperson the potential legal implications of submitting late or afterwards, awaiting a response which they had not yet received.

Mr Ben Daza, Senior Procedural Officer: Committee Support, expressed his agreement with Ms Moosa’s perspective. He advised the Committee to submit something to ensure that the people of the Western Cape were not excluded from the process, especially since the NCOP had not responded to their request. He emphasised the importance of knowing the status of the negotiating mandate, even if it was submitted later. He suggested that the Committee develop a provincial stance on the bill that would serve as the formal negotiating mandate for the Western Cape. He mentioned they could also indicate their intention to submit additional submissions after 4 April.

Mr F Christians (ACDP) expressed his agreement with those who had spoken before. He acknowledged the significant turnout at previous meetings, and anticipated a similar response on 4 April from those eager to voice their concerns. He expressed uncertainty about the situation, emphasising the need for clarity regarding the 4 April meeting. He stressed the importance of pushing for a response from the NCOP before proceeding with the meeting which would take place on 4 April  to ensure that attendees' efforts were not in vain. He agreed with submitting what they had, but suggested having a written assurance for attendees, highlighting the seriousness of the matter. He expressed concern about potential repercussions if attendees were left uninformed. He concluded by expressing his eagerness to hear Adv Maasdorp’s opinion, but reiterated the need for written communication to avoid potential issues.

Mr G Bosman (DA) agreed with Mr Christians' assertion, emphasising concerns over potentially neglecting the people of the Western Cape. He sought clarification from Adv Maasdorp regarding the meaningfulness of their public participation process on the legislation. He stressed the exceptional public interest in the legislation, noting the extensive engagements across the province, including packed community halls. He emphasised the importance of ensuring the public's views were adequately and fairly reflected in both the negotiating and final mandates. He requested Adv Maasdorp’s insights on this matter. He asked whether there was parliamentary precedence for the NCOP to compel the Committee to submit a negotiating mandate without first considering public views. He also expressed uncertainty regarding the Committee's review of the compiled views.

The Chairperson agreed with Mr Bosman, indicating his correctness. She provided additional context, stating that the document received by the Committee indicated only 2 385 submissions so far out of the total 5287 received as of 20 March,  with the balance of 2 902 not being shown, as they were not yet populated on the matrix. She highlighted the challenge of populating the matrix due to insufficient time, noting that daily submissions were still being received. She expressed concern that the final tally of submissions might exceed the reported number. She commented that there had not been adequate time for the legal advisors or the Department of Basic Education (DBE) to respond to the matrix.

The Chairperson explained that typically, the Committee would have time to deliberate on the bill, conduct clause-by-clause considerations, and evaluate the bill comprehensively. She then raised a procedural question, asking whether the Committee would be allowed to reserve the right to withdraw the negotiating mandate if granted an extension. She inquired whether they could submit an amended negotiating mandate after the final public hearing on 4 April, given that the deadline for the final mandate was 17 April 2024.

Expressing her personal view, she indicated that she felt they were essentially being compelled to submit the negotiating mandate “under duress.” She then asked Adv Maasdorp for his input.

Adv Maasdorp began by acknowledging the questions directed towards him, underlining the immediate nature of his responses due to the real-time setting of the discussion. He also highlighted the pressing issue of stringent timelines, which limited the Committee's ability to thoroughly analyse the questions posed.

He emphasised the supreme importance of the bill under consideration, noting its potential to impact every household directly. He stressed that the bill's objectives were deeply personal and had far-reaching implications for citizens in the province. The role of public participation in shaping the legislation was critical, and he expressed concern over the lack of engagement from the NCOP.

Answering the concerns over submitting the Committee's mandate, he argued in favour of adhering to the given timeline, but also advocated the possibility of granting an extension. He criticised the NCOP for failing to respond to extension requests, suggesting that this lack of engagement could jeopardise the bill's constitutional integrity.

On withdrawing the mandate, he admitted uncertainty about the relevant rules governing such an action. However, he proposed that the final mandate could serve as an opportunity to amend the initial negotiating mandate.

Adv Maasdorp stressed the necessity of carefully considering the bill's financial implications. He expressed doubts about the adequacy of the input received from relevant departments, and stressed the importance of financial prudence in supporting the bill.

He voiced significant concerns about various aspects of the process, including the lack of meaningful engagement from the NCOP, the quality of financial information received, and the absence of discretion in granting extensions. He indicated that these factors would heavily influence the Committee's mandate moving forward.

The Chairperson raised concerns regarding the impact of submissions received up to 4 April. She questioned whether submitting the current material with a legal covering letter to the NCOP on 26 or 27 March would affect the Committee's procedures. She wondered whether it would necessitate halting the written submission process, or cancelling the public hearing.

She was worried about a potential scenario where the NCOP granted an extension after the current meeting, but before the 27 March deadline. She sought clarity on the legal implications of such an extension, including whether it would require halting current submissions or postponing the public hearing to ensure the people of the Western Cape had an opportunity to express their views.

She asked the Committee about the necessity to seek legal advice. She suggested that it might be time to request the Speaker to consult senior counsel regarding any legal options available to the Western Cape Provincial Parliament (WCPP) concerning the lack of response and reasons provided by the NCOP regarding the extension request. This suggestion was made considering the remaining three-week gap before the submission deadline.

Mr Christians emphasised the importance of advocating for the people of the Western Cape, and asserted that it would be unjust not to fight for their interests. He insisted that the public hearings scheduled for 4 April could not be cancelled, as it was already widely known, and the public was prepared to participate.

Mr Christians stressed that the situation affected the people directly. He urged the Committee to use all available means to ensure the Western Cape residents knew they had been fought for and supported. He expressed reluctance to submit incomplete material, likening it to sending in a "half-baked cake" amidst thousands of other submissions. He stressed the significance of including the metropolitan area in the submissions, and pointed out the importance of the two public hearings scheduled for 4 April.

He questioned whether they should even submit the incomplete material, as it would not adequately represent the voices of the majority of the Western Cape residents. He urged the Committee to exert every effort to convey to the NCOP the importance of extending the deadline so that the voices of the people could be heard.

The Chairperson agreed wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed by Mr Christians, stating that the current proceedings did not align with the principles of justice. She emphasised the inadequacy of the three-week gap between the negotiating mandate and the final mandate timeline.

She acknowledged the necessity of the Committee's actions, indicating that they were essentially compelled to present their position. She then directed a question to Ms Moosa, inquiring about the scheduled time for the NCOP session on the following day.

Ms Moosa replied that the NCOP would be meeting at 10:00 on 27 March, and that Mr Jason Cleophas, NCOP: liaison officer, had mentioned that all negotiating mandates should be in by the end of the business day on 26 March.

The Chairperson, speaking from her perspective with the budget division, noted previous instances within the NCOP, where negotiating mandates had been submitted just an hour before the scheduled time. Drawing from this, she proposed a tentative plan. She suggested the possibility of the Western Education Standing Committee reconvening on the morning of 27 March, potentially from 8:00 to 9:00, considering the NCOP's scheduled meeting was at 10:00. The aim would be to grant the NCOP until 8:00 tomorrow morning to respond.

She stressed the urgency of the matter, acknowledging the concerns raised by the Committee regarding the current state of affairs. She emphasised the need to avoid sending an incomplete proposal, likening it to a "half-baked cake." She highlighted the Committee's efforts to accommodate various stakeholders, including those observing Ramadan, by adjusting the hearing schedule.

She sought clarification from Adv Maasdorp on the feasibility of reconvening the Committee the next morning. She emphasised the importance of allowing ample time for the NCOP's response to ensure that the negotiating mandate accurately reflected the views of the people of the Western Cape.

Adv Maasdorp delved into the procedural aspects of the situation, expressing a different viewpoint from Mr Christians. He acknowledged the risk of presenting an incomplete mandate, but argued against refraining from submission entirely.

He stressed the importance of considering the sentiments expressed by Western Cape residents in their submissions before 27 March. He was sceptical about holding back these submissions, and emphasised the need to act on what they had gathered thus far.

Adv Maasdorp then considered the rationale behind the established timelines and the discretion afforded by the NCOP for extensions. He emphasised the need for a balance between adhering to timelines and allowing flexibility to accommodate additional input.

He proposed submitting the current mandate while indicating the possibility of further submissions that may necessitate amendments. He emphasised that submissions should maintain their value regardless of timelines, and advocated their submission until 12 April.

Mr Bosman raised concerns regarding the principle of meaningful participation, particularly emphasising the need to consider the views of the majority residing in the metro area of the Western Cape. He echoed Adv Maasdorp's stance on submitting a mandate, viewing it as an initial step in the process.

He suggested that when submitting the mandate, it should be clarified that it represented a negotiating mandate, acknowledging the incomplete view of Western Cape residents due to the inability to reach certain municipalities.

He expressed dissatisfaction with the Committee's obligation to adjust its schedule to accommodate the NCOP's demands, particularly during the budget period. He highlighted the previous stance of the NCOP, indicating a lack of willingness to engage with the Western Cape. He questioned the rush to pass legislation, and emphasised the importance of affording the people of the Western Cape a fair and meaningful opportunity to participate in the process.

Mr Christians shared his perspective, clarifying that he did not oppose Adv Maasdorp's remarks but rather referred to the broader situation. He acknowledged the dilemma facing the Committee regarding the public hearing scheduled for 4 April.

Expressing concern, he questioned how the Committee could proceed with the public participation process if there was uncertainty about whether all the submissions would be considered. He emphasised the importance of ensuring that the views of the Western Cape residents, particularly those in the metro area, were heard.

He urged proactive measures to address concerns about submissions received after the current deadline, highlighting the need for continued consideration of public participation beyond the immediate timeframe.

Mr Christians echoed Mr Bosman's point about meaningful public participation, and raised questions about the Committee's course of action leading up to and following the deadline. He emphasised the necessity of receiving a response from the NCOP, and advocated for ensuring that the voices of the Western Cape residents were adequately represented.

Mr Daza agreed with Adv Maasdorp, highlighting the unprecedented nature of the situation, where a mandate had to be submitted before concluding the public participation process. He emphasised that during the negotiating mandate stage, the Committee retained the flexibility to address any issues with the NCOP.

He suggested that the Committee should include any procedural process issues or proposed amendments within the body of the mandate. He clarified that during the final mandate stage, provinces could only express support, opposition, or abstention from voting on the bill, without the option to propose amendments.

He then recommended submitting the current mandate to provide the NCOP with the province's stance on the bill. He proposed indicating that the public participation process was ongoing and that further submissions would be made after 4 April.

Mr Daza emphasised the uncertainty surrounding the status of the mandate if submitted after the current deadline, and advocated submitting what the Committee had now while clarifying the ongoing public participation process.

Adv Maasdorp questioned whether the public involvement process would retain its meaningfulness without the inclusion of submissions from the metro, which he referred to as the Committee's largest constituency. He emphasised that numbers alone did not indicate meaningfulness, but the absence of submissions from such a significant portion of the province would raise concerns about the inclusivity and representativeness of the process.

He stressed the importance of conveying the sentiments of the metro, considering its pervasive impact and significant population. He argued that the process could not be deemed meaningful or inclusive if the views of the metro were not adequately represented.

Regarding the negotiating mandate stage, Adv Maasdorp agreed with a colleague's suggestion that the Committee had the opportunity to raise various views and positions. He emphasised the importance of including these views within the body of the mandate to ensure they became part of the official record during the negotiating stage.

NCOP confirms deadline has not been changed

Ms Moosa informed the Committee that they had received a response from Adv Modibedi Phindela, the Secretary to the NCOP, confirming that the deadlines had not been changed. The request for an extension had not been given for the negotiating mandate, and the dates remained unchanged.

The Chairperson asked whether the NCOP had given reasons for the dismissal of their request.

Ms Moosa replied that no reasons were given. Only the programme outline was forwarded to the Committee.

After perusing the letter received by Ms Moosa, the Chairperson indicated that the letter looked like a general letter about legislation. She asked whether this was the response from the NCOP to the letters they had sent before.

Ms Moosa answered and said that the Chairperson was correct -- this letter was the response from the NCOP.

Mr M Sayed (ANC) expressed his agreement with Mr Daza’s approach regarding the negotiating mandate, emphasising that the Committee's concerns could be addressed during the negotiation discussions. He suggested that when they submitted the letter, they should make it clear when they had been informed about the timeframe provided. He raised concerns about the impact of transportation cuts on public participation during the previous public hearings, noting that it had affected people's ability to attend, particularly those outside Cape Town. He emphasised the importance of considering this factor in their deliberations.

The Chairperson acknowledged Mr Sayed’s concerns and provided additional context regarding the transportation issues faced by stakeholders, including a school in Touws River. Due to global technical difficulties with Teams and Microsoft, arrangements for stakeholder transport to the public hearings could not be made. Consequently, some stakeholders had requested to attend the Cape Town hearing instead. She expressed frustration regarding the situation, and asked Adv Maasdorp to continue.

Adv Maasdorp also expressed his frustration with the response received from Adv Phindela regarding the Committee's letter requesting an extension. He criticised the lack of application and relevance in Adv Phindela’s response, characterising it as dismissive and disrespectful of the Committee's concerns. He emphasised the importance of addressing this dismissiveness, and urged the Committee to take a stand against it.

The Chairperson proposed several suggestions based on the advice received. She recommended using the existing matrix and adding a cover letter detailing the timeline and number of letters sent, which amounted to four this year, excluding previous communications. She suggested asserting the Committee's right to seek legal recourse regarding constitutional matters due to the curtailed public participation. She also proposed incorporating Adv Maasdorp's oral advice into the negotiating mandate. She suggested addressing the dismissiveness of the received letter in a separate letter or as part of the cover letter. She suggested convening a meeting the next morning, 27 March, either in person or virtually, to review and finalise the documents for submission to the NCOP. She sought the views of the Committee on these suggestions.

Mr Christians expressed his agreement with the Chairperson’s proposal to proceed with crafting the necessary letters. He raised concerns about what would happen regarding public participation from the following day until 4 April, especially for Cape Town. He emphasised the importance of considering submissions received after the deadline, and expressed his unwillingness to participate in a process where voices might not be heard. He requested that Adv Maasdorp provide a brief explanation of this matter. Despite his concerns, he expressed overall agreement with the proposed course of action.

The Chairperson said there might be a possibility of seeking a separate legal opinion on whether they were permitted to proceed. She deferred to Adv Maasdorp for assistance in addressing this matter, and invited other Members to share their views on her suggestions.

Mr Poole highlighted a question raised by Adv Maasdorp regarding the possibility of withdrawal from the process and its legal implications. He suggested obtaining feedback on this matter during the next meeting.

Adv Maasdorp expressed uncertainty about the expectations regarding the issues raised in the meeting. He expressed the need for guidance on several matters, including the absence of precedent regarding the withdrawal of the mandate and the potential impact. He highlighted various concerns to be raised, such as the due dates, lack of input from the metro, financial implications, and the status of submissions after 4 April. He emphasised the importance of getting these issues on record for the NCOP to address. He acknowledged the potential challenge of obtaining a legal opinion within the given timeframe due to the complexity and novelty of the issues. He offered assistance with drafting correspondence to cover the mandate, but cautioned about the time constraints and the need for careful consideration by the Committee.

The Chairperson suggested seeking assistance from the Council's Speaker for the Committee and Parliament to address legal opinions if the Committee lacked sufficient capacity. She expressed gratitude for Adv Maasdorp's offer to assist with drafting the cover letter and procedural legal matters for inclusion in the mandate's body. She asked if Ms Moosa would like to provide procedural actions that might be necessary.

Ms Moosa addressed Mr Poole's inquiry regarding the withdrawal of a negotiating mandate, stating that there were currently no procedural rules reflecting such a provision. She emphasised the Committee's decision to proceed with submitting the negotiating mandate as it stands and craft a cover letter that incorporates key concerns. She confirmed they would prepare the necessary documents with Adv Maasdorp's legal assistance.

Mr Daza informed the Committee about the recent Mogale judgment, which stated that provinces were obligated to send all submissions on NCOP legislation to the NCOP Select Committee. He emphasised that even after developing the province's stance on the bill, submissions from the two remaining hearings must still be submitted. He noted that the Committee agreed to this approach, and highlighted the legal requirement to submit all submissions to the NCOP Select Committee.

Due to capacity constraints, the Chairperson suggested including procedural and legal matters raised in the Committee within the body of the negotiating mandate. Given the declined extension request, she proposed considering the negotiating mandate the following morning at 8:00 online. She recommended seeking counsel from the Speaker on various legal issues, including the status of written submissions and public hearings after the meeting, the implications of submitting the negotiating mandate late, the possibility and consequences of withdrawing a negotiating mandate, and the reasonableness of refusing to extend the negotiating mandate. She also proposed including a reservation for the right to legal recourse in the negotiating mandate.

Mr Fry agreed with the need to cover all bases in the uncharted territory. He emphasised the importance of reserving the right to seek legal counsel, and asserted the Committee's stance against being bullied into accepting something they believed was not right. He echoed concerns about the voices of the people of Cape Town not being heard. He advocated for holding the line and striving for a positive outcome between the Committee and the NCOP.

Adv Maasdorp stressed the importance of obtaining clarity from the NCOP regarding how they would regard the Committee's mandate after 4 April. He raised concerns about proceeding with a meeting if the outcome would be disregarded by the NCOP, describing it as fruitless and wasteful. He questioned whether the refusal to grant an extension or provide clarity on the standing of submissions exposed the Committee to vulnerability. He emphasised the need for feedback from the NCOP to avoid conducting a fruitless exercise. He urged the NCOP to apply their minds to the matter and to provide clarity on the standing of submissions and the due date.

The Chairperson noted that in the fourth letter, the Committee had asked about the standing of the Western Cape's submissions if the negotiating mandate was submitted after 27 March, but before 17 April. However, the letter received today from Ms Moosa did not address this issue. She proposed sending a fifth letter to reiterate this question.

She outlined four reasons for seeking legal counsel:

• to determine if they could withdraw and resubmit an amended negotiating mandate;,
• to clarify the status of their public participation process if it continued until 4 April,
• to assess whether their participation process could be meaningful; and
• to understand the implications of submitting a negotiating mandate after 27 March, but before 17 April.

The Chairperson mentioned a precedent the NCOP Health Committee set for submitting a negotiating mandate after a specified date. She highlighted the need for legal guidance on the reasonableness of refusing to extend their submission process. She emphasised the importance of including legal and procedural matters in the negotiating mandate, and reserving their right to legal recourse. She suggested sending a fifth letter to the NCOP, if necessary, to reiterate their unanswered questions.

Adv Maasdorp sought clarification from the Chairperson regarding the issues raised, asking if those were the same issues that should be included in a letter covering their mandate. He requested a response from the Chairperson to confirm this.

The Chairperson answered that they would need to include both. She emphasised the need to include both the procedural and legal items discussed earlier in their negotiating mandate. She acknowledged the Committee's thorough discussion on these matters and proposed seeking a separate legal opinion on them. She also suggested sending a fifth letter to reiterate that the concerns raised in their fourth letter were not adequately addressed. She expressed dissatisfaction with receiving a programme instead of answers to their questions.

Adv Maasdorp expressed satisfaction with the issues raised and answers given. He suggested questioning the necessity of seeking legal counsel immediately. He proposed that since the raised issues would be documented in the cover letter, they could be addressed with the NCOP, allowing time for a response before engaging legal counsel. He emphasised the importance of comprehensive legal opinions prepared in anticipation of litigation, suggesting that seeking legal counsel only when necessary would be more efficient and fair to the Council.

The Chairperson expressed contentment with the plan to include the raised issues in the negotiating mandate. She highlighted the importance of placing them in the body of the mandate, rather than just the cover letter, citing past experiences where information in cover letters was disregarded. She emphasised the need for assistance in drafting the negotiating mandate, and proposed considering it the following morning for submission to the NCOP.

She suggested postponing the decision to brief the Council until the outcome of the NCOP's actions the next day was known. She outlined three key actions:

• preparing the negotiating mandate;
• issuing a fifth letter addressing the lack of response to previous inquiries; and
• deferring the decision on whether to brief the Council on pending developments in the NCOP.

Mr Christians agreed with the plan outlined by the Chairperson. However, he reiterated his concern regarding the fate of submissions received after the current deadline if no extension was granted. He emphasised the importance of informing the public timeously, especially those who had made arrangements to participate in the hearings. He sought clarification on how and when the Committee would address this issue, suggesting the possibility of seeking legal counsel.

The Chairperson reiterated the items that should be addressed when seeking legal counsel, including the withdrawal and resubmission of the negotiating mandate, the status of the public participation process, the meaningfulness of late submissions, and the reasonableness of the refusal to extend the mandate.

She then sought clarification on the process for seeking legal counsel, indicating that it would involve a resolution from the Committee, which would then be forwarded to the Speaker's office on behalf of the Western Cape Province. She also mentioned that assistance from the state advocate would need to be requested from the Western Cape Province.

She indicated to Mr Christians that she did not have the answers to the concerns and questions he was raising, as these were matters that had not occurred before. These were issues that would need to be briefed with the Council.

Mr Christians understood the predicament the Committee was in, and expressed his agreement with the plan and satisfaction with the answers given. He reiterated the urgency of the situation, and indicated that the deadline was soon approaching, but he was willing to attend the next day’s meeting to learn about the developments taking place.

The Chairperson asked Ms Moosa what time more or less the NCOP meeting would end on 27 April.

Ms Moosa answered that it would end at 12:30.

The Chairperson outlined the plan for tomorrow, stating that Ms Moosa would keep them updated on developments in the NCOP until 12:30. If necessary, they would seek special time from the Speaker to meet as the Standing Committee on Education, likely in Committee Room 1 or 2 due to the budget debates in the House. Based on the next day's events, they would then consider whether briefing the Council was necessary. She assured the Committee that she would be available the next morning and would try to schedule the meeting without impacting their speaking slots in the House.

Adv Maasdorp expressed the need to time their request for legal counsel appropriately. He questioned the necessity of seeking counsel if the issues they planned to raise in their letter had not yet been addressed by the NCOP. He suggested waiting to see the NCOP's response to their letter before deciding whether to seek legal advice, emphasising the importance of considering the purpose and timing for obtaining counsel input.

The Chairperson clarified that the current resolution did not involve seeking and briefing counsel. Instead, it focused on being available the next day and having the flexibility to possibly convene a meeting, depending on developments at the NCOP. This decision was influenced by Mr Christians' point that time was limited, especially considering the upcoming deadline for submissions. The aim was to remain open to potential discussions tomorrow, following the conclusion of the NCOP proceedings.

Letter from FEDSAS

The Chairperson informed the Committee about a letter received from the Federation of Governing Bodies of SA Schools (FEDSAS) regarding concerns about the financial and constitutional implications of the Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill. The letter highlighted gaps in cost calculations for implementing the bill, including inadequate provision for additional school infrastructure needs and salary adjustments for new staff. Concerns were raised about the lack of provision for administrative costs and support for special needs individuals. FEDSAS emphasised the constitutional requirement for accurate costing of proposed legislation, and requested the Western Cape Legislature to obtain a proper legal opinion on the matter. She sought the Committee's agreement on FEDSAS's request, pending confirmation of the legislature's capacity to respond promptly.
Adv Maasdorp remarked that the discussions held during the Committee meeting had already addressed the concerns raised by FEDSAS in their letter. He noted that the arguments presented by FEDSAS to support their request for a legal opinion were essentially covered in the Committee's deliberations. He emphasised that it was within the Committee's jurisdiction to request a legal opinion, and stakeholders could only submit requests. He also pointed out a perceived ambiguity in FEDSAS's request for a "proper" legal opinion, suggesting that it might simply mean a legal opinion. He concluded that the developments in the meeting had rendered FEDSAS's letter redundant, as their concerns had already been addressed.

The Chairperson suggested that they, as the Committee, should include the letter in their matrix to the NCOP and to respond and inform FEDSAS that the Committee was dealing with the respective matters.

Mr Fry echoed the sentiment expressed by Adv Maasdorp, highlighting the unique circumstances of the situation. He suggested incorporating the matter into the Committee's matrix while also emphasising the need to handle the submission with the appropriate urgency and thoroughness.

The Chairperson acknowledged Mr Fry's contribution, mentioning the possibility of addressing the matter further in a potential resolution to be discussed the following afternoon.

Mr Christians expressed his agreement with foregoing the need for a legal opinion, stating that the Committee's understanding aligned with the Financial and Fiscal Commission's (FCC's) position regarding the absence of funding. He emphasised the importance of incorporating the concerns raised by FEDSAS into the Committee's submission, noting that these sentiments mirrored the Committee's own. He suggested including these concerns in the final submission to reflect the views of the people of the Western Cape, as proposed by the Chairperson.

Closing remarks

The Chairperson expressed her appreciation to the Members for their prompt availability and robust engagement in ensuring that the rights of the people of the Western Cape were advocated for, and that their views were meaningfully considered. She acknowledged the importance of such conversations, particularly in uncharted territory.

The meeting was adjourne