Portfolio Committee composition; Sequence of Oral Questions; Whips

Meeting report

Mr Masibulele Xaso, National Assembly Secretary, noted that he had shared some documents and the NA Rule Book. He drew Member’s attention to Rule 193 in the Rule Book, which says that the Rules Committee may develop and formulate policy proposals concerning the exclusive business of the Assembly in respect of proceedings, procedures, rules, orders, and practices concerning the business of the Assembly.

It must monitor and oversee the implementation of the policies, make recommendations to the joint rules committee, lay down guidelines and issue directives on any aspect of policy referred to in the Rules. It also has the power to appoint Sub-Committees.

The Committee is gathered to perform some of these functions including the setting up of structures. The first one on the agenda is the composition of Committees. Committees are referred to as the engines of Parliament as it is where the scrutiny and oversight of the executive takes place. They are usually arranged to correspond with departments.

In the previous Parliament, the size of a portfolio committee was 11 members with a composition as follows: ANC – six, DA – two, EFF- one, and other parties two. The number of parties has now increased thus the composition of committees is proposed to be increased to 15. The ANC would have five, DA – three, MK – two, EFF – one and other parties combined would have four.

Mr Xaso asked not to venture into the configuration of committees since the Cabinet configuration and these appointments had not been announced yet. The focus for now will be on the composition of committees.

Mr S Swart (ACDP) said that in the previous Parliament, there was an indication of how many committees a Member could serve on and asked if that convention would be followed in the new Parliament considering the large number of smaller parties, which will have to spread themselves out quite thinly.

Mr C Frolick (ANC) replied that there has never been a restriction of Members participating in different committees. Even if they are not a full-time member of the committee, they may attend any committee meeting, but they would not be able to vote. As for the grouping of smaller parties, this is up to the smaller parties to decide which committees they want permanent membership or not and they usually sort this out among themselves and inform the Office of the Speaker.

Ms E Ntlangwini (EFF) asked about the rationale for 15 members with the ANC getting five and the numbers for the other parties. How was the configuration determined or what formula was used?

Mr N Kwankwa (UDM) agreed that the number of parties has increased while the Assembly size remained the same. Was this because Parliament anticipated fewer committees compared to the previous Parliament? If so, he asked for those issues to be tabled so that Members can support or not support them including the ratios. He wanted to know how practically it would work given the number of parties, committees and simultaneous meetings.

Mr Xaso replied that the rationale was informed by the broader strength of parties. For example, the ANC’s number of MPs of the proposed 15 would be less than 40%. If allocated six MPs per committee, it would amount to 42%. Five MPs are less than 40%. Thus, the Secretariat moved the numbers around based on the strength of the parties and attempted to align the rationale with the numerical strength of parties. The attempt was to be accommodative – previously, the combined smaller parties had only two MPs, but it has now been increased to four. He emphasized that these were still proposals, and the team would welcome any input.

Mr M Gana (Rise Mzansi) felt that the government of national unity (GNU) could lead to a situation where smaller party members are in the executive, thus limiting their participation in parliamentary committees. He thus proposed 13 MPs. If committee membership at 11 remained, how would party distribution look like as one moved the numbers up to 15?

Mr C Mulder (FF Plus) said that there is no super formula that will apply because there are different factors to account for. The last Parliament had 14 parties and now there are 18. Thus, we need to be as inclusive as possible. The current proposal gives permanent membership positions to the four largest parties. The other 14 parties are grouped into four members per committee which entails 56 Members. Therefore, he felt that the rationale or formula was the closest one to a fair distribution and accommodating party strengths. Practically, the 14 smaller parties will now go and sit together and review the portfolios, give their preferences and balance how they take up those four positions. This is what was done in the past and it can be done again. He supported the proposal.

Mr J Ngubane (MK) asked what informed the allocation of the numbers so Members were aware if the configuration would affect the time allocation each party will have in a single committee.

Ms P Majodina (ANC) noted the explanation provided by Mr Xaso and said she erred towards inclusiveness. If the number stays at 11 Members, it means that most parties would not be accommodated. If the allocation is done based on the strength of the parties, the ANC would get six instead of five. The ANC is not complaining about this because it seeks to be inclusive by forgoing one MP.

The Speaker, Ms T Didiza (ANC), encouraged Members to find an inclusive way.

Mr Xaso replied that they used proportionality to allocate the parties. These numbers cannot be exact and to the extent possible one stays as close as possible to the strength of the parties and proportionality.

Ms Majodina added that there is no restriction on the speaking time of Members in committees.

Mr Nkwankwa noted the response given and said it was roundabout. If we take 400 and divide by 11, it gives us 36 committees. But if we divide it by 15, it gives 26/27 committees. Thus, are we anticipating fewer departments now to mirror the cabinet that will be announced by the President? Whatever decision we take today, we must take that into account.

The Speaker replied that at this time, there is no sense of how the configuration of Cabinet will be. However, the Rules Committee, once it is aware of the number of ministries, will meet and finalise this matter.

Mr Swart said that in the absence of a coherent reasoning for the formula, Members could come up with a figure that gives smaller parties representation. He welcomed the proposal.

Ms S Gwarube (DA) supported the proposal and welcomed the inclusivity of smaller parties.

Ms V Mente-Nkuna (EFF) agreed to the proposal of 15. However, she noted Mr Nkwankwa’s point that 400 MPs divided by 15 will equal about 26 committees. If we exclude those who are going to Cabinet, it reduces the number. This should be dealt with properly as time goes on.

Ms Z Majozi (IFP) supported the proposal.

Mr M Ntuli (ANC) suggested resolving the proposal made by Mr Xaso. Surely, at a later stage, the position could be reviewed but it is comforting to accommodate smaller parties.

Mr G Hendricks (Al Jam-ah) noted that when the committees were established in the previous administration, it was done in a way where the majority party had the majority of the vote in the portfolio committee. It had a veto or final say on any matter in a committee, but this no longer applies. This ensures that every party will have an opportunity to present a case. What assurance do Members have to ensure that nothing will stop a Member from attending whichever portfolio committee they may be interested in attending?

The Speaker replied that any MP can participate in any committee proceedings, but they will not have voting rights.

Mr Frolick said that the Committee’s recommendations are subject to the approval of the House. It is merely recommendations that come through a committee.

The Speaker noted the responses and comments. The configuration of the Committees will be deferred until the structure of the Cabinet is known or announced.

Formula for appointing Whips
Mr Xaso explained the responsibility of the whips is the political management of the business of Parliament, and to assist the House in maintaining order and decorum, among others. Each party is allocated a whip, but some parties will not qualify on the application of the formula. In this case, these parties are grouped and allocated some whips.

In the Fifth Parliament, the formula used for the allocation of whips to parties was 1 whip for 7 members. This was later adjusted to 1 whip for every 6.5 members – which was retained in the Sixth Parliament. Parties that were too small to qualify for their own whip were grouped together and allocated a whip to represent them.

Two options are proposed – either one whip per 6 members or one whip per 6.5 members.

If one whip per 6 members, we would end up with 69 whips. This means that the ANC would qualify for 27, DA – 15, MK – 10, EFF – 7, IFP – 3, PA – 2, FF Plus – 1, Action SA – 1, and the smaller parties (19 Members) would qualify for three whips.

If the Committee retains 6.5, this would be 61 whips and the split would be: ANC – 24, DA – 13, MK – 9, EFF – 6, IFP – 3, PA, Action SA, and FF plus – 1, and other parties combined would qualify for three whips.

Ms Majodina moved for the adoption of six whips per member.

Mr Ngubane accepted option one of six members.

Ms Mente also supported the proposed option one.

Mr Hendricks proposed increasing number of whips for smaller parties from three to four.

Mr A Trollip (Action SA) said that these numbers are based on a formula and it must be applied consistently. The change would mean eight more whips, which has a remuneration impact on Parliament’s budget. If we meddle with the formula to cater for the smaller parties, the bigger parties will end up getting more.

Ms D Dlakude (ANC) felt that the supported formula was inclusive and speaks to the multi-party Parliament.

The Speaker noted the comments and announced that option one was the accepted option.

Sequence for Questions
Mr Xaso explained the procedures in Parliament for both oral and written questions. Oral questions are taken weekly on Wednesday depending on the programme for ministers, deputy president and the president. There is a mechanism of questions for written replies – this is confined to specific days, and Members can ask these questions at any time.

The time allocation for questions is three hours and he proposed that 17 opportunities be created to ask questions. Smaller parties that would not qualify were grouped to have opportunities to ask questions. The sequence for the grouped smaller parties is Group One (PA, UDM, Al-Jamah), Group Two (FF Plus, Rise Mzansi, CCC), Group Three (Action SA, Bosa, PAC), and Group Four (ACDP, ATM, UAT, GOOD).

The ANC would have six opportunities, DA – three, MK – two, EFF – one, IFP – one and the four groups will receive one opportunity each. If proportionality was applied strictly, the smaller parties would not qualify to ask questions and the ANC would be entitled to seven opportunities. However, it was proposed that the ANC take six while the DA would have three to accommodate the smaller parties.

Dr A Lotriet (DA) asked Mr Xaso to explain from where the 17 oral question opportunities come.

Mr Xaso replied that in any given question session there would be 12/13 questions in a three-house session. However, there are instances, although quite rare, that up to 17 opportunities could be taken. Hence, there are up to 17 to allow other parties to have their questions responded to. If those questions are not answered on that day, Members would still get written responses immediately after the session has ended.

Ms Gwarube said she erred on the side of inclusivity and supported the proposal to afford smaller parties the opportunity.

Mr Gana supported the proposal but noted that in previous sessions, the House would battle to get to even 12 questions. If the House adjourns at question 12, which would be MK, then in a two-weekly period, the next Oral Question session should continue from the previous session or randomise the sequence of asking questions for it to be fair.

Mr Gana also suggested that the House sit for four instead of three hours and ensure that all questions in the Oral Questions session are asked and responded to. He also noted that often the important aspect of a question is in the follow-up question.

Ms H Mkhaliphi (EFF) suggested the time increase from three to four hours for sittings for Members to do their work satisfactorily. As the House now has more parties, thus the time should also be increased.

Mr Ngubane asked about Written Questions and the status of written questions if they had not been responded to. He noted the disturbing pattern in the past of ministers taking a long time to reply to written questions.

Ms Majozi supported the proposal of increasing the session from three to four hours. The House could start sessions from 14h00 instead of 15h00 on Wednesdays or question days.

Ms Dlakude suggested that the four-hour time slot be taken to the Rules Review Sub-Committee because all oral questions on the oral question paper get an opportunity to be responded to through written responses.

Mr Ntuli supported the suggestion to have the Sub-Committee deliberate further on this given the fact that oral question sessions reaching 17 question opportunities were rare.

Ms Mente sought clarity why the EFF was granted only one opportunity like the IFP while it has more MPs than the IFP. It is not even half of the EFF.

Mr Swart said that it would depend if the Sub-Committee decides on four hours or not. Presently, Group 4 (ACDP, ATM, UAT and GOOD) would never get to question 17. However, the four hour suggestion would ensure that all parties get an opportunity.

Mr Trollip did not support relegating this decision to the Sub-Committee because the essence of an oral question is to ask a follow-up question. If it is left as is even with four hours, the House will not get to question 17. Some political parties will be relegated to only ever asking written questions. The technicalities can be discussed at the Sub-Committee, but it must be understood that the time must be increased to four hours because MPs have come here to work. Four hours would not impact the programme significantly.

Ms Mkhaliphi rebutted and said that there have only been rare moments where all questions in a session are not covered. She felt that the House has been doing well in that regard. However, the biggest challenge that must be addressed is the quality of answers from the Ministers.

Mr Ngubane asked if the DA would be entitled to ask questions given that they were now part of the Government of National Unity.

The Speaker indicated that the Sub-Committee would have to relook at some of the matters given the new government formation. For now, the Committee will deal with things as ceteris paribus until the Cabinet has been pronounced. The matter of increasing the time, toggling the sequence of asking questions, and other technical matters will be referred to the Sub-Committee. The matter of the quality of responses by ministers may also be deliberated further.

Mr Mulder noted that increasing the session would make it last from 15h00 to 19h00. Previously the House could not start earlier than 15h00 due to the executive being unavailable at that time. He proposed that if the time is increased to four hours, the executive will need to adjust its programme as well.

Mr Ntuli said that it seemed there was no consensus yet on the rotation, but it may be deferred to the Sub-Committee and deliberated further there.

Ms Ntlangwini said that Members should not act as if they are not here to work or that what is proposed is cast in stone. If time is a factor, perhaps we could have more than one question session a week to accommodate everyone. She cautioned against boxing Parliament to a limited time that does not serve justice in its work.

Mr Ngubane wanted clarity on what the terms of reference will be for the matters that are being deferred to the Subcommittee as well as who will sit in that Subcommittee.

Ms Gwarube said that the Subcommittee comes from this body and reports to it. Thus, it does not make its decisions in a closed room. The Subcommittee can meet regularly and can deliberate on matters thoroughly.

She supported the issue of the quality of responses by the executive. This could be something that the Subcommittee needs to review and come up with a guideline or standard for what satisfies a satisfactory response. Previously, there were instances where ministers would say anything, and it would suffice as a response. The Subcommittee must look at how it sets up that standard for comprehensive responses.

Mr Gana suggested that if all oral questions are not dealt with and finish at number 14, that the following oral question session, number 15 be moved to the top or they finish up the outstanding questions.

Mr Xaso noted that Rule 187(9) says that the sequence of questions in the Question Paper rotates without interruptions for the duration of an annual session according to the order in which Members of the respective parties can put questions, such order being determined by the Rules Committee from time to time. The Rule does not state that the process can be restarted.

As for ministers not responding to Written Questions, Rule 146(1) provides that if a Question for Written Reply has not been responded to within 10 days, the Member concerned may ask to convert the question to an Oral Reply.

Mr Xaso reiterated that if the bigger parties did not donate time, some of the parties would not have an opportunity to ask questions. All bigger parties were subjected to donating time hence the EFF had one opportunity.

The Speaker noted that the Rules Review Subcommittee is the subcommittee of the Rules Committee. It is the Rules Committee that will determine which and how many members will form part of it. She noted that the suggestion of increasing the time was met with consensus.

Ms Gwarube suggested that to fit in more questions, perhaps the time to respond should be reduced for certain questions. The questions are not meant to be technical. The response time could be reduced from four to less time to make the ministers more concise when answering the questions.

Ms Mente emphasised the quality of responses. The mechanism in the previous Parliament is that whenever a Member is not satisfied with an Oral Reply, the Member must write to the Rules Committee and she strongly suggested that poor quality responses be dealt with. Oral Question sessions are not serving a purpose if Members are not getting quality answers.

On the conversion of unanswered oral questions to written replies, the reason follow-up questions are asked is to test the standard and quality of the response. If the question is converted to a written reply because it was unanswered, it takes away the opportunity to further investigate and interrogate that answer. The purpose of following up is to assist in getting to the bottom of the issue.

Members Statements
The Speaker noted that as this remains largely the same, she asked to move Executive Statements.

Executive Statements
Mr Xaso noted that the two options for 66 or 68 minutes were proposed for the allocation of party responses to statements [see presentation for the breakdown].

The Speaker noted that all parties have an opportunity to respond to executive statements. Members need to submit which option they will support.

Ms Ntlangwini said that the EFF should be given back its minute. It cannot be taken away and the EFF be given the same number of minutes as the IFP. The EFF is the fourth largest party in South Africa and so the IFP should be grouped with the smaller parties.

Ms Majozi said the IFP has always received four minutes and if the EFF is not pleased, it must take up with the relevant persons.

The Speaker noted the EFF’s concern and indicated that its concern will be addressed.

Mr Trollip supported the option of 66 minutes. The 68 minutes will only give the two biggest parties extra speaking time. Secondly, as for the EFF matter, if the same would apply to the EFF, then it must be applied to all the other parties as well.

Ms Dlakude said the presentation stated that the parties had to forgo or donate a minute to the smaller parties, and it was done to all the bigger parties. Now, if the EFF does not want to donate, then the other bigger parties will have their time back. However, she supported the proposed 66 minutes for the executive statements.

Ms Majodina supported the 66 minutes but also noted that other parties have forgone their minutes.

The Speaker noted the comments. If the EFF wants the formula to be reviewed, it will negatively impact smaller parties. The implications of that review will be considered for deliberation.

Motions
Mr Xaso noted that 24 opportunities have been proposed for Motions [see presentation].

Mr M Mahlaule (ANC) said that the proposed allocated opportunities for the ANC are not fair because the formula gives the ANC 7.1 opportunities but the proposed ANC allocation is only 4, which means it had forgone 3.1 opportunities whilst the rest including the DA is just rounded off to the nearest number therefore forgoing only 0.9. He felt that in the spirit of proportionality, the ANC was robbed.

Ms Mente said if this was now a matter of time for MPs to be at work, then the whole issue of time must be reviewed. The reason for this and fighting about speaking times for parties according to their strength is because Members want to confine themselves to a certain time of being at work. We must be at work and not look at how much time we must spend at work. This is a significant issue – everyone must present their motion. The voters voted; thus 18 political parties are now in Parliament as per South Africans exercising their constitutional right to vote. 18 parties must present their motions. To say that the EFF is now a smaller party does not assist what the constituents or voters have said. If it means all the other parties must get what is due to them in terms of their time or opportunities, then so be it.

Mr Gana suggested increasing the opportunities from 24 to 30 to avoid debates and what parties have sacrificed. If no one sacrifices, some of the parties will not get an opportunity.

The Speaker noted all the comments and suggestions and said that the Committee should allow the Table and the Subcommittee to investigate these matters closely. The formula is problematic for some parties because it reduces their time and opportunities, which comprises their strength. The Table will be tasked with reviewing the time allocation if all parties keep to their numbers as per the formula. It seems the issue of time reduction is going to keep coming up. Therefore, the Table will report back to the Rules Committee once this is completed.

Ms Majodina seconded the proposal.

Mr Xaso said that Motions and Declaration of Votes will need further deliberations and consultation. The Chief Whips Forum Could Be Utilised for this purpose tomorrow when it meets.

Establishment of the Rules Committee
Mr Xaso proposed that due to the new NA configuration, the composition of the Rules Committee must be deliberated by the Subcommittee. A rule amendment was suggested but to be deliberated on by the Subcommittee.

Secondly, he proposed for consensus now on the composition of the Rules Review Subcommittee. The proposal for its composition is nine members, which is an increase from eight. The Subcommittee takes decisions by consensus – it is a sub-structure of the Rules Committee. The proposal is as follows: ANC - three Members, DA - one, MK – one, EFF – one and the other parties three. He requested that the Subcommittee be established today.

Ms Majozi said that the number of political parties has now increased and perhaps the Subcommittee membership should also increase. She proposed 11 members to allow for the 14 other parties to have five representatives, not three.

Ms Gwarube replied that the proposal to increase to 11 could be entertained but in a proportional format.

Mr Gana suggested accepting the proposed nine because if the number is increased to 11 and one applies proportionality, only the bigger parties will benefit, not the smaller parties.

Mr Ngubane asked when the Subcommittee is going to sit because his party will be submitting the review of Rules 191 and 32, which implicates the status of opposition parties in the Assembly.

The Speaker noted that she was also itching for the Subcommittee to meet. She proposed Members agree to nine as 11 would not benefit the smaller parties but only the bigger ones.

Ms Gwarube supported the proposal of nine Members.

The Speaker also supported the proposal of nine Members. However, these matters can be relooked at.

Composition of the programming committee
Mr Xaso proposed in addition to the composition prescribed in Rule 206 (a)-(g) with ANC – 1, the Chief Whip of the Opposition and two other Members of the DA, MK – 2, EFF – 2, that other parties represented in the Assembly have one each (14) – with an overall total of 29 Members. In addition, the Counsellor to the President can attend as an ex officio member.

The proposal was accepted.

Terminology and Definitions
Mr Xaso proposed that the last item which is the terminology and definitions be referred to the Subcommittee including matters that were pending at the end of the Sixth Parliament. When the Subcommittee meets on these matters, it must report back to the Committee within four weeks. When the Subcommittee meets next week, it must also elect a chairperson.

The Speaker welcomed all the deliberations from Members and noted no other business except for announcements by Mr Xaso.

The meeting was adjourned.