Establishment and composition of committees; Subrules Committee Chairperson; Clustered system of government portfolios for oral questions

Meeting report

The Chairperson opened the meeting, noting that the aim was to conclude matters from the previous Committee meeting. She asked that the agenda be seconded.

Ms D Dlakude (ANC) adopted the agenda.

Apologies were tabled.

Minutes dated 26 June 2024
Amendments were made to Members present in the meeting minutes.

The minutes were considered and adopted.

Matters arising
Ms H Mkhaliphi (EFF): I want to check the issue that was discussed last time regarding terminology and clarifying the issue of the Government of National Unity (GNU). Secondly, the issue of the terminology of the official opposition, as per the rule, and also the seating arrangements going forward; I just want to check those issues.

The Chairperson:  I'm informed that that is part of the matters arising from the last meeting, but if not, we'll ensure that those are factored into the discussions.

Responses to Executive statements, declarations of vote and sequencing of motions
Mr Masibulele Xaso, Secretary to the National Assembly:  We have compiled a report, which is on the screen. It says report on matters subjected to further processing. It is related to responses to Executive statements, declarations of vote and sequencing of motions. The Chief Whips Forum (CWF) has since discussed these matters and reached an agreement. So, the time for responses to Executive statements is now 69 minutes. Combined with ministerial time, it will be 89 minutes. In terms of sequencing and opportunities for motions, previously, we presented 24 opportunities, but there were concerns - those opportunities have since been revised to 30 and that has been agreed to by the whippery.

The time for decelerations of vote will now be 46 minutes – see attached for breakdown per party.

Discussion
Mr K Sithole (IFP): I'm checking under opportunities because it says nothing about the IFP – is the IFP under other parties? Why?

Mr Xaso: the matter was discussed at the last meeting. When you apply the formula in this instance, the IFP would have fallen under other parties when you do the formula and the calculation. The last meeting dealt extensively with the formula, so I'll be guided by this meeting if we need to revisit that. However, the matter was discussed and referred to the CWF, and this is the outcome of the process.

The Chairperson:  Just to remind Members that in the last meeting, there were concerns about the allocation of minutes. We had indicated that the formula we had used was to ensure that smaller parties also got an opportunity to participate in those opportunities that are available for the executive statements, as well as the motion and declaration of votes. And in that discussion, we did indicate that if we were to apply the formula strictly, it would have actually disadvantaged smaller parties. So we had to find a formula and appeal, hoping that parties with more votes would actually donate some time for equity. This is how we ended up with the grouping and the formula as presented. So, as indicated by the Secretary of the National Assembly, there was extensive discussion on this matter. And we reflected on it and asked the whippery to look into it. And at the end, there was consensus in the whippery, which is the recommendation that was made in this meeting. So, we are tabling a report back on how that matter was concluded.

Ms Dlakude: I think, as the ANC, we were happy to donate our minutes. And in those two meetings, meaning the Rules Committee meeting and the CWF meeting, we came to an understanding and concluded on these matters. So I don't think we should go back.

The Chairperson: Can I appeal to the IFP that we agree with the recommendation coming from the CWF because you were also represented in that meeting?

The IFP agreed.

Questions
Mr Xaso: we presented on opportunities to ask questions. There were concerns raised by the EFF. They had a single opportunity to ask a question. We were then asked to review the matter. We have revised that without disadvantaging any party. The document is titled Revised Sequence for Questions for the Seventh Parliament. In this, we have also done a breakdown in terms of the formula. The EFF qualifies for 1.65, which is rounded off to two and the IFP one single opportunity, and the rest of the parties. As Members will notice, the ANC should have been entitled to seven and the DA should have been entitled to four but they've donated some of those fractions to the other party so that the other parties could have opportunities to ask questions. So we believe that the task that we're asked to do has been done, and the numbers have been adjusted accordingly. We present that here for adoption.

Agreed to.

Ms Mkhaliphi: I just want to check the issue of three hours to four hours – is it covered?

The Chairperson:  It's coming.

Whips
Mr Xaso: there was a discussion on the whips, and the matter was agreed to. And the point that we just want to put for the record is that the programming whip, chief whip and deputy chief whip would not be in the whippery allocation for the largest party. So we just wanted to put that for the record, which we omitted to mention the issue of the programming whip. We have asked parties to submit names so that the Speaker can approve.

Ms Mkhaliphi: I just want clarity. When you say it is in the exclusion of a programming whip, do you mean all chief whips are excluded from the allocation of each party in terms of the whippery, or is it only for the majority chief whip?

Mr Xaso: It has always been for the largest party, where the chief whip of the majority party or the largest party is covered in the Remuneration of Office Bearers Act, as is the Deputy Chief Whip.

Mr A Trollip (Action SA): Regarding the revised sequence for questioning in the Seventh Parliament, the minority parties have three groupings. We decided they would rotate, so we just need to make provision for that.

Mr Xaso: Members will recall that we presented four groups last time. With a revision, we now have three groups, which we think is better than four groups. Of course, there will be rotation in terms of opportunities.

Subcommittee on Review of NA Rules
Mr Xaso: matters were referred to the rules subcommittee. Those relate to issues of the Chief Whip of the Opposition, Leader of the Opposition, Chief Whip of the majority party, the issue of time for questions, and the proposal to move from three hours to four hours. The subcommittee has not met yet. We have asked for the names from parties. I'll check with the team if we got the names. But part of what ought to happen today is that the chair of the subcommittee needs to be announced so that the subcommittee can get going. We believe that the matters that are before the subcommittee are urgent, and for that reason, I would like to, with the permission of the person that will be appointed to the chair, have a meeting next week so that even though the committee is given a month, we hope that it can conclude some of the tasks within a week or two because we are ready with recommendations as administration.

The Chairperson: the suggestion is that today we set up that subcommittee. Names we ask from parties of those who will serve in the committee so it can meet as soon as possible to deliberate on that matter. So we do need to deal with it as soon as possible. We appreciate that some of the issues may not be concluded, but some are urgent and need to be closed on as soon as possible. That's why our proposal is that that committee must meet soonest.

Mr M Ntuli (ANC) advanced the name of Ms Dlakude as chair of the subcommittee. The reason why I'm advancing that proposal and I hope that it can be accepted by the meeting is because, given the amount of work that we're required to do, I think it's only appropriate that we assign a Member that has an advantage in the past administration to carry that responsibility. I was informed that she had been the chair of that committee, so I thought I would propose that the committee endorse her to take that responsibility again.

Agreed to.

Ms V Mente (EFF):  Yesterday in the CWF, we agreed that we'd come here and sort of establish a principle in terms of the seating arrangement in determining the opposition. I know that the modalities will be dealt with in the subcommittee rooms. But in terms of the seating arrangement, the government has now been constituted. We all know that, and we live to that reality. And people that are in government must be in government. The people who are in opposition must be in the opposition. That means that MK is now in opposition. Then, the MK must give us a leader of the opposition, the whip of the opposition, and a deputy whip of the opposition. That principle must be established. Even if it goes to subrules, they will be dealing with the nitty gritty of terms and all of those things. However, the reality is that GNU is in government.

Mr Xaso: We will take this as a package. You may have noticed that I said some of these issues are urgent. That is why we believe that the subcommittee must meet as soon as possible so that the issue of the titles and the seating arrangement will be dealt with comprehensively because they are related. So, the seating arrangement is consequential. My proposal would be that instead, we urge the parties to submit the names of the subcommittees so that they can sit urgently and bring back a report about the titles and the seating arrangement. We will make proposals that will be considered by Members there. The principal seems to have been agreed to, but we wanted it structured regarding its implementation.

The Chairperson: I don't think there is a debate around the principle that it has to be established. But the request is that the subcommittee bring us a comprehensive report, and that the committee meet as soon as possible.

Ms Mente: I want to make a proposal. Given that we have already adopted the motion on who is the chair of the subcommittee, can we then excuse the subcommittee from the training tomorrow to start its work? Because I'm imagining a situation of Tuesday, because on this day, we must have a plenary. And in that plenary, we cannot have the DA say standing up as an opposition party opposing itself. you must be alive to that reality because the DA is going to stand up opposing itself. So by Tuesday, we can make an exception that Tuesday morning, before the afternoon sitting, we meet maybe at 11 or 12, and the subcommittee brings us a report, which deals with all of that so that we resolve those issues so that we don’t go to the sitting with the government opposing itself.

MK Member: MK has already submitted the names to sit on the Rules Subcommittee.

Ms Z Majozi (IFP): We have concluded today on the three names to sit on subrules, and I think they will receive a report in the next 10 minutes that will outline which parties will be represented.

The Chairperson: We agree that the matters are urgent and need to be addressed quickly. Instead of saying maybe Members of the subcommittee must not be part of the training tomorrow, let's rather ask them to find time because there may be Members who are in that committee who would benefit from the training, so they can either meet after the training or whatever. But I think there is an appreciation of the urgency in resolving this matter. We will look at the proposal on Tuesday and then get back to members regarding when the Rules Committee will meet again. So, the urgency of when this matter must be dealt with is appreciated.

Configuration of National Assembly committees.
Mr Xaso: We have circulated a presentation, which deals with portfolio committees, standing committees, and what we recommend as the configuration. We just want to register what the rule says. rule 225 states that the Speaker, acting with the concurrence of the Rules Committee, must establish a range of portfolio committees, assign a portfolio of government affairs to each committee, and determine a name for each committee. The composition issue was dealt with last week, but we may revisit it after this presentation. 15 Members were agreed to. Together with the portfolio committees, some committees are called standing committees.  You have the Standing Committee on Finance, Standing Committee on Appropriations, Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and Standing Committee on the Auditor-General, and of course, you have the Powers and Privileges Committee. They are called standing committees because they are provided in terms of the law.

I don't wish to talk about the functions of portfolio committees at this point. Cabinet has been set. 32 ministries have been established. Therefore, we are proposing that these 30 portfolio committees be established. And they are in line with the ministries that have been created. In the Sixth Parliament, we had 27 portfolio committees. The increase is occasioned by the separation of agriculture from rural development and land reform, science and technology from higher education, as well as the creation of electricity and energy, correctional services being separated from justice and noting that electricity did not have a portfolio before, now it does have a portfolio committee. We also state that this excludes joint committees, which should be dealt with by the Joint Rules Committee – Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence, Members’ Interests and Ethics, Joint Standing Committee on Defence, Joint Standing Committee on Financial Management of Parliament, Multiparty Women's Caucus, Constitutional Review Committee, these are joint structures.

In the last parliament, there was a matter about a committee to deal with vote one. The proposed recommendation from the last parliament was that that committee could be the Committee on Monitoring and Evaluation, which would deal with the issues of vote one. That is a recommendation that we would want to make in this instance if there is still a view that such a committee should be established.

Without confusing matters, because the number of committees has now increased, if this committee is minded to review its decision on the size of the committees because of the number of committees that we now have, we have a proposal that can be considered, but that is up to the committee to consider. We thought we should be helpful and do that in case the committee wishes to review the 15 and reduce the number because there are now more committees.

Discussion
The Chairperson: I suggest that we look at the proposed composition of portfolio committees and hear whether there is an agreement before we can move on the numbers within committees.

An explanation has been given for the increase from 27 to 30. Given the departments and ministries that have been split, but also, the other matter raised within that context is that the portfolio committee on planning, monitoring and evaluation will now include the oversight of the vote on the presidency, which is vote one, whereas before, there was no such portfolio committee that dealt with that vote.

MK Member: Our submission is based on the overstretched monitoring and evaluation portfolio committee. Our proposal is that there should be a committee specifically to deal with the issues of the presidency.

Adv S Swart (ACDP): I also want to support the recommendation of a specific portfolio committee on the presidency. This was raised in the previous parliament, and a study tour was undertaken. It was also a recommendation of the State Capture Commission. It's important that the DG of the presidency accounts to a specific portfolio committee on its budget. There are many commissions that the President also appoints, and they say they're not accountable to Parliament. So, I think this is something we need to appreciate and consider. So we would support that as well.

Ms N Ntlangwini (EFF): I think we need to look into establishing that portfolio committee of the presidency because its budget just gets bloated, and it just adds entities to his office. And if we do not have effective oversight in that portfolio, we may never know or trace all entities reporting to him [the President]. So he can just take all of the state-owned entities, and those budgets are going to him, and there's no effective oversight performed over those entities. The DG of the presidency must come and account to Parliament, and there must be some form of accountability on the presidency.

Dr C Mulder (FF+): this issue has been discussed in Parliament since 1994. It's nothing new. But as we move into a new dispensation, I think it's important that we explore the principle and see if it's not possible. I've been privileged to be on that study tour of other parliaments and to see how they do oversight. And I think we should look at the principle and see if it's not possible to make provision for that while we move forward. I would support that.

Mr Ntuli: it's quite helpful that Members are making reference to their own past experiences. Quite frankly, I have no strong objection to that idea. But I would have thought that the best way for us to make a decision of that nature would be for the Members with experience to also explain to us understand what were the limitations of having a president account through the existing mechanism of the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation. There is one DG in the presidency. the ministers in the presidency do not separate the DG from the DG in the presidency. We may want to politicise this, which is not necessarily important. When we decide to create an additional portfolio committee, we have to find a way to engage each other in a manner that clarifies our understanding of the limitations we want to overcome. Not many things are happening there, and people run away from accountability. All of us here must be committed to ensuring that those in the Executive are accountable, including the President. But when we take a decision, I think it is in the best interest of this Committee that we are favoured with a bit of detail about what were the constraints with the current existing mechanism. But as a matter of principle, I don't think, as the African National Congress, we would be having a problem if, ultimately, the Committee feels that there must be a creation of an additional committee to look at the issues around the presidency. I suggest getting more clarity around the past constraints and limitations we want to overcome.

Mr Trollip:  I don't have any personal experience of constraints with monitoring and evaluation being a portfolio committee and being unable to oversee the presidency. But when I hear Dr Mulder say that this has been discussed since 1994, I remember that in 2009, as the leader of the opposition, when I called for a portfolio committee to oversee the presidency, and it was battered away, so 1994 to 2009. And now, incrementally slow poison, we get a portfolio for monitoring and evaluation, but no mention of the presidency. That experience makes us sceptical of your commitment to say we're happy to have the President overseen, but we're not happy to call it what it is. It’s to oversee a presidency growing like a top seed, so that is the inexperience for over 30 years, and we still don’t have a committee to oversee the presidency.

Mr W Wessels (FF+): I think the most important point is not that there's only one DG in the presidency; it is that the DG of the presidency is the accounting officer and that it's good practice that there's one accounting officer that reports to a portfolio committee. the moment we start having more than one accounting officer, when we do, for instance, the Portfolio Committee on Monitoring, Planning and Evaluation, and we mix that with the President - you have two accounting officers, and there's just too much work. Especially, as other colleagues have elaborated, with all the Commissions and all the other entities that have been made part of the presidency. if we want to ensure accountability, we need a portfolio committee.

Ms Majozi: Maybe we should keep the responsibilities under monitoring and evaluation. Once this is established, we can take this matter to the subcommittee and report back to this committee to say these are the likelihoods that we can establish and see a way forward.

Ms Mente: The portfolio committee on monitoring and evaluation meets once a week, but now, the scope of work is increasing in the presidency. For example, on Scopa, it is hard to get the Minister of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation and the DG of the presidency to come to all these meetings. However, there is one DG at the moment. When the President took all those functions into his office, he knew there was one DG; therefore, that one DG must account for all the functions in the presidency. And if they have to go to two committees, so be it until they realise they need an additional DG for additional functions if they want to split it. But we want a vote one committee, where vote one will be scrutinised with all the other entities.

During the announcement of Cabinet, when the SOEs were being removed, there was a mention that some of the SEOs would go to the presidency until something happened about them. We haven't been told if Transnet has gone to transport or if Denel has gone to energy or whatever. The only thing we're told is that electricity has gone to energy. So, some entities have moved to the presidency, and those entities' budgets must be accounted for. They won't be accounted for if we don't have that committee. And we must agree. If we agree that that committee will monitor and evaluate for the time being until we deal with all the modalities in terms of the functions, when can we get the second DG? However, we must agree that we won't only deal with monitoring and evaluation. We want to know what's happening in the office of the president. Hence, there are many deputy ministers appointed to look after those functions.

Ms L Makhubela (ANC): I propose that the presidency continues reporting within the M&E committee for now. We do not establish a committee for vote one. But then we establish a subcommittee or an ad hoc committee that will look into the modalities of how best we can ensure that the DG and the ministers within the presidency will be able to come and account to a committee that will be formed to take care of budget vote one. I say this because we need to look at the modalities, and we can't be conclusive at the rules meeting. So I suggest that we leave the presidency within the M&E and form an ad hoc committee to look into how best we can make budget vote one accountable.

Mr E Ntshingila (MK): I think in the spirit of accountability, M&E has its own budget, and the presidency has its own budget, so one portfolio committee cannot be responsible for two departments. even in the provincial legislatures, there's a separate committee looking into the affairs of the premier. So, this is in line with the recommendations raised in the Zondo Commission. it cannot be that we also perpetuate the duplication of functions. M&E is already overstretched, and many of the functions or responsibilities that were in public enterprises and others are now in the presidency. So, it will require a sub-portfolio committee that will directly look into the affairs of budget vote one.
Mr C Frolick (ANC): many of the Members here were not part of the study tour that is being referred to, so maybe that report should be made available to all parties. I led that study to the UK - they don't have an oversight committee over the Prime Minister. They have a liaison committee that interacts with the Prime Minister in a highly controlled environment, and I don't think that is what Members are talking about here. In light of that, if that report can be circulated, the EFF made a good proposal that it should go for further work to the subcommittee on the rule. we don't need to create another structure to look into the matter.

Mr N Kwankwa (UDM): Indeed, I'm in favour of the subcommittee being given clear timeframes in terms of what we want to achieve so that the matter doesn't get buried there and then it's debated for the next five years until we meet again in 2029. The point made by Ms Mente is right in saying that many entities will now report directly to the Presidency. And we cannot allow a situation where the work of the presidency and those entities is shrouded in secrecy. We are Parliament, and we should err on the side of ensuring more accountability for the Executive. I think that's important.

The Chairperson: You do have the DG of monitoring and evaluation. You do have the DG of State Security even though the ministry is in the presidency. You have the DG for women, youth, and people with disabilities, and you have the DG for the presidency. So, I just thought I needed to clarify that. But what is emerging in the discussion is a strong view that we need oversight on vote one. Currently, the proposal that was being made by Parliament is that it should report through the portfolio committee on monitoring and evaluation. but most Members are saying no, the committee will be too overstretched. However, the midpoint is the recommendation that, in principle, this is what we want, but let's go and work out the modalities of how it will work and function, share the report of the study tour with everybody and the subcommittee of the review of the rules report to the Rules Committee as soon as possible.

Ms Mente: Yes, it's a correct summary with the proviso that in the meantime, they must report to the PC on monitoring and evaluation.

The Chairperson: So, it is being suggested that the review committee, which has to meet as soon as possible, include this on its agenda. I would request that the Secretariat circulate the study tour report to all parties so that everybody appreciates what was found in the study tour.

Committee size
The Chairperson: The secretariat recommended that we review the size of committees from 15 to 13. I want to hear your reflections on that.

Ms Majozi: I think we have been provided with two options here. I recommend that we take option one because then it doesn't stretch Members that much, and also, those who do not have a large caucus so that each Member can then have two committees to sit in. So I'll propose that maybe we take option one of 11 Members.

Ms Mente: I agree with the IFP that we take option one. All of us must have time to attend [committee meetings]. But most importantly, if we go to more than 11 Members, it means the bigger parties that are occupying more positions in the Executive are still going to occupy more positions in the committees of Parliament, which is going to result in committees having to sit once a week to deal with a workload. And we don't want to be managed like that. We need accountability in this Seventh Parliament.

Mr Wessels: We also support option one. The reasons given make sense. We have more departments than was envisaged, and we want effective functioning with Members. Option one will streamline our effectiveness in committees.

Mr Ntuli: We fully support option one.

Mr M Gana (Rise Mzansi): I've been trying to deal with the implications of either of the options, especially as they relate to other parties. And so when I was looking at it, now that we know the committees, I would have hoped the two becomes three, considering that the other parties will then have, I think, about 46 Members that are not in the Executive. When I look at the two and we have 37 or 38 committees, then it makes for a different kind of mathematics gymnastics that has to be done. But if there's consensus on two, we'll do the gymnastics and present the names and speak to the other parties.  But if there's a feeling that two is better than three, then it should be fine. We'll just have to look at the direct implications for the Members in that regard. And then we’ll work around it.

Mr Kwankwa: Indeed, Mr Gana is right that we'll have to work around it and make option one possible because it is the most sensible proposal from a practical point of view and brings us back to what will actually work. because remember, there are issues of committees not being able to quorate, especially when you deal with BRRRs and a host of other important meetings. If the size of committees is too big, then you will have a challenge towards the end of the year. Thank you, Chair, option one.

The Chairperson: It looks like we're all agreeing on option one. Agreed. Thank you.

Mr Gana: I want to table a formal request before we move. We need some kind of indication of when the committees are sitting. Even if it's a rough indication at this stage, so that we don't have a situation wherein a Member chooses two committees that are sitting on Tuesday at 10 o'clock, and then PMG releases a report to say Mr Gana is not attending sittings whereas I would like to attend the committee, but because of the numbers, you know, for smaller parties, some kind of guidance in terms of how the programme of the scheduling of committee meetings will assist greatly in us making the decisions that we'll need to make things that much.

The Chairperson: We will try to circulate a draft proposal by tomorrow, which all parties will review and provide their input on.

Cluster system of governance portfolios for oral questions
Mr Xaso: We have circulated a document for Members to consider. We have compiled this proposal. The first thing we do is to give a picture of what happened previously, but this is in terms of the rules. Rule 138 (1) says that questions for oral replies by ministers must be dealt with following a clustered system of government portfolios, as determined by the rules committee from time to time and published in the ATC. So, the first one is a picture we had in the previous parliament, and these are the ministries you had under each cluster. So we had four clusters: peace and security (cluster 1), social services (cluster 2), governance (cluster 3), economics (cluster 4), and economics ll (cluster 5). The economics cluster was split into two; one had seven ministries, and the other had six. We state the ministries on the next page. We state the names of the ministries, which go up to 32, for reference purposes. We discussed that earlier and explained why we don't have 32 portfolio committees.


Now, the first option that we're giving contains seven ministries. Science and technology here is under cluster 2, so we have packaged it in the same space as higher education, where higher education was before. So we have cluster one, seven ministries, cluster two, eight, and cluster three, five, cluster four, seven, and cluster five, six ministries.

Now, in option two, science and technology has been moved to the economics cluster. We just want to point out that in the fourth parliament, that's where science and technology was. So we've attempted to do that just to balance out the clusters. So Cluster One has seven, Cluster Two, seven, Cluster Three, five, cluster four, seven and Cluster Five, seven. We attempted to create more clusters, but we decided to abort that idea because we realised that there are ministers who will never be able to answer questions in an annual session. So our view is that if any of the clusters must be chosen, we should choose option two.

I will go to the block at the bottom later on, but that is our proposal regarding the clustering of questions. It would be ideal to have this approved now; however, we won't have question sessions this term, so even if we could not conclude it, we would still be able to conclude it before the question session begins.

The Chairperson: If we want, we can reflect on it and maybe finalise it in the next rules meeting since we're not going to have a question term. It's not a matter of urgency, but it will be good for Members to know. That's why, ideally, we would love it to be approved.

Mr Wessels: I would propose that we rather conclude today. I don't think there's a reason that we should reflect on this for a long time. I would propose supporting the administration in going for option two. It makes more sense that science and technology, in terms of function and functionality, are clustered with economics. And I think it's also more evenly spread regarding not making the social services cluster too heavy. So, I would propose we conclude this today. And I would propose option two.

Ms Mente: I would also agree with option two. It is more sound. If you have one [cluster] with eight, we will have a minister that never speaks. And my other proposal is that even though it's 777, we may find five ministers will speak and the others will not. This is my experience over the past ten years. Parliament now must formulate a guide for parties. I understand that parties all ask questions right across, but sometimes, they lean towards one or two ministries. But when the question paper comes, you will find one minister appearing five times, and one minister comes and never answers any question. There should be a guide. We should establish a standard practice or principle: all ministers must appear and answer equally. We must not have that unevenness we had in the past ten years. It will help us get productivity out of all ministers in each session for seven departments.

Ms Dlakude: I agree with the Members that we conclude on this because option two is supported and is what we used to have. However, on the issue of parties asking questions to different ministers, no one can dictate to them which ministers to ask questions. Parties are free to decide.

The Chairperson: I was going to summarise to indicate at the end that what you're saying is that let's have a guide to ensure that there is a balance in ensuring that all ministers in the cluster do get an opportunity to answer a question.

Mr Trollip:  I want to align myself with the previous speakers who agreed on option two. And I want to move that we accept it and do it today. But I don't want to jump the gun and go to the optimising of the question time. We said we needed additional time to put the questions in our first meeting. And I see in this block that it says if you increase the time, it doesn't necessarily improve questions - I don't believe that. If you run out of time because you can't ask questions, the quality and the performance of the questions are compromised. We have more ministers, and we need more time to ask questions. Some departments, of course, will have more questions than other departments. But we need extra time. And I'm very concerned, and maybe I'm jumping the gun, but I'm very concerned. We want more time for questions.

Adv Swart: I do support the proposals and option two. I just wanted to understand from a clarity perspective, what is no longer here is [the department of] public enterprises as we know it doesn't exist anymore. So will all those questions on Transnet, Denel, Alexkor, and SAA now be under the presidency, as opposed to electricity? Will that not fall under cluster three, governance planning, monitoring and evaluation? Or where will questions to those entities that have to be addressed to the presidency? those are massive entities, and we need clarity on where to put those questions.

The Chairperson: all of us agreed on option two. While we may not dictate to parties to whom they should ask questions, given the experience that all of us have had where some ministers will come, their cluster is there, but they would leave without answering a single question. The next time they will come, a similar thing happens. even if we don't dictate, the recommendation was for guidance to make sure that all ministers in the cluster get opportunities to answer questions that are asked by Members. There is also a question about the public enterprise entities and whether they will fall under line ministries or be under the presidency. And if so, how do those get factored in? Will questions that come from there be under the governance cluster or not?

Mr Xaso: I just wanted to point out rule 352, which states that once the Cabinet has been appointed, the Executive must inform the Speaker first of the appointment. Secondly, the details of the powers and functions formally assigned or delegated to each at a time of appointment and/or subsequently to the Speaker must be tabled without delay. That then enables Members to know where they should direct their questions. So, the issues under public enterprises and where they will be now will be clarified in that communication.

The Chairperson: As soon as we receive the details from the presidency on the functions of each ministry, we will table them in the ATC. This will then assist the rules committee if there's a need for adjustment in the clustering that will be done at the time.

Mr Xaso: we would want to place before the Committee that you may want to consider the amount of time you allocate to responses instead of increasing it to four hours. We are giving examples of how, in 1994, you had one hour and 30 minutes, but you could take 14 questions. In 2009, you had two hours but could take 11 questions. Now, in 2024, you have three hours, but you could only take 12 questions. And what has changed is that the time for responses, and the time in terms of the number of minutes that you have to respond to a question, has changed and been increased. The amount of time that we have to ask a question has increased. So we're saying that you might get a different outcome if we can scrutinise that and see what could be done differently. that's the point we're making. But we're not suggesting we discuss it now because this matter will serve before the subcommittee and can be deliberated there.

The Chairperson: This is tabling the matter. It's not for discussion. It's just to give a sense to those who have to deliberate on looking at what has been the experience given the discussions we had in the last rules committee that we needed to have more time. As members reflect on that, they can look at the past, how that can be dealt with, and the current practice. And then we'll come with a determination. So it's just for tabling and reflection, but the Rules Committee will deal with it after it has been sent to the subcommittee.

Ms Mente: we seem to be losing focus of what was the purpose of the additional hour. The additional hour was to accommodate all of us so that we could ask questions. There has been this conflating of issues when dealing with this matter: asking a question as a Member and a follow-up question. Asking a follow-up question is not your question. You're simply following up, and you have very limited time to do that. But to ask a question you want to ask and get an answer is something different. So this one hour was to accommodate that part. All of us will ask follow-up questions. There is no party here that will leave without asking a follow-up question. So, the one hour was to make sure that all 18 parties could at least appear on the question paper, asking questions. It must be elevated to a point where everyone is accommodated in terms of asking the question, and then we'll take it from there.

The Chairperson: this argument is good for those who must deliberate in the subcommittee.

Meeting adjourned.