Deliberations

Z A Dingani (Secretary to Parliament); K Hahndiek (Secretary to the National Assembly); L Matyolo (Secretary to the NCOP); L Klassen (Manager: Institutional Support Division); H Charlton (Chief Financial Officer); H Burger (Manager: Strategic Planning); F Jenkins (Legal Services Office); J-A Borien (NCOP Procedural Services), M Griebenow (NA Table).

1. Opening and welcome

The Chairperson of the NCOP opened the meeting at 08:10.

2. Apologies (Item 1 on agenda)

Apologies were tendered on behalf of the Deputy Speaker (Ms G L Mahlangu-Nkabinde), the Deputy Chairperson of the NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu), Ms N D Ntwanambi, Mrs J N Vilakazi and Messrs K O Bapela, M J Ellis and J H van der Merwe.

3. Consideration of agenda (Item 2 on agenda)

The agenda, as presented, was agreed to.

4. Consideration and adoption of vision statement (Item 3 on agenda)

The Speaker reminded members that the draft text of the vision statement had been discussed at a meeting between the whips and the Secretary to Parliament. She asked the Secretary to Parliament to indicate what progress had been made.

The Secretary to Parliament reported that a meeting had been called to consider those areas of the text of the vision statement that the Committee had identified as being problematic, with a view to amending the text so that it would be acceptable to everyone. Two meetings had failed to take place. At the third meeting, two proposals were put forward. As there was not enough time to discuss them properly, both had now been tabled in the Committee as "New proposed vision (Option 1)" and "New proposed vision (Option 2)".

Mr Gibson, on behalf of the DA, said that there was not a great deal of difference between the options. He then expressed support for Option 2, subject to the following amendment: To substitute "Parliament" for "people's Parliament". The vision statement would, therefore, read as follows:

Mr Gibson said that his party would like the word "people's" removed because parliaments and countries around the world that used it were generally undemocratic. He said that a parliament was, in any case, an assembly representative of the people.

Mr Nel, on behalf of the ANC, also supported Option 2, subject to the following amendment: To substitute "their needs" for "the needs of the people". The vision statement would, therefore, read as follows:

He said that though ANC was aware of the objection of the DA, and of the ACDP in an earlier meeting, in a South African context it was clear what was meant by the phrase "people's Parliament". South Africa had a history in which Parliament had not been representative and excluded people. Parliament had, however, moved to being open, transparent, inclusive and participatory. The intention was to involve as wide a range of people as possible in shaping and deciding their own destiny, and there could not be any objection to that.

Mrs Seaton, on behalf of the IFP, initially proposed the omission of the first and third reference to "people", but subsequently withdrew the proposal and seconded the proposal by the DA.

Mrs De Lille said that the ID supported the proposal of the ANC.

The Chairperson of the NCOP stressed the fact that she did not want the matter to go to a vote, but would prefer parties to reach consensus.

Mr Jeffery said that the ANC had not had any difficulty with the initial text of the vision statement proposed by the Secretary to Parliament, but had agreed to some changes to accommodate the concerns raised by other parties. Given the history of South Africa, the reference to "people's Parliament" was important to the ANC. He appealed to other parties to reconsider their objection to the phrase. He added that from a procedural point of view, the vision and mission statement would have to go to both Houses for decision if the Committee could not reach sufficient consensus.

Mr Gibson said that he disagreed with Mr Jeffery and proposed as an alternative that "people's Parliament" be replaced by "democratic Parliament". The vision statement would, therefore, read as follows:

Mrs Seaton said that the IFP could not support a vision statement that included an ANC slogan.

Mr Jeffery said that though Parliament had a multiplicity of parties, it did not mean that the smaller parties could hold the rest to ransom. He said that the electoral support of parties had to be considered.

Mr Windvoël said that Parliament was representative of all the people in South Africa and therefore it was a "people's Parliament". That was not an ANC slogan. He reminded members of the Committee that certain compromises had already been made by the ANC and asked them to take that into account when objecting to the proposed vision statement.

Mr Setona said that if the DA's approach was going to be followed, the Committee would not reach consensus. He said that the earlier proposal would then have to be agreed to, namely to take the matter to the Houses for decision.

Mr Njikelana said that the ANC had fought for a "people's Parliament" and was not going to be apologetic about that. He proposed that the meeting move forward on the issue. If it was necessary to vote, the Committee should vote.

Mr Godi said that unless parties who were objecting to the ANC's proposal found the courage to rise to the challenge presented by the issue before the Committee, their proposals and counter-proposals would not change anything. On behalf of the PAC, he expressed support for the ANC's proposal.

The Chairperson of the NCOP reiterated that the ANC had the support of the ID and PAC, and the DA had the support of the IFP. Since the Committee could not reach consensus, the matter would be tabled in both Houses where it would debated and put to the vote, if necessary.

Mr Goniwe said that if that were indeed the position, the ANC reserved the right to revert to the original version that had been proposed.

The Speaker, noting that apart from some matters of detailed wording there was broad agreement on the basic approach, appealed to all parties to continue talking to one another in order to reach consensus before the matter was put to the Houses for decision.

Mr Nel reminded members of the Committee where the process had come from. It had started in 2003 with a series of workshops where members had actually engaged one another about what they wanted Parliament to be. He appealed to parties to attempt to reach consensus and not to continue the discussion in the acrimonious manner it had been conducted that morning.

Mrs Seaton said that she supported the view that parties should continue to discuss the matter.

On the proposal of the Chairperson of the NCOP, it was

AGREED: That the proposed Vision for Parliament would be presented to both Houses as part of a report for debate and decision, while parties would, in the meantime, continue their discussions in an attempt to reach consensus.

5. Consideration and adoption of the governance model (Item 4 on agenda)

The Speaker, continuing the meeting as chairperson, said that a range of issues had been raised in the previous meeting of the Committee with regard to the proposed governance model. Those issues had been referred to parties for further consideration.

The Speaker mentioned that a letter had been received from the ACDP, containing certain proposals. She proposed that the Committee immediately discuss any problem areas.

Mrs Seaton said that the IFP was concerned about the fact that the Secretary to Parliament, who was responsible for running the institution, would be directly involved in the directing authority. She asked whom the Secretary to Parliament would report to. The IFP was of the view that the Secretary to Parliament should only take part in the directing authority in his capacity as the Secretary. The directing authority should, in actual fact, be directing him.

Mr Nel said that the ANC supported the establishment of what had been termed "the directing authority", but suggested that the Committee look at the name in the course of its work. He said that there was clearly a need for a smaller body that could meet regularly to oversee and monitor the implementation of policy, the day-to-day running of Parliament and the work of parliamentary officials in their execution of policy. He added that the ANC had no problem with the Secretary to Parliament being part of the structure. In fact, the ANC regarded it as essential.

He said that the ANC was of the view that the area that required further discussion was where policy-making would be located. In other words, what was the role of the Committee with regard to policy-making and what should the relationship between the Committee and the directing authority be. He added that the document proposed that policy-making would reside with the Houses, but it did not spell out clearly how the Houses would be engaged in real policy-making. The possibility of either the Committee or a similar body being engaged in the processing of policy should be explored.

Mrs De Lille said that the ID objected to the composition of the directing authority. She proposed that all parties that qualified for a whip should be included in the directing authority. Also, the smaller parties could be included according to the same system whereby they were currently accommodated, namely that they were grouped together and had one or two whips representing them. If that were not done, Parliament would not be fulfilling the constitutional requirement of having a representative body managing Parliament and directing it with regard to policy.

Mr Gibson said that the DA supported the concept of a directing authority. It also supported multiparty involvement in the directing authority. However, if all parties were included, as suggested by Mrs De Lille, the number of the directing authority would increase from 9 to 14 or 15. He proposed that all opposition parties from the third largest to the smallest should meet and select one representative for them.

Mr Gibson also raised the issue of deputies. He said that the composition of the directing authority provided for the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker to be members, but only for the chief whip of a party. He proposed that if a chief whip was unable to attend a meeting, he or she should be allowed to delegate his or her deputy to attend. He said that it was not necessary to make provision for both, but that one or the other should be allowed to attend.

There was also the issue of the representation of the National Council of Provinces. The composition referred only to the Chief Whip of the Council. Since there was also a whip in the NCOP representing the DA, the chief whip of the largest opposition party in the NCOP should be included in the directing authority.

Mr Gibson added that the DA also had concerns as to whether the Secretary to Parliament should be part of the directing authority or simply attend its meetings. The DA had decided though to support the Secretary to Parliament being part of the directing authority, because he had to make policy decisions every day and needed to be part of the decision-making structure.

At the request of the Speaker, Mr Hahndiek reported that the following parties qualified for a whip in the National Assembly: ANC, DA, IFP, UDM, ID, ACDP and NNP. The remaining five parties were represented by two whips. The proposal by Mrs De Lille would therefore mean that the composition of the directing authority would increase from 9 to 15.

Mr Masithela said that it appeared that there was agreement in principle with the establishment of the directing authority. He proposed that the Subcommittee on Review of the Joint Rules should be tasked with developing a proposal that could be brought to the next meeting for finalisation. He said that if the directing authority were to be expanded, the composition had to reflect the proportionate strength of parties in Parliament. The ANC had a representation of 70% and therefore the ANC should have the same representation on the directing authority, excluding the presiding officers.

The Speaker warned that if the directing authority was too large, Parliament would be immobilised.

Mr Jeffery said that they had agreed in principle on the concept of something like the directing authority to look at the implementation of decisions, but policy would still be made elsewhere, presumably by the Rules Committees and the Joint Rules Committee. He said that the ANC was not accepting the document as such, as there was still detail that had to be discussed and on which more information was needed. The matter was not yet at the stage where consideration could be given to rule changes.

He asked whether it would be possible to establish the directing authority informally and then to assess later whether the structure had to be refined. The concerns of the smaller parties had been noted. However, addressing their concerns would have an impact on the size of the directing authority. Another possibility was to look at whether the meetings of the directing authority would be closed or whether all parties would be notified of meetings. It could be that the actual attendance by the smaller parties was less frequent than expected. The solution, therefore, could be that smaller parties did not formally form part of the directing authority, but that they could attend meetings.

Mrs De Lille said that the focus should be on the way forward and not on what went wrong in the past. She said that the purpose of the exercise was to change, and not necessarily based on the past. In terms of the rules, any member could attend any committee meeting, but they were not able to vote. She asked whether the membership of the directing authority would be closed, with no other members except those mentioned in the document being allowed to attend its meetings. She objected to the view that the largest majority party and the largest opposition party represented all parties. The composition of 15 was not that large, particularly given that the Chief Whips' Forum would be done away with.

The Speaker pointed out that the Chief Whips' Forum was not being done away with. She reminded the Committee that concern existed about the fact that the Chief Whips' Forum was a structure of the National Assembly which did not incorporate the NCOP. She said that that had to be corrected in order for it to be representative of the views of Parliament.

Mr Njikelana said that the sooner the structure was adopted, the better. He proposed that timeframes be put in place. He added that it would be extremely helpful if the relationship between the Committee and the proposed directing authority was clarified, because then there would be certainty on exactly what the directing authority would be, also in terms of size and functions. He expressed support for the view that the directing authority should not be a large body.

The Speaker said that she had identified the following issues:

• the processing of policy and how matters would eventually come before the Houses;
• the relationship between the directing authority and the Joint Rules Committee;
• representivity on the directing authority, including giving smaller parties a voice; and
• the participation of the Secretary to Parliament in the directing authority.

The Speaker said that there was an established structure comprised of the Presiding Officers and the Secretariat that met regularly. She suggested that the Committee could mandate that structure to look at the issues she had listed and bring a response to the next meeting of the Committee. At the same time, the Presiding Officers and the Secretariat should not be immobilised and should begin operationalising the system. The Speaker said the Presiding Officers and the Secretariat would look at setting up the structures during the recess.

Mrs Seaton said that she supported the proposal that the directing authority be set up on an interim or informal basis to start off with. She said that she envisaged the Committee still playing an important role in policy-making, whereas the main task of the directing authority would be to ensure that implementation took place. She agreed that the Presiding Officers should be given a mandate to look at the issues that the Speaker had referred to.

Mr Nel said that the ANC agreed with the proposal, even though it had felt initially that the matter should be referred to the Subcommittee on Review of the Joint Rules. He emphasised that the process should move ahead speedily. The central issue was to identify what body processed policy and what the relationship between the Committee and the directing authority would be, because that would also inform the composition of the directing authority. If the directing authority's focus was implementation and oversight, then it did not have to be a large structure, because it would be reporting to a structure that was more broadly representative.

The Speaker said that she was hesitant to refer matters that had not been finalised to the Subcommittee on Review of the Joint Rules because then the subcommittee was being given a policy-making function. The subcommittee had to get its direction from the Committee.

Ms Mentor said that she agreed with Mr Jeffery's proposal on an interim structure. She emphasised that the relationship between the directing authority and the Committee had to be clarified. The issues of policy-making and management had to be separated. As she understood it, the directing authority would be responsible for management, the implementation of policy and monitoring, while the Committee would retain the responsibility for policy-making.

The Speaker said that policy-making resided in the Houses, but it was necessary to look at detail. Clearly, the Committee had a critical role in processing policy that would finally be adopted by the Houses. The directing authority had an oversight role over management, who was responsible for implementing policy. The Parliamentary Service, headed by the Secretary to Parliament, was responsible for management. It was only with respect to the management of Parliament that the Secretary to Parliament could make policy. In other words, he did not make policy with regard to the overall approach, for example to the budget of Parliament or in setting priorities with regard to the running of Parliament.

Mr Harding said that with due regard to the speed with which the governance model had to be put in place, it was nevertheless important to look at the previous discussion on the vision statement. The directing authority was part of the operationalisation of the vision statement. There was a disparity between having an all-inclusive vision statement and considering having only a small group making up the directing authority. The one was linked to the other and yet, at present, they were at odds with each other.

The Speaker said that the broad question of representation in the directing authority would be looked at. She drew the meeting's attention to the organogram, in particular the composition of the Consultative Forum. The Speaker proposed that the entry "chairpersons of caucus" be adjusted to read "chairpersons of caucus/party representatives", as in different parties the chairpersons of the caucus functioned differently. Mrs Seaton proposed that the reference could be only to "party representatives". It could then be left up to parties to decide whether to designate their chairpersons of the caucus or someone else. Ms Mentor then suggested that the reference to "chairpersons of caucus/party representatives" be retained.

The Speaker said that it was not really an issue, but that the place of the Chief Whips' Forum had to be included in the document. She suggested that the organogram should be revisited and the links identified and explored. A revised document could then be discussed at the next meeting of the Committee.

Mr Jeffery said that if the Presiding Officers and the Secretariat were going to process the matter further, he wanted to draw their attention to the number of subcommittees that would be affected, in particular the subcommittee dealing with the parliamentary budget. He said that the directing authority would, in effect, be preparing the budget. It was, therefore, important to spell out who would adopt the parliamentary budget. The Speaker pointed out that a Forum on the Parliamentary Budget had been established and had to be factored in when considering Mr Jeffery's concerns.

Mrs De Lille said that she had not received an answer as to whether the directing authority would be closed or whether any other whip would be able to attend but perhaps not vote. The Speaker said that it was an issue that would have to be looked at specifically, as it required a well-considered response.

In response to a question by Mrs De Lille, the Speaker confirmed that the Presiding Officers and the Secretariat would begin to set up the directing authority, consider its agenda and look at a date for the first meeting. The Speaker requested that a meeting of the Committee be scheduled before the first meeting of the directing authority.

On the proposal of the Speaker, it was

AGREED: That the Presiding Officers and the Secretariat would reconsider and refine the proposals before the Committee, with particular attention to the following: -

• the processing of policy and the role of the Chief Whips' Forum, the Quarterly Consultative Forum and the Joint Ad Hoc Committee on Parliamentary Budget;
• the relationship between the directing authority and the Joint Rules Committee;
• representivity on the directing authority; and
• the participation of the Secretary to Parliament in the directing authority.

6. Closing (Item 5 on agenda)

The meeting adjourned at 09:20.