Deliberations

JOINT RULES COMMITTEE
18 November 2004
DELIBERATIONS

These minutes were provided by the National Assembly Table Staff

Chairpersons: Ms B Mbete (Speaker)
Mr M J Mahlangu (Deputy Chairperson of the NCOP)

Present:

Staff in attendance:
Z A Dingani (Secretary to Parliament); M Coetzee (Deputy Secretary to Parliament); K Hahndiek (Secretary to the National Assembly); L Matyolo (Secretary to the NCOP); H Charlton (Chief Financial Officer); L Klassen (Manager: Institutional Support Division); N Keswa (Manager: Legislation and Oversight Division); M Mbangula (Manager: Corporate Services Division), E Palmer (Chief Legal Adviser); Z Adikharie (Legal Services Office); J-A Borien (NCOP Procedural Services Office); M Griebenow (NA Table).

Opening and welcome

The Speaker of the National Assembly opened the meeting at 09:40.

Apologies (Item 1 on agenda)

Apologies were tendered on behalf of the Chairperson of the NCOP, Ms F I Chohan-Khota, Mrs P de Lille, Ms N C Kondlo, Ms L L Mabe, Ms N D Ntwanambi, Mrs A N D Qikani, Ms E Thabethe and Messrs F Adams, F Bhengu, K D S Durr, L M Green, A Harding, B H Holomisa, I S Mfundisi, N M Nene, S J Njikelana, D J Sithole, V G Smith, S E Tsenoli and V V Z Windvoël.

Consideration of agenda (Item 2 on agenda)

Mr Godi asked whether it was necessary to deal with items 7, 8 and 9 as the documents relating to those items were not available. The Speaker said that the items should remain on the agenda and the meeting should get a brief report on each.

Mr Jeffery pointed out that not all documents for the meeting had been distributed in advance of the meeting. He asked that the ordered way in which documents had been made available for the first meeting of the Joint Rules Committee be maintained as the standard.

The Speaker explained that part of the problem was some of the issues on the agenda depended on feedback from members and staff were often delayed by having to wait for input from elsewhere. She said, however, that the request had been noted and asked staff to continue with the good example that had been set previously.

The agenda, as presented, was adopted.

Consideration of vision statement (Item 3 on agenda)

The Speaker said that there had been lengthy discussions on the proposed vision for Parliament and eventually it had been agreed to in principle. All the Committee required was a report on the current status, as the final text still had to be agreed. She said that parties had been talking to one another in order to reach agreement.

Mr Gibson said that parties had been engaged in discussions, but no agreement had been reached. He said that the Committee had decided on a previous occasion that the matter would be taken to the Houses for debate if that were the case. He proposed that the vision statement go to the Houses for debate and decision.

The Speaker said that she first wanted feedback in order to establish how far parties had gone in trying to reach agreement.

Ms Seaton said the IFP had agreed to accept the vision statement as proposed by the ANC. The Speaker confirmed that the proposal of the ANC was reflected as Option 2 in the First Report of the Joint Rules Committee, dated 21 September 2004.

Mr Godi said that the PAC had no objection to the proposal of the ANC, as indicated in the minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee.

Mr Nefolovhodwe indicated that though he had not been present at the previous meeting of the Committee, Azapo also agreed with the proposal of the ANC.

Ms Rajbally said that the MF supported Option 2.

Mr Tlhagale said that the UCDP also supported Option 2.

Dr Mulder said that the FF Plus would have preferred the term "democratic Parliament" as opposed to "people's Parliament" in Option 2. However, since it was not a serious matter, the FF Plus would support Option 2.

The Speaker requested a show of hands to indicate support for Option 2, whereupon she confirmed that all parties present except the DA had shown their support for Option 2.

NOTED:
That all parties except the DA were in support of the vision statement as set out in Option 2 of the First Report of the Joint Rules Committee, dated 21 September 2004. (As its members could not be present at the meeting, the ACDP had indicated its support for Option 1 in writing.)

On the proposal of the Speaker, it was
AGREED: That the preferred vision statement (Option 2) would be put before both Houses.

Consideration of governance model (Item 4 on agenda)

The Speaker suggested that the meeting might not want to consider the document on the governance model line by line. She explained that the latest text of the document indicated that there were two streams of activities in Parliament. One stream, which was the focus of the Joint Rules Committee, dealt with the core business of Parliament, some of which was captured in the Constitution. The other stream dealt with the actual running of the institution, including matters such as the budget.

The Speaker said that it would be a major step forward if the Committee were to adopt the approach reflected in the document. She said that there was a need to focus the work of the Joint Rules Committee. In fact, the Committee had to develop a practice of reporting to the Houses, something which had been neglected in the past. The Houses were the authority that made policy and gave the go-ahead for things to be done in a particular way, especially relating to the core business of Parliament. The document included organograms that attempted to convey the process that would be followed.

The Speaker reminded the meeting of the specific questions that had been raised at the previous meeting of the Joint Rules Committee, such as the relationship between the Joint Rules Committee and what was then referred to as the directing authority (referred to as the Parliamentary Oversight Authority in the latest document), the role of the Chief Whips' Forum in policy discussions in Parliament and its relationship with the Parliamentary Oversight Authority.

The Speaker said that on the issue of the representation on the Parliamentary Oversight Authority had been raised at the previous meeting, particularly with regard to the representation of the smaller parties. The document tried to deal with that by suggesting that the smaller parties should get together and nominate a member to represent them. The smaller parties had agreed to that approach.

On the question of the relationship between the Joint Rules Committee and the Parliamentary Oversight Authority, the answer was that there was no direct relationship. However, both structures were chaired by the presiding officers, so there was contact between the two. Both structures also reported to the Houses.

On the issue of the Chief Whips' Forum and the Quarterly Consultative Forum, the Speaker said that the Chief Whips' Forum of the National Assembly would continue to meet and function as it had. She added, however, that there was a need to revisit the Rules on the involvement of the presiding officers in that forum, as the current arrangement was not working. There was also a need for a joint structure of whips that would enable the whips of the National Assembly and the whips of the National Council of Provinces to meet. That body could determine for itself how often it would meet. The joint forum’s input would allow for the channeling of the perspectives of members.

The Speaker pointed out that there had been agreement at the previous meeting that the Secretary to Parliament would sit on the Parliamentary Oversight Authority, as he headed the Parliamentary Service which was responsible for the implementation of policy in respect of the parliamentary administration.

She added that the issue of policy was another vexed question, but not necessarily a complicated one. There were different types of policy. For example, in implementing policy, the Secretary to Parliament and his staff were involved in making policy every day. However, when it came to policy about the core business of Parliament, the Joint Rules Committee would process the issues and the recommendations of the Committee would be taken to the Houses for consideration.

The Speaker said that the organogram on page 3 of the document needed to be reviewed, because it incorrectly indicated that the Parliamentary Oversight Authority resorted under the Parliamentary Service. The organogram on page 4 also incorrectly indicated that the Programme Committees resorted under the core business that the Joint Rules Committee would deal with. That was a problem, as the Programme Committees were mechanisms of regulating the business that had to be overseen by those who help to run Parliament. Putting it under the core business to be dealt with by the Joint Rules Committee would immobilise the institution. The organogram on page 9 also needed to be reviewed, particularly in respect of the way in which the Joint Rules Committee was presented as a marginal activity.

Mr Nel said that they had studied the document and were in broad agreement with the underlying principles and approach outlined in the document. He made the following proposals on behalf of the ANC, but added that they did not detract from their overall support for the approach outlined in the document:

Page 2:

First paragraph: The reference to "provincial administration" should be replaced by the phrase " provincial government"
Third paragraph: The third last sentence had to be amended as follows:
"A lack of administrative support to the subcommittees added to the difficulties."

Page 3:
The organogram had to be amended not to reflect the Parliamentary Oversight Authority as resorting under the Parliamentary Service. The same applied to the Joint Rules Committee reflected under Parliamentary Core Business.
The line that connected "Parliamentary Core Business" and "Parliamentary Service" should be removed.
The term "Parliamentary Service" could be amended because it was unnecessarily restrictive.

Page 4:
The organogram was problematic. It had to be made clear that all areas that were listed were separate. For example, portfolio committees and select committees do not resort under the Joint Rules Committee.

Page 5:
In Item 3.2, paragraph (2)(a), "The Oversight Task Team’s reports, relating to a range of key issues such as" had to be substituted with "Matters relating to parliamentary oversight such as", since the Oversight Task Team was not intended to be a permanent structure.

Page 6:
Paragraph (i) was misplaced and should be moved to the beginning, for example as the second point, as it was a general statement.

Page 7:
Under "Definitions" the issue of the Chief Whips’ Forum required further processing and discussion as to how to operationalise the contact and communication between the whips of the two Houses.

The definition of "Parliamentary Oversight Committee" should be substituted by the following: " - the authority that interprets and oversees the implementation of policy formulated by the policy-making authority, and determines the actual level of services".

Mr Nel added that policy was formulated at different levels by different bodies. The Joint Rules Committee formulated policy with regard to the core business of Parliament, while the administration formulated operational policy.

Ms Seaton said that the IFP agreed with the issues covered by the input of Mr Nel, but that she wanted to add the following proposal:

Page 9
The phrase "Policy-making Authority" in the top block of the organogram should be deleted and refer only to Parliament.

Ms Seaton went on to say that the IFP supported the participation of the Secretary to Parliament in the Parliamentary Oversight Authority, provided that it was in ex officio capacity and the Secretary to Parliament could not vote. The IFP was of the view that since the Secretary to Parliament would be reporting to the Parliamentary Oversight Authority, he could not be a full member of that structure.

Mr Gibson said that the DA generally supported the proposals that had been made by Mr Nel and Mrs Seaton, but wanted to add the following proposals:

Page 5:
In Item 3.2, paragraph (1), the word "direct" should be substituted with a more suitable word, for example "advise", as the Joint Rules Committee could not "direct" Parliament on the manner in which it had to conduct its business.

Page 6:
The wording in paragraph (i) should be amended as follows: "The Joint Rules Committee will develop overall policy on issues related to the core business of Parliament, subject to the approval of Parliament."

Mr Gibson said that the DA was also concerned that the composition of the Parliamentary Oversight Authority did not provide for deputy chief whips to attend meetings in those instances when the chief whip was not available. He proposed the inclusion, on page 11, of the words "or his/her deputy" in (v), (vi) and (vii). The deputies could then attend the meetings if the chief whip could not be there.

The composition of the Parliamentary Oversight Authority also did not include a broad representation from the National Council of Provinces, except for the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the NCOP and the Chief Whip of the Council. Mr Gibson proposed that the DA chief whip in the NCOP or the leader of the largest opposition party in the NCOP should also be included in the membership of the Parliamentary Oversight Authority.

Mr Goniwe said that there was some validity in the issues raised by Mr Gibson. However, the position in the ANC was that when the chief whip was not available, the deputy chief whip automatically acted as chief whip. The ANC was more concerned about a situation where neither the chief whip nor the deputy chief whip was available. He proposed that the composition should make provision for "a member duly designated by the chief whip" to attend the meetings of the Parliamentary Oversight Authority in the absence of the chief whip.

Mr Jeffery said that the smaller parties would have to reach agreement on who the alternate members to represent them on the Parliamentary Oversight Authority would be.

The Speaker warned against an approach to the structure of "anyone can go". She said that it was important for the primary members to attend the meetings. The alternative arrangements talked about should apply only in exceptional situations.

Mr Nefolovhodwe said that the small parties had been concerned that the members designated to represent them might, on occasion, not be available to attend meetings of the Parliamentary Oversight Authority. The small parties had therefore agreed to propose that it be indicated that alternatives would be sent. However, they would notify the relevant structures in advance who would be attending a particular meeting.

Mr Godi added that only one of the smaller parties, namely the ID, had objected to the formulation for representation stipulated in the document. The other parties had nominated and agreed on their two members and their names would be submitted to the Speaker. He said that they had also agreed on one alternate member.

Mr Shiceka said that since the NCOP represented provinces and not parties, it did not require further representation on the Parliamentary Oversight Authority.

Ms Mentor said that she agreed with the point raised by Mrs Seaton regarding the Secretary to Parliament serving on the Parliamentary Oversight Authority in an ex officio capacity.

The Speaker said that based on the comments that had been made, it appeared that there was agreement on the broad thrust of the governance model and the amendments proposed, specifically those by Mr Nel, should be incorporated into the document.

Mr Shiceka said that there was a proposal that the joint whippery structure be called the Joint Whips’ Forum in the interim. The Speaker asked the whips to look into the matter. She said that the idea was simply that there had to be an opportunity for whips from both Houses to get together to discuss matters of mutual concern and interest.

On the proposal of the Speaker, it was
AGREED: That -
in the absence of the chief whip, the deputy chief whip or a member duly designated by the chief whip could attend meetings of the Parliamentary Oversight Authority;
the smaller parties would forward to the presiding officers the names of the members who would represent them on the Parliamentary Oversight Authority and the names of their alternate members;
a designated alternate could not attend a meeting if the full member was present; and
the Secretary to Parliament would serve on the Parliamentary Oversight Authority in ex officio capacity.

RESOLVED:
On the motion of Ms Mentor, seconded by Mr Gibson, the governance model as presented was agreed, subject to the adjustment of details as identified at the meeting, the Secretary to convene the Parliamentary Oversight Authority accordingly.

Consideration of system for referral of bills to National House of Traditional Leaders in terms of section 18 of Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act, Act 41 of 2003 (Item 5 on agenda)

Mr Hahndiek presented a document entitled "Referral of Parliamentary Bills to National House of Traditional Leaders – outline of parliamentary system" which had been distributed to members of the Committee earlier.

Mr Mzizi said that he had a problem with the terminology of "traditional leaders" being used generically to include, inter alia, "indunas" and "amakhosi". The Deputy Chairperson of the NCOP said that Mr Mzizi was correct in pointing out that there were different types of traditional leaders. However, the document being considered referred specifically to the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act, which provided that the National House of Traditional Leaders should be made aware of bills that would affect customary law so that traditional leaders could inform their communities and ensure that there was public participation with regard to such issues.

Kgoshi Mokoena added that the legislation allowed provincial authorities to refer to traditional leaders according to the terminology that was relevant to that particular province.

Mr Masutha asked whether it was anticipated that the system that was being proposed in the document would be realised through the Joint Rules of Parliament. He also asked whether there were any bills currently before Parliament that needed to be referred to the National House of Traditional Leaders.

The Speaker said that it was important for the Committee to agree to the proposed system in principle and then whatever Rule changes were necessary could be referred to the Joint Subcommittee on Review of the Joint Rules, as was the case with the acceptance of the governance model.

Mr Mkhalipi asked whether the compiler of the proposal had considered the section 185 Commission which represented the Khoi, San and other communities. If there was only a reference to traditional leadership, it could appear that Parliament was acting insensitively towards those communities. The Speaker reminded the meeting that the proposal was referring to a structure that had been created by statute.

Mr Nel said that the issue of who was represented by the National House of Traditional Leaders fell outside of the ambit of the deliberations of the Committee. He proposed that the Committee should adopt the document as a framework and refer it to the Joint Subcommittee on Review of the Joint Rules to draft the necessary rules.

Mr Nefolovhodwe said that he aligned himself with the point raised by Mr Masutha that the procedural matters needed to be finalised. The Joint Subcommittee on Review of the Joint Rules needed to determine at what stage the bills would be referred to the National House of Traditional Leaders.

Mr Hahndiek said that the parliamentary law advisers had looked at the bills that were currently before Parliament and were of the opinion that none of them were subject to the requirements of the Act.

On the proposal of the Speaker, it was
AGREED: That -
the system set out in the supporting document would be adopted in principle; and
the Joint Subcommittee on Review of the Joint Rules would be tasked with formulating the proposed rule amendments for consideration and adoption by the Joint Rules Committee.


Consideration of desirability of annual review of Constitution (Item 6 on agenda)

The Speaker pointed out that the Constitutional Review Committee had not yet been established. She appealed to parties to submit the names of their members who were to serve on the committee before they left for the constituency period, because the Constitution required the establishment of that committee.

Mr Gibson said that the legal opinion which had been distributed as part of the supporting documents did not address the problem of the size of the Constitutional Review Committee. The committee was too large and was therefore unable to meet. He suggested that the size of the committee should be changed and then parties could submit the names of their members to serve on the committee.

Mr Hahndiek pointed out that the Committee, at its meeting on 4 August 2004, had already agreed to reduce the size of the Constitutional Review Committee to 13 members from the National Assembly and 9 members from the National Council of Provinces.

The Speaker said that the question of the annual review could be taken further once the Constitutional Review Committee had been established. The priority was to form the structure first and then it could take the discussion forward.

On the proposal of the Speaker, it was
AGREED: That –
the membership of the Constitutional Review Committee would be finalised as a matter of urgency in accordance with the decision of the Joint Rules Committee at its meeting on 4 August 2004; and
the matter of whether it was appropriate to continue with an annual review of the Constitution, as required by the Constitution, would be placed on the committee’s agenda for consideration.

Implementation of oversight and accountability recommendations: Progress Report by Task Team (Item 7 on agenda)

Mr Nhleko said that the progress report of the Task Team on Oversight and Accountability had been circulated. He presented the report and highlighted the terms of reference of the task team, the various focus groups that had been constituted and the workshop that was scheduled for 28 January 2005. He said that the task team was also considering extending invitations to members who were not on the team to attend the workshop.

The Speaker said that the report had been presented for information. She added that the presiding officers had been concerned that the work of the task team shoud commence so that there would be something to guide the work of Parliament.

NOTED:
The progress report on the meeting of the Task Team on Oversight and Accountability on 17 November 2004.

9. International relations: Establishment of structured relations with European Union and other regional bodies (Item 8 on agenda)

The Speaker explained that the matter was not for discussion. She said that the presiding officers had been approached by the Department of Foreign Affairs, through the portfolio committee, with a request to establish a European Union–South African parliamentary friendship group. Friendship groups existed in other parliaments, but although the South African Parliament did not have such friendship groups, its parliamentarians visited other parliaments, and vice versa.

The Speaker said that the presiding officers had asked for a submission from the department that would indicate the regional groupings that existed and South Africa’s relationship with those groupings so that Parliament could consider the proposal in a broader context. Once a discussion had taken place, the Committee would have to consider whether it wanted to relook the issue of establishing friendship groups with other parliaments and bodies.

NOTED: That
information about the EU and other regional bodies globally had been requested to enable consideration of parliamentary friendship groups in broad terms; and
the relevant documents received from the Department of Foreign Affairs would be distributed to all members of the Joint Rules Committee

Ms Mentor urged that the matter be finalised speedily because there were developments in that sphere.

10. Code of Members’ Ethics (Item 9 on agenda)

The Speaker said that the matter was not yet ready for discussion by the Committee.

At the request of the Speaker, Mr Hahndiek explained that two issues had been referred to the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests, namely the sponsorship of committees and the issue of a code of members’ ethics. Mr Hahndiek confirmed that the issue of the sponsorship of committees was the same as Item 12 on the agenda, namely the external funding of committees.

Regarding the code of members’ ethics, the Speaker said that the previous Parliament had been engaged in lengthy discussions on the matter. In response to a question by the Speaker, Mr Landers explained that the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests would deliberate on the matter early in 2005 and report to the Joint Rules Committee thereafter.

NOTED: That –
the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests would deliberate on the matter early in 2005 and thereafter report to the Joint Rules Committee.

11. Implementation of Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act (Item 10 on agenda)

Mr Masutha presented the document entitled "Draft Interim Report of the Joint Subcommittee on Review of Rules to the Joint Rules Committee" that had been distributed to members of the Committee. He emphasised that the report had been circulated for noting only by the Committee. The subcommittee was still considering the issues and was not yet ready to submit specific proposals.

Mr Masutha concluded his presentation by extending an apology to the members of the NCOP component of the joint subcommittee for the difficulties experienced in providing adequate notice of the previous three meetings of the subcommittee.

Regarding the report by the Legal Services Office on the exchange of information with legislatures on the implementation of the Act, Adv Adhikarie reported that the seminar that the Western Cape provincial legislature had planned had been postponed. However, the legal advisers of the various provincial legislatures would be meeting the following week and the matter would be raised then.

The Speaker said that there was also a draft leave policy in existence that had to be brought to the Committee for consideration. Part of that policy was the issue of sanctions for members who were continuously absent from sittings and committee meetings. The Speaker said that those issues had to be aligned with the work currently being done by the Joint Subcommittee on Review of the Joint Rules.

In response to a question by Mr Modisenyane, the Speaker said that the Committee still had to adopt the leave policy. The matter should come before the Committee at its next meeting.

Ms Botha said that there were two aspects to the leave policy, namely leave and the issue of sanctions. She asked whether the two could be separated.

The Speaker said that the draft leave policy should be brought to the Committee for finalisation so that a policy could be put in place. At the same time, however, it was necessary for the sanctions contained in that document to be brought to the attention of the subcommittee so that there would not later be inconsistencies between those sanctions and the penalties envisaged by the Powers, Priviliges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act.

NOTED:
The progress report by the Joint Subcommittee on Review of the Joint Rules on the drafting of the necessary rules.
The (verbal) progress report by the Legal Services Office on an exchange of information with legislatures on the implementation of the Act.

On the proposal of the Speaker, it was
AGREED: That -
the draft leave policy which had been formulated would be tabled at the next meeting of the Joint Rules Committee for consideration; and
the question of sanctions, as contained in the proposed leave policy, would be brought to the attention of the Joint Subcommittee on Review of the Joint Rules.

The Deputy Chairperson of the NCOP took the Chair.

12. Co-chairpersons for certain joint committees: Proposal by National Council of Provinces (Item 11 on agenda)

The Deputy Chairperson of the NCOP said that the National Council of Provinces was giving further attention to the matter and proposed that it stand over.

NOTED: That the matter was being given further attention by the National Council of Provinces and therefore would stand over.

External funding of committees (Item 12 on agenda)

Mr Doidge presented the document entitled "Revised draft recommendations to the Joint Rules Committee on the sponsorship or funding of committees – 12 October 2001." He said that the document needed further refinement and improvement in order to bring it in line with new developments. He proposed that the document be referred to the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests for refinement and then be brought back to the Committee for consideration.

Ms Mentor said that she agreed in part with Mr Doidge’s proposal, but wanted to know whether the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests was the appropriate committee to deal with the matter. She proposed that the Committee should mandate the presiding officers to decide to which committee the matter should be referred to.

Mr Masithela said that there were two issues in the document that he wanted to raise, namely paragraphs 3.1 and 4.3. With regard to paragraph 3.1, he said that before the relevant presiding officer decided on the matter, he or she should allow the committee in question to make representations on the issue of conflict of interest. With regard to paragraph 4.3, he said that he did not think that it was appropriate that Parliament should account to the National Treasury. He asked that both paragraphs be relooked.

The Deputy Chairperson of the NCOP said that he was of the view that since the essence of the matter dealt with financial interests, the relevant committee would be the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests. He invited further comment from members.

Mr Nefolovhodwe said that if the presiding officers were of the view that the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests was the appropriate committee, then the matter should be referred to that committee.

Ms Seaton said that that she disagreed with Mr Masithela and was of the view that Parliament should account to the Treasury and the Auditor-General.

In response to a question by Mr Gibson, the Deputy Chairperson of the NCOP said that the presiding officers would decide which committee to refer the document to.

NOTED:
The document entitled "Revised draft recommendations to the Joint Rules Committee on the sponsorship of funding of committees – 12 October 2001" needed further refinement in the light of new developments.

On the proposal of the Deputy Chairperson of the NCOP, it was
AGREED: That -
the presiding officers would determine the appropriate committee to deal with the matter; and
a further report would be presented to the next Joint Rules Committee meeting.

Parliamentary travel policy (Item 13 on agenda)

Mr Doidge presented the document entitled "Draft framework and proposals for parliamentary travel policy." He pointed out that the Committee of Chairpersons had been approached to come up with proposals that would assist in drafting guidelines for parliamentary travel. Much work and discussion over a lengthy period had gone into the document that was currently before the Committee, particularly as committee chairpersons were in agreement that study tours, particularly those in South Africa, were an important means of fulfilling their oversight role.

The document recommended that it be used as a basis for drafting policy guidelines which could be referred to the Committee of Chairpersons for comment and then brought back to the Joint Rules Committee for final consideration.

The Speaker said that the intention was that members would study the contents of the document and then hopefully it could be adopted at the first meeting of the Committee the following year.

The Speaker said that it was Parliament’s intention to assist committees, once they had adopted their programmes and, based on their own decisions as to what they wanted to do, shown how study tours would enhance their activities.

However, there was every reason to be watchful, as there was often external pressure for Parliament to spend money on travel that had not directly been as a result of a decision by Parliament. The Speaker said that her Office had been grappling with the issue for a long time. She mentioned instances where Ministers asked certain members to form part of government delegations, some even specifying the exact number of members to accompany them.

The presiding officers had resisted such requests, as it was not for the executive to determine the activities of Parliament. How Parliament regulated its work, where it went and what it did had to be determined by Parliament itself. The presiding officers had, therefore, communicated with executive, informing them that it was in order for members to be invited to join government delegations, but in such cases the travel costs had to be borne by the executive.

The Speaker said that there were also instances where international organisations invited specific members to attend conferences. It would be in order if the whippery allowed the specific member or members to go and if the relevant organisation carried the costs. Where an organisation wrote to the presiding officers or the Secretary to Parliament to invite a delegation to attend a conference, the presiding officers would first ascertain whether the programme of the conference was such that it would be to Parliament’s benefit for a delegation to attend and then Parliament would determine who the members of the delegation would be. In such a case, Parliament could pay.

The Speaker concluded by saying that the challenge was always to look at whether there was a good reason why resources from outside should be used when there were resources available in Parliament. The issue of accessing money which was available in Parliament should be addressed. The challenge was to respond to the problems and difficulties experienced by committees in trying to access the money that had been budgeted for the work of committees. However, Parliament should not lightly accept external funding.

Ms Mentor said that she was appealing to members of the Committee to consider the possibility of members bringing one or two persons from their constituencies to Parliament once every five years as a way of strengthening public participation. She said that although the matter was not covered in the document which Mr Doidge had presented, it was something she wanted members to consider for discussion at the next meeting of the Committee.

Ms Oliphant said that since the Joint Rules Committee would be discussing the matter, the document should also include references to the committees of the National Council of Provinces.

The Deputy Speaker reminded members of the Committee that the NCOP was the National Assembly’s partner and therefore it was not enough for the National Assembly only to be mindful of the NCOP.

Mr Modisenyane asked whether members had to declare external funding received if they travelled in their individual capacities. The Chairperson of the NCOP said that the Code of Conduct was very clear that members had to declare such funding.

The Deputy Speaker said that in her previous capacity as chairperson of a committee, her experience was that most chairpersons were not given room to exercise their oversight function because the person who had to approve the study visit had not allowed the chairpersons any input as to why the study tour was required. The document needed to be considered with that in mind. The Deputy Speaker said that monies had been allocated to Parliament to empower members and should be used to that effect.

She added that the document did not refer to members with disabilities and those members were being prevented from functioning fully as public representatives. There were instances where a disabled member had to be part of a delegation for a planned study tour, but the member’s assistant then also had to be part of the delegation. Because of the limited number of people who could form part of the delegation, the member with the disability would not be included.

Kgoshi Mokoena said that part 9 of the document indicated that study tours should not be undertaken during constituency periods. However, because of the role assigned to the National Council of Provinces by section 139 of the Constitution, if a notice of an intervention was submitted during a constituency period, the select committee concerned with local government would have to visit the relevant municipality because of the constitutionally prescribed time periods. The document had to take account of that.

Mr Masithela said that the Deputy Speaker had covered most of what he had intended to raise. He said the matters raised by the Deputy Speaker touched on the issue dealt with under Item 12. There should in actual fact be a synergy between that and the funding for study visits. Both matters should be considered by the same committee.

When a committee adopted its annual programme, the programme usually included study visits. Once that programme had been approved, why should the committee have to motivate further in order to obtain funding. There should not be too many bureaucratic procedures which stifle what the committee had already decided. The presiding officers should only note that the committee was planning to undertake certain visits. It was very difficult for someone who was not a member of a particular committee to decide whether a study visit was the appropriate route or not.

Mr Masithela asked why study tours should be a budgeted for separately, given that each committee had its own budget. He said that the Committee Section should develop modalities in order to assist members to implement a committee’s decision to undertake a study visit. He said that any guidelines on committee travel should enable members to do their work properly.

Mr Baloyi suggested that the inputs from the members should be limited to the technical issues, rather than focusing on the content of the document that had been presented.

Mr Nefolovhodwe said that part 9 of the document was prescriptive with respect to the issue of when study visits should be undertaken. He suggested that the Committee of Chairpersons should look at when committees had scheduled study tours and harmonise the matter.

Mr Masutha said that if the understanding was that committee travel was administered by the Secretary to Parliament, all rules relating to the maximum rates for accommodation and so forth should not be matters which an ordinary committee member should have to exercise responsibility over. He said that members were not consulted with regard to accommodation, yet subsequently they received notices indicating that they had exceeded the maximum rate for accommodation and were required to reimburse Parliament. He said that such issues should be clear so that members did not have to take responsibility for issues over which they had no control.

The Deputy Chairperson of the NCOP said that it was important to understand that committees were not autonomous. They were committees of the House and should be working in terms of the priorities of Parliament. The business plans and programmes of committees needed to be adopted by the Houses so that the Houses could take note of what the committees were doing. Committees were ultimately accountable to Parliament.

Mr Doidge thanked the members for their contributions. He said that he agreed that there was too much bureaucracy around the matter and that a policy needed to be put in place. He said that further work would be done on the issue of members with disabilities and that the work would be done in conjunction with the NCOP.

On the proposal of the Deputy Chairperson of the NCOP, it was
AGREED: That –
the document entitled "Draft framework and proposals for parliamentary travel policy" would be referred to political parties for consideration and subsequent refinement, also taking into account the points raised at the meeting.

Other business (Items 14 – 19 on agenda)

On the proposal of the Deputy Chairperson of the NCOP, it was
AGREED: That the remaining agenda items, including the minutes of previous meetings, would stand over to the next meeting of the Joint Rules Committee

16. Closing

The Speaker closed the meeting by indicating that the presiding officers were pleased with the progress that had been at the meeting and with the adoption of the governance model. Mr Nel, on behalf of the members, thanked the presiding officers, the Secretary to Parliament and the staff for supporting the work of the Committee.

The meeting adjourned at 12:13.




____________ ________________
Ms B Mbete (Speaker) and Mr M J Mahlangu (Deputy Chairperson of the NCOP)
APPROVED ON: