Come, this is something serious! Please bear with me. Madam Chairperson, this Parliament has not yet snapped out of the Westminster system. Just apply your minds to this Report for a couple of minutes. This report does not contain anything but an interim arrangement on private member's Bills, and at the end it says, "To be considered".
The Constitution tells us that this Parliament must operate in terms of Rules adopted by this Parliament. These are the Rules. Can any of you tell me what it is that we are doing? Are we adopting a Rule? Rule 4 speaks of a "convention or a Rule of practice". What is this interim arrangement? We cannot continue to legislate our proceedings the way the Westminster parliament used to do and as we have done up to now. We are again going straight into the type of trouble which was highlighted in the case brought by President Lekota. It is ... [Interjections.] Well, give him time! [Laughter.] The hon Lekota is the president of Cope. We cannot support this because it is a procedural aberration. If we want to make a Rule, let's make a Rule. If we want to make a temporary Rule, let's make a temporary Rule. Until somebody tells me what it is that we are doing, we cannot support it.
Then we have to "consider" it! What does it mean to consider an interim arrangement? It is only we as the National Assembly who can make Rules, and not the Rules Committee. Are we approving it? That's not what it says. It says we will "consider" it. Are we noting it? Are these going to become the Rules under which we operate? This is not how a Parliament can operate. This is fuzzy logic, fuzzy legalities.
On the merits, what this interim arrangement tells us, and we opposed it in the Rules Committee, is that there cannot be a First Reading debate on a private member's Bill, where there can be a First Reading debate on a Minister's Bill. Our point is: Don't tie your hands! There might be a very meritorious private member's Bill, which is worth discussing in a First Reading debate. Leave the discretion to the Programming Committee.
Why do we have a second-rate category for private members' Bills, as opposed to Ministers' Bills when the Constitutional Court tells us that they are on the same footing and they must be treated on the same basis? This really leaves the feeling that while this Parliament has defined the Constitutional Court, as soon as the Constitutional Court decides on something, we backtrack and go around it. We create a nice little interim arrangement to detract from the very nature of what the Constitutional Court has given us. This is wrong.
I know that this is not the right time - it is the last session of Parliament - to apply one's mind to technical issues but, please, do try. [Time expired.] [Applause.]