Hon House Chairperson, hon members of the National Council of Provinces, it is with a deep sense of pride that today we debate, once again, a report on our "Taking Parliament to the People" programme, which took place in one of our provinces. It is heartening, I must say, to note that once again this event was equally successful, adding to a string of similar events since we initiated this programme.
The Chairperson of the NCOP has said a number of times in the past that the success of this programme is in itself a challenge to the NCOP in many ways. It needs us to remain focused so that together we use it to build the kind of South Africa we want, a South Africa where Parliament serves as the true voice of the people and where issues of service delivery are a matter of public dialogue.
We also need not to shy away from raising issues that we feel should be done differently with regard to this programme, as long as we do so in the interest of strengthening this programme and bettering the lives of our people.
I am happy to participate in this debate, because there are three issues I would like to bring before this House. Firstly, I want to express our appreciation to the political leadership in the Northern Cape, for not only embracing the programme, but for ensuring that they are with us on the ground, ensuring co-operative governance in action.
For this I must thank the hon Premier, Dipuo Peters, for ensuring that she was always with us as we listened to the people of Kgalagadi. She is the first Premier to have managed to attend every day during similar visits. We should laud her commitment to the cause of the people and, importantly, for the guidance she offered during our visit.
Equally, we extend this gesture to the Speaker of the Northern Cape legislature, hon Khonisio Sepengwe. We know that without the partnership between our two institutions we would not have achieved what we had set out to achieve.
Our appreciation also goes to the Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry, the hon Elizabeth Thabethe, and other members of the executive and provincial executive council, as well as fellow legislatures. It is through this co-operation that we can actually give meaning to the spirit of the Constitution and the very existence of the NCOP.
The second point I would like to raise relates to our understanding of the work that the National Council of Provinces must do. I know that we may not necessarily be sharing equally a common understanding, hence I wish to remind all of us about how we have, over the years, understood the role and function of the National Council of Provinces beyond the well-known constitutional provision, as the following observations from some of our leaders indicate.
The hon President Nelson Mandela, in his annual address to the National Council of Provinces in 1998, said:
The NCOP is uniquely placed to reflect the diversity of our society and to synthesise the experience of those spheres of government which are charged with a great bulk of the task of implementing our national programme of fundamental change.
He continued by posing these questions to the members of the new NCOP at that time:
Are the programmes outlined in our state of the nation address at the beginning of the year on course? Are the problems identified then and indeed in our debate in the National Council of Provinces last year being addressed? Are we able to take early warning of problems which may, if left to themselves, in due course catch the nation unawares when they assume the proportions of crisis?
I think we can read in this observation how the NCOP, as expected by President Mandela then, should engage with issues as we continue with our transformation agenda. In his annual address to the National Council of Provinces in Limpopo last year, the hon President Thabo Mbeki had this to say about the National Council of Provinces:
The NCOP is the only institution within our constitutional system of governance that straddles all three spheres of our co-operative governance construct, the national, provincial and local. Therefore it has the possibility and the mandate to keep a constant eye on the processes that must integrate legislative and executive decisions in all spheres of government and ensure the practical implementation of these decisions, especially to the extent that they impact directly on the lives of the people. I am certain that hon members do share this understanding, more especially in terms of what the National Council of Provinces represents and must do.
On the occasion of the Budget Vote of the Department of Provincial and Local Government last year, the hon Sydney Mufamadi elaborated on this role in talking about the programme, "Taking Parliament to the People". He said:
This ``Taking Parliament to the People'' and other initiatives of a similar kind provide a platform to the National Council of Provinces to execute its oversight mandate regarding the practice of intergovernmental relations.
As the NCOP interacts with the people on the basis of its own programme, it will no doubt make its own determination as to what is required to change the lives of the people for the better. It will also be able not only to assess the efficacy of the strategic plans of individual departments, but also to evaluate our instruments for co-ordinating the delivery of crosscutting programmes.
The National Council of Provinces will have to satisfy its government; that government has to put in place strategic plans, which at once offer certainty and predictability as the development goals that are being pursued, and also have the necessary flexibility to respond to political and economic feedback.
He went on to say:
Given the historical peripheralisation of the people in the townships and the rural areas of our country, your decision to sit in provinces must indeed be commended, for it serves to underscore the point that the institutional foundations of our government and Parliament are shaped by an unbending commitment to inclusivity.
I am citing these statements from some of our leaders to highlight the fact that there should not be any misunderstanding of the role that the National Council of Provinces was set up to play, which it has played and which it must continue to play to respond to current challenges. The leadership of the National Council of Provinces, as I have said in my opening, is clear that a programme like this would not be without challenges, but we also appeal that these challenges must be addressed in the same spirit which brought about this important institution. I challenge hon members to reflect on these observations by some of our leaders and see to what extent we have given expression to them as this House.
At this point let me come to the third point I would like to make. In order to ensure that we do not merely appear to be paying lip service to the ideals of this programme, which are to assist our government at national, provincial and local level, to render quality service to the people we have decided to strengthen our follow-up mechanism. Earlier this year we discussed with the Whippery and the Chairperson's Forum, a framework to follow up on issues raised during our "Taking Parliament to the People" visits.
I must again say that this is merely a framework, which is intended to facilitate our activities. As the presiding officers of the NCOP we have, after considering and factoring in some of the issues raised by members at the sessions I have mentioned, adopted a framework. The intention behind this framework is to strengthen the programme by making sure that we, in a systematic way, do something about the issues our people continue to raise, so that this programme can begin to have a huge impact towards changing their lives. The framework has eight steps: The first step is the compilation and editing of the report, which we say must take place within one working week after the visit.
The second step entails the consideration of the report by the political steering committee, which oversaw preparations for the visit. This is to allow for the political process for considering the report before it is published. This must take place within three working weeks after the visit.
The third step is the publishing of the report in the Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports. The intention is to allow for the consideration of the report by committees so that they isolate committee- specific issues in preparation for the debate, within two working weeks after the publishing of the report in the Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports.
The fourth step is the consideration of the report by the House. This step must allow for the identification of subject-specific input to guide committees to follow-up areas. We are also saying that at the time we consider this report, as we do this afternoon, we should have some indication as to how we intend to deal with the issues raised in the report, so that as we debate here we have an idea as to what necessary steps we need to take. We say that the House must consider the report within four working weeks from the date of publishing the report in the Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports.
The fifth step is the publishing of the report to all the role-players and stakeholders that participated during the visit. This must happen within a week from the date of the adoption of the report by the House.
The sixth step will be committee follow-up programmes. This is the stage where select committees must finalise their plans and mechanisms for follow up. That is why we say this is a framework because committees must then come up with their own ways of following up. This we say must happen within two working weeks from the date of adoption of the report by the House.
The seventh step will be quarterly reports by committees on the work they are doing as part of the follow-up exercise. I think committee chairpersons themselves agreed in their workshop earlier this year to having quarterly reports, so reporting on the follow-up will form part of those reports.
The eighth step will be special follow-up visits. Presiding officers must assess the follow-up work being done by committees to see if there are any necessary interventions which may require a special delegation of the House visiting the province again. This assessment must be done within eight months after the visit in cases where the members of the executive had made certain undertakings and given timeframes, but overall this exercise must be done within eighteen months from the date of the visit. I hope that we will not wait for eighteen months but take this to be the maximum period required to see, from the committee follow-up exercises, there is a need to go back to the province as the delegation of the House or any form of intervention they may deem fit.
The follow-up visits, which we have started, are intended also to assist us to provide feedback to the province. We have confidence that if we adhere to this framework as we go about doing our follow-up, we will be able, as the hon Minister for Provincial and Local Government said, to assess the efficacy of strategic plans of government departments. I am sure members would recall that supporting this programme is a commitment we had made and which is contained in our Strategic Document Programme 2009. Strengthening our follow-up mechanisms will enable us to achieve our 2009 objectives.
We have no time to spare, as hon members have shown through their hard work. We stand foursquare behind the struggle to free our people from poverty and underdevelopment. I thank you. [Applause.]