Speaker, members of the executive and hon members, my input in this debate will focus on some of the issues that have been raised by the political parties, which are very valid and which deal with oversight activities, parliamentary committees, and also Information and communications technology, ICT, development in the legislative sector. In addition, I shall highlight the national projects and programmes that were facilitated over the last year, and those that are currently being implemented.
The National Assembly currently has 35 portfolio and ad hoc committees established in terms of the Rules. That also includes the recently established Joint Committees on the Scrutiny of Designated Legislation and on HIV and Aids.
For the third year in a row, a parliamentary framework - hon Van der Merwe - is indeed available that covers the full financial year period, which has been developed in consultation with the Programming Whip. Mention was made earlier that certain members do not know what is happening during the course of the year and in the following year. However, if you consulted that framework, which was adopted by the Joint Programming Committee, it should assist members. Perhaps we should look at the distribution of that programme again.
It certainly enabled committees and their chairpersons to be aware of the committee periods and the dedicated dates for oversight visits and study tours. This should allow committees and political parties to structure their activities and to plan ahead. The programmes of committees are monitored to ensure their implementation, and chairpersons regularly engage with my office to ensure procedural and other compliance issues in front of their committees.
It is indeed correct that during 2011 a number of committees did not manage to make the quorum to take decisions on matters that were in front of them. That is because members simply do not attend, for a variety of reasons. This matter - hon Mfundisi - was addressed to some extent, with the decision of the NA Rules Committee late last year to reduce the membership of portfolio committees to 12, to ensure the full participation of members. We have the experience that the smaller parties especially find it difficult to attend all the portfolio committee meetings, and when decisions need to be taken in front of the committees, they then struggle to make the quorum.
The review of the size of committees has resulted in an improved attendance of portfolio committee meetings and better co-ordination of oversight visits and study tours. Committees meet essentially on a weekly basis, only on two days-Tuesdays and Wednesdays. An increasing number of committees use Fridays for their meetings. We will find that, in certain instances, attendance is still poor, because MPs usually leave on a Thursday afternoon already to return to their constituencies. However, at Friday meetings, where you have dedicated members, those committees do take their work forward and they do a lot more than the other committees. Certainly, two days, a Tuesday and a Wednesday, are not enough for Members of Parliament to do their work. This leads to a situation where committees struggle to implement the programmes that they have adopted, and it also impacts negatively on sittings of the House.
The situation is exacerbated by the limited number of venues for committee meetings. We reported on this last year, and the situation has not improved. Subsequently, Parliament is forced to hire venues outside its precincts, at great expense, to accommodate meetings. This exercise is not only costly, but also leads to huge logistical and security concerns.
In the past year, 1 118 committee meetings took place. In terms of legislation that was processed, 28 Bills were passed during the last financial year for the period ending 30 March this year.
Since the last Budget Vote of Parliament, a number of content advisers and other support staff have been appointed to assist committees with their work. However, I agree with the hon members: The approach in providing support to committees cannot be mechanical and reduced to numbers. We should not be satisfied to say that the support staff have been appointed, content advisers have been appointed and research work is being done. We must focus on the quality of the output that is being expected from the people who have been appointed.
There is still a lack of strategic advice and support to junior officials working in the Committee Section. Managers must manage properly. We must ensure that when new staff members get attached to portfolio committees, they know exactly what is expected from them and that they get assisted in the execution of their duty. We still find instances, even with the appointment of additional staff members, where minutes of proceedings of committee meetings and oversight reports remain outstanding for months on end and are not adopted on time.
The questions we need to ask ourselves are: What is happening in terms of our recruitment policy? Are we recruiting correctly, and are we strategic in what we are doing? [Interjections.] Who is managing the new recruits? Is there sufficient space for new entries into Parliament to make decisions and to accept responsibility and be accountable for their decisions? You find that the bureaucracy is too big, there are five people who must check on the same document, and it takes at least five days for that to happen. That is not acceptable.
Members of portfolio committees must also insist-and they have the responsibility to do so-that minutes and reports are adopted before the next meeting can commence and before the next activity can take place.
HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!