Hon Watson, the Rule - I think it's Rule 117(1) - states that a member may request that a question for written reply be placed on the Order Paper for oral reply if it is not answered within 10 days. That is what the Rule says. For some reason this provision has not been used much in the past, but I notice that today this Rule is being used, as there are a number of written questions that have been transferred and are now questions for oral reply.
As I have stated on numerous occasions in this House, Cabinet is committed to meeting the constitutional requirements regarding its accountability to Parliament. Reports are given at each Cabinet meeting and Ministers are urged all the time to answer their parliamentary questions timeously.
I am informed that the procedure followed regarding questions in this Parliament is very similar to other Parliaments in the Westminster tradition, namely that there is really no specified penalty for Ministers for not answering questions, although some Parliaments do require an explanation if a question is not answered for some time.
As I have repeatedly stated, it is up to this House, not the executive, to decide whether the parliamentary Rules need to be amended to make a similar provision.
I would like to highlight the fact that on certain occasions the information that a member requests requires a lot of preparation. In this regard, I would like to draw your attention to the specific example of a question put by the hon Farrow to the Minister of Transport, which appears on today's Order Paper as Question No 78. In order to prepare a reply, the Minister had to go through five lever arch files to be able to respond to that question. He came to my office carrying them, to indicate the challenge.
Furthermore, sometimes the information that is being asked of the executive is freely available in annual reports or other documents already before the House.
At other times questions are asked about provincial matters, for which the national Minister has no responsibility. For example, questions about conditions in a school regarding teachers, or the situation prevailing at a provincial hospital, are essentially not the responsibility of the national sphere of government, but of the provincial sphere. In fact, such questions should be directed to the MECs in the relevant legislatures.
What I'm really saying is that as Cabinet we are committed to responding to all questions. Ministers are always reminded, whenever Cabinet sits, to do so timeously. But, what I'm saying to the members of the House is that it is really their call as to whether or not they believe that the current system isn't working and that the force of persuasion needs to be reinforced. Thank you.