Mineral Resources and Energy Budget: Committee Report

Meeting report

The Chairperson said Members who would be attending meetings in the afternoon had to be logged in by 14h00. This morning’s meeting thus would end by 13h55. It would deal with the Committee’s draft Budget Report which he assumed had been forwarded to Members. He asked for apologies.

The Committee Secretary said Mr D Mthenjane (EFF) had sent an apology and would join the meeting after 12h00.

Mr K Mileham (DA) said Mr Mthenjane and Ms N Hlonyana (EFF) both attended this meeting, and he understood that meetings were open to any Members of Parliament. He had no problem with that but from an apologies perspective only one Member of the EFF was actually a voting member, which was Ms Hlonyana. Why was an apology tendered for Mr Mthenjane?

The Chairperson replied that in his understanding, Mr Mthenjane was an Alternate Member and he may tender an apology.

Mr M Mahlaule (ANC) referred to Parliamentary Rule 56.2 on Alternate Members, which stated that an Alternate Member acted like a Member when the Member for which the alternate had been appointed was absent or had vacated office until the vacancy had been filled. In his understanding Mr Mthenjane (EFF) was the official alternate, which made him a Member in the absence of the Member he replaced. In his opinion, the apology was well in order, unless something had changed.

The Chairperson agreed that the apology was in order and accepted the apology. He would have preferred a reason for absence, but Parliament required apologies, but not reasons for apologies.

The Chairperson asked Mr Arico Kotze, Committee Secretary, to table the Procedural Guide to Committee Recommendations.

Mr Kotze tabled the Procedural Guide to Committee Recommendations

He said that a Committee conducted its business on behalf of the House, and must therefore report back to the House on matters referred to it by the House for consideration and report. A Committee’s Report may be submitted for consideration or merely for information purposes. A Committee Report appeared in the ATC (Announcements, Tablings and Committees) and formed part of the Parliamentary record. However, no further action on the part of the House was required. If a Committee Report was tabled for consideration, it meant that the Report required a decision of the House. The Report would then be placed on the Order Paper.

That was why it was indicated at the end of the Oversight, Budget Vote and Budget Review and Recommendations (BRR) Reports, that the Report would be considered. If the House adopted a Report, it lent the recommendations contained therein the force of formal Assembly resolutions. The advantages of a Committee reporting its recommendations to the House for formal consideration, was that, if the House adopted the Committee Report, it gave the recommendations the force of formal Assembly resolutions, pursuant to its constitutional function of conducting oversight.

The Speaker would engage at the level of the Executive Authority to communicate recommendations adopted by it, to the Minister. The House then also monitored Executive compliance with the recommendations. When a response was received by the Executive, it was announced in the ATC and referred to the Committee from whose report the recommendations Emanated.

Specific National Assembly (NA) rules in the 9th edition of the Rules of the NA applicable to Committee Reports were:

• NA Rule 166, which dealt with general provisions for reporting;
• NA Rule 308, which dealt with specific requirements for Committees reporting on Bills dealing with Section 75;
• NA Rule 312, which dealt with specific requirements for Committees reporting on Bills relating to Section 76; and
•  NA Rule 342, reporting applicable to international agreements.

Committee Reports and recommendations were scanned to ensure that the recommendations that the NA was to adopt, conform to the Constitution of 1996, the principle of separation of powers, respect for other spheres of government, and the authority of the national executive and its accountability to the National Assembly (NA).

It should always be borne in mind that constitutionally, Parliament engaged at the level of the Executive Authority at national level. This had to inform the drafting of any report to be submitted to the House. Recommendations to be adopted by the House had to be directed to the relevant Minister in the national sphere. House decisions were formally communicated to the responsible Minister. Committees also needed to bear in mind that, should the House adopt the recommendation contained in a Committee Report, the minister was expected to report back to the House. An important note -- it was inappropriate for a Committee to request a Minister or Department to report directly back to the Committee. In instances where this had occurred, amendments to the Report had been moved in the House, to the effect that the Minister reported back to the House and not to the Committee. The minister submitted his/her response to the Speaker, who tabled the response in the ATC and referred it to the relevant Committee. This also facilitated monitoring of executive compliance.

An example of this occurrence was where the Committee said that the Minister had to report back to the Committee on the solar water heater program during the fourth term. It referred to these types of recommendations.

Committee recommendations to be motivated:

A Committee Report had to provide the House with enough information to enable the House to take a decision about whether it wished to adopt the recommendations contained in the Committee’s Report. For example, a recommendation which briefly stated that regulations to control the movement of vessels should be put in place, but did not contain any motivation or explanation in the body of the report, was vague. The recommendation was not sufficiently motivated to enable the House to take an informed decision.

An example of this situation would be where the Committee would say the minister had to, regularly or continuously, update the Committee on the Grand Inga Hydro Project, without motivation why that was necessary. The Committee had to motivate its recommendation.

Recommendations had to make a distinction between the different spheres of government. There should also be regard for different areas of competence in accordance with the principles of co-operative government. Certain recommendations could be interpreted as interference in another sphere of government. An example would be a recommendation that, for example, municipalities had to review long-term leases granted to private clubs.

Committees also included recommendations in their reports, which did not fall within their functional area.

As a general principle, Committees had to engage in oversight matters at the national policy level, rather than an operational level. Where operational problems were identified by a Committee, they had to be linked to broader policy issues. It was from this perspective that recommendations had to be identified. Often operational problems were identified which were internal or local in nature and had to be resolved at this level -- for example, officials should have regular staff meetings. In these cases, the recommendations did not fall within the NA’s jurisdiction.

A recommendation contained in a Committee Report had, as far as possible, to steer clear of phrasing which instructed rather than requested or urged. By following this approach, not only was the principle of separation of powers respected, but it also allowed for a situation where additional explanations or alternatives could be brought to the fore by the executive. Parliament could instruct only by way of legislation.

Where language use was poor and the report was unstructured, it would reflect badly on the image, not necessarily of the Committee, but of the NA as well, for example, reference in a report to a certain nationality as thugs or drug lords, was a negative reflection on a group of people. The status of the House would indeed be affected if it adopted a report which was poorly worded or vague. This also obstructed effective implementation of recommendations. With this in mind, recommendations in particular, had to be drafted as carefully and precisely as legal provisions, to ensure that the views of the Committee and the House were accurately captured and effectively communicated.

Committee Reports sometimes contained no recommendations and did not require any decision of the House, but were nevertheless published for consideration. This was unnecessary, and Chairpersons and Committees had, in terms of best practice, to make an assessment of whether a report needed to be formally considered by the House. It would be sufficient for the House to note these Reports, but they often did not have to be placed on the order paper at all. An ATC publication would be sufficient in this instance. This unnecessarily loaded the order paper of the House.

In view of the impact of references by name on individuals in organisations, discretion was required when drafting a Committee Report. Also, when criticising public officials it always had to be borne in mind that the minister was finally responsible for the actions of his or her Department. Concerns about the actions of officials therefore had to be directed at the level of the minister to address accordingly.

Recommendations directed at provincial and local government executives were prevalent in Committee oversight reports. This was usually due to implementation of national executive actions being done in partnership with local or provincial executives. Although this practice was not desirable, this challenge had to be circumvented by directing the report to the national executive responsible, and requesting that they convey the recommendations contained therein to the relevant provincial or local executive. Although Committees were empowered to receive presentations from any person, entity or body, it should be kept in mind that the National Assembly conducted oversight of the national sphere of government, with the national executive being accountable to Parliament. Therefore, recommendations emanating from oversight should be directed to the national executive.

Discussion

The Chairperson said Members had been given the Draft Report. He was not sure whether they wanted to suggest changes to the grammatical arrangement. They should have read the findings or observations, which were just an expression of what had been stated by the Department. They were not new, or invented by the Committee. They were just the points the Department had emphasised.

Mr Mileham responded that his concern was the issue that he raised when the Department presented its Annual Performance Plan (APP) two weeks before. That was the issue around the nuclear new build. His concern was that the Committee did not have any detail whatsoever on the APP or the budget, as to exactly how that was going to be rolled out. It was basically just: “We’re doing this and we going to procure it by 2024”. The Committee should ask the Department to detail its plans for this project.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would deal with the recommendations later on. That was why he had said the findings and observations were just what the Department had emphasised, and he had asked for comments on those.

Mr Mahlaule said that regarding findings and observations, the Committee was correctly captured in the Report.

The Chairperson said in the first part of the Report, the words:”The Department” were repeated too often. The sentences had to be restructured to correct this.

Mr Kotze replied that he would correct it.

The Chairperson asked Mr Kotze to read the recommendations.

Committee recommendations

Recommendation 1:

Mr Kotze said Recommendation 1 read:

“Informed by the deliberations, the Committee recommended that the House requested that the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy should: The adjustment budget would be tabled by the Minister of Finance in June 2020. In the event that the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy would be impacted by the adjustment budget, the Minister had to ensure that the Department’s annual performance plan 2021 was in line with the adjusted budget.”

Mr Mileham said that the Committee was basically saying that where there was an impact on the budget and APP from the adjustment budget, the Minister would have blanket authority to amend the APP without oversight by this Committee. He proposed an amendment which would state that the adjusted budget had to be presented to the Committee for approval.

The Chairperson said in his understanding, it was standard procedure for adjustments to the budget to be done in consultation with Parliament, not by a Committee of Parliament. The question of how it was done was another matter. He asked for confirmation of the procedure from his secretariat.

The secretariat confirmed that his understanding was correct.

Mr Kotze added that the instances Mr Mileham referred to, where the Committee had to be briefed on adjustment budgets, did not have to go into the report, but could be programmed into the Committee’s programme. The Department could present the adjustment budget to the Committee.

Mr Mahlaule said the first sentence said: “Informed by its deliberations...”, meaning the Committee’s deliberations, “...the Committee recommends that the House request that the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy should:...”, meaning what followed had to be a doing word (a verb). If not, there would be a disjuncture between “...should...” and what followed: “...the adjustment budget would be tabled by the Minister of Finance in June 2020,” which was not in line with what the Committee was trying to say. It was bad sentence construction.

The Chairperson suggested that it should read: “The adjustment budget would be tabled by the Minister of Finance in June 2020, and in the event that the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy was impacted by the adjustment, the Minister should ensure that the Department’s APP 2021 was in line with the adjusted budget and report back accordingly.” It had to be legally correct.

Ms C Phillips (DA) suggested that the sentence read: “...should ensure that the Department’s APP of 2021 was in line with the adjusted budget when the adjusted budget was tabled by the Minister of Finance in June 2020.” This sentence construction put the verb in the correct position.

Recommendation 2

“The Department should finalise the restructuring of its entities in order to ensure there was no duplication of services and elimination of unnecessary competition amongst the entities.”

Ms V Malinga (ANC) said she thought “unnecessary” was more proper than “amongst”. What the Committee was saying to the Department was that it had to ensure that its entities did not unnecessarily compete with one another.

Recommendation 3

“Ensure that the Mining Health and Safety Council (MHSC) had a backup plan to cover a possible revenue shortfall on its budget.”

The Chairperson said his only worry, with the explanation the Committee received on the approach to recommendations, was that it said the Committee had to motivate its recommendations, and what could be the motivation for this recommendation? There was now a requirement for Committees to motivate its recommendations. Should the Committee not add: *In the light of the possible adjustments and the advent of the COVID-19 virus,” as motivation?

Mr Mahlaule said he was not sure whether he understood the statement correctly. The way it was phrased could be interpreted to mean that the MHSC had a possibility of creating revenue by whatever means they could. In the case where they spent more than they should have, they had to find ways to gather extra revenue to cover the budget. The sentence was problematic for him. It seemed like the entity was allocated a budget, but if its expenses were unexpectedly higher than the amount budgeted, it had to fill up the shortfall on its own.

The Chairperson said the MHSC was the custodian responsible for the response to the pandemic. In this case, nothing had been put in place. The sentence as it stood meant that there was no back-up plan for the MHSC if it ran out of funds.

Mr Kotze said he understood that the MHSC received levies from mining houses. He thought this recommendation related to the levies. Some of the mining houses would not be able to pay the levies due to COVID-19. The MHSC would probably have a shortfall.

The Chairperson explained his suggested motivation for the recommendation to Mr Mahlaule. Its expenses were not beyond the MHSC’s budget. The MHSC would not get the full complement of its levies, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which could cause a shortfall. The Department would be obliged to spend more on health and safety. This was the motivation for the need for a backup plan for the MHSC.

Mr Mahlaule said he agreed with the Chairperson, first and foremost, that the back-up plan concept was not a good one in this regard. He also agreed that the motivation had to be there in order to avoid ambiguity or wrong interpretations.

The Chairperson suggested that the term “alternative revenue streams” had to be used instead of a “back-up plan” in that sentence, in relation to the MHSC.

Mr Kotze replied that the sentence would be rephrased.

Recommendation 4

“Ensure that all entities had permanent appointees in senior executive positions as a matter of urgency, in order to facilitate coherent execution of respective mid-term strategies.”

Mr Mahlaule said the reason why the Committee had argued in the meeting that there should be permanent appointments of senior executives and boards, as a matter of urgency, was not in order to facilitate coherent execution, but to address the governance issues that were flagged in their reports. They were lacking.

The Chairperson added: “…and to ensure that there was administrative stability and governance.” He said the temporary appointments were limiting because the officials in these positions could work on the medium term strategies, but not on the long term ones.

Recommendation 5

“Ensure that all entities who (not whom) would be required to utilise their reserves due to the COVID-19, must have a long-term plan to replenish their reserves to pre-COVID19 levels.”

Mr Mahlaule said the Chairperson changed the “whom” in the original sentence to “who.” He wanted to change the “who” to “which.”

Ms Malinga said it was correct.

Mr M Wolmarans (ANC) said the bullet point was almost a duplication of the previous bullet point, which dealt with the MHSC. He asked whether the two bullet points could not be combined, because the effect was the same.

The Chairperson disagreed.

Mr Mileham said that the bullet point about the MHSC was about a shortfall within the current financial year, while the subsequent bullet point was about a long-term replenishment of reserves and not a revenue shortfall. It was about how the Committee made sure that these entities built up a reserve again. The points were different, and had to be kept separate.

The Chairperson said the point was about the reducing effect of COVID-19 on the MHSC’s revenue and a shortfall within the current financial year, because it would not receive the full complement of its levies due. The subsequent bullet point also applied to the MHSC because it said if an entity had a surplus and it had been compelled by COVID19 to spend its surplus, it had to make sure that it moved back to financial liquidity in the long term, which meant it had to build up its surplus again. His fear was that entities might see this provision as permission from Parliament to spend unnecessarily, using COVID-19 as a reason, as long as they could replenish the reserves afterwards. He would be comfortable with this provision only if it included clear timeframes and protocols.

Mr Wolmarans agreed with the explanation given on why the two bullet points were not exactly the same. He also agreed that it could not be a free-for-all just because of COVID-19. There had to be a proviso on what needed to be done.

The Chairperson said the sentences had to remain as they were, except for the “which” that replaced the “whom” and the “who.” The “alternative revenue streams” had to be taken out, and the “long-term plans to replenish their reserves to pre-COVID19 levels” could happen only under strict protocols, procedures and timelines. This phrasing made the issue of accountability take centre stage.

Nobody objected to the changes suggested by the Chairperson.

Recommendation 6

“Where the Department proceed with the nuclear build programme, it had to be done at a pace and scale which the country could afford.”

Ms Phillips suggested adding an “s” at the end of “proceed” so that it read “...where the Department proceeds...”

Mr Mileham said the scope, scale and cost of the nuclear build programme was very vague. He felt that, given the sensitivities around nuclear build programmes, the Committee had to subject the Department to a much higher level of scrutiny on this matter and that the Committee had to ask the Department to present a detailed plan of how it intended to roll it out.

The Chairperson suggested that the Committee should then ask the Department to present to Parliament a detailed approach and plan on how this process was going to unfold, including its cost implications.

Mr Mileham agreed, but thought that the wording had to include a detailed plan and budget.

The Chairperson said when it came to reporting, the report went to Parliament, not to the Committee.

Recommendation 7

“Continuously explore various energy technologies as highlighted in the IRP 2019, which the Department highlighted in its IRP 2019.”

The Chairperson asked if the Committee should not add: “…in order to ensure energy supply and energy security.”

Mr Mileham suggested that the term “explore” in the sentence had to be replaced by the word “expedite,” because electricity and energy were a major concern, and if the term “expedite” was used it would imply greater and more urgent focus and attention.

The Chairperson agreed that the sentence had to read: “...expedite the exploration of various energy technologies...”

The following bullet read:

“Continuously enhance the country’s geo-scientific information in order to increase the country’s exploration possibilities, taking into account the high cost of these activities.”

The Chairperson said that there were no explorers in the House, and asked whether there should not be a motivation attached to the statement. What was being explored?

Mr Kotze replied that the Council for Geoscience had indicated that currently 1% was being spent on exploration, so the Committee had therefore stated that the Council had to continuously enhance the quality of the country’s geo-scientific information relating to exploration possibilities, taking into account the high cost of these activities.

The Chairperson said he was running short of information, but the recommendation could stay as it was. In his understanding, the matter was about access to more data.

Mr Kotze agreed that the matter was about access to reliable data.

A Member said the overall aim of better geo-scientific information was to encourage and facilitate mining investments.

The Chairperson said this was the motivation he was looking for, and it had to be part of the recommendation.

Mr Kotze said that the recommendation would be re-phrased to include this motivation.

Recommendation 8

“Prioritise the rationalisation and the consolidation of the various commercial entities in the Central Energy Fund (CEF) group, as it was evident that entities were duplicating and competing”.

The Chairperson asked if the Committee had not dealt with this before.

Mr Kotze replied that these were entities of the Department.

Mr Mahlaule thought this point was sparked by the fact that the Committee detected in the report the CEF group had given a disturbing correlation between their vision, and what was happening in the in the governance relations of the entities as the CEF group, and the Committee highlighted the point that they first had to understand what their vision was for them to move forward and understand how governance issues worked. He agreed with this point as it was. The CEF was a Department entity, but when the Committee received the report, it was within the context of the group itself, competing amongst each other, instead of complementing the work that was done within the group.

The Chairperson asked for comments.

Mr Mileham did not disagree with Mr Mahlaule, but wanted to highlight something that he had raised in the meeting where the plans had been presented. There seemed to be an undue amount of regulatory processes being conducted by entities that were also commercial entities. He used the Petroleum Agency of South Africa (PASA) as an example. PASA was both a regulatory and a commercial entity. On the one hand it was competing to a certain extent with PetroSA. On the other, it was competing to a certain extent with the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) in the regulatory space. He felt that the Committee had to address this issue. As one could not be both the referee and the player, and that was essentially what PASA was. The impact there was on PetroSA. As an additional point, he thought the Committee had to make sure that commercial entities were not involved in regulation, and that regulatory entities were not involved in commercialisation.

The Chairperson agreed. He thought that some entities under the PetroSA umbrella had to move somewhere else. If Members were worried that the Committee would have to stipulate every entity, it could say, “...including within entities themselves, i.e. the CEF group.” This would mean that as government looked at the nationalisation of all the entities, it also had to look within the entities as a group to see whether they could not be merged into one. He would be more comfortable with this. He was not sure what form it would take, but he felt that some rationalisation was necessary. The Department had made a commitment to the Committee that as soon as it started the rationalisation process, it would come back to the Committee.

The CEF group could also be left with one entity. He then did not know where to place the issue of regulatory mechanisms. He thought that when the Department briefed the Committee, it had also said that it envisioned creating one regulatory body within the entities, rather than including one with such capacity. He declared himself subject to correction if Committee Members felt regulation was an issue on its own.

Mr Mahlaule replied that he would not insist on his argument, as the summaries the Chairperson had made fused his argument with the point Mr Mileham had made, into one.

The Chairperson said that the point would be left at that, including the point that the issue of regulation needed to be looked at.

Recommendation 9

“Explore the production of anti-bodies and antigens for the local manufacturing of test-kits as these were currently imported.”

The Chairperson suggested that the word “expedite” had to be used here as well and it should read:  “Expedite the process of the production of anti-bodies and antigens in order to enhance the local manufacturing of test-kits as they were currently imported. ”

Mr Mahlaule said the Department had stated that it was already producing anti-bodies and antigens, and part of the reason why they had decided to make the recommendation was that most of what was available did not comply with the standards of the World Health Organisation (WHO). He remembered that Members had urged the Department to expand the production, because at some point Mintek had said they were at 4 000 litres, and Pearl Chem had said they were between 6 000 and 9 000 litres. To “expedite” meant to do it quickly. This was not a barrier. The task at hand was to expand and supply the market, because it was imported.

Mr Kotze said the Committee had to differentiate between the sanitiser part, which Mintek and Pearl Chem was doing, but there was a test-kit part as well. In the presentation, Mintek had indicated that anti-bodies and antigens were currently imported. It had received consignments the previous week. It was producing the sanitisers already, but for the test-kits, the anti-bodies and antigens still had to be imported. This was why it had approached government to facilitate the production of anti-bodies and antigens.

Mr Mahlaule said that in the light of this differentiation, he withdrew his related statement.

The Chairperson asked whether the locally produced products adhered to the standards of the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS).

Mr Kotze replied that initially the sanitisers had not adhered to SABS standards, but since the Southern African Pharmaceutical Regulatory Affairs Association (SAPRAA), the health products authority, had given Mintek the licence to produce the sanitizers, SAPRAA would validate the quality of the sanitisers as well.

The Chairperson wanted to talk about “expediting” the production of the products.

Ms Malinga said the word “explore” had to be left in the recommendation, because according to what Mr Kotze had explained, the entity was requesting to explore the production of anti-bodies and antigens.

Mr Kotze agreed.

Mr Mahlaule said the exploration of the process of the production of ant-bodies and antigens had to be expedited. There had to be a sense of urgency about it, otherwise it could take another year before it happened.

Recommendation 10

“Enhance the collaboration between the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (NECSA), Mintek and Ketlaphela with the local production of sanitisers, since the sanitisers currently produced by Mintek adhere to the National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NCID) rules, as well as the WHO procedures.

Mr Mahlaule said he agreed with the content of the sentence. However, when he separated NECSA and Ketlaphela, and conveniently did not separate Pearl Chem from NECSA, it became an inconsistent exercise, because Pearl Chem was part of an institution that produced those products.

The Chairperson said the sentence had to stand as it was, except for taking out NECSA.

Mr Mahlaule agreed.

Mr Mileham suggested a recommendation that read like this: “Address the regulatory impediments hindering the ease of doing business in both the mining and the energy sectors, specifically by reviewing the mineral rights regulatory environment and streamlining the licensing and registration process in the electricity generation sector for faster turnarounds”. His reason for suggesting this recommendation was that in presentations over the course of the past year, the Committee had heard that it took too long. The President had said it in the state of the nation address. Various organisations had told the Committee that it took too long to make a NERSA determination. This was one area of electricity regulation -- the other area was mineral rights applications, which were over-regulated and badly managed. He thought that these had to be reviewed to see how they could be made better.

Mr Mahlaule said heard the new regulation which Mr Mileham had proposed, but the Members had had an opportunity to read the others, understand their meanings and implications, and make a decision. This one was new. He therefore proposed that this new recommendation be added to the list. The Members would then have the opportunity to think it through and come to the next meeting with an informed opinion on whether the recommendation had to be included or dismissed.

The Chairperson said he had hoped that there would be agreement on the recommendations, but Members were entitled to disagree. The additional recommendation would be added to the list, and would be finalised at a later date. He did not think the ease of doing business or the licensing for mineral rights were major issues. These matters would be debated in terms of the Members’ understanding of them at the substantial level. Members would then see whether they agreed, or whether the recommendation needed alternate wording.

Concluding comments

The Chairperson asked whether there were any other matters Members wanted to bring up relating to the recommendations.

Mr Mahlaule asked about the email to Members before the next meeting, so that they could interact with the matters substantially.

The Chairperson said the common practice was to not send the report immediately after the meeting. The Members would be sent information in advance before the next meeting. The information would include the existing recommendations, incorporating the changes which had been agreed upon during this meeting, as well as the newly proposed recommendation, which would then be subject to discussion.

The Chairperson said the procedural guidelines relating to recommendations stated that Parliament could not interfere with the internal operational sphere -- for example, staffing of Departments -- in terms of the separation of powers. From his perspective as a chairperson of a portfolio committee, there was a problem that would impact on the work of the Committee in future. Members had to give their opinions on whether it had to be handled as a recommendation, or through direct communication with the Department. It was the issue of the turnaround times of the Department. The Department would volunteer information, but then never deliver on its promise. The levels of efficiency in terms of time management also left much to be desired. It was difficult to get from the Department basic information which was needed by the Committee in order to make informed decisions.

Mr Mahluale said when information was requested from the Department, it normally did not come. He felt that it had not been handled correctly in the past. When information was requested during a meeting, the information had to be provided to all Members of the Committee, including the Member who requested it. He said the Department would not necessarily admit to it, but some documents were classified as confidential, which meant they were not freely available on request. Sometimes there were fights within the Department over permission to access certain documents. This could play a role in terms of how long it took the Department to produce requested documentation to the Committee. When the Committee requested information from the Department, it had to provide reasonable timeframes within which to come up with the information.

Ms Phillips wanted to echo the previous speaker. She had been asking the Department for information about the solar hot water solar geysers, which she had needed for an oversight visit for five months, and she still had not received the information. It had to be stressed that the information had to be forwarded to the Committee, and then to the Committee members.

Mr Mileham added that the information requested about the contract regarding the South Sudan oil deal, which was about six months ago, had still not come back to the Committee.

The Chairperson said he wanted to raise a principle. The turnaround time was a problem for him. He understood the point that Mr Mahlaule was making about the reasons why the Department sometimes took long to produce information, but Parliament had to be respected, and promises to Parliament had to be fulfilled. If they could not be fulfilled, written correspondence was needed to ask for extensions of deadlines or explanations for why the information was not forthcoming.

In his opinion, some staff members employed in the Department did not have the capacity to perform the functions their positions required from them. Capacity building was therefore needed to improve the performance of the staff members. He felt that a rigorous programme of capacity building was needed in the Department, irrespective of how long people had been working there. When the Department made a commitment to the Committee, it should not have to go to the Department and ask for it again. The Department had to produce the information, or explain why it could not produce it, or ask for an extension. He noted the specific cases Members mentioned. If this matter could not be treated as a recommendation, it still had to be discussed at some point -- not with the intention of finding someone guilty, but with the intention of improving the turnaround times of the Department.

Part of the work of the Committee was to hold the executive to account and to express its views so that the executive could take the necessary steps to ensure that there was an improvement. He suspected that this was a general feeling that one would get in the public service, but as a chairperson of a portfolio committee, he was of the view that that level of administrative capacity at all material times had an impact. He was sure that the cases mentioned by Members were not the only ones that happened in this Committee.

He believed the Committee would get an opportunity at some point, after the report had been adopted, to have a discussion on how the Committee could ensure an improvement in the turnaround times of the Department so that the relationship between the Committee and the Department was not an antagonistic one, but one of respect and a high level of accountability. He suggested that the matter be handled separately from the recommendations.

The meeting was adjourned.