Hon members, before we proceed to the questions on the Question Paper, I would like to table rulings that I wish to make with respect to a number of matters that arise on the Question Paper. I would like to ask hon members to listen to the rulings carefully.
The first ruling is with respect to questions on issues outside the line function of a Ministry. Having carefully considered the Question Paper before the House today, it has come to my attention that a number of Ministries have been asked questions on the production of a language Bill or policy. It is common knowledge that the Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology has been mandated by Government to carry out this task. It is also common knowledge that questions are a form of ensuring accountability on the part of a Ministry in respect of its area of responsibilities.
The NCOP Rules, in so far as they relate to what questions can be asked of a Minister, are silent. I therefore wish to invoke the provisions of NCOP Rule 2 to make the following ruling: In terms of parliamentary practice, a question to a Minister must, in principle, relate to a matter for which the Minister is officially responsible. The Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology is officially responsible for matters of language policy. It is therefore fitting for that Minister to be called to the House to answer questions on that issue. In the event of the Minister, in his reply, citing or referring to other Ministries, then those relevant Ministers may be called to respond to questions in respect of the issues raised.
The following questions, as printed on the Question Paper of 3 October 2000, under the heading: ``Questions transferred for oral reply in accordance with rule 239'' are therefore ruled to be out of order: question 1(3), question 2(3), question 3(3), question 4(3), question 5(3), and questions 6, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14 in their entirety.
A number of Ministers to whom these questions have been addressed are present in the House. I will allow those Ministers who have prepared responses to deliver them. Where, however, there are no responses, my ruling is that those questions not be proceeded with, and consequently be removed from the Question Paper.
The Secretary will then assist me by taking the necessary steps to get the NCOP Rules amended accordingly.
Chairperson, may I address you on this issue?
You certainly may.
Chairperson, I would just like to know: Most of the questions that you ruled upon now are questions that were put to various Ministers during the months of April and May. Is there a specific reason why the ruling is being done today, and has not been made beforehand, so that we could have had more time to really deal sensibly with it?
Chairperson, the questions appear on the Question Paper for today. They have not hitherto appeared on the Question Paper for responses.
The questions appear on today's Question Paper. They have not appeared previously at a sitting of the House at which I could make the ruling. [Interjections.] Not at a sitting.
Chairperson, I do not have the records with me, but questions for written reply do appear on the Question Paper of this House, and these questions were on the Question Paper in April and May already. So they have appeared while we have had sittings in this House.
I am making a ruling, Mr Van Niekerk, with respect to questions that appear on the Question Paper of 3 October 2000 as questions for oral reply.
I must perhaps indicate some support for the query raised by Mr Van Niekerk by indicating my concern at the large number of questions that are transmitted for oral reply when they have been tabled for written response. I think we would ask members of the executive to really use the time available for responding to questions for written reply so that they are answered timeously, and are not placed on the Question Paper in the fashion in which we have had them appear on this Question Paper.
With that aspect of your concern I certainly do concur, Mr Van Niekerk. However, the opportunity to rule does arise today. I take that opportunity and make a ruling.
We then come to a second aspect that I would like to rule on. As previously indicated in the ruling I read a few moments ago, questions to Ministers should relate to the public affairs with which they are officially charged. In the same manner that a Parliament cannot bind another, so the next Parliament should not be expected to take responsibility for the previous Parliament. Consequently, Ministers cannot be called to respond to questions referring to issues which emanated within the term of a previous executive office holder.
In this regard, the following questions, in so far as they relate to issues emanating prior to June 1999, are, in my view, out of order: question 1(1)(b) on page 14, question 6(1) on page 15, question 15 on page 17 and question 1(1) on page 19. As previously indicated in my earlier ruling, I will allow those Ministers who have prepared responses to these questions to deliver them.
Where there are no responses, my ruling is that these questions not be proceeded with, and consequently be removed from the Question Paper.
I will also be requesting the Secretary to the NCOP to assist the Rules Committee in arriving at rules that will help us avoid this practice of Ministers responding to questions relating to a former era of Parliament.