Hon Deputy Speaker, hon Members of Parliament, esteemed guests, members of the diplomatic corps, good afternoon to you all. As elected representatives, individually and collectively, parliamentarians are both products of and custodians of the democratic values enshrined in our Constitution. These values set the tone for the discussion of issues of national concern as they occur in our society in all its glorious diversity. This House is positioned in the Constitution to lead these discussions.
The 2012 Inter-Parliamentary Union's Global Parliamentary Report, a peer review of member parliaments, reveals that our established practices and public participation, openness and transparency can be regarded as indeed exemplary. This is a rare tribute indeed for our Parliament. The Global Parliamentary Report, however, notes that the challenge facing all parliamentarians is the need to continually evolve to ensure that we respond strategically and effectively to our people's changing and growing needs. The report notes that there are three different pressures facing parliaments worldwide today, which are, one, a greater public desire for information and influence in parliamentary work; two, more accountability and responsiveness to parliamentary concerns; and, three, service delivery to meet the needs and expectations of our people.
The occasion of Parliament's annual Budget Vote is a crucial opportunity for us, as public representatives, to reflect on how we can and must continually improve on the delivery of our mandate. June is, after all, Youth Month and, therefore, a potent reminder of the legacy that we must leave for our children.
Section 42 of the Constitution stipulates that Parliament is elected to represent the people and provide a national forum for public consideration of national issues. Therefore Parliament should hold debates on issues of national importance. It is important that political parties make use of this provision and, more importantly, that they must work harder to agree amongst themselves what issues of national importance are.
Noting the gaps in our oversight capacity, we adopted an oversight and accountability model in 2009. Since then I have noted a more co-ordinated and enhanced approach to oversight by committees. However, the area of questions to the executive has continually proven to be a challenge. While it is acknowledged that the number of questions has increased, questions are an integral mechanism to hold the executive accountable, and the executive must develop the means to reply within the time limits. I have written to several Ministers to remind them of their constitutional obligations, but the improvement thus far has only been marginal. I have now directed members to table proposals at the National Assembly Rules Committee that will enhance and facilitate the questions process. I have also requested a meeting with the Leader of Government Business so that we can find a way to address this important matter. Until the Rules have changed, I urge that the Rules be complied with.
To further enhance our oversight activities, I urge that we prioritise the National Development Plan. The nine challenges identified are the most pressing - and, of course, you will all agree with me, including Minister Manuel - that these provide us with an excellent framework to guide our oversight programme, as they exemplify fundamental challenges of public policy that need to be critically examined and debated in society and in Parliament.
I am indeed deeply concerned that more and more legislation is returned to the National Assembly for correction, either section 75 legislation which the NCOP has recommended that the Assembly amend to make it constitutional, or legislation that was found to be unconstitutional by the courts. This speaks both to the constitutionality of the legislation passed as well as to its quality.
Section 44(4) of the Constitution provides that: "When exercising its legislative authority, Parliament is bound only by the Constitution, and must act in accordance with, and within the limits of, the Constitution". Because we are a constitutional state, all laws must pass the test of constitutionality. In this regard, we must ensure that, at all times, the laws we make are in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
The recent judgment of the Cape High Court in Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape v Prins, highlights and reiterates that the legislation that we pass has a huge impact on our citizens. We must take the utmost care to ensure that the law shields and protects the most vulnerable in our society. In this judgment it was held that 29 sexual offences listed in the Sexual Offences Act did not contain a penalty clause. An accused found guilty of any of these offences could not be sentenced. These 29 offences include various types of rape, as well as many sexual offences against children.
The poor quality of legislation is often the consequence of inadequate scrutiny. As the subject matter of legislation becomes more sophisticated and highly technical, our Parliament and members must become more professional. This requires the necessary capacity both in terms of technical support by the officials and capacity-building for members. The report of the Independent Panel Assessment of Parliament noted in this regard that Parliament did not have sufficient capacity when it came to drafting and amending legislation. The Constitutional and Legal Services Office in Parliament was instructed to establish a legal drafting unit. A proposal has been approved, and the process is now under way to staff the unit and get the ball rolling.
As you know, we have an abundance of willing and able stakeholders, including academia, research institutions, special-interest groups and civil society, who, on an ongoing basis, are able to ensure that we have access to independent resources of specialised knowledge and information. We should, I suggest, make maximum use of them.
In so far as public participation is concerned, Members of Parliament should take responsibility for safeguarding the integrity of the participation process, particularly for the poor and the marginalised. The quality and effectiveness of public participation cannot rest on simply providing a space and an opportunity for submitting comments. Public participation can only be effective if inputs find expression in parliamentary processes.
A task team of the Joint Rules Committee is currently looking at creating a model to facilitate public participation in parliamentary processes. This project has been far too long in the making and concrete proposals need to come out of the endeavours of the task team as a matter of urgency.
Earlier this year, Deputy President Motlanthe asked us to consider whether we were accessible enough to the people we represent. He also asked us to use our constituency offices as spaces for dialogue and engagement. I agree. Let us use our constituency periods and constituency offices more effectively and creatively. In my discussions with the Chief Whips of political parties, I will continue to encourage the implementation of more stringent reporting requirements on constituency work.
It will be recalled that the current set of Rules of the National Assembly was agreed to in 1996 when the Constitution came into effect. Since the adoption of the Rules, Parliament has continued to develop and refine its structures, procedures and proceedings to ensure that they allow the legislature to discharge its responsibilities effectively. It has become increasingly evident that a comprehensive review of the Rules is required to ensure that they do not hinder but, rather, help us in discharging our mandate and that they are also in line with our Constitution.
The report of the Joint Subcommittee on Delegated Legislation is a matter that has been outstanding for a considerable period of time. I cannot emphasise enough the importance of this committee and the urgency we need to attach to its establishment. The work of the committee involves ensuring that the regulations passed by the executive are in line with our Constitution and the objectives and intentions of the Acts, which provided for such regulations.
The enactment of the Financial Management of Parliament Act ensures the independence of Parliament. The only outstanding matter is the implementation of the oversight mechanism. The Parliamentary Oversight Authority currently performs some of the functions of the proposed oversight mechanism and, as such, there is a need for further discussion to avoid this duplication.
In 2009 the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act and the Financial Management of Parliament Act came into effect, giving Parliament the ability to amend the money Bills. Our study tours have revealed that we need to approach the establishment of the budget office with circumspection to ensure that the model implemented will respond to our circumstances and will deliver on what the Act has intended. We have established that there have been a number of failed budget offices in other parliaments primarily because they failed to support the work of Parliament.
In this regard Parliament's presiding officers seconded Prof Mohammed Jahed from the Development Bank of Southern Africa to assist with the establishment of the parliamentary budget office. [Applause.] Prof Jahed, sitting in the Speaker's Bay today, has worked with Parliament in the past two years conducting workshops on the developing, understanding and implementing of the budget office, and was also part of the study tour to Japan and South Korea. We thank you, Prof Jahed. [Applause.]
Since the promulgation of the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act, a number of challenges have been documented. These challenges relate mostly to the impractical time frames stipulated in the Act. The matter has been referred to the Standing Committee on Finance for it to draft appropriate amendments. We need to deal with the challenges so that the budget office can be established as soon as possible.
As you all are aware, Parliament's budget enables us to fulfil our constitutional mandate, to assist political parties represented in Parliament to secure administrative support, to service constituents and to provide Members of Parliament with the necessary facilities.
For these purposes, our programmes are divided into five key areas. These are administration, legislation and oversight, public and international participation, members' facilities, and associated services, that is financial support to political parties in Parliament. Specifically, our Fourth Parliament has prioritised the strengthening of the oversight function, increased public participation, improved co-operative government, expanded Parliament's role in international relations, as well as building a truly people's Parliament.
With respect to Parliament's role in international relations, global interdependence also calls for more participation and accountability in global decision-making. Empowering people to influence decisions that affect their lives and hold their rulers accountable is no longer just a national issue. In an integrated world these democratic principles have a global dimension, because global rules and actors often affect people's lives as much as national ones.
As a Parliament, we remain committed to working towards the consolidation of the African agenda through our participation in the regional and continental multilateral structures, in particular the Pan-African Parliament and the SADC Parliamentary Forum. The South African Parliament continues to participate in and support the programmes of the SADC Parliamentary Forum, including its elections observer and monitoring missions. As you may know, Parliament sent a small team to Lesotho over the weekend to monitor the elections there.
Parliament co-hosted the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the 17th Conference of Parties and the climate-change meeting on the margins of the United Nations' COP 17 climate-change conference in Durban in December 2011. This concluded with a formal declaration by all IPU member parliaments to place climate-change issues at the centre of the work of parliaments globally. It is important that we monitor the resolutions of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the commitments made by our governments in that regard.
At a bilateral level, Parliament has hosted delegations from the People's Republic of China, Kenya, Vietnam, Botswana, the Slovak Republic, Argentina, Syria, Indonesia, the Russian Federation and Japan, and, most recently, the President of India, President Pratibha Devisingh Patil, paid a courtesy call to our Parliament.
More engagements have been identified. For instance, in June Parliament is sending a delegation to participate in the forthcoming World Symposium on Sustainable Development at Universities to be held in Rio de Janeiro.
With respect to the greening of Parliament, we have established a committee to work on concrete proposals on how our carbon footprint can be reduced. Parliament should be an example to all government departments and society at large of why and how environmental concerns must be central to the way we work and the way we do things.
Chapter 3 of our Constitution requires us to work co-operatively with different spheres of government. As you know, provincial speakers meet with the presiding officers regularly within the Speaker's Forum. In March Parliament hosted a very successful international consultative seminar, which is an annual event of the South African legislative sector and the European Union. It is aimed at advancing our strategic partnership by sharing perspectives and best practices.
In this month the presiding officers also met with the Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng to discuss matters of mutual interest and areas of co- operation. We have agreed to meet once a year and as often as there are urgent matters to discuss.
I would like to take this opportunity, before turning to the actual allocation for the year 2012-13, to report on the matter of the Secretary to Parliament and the chief financial officer. As members are aware, the Secretary to Parliament and the chief financial officer were placed on special leave to allow the investigation by the Auditor-General into the salary advance payment to the Secretary to Parliament with regard to the construction of a perimeter wall at his residence.
The report of the Auditor-General was received and tabled at a special meeting of the Parliamentary Oversight Authority, POA. The POA considered and accepted the report and the recommendations by the Auditor-General. In this regard Parliament will formally engage with Mr Dingani and the chief financial officer, Mr Mondo, regarding the processes to follow. Both Mr Dingani and Mr Mondo have been on special leave since March 26. The Deputy Secretary, Mr Michael Coetzee, has been the Acting Secretary to Parliament. We will, of course, report to the House once the processes have been completed.
With respect to annual expenditure, Parliament's budget allocation for the 2012-13 financial year is R1,333 billion. As you are aware, this budget is divided into five programme areas. The allocation for Programme 1: Administration is R392 million, an increase of 6,5% from the R368 million of 2011-12. The allocation for Programme 2: Legislation and Oversight is R311 million, an increase of 4,3% from the R298 million of 2011-12. An amount of R55 million of the R311 million is allocated to committees, an increase of R5 million or 10% for the financial year. The allocation for Programme 3: Public and International Participation is R118 million, an increase of 8,2% from the R109 million for the 2011-12 financial year. The allocation for Programme 4: Members' Facilities is R200 million. The hon Skosana will talk more on this issue. The allocation for Programme 5: Associated Services Providing Financial Support to Political Parties totals R311 million, an increase of 4,3% from the R298 million of the 2011-12 financial year. Members' remuneration is a direct charge against the National Revenue Fund and amounts to R430 million.
For the past three years, Parliament has received unqualified reports from the Auditor-General. [Applause.] With regard to the specific findings of the report of 2010-2011, the presiding officers deemed it necessary to implement an accelerated programme to improve the financial management environment of Parliament. The most visible and immediate accomplishment of the project was to reduce the number of Auditor-General findings from 115 in 2010 to fewer than 10 in 2011. We continually endeavour to improve the performance of our systems of financial control and management.
Since the First Parliament, the Joint Rules Committee has been discussing the issue of the absence of members from the sittings of the House and its committees. On a number of occasions I have expressed concern about the lack of a policy on members' attendance and enjoined parties to speed up the process to finalise the matter. Attendance, as you know, affects the core business of Parliament, as many a time the business of the House cannot proceed without a quorum, and a solution has to be found.
There should be an implementable policy governing members' attendance. Otherwise the wrong signal will continue to be sent to the public, which is that there are no consequences for members who do not attend the proceedings of Parliament. [Applause.] Two years ago, a draft attendance policy was referred by the Parliamentary Oversight Authority to the Chief Whips' Forum for processing. After I strongly raised my concerns at the past two Joint Rules Committee meetings, it has been agreed that the matter will be finalised at the next meeting of the Joint Rules Committee to be held on 31 July 2012.
I want to conclude with the most urgent and pressing issue in our country today, and that is the condition of our children. The United Nations Children's Fund released a report last week in which it offered detailed insight into the unnecessary deaths and the devastating living conditions of South Africa's children, and demands that government take immediate action. With 11,5 million of the country's 19 million children living in poverty - and 7 million living in 20% of the poorest households - the report shows poor children are 17 times more likely to experience hunger and three times less likely to complete school than children from wealthier backgrounds. The report, titled "A Programme of co-operation between government and Unicef, 2013 to 2017", shows how far South African children still need to travel, as the homes of 1,5 million children rely on streams for drinking water, 1,5 million children live in houses with no flushing toilets, and 1,7 million live in shacks. This week government has identified as Child Protection Week. We have heard and witnessed many harrowing and disturbing stories of the abuse of children in our communities. The question that we need to ask is what Parliament, and members, can and should do to ensure the quality of life and protection of our children. We should remember that we are here to make a big difference - indeed, a big difference - to their lives.
Notwithstanding our many achievements, former President Mandela also reminded us that: "Apartheid continues to live with us in the leaking roofs and corrugated walls of shacks, in the bulging stomachs of hungry children, in the darkness of homes without electricity, and in the heavy pails of dirty water that rural women carry for long distances to quench their thirst."
Amilcar Cabral reminds us that: "We must preserve for our children the best that we have learned; they are the flowers of our struggle". I thank you. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, hon Speaker, hon Ministers and Deputy Ministers, hon members, ladies and gentlemen, the National Assembly is elected to represent the people and to ensure government by the people under the Constitution. Any objective assessment of the project to transform Parliament must conclude that many positive changes have been made when compared to the apartheid parliament, where the work of the institution and its committees were held behind closed doors and in secret.
Having acknowledged this, much more still needs to be done to fully transform Parliament into an institution where participation by all South Africans becomes a reality. We submit that without active community participation and community empowerment, and without the voices and wishes of the community being heard, the notion of "government by the people" is reduced to an empty slogan.
The current arrangement of the parliamentary television channel being flighted on pay-TV marginalises the majority of South Africans who cannot afford to pay for this service and are thereby excluded from participating or being empowered in the work of Parliament. [Applause.] On the other hand, one of the key performance areas of the national broadcaster is that of education and information dissemination. It should, therefore, be in the interests of the SABC to flight committee and other parliamentary business on a dedicated channel that has the potential of reaching a larger audience at a much-reduced cost to the viewers. This is an option that must be considered seriously by this House.
Secondly, the practice of public hearings in the formulation of the laws is meant to afford communities and stakeholders a platform to influence the law. In almost all instances, hearings are held within the precincts of Parliament and, owing to its geographic location, the poorer sections of our community find it almost impossible to attend such committee activities. The current reality is that only those who have the means to travel long distances are afforded an opportunity to actively participate in the process of lawmaking, a direct contradiction to the promise of "the people shall govern".
Yes, Parliament has introduced the practice of "Taking Parliament to the People" in an attempt to address this matter. But truth be told, this exercise hardly ever ensures that the voices and wishes of the people are heard, because very little systematic follow-up is ever done by Parliament to address the issues raised in these fora.
Deputy Speaker, Parliament owes it to those that raise matters of importance to them to develop a structured way of ensuring that those matters are dealt with timeously. These are but some of the basics that will enhance citizen participation in the work of this institution.
Our Constitution places Parliament as an equal but independent arm of the state relative to the executive and to the judiciary. Furthermore, Parliament has a responsibility to oversee the work of the executive on behalf of the people of South Africa.
The manner in which the budget of Parliament is apportioned is not in keeping with its constitutional status. The current process whereby Parliament is subjected to the same process as that of a government department, in that it receives a Budget Vote allocation, is inconsistent with Parliament's status as an arm of state equal to the judiciary and the executive.
The current practice has the effect that Treasury and the executive determine, through the budget process, what Parliament must receive and, by extension, the extent of Parliament's operations by determining the financial envelope. This determination of the extent of Parliament's operations through controlling the purse strings encroaches on the doctrine of the separation of powers as envisaged in our Constitution.
The research capacity and other support that Parliament, generally, and portfolio committees, specifically, have access to is nowhere near that which is at the disposal of government departments. It is highly unlikely that any effective oversight can be done without drastically strengthening the support of the committees of Parliament and for individual Members of Parliament. In many of the committees, research capacity and other support structures are sorely lacking and sometimes nonexistent. Very often the reasons advanced for this state of affairs is a lack of adequate funding.
If adequate funding of Parliament is the issue, then this further strengthens the argument for a need to revisit the funding model of Parliament that gives the responsibility of deciding the budget of Parliament to the very executive that is subject to the oversight of Parliament. [Applause.] A revised model of funding must recognise that the amount allocated to this institution to carry out its work must be equitable to its responsibility in entrenching a democratic order in South Africa.
In the same vein we need, similarly, to rethink the budget allocations of the various programmes of Parliament itself. By way of example: The 2010-11 programme allocations are such that Programme 1: Administration alone received an amount of R317 million, as opposed to the combined allocation for Programme 2: Legislation and Oversight and Programme 3: Public and International Participation, which were allocated only R368 million, or 23% of the total budget of Parliament.
Let me hasten to say, Deputy Speaker, that I am pleased that this situation has turned around with the figures that you have just spoken of recently. In other words, Programme 1: Administration in 2010-11 received R61 million more than what was allocated to the core functions of Parliament.
The work of government is extremely complex. As Parliament oversees the work of government, these complexities demand of members high levels of expertise, knowledge and capacity. Everybody in this room accepts that portfolio committees are the engine room of Parliament and, as such, the allocation of Parliament's budget must reflect this fact. The administrative officials of Parliament, who are meant to be a support to committees and Members of Parliament, cannot be better resourced than those that they are meant to support. [Applause.]
Over and above portfolio committees being the engine room of Parliament, the Chief Whip of the Majority Party, the Chief Whips' Forum as well as the programming whips' duties are essential for the smooth running of the daily parliamentary business. Currently these offices are not funded directly by Parliament, but must rely on political parties to utilise their own funds to support these structures. In our view, this practice of political parties subsidising the running costs of Parliament's day-to-day operations disadvantages the affected political parties. We urge Parliament to consider allocating a dedicated budget for these operations as has been done for the operational costs of the House Chairpersons.
The final area of the transformation of Parliament project that we wish to focus on is the productivity levels of the institution. South Africa is probably the only country worldwide where the seat of the legislature is more than 1 000 kilometres away from the seat of government. This unusual situation that we find ourselves in is thanks to an apartheid government compromise of sharing the seats of the judiciary, the legislature and the executive to cater for that government's own constituency demands at the time.
Speaker, of late it has become a populist trend to criticise or question the excessive utilisation of taxpayers' money by Ministers and government officials in pursuit of their duties. The cold truth is that the executive's need to have two state-provided places of accommodation and two vehicles at their disposal is a direct result of this apartheid compromise.
The time has come to examine this arrangement if we want to improve our productivity as a legislature and, at the same time, put to rest the concerns raised by this side of the House of the prudent utilisation of taxpayers' money by Ministers and their officials. [Applause.] It will kill that debate - if we bring the location of Parliament and the executive closer to each other. There won't be this argument; everybody must support this debate. [Applause.]
Today, 18 years into our democratic dispensation, this arrangement has negative consequences for everything we stand for: unnecessary financial costs associated with travel and accommodation; reduced productivity in so far as oversight of the executive is concerned because of time wasted in transit between Cape Town and Pretoria; and reduced public participation because Parliament is located at the southernmost tip of the country, making access to this institution beyond the means of the poor and less resourced sectors of our society. [Applause.] These are some of the areas that require closer scrutiny, and sober and honest debate in this House.
How far down the line are we towards truly transforming Parliament so as to realise the mission, as articulated in the Constitution? What still needs to be done towards realising the goal of ensuring the participation of all South Africans in the lawmaking process? And are we succeeding in maximising the effectiveness of parliamentary oversight? [Interjections.]
Thula baba, ulalele! [Keep quiet, hon member, and listen!]
Listen; and you learn. [Laughter.] In answering these very critical questions, we must deal with the location and proximity of the executive relative to the legislature. We must also be honest in answering the question about the accessibility to Parliament by the majority of our citizens. Citizen accessibility to the institution, substantial savings of taxpayers' money and improved productivity by portfolio committees will enable Parliament to play an even greater role in creating a better South Africa and a better world.
In many countries the executive and parliament are able to interact in pursuit of their duties for many more hours of the day than we do, because both institutions are located in close proximity to each other. [Interjections.] The result of Parliament and the seat of the executive being geographically closer to each other - I'll tell you my agenda in a minute if you keep quiet - is that committees of Parliament are able to sit for much longer periods, sometimes even into the night, doing oversight or finalising legislation. [Interjections.]
Order, hon members, please!
In our country government officials or the executive authority that are expected to appear before committees of Parliament have to travel long distances for a three- or four-hour-long meeting. The cost to the national fiscus for flights and accommodation is astronomical and could be put to better use in more pressing service delivery priorities.
The project of transforming Parliament must remain a work in progress, and the focal point of this project must continue to be increasing citizen participation and appropriately capacitating the institution and Members of Parliament so that we improve the quality of oversight and the productivity levels of this arm of the state. I thank you, Deputy Speaker. [Applause.]
USOTSWEBHU OMKHULU WEQEMBU ELIPHIKISAYO: Ngiyakubingelela Sekela Somlomo, selokhu kwathi nhlo, akunandawo lapho kungekho izinkinga khona kodwa siyazi ukuthi wena Somlomo nalabo oqhuba nabo nisebenze kakhulu kulo nyaka ophelile. Sithokoza kanye nani nonke. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)
[The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: I greet you, Deputy Speaker. It is a well-known fact that since the beginning of time, there has never been a place that does not experience problems, but we know that you and those who are working with you have worked very hard this past year. We are grateful to all of you.]
Deputy Speaker, when we consider the budget before us today, a budget of over R1,3 billion, the most important thing is whether it accurately captures the needs of the institution, whether it accurately focuses on improving the institutional functionality of this institution, and whether it accurately reflects what the institution is meant to be for our democracy.
The National Assembly is the heart of our democracy. It gives expression to the nation's will by the laws that are made here and by ensuring sufficient oversight of their implementation. As an institution, it is meant to give life to the individual hopes and objectives of the people who voted for us and who are asking us, on the daily basis, to use all the authoritative tools available to us to enable them to live their lives freely and fairly; indeed, to facilitate progressive social justice.
But we must concede that the National Assembly's arteries are clogged. Its processes and procedures stifle free-flowing engagement, not only between us and the government, but between us as nonexecutive members and, most importantly, between us and the people of South Africa.
The parliamentary mechanism of holding regular debates on topical issues that we know are important to the people we represent is one of the institution's most vital functions. This mechanism allows us to be seen engaging with and responding to the critical issues that face our society on a daily basis; it allows us to be seen talking to these issues and talking to each other openly on these issues; it allows Members of Parliament to bring the voices of the people to the House, empathising with the challenges that our people face and the very serious challenges that our fragile democracy is facing.
In short, Parliament should be the centre of debate in the country, because that is what truly makes it a people's Parliament. But sadly - very sadly - the bitter truth is that during 2011 this parliamentary procedure was used on only four occasions in the entire year. Only 14 of the political parties elected to Parliament were able to debate a subject for discussion that they had proposed. Isn't that an utter disgrace?
However, ample time was made available for members to give one-way two- minute sound bites and lectures. We had countless notices of motion being read aloud and no less than 229 motions without notice were given, taking the precious time of the House. On top of this, innumerable members' statements were regularly addressed to the executive in this Chamber. But, alas, their total disregard for Parliament is regularly displayed by the utterly poor attendance of Ministers who, in terms of our Rules, should be present to reply to those statements.
At last week's session, the ongoing pattern was, yet again, confirmed when, sadly, only one Minister and five Deputies were present in the House for responses to statements. This is not a people's Parliament at work. Asking the executive to provide us with information is another critical source of the National Assembly's life and legitimacy. However, this mechanism is also not working.
As of Friday, 11 May, no less than 505 questions remained unanswered. Only six of those unanswered questions were put by the members of the governing party. We, in opposition, with the greatest role to play in holding the government to account, are waiting for answers to the remaining 496 questions. And, just so you know, nearly 400 of those were put by the DA.
As I recently wrote to the Speaker, being able to ask regular questions to a Minister is Parliament's right. Answering them is not a choice; it is the Minister's constitutional duty and obligation. I acknowledge your efforts and undertakings thus far, hon Speaker, but I regret to say that you will not stop hearing from me until this matter has properly improved.
Ek doen dus 'n ernstige beroep op u, mnr die Speaker, om vas te staan. Beskerm asseblief die meganismes met al die mag en gesag wat in u amp gevestig is. As die meganismes nie meer behoorlik funksioneer nie, sal die konstitusionele funksies van die Parlement en Suid-Afrika se demokrasie self ernstig ondermyn word. Die mandaat van die Kantoor van die Speaker is immers en allereers om die gladde werking van die Parlement te verseker en om toe te sien dat die rels en prosedures van die Parlement gehandhaaf word om lewe te gee aan die Nasionale Vergadering se mandaat. Die Parlement het die afgelope jaar R44 miljoen aan hierdie taak bestee en ons as Parlement vra nou weer vir R38 miljoen. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[I therefore urgently appeal to you, Mr Speaker, to stand firm. Please protect the mechanisms with all the power and authority that is vested in your office. If the mechanisms are no longer functioning properly, the constitutional functions of Parliament and even South Africa's democracy will be seriously undermined. Indeed, the mandate of the Office of the Speaker is, first and foremost, to ensure the smooth functioning of Parliament and to make sure that the rules and procedures of Parliament are adhered to in order for the National Assembly to carry out its mandate. During the past year, Parliament has spent R44 million on this task and now we, as Parliament, are asking for another R38 million.]
Ke re ka mosebetsi oo se ba ntshitse dimilione tse R44 ngwahola, empa jwale ba kopa dimilione tse R38 ka hodimo. [They have given out R44 million last year for this work, but they are now requesting an additional R38 million.]
Looking at the internal malfunctioning of Parliament, I ask myself: Have the South African people got their money's worth? I think not.
Laat ek dus een ding baie duidelik maak. As die DA ooit daarvan beskuldig word dat dit 'n bottelnek in die stelsels van die Parlement veroorsaak as gevolg van die talle briewe wat ek aan die Speaker skryf om sy hulp en verduideliking te versoek, dan kan ek die wreld werklik met trots in die o kyk. Ek glo stellig dat dit my plig is om te help om toe te sien dat die mense van hierdie land kry wat hulle toekom, dat hulle kry waarvoor hulle betaal en dat hulle kry waarvoor hulle geveg het. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Let me, therefore, make one thing very clear. If the DA is ever accused of causing a bottleneck in Parliament's systems due to the numerous letters that I am writing to the Speaker requesting his assistance and clarifications, then I can truly look the world in the eye with pride. I certainly believe that it is my duty to help ensure that the people of this country receive what they deserve, that they receive what they pay for and that they receive what they have fought for.] But there are some things in Parliament's budget that we, as members, also seem to have no control over.
Last year Parliament spent over R100 million on telling the people that we are their Parliament. It did this through nonauthoritative promotional programmes and initiatives that we, as members of this House, have never even had the opportunity to mandate.
In this budget, we are now asked to approve R118 million for this purpose. But after all this expense, only one thing remains clear: the status of a people's Parliament cannot be bought. A Parliament cannot belong to the people if the people have no faith in the institution, if the people bypass the institution, if the people go elsewhere.
It is no surprise, therefore, that the South African people turn to the courts to uphold their rights and freedoms. It is no surprise that they ask others to intervene and to take action before they ask Parliament. It is no surprise that alternative avenues for engagement with the executive are preferred when the people see but rare glimpses of true deliberation in this House.
Hon Speaker, let me be clear: for Parliament to live up to its constitutional obligations, for Parliament to be a Parliament of the people, we must invest all our resources and all our energy into fixing this institution from the inside out. We must rebuild its internal mechanisms. We must reflect long and hard on the rules of this House. We must establish effective and efficient operating practices and procedures. And we must, above all, demand of it and of ourselves a performance that will make true the notion that we are indeed a people's Parliament.
So, let us be reminded that this powerful concept of a people's Parliament, so aptly captured in the emblem above this Chamber, hangs over our consciences, and we should all feel ashamed. I therefore not only call on you, hon Speaker, but also on my fellow members of this House: Come work with me and let us work together to ensure that Parliament works for all the people. Ke a leboga. [Thank you.] [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, Winston Churchill once said: "Democracy does not come cheap." In fact, to quote from his quote, when he said: ``Democracy is probably the most expensive and inefficient form of government - except for all the rest that mankind has ever tried.''
The relevance of this quote is significant when we consider Vote 2, which should fund the critical role of Parliament in our constitutional democracy; more so, since this Vote has been steadily increasing over recent years and will over the MTEF period increase further to approximately R2 billion.
The efficient and effective administration of Parliament, and specifically the capacitation of members and portfolio committees of Parliament, are essential if the institution is to fulfil its critical constitutional mandate. If Parliament is managed and operates effectively, the institution could have a significant impact on the lives of the people who voted us in as their public representatives to make us the people's representatives.
As far as the legislative role of Parliament is concerned, the Constitution is very clear. The founding provision of the Constitution states that obligations imposed on institutions must be fulfilled. Section 44 deals with Parliament's role as the legislative authority. The Speaker has already referred to that.
Section 55 places a clear obligation on the National Assembly to ensure that all executive organs of state in the national sphere are accountable to it, and to maintain oversight of the exercise of national executive authority, including the implementation of legislation. So, therefore, we need to monitor what the executive is doing.
The critical question before us today is: Have we met our constitutional obligation over the past year, and will the budget before us allow us and capacitate us to meet our constitutional obligations in the coming year?
Unfortunately, we have to admit that we do not have adequate resources. As Cope, we express our concern, and we want to echo the sentiments expressed by the hon Smith in this regard, because our committees are not adequately resourced and capacitated to conduct their legislative and oversight work with the necessary knowledgeable, dedicated and duly qualified content advisers and legal advisers.
The fact of the matter is, if Parliament is functioning with nine legal advisers at present, there is no way that the 31 portfolio committees and all other committees that function within Parliament have the necessary legal support. Therefore it is small wonder that such incapacitation has led to situations such as that of the recent Cape High Court ruling on the omission of prescribed penalties for certain serious sexual offences. This while portfolio committee members also rarely have the opportunity to engage with Ministers directly, but have to engage with departmental officials, other than at fancy dinners where they have the opportunity to meet the executive.
Another concern that we want to place on the table is the clogging up of Bills in the National Assembly, which can be directly ascribed to the fact that we do not have the necessary legal services. The clogging up of Bills in the National Assembly presents a challenge to the National Council of Provinces, which ultimately then gives them a timetable problem. As far as keeping government accountable, there is, again, a major problem. Can we truly say that parliamentary activities are aimed at holding government accountable? Is our co-ordination and programming efficient?
Some committees still believe that we have to keep government departments and officials accountable, and don't realise that the Constitution makes it abundantly clear that we have to hold Ministers accountable. Some additional questions that we need to answer as a Parliament are: How many of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts' recommendations are implemented by the various Ministers and their departments? Is there adequate technical support and sufficient capacity for Scopa to fulfil its mandate? Are the reports and recommendations taken seriously by this Parliament and especially by the executive?
Poor programme co-ordination makes it difficult for parties in the opposition to fulfil their duties. Members of Parliament who serve on Scopa often have to excuse themselves to go to other committees. All portfolio committees also have difficulty holding the executive to account and overcoming serious problems, such as when Ministers try to make them their lapdogs and want to make committees extensions of the executive. We cannot allow that as a Parliament. We have to fulfil our constitutional role.
Are we deriving tangible benefits from parliamentary democracy offices and from the "Taking Parliament to the People" programme? As Cope, we have a serious concern in this regard. What impact have those programmes had on our role to ensure executive accountability, while committees do not have enough qualified and knowledgeable content advisers, researchers and legal advisers? In fact, some chairpersons will admit that they have to compile their own committee reports, simply because they do not have adequate support services.
That brings me to members' support. The members' support function needs to be improved significantly. From experience, it takes an extraordinary amount of time to get proper support from this section. This leaves new members often frustrated.
As the third largest party in Parliament, Cope has had a consistent battle to get adequate office space, and we still have not resolved that issue. This is for our support staff and our Members of Parliament. We also have repeatedly called for a fair allocation of parliamentary housing to Cope MPs.
It is common knowledge that parliamentary villages are inhabited by parliamentary and party support staff. Why is Parliament not intervening or engaging with the Department of Public Works and the security services to ensure that MPs receive priority allocation of houses? It must be easy to determine who the people are that reside in the villages. At this stage, we still have a serious problem with that - to this day - three years into the Fourth Parliament.
The establishment of the much-awaited parliamentary budget office is overdue. The main reason for establishing the budget office is, clearly, as a result of the money Bill that was passed. But the fact of the matter is that this is the much-needed technical support that this Parliament requires, so that we can effect the necessary changes to budgets and budget allocations.
In overall terms, the functioning of Parliament needs improvement. The issues range from unanswered parliamentary questions by Ministers - and we are very happy that the Speaker alluded to that -to the nonimplementation of Scopa recommendations by departments, lack of follow-through from Scopa to committees, inadequate training and technical competencies of committee secretaries, and lack of support for members.
We align ourselves as Cope with all parties that object to the current reality that National Treasury is holding the purse strings. They determine the budget allocation to Parliament which, in effect, is strangling our capacity to effectively oversee executive authority. This, as the hon Smith alluded to, is clearly an infringement of the doctrine of separation of powers. [Interjections.]
As Cope, we want to thank the Speaker for his input and we will clearly support him in whatever activity he engages in to improve parliamentary efficiency. Thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, I want to congratulate Mr Speaker on his excellent speech; it showed leadership. We will assist him wherever we can.
As far as the hon Smith is concerned, if I understood him correctly, he wants to move Parliament to Pretoria and he wants to move the Supreme Court of Appeal from Bloemfontein to Pretoria. So, may I ask him: Is that your own opinion, or is it the ANC's stance? [Laughter.]
Then, as far as the hon Watson is concerned ...
Watty, jy het dit teen die Ministers wat nie vrae beantwoord nie. Ons sal jou help. Kom ons donner hulle op! [Watty, you are complaining about Ministers not answering questions. We will help you. Let's sort them out!] [Laughter.] [Applause.]
The IFP wishes to thank all staff and members who have tried to make a success of our Parliament over the last year. I wish to share with you that last week I asked my caucus for comments on what I should say today. You will be as surprised as I was about what they said. One, Parliament is not functioning well. Two, presiding officers should know the Rules better, and not rely on the Table to assist them. Three, the Rules Committee is not meeting regularly enough. Four, the ANC should do more to ensure that we have quorums in the House and in the committees. Five, the quality of food in our restaurants is not good enough. [Interjections.] Six, members are not paid enough. [Interjections.] Do you agree? Yes! Kunjalo! [Yes, agreed!]
Seven, more research capacity is needed for members. And, eight, Parliament should take its oversight function more seriously. Nine, Parliament is not planning enough for the future, they say. Lastly, more time should be made available for party caucus meetings.
I have taken this up with the Chief Whip of the Majority Party, and we propose that every fourth Thursday be set aside for caucus meetings.
The good news from my caucus, in respect of Mr Speaker, is that not one of my members criticised him. In fact, they praised him. I must confess, however, that this took place after I had said that Mr Speaker would pressurise the Seriti commission to increase our salaries. [Laughter.] [Applause.]
I now wish to refer to a discussion by some of our colleagues with Mr Speaker a few days ago regarding the position of retired members. We must remember that all of us will one day be retired members, and we should look very carefully at our retirement packages. There are some members who, I hope, will soon be retired. I am looking at one on my right here - J J. [Laughter.]
What I want to point out is only one thing. If a member retires, then the member and the member's spouse get four economy-class air tickets. If a Minister retires, the Minister and his or her spouse get 72 tickets in business class! [Interjections.] There are more examples of how Ministers, on retirement, get a golden handshake, while members walk away with a wooden spoon. I trust that I will soon hear from Mr Speaker about this.
Speaker, I now wish to deal briefly with the European Union visit that we had two or three weeks ago, for which I thank you, Mr Speaker, because we learned very interesting lessons there. Firstly, the EU brought together 27 different nations - with their own languages, cultures and ways of life - under one umbrella. When we asked them how they did it, they said that the word is "compromise". The lesson that we can learn from that is that we cannot always have it our way; we have to compromise.
The second lesson we learned from the European Union is that we must plan ahead. So, great was our astonishment when we were told that the European Union has already planned for the next 50 years. We should, therefore, learn from the European Union as far as planning is concerned in respect of South Africa and our own Parliament. What will it be like in the year 2060? Will we then be travelling to the moon and to planets? Will we be able to live until the age of 200? Will there be peace and prosperity? Will the ANC still be governing by then? [Interjections.] Very importantly, will this Parliament still be standing here in the year 2060?
I wish to say, in conclusion: Let us as parliamentarians have a deep look into the future of this Parliament for the next 10, 20, 30 and even 50 years. We should ask ourselves how we are going to manage our Parliament in years to come; obviously, by doing effective planning ahead of time. Above all, let us plan more effectively with regard to how we can serve much better the people of South Africa who put us here. Thank you. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, hon members, hon Ministers and Deputy Ministers, the institution of Parliament has been referred to by some as the legitimate speaking place, or the institutional marketplace for ideas, or the theatre of dreams, or the engine of democracy, or even as the soul of the state - the state, this time, represented by all citizens. For this institution to play its expected role effectively, it will have to be underpinned by conscientious administrative and management services.
The other day the Speaker of the National Assembly, the hon Max Sisulu, pointed out to me a profound observation, namely that with each passing term of this Parliament the needs and the interests of members, including the implements of their trade, have become incrementally but, at times, radically sophisticated, prominently as a result of the demands of their daily responsibilities as the elected representatives of the people. These have ranged from transport, accommodation, human resources, security, offices and office equipment, computers, catering, parking, training, cellphones, etc. However, these cannot be adequately fulfilled at any given time of progress, development and new challenges.
An important milestone for us this year was when the Quarterly Consultative Forum was recently provided with additional support staff in the form of the forum support office. This development took place after consultations with the Secretary to Parliament, at which we stressed the importance of situating support for this joint forum of both the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces more centrally, that is in the Office of the Secretary to Parliament, at which administrative resources and services can be readily secured.
Members will recall that the Quarterly Consultative Forum, QCF, is a forum supporting the work of 490 Members of Parliament by facilitating inputs on matters relating to members' benefits, interests and facilities, as has been listed above.
Regarding a review of policies affecting members' interests, in an endeavour to improve the working conditions of Members of Parliament and enhance their effectiveness and efficiency, we are reviewing some of the parliamentary policies that bear little or no relevance to the growth of the institution.
For instance, as far as the members' training policy is concerned, which is designed to sharpen the skills and competencies of our members, preparing them for effective execution when dealing with oversight and accountability functions, Parliament offers training opportunities.
We are currently assisting the Deputy Speaker to formulate a programme of training for Members of Parliament. However, the normal leadership development programmes that capacitate members and that are planned by the Speakers' Forum will continue through the various internal and external processes. Here we also attach an annexure in the form of a report from the reference group working with the Speakers' Forum.
On 26 March to 28 March this year, a strategic workshop was held for the Office of the Deputy Speaker, with the objective of synergising all the areas of responsibility, including an integrated form of training for members. In addition, the Speaker felt that it was imperative for the periodic training of members on the workings of Parliament to take place at the beginning and the middle of each year. This training will include, among other things, rules and procedures in the House, motions, conduct of members, public speaking, speech-writing and the use of information, communication and technology, etc.
We have circulated a draft members' training policy and have requested feedback from parties. Thus far, I must say, we have not received responses. We, again, urge parties to give their inputs before the QCF meeting which is scheduled for 15 June. Again, I attach an annexure training report for 2011-12.
I now come to the remuneration and review of members' travel policy. Currently, the task team on the remuneration for public office bearers, chaired by the Chairperson of the NCOP and the Speaker of Gauteng, is engaging with the Seriti commission, which was appointed by the President, to discuss matters of salaries and tools of trade. The task team on members' travel facilities, co-chaired by Chief Whip Ntwanambi in the NCOP and Deputy Chief Whip Mr Magwanishe in the NA, is reviewing the Handbook on Facilities for Members, and the recommendations will be collated and presented to the QCF meeting of 15 June for further consideration.
This task team will also consider facilities for members with special needs, including air tickets - hon Van der Merwe - for current and former members. From the QCF, these recommendations will be forwarded to the executive authority to consider the financial implications thereof and thereafter to the Parliamentary Oversight Authority for final approval.
The Deputy Speaker has observed that there were necessary changes needed with regard to Parmed, that is the members' medical aid service provider, in order to make the medical aid more relevant to all Members of Parliament. As a result, parties have been requested to provide the Deputy Speaker with inputs on the changes they propose in the following areas: compulsory membership; composition of the Parmed Board; relevance of the presidential seal of 1975; benefits provided as compared to other medical aids - diversity; status of dependants; and fee structure.
We therefore remind members to provide inputs accordingly so as to fast- track the discourse of these issues at the Parmed annual general meeting on 1 June. If you haven't, you are already late.
With regard to the management of parliamentary villages, the Deputy Speaker requested that the Department of Public Works and the SA Police Service provide regular reports to the Quarterly Consultative Forum, in the absence of a properly functioning parliamentary villages management board.
It is important to note that the new Minister of Public Works, Minister Thulasi Nxesi, is introducing some far-reaching changes within the parliamentary villages which we need to take account of, hence there have been some delays experienced in implementing some of the decisions taken in the past financial year of Parliament. The Minister, the Deputy Speaker and I discussed the immediate establishment of an interim parliamentary villages management board, which must be chaired by a Member of Parliament, probably appointed by the Speaker, of which the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Police and their directors-general will be members, along with the residents' committees executive members.
In so far as security at villages is concerned, the SA Police Service continue to report the following challenges experienced at the parliamentary villages for which they request the co-operation of Members of Parliament and the Department of Public Works. Some of the challenges are that the residents' committees are not functioning effectively at present. These structures need to be revitalised at Laboria Park and Pelican Park. There are no intercom systems between the houses and the main entrance to verify and make prior arrangements for the entry of visitors. The proper auditing of villages is needed, including a permit card system for pedestrians. These are currently being looked at by Public Works and the police.
We believe that when the Minister of Police becomes a member of the parliamentary villages management board, a lot of security matters relating to authority, protocol, powers and resources will be dealt with fairly. When coming to sport and recreation, I would like to present a factual appeal from the sports council to Members of this Parliament. Briefly, the Parliamentary Sport and Recreation Council is an important body whose objective is to promote the unity and wellness of hon Members and staff of Parliament.
It is therefore imperative that individual members of this House utilise any time at their disposal for participating in any sport or recreational code of their choice. The current Public Works Minister's turnaround strategy in the department is appreciated as it also caters for an urgent establishment of the long-outstanding gymnasiums in the parks where members reside.
The two existing parliamentary gyms are not equipped for optimum utilisation by members. However, they will be used especially during the sports council's newly introduced Wednesday walks. The administrative support should be provided by Parliament in order for the council to be effective and efficient as per the approved concept that established the council.
Now I want to turn to parliamentary management. I will start with the gift shop. Parliament is reintroducing a gift shop where Members of Parliament and visiting communities will be able to purchase parliamentary-branded material and merchandise such as caps, jackets, blazers, key rings, cuff links, T-shirts, scarves, and any other merchandise they require. Turning to the issue of the distribution of cellphones for members and insurance, I want to say that all members' cellphones are procured on a prepaid basis and delivered. There is no change regarding the ownership and insurance of these devices. Ownership remains with Parliament and the device is covered while on the parliamentary precincts. Members are thus requested to make provision for loss of the device outside of Parliament by including it under their own general insurance. The matter of insurance will be discussed at the next QCF meeting, because the Speaker did say that if the members and the parties wanted to review the insurance, then it was up to them to begin the process from scratch.
The tools of the trade are provided to members in terms of the Fixed Asset Policy of Parliament, and therefore old cellphones will need to be returned. With regard to the latest technology in the form of iPads, the Speaker has recommended that Members of Parliament purchase their own iPads as Parliament has provided cellphones as well as mobile desktops and laptop computers to all members. [Interjections.] So you are encouraged to buy your own iPads. [Interjections.] I am the messenger. [Laughter.] The Speaker is saying, "Don't kill the messenger." I still remember a secretary of Prime Minister Thatcher turning the whole thing around, saying that because they criticised him a lot, he wrote a book called Kill the Messenger. [Laughter.]
I now turn to household services. During the year the Catering Section introduced a Customer Satisfaction Survey, which requests members to express their satisfaction. This has focused the staff's attention on the improvement of services to members and given immediate attention to members' specific needs. This deals with food and so on. The cleaning and maintenance of members' offices and other facilities improved significantly. The number of cleaning staff was increased through the appointment of an independent service provider. The Household section has also improved the monitoring of contracted staff to ensure that all facilities are neat and kept tidy at all times.
In conclusion, we continue to urge all parties to include on their weekly caucus agendas a standing item on members' interests. We believe that this would enhance the functioning of the QCF, which meets once a month during parliamentary sessions. We further appeal to chairpersons of portfolio committees relevant to the interests and needs of Members of Parliament, that is health, welfare, education, security, sport, social development, transport, etc, to urge committees to play a role in the development and welfare of all Members of Parliament, which include themselves. There is no point having a Portfolio Committee on Police, but then having members struggling with their security while the portfolio committee looks outside Parliament. They all belong to one community, so we can't isolate ourselves.
When it comes to education, I want to say that members can't struggle with their children's education and so on while we have a portfolio committee dealing with education, but which is focusing outside of what affects members.
I would like to thank the following for their assistance and support and co- operation: My Co-Chairperson, Mr Tau, who is in the NCOP; the Speaker and the Chairperson; the Deputy Speakers of both Houses; the Members of the Quarterly Consultative Forum; the Chief Whips of both Houses; the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary and the chief operating officer of Parliament; the parliamentary management and all staff related to management and administration. Thank you very much. [Applause.] [Interjections.] Of course, I would like to thank my florist for these flowers.
Hon Deputy Speaker, I believe that the Parliament Budget Vote is an opportunity for us to go beyond the numbers and make an honest assessment of what role this institution should be playing in our maturing democracy. We are, clearly, a country with huge unresolved issues, as the events of the past few weeks have visibly demonstrated.
We are also a nation that does not shy away from robust debate. We can all take pride in the fact that we were able to use dialogue to resolve seemingly intractable divisions and usher in our era of multiparty democracy. It is this spirit that should inform our work here in Parliament. We all have a responsibility to live up to this ideal.
In order to do this, though, Parliament needs to position itself at the pinnacle of our country's difficult debates. Unfortunately, many of our debates are sterile, both in their relevance and in their content. We need more snap debates in this House that are responsive to the burning issues of our time. We also need to be showing leadership in these debates, and to avoid them descending into lowest-common denominator politics, which simply intensify our country's divisions.
It is often said that politics is the art of the possible. Unfortunately, I often feel that Parliament is the art of making the possible impossible. Good legislative ideas from Members of Parliament are simply killed off in the private legislative committee, often on the most spurious grounds.
There also seems to be a fundamental inertia in this institution, where decisions are bounced between the Chief Whips' Forum, subcommittees, task teams and the parliamentary oversight committee. It is a bewildering experience and it saps the idealism of those parliamentarians who are desperately trying to drive through progressive changes.
Why is it, for instance, that we are still handing out bottled water with Parliament's label on it? This is not the kind of leadership we should be showing, where we think that putting up huge banners declaring the greening of Parliament is the same as actually doing it.
We need to win back the public's respect for Parliament, but we can only do that if we show a true willingness to discipline our own. Unfortunately, the numerous scandals that have beset this institution and our soft approach in dealing with them do not inspire confidence.
We also need to ensure that we eliminate wastage in this institution and live the values that we want our broader society to adopt. If we can do these things, then we can finally give validity to the term "hon Member of Parliament". I thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, hon members, from the outset, let me reiterate our long-held view that, despite patchy improvements and speaking times, the current proportional speaking formula does not provide parliamentary opposition parties, especially the smaller ones, enough opportunity to add maximum value to parliamentary debates.
The work of Parliament is by its nature very complex. We therefore believe that the complexity of the work of Parliament should be reflected in, firstly, the proportional formula that is applied to speaking time; and secondly, the resources that political parties need in order to be able to represent the views of their voters.
Another area of concern, as the Chief Whip of the Opposition has already highlighted before me, is that this institution seems to be content with diligently keeping a record, an accurate one, of the number of questions that are being put to the executive per year, without developing an effective management system to ensure that these questions are answered within a reasonable timeframe.
Questions are another important way of keeping the executive accountable for its actions and the work of its various departments. For this reason, allowing many questions to go unanswered or to only be answered a year later weakens the oversight role of Parliament.
Parliament also needs to pay particular attention to improving public participation - as the hon Speaker has already said here; I align myself with the hon Speaker - when dealing with controversial Bills that only come before Parliament every now and again. For instance, reports about claims that certain media people were being purged from public hearings the Protection of State Information Bill, as well as claims that committee members did not allow those with divergent views sufficient opportunity to thoroughly and meaningfully deliberate on the Protection of State Information Bill, undermine the role of this important institution. We cannot allow the public out there to perceive Parliament as an arm of government that appears eager to rubberstamp the work of the executive, when they - that is the public - pin their hopes on us as Members of Parliament to play an oversight role. The day we allow this to happen, we must know that we shall have failed the democracy.
In conclusion, allow me again to align myself with the Chief Whip of the Opposition in saying that it is important that Ministers are reminded of the importance of the work of Parliament. Over the years, we have seen an unacceptably high level of absenteeism of Ministers in this House. Once again, this negatively affects the ability of this House to carry out its duties.
The UDM supports the Budget Vote. Thank you. [Applause.]