The latest version of the amendments made to the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service Bill, as suggested in previous meetings, were presented by the State Law Advisors. It was indicated that some clauses would be suspended until a time to be determined by the Minister, because the operation of these clauses was dependent upon the Civilian Secretariat being determined as a separate department. A time frame of 18 months now appeared, in Clause 16. One Member asked what the Secretariat would do if the SAPS were to ignore the Secretariats instructions, but the question was also raised whether it was appropriate to deal with this in the current Bill. Members agreed that the Domestic Violence Act should not be tampered with. There was also discussion on whether the way Clause 15 had been worded allowed for comparative reporting in audit reports, and although a Member suggested that it could be reworded, other Members thought the clause was adequately worded as it stood. Members also discussed Clause 26 in some detail, and decided that the words “where so required” should be deleted. Once again, Members debated whether the word ‘may’ or ‘must’ would be appropriate in relation to provincial appointments, and in relation to instructions of the Minister. Members decided that this clause should be reworded to state ‘.the Minister may, after consultation with the relevant MEC, instruct the Civilian Secretariat.’
The Police Secretariat then presented its implementation plan for the Bill, noting that some areas still required to be finalised. Estimates were based on discussions by the organisational development working group and discussions with South African Police Services (SAPS) about shared service agreements. The Secretariat was likely to become a designated department in the 2012/13 financial year, and from that time its costs would increase. The final budget would be ready by May 2011. The Secretariat had already held discussions with the Department of Public Services and Administration (DPSA) and the National Treasury. Cost implications could be finalised after these departments and work streams had finalised their processes. The processes were outlined, including the shared service agreements and transfer of functions. Some IT functions were to be shared. The implementation of the provincial secretariats was also outlined, noting that provincial secretariats would be constituted after the Act was passed. Two workshops had already been held with provincial heads. The greater part of the budget was likely to speak to organisational development work and the monitoring of the Domestic Violence Act. Members asked what had been done to ensure that IT systems were compatible, how much money had budgeted for monitoring and evaluation, and who would determine the transferable budget.
The Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) then outlined its responsibilities in relation to the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) Bill. The promulgation of regulations would follow on the Bill being enacted. The ICD would consult with the relevant labour unions, and would develop and align policies with the new mandate, including Human Resources scoping. Additional investigators would be assigned. It would be important to ensure constant monitoring and evaluation of performance reporting. The training to be provided for investigators was outlined. A new procedure for security screening and vetting would be developed. A summary of expenditure was presented, noting that gross expenditure would be around R66 million for 2011/12, rising to R99 million in the following year. The implementation cost and staff structure were outlined. Members asked what the real financial implications would be, and what total additional expenditure would be required. Members questioned why some amounts in the documents did not tally, and asked how many staff would be needed to function optimally. Members queried why
Civilian Secretariat for Police Bill (the Bill): amended version dated 1 September 2010
The Chairperson asked the State Law Advisors to present the latest set of amendments that had been made to the Civilian Secretariat for Police Services Bill (the Bill), following the Committee’s discussions at its previous meetings.
Mr Theo Hercules, Principal State Law Advisor, Office of the Chief State Law Advisor, then presented the amendments and took Members through them.
Mr Hercules pointed out that the definition of “organ of the State” had been inserted.
Mr Hercules stated that the Clause had been reworded and the definition of “organ of the State had been removed.
Mr Hercules pointed out that the word “national” which had formerly appeared before the words “Civilian Secretariat” in subclauses (1) and (2) had been deleted. He also stressed that the Bill had been amended in Clause 2, to say at ‘national level’ as opposed to ‘on national level’.
Mr Hercules stated that the content of subclause (h) had been moved to (a).
Mr Hercules stated that Clause 6(1)(j) had been changed.
Ms D Kohler-Barnard (DA) suggested that the sentence in Clause 6(1)(j) be reworded to say ‘receive and deal efficiently with complaints’.
Mr Hercules pointed out that the time frame in this Clause had been changed to 18 months.
Mr Hercules pointed out that Clause 19(1)(d) was correct as it stood, as opposed to what the Committee Members had suggested in the previous meeting.
Ms A Van Wyk (ANC) pointed out that the suggested amendments for Clauses 8(2) and 8(5) were not reflected in the document that was being presented by Mr Hercules.
Mr Hercules responded that the Bill contained such amendments. He stated that Clause 8(5) would, however, be suspended until such a time the Secretariat became a designated Department.
Ms Van Wyk stated that she wanted assurance that the management of the budget would not be suspended.
Mr M George (COPE) stated that he was under the impression that Clause 8(5) addressed the issue of suspension.
Ms Jennifer Irish-Qhobosheane, Secretary of Police, responded to Ms Van Wyk’s question, saying that that the term ‘accounting officer’ was a specific term. The Bill referred to the role of the accounting officer, and not to the management role. This Clause was addressing one specific function of the accounting officer.
Mr Hercules stated that the clause would be included in those matters that would stand over until the Secretariat became a designated Department.
Ms Van Wyk noted that Mr George was correct in saying that the clause could not be suspended, because it already expressed this itself.
Ms Kohler-Barnard wanted clarification in relation to Clause 6(1)(d). She asked what the next step would be if South African Police Services (SAPS) ignored recommendations made by the Civilian Secretariat for Police (the Secretariat).
Ms Irish-Qhobosheane noted that the Committee had addressed this issue in the previous meeting. She stated that the Secretariat first had to look at the Domestic Violence Act (DVA).
Ms Kohler–Barnard asked what would happen if there was non-compliance from the SAPS.
Ms Irish-Qhobosheane pointed out that the issue would be discussed after Mr Hercules had finished his presentation. She pointed out that this was an area where all the Secretariats’ recommendations would go to the Minister. She stated that it was not appropriate for the Secretariat to include a clause on non-compliance in this Bill.
Ms Van Wyk stressed that the Committee should differentiate between the types of issues with which Members were dealing. She stated that the Secretariat’s recommendations would be around disciplinary procedures, and not disciplinary actions.
Mr G Schneemann, (ANC), agreed with Ms Van Wyk. He suggested that the Committee should not tamper with the DVA until the Act had been reviewed.
The Chairperson agreed with Mr Schneemann.
Ms D Schafer, (DA), wanted clarity whether or not the Committee was going to change Section 5 of the DVA.
Mr Hercules pointed out that Clause 15(2)(b) had been amended to say that the auditor’s report should be referred in the Annual Report.
Ms Kohler-Barnard stated that Clause 15(2)(c) specifically cut out comparative figures from the previous years that may be included in the annual report.
Mr Schneemann responded that as he understood it, this provision was actually providing for the inclusion of such comparisons.
Ms Kohler-Barnard pointed out that merely adding one word would alleviate any potential problems.
Mr George stated that any audit report, by its nature, would do a comparison.
Mr Hercules agreed with Mr George and pointed out that Clause 15(1) supported his point.
The Chairperson concurred with Mr Hercules.
Ms Van Wyk agreed that the audit report would not exclude comparisons. She stated that the Secretariat should monitor the implementations of the reports.
Ms Kohler-Barnard stressed that she was only trying to be cautious. She stated that there might be a good team heading the institution now, but that could change in the future, so it was just a way of protecting the future position.
The Chairperson asked Ms Kohler-Barnard which word she intended to insert.
Ms Kohler suggested that the Committee should refer rather to a ‘detailed report’ in Clause 15(2)(e).
Ms Van Wyk stated that she disagreed that with the inclusion of a new word. She believed that subclause (2) covered the issue. She ended by saying that the role of Parliament should not be underestimated.
Mr Hercules stated that a time frame of 18 months had been inserted in the Clause.
Mr Hercules highlighted that Clause 17(2)(a)(ii) had been reworded to say ‘evaluate and monitor’ instead of ‘evaluate and investigate’.
Mr Hercules noted that Clause 19(1)(d) had been reworded.
The Chairperson corrected Mr Hercules that subclause (1)(d) was supposed to say ‘must monitor the implementation’.
Mr George asked why the State Law Advisors had complicated the issue by not taking the advice of the Committee.
Mr Hercules responded that there had been a misunderstanding amongst the State Law Advisors on what had been said in the previous meeting.
Mr Hercules stressed that this clause had been amended to say ‘after consultation with the Minister’.
Mr Schneemann highlighted that the Committee had suggested the use of ‘after consultation’ in relation to vacancies, in the previous meeting.
Ms Irish-Qhobosheane stated that it was the MEC’s responsibility to make sure that the vacancies were filled.
Ms Van Wyk pointed out that Mr Schneemann was talking about the acting of Head of Secretariat.
The Chairperson and Mr George concurred with Ms Van Wyk that the wording should read: ‘after consultation’.
Mr Hercules highlighted the amendment in subclause (1)(c).
Mr Hercules stressed that subclause (4) had been amended.
Mr Hercules pointed out that subclause (1) had been reworded to include the words ‘and were so required’.
Ms Van Wyk asked why the phrase ‘where so required’ had been inserted, together with ‘on the instructions of the Minister.
Ms Irish-Qhobosheane suggested that the clause should remain as it was.
Ms Van Wyk asked again why the words had been inserted in the clause.
Mr George suggested that the use of the phrase ‘where so required’ was not necessary. He asked whether the use of the word ‘may’ in subclause (1) meant that the Civilian Secretary could ignore the instructions of the Minister. He suggested that the word ‘must’ instead of ‘may’ should be used.
The Chairperson said that she was under the impression that the word ‘may’ addressed the Minister.
Ms Van Wyk stated that it was the choice of the Minister and not the choice of the Civilian Secretariat.
Mr G Lekgetho (ANC) suggested the removal of the word ‘may’.
Rev K Meshoe (ACDP) also suggested that the word ‘must’ should be used instead of ‘may’, as the latter word gave room for too many options.
Mr George pointed out that what Ms Van Wyk had said was not what was written in the Bill.
Ms Van Wyk stressed that the Committee must be careful on this point. This clause was referring to the Provincial Secretariat, which would not be under the control of the Minister, but under the control of the MEC.
Ms Schafer suggested that the subclause be amended to read ‘on the instruction of the Minister’.
The Chairperson agreed with Ms Schafer.
Ms Irish-Qhobosheane had a different suggestion, and asked the Committee to consider the phrase ‘...the Minister may, after consultation with the relevant MEC, instruct the Civilian Secretariat...’
Mr George agreed that Ms Irish-Qhobosheane’s suggestion would clarify the issue.
Ms Schafer asked whether or not it was appropriate for the Committee to require the Minister to consult with the relevant MEC, in Clause 26(4).
Ms Irish-Qhobosheane suggested that the Committee look at the wording around Clause 26 first.
Mr Hercules pointed out that Clause 31(4) had been aligned with the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) Bill.
Ms Schafer suggested a rewording of the Clause in relation to grammar and punctuation.
Ms Van Wyk raised an issue about consultative forums.
Mr Hercules pointed out that the Clause had been reworded. He also indicated that the heading of Chapter 6 had been amended.
Mr Hercules pointed out that subclause (3) had also been amended, so that regulations would be submitted to Parliament.
The Chairperson corrected Mr Hercules.
Ms A Molebasti (ANC) pointed out that the Committee had made an amendment which had not been effected.
Mr Hercules responded that the amendment had been addressed.
Presentation of the Implementation Plan for the Civilian Secretariat for Police
Ms Irish-Qhobosheane stated that there were still certain areas in the plan that needed to be finalised. She noted that the current Police Secretariat (the Secretariat) had inserted estimates, based on what had been coming out of the organisational development working group. She stated that there had also been discussions with SAPS about shared service agreements.
Ms Irish-Qhobosheane stressed that the clauses that were to be suspended until the Secretariat became a designated Department were more likely to come into effect in 2012 and 2013. Matters such as infrastructure, information technology and telephones would eventually become the responsibility of the Secretariat. She highlighted the fact that from the time that the Secretariat became a designated Department the costs of the Secretariat were going to increase. She stated that the final budget would be ready by May 2011.
Mr George interjected to point out that he was under the impression that the Committee was going to hear a presentation on the implementation plan of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID).
The Chairperson responded that it was an unusual situation, which had arisen since the Secretariat was supposed to have presented its implementation plan earlier.
Mr Schneemann asked for clarity about implementation in the 2012 and 2013 financial year.
Ms Irish-Qhobosheane stated that when the Secretariat looked at its costing, it had identified that there would be some additional costs. She stated that there had been extensive consultations with the Heads of Provincial Departments responsible for safety and security. She stressed that workshops had been held with civil society organisations dealing with policing issues. She also noted that the Department of Public Services and Administration (DPSA) and the National Treasury had been consulted. She went on to present the processes which were to be used to implement the Bill. Shared service agreements were to be finalised and signed. She stressed that the transfer of functions from SAPS to the new Civilian Secretariat would also include transfer of budget, and that the DPSA was finalising its work-study on the Secretariat.
Mr Amichand Soman, Director of Support Services, Police Secretariat , went on to present the implementation plan. He stressed that the purpose was to establish a Civilian Secretariat for the Police Service. He pointed out that the implementation steps set out to achieve this was to engage with the DPSA on the re-organisation of the Secretariat. He highlighted that the time frame to achieve the target would be 1 February 2011. The cost implications would be determined after the DPSA and work-streams had finalised their processes, after consultation with the National Treasury. He also stated that one of the implementation plans was to develop an internal IT system and to develop memorandums of understandings (MOUs) for shared services with the SAPS. A new IT system would be in place during the 2011/12 financial year.
Ms Nomvula Nzimande, Chief Director, Police Secretariat, addressed the issue of Provincial Secretariats, as contained in Clause 15 of the Bill. She outlined the implementation steps. It would be necessary to brief the provinces on the MEC’s obligation to constitute a Provincial Secretariat in each province, through MinMECs and HOD forums. Guidelines would have to be issued on provincial programme structures, and changes on the budget programme would need to be presented to MECs. Provincial Secretariats had to be constituted after the Act had been passed and put into operation, within 18 months. She stressed that two workshops had already been conducted with Provincial heads, and further meetings had been scheduled.
Ms Irish-Ohobosheane stated that the real issues around the budget related to the regulations. The biggest issue was the work study group. She stated that the Secretariat’s current budget covered a greater part of the costs that were involved. The estimate of R12 million related to the Secretariat’s organisational development work. She stated that other additional costs would arise from the monitoring of implementation of the Domestic Violence Act, which would cost between R800 000 and R1 million.
Ms Kohler-Barnard asked how the Secretariat was going to maintain presentations at minimal cost.
Ms Schafer asked what had been done to ensure that the IT systems were compatible with current technology.
Ms Van Wyk asked whether the Secretariat had an idea of how much the actual budget would be. She asked how much money had budgeted for by the Secretariat for monitoring and evaluation.
Ms Irish-Qhobosheane responded that what the Secretariat had costed was the actual cost of the audit. In addition, the Secretariat had identified, in the organisational development process, three areas where it would be necessary to strengthen the Secretariat significantly. One area was monitoring and evaluation. The Secretariat had already started discussions with SAPS. At some level the Secretariat wanted to have an independent IT structure, whilst at other levels it would be sharing facilities. Some of the functions around Community Policing Forums (CPFs) involved the hosting of huge conferences for the Community Policing Forums to deal with policies, rental costs and supply chain management issues. She stated that offices, phones and IT were areas where the Secretariat would be looking at shared agreements.
Mr George stated that there were some areas that were not clear in the presentation. He stated that it would have been better if the Secretariat had given its ideal budget. He asked who was going to determine the transferable budget.
Ms Irish-Qhobosheane responded that the National Treasury would make the decision and it was not up to the SAPS.
Ms Van Wyk stated that it was good enough to have a projection plan.
Ms Irish-Qhobosheane stated that the Committee should note that it was easy to increase the budget.
Ms Van Wyk pointed out that it was too easy for SAPS to transfer money.
The Chairperson said that the SAPS had more than enough money with which it had purchased unnecessary forensic machinery.
Implementation plan for the Independent Police Investigative Directorate Bill: Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) briefing
Mr Francois Beukman, Executive Director, Independent Complaints Directorate, outlined the responsibilities of the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) in relation to the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) Bill. He stated that the first responsibility was the development of the IPID Bill, followed by the promotion of regulations in terms of Clause 34, which would be in line with Clauses 7, 8(3), 22(3), 26, 29, 30 and 32 of that Bill. Another responsibility was to manage the legal implications and processes of the IPID Bill. He stated that the ICD would be consulting with the relevant labour unions. ICD would develop and align policies with the new mandate. It would further ensure that processes were initiated to provide Human Resources scoping for the implementation of the Bill, once it was passed. He stated that there would be provision for new or additional staff for the management structure, as was provided for in the Bill. He stressed that the ICD would ensure that additional investigators were assigned. Processes would be put in place to allow for physical scoping.
One of the most important responsibilities was to ensure constant monitoring and evaluation of performance reporting. He stressed that training would be provided by the Department of Police for investigators and development pertaining to the IPID Bill. He highlighted that the training included specialised training in forensic collection and preservation of evidence at the scene of the crime, taking of statements, affidavits and report writing, presentation of evidence in court, advanced training on Criminal Procedure and investigative ethics and the daily control and issue of firearms and ammunition. He pointed out that a new procedure for security screening and vetting would be developed.
Mr Beukman went on to present the summary of expenditure. He stated that the gross expenditure would be around R66 million for the year 2011/12, rising to R99 million in the financial year 2012/13. He then went on to present the implementation cost of the IPID Bill with emphasis on staff structure as prescribed by the IPID Bill.
Mr Schneemann asked what the actual financial implications were. He went on to ask for the total additional expenditure that the ICD required. He also noted that the amounts in the presentation documents 4(b) and 4(a) did not tally. He asked whether the amounts were supposed to tie together.
Ms Elise Verster, Chief Financial Officer, ICD, Chief Financial Officer, Independent Complaints Directorate responded that the figures were supposed to tie up but they were not tying up. She stated that the summary in 4(a) was the one with the correct figures.
Ms Kohler-Barnard asked what the final figure was, in terms of staff, which would enable the functioning at optimal level.
Ms Van Wyk asked how the ICD determined additional personnel. She also asked why there were more investigators in
Mr Beukman said that to a large extent it would depend on the ICD’s next plan. However, the ICD would look further into and make a further determination on this. The performance indicators of the Department were the yard stick used to determine the allocation of additional staff.
Ms Van Wyk how many investigators there were in
Mr Beukman responded that there were seven members.
Ms Van Wyk again raised her question again why
Mr Beukman responded that there were 14.
Ms Van Wyk asked for an indication of the criteria that were used to determine Provincial needs.
Mr Beukman said that the ICD looked at the most populated area.
The Chairperson said that she would have thought that the criteria used to determine provincial needs might have been based upon matters such as the number of cases against the police, or class 1 cases, or the vastness of the province.
Mr Beukman said that ICD, in addition to the demographics, did also use statistics such as the number of cases of attempted murder, assault and indecent assault, corruption, destruction of police documents and the theft and disposal of exhibits.
The Chairperson highlighted the fact that there were no time frames mentioned, so it would be difficult for the Committee to oversee the progress being made by the ICD.
Mr Beukman responded that some time frames appeared in other plans, but conceded that some still needed to be attended to. The due dates that were stated appeared in documents 2 and 4b of the presentation.
The Chairperson said that the ICD would be held accountable for the matters that it had presented to the Committee. The Committee would also ask the ICD to appear again, so that its progress could be assessed.
The meeting was adjourned.
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.