The Committee researcher presented the BRRR recommendations divided per programme as well as financial recommendations. One of the most important recommendations was the need to be put in place effective systems for supply chain and asset management. Until this happened, the Committee saw it fit to recommend that no additional increases be made to the budget for capital assets. Further, it was recommended that the National Treasury impose a cap on the virements, limiting the actual amounts instead of the percentage. Under Programme 1: Administration, the Committee stated that SAPS had to provide the Committee a quarterly written progress report in order increasing the effectiveness of the SAPS supply chain management and assets systems. Also recommended was that SAPS review its basic training curriculum and the quality of investigations conducted by detectives had to be assessed by the SAPS.
Most of the recommendations stipulated submission of reports to the Committee by the SAPS. There was much discussion around dates for the submission of reports. SAPS was supposed to submit report in February / March depending on whether the SAPS already had a plan in place and whether such reports could be submitted early. There was also much discussion on to whom the BRRR should be addressed. The Committee concluded the BRRR had to be addressed to the Executive since the Executive reported to Parliament as opposed to addressing the report to SAPS. Addressing the report to the Executive was constitutional. After going through the amendments, the Committee adopted the BRRR with amendments.
Police Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report (BRRRR) 2010: discussion and adoption
The Chairperson thanked the researchers and the secretary for helping the Committee compile the Report. Members were keen to submit their first BRRR which would be a learning process. She commented that the Committee would not be offended if the BRRR was used to critique the Committee. The Report would also go to the Finance Standing Committee.
Ms Nadia Dollie, Senior Researcher, Parliament, went through the recommendations. The Financial Recommendations stated the need for effective systems to be put in place for supply chain and asset management. The SAPS should reassess their entire asset management system. Until they had resolved their problems with the management of assets, SAPS should not receive any additional increase in its capital assets budget. The Report recommended that the National Treasury impose a limit on virements in terms of the amount and not percentage. Other recommendations included the need to improve the standard of management at police stations. The Department should provide an assessment report to the Committee on the situation countrywide and the measures SAPS had taken to ensure all police stations had effective management in place. There was a need for a more ‘hands on’ approach by the national senior management team which was supposed to include regular visits to provinces and individual police stations. The Department should also provide a progress report to the Committee on all funds allocated and spent to date on the Integrated Justice System (IJS) and the Criminal Justice System Revamp (CJSR).
Its recommendations for Programme 1: Administration were:
▪ SAPS had to provide the Committee with a quarterly written progress report in order increasing the effectiveness of the SAPS supply chain management and assets systems.
▪ The Anti-corruption Strategy needed to be strengthened and implemented and SAPS should provide a progress report on measures taken to strengthen the implementation of the Anti-corruption Strategy.
▪ SAPS needed to review the basic training curriculum to ensure that all relevant aspects were included.
▪ There was a need to improve and structure a working relationship with the Department of Public Works.
▪ In relation to visible policing SAPS had to undertake an assessment of the successes, problems and lessons learnt in the implementation of sector policing.
▪ SAPS must provide a report to the Committee on the currently defined and envisaged roles and responsibilities of the SANDF and the SAPS.
▪ SAPS must provide a written report on the review of reservist system.
Its recommendations for Programme 3: Detective Services were:
▪ An in-depth analysis of investigations conducted by detectives must be initiated to assess the quality of investigations conducted by detectives, identify reasons for poor performance and recommend steps to address the problems. The aim was to improve the quality of investigations and increase conviction rates.
▪ SAPS must report using a detailed, costed plan with timeframes on the measures it would be taking to address the problems in the Forensic Services Laboratories.
For Programme 5: Protection and Security Services, there had to be a clear role definition between the SAPS and the SANDF in guarding ports of entry.
Ms A Van Wyk (ANC) said that the Committee should include more than a percentage. The Committee needed to be specific with the financial recommendations.
The Chairperson stated that subtopics were supposed to be placed on all paragraphs. She added that the Committee should decide on dates for these reports.
Ms Van Wyk stated that the Committee could not fix dates for all recommendations.
Mr G Lekgetho (ANC) suggested that the recommendations should be numbered.
Ms Van Wyk expressed her concern that it was not a simple project. SAPS should be given until the end of the financial year when they reported on their annual report.
Ms Dollie suggested that the Committee give the SAPS until October because the end of the financial year was in March.
The Chairperson stated that the report could also be an addendum.
Mr G Schneemann (ANC) felt that if different dates were set there would be a problem. He suggested a uniform approach adding that the SAPS should be given sufficient time.
Mr Lekgetho seconded Mr Schneemann.
Rev K Meshoe (ACDP) stated that management hindered the effectiveness of the SAPS. He added that the SAPS should be given a few weeks to come up with a plan.
Ms Van Wyk stated agreed with Rev Mesho. She added that funds allocated for the integration of the the justice system was a budgetary issue and hence it needed to be looked at before the Committee looked at the budget. Information was supposed to be given before the Committee looked at the budget. She also said that the reservist issue was urgent and thus the Committee should not wait until next October.
The Chairperson stated that the Committee needed to remember the National Commissioner had said that SAPS was holding a meeting of managers. The recommendation should acknowledge this. The Committee wanted to know the impact of that management meeting.
Ms Van Wyk said that the recommendation should state that over and above their monthly meeting in provinces, the deputy national commissioners must know what was happening in their fields.
Mr M Swathe (DA) agreed with Ms Van Wyk. He added that the Committee should ask SAPS to direct the meeting not only at national level but also provincial level. If the issues were not addressed quickly, the Committee will be faced with the same problem the following year.
Mr Dollie reiterated the recommendation suggested by the Committee.
The Chairperson said that the Committee had not heard the impact of such initiatives because when they visited police stations, they would be told that no one from head office came to visit the police station. She said that the Committee could not wait for next October.
Ms Van Wyk said that SAPS must report on their findings and effect of their interaction with provinces in the annual report.
The Chairperson suggested that SAPS should report the results from the provinces in the SAPS budget.
Mr Swathe agreed with the Chairperson. SAPS was working like an “imbizo” where when a meeting arose everyone would go but when the meeting ended, everyone just left the place
Rev Meshoe said that the Committee should receive reports on what happened in the provinces and if the Committee found time they were supposed to join the provincial visits.
Ms Van Wyk said that all the Committee Members were saying the same thing. The question was how SAPS provincial visits impacted on the budget. SAPS was supposed to report on the budget and then SAPS would also report in their annual report.
The Chairperson said that there were two issues, namely, budget related issues and accounting in relation to the last recommendation on management issues.
Ms Van Wyk said that SAPS should report on a quarterly basis starting from January 2011.
The Chairperson said that the Committee should not contradict what they had said in the previous meeting.
Rev Meshoe said that February was a reasonable time.
Ms Van Wyk said that SAPS had an existing anti-corruption strategy thus SAPS did not need a lot of time.
The Chairperson said that the way in which the anti-corruption strategy would be strengthened was what SAPS had to present during the budget period and the impact of the anti-corruption strategy should be given in October. The Chairperson asked whether the recommendation meant that SAPS had to change their curriculum under paragraph four of the recommendations for Programme 1, administration.
Ms Dollie said that she meant that SAPS should assess the quality and the number of the assessors they have.
The Chairperson said that October could be too late for the submission of reports that related to SAPS members.
Rev Meshoe said that the report could be presented in February or March and October could be too late.
Mr Schneemann raised the issue of instructors being constables. The issue of constables would not be difficult to look at. He said the earlier the better. He added that the review of the entire curriculum would take a very long time but to stipulate a few subjects was an issue that did not require a lot of time.
Ms Van Wyk said the two paragraphs needed to be swapped around. SAPS had done a review, the information that the Committee wanted would be available. She suggested that one deadline be given for both paragraphs three and four under the recommendations on Programme 1: Administration.
Ms Dollie said that the recommendation referred to all training.
The Chairperson said that Ms Van Wyk was correct that the review would talk to situational analysis. She was sceptical that the Committee use the word ‘review’ when in actual fact the Committee was talking of just adding some subjects.
Ms Van Wyk pointed out that the recommendation should start with ‘taking note of the fact that the Department has recently reviewed their curriculum’ so that the Department would not review their curriculum again.
The Chairperson said that what had been said would address the problem. She went on to state that there was a resolution in the report they had done in the previous meeting which was the same as the last recommendation under Programme 1.
Ms Van Wyk said that Ms Dollie should use the same wording. The Committee did not want SAPS to take a decision. SAPS should come before the Committee for the review and the recommendation.
The Chairperson said that the earlier date that had been set for the other reports would also relate to the first recommendation under Programme 2 for visible policing. The Chairperson said that the deadline for the report on border security should be provided in March.
In terms of Programme 3, the Chairperson suggested that the date that had been set for a report from SAPS to the Committee would also apply.
Ms Van Wyk said that there were two issues that had been combined that should not have been combined. The first issue was the training of detectives and the second issue was why there were low conviction rates. The quality of the detective work should be given an October deadline.
Ms Dollie suggested that the Secretariat report to the Committee.
The Chairperson stressed that the Department was equally in charge of forensics and if things did not happen, the Department would be accountable. The Department and SAPS should both report together because the Secretariat could not do it alone.
Ms Van Wyk stressed that the Department should work together with the Secretariat in providing a report.
Mr Schneemann said that a lot of the recommendations the Committee had passed were the role of the Secretariat. The Department or the Secretariat delegated the responsibility at the end of the day.
The Chairperson said that a body that monitored could not be told to implement. The Secretariat could not provide a report on the impact.
Mr Lekgetho said that the Secretariat played an important role.
Ms Van Wyk said that the question that Mr Schneemann had asked was a question of principle. The report was a report to the Executive and the Executive would decide. The Committee needed to be flexible because many of the recommendations addressed to the Department, the Secretariat would end up doing.
The Chairperson asked whether the Committee should include the Secretariat.
Ms Van Wyk responded that the Secretariat should be included.
Ms Dollie suggested that the recommendation be addressed to the Department. The Minister would decide whether the Department or the Secretariat implemented the suggestions.
Ms Van Wyk said that as much as Parliament was struggling with BRRRs, Departments would also have the same problem. It should be made clear in the introduction that the report was going to the Executive.
The Chairperson said that constitutionally it was the Executive that accounted to Parliament. She was not sure if something needed to be added.
Ms Dollie said that she had not seen many reports that had been addressed to the Minister. Something could still be put in the introduction.
Mr Schneemann said that SAPS was not a normal department. Some of the things that the Committee wanted the Department to do, the Executive could think otherwise.
Ms Van Wyk said that she was not asking for the removal of the word Department. The Committee should insert ‘report as follows to the Executive Member of the Cabinet’.
The Chairperson said that what Ms Van Wyk had suggested would make the report constitutional.
Mr Lekgetho agreed with the Chairperson that the report be directed to the people who report to Parliament.
Ms Van Wyk said that the Committee did not report to the Department but it reported to the Executive.
Ms Dollie said that the recommendation on ports of entry needed to be formulated.
Ms Van Wyk said that the acronym needed to be cross checked. There was a role definition problem at the border. There was a lack of direction by the Executive in terms of the role definition which resulted in tension on the ground. SAPS would blame SANDF and SANDF would blame Home Affairs. The departments were supposed to meet on a daily basis and this was not happening. The recommendation would make them clarify role definition.
The Chairperson said that the Committee needed to be informed on the status of the land ports of entry because there was rampant corruption.
The Police Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report (BRRR) 2010 was adopted with amendments.
The meeting was adjourned.
No related documents
- 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.