Committee Report adoption: Visit to Phillipi Training College, Civilian Secretariat for Police Service, Independent Complaints Directorate, Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority

Meeting report

The Chairperson announced that the Committee must deliberate on five draft Reports, which were tabled in turn.

Committee’s Draft Report on the Oversight Visit to Phillipi Training College in the Western Cape
The Chairperson asked Members to comment on, and suggest any changes that were needed, to the report, page by page.

Ms P Mocumi (ANC) noted that, on page 1, her name had been omitted from the list of delegates making the oversight visit to the Phillipi Training College.

The Chairperson said it should be added.

The Chairperson asked for clarification of the term “makeshift contraption” in paragraph 3 on page 3.

Mr M Swathe (DA) suggested that the term should be corrected to “makeshift construction”, since it was the building site.

Mr G Schneemann (ANC) said “makeshift structure” should rather be used.

Ms Mocumi corrected the grammar used in the last paragraph of page 3.

Ms Mocumi asked for clarity on the words “filing building or store rooms” on page 4 of the report.
 
The Committee resolved to refer to “filing room”.

The Chairperson said it was important to report on the attendance register of the Training College, noting that the Committee had seen no attendance register.

Mr M George (Cope) asked for clarity on the words “administration building or record stores” in paragraph 3 of page 5.

The Chairperson said it should be “administration building and filing stores”.  

Mr George asked for clarity on the use of the term “senior managers” instead of “generals”.

The Chairperson responded that when the Members had visited the College, they realised that somebody was needed to assist the principal of the College. This Committee, observing that the recommendations of the previous Committee were not implemented by the College, was trying to be more direct when makings its recommendations, and had thus asked South African Police Service (SAPS) to appoint senior members, from various divisions of SAPS, to assist the principal of the College.

Mr G Lekgetho (ANC) emphasised that the Committee could instruct SAPS to appoint senior members to assist in the College.

Mr Schneemann stressed that there was a principal at the College, but this person was not coping, and it was up to the National Commissioner to appoint a team of captains to assist at the College. Although he had no problem with the wording of the recommendation, it might be too late to effect it, since the National Commissioner had already visited the College. He asked when the Committee’s report would be published in the Announcements, Tabling and Committee reports (ATC), and pointed out that the Committee could not instruct SAPS to appoint senior members, only recommend that they be appointed.

The Chairperson emphasised that it was still important to make the recommendation, and it was crucial that the Committee call for a report-back on when such appointments would be made, so that the report could serve as a reference point for the next visit to the College. The principal alone was unlikely to effect any changes.

Mr Swathe agreed with the Chairperson on the recommendations and the report-back, and thought that a time limit of 30 days for the report-back should be given.

The Committee adopted the Report, as amended.

Draft Committee Report on Civilian Secretariat for Police, 26 October 2010
The Chairperson said that one of the paragraphs on page 1 should be deleted. This noted that the Committee approved the amendment of the focus areas of the Civilian Secretariat for Police (the Secretariat) and some of its targets, in light of the restructuring of the Secretariat during the financial year. However, it was misplaced, as it did not relate to the strategic objectives of the Secretariat.

Mr Schneemann concurred with the Chairperson, but said that he was also not sure that the Committee had a duty to approve this amendment.

Ms Molebatsi was concerned about the numbering of the programmes highlighted in the report.

Mr George questioned the under-spending by the Secretariat on its Soccerex programme.

The Chairperson emphasised that the Secretariat had under-spent R1.9 million of the budget set aside for the Soccerex programme.

Mr Swathe explained that the Secretariat had noted, when presenting its report, that R3 million had been budgeted, but was not spent.

The Chairperson asked for clarity whether there was underspending.

Mr Schneemann clarified that the Secretariat had mentioned the budget for Soccerex but had stated that this amount was not spent, as the programme was abandoned as not falling within its mandate. The presentation made its clear that the amount of R3 million was not spent. This report seemed to suggest that some of the money was spent on the programme.

Mr George stressed that the Committee Report should mention why there was no spending of the budgeted amount, and the amounts spent should be detailed.

The Chairperson commented on the underspending highlighted on page 5, in particular the R4.93 million, attributed partially to the fact that R3 million that was allocated to the Soccerex programme was withdrawn following the appointment of the Secretary of Police in September 2009. She suggested that there be a separate bullet point stating that the Secretariat under-spent by R1.9 million, whilst another separate bullet point should state that R3 million was withdrawn from the Soccerex programme budget, by the Secretary of Police.

Ms Mocumi asked for clarity on the meetings to discuss stock theft that the Secretariat undertook with the rural communities in the areas bordering Lesotho.

The Chairperson responded that four workshops were held with civil society groups for the reorganisation of the Secretariat’s strategic approach.
 
Mr George asked for clarity on the supply chain management of the Secretariat. One of the bullet points relating to the three instances in which the necessary quotations could not be found, for purchases between R10 000 and R50 000, was not clear.

Mr Schneemann suggested that the Committee Report should reflect that in some instances, the necessary procedures were not followed in obtaining three quotations for the purchases of between R10 000 and R50 000.

Mr Swathe said Mr Schneemann had correctly set out the procedure, but the Report had stated that there was a “lack of evidence” because there was no proof that three quotations had been obtained.

Mr George thought the Report was saying that three quotations were obtained, but there was lack of evidence as to the purchases.

The Chairperson recommended that the sentence be reworded, to note that proper procedures were not followed in obtaining three quotations, and that there was a lack of evidence as to the purchases.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee had given a go-ahead to the Secretariat, in June 2009, to amend its targets in light of the proposed restructuring, and this should be included under issues raised by the Committee in 2009/10.

She added that the Committee was still challenging the Report of the Secretariat that formed part of the SAPS Annual Report, which did not provide details of the intended targets and the achievement of those targets in the 2009/10 financial year. The Secretariat’s report had been more forward-looking, rather than discussing or assessing performance in the 2009/10 financial year. It was therefore difficult for the Committee to assess the Secretariat’s performance for that financial year, although it must be noted that the Committee was made aware of, and had approved, the amendment of the Secretariat’s targets.

The Chairperson noted that the Secretariat had attributed the delays in effecting the amendments to the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) Policy Guidelines and Act to PSIRA itself, who had requested a postponement because of the 2010 Soccer World Cup, and that the Secretariat had noted that there was a dispute with PSIRA as to who was responsible for the drafting of the Amendment Bill. It said that PSIRA requested an overhaul of the PSIRA Act. It was further established that there was no dispute, although there was a lack of clarity as to who was responsible for drafting the Bill.

Mr Schneemann was concerned about the reference in the Committee Report to the long term measures of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) in border-patrol, and recommended that the term “long term measures” should not be used, but that there should rather be a reference to “further measures” that would include the missions of the SANDF in South African border-patrol.

The Chairperson noted the “recommendation” by the Committee that the quality of the Secretariat’s Annual Report would improve in future, when the Secretariat had evolved to a cost centre, but that it should place a greater emphasis on quality outputs in future. She did not think that this was correctly placed under “Recommendations” and should be deleted.

A further recommendation was for publication of the Secretariat’s Report, to display its transparent mandate as a civil and independent body.

Mr Schneemann said the substance of that recommendation was fine, but suggested changing the word “civil” to “civilian”.

The Chairperson noted a further recommendation that clear deadlines were needed to guide delivery in some areas of the Secretariat’s work. Future meetings between the Committee and the Secretariat should include clear timeframes, expected outcomes and agreed outcomes for all its targets. She said that the Committee noted that there was an established Civilian Secretariat for Police Service Bill, which had been adopted by the National Assembly, and that this Bill, once passed, would transform the Secretariat into a designated entity, and that its future Annual Reports must provide details of the Secretariat.

The Committee adopted the draft Report, as amended.

Draft Committee Report on Sector Education and Training Authority, 29 October 2010
The draft Report was tabled, but Members said that they had difficulty in understanding some of the technical figures that were highlighted in the draft Report. Although they tried to interrogate some aspects of the Report further, they noted that they could not substantiate the content of that report. Once again, it was noted that some of the graphs and figures needed to be clarified. Members therefore resolved that they could not approve the draft Report in this form, and asked that it be re-drawn and re-presented to the Committee for adoption at a later stage.

Draft Committee Report on Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA) Annual Report, November 2010
The Chairperson recommended that the introduction to this draft Report should be shortened.

The Chairperson noted that only two findings of the Ministerial Intervention Task Team had been highlighted, so the draft Report must include a mention that these were “included” in the findings.

The Chairperson referred to the mandate, appointments, and strategic focus of new PSIRA Council, stating that the bullet point referring to compliance by security companies and their personnel was incorrectly constructed. The draft Report should also state that the security companies (and their personnel) that rendered security services were legitimate entities with acceptable levels of training, and should be registered with PSIRA.

Mr Lekgetho complained that there was too much repetition in this bullet point.

Ms A van Wyk (ANC) asked that this bullet point should be broken into three short sentences, to the effect that “The security company appointed was registered with PSIRA. The security personnel of the company were registered with PSIRA. The security personnel used had adequate training”.

The Chairperson emphasised that all PSIRA accounts had to be adjusted by the Auditor-General, in terms of regulatory requirements. In addition, she said that problems with the reliability of the information and governance issues in relation to PSIRA needed to be addressed.

Mr Schneemann raised issues on page 8 dealing with national security. He noted that the Minister had noted that some security industry companies posed a threat to the national security of the country because they had more weapons than the SANDF and SAPS combined. He asked whether that was correct. He also questioned the wording of the bullet point that stated that there was “a lack of understanding by PSIRA about the security industry” and recommended that the wording be amended to “the understanding shown by PSIRA was poor”.

Mr George responded that two years ago it was certainly correct that the security industry had more weapons than the SANDF and SAPS combined, although he was not sure whether this was still the case.

Mr Lekgetho said that the Committee needed to be certain whether the private security companies’ arsenals were indeed a real threat to national security.

Ms Van Wyk said the bullet on national security concerns was misplaced, whatever its content, because it related to the poor performance of PSIRA. This was incorrectly placed under recommendations. She suggested that this point be removed from this part of the draft Report. She did not think that national security concerns impacted negatively on the performance of PSIRA. She thought that the sentence relating to the concern that some companies in the security industry posed a threat to national security of the country should be reworded, and suggested that the concern should rather be reworded, so that it reflect that the Committee had noted that some private security industry companies owned a substantial number of weapons, although they were not properly regulated by PSIRA.

Mr George agreed with Ms Van Wyk’s suggestion.

The Chairperson also concurred that the concern of the Committee related to the mandate given to PSIRA to regulate the industry. She said that she was not sure if it was correct to include bullet point 5 as a concern.

The Chairperson noted that under recommendations, the Auditor-General had noted that the new top management structure should ensure oversight responsibility.

Mr Schneemann recommended that PSIRA should report on the progress made, especially now that the new council had been appointed in January 2010.

Ms Van Wyk was concerned that the Committee’s draft Report did not have any recommendation on funding and finance issues, despite the fact that these points had been discussed by PSIRA and the Committee. She suggested that the Committee could note its agreement with the Auditor-General’s recommendation until PSIRA finalised its financial report.

The Committee adopted the draft Report, as amended.

Committee’s draft Report on the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) Annual Report: November 2010
The Chairperson noted that the mandate of the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD), as highlighted in paragraph 2, on page 2 of the draft Report was wrongly worded, and she suggested it be deleted.

Mr Schneemann asked how the mandate of the ICD could have been revised to be in line with the Bill, since the Bill was not yet finalised.

The Chairperson responded that that was why she had recommended that this paragraph be deleted.

The Chairperson noted, in respect of the overview of performance for 2009/10, that the ICD had received an unqualified audit report, and suggested that the sub-heading should refer to the opinion of the Auditor-General and the challenges identified.

Mr George said that the first sentence of the paragraph that referred to ICD’s report on expenditure should be removed. The only problem was the irregular expenditure, which was highlighted in the Auditor-Generals report.

Mr Schneemann disagreed with Mr George, pointing out that ICD received an unqualified report on its expenditure.

The Chairperson said that the heading of the paragraph should refer to “opinions and problems identified by the Auditor-General”.

The Chairperson commented on the programmes that contributed to under-spending, noting that programmes on administration, information and management, and research, as well as complaints processing, monitoring and investigation had spent 100% of their final appropriation for the year under review.

Mr Schneemann said he was not sure why the funds were referred as “donor funds” in the draft Report.

The Chairperson said that the Committee had not agreed with this term, which was used in the Annual Report, and that this should be highlighted in the Committee’s recommendations.

The Committee adopted the draft Report, with amendments.

The meeting was adjourned.