Public Protector's Report No 33 on SAPS lease of Pretoria building; Department of Police 2011 Strategic Plan for Programmes: Visible Policing & Protection Services; Civilian Secretariat of Police: Annual Performance & 2011 Strategic Plan

Meeting report

Public Protector Report (Report No 33 of 2010/11)
The Chairperson welcomed Members of Parliament, members of the public and the media to the first part of the meeting, the subject of which was the Public Protector's Report (Report No. 33 of 2010/11), which was concerned with lease on the Sanlam building in Pretoria, and which the Public Protector had tabled to Parliament via the Speaker of the National Assembly. Thereafter, the Speaker had forwarded the Report to the Chairpersons of the Portfolio Committees on Police and Public Works for consideration.

The Chairperson quoted from the Public Protector's introduction, relating to the lease on the Sanlam building in Pretoria and the lease on another building in Durban.

The two Chairpersons of the Portfolio Committee on Police and the Portfolio Committee on Public Works had met to discuss the processing of the Report.

The Chairperson now recommended to the Portfolio Committee on Police that, since the Public Protector had finalised the investigation of the first list, and was still continuing her investigation of the second lease, which was part of the allegation as stated in her introduction, the Portfolio Committee on Police agree that the two Portfolio Committees should work together in the processing of the Public Protector's Report. It was important to reach a resolution, because the Speaker had not stipulated that the matter must be dealt with jointly by the two Portfolio Committees. Therefore it was up to Members to decide whether they wanted to deal with the two reports jointly with the Portfolio Committee on Public Works, or separately. However, her preference was to work jointly with the Portfolio Committee on Public Works.

The Chairperson further recommended to the Portfolio Committee on Police that both reports, on the Pretoria and Durban buildings, be processed simultaneously.

The Portfolio Committee on Police had sent to the Public Protector enquiring about the date of the finalisation of the Durban investigation. The Public Protector had not yet responded.

Discussions
The Chairperson asked for Members' comments, not on the content of the Public Protector's Report, but simply its processing.

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) thanked the Chairperson for bringing this matter to the Committee's attention, because, when he had listened to the Minister responding to the questions the previous week, he had thought that the Committee had taken long to deliberate on the matter. He agreed that the Police and Public Works Portfolio Committees should work together in order to save time. He further agreed that it was better to await the finalisation of the second report from the Public Protector since it seemed to him that both reports were similar. When Members returned from the recess (04 April to 11 April 2011) the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) would be happy to see both reports dealt with together.

Ms D Kohler Barnard (DA) has asked the National Commissioner of Police the previous week about the second report and he had said “Just wait!”. It was in the report that the National Commissioner of Police had committed an unlawful act. Yet he had said “Just wait!”. So presumably one had to be prepared to wait to hear it a second time if indeed that would be the ruling on the second property deal, which sounded like the first property deal that had already been dealt with by the Public Protector. So therefore for the Committee to deal with a single report when there was a second report forthcoming would be a waste of time. It was better to deal with them together. Some of the National Commissioner of Police's comments in relation to the Public Protector were distasteful. Nevertheless, Ms Kohler Barnard believed that the Committee should deal with both reports together, but asked that the Committee should consider the raid on the Public Protector's Office simultaneously, because it was extremely serious. The Committee could not avoid it. Moreover, the Committee could not leave the Police to police themselves. It was part and parcel of the entire deal. It was part and parcel of the same report. Ms Kohler Barnard noticed Ms A van Wyk (ANC) shaking her head, but the reasons for it should be examined by this Committee and who, in fact, told those two police officers to go there. One knew, of course, that, because of the structure of ranks, one took orders from above. Therefore this matter must be included in the deliberations of this Committee.

The Chairperson asked Ms Kohler Barnard about the processing by the two Portfolio Committees.

Ms Kohler Barnard agreed with the Chairperson that both Portfolio Committees should process the reports together. There was a great deal of blame being handed back and forth. To Ms Kohler Barnard's knowledge it was the then Minister, who, of course, was subsequently fired after he called for the investigation, who was behind the full investigation. So if the then Minister called for the investigation, that called into question the claim by the National Commissioner of Police that he had called in the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) almost six months previously. Ms Kohler Barnard wished to determine precisely who called for the investigation in the first place.

The Chairperson said that she did not want to enlarge the discussion to what Ms Kohler Barnard was now saying, since the Public Protector reported to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development.

Mr Ndlovu agreed with the Chairperson that one should not encroach on other portfolio committees' business, since, indeed, constitutionally, the Public Protector fell under the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development. He thought that that Committee had dealt with the matter and was still dealing with the matter, although there were some loopholes here and there involving the Police. He thought that if this Committee, the Portfolio Committee on Police, dealt with the matter raised by Ms Kohler Barnard that this Committee would be “jumping the gun”.

Mr M George (COPE) agreed with the Chairperson on dealing with the two reports together. He also agreed with the Chairperson on the two Committees – Police and Public Works, working together on the two reports. However, it was necessary to talk abut Ms Kohler Barnard's issue, which was not on the table, differently, but not at that time. He did not entirely agree with what Mr Ndlovu had said. It was true that it was the Public Protector's Office that was raided. But the truth of the matter was that the Public Protector's Office was raided by the people from Crime Intelligence, that is, by the Police. He did not want this Committee to be tempted to relate that issue to the matter under consideration. That issue was something that this Committee could discuss separately and not in relation to the immediate matter under consideration. Mr George reaffirmed his support for the Chairperson's proposals.

Mr G Schneemann (ANC) said that the African National Congress (ANC) supported the Chairperson's proposals – that the two Committees should work together and on the two reports at the same time. With regard to the other issues raised, he agreed with Mr Ndlovu and Mr George that these issues should be brought into the present discussion, which was about the Public Protector's reports and how they were to be dealt with. If the Committee felt that if there was need for a discussion on the raid on the Public Protector's Office, then it could have a discussion, but not at the present time. In fact, in the National Assembly in the previous week, the Minister of Police actually did say that there was an investigation taking place and he would issue a statement once that investigation was complete. Thus there was a process under way, and Mr Schneemann thought that the matter should be dealt with separately, if the Committee so wished to deal with it.

The Chairperson thanked Members for supporting her proposal. The logistics as to whether the Committees would need two or three days just focusing on these reports would be dealt with by the two Chairpersons concerned who would interact with Parliament. As a result of Members' support, there was therefore a resolution of the Portfolio Committee on Police that the Committee would await the second Public Protector report, on the lease on the building in Durban, and deal with it together with the first report on the lease on the Pretoria building jointly with the Portfolio Committee on Public Works.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would decide later on how it was going to deal with other matters, such as the unauthorised visit.

The Chairperson thanked Members and closed this first part of the meeting.
 
SAPS Strategic Plan
Introduction
The Chairperson welcomed General Bheki Cele, National Commissioner of Police, South African Police Service (SAPS, the Police) and his delegation of senior managers from the Department of Police. The Committee continued its work from the previous day on the Department of Police's Budget Vote Hearing: SAPS Programme 1: Administration. Today the focus would be SAPS Programme 2: Visible Policing and Protection Services.

However, firstly, the Chairperson referred to some recent items in the press concerning the police.

The Chairperson asked why there had been no arrest of a suspect in the case of the rape of three schoolgirls.

General Bheki Cele, National Commissioner of Police replied that it was necessary to strengthen relations between the Police and the schools. Sometimes the school concerned would not report the matter and the child concerned would continue to go to school as if nothing had happened. He had requested a report on this specific matter.

The alleged brutality of SAPS members by the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) and the death of two protesters. The Chairperson believed that murder had occurred and SAPS needed to investigate it. If it involved SAPS, the Committee expected the ICD to work properly in the case.

Gen. Cele replied that the Independent Complaints Directorate was investigating the matter and a report was awaited.

The Chairperson commended SAPS on the arrest of an axe man in Durban, who had randomly murdered men because his daughter had been raped.

The Chairperson referred to a recent arrest of a man out on bail for the same offence of dealing in illegal cigarettes. The Chairperson said that the Committee had previously discussed the National Commissioner's concern for the effects on the work on the Police of the granting of bail repeatedly to offenders who subsequently offended yet again and therefore had to be re-arrested. Again the Chairperson commended the Police.

The Chairperson was concerned about police stations in the Eastern Cape at which police officers were each expected to arrest five people per duty shift, and at which that was regarded as the best performance. The Chairperson had serious reservations about such a policy, if indeed it was a policy. This needed to be reviewed by management, since the Chairperson understood this to be a management decision, although she did not have any information as to why such a decision was taken.

The Chairperson commended members of the Police for other good work that they were doing.

On the other hand, the Committee's intervention was needed in some other matters.

Further discussion on matters arising from the previous day's meeting
Mr G Lekgetho (ANC) agreed that where SAPS was doing well, it must be complimented. The previous day the Committee had dealt with new or re-established police stations. However, the delegation had not told Members where those new stations were located. This was of critical importance, because, in the long run, the issue of equitable distribution played a role in how Members of Parliament exercised oversight.

Mr M Swarthe (DA) commended the SAPS and the National Commissioner, but asked about the retention of skilled staff, and what factors, for example, experience or qualifications, the SAPS considered in the promotion of its staff. Or did the SAPS recruit directly from school leavers. This question arose because there had been complaints that experienced staff members were being overlooked.

Lieutenant-General Magda Stander, Deputy National Commissioner: Human Resource Management, said that the Service now had a scarce-skills policy. A new retention policy was being drafted.

Mr George observed that many detectives had only undergone basic training, and that the rate of sending detectives for training was slow. He asked if the SAPS new initiative in training was meant to address this problem.

Ms Kohler Barnard said that the previous day Members had been told that a certain police station in Durban North, KwaZulu-Natal, was 99% complete, and that it would be open within a month or so. However, Ms Van Wyk had checked on that police station the previous evening and learned that not only did the cells lack locks, but there were two orders outstanding to the extent of about R5 million. The station was not near completion. Ms Van Wyk asked if the top structure knew what was going on at ground level. The station staff was still working out of trailers. This was a debacle. The station was built; the man stole the money; they had to pull it down again, and then rebuild it. This had been going on for four years. What was happening at this particular station which Ms Kohler Barnard presumed was happening at the other police stations of which Members had been given a list.

Gen. Cele replied that supply chain management must answer that question.

The SAPS replied that it was a Public Works project. The SAPS would have to respond in writing, since the information to hand was the figure of 99% complete mentioned by Lieutenant-General Gary Kruser, Acting Head of Supply Chain Management, the previous day.

Ms A van Wyk (ANC) also asked about the training of detectives, and where particular training courses were going to take place. Who was going to provide training at the police station? With the prevailing case loads, she did not see that senior detectives would have the time to conduct training of junior detectives. Under-trained junior detectives were getting a bad reputation for being unable to handle cases well, for example, in Atlantis.

 Ms Van Wyk asked Lieutenant-General Stefan Schutte, Chief Financial Officer, Financial & Administration Services, for an answer to her question of the previous day on the management of over-expenditure for the end of this month. Were any other Section 35s offered at any other levels of SAPS?

Lieutenant-General Schutte replied that those concerned had been asked to provide the figure, and it would probably be available later that morning. The number of Section 35s was 13 “on various levels”.

Lieutenant-General Stander said that the Service would make special arrangements to deal with the training backlog.

Mr George said that his question had been answered partly, but what about existing detectives? If one took 1 384 detectives for senior training, what impact would this have on case work, and had any arrangements been made?

Gen. Cele replied that one could not have those detectives trained and in post at the same time. However, the benefits would be greater once they were trained. Moreover, it was important to retain them once they were trained. Those that were good detectives were being put where they were most effective and being given the package of a higher rank even if they could not be promoted to that rank since they might be more effective serving as a detective than as a station commander.

Ms Kohler Barnard asked if a certain officer had been dismissed for allegedly ordering female recruits to have their heads shaved.

Gen. Cele had gone there the next day and found that it was every female recruit who had been shaved. That decision was taken by one officer contrary to the official policy of the institution. That officer had been removed from that environment subject to investigation. The recruit from Free State whose father had complained was taken to another training institution. It then had to be asked if everyone who complained could be transferred.

Ms Kohler Barnard asked if the Service had a policy of sending recruits to training institutions at which they would be instructed in a language which they did not understand, thereby ensuring that they failed the course.

The Chairperson said that could not be true. Lectures in the Police Service were offered in English. However, she thought that the recruit might have been isolated, being the only white recruit in that particular training institution and not having anyone to talk to with whom to share her dissatisfaction.

Ms Van Wyk asked the National Commissioner to explain how the five deputy national commissioners fitted in on the SAPS organisation chart (organogram). “Who's who in the zoo, and who is responsible for what, and where the changes have taken place?”

Gen Cele explained that there were supposed to be six deputies. The Deputy National Commissioner for Operations position remained vacant. Gen Cele gave the names of the commissioners.

Gen Cele explained that the rank of brigadier was equivalent to that of director. A deputy director was equivalent to a full colonel. A chief director was equivalent to a major-general. A deputy director-general was equivalent to a lieutenant-general. A director-general was equivalent to a general.

Mr Ndlovu asked about POLMED, with which members of the Police seemed to have a problem. What was the position and point of view of management? Also Mr Ndlovu asked about the rearrangement by the former management of the Police for renovation of the police stations. How long did it take for management to change the course for prioritisation of where resources should be directed, and what mechanism did they use? Was it necessary to have a new contract?

 Gen Cele replied that changing the course for prioritisation was a difficult question. The delegation had said the previous day that the SAPS would revisit the strategic plan and it was taking very clearly the rural bias approach. By the time a police station was being built, money had been expended on it already. If one disengaged, one was leaving the money that had been expended originally and this resulted in fruitless and wasteful expenditure. Therefore the SAPS was forced to continue. However, the exception to the rural bias was Gauteng, in which there were 135 police stations serving more than 100 townships and more than 200 informal settlements. Of 135 police stations, only 50 were in these townships and informal settlements. All others were in suburbs. Moreover, Gauteng accounted for 50% of the South African crime statistics. The other provinces shared the other 50%. This meant to deal with crime in South Africa, one had to deal with Gauteng decisively.

Ms M Molebatsi (ANC) asked about permits for firearms. Were police officers also subjected to the same procedures as members of the public such as competency tests? She asked how long it took to obtain the results of ballistic identification tests. She asked how SAPS identified the need for police stations in particular areas, as she had observed two police stations in one small village.

The Chairperson observed that the unions had told the Committee that there was a top heavy management structure and that there was nepotism in appointments, as well as some appointments to senior positions of persons from outside the SAPS. Was there any truth in this? The Chairperson asked how many trained SAPS members were doing administrative work rather than police work. Figures were required, if not today, in writing subsequently.

Lieutenant-General Stander replied that as at the end of February 2011, of the total number of members only 3.5% of the total establishment were on levels 13 to 16.

Gen Cele said that perhaps DNA testing might reveal instances of nepotism. However, historically the South African Police had some tendency to “a family bond”. It was an organisation in which one found that the father would welcome the son into the organisation. It was known that there was a case of a husband reporting to his wife. This had happened for years. There were thus several pockets of relatives serving together in the service. This was why there were mechanisms, such as recusal, for dealing with the promotion of relatives. At the same time it would be a sad day if a potential recruit were to be turned away because he or she already had a relative already serving in the Police. He needed evidence to be convinced that promotions had occurred because the person promoted was the relative of the officer who had recommended the promotion.

Gen Cele added that the SAPS policy provided for the National Commissioner to appoint directly in suitable circumstances (Section 45 of the Employment Regulations).

The Chairperson asked how many had benefited from this policy and at which level.

The Chairperson asked for responses in writing, by 12 April 2011, since those responses must form part of the Committee's report before the budget vote, to all questions that could not be answered in the meeting.

Programme 2: Visible Policing and Programme 2: Protection Services: SAPS briefing
Lieutenant-General Lesetja Mothiba, Divisional Commissioner: Visible Policing, South African Police Service (SAPS, the Police) briefed the Committee on SAPS Programme 2: Visible Policing. The Programme's purpose was to enable police stations to institute and preserve safety and security, and provide for specialised interventions and the policing of South Africa’s borderlines. Its strategic objective was to discourage all crimes by providing a proactive and responsive policing service that would reduce the levels of priority crimes. The Visible Policing programme comprised the following three sub programmes: Crime Prevention; Border Security; and Specialised Interventions (slide 8).

Sub programme: Crime Prevention's performance indicators were compared against baseline (audited performance 2009/10) and targets for 2011/12 (slides 9-12).

Sub programme: Border Security' and Sub programme: Specialised Interventions' performance indicators were compared against baseline (audited performance 2009/10) and target for 2011/12 (slide 13).

Lieutenant-General Mothiba pointed out that the Police sometimes made substantial recoveries of mandrax tables (slide 10) and those baselines would be determined by the top management, not always on the previous year's achievements.
Lieutenant-General Mothiba pointed out the programme performance indicator to increase the recovery of state owned fire arms by 3% (slide 11).

Lieutenant-General Mothiba pointed out the programme performance indicator to reduce the number of escape incidents from police custody by 50%. The baseline (audited performance 2009/10 was 602. The target for 2011/12 was 301. (Slide 12)

Lieutenant-General Mothiba pointed out the target was to complete by 31 July 2011 all the 1 048 341 backlog of outstanding applications for firearm licences, permits, authorisations, and renewals finalised, and in future to finalise new applications for such licences, permits, authorisations and renewals within 90 working days. (Slide 12).

Lieutenant-General Mothiba referred to expenditure estimates for Programme 2: Visible Policing (slide 96).
Lieutenant-General Mothiba also gave a page reference to page 48, but this page reference did not correspond to the document available to the Parliamentary Monitoring Group (PMG).

The total allocation for Visible Policing in 2010/11 was R23 228.2 million and in 2011/12 R24 371.9 million (slide 96).

Visible policing was the biggest programme in the Department, with a weight of 42%. It included visible policing personnel at police stations. The increase was mostly due to intensified funding levels for cost of living increases and additional personnel. Ports of entry were moved from Programme 5 to Border Security and Railway Policing was moved from Programme 5 to Crime Prevention. This also contributed to the levels of growth. (Side 96).

Lieutenant-General Mothiba said that the SAPS sought to reduce the number of reported serious crimes by 8% by implementing crime prevention operations focusing on legal and illegal firearms, illegal drugs, stolen/robbed vehicles, stolen / robbed / lost state firearms, reduce the number of escapes from police custody, Implement crime awareness and public education programmes, implementation of the Rural Safety Strategy, mobilization of the community through CPFs, develop measures to enhance and sustain visibility, improve command and control, utilisation of reservists to enhance visibility, improve customer service at all police stations, all police stations to provide victim friendly services, and monitor the implementation of fraud and corruption strategies in the Visible Policing environment (slides 98-99).

The SAPS had implemented sector policing in 923 police stations, enhanced the implementation of sector policing in 2011/12, and conducted an impact assessment of sector policing (slide 99).

The SAPS sought to enhance the police emergency services (slide 100).

The SAPS sought to administer and implement the Second Hand Goods Act, the Liquor Act, the Firearm Control Act, and achieve the finalisation of outstanding applications for firearm licenses (slide 100).

Lieutenant General Elias Mawela, Divisional Commissioner: Operational Response Services further outlined the indicators for sub programme: Border Security (slide 13).

Mr Ndlovu objected that the Lieutenant-General was presenting something totally different from what Members had in front of them.

Lieutenant-General Mawela said that it was included in the addendum.

A Police Officer clarified that it was on page 5 of the addendum and then added on to the presentation.

Ms Kohler Barnard said the item was not in the strategic plan. “So this is something totally new.”

Gen. Cele said that the matter of cargo had been included in the addendum, since it was not in the original document.

The Chairperson acknowledged Gen. Cele's remark.

Lieutenant-General Mawela requested that Members moved to slide 102.

Lieutenant-General Mawela said that the SAPS sought to develop specialised intervention capacity to enhance and complement normal policing functions, provide capacity and capability to ensure public order, and, in conjunction with Technology Management Services, provide modern information technology solutions at the borders (slide 102).

Lieutenant General Fanie Masemola, Divisional Commissioner: Protection and Security Services, SAPS, indicated the purpose of Programme 5: Protection and Security Services, to provide protection and security services to all identified dignitaries and government interests. Its strategic objective was to minimise security violations by protecting foreign and local prominent people and securing strategic interests. The Protection and Security Services programme comprised the following three sub programmes: Very Important Person (VIP) Protection Services, Static and Mobile Security, and the Government Security Regulator (slide 24).

Programme performance indicators were given against baseline (audited performance 2009/10) and targets for 2010/11 (slides 25-26).

Expenditure estimates for Programme 5: Protection and Security Services were given. The total allocated was R1 436.6 million in 2010/11 and R1 546. 7 million in 2011/112. The relative growth in this programme was essentially due to carry-through effect of the compensation element (cost of living). Previous functions under this programme namely railway policing and ports of entry had been moved to Programme 2: Visible Policing as the result of functional purification (slides 130-131).

The operational priorities for the Programme were to province 100% in-transit protection to all identified VIPs in terms of the Risk Management Policy by virtue of their public office or strategic importance to the country including foreign dignitaries. The next priority was to provide 100% securing of strategic sites, venues and residences of all identified VIPs, and to provide a professional policing service to the foreign diplomatic corps. Also to provide 100% planning and coordination of security services at VIP events, and to reduce security breaches and incidents at Parliament by improving security measures (slide 133).

The operational priorities of the Government Security Regulator were to compile 95% of Physical Security Advisory Reports in relation to requests received; and evaluate 98% (171) National Key Points declared as such for a period longer than 12 months in terms of compliance to the NKP Act. The reason for this was that after a national key point had been declared there was a grace period of 12 months before the audit. The third strategic priority was to audit 50% (113) Strategic Installations from a total of 227 in terms of compliance to the Minimum Physical Security Standards (slide 134).

[For details, please see the presentation document].

Discussion
The Chairperson invited Members' questions on Visible Policing, the Annual Performance Plan, the Budget Vote, and so on.
 
Mr Schneemann observed that for this financial year there was no target for victim-friendly centres. One was just told that there was the aim to have such centres in all police stations. However, he had heard of a figure of 866, and asked for a definite figure of how many such centres should be established in this financial year.

Mr Schneemann asked about the 50% target for the Security Regulator. Why was this year's target lower than the previous year's.

Mr Schneemann also asked about targets for the “wall rooms”.

Mr Schneemann also asked about the Railway Police. Again there was no target. In the Annual Performance Plan he could not find any mention of this branch, although he now noted that it was included in one of the sub programmes of Programme 2.

The Police responded that, although it did not appear, this did not mean that it was not a priority. Its figures were subsumed under crime prevention.

Mr Schneemann pointed out that this particular unit was brought back because of the crimes on trains. He did not accept its move into another programme. It should be separate.

Mr Schneemann, moreover, observed that there was in fact an increase in crime.

Mr Schneemann asked why there was an increase in crime, and what the factors were, and how this increase would be addressed in the current year.

Mr George was not satisfied with the National Commissioner's response on the “lateral entry”. He agreed with the Chairperson that the Committee must obtain a response in writing. There were many dangerous gaps. He was dissatisfied with the way the matter had been presented. It could not satisfy anyone. This was, after all, a paramilitary structure, not a department like Home Affairs.

Mr George said there might be good reasons for the lowering of targets apparent throughout the presentation. He did not know. Was there a good reason?

Mr George asked what informed the figures for reducing the numbers of reported crimes.

Gen. Cele replied that these were not South African Police Service figures. These were figures from the Justice, Police, Constitutional Development, and Security cluster.

Mr George pleaded for information on the time frames for the South African National Defence Force to take over the Free State and Eastern Cape borders. These borders, with Lesotho, were not very long.

The Police responded that there were police stations near the borders which would continue to interact with the Defence Force.

The Chairperson asked about effects on the budget of removing Police members from the borders. She was aware that it would be the Police who would arrest violators, rather than members of the Defence Force.

Gen. Cele said that it had been a cabinet decision. Defence Force members would not investigate or arrest.

Mr Lekgetho was deeply concerned about equitable sharing of resources across the country. There had been a consistent failure to respond on this matter.

Gen. Cele replied that the equitable share would be according to the national standards. It would not be possible to build the same number of police stations in Gauteng as in the Northern Cape. The equity would be in ratio and proportionality.

Mr Lekgetho would change his approach and asked Major-General Masemola, about the challenges in his division, Protection and Security Services, since he appeared to have forgotten them. It was a subject on which Mr George used to ask questions.

The Chairperson pointed out Major-General Masemola's correct title.

Major-General Masemola replied that there were challenges, including policing the legislatures such as Parliament, and measures that the Police wanted to put in place (slide 33). The Police were in talks with the Department of Public Works. There was no sheltered place where vehicles could be searched when entering Parliament when it was raining.

Ms Kohler Barnard asked, with regard to visible policing, if entering the country illegally was breaking the law and therefore a criminal act, and said that one of the Police's greatest failures was at the time when they took over the borders. The Police were unable to stop the flood of foreigners walking across. Yet still the hand over to the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) was going on, and as Mr George had pointed out on various occasions, the matter kept coming back to the Committee. Surely the financial allocation would have dropped drastically? The Police no longer had the task of patrolling. Please explain the financial intricacies of this transfer of responsibilities.

Ms Kohler Barnard asked about several breaches of security at national key points, notably the nuclear power stations. Any such breach had the potential to cause panic.

Major-General Masemola replied that the Police conducted audits. Information was included in the annual report.

Ms Kohler Barnard asked how many members, if any, of the Police had body guards, and who they were, why they needed protecting, and how much it cost.

Major-General Masemola replied that the National Commissioner had been protected for some time, since there were threats against him. This was the only members concerned. Cost figures were not immediately to hand.
Gen. Cele said that those members of the Police who were investigating certain cases were given protection on an ad hoc basis.

Ms Kohler Barnard had asked the previous day about the cost of Police Day this year and last year.

Lieutenant-General Schutte said that he would have to provide this information in writing.

Ms Van Wyk said that the presentation on visible policing, although this programme had 42% of the budget, included very little detail. The stated objectives were present, but not an analysis of how the allocation would be spent. This presentation was extremely difficult to deal with.

Ms Van Wyk asked about the footnotes 6 and 7 on page 15 of the Annual Performance Plan. If the Committee accepted these footnotes, it would not be able to measure the Police's performance this year. What was the logic of clustering these crimes together?

Major-General Dr Chris de Kock, Deputy Divisional Commissioner and Head of Crime Research and Statistics, replied that the clustering of the crimes as to targets was according to the targets that the Department of Police had received from the cluster. As he was to indicate below, that clustering was like “Chinese boxes”.

Ms Van Wyk asked for a division of the serious crimes for reporting purposes in terms of those that were dependent on police action and those that were reported as a result of crime.

Major-General Dr De Kock said that the Police could do so.

Ms Van Wyk was aware that the National Treasury required the use of the previous year's figures as a baseline. This was why there was an estimated performance that derived from the actual figures for first nine months and an estimate of the last quarter's figures. Why had the Police not used the 2010/11 estimated figures as its base line figures. The 2011/12 target for contact crimes was actually an increase on the 2010/11 figures. It was a reduction from the 2009/10 figure but it was an increase from the estimated performance figure. Was this because the Police had not performed well in 2010/11? An explanation was desperately required on why the Police were “playing around with statistics”.

Ms Van Wyk asked about security breaches.

Ms Van Wyk asked when in the process the Police would begin the 90 day turnaround for processing of firearm licence applications.

Lieutenant-General Mothiba replied that the Police would not accept any incomplete applications. The 90 days would be counted from when the application was accepted in the system.

The Chairperson asked in detail about the processes for firearm applications.

Lieutenant-General Mothiba explained the procedures. Steps would be taken against officers who did not follow the correct protocols. Some problems had occurred in the past because of incomplete applications and applicants who could not be contacted to complete their applications.

Ms Van Wyk wished the Police “good luck” in this matter. She was sceptical and would follow-up the matter closely. The human factor at the police station was not being addressed.

Ms Kohler Barnard complained that applications were being rejected out of hand, including denial of hunter's licences. She rued the day that the Committee had ever passed the applicable legislation. It was never going to work. “It's an administrative nightmare.”

Mr Ndlovu said that there was a perception that when Members of Parliament asked questions they did not understand the subject. He found the answers unacceptable. This was why the Minister was being sued.

The Chairperson said that Members' questions were based on their own experience and observations, including what they saw in police stations. It was a complete contradiction of what the Police were saying. She asked for Designated Firearm Officers (DFOs) to be consulted. Constituents were frustrated.

Gen. Cele thought that “we are one” on this problem. Provincial Commissioners had been given responsibility for DFOs. He agreed that it would take time because of the huge backlog, which would be addressed in parallel with the new applications, with regular reports to the Minister.

Ms Van Wyk asked if Gen. Cele's report to the Minister included appeals. The problem was not the legislation but unnecessary regulations. What gave police officers the right to reject a complete and correct application? Why was it so difficult to prove one's need of self-defence in an area of high crime? Why could not the DFO capture the application on a computer at the police station of application so that any incomplete items would immediately be detected? She demanded a full presentation on the turnaround strategy. The problem lay with national instructions and systems. Why did SAPS disregard legislation that it was to implement?

Gen. Cele said that he was becoming confused. There would be obvious reasons to reject an applicant. He saw no reason to complain to a Member of Parliament when an application was rejected for a valid reason. He acknowledged that the DFOs must be given adequate resources.

Ms Van Wyk said that there were many with genuine grievances who appealed to Members of Parliament.

The Chairperson agreed with Ms Van Wyk. The Committee needed to have a discussion on the matter.
 
Ms Van Wyk referred to slides 98-99 and asked how the money was allocated and how Police would measure its use.

Mr Ndlovu asked from where the figure for reducing serious crime by 2% came (slide 9).

Mr Ndlovu asked the Police to elaborate its statement that the Police would implement the Firearms Control Act (slide 100).

Mr Ndlovu asked what “functional purification” was (slide 131). It was indeed a beautiful English phrase but its meaning was obscure.

Major-General Masemola replied that certain functions that were in Programme 5 had been transferred so that Programme 5 concentrated on vehicle protection.

Mr Swathe asked, with particular concern for rural areas, about targets (slide 10). So many young people's lives had been destroyed by the drug whoonga/nyope. There was no baseline and no target.

Lieutenant-General Mothiba replied that a target would be set for the 2012/13 financial year.

Mr Swathe asked if the programme performance indicator “liquor by 10%” referred to public drinking (slide 10). Liquor was now a problem also in the rural areas and many young people were being arrested for public drinking.

 Lieutenant-General Mothiba replied that all liquor was denoted, including legal outlets which were acting illegally.

Ms Van Wyk pointed out that the question of the baseline figures was still outstanding.

Gen. Cele replied that December and January were months that were “big on crime”. It would give a “soft baseline” that might change in the last quarter.

Ms Van Wyk had a problem with this. One wanted SAPS to improve year by year.

Major-General Dr De Kock said that the above figures were prepared in the same way in the previous year. The new framework indicted that the Police could present the nine-month figure and a projection for the last quarter.

Mr Ndlovu tried to elucidate Ms Van Wyk's question. Major-General Dr De Kock's answer was unsatisfactory because a year was missing.

Ms Van Wyk referred to the comments made by National Treasury on the Annual Performance Plan.

The Chairperson quoted National Treasury instructions for reporting on programme performance.

Lieutenant-General Schutte replied that one had considered the three preceding years, and the three years ahead. There had now been a move towards a multi-year performance indicator and target scenario.

Mr Ndlovu elucidated the responses.

The Chairperson wanted to close this part of the discussion with the observation that the baseline should be led by the previous year, otherwise it took us to two years back, and one could not use such old baselines.

The Chairperson reminded Gen. Cele that the Committee had previously rejected the reduction of serious crime by 4 to 7%. The Committee asked why the Police had reduced the figure to 4 to 7% on the basis of best international practice and recommended maintaining 7 to 10% until 2014. Now the Police were again proposing the 4 to 7% target. A proper scientific assessment had to be done. Again the Committee required 7 to 10%.

Gen. Cele replied that these were not South African Police Service figures. These were figures from the Justice, Police, Constitutional Development, and Security cluster and were allied to the Minister's performance agreement, since the Minister had to account for the cluster figures. Gen. Cele understood the Committee's position but the Police had to accept the cluster figures.

The Chairperson asked about sector policing and observed that the Annual Performance Plan was not assisting Members to monitor the Police continuously.

The Chairperson told Gen. Cele that it was now time to assess sector policing, which had been introduced in 2002, and examine what lessons had been leaned. She failed to understand why it was being made so difficult to implement. From Members' own experience, where sector policing was implemented, there was better policing. Where it was not, there were problems.

Gen. Cele responded that the Police had decided to review sector policing. However, sector policing was doing well in Gauteng, to the extent that sector police officers were becoming targets because thugs were finding it hard to do their work.

Ms Van Wyk pointed out that the Committee was still waiting for four reports from the Department of Police.

Mr George was not concerned from where the figures came, but with the reasons behind the determination of those figures. What informed them?

Gen. Cele said that the question was becoming bigger. It was difficult for the Police to work to figures separate from those of the cluster.

Gen. Cele said that the question of what informed the figures was a new and larger question.

The Chairperson said that this was not the first time that the Committee was raising this question. Previously it had been unable to obtain an answer. The Committee had a right to know. The Police were accountable to this Committee.

Gen. Cele remembered the discussion on where the figure of 10% had come from. Nobody knew. However, statisticians worked on trends and had found that there was no 10% around the world.

Major-General Dr De Kock could answer only on what he knew. He recalled the history of the figure of 7 to 10%. In the Cabinet lekotla of 2004 based on the Annual Report of 2002/03 a decision was taken that only each of the seven categories of contact crime should be reduced by 7 to 10% per annum over a period of 10 years to a situation of normalisation, because that was actually the problem of South Africa. Normalisation meant comparing roughly with the rest of the world. That then became the target of Government, but it was not a target for the Police alone. So the Police adopted that target as its reduction target and had achieved some of those as reflected in the Annual Performance Plan for 2011/12, page 2. It had not been achieved in certain categories such as murder, robberies and indecent assault. With the new Medium Term Expenditure Framework, the Justice, Police, Constitutional Development and Security cluster did some research on those crimes for which the 7 to 10% target had not been achieved and determined that the 7 to 10% was not realistic on all the categories, especially for those contact crimes which were social in nature, like the two crimes of assault, sexual assault, murder and attempted murder. For these the target of 4 to 7% was recommended. However, 13 other serious crimes remained, like housebreaking and stock theft. On these serious crimes, a target of 2% was recommended. “However, it was like Chinese boxes.” He read from the Minister's service agreement and explained, at considerable length, the calculations.

The Chairperson inferred that the Minister's service agreement therefore applied to the Police but she was not satisfied.

Mr Schneemann asked if the Police were not at liberty to set themselves a higher benchmark than the Minister's.

Mr George thought that a director-general would be part of the decisions taken at a cabinet lekotla. The then National Commissioner was there.

Ms Kohler Barnard felt that the Committee was being held to ransom by the performance agreement of a Minster. This could not be. A figure could not be foisted upon the Committee after it had resolved on a certain target. Were we not seeing the protection of a position here?

Ms Van Wyk said that this was the danger of the way that question was answered. It was now having political consequences. The Department was in a contract with Parliament. In debate, every single party had rejected these figures (4 to 7%).

Mr Ndlovu said that it was unfortunate that Major-General Dr de Kock had quoted that document. Although he was trying to explain things, it put the Committee in a difficult position. In fact, it put the Committee into a deadlock. Mr Ndlovu recommended that the Committee ignore that document and stick to its programme and its decision.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Ndlovu. She still did not know why the targets were 4 to 7%. The Committee was asking for a scientific basis for the figures.

Gen. Cele emphasised that the figures came from the Justice, Police, Constitutional Development and Security Cluster. The Department of Police was “locked” into the cluster and he did not know how the Police could get out. Moreover, directors-general only listened at cabinet lekotlas.

The Chairperson asked Gen. Cele to raise the figure 4 to 7% and the Committee's desire for evidence in the cluster. For now, in the absence of that information, the Committee could not agree on 4 to 7%.

The Chairperson reminded Gen. Cele that the Committee required a report on the transfer of border responsibilities.

The Chairperson asked Gen. Cele about the negative effects of frequent turnover of management of police stations.

The Chairperson asked about strategic positions that had been vacant for two or three years.

The Chairperson asked for an explanation about the crime prevention allocation which had a nominal increase of 4.5%, but which in real terms had a decrease.

The Chairperson asked about vacancies.

Gen. Cele replied that the SAPS had a target or percentage that it did not go below.

Lieutenant-General Stander said that in the public service a vacant position must be filled within six months. The Department of Police abided by the rules of the public service.

The Chairperson remarked that if that really were the situation, she would celebrate. So many strategic positions in police stations were standing empty for two years.

Mr Ndlovu cautioned Lieutenant-General Stander to be very careful on this matter, and reminded her of the President's State of the Nation Address.

The Chairperson requested further responses in writing promptly in order to form part of the Committee's report. Next Tuesday, 16h00, 05 April 2011 would be the deadline.

The Chairperson closed this part of the meeting.

Civilian Secretariat of Police: Annual Performance and Strategic Plan and budget: briefing
The Chairperson welcomed the Civilian Secretariat of Police and appreciated the quality of its documentation, which greatly assisted Members to assimilate the contents and prepare their questions. It was gratifying to receive a document which actually made sense and with which Members did not struggle on account of an unwieldy format.

Ms Jenny Irish-Quobosheane, Secretary of Police, introduced the delegation.

Ms Irish-Quobosheane said that the numbers in the documentation were especially important because the Auditor-General now evaluated performance and National Treasury requested that percentages were now to be avoided as far as possible when reporting, since percentages were difficult to measure as opposed to numbers.

This was the first time that the Civilian Secretariat of Police had submitted its Annual Performance Plan in this format and so the Secretariat did not have the previous three years' figures, but in future it would have to provide such figures. This report had not yet been tabled, since the Secretariat was still only a cost centre, but it had been approved by the Minister prior to submission. Next year the Secretariat would be a designated department and would therefore table such a report within the Parliamentary time lines.

Ms Irish-Quobosheane outlined the reorganisation: the deadline for implementation was June 2011 but the Secretariat was likely to introduce it earlier after completion of the job evaluations of the new structure by the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA)'s review committee.

Mr Ndlovu said that it appeared that Members had different documents.

Ms Irish-Quobosheane said that the Annual Performance Plan and the Strategic Plan had been forwarded to the Committee followed, within an hour, by the presentation. What she had said thus far was contained under Paragraph 5 – Situational Analysis, on page 6 of the Strategic Plan.

In preparation for becoming a designated department, the Secretariat had devolved itself into four programme areas: policy, research, and legislation; monitoring and evaluation of SAPS; partnership management; and administration, which included corporate services and the office of the Secretary.

Some of the key areas of strategic focus in 2011/12 were the review of the white paper for safety and security as a guiding document for future policy and legislation; the review of the SAPS Act; the review of legislation on the private security industry; the amendments to the Firearm Control Act and its regulations; and any policy areas that might be determined by the Minister.

As to strategic outcome goals, the first was efficient governance and administration of the Civilian Secretariat for Police – in this regard it was crucial that the Secretariat, when it became a department, did not have problems itself. The second was quality, timely evidence-based strategic research and policy advice to the Minister of Police – this spoke to the policy, research and legislation unit. The third was deepened public participation in the fight against crime – this spoke to the partnership unit. And the fourth was efficient and effective oversight of the South African Police Services.

The Secretariat’s Programmes and their sub programmes were indicated.

Programme 1: Administration subsumed the sub programme for the Office of the Secretary of Police, which had as its purpose to ensure that the Secretariat functioned effectively and was able to assist the Minister for Police in fulfilling his role as the Executive Authority.

As to the sub programme human resource development, the Secretariat had been ensuring that it had all the correct policies in place. These policies, which in the past had been SAPS policies, needed to be realigned with DPSA policies, since the Secretariat fell under the DPSA. Importance would be given to induction training for personnel appointed to the Secretariat.

Considerable energy had to be devoted to supply chain management, because the Secretariat had been a cost centre and was now in the process of becoming a designated department. This included ensuring a complete register of assets and presenting monthly, quarterly and annual financial reports. The Secretariat wanted to start that process now to ensure that it was ready. The budget for this programme was listed in the Annual Performance Plan and in the presentation document.

The purpose of Programme 2: Partnerships was to mobilise role-players, stakeholders and partners in the fight against crime. Sub programmes of this programme included civil society partnerships, intergovernmental partnerships, community outreach partnerships, community safety forums, and crime prevention private-public partnerships.

Mr Dumezweni Zimu, Chief Director: Partnerships, said that community safety forums were an important priority for Government, and one of the key outcomes in the JPCS cluster. As to intergovernmental partnerships the Secretariat would focus on improving coordination with provinces and cluster departments. Civil society partnerships included relations with trade unions and agricultural organisations.

Ms Irish-Quobosheane pointed out that the number 10 in the Secretariat’s Annual Performance Plans referred to the nine provinces plus the Secretariat’s head office.

The purpose of Programme 3: Policy and Legislation was to provide timely, evidence-based strategy research and policy advice and legislative support to the Minister of Police. It had two sub programmes – policy and research, and legislation. It made sense to have the two in the same programme.

Advocate Chemin Ontong, Chief Director: Policy and Legislation, gave further details.

Ms Irish-Quobosheane pointed out that it was necessary to develop further the Secretariat’s capacity in this area. However, much of the work had already been done, but it was necessary to bring information together. There had been extensive consultations with academics, at the University of Cape Town and the University of KwaZulu-Natal, for example. It was to be noted that this was not work “contracted out” but done in partnership.

Programme 4: Monitoring and Evaluation’s purpose was to provide efficient and effective oversight over the SAPS through monitoring and evaluation. Its sub programmes were service delivery and performance audit, policy compliance, and provincial coordination.

Ms Irish-Quobosheane said that last October the Secretariat had restructured this Programme and had significantly increased its capacity, which had been weak, since it was the engine room of the Secretariat, since what came out of the Secretariat’s oversight would inform policy. Members might be aware that the Secretariat had advertised a notable number of posts.

Ms Millicent Kewuti, Chief Director: Monitoring and Evaluation, spoke about the sub programmes service delivery and performance audit. The objective was to improve oversight over the Police in the national, provincial, and local spheres of government. Some of the key indicators were to review the strategic plans and budget of the Police, and trends within the police stations. How the Police were handling complaints would also be monitored. Also to be examined was how the Police was handling the Seven-Point-Plan. Furthermore, key Police programmes – those highlighted by the Ministry, would be reviewed. One of these programmes was the management of firearms. Also compliance by the Police, including transformation, would be observed.

Ms Irish-Quobosheane added that much of the roll-out of partnerships would be at the provincial level, hence the budget provision in this regard. There had been agreement on an alignment which the Secretariat had submitted to National Treasury. The Secretariat had been involved with the Wits Business School in developing a partnership to professionalise civilian oversight, since oversight was very different from normal monitoring and evaluation. The Secretariat sought from Wits specific training in civilian oversight for the provinces as well as for the Secretariat itself. Successful candidates would receive a Sector Education and Training Authority (SETA) qualification.

Ms Irish-Quobosheane outlined the Secretariat’s budget (Strategic Plan 2011/14, page 19). The biggest area of spend would be in the reorganisation and staff changes in the Secretariat. The human resources development budget would escalate from R14 million in 2010/11 to R27 million in 2011/12 and to R37 million in 2012/13. The Secretariat had agreed with the DPSA to phase in the new structure. The critical posts would be advertised first.

Ms Irish-Quobosheane noted that development of a database would be carried out by the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) and not put out to tender.

Ms Irish-Quobosheane noted key challenges and risks. The current human resources capacity had impacted negatively. The budget for the Secretariat was under the control of the SAPS with the Secretariat run as a cost centre. In this regard there were significant issues in becoming a designated department. One of the areas of concern was planning and achieving in advance sufficient infrastructure: there would be certain areas where the Secretariat would share services with SAPS. It was hoped to finalise shared service agreements by the middle of 2011. Insufficient office space, outdated information technology (IT) systems and other infrastructure shortcomings impacted on ability to increase capacity and function effectively. The Secretariat had adopted an open-plan and flexible approach to office space. The new legislation for the Secretariat would place upon it serious responsibilities in operating as a designated department, and the Secretariat was endeavouring to prepare itself in advance for these responsibilities.

Discussion
Mr Swathe asked about the Secretariat’s visits to police stations and submitting reports to SAPS (slide 24). Members had been complaining about several police stations, especially in the rural areas.

Ms Kewuti replied that the Secretariat was analysing the trends and drafting the report. The visits were guided by information received from the provinces.

Mr Swathe also asked about the allocation of resources.

Ms Kewuti acknowledged the need for a thorough assessment done through the Secretariat’s monitoring tools and the need to make recommendations to the Minister.

Ms Molebatsi asked about the provincial secretariat. How far had this progressed?

Ms Irish-Quobosheane replied that, except in two provinces, provincial secretariats had not yet been established. However, the Secretariat had been involved in strategic planning sessions with each of the provinces. No province had refused.

Mr Ndlovu asked about the time frames for Firearms Control Amendment Act (slide 21).

Ms Irish-Quobosheane offered to present to the Committee the legislative programme. However, the time frames might have to be changed for the legislation on private security firms. The White Paper was considered more important. The Firearms Control Amendment Act was signed off by Parliament but never enacted. Some serious drafting problems had been detected when making the regulations. The principal Act left the need for self defence to the discretion of SAPS. Regulations must be passed on how a person demonstrated the need for self defence. It was hoped to have the Firearms Control Amendment Act ready by April for tabling to Cabinet. The White Paper must be finalised by the end of May 2011. The Minister had given instructions that the legislation to amend the SAPS Act must be ready by the end of the year.

Mr Ndlovu asked about resource allocation indicators (slide 24). What did the Secretariat do if the SAPS resource allocation indicators were not what the Secretariat wanted?

Mr Ndlovu asked why the first paragraph differed from a following paragraph (slide 28).

Ms Irish-Quobosheane explained that the first paragraph referred strictly to the personnel budget.

Ms Van Wyk appreciated the quality of the documentation.

Ms Van Wyk was concerned about the new role of the Secretariat and wanted it to start playing that role now, since it was already provided for in the SAPS Act.

Ms Van Wyk said that the Secretariat should play an integral role in the budget process of SAPS. Budget was policy in action. Like the Auditor-General (AG) and like National Treasury, the Secretariat should be present in budget discussions, and could not recuse itself. The Secretariat had done itself a disfavour by being absent from the recent budget process. It must be present at least to listen to what the SAPS was telling the Committee.

Ms Irish-Quobosheane replied that the Secretariat could not be both a player and a referee. However, she acknowledged that a representative of the Secretariat should be present at budget meetings. The Secretariat had lacked the capacity to assess the SAPS budget. It hoped to assess it biannually.

Ms Van Wyk observed a shortcoming in the Secretariat’s proactive role in oversight.

Ms Irish-Quobosheane agreed. The Secretariat had tried to look at matters that had arisen in Parliament as possible subjects for monitoring and evaluation.


Ms Van Wyk expected a more distant relationship between the SAPS and the Secretariat. There should be “creative tension”.

Mr Ndlovu was amused.

Ms Irish-Quobosheane acknowledged serious difficulties in the Secretariat’s relationship with the SAPS. The Secretariat reported obviously both to the Minister and to Parliament. There was a need to establish a forum that would meet regularly between the Secretariat and the Police to deal with issues as they were picked up, for example, the storage of vehicles in SAPS.

Ms Van Wyk said that she was quite serious.

Ms Van Wyk did not expect the Secretariat to wait for the Committee in regard to the Annual Performance Plan but rather to contact the Chairperson to ask for an opportunity to present.

Ms Van Wyk thought that the Secretariat’s performance measurements were fine, and were according to what National Treasury required. However, it must not become a mere game of numbers. What were the Secretariat’s expected outcomes?

Ms Irish-Quobosheane replied that identifying outcomes was an ongoing problem. It was not just enough to count the number of meetings, for example, but take into account the outcomes. However, the Auditor-General did require the number of meetings.

Ms Van Wyk asked about the transitional arrangements.

Ms Irish-Quobosheane replied that the Secretariat had already started working on these arrangements.

Ms Kewuti replied that the Secretariat had established a task team as the Secretary had already indicated to manage the transition period between the Secretariat and the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD).

Ms Van Wyk said that the Secretariat’s involvement in the Child Justice Act had been reactive. Did the Secretariat see any role for itself in the legislation on finger prints?

Ms Van Wyk asked with regard to the Domestic Violence Act. The transitional arrangements appeared to be missing from the presentation.

Ms Irish-Quobosheane replied that the ICD would report in June and the Secretariat would take over thereafter.

Mr Ndlovu pointed out that there was a time frame according to the judgement of the Constitutional Court on the Directorate of Priority Crimes Investigation (DPCI).

Ms Van Wyk said that there should be a back up plan.

Mr Ndlovu agreed.

Ms Irish-Quobosheane agreed on the need for a back up plan, in case the Committee was called upon to engage in debate at short notice. It might have to be introduced as a separate amendment before the main amendment to the SAPS Act.

Ms Van Wyk pointed out that it was a highly politicised issue, as Mr Ndlovu had noted. It might be a simple amendment, but the process would be complicated.

The Chairperson said that it was important to meet the time frame, and acknowledged that it could be a long process.

Mr Ndlovu warned that whatever the Committee did now would be challenged.

The Chairperson said that the matter must be given priority.

Ms Van Wyk asked if the Secretariat had any role to play in national instructions and standing orders.

Ms Irish-Quobosheane replied that the Secretariat would have to reconsider its role. One had to distinguish national instructions from national policy.

Ms Kewuti acknowledged Ms Van Wyk’s point.

Ms Van Wyk urged the Secretariat to appoint its Chief Financial Officer (CFO) earlier than January 2012, so that the appointee could become involved in the Secretariat’s budget process.

Ms Irish-Quobosheane noted the point.
 
Ms Irish-Quobosheane added that the draft policy document for the single police service had been finalised at the end of 2010 and it was now with the Minister, who had to approve it before it could be included in the White Paper.

Ms Van Wyk appreciated the Secretariat’s efforts in preparing for the meeting at short notice and that the documentation actually made sense. “We don’t have to fight about the format or the lack of information.”

The Chairperson asked what the Secretariat meant by finalised policy documents.

The Chairperson asked for clarity on the figures for the budget.

The Chairperson asked if the Secretariat had corrected the financial weaknesses that it had identified at its previous visit to the Committee.

Ms Irish-Quobosheane replied that the Secretariat had put in place monthly reporting systems and other measures. It had been very difficult to capacitate the financial section without the organisational structure being approved.

Ms Irish-Quobosheane thanked the Committee for the opportunity to meet. The Secretariat noted the observations of Ms Van Wyk and Mr Ndlovu that the Secretariat should attend budget meetings. The Secretariat should, after consultations with the Minister, report within the next few weeks back to the Committee regarding concerns on the Directorate of Priority Crimes Investigation (DPCI).

The Chairperson hoped that the Committee would not be overtaken by events and thanked the Secretary and her delegation. She commended, at length, the Secretariat on the documentation, which was an example from which others could learn.

The meeting was adjourned.