Private Security Industry Regulation Amendment Bill: Working Draft 2

Meeting report

Opening remarks
The Chairperson said that the 2011/12 Annual Report of the Private Security Industry Regulation Authority (PSIRA or Authority) needed to be addressed so that the Committee could have an opportunity to discuss in detail the credibility issues that it had with PSIRA and its Council. She hoped that the Council had taken note of the serious issues that the Committee had raised in the deliberations up until now on the Authority and the functioning of the Council. As Members pointed out, the Committee had an added responsibility to interrogate properly the Annual Report in addition to dealing with the legislation. The Committee would meet with the researchers alone to discuss it before the presentation by PSIRA and its Council.

Ms Zelda Holtzman, Deputy Chairperson of the PSIRA Council, said that the points raised by the Chairperson had been noted. She needed clarity because the Committee said that the Council and PSIRA had no integrity in the eyes of the Committee. As a Council member, she would resign if her integrity was questioned as the principal Act made specific reference to Council members being fit and proper, and having integrity. She asked for clarification on what exactly the Committee meant and how PSIRA needed to proceed with this matter going forward.

The Chairperson said that the Committee wanted the Council and the Authority to address the items that raised issues of credibility in the minds of Members, when it interrogated the Annual Report. The Council should go to extra lengths to get the answers and be prepared for a thorough interrogation of the Report. Her intention was not to question the Council’s integrity but to state that there were credibility issues that needed to be addressed.

She said the deliberation process would start again where it ended in the previous meeting, but that the meeting would not continue into the afternoon to give the technical committee enough time to clean up the clauses that would be discussed this morning.

Clause 38 – Offences and penalties
Major General Philip Jacobs, SAPS Head of Legal Support, said that the proposed Clause 38(3A) stated that any person who failed to comply with the provisions of Clause 36A(1) or (3) was guilty of an offence and was liable to, on first conviction, a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or to both a fine and such imprisonment, or on a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding fifteen years, or both a fine and such imprisonment. Clause 36A(1) and (3) dealt with security services rendered outside the Republic.

Mr M George (COPE) said that the offences talked about were serious and asked why there was an option of a fine if companies could easily pay it off.

Ms D Kohler-Barnard (DA) asked if the Authority had to leave discretion to the court.

Gen Jacobs said that it was an option that was left open as it was a fine or imprisonment or both. This related to one not reporting a specific action that would take place outside of the Republic. There might be companies involved too, and a fine would be more appropriate for 36A(1).

The Chairperson asked if there was not normally a minimum fine associated with imprisonment sentences for companies.

Gen Jacobs said that there was a specific law by the Department of Justice which related to fines which were adapted from time to time as the value of money changed, so the amount of the fine could not be stated.

Schedule – Table of Offences
Gen Jacobs said that there was an amendment in the Schedule of the principal Act to insert any offence in terms of the Prohibition of Mercenary Activities and Regulation of Certain Activities in County of Armed Conflict Act, 2006. It was inserted over and above the Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act, 1998. The same was done with the Department of Defence with the National Conventional Arms Control Act where reference was made to both pieces of legislation, as one was not yet in operation but would be once the Foreign Military Assistance Act was repealed.

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) asked how Gen Jacobs could put a law that was not yet in operation into the draft and refer to it.

Gen Jacobs said that it had happened in a number of Acts that there was reference to a new Act that was not yet in operation. Automatically, the reference was to the new Act when the previous Act was repealed. The State Law Advisers could assist with information on this. If the old Act lapsed, there would be no reference to the new if they were both not included.

Mr Theo Hercules, State Law Adviser (SLA), Office of the Chief State Law Adviser (OCSLA), agreed that it would automatically kick in when the previous Act was repealed but that it was also there for clarity purposes in the Amendment Bill as proposed.

Mr Ndlovu said that he was not arguing but the Committee was different to the one who dealt with those Acts. He asked if those parliamentary committees decided not to go ahead with them, then what would happen. It was still a Bill not an Act.

Mr Hercules said the particular legislation had been passed by Parliament as a law but was not yet enacted. The legislation would only become applicable once it was enacted. In order to address that, he advised that the Committee rather retained the new legislation for clarity. Should it not be enacted, it would not be referred to but the current legislation would still be applicable.

The Chairperson asked what the hold-up was with the Prohibition of Mercenary Activities and Regulation of Certain Activities in County of Armed Conflict Act.

Mr Hercules replied that he was not certain but it was legislation being administered by the Department of Defence, and it might relate to the regulation of Commonwealth countries, and with respect to Commonwealth countries being able to serve in the United Kingdom military forces. It might be the same problems that this Bill had in terms of international agreements but he could not say authoritatively.

The Chairperson said the Committee was satisfied with that but the Memorandum accompanying the Bill would have to be changed.

Gen Jacobs said that there was also an insertion of any offence in terms of the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communications-related Information Act and the Intelligence Services Act.

The Chairperson asked the State Law Advisers to make sure that the Protection of State Information Bill that the National Council of Provinces would be voting on tomorrow would not have an impact on this.

Ms Kohler-Barnard asked if it was standard procedure to have specific and lengthy memorandums on the aims at the end of the Bill and who was responsible for putting it together, as the previous one was irrelevant now.

The Chairperson said it was standard and that the technical team had been asked to re-look at the memorandum.

Mr George said that he advised the State Law Advisers to not look at the Protection of State Information Bill as it would not come into effect within five to ten years as it would be challenged.

The Chairperson said that was his opinion and she was still asking them to do it.

She noted they had completed working through Working Draft 1. She asked the technical team to return to the definitions in Clause 1 and discuss any fresh drafting changes – using the Working Draft 2 of 14 November. She asked Members to check if there were any issues still outstanding that needed to be addressed.

Gen Jacobs said they would review the Long Title at the end of the process.

Clause 1 Definitions
“Levies Act”
Gen Jacobs said that the definition was a technical issue to improve the readability of the Act.

“locksmith”
This was changed as previously discussed to include the cutting of keys.

“Minister”
The definition was a technical change to mean the Minister responsible for Police.

“National Treasury”
This meant the National Treasury established by Section 5 of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA).

“organ of state”
This meant an organ of state as defined in Section 239 of the Constitution, 1996 but did not include the security services referred to in Section 199 of the Constitution.

The Chairperson asked PSIRA if private investigators were being regulated and if so, how many were registered.

Mr Manabela Chauke, CEO of PSIRA, said that it was but he did not have the information currently available but could provide it a later time.

Mr Ndlovu said he was concerned that this information was not available.

The Chairperson said that PSIRA must provide this information in its annual report including the numbers of all security officers registered and active, and the different types of security service providers.

“Public Finance Management Act”
Gen Jacobs said that the definition referred to the Public Finance Management Act, 1999.

“security officer”
This now included the addition of any natural person who was employed or otherwise engaged by another person including an organ of state, and who received remuneration for rendering security services or any natural person who assisted in carrying out the affairs of another security service provider and received remuneration.

The Chairperson asked if car guards were included in this definition and whether they needed to be registered.

Mr Hercules said he was not sure but asked for clarity from PSIRA. He did not think that they were currently registered.

The Chairperson said she expected this to be addressed by the technical committee and said it was not up for debate.She asked if people working for the state would have to register.

Gen Jacobs replied that security officers working for the state needed to fall under the definition with the exclusion of particular security services which were defined.

The Chairperson said the companies needed to be registered.

Ms Jenni Irish-Qhobosheane, Secretary of Police, Civil Secretariat of Police (CSP), said there were two separate issues. One where the state contracted out security and the other where the state had in-house security, and both of these issues needed to be looked at.

The Chairperson asked what the difference was between paragraphs (a)(ii) and (b) and why it was necessary to insert (a)(ii) in the definition of “security officer”?

Mr Ndlovu asked if (c) should also be included in the question.

Ms Kohler-Barnard said that in PSIRA’s response to the public hearings, it said car guards had always been regulated but it was an uncontrollable sector.

The Chairperson said PSIRA must include these details in the Annual Report and provide proof.

She said the definition of “security officer” needed to be returned to and cleaned up by the technical committee, and the Committee would move on.

“security service”
Gen Jacobs said that the proposed change was made in paragraph (e) regarding the Regulation of Interception and Monitoring Prohibition Act.

Ms Kohler-Barnard said that there were concerns raised that the term was too broad and vague and might have unintended consequences as monitoring devices could include too many manufacturing companies.

Mr Ndlovu said that the definition had been tightened and linked to the correct Act already. As long as the mechanisms or devices were within the law of this Act, they would be capable of being overseen by this regulation.

The Chairperson said that monitoring devices were regulated by the Act that was mentioned in the clause. Monitoring devices were about communication. She asked if monitoring and interception devices were being covered and addressed, and if PSIRA would regulate the manufacturers, distributors and advertisers of those that had been gazetted by the Minister of Justice.

Gen Jacobs said that he had a copy of the notice from the Minister of Justice available. The previous Act which was repealed did not have the regulation of monitoring equipment in it. The devices in question were specifically mentioned, and were not allowed to be manufactured, distributed, advertised or sold. Normal video cameras would not be affected as only equipment which had been adapted to be used surreptitiously were listed, including specific spyware for computers.

The Chairperson said that those items were prohibited and asked what was trying to be regulated here.

Gen Jacobs said that the items that were not listed in terms of the Act were to be regulated.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane said the technical team needed to come back to the Committee with the list of devices as the emphasis was on interception of communication devices, not monitoring devices, in order to fully understand.

The Chairperson asked if part of the problem was the use of the word ‘monitoring’, and if it should rather use only ‘interception’.

Ms Kohler-Barnard asked if it was necessary to repeat what was already in the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act and agreed that the word ‘monitoring ‘was causing difficulty.

Gen Jacobs said that originally the intention was to change the name from the previous Act to the new Act and he did not take into account the items that were prohibited. One could not regulate something that was prohibited and this was the issue. The technical committee needed to look at it.

The Chairperson said the Committee would flag this.

Gen Jacobs said that the insertion of paragraph (lA) into the definition of “security service” related to the safeguarding of cash or goods when being transported.

The Chairperson said that the Committee was happy with these changes.

She asked if a locksmith being a trade was addressed, as locksmiths who were being trained were not allowed to register.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane said that the technical committee did have a discussion about this issue and felt that the definition could not distinguish between the locksmiths and persons training to be locksmiths. The internships or apprenticeships needed to be addressed.

The Chairperson agreed this needed to be addressed and the Locksmiths Association of South Africa could be consulted.

“this Act”
Gen Jacobs said that paragraph (2) was removed, but shifted to later in the Bill.

Clause 3 – Objects of Authority
The Chairperson asked for the Objects of the Authority to be explained.

Gen Jacobs stated the primary objects of the Authority (see Working Draft 2).

Mr Ndlovu asked what timeously meant in paragraph (i).

The Chairperson said that that term was loose as what was timeously for one person may not be timeously for another and asked the technical committee to look at that, regarding the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act.

Mr Hercules said that Clause 3 of the principal Act dealt with the Objects of the Authority. It was not stating provisions for dealing with time frames but the idea of having things on time. The clause was for broader principles.

The Chairperson asked Mr Ndlovu to make a note of it, as the issue would be addressed when registration was raised.

Gen Jacobs said that there was a new insertion of paragraph (r) in Clause 3 to develop and implement a plan to promote awareness amongst the public and private security industry on the functions and role of the Authority and the industry. This was a recommendation that had not yet been agreed to by the Committee but it would be a positive issue, if there was a better understanding.

The Chairperson asked what the financial implications would be.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane said the cost implications should not be a factor in this as there was not enough general awareness. There were ways of communicating to the public without a large financial burden by using platforms that already existed such as community radio stations, interviews on language stations and government platforms. The principle of putting this in was to ensure everybody knows that there was an Authority, and that security officers should be registered.

The Chairperson said that the technical committee should never say financial costs were not a factor because it was for the Committee.

Ms Kohler-Barnard asked if there should be a complaints mechanism if people had a problem with security guards.

Mr Ndlovu asked what the difference was between paragraphs (k) and (q) in Clause 3.

The Chairperson said that the objectives were wide and needed to be tightened. The technical committee needed to try and combine and focus the issues on what PSIRA should ultimately be doing. It should not prescribe things PSIRA was not capable of doing because of the reality of the situation.

Ms Molebatsi also asked for the difference between paragraphs (k) and (q).

Mr Ndlovu said that what the Chairperson said about combining the paragraphs would help.

Gen Jacobs said that the technical committee used wording from the Department of Public Service and Administration legislation but he appreciated what the Committee had said in review of this. In respect of an oversight body, PSIRA itself should be the body where complaints about the industry should go and it should have a mechanism. PSIRA should be able to deal with complaints about registration or service delivery.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane said the intention was always that PSIRA was able to receive complaints but not always handle them directly. The technical team needed to define and strengthen the mechanisms involved. She agreed that there were too many objectives and they needed to be refined, as PSIRA needed to be the regulatory body rather than promoting the industry.

The Chairperson said the word “promote” was used too much in the objectives and needed to be addressed. The same went for Clause 4 and the functions of the Authority as some of the functions were not happening but they went together with the objects of the Authority. It was extremely long and some functions listed did not happen, including paragraph (d) from Clause 4, and some needed to be realistic such as paragraph (p). This clause needed to be relooked at.

Clause 5 - Governance of Authority
Gen Jacobs read through Clause 5 and noted that the PMFA needed to be incorporated into paragraph (4).

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane said that the technical team would like to look at Clause 5(2) and draw a distinction between the Authority and the Council as the oversight body. It needed different wording and to be rephrased.

The Chairperson asked Gen Jacobs to explain Clause (5).

Gen Jacobs said that it was an extremely wide provision which could nullify previous policies.

The Chairperson said that it needed to be looked at.

Proposed Clause 6A – Requirement for appointment as councillor
Gen Jacobs said Clause 6A was an insertion and that the DPSA legislation had been looked at in terms of what was required for Council members. It proposed that a member of the PSIRA Council must be a fit and proper person and have due regard to his or her experience, conscientiousness and integrity so as to be entrusted with the responsibilities of the office concerned. This was linked to the vetting that must be done.

The Chairperson asked if the Committee should not look at specific qualifications for each position as raised in the previous meeting such as one member having a financial background or one having a legal background. She asked the Council what it thought was required to make it more effective.

Ms Kohler-Barnard asked who did the vetting and where was this reference. She said in other parliamentary committees, the Committee interviewed prospective candidates and asked why it was leaving it to the Minister and the Cabinet instead of doing it itself.

Ms Holtzman said that if the Committee wanted to interview applicants, people would not want to apply. There could be a review of what was required.

Mr G Lekgetho (ANC) said it would be advisable to ask the Council what was needed, based on its experience.

Ms Holtzman said that, as an experienced Council member, she thought it would be important if there was a guideline attached to this provision. It was important that the position was reviewed as one that carried responsibility and respect, and to cover competencies. The difficulties that Council members had would be around governance. Financial management and legal services would help but could be too restrictive if it was specified in those terms.

The Chairperson said that it should be included that one member should be a financial expert and one should be a legal expert and asked what other issues should be addressed. She suggested a role involving governance. She emphasized that this was a part-time council.

Ms Molebatsi said that there should be one member with a security background.

Mr George said that he was uncomfortable with the qualifications being stipulated and interviews required for part-time jobs. He asked why they should be vetted if it was already stated that they must be persons of integrity.

The Chairperson said that it would be valuable to give the Minister guidance in what to look for in the appointment of the Council. She strongly motivated that requirements should be stated. The Council could not effectively perform its oversight role if it did not have certain types of people on it.

Mr Lekgetho said that at least one of the members should have a legal background and one have a financial background.

Mr Ndlovu said that the Council needed governance, law and finance experts but it was up to it how to appoint them.

Ms Kohler-Barnard said the Council needed to have oversight of the Authority, and that the three qualifications were crucial.

The Chairperson said that there was general agreement on the issue and asked the technical committee to include this.

Ms Holtzman said that it was restrictive to have only five members on the Council to improve it and consideration should be given to have more to allow it to function more effectively.

The Chairperson said this issue was discussed and the Committee agreed that five people were sufficient.

Mr Lekgetho agreed that this was discussed yesterday, and agreed that five people were enough.

Mr Ndlovu said that it was first discussed when Ms Holtzman was not here but it was finalized yesterday.

The Chairperson said the Committee should look at having a secretariat for the Council, even though it would have financial implications.

Mr George asked what the Authority was going to do if it the Council had a secretariat.

The Chairperson said that it was an oversight body and could not depend on the persons that it was overseeing to provide for them.

Ms Kohler-Barnard said that civilians could not go to PSIRA with complaints about people and such an oversight body would be good and would deal with problems. A civilian complaints division was needed.

The Chairperson said that the Committee needed to be careful with complaints as that was not PSIRA’s responsibility as it was the regulating body.

Mr Ndlovu said he supported the proposal for a secretariat as the Council was part-time and needed somebody to make sure coordination was done properly. It must not be the Authority.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane said that it was an important concept to define the secretariat’s function and not to do the role of PSIRA or the Council.

The Chairperson asked the technical committee to come back to this issue and include it.

Mr George said that the functions of the secretariat needed to be made clear.

The Chairperson said that this had been raised and would be addressed.

Clause 7 – Disqualifications for appointment as a councillor
The Chairperson said that Clause 7(c) could be removed as had been dealt with in the previous Clause.

Mr Ndlovu asked if Clause 7(e) had been taken out relating to councillors obtaining security clearances.

The Chairperson said that it had not.

Clause 8 – Terms and conditions of office, vacation of office, payment of remuneration & allowances
Gen Jacobs said that Clause 8(1) said that a councillor was, subject to this Clause, appointed for a period not exceeding three years, on such terms and conditions as the Minister may determine in a letter of appointment, provided that all members of the Council serve on a part-time basis. The final part of the clause was added.

Mr George asked if it would not be advisable to make the period five years as the Council met between four and six times a year.

Mr Lekgetho said that he agreed with Mr George as a period of three years may not be enough time to understand the dynamics of the situation.

Ms Kohler-Barnard said that the members of the Council were taking on another set of responsibilities and a five year period could be too onerous. The Council should be consulted to see if five years was too long.

Mr Ndlovu said that he agreed with Mr George and Mr Lekgetho as there were only four meetings per year. Five years was fine as the Council would know exactly what it needed to do and members could resign at any time if they wished.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane said that five years would be better as the same people would be accountable for a longer period of time.

The Chairperson said that the Committee needed to be careful not to allow members of the Council to only work in their third or final year.

The Chairperson asked the Council if it got an allowance for attending meetings.

Ms Holtzman said that it did not.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane clarified that only state members did not receive remuneration. If members were not working for the state, they would receive remuneration.

The Committee agreed on five years and said it would be less onerous on the executive as well, in terms of having to appoint a new Council less often.

Gen Jacobs said that Clause 8(6) added in a reference to Clause 13 and swapped the Council with the Minister in terms of remunerating the Council and this must be with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance.

The Chairperson said that the Committee was comfortable with this and said both Clause 8(6) and 8(7) spoke about remuneration of councillors.

Mr Ndlovu said that he thought there was a differentiation between the chairperson and vice-chairperson and that was what he thought Clause 8(7) was referring to.

Mr George asked if people with different qualifications would get paid the same fee. Clause 8(7) would also affect the qualifications as previously discussed.

The Chairperson said that the clauses were still confusing. Councillors should be equal, but different functions meant different salaries if committees were established.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane said there were scales set for public entities guiding how much councillors should receive for sitting on a committee, depending on hours worked, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance. She would be happy to further explain these scales if needed.

Ms Kohler-Barnard said that it must be already laid out in existing legislation and the Committee could not choose new salaries and financially reinvent the wheel.

The Chairperson said that Clause 8(7) could be taken out and asked the technical team to check for unintended consequences.

Clause 9 – Functions of Council and chairperson
Gen Jacobs said Clause 9(f) was a new function of the Council pertaining to partnerships.

The Chairperson asked him to go through the functions of the Council.

Gen Jacobs read through Clause 9.

The Chairperson said that under paragraph (c), the PMFA must be included. She asked the technical committee to compare the functions with another council’s functions. She was worried that the Council had functions that the Authority should be doing. One needed to ensure that there was no duplication between the roles of PSIRA and the Council.

Mr Ndlovu asked what was meant by maintaining liaison.

The Chairperson asked if the term was not too woolly and could be changed to relationship. The technical committee would look at this going forward.

Clause 10 – Accountability of Council
Gen Jacobs said that Clause 10 dealt with the accountability of the Council to the Minister, and the accountability to PSIRA in terms of the PFMA would be returned to.

He read through Clause 10 (see Working Draft of 14 November).

Gen Jacobs said that there was a long discussion on Clause 10(b)(iv). The technical committee did look at the firearms regulations and the Committee said it did not want regulations from both the PSIRA act and the Firearms Control Act. The regulation of firearms was linked up with the specific wording from the Firearms Control Act.

The Chairperson said that Clause 10(b)(iii) still did not say what the Committee wanted. It needed to be about training institutions being registered, sold, transferred, liquidated or suspended, not the training of these institutions.

Mr Ndlovu said the Committee did not discuss training at all at the previous meeting but it had now expanded and the tone had been changed.

The Chairperson said she specifically asked for training institutions to be included but not in this way. The details of training and training institutions needed to be separated.

Ms Kohler-Barnard said that even the details of training undertaken by registered security officers were also vague as there were so many different types of training. It needed to be very specifically related to the qualifications that were needed to be registered.

The Chairperson said that this could be addressed in Clause 10(b)(iii). Clause 16A needed to be moved forward to this clause and Clause 10(2) could be removed as it was effectively replaced.

Gen Jacobs said that the wording of Clause 10(b)(vi) also needed to be looked at because police investigations were just a matter for the police and it could be problematic to share information at that point.

The Chairperson said that clause should not be lost, but it could be reworded to emphasise the details of deregistration of members of the private security industry needing to submitted.

Mr George said the problem was the word “details”, as it meant that the nitty-gritty of each case needed to be submitted which was difficult, but the general information could still be submitted.

The Chairperson said that it might help but did not resolve the issue in its totality. The technical committee needed to take into consideration what Gen Jacobs and Mr George had said and clean it up.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane said the number of cases PSIRA reported to the police needed to be included in the process.

The Chairperson said that the technical committee needed to apply its minds to this and address the issues of PSIRA bringing investigations to SAPS and PSIRA reporting on the number of security officers deregistered as a result of criminal investigations.

Mr George said that the clause did not involve security officers.

The Chairperson said that Mr George was correct and such security officers needed to be looked at.

Clause 11 – Ministerial supervision of Authority
Gen Jacobs said that paragraphs (d) and (e) of Clause 11 needed to be inserted. This would allow the Minister to take corrective measures as required by the circumstances in the period whilst there was no appointed Council and to make an interim appointment of a person or persons in accordance with Clause 6A, to ensure the continuity of the affairs of the Authority, provided that the interim appointment may not exceed 90 days. The time period had been discussed and 90 days was seen as sufficient time in terms of vetting and other processes.

The Chairperson said that she was worried with the time period as vetting could take a long time. The PMFA needed to be included in this clause.

Ms Kohler-Barnard said the PMFA could cover it, but asked who would ensure that an acceptable standard would be maintained.

The Chairperson said that this Act would guide the Minister, the Levies Act would guide the Minister and the PMFA would also guide the Minister.

Gen Jacobs said that the period could be extended to six months for the interim appointment.

The Chairperson said that six months was fine, as it was not open-ended.

Clause 12 – Meetings and conflicts of interest
The Chairperson asked Gen Jacobs to go through Clause 12.

Gen Jacobs read through Clause 12, noting a change in 12(6) to include the word “deputy director.”

Ms Kohler-Barnard asked what provision there was if members were no longer fit to hold their position.

The Chairperson said this was in Clause 11.        

Ms Kohler-Barnard asked what the Chairperson was referring to in Clause 11.

The Chairperson said she misunderstood as she thought she was referring to the dissolving of the Council. She asked the technical team to look at a provision for the Minister to remove an individual councillor.

Gen Jacobs said it was in Clause 8.

Mr Ndlovu asked if the Committee had asked for “deputy director” to be removed in the previous meeting.

The Chairperson said that it was corrected from what was said yesterday as the Committee agreed not to remove “deputy director.”

She had a serious problem with Clause 12(7). She understood what was trying to be achieved but was too broad in the way it was phrased as it allowed wrong decisions to be made and to stand.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane said there were a few issues that needed to be addressed including Clause 12(3) and suggested that the clause be cleaned up and reworked.

The Chairperson agreed but they needed to look at a provision for the number of meetings that the Council had per year as it should meet at least four times a year. It must report on its meetings like all other public entities in the PSIRA Annual Report.

Ms Holtzman said that if there was an instance where Council members felt there were governance issues or potential mismanagement issues, there were no procedures or mechanisms for the Council to report this to the Minister. She asked if this could be addressed and included.

The Chairperson said that this should be included in this clause but that it was important that the Council report to the Portfolio Committee also.

Ms Kohler-Barnard said that if there was one Council member who was unfit to perform, other members had no one to report to.

The Chairperson said it should be the Minister and provision must be made to make this clear in the Act.

Clause 13 – Committees to assist Council
Gen Jacobs said that there was an addition to Clause 13(2) to address the communication and relationship between PSIRA and the industry.

The Chairperson agreed but said that 13(1) needed to be looked at as it read horribly and needed to be reworded.

The Chairperson asked if remuneration was involved with the other committees involved.

Ms Irish-Qhobosheane said that there may be remuneration involved but industry-specific committees should not be remunerated. If experts from outside the industry were involved, they may be remunerated.

The Chairperson said that it should be referred to Clause 8(6) to bring it together.

Clause 14 - Staff of Authority
Gen Jacobs said that the deputy directors had been left in the clause in accordance with the previous discussion. There had been a concern with Clause 14(3) to allow deputy directors to make delegations and asked if it could be restricted to only the director.

The Chairperson said that in 14(1), the Committee had made it clear that it should be in consultation with the Minister and this was missing. The functions of the director and deputy directors needed to be re-looked at and Clause 14(2)(c) needed the PMFA to be included. The issue needed to be looked at it its totality.

Gen Jacobs said that for Clause 14(2), deputy directors could also be excluded as the functions were laid down and the main responsibility was with the director.

Gen Jacobs said that the PMFA had been included in Clause 14(4)(a). Clause 14(7) had been inserted which said the fixed establishment, the number and grading of posts of the Authority must be determined by the Council with the approval of the Minister.

The Chairperson said that this needed to be re-looked at as there were problems with Clause 14(6) also, as the phrase “from time to time” was problematic and it was not linked to the Minister.

Mr Ndlovu said “from time to time” in 14(6) should be replaced with “in consultation with the Minister.”

The Chairperson said that there were issues because of the problem with the funding and therefore the whole clause needed to be looked at.

Closing remarks
The Chairperson said that the deliberation process would only continue on Wednesday 21 November as the PSIRA Annual Report was going to be presented on Tuesday 20 November. She asked the technical committee to make the changes that were agreed upon and to clean up the Act with reference to the PFMA.

The meeting was adjourned.