Committee Reports on SAPS, IPID, CSP Budget

Meeting report

Draft Report of the Portfolio Committee on Police on the 2017/18 Budget Vote 23, Annual Performance Plan (APP) and 2014-2019 Strategic Plan of the Department of Police (SAPS), dated 19 May 2017

The Chairperson stated that the Draft Report would be considered page by page.

The Draft Report set out the subject of the Report. It also provided an overview of its structure, summary of stakeholders’ concerns, strategic priorities of the SA Police Service (SAPS) for 2017/18, SAPS budget and performance targets for 2017/18, Committee deliberations, recommendations and additional information.

The lengthy Draft reported provided a summary of meetings held during the hearings. It summarised the preparatory meetings held with key stakeholders. It highlighted the strategic focus areas for the Department of Police for the year under review. It provided an overall analysis of the budget allocations, spending priorities, current and capital expenditure, additional allocations and earmarked funding of the Department of Police for the 2017/18 financial year and provided a programme analysis of the Department. Furthermore, it provided selected observations made by the Committee in general, on the annual performance targets and programme specific issues during the 2017/18 budget hearings and subsequent responses by the Department of Police. It then summarised the recommendations made by the Committee.

Discussion
Mr Z Mbhele (DA) raised the issue of language in one paragraph and suggested alternative wording to ensure the point made was conveyed better.

Ms A Molebatsi (ANC) thought the report should include reference to 10111 call centres as was discussed at the budget hearing.

Ms Molebatsi sought clarity on whether it was correct to say the public worked with and supported the police or whether the public supported the police.

Mr Irvin Kinnes, Committee Content Advisor, responded that the public did both. Working with the police included, for example, informing the police.

Mr Mbhele notified the Committee of the incorrect spelling of the Minister’s name. 

Ms Molebatsi questioned the renewal of firearms.

Mr Kinnes explained the report contained only selective indicators – if all indicators of the SAPS was included, the report would be extremely loud.

Ms Nicolette Van Zyl-Gous, Committee Researcher, clarified that the indicator was moved and was no longer located in the APP. The 2017/18 APP only spoke to new applications and not renewals.

Members raised grammatical amendments required.

The Chairperson noted SAPS had still not submitted its declaration of interest to the Committee – this was the first recommendation of the Committee in the report.

Mr L Ramatlakane (ANC) thought the sentence speaking to the accommodation of the Protection and Security Services in the Free State needed to be worded more firmly to fully denote Committee discussion on the matter.

The Chairperson agreed.

Mr J Maake (ANC) thought the report should include the name and purpose of the SAPS programme. This was especially for future readers of the report.

The Committee adopted the Draft Report of the Portfolio Committee on Police on the 2017/18 Budget Vote 23, Annual Performance Plan (APP) and 2014-2019 Strategic Plan of the Department of Police (SAPS), dated 19 May 2017, with amendments. Ms M Mmola (ANC) moved for adoption of the report with amendments. The motion was seconded by Mr Ramatlakane.

Mr Mbhele noted that the DA reserved its right on supporting, or not supporting, the actual Vote.

Draft Report of the Portfolio Committee on Police on the 2017/18 Budget Vote 20, Annual Performance Plan (APP) and 2014-2019 Strategic Plan of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID), dated 19 May 2017
The Chairperson noted the Draft Report was only 11 pages.

The Draft Report provided an overview of the 2017/18 Budget Hearings of IPID. It provided an introduction to this Report as well as a summary of meetings held during the hearings. It provided a summary of the key concerns raised by the Committee during the previous financial year. It provided a summary of the strategic focus areas for the Directorate for the year under review. It provided an overall analysis of the estimates of national expenditure of IPID for the 2017/18 financial year. It highlighted selected observations made by the Committee on the annual performance targets, programme specific issues during the 2017/18 budget hearings and subsequent responses by IPID. It summarised the recommendations made by the Committee.

Discussion
The Chairperson noted that “observation” needed to be in the plural form.

Further grammatical amendments were noted.

Mr L Ramatlakane (ANC) sought clarity on the Farlam Commission with regard to whether National Treasury made the R5 million required available and asked whether the Executive authority had a role to play in ensuring the said amount was made available for IPID to complete the Marikana investigation.

The Chairperson said the point was referred to in the recommendations.

Mr Mbhele proposed an addition to the above referenced recommendation – the proposal was that the Standing Committee on Appropriations look at the issue where IPID could possibly present to the that Committee. The Appropriations looked at revenue allocation from a birds-eye view and might see something the Police Committee was lacking to connect the dots on the matter. This proposal made use of parliamentary processes to assist in ensuring the R5 million allocation.

Mr Kinnes suggested possible wording of a recommendation in this regard.

Ms Molebatsi questioned the R4 million.

The Chairperson responded that R4 million related to the saving from compensation of employees – the Committee did question why the saving was not made use of.

Mr Ramatlakane reminded Members that the R4 million saving was taken away from IPID by Treasury to fund Fees Must Fall.

Mr Maake strongly felt there should be a specific recommendation to the Executive Authority on the R5 million matter.

Mr Ramatlakane said there should also be an observation on the matter especially in reference to the fact that the Committee raised the issue before in meetings and there was silence on its from the Executive Authority at the time.

The Chairperson highlighted the observation would have to have come from the budget hearings.

Mr Ramatlakane said the observation was made during the IPID budget hearing – he suggested possible wording for the additional observation proposed.

Mr Mhlongo sought clarity on whether there was a Committee observation with respect to the R5 million.

The Chairperson felt this proposal should feature under the recommendations of the report.

The Committee discussed wording around the recommendation of SAPS taking the recommendations of IPID seriously and the Directorate developing systems in turn in this regard to track what SAPS did – Members were unanimous that wording should be stronger than “take seriously” and should intead be “implement”.

Ms Molebatsi, on this point, sought clarity on SAPS members fingered in the Marikana incident.

The Chairperson remarked that SAPS indicated there was a disciplinary process.

Mr P Mhlongo (EFF) commented that there was serious red tape bureaucracy being created by the police. The question was then what recourse IPID had if SAPS did not comply with its recommendations.

The Chairperson said this would require amendment of the IPID and SAPS Acts if the matter was to be dealt with properly.

Mr Ramatlakane felt recommendation/observation on the Marikana matter, and disciplinary of SAPS members, should be made in the SAPS report and not that of IPID – all the SAPS members involved were exonerated by SAPS’ own disciplinary committee. He was concerned about whether these isues were actually discussed in the budget hearings.
The Chairperson highlighted the Committee would be meeting with both SAPS and IPID on progress made on the Marikana matter – such a forum would allow for more extensive discussion and formulation of Committee recommendations.

Mr Kinnes suggested wording for a recommendation in this regard.

Mr Maake commented that the Committee was in no position to judge neither SAPS nor IPID. IPID did have a system in place to track SAPS implementation of their recommendation – the Committee should recommend this system be strengthened. In this way the Committee would avoid pointing fingers.

Mr Mhlongo thought the Committee would then be remaining neutral when it was meant to take a firm stance – IPID as created through its Act. Without respect for institutional arrangements, dereliction of duty could set in. The Committee could not be neutral and condone that.

Mr Ramatlakane thought the problem was with the receiving authority when discussing IPID’s system of recommendations. He agreed with the proposed wording by Mr Kinnes.

Ms Molebatsi questioned whether it was realistic to recommend IPID develop its own ballistic and forensic capability.

Mr Kinnes said this was a point raised by the Committee for the past two years when IPID noted it was dependent on SAPS for forensic capabilities because there was no internal capacity. This was also in terms of state pathologists. He agreed it was not realistic for SAPS to have its own ballistic capacity so it was suggested the draft recommendation be removed.

Mr Ramatlakane cautioned against this because it was the responsibility of the state to ensure IPID was an independent creature of statute, constitutionally. For IPID to be independent it needed to be funded as such. Perhaps IPID should develop a costed plan in the above regard.

The Chairperson agreed that the initial steps needed to be taken for this to happen. The recommendation could include a caveat that IPID report to the Committee on progress made so that there was tangible tracking and efforts to engage on the matter.

The Draft Report of the Portfolio Committee on Police on the 2017/18 Budget Vote 20, Annual Performance Plan (APP) and 2014-2019 Strategic Plan of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID), dated 19 May 2017 was adopted with amendments.

Mr Mbhele noted the reservation of the voting rights of the DA on the budget.

Draft Report of the Portfolio Committee on Police on the 2017/18 Budget, Annual Performance Plan (APP) and 2014-2019 Strategic Plan of the Civilian Secretariat for Police (CSP), dated 19 May 2017
The Chairperson noted that the Draft Report was 21 pages long. It had sub-headings of introduction and structure on the first page.

The Draft Report provided an overview of the 2017/18 budget hearings of the CSP, including provision of  an introduction to the Report as well as a summary of meetings held during the hearings, provision of a summary of the key concerns raised by the Committee during the previous financial year, provision of a summary of the strategic focus areas for the Secretariat for the year under review, provision of an overall analysis of the estimates of national expenditure of the CSP for the 2017/18 financial year. This section also provided a programme analysis of the CSP, highlighting selected observations made by the Committee on the annual performance targets and programme specific issues during the 2017/18 budget hearings and a summary of the recommendations made by the Committee.

Discussion
The Chairperson felt references from Committee discussion of the budget of the CSP should not be reflected in the outlining of the APP of the Secretariat in the report – Committee discussion should be noted only under observations/recommendations.
The Committee noted grammatical amendments requirements.

Ms Molebatsi sought clarity on the use of force policy - what did the use of force entail?

Mr Kinnes said when force was used, SAPS was meant to report on it biannually to the Committee – this was the proposal for the use of force policy.

Ms Molebatsi remarked that the phrase “the Committee recommends that all vacancies in IPID are filled” was not sitting well with her.

Mr Kinnes highlighted the Member was looking at the incorrect report.

Mr J Maake (ANC) sought clarity on whether the use of the verb “reposition”, to say that the CSP was repositioned as the Department of Police, was correct.

Mr Kinnes explained the Minister identified that he wanted to take ownership of the CSP and have it called the “Department of Police” while SAPS would simply remain the SA Police Service. This was also said by the CSP itself.

Mr Maake thought this would cause confusion, especially in a village such as where he hailed from.

The Chairperson thought there should be quarterly reporting on how the process would unfold. There was also a need for further interrogation by the Department of Public Service and Administration and the Public Service Commission.

Mr Mhlongo said he was as confused as Mr Maake. The CSP seemed to have shifted to become part of the police – this then shrunk the element of community oversight over the police. He thought the Committee should also focus on the Use of Force policy given this shift. He raised the example of the UK where the police was completely overseen by the community – SA should strive for this direction in terms of policy. This matter could be debated in the future. He was concerned the Secretariat would be taking on too much by developing the police on digital policing especially as there was need for benchmarking and cooperating with other departments like Higher Education and Training and technical stakeholders. He was concerned about the capacity of the CSP in this regard.

Mr Ramatlakane said the policy priorities of the Minister could not be changed. He suggested the addition of a quarterly report to the Committee on this development – in this way the Committee could engage with the CSP especially on challenges.

The Chairperson agreed with this recommendation.

Mr Mbhele noticed incorrect use of Secretariat in the plural.

Mr Kinnes highlighted an additional recommendation not included in the report version Members had before them “the Committee recommends the Civilian Secretariat delivers on the NDP with respect to demilitarisation, professionalisation and the institution of the National Police Board”. 

The Draft Report of the Portfolio Committee on Police on the 2017/18 Budget, Annual Performance Plan (APP) and 2014-2019 Strategic Plan of the Civilian Secretariat for Police (CSP), dated 19 May 2017, was adopted with amendment.

Mr Mbhele noted the reservations of the right of the DA on the Budget Vote.

The Chairperson thanked Members for their hard work as a team. The Budget Vote debate of the Department of Police and IPID will be held on Tuesday, 23 May 2017.

The meeting was adjourned.