SAPS, IPID, & CSPS Budgetary Review and Recommendations Reports

Meeting report

The Chairperson said that the Committee had to give a general commentary on the reports before the necessary adoptions could be made. She thanked the staff for the preparation of the reports, noting that it had been done in a limited time. She wanted to ensure that all Members of the Committee had in fact managed to peruse them, as due to an error a few of them had not received the reports before the meeting.  

SA Police Service (SAPS): Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report (BRRR)

Mr A Whitfield (DA) said that the Committee’s mandate was to make recommendations that were related to the funding of departments, and the report did not explicitly state the recommendations. The Committee had had numerous discussions surrounding the funding of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) and their shortage of resources, and therefore it was the Committee’s mandate to make such recommendations. The recommendations were directed back towards the Department, instead of assisting the Finance Committee or the Minister of Finance in relation to the budget.

Mr O Terblanche (DA) referred to a page in the report where the wording needed to be adjusted.

Ms N Peacock (ANC) said the report should specify the Committee’s duty of monitoring provinces. In order for the Committee to perform a corrective and precise oversight, there was a need for the Committee to reflect on the quarterly reports of provinces.

The Chairperson said there was a need for the Committee to fix the prefixing. It had the right to ask every Provincial and National Commissioner to report on what happened in the provinces. Police was a national function and it was the Commissioners’ duty to report to the Committee, and provinces should not be relegated to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP).

Mr H Shembeni (EFF) questioned where the former Committee reports were. These were important in ensuring that the present Committee was not making the same recommendations as the previous Committee. Viewing of those reports would ensure that departments were in fact dealing with problems decisively.

Mr O Terblanche said that it was important to oversee provinces as an indicator of the amount that had been budgeted on a provincial basis.

Dr Irvin Kinnes, Content Adviser: Portfolio Committee on Police, responded that the Budget Review and Recommendation Report (BRRR) was forward and backward looking, and that the departments looked at the past year and the recommendations made to see what the departments were doing. The Minister of Finance made comments on the reports every year. He agreed that provisions would be made for the provinces.

The Chairperson reiterated the fact that the police had to perform a national function.

Dr Kinnes said that the Department would make the previous Committee’s reports available. The previous report had said that the police had not implemented the recommendations of the previous Committee on what the Department ought to do. The previous Committee had prioritised the recommendations of the Auditor General (AG).

Ms Peacock commented on SAPS reporting. In order for SAPS to function correctly, reports had to be closed. It must ensure that reports that were still to be processed were put aside, but when reporting to the Committee, it had to ensure that reports were closed, while giving a narrative on the outstanding matters that were still to be done. SAPS was underspending on programmes, yet the Department was complaining that more funds were needed. Quarterly reports needed to be done so that the Committee could monitor how the Department was spending money throughout the financial year. SAPS needed to overspend on programmes, rather than underspend, especially where the gender-based violence (GBV) crisis was concerned.

Mr E Maphatsoe (ANC) said the Department could not ask for more funding when it was underspending in almost all of their programmes. Therefore, It was important for the Committee to have access to previous reports. The Committee would like to see the development and progress in reports.

Ms Z Majozi (IFP) said that the Committee needed to include in the recommendations that the Committee would monitor the programmes that needed to be withheld by the police department.

The Chairperson said that there was a need to tighten up the monitoring of the Committee. She summarised the recommendations by Members, who had said there should be a roadmap with key performance indicators in terms of when the departments would be reporting and delivering on what was requested.

Dr Kinnes said the AG usually had quarterly meetings, which was the roadmap, and it had been a suggestion by the AG that the Committee had to do robust monitoring. 

Ms Peacock said that if 100% of the budget was to be spent, the Committee would have to monitor it quarterly. The Committee should not just monitor the programmes, but assess whether the patterns of spending and reporting were coinciding.

The Chairperson asked if all the Members were happy with the recommendations, and said the report would be adopted with amendments.

Civilian Secretariat for Police Service (CSPS): BRRR  

Mr Whitfield said there was a recommendation to the Minister about the Criminal Law (Forensics Procedure) Bill, which was a bill which the Committee had repeatedly raised. It referred to SAPS and to parolees who were committing crimes. This particular legislation needed to come to Parliament so that the Committee could ensure that the number of repeat offenders was limited, or to ensure that offenders received harsher sentencing. He asked to have the recommendations included under general comments, or under the Committee’s observations.

The Chairperson agreed to include it under observations.

Mr Whitfield continued that this would allow the Minister to see that the Committee was in
fact placing emphasis on GBV.

Mr Terblanche requested that the wording under a section in the report be amended.

Ms Majozi also pointed out wording that need to be changed.

The Chairperson asked of all the Members were happy with the amendments, and said that the report would be adopted with the amendments.

Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID): BRRR

Mr Whitfield said that there was a concern from the Committee regarding the lack of funding for IPID. He questioned how the Committee could make more detailed financial recommendations in order to direct the focus of the Minister of Police and the Minister of Finance to the fact that IPID could not deliver on its mandate due to the fact that it was underfunded. It was important for the Committee to highlight this point. He asked whether this should fall under Committee recommendations or Committee observations.

The Chairperson said that the comments made by Mr Whitfield should be made public in terms of the Committee’s recommendations, and suggested it should release a press statement.

Mr Whitfield wanted to clarify whether it would go under the Committee’s recommendations, that IPID should receive more funding, so that the Minister could refer to this specific point.

The Chairperson agreed to elevate the recommendation to the level of the Committee in order to release a press statement. The Chairperson asked if the Committee agreed.

The Committee agreed.

Ms Majozi seconded the proposal and referred to the budget speeches that had been made in the National Assembly, where it had been stated that IPID must get extra funding so that it could fulfil its mandate. The Committee should add this to the report.

The Chairperson said that it was more than one Committee Member who had suggested this, and the press statement would reflect that this was a unanimous Committee decision.
 
Mr Maphatsoe said that the function of IPID should not be taken for granted, because it was fighting to eradicate corruption within the police force, and the press release should state this. Sometimes these programmes were intentionally underfunded, and the press statement should emphasise that IPID was doing a good job.

The Chairperson said that this should be highlighted in the Committee’s report.

Mr T Mafanya (EFF) said that the backlog of cases should also be highlighted. 

The Chairperson said that press statements were usually released by the Chairperson on behalf of the Committee. If there were any items that the Committee would like to highlight, the Committee should indicate them to her. If Committee Members would like to release individual statements through their respective parties, they were welcome to do so.

Ms Majozi asked to have the wording under a section in the report amended.

The Chairperson asked the Committee to vote for the adoption of the report, and confirmed its adoption.

Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA): BRRR

Mr Shembeni requested an amendment to the wording under a section in the report.

The Chairperson requested an amendment to the name of the Acting Chairperson referred to in the report.

She asked the Committee to vote for the adoption of the report, and confirmed its adoption.

Committee programme
On Wednesday, 23 October, the Committee would give SAPS an opportunity to give the Committee a presentation on the Firearm Amnesty Proposal. The previous presentation had been referred back to SAPS for the necessary amendments in order to give the Committee further clarification. The presentation needed further technical inputs.

The Committee agreed to allow SAPS to present to the Committee due to the fact that there was a lot of uncertainty surrounding the proposal.

The documents and presentations regarding the Firearm Amnesty Proposal should be circulated to all Committee Members beforehand. It was important to peruse them in order to be prepared for the meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.