Western Cape Liquor Authority; Department of Community Safety 2019/20 Annual Report

Community Safety, Cultural Affairs and Sport (WCPP)

10 December 2020
Chairperson: Mr R Allen (DA)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video:Committee Meeting

Western Cape Annual Reports 2019/20 

The Committee met, on a virtual platform, to deliberate on the 2019/20 Annual Report of the Western Cape Liquor Authority. The WCLA Acting CEO noted its various challenges but the organisation had also seen development in many areas. Their systems had been enhanced which had enabled them to streamline their operations and conduct their work in an automated and simplified manner. Compared to the previous year, WCLA had seen a decline in the number of incomplete applications submitted due to ongoing efforts to assist applicants in lodging applications. The inclusion of social media platforms as part of the communication mediums and a website revamp helped to expand WCLA’s communication footprint to reach a larger number of stakeholders.

The Authority had received an unqualified audit opinion with no findings. The declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic presented different challenges. However, WCLA to rose to the challenges with innovation to ensure continued service delivery to Western Cape residents throughout all stages of the lockdown. What remained a challenge, however, were the steep advertisement costs for liquor applications. Enforcement efforts intensified towards compliance with the Western Cape Liquor Act and the Disaster Management Regulations. Mention was made of the Alcohol Harms Reduction Game Changer initiative.

Members questioned what steps had been taken to fill the CEO vacancy, what the Authority had done to help unlicensed traders acquire licences, the process followed when dealing with non-compliant licence holders, what the common contraventions were and where they were mostly located. Members were concerned about the Authority’s journey towards self-sufficiency and asked if the self-sustainability of the Authority was solely reliant on fee increases. If so, what the effect of fee increases on licence holders had been? Members asked what partnerships the Authority had formed outside of government to achieve alcohol harms reduction.

On the 2019/20 Annual Report of the Western Cape Department of Community Safety, its Head of Department noted DCS had undergone a repurposing and realignment exercise to reposition itself as a service delivery orientated department. All staff members had been encouraged to have their voices heard so that DCS could be more responsive to vulnerable communities in the province. The Department would continue to deliver its important oversight mandate and wanted to do more. Through the difficult year, the loyal and committed staff went beyond the call of duty during trying times to enable the Department to be responsive to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Members questioned the validity of the accreditation of 484 neighbourhood watches between 2016 and 2020, how many Law Enforcement Advancement Plan (LEAP) officers had been deployed to the top ten murder precincts in the Western Cape, what work DCS had done to address GBV during 2019/20 and its progress in amending the Western Cape Community Safety Act that would enable DCS to conduct proper oversight over law enforcement. Members noted that the high levels of violent crimes in numerous communities and questioned why the statistics did not seem to decrease despite the LEAP intervention. Members probed the Department on what measures had been taken to hold the different law enforcement authorities accountable, where the school resource officers had been deployed, the work placement breakdown for the 1388 graduates from the partnership academies and how the young people were monitored after completing the programmes. Members asked about the DCS Court Watching Brief (CWB) and SAPS response to its recommendations. They asked about the Community Police Forums and the response to the directives issued by the Western Cape MEC.
 

Meeting report

Opening remarks by Chairperson
The Chairperson noted the apology sent by Mr Albert Fritz, Western Cape MEC for Community Safety, who had tested positive for COVID-19. He wished Mr Fritz and his wife a speedy recovery. He commended everyone for attending the meeting during a tough year and welcomed newly appointed Head of Department for Western Cape DCS, Adv Yashina Pillay.

Opening remarks by Head of Department: Western Cape Department of Community Safety
Adv Yashina Pillay greeted everyone and wished Mr Fritz and his wife well. She said DCS had embarked on a repurposing and realignment exercise to reposition themselves as a service delivery orientated department. It was an exciting process and there had been consultative workshops with personnel in DCS. All staff members had been encouraged to have their voices heard so that DCS could be more responsive to vulnerable communities.

DCS would continue to deliver its important oversight mandate and wanted to do more. As Members were aware, DCS was the co-lead in the safety focus area. The three focus areas were jobs, well-being and safety. DCS was the co-lead with the Department of Health (DH). That role was taken seriously, and they looked forward to working with the Committee in making the Wester Cape a safer province.

In concluding, she remarked that it had been and continued to be a difficult year for all Western Cape residents. She thanked the loyal and committed staff members and management who went beyond the call of duty during the trying times. That enabled DCS to be responsive to the COVID-19 pandemic. DCS would continue to deliver their best.

Western Cape Liquor Authority (WCLA) 2019/20 Annual Report
Adv Leaticia Petersen, WCLA Acting CEO, noted WCLA had faced various challenges but had seen development in many areas of the organisation. The systems had been enhanced which had enabled them to streamline their operations and conduct their work in an automated and simplified manner. When compared to the previous year, WCLA had seen a decline in the number of incomplete applications submitted. That was due to ongoing efforts that assisted applicants in lodging applications. However, steep advertisement costs for liquor applications were still a challenge.

The WCLA communication footprint had been expanded to reach a larger number of stakeholders. That was achieved by the inclusion of social media platforms as part of the communication mediums as well as revamping their website.

WCLA had received an unqualified audit opinion with no findings and they were proud of the clean audit.

The declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic towards the last quarter of the financial year had presented different challenges. However, it enabled WCLA to adapt their service delivery to a new model. It responded to the Western Cape residents with innovation which ensured continued service delivery throughout all stages of the lockdown. It also required intensified enforcement efforts towards compliance with the Western Cape Liquor Act of 2008 and the Disaster Management Regulations.

In conclusion, Adv Petersen said during the year under review, WCLA began taking strategic leadership in Alcohol Related Harms Reduction as outlined in the Alcohol Harms Reduction White Paper. For that purpose, WCLA needed to be strategic and to be capacitated to execute its mandate. She thanked the custodial DCS and HOD for the ongoing support.

Mr Ronald Kingwill, WCLA Deputy Board Chairperson, echoed support for Mr Fritz and his family on behalf of the Board. He congratulated Ms Pillay on her appointment. He said it was difficult for WCLA to meet the obligations set in the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) without the support of its parent department. That year, DCS had provided both resources and leadership to the Liquor Board as it dealt with vacancies at the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer levels. WCLA would not have been able to present the Report without that support.

Discussion of Part A
The Chairperson tabled the Part A of the WCLA Annual Report 2019/20 for discussion.

Mr M Kama (ANC) welcomed the appointment of Adv Pillay as DCS HOD. He asked why the WCLA CEO position was still vacant and how long it remained unfilled. What progress had been made to fill the vacancy?

Mr Kama noted on page 9 the Annual Report stated that all liquor licences had been processed without undue delay and within the prescribed time frame in a manner that was accessible to all. He asked how many applications had been received during 2019/20. He asked how many had been rejected and what the reasons were. What work had been done to help unlicensed traders acquire licences?

On the introduction of a liquor licence fee that was fair and market related, he asked if WCLA was concerned by the high volumes of liquor outlets owned by big retail stores in poor communities. What work was being done to assist small liquor traders who had to compete with the bigger outlets?

Mr Kama referenced page 10 where the Annual Report said WCLA had continued to improve on the initiatives from the previous year such as processes implemented to act against non-compliant licence holders. He sought clarity on the processes to deal with non-compliant licence holders. How many had been dealt with during 2019/20? Could the Committee be furnished with a detailed report on that?

He noted that R1.5 million in fines had been issued to licence holders who had contravened the Act. What were the common contraventions and where were they mostly located? Could a list of the outlets fined, their related offences and locations be provided to Members?

The Chairperson agreed with Mr Kama’s questions. However, the Committee had been informed the year prior that the WCLA strategic initiatives were dependent on enough funding, hence it had embarked on a journey to become self-sustainable. He asked for an update on that.

Mr G Bosman (DA) said one of the strategic risks identified in DCS Annual Report under Part C: Governance was the inability of WCLA to be self-sufficient. Therefore what steps had been taken in the effort to become self-sufficient? He noted Adv Petersen spoke about WCLA’s work in alcohol harms reduction. He asked for an expansion on the role of WCLA in regulating liquor in the province to the point it assisted with economic growth as well. Who would ultimately pay for the path towards self-sustainability? Would it be the businesses that applied for the licences?

Adv Petersen replied about assistance provided to unlicensed liquor traders. During 2019/20, WCLA had embarked on a test kitchen as a pilot project that assisted unlicensed liquor traders by the provision of information on liquor licences and how to apply. Those pilot projects were rolled out in the Alcohol Harms Reduction Game Changer areas. She did not, however, have the information on the specific numbers of applications granted and refused but those could be provided in a written response after the meeting.

On the big liquor traders in communities, Adv Petersen replied that as part of the initiatives WCLA had a contact centre which assisted members of the public and potential applicants with information on how to apply for liquor licences. That service was provided throughout the entire Western Cape. Before COVID-19 WCLA had received many walk-in clients, who were assisted and provided with all necessary documentation. Applicants were provided with frequent updates on the status of their applications.

On dealing with non-compliant licence holders, Adv Petersen replied the process was outlined in the Liquor Act. Liquor inspectors responded to allegations or complaints brought against non-compliant licence holders. Section 20 of the Liquor Act provided sanctions for non-compliance some of which were revocation, suspension, the imposition of alternative conditions on the licence and steep fines as referred to in the Annual Report. A combination of the sanctions could be imposed. The sanctions served as a deterrent against non-compliance. If one licence holder had sanctions imposed and steep fines, it sent out a message to other licence holders.

Adv Martell Van Lill, WCLA Senior Manager Compliance and Enforcement, replied there had been 344 non-compliance matters referred to WCLA prosecutor. That was unique in the Western Cape as they had an office that specifically dealt with non-compliance matters. The cases presented by the police or inspectors were assessed before they went to the Liquor Licensing Tribunal (LLT) for consideration. 210 out of the 344 cases were sent to the LLT for consideration. He mentioned that the system enhancements made it easier for the prosecutor and Adv Van Lill to keep track of non-compliance cases. That made it easier to monitor progress and keep track of outcomes.

On the specific details of licensees, Adv Van Lill replied WCLA would have to provide that at a later stage. There were projects that began running prior to 2019/20 and he noted that the Game Changer initiative had an impact on compliance levels. WCLA wanted to expand that to other parts of the province. The most common problem that persisted was the struggle around zoning requirements. There were still many illegal outlets in certain informal areas. To address that WCLA had to focus on upstream prosecutions. There were many outlets in informal areas which were still distributing liquor to illegal outlets and were therefore monitored regularly. The most common contraventions were the illegal distribution in the form of liquor sales of more than 150 litres at any given time. The sale of liquor beyond prohibited hours, off-sales from on-consumption premises and the failure to keep proper records of liquor sold to the public from an on-consumption outlet were other forms of contraventions seen. The most common contraventions for on-consumption outlets were a lack of control without the necessary security or children being permitted into restricted areas.

Adv Petersen replied that the request for details of fined licence holders and their contraventions was information that was not presently available but could be provided in a written report.

Dr Laurine Platzky, WCLA Board Member, referred to the question about alcohol and the economy. She noted that not everyone had read the White Paper on Alcohol Harms Reduction which was gazetted after the Western Cape Cabinet adopted it in September 2017. There was a misunderstanding about the role of liquor in the economy. While many people made a living from liquor, it was important to understand that the liquor industry costs the South African economy more than it contributed. That was because so much had to be spent on public health, ambulances, traffic policing of drunk drivers as well as public violence and crime. There had been a lot of evidence that indicated a significantly calmer and safer society during the lockdown. Dr Platzky said it was a misnomer to say that there was a balance between the benefits and costs of liquor and the economy. The costs had been computed as far greater than the contributions. It did not mean there were not individuals who were making a living and creating jobs. The bigger picture to be borne in mind was that it was not a win-win situation.

In response to Mr Kama’s point about unlicensed liquor traders who made a living in townships competing with the big producers and alcohol suppliers, Dr Platzky said Members needed to understand that the off-consumption licensed outlets which were the bigger outlets knowingly or unknowingly supplied the unlicensed outlets. She did not want to mention brand names as everyone was familiar with the bigger alcohol outlets. The small vulnerable outlets like an old lady selling a few crates of beer over a weekend were not the people WCLA felt needed to be controlled and regulated in a better way. The point of a legal outlet that was selling to an illegal person or outlet was the nub of the problem and was difficult to control but WCLA had made progress in that area. It had been even more difficult during lockdown particularly when unlicensed outlets could sell for off-consumption purposes. It had caused a difficult time for WCLA. It was important to understand it was not just about ‘big’ and ‘small’, but it was about the relationship between licensed and unlicensed.

Mr Sandiso Gcwabe, WCLA CFO, said one had to define what self-sustainability meant. The definition given was that the Liquor Authority ought to collect and pay more to the provincial revenue fund than it received in allocations from the fiscus. During 2019/20 WCLA had received R42 million from the fiscus and paid R41 million to the custodian Department. Therefore, there was a self-sustainability gap of R1 million. Progress had been made. There were two items instrumental to that progress. First, the fee increases granted over the years did much to bridge the gap. Secondly, WCLA developed projects to eliminate the number of unintended lapsed licences. These two mechanisms bridged the gap. In the past, the increase given had been limited and linked to CPI which lead to a failure to achieve self-sustainability.

On the fee structure, Mr Gcwabe replied WCLA had developed a roadmap to create a pricing model that would allow different types of licences to be charged a different fee. The model would be linked to volume or the type of licence. There were various matters sought to be achieved through the model and it was not simply a pricing mechanism. The mechanism allowed WCLA to target those that caused the most harm and to eliminate them. The roadmap was in consultation with the relevant stakeholders. However, it could only be implemented once the urgent amendments to the Act had been passed.

On the status of the CEO position, Mr Kingwill replied the vacancy had been in existence for almost two years and after advertising the position once, WCLA was unsuccessful in raising a suitable candidate at the grade level for the post. Subsequently, WCLA proceeded with an application through DCS to get an increase in the grading level of the position. That required an organisational design structure for which there were significant delays as other priorities were presented. WCLA had completed the advertising of the vacancy and would shortlist candidates the following day. They hoped to conduct interviews during the first and second week of January. The main reason for the delay was the need for an organisation design which had been outstanding since its inception. There was now assurance that the process would continue, and permission had been granted to increase the grading level of the position to attract appropriate candidates for this very important position.

The Chairperson noted that there were six liquor licence categories. He asked if the amendment of the Act would introduce an additional category.

Mr Bosman reflected on the comments by Dr Platzky about the burden of alcohol abuse to the economy and agreed with her. He added that harms reduction was not the sole responsibility of WCLA. He asked what partnerships were being formed broadly outside of government to enable that work to happen. He noted on page 56 of the Annual Report that there were no partnerships with the private sector. Was there a plan to collaborate with others?

Mr Kama followed up on WCLA self-sustainability. Every time self-sustainability was mentioned, fee increases were mentioned. He asked if self-sustainability was only reliant on fee increases. What was the impact of the fee increases on licence holders? Was there a link between fee increases and those who did not renew their licences on time? How did licence holders react to the fee increases?

Dr Platzky, as the Chairperson of the Community Engagement and Stakeholder Sub-Committee of the Board, assured Mr Bosman that WCLA had developed very good partnerships. She wanted to list a few because WCLA was the regulator and part of its mandate was to contribute to harms reduction. However, that was a broader societal issue. The whole of society included the whole of government. Therefore WCLA worked closely with the Local Drug Action Committee (LDAC) led by the Western Cape Department of Social Development (DSD). Each of the 30 Western Cap municipalities had to have an LDAC which was part of the national structure. WCLA worked closely with the Community Police Forums (CPF) where they existed and had a good relationship with them in the past where information was requested, and fed.

Dr Platzky said partnerships were important to empower communities. Communities were able to have their say not only over licencing but where, for example, there was an objection to an outlet that had been licensed but was not abiding by the conditions placed on it. Communities were empowered to object not only to applications but to the serving of alcohol to underage children for example. CPFs and Neighbourhood Watches were a part of the partnership strategy. There were partnerships with academic institutions that were closely involved such as the School of Public Health at the University of Cape Town (UCT). WCLA had worked with the University of the Western Cape (UWC) where one of its Board members was part of the Dallah Omar Institute at UWC. They had done interesting work on policing and issues that would be close to the heart of the Committee. WCLA worked with non-government organisations (NGOs) that were not funded by the liquor industry. As there was a conflict of interest, a policy decision had been taken not to work with those NGOs funded by the liquor industry because there was a vested interest. That was not to discourage the liquor industry from doing what it felt needed to be done to reduce harms but WCLA did not engage with conflicts of interest. WCLA worked with the DG Murray Trust under a similar approach and Dr Platzky hoped there would be more and further engagements the following year. WCLA had started with the provincial and local spheres of government with the existing institutions. WCLA had worked closely with the Safely Home campaign of the Western Cape Government as well.

Mr Gcwabe agreed that there were currently six categories of liquor licences. An off-consumption licence was the same for both small and large outlets. The same applied to on-consumption licences where both small and large outlets were treated the same. WCLA proposed that the pricing model needed to do one of two things. Either, it considered the volumes traded and differentiated on that basis. Outlets trading in small volumes were likely to contribute to fewer harms thus their contribution to addressing alcohol harms ought to be proportionate to the harms created. The second alternative was to differentiate based on the type of licence and the harms associated with those types of licences. Therefore, consider the harms associated with licences awarded to large outlets versus to smaller establishments. Therefore, further categories needed to be developed either through the Act or through the Regulations.

Mr Gcwabe replied to the question on fee increases and WCLA self-sustainability. The real measure of self-sustainability WCLA wanted to use was the differential pricing model but that required legislative changes. It was not a measure that had been available immediately. Therefore, WCLA could not implement it because the legislative changes were required first which took an average of two years to complete. Immediate measures had to be taken thus the fee increases were a short-term measure while the differential pricing model was a long-term measure.

On the impact on licence holders, Mr Gcwabe replied that an annual licence fee for on or off-consumption was R4585 which was the equivalent of R382 per month. He explained that the fee increases implemented over the past two years had been linked to CPI. That curtailed the impact on licence holders as viable businesses were able to accommodate the monthly fee of R382. However, if the business model was not a viable model then people would forfeit their licences – not because the licence was unaffordable but because the business model they had was not viable for the sale of alcohol. An example he gave was that of a Bed and Breakfast (B&B) that did not sell alcohol as its core business; thus they would forfeit their liquor licence to focus on their core business.

Mr Bosman asked for more detail on the policy decision taken by WCLA on the partnerships it would enter. Mission Two was to form partnerships and he felt WCLA needed different ways to engage some alcohol producers as they should carry a bigger burden of implementing the alcohol harms reduction plan. He asked the question because the Annual Report said WCLA had no partnerships with private companies.

Discussion of Part B
The Chairperson tabled Part B and reminded Members that questions could also be asked in written format for more information or via a Resolution from the Committee.

Mr Kama referred to page 25 of the Annual Report and noted WCLA did not meet its planned target due to the national state of disaster declaration on 17 March and the subsequent lockdown. He asked if those were the only reasons WCLA could not meet its target as the disaster declaration only occurred in the middle of the last month of the financial year.

On compliance and enforcement on page 35, he asked for details of the enforcement interventions and how many resulted in the revocation of licences. Which areas did the interventions take place? What interventions did WCLA enforce in affluent areas like Sea Point, Camps Bay, Green Point and Clifton. He acknowledged that the Annual Report was for 2019/20 but he noticed that even under lockdown, outlets in areas like Sea Point had contravened lockdown regulations.

Mr Kama noted the number of persons reached through awareness interventions on page 32 of the Annual Report and asked why the target had not been achieved.

On the underperformance for liquor licence applications processed due to the national state of disaster, Adv Petersen said the listed number of applications processed included all applications however, the narrative referred to Event and Temporary licence applications. The deviation of 109 applications specifically related to Event and Temporary licence applications. Those applications were the ones WCLA was not able to process due to the national state of disaster declared on 15 March. WCLA normally saw a high number of Event and Temporary licence applications on a weekly basis specifically as March was peak season. Hence that was the reason for the underperformance. It was due only to Event and Temporary licences. There were no deviations for the processing of all other applications.

On compliance and enforcement interventions on page 35, Adv Petersen replied the number included both operations and inspection interventions. She asked Adv Van Lill to provide more detail and a written report could be submitted if more detail was required by Members.

Adv Van Lill replied it was important to note that the Western Cape had been split into different areas according to municipalities. Each inspector had an average of 800 licences they were responsible for. Interventions were planned according to the areas and inspectors worked closely with the South African Police Service (SAPS) and Law Enforcement in resident areas to identify problematic outlets. The focus was on problematic outlets and where complaints had been received. Follow up inspections were conducted. There was only one inspector that dealt with City of Cape Town based on the number of licences in the City. He explained that WCLA did not necessarily focus on the same area every week. Inspectors planned their inspections according to the relevant dedicated areas. Inspections were dependent on information received from the public in the form of complaints or from SAPS or Law Enforcement based on crimes committed.

On the missed target for persons reached through awareness interventions, Adv Petersen replied the planned school and community sessions were cancelled due to the national state of disaster. They had been planned to run throughout the quarter from January to March. The interventions did not only stop but steps needed to be taken to cut back on face to face interventions as of the start of that calendar year. That was why the target had not been met. The highest intervention numbers were usually achieved through schools hence the reason for the variance.

Mr Kama asked for the list of 109 Event liquor licence applications that could not be processed. He asked for a list of interventions that resulted in fines or the revocation of licences in affluent areas during 2019/20.

He asked a follow up question on why the national state of disaster had been used as an excuse for the missed targets for 2019/20. Had leeway been given on applications or appeals for people who had missed the date for licence renewal. He asked as appeals had to be made to MEC Fritz by the end of March.

On extensions, Adv Petersen replied that the Act stated that the submission deadline for condonation applications was 31 March of any year. Requests for condonation should be submitted to the CEO before 31 March. WCLA had been available telephonically and via email during lockdown. The contact centre had sent out communications to licence holders reminding them to renew timeously. All applications for condonation had been received before the 31 March deadline and were successfully processed.

Discussion of Part D
The Chairperson tabled Part D. He said Part C and E of the Annual Report would be dealt with by the Standing Committee of Public Accounts (SCOPA) although Members could raise pertinent questions.

The Chairperson said the Committee looked forward to further engagement with WCLA and its Board in 2021. A few weeks ago an interview process had been conducted to fill the two vacancies on the Board. There was another round of interviews taking place in 2021.

The Chairperson gave members of the public an opportunity to ask questions but there were none.

Mr Kingwill thanked the WCLA management team for the enormous effort they put in during the year. He took the fact that there had been limited questions to mean they had done their job well. He thanked the Committee members for the relevant questions they had asked. Adv Petersen echoed this and said WCLA would address the unanswered questions in writing. WCLA was then excused from the meeting.

Department of Community Safety 2019/20 Annual Report
The Chairperson reiterated that Western Cape Minister for Community Safety, Mr Fritz, had sent an apology and wished him and his wife a speedy recovery. He invited Members to ask questions on Part A.

Discussion of Part A
Mr F Christians (ACDP) noted page 6 of the Annual Report referred to 484 accreditations of neighbourhood watches between 2016 to 2019/20. He asked if the neighbourhood watches had to be accredited every year. Was 484 a true reflection of those accredited over the years from 2016?

He noted that Mr Fritz had not said anything about Mr Gideon Morris, the former HOD who left, and noted Adv Pillay’s appreciation to the former HOD. Had his contract ended? He asked for more details on that.

Mr Christians said page 8 dealt with the funding and overseeing of the LEAP project. He asked if DCS had overseen the project. He asked how far DCS was with amending the Western Cape Community Safety Bill to have proper oversight over the LEAP project.

Mr Kama accepted that Mr Fritz was unavailable but hoped Adv Pillay would be able to respond. Page 5 spoke about how DCS during 2019/20 brought to life a safety plan that aimed to half the murder rate over the next ten years. Many debates, speeches and responses by Mr Fritz included an example of projects and interventions DCS had implemented in Hanover Park. Mr Kama asked how many officers were deployed to Hanover Park and other crime spots identified as the top ten murder precincts in the Western Cape.

Page 5 also spoke about gender-based violence (GBV) and rural safety monitoring through the criminal justice system. Statistics had shown that the Western Cape had the highest number of GBV hotspots and cases in the country. Did DCS have plans to avail funding for GBV prevention programmes when the Safety Plan had been introduced? What work had been done by DCS to address GBV during 2019/20?

Adv Pillay replied that the five-year contract of Mr Morris ended on 31 March 2020. His contract had been further extended until 30 June 2020 and thereafter terminated. The official five-year period ended at the end of March. Adv Pillay began acting in the position from 1 July 2020. She reiterated her gratitude to Mr Morris for his term with DCS as well as his leadership, expertise and guidance that he provided.

Adv Pillay replied that amendments had been drafted for the Western Cape Community Safety Act which included DCS oversight over law enforcement. That was part of the Amendment Bill as was the ombudsman being empowered to initiate investigations. There was a transfer payment agreement and a business plan in place with the City of Cape Town. DCS had oversight over the LEAP deployment. In accordance with the transfer payment and business plan, the City of Cape Town had to report to DCS on that.

Adv Pillay replied that when there had been an increase in violence in Hanover Park, DCS requested the City of Cape Town to deploy 80 additional LEAP officers. Under normal circumstances, 100 LEAP officers per priority area would be requested. Currently, there were five priority areas – Khayelitsha, Nyanga, Delft, Hanover Park and Bishop Lavis – for which the City of Cape Town and the LEAP project were funded

On GBV initiatives, Adv Pillay replied that DCS had been working closely with SAPS. It had been monitoring cases through the Court Watching Brief (CWB) project. DCS would like to assist SAPS with the training of their front-line personnel at the service centres. It wanted to explore partnerships with the corporate sector to upgrade the SAPS victim friendly facilities. DCS wanted to ensure there were more volunteers in place at these facilities. It continually monitored SAPS compliance with the Domestic Violence Act which was part of its oversight mandate.

On violence prevention initiatives, Adv Pillay mentioned the Safety Plan's two focus areas: Violence Prevention and Law Enforcement. There was an integrated law enforcement and violence prevention approach. Fpr 2020/21, DCS was establishing area-based teams in the five priority areas by 18 December. Based on their establishment, DCS would have evidence-based and data-led violence prevention and law enforcement interventions.

Mr Fred Watkins Acting Director: Provincial Security Operations, DCS, replied that neighbourhood watch re-accreditation was a bi-annual process which meant that they had to apply for accreditation every two years. There were currently 338 which was a slight drop. The problems experienced with re-accreditation were the neighbourhood watches submitting incorrect documentation. However, DCS continued to support them so their re-accreditation would be completed while at the same time new neighbourhood watch applications were processed.

On the LEAP deployments, Mr Trevor Wingrove, DCS Director: Crime Prevention Centre, said DCS funded the recruitment and training of 500 LEAP officers. DCS was currently working on five priority areas and a perfect scenario was for 100 LEAP officers to be deployed to each of the five areas. However, it was important to keep in mind that of the 500 LEAP officers, 455 were fully certified due to the firearm licence requirement. They had to pass that test before they could be deployed. In the previous financial year, 455 LEAP officers were deployed, and they normally worked in two teams as they worked in shifts. Hanover Park was a priority area and, at the height of its gang violence, the City of Cape Town had been requested to send additional LEAP officers which was very successful as the gang violence was quelled. The results were realized in a short space of time. DCS received weekly reports from the City of Cape Town which revealed that there were an average of 60 to 70 LEAP officers active in Hanover Park daily.

On progress in the Western Cape Community Safety Act revisions, Ms Amanda Dissel, DCS Director: Policy and Research, replied that in 2019/20 DCS had internal consultations and identified what the changes to the Act would be. They had been submitted to Legal Services for a significance test. They considered all the amendment recommendations and recommended they be submitted for a regulatory impact assessment. The reason for the regulatory impact assessment was because DCS recommended extending its oversight to all law enforcement and traffic authorities. DCS currently had oversight only over municipal police which was City of Cape Towns’ Metro Police but there was no oversight over law enforcement. Unfortunately, the process had been delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic and Legal Services had to concentrate on other issues. The amendments to the Act would be picked up in the new year and DCS would have a meeting in this week with Legal Services to discuss how to proceed with the regulatory impact assessment.

Mr Kama asked a follow up question about the five priority areas DCS had been working on with the LEAP officers. He wanted to ascertain if those included the top ten murder precincts. The announcement had said the deployments would be made in the top ten murder precincts in line with the Safety Plan aim to halve the murder rate in the province by 2030. He asked if SAPS had been involved in the deployment of the 455 LEAP officers because inquiries had been made to SAPS and other law enforcement authorities about gang violence in Hout Bay and the Cape Flats where there was a lack of resources. Had deployments been made to those areas? How had they happened because as he understood it, deployments had to take place under the command of SAPS.

Adv Pillay replied that the five areas initially identified were based on the top murder statistics for police stations. The initial five areas were Khayelitsha, Nyanga, Delft, Hanover Park and Bishop Lavis and DCS were engaging with the City of Cape Town for the roll-out of an additional 500 LEAP officers. The areas under consideration were Mfuleni, Gugulethu, Harare, Kraaifontein and Mitchells Plain. All those stations featured on the list of the top murder stations in the Western Cape.

On SAPS involvement, Adv Pillay replied that they were a big part of the partnership. There was a governance arrangement framework that was in place with SAPS beginning with Western Cape Provincial Commissioner, Lt Gen Yolisa Matakata, to the station commanders who were all involved at every level of the governance arrangement framework. Meetings took place at Lt Gen Matakata’s level, with Adv Pillay and Mr Richard Bosman, Executive Director: Safety and Security, City of Cape Town Metro. There were also meetings between the City of Cape Town directors, DCS directors and senior officials from the Provincial Commissioner's office. There was an operational steering committee where decisions were taken and discussions had on deployment with SAPS in the identified areas.

Mr Wingrove added that any deployment and operation of LEAP officers took place under the control and command of SAPS.

Discussion of Part B
Mr Christians referred to page 18 of the Annual Report and noted the Western Cape Safety Plan aims to halve the murder rate over the next 10 years. The high levels of violent crimes had resulted in lack of safety experiences in numerous communities. He cited the Annual Report where it stated that the province had the third highest number of murder cases accounting for 18.6% murders nationally as well as the third highest number of attempted murder cases. He noted the SAPS annual crime statistics and said the Western Cape population was headed towards 7 million people, Kwa-Zulu Natal had 11.5 million people and Gauteng was the biggest province with 15.5 million people. Therefore, was the Western Cape the third highest per population per province? Mr Christians felt no progress was being made even though there were the LEAP officers. He wondered if the problems were only in the priority areas mentioned by Adv Pillay.

Mr Kama said he had the same frustrations as Mr Christians about the response to crime in the province. Page 18 of the Annual Report stated that the province had the third highest murder cases reported and contributed to 18.6% of murders nationally. He wondered when the impact of the Western Cape Safety Plan would be felt. Since DCS had taken over implementing the plan, he asked how DCS dealt with the impact of spatial integration, the improvement of lighting and accessibility in the Cape Flats and informal settlements. What was DCS doing to push other departments who were responsible for that to happen?

On page 19, it noted Delft Police precinct recorded the highest number of murders in the province and country thereby replacing Nyanga. Mr Kama asked what helped to improve the situation in Nyanga and what went wrong in Delft. He asked what measures DCS had put in place in Delft and Khayelitsha to improve as had been done in Nyanga.

Mr Kama turned to page 30 of the Annual Report where it stated that DCS had successfully exercised oversight over provincial law enforcement agencies for the five-year strategic plan of 2015-2019. He asked what the oversight entailed and what steps were taken to investigate murders such as the murder of the undercover policeman. What had been done to hold the different law enforcement authorities accountable?

Page 42 noted the implementation of the Court Watching Brief (CWB) programme in line with a 2014 Cabinet Resolution. He asked if CWB monitored the case of the Provincial Treasury employee accused of sexual assault. How many cases did it attend and what was the progress update? Mr Kama asked as he had attended an appearance and deliberately asked those present in court from where they were and CWB was not present. Was there no requirement for CWB to be in court physically? How were the cases monitored?

Mr Bosman noted page 48 dealt with Safety Promotion. He asked DCS about the other event scheduled for March that did not take place due to COVID-19. Could DCS elaborate how they evaluated the efficacy of those events and their impact on keeping young people away from drugs and gangs. He asked what follow-ups were in place to monitor the trajectory of the participants once they had attended the programmes. Was there continual evaluation of their progress through their lifespan?

Turning to page 55, Mr Bosman read that DCS supported and formed strategic safety partnerships where 601 young people successfully graduated while a total of 1388 young people were placed in work opportunities across the three safety partnership programmes at the Chrysalis Academy, the Youth Work Programme (YWP) and the Youth Safety and Religion Programme (YSRP). He asked for a brief breakdown on the work placements of the 1388 graduates. Where had they been placed? How many of the 601 graduates had been placed with partners? What kind of monitoring was in place after the young people exited the 12-month programme to ensure they continued to benefit from the positive impact of the programme? Was there a tool in place to track them?

The Chairperson said DCS should be commended for the CWB programme and it being adopted by national. He asked about the target for four reports submitted by DCS and for more information on the meetings where SAPS inefficiencies were identified through the CWB.

Ms Ansaaf Mohamed, DCS Director: Strategic Services and Communication, said there were errors in the Annual Report that were picked up right before the presentation. The first error was in Figure 1 on page 19 which read ‘Top ten murder stations in the Western Cape for 2018/19’ but what was indicated to the auditors was ‘2019/20’. The second error was on page 21 which indicated DCS was to fund the recruitment and training of 5000 additional learner law enforcement officers over the five-year term. The number should read 3000 and not 5000 and was picked up just before submission to the Committee. Ms Mohamed asked that DCS verbally table the errors and submit the errata later.

The Chairperson noted the errors and Adv Pillay apologised for not detecting the errors.

In response to Mr Christians, Adv Pillay said the stations were Khayelitsha, Nyanga, Delft, Hanover Park and Bishop Lavis for the LEAP deployments. It was the DCS agreement with the City of Cape Town and that is why she mentioned only the five areas within the City and the additional rollout of a further five areas within the City. However, the top murder stations within the province were within the City of Cape Town Metro. That did not mean DCS had forgotten the needs of other municipalities especially the rural ones. Adv Pillay said area-based teams would be set up in 11 areas within the Cape Town Metro. DCS realized that the southern and western areas were not covered by the ten priority areas highlighted above therefore area-based teams would be established there as well. DCS would roll out the establishment of area-based teams in all the district municipalities. There had been extensive engagements with both district and local municipalities to identify the areas that the area-based teams would need to be. The crime statistics had been considered as well as various factors by DCS in consultation with the municipalities. The area-based teams would have an integrated law enforcement and violence prevention approach because law enforcement alone would not address the real issues highlighted such as street lighting and crime prevention through urban design and spatial planning. Those were issues that had to be addressed to reduce the murder and crime rate in the province. Going forward, much focus would be placed on violence prevention and DCS would adopt a life-course approach. There would be interventions across all departments that had to tie into one another beginning from when a mother was pregnant with the child right through to when the person became elderly. There would be interventions throughout the trajectory of an individual’s life.

In terms of other departments, Adv Pillay said DCS had meetings with the HODs of the Western Cape Department of Human Settlement (DHS), Western Cape Department of Transport and Public Works (DTPW) and the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEADP) about spatial planning and urban design. DCS had meetings with the HOD of the Western Cape Department of Social Development (DSD) and various entities to consider other critical interventions such as youth development and dealing with the elderly, and access to services. These were all factors that were critical to DCS making the province safer and reducing the murder rate. There would not be immediate results and it would take time before the results of the violence prevention interventions would be seen, but it would be at a localised space. DCS wanted to involve community-based structures like the neighbourhood watches, the community policing forums all at a local level which would inform the interventions taken.

On oversight, Adv Pillay said DCS oversight took a few forms. It had oversight over the police and the municipal police service. They had to report to DCS in terms of section 19 and 21 of the Western Cape Community Safety Act. DCS monitored IPID recommendations and SAPS compliance with the Domestic Violence Act. DCS was involved in the national census project where it visited and inspected all police stations in the province. The state of Detective Services in the province had been reported on.

On Safety Promotion partnerships, Adv Pillay replied that all the Chrysalis Academy graduates were placed in a work opportunity for a minimum period of 12 months to a period of 24 months. The Chrysalis Academy monitored the graduates for a period of five years.

On the CWB, Adv Pillay replied that the reports were submitted to SAPS as well. She was pleased to report that the SAPS Provincial Commissioner had provided feedback on action that had been taken in terms of DCS reports that highlighted the matters that were struck off the roll and the reasons for this which ranged from a witness being absent from court or the investigation being incomplete. SAPS did respond to DCS and had acted against SAPS members who had not been compliant.

Ms Dissel answered the question about the crime statistics and why Nyanga was no longer the top murder station. She cited the Annual Report where it said that Nyanga had been divided into two police stations with the establishment of SAPS Samora Machel police station in 2018/19. In 2018/19 Samora Machel recorded 30 murders which increased to over 70 in 2019/20 when it had become firmly established. Nyanga and Samora Machel together accounted for 291 murders which was more than the 265 murders recorded in Delft. If the two stations were added together, Nyanga was still the top murder area in the province. Khayelitsha and Delft were areas of concern. DCS had been monitoring those stations throughout the lockdown period and Khayelitsha had recorded the highest number of murders.

Ms Dissel replied to Members' concerns that the number of murders was not decreasing. The number of murders in 2018/19 was 3974 and was 3975 in 2019/20 therefore the number of murders increased by one. It was a small increase and pointed to a stabilisation in murders. However, that there had been an increase in the number of murders over the last ten years. During the first two quarters of 2020, there had been a decrease in murder most likely due to the COVID-19 lockdown. There was a decrease in murder by 24.4% in Quarter 1 and by 0.9% in Quarter 2. That would impact the overall murder statistics of 2020/21.

Mr Louis Brown, DCS Acting Director: Monitoring and Evaluation, replied about the Western Cape Safety Plan. He referred to Delft and said once the area-based teams had been established there had been discussions with the Station Commanders and the City of Cape Town LEAP to coordinate. Delft as a precinct had Sectors 2 and 5 which were the problematic sectors within that precinct. One was more alcohol related while the other was gang related. There would be specific interventions for those sectors to reduce the murders within the Delft precinct. Those would be supplemented with interventions from public health. It was still at the initial stage but there was willingness from SAPS and the City of Cape Town to contribute towards the Western Cape Safety Plan.

On DCS oversight, Mr Brown said a census was conducted in 2017/2018. All 250 police stations in the province were looked at and systemic issues identified. One of these was the lack of training of detectives and a recommendation was sent to National. DCS considered other items it could do to assist SAPS detectives to enhance their training. While conducting oversight DCS came up with recommendations to improve the professionalism of SAPS policemen and expectations for detectives.

In response to Mr Kama, Mr Brown said that once a court case was registered, DCS followed up when it went before the court. DCS analysed the systemic issues that caused some cases not to get finalised. When DCS went to court they looked at the register and inefficiencies had been detected such as outstanding DNA reports. Where cases had been struck off the roll, DCS alerted the Provincial Commissioner in a report that highlighted the systemic concerns. The Provincial Commissioner replied and gave feedback on every case.

Mr Brown said he did not have the finer details about the case against the Treasury employee.

Mr Wingrove explained one of the indicators for Safety Promotion was that DCS conducted activities with both active and ex Chrysalis Academy graduates. The whole purpose was to instil a sense of community. People did not realize that many young people never came out of the places where they stayed so things that were often taken for granted like taking a walk on the beach was not always possible for many youths. DCS made it possible for them via the Chrysalis Academy. The Chrysalis Academy had safety ambassadors in the communities who mobilised and identified the youth. There were ongoing engagements between the safety ambassador and the youth many of whom are enrolled into the Chrysalis Academy through those interactions. They were trained and that led to work opportunities. DCS did not conduct the community clean up event as envisioned because of the March declaration of the national state of disaster.

Mr Wingrove said DCS had created 1388 work opportunities where the target had been 1100. DCS achieved 100% placement for all 601 Chrysalis Academy graduates who were placed in a work opportunity. There were various placement institutions such as municipalities, hospitals, clinics, at courts with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), various NGOs. For the Youth Safety And Religious Programme, every faith based organisation partner was given an opportunity to have two youths on their programme and DCS placed them on the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) and paid them a stipend to perform their duties. Those were the various work opportunities created on the EPWP.

Mr Christians pointed to the Auditor General audit report on page 70 of the Annual Report. There were material findings for its predetermined objectives and he asked DCS to elaborate on that.

On page 45 of the Annual Report, DCS reported an unachieved target because not all CPFs were willing to participate. Mr Christians asked if that had been a realistic target as it depended on the willingness of the CPFs to participate in the Expanded Partnership Programme (EPP). Would the target ever be realized when not everyone wanted to participate in the programme? It seemed DCS had set a target it had no control over.

On page 53, he asked DCS to elaborate on what Auditor General South Africa (AGSA) had reported.

Mr Kama referred to page 44 where it stated that DCS collaborated with relevant role players and at the end of August 2019 issued the directives and guidelines for CPFs. He asked which role players had been consulted because he remembered a time when SAPS rejected some of the directives on constitutional grounds. Many CPFs present said they had not been consulted. He asked DCS if in hindsight it needed to take responsibility for the delay in the elections of CPFs. He asked which role players were consulted before the directives had been issued?

He asked about the district municipalities that were asked to attach their district safety plans to their business plans. He asked DCS to furnish the Committee with the district safety plans that had been submitted. What reasons had been given by districts for not establishing the CPFs?

On page 52, the Annual Report spoke about support to the City with operationalising School Resource Officers. He asked what the model for this was and where had they been deployed.

On the complaints management system referred to on page 52, Mr Kama asked DCS to furnish the Committee with a detailed report on the types of complaints.

DCS response
On the CPFs, Adv Pillay replied DCS did quite well with 142 CPFs signing agreements with DCS to perform on the EPP which was a tool through which DCS measured the functionality of CPFs. It was not an objective tool because a CPF could elect not to partner with DCS but it may be fully functional. It was the CPF’s choice to participate on the EPP for which they had received financial support. However, going forward DCS was reviewing its funding model to the CPFs. DCS would like to see interventions such as the integrated law enforcement and violence prevention interventions that were data-led and evidence-based which happened in an area-based space. DCS wanted role-players like the neighbourhood watches, religious fraternities to be involved in the interventions where the impact would be felt in communities where the area-based teams would be established.

On the CPF elections, Adv Pillay replied that SAPS initially had agreed to the directives and there was a media statement where Mr Fritz and SAPS were present when the directives were officially launched. The CPFs were consulted. The delay for the AGMs was due to DCS not having received full consensus from the parties being SAPS, DCS and the CPFs. It caused a delay in the AGMs being finalized before lockdown. Since the CPFs did not fall under DCS legislatively, DCS should not be issuing directives until the CPFs were included under DCS in terms of the review of the Western Cape Community Safety Act. In hindsight that was something DCS would improve on because relationships had suffered as a result. DCS wanted to work with the CPFs as equal partners going forward and the funding model had to be reviewed as well.

Adv Pillay replied the district safety plans would be made available to the Committee.

On the school resource offices, she replied there were 52 placed in high risk schools. The schools were jointly identified by SAPS, various criminal justice role-players and Western Cape Education Department (WCED). After the schools had been identified, DCS proceeded to support the City to place 52 school resource officers at the schools. The list of the schools could be provided to the Committee.

On the complaints management system, Adv Pillay replied it was set up in the Office of the Western Cape Police Ombudsman (WCPO) and Mr Brown would provide details. Mr Brown had informed her that the investigation of the Provincial Treasury official mentioned by Mr Kama was still ongoing and was active on the CWB database.

Mr Mohammed Frizlar, DSC CFO, replied to the question on the audit report. The auditors indicated that if there were material findings they would be reported under the heading of ‘predetermined objectives’ within the final audit report. During the 2019/20 audit there had been a finding deemed not material which was a wording difference between an indicator in the Annual Performance Plan (APP) and how it had been reflected in the draft Annual Report. The indicator in the APP read: "the number of reports to determine the policing needs and priorities of the province". The same indicator in the draft Annual Report left out the last three words ‘of the province’ of that sentence. The finding had been declared immaterial and was corrected in the final Annual Report and was deemed not worthy of being included in the final audit report. Page 17 of the Annual Report referred to AGSA looking at Programme 2 predetermined objectives but no material finding were mentioned in the final audit report.

Mr Don Sauls, DCS Deputy Director: Community Police Relations, talked about the consultation sessions conducted on the CPF directives. He noted that the Provincial MEC was within his rights according to the Western Cape Community Safety Act to provide further guidelines. DCS consulted with the official body called the Western Cape Community Police Board and had at least two meetings with the executive. The DCS assumption was that they would feed the information through to the CPFs. DCS went slightly further and wrote emails to all CPFs and requested their input. The input had been received and was considered. As matters developed, DCS realised there was a need for a more extensive consultation process. Mr Sauls said that it had been a learning process.

On the district safety forums, Mr Sauls replied two of them were fully operational. One was the West Coast. Other municipalities may not have a fully functional district safety forum, but they had different forms of governance. An example was the Cape Winelands District Municipality that had consultations with other municipalities and departments where necessary. Members should understand it was a big jump to something different. Hence, a three-module course had just been completed for ministerial officials. DCS was convinced it would get better going forward. The municipalities had different ways they responded to the safety needs based on their capacity and needs. The basis had been laid and things would get better.

Mr Wingrove confirmed that DCS supported the funding of 52 school resource officers at 16 high risk schools in the province. A list of the names of the schools and their locations would be submitted to the Committee.

Mr Brown gave feedback on the case against the official raised by Mr Kama. He replied the case was still ongoing and was on the CWB database. DCS had reverted to the court to check the progress of the case and the matter was ongoing.

On the complaints management system, Mr Brown replied there used to be a duplication of services where DCS and the Western Cape Police Ombudsman both dealt with complaints. The Department of the Premier then developed a centralised system where they registered all complaints and DCS would consider the section 18 and 19 complaints management. Those are compared with the complaints for the ombudsman to determine systemic concerns such as lack of feedback, why people complained and poor investigations. Those were compiled into a report presented at engagements with either SAPS or in oversight reports for station managers and the Provincial Commissioner. It was an integrated system. Some non-police related cases were referred to other entities via the Police Ombudsman.

Discussion of Part C and D
The Chairperson said Members could raise pertinent questions about Part C but reminded them that Part C and E would be covered extensively by SCOPA.

Mr Christians referred to page 93 that dealt with employee wellness. He asked if it had borne fruit. He said the wellness programme should be attached to sick leave. He asked about staff promotions to another salary level detailed on page 104. It seemed to him that DCS staff were not being promoted. He noted resignations were few; however, there was an employee that left citing lack of progression. Page 107 stated there had been recruitment so he asked if DCS recruited within the institution first before looking for outside candidates. He asked for clarity on the grievances not resolved on page 126.

Ms L Botha (DA) asked DCS to speak to the types of grievances that had been handled. She asked for context to the false statement of evidence in execution of duty. She asked for the merit and content of the suspension without a salary. She asked for the merits on the injury incurred by an official on duty.

Mr Kama said most of his questions had been asked by Mr Christians and Ms Botha. He turned to page 103 and asked how DCS reacted to the resignations and asked them to link them to the employee wellness programme mentioned above. He noted that two resignations were due to interpersonal relationships at work. He asked for an explanation about the resignation that due to a lack of progression within DCS.

He asked about incapacity leave on page 120. Did the Annual Reported numbers of incapacity leave days inclusive of normal leave days? Was DCS not concerned about the amount of leave days taken by only seven employees? What were the positions and ages of those employees? Mr Kama was worried that an individual employee took 117 leave and wanted to how it affected DCS and who did that employees job while they were on leave.

Adv Pillay replied DCS was striving to create an environment and atmosphere going forward where all the personnel thrived and found a place of belonging within DCS.

Ms Linda Govender, DCS Chief Director: Management Support, replied that the wellness programmes followed a holistic approach to the wellbeing of staff members and there were primary and secondary services. DCS would want to see a link with the sick leave numbers. Despite the best wellness programmes, people could not be prevented from falling ill. Thus, it did not necessarily translate into fewer sick days but DCS looked at the overall wellbeing of its officials and provided them with support in their personal lives as well as within the work environment.

On progression, notch increases and the recruitment process, she replied that when there were vacancies DCS encouraged and considered the internal staff to apply for positions. There were options like transfers into positions. If it were at a higher level, then the interested official should apply and would be considered as part of the competitive recruitment process and if they met the criteria they were invited to interview. She reiterated that it was a competitive process. DCS tried to accommodate and assist its internal staff to improve and further their careers within DCS.

Ms Govender replied the unresolved grievances referred to cases where the outcome was not in favour of the aggrieved. The cases referred to as resolved have been finalised. Most of the grievances related to mis-utilisation; three to victimisation; two were about the conduct of a supervisor or management; and the other was about the filling of a post. Those listed as unresolved were the cases about victimisation, discrimination and on the conduct of the supervisor or management.

On suspensions without salaries and final written warnings, Ms Govender replied this depended on each case and its merits. One misconduct case dealt with prejudice to administration of the organisational department where there had been a one-week suspension and final written warning. The other was a false statement in execution of duty where a final written warning and two months suspension without a salary were given. The third was absenteeism from work without a reason or permission and a week’s suspension and a final written warning was given. She did not have the details about the false statement, but it could be provided after the session.

On the incapacity leave, she acknowledged that few officials utilised incapacity leave. DCS was aware of their conditions and health issues. Two officials suffered from terminal illness and had much longer periods away from the office. One had recovered and returned to work while the other official fell ill again and needed further operations. His leave was still being managed. The incapacity leave was strictly complied with and DCS made sure to engage with the officials and to keep in touch with them.

On injuries sustained on duty, Ms Govender replied there were three cases in 2019/20. All the officials were in the DCS security services. One had an injury in their stomach, the other on their hand and the last official sustained a lower back injury.

Ms Botha asked what caused the injuries.

Ms Govender replied that it was in the security provisioning programme and she unfortunately did not have the details but could obtain them and provide them to the Committee after the meeting.

The Chairperson asked DCS for closing remarks.

Adv Pillay said DCS valued the input and guidance of the Committee and thanked the Members. She thanked the management team present in the meeting. DCS committed to doing even better in the future. It would focus on being more service delivery orientated.

The Chairperson thanked Adv Pillay and all the officials and echoed the same sentiments to DCS. He looked forward to seeing them again in the new year. He allowed DCS to be excused.

Resolutions
The Committee requested the Western Cape Liquor Authority provide the following information:
- Details on the policy decision that set out criteria for partnerships WCLA formed with external stakeholders.
- A list of outlets that were fined or had their licences revoked during 2019/20. The information should include the nature of the offences, the names of the outlets and the locations of the outlets
- Number of enforcement interventions and operations conducted in Sea Point, Camps Bay, Clifton and surrounding areas for 2019/20.

The Committee requested the Department of Community Safety provide the following information:
- A breakdown of the 1388 work opportunities created through partnerships.
- A breakdown of the partnerships with Chrysalis graduates who were given work placements.
- An explanation of the Department’s tracking and monitoring mechanisms of Chrysalis graduates. Indicate the methodology that guides this monitoring tool.
- Copies of the District Municipality safety plans
- The list of schools where school resource officers were placed
- Details on the nature and causes of injuries on duty.

The Chairperson thanked all Members for their understanding, guidance and honesty throughout the year. He thanked them for their understanding about MEC Fritz being unwell.

Ms Botha thanked the Chairperson for his leadership.

Mr Christians thanked the Chairperson for his fairness. When the Committee was cooperative, they made progress. It was great that Members were united despite their different political affiliations. He thanked the Committee Procedural Officer as well.

The meeting was adjourned.

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Present

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: