A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting reportSAFETY AND SECURITY PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
7 November 2007
SECRETARIAT FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY ANNUAL REPORT 2006/7
Chairperson: Ms M Sotyu (ANC)
Documents handed out
Secretariat for Safety and Security presentation [Part1][Part 2]
First Quarterly Report of Secretariat for Safety and Security 1 April – 30 June 2007 [Part1][Part2]
[Email firstname.lastname@example.org for documents as these were not presented in full]
Secretariat’s Annual Report in SAPS Annual Report 2006/07 [available at www.saps.gov.za]
Audio recording of meeting
The Secretariat for Safety and Security provided an interrupted briefing to the Portfolio Committee on their Annual Report and Financial Statements for 2006/07.
There was much confusion on the part of the Committee about the actual budget allocation and what projects, if any, the Secretariat had performed as it seemed that the entire budget had been spent on salaries alone. The budget allocation that the Committee had approved earlier this year was R13 million but the Secretariat did not receive over R3,6 million of this amount as it had been rerouted to another sub-programme. The Committee believed there was a lack of clarity about whether the funds were rerouted due to under-spending or not.
The Committee expressed their disappointment about the confusing presentation and the Secretariat requested that they be allowed to return at a later date to present a revised report.
Secretariat for Safety and Security presentation
Mr Themba Mathe (Secretary, Secretariat for Safety and Security) provided information on the current state of the Secretariat. As of the 31 March 2007 management was structured as such: Mr Mathe in the Office of the Secretary, Director Legal Services: Ms T Lupuwana, Director Policy: Mr F M Menziwa, Director Legal: Mr A Soman and Director of Monitoring and Evaluation: Mr M Mogatusi. The posts of Director of Communications and the Director of Administrative Support were yet to be filled as of this date.
The spending policy directions for the 2006/07 financial year were based on:
▪ The State of the Nation Address, which dealt with the implementation of social crime prevention measures.
▪ South African Police Service priorities for 2006/07 as objects for Secretariat oversight were: - administration: evaluation of the implementation of policies and the management of the department towards operational excellence,
- visible policing: discouraging crimes through the strengthening of partnerships with communities (community policing forums),
- detective services: evaluating extent to which the Criminal Records and Forensic Science Services (CR-FSS) support investigators towards successful prosecution of a crime.
▪ The legislated Secretariat mandate was transversal civilian oversight, acting as principal advisor to the Minister and ensuring operational excellence.
He also went through the priorities the Portfolio Committee had asked the Secretariat at a raised previously: These matters included:
▪ Consideration of a separate budget vote for the Secretariat, instead of accounting together with SAPS.
▪ Alternatively, having a separate section in the department’s annual report and being involved in the budgeting processes of the department.
▪ Annual planning,
in-year reporting and accounting on expenditure.
▪ Involvement of the Secretariat in SAPS budget planning processes.
▪ The establishment of Secretariat under separate legislation, instead of the SAPS Act.
▪ Enhancing its policy advisory role.
Mr Mathe said that Parliament had approved a budget allocation of R13 million. The Secretariat only received R8 856 000 from SAPS and so had asked for an additional R490 000. In total they had appropriated R9 346 000 and there was no over or under expenditure.
Mr Ndlovu (IFP) then interjected and pointed out that the allocated R13 million was not reflected in the report.
Mr Mathe said that the figure of R13 million, the budget allocation, was not included in the report. He had mentioned this figure only to remind the members of the amount that the Committee had approved earlier this year.
The Chairperson repeated the figures to confirm that the Secretariat had received R13 million but SAPS had only given them R8 856 000, and then an extra R490 000.
Ms A van Wyk (ANC) asked what the amount was that was approved by the Minister of Finance.
Ms D Kohler-Barnard (DA) asked for clarity on how the amount of R8 856 000 was used. She said that it was just enough to pay for personnel and not for any projects.
Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) sought clarity on the issue of the allocated budget of R13 million. He asked why, when they went back to SAPS for the additional R490 000, they did not asked for all of the money that was outstanding.
Mr T Maserumule (ANC) suggested that the Secretariat be given a chance to sort themselves out. He asked why they had to go back to SAPS for only an additional R490 000 and for what was this amount meant.
The Chairperson pointed out that the Committee was confused was around the Secretariat’s budget figures. She asked them to clear it up for the Committee.
Mr Menziwa explained that, initially, when the Secretariat came to present their budget for the year, the money they needed for projects and personnel was R13, 7 million. The Secretariat was not reflected as a separate programme in the Department of Safety and Security. They are a sub-programme of the Administration (Programme 1) of SAPS. As a result they only featured at Treasury as a sub programme. He added that the Portfolio Committee had requested last year that the Secretariat should be involved in the budgeting processes of SAPS. This was to ensure that when they came to present their budget, it would be a budget that was agreed upon and presented to Treasury
The SAPS had loaded R8 856 000 onto the Secretariat’s system. Based on that amount, they had spent all of it by the halfway adjustment period. They discovered that they needed additional funds and requested an amount of R490 000. This amount was spread over three components: overtime, capital for vehicles, and goods and services.
He added that because the Secretariat was under Programme 1 Administration, SAPS rerouted the other money to other sub programmes within Programme 1. When they realised that they would not be able to complete some of the projects they suggested to Commissioner Schutte that the funds be re-routed.
Mr Ndlovu then asked who had come up with the R13 million allocation.
The Chairperson asked what the actual allocation and expenditure was for projects in 2006/07. She also asked why there was a discrepancy between the figures provided in the Annual Report and those provided to the Committee in May 2007.
Ms van Wyk added that the amount given to the Committee when the budgeting was done it was actually R12, 9 million and not R13 million. She asked who did the budgeting and if all the money was being spent on staff and none on projects.
Ms P Daniels (ANC) said that the figures did not balance. The Secretariat said that they had not under spent and she asked how was this possible.
Ms Kohler Barnard said it seemed that they had paid for a whole year of salaries only. Also it was not evident in the report if the Secretariat had achieved any goals with regard to its projects.
Mr Ndlovu referred to the report which seemed to say that the Secretariat had not achieved any objectives. They wanted the figures so that they could see how the money was spent.
Mr Maserumule said he was confused. He suggested that the Secretariat be given a five-minute break to confer about their responses to the questions raised.
Mr Ndlovu said that that was not an option as they were professional people and should not need five minutes to compose themselves.
The Chairperson agreed, saying that they should have known that they would not be ready and not have wasted the Committee’s time. They knew that they were coming to this meeting and they should have been better prepared.
The Chairperson then gave the Secretariat a five-minute break to reorganise themselves.
After the break, Mr Mathe said that he was very perturbed by the situation they found themselves in. He requested the opportunity to thoroughly go through the report and come back and do a better job.
Mr Ndlovu felt that this would be a good idea. He suggested that the Committee give the Secretariat a brief on how they want the report to be presented.
Ms van Wyk mentioned that the Committee programme for 2007 was full. She said that the Committee would be ‘crucified’ if they did not voice their displeasure and that they also had to be cautious when allocating money in the future.
Ms Kohler Barnard said that the fact was that the R13 million was allocated but they did not spend all of it. It seemed as though they may have broken the law and their actions reflected on the Committee.
Rev K Meshoe (ACDP) asked what happened to the difference between the R13 million and the R8 856 000. He added that a budget of R13 million was approved but the Report showed an R8 million budget. He asked how this had happened. It would help the Secretariat to speak to what they said they had achieved.
Mr Maserumule was concerned about the organisational part of the Secretariat. They were not working as a team. He suggested that they work on how they work with one another.
Mr S Mahote (ANC) said that the Committee was known for sending government entities away from meetings but he wanted to state for the record that they were conceding to the request of the Secretariat and it was not the Committee’s suggestion.
Mr L Diale (ANC) said that it seemed that since Mr Mathe had been in the position of Secretary there had not been any progress. He suggested that Mr Mathe be shifted.
Mr Ndlovu emphasised that they were not being sent back by the committee and it was their request. He said that it was embarrassing to be treated this way by professional people.
The Chairperson emphasised that it was at the request of the Secretariat that the meeting be postponed. She also said that the programme was full and they may only be able to present in 2008. The meeting was adjourned.