Hansard: Consideration of Report of Ad hoc Committee on Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill / Reform of Customary Law of Succession and Regulation of Related Matters Bill / Recommendation for Appointment of Candidates to NYDA Board

House: National Assembly

Date of Meeting: 23 Mar 2009

Summary

No summary available.


Minutes

UNREVISED HANSARD
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

Tuesday, 24 March 2009 Take: 167

 

NEW MEMBERS

(Announcement)

The SPEAKER: Order! I also have to announce that the vacancies that occurred due to the loss of membership of the National Assembly by Mr D V Bloem and Ms E Ngaleka have been filled by the nomination of Ms L M Dunjwa and Ms H B Mkhize respectively, with effect from 20 March 2009.

In terms of section 48 of the Constitution, members of the National Assembly must swear or affirm faithfulness to the Republic and obedience to the Constitution before they begin to perform their functions in the National Assembly.

OATH

Ms Dunjwa and Ms Mkhize accompanied by Ms N P Khnunou and Mr H P Maluleka made and subscribed the oath and took their seats.

The SPEAKER: Hon members, welcome to the National Assembly. [Applause.] Hon members, would you please welcome the new members. [Applause.]

 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY

END OF TAKE

The SPEAKER

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FORENSIC PROCEDURES) AMENDMENT BILL

(Draft Resolution)

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move that the House –

(1) notes that the Ad Hoc Committee to consider the Criminal

Law (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill was due to

Report on 10 March 2009;

(2) further notes that the committee reported on 23 March 2009;

and

(3) notwithstanding Rule 214(6)(c), condones the continued

existence of and the work conducted by the committee after

its term had expired.

Agreed to.

First Order - Ms M M SOTYU

END OF TAKE

THE CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF AD HOC COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL LAW (FORENSIC PROCEDURES) AMENDMENT BILL

Ms M M SOTYU: Madam Speaker, the Ad Hoc Committee on the Criminal Law Forensic Procedures Amendment Bill, has considered the subject of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill that this Bill is one of the best tools to be used in fighting crime. These amendments to the Bill came as the result of the review of the criminal justice system and it was identified that there is a need to strengthen the forensic investigative powers and the capacity of the SA Police Services.

Currently, the Criminal Procedures Act 51 of 1977 only regulates the taking of blood samples in criminal cases and the ascertainment of other bodily features. After lengthy deliberations and consultation with the stakeholders from different organisations and institutions, it became obvious that the committee needed more time to pass this piece of legislation. The committee is totally committed to the fight against crime and view it as an absolute priority. We therefore recommend that the next Parliament should be given enough time to consider this Bill as a matter of agency.

We would further like to make a request to the opposition parties to send their members into the committee so that they should not come and oppose whatever is being said by the ANC but be part of the processes. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Dr J T DELPORT: Madam Speaker, May I request permission to make a statement in this regard? Madam Speaker, I can motivate, when normally one agrees to the fact that only the Chairperson will speak then that is a fairly neutral statement, it's not a political statement as the hon Sotyu has just made. And therefore I think it is the right of the opposition parties also to respond briefly in one minute.

The SPEAKER: If you'd like to make declarations, I think that is in order. You can then take your minute. You may come to the podium if you don't mind.

Dr J T DELPORT: I will! Gladly. [Applause.]

DECLARATIONS OF VOTE

END OF TAKE

Ms M M SOTYU

Declarations of vote:

Dr J T DELPORT: It is always a pleasure when you are in the Chair, Madam. Madam Speaker, the remarks made by hon Sotyu was somewhat surprising. It was quite clear right from the start that there was urgency for the legislation to be passed and we did not accept that it was not possible at all.

Two major issues were mentioned and are being mentioned in the report. Firstly, the implementation plan - that's absolutely not an argument, because the implementation can take place over a period. You don't first have to ascertain whether you have suitably qualified people, you can train them afterwards and then implement.

Secondly, the whole issue of whether the human rights or the fundamental rights of an individual are transgressed upon when a sample is taken. That is a question of law and surely it is not necessary, as was indicated this morning or yesterday in the committee meeting, that one should travel to other countries to find out what the law is. It was possible and we regret that the implementation of this legislation was not accepted and it could have been done and sorted out, and we regret that it has not been done.

The SPEAKER: The only problem is, reference to what happened in the committee is not going to help us much, but reference to what was said by hon Sotyu is what we are now entertaining here.

Mrs S A SEATON

END OF TAKE

Dr J T DELPORT

Ms S A SEATON: Madam Speaker, the IFP supports the report. I am slightly at odds with the hon Delport in this regard. I believe that there are a lot of unanswered questions. There is definitely a need to proceed and to take cognisance of the number of issues that the committee has raised as concerns. Therefore, I believe that it is important that this work continues, rather than be pushed through, as we have tried to do. There are many, many unanswered questions. There are concerns with regard to human rights and I believe it is important that we support the report and look to further investigate the procedures and the concerns raised by the committee. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr S N SWART

END OF TAKE

Mrs S A SEATON

Mr S N SWART: Madam Speaker, admittedly, the ACDP was not part of this committee, due to other commitments mainly being the issue relating to Mr Pikoli and yesterday, when we were at the committee, we did indicate that, from our perspective, we were disappointed that the Bill had not been finalised and as of this morning, as the Chairperson indicated, that opposition parties should participate in the process. We fully endorse that and we trust that, God willing, we will participate in this after the elections, but at this stage we just want to highlight the fact that it was members of the ANC themselves who indicated that they were disappointed that the legislation had not been finalised. I think there is consensus that everyone across the board is disappointed that the legislation had not been finalised. In our view it is a disgrace that at this stage the police do not have access to fingerprints held by the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Transport. Obviously the issue of DNA is also very important.

We do believe, from the ACDP's perspective, as indicated by ANC Member of Parliament, Fatima Kohan, that as of 18 February, there was still the possibility of this legislation having been finalised. The reasons that have been given in the report are, in our view, not compelling enough and at that stage we believed that there had always been the possibility of this urgent piece of legislation being finalised. However, we are all, across all party lines, in agreement that this tool would be very effective in fighting crime and we are disappointed that it had not been finalised. Thank you.

Mr P J GROENEWALD

END OF TAKE

Mr S N SWART

Afrikaans:

Mr P J GROENEWALD: Speaker, as ons gaan kyk na wat misdaad in Suid-Afrika is, dan is dit eintlik skrikwekkend as ons sien dat in die afgelope vyf jaar in die oorlog in Irak is ongeveer tussen 90 000 en 100 000 burgerlikes in 'n hewige oorlog gedood. In Suid-Afrika, as ons na die afgelope vyf jaar se moordsyfer in Suid-Afrika kyk, dan sien ons dat 95 000 burgerlikes in Suid-Afrika gesterf het en vermoor is, waar ons sê dat ons in 'n vredesituasie is.

As 'n mens gaan kyk na daardie omvang van misdaad in Suid-Afrika, is dit uiters teleurstellend dat ons vandag hierheen moet kom om uitstel te kan verleen sodat die proses verder kan verloop in terme van ons regstelsel en die hersiening daarvan.

Die mense daarbuite word nogsteeds vermoor. Ek wil daadwerklik vir u sê dat die ANC te laat wakker geskrik het. Hy het 'n Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit en 'n President gehad wat die werklike toestand op grondvlak net eenvoudig geïgnoreer het en eintlik in 'n staat van ontkenning was. Ek het eenkeer hier in die Parlement gesê die grootste bedreiging vir die veiligheid van 'n land is as sy Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit in 'n staat van ontkenning is oor die omvang van misdaad, want dan weet hy nie wat om te doen om daardie misdaad te voorkom nie.

Dit is jammerlik dat ons op hierdie situasie nog moet kom om verder uitstel te verleen. Die misdadigers daarbuitekant verleen nie uitstel aan die slagoffers wat die prys moet betaal nie. Ons het geen keuse nie, ons moet maar aanvaar dat daar verdere geleentheid gegee word vir die komitee om sy werk af te handel, maar die VF Plus vra dat dit spoedig moet wees dat die aspekte in plek moet kom sodat die maatreëls kan begin geld om ons onskuldige slagoffers daarbuite te kan begin beskerm. Dankie.

The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report accordingly adopted.

SECOND ORDER - The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY

END OF TAKE

The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY

REFORM OF CUSTOMARY LAW OF SUCCESSION AND REGULATION OF RELATED MATTERS BILL

(Consideration of Bill and of Report of Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development thereon)

The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY moved: Madam Speaker, I move that the Bill be passed.

Motion agreed to.

Bill accordingly passed.

THIRD ORDER - CO-CHAIRPERSON OF AD HOC COMMITTEE (Mr M JOHNSON)

END OF TAKE

The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY

RECOMMENDATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CANDIDATES TO NATIONAL YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD

(Consideration of Report of Ad Hoc Committee thereon)

CO-CHAIRPERSON OF AD HOC COMMITTEE (Mr M JOHNSON): Speaker, today marks a historical moment for the youth of our country. Indeed, your blood, Solomon Kalushe Mahlangu, is nourishing our tree of freedom. Having gone through a process that saw the collapse of the National Youth Commission and the imminent collapse of the Umsovombu Youth Fund, a National Youth Development Agency was promulgated.

Today we present a report to the national Parliament to endorse a recommendation for the seven board members of the National Youth Development Agency in order to exercise the able minds expected of all of them. On 5 February 2009 a resolution was passed by the National Assembly and on 10 February 2009 also by the National Council of Provinces to consider the appointment of members of the board to the National Youth Development Agency.

Accordingly, the committee placed advertisements in the national and provincial newspapers, calling on members of the public to submit nominations from 20 February 2009 to 6 March 2009 of persons to serve on the board of the National Youth Development Agency. It was requested that the nominee should be a South African citizen, comply with any other requirements prescribed by the national legislation, in particular the National Youth Development Act of 2008, and possesses suitable qualifications, expertise and experience in the area of youth and development.

The advertisements appeared in 19th national and provincial newspapers. The extent to which the youth of South Africa is alive and well is shown by the 173 nominations from members of the public and different institutions received by this committee. The committee considered all the nominations on 9 March and 10 March and agreed that 26 people be short listed. The names of those short listed candidates were published in the Announcements, Tablings, and Committee Reports of 10 March.

Interviews were simultaneously conducted on 12 March and 13 March. The names appeared, as I said, in the Announcements, Tablings, and Committee Reports. The youngest of those was a 14-year-old boy, a Grade 8 pupil, Mr Khan, from Rondebosch Boys High School. He showed confidence by applying and took time off school. He displayed leadership qualities and is looking forward to being a junior mayor of the city of Cape Town - lest Helen Zille is watching. The committee acknowledges and commends him on his confidence and his involvement with the developmental activities in his community. It was worth noting that his interest and eventual participation in the interviews was a confirmation of living up to the theme of a People's Parliament in action.

Young women and people with disabilities were also short listed and interviewed. The committee acknowledges their qualities of leadership. Having interviewed the candidates and deliberated on the performance of each, supported by their experience and youth development work as well, the committee overwhelmingly, led, of course, by our hon Swathe from the DA, recommends the following persons to be appointed to the board of the National Youth Development Agency. The names are as follows: Mr Khumalo, Ms Tshabalala, Ms Makeleni, Mr Lungisa, Mr Pillay, Ms Motau and Mr Slabber from the IFP.

We believe that together with these young board members prospectively, and the broader society in general, we can do more in bettering the lives of the young people of our country, our future. The ANC supports this recommendation.

There was no debate.

Question put: That the following candidates be recommended for appointment to the National Youth Development Agency Board: Mr M R Khumalo, Ms M Tshabalala, Ms P Makeleni, Mr A Lungisa, Mr Y Pillay, Ms I Motau and Mr F J Slabber.

Question agreed to.

Mr M R Khumalo, Ms M Tshabalala, Ms P Makeleni, Mr A Lungisa, Mr Y Pillay, Ms I Motau and Mr F J Slabber accordingly recommended for appointment to the National Youth Development Agency Board.

FOURTH ORDER - CHAIRPERSON OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (Mr G G OLIPHANT)

END OF TAKE

Mr M JOHNSON

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ON SHORTLISTING OF CANDIDATES FOR APPOINTMENT TO BOARD TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AGENCY

CHAIRPERSON OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (Mr G G OLIPHANT): Speaker and Members, we are talking about very important lists here. This is a very important list process, so I suggest you listen carefully. [Laughter.] The Portfolio Committee on Science and Technology met on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 to consider a shortlist of candidates recommended to the Minister of Science and Technology by a panel, as contemplated in the Technology Innovation Agency Act.

The Technology Innovation Agency Act provides for a board of the agency, consisting of a chairperson, not less than six and not more than nine members, and the chief executive officer of the agency as an ex officio member. The board is responsible for the management and control of the agency.

We wish to take this opportunity to commend the Minister and his panel on the sterling work done and also congratulate the men and women who made it into this final list. Indeed, it is a final list. The Independent Electoral Commission has got no veto on this one. Five of the board members recommended the serving chairpersons of the current Biotechnology Regional Innovation Centres, and others are new and emerging. This is in line with our slogan "Continuity and Change."

In line with the legislation, the committee has given the Minister a list of 15 names to select from. The committee was generally unanimous on these appointments, except for two names, which the DA had some reservations about. Their arguments were not convincing and they, however, accepted the decision of the majority. I am sure they will just raise those arguments if they want to. We are happy to recommend the 15 names as they are on the Announcements, Tablings, and Committee Reports, but, for the record, Dr M Ramphele, Ms C Carolus, Mr A Lax, Mr R H R Norton, Dr S T Cornelius, Mrs H Brown, Prof S Harrison, Mr G C Venter, Dr P Ngwenya, Mr M N Sobantu, Dr I Surve, Prof A R Martin, Dr M O Albers, Mrs V Fatima, and Mr A K Gupta for appointment to the board of the agency.

The ANC government continues to inspire confidence in the broad section of the South African public about their future and the future of its economy. Investment in research and development remain high on the agenda of our developmental state and a critical stimulus for scientific innovation, invention and improvement of the traditional manufacturing processes. We recommend that these members be appointed to the board of the agency. The ANC lives. The ANC leads. Our victory is certain. [Applause.]

There was no debate.

Declaration of vote made on behalf of the Democratic Alliance.

Mr J P I BLANCHÉ

END OF TAKE

Mr G G OLIPHANT

Declaration of vote:

Mr J P I BLANCHÉ: Madam Speaker, the Democratic Alliance has, throughout the process of creating this Technology Innovation Agency Act, been in favour of this piece of legislation and what it seeks to achieve. However, in recent weeks, after we were handed the shortlist of candidates to serve on the Technology Innovation Agency Board, it again became apparent that the ANC was creating "baantjies for boeties"[jobs for pals.], and we witnessed how the governing party created jobs for pals and supporters on a scientific board which is supposed to improve the nation's creative ability in various fields of industry.

I am not the only one saying this. Let me quite from this morning's Business Report. On the front page it says:

The appointment of Transnet's group chief executive was delayed because the person recommended by the company's board was not the one favoured by the ANC, a source close to the party's head office, Luthuli House, said yesterday.

Afrikaans:

Speaker, dit doen afbreuk aan enige raad se effektiewe werking as politieke aanstellings op so 'n raad seëvier. Dit belemmer ook die ander lede, wat nie daar as politieke aanstelling sit nie, om hul werk behoorlik te doen.

English:

One would expect that government demands that senior officials must spend their time to ensure that smooth and effective running of their departments takes place and that those officials should thus not be seconded to serve on boards, which could and should be manned by competent people from the private sector.

Afrikaans:

Die aanstelling van 'n provinsiale staatsamptenaar wat nie verbonde is aan die Departement van Wetenskap en Tegnologie nie is ook nie vir ons aanvaarbaar nie. Om 'n oud-ambassadeur op hierdie tegniese raad aan te stel bevorder nie die land se innoveringspotensiaal nie. Om 'n hoof uitvoerende amptenaar van 'n maatskappy aan te stel, eerder as tegniese bestuurders van industrieë, is kortsigtig en teenproduktief. Dit dui net weer daarop dat die ANC geensins bevoeg is om te onderskei tussen eiebelang en landsbelang nie.

Laastens, om teen hierdie aanstelling te stem, bring die raadslede wat daarop moet dien se persoonlike prestasies in gedrang, en daarom is die DA nie te vinde daarvoor nie. 'n Verpolitisering van 'n tegniese raad is iets waarteen die Parlement moet waak en standpunt moet inneem. Daarom maak die DA beswaar teen die politieke mantel wat die ANC om rade van hierdie aard hang. Die DA wil nogtans die raadslede gelukwens met hul aanstelling en die vertroue uitspreek dat hul die ontwikkeling van tegnologie in Suid-Afrika sal aanmoedig en bevorder.

Ek wil ook my dank uitspreek teenoor die Departement van Wetenskap en Tegnologie se amptenare vir die steun wat hulle aan my, as Parlementslid, gegee het oor die jare. Dit was werklik net op tegniese vlak wat ons mekaar baie goed geken het, en daarom sê ek vir hulle baie dankie. Ek groet hulle as vriende en wens hulle voorspoed toe in die belangrike taak wat hulle doen in diens van ons land. Baie dankie.

English:

Question put: That the following list of candidates be recommended for consideration for appointment to the Board of Technology Innovation Agency: Dr M Ramphele, Ms C Carolus, Mr A Lax, Mr R H R Norton, Dr S T Cornelius, Mrs H Brown, Prof. S Harrison, Mr G C Venter, Dr P Ngwenya, Mr M N Sobantu, Dr I Surve, Prof A R Martin, Dr M O Albers, Mrs V Fatima and Mr A K Gupta.

Question agreed to.

The following list of candidates accordingly to be submitted to the Minister of Science and Technology for consideration, for appointment to the Board of Technology Innovation Agency: Dr M Ramphele, Ms C Carolus, Mr A Lax, Mr R H R Norton, Dr S T Cornelius, Mrs H Brown, Prof. S Harrison, Mr G C Venter, Dr P Ngwenya, Mr M N Sobantu, Dr I Surve, Prof A R Martin, Dr M O Albers, Mrs V Fatima and Mr A K Gupta.

FIFTH TO NINTH ORDERS - Ms C B JOHNSON

END OF TAKE

Mr J P I BLANCHÉ

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON FATHERS 4 JUSTICE

 

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON BUDGET VOTE 21: JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

 

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROGRESS REPORT ON NATIONAL POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SEXUAL OFFENCES

 

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON 2006/07 ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL PROSECUTING AUTHORITY

 

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON 2006/07 ANNUAL REPORT OF OFFICE OF PUBLIC PROTECTOR

 

Ms C B JOHNSON: Madam Deputy Speaker, I'll be discussing the first three reports being items five, six and seven on the Order Paper. The first report is a committee report by the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development dealing with Fathers 4 Justice.

Fathers 4 Justice is an NGO that actively campaigns for justice inequality within the family law environment. They first approached the hon Cybil Seaton who then approached the portfolio committee to share with the committee some of the problems that fathers in particular experience in the justice system, particularly when it comes to access and custody proceedings of their children.

For example, some of these problems are the adversarial nature of our court processes, the high costs of litigation, problems experienced in the office of the family advocate and also problems that they experience with specific pieces of legislation.

We took up the matter with the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. We got a briefing and a progress report from the department and many of the issues have been satisfactorily resolved. And therefore, the committee wishes to thank the department for the work that it has done up to this point, in particular the work being done by Advocate Shireen Said and her staff. And we hope that the relationship between Fathers 4 Justice and the department will be further facilitated in future.

We also hope that in the new term of Parliament Fathers 4 Justice will also engage the Portfolio Committee on Social Development as many of the problems that they raised result from the Children's Act of which Social Development is the lead department.

Then the second report is Budget Vote 21 for the department. The committee in this regard welcomes the progress that is being made by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development in relation to various matters raised by the Auditor-General in his report, including the management of third party funds, asset management, internal controls to reduce fraud, the automation of the guardian's fund and also the steps taken by the department in addressing their problems of underspending.

The committee also welcomes the progress on the building and renovation of our courts so as to ensure greater access to justice to all our people, particularly those in rural areas. And we hope that court building and renovation at these courts will also be adequately staffed and properly equipped to be able to do their functions.

The committee also welcomed the reduction in the department's vacancy rates and commends the department on the work that is being done with regard to transformation of the judiciary, in particular, the representation of women on our bench. Also, the increased role-out of the Thuthuzela Care Centres, which greatly assist our victims of sexual offences, is also admirable and we wish to support that.

Only two areas of concern that the committee raised that we believe are being addressed, one being the high number of outstanding backlog cases particularly in our regional courts and, while the committee does appreciates that many measures have been put in place to deal with this problem, we believe that more can be done.

Finally, the committee noted that there have been certain serious break-ins in our courts. The committee expressed its concern regarding the lack of adequate security, but we do believe that this is being attended to as well.

The last committee report is the one on the Criminal Law Sexual Offences Act. In terms of the Criminal Law Sexual Offences Amendment Act, which this House passed in 2007, the department must table its national policy framework within one year. This date had been extended to March 2009, which is exactly where we are at this point in time and therefore, the committee requested a progress report from the department.

We were informed by the department that a lot has been done. A task team has been put in place consisting of the department, the SA Police Services, the National Prosecuting Authority as well as the Department of Health and the Department of Social Development.

Extensive consultation has taken place and a draft outline has been submitted by the intersectoral committee. A further round of consultation with civil society is however still required. While the committee is concerned with the meeting of deadlines, we do appreciate the fact that, given the importance of this very particular nature of the national policy framework, the importance of public participation and extensive consultation, we do understand why the delay has been caused. We therefore support all three of these reports. Thank you. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY moved: That the Reports be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Reports on Fathers 4 Justice accordingly adopted.

Report on Budget Vote 21: Justice and Constitutional Development accordingly adopted.

Report on Progress Report on National Policy Framework for the Management of Sexual Offences accordingly adopted.

Report on 2007/07 Annual Report of National Prosecuting Authority accordingly adopted.

Report on 2006/07 Annual Report of Office of Public Protector accordingly adopted.

TENTH ORDER - The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY

END OF TAKE

Ms C B JOHNSON

 

CONSIDERATION OF JOINT REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT, PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON SAFETY AND SECURITY ON JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE REVIEW OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY moved: That the Report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Joint Report accordingly adopted.

The House adjourned at 14:43.