SAPS & Independent Complaints Directorate budget votes: Committee Report adoption

Meeting report

Ms Patricia Whittle, Parliamentary Researcher, made two proposals in regard to the draft Committee Reports on the budget votes that were tabled. Firstly, in relation to the Budget Vote 22 for South African Police Service (SAPS), she proposed that those matters that had been responded to during the briefing (clauses 11.5, 11.10 & 11.13) be incorporated under one heading, whilst those matters where a written response was still awaited should be specified under another subheading. Secondly, she noted the reference, in clause 11.15, to the Annual Performance Plan (APP) being unavailable, and suggested that this clause be deleted from the report.

Mr D Bloem (COPE, Free State) requested further explanation on 11.15 and the APP.

Ms Whittle explained that the Member who had said that the APP was not available had arrived late to the meeting, and was not aware that the APP had been handed out with the report.

Mr T Chaane (ANC, North West) objected to the proposal to leave out clause 11.15. He did not think that there would be any harm in having SAPS respond to everything in writing, including those matters to which an oral response was given at the meeting. In fact the Committee had requested that there be written responses, for purposes of reference.

Mr A Matila (ANC, Gauteng) fully agreed with Mr Chaane that the Committee Report be left to read as it did at present. Some of the questions were not fully responded to at the meeting. If those matters were removed from the Report, the Committee may not receive sufficient information on particular matters.  He referred specifically to clause 11.15, stating that it had also stated that the Committee had had difficulty in correlating what had been said with the budget and the slide presentation. 

Mr M Makhubela (COPE, Limpopo) referred to the names mentioned in clause 2.3 and remarked that Acting National Commissioner Timothy Williams and Deputy National Commissioner Prius were not present at the meeting, yet were noted as having appeared before the Committee. 

Mr Bloem asserted that this was a serious mistake, and this would have affected the image of the Committee if not identified, particularly in the eyes of SAPS.

Mr Matila enquired about the attendance register for visitors and presenters, saying that if it was properly filled out, then the names of all visitors and presenters could be checked. He also wanted to know whether it was going to be standard practice that reports would be distributed only at the Committee’s meetings. If Members had received the reports in advance, and had time to study them, then this meeting would only have had to note the corrections and adopt the reports.

The Chairperson responded that the Committee Secretary would in future ensure that the reports were given to Members in advance. However, in this instance, he suggested that Members go through the report page by page.

Mr Bloem said he had no problem with this, but, in view of Mr Matila’s point, he proposed that the Members be given some time to read through the report.

The Chairperson conceded, and a short adjournment was allowed.

The Chairperson proposed that the names of the persons who were not present at the meeting be deleted.

Members unanimously agreed.

Mr L Nzimande (ANC, Kwazulu Natal) was concerned about the statement related to time, in clause 11.1, as he felt that the present wording was misleading and could be read as implying that the Committee was wasting the taxpayers’ money. He suggested that better wording be found if that point was important.

The Chairperson asked whether there were any suggestions.

Mr Bloem felt that the statement should be changed to reflect Mr Nzimande’s suggestion.

Mr Nzimande responded that he had not in fact suggested any way to re-phrase it. He was merely asking if the whole statement was necessary. The misleading statement created a bad impression, because some issues were given more than an hour of discussion, then it was noted that the Committee needed more time to consider them. He suggested that instead it simply be said that the Committee had met and considered the issues, but that it felt that more time was needed to deal with them.

Mr Bloem suggested that clauses 2.5 and 11.1 be deleted.

Mr B Nesi (ANC) agreed with Mr Nzimande.

Mr Nesi said that clause 2.5 should not be deleted, but needed to reflect the Committee’s request for further information from the Secretariat, and that it needed to verify some of the information.
 
Mr Bloem raised a concern that there was no mention of the Committee’s recommendations after page 5, which seemed to be the end of the report. Pages 1 to 5 reflected the issues raised by the Committee, but did not contain recommendations made by the Committee in response to those issues. 

Mr Gershwyn Dixon, Committee Secretary, responded that clause 1 on page 1 was a standard format of all reports.  However, the Committee must give him guidance on the structure of the report. The recommendation mentioned on page 1 could be moved to the end of the report.

Mr Bloem stated that he did not feel the recommendation could be shown before the issues raised. 

Mr Matila said that the difficulty that the Committee had faced at the meeting when it took the briefings was that the Committee needed a large amount of additional information before it could make any recommendations. He agreed that the report should not open with a resolution, which should therefore be moved to the end of the report.

Mr Matila said that the Committee needed to agree on issues around the budget. If there was no problem with the SAPS budget vote, then the Committee could agree to pass the budget vote, but still raise the issues, and also indicate that the information called for at the meeting would be necessary to enable the Committee to monitor whether the Department was implementing the proposals presented to the Committee.

Mr Nzimande said he was trying to understand the context in which the meeting was held. It was his understanding that the meeting was a budget briefing, as opposed to a policy or budget debate. He asked whether it was a budget briefing without a debate, in which case he wondered if the Committee could recommend that the budget be passed, seeing that the Committee had not been properly appraised of all issues.

Ms Whittle responded that she had discussed the matter with Ms Shaheeda Bowers, NCOP Procedural Officer, who had advised that the Committee, in terms of the NCOP Rules, had merely to report on its activities. She had also checked the minutes of previous meetings and had found that the Committee had not, in the past, reported on budgets, but only on activities or other reports. Therefore, in this instance, the Committee had to report on the briefing presented by SAPS and the other entities at the meeting. 

Mr Matila said that if that were the case then clause 1 had to be deleted, and that the Committee should report only on its activities.

Mr W Faber (DA) said that it was his understanding that the budget was tabled and passed by the National Assembly, and that the meeting had been in the nature of merely a briefing to the NCOP. This Committee could not pass the budget, in his view, because it was already passed by the National Assembly. 

Mr Bloem said that the Committee needed clarity on this issue. It could not hold meetings just for the sake of holding them. His understanding was that Parliament approved the budget. Parliament consisted of both houses, so both houses should approve the budget. It would be senseless to bring the officials down from Pretoria to brief the Committee if it had no say in the budget.

Mr Nzimande reminded Members that there was still an appropriation to take place, and that this Committee was only briefed on certain debates, not on everything. The Committee could only pass a budget if it had thoroughly interacted with that budget. In this instance, the Minister had not even been present, so the officials had presented without input from the political head. He suggested that the recommendation to pass the budget stand down until the Committee was clear on its mandate.

Mr Dixon agreed that the meeting had been a briefing session. The Committee should report only on its own processes.  The Committee could comment on the budget and give its views on what should be recommended.  Clause 1 was drafted in this context, but it was not essential that this clause be included.

Mr Bloem proposed that the Committee obtain clarity on its role as regards the budget. He said that Mr Nzimande’s query whether the Committee was allowed to pass the budget had raised some very important issues.

Mr Matila agreed that the matter should stand down until there was more clarity on the reasons that the Committee was briefed on the budget. He said that it was incorrect for the Committee to deal with the matter haphazardly, and that the Chairperson should ask that the Committee’s role in the process be fully detailed before it deal with the Committee Report.

Mr Faber said that it seemed to him that the NCOP was just supposed to listen to what had already been presented to the National Assembly, because the budget had already been passed there. He agreed, however, that it did not make sense that officials should come from Pretoria to repeat their briefing that they had already given to the National Assembly, for no apparent reason, and he agreed that the Committee must seek clarity on its role.

Mr Nzimande said that he respected his colleagues’ analyses of the situation, but disagreed that the briefing was a futile or fruitless exercise.  This Committee had an oversight role, and needed information in order to fulfil those oversight duties. A budget vote dealt with amounts recommended for the main budget. Whatever the Committees adopted or approved would then be compiled into the Appropriations Bill, and the Committees would approve the total amount for the various activities, broken into votes.

Mr Nzimande proposed that the statement, in the draft report, that the Committee recommended that the budget be passed, be deleted, and the remainder of the report should be adopted.

Mr Matila agreed broadly, but said that this still took the Committee Members back to the point that the Committee had not deliberated on the report. It did not have all the information it had required from the Department that would enable it to finish its deliberations, draw conclusions and make recommendations.  He agreed that the matter should stand down until all the information had been received. After that, the Committee could deliberate and give its view. He regarded this draft document not as a Committee Report, but more as the minutes of a meeting, as the Committee had not, and could not, express its views.

Mr Bloem supported that the matter stand down for further information.  He agreed with Mr Matila, and reiterated that the Committee should have recommendations, and that clarity on the NCOP’s role be sought.

Mr Nzimande said that his understanding was that the Committee should report on its activities, so that the Chairperson of the House could ascertain what the Committee was doing at its meetings, because of the cost and work involved in setting up meetings. He felt that the Committee had done its duty. This report reflected the activities undertaken. It was not the same as the minutes of a meeting. He suggested that the report should rather be rearranged, as proposed, but that the matter not stand down. The report would reflect the work done. There should also be a minute of the meeting, that reflected the attendance and what was dealt with, and that confirmed that the activities would be contained in a report.

The Chairperson agreed with Mr Nzimande.  He said that as soon as the Committee received the written submissions from SAPS, the Committee would meet again and interrogate the report, and the answers that were given, and thereafter make recommendations with regard to the presentations.  However, the purpose of this meeting was for the Committee to endorse the report so that it could be given to management.

Mr Bloem respectfully disagreed with the Chairperson.  He pointed out that he had seconded the proposal of Mr Matila to have the matter stand down, and nobody countered that proposal. He would want to support and agree with the content of the report, but at the moment he was not clear on what he was supposed to be supporting, and felt that the Committee needed clarity. He did not think that it would do any harm for the meeting to be reconvened once clarity was obtained.

The Chairperson said that Mr Nzimande had in fact countered Mr Matila’s proposal.

Mr Nesi said that the questions raised were valid, but it was not correct that the Committee could not adopt the report.  The Committee was adopting a report on its activities, and not on the recommendations, policy matters, budgets or finances.  He felt that the matter was being taken out of context because of one clause in the report.  The Committee seemed to have agreed that the misleading clauses should be removed, and if this was done then it seemed to him that the report could be adopted.

The Chairperson then recommended that Clause 1 on page 1, which indicated that the budget was being recommended, should be deleted. 

Mr Faber commented that the Committee could make recommendations but could not pass the budget.

The Chairperson then recommended that the report, as amended by the deletion of clause 1, be adopted, and that the issues raised by Mr Bloem be dealt with when the written submissions were received from SAPS. 

Mr Bloem then referred to clause 6.6 on page 5.  He said that in view of the discussion the clause was inaccurate.

The Chairperson suggested that this clause be changed to indicate that the Committee was still waiting on written responses to questions that were not answered during the presentation.

Mr Nzimande formally proposed that the Chairperson take up the question of the Committee’s role in terms of the budget.

The Chairperson then also asked Members to agree to a technical amendment to the fifth line of clause 11.13, on page 9, by the substitution of “criminals” for “criminal elements”.

The Chairperson and Members cited a few other technical amendments of spelling or grammar.

The Committee report was then adopted.

The meeting was adjourned.