Security Regulation Industry Bill: deliberations

Meeting report

SAFETY AND SECURITY PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
21 September 2001
SECURITY INDUSTRY REGULATION BILL: INFORMAL CONSIDERATION

Documents handed out:
Security Industry Regulation Bill [B12 – 2001]
Departmental proposal document

Chairperson: Mr M E George

SUMMARY
The Committee continued with deliberations on the Bill. The Chair was concerned that the drafters had acted contrary to his instructions regarding the definition of "locksmith". The Committee had also agreed to delay discussing Clauses 20, 21 and 22, as they had not had sufficient time to peruse the proposals by the Department. Provisions of Clause 25 relating to the suspension of registrations of security service providers were discussed at length. The legitimacy of suspensions was specifically discussed.

MINUTES
Security Industry Regulation Bill
Chapter 1: Definitions
Clause 1: Definitions
" locksmith"
The Chairperson, Mr George was irritated to find that the Department had suggested two options for the definition, when the Committee had in their previous meeting already agreed on what the definition should be. The Department was frustrating the efforts of the Committee by opening up the debate again. He firmly instructed the Department and the Safety and Security Secretariate to do as they are instructed and not to act beyond what is requested of them.

"private investigator"
The Committee agreed to the definition presented by the Department.

The Department presented the Committee with proposals on Clauses 20, 21 and 22 as was previously requested of them. The Committee however felt the need to scrutinise the proposals before discussing them. It was agreed to delay their discussion until the next meeting.

Clause 25: Suspension, withdrawal and lapsing of registration
Reference was made to Clause 25(1)(a), which provides for the Authority to suspend the registration of a security service provider pending the conclusion of an investigation.

Adv A Gaum (NNP) felt it unfair to suspend security service provider’s license pending an investigation. What is the consequence of such security service provider being found not guilty? Who is to reimburse the company for loss of business and earnings?
He strongly felt that prima facie evidence of a security service provider’s guilt must be present in order for a suspension of registration to take place.

Mr E Ferreira (IFP) and Adv P Swart (DP) shared the same sentiments.
Adv Swart emphasised that the possibility exists that false charges could be brought against a security service provider. Pending an investigation, the license would be suspended. This could create irreparable harm to the business of the provider. Adv Swart therefore strongly suggested that a safeguard be included in the clause to offer protection against mala fide complaints.

Adv Kok, Chief Legal Adviser to the Department conceded that the concerns of the members do have merit but that the interests of the security service provider is covered in administrative law via the legal principle "audi alterem partem". The principle basically provides that the presiding officer has a duty to listen to both sides of the story when there is conflict.

Mr M Booi (ANC) stated that it would be better to provide for an explicit safeguard in the clause.

The Committee agreed.

Adv Swart referred to Clause 25(4)(g) and pointed out that the clause seems to be a contradiction. It provides for the suspension of registration in the event that a security service provider is placed under provisional liquidation. The point that was made is that under provisional liquidation a court normally appoints a curator to run the business whilst liquidation is pending. This would not be possible if the security service’s license is suspended.

The Chair asked the Department and the Secretariat for their views.

They had no problem with its deletion.

The Committee agreed to its deletion.

The Committee delayed dealing with Clause 25(5) as it refers to Clause 21, which the Committee had already agreed to postpone discussing.

The Chair appealed to the Department and the Secretariat to come up with suggestions to address the imbalances in the industry regarding the payment of wages to security officers.

The meeting was adjourned.