1.2 The current budget for the financial year indicates an increase of about 9% from the previous budget. Emanating from the shoe string budget the police was operating on at the tail-end Of the previous financial, it remains to be seen whether the 9% increment would be enough to take care of all police business until the end of the current year. Our submission should be seen in the light of the fact that in defence of our democracy crime combating and crime prevention should not just be turned into slogans and terminologies but real resources be employed to deal mercilessly with this monster.

2.1 Programme 2: crime prevention and operational response.

1999 – 2000 (56%)

2000/01 (53%) (decrease)

Reduction of allocation is regrettable. Care business undermines the intention of crime prevention.

1999/2000 (18%)

2000/01(20%) (increment)

2.1 Crime statistics dictates that a substantial amount should be allocated to this programme. This programme should enjoy the second priority to crime prevention.

1999/2000 (25%)

2000/01 (27%)

From 1995 administration has always been given priority over and above the detective services. This contradicts the whole purpose of effectively dealing with, and addressing crime. The same approach is being followed in this budget and this practice is counter productive.

In the light of prevailing circumstances in the department the 9% increment as compared to previous years, is just not enough.

The approved establishment of the department is 161755. The police is understaffed at 124 000 which constitute 77% of the full establishment, which is currently operating at a shortage of 23% (37 755).

The police/population ratio in the establishment will be 1:250. The current state of affairs present a chaotic operational situation of 1:325 in police/population ratio.

The allocation for personnel expenditure indicates no intention to address the question of approved establishment or even attempting to do something about it this financial year.

The allocation currently stands as follows:

- Administration - (15%)

- Crime prevention - (61%)

- Detective - (24%)

3.1.3 Our view is that the 15% administrative staff should be reduced by 5% to add to both programmes 2 X3.

3.1 We recommend therefore that the three programmes should be put in their order of priority and budget be allocated accordingly as follows:

- Crime prevention.

- Detective services.

- Administration.

3.2 Detail capital spending

3.2.1 The capital spending for both the previous and current financial year is as follows:

3.2.2 Administration - 30%

3.2.3 Crime prevention - 58%

3.2.4 Detective services -12%

3.2.2 Administration – 22%

3.2.3 Crime prevention – 64%

3.2.4 Detective services – 13%

3.3 As re-iterated previously our passionate view is that the 22% spending for administration should go for detective services and 13% for administration in order to logistically support the 3 year police strategic planning to reduce crime. The police detection success rate has always been very minimal because prioritising of budgeting had always been an obstacle to crime-directed service delivery.

4.1 In relation to programmes 1,2 & 3 we do not want to comment on allocation per standardised items because our view is that the allocation per programme is not correct. It tends to militate against the good intention of the department to strategically deal with crime.

4.2.1 We applaud the increase in personnel training expenditure, however we are cautious about the fact that the previous practices may still continue. Moving from the policing practices in the autocratic state to policing in the democratic state requires concerted relevant in-service training to help human resource to make a huge paradigm shift.

Our view is that there is a need for new police stations to be built in some areas throughout the country. The budget does not make provision for such process. We anticipate that the department should have made a submission for such process to the department of public works.

This programme forms the basis of the core-business of the police. It is surprising that Crime Intelligence is not located in this programme.

Our view is that much as the crime intelligence is also needed to reactive policing it should be located in programme 2 to proactively help prevent crime.

I want to conclude by thanking the Portfolio Committee_, as well as the Ministry of Safety and Security for inviting POPCRU and listening to our submission.

The proper budgeting process and allocation can only serve to motivate us and our members who are passionate in dealing with crime combating and investigations.