Chairperson, hon Minister, Cope will support the budget. We support the objectives for which it is being set aside. We think it is important that the issues of personnel and infrastructure, in particular, are put in place to ensure national security. We are not only aware but also accept that there will be discussions about protection of information and the orderly release and declassification of information, which will make it possible to find a balance between the dictates of the Constitution for transparency whilst at the same time ensuring national security.
As the Minister has said, 2010 will pose a challenge, particularly the 2010 World Cup, to the security cluster, especially the intelligence community. This is partly because of the scepticism about our ability to provide security for our own citizens and therefore implying that it is likely to be more difficult to protect the visitors. To portray us as not ready or unable to secure the tournament will take just one incident being blown out of proportion. It is therefore important that, in whatever we do - the co-ordination in terms of military defence intelligence, counterintelligence and intelligence itself - we work together to ensure that, notwithstanding this scepticism, we can say to the people of the world that not only are we ready but also able to ensure that they are secure.
National security, of course, is not just about personnel or rather security and policing. It must also be about the improvement of the lives of our people and ensuring effective delivery of services; hence the focus on national security, corruption, fraud, economic espionage, resources, particularly water, electricity, mineral resources and other installations, and infrastructure becomes very important.
As the Minister has said, he is currently engaged in restructuring. It is one thing to restructure and another to perpetually restructure with no results in mind. We think it's important that there should be a clearer goal. Restructuring is not about shifting staff from one section to another, but about new ways of doing things, consolidation and co- ordination. In that way it requires that we have short- and medium- to long- term goals. The short-term goals must be clear regarding where they begin and where they end. The same must apply to medium-term and long-term goals.
As one knows, restructuring has an impact on the morale of the staff. We're not going to be in a position to ensure that we keep the morale high in the intelligence department, particularly because it is very difficult to acknowledge the good work that they may be doing. But one can generally realise when things have gone wrong. It's always difficult to keep the morale high, unless we handle restructuring in a better way.
The review of the White Paper on Intelligence has been spoken about. I think that is the process which will give us an opportunity to indicate what has worked in terms of this review over the past 15 or 16 years, what have been the problems in terms of the White Paper, where we need to improve and which issues have not worked or are archaic and have no place in a constitutional democracy, which we must therefore discard.
The point regarding how the intelligence services account to Parliament has been raised. I think it is not about where they give account. It is about the fact that even though we have a Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence the debates, the discussions and the budget take place in the National Assembly. This means that even though it is Parliament as a whole that is doing the oversight work, really the opportunity to raise, debate and challenge issues only falls on the National Assembly and not the NCOP.
The whole issue of review must also include the desirability or otherwise of it being a Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence. I'm not saying it should not be, but we need to be clear - if it is a Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence it should not only be receiving reports but also engage on a platform such as this one.
Lastly, I just want to commend the Minister and the agencies for the commitment they have shown to come forth and provide the required information. The challenge for the committee is to find ways and means to ensure that one can separate smoke from mirrors and to further ensure that it is not only smoke and mirrors but also the real things that need to be done.
For instance, we have discussed issues of Comsec, formally Electronic Communications Security (Pty) Ltd, as they have been raised. The question is not whether we need it or not, but how do we set up a structure when we are unable to ensure that it is being utilised to its full effectiveness? If we do have reliable intelligence, how do we then ensure that the issues of crime and incidents of violent crime, in particular, are reduced so that people can begin to have a sense of security? I thank you.