Money Bills Amendment Procedures and Related Matters Act: briefing; Department of Correctional Services Strategic Plan & budget 2010-2011

Meeting report

Money Bills Amendment Procedures and Related Matters Act 2009 [Act No. 9 of 2009]:Implication for Parliamentary committees
Ms Zanele Mene, Committee Section Manager, Parliament, briefed the Committee on the implications for Parliamentary committees of the Money Bills Amendment Procedures and Related Matters Act 2009 [Act No. 9 of 2009] (the Act). She focused on how Committees must comply with the Act. The background to the Act was the oversight model discussed by the previous Parliament. If Parliament intended to amend any money bill, it must have a piece of legislation. The Act had established four committees: the Standing Committee on Appropriations (National Assembly); the Select Committee on Appropriations (National Council of Provinces); the Standing Committee on Finance (National Assembly); and the Select Committee on Finance (National Council of Provinces). These committees would play a crucial role if Parliament intended to amend any money bill.

The Act had also provided for the establishment of the Parliamentary Budget Office composed of ‘technocrats’, experts in the budget cycle, who would advise committees. The setting up of this Office was now in progress.

Ms Mene had previously circulated a briefing document that summarised the whole Act, advised committees on compliance with guidelines, and focused on processes. The Act provided a new stage for committees. This was the Budget Review and Recommendation Report (BRRR).

Each portfolio Committee of the National Assembly was required, under the Act, to submit its BRRR annually to the National Assembly for adoption, in which it assessed the service delivery of the department under its oversight. This work was of the greatest importance.

The requirements included commenting on the fiscal framework, and considering and reporting on the Division of Revenue Bill and the Appropriations Bill.  

In performing their task, portfolio committees required information from various sources, in particular, the departments’ monthly and quarterly reports of expenditure, which were published by the National Treasury in conformity with the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), the recommendations of the Financial and Fiscal Commission (FFC), the reports of the Auditor-General of South Africa, the findings of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (National Assembly), and information gathered in briefings and from the State of the Nation Address (SONA).

Ms Mene detailed the time frame for these reports in the context of Parliament’s programme.

Previously the fiscal framework was tabled but not discussed. The new Act now stipulated that Parliament consider the fiscal framework within 16 days, and joint public hearings must be held within this time frame. Amendments at a later stage could be tabled only in the fiscal framework. The major challenge for Parliament was the limited time frame.

This year public input had been requested a week before the tabling of the budget to accustom members of the public to the need for their input. After tabling, members of the public had only four days to submit their comments.

Ms Nene emphasised that time was an acute challenge. The Act allowed only 35 days to pass the Division of Revenue Bill, which was a Section 76 Bill and must follow a six-week cycle in the National Council of Provinces. After finalisation by the National Council of Provinces, the Division of Revenue Bill must be passed by 31 March; otherwise National Treasury could not transfer funds to the provinces.

The 35 days timeframe did not take account of the possibility of amendment by the National Council of Provinces. Thereafter, Parliament had four months to pass the Appropriations Bill. The challenge was with the budget votes.

Discussion
Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) asked whether the budget review would still affect committees’ budgets for oversight visits, in particular overseas study tours.

Mr J Selfe (DA) pointed out that if the budget were tabled earlier it could be considered more thoroughly. It was a ‘self-made time-warp’. He advised Ms Mene’s unit to recommend that the SONA and budget speech be given earlier. It was necessary to re-examine the framework, especially if the National Council of Provinces was to amend the Bill. He did not know what happened in that case.

The Chairperson said that the Correctional Services budget debate would be held on 25 March 2010. He emphasised that the Division of Revenue Bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Appropriations (National Assembly) and the Sleet Committee on Appropriations (National Council of Provinces), but these two committees could invite any other committees to participate. Such joint meetings would be valuable. He also emphasised the need for more time for the budgetary process.

Mr S Abram (ANC) asked if the PBO had been established and had the capacity to operate.

Ms Mene said that it was in the process of being set up.

Department of Correctional Services’ Strategic Plan 2010-2014, and Budget 2010-2011: Public hearings
Chairperson’s opening remarks
The Chairperson advised delegates that the primary task of the hearings was to empower the Portfolio Committee in approving the budget for the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) for 20110-2011. The Committee would be meeting with the Department on 17 March 2010 and would be having a debate in the National Assembly on 25 March 2010. He explained that the Money Bills Amendment Procedures and Related Matters Act allowed Parliament to reconfigure the budget, if it had a strong enough argument. Whilst this might not be possible for the Committee to do this year, he said that if there were a strong enough case for reconfiguring, it could be done, if the Committee presented a case to the Standing Committee on Appropriations (National Assembly) which would have the final say.

It was recognised that it was increasingly important for stakeholders to have the opportunity genuinely to influence the direction of the Department in terms of spending. This was why the public hearings were being held.

The Chairperson also acknowledged that there was a universal frustration in regard to time, because the Strategic Plan had been received only on Monday, and there was insufficient time to study it and submit submissions in time for the Committee to give them full consideration. This was a problem emanating from Parliament. The Committee had been given a particularly short time frame this year; other departments whose budgets were to be considered only in May or June had an easier time. Since crime and corruption had been indicated as a national priority by the President, the Security Cluster departments were among those to be considered first.

The Chairperson asked delegates to focus on the reality that 70% of the Department’s budget was for salaries. Infrastructure took another 7%; goods and services took 23%. He asked for comment on those proportions. He commented that salaries should be in direct relationship to the service rendered. The primary task of those making submissions was to empower the Committee and assist with the service provision of the Department.

Judicial inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) submission
Judge Deon Van Zyl, Inspecting Judge, Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services, confirmed that the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS), would present some ‘very real concerns’.

Mr Gideon Morris, Director, JICS, read the JICS’s submission verbatim. JICS valued the ‘open and robust debate’ offered by the hearings as an important opportunity to influence the strategic direction of the Department of Correctional Services (DCS or the Department). The Inspectorate reiterated that it was essential for the Committee to prescribe clear guidelines to ensure a more equitable division of funds in the Department, and said that cost-saving measures must not be directed at or prejudice inmates.  The JICS had witnessed the dissatisfaction and resistance among inmates caused by the suspension of rehabilitation and recreational programmes and viewed with concern the rising proportion of expenditure on staff, as opposed to all other costs. The Department, in accordance with Section 3(2)(b) of the Correctional Services Act should focus more clearly on ‘developing its business side’. JICS emphasised that this did not mean that Correctional Centres should become profitable industries nor re-introduce forced labour, but it was dismayed at the procurement of expensive security equipment that had fallen into disuse because the Department could not operate, maintain or repair such equipment. JICS submitted that the Department had a favourable staff to inmate ratio of 1:39, although the Inspectorate had received complaints of shortage of staff. JICS had established the staff imbalance to be due mainly to the implementation of the so-called two shift system, and the way in which leave policies were applied, together with high absentee levels. The Inspectorate submitted that it supported the declaration of intent reflected in the budget. Studies had concluded that a public private partnership was the preferred method of procurement of the planned four new correctional centres within the medium term expenditure framework.

JICS emphasised the modest proportion that the JICS budget formed as part of the total Departmental budget.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked that questions be asked, but that all responses stand over for the final, general discussion session.

Mr Selfe highlighted the amount of money spent on inmate care, development and reintegration since the White Paper had been adopted. Mr Morris had emphasised the disparity between expenditure on security and administration and rehabilitative services. However, the amount spent on inmate development had actually decreased in percentage terms in the past five years, compared with the amount spent on security and corrections. If R0.67 out of every rand was spent on salaries, he asked how to address the change that was needed. He asked if this would mean taking a person who was actually guarding a particular part of the centre, and transferring him to a development programme, or whether there more innovative ways of putting into effect in the budget the principles of the White Paper.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) was worried that young inmates were not sufficiently involved in rehabilitation, and asked the Inspecting Judge to ascertain for the Committee the involvement in rehabilitation of older people (aged 50 to 60 years or above). She wondered if rehabilitation for this age group was justified. She was also worried about the Department’s budget, most of which was for staff. She asked the Inspecting Judge to find out how many staff members were employed in the offices and how many were employed in guarding the prisoners, since on oversight visits she had been told that prisoner escapes were due to lack of staff. If so much money was allocated to staff, she asked what would happen to other functions, such as maintenance.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) asked if the Department was taking the right direction with the public-private partnerships (PPPs). The document did not enable an analysis of the expenses of the PPPs, as compared to the expenses of the Department, which had been outlined thoroughly. Such information would provide a useful insight.  

Mr A Fritz (DA) had noted, during his visits to three correctional centres in recent weeks, that the contracts of some social workers were about to expire. This appeared to be a national issue, and he asked the Inspecting Judge to confirm if this was so. It seemed that there was an over-emphasis on security, in particular on purchasing equipment which did not work, at the expense of rehabilitation.

The Chairperson said that the issue was really about how to achieve real transformation. He asked if the Department was retrenching and retaining the right people.

Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) submission
Mr Lukas Muntingh, Researcher, CSPRI, said that the CSPRI would be available to give further information if needed by the Committee in its further deliberations. He noted that  CSPRI continued to be concerned about expenditure on capital intensive projects, the lack of alignment between the White Paper and the budget, and the low outputs in respect of objectives supportive of the rehabilitation and prisoner re-entry. The Committee had already asked questions on those issues and CSPRI shared its concerns.

At a broader level the CSPRI asked if the Department contributed to creating a safer society and promoting the values and principles underlying the Constitution, or if it was a cause of instability in government through allegations of mismanagement, corruption, and so on. It was necessary to be mindful of those concerns. Mr Muntingh was shocked that the budget of Correctional Services was more than twice that of the Department of Basic Education. It was spending more on the care of 165 000 inmates than on the education of seven million schoolchildren.

The CSPRI was concerned that the Department should meet the minimum standards of humane detention. Section 2 of the Correctional Services Act required that inmates must be detained under conditions of human dignity. Overcrowding in many of the correctional centres made this impossible. However, not all centres were overcrowded. In its 2007/08 Annual Report, the JICS had reported on an infrastructural audit that it had undertaken at 224 of the 237 prisons. Amongst others, it had found that at 19 correctional centres, inmates were not issued with eating utensils, at 6 persons inmates had not been issued with beds, and at 102 centres there were no private search areas, whilst at 94 centres there were no facilities to separate inmates with contagious diseases. There was severe under-utilisation of technical workshops, and at more than 40% of the correctional centres there were no libraries.  Mr Muntingh said that the CSPRI wanted to know what the Department had done to address these basic issues. He pointed out that they need not be expensive to resolve.

CSPRI had also noted, in response to the Annual Report of the Department for 2008-2009, that the Department had incurred liabilities in excess of R988 million as a result of litigation from inmates for bodily injury and assault. The CSPRI had asked the Committee to investigate this matter. It had also reminded the Committee that under guidelines to the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) these costs could be recouped from the officials who were found guilty. CSPRI recommended that the matter be investigated further.

The CSPRI submitted that in respect of each of the performance indicators, the question must be asked at what cost improvement would be achieved. For each indicator a cost-benefit analysis must be done. For example, it must be asked what it would cost to reduce the number of escapes from the four per 10 000 inmates, to three per 10 000 inmates. The question could similarly be asked what it would cost to reduce overcrowding by 6%, as proposed in the budget vote.

The submission highlighted the need to avoid projects that were high in cost, but low in impact. On the other hand, projects that were low in cost and high in impact should be promoted.  Certain Departmental initiatives were reaching a point of diminishing returns. To create any further improvement would be more expensive than justified by the value added to the Department’s operations. CSPRI believed that this included vetting security personnel and installing biometric access and x-rays at 16 correctional facilities by 2012/13, implementing the anti-gang and security technology strategies at 35 correctional facilities by 2012/13, and the payment of R52.1 million to a service provider in 2009/10 for the maintenance and staffing of the security control rooms and the maintenance of security access control systems and security fences. The three items listed above indicated the Department’s intentions to continue spending on security hardware, but the improvements projected were extremely low, namely an improvement of one escape per 10 000 prisoners.

Moreover, the Department intended to continue using a private sector company to maintain and operate the security control rooms. It should be borne in mind that the initial plan was that Department would take over this function once the contract of the service provider came to an end in 2009. Security at state institutions was fundamentally the responsibility of the State and in this case, the Department. It was also noted that the Department planned to continue with the privatisation of nutritional services and planned to privatise pharmaceutical services. A total of R53.1 million had been set aside to pay consultants to undertake feasibility studies in this regard.

Private sector involvement in the correctional system might have advantages, particularly when specialised skills were required. Questions, however, remained as to the desirability of this level of private sector involvement to deliver services that were in fact core functions of the Department, such as providing inmates with food and medication. The situation was exacerbated by the fact that the Department employed officials to fulfil these functions. An added negative consequence was that the Department would remain dependent on private sector contractors for certain services, as was recently demonstrated by the lapsing of the Sondolo Information Technology (IT) contract and the fact that security control rooms were left unstaffed.

A reduction of 6% in overcrowding was projected over the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF). In real numbers this meant 17 500 more bed spaces: 3000 at Kimberley, 12 000 at four new PPPs, and 2525 through upgrading existing facilities. The Kimberley prison had already cost the tax payer R600 million more than the initial estimate. This was cause for deep concern when one considered that plans were afoot for the construction of four facilities similar to that at Kimberley. The 12 000 new beds under the proposed PPPs would cost an estimated R3.94 billion (based on the costs of the Kimberley facility). The per-bed space cost would be R328 833, taking into account all building and service costs. Mr Muntingh drew the Committee’s attention to the 39 bed spaces created at Mapumulo, which would cost R89 million or R2.2 million per bed space. The average cost per bed space for all facilities (excluding Kimberley) was R888 576. At nearly R900 000 per bed space, questions needed to be asked about the exorbitant costs. It must equally be asked why Kimberley could be built at R328 33 per bed space compared to the more than three times higher cost at the other prisons, and if this was indeed correct, why these cost-saving measures had not been used at the other facilities. There was uncertainty how these projects were developed and defined.

Over the years CSPRI and others had advocated systemic approaches to the problem of prison overcrowding. Mr Muntingh said that the Department would not be able to build itself out of overcrowding, which was the result of systemic problems in the criminal justice system. This had not been achieved anywhere in the world.

Mr Muntingh also drew attention to three other performance indicators. These were the percentage of offenders with sentence plans, the number of offenders in literacy programmes, and the number of offenders in skills development programmes. These three indicators were central to the overall vision of the Department, as articulated in the White Paper. The extremely low targets set in respect of each of these remained a matter for concern and CSPRI had noted this in its submission on the 2009 budget vote.

Mr Muntingh emphasised that it was necessary to address priorities. The Social Reintegration programme was central to the overall impact of the Department, and CSPRI requested the Committee to seek clarification from the Department how it would re-engineer the Social Reintegration Programme to make a meaningful contribution to re-entry to society of inmates after their release.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked Members for comments to assist in asking meaningful questions of the Department, rather than for an interrogation of delegates, unless Members disputed the latter’s facts or sought clarity.

Ms M Nyanda (ANC) asked who monitored the staff of Correctional Services. She was very worried about the situation.

Ms Ngwenya asked about prison labour from a security aspect.  

Mr Abram asked if the Department was getting value for money from its investment in public-private partnerships (PPPs). He accepted that PPPs had a profit motive, but he was concerned that using this model would commit future generations to maintaining such projects, and he asked whether this was sustainable in the long term. He observed that the moral fibre of officials was always in the spotlight and that they appeared to lack the expected dedication, commitment and sense of responsibility. Pay cheques should be fully earned, and other interventions would be necessary. It was unfair that inmates seemed to be more generously provided for than pensioners, in terms of per capita expenditure.

The Chairperson agreed with Mr Abram’s observation about the disparity between provision for pensioners and inmates

National institute for Crime Prevention and the Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO) submission
Ms Venessa Padayachee, National Co-ordinator, Design and Research, NICRO, quoted Nelson Mandela’s statement: ‘It is said that no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside the jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones.’

Ms Padayachee said that last year NICRO did not receive strategic plans of the Department at the time of public submission, and that this year the plan was received two days before written submissions were due; NICRO requested the Portfolio Committee to request the Department to provide documents on time. Late receipt of documents compromised the quality of the input that could be provided.

NICRO submitted that the cost of imprisonment was high, as indicated on the Department’s website. Sentencing offenders to correctional centres should be the last resort. The distribution of the Department’s budget was not in line with the White Paper. The need was to balance safety and security. Previous presenters had highlighted the other trends. NICRO called for a rapid turnaround. Security was the largest proportion of the budget. Assaults remained high, with legal consequences for prison administrators. All offenders should be in rehabilitation, and although NICRO acknowledged a growth in this, it was not enough. Antiretroviral treatments were available to only 5% of the inmate population. There must be opportunities for development and change.  Most inmates came from very poor and marginal levels of society and had low levels of education. Many had lived on the streets.  It remained a statutory obligation under the Act and in the White Paper to make every effort to prevent re-offending. Re-incarceration had many negative affects, and was an expensive way to make people worse. Prison as an industrial complex had failed to rehabilitate and correctional centres were institutions that showed a “revolving door” syndrome. Performance bonuses must be linked to demonstrable performance. Spending on consultants had shown an increase.
 
Ms Padayachee concluded that the Department’s Budget and Strategic plans continued to reflect similar patterns of poorly prioritising corrections, care, development and social reintegration from year to year. Offenders being incarcerated were not guaranteed correctional sentencing plans, work opportunities, access to anti-retroviral treatment, skills development, education, care or even a dedicated bed on which to sleep. This put the DCS in a very bad light.

The only way for the vision and principles of the White Paper on Corrections to be fully realised was to consider a radical shift in the budget distribution. A balance was needed between the need for security and facilities with development, care, corrections and social reintegration. NICRO’s concern was that proportionately far too little was spent on the corrections, development, care and social reintegration, which should, according to the White Paper, be given an equal focus.

Given the current violent crime rates, a poor focus on corrections, development, care and the social reintegration of offenders compromised the Department’s ability and capability effectively to rehabilitate offenders. It had been five years since the implementation of the White Paper, yet progress in respect of rehabilitation was slow.

Public opinions were important. NICRO continued to support the use of alternatives to incarceration, and maintained that imprisonment should be a measure of last resort. NICRO had found that 63.2% of the public supported the rehabilitation of offenders at various levels. 87.32% supported non-custodial/community sentencing for non-violent offenders. This supported the findings of a recent public attitudes survey released by the International Centre for Prison Studies in the United Kingdom (UK).

Rethinking crime and punishment was integral to reducing unacceptably high crime rates in South Africa.
New Zealand had the highest rate of imprisonment, second to the United States of America. There was a need to increase public understanding of and involvement in the criminal justice system. More restorative alternatives to punitive strategies to achieve crime reduction were needed.

Ms Padayachee quoted the Minister of Correctional Services, who had said: ‘We must all account to the South African public for each and every rand entrusted to us in order to ensure best value for public funds’. This was the task of everyone present at the meeting. Prison management was complex and required a wide range of skills. She referred to the Handbook for Prison Staff of the International Centre for Prison Studies (London) published in 2002. NICRO proclaimed that the tax-paying public was not getting value for money and offenders were not returning to society rehabilitated.

The Chairperson ruled that there was no time for inputs; he asked the subsequent presenters to highlight only issues that had not thus far been covered.

Institute for Security Studies (ISS) oral presentation
Dr Chandré Gould, Senior Researcher, Crime and Justice Programme, Institute for Security Studies, noted that there was little change in the overall structure of the Department’s budget. However, she highlighted the Institute for Security Studies’ (the Institute) concern at the 45% increase in the use of consultants. There was also the need for capital expenditure on information systems, but the high cost of maintenance raised questions about the quality of services that the Department was receiving. The Institute wanted the Department to address, together with the Departments of Basic Education and Higher Education and Training, the issues of skills development and adequate educational facilities at correctional centres. The Institute complained that the Department of Correctional Services’ strategic plan had not been available at the time of the preparation of its submission the previous year, 2009, and this year the strategic plan was made available to the Committee and civil society only two working days before the deadline for civil society to make its submissions to the Committee. This limited the extent to which comment could be made about the future expenditure of the Department of Correctional Services and thus limited the extent to which civil society could assist the Committee.

On a positive note, the Institute welcomed the recent announcement by the Minister of the controlled release of awaiting trial detainees who had bail of R1 000 or less, as well as the investigation into parole, with a view to increasing the number of inmates who were considered for parole.

This submission commented on the allocations for infrastructure, administration, security, corrections, care and development. It addressed the issue of deaths in custody and made recommendations about the strategic plan.

The 2010-2011 budget differed very little from the previous year’s. While expenditure on the four planned public private partnership facilities had been deferred, as part of the Department’s effort to reduce expenditure, the imbalances remained. The three programmes that collectively dealt with the welfare and developmental needs of inmates (development, care and corrections), had again been deprived as far as resource allocation was concerned. 

Overall it was noted that, given the current inflation rate of 6.2%; there had been a decrease in real terms in allocations for key components of the budget.  The Institute drew the attention of the Committee to two issues. The allocation for ‘Inventory - Food and supplies’ was set to increase only by 1% from 2009-2010. Unless the Department had creative ways in which to supplement its food supplies at no additional cost, this implied that there might in fact be a reduction in the amount of food available to feed inmates in the coming financial year. The allocation for medical supplies was set to increase by 6%, keeping it just in line with inflation. However the current allocation was still less than the 2008-2009 allocation, suggesting that medical supply stocks were down in 2009 from the 2008 level and would again be down from this level.

As a consequence of the minimum sentencing legislation there had been an increase in the number of inmates serving long-term sentences. This meant that beds were likely to be filled for a 5 to 10 year period (perhaps longer) by a single individual. This reinforced the argument, mentioned by CISPRI above, that it was not possible, nor cost effective to attempt to build oneself out of the overcrowding problem. The need for increased space was caused by the high number of awaiting trail detainees (ATDs), and the warehousing of inmates, rather than engaging them in meaningful activity during the day.

The Department was to be congratulated on the reduction of escapes and unnatural deaths in custody.
However, on a less positive note, in 2009-2010 security had received the largest share of the budget, exceeding even the cost of administration. The budget for 2010-2011 and the remainder of the mid-term expenditure period revealed this to be a trend that would continue at least for the next three years. It remained a matter of concern that the highest expenditure in this programme, with the exception of compensation of employees, was for consultants and professional services (business and advisory services).

The allocation for learner and teacher support in the Development Programme budget was only marginally higher than the expenditure in 2009-2010, suggesting that an increase in the number of inmates taking advantage of educational opportunities was not set to increase. Overall, it was a matter of concern that the four programmes directly responsible for the welfare and rehabilitation of inmates were the four programmes that received the smallest portion of the budget.

The Annual Report of the Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Services for the year 2008-2009 pointed out that the Act did not require the natural deaths of incarcerated offenders to be subject to an inquest. The JICS identified two problems related to this issue. In the first place the Act failed to define ‘natural’ death. The practical interpretation of this, as could be logically expected, is that all deaths from illness were classified as ‘natural’ and the circumstances of death were not investigated. However, where the death was a consequence of poor medical treatment or insufficient access, this did not come to the attention of the Department, as these deaths were, probably incorrectly, labelled as ‘natural’ deaths. The Institute submitted that this matter should be considered during the revision and development of policy that was listed as a strategic priority for the Department.

This matter was relevant to the allocation of resources under the line-item ‘Inventory: medical supplies’. As noted above, there was a decrease in expenditure from 2008-2009 to 2009-2010 and the allocation for 2010-2011 was only marginally higher than the expenditure for 2009-2010. If deaths in correctional centres were the result of inadequate medical care, this needed to be known by the Department, so that the allocation for this line item could be adjusted appropriately. It was not clear whether the decrease was the result of fewer inmates requiring medical care, or as a consequence fewer inmates having access to medical care because of the shortage of medical staff.

The Institute viewed with concern the Auditor General’s report for 2008-2009, which mentioned a vacancy rate of 11.4% across programmes, and, more seriously, severe shortages in medical staff posts, with 24% of nurses’ posts, 44.4% posts for pharmacists and 20% of medical doctors’ posts being unfilled. This was an extremely high vacancy rate for positions that were essential to ensuring the well-being of inmates. There was no financial reason for these positions not to be filled.

The Institute submitted that that the current format of the strategic plan did not lend itself to easy analysis, or provide the reader with a clear picture of the intentions of the Department. The Institute understood that the Department was constrained by the requirements of National Treasury in relation to the way in which information in strategic plans was presented. However, it urged the Committee to request the Department to include in the Strategic Plan a few pages of text that outlined the particular strategic objectives of the Department. As it stood, the Strategic Plan was contained in many pages of tables that did not offer any substance. In addition, there were an enormous number of performance indictors for each programme. This complicated the task of the Department and of those wishing to assess its achievements.

The Public Servants’ Association (PSA) submission
Mr Koos Kruger, Provincial Secretary, Public Servants’ Association, read the written submission of the Public Service Association (PSA). The PSA had previously submitted its concern about the hasty implementation of the 7-day establishment and Occupation Specific Dispensation (OSD) in the Department. These challenges had ranged from the negative impact on the security of correctional officials, due to the implementation of a twelve hour shift system, to the detrimental effect on service delivery in the Department. The situation mentioned in PSA’s previous presentation had deteriorated during the past few months.

The PSA deplored the unilateral action of the Minister of Correctional Services in implementing a new policy on staff accommodation without any consultation of those concerned. Some employees had been evicted at very short notice. The Department, however, had agreed to place a moratorium on the implementation of the policy, and had agreed to have a further workshop.  However, whilst awaiting confirmation of a date for that further workshop, the PSA had received further reports that Departmental employees had been served with eviction notices. The PSA had also requested that clear instructions be given to DCS in the regions to ensure that the further implementation of the policy be stopped. The Department, however, indicated that it could not issue such an instruction. The PSA was currently investigating the reports from the regions with a view to taking urgent legal action against the Department in order to protect PSA members.

The implementation of a complex 7-day establishment system should have been preceded by the formulation of a comprehensive implementation framework and supporting policies. Furthermore the PSA was assured that the General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council (GPSSBC) task team on the Implementation of the OSD in the Department would effectively deal with all outstanding matters. The task team never functioned properly because the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) had effectively frustrated its functioning by not attending its meetings. The implementation of the 7-day establishment had a huge impact on matters such as the leave arrangements in the Department. Despite assurances from the Department and the DPSA, every correctional centre applied its own leave arrangements.

The Department had indicated that its preference was for a 12 hour, two shift system. The Department had also indicated that all correctional facilities with a staff complement of ‘80% warm bodes’ should implement the new system. It was surprising that such a written instruction could not be found within the Department. This system had the most dramatic impact on the staff shortage as it effectively cut the available staff component in half. It was common knowledge that in some instances one correctional official alone sometimes had to lock up a large number of inmates, which was dangerous for the official, who could easily be overpowered by the inmates.

The PSA also disputed the Department’s refusal to allow correctional officials, who were also qualified as artisans, to translate to the more beneficial OSD for centre based officials. These officials played a significant role in the rehabilitation and training of inmates, apart from custodial duties, but they were now effectively being “punished” for obtaining a further qualification. It was totally unacceptable that the role partners within the Department had to turn to third parties to resolve their issues which could have been amicably resolved internally.

During engagements with the Department over the past months, it had become clear that the Department faced serious challenges regarding effective communication and discipline within its senior management levels. PSA also indicated dissatisfaction that the post of National Commissioner was still filled in an acting capacity. Directives issued to regions were not clearly adhered to. Sometimes such directives were ignored. The communication on official accommodation was an example. Such a situation, in a Department of the size and complexity of DCS, led to chaos and demoralisation. The PSA proposed that the Committee initiate an urgent intervention to restore clear lines of authority in the Department. The Department should be urgently stabilised by the provision of strong and permanent leadership at a national level.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked about the system of two shifts of 12 hours each, and Mr Kruger’s implication that there were not enough staff members available to operate it properly.  

Mr Kruger said that it had been created artificially.  

The Chairperson affirmed that the Committee could not support increased staff recruitment. The money was simply not available, and perhaps the Department should consider reallocating people already in the service.  

Mr Selfe observed that there had also been problems in the previous system that this new system had replaced. He noted corruption on overtime payments, and asked what the PSA proposed to rectify the unintended consequences of the new system.

Drake & Scull FM (SA) Pty Ltd (DSFM) oral presentation
Mr Ierfaan Cassiem, Financial Manager, Drake & Scull FM (SA) Pty Ltd, noted that his company (DSFM) provided integrated facilities management solutions. He gave a short submission on the advantages of radio frequency identification devices such as bracelets for the tracking of inmates, correctional facility staff, and those serving non-custodial sentences.

He acknowledged the challenges faced by the Department such as overcrowding, crime and corruption in correctional centres, management of parolees, and the need to create sustainable jobs for ex-offenders. He proposed that the solution to some of these problems lay in DSFM’s parolee tracking system. This could be used to track parolees and ex-inmates in their movements outside prison. These tracking systems could also be used inside the correctional centres, to reduce crime and corruption, and could assist with performance management of correctional services staff. They used a real-time locating security technology. This could help reduce overcrowding in the correctional centres. There was also a pilot project whereby opportunities could be created for small-to-medium-size-enterprises (SMMEs), and partnerships inside facilities in which inmates could be trained. The company’s field of expertise included asset management.

The Chairperson noted that the Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) had made a written submission.

General Discussion
The Chairperson pointed out that the Committee did not have the power or desire to influence the Department on its choice of solutions or service providers.

The Chairperson He asked for a focus in the general discussion on human resources management, to which Mr Kruger had drawn attention, but reiterated that there was no more money available for personnel at the expense of the White Paper’s other priorities.

The Chairperson said that it was also necessary to discuss labour by inmates, hastening to add that this was not necessarily the ‘forced labour’ to which human rights activists would object. As Mr Abram had indicated, inmates were highly subsidised by comparison with pensioners, who received approximately R40 a day. He said that he would argue strongly in favour of saving pensions, and would, if necessary, take on human rights activists in order to save the pensions, if it came to a choice.

The Chairperson said that if PPPs could achieve success, then it must be questioned why the State could not do likewise. The argument that PPPs were a panacea could not be true. The essence of the meeting was what should be done to align the Department’s budget and strategic plan to the White Paper.

The Chairperson also asked for discussion on infrastructure costs. These were not partisan issues.

Mr Z Madasa (ANC) doubted that Correctional Services staff would support the tracking system. He called for measures to assist correctional staff work more efficiently. The alignment of the budget to the White Paper presented a dilemma and he asked for a solution. He asked for the Unions’ suggestions to help their members to help the State, by working with it rather than against it.

Ms Padayachee said that an audit of the work of civil society organisations, which were performing a whole range of activities in prisons, was overdue. The bulk of the Department’s service provision was outsourced to civil society, but more information was needed.  NICRO was committed to helping the Department in this regard.

Ms Ngwenya asked how Drake & Skull’s proposed tracking system for parolees would work, especially in the rural areas, where availability of electricity was likely to be a challenge.

Ms Ngwenya asked NICRO what programmes it had for inmates when they were released, either on parole or at the end of their sentences. Many ex-prisoners complained that they could not get work because their names remained in a database.

Mr Selfe asked NICRO about alternative sentences, on which there should be emphasis. The presentation on tracking devices by Drake & Scull was helpful, but he asked if DSFM worked throughout the country and if the devices had been exhaustively tested. He sought making non-custodial sentences more feasible.

Mr Fritz asked DCS to look seriously at the White Paper and move away from its “inmate warehousing” function. He questioned the high cost of gadgets which did not work, and the non-renewal of the contracts of social workers.

Judge Van Zyl said that it was depressing and distressing that no progress had been made over the past year, but there had, instead, been retrogression. He asked if nobody in DCS was listening, or if they were not interested. Now there were new complications, such as absenteeism. He and Mr Morris had visited centre after centre only to be told that there was insufficient staff, even to take the inmates for exercise. Inmates were therefore being locked up for all 24 hours in the day. This was a negation of any form of humanity, dignity or human rights. These complications must be addressed. It was impossible to run a correctional centre with skeleton staff. He asked who approved leave applications. By way of comparison, he and Mr Morris had visited the PPP centres, to find that these “ran like clockwork”. Although expensive, they were the only centres in which the principles of the White Paper were being applied. The Inspectorate was conducting an audit of rehabilitation, skills training and education programmes in correctional centres, but was facing ‘closed doors’. It seemed that very little was going on. He suggested that the Department learn from the PPP correctional centres how to manage correctional centres and apply those principles generally. Perhaps a new partnership structure was needed to deal with existing problems. He noted Mr Fritz’s comments on disused high technology equipment, and gave an example of a facility which claimed that it had no money to buy film for security cameras, and another facility that had resorted to padlocks to secure doors and gates.

Mr Muntingh concurred with Judge Van Zyl. If PSA claimed directives were being ignored, it had to be asked who was in charge of the Department and what would be of assistance in monitoring at the level of correctional centres. He asserted that it was staff members who would effect change, not gadgets. Heads of centres must be held responsible for what happened in their centres. Funds should be reallocated from high cost and low impact projects to those that were more cost effective. Dynamic security systems were more appropriate where staff actively supervised prisoners.

The Chairperson commented that the more comments were made, the worse the situation appeared.

Ms Gould said that it was clear that there was a human resources problem. She also asked who approved leave in situations where there was insufficient staff, and who supervised the managers. She thanked Ms Ngwenya for her corrections to the statistics in her presentation.

Mr Morris said that there was a need to understand the causal relationship between these problems. The universal rule was that the budget informed the operations. Therefore there must be changes in the budget. Mr Selfe had correctly said that the spending patterns in the Department had remained the same for the past two decades. DCS was doing the same things over and over again, while hoping for different and better results. The budget should be used for leverage.

Mr Kruger said that the PSA shared the concern for the sustainability of the budget of the DCS. PSA was not opposed to the new system, but was opposed to the improper and hasty implementation of it. The Department alone was not at fault. The DPSA was equally to blame.  PSA represented the staff members who single-handedly guarded 50 to 60 inmates each, and who were being attacked or stabbed. He agreed with Mr Morris that the Department should do things differently.  He sought a more continuous engagement to interrogate the strategic plan. PSA regarded the Department’s employees as social partners, who had chosen their careers with Correctional Services, but wanted to work in an environment that was safe and conducive to their own development.

A private sector representative commented that if the 7-day system could work in the private sector, it could work in the State sector. It was a question of management. Also, measurements had to be taken and observed in order to manage properly.

The Chairperson said that it was apparent that the DCS was regressing, not progressing. He said that he was concerned that 100% of the security budget was spent on personnel. This explained the failure of security gates and other technical equipment. Another concern was that the entire reintegration budget was spent on salaries. Development was another area of concern. Only 26% of this budget was available for teaching inmates how to weld, for example, or how to paint. The rest was for salaries.  

The Chairperson remarked to Dr J Coetzee, Deputy Commissioner: Operations, Department of Correctional Services that the Committee had a problem with producing glossy documents that were not backed up by fulfilment of promises and commitments. He hoped that the Committee would not have to repeat its questions when the Department met the Committee on 17 March 2010, and asked the Department for an analysis of staff.

Adoption of minutes and reports; committee business
The Committee considered and adopted its minutes of 18 November 2009 and 23 February 2010.

The Committee considered and adopted, with amendments, its report on its recent oversight visit.

The Chairperson read a letter, which he had only just received, dated 09 March 2010 from the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) on the Special Investigating Unit (SIU). Copies would be circulated to Members, but consideration would be deferred until after the recess.

The meeting was adjourned.