Department Correctional Services' update on use of consultants, relationship with Judicial Inspectorate, 1st quarter 2013/14 financial & performance reports of Department & Inspectorate

Meeting report

Chairperson’s opening remarks
The Chairperson noted that many female Members were today attending the Women’s Parliament, and may not be able to attend the full meeting of this Committee.

Mr Tom Moyane, National Commissioner of Correctional Services, noted that nine female officials from his Department were also attending that event.

Reducing reliance on consultants in the Department of Correctional Services: update report by the Department
The Chairperson noted for some years now the Department of Public Service and Administration had been placing increase attention to the use of consultants by government departments. The intention however, was not to eradicate their use altogether, but ensure that when they were used, this was necessary and that the best possible use was made of their services. He asked the National Commissioner of Correctional Services if the Department of Correctional Services (DCS or the Department) was doing anything to reduce the use of consultants.

Mr Tom Moyane, National Commissioner of Correctional Services, said that the use of consultants by the DCS had been discussed broadly also before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA). He emphasised the position of the Department on the matter had not changed, and agreed that when taken in the proper context it should be recognised that no area of government could eradicate the use of consultants altogether. He noted that documentation had been provided to the Committee. 

Providing some highlights from 2007-2008, he emphasised that he would outlined the number of consultants in each year, the number of permanent DCS staff, the ratios and the cost of the consultants. This was as follows:

- 2007/8: 39 consultants and nine permanent staff. Ratio 4:1. Cost  R21.8 million.
- 2008/9: 83 consultants and nine permanent staff. Ratio 9:1. Cost R33.2 million.
- 2009/10: 183 consultants, nine permanent staff. Ratio 20:1. Cost R58.2 million.
- 2010/11: 89 consultants, nine permanent staff. Ratio 9:1. Cost R55.6 million.
- 2011/12: 74 consultants, 36 permanent staff. Ratio 2:1. Cost R31.6 million.
- 2012/13: 31 consultants, 43 permanent staff. Ratio 1: 1.5 with the Department now dominant. Cost R15.5 million.
- 2013/14 : 31 consultants, 45 permanent staff. Up to July 2013 the amount paid for consultants was R8 million.

Mr Moyane agreed that with the use of consultants, there was a need to demonstrate value for money. The Department had shown that internal capacity could be established, which would reduce the use of consultants.  He confirmed that the consultants whom the Department used needed to show their value. Many consultants were used in the area of IT, which was a serious challenge, but the Department was turning the corner in increasing its own IT capacity, and hopefully would soon become “masters of their own destiny” in this area. He believed that when the Auditor-General (AG) looked into this matter similar findings would be made.

Discussion
The Chairperson sought an explanation of the distinction between the terms “consultants” and “contract workers/service providers”. He thought that sometimes the two were confused, and that greater understanding would be reached if the terms were more clearly explained.

Mr Moyane said that he personally was unhappy with the definition that the AG used, where everything was lumped together under the banner of consultants, even to the point that when an inmate was taken to hospital, the hospital expenses were seen as akin to those of a consultant. As the accounting officer, he understood “a consultant” to be someone who was contracted to provide a service to a private company, through a signed service level agreement. Inmates going to hospital, or work being done by the Department of Public Works were not, in his view, properly classed as “consultancy”.  He confirmed that the Department’s own figures were far lower than the figures of the AG, since most of what the AG thought to be consultancy services actually were not. The DCS had met with the Deputy AG to dissect the matters more thoroughly so that the latter could get a sense of what the figures comprised f.

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) asked what the response of the deputy AG was.

Mr Moyane said the Department had been sent the schedule of how the categories of consultants were broken up, contained on two discs, with thousands of items.

The Chairperson thought there needed to be a further discussion on what the Committee thought were properly classed as “consultants”. Parliament was the ultimate oversight body and should engage on this point. He thought it was pointless to discuss consultants when there was no common definition for “consultant”. His view was that any business which should be core Department work, like book keeping, became consultancy work if it was outsourced. However, he reiterated that there was no point in holding a discussion on the rands and cents until this common definition was reached. The  ultimate objective was obviously for the Department to do whatever it needed to do itself, and not get outside persons for this work.

Mr S Abram (ANC) said the starting point was to look at the mandate of this particular Department and the basic essentials that it should have in order to carry out the particular mandate – or the core functions. The Department must see to it that it had permanent employees to perform the essential functions. It was also necessary to determine which categories of the Department’s function needed in-house personnel, and which categories called for outside assistance. His opinion was, for instance, that buying medicines was far removed from the definition of consultant. He agreed that the DCS would never be able to completely eradicate the use of consultants, but it should reduce use of consultants to the minimum.

Mr Abram felt that IT was something inseparable from the Department, so the DCS needed to ensure that it had the relevant capacity for this function, both in terms of equipment and personnel, and furthermore there must be an adequate budget to carry out the Department’s mandate. He felt that , consultants should be used only in the most extreme circumstances, where the Department did not have the in-house capacity.

Mr Ndlovu felt that if the AG and the Department each had their definitions, the Committee needed to ensure that there was a common understanding. He thought the understanding should come from the AG, otherwise there would always be the problem raised that too much had been spent on this area. The Committee should bring the definitions of the Department and the AG in line.

Mr J Selfe (DA) said the whole debate came down to what was regarded as core business of the Department, and what was not. He thought that there were three considerations, which were, firstly, the length of time the service had to be provided, secondly, how central that service was to the operations of the Department, and thirdly whether the service fell into core business. If the service was provided for a considerable length of time, was central to the Department’s operations and was core business, then the work should be done by the DCS own employees, and not contracted to outsiders. He thought there was an inconsistency in the Department in contracting out some services and using in-house employees for others.

The Chairperson said that whilst he was not trying to defend the Department, he did want to stress that it was in a unique position. The DCS was responsible for rehabilitation, and that involved education, health and other issues, and he did not know of any other Department that had such a wide transversal responsibility. He felt it was a complex matter and suggested that the Department provide the schedule for the current year, so that the Committee could interrogate it. The message was to reduce the use of consultants to the very minimum. He and other Members accepted that it could never be eradicated completely, especially considering the complexity of the Department, but this fact in itself also opened up the Department to over-use of consultants. He proposed that the Department should provide the Committee, in its quarterly reports, with a schedule of what DCS regarded as consultants.  

Mr Moyane took note of the Members’ comments. He quoted Minister Sbu Ndebele, who had said that Correctional Services was “a government within government”, so every facet of government was indeed mirrored in this Department. He noted that the DCS also took the view that the usage of consultants needed to be managed and agreed that a common definition needed to be found, to avoid arguing about matters that could be clear. He would provide the Committee with a quarterly report as to how the Department used consultants. He added that the Department had significantly down-managed the use of consultants now, although in previous years this aspect had not been adequately managed. No government department could say that it did not use consultants, even the AG itself,  but he reiterated that the value for money was the key issue when making use of expert advice.

Mr Abram felt the Committee needed to have a serious look at how best to utilise the “warm bodies” of permanent staff to do things themselves. He was an advocate of self-sufficiency and felt there was a lot more that could be done. For example, the manufacturing of uniforms could be done internally. He thought there should rather be an investment in creating internal capacity. He felt that an idle mind became the devil’s playground. During the oversight visit to Goodwood Correctional Centre, he had noted how clean and neat the kitchen was, and how the head of the kitchen was passionate about his job, and this same attitude of self-sufficiency had to be instilled throughout the whole of Correctional Services. He thought Correctional Services could play a role in providing desks for the thousands of school children who currently did not have any. There was a need to think out of the box, and consider how best to utilise the 160 000 people in the correctional facilities, and how they could also lessen the burden of other state departments. He appealed to the Commissioner to list the items which could be done in-house, and said this would also ensure that when inmates left these facilities one day they would become useful citizens.

The Chairperson highlighted that about 40 000 of the 160 000 people mentioned by Mr Abram, were remand detainee, so that brought the figure closer to 120 000 “warm bodies”.

Mr M Cele (ANC) supported the Chairperson’s suggestion and appreciated that the Department was trying to minimise the use of consultants. 

Working relationship between DCS and Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services
The Chairperson said that the Committee wanted to iron out some of the issues that had previously caused concern between the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) and the Department. The DCS had commented that it did not receive the JICS reports that were sent to the Committee, or that they did not have enough time to engage with it, or that the JICS made recommendations which the area commissioners did not take up. During the oversight visits to Mangaung, Pretoria and Durban, JICS had noted that it was not provided with IT support, parking and specific protocols when bringing in their laptops.

The Chairperson said it was vital to ensure the Department functioned according to its mandate, as very clearly stipulated in the White Paper, and also according to the Constitution. There was bound to be tension, but that need not necessarily be destructive, just as the Committee was bound to have tension with government because of its oversight function. The main issue was to ensure that the tensions did not bring work to a grinding halt. The aim of having both entities present was to discuss if anything could be done differently, and to ensure that a team including the legislature, the executive and even the judiciary was pulling in the same direction towards a common goal.

The Chairperson asked Members to raise their own initial observations on how these two entities worked, and possible areas where the operations could be improved. Greater discussion would be held at a later stage on how to strengthen JICS.  

Mr Abram asked what the rationale was that guided the legislature to provide for an institution like JICS, and how this rationale was implemented. It was very simple to create legislation but there could be unintended consequences with the implementation.

The Chairperson highlighted that Mr Selfe was the only Member serving in the Committee when this legislation had first been created, and asked Mr Selfe to provide the Committee with some insight on this process.

Mr Selfe explained that the historic legacy of the prisons had been very brutal and repressive, and one of the reasons for this was lack of oversight over the Department generally. The new legislation included a number of provisions through which more oversight was exercised over the DCS. One mechanism was the Portfolio Committee, and another was the Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Services (the JICS or the Inspectorate), which had its own structure and mechanisms for interaction with inmates. This was intended to allow that any complaints made against the management of the centres were picked up, properly investigated and brought to the attention of the public. In this way, there was less room for brutality or the abuse of human rights which had characterised the apartheid system.

Mr Moyane concurred with Mr Selfe’s explanation on the role and rationale of the creation of JICS. He added that the Department could not be its own referee, so an oversight body was needed to ensure the humane incarceration of offenders, in line with the Constitution. In this way JICS played a pivotal role.

Mr Moyane said that as accounting officer, he did not see that there were any problems with the role of the JICS, but instead saw it as strongly supporting the Department’s mandate. Any problems should be dealt with at the level of the Chief Executive Officer or Chief Operations Officer, and the Judge in charge could approach the Department. In his opinion, any problems that had arisen were due to personality issues, and failure to understand the roles and responsibilities. He was surprised the Committee wanted to discuss the relationship, because he had not received a single call from the Inspecting Judge in regard to any problems. He himself had cordial relations with the Judge, who could come and visit any centre at any time. There were no areas that were regarded as “no go areas”. The same applied to Members of this Committee.

Judge Vuka Tshabalala, Inspecting Judge, JICS, said that the problems which had been discussed in the House related to JICS’s operations, such as problems of accommodation, and Mr Moyane was aware of those. The other problem was that the Department was hamstrung and limited with regard to budgets, so that sufficient funding was not available to pass on to JICS.  Even though the Minister had approved the organogram, the JICS still found itself unable to do certain things, and Mr Moyane was also aware of that issue.

Mr Adam Carelse, Chief Executive Officer, JICS, added that these problems, as highlighted by the Judge, had been discussed on a quarterly basis with the Department’s Chief Operations Officer. He said there were major improvements, with the operational support of the Department, and besides the IT challenges which were also affecting the Department, there was reasonable support for JICS by the Department’s Head Office. His main concern, however, was that head of centres and commissioners did not respond to recommendations or requests from JICS. This was a point made on various occasions and it had contributed to the idea that there was not a healthy relationship in general between the Department and JICS. In summary, there was operational support, but there was room for improvement in the responses of the heads of centres and commissioners. He also wanted to put in context that only since December 2012 had the JICS been submitting quarterly reports. Prior to that, it had submitted only annual reports, which presented a different scenario and put more pressure on the Department. JICS was now finding that with the need for quarterly reports, many more heads of centres and commissioners were responding to the recommendations made. 

Mr Ndlovu felt there should be a separation between the operational and financial side when dealing with these problems, especially with those of accommodation. This would go a long way in finding understanding. 

Mr Abram said there had to be goodwill between the parties who had to work together. He emphasised that the legislation should prevail at all times. He thanked Mr Selfe for the brief overview of the law makers’ intention. His personal view was that the JICS needed its own budget, and could not continue to depend on an allocation from the budget of the very Department that it was supposed to oversee. He believed that this was a statutory and independent body, and not an adjunct of the Department, thus it needed its own budget to carry out its operations.

Mr Abram agreed that the accommodation provided to JICS, which he saw on the oversight visit, did not do justice to an important body such as JICS or to Judge Tshabalala, and was certainly not reflective of the prestige that JICS should have. The relationship between JICS and the Department was important, as JICS could only make suggestions, while the Department was the implementation agent, and so coordination between the two was vital to get the desired results. He said that brutal honesty was important to get the necessary solutions. The overriding factor was that the law-maker felt there was a need for this kind of body and he agreed, judging from the reports that the Committee received. Independence meant that a body should be master of its own destiny, with its own budget within in which to operate. If the budget was insufficient, then it needed to make the necessary representations to National Treasury for additional funding.   

Mr Cele said it was unfortunate that the Chief Operations Officer was attending the Women’s Parliament, as she could have given more clarity. He believed that a common understanding was needed, and suggested that the Inspecting Judge, the Chief Operations Officer of DCS and the Chief Executive Officer of JICS needed to meet. The importance of the Office of Inspecting Judge was apparent, but there was a need to question what independence actually meant. He also thought the Minister should be aware of what was happening.

The Chairperson agreed that Mr Selfe’s explanation helped Members to understand that the main objective was to intensify the spotlight on the condition of incarcerations. He said that only Mr Carelse, and not Judge Tshabalala nor Mr Moyane had been present during the Committee’s oversight visits and he was a little perturbed by this. He also noted that he preferred, during oversight, to speak to field workers, not managers, and he had found morale low among the field workers in Bloemfontein and Pretoria, because of uncertainty around their employment, and that was a further concern, because obviously the best work would not be obtained from people who were not sure if they would be employed by the following day.  

Another problem was that the JICS office in Pretoria was inaccessible to the people it was supposed to service; even he was unable to reach it with his car, so poor people from Mamelodi or Atteridgeville clearly could not. If they lacked a fax machine, people also could not use other technology to access JICS, and he thought this issue had to be addressed. He thought the Pretoria office was probably better on aesthetics, but it also would have no value for people if they could not access it. Particularly given Mr Selfe’s explanation of the rationale behind the intention of JICS, he thought it was not serving its purposes and would not meet targets because of these problems, and there was clearly a need to improve the ability of family members to communicate with JICS, face to face or electronically. If these issues were not sorted out, the Chairperson would be reluctant to give any budget to the JICS. He emphasised again that if its own employees could not access the office, how were ordinary citizens supposed to do so? Employees had complained that the phone system did not allow for calls to be transferred from one office to the other. This sort of finding proved the value of - oversight visits. The need to improve functionality of the offices was fundamental. He thought the advice given by Mr Cele should be considered, and said that the Committee wanted to strengthen the independence of the JICS.

Judge Tshabalala said that he too had raised issues around the accommodation. JICS was dependent on the Department of Public Works for this, and could nothing without this department to find a more appropriate venue. JICS had almost been ejected from its Pretoria office, but the issue had finally been cleared up by paying extra money. 

Mr Moyane said he had noted the issues raised and took the comments by Mr Cele seriously. He said these problems around accommodation were not unique to JICS, and the DCS too had problems with Department of Public Works. The accommodation problems were not of DCS’s making, but he would revert with appropriate resolutions and would, as requested, be frank and brutal to reach resolution.

First quarter report financial and administrative report for 2013/14 financial year: Department of Correctional Services briefing
The Chairperson noted that the Chief Financial Officer of the DCS was not present, as she was participating in the Women’s Parliament.

Mr Moyane began by outlining that the budget allocation for the period under review was R18.787 billion, and the Department had spent, for the period under review, R4.257 billion, which was 22.71% of the yearly allocation.  

The spending up to 30 June of R4257 billion was compared to the plan to spend R4.362 billion, and this meant that there had been R105 million underspend, or 0.56%, which was low in comparison to previous quarterly reports. The factors contributing to the over or underspending in each programme were outlined.

In the Administration programme there was actual spending of R1.176 billion (22.41%) against the budget spending plan of R1.237 billion (23.56%), and the underspend related mainly to goods and services under computer services, due to outstanding State Information Technology Agency (SITA) invoicing for services like BAS, PERSAL and LOGIS, and on audit fees. In the Incarceration programme, there was overspending, with R2.427 billion (24.22%) spent instead of 23.1%, due to PERSAL linkages that caused incorrect salary interfaces across all the programmes. This matter was being addressed. There was an over-spending on the line item for buildings and other fixed structures, due to the fact that an invoice amounting to R58 million for Industrial Development Trust was only paid in June 2013.

For the Rehabilitation programme, there was under-spending on the compensation of employees, as a result of unfilled posts and delays in the non-clearance of internal charges and a call number was logged with National Treasury. For the Care programme, there had been underspending on goods and services such as inventories for medical supplies and personal hygiene consumables for inmates, which was caused by non-clearance of internal charges, and a call number was logged with National Treasury. For the Social Reintegration programme, the actual spending was at 21.54% instead of 24.98% spending, mostly because of under-spending on items such as travel and subsistence, property payments and operating leases, due to claims which were paid under the Administration programme. The Department communicated these problems to the Department of Public Works.  

Mr Moyane discussed the summary of the DCS expenditure per programme for the year until 30 June 2013, outlining, for each, the voted budget, the actual spending to date, and a comparison of the spending plan to the same date (see attached presentation for details).

He then moved on to describe the economic classification. There was overspend on the compensation of employees, where spending was R2.987 billion against the budget plan of R1.973 billion. PERSAL reported 40 101 permanent posts filled, against the funded permanent establishment of 42 006, leaving a vacancy rate of 4.53%. This was the third lowest rate amongst national government departments. On goods and services, underspending mainly arose in areas such as computer services, contractors, inventories for medical supplies and personal hygiene consumables for inmates. For transfers and subsidies, there was higher spending than budgeted because of leave gratuity payments made to those terminating their service with the Department. There was a high turnover of officials taking early retirement, and the Department needed to pay these sums. In relation to capital assets, there had been actual spending of R162 billion against the budget of R136 billion, because of an invoice amounting to R58 billion to IDT paid in June.

He added that in this period the DCS recorded a low figure for thefts and losses, of R5000, because f increased corporate governance. For transfers and subsidies, there was over-spending, with R31 260 million transferred in comparison to the projected spend of R7 382 million. Overall, he noted that the plan was to spend 23% in this quarter. The DCS had actually spent 22.71%, showing an 0.56% underspend. It was anticipated that the DCS would reach the correct spending pattern by the second quarter. The filling of posts to strengthen this was being done, with interviews having commenced.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked for an indication of the time-lags for SITA’s billing.

Mr Moyane said this was a perennial problem with SITA, since it took up to 60 days or longer to submit, which resulted in late billing. The Department had met with SITA to explain these problems. Furthermore, SITA compounded the problem by submitting some incorrect bills. There were also problems of down-time with BAS, LOGIS and PERSAL, which had a serious effect on the on-time accounting processes. Government asked that all payments on invoices be made within 30 days. The DCS had indicated the reasons and extent of non compliance with this requirement to National Treasury.

The Chairperson sought clarity on the under-spending for the Care programme, noting that this was because journal entries had not been done or because there were no supplies and inventories.

Mr Moyane confirmed that there were aspects of both journal entries and systemic needs, to valuate the goods against what was in the facilities. 

The Chairperson wanted clarity on the chronic shortage of uniforms, which the Committee had picked up during the oversight visits.

Mr Moyane agreed that there was a shortage of uniforms across the organisation for both inmates and officials, a point raised in a recent newspaper article. He said the problem of uniforms had been extant in the DCS since he had started, and this was compounded by the fact that the uniforms did not have clear sizes marked, and that the DCS did not have an appropriate uniform for the female officials. However, an audit had later revealed that some of the items which were said presumed in short supply were found in the warehouses and this highlighted the need to categorise items appropriately. The Department had set aside R18 million to buy the items not in short supply.

The Chairperson asked for an explanation why the DCS said it had over-spent on the compensation of employees, yet had vacant posts.

Mr Ndlovu asked how the Department balanced the question of people leaving the Department for early retirement with over-spending on PERSAL.

Mr Moyane indicated that the payment of those leaving for early attrition needed to be captured early in the LOGIS, and that then affected the spending patterns.

Mr Ndlovu wanted an elaboration on the issue with Department of Public Works under the social integration programme.

Mr Abram congratulated the Department on having picked up and reported on R5 000 for theft and losses but said it would be interesting to know how this amount was actually lost.

Mr Moyane said the fact that only R5 000 was missing out of a R18 million budget showed good corporate governance. The Chief Financial Officer would be able to give further details on how the money could be reclaimed and who was held accountable. No amount missing from the fiscus should remain unaccounted for.

Mr Abram wanted an explanation of the huge overspending under transfers and subsidies and payment of capital assets. He also wanted an explanation for significantly higher-than-planned spending on the Rehabilitation programme.

Mr Cele asked how far the Department was with the issue of Occupation Specific Dispensation (OSD, saying that he knew there was a task-team established by the Minister, but he thought the issue needed to be dealt with once and for all.

Mr Moyane said there was indeed a task team and when it produced its report, this would be made available to the Committee.

The Chairperson highlighted the points about late payment of invoices, saying that the Standing Committee on Appropriations had labelled the DCS as one of the problematic departments in this regard. He thought that the DCS could not take the DPW to task for late invoices if it too was not paying within 30 days. This insistence on payment within 30 days was not a mere formality and was bigger than the Correctional Services sector. If the DCS was serious about addressing poverty, then it had to ensure that it was paying contractors within that time. He highlighted the reasons that the DCS had given for not paying on time. These needed to be addressed, as it was in direct contravention of government’s objective of paying within 30 days. Those top ten reasons were, not in possession of suppliers correct bank details, invoices were submitted late, inadequate departmental capacity, inadequate budget, IT systems, no proper standard charter of accounts, tax clearance certificates not sorted out, managers not supplying invoices timeously, unresolved disputes with invoices and goods and services without correct supply chain management. The point was that the Committee could easily verify and cross-check what the Department was saying by a phone-call. 

Ms Nandi Mareka, Acting Chief Financial Officer, DCS, said that insofar as invoices were concerned, the DCS had, for some time, been tracking payments on a fortnightly basis to check that they were being paid by other departments and that the Department was in turn paying for its inter-departmental transactions. On a monthly basis, DCS was also checking whether service providers were being paid, and where they were not, then it would assess why not and what corrective measures were in place. On average, for the 2012/13 financial year, 4% of invoices were not paid in time. She had told the regions to pay as they received the invoices, provided there were no queries, and that they did not have to wait for 30 days. For sundry payments, the timeline was within 48 days. There were a number of challenges with the different categories; for instance medical aid may not list the full details of the official, and there were also instances where the proper units were not invoiced, but by the time this had been rectified the 30 day timeline had passed. It was difficult to make such challenges known when working with private service providers, although with public service providers there were also  systemic problems, like the lack of warning systems in certain regions, to track the invoices. This issue had been raised before.  Another major problem lay with service providers giving invoices before delivering goods and services. DCS was trying to educate the providers on the correct protocol. Another issue was incorrect bulk delivery, and discrepancies that took time to resolve before payment could be made. The Department was focusing on the regions with the biggest backlogs and problems.

Ms Mareka added that the DCS was verifying payments over R1 million, to cap fraud. This would be done by checking the bank details. DCS had reduced fraud also by verifying payments over R10 000 through counter-checking. If anything was amiss, the payment would be rejected. It was hoped this was another internal control measure. The Department, with National Treasury, was working with the big commercial banks to speedily verify the details. The problem was with Nedbank, where this could take up to two weeks, but this would not change the timeline of 30 days.

Finally, there were also human capacity constraints given that payments were centre based.  

The Chairperson said the point was to ensure the problems were addressed and sorted out.

Ms Mareka indicated that, comparatively speaking, DCS was at a better level than many other national government departments, but DCS admitted that there were still problems.

The Chairperson asked where the money for uniforms would be sourced, and whether this would be regarded as unauthorised expenditure. He thought that if there was a shortage of uniforms, there would have been an equivalent under-spending in funds.

Ms Mareka said there was funding for uniforms, although it was not 100% sufficient. National Treasury had not provided the rollover funding requested from the previous years, so the DCS had to reprioritise for remand detainees. Orders for uniforms had been placed, which would be closely monitored because of the problem of service providers not delivering uniforms on time, and steps were taken by National Treasury to try to address this. There were allocations for officials’ uniforms, and the DCS was sorting out the uniforms in the stores of the different regions. The DCS needed to manage the stores efficiently, then would attend to procurement as needed. In relation to offenders, she reported that the material would be supplied and the offenders themselves made their uniforms. However, there had been problems where some DCS members had sold their uniforms, and this would have to be sorted out during the audit, holding people responsible for uniforms.

The Chairperson asked if uniforms were returned by former officials when they left.

Ms Mareka confirmed that DCS would take the uniforms back.

Department’s First quarter performance report: Questions
The Chairperson noted that the DCS did not have to take Members through the First Quarter  2013/14 Performance Report as Members already had the documents. However, he called for Members to ask any questions.

Discussion
Mr Cele asked what mechanisms were in place to monitor inmates in isolation cells, to prevent suicides, and whether officers were trained to pick up suicidal tendencies. He asked how many of these specialists there might be, and, if the answer was none, why this was so.

The Chairperson asked about the length of time it took to investigate escapes. He noted that Harrismith was notorious for escapes and wondered if this was because of the over-crowding. He asked what the plan was to increase bed spaces and deal with suicides, especially in the isolated cells, and the people involved with aiding and abetting escapes.

Mr Ndlovu was particularly concerned about awaiting trial detainees (ATD), and what programmes had been put in place by the DCS, in conjunction with the Integrated Criminal Justice cluster to reduce overcrowding of ATDs.

Mr Moyane thought that escapes were linked to negligence and collusion, explaining that collusion would be seen where officials assisted offenders to escape. This was essentially a criminal action, but the DCS was hamstrung as it was unable to effect immediate dismissals. However, it was taking a firm line, and disciplinary processes would be followed, with criminal cases also opened up against officials who were abetting in assisting offenders to escape. The central issue was that of money. From 2010, the number of escapes had dropped, but there was still a need to deal with the raw issues where officials were involved. Management at DCS was as worried about the issue as the Committee, and he wanted to reassure the Committee that serious measures were being taken.

Mr Ndlovu asked where these officials who assisted with escapes were at present.

Mr Moyane said they had been suspended, and disciplinary processes were ongoing.

Mr Moyane told the Committee that the DCS was busy with an audit, and an investigation as to why it took so long to complete the audit, into bed spaces in some of the centres. It was sad that the underlying issue for the lack of bed space was that of cabling, which remained an albatross around the DCS’s neck. This was not an excuse and the DCS had given instructions to SITA that this was a matter needing urgent attention.

The Chairperson said there would be in-depth discussion on 11 September on the three centres, namely, van Rynsburg, Ceres and Braandvlei, and why it was taking so long to resolve the issues.

Mr James Smallberger, Deputy Commissioner, DCS, added that the DCS was very concerned about suicides and unnatural deaths. He highlighted that Pollsmoor, for example, had over 50 single cells. The observation window was very small, and there was only one official patrolling the area. The patrol could be increased, but, as explained previously, it only took two minutes for a person to kill himself. Any inmates who were identified as potentially suicidal needed to be taken out of single cells, into a bigger space with other inmates. The Department made use of psychologists and social workers, but the problem was that often there were no warning signs of potential suicide and human behaviour could not always be predicted. He said the unnatural deaths would always be a problem, but it needed to be minimised.

The Chairperson made a point that in the “dark days” many of the deaths in prison were explained by the official line that people committed suicide. This was still a raw scar to many, and he was not sure how many of these cases were suicide or how many were “induced suicide”, which was his main concern. He hoped they did not fall into the latter category, and said that Members would always raise questions on the issues. It was in the interests of all South Africans that this be minimised and addressed.

Mr Cele asked when the psychologists and social workers were available to do their job - during the day, or at night. He said most of the suicides occurred at night, or after 4pm. He was also concerned about the shortage of social workers.

Mr Smallberger was aware of the shortage of social workers and psychologists. In the cases where an inmate was known to be suicidal, s/he would be put on a special programme, but there were always cases of which DCS could not be aware of in advance, especially with ATDs. Suicides most often occurred with inmates who were imprisoned for a short space of time, or just after a sentence, and the issue had to be dealt with holistically as there was no simple solution. The 51 suicides were 51 too many. He said that psychologists and social workers were generally only available during the day, but if they were needed after hours, they would be called in.  

Mr Moyane said the issue of suicides was very emotional. The Commissioners had found, during a visit to the US in 2010/11 that prison fires had been reduced by introducing non- flammable blankets. This was a big budget item, but perhaps it needed to be looked at for the longer term. Although DCS could not always predict suicide, it could create mechanisms where the risk could be reduced.

Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services First quarter 2013/14 performance report
The Chairperson again said that Members would proceed directly to questions on the performance report. He highlighted points from the report relating to the abuse of inmates by officials, and asked what the JICS was doing about the incidents. He noted that the President had signed the legislation to combat torture a few weeks ago, and now it was possible to refer such matters to the courts. The problem then was that the entire budget of the Department could go toward litigation.

The Chairperson pointed out that some of the matters raised in the report could be easily rectified, such as the need for fire extinguishers.

The Chairperson thought that perhaps it was a little unfair to expect DCS to comment now on the report, if it was only seeing it today for the first time, and suggested that perhaps a separate report-back session was needed. This report was important for the Committee as an oversight tool, and to check its own findings in their oversight visits.  

Mr Ndlovu noted that in April or May there was a specific request that the DCS should get a copy of the JICS Reports and he wondered if this was happening.

Mr Cele suggested that the DCS be given the opportunity to go through the document, highlight the main points, and then come back for a discussion.

Mr Moyane confirmed that the DCS had indeed received this report, but the Chief Operations Officer, who was not present today, was the official who mainly had liaised with the JICS.

Mr Carelse said a monthly report was sent by the JICS to DCS Head Office, all regional commissioners, all area commissioners and head of centres. An unedited version of the quarterly report was sent to the same people, and after that an edited and updated version would also be sent. Seven centres had responded to this specific report, but there were some IT challenges in updating the unedited schedule. The JICS took note of the Committee’s suggestions to inform the Department timeously of all reports.

Mr Carelse made the point that, in terms of its founding legislation, the JICS was only able to investigate, make recommendations, follow-up and request updates. He reiterated that the JICS was pleased that increasing numbers of area commissioners and head of centres were acting on the recommendations.

The Chairperson asked Judge Tshabalala if he could perhaps rate the DCS on a score-card, where ten represented full compliance, and one was total non-compliance, in terms of its attitude to human rights and anti-torture. At the end of the day, all South Africans, not only DCS, would be affected by this attitude.

Judge Tshabalala thought that the country was “in trouble” if JICS did not get a response to the recommendations it had made. 

The Chairperson said that the exercise was not about pointing fingers. The Convention for the Elimination of all Forms of Torture had been ratified and the aims were now incorporated into national legislation. Everyone had to ensure that torture did not happen, especially given the country’s history. These issues would continue to be raised, worked on, and solutions found. He felt officials who brought the DCS into disrepute needed to be fired, and merely to have disciplinary processes but no substantive action was not acceptable. He stressed that the new legislation meant that “business as usual” had to change.

He noted that the report was quite detailed, with names that would not be publicised, but this was a moral issue. He pleaded that the necessary sensitivity be shown by any press or media, and that there should not be further punishment or humiliation in the press, of those already incarcerated.

Mr Smallberger agreed with the Chairperson’s request to deal with the report sensitively. However, he pointed out that inmates who had complained had already exposed their problems and situation. However, DCS would comply with the decisions taken today. 

Mr Carelse said that the importance of the Department responding, on time, to recommendations could not be over-emphasised and he and Judge Tshabalala expressed the hope that there would e a better response from DCS in the next quarter.

The meeting was adjourned.