Funding of Private Prisons Building Programme: Discussion; Committee Oversight Reports: adoption; Department Budget & Strategic

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
24 March 2006
FUNDING OF PRIVATE PRISONS BUILDING PROGRAMME: DISCUSSION; COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT REPORTS: ADOPTION; DEPARTMENT BUDGET AND STRATEGIC PLAN 2006/07: DISCUSSION

Report of the Portfolio Committee on its visit to Northern Cape Prisons
Report of the Portfolio Committee on its visit to the Durban Westville Correctional Centre in Kwa Zulu Natal

SUMMARY
The Committee adopted reports on oversight visits to prisons in the Northern Cape and to the Durban Westville facility without amendments. It also discussed concerns regarding a newspaper report claiming that the Department of Correctional Services had re-channeled money that had been allocated to the building of new prisons. The Committee resolved that the Department would be called to answer all questions the Committee had regarding this matter. The Committee also discussed the Department’s 2006/07 Budget and Strategic Plan. This discussion would be continued at a future meeting.

MINUTE
Media Report about the building of four new prisons: Discussion

The Chairperson said that an article published in the City Press (18 March 2006) indicated that the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) had decided to re-channel funds allocated for the building of four new generation prisons in Kimberley, Klerksdorp, Leeuwkop and Nigel. This was of serious concern. A large number of Members had already raised serious concerns about the lack of progress in the completion of these prisons. The best way forward would be to call the DCS accounting officer, National Commissioner Linda Mti to shed light on the status of the project.

The Chairperson added Commissioner Mti would have to clarify some of the statements that had been made in the City Press article. If it were true that the funding for the project had been re-channeled to the upgrading of other correctional facilities the Commissioner would have to explain why this had been done. If the prisons were still to be built, the Committee would need clarity on when inmates would be able to be transferred there.

The Chairperson emphasised that the Committee was unaware of the developments mentioned in the article. Only DCS could provide answers to these questions. He hoped that other Members would support his proposal to call the Commissioner before the Committee for clarification. The issue was very worrying and the Committee needed to get to the truth. These prisons posed a real challenge to the Committee.

Ms S Seaton (IFP) wholeheartedly supported the proposal. She said that it was unbelievable that the DCS would even consider using the money for anything other than the proposed prisons. The DCS had promised the prisons for a very long time and the Committee needed to do something about the situation.

Mr J Selfe (DA) also supported the proposal and suggested that not only the accounting officer but also the Chief Financial Officer, Mr Patrick Gillingham and other key DCS employees should be present. The presentations that the DCS had made so far contained many assurances that now turned out to be "palpably false". The DCS needed to account for what the money had been spent on as well as for the way in which the Committee and Parliament had been trifled with in terms of the assurances that had been given which now appeared to be "borderline falsehoods". He would be going through the statements that had been made to the Committee over the past 18 months, and which now turned out to be untrue. The matter was very serious and went beyond financial accounting but extended to the relationship of transparency that should exist between a Government department and its oversight committee.

Members from the ANC also supported the proposal.

The Chairperson agreed that all key role players from DCS should be called to account. He emphasised that when the Committee met with the DCS it would need answers immediately. He pointed out that there were many other questions that needed clarification e.g. the loss of security tags to the value of R7 million at the Durban Westville facility.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee would thoroughly interrogate the submissions as well as the DCS presentation and the Minister of Correctional Services’ comments at the meeting that was held on 9 March 2006. The Committee had approved a budget for the prisons, which should make it unnecessary for the DCS to approach the private sector. The Minister had however indicated that DCS would involve the private sector: the private sector would build the prisons, while DCS would operate them. The Chairperson had made clear that the Committee would not approve anything without having seen the design and the contracts. He pointed out that the two existing public/private partnership prisons had been created without this Committee’s input. Now the process was transparent and the Committee needed to be properly informed and needed to have all their questions answered before it could make a decision. Members should go through every document related to the matter so that the Committee could compile their budget report.

DCS 2006/07 Budget and Strategic Plan: Discussion
The Chairperson said that there had been an improvement in the way the Committee dealt with the DCS budget. He felt that the DCS needed to take the Portfolio Committee seriously. He was particularly concerned about the DCS’ Strategic Plan and their Budget. He would flag issues he was not satisfied with.

The Chairperson felt that the public hearings on the DCS budget were of great assistance. The Committee and the DCS needed to hear the views of the broader public. When public hearings were held the DCS and the Committee should expect to hear things that they did not necessarily want to hear. People had the right to comment and raise their concerns.

The Chairperson pointed out that the Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) and the National Institute for Crime Prevention and Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO) had raised legitimate concerns regarding DCS’ structure and the scrapping of minimum sentencing. POPCRU was concerned about the steep increase in the number of chief deputy commissioners, deputy commissioners and directors. These increases had serious financial implications that could not be ignored. The DCS also had to explain the R4, 4 billion that had been allocated to their head office. The Committee could not invite the public to hearings and then shelve the concerns they raised during the hearings.

Mr Sabelo Mzanywa (DCS: Parliamentary Liaison Officer) informed the Committee that the DCS had requested a slot in which to respond to the issues that had been raised during the public hearings.

The Chairperson assured him that the Committee would discuss matters that arose from the public hearings and would give the DCS an opportunity to respond. This would happen before the Budget Vote debate on 23 May 2006.

Mr N Fihla (ANC) said that scrapping minimum sentences was advocated very strongly during the public hearings. Judge Johannes Fagan of the Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons (JIOP) believed strongly that minimum sentencing contributed to overcrowding in prisons. Mr Fihla suggested a joint meeting with the Justice Portfolio Committee to debate the issue.

Mr S Mahote (ANC) requested that all the minutes relating to the building of the prisons be made available to Members. The minute of the meeting of 9 March would be particularly helpful.

The Chairperson pleaded with Members to analyse everything the DCS had submitted in relation to the prisons since 2002.

Adoption of reports on oversight visits to the Northern Cape and Durban Westville.
Members adopted the oversight reports without amendments.

The meeting was adjourned.