Discussion of the Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR) by the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs

Meeting report

The Chairperson noted that the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) had not yet released its annual report for the 2011/12 financial year so the meeting would discuss the draft Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR) until the annual report was released.

Briefing by Parliamentary Research Unit (PRU)
Mr Adam Salmon, Committee Researcher, PRU, gave the Committee an overview of the contents of BRRR and the recommendations, which had been highlighted, from the work and findings of the Committee during the last year. He drew the Committee’s attention to a publication recently brought out by the research unit on budget analysis as a tool to understand budgets.

Mr Solomon explained that the annual report formed only two of the 20 pages so there was a lot Members could address during the meeting without it. Most of the BRRR document addressed issues with which the Committee was familiar with. Section 1 indicated the key priorities for the year in terms of the Committee; it included improving border crossings, port capacity, national security and information and communication technologies. It also included the vision and mission for the Department; the strategic plan and priorities for the year-including national outcomes and objectives and would include a measure of how this has been achieved once the annual report is released.

The BRRR listed the measurable objectives of the Department. These fell under citizenship, immigration and administration. This included the priority of obtaining a clean audit report and could be a reason why the annual report had been delayed. The report gave an indication of what changes there had been over the years in terms of strategic plans. It showed that there had been a move towards more specific and targeted strategic objectives. These were being narrowed down; 2011 saw 16 strategic objectives while there were only 11 in 2012. In 2011/12 there were 24 outcomes and 28 in 2010/11. This had made them more measurable and achievable.

The report for 2010/11 showed significant underachievement of the targets. Only 49% were achieved in spite of the narrowing down. Mr Salmon expressed a hope that the annual report would show that the Department had achieved more here than last year. The Department must create ambitious targets but be realistic so the budget allocation was suitable to the capacity of the Department. There were some specific recommendations from the strategic plan; feedback showed that targets were stated in terms that were difficult to measure so it was suggested they should be reported on in similar terms as they were planned. For example, a target was set that 70% of all permanent residence documents should be issued within 8 months. This was then reported in terms of numbers and not statistics. It was advised that targets and reporting were mismatched and needed to be more specific. This section would change depending on the annual report.

The analysis of the Section 32 expenditure showed the major concern was the large scale of fiscal dumping. The Department under-spent until the 3^rd quarter and then overspent in the 4^th quarter so it did not have to give money back to National Treasury. This resulted in fiscal dumping. Whether this had been addressed was something that needed to be looked at when the annual report was handed out, as it had been a concern for over two years. The BRRR included analysis of the ongoing trend of irregular fruitless and wasteful expenditure. R687 million was unauthorized expenditure in 2010/11.

Section six was the consideration of meetings with the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA). There were no meetings with SCOPA this year, which was a good sign that the annual report would be an improvement on last year.

In the consideration of other sources of information, the Committee included the State of the Nation Address. Job creation had a continued emphasis in the address this year so it would be a continued focus of the Department. Other priorities had included improving infrastructure development and an improved partnership with the Department of Public Works. The annual report would show how well infrastructure and the increasing of the office footprint had done.

Land and seaport improvements were a priority for international trade. The recent oversight trip to KZN showed they were already building at the Durban harbour and reports had been received that the Cape Town harbour had also started building.  The BRRR then outlined the specific recommendations from the oversight trip to KZN. It highlighted a greater need for accommodation, vehicles and offices at border posts, issues of corruption, the refugee office especially in Durban was under-capacitated (only working at 48% capacity), the need for training and computer skills, the need for additional capacity as UNHCR were no longer issuing refugees with travel documents (the department now has that responsibility) and delays with refugee IDs and passports had created backlogs as a result.

The report highlighted challenges at the land and sea border posts and Mr Salmon gave the example of Durban harbour where there had been improvements but still a great shortage in staffing compared to other departments such as SARS and SAPS. The President had been aiming for improved trade at ports of entry so that these issues would have to be improved.

Mr Salmon explained that Addington Hospital had ongoing difficulties which needed to be addressed. There needed to be either legislative or regulatory changes to deal with difficulties of getting children registered within 30 days as many had not been named. He suggested longer opening hours for DHA offices in hospitals for children who were not born in normal office hours. This may be difficult however due to the logistical problems of getting offices closer to maternity wards; a challenge as the Department was already struggling for space in hospitals.

The BRRR draft report gave the conclusions and observations from the Committee’s study tour to the Russian Federation. The report studied that country’s model of using the Federal Migration Service and biometric systems to track the movement of refugees. This was done for security reasons, for example to find a refugee/immigrant if their permit expired. There was a suggestion that all immigrants should undertake health checks in order to get a permit. In Russia, all shops/spazas were run by people of Russian nationality but they employed any nationality as the work force although the front desk people had to be Russian. This was to continue employment for poor locals and as a way of stopping xenophobia and could be a useful model for South Africa. Russia had seen the de-centralisation of refugee determination decisions. This would allow branches throughout the country to receive refugee applications and issue permits. In South Africa, this process was centralized although there were plans to move refugee application areas towards the borders so the Russian model might not work here.

The budget analysis gave an indication that throughout all the programmes in the Department there was an increase in expenditure and a decrease in budget so they had to do more with less. There had been a focus by government on healthcare and education so DHA was considered less important. Even if they asked for more money, the budget was likely to decrease or stay the same next year so the  budget recommendations needed to be more efficient and streamlined rather than spending more.

The Committee’s recommendations were extracted from documents and meetings throughout the year. Members were asked for their input in order to prioritize and narrow down recommendations to be given to the department.

The list of recommendations to be considered were as follows:
●The capital asset register was a main concern last year and damaged the audit and might be an issue again this year. It was recommended that they maintain it and evaluate it throughout the year.
●There was a continued shortage of vehicles and offices at borders. Options included using fleet services or leasing vehicles.
●A clean audit was a priority and spending should be evaluated all year.
●Under spending in the first three quarters was a concern- the Department should be more consistent all year.
●The Department should prioritise the funding of all critical vacant posts; but only critical ones due to funding constraints.
●The Department should implement a maintenance solution especially to service rural areas. It had been recommended in previous years but continued to be a serious problem.
●Online verification needed to be rolled out in order to bring out smart cards at the beginning of next year. Large and medium offices were priority.
●Citizen services was a big concern. There had been many issues of duplicate cases since 2011. Significant efforts to address this had been made but it was still a problem. There was a suggestion of more advocacy or awareness campaigns to deal with it.
●The Smart Card needed to be rolled out. It was meant to be done by the end of 2012 and that was pushed back to the start of 2013 so it could not be delayed further.
●Sstakeholder forums should continue as they were a good way to pick up and address issues in Department.
●The Department must meet the disability targets of hiring 2% of people with disabilities.
●The Provincial Managers position in KZN and Mpumalanga were still vacant; these needed to be filled.
●The Committee felt that the R110 million was insufficient as there was so much office accommodation needed etc. This was not a recommendation as the small budget made it impossible to be expanded.
●Landing cards on the planes had lead to delays of foreigners being processed and led to security delays.
●The Enhanced Movement Control System had not been maintained and was not operational at all ports of entry.
●The Refugees Amendment bills from 2011 had been implemented as yet. 

With regards to the DHA entities, the Government Printing Works (GPW) and the Film and Publications Board (FPB) had given feedback but the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) had not. Mr Salmon asked for a recommendation on whether to leave out all entities altogether from the BRRR or to include the two that they had and leave out the IEC.

The five priorities which the Chairperson wanted to prioritise for the Department were:

●Finalisation and monitoring of the Department’s asset register.
●Ensure that the Smart Card was rolled out in 2012 financial year.
●ImplementlLive capture for gathering biometric data.
●Ensure the ICT integration projects of the DHA were finalized.
●Filling of all critical posts
●Deal with corruption as a matter of urgency.

Discussion
Mr G McIntosh (COPE) stressed that the priorities for the BRRR report should be the Committee’s recommendations and observations as the other items in the BRRR were a report on the Committee’s work. He noted a few spelling and grammar mistakes which needed addressing. He confirmed his agreement with the five general suggestions that the Chairperson had made. He stressed the importance of the biometrics system as it stopped so much fraud. He suggested that the entities should be reported on and the importance of GPW should not be overlooked. He believed that the FPB would be better suited to the Arts and Culture Department not DHA but should still be reported on in the BRRR. The IEC was the fundamental structure of the democracy so should at least be commented on even if not given a full report.

The Chairperson reminded the Committee not to forget about the National Population Register. It should be guarded against contamination. She was concerned that the issue of whether the FPB remained with Home Affairs was being raised.

Mr McIntosh clarified that he did not mean to suggest that the FPB be moved to another department.

Ms G Bothman (ANC) complained that the Committee did not have the annual report and this meant Members could not fully analyse where the strengths and weaknesses were over the year. She questioned whether the BRRR was helpful without the annual report as it would help them review for next year’s Strategic Plan. She asked for a detailed report in terms of education, skills training and health and safety issues in the Department. She stressed that analysis of the infrastructure report needed to be inclusive of rural development and what the Department had been doing and its progress. Currently, the analysis did not show where the Department was excelling at the moment and the Committee needed a report on those things to compare with the annual report. She echoed the Chairperson’s concern on the National Population Register especially in terms of educating the community on what it was and how it worked. 

Ms H Makhuba (IFP) thanked the researchers for the report as it had helped the Committee understand the annual report and would help the Committee when it had to submit its annual report at the end of the year as the BRRR tracks the committee progress over the year. She echoed Mr McIntosh in saying that entities and their challenges and successes must be mentioned in the report. Members must sit again with the BRRR once the annual report had arrived and make sure their recommendations reflected the results of the annual report.

The Chairperson reminded the Committee that the 6^th of November was the IEC recommendation date. She suggested Members go through the IEC report and see the Auditor General’s results.

Mr M Mnqasela (DA) suggested that Members scrutinise the report from the IEC. He explained that the Committee could not wait forever for the IEC to present to it; he encouraged the Committee to be pro-active and seek out what was being hidden.
On the area of the refugee reception centers, he said that the creation of the Refugees Amendment Bill was a democratic process but the reality of the DHA programme towards refugees was very different. He noted that the Department was assigned R110 million to do the job but there were no offices at the borderline. This created the image that it did not care about the welfare of the refugees and this would lead to litigations against the Department by the refugees. A report by PASOP stated that officials in the refugee reception centre in Maitland said that no one could apply for a section 22 permit in the office there but people were still there applying for them. He suggested that the Chairperson was in the best position to address these problems and suggested that the report must be tweaked to ensure it gives a holistic review of the Department.

The Chairperson said that she hoped for a session where the Department could come and brief Members on their progress concerning refugee issues. She reminded Members about the study trip to Russia, where on arrival member’s passports were taken to make duplicate copies. In Russia, all entries had to be through the borders. South Africa had borders that were not properly manned such as Gate six. She suggested a system that knew when a person moved from Gauteng to Cape Town. She asked how the Department could have accurate statistics when people were coming into the country illegally through the fence and could not be traced.

The meeting was adjourned