Chairperson of the portfolio committee, Members of Parliament, it is absolutely crucial that before delving into the actual amendments proposed I outline a critical context to these developments which will help everyone understanding the foundation of the changes we are proposing.
One of the defining characteristics of South Africa's transition from a repressive apartheid regime to a country whose prowess in constitutional changes is celebrated the world over, is the transformation of the country's prison system. The adoption of the South African Constitution in 1996 marked a pivotal point in the history of prisons in South Africa, as it instructs us to ensure a detention system that is based on the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights outlines human rights as one of the inalienable rights human beings should be entitled to, with significant implications for the country's prison system.
The White Paper passed by our Cabinet in February 2005, therefore, was a milestone that placed correction of the offending behaviour and rehabilitation of offenders at the centre of our mandate. With this new strategic direction we seek not only to tighten security and protect the victims and the public from thousands of offenders, but to protect the next victim of any offenders when they finish their sentences while still very energetic with capacity to further maim or injure society.
We therefore seek to address a very complex social phenomenon whose elements include addressing deep-rooted causes of the drive to commit crime, limiting the social stigmatisation which becomes a hurdle in social reintegration, intervening in a manner that empowers offenders to lead socially responsible and productive lives after release, and mobilising families, communities and various role-players to take up a more proactive and constructive role in ensuring the efficacy of the country's correctional system.
This new approach, which is also informed by the extensive experience and the best practices we have accumulated over years, is not accommodated in the existing Correctional Services Act. It therefore became imperative to initiate and to drive this process leading up to today's First Reading of the Correctional Services Amendment Bill.
I shall endeavour to outline the rationale more comprehensively, to unpack the suggested changes and the envisaged scenario and social impact, before giving some details on the exact changes proposed.
Besides the basic alignment of the Act with the new language framework and some technical changes to some names and words, there are six key issues on which the suggested amendments are based, which include: firstly, the enhancement of societal participation in the rehabilitation and social reintegration of offenders; secondly, modifying the conditions for the incarceration of sentenced mothers with babies; thirdly, providing a legislative framework for the new model for rehabilitation; fourthly, improving humane treatment of inmates; fifthly, improving the administration of the parole and correctional supervision system and lastly, streamlining of the functions of the judicial inspectorate to enhance its capacity to deliver on its mandate.
Community participation is regarded as the epitome of an effectively functioning correctional system, which the White Paper alludes to with absolute clarity in chapters 3 and 13. These chapters elaborately unpack how families, communities and various stakeholders need to contribute in advancing the cause of corrections. The current scenario is such that there is no legal framework for realising the ideal outlined in these chapters other than mere familial contacts.
I have for a number of years received numerous requests from people who are aware of the challenges we are faced with and who had volunteered to get into our centres to make a contribution - doctors, social workers and other ordinary members of society. With the amendments being approved, in particular clause 13, the National Commissioner of Correctional Services can and may allow community organisations, nongovernmental organisations and religious formations to interact with offenders for rehabilitation service delivery and even engage them where required to deliver the services on behalf of Correctional Services. Clauses 50 and 68 also seek to give the national commissioner powers to mobilise or accept volunteers in community corrections.
With regard to the sentenced mothers with children, the issue of the length of time children can spend with their sentenced mothers is also being addressed, with the reduction of the legally permissible period from five years to two years. This is informed by extensive research conducted, which demonstrates that the requisite child-mother bonding and stimulation can be achieved within the first two years of the birth of a child.
Various developed countries have provisions for children to stay with their mothers for a period of between 12 and 18 months. We took cognisance of the fact that the environment in a correctional facility is not conducive for the overall development of children, in particular during the first five years of their lives.
We understand the requirement for effective early childhood development and the resources we have can better assist those younger than two years. As we strengthen family and community participation in correctional centres, we will also be able to engage better with families to take responsibility for closing the gaps - assisted, of course, by departments like Social Development and Education.
With regard to the Offender Rehabilitation Path, we have also sought to provide a legal framework for our new model that is captured in the Offender Rehabilitation Path - ORP - adopted for guiding the management of an offender life cycle from admission to social reintegration. The department is now implementing the unit management system through which correctional sentence plans that address personal development needs are developed. So, clauses 37, 38, 40 and 41 of the proposed Bill are helping to close the gaps identified in the current Act, including the provision of care to offenders.
The other crucial element is the promotion of humane treatment of offenders. Although this is clearly spelt out in the Constitution, the scope for abuse of power and authority existed with our single cells used for punishment for transgressions committed during incarceration. The Bill seeks to outlaw the punitive use of the single cells for solitary confinement. And this lot here will never know what solitary confinement is all about.
The Bill introduces oversight mechanisms for the use of these single cells, which include the compulsory reporting of such a decision to the judicial inspectorate and to the Commissioner of Correctional Services with an intervention plan for correcting the offending behaviour and a need for the supervision of the implementation of such decisions. These provisions outlined in clauses 24, 30 and 31 will equally apply in cases where further restraints are required while an offender is in a single cell.
With regard to the correctional supervision and parole boards, the other crucial element is the improvement of the administration of the parole system. The White Paper is premised on a need for the restoration of harmed human relations and the creation of an interactive process at every stage of the delivery of correctional services. Offenders will be provided with a platform for oral representation in the parole system, while also empowering the correctional supervision and parole boards to compel the offender to participate in correction, development and social reintegration programmes within the prison, in communities - as you saw in Khayelitsha - and in society at large.
The provision of parole is the sole responsibility of the executive arm of government. It is a contract between the government and the offenders to continue serving a portion of their court sentence in the community, subject to specific conditions. The current Act prescribes minimum non- parole periods and thus erodes the government's responsibility to rehabilitate an offender and thus grant parole when and where the offender has demonstrated acceptance of responsibility and commitment to avoid reoffending.
In prescribing minimum non-parole periods, the Act invariably creates an expectation - that's the principal Act - and a culture of entitlement to parole. The Bill seeks to address this through the executive authority prescribing an incarceration framework on the advice of the National Council on Correctional Services. The application of these provisions is based on the assessment of the impact of various corrections and rehabilitation interventions on the offender.
The introduction of the incarceration framework in clause 73A will ensure consistency in the application of the Minister's powers in this regard. It is also important to note that in terms of section 73A(3) "the incarceration framework may not be applied in a manner that would be in conflict with any other law or any direction given or decision made by a court of law".
The whole parole system has been enhanced alongside the improvement of rehabilitation interventions and therefore there is unprecedented capacity for effective management of the system.
Last, but not least, the Bill seeks to relieve the inspecting judge of the administrative burden through the appointment and seconding of a chief executive officer to the judicial inspectorate to manage the day-to-day operations. The intervention will enhance the inspecting judge's focus on mainstream issues of ensuring effective oversight and adherence to the constitutional and legal provisions aimed at ensuring detention of offenders under conditions that are consistent with human dignity.
I am quite confident, Madam Speaker, that these changes will indeed place the delivery of correctional services on a new pedestal and affirm our position as a key player in the transformation of the prison system not only in South Africa, but also in the continent.
I am also very sure that these fundamental issues I have raised will need a fundamental shift in the mental framework of many people in order to understand that they are key to reducing reoffending and therefore to the safety and security of the South African public. I wish to make a call to you as public representatives and to the public at large to join in building a national partnership to correct, rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders for a safer and a more secure South Africa. Thank you, Chairperson.
Thank you, hon Minister. Before I recognise those who have indicated to speak, I want to remind all that the nature of the debates, as envisaged by the programming committee, was to provide for the Ministers to respond or reply to concerns raised by members during the debate or clarify issues. However, Minister, you said that you have waived because you wanted to go into the introduction; otherwise that is what was envisaged.
Chairperson, I don't know what happened but the Minister seems to be upset today. But, I don't think one should just generalise in what you were saying, Minister. The ACDP, in fact, welcomes the amendments to the Correctional Services Act. For us it is of paramount importance that the correctional and rehabilitation services succeed in our country, with most correctional centres overcrowded with far more inmates than they were actually created for.
The ACDP acknowledges that inmates should be treated in a humane manner at all times. They must be protected against one another and against gangsterism and against some Correctional Services staff members. On the parole system the Bill intends to improve the administration of the system by streamlining communications and allowing better representation for inmates coming up for parole.
The Bill also seeks to create better opportunities with caregiving, NGOs and religious organisations. The Correctional Services Amendment Bill intends to broaden the relationship with communities and NGOs involved in a process of reintegrating offenders into society. Public participation is of outmost importance in an effort to ensure that when inmates return to society they do not choose behaviours which are unlawful and find themselves back in jail, either willingly or unwillingly.
The ACDP, therefore, supports the First Reading of the Correctional Services Amendment Bill.
Chairperson, much in this particular Bill is unobjectionable. It changes the terms and in some respects brings the Act in line with the concepts that were articulated in the White Paper to which the Minister referred.
The Minister made a number of comments about the Bill, some of which I would like to respond to. The first issue was that concerning mothers and children. I quite understand where the Minister comes from in terms of making sure that wherever possible children should not grow up in a prison environment. But, the fact of the matter is that each child is different and has different circumstances, and we are certainly not a developed country in the same sense as many countries in Europe.
It is a fact that the crche that is in the women's prison in Pretoria is much better than crches in many of the communities from which many of the inmates come. It might actually be preferable for those children to grow up in that environment rather than being put in foster care, which might destroy the family relationship.
This Bill is already before the committee and the committee has started dealing with some of the more controversial aspects of it. These include the fact - which the Minister referred to - that the Minister, in consultation with the National Council for Correctional Services, may determine minimum periods of sentences before inmates may be considered for parole. At the moment inmates must serve a minimum period of between one sixth of their sentence and 25 years in the case of life sentences. I think this is one of the things that the committee has to grapple with because it is controversial that the executive can now, as it were, determine the minimum periods of sentences.
The real problem is that it is one thing to legislate and it is another thing to bring about changes in the correctional system. I will just give you one example: The current principal Act contains in section 7 a provision that prisoners must be held in cells which meet the requirements prescribed by regulation in respect of floor space, cubic capacity, lighting, ventilation, sanitary installations and general health conditions.
Now, we all know that prisons throughout South Africa are grossly overcrowded. These regulations were promulgated in 2004 and they provide certain minimum standards for building and accommodation. In two replies to me, the Minister admitted that only 22 facilities of the 241 that DCS manages actually conform to the regulations. So, the plea that I would make is that we look very carefully at what we put in the Act to make sure that the state itself can comply with the conditions that are contained in the Act. It is hopeless if we have an Act in place and the state itself is unable to comply with those provisions.
That is why I am very pleased that the Bill contains a provision requiring the national commissioner to provide a compliance report ... Thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Chairperson, we from the ANC want to welcome this amendment and we think it is long overdue. I think the Bill is dealing with very fundamental issues and amendments. The most important thing that the Bill wants to address is the issue of children in prison.
We are busy, as a portfolio committee, talking about this Bill and holding public hearings, so that we may hear from the public and we will come back to this House and debate it.
For now I want to welcome the introduction of this Bill. Thank you very much.
Chairperson, I am not speaking because the Minister used my name, I was going to speak anyway. In fact, I thought that he read my mind.
The ANC agrees with this amendment - I do as a member of the ANC. I would, however, still raise two issues that I would like the Minister to go and address, even if he has already forfeited his right to reply here, and I would also ask the committee to consider these two aspects.
The one issue is the promotion of human rights, as well as human dignity for prisoners, which I do not squabble with - my organisation and our government also support it. In fact, our struggle was based on the quest for human rights principally.
However, there is a perception in the South African citizenry that the human rights of inmates are better than the human rights of those whom they have offended in breaking the law. I think that is an issue that we have to address. For instance, if a rapist has been found guilty of rape, the rape act itself is dehumanising and it is degrading and it affects one's human dignity. But in terms of international law and protocol you have to secure the human rights of a prisoner who has diminished and violated the human rights of a woman in raping and dehumanising her. So, I think these are the issues that we will have to go and look into.
The second issue is that of an inspecting judge not having the right to deal with issues of corruption and maladministration, in that this responsibility will be given to the investigating unit, which will be appointed by the national commissioner. Now, what happens if it is the national commissioner that is corrupt? Will the investigation unit that he or she appoints be impartial when it has to investigate and report on maladministration or corruption on the part of the person that appointed them?
These are the two critical issues that I would request be looked at. If the Minister had not forfeited his right to reply, I would sit here and wait for his response. But, because he has already forfeited his right to reply, I would hope that he would reply to me in writing at least, and that the committee would consider these two issues. I thank you.
Debate concluded.