Chairperson, I have noticed that my colleagues did not take their full 15 minutes at the outset. If I take more time, I am borrowing from them! [Laughter.] I am sure they will not object to that. We are a cluster, and that could be evidence in itself.
I must say that I am also honoured and privileged to present my department's case in this Budget Vote debate before this Council. In case hon members have not noticed the difference between my department and those of my colleagues here, I may have to state it briefly, but they know it themselves.
When it comes to the police, I always say that the police want to be professional, they want to be effective and they want to do a good job. The magistrates want to be good magistrates. The judges want to be effective judges and do a good job. The soldiers want to be professional soldiers and do a good job. There are 165 000 prisoners and none of them want to be there. So that is an instant difficulty. The police, the soldiers, the magistrates and the judges want to do what they do. But of the 165 000 prisoners, none wants to be there. That is an instant challenge.
I have recently come across severe criticism from human rights organisations representing the rights of prisoners for what is perceived to be a failure on my part to take decisive action to avert the impending crisis in our prisons caused by overcrowding. When I introduced the Correctional Services debate in the National Assembly on 12 May 2000 I made a passionate plea for the recognition and acceptance of the Correctional Services system as an integral part of the governance of this country. I believe that as a nation we are still trapped in the legacy of our shameful past in our understanding of the role and objectives of the correctional system.
As far back as 1923, the role and objectives of the correctional system were already well understood as articulated by Sir Winston Churchill, when he remarked as follows:
The mood and temper of the public with regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country. A calm, dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused, and even of the convicted criminals against the state; a constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment; a desire and eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment; tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerative processes; unfailing faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man. These are the symbols, which, in the treatment of crime and the criminal, mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation. These powerful words of inspiration are from one of the greatest visionaries of our time. It is my mission, whilst serving as Minister of Correctional Services, to inculcate and promote this vision of the criminal justice system into a common vision shared by most South Africans.
As I discussed briefly in the NA, the prison crisis can only be understood in terms of the political environment in which the criminal justice system is located. In our situation, the major players representing the various special interest groups in the correctional services system are the media, legislators, the judiciary, human rights groups, labour unions, and prisoners. The relative powers and/or influence wielded by these groups, and the interests they pursue, shape the course of prison system crises.
The main functional areas of the correctional system are incarceration, care of offenders, development of offenders and community corrections. The incarceration function is mainly concerned with offender control by providing security and prison services to prevent, or at least to minimise, possibilities of escape, to ensure safe custody through good order and discipline within prison and rendering administrative and staff services. Traditionally, the incarceration function has always received the highest priority in the budget allocation. Although this Budget Vote under discussion has made some significant steps forward in transforming the allocation of resources in the correctional system, there are still areas of grave concern which require further improvement. Whilst the allocation for incarceration has increased by 15%, care of offenders, which involves the actual physical care and the health care of prisoners, has only increased by 6,7%. A marked increase of 55,9% has been made with regard to community corrections. Development of offenders received a satisfactory 14,2% increase, compared to the 0,1% decrease in the allocation for the reintegration into the community.
In line with our vision for the transformed correctional services system, we can no longer just concern ourselves with incarceration, but must also see to it that the system adequately caters for need-based developmental and rehabilitative offender programmes and the proper care of offenders. The challenge ahead of us is to work out an acceptable compromise through striking a proper balance between the competing interests of public safety and offender care and rehabilitation within the constraints of a limited budget. Incarceration is paramount with regard to offenders who have committed serious offences. It is therefore not difficult to see how a much- publicised escape or a large-scale disturbance may precipitate a crisis that is likely to result in an immediate shift of resources from the provisioning of adequate conditions to the functions of security and control. Prison security and offender control have a huge impact on our budget, as they rely heavily on manpower, equipment, IT expertise, architecture, categorisation of prisoners and routine procedures.
The overconcentration of resources on security and control at the expense of offender care and rehabilitative development programmes is an inescapable consequence of the history of where we come from as a department. As I have already remarked in the NA on 12 May, it is an indisputable fact that the vast majority of the inmates in our prison system are from the previously disadvantaged groups who are unskilled and of little value in the labour market. It is our responsibility as correctional services to see to it that they, too, are the beneficiaries of the new democratic dispensation, by providing them with the necessary basic skills to better their chances of becoming economically active by getting formal employment in the labour market, and, thus, helping to break the cycle of crime. I think hon members are very familiar with this one. Whether an ex-prisoner is skilled to do any kind of work within the community, be it carpentry, painting or whatever the skills the person has acquired from prison, immediately he steps out of prison and tries to look for work, he is already disadvantaged, because he is stigmatised. Once everybody knows, or the potential employer knows, that this person has been to jail and he acquired the certificate and the skills from prison, he is not going to employ him or her. The person goes from door to door and after three months he still does not get work. What happens to his or her children? Then the person goes back to the life of crime. After all, he was getting three meals a day in prison and he had friends who were talking and joking with him. It was all right. He gets back to the community and he is shut out, simply because he was in prison.
We cannot compromise on any of the above-mentioned fundamental areas of the department without jeopardising our core business objectives. It would therefore appear that, unless a corresponding increase is made to our total budget allocation in line with the ever-increasing population of inmates in our prisons, we are soon reaching a stage where the system will completely collapse. We are, of course, mindful of the fact that we are not the only department that is operating under severe financial constraints. Therefore, whilst insisting on increased funding, we must simultaneously focus our efforts on developing appropriate reductionist strategies to counter the problem of overcrowding and diminishing resources to enable us to meet both our constitutional and international obligations regarding the treatment of offenders and prevention of crime.
As I have outlined briefly in the NA, the problems facing the correctional system cannot be viewed in isolation from what is taking place in the other core departments of the criminal justice system. The Minister has said a lot about that.
President Mbeki's visionary intervention in June last year to establish ministerial clusters has been the single most important step forward in bringing about the much-needed co-operation between the core departments of the criminal justice system to develop an integrated, interdepartmental approach to crime prevention. Already, through the clustering approach, we have been able to formulate and embark on the following strategies to combat overcrowding in prisons. There are multisectoral teams to identify blockages and devise solutions to the awaiting-trial prisoner problem; early release of offenders who have committed less serious crimes, after they have served a minimum period of their sentences; thirdly, alternatives to imprisonment, which involve serving sentences within the community under supervision; and, lastly, fast-tracking of prison construction projects currently under way and the use of public-private partnership initiatives for the provision of additional prison accommodation.
We also intend to intensify our self-sufficiency programmes through the optimal utilisation of prison labour to augment our budget. We will reopen the debate on the retention by the prison system of income generated through prison labour, and the costing and marketing of prison products.
We also intend to take over the maintenance of facilities from Public Works to take direct control and accountability for ensuring conditions consistent with human dignity in prisons. I am saying this because, I am sure, most hon members saw the report on Pollsmoor about overcrowding and the conditions of juveniles in there who are awaiting trial. But for some of the things, we can say that we will look up to the courts, as the courts are doing that. The Minister has been saying that.
However, I am sure that after seeing the leaking taps and the conditions under which these children live, members are not convinced that another department, not Correctional Services, is responsible. I am saying that we have to take charge of that because we do budget for that type of thing, but we do so through other departments which are responsible for the maintenance of these buildings.