Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
27 March 2007
DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET: PUBLIC HEARINGS

Chairperson: Mr D Bloem (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Public Service Association submission
Khulisa submission
Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative submission
National Institute for Crime Prevention submission
Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union submission 

Audio Recording of the Meeting

SUMMARY

The Committee unanimously accepted the apology sent by the Minister of Correctional Services for the statement issued by his spokesperson. Members then heard submissions by the Public Service Association, Khulisa, the Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative, the National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union. All presenters agreed that a sufficient DCS budget should be used to address matters related to rehabilitation and reintegration, overcrowding and the prison construction programme. Members raised questions related to recidivism, work programmes for inmates, the possibility of allowing them to earn money while incarcerated as well as improved training for officials. The prison construction programme and the alleged increased outsourcing of prison services were also touched upon. All parties present agreed that only a joint effort between all stakeholders would assist in solving the challenges the DCS faced.

MINUTES
Media statement by Department of Correctional Services: Chairperson’s remarks
The Chairperson noted that the Committee would address the media statement delivered by a Correctional Services official a few weeks earlier. Mr Luphumzo Kebeni, Spokesperson to Minister Balfour, had questioned the Committee’s rejection of the investigative task team’s report into the escape of Ananias Mathe from Pretoria’s C-Max late in 2006. The statement said that the rejection by the Committee reflected a lack of sound judgment and critical analysis. The Minister had since sent a letter of apology to the Committee for this statement. The letter stated that the Minister had “strongly reprimanded” Mr Kebeni, who had accepted that he had erred in issuing the statement. Mr Kebeni undertook in future to follow the correct procedures and to refrain from making statements that would reflect negatively on “elected representatives and structures of Parliament”. The Minister had instructed the Department to strengthen the accountability of its communications’ officers. The Chief Director: Communications had been instructed to proofread and take ownership of any future statements emanating from the Minister’s office. Mr Kebeni had “forfeited the onus” of making statements on the Minister’s behalf.

Discussion

Ms Nawa (ANC) said that the ANC accepted the Minister’s apology. 

Mr J Selfe (DA) said that the DA had regarded the statement Mr Kebeni had issued as inappropriate and quite out of line. It accepted the Minister’s apology. He added that it was important that the Committee not be distracted from the essential issue, namely that the Committee was still dissatisfied with the Task Team’s investigative report and with the explanations for the escape. The Committee needed to revisit the issue and to get further information on actions taken to suspend the nine prison warders found to have been involved in the escape. 

Ms S Seaten (IFP) concurred saying that the IFP also thought the statements “out of line” but accepted the Minister’s apology. The IFP was of the opinion that there was still a need for an independent investigation. It expected the Minister to come up with a satisfactory explanation very soon. 

The Chairperson said that the statement was very serious. A public servant could not behave as though he had no respect for Parliament. The Committee would in future not tolerate any such behaviour. The statement had been uncalled for and constituted an insult and a vicious attack. 

Department of Correctional Services (DCS) Introductory remarks
The delegation from the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) was led by Mr Alfred Tsetsane (Chief Deputy Commissioner Corporate Services) and comprised Ms Nandi Mareka (Deputy Commissioner: Finance), Mr Freddie Engelbrecht (Acting Chief Deputy Commissioner Development and Care), Mr Bheki Ndebele (Director DCS Inspectorate, Acting deputy Director Compliance Management), Mr Makubetse Sekhonyane (Director Strategic Planning and Management) and Mr Vusumzi Mooi (Western Cape Commissioner’s office). Mr Tsetsane relayed the Commissioner’s apologies for not being able to attend the meeting. 

Public Service Association (PSA) Submission

The PSA was represented by its national Chairperson, Mr Pierre Snyman, and its parliamentary liaison officer, Mr Joseph Marks. The submission focussed on those aspects that impacted on its members’ relationship with the DCS. The PSA thought it vital that the Directorate Employee Relations be sufficiently empowered to effectively fulfil their role of ensuring that all directorates and other formal structures of authority adhered to agreements, both formal and informal, reached between labour and the Department. It was also necessary that there was proper consultation and coordination between the directorates when decisions affecting employees were being made. Officials' morale was also negatively affected by the negative perceptions that society had of the DCS, due to the involvement in corrupt activity by  a small number of officials.

Discussion

Mr Selfe understood the need for the PSA’s need to hone in on the employee benefit side of the budget. He wondered whether the organisation had any comments on the appropriateness of the proposed budget as well as on the allocations between programmes.

Mr Snyman responded that the PSA would refrain from commenting on the broader impact of the budget. The PSA’s function related to employee relations specifically and that was where it focused its attention.

Nkosi E Xolo (ANC) noted that the presentation made mention of the negotiation of a new housing policy. He wondered why that was necessary.

Mr Snyman said that the housing policy was at present not under negotiation. The PSA was waiting upon feedback from the DCS to indicate when it would be negotiated. The Minister’s statement that there was a need for a new housing policy had come as a surprise. In the PSA’s opinion there was nothing wrong with the old policy, and it felt that it merely needed to be revisited and perhaps streamlined.

Ms Nawa wondered whether the PSA and the DCS had already agreed on the salary increments to be made in the new financial year.

Mr Snyman pointed out that salary increments were not dealt with within the DCS Chamber, but were dealt with in the Public Service Council. Information he had received that week indicated that a dispute had been declared on the proposed 5,3% from 1 July, or 4% from the 1 April. Unions had also asked that the housing subsidy be increased from R70 000 to R300 000 because some public servants received only a R382 housing subsidy. Considering the current property prices those in the lower levels of the public service would not be able to afford a house. The salary increment negotiations had reached a deadlock.

The Chairperson recalled that when the Committee visited the Leeukop facility, officials mentioned that it was impossible for them to buy homes in that area because of the high cost. 

Mr Tsetsane added that the dynamics around issues of housing had changed. Some officials at Pollsmoor had rented their houses out to people who were not even employed by DCS. Some bought other houses while still living in the one allocated to them by the Department. The new policy was aimed at ensuring that all the necessary measures of control were in place. The statement that the Minister had issued indicated that after a certain period there must be a review of officials’ claims and access, as well as allocation of DCS housing.

The Chairperson added that he had received a complaint that shebeens and tuck-shops were being run from correctional services housing.

Mr S Mahote (ANC) asked whether the PSA had mechanisms in place whereby members were given feedback on whatever negotiations took place between it and the DCS.

Mr Snyman confirmed that the PSA had substructures, and used them effectively to share information. The submission expressed the unions' desire to see greater engagement within the lower managements structures of the DCS. The national body had used the relation building by objectives (RBO) to engage with each other.

Mr Mahote wondered whether the PSA condemned members who had been found to be involved in corrupt activity.

Mr Snyman replied that the PSA would, by July or August, have its own Code of Conduct which would include matters related to professional ethics and would contribute to the combating of corruption. The Code of Conduct would be the first for the PSA and the correctional services branch was very proud of having initiated it. Members engaged in corrupt activities would be expelled.

The Chairperson thought the Code of Conduct for its own members very encouraging. He noted that Bishop Tolo, also a member of the Committee, always raised concern about discipline among the DCS officials. He was pleased that the PSA would make clear to its members that if they were caught engaging in corrupt activities, they would be expelled. If all unions came out that strongly, a number of the activities in prisons would not occur.

Khulisa submission

Ms Lee Anne van Selm, Managing Director, Khulisa, and Mr Victor West, Coordinator, Khulisa argued that the improvement of the Department’s public image through an effective communication campaign would help to align the public with the DCS’s policies and would also help fellow government departments, business and the community to understand the importance and value of effective rehabilitation and reintegration. The submission gave a programme by programme breakdown of the budget, which it was submitted was too small to adequately give effect to the programmes.

Discussion

The Chairperson knew that Khulisa did a wonderful job and he would request the Department to explain why it was so difficult for them to assist non governmental organisations (NGOs) such as Khulisa and National Institute for Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation of Offenders (NICRO), who were doing such excellent work.

Ms Nawa wondered how Khulisa could consider taking its activities outside of the country, when it was still only serving five of South Africa’s nine provinces.

Mr N Fihla (ANC) thought Khulisa’s input impressive and said that it was doing a good job. He was concerned that by venturing into the United Kingdom (UK) and Cambodia it would be overstretching itself. He also wondered whether it should not prove its mettle first by working in all the provinces within South Africa. He reminded Khulisa that DCS faced serious challenges, including overcrowding, that Khulisa should perhaps contribute to addressing first.

Ms van Selm responded that it all came down to a question of funding. Registering Khulisa in the United Kingdom was decided upon at the suggestion of several funders, who had an exit policy in terms of South Africa. Khulisa could not access funding from the European Union (EU) or any of the UK based finding agencies unless it had a company registered in the UK. It was believed that in doing that  Khulisa could access more funds to be used in Southern Africa.

When Khulisa had then presented to potential UK based funders, these funders had indicated that there was an overwhelming need for the application of some of Khulisa's best practices, especially in regard to restorative justice, in the UK. A funding agent had provided the money and invited Khulisa to use the knowledge it had acquired in South Africa to empower it in the UK. Khulisa’s programmes had been developed on something similar to a franchise. It had ‘train the trainer’ programmes, interactive CDs and DVD documented case studies. Implementing a programme in the UK would be relatively inexpensive because everything had been so well prepared. Ms van Selm assured members that Khulisa would not be taking its energies outside the country. The project in the UK would also enable Khulisa to compare the restorative justice outcomes achieved there to those in South Africa.

Ms van Selm described the Cambodian project also as a purely financial issue. A Cambodian ministerial delegation had visited South Africa about eighteen months earlier and was hosted by the DCS. The delegation had identified the positive impact of Khulisa’s programmes on offenders during their incarceration as well as after their release, and had managed to obtain funds to procure Khulisa's services. This additional funding would empower Khulisa to increase the base of its operation within the country. The training would take place in South Africa. Khulisa saw this venture as an opportunity to compare its programmes to international models. Considering Cambodia’s violent history, restorative justice would be an important component of the programme.

Ms van Selm added that there were no restrictions on the programmes Khulisa offered nor as to  where they operated in South Africa. Funding was its only limitation. Khulisa saw its international involvement as a way of making the organisation sustainable and of increasing the scope of its service delivery beyond being purely donor dependant.

Nkosi Xolo was curious as to whether Khulisa was involved in the rehabilitation of inmates and their reintegration into their communities.

Ms van Selm said that in the ten years of its operation, Khulisa had worked in over 35 prisons in South Africa. The majority of its programmes had been evaluated externally and it could, through various assessment tools, demonstrate the personal development of offenders who had gone through the programmes. In addition to the year-long personal development programme, Khulisa also ran HIV/AIDS peer drug education programmes and was very active in the area of restorative justice. It assisted offenders to get together with their families, communities and victims before the release. It created dialogue circles so that it could deal with some of the issues so that constructive solutions could be found. This approach assisted in de-stigmatising the offender and thus making it less likely that he or she would offend again. Khulisa was proud of the relationship it had developed with some of the prisons. This good relationship was the basis upon which Khulisa had been nominated for an international award.

She added that all Khulisa’s processes had been video taped and it was thus able to show how over a period of time even violent offenders could at some point be reunited with their communities and even victims or their families. All the successes it claimed to have had were supported with video footage.

Mr Mahote wondered how Khulisa was being popularised, particularly in the areas where the majority of inmates originated. He asked whether the organisation had working relationships with community, especially township, organisations.

Ms Seaten asked whether Khulisa was working with the Department to establish what the latter was doing about rehabilitation. She wondered whether the seven facilities that would have alleviated some of the overcrowding, but that had still had not been built, was a concern.

Ms van Selm reiterated that Khulisa’s programmes were prevention driven. Ex-offenders formed an integral part of a schools programme because they were extremely powerful examples of the impact of crime. The ex-offenders were paid for the participation in the programme, which formed part of their restoration process. Khulisa also ran youth development programmes, primarily funded by the Department of Social Development, in 29 communities across South Africa. Khulisa believed that unless focus was paid to young children who were at risk, crime would never be successfully addressed. Prevention  and  conscientising young people around the impact of crime was as important, if not more important, than the rehabilitation process.

Ms Seaten enquired about how Khulisa felt about some of the agricultural and workshop programmes the Committee favoured.

Ms van Selm said that because its focus was on correction and personal development Khulisa was generally not involved in the skills development component. The programmes normally took up a considerable amount of time and it therefore was not able to target those offenders who formed part of work programmes. The focus was on those offenders who were in school, and with whom Khulisa could thus negotiate timetables for participation in the programme.

The Chairperson wondered what Khulisa thought government could do to curb the increase in the number of children ending up in prison.

Ms van Selm thought that the education system was failing South Africa’s children. Not enough time and skill were invested in giving children adequate life skills development. Due to the poor social fibre of communities children did not have role models or support from parents. Communities also did not provide children with alternatives to crime. Community structures needed to be set up to train and support parents. Children needed to be taught that they needed to be responsible and accountable.

Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) Submission

Mr Lukas Muntingh, Project Coordinator, CSPRI presented the submission, which also argued that the DCS’s budget was inadequate as far as achieving its White Paper objectives were concerned. The CSPRI commended the DCS for its achievements in lowering the number of unnatural deaths in prison, for lowering the number of escapes, for its offender management information systems and the renovation and upgrading programme. It continued to give an analysis of the budget in terms of its real and nominal value, the strategic plan, the size of the prison population, privatisation, the prison construction programme, community corrections and the low spending on rehabilitation programmes. The CSPRI felt it necessary to interrogate the budget vote to determine whether it was reaching a proper balance between the three objectives set out in the Correctional Services Act. These objectives were to implement the sentences imposed by the courts, to detain persons under humane conditions, and to promote the social reintegration of offenders. If no proper balance was achieved, then there was a danger of perpetuating past biases.

Discussion

Mr Fihla identified with the CSPRI as far as minimum sentencing, which Government saw as the best deterrent against serious crimes, was concerned. He wondered what options, short of the death sentence, government would have left if the minimum sentences were no longer to apply.

Mr Muntingh thought the question rather philosophical. South Africa needed to look at sentencing in a much more comprehensive manner. He himself was opposed to the death penalty and he reminded members that the Constitutional Court had also ruled against it. Research had over and over proven that imprisonment did not act as a deterrent.

Mr Fihla noted that according to the submission, magistrates were disillusioned by the failure of correctional supervision and offenders regularly absconded while under it. He thought that the onus would now be on the DCS to improve on its tagging of offenders who were under correctional supervision, and on parole. He recognised that housing challenges and the difficulty of monitoring informal settlements played a role, but felt that DCS should nevertheless improve its monitoring of the movements of offenders on alternative sentences.

Mr Muntingh said that the DCS was quite aware of some of the practical issues involved and had conceptualised solutions such as electronic tagging to combat the challenges. The CSPRI merely wondered why the budget was not geared to the large-scale roll out of such initiatives. The organisation would support alternatives to unnecessary imprisonment.

Ms Soraya Solomon, CEO of NICRO, felt that there was a change in the practices of the judiciary in relation to alternative sentencing. She felt that if alternative sentencing could be used for minor offences, there would be space to do deeply therapeutic programmes with the violent offenders.

Mr Fihla noted that the CSPRI’s submission indicated that the projected increase in the prison population was incorrect. He felt it important to understand that should the Departments of Justice and Safety and Security become more efficient more people would be arrested and charged, and the numbers in prison would increase.

Mr Muntingh pointed out that the CSPRI did not necessarily think that the projection was incorrect, but merely indicated that the research it had done had produced different results. While the CSPRI could articulate how it had arrived at their conclusions the DCS offered no explanation for how it, for its part, reached the conclusions it did. For the DCS to develop an appropriate model, there was a need to undertake comprehensive research for projecting the prison population. Factors such as general population growth, remission, as well as crime and policing trends impacted on the prison population too and thus needed to be included in such a model.

Commenting on the CSPRI’s criticism of the small increase in the DCS’s budget, Mr Fihla pointed out that the irregularity of the prison population and overcrowding meant that DCS had to streamline its budget. It was safer for the DCS, in order to secure a bigger budget, to give a higher projection of the population.

Mr Muntingh said that there was also a significant increase in the DCS’s staff complement. The CSPRI thus raised questions how the relationship between the budget, prison population and staff growth worked. He cited the example of how the cost differentials were explained in light of the fact that the staff complement increased from 33 000 a few years earlier to nearly 45 000 currently, but the prison population remained the same.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) was concerned about the increased outsourcing of certain services.. She was concerned that the Committee always voted for the budget, but never saw results. The building of the new prisons posed a great challenge.

Mr Muntingh reiterated the position expressed in the submission. A broader discussion around value for money needed to be had. Taxpayers needed to consider whether they were getting value for money, when services were subcontracted. He said that the question was raised not because the CSPRI had a particular categorical stance on privatisation, but because it was considering the value for money.

Ms Seaten thought the CSPRI’s submission outstanding, and supported it because it dealt with most of the concerns the IFP had with the DCS. It was clear that the CSPRI was well aware of the situation within the DCS. She felt that the Committee should take cognisance of the submission and hoped that the Department would take heed of the concerns raised in it.

Mr Selfe agreed and said that the submission highlighted a number of challenges that were occurring simultaneously. These included the increased prison population, the shelving of prison construction and the judiciary’s scepticism around alternative sentencing. The implication seemed to be that there would be greater overcrowding, which in turn would lead to less capacity to detain prisoners under humane conditions, and to provide rehabilitation. He wondered whether the CSPRI and Khulisa felt that the insufficient budget was to blame for perpetuating this cycle. The CSPRI appeared to argue, correctly, that the DCS had displayed a lack of capacity to spend the budget it had been given. He wondered what interventions needed to be made. He sought clarity on whether the CSPRI argued against the prison construction or whether they felt that the design and location should be reconceptualised.

Mr Muntingh said that although the budget was still huge, it was also declining. It was the smallest share of the national budget and was decreasing in real value. He was not sure what National Treasury had based the allocation on, but it might be related to the DCS’s incapacity to spend. The CSPRI felt that part of the problem related to how the money was spent on rehabilitation and reintegration. While money could be visibly spent on CCTV equipment and fencing for instance, spending on rehabilitation and reintegration was less visible. While the budget might be enough to increase security at facilities, it was not enough to implement the White Paper, should that be the overall objective. He added that it was necessary to have a long-term perspective. The CPSRI would like to see the that DCS officials received intensive training in respect of the Correctional Services Act of 2004, the White Paper and the overall management culture within the Department. This would result in an overall improvement in the programmes being run as well as ensuring that they were broadly implemented.

Mr Muntingh thought that the prison construction programme needed to be reconceptualised. Seven years had now passed since the original designs were presented to the Committee. The CSPRI wondered whether a prison of 3 000 people would realise the objectives set out in the White Paper. It thought that it would be counter productive as prisoners would be detained far from their communities. To his knowledge there were no other facilities other then Khutamo Sinthumelo and Mangaung with a capacity of more than 3 000. He felt that a great number of inmates would present a specific management problem. DCS was more familiar with the management of prisons with 800 to 1 200 inmates. He added that the DCS also needed to consider what prison capacity they would need two or three decades from now and how they must align their construction programme towards that objective.

Nkosi Xolo pointed out that the DCS did not have structures, such as the community policing forums (CPFs), which were a part of the South African Police Services (SAPS). The DCS had its own way of facilitating reintegration of ex offenders, but had no community based structures to assist in the process.

Mr Muntingh said when community supervision was first introduced similar structures to the CPFs had existed, but they had since collapsed.

Nkosi Xolo felt that the submission made clear that the Department had much to answer for. He was especially concerned about the fact that while there were enough inmates within the prison, services at Pollsmoor were being contracted out. He invited the CSPRI to visit Eshawe Prison in KwaZulu Natal where the inmates themselves tended the gardens around the prison buildings. He agreed with the Chairperson’s oft-repeated sentiment that prisons must be prisons. Playing cards, watching television and other leisure activities in prison had to come to an end. Prisoners should work for their living.

The Chairperson had difficulty understanding why the DCS would choose to privatise some of its functions when it had prisons full of idle inmates who could perform the duties. He agreed that the Committee needed to look into the alleged privatisation of the garden service at Pollsmoor.

Referring to the increase in the prison population, Nkosi Xolo suggested that the CSPRI consult with Mr Fihla, who had come up with the suggestion that magistrates, prosecutors and the police must jointly consider a case to determine what the best type of sentencing would be. This joint effort would ensure that offenders were not unnecessarily sentenced to imprisonment at huge cost to the State.

Nkosi Xolo noted that the CSPRI had commended the DCS for having reduced the number of unnatural deaths in prison. He wondered whether the reduction was attributable to the DCS performing its task better, or to the spiritual services conducted in the prisons.

Mr Muntingh was not sure what the decrease could be ascribed to. The DCS did not give an explanation but he felt that the special remissions might have been a contributing factor. It would be interesting to hear the Department’s thoughts on the matter.

National Institute for Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation of Offenders (NICRO) Submission

Ms Soraya Solomon, CEO, NICRO, argued for creative solution-based discussion rather than mere talking. She emphasised that solutions to the rehabilitation and reintegration challenges facing the DCS had to come from joint efforts from Government and civil society. Rehabilitation, reintegration, overcrowding, diversion of minor offenders, the employment of ex-offenders were central themes of the submission.

Discussion

The Chairperson said that he agreed wholeheartedly with Ms Solomon that there was a need for positive actions rather than endless discussions and conferences. He had already served on the Committee for thirteen years and much of this time had been spent in talking rather than acting.

Mr Fihla concurred and said that he also wanted to find solutions. He pointed out that many unemployed offenders returned to a life of crime upon their release. He could report positively on a request from an ex-offender, who had requested assistance on his release in order to assist his elderly parents. He had managed to have the ex-offender sent to the Eastcape Training Centre (ETC) for skilling. That ex offender was now a self employed carpenter and could sustain himself. There was a need for NICRO to raise funds so that ex-offenders could be sent to training centres to be skilled and be able to support themselves. He also wondered whether the money accumulated from the sale of the furniture made by inmates could not be redirected so that when offenders were released that money could assist their families. He felt that there was a definite need for inmates to receive some of the proceeds from the work they did while in prison.

Ms Ngwenya thought the NICRO submission very touching. During apartheid years she had spent ten years in prison while her children were left to struggle without her. Upon her release she too had struggled to make a living. The Committee needed to debate the proposals that had been put on the table to allow inmates to earn money. She cautioned that there were some individuals who would take advantage of the proposal and commit crimes in order to go to prison, knowing that their children would be provided for, and that they would receive money upon their release. It was also important to make sure that the work activities engaged in at prison not only skilled inmates but also generated money.

Ms Solomon said that there was no conclusive evidence to link unemployment and crime. In  some rural areas crime was quite low despite the fact that there was massive unemployment. Whether people would commit crimes solely to be employed while imprisoned was also an issue for debate. In India there were amazing programmes that allowed people to continue working in prisons after they were released.

Nkosi Xolo wondered whether Ms Solomon was suggesting that the Committee should visit India.

Ms Solomon felt that they should absolutely visit India as well as some of the African countries.

The Chairperson said that many offenders committed terrible crimes upon their release. He wondered what NICRO thought was the cause, and how it could be addressed. The recidivism was a clear indication that rehabilitation did not take place within correctional facilities.

Ms Solomon responded that there was no instant solution. NICRO realised that for violent crimes, organs of civil society and government should discuss possible solutions jointly. She said while some deeply therapeutic programmes in prison might work, there was also a need to ensure that that there were adequate safety nets at community level, so that the therapy could continue outside of prison. Violent crimes had to be addressed by the country as a whole. She agreed that one had to fight social ills such as poverty and poor parenting but felt that strategic partners in government and civil society should get together and come up with creative solutions.

NICRO was at the moment conducting research into young violent offenders. It had considered the phenomenon and explored what programmes the organisation could offer to these offenders. It was now looking at what caused a young person of thirteen or fourteen to rape and mutilate. This must surely be related to a deep seated psychological problem. Once the research had been completed and findings made, NICRO would be able to design appropriate programmes.

Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union  (POPCRU) Submission

Mr Nathi Theledi, Deputy Secretary General, POPCRU argued that the budget should ensure that the DCS’s staff complement could be increased to better facilitate rehabilitation programmes. He further proposed that that the top-heavy structure be reorganised, that officials be adequately trained to deliver the services they were tasked to deliver, and that the necessary transformation of the Department should take place. He also called for improved financial accounting measures that would ensure transparency and accountability.

Discussion

Mr Fihla considered disciplined conduct among correctional officers as critical. Officials also needed to be intensively trained. The transformation of the Department required people who were transformed themselves and who were familiar with government policies.

Mr Theledi said that POPCRU was encouraging its members to be disciplined. POPCRU condemned all forms of bad behaviour but would not hesitate to represent a member who had been charged with alleged misconduct, as it accepted that a person was innocent until proven guilty.

Mr Fihla said that the Committee had for some time now been talking about paying a visit to the DCS Head Quarters. He said that overcrowding started at headquarters and asked why the DCS did not reorganise its top-heavy structure. He suggested that the DCS decentralise as the Department of Safety and Security had done.

Nkosi Xolo wondered what POPCRU would consider sufficient training for DCS officials.

Mr Theledi said that DCS had changed much since 1911 when it was established. Human Resources should be given the resources that would enable them to come up with the programmes to address the changes within the correctional environment.

Comments by the Department of Correctional Services

Mr Tsetsane said that the DCS was very grateful for having been allowed to sit in on the hearings. The officials had noted the suggestions and comments and would make changes where possible. The Department would make presentations on any areas the Committee selected for further discussion.

He explained that DCS was a changing department that operated in a changing society. The criminal justice system responded to these changes in one way and the DCS had to be ready to respond in tandem. The White Paper was a long-term strategy whose outputs were intended to have long-term impact. The DCS did not intend to do everything in the White Paper overnight.

The Department welcomed any input from its political principals and civil society. He added that there were many different models of rehabilitation and the DCS had created a system of working together with civil society and accrediting those models that were in line with the objectives of the White Paper. The Department had working agreements with a number of the organisations that had presented today but he added that there were many other organisations, which were less strong, but that might even receive international funding. Such poorer organisations, which had developed from South African society, also needed development and support because they had a much better grasp of the issues at community level.

The Department also took into account what the unions were saying. The Department and Unions were building a working relationship with each other. He concluded by reaffirming that the DCS would always be available to clarify any matters of  concern for the Committee. expect them to clear up matters of concern.

In concluding, the Chairperson thanked all organisations for their nput and interest as the issues in correction of offenders were not limited to the Committee or Department, but were the responsibility of society at large.

The meeting was adjourned.