Correctional Services Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report 2010

Correctional Services

20 October 2010
Chairperson: Mr V Smith (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The meeting took the form of reading and discussion of the Observations and Recommendations in the Portfolio Committee Draft Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report. In the discussion of Observations, the Chairperson referred to the need for greater stability and sustainability among the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) senior leadership. Suspensions had to be finalised, and staff turnover brought to a halt. Members asked that the DCS turnaround plan be made available to them, and that it be used to monitor the performance of the Department. Time frames had to be insisted upon for DCS projects. The independence of the Inspecting Judge had to be highlighted and added to the list, seeing that the Judge depended on the DCS for a salary.

In the discussion of Recommendations, an opposition party member commented that it had to be on time bound and measurable terms. If not, the Recommendations would be too polite and tame. A member felt that the recommendation dealing with the powers of Heads of Centres to grant parole, had to include the need to monitor that process. More stress should be placed on filling the posts to strengthen internal audit capacity. Interns could not be solely relied upon for internal auditing as there was no real ownership. There had to be a permanent and competent structure. Members felt that turnaround details had to include performance indicators and sanctions for non-compliance. Unless improvement in matters of rehabilitation and reintegration took place, the Portfolio Committee had to state that it would not accept the 2011/12 budget. The matter of the Inspecting Judge was again discussed, with a member suggesting that the DCS had to provide the Inspecting Judge with his own budget. A DA member asked that the Committee interact with the Minister, to ensure that the political and operational heads of the DCS were in accord.

The Report with amendments was adopted.

Meeting report

Draft Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report
The report was not presented by the committee researcher, but read through and commented upon by members during the meeting. Observations and Recommendations were singled out for attention. Recommendations were largely based on Observations, and covered such matters as compliance with legislation; overcrowding in centres; the strengthening of internal audit capacity; asset management; leadership and management challenges; and the need for increased rehabilitation and reintegration targets and re-allocations to the Care, Development and Corrections programmes.

Discussion
The Chairperson suggested that discussion for the day be limited to Observations and Recommendations by the Portfolio Committee. Members were asked to study the observations and recommendations in the document before them, and then come up with suggestions as to what might be added.

With regard to points 4.1.1 to 4.1.7 under Observations, the Chairperson opined that the lack of stability among senior leaders of the Department of Correctional Services (DCS), had to be commented on. Suspensions had occurred during the term of the current Portfolio Committee. Stability would be enhanced by a quick finalisation of suspensions taken out or replaced. Stability could influence the ability of the PC to fight for the budget. It was a first step towards influencing the budget.

Mr L Max (DA) said that the DCS had referred to a turnaround strategy, and he had asked for a copy of the document.

Ms B Blaai (COPE) noted that time frames were generally lacking in the DCS.

Mr J Selfe (DA) suggested that monitoring of the Department against the turnaround plan and the provision of time frames be added to Recommendations.

The Chairperson agreed that those matters be factored in under Recommendations. He added that it had become evident during oversight by the Committee, that the Inspecting Judge was not independent enough as he depended on the DCS for his salary. Independent oversight was hampered by the Judge’s curtailed independence.

The Chairperson asked Committee members to study the Recommendations.

Mr Selfe was satisfied with the Recommendations, but found two things lacking. Any recommendations would have to be on terms.  Objectives had to be time bound and measurable. The Recommendations were politely phrased and rather tame, and needed beefing up. For instance, it should state: audit capacity had to be in place by the following June.

The Chairperson suggested that monitoring against a time frame be incorporated into Recommendation 4.2.1, which stated the DCS put in place measures to comply with legislation, and service delivery in line with its mandate.

Mr Selfe thought that Remand Detention Centres could receive attention.

The Chairperson replied that he had heard that a White Paper on the matter would appear shortly. It could be added to Recommendations for the record.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) asked about the powers of Heads of Centres to approve parole, referred to in Recommendation 4.2.2. She asked if it actually happened, and how it could be monitored. The DCS had to provide a report and statistics.

The Chairperson suggested that it be added that the DCS had to provide evidence. DCS had to state where this was being effectively done, according to regions. There had to be a detailed report.

The Chairperson remarked with reference to Recommendation 4.2.3, which dealt with DCS internal audit capacity, that the DCS had to be forced to fill the 28 available posts.

Ms Ngwenya added that posts had already been funded.

The Chairperson noted that the DCS had stated the previous day that advertisements for posts would appear that week.

He referred to Recommendation 4.2.4, that dealt with asset management. The DCS had made its intention known to employ interns for documentation of tangible assets. The Committee had to insist that interns deliver, and that a progress report would be required by March of the following year. The time frame was one year. Interns had to start as soon as possible. There had to be measurable achievement by the following year.

Mr Max opined that the DCS could not depend totally on interns. Their service could turn out to be erratic. The Annual Report noted that interns would be employed without promise of permanent employment. There would be no ownership of them. Interns also had to be trained first. Top management sustainability and stability had to go hand in hand with a permanent and competent structure. Interns on their own could not be relied upon.

The Chairperson suggested that it be added that the Portfolio Committee welcomed interns, but that the CFO had to provide a sustainability report on the project.

Mr Max remarked with regard to DCS leadership and management challenges noted in Recommendation 4.2.5, that the Department consistently contradicted itself by saying what needed to be done, and shortly thereafter admitting that it had not been done. There was scant regard for consequences.

The Chairperson suggested that turnaround details made available to the Committee, include performance indicators and sanctions for not meeting targets. He thought that 4.2.5 could be combined with 4.2.1, which dealt with measures to ensure compliance to relevant legislation.

Mr Selfe remarked that the real problem was referred to under 4.2.6. That recommendation dealt with the need for the DCS to increase its targets for developmental interventions on behalf of rehabilitation and reintegration. It called for requisite allocations to the Care, Development and Corrections programmes. Mr Selfe thought it well to add that if those matters were not adequately dealt with, the Portfolio Committee would not accept the 2011/12 budget.

The Chairperson agreed that it had to be stated that the DCS commitment to the above, had to be reflected in budget allocations. He returned to the matter of the Inspecting Judge. As it stood, the Judge lacked teeth. The question was how to provide that.

Ms M Mdaka (ANC) asked what the Corrections programme entailed.

The Chairperson answered that it included sentence plans and rehabilitation paths. It represented the move away from mere incarceration. He again asked how the position of the Inspecting Judge could be strengthened. He had no budget of his own.

Mr Max suggested that before recommendations were made on behalf of the Judge, that the Portfolio Committee meet with him first.

Mr Selfe suggested that an own budget for the Inspecting Judge be recommended.

The Chairperson suggested that it be added that the Department had to provide the Inspecting Judge with independent funding.

The Chairperson again brought up the issue of instability of senior management. He asked under which Recommendation it could be included.

Ms Cindy Balie, PC Secretary, ventured that it could ride with 4.2.5, which dealt with severe leadership and management challenges.

The Chairperson reiterated that it was not acceptable to have five different National Commissioners in as many years. There was a high turnover of senior staff. A way had to be found of stopping that.

The Chairpeson asked Mr Mpho Mathebethe, Committee Researcher, to think over budget realignment , overcrowding and parole, if those maters had been dealt with adequately. He suggested that Observations and Recommendations be placed at the beginning of the report, with the current introduction at the end. He asked for a motion to adopt the report with amendments, which was forwarded by Ms Blaai.

Mr Selfe noted that the report had not yet been to the DA caucus.

The Chairperson said that it was in order, as long as DA members were happy from a parliamentary point of view. If no amendments had been forthcoming by midday the following day, it would be considered agreed upon.

Mr Max commented that the commitment of the DCS National Commissioner had become apparent over the preceding three sessions. But the Minister might have different views. He asked if the Committee could interact with the Minister. He said that where he was from, it had become clear that synergy between the political and operational heads had to be achieved.

The Chairperson noted that in August the Minister had sought an audience for the Performance Agreement, which did not materialise. He had met with the Minister at a later stage, and she had once again requested that. The Minister could be informed about instances were she and the Department differed. He asked that a slot be found for that before the end-of-year recess.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.


Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: