Report adoption: Department of Correctional Services 2011 Strategic Plan, Committee's visit to Leeuwkop and Brandvlei Correctional Centres, Committee's programme adoption
Meeting Summary
The Committee tabled and adopted the draft programme for the remaining terms. It was agreed that the Chairperson and Secretary would try to reduce and reshuffle travelling dates, adopt a regional approach, and to select fewer centres for oversight.
The Committee debated the Draft Report on the 2011/12 Strategic Plan and Budget of the Department of Correctional Services (DCS). Some proposals were made to change grammar and wording. The recommendations would be amplified to suggest follow-up discussions on the 7-day establishment. The Committee’s regret that the budget report had not been processed by the DCS, would be noted, along with the comment that the Committee had realised that the budget was skewed, but also recognised that this issue could not be fixed promptly. The Report would also reflect concern about slow and underspending for three quarters of the financial year, despite the DCS’s claims that it was underfunded. Members noted that the Sondolo IT contracts would be discussed separately with the Department, and did not need to be included in the Report. Members expressed their concern that, despite apologies and promises, issues did not appear to be addressed by the DCS, and agreed that DCS would be specifically advised of issues to be discussed, and told that reports would be expected on those during meetings. The draft Report was adopted, subject to the necessary amendments, by the ANC and IFP, but the DA abstained from voting, because it must still be referred to the caucus.
The Committee Chairperson reported on an unannounced visit paid to Leeuwkop and Brandvlei, during which the Committee’s concerns that parole was not working had been confirmed. Members noted that the DCS had been asked to provide information by certain dates, but had not done so, and agreed that, rather than these dates being extended, the DCS should be reminded to submit its reports now. Members noted that a whistleblower at a centre in North West was apparently being victimised and had been suspended, and agreed that this issue must be taken up with the Minister and National Commissioner, as the problems were still evident, despite the DCS assuring the Committee that they had been resolved.
Minutes of Committee meetings between 25 January and 25 February were adopted, some subject to minor corrections.
Meeting report
Committee Programme: Second term, 2011
The Chairperson noted that, on the day after the Budget Vote, the Institute of Security Studies (ISS) had requested some interaction with the Committee in relation to the paper on the budgeting model. He said that the Committee’s strategic planning workshop was necessary. He added that the DCS and the Department of Public Works would be invited to attend a meeting with the Committee. He also noted that the Minister had been asked to come back to the Committee on 1 June, to address certain issues, and one week later the Committee would receive a briefing from the Task Team established by the Minister. The Committee would also engage with the Department of Social Development (DSD) and the Department of Correctional Services (DCS). At the end of the month, the Committee would attend to some in-house work, and prepare for an oversight visit.
Mr J Selfe (DA) noted that there was a lot of travelling. He stated that the Committee needed to assess the benefits from a logistics point of view.
The Chairperson agreed that there was a lot of traveling, as opposed to intensive work in the House. He asked for input on which facility the Committee should visit.
Mr Selfe suggested that the Committee should visit Kroonstad, because there was a female facility.
He suggested that the correctional centre in
Ms M Phaliso (ANC) stressed that
Mr Selfe noted that there were too many correctional centres to visit, but not enough time. He asked whether it was not possible that the Committee could be split into two delegations for this purpose.
Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) responded that it was a good idea, but the purpose of the visits was to ensure that all Members understood what was happening at every centre, as it would be difficult to discuss matters not personally seen.
Ms Phaliso agreed that all Members must familiarise themselves with what was happening in each centre. However, she wondered if it was not possible to shift some of the dates, otherwise it would be a very tiring week.
The Chairperson stressed that the week of 2 to 4 August was also set aside for oversight week. The oversights scheduled for three of those days could be postponed to later dates. He stated that the trip to Westville on Friday should proceed.
Mr S Abram (ANC) suggested that the Committee could perhaps deal with matters on a regional basis, to cut down traveling time.
Mr M Cele (ANC) suggested that the Chairperson and the Committee Secretary revise the programme.
The Chairperson continued that on 10 August the Committee would adopt oversight reports.
Ms Phaliso pointed out that 9 August was Women’s Day.
The Chairperson responded that the Committee would be back by 10 August.
Mr Abram asked whether the item on 2 August had been postponed.
The Chairperson responded that the item would be pushed forward. On 7 September the Committee would be talking about the Parole Board. He asked whether any of the topics could be replaced by discussions on Public Private Partnerships (PPP) or torture rehabilitation.
Mr Abram stressed that the Committee should have discussed PPP on 2 August, and wondered if another time could be found to speak about it.
The Chairperson stated that this could be added to either of two suggested meetings.
Ms Phaliso said that the Committee had never agreed on PPP, and had to be very clear on its approach.
The Chairperson stated that the time lines for the Budgetary Review could not be altered.
The Chairperson noted an important discussion on the White Paper on Corrections, scheduled for 9 November. He asked whether both the DCS and civil society inputs would be taken together as one indaba. DCS should be included also in labour discussions.
Ms Phaliso indicated her agreement with the agenda.
Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) asked when the Committee would conduct oversight studies outside
The Chairperson responded that the researchers would present possible focus areas. No oversight visits out of
Mr Abram stressed that visits to any institution must be driven by need. It was wrong that someone who was not involved in the day to day activities of the Committee should be able to determine whether or not a Committee should do an oversight visit.
Mr Cele agreed with Mr Abram.
The Chairperson said that discussions would be held after returning from oversight visits in April.
The draft Programme was adopted.
Draft Committee Report on the Department of Correctional Services’ Briefing on its 2011/12 Strategic Plan and Budget
The Chairperson tabled the Draft Committee Report (the Report) on the Department of Correctional Services (DCS or the Department) budget and strategic plan for 2011/12. He said that there was no content change from paragraphs 1.1 to 2.2. However, he noted an error on paragraph 2.2, in the second bullet point, which should read “protection of inmates”. Paragraphs 3.1 to 3.4, and paragraph 4.7, needed no changes. He stated that there were a few grammatical errors in paragraph 5.1.
Mr Abram noted a grammatical error in the third line of the Report.
The Chairperson stated that the word “are” should be inserted in place of “as”, in the phrase commencing “culture, corruption and poor training”. He also noted that “most stakeholders questioned” should replace “most stakeholders agreed”. He suggested that the work “reviewed” should be used instead of “reconsidered”.
The Chairperson noted that paragraph 5.2 needed no changes.
The Chairperson suggested that the word “considerable” should be inserted in the fourth line of paragraph 5.3.
Mr L Max (DA) agreed that there should be a follow up discussion on the issue of the 7-day establishments.
The Chairperson asked that Mr Max’s suggestion be added under the recommendations section of the Report.
The Chairperson asked that page 6 should refer to “DCS attempts at..” and that the word “corruption” be replaced by “lack of management” in paragraph 6.31.
Mr Max disagreed, suggesting that “corruption” was more appropriate for the intense issue.
Ms Phaliso stated that lack of management was not a challenge, but a problem. She said that the Committee should state that poor discipline and lack of commitment was not enough.
The Chairperson suggested that the phrase “,due to the lack of adequate management, seriously hamper..” in paragraph 6.31. Paragraph 6.52, at the last line, should read “and will be subject”. He stated that the issue of PPP was subject to interrogation.
Mr Abram responded that the issue was covered.
The Chairperson stated paragraph 6.9, in the fourth line from the bottom, referred to the Budget Review and Recommendations Report process, and should read “The Committee regrets that the report has not been processed by the DCS”. He stated that the Committee had noticed the fact that the budget was skewed, but had realised that the issue could not be fixed promptly.
Mr Max referred to paragraph 7.2, noting the reference to underspending, but said that this was a major concern, and the Committee’s observations on this should be noted.
The Chairperson stated that the Report would reflect the Committee’s concern that for three quarters of the year, there was underspending or slow spending, and yet elsewhere the Department complained that it was under funded. He stated that the budget would be approved, and that the Committee would focus on oversight so that the DCS would live up to its targets.
Mr Cele asked whether the issues of the 7-day establishment would be placed in the recommendations.
Ms Phaliso suggested that the Committee should also recommend that the Committee must engage in further discussions on PPP, because there was no consensus on the issue.
Mr Max asked about the status of the Sondolo IT contracts, and when these would be finalised. He further noted that the National Commissioner had talked about high level presentations but there was no high level progress.
The Chairperson stated that the issue of IT would be added, and this would cover the Sondolo issue. He agreed with Mr Max.
Mr Cele stated that he did not see the need to add Sondolo into the Report recommendations, because the Committee would be engaging with the DCS.
The Chairperson stated that DCS would be asked to discuss the issue.
Mr Phaliso agreed, and suggested that by Wednesday all Members were asked to submit focal areas for inclusion to the Committee researcher.
Mr Abram noted that the DCS was supposed to bring details on major procurements, but had not done so. He thought that observations should be recorded, so that problem areas were highlighted. He added that the National Commissioner always apologised for failure to attend to matters, but the same problems recurred.
Mr Ndlovu stated that there were two ways to deal with the issue, either before or after the Committee met the Department. He added that the Committee should not prejudge the Department.
Ms Phaliso stated that the Department still also owed the Committee a report on the outcome of investigations. She suggested that the DCS be given a list of issues that were to be addressed, before the meeting.
The Chairperson asked Members whether they wished to adopt the Report now, or to add the recommendations first.
Ms Phaliso, for the ANC, stated that she would be happy to adopt the Report, with the amendments.
Mr Ndlovu, for IFP, was also happy to do so.
Mr Selfe stated, for the record, that the DA was abstaining because the matter had not come to its caucus yet, due to problems that he had with paragraph 7.3.
Committee’s unannounced visit to Leeuwkop and Brandvlei Correctional Centres: Draft Report
The Chairperson stated that he had taken the initiative to visit Leeuwkop, unannounced, because of problems about parole. He gave a brief background to the visit, and stated that, in short, the visit had confirmed the Committee’s fears that parole was simply not working.
Mr Abram congratulated the Chairperson for taking the initiative to visit Leeuwkop. He stated that there were several dates by which the DCS was supposed to have provided the Committee with certain information. He asked whether the information had been submitted.
The Chairperson responded that information had been received in relation to matters listed under paragraphs 3.4 and 3.6, but not the other matters. There had been some commitment by the National Commissioner on matters listed under 3.2 and 3.5. Matters under 3.3 were still outstanding. He asked if the dates should be moved forward or whether, instead, he should follow up on these matters.
Ms Phaliso proposed that matters be followed up, and any issues not responded to by the time the DCS came before the Committee must be answered at that meeting.
Mr Abram proposed the adoption of the draft Report, but he stated that the dates should remain as they were originally given, as this was what the DCS was supposed to attend to. He also asked that wherever the word “should” appeared, it be replace with the word “must”. He agreed that there should be an immediate follow-up on issues not addressed by the DCS.
Mr Max agreed with Mr Abram that it was very disrespectful to the Committee to ignore the due dates, and that the Committee should take a firm stance.
Ms Phaliso stated that the Committee had to give reports and presentations, and agreed that the dates should not be extended.
Mr Ndlovu cautioned against prejudging the DCS.
The Chairperson stated that he would inform the Department that some of the issues that had been raised by the Committee had not been addressed.
Mr Selfe noted that, in a report adopted a year ago, mention was made of oversight to a correctional centre in
The Chairperson agreed that the issue should be revisited, but questioned how.
Mr Abram wondered if the Chairperson should not go to that centre and see what was happening. The Department should not be involved, since the accusations were made against the Department. This might be the tip of the iceberg. He said that it showed that Parliament was often held in contempt, and that this, from the ordinary citizen, was much worse, so there was a need to get to the bottom of the issue. Quiet diplomacy was, in his view, counterproductive.
Ms Phakiso stated that this was a long-standing issue, and she suggested that the Committee should seek the intervention of the Minister, who should give an update before the next meeting. It had been communicated to the Committee that the problem had been resolved, yet it was still evident. She was very averse to women being harassed. The Minister should be intervening.
Ms Ngwenya added that the National Commissioner had committed himself to the issue, but he never came back with a report.
Mr L Tolo (COPE) stated that action must be taken.
Mr Ndlovu stated that the Minister was ultimately responsible in respect of intimidation. In order to avoid a confrontation with the National Commissioner, the Minister had to be involved.
Mr Selfe stated that there was some action on the concerns of the whistle blower, but there was also a reaction because of her actions.
Mr Cele gave his view that the National Commissioner should be involved.
The Chairperson stated that he would raise the issue with the Minister and the National Commissioner
Mr V Magagula (ANC) added that there was need to look at the circumstances around the whistleblowing report.
The Chairperson stated that the issues would be raised in the meeting with the Minister.
Committee Meetings: Adoption
The Minutes of the meeting on 25 January were tabled. No amendments were made from pages 1 to 21. However, on page 22, Mr Selfe noted that clause 14 had been repeated twice. The Minutes were adopted, subject to the necessary correction.
The Minutes of the meeting on 26 January were adopted, without amendment.
The Minutes of the meeting on 27 January were adopted, with the correction of the removal of one of the references to Ms Nyanda.
The Minutes of 8 February were adopted, subject to page 2 being inserted in its correct place, and further subject to substitution, on page 8, of the phrase “committee would much prefer” with “committee would prefer”.
The Minutes of the meeting held on 9 February were tabled.
Mr Abram asked whether the information that Dr Lirette Louw said that she would send had in fact been made available.
Mr Selfe responded that it had been made available.
Mr Cele asked for her correct citation, and the Chairperson noted that she would be referred to as “Dr Louw” throughout.
The Minutes were adopted, subject to this correction.
The Minutes of the meetings held on 15 February 2011 were adopted, without amendments.
The Minutes of the meetings held on 16 February 2011 were adopted, without amendments
The Minutes of the meeting held on 23 February were adopted, subject to a correction in the spelling of the name of a DCS official
The meeting was adjourned..
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.