Construction of correctional centres, Leeuwkop project, remand detention project update briefings: Departments of Public Works and Correctional Services

Correctional Services

24 May 2011
Chairperson: Mr V Smith (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Correctional Services and National Department of Public Works gave briefings on the progress of various projects around correctional centres. The first presentation dealt with four new correctional centres (CCs) that were planned for building using the Public Private Partnership (PPP) Model. The steps taken, between 2007 and 2009 were outlined, which included a feasibility study and bid proposals by shortlisted bidders. The policy was revised when the new Minister was appointed in 2009, and a bid-specification-amendment-process commenced on 5 March 2010. After several workshops, the parties concluded that it was not feasible to materially change the current bid specifications, although some changes were agreed, including a variation that the private partner would manage operations for 7 to 10 years, and perform maintenance for 25 years, after which the facility would revert entirely to the State. The specification amendments were agreed in October 2010, and the extension of bid was approved to end October 2011. Bid evaluation committees were currently being established. The Department of Public Works stated that it did not have the final costs. Members questioned, at some length, the rationale behind the approval of the PPP model, and wanted full details of comparative costs. It was pointed out that many Members had consistently expressed their concerns about the model, both from a policy and cost point of view, and had been unable to obtain any finality on how much the facility would eventually cost. However, it seemed that rather than spending R900 million up front, the State was instead tying itself into a contract that would eventually cost around R8 billion per facility. This also did not take into account the costs of maintenance and security, nor the fact that substantial refurbishment would be required to a 25-year old building. The Committee decided that the discussions should be postponed until both National Treasury and the Minister could be present, as well as officials from the Departments of Correctional Services (DCS) and Public Works (DPW) to answer questions.

A further presentation was given on the facilities for juvenile and child offenders at Boksburg, Leeuwkop and Emthonjeni. The intention was to centralise the detention of sentenced children in order to provide the correct type of facilities and services for their education, rehabilitation and re-integration, including a formal school, a multi-purpose hall, and skills training rooms for woodwork, metalwork and bricklaying training. This project formed part of the planned four PPPs. Members asked about the estimated time for completion of Leeuwkop and called for a full report, given the previous difficulties with environmental impact assessments at this site, and on the procurement plans. Members wanted to be assured, both in respect of sentenced and awaiting trial detainees, that the categories of inmate / detainee would be separated. A detailed response on queries would be provided later by the DCS.

The DCS then gave a presentation on remand detention facilities, noting that there were eleven dedicated facilities, and plans for their upgrades, but National Treasury would determine the type of procurement. The DCS further outlined plans for the video conferencing project that would allow remand detainees to be remanded into further custody without requiring to be physically transported to the relevant courts. Although the rollout had commenced in 2008, there were only a few where the facilities were in operation, and various problems, including the theft of cables, contractor delays, and training by the Department of Justice, were cited. Members enquired about the costs, whether payment had been made to defaulting contractors and procurement processes, and insisted upon knowing whether defaulting contractors had been blacklisted, and what monitoring processes were in place. The DCS undertook to provide a written response to queries, and a list of centres that would be dedicated to holding remand detainees only.

The DCS and DPW then gave details of their new Service Level Agreement, confirming that there were limits on services by the Independent Development Trust, and that the agreement improved the flow of business and allowed DCS to undertake small repairs itself, with a limit of R100 000. Members questioned, and received assurances, that DCS could effect its own maintenance on leaking water points, broken windows and similar problems, despite the Committee having been assured, during oversight visits, that these matters had not been attended to by DPW. The Committee was critical of the incorrect information thus furnished by DCS officials in the past. DPW clarified that its billing system allowed for quarterly, not monthly, accounts, and that DCS received an actual allocation rather than having to bill for everything separately. The relationship between the two departments had improved.

Finally, a COPE Member questioned why Coloured and Indian people did not seem to be represented in senior positions, and urged that minority and gender representation should receive more attention.


Meeting report

The Chairperson set out the meetings planned for the next month. He outlined that the Committee had undertaken various oversight visits, including one to the Leeuwkop Correctional Centre, where it was not comfortable with what it found in the juvenile section. For this reason, the Department had been asked to outline developments on the project at Leeuwkop, as well as at the four proposed new facilities. In addition, the Committee wished to hear the plans for the remand detention centres, and whether the Department was intending to build new facilities or upgrade existing ones. For some time, the Committee had been told that at least ten new facilities were due to be erected. The Departments of Correctional Services (DCS) and the Department of Public Works (DPW) would also need to discuss the situation around service level agreements.

Four new correctional centres : Public Private Partnership models
Mr Zacharia Modise, National Deputy Commissioner: Corrections, DCS, apologised that the National Commissioner, Mr Tom Moyane, could not attend as he was in Malaysia

Mr Modise confirmed that the DCS was in the process of procuring four new correctional centres (CC) through a Public Private Partnership (PPP) Model in order to address overcrowding in centres. The feasibility study was approved in September 2007. The shortlisted bidders were announced on 30 September 2008. National Treasury Approval was received on 6 October 2008. Bidders submitted their bid proposals on 29 May 2009. However, when the new Minister of Correctional Services assumed office it was decided that there was a need for a policy review, particularly to determine whether the current PPP model could deliver the required services without undermining the fundamental State responsibility of managing and providing public security.

A bid-specification-amendment-process commenced on 5 March 2010. After several workshops, the parties concerned concluded that it was not feasible to materially change the current bid specifications. However, the DCS concluded that the bid specifications would be amended as follows:

a) the private partner had to adapt the design and operational plan had to include provision for female offenders (including those with infants), youth offenders (educational facilities) and psychiatric offenders. b) offender labour had to be utilised.
c) a variation had to be implemented that provided that the private partner would managed the operations of the facility for the first seven to ten years of its existence
d) that the private partner would perform facilities management and maintenance for 25 years, after which the facility would be turned over to the State entirely.

These specification amendments were approved by the Minister in October 2010. The bidders requested an extension of bid validity. It was granted until 30 October 2011. The Department was currently in the process of establishing bid evaluation committees. The evaluation process had started. The National Commissioner had appointed Deputy Director Generals from both the DPW and National Treasury and a transactional advisor, to assist with the bid evaluation process, and this process would conclude at the end of September 2011. By the first week of November 2011, the adjudication process would be finalised, after which the amendments that the Minister required would be negotiated with the successful bidder. Building could then begin in 2012.

Discussion
Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) questioned the sections of the presentation stating that “A variant bid to provide for a shortened project term of 7 to 10 years for the operational element” and “Facilities management and maintenance to be performed by Private Party for 25 years” would be provided. She wanted clarity on how much money would be spent with the 25 year contract, in comparison to how much was likely to be spent had that not been agreed. This comparison was necessary to determine whether there were real advantages to the DCS from this contract.

Mr S Abram (ANC) felt that a security facility had to be controlled by the State, not a private entity. He enquired what the final cost would be, taking into account annual escalation over the 25 years. A 300 bed facility had just been completed in Kimberley and its operational cost was nowhere near what had been envisaged at the outset of that project.

Mr L Tolo (COPE) asked who was behind the PPP policy. He asked how much had been spent on the new Kimberley Correctional Centre, as well as on Mangaung and the
Kutama Sinthumele existing private facilities.
 
The Chairperson replied that the new Kimberley CC cost between R700 and R800 million. Mangaung and Kutama, together, had cost R786 million for the current financial year.

Adv L Max (DA) said that he had been aware, since joining this Committee, of some opposition to the idea of PPPs. Although his own party was in favour of them, he thought that there should be a decision on whether this model was to be continued, or not. He questioned how plans could continue for PPPs while such strong sentiments were apparent against them, from a financial and policy point of view. He thought that the question must be answered which of the two options was the most viable and best accorded to the needs of South Africa.

Mr Abram said that concerns had been raised by the Committee about the desirability of PPPs from a financial point of view. This contract would tie future generations to an expensive long term commitment. During budget debates, Members made many salient points, but they were not mentioned in the final reports. It was possible to track their statements through the Hansard, and he suggested that the Committee had to get copies of the feasibility study, in order to be properly acquainted with the facts that lead up to the decision to go the PPP route.

Mr Abram then noted that this briefing had referred to a feasibility study conducted in 2007. He asked whether it was approved by the DCS and the DPW, as well as whether the Committee at that time had approved the study. He suggested that, in addition to looking at its own minutes of that period, the Committee should also study the reports of the Parliamentary Monitoring Group to assess what had been said.

The Chairperson replied that the Committee would have to research for itself whether it was involved with the decision to use the PPP model.

Mr Modise replied that the feasibility studies were available. Although he was not in his current post at the time, he could provide the names of people conducting this study. He outlined the process, stating that after the need had been established, a business case was developed and approved, followed by a feasibility study, and an environmental impact assessment. The cost was calculated, comparing PPP, or DCS and DPW models. The process recommended must be approved by the Ministry and Committee. DCS and DPW could outline the costs of the Kimberley facility.

Mr Abram asked that DCS elaborate on the utilisation of offender labour, and when and how it planned to use this.

The Chairperson clarified that the Committee wanted to know whether offender labour would be used when constructing the centres, and whether, once constructed, they would be conducive to use of inmate labour.

Mr Modise said that offenders were not currently engaged in meaningful labour. They could contribute in meaningful ways to the upliftment of the communities surrounding the centres, for instance, by participating in cleaning and maintenance activities in schools and hospitals. The intention was that teams of inmates should be able to do meaningful work in the community.

Mr Abram asked for elaboration on the statement that several workshops were held, but it was not feasible to change the current bid specifications. He noted that an activist Parliament not only behaved pro-actively but should foresee the possible consequences of its decisions. This information given was too sketchy, and he wanted to know full facts as to who was present at the workshops, what was discussed, what had informed the final decision and whether the process looked at the financial implications for the State.

Mr Modise replied that at the time of the review, the DCS and other parties had realised that some specifications may need to change, but when the bidders were informed, they had indicated that although they were open to some negotiation, they were insistent that the original specifications be retained. For instance, the Minister believed that the security and operations were the responsibility of the State, and should not be done by the private entity, but this was a material change to the original specifications. Bidders, and the team from DCS, then proceeded with the evaluations, and the final details would be worked out, through a rigorous process of both bidders and the State team. He was confident that a solution advantageous to both would be reached.

Mr Abram referred to the comment about a variant bid to provide for a shortened project term of 7-10 years for the operational element, and asked what would be the advantages and disadvantages.

Mr Modise replied that this would mean that the PPP would be responsible for managing and maintaining the facility for the first 7-10 years of its existence, after which DCS would take over management of operations. However, the PPP would remain responsible for the maintenance for another 15-18 years, totalling 25 years in all. DCS and DPW, who acted as an agent throughout the dealings, were considering renegotiating the 25 year maintenance period down to 7 -10 years as well.

The Chairperson noted the statement that the short-listed bidders were announced in September 2008. He asked who they were, whether they were all still participating, and whether any new bidders were currently also involved.

Mr Modise said that he could provide the list of shortlisted bidders, as well as the process followed.
He could provide the list, plus the estimated costs at commencement in 2007, on 1 June 2011.

Mr L Gaehler (UDM, Member of Portfolio Committee on Public Works) noted the statement that the DCS was establishing an evaluation committee. He asked what the policy was on accepting and rejecting bids, whether civil servants, politicians or their close family members were allowed to bid. He pointed out that this was a 25 year bid, worth billions, and that there had been irregularities in the past with similar bids.

Mr Abram was dissatisfied with the incorrect information, pointing out wrong dates, spelling mistakes and typographical errors in the document. He urged the Department to proofread and edit documents thoroughly, before releasing them into the public domain.

Ms M Nyanda (ANC) reiterated Mr Abrams’ comment, and said that the Committee could not be expected to accept documents with incorrect dates.

Mr Modise apologised for the mistakes that slipped through, noting that they had somehow been reproduced, after correction, in the version that Members held.

Mr Abram questioned the integrity of the document.

The Chairperson said that the DCS should not respond, but should take note of the comment and work on improvements.

The Chairperson then asked DCS to explain the rationale behind a private entity maintaining the CC for 25 years, if DPW was the mandated custodian of State assets. He noted that Government must also create jobs, and he wondered how this purpose would be affected by both options. He also asked if job creation had been used as a negotiating tool, and whether it seemed to make sense. He further enquired as to the cost implications of either a PPP model, or building by the DPW. The Committee would ask the Minister and other relevant parties the same questions.

Ms Sassa Subban, Deputy Director General, Department of Public Works, replied that DPW did not have figures for the cost of the four new PPPs. DPW would form part of the specifications team. The nomination request had come through formally, and a DPW official was then seconded to work on the process, after which DPW would have access to the financial information. She confirmed that the Kimberley facility cost R953 million to build and R758 million to run. In general, PPPs were considered an expensive model. The PPP competency rested with the National Treasury (NT). The reality was that NT did not have the revenue to build these public facilities. The PPP model was a global trend and was used in other states, including in Africa, where the State did not have the resources to build.

She noted that the NT had embarked on a rigorous process, which included TA1 and TA3 feasibility studies, after which the financial models were assessed and closely monitored. DPW deployed project officers to oversee the projects. Where possible, State land was used, in order to keep costs down. Each PPP would be assessed individually. If there was no money available for “classical build”, another option was to lease a building, although this would finally be more expensive. She summarised that the three options available were therefore PPP, building by DPW, or leasing.

In regard to maintenance, DPW undertook a study five years previously around the maintenance backlog, and found that in State buildings there was a maintenance backlog amounting to R25 billion, which NT could not fund. The State owned 75 000 buildings, and DPW’s most recent budget allocation for maintenance for all of these was R2.6 billion. She pointed out that DPW recently received R2.6 billion for maintenance, which was spread across the 75 000 state-owned buildings. State-owned buildings had to be maintained at a particular standard and if funding from the State was not available, other methods must be found

The Chairperson asked who, at National Treasury, was involved in the feasibility study, as he wanted to hear from a financial expert, and stated that the discussions should include NT representatives. He then debated the rationale given by Ms Subban, using the Kimberley CC as an example. The State did not have R900 million up front to build, but by borrowing money from the private sector, this would eventually result in the State paying R16 billion (R786 million x 25 years), and even if the cost of only one private centre was taken, this was still R8 billion per CC, as opposed to R900 million. This did not make financial sense. He wanted NT officials, who had apparently proposed the model, to account for it.

He therefore suggested that the discussion on costs should be halted until the Minister, and an NT representative, could be present to answer on policy and the financial rationale. He commented that for some reason there seemed to be attempts to force through something to which there was considerable opposition, which made him wonder whose interests were being promoted. The Committee must fully debate all issues, asking the necessary questions, to come to, and announce a decision. Further engagement would take place on 1 and 8 June, with NT, DPW, DCS officials and the Minister present.

Adv Max appreciated that the officials of the DPW and the DCS only executed policy regarding PPPs, whereas the policy on this was set by the Executive, so it was correct to suspend the discussions until the Minister was available to answer the questions regarding the PPP policy.

Mr Abraham added that the figures mentioned would be subject to annual increases, and asked how much had been spent on the planning and bidding processes.

The Chairperson noted that the current annual amount could be multiplied over 25 years, but this would only be a conservative estimate, as it would be impossible to predict the inflation rate and other factors impacting on the cost.

Mr Butcher Matutle, Deputy Director General, (Acting Chief Executive Officer), DPW, added that in addition to the figures already given, the cleaning, security and maintenance costs must be added. Further to this, after 25 years it could be expected that major refurbishment would be needed, so that when the PPP contract expired, it was likely that the State would have to spend a substantial amount on that.

Leeuwkop Juvenile Correctional Centre: update by DCS
Mr Modise explained that Leeuwkop Juvenile Correctional Centre was currently housing between 800 and 900 sentenced juvenile and child offenders. It was built in 1983, as a temporary measure, and was currently dilapidated, and unfit for human habitation. The Committee had paid an oversight visit to the centre on 2 August 2010, registered its concern about the living conditions of the young offenders, and suggested that the facility had to be renovated as a matter of urgency. There had been plans to build a new facility next to the existing one, but after an environmental impact assessment (EIA) that found that an endangered species of frog was living on the site, the plans were abandoned. The DCS decided that it had to replace the temporary facility at Leeuwkop as well as systematically replacing similar centres. He added that Gauteng had three facilities for juvenile and child offenders. Boksburg Correctional Centre B, for maximum offenders, Leeuwkop Medium B Correctional Centre and Emthonjeni Correctional Centre Medium offender housing together accommodated a total of 1604 offenders. The intention was to centralise the detention of sentenced children in order to provide facilities and services in line with their rehabilitation needs and to allow them, after release, to be re-integrated into society. The facilities planned were skills training rooms where woodwork, metalwork and bricklaying skills could be taught, a multi-purpose hall and a formal school, in line with the norms of the Department of Education and Training. The centralisation of sentenced juveniles at Leeuwkop CC would free up space at Boksburg and Mthonjeni for maximum-classified offenders. This project formed part of the plans for the four PPPs, with a different implementation model.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked for the estimated time of completion for the Leeuwkop CC.  

Mr Modise replied that timeframes would be provided.

Mr Abram asked whether it was planned that the Leeuwkop work should be done by DPW, or via the PPP approach, or whether it depended on the current discussions.

Mr Modise replied that once this exercise had been completed, a final decision would be made on which model to use. NT, the DCS and the DPW would jointly decide which model would be followed, but finally the DCS would be in total control of the facility.

Mr Abram questioned the statement that juveniles would be moved to Boksburg and Emtonjeni, pointing out that Boksburg housed maximum offenders while Leeuwkop housed medium offenders. He queried if the different categories would be held together.

Mr Modise said that the Boksburg CC had different units. Maximum and medium security offenders would be held separately.

Mr Abram said that the printed report said that the feasibility study still had to be done, while Mr Modise had said it had already been done.

Mr Modise explained that initially, Leeuwkop new facility had formed part of the PPP plans. However, following the EIA, the plans were abandoned. However, parts of the former business case and feasibility study could be used for the new plans, so the new feasibility study was almost complete.

Ms Ngwenya asked what had happened to the budget allocated to do renovations at Leeuwkop CC and when it was likely to be built.

Mr Abram noted that he had heard there was still a budget. He asked if DPW would be undertaking the refurbishment, or whether this would be by PPP project, pointing out that the budget was allocated in 2007 for this purpose.

Mr Modise agreed that there was a budget allocated for Leeuwkop, but the original project was abandoned. The whole project was now being revived, a new budget would be allocated and the CC would be built.

The Chairperson asked whether there were any remaining obstacles, apart from the budget, that prevented the project from going ahead. The matter must be carefully considered.

Mr Robert van Anraad, Deputy Commissioner: Facilities, DCS, said that the current plans now included a school facility, which was not part of the previous plans, and there was a new focus on youth development. A detailed response, addressing the environmental problems, would be given after further consultation between DCS and DPW.

The Remand Detention Facilities (RDFs) presentation
Mr Modise noted that eleven dedicated Remand Detention Facilities (RDFs) existed. Boksburg, Johannesburg Medium A, Modderbee, and Pretoria Local Prisons serviced Gauteng. St Albans Medium A and Umtata Medium serviced the Eastern Cape. Durban-Westville Medium A and Petermaritzburg serviced Kwazulu-Natal. Potchefstroom CC serviced Limpopo, Mpumalanga and the North-West Province. Grootvlei Maximum CC serviced the Free State-Northern Cape area. Pollsmoor Medium A and Pollsmoor Maximum serviced the Western Cape. The DCS had a strategy to roll out the upgrading of these centres. NT Regulations would determine the procurement route. Upgrading operations were under way at Potchefstroom, which was the first in the series to be worked upon. He tabled a document showing the different centres and the work for each
.
Remand Detention Facilities and Systems
Mr Modise noted that the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DOJ), DPW and DCS were working on a joint project to provide video conferencing facilities, which would allow remand detainees to be remanded into further custody without having to be physically transported to the relevant courts, and some courts and CCs were being equipped with the necessary facilities. The rollout of the facilities, in 22 CCs and 47 courts, had started in 2008. He tabled a document listing the facilities where the installation had been completed.  

Pretoria Local RDF had been using the new technology since 2009, with the Pretoria Magistrates Court. However, it was discontinued, and not yet re-established, following a fire at the court in 2010. A further twelve RDFs and the courts they serviced had been equipped with the infrastructure, but were not operational at this stage, because DOJ had not managed, as yet, to train its staff on the necessary procedures and duties yet. DCS had requested DOJ to give an indication when it would be ready.

The work at Mthatha fell behind schedule when the appointed contractor failed to start the work, resulting in the necessity to source another contractor. Telkom lines at Thohoyando, Modderbee and Boksburg RDFs were stolen regularly and Telkom refused to replace them because of the high cost involved. Instead, Telkom suggested to the DCS that a wireless radio link be installed to ensure connectivity. Training at these centres were delayed because of the infrastructure delays, but was under way.

Discussion
Adv Max asked whether any money had been paid to the first contractor at Mthatha.

Ms Ngwenya asked a similar question, but also wanted to know why he had not started, and what measures were being taken against him.

Mr Abram added that he also wished to know whether the procurement process was correct, and the difference in cost between the first and the second contractor.

Mr Modise confirmed that the first contractor had never started, and no money had been paid to him. DCS procedures required that he be blacklisted, but Mr Modise was not sure whether this had been done.

Mr Abram said that this must be done, to obviate further problems. He said that there must surely have been a difference in cost between the two contracts. He added that in the past, DCS might blacklist, but there was already a loss, and for this reason not only must the Committee be advised of the difference in cost, but also be advised what control measures were put in place. He asked if DCS would look at the track record of the contractor and jobs he did elsewhere. Mr Abram would put this as a Parliamentary question if he could not obtain a satisfactory response from the officials, as both politicians and officials must show respect for public funds.

The Chairperson asked that DCS must provide a detailed written response to this question.

Ms Nyanda asked why no mention was made of Durban-Westville and St Albans in this presentation, despite the 2008/09 Annual Report indicating that the facilities were operational there.

Mr Modise said he would check on the position and revert to the Committee.

Ms Ngwenya asked whether video postponement was also used for outstanding court cases and sentencing procedures.

Mr Modise replied that the video arrangement exercise, once in full swing, would also apply to sentenced offenders.

Mr Abram quoted the statement that female detainees would be moved to Klerksdorp PPP, but said that this was not correct because there was no PPP facility at Klerksdorp.

Mr Modise replied that female offenders would be sent there from Potchefstroom RDF once Klerksdorp was complete.

Mr Abram asked whether phases 3 and 4 of Potechefstroom upgrades, planned for May 2012, were to be done by PPP or DPW procurement.

Ms Nyanda said that she had visited Toyhandou RDF, but did not see where lines had been stolen. However, at Kimberley, staff were complaining of theft inside the centre. She asked who was monitoring against vandalism and theft.

Mr Modise said that theft of cabling happened outside the facilities, not inside, as had happened at Modderbee, where nobody was guarding the cables.  He would follow up the Toyhandou issue.

The Chairperson noted that the Correctional Services Amendment Bill prescribed that first offenders had to be separated from hardened criminals, and asked whether this was being done at the RDFs.

Mr Modise replied that the recommendations of the White Paper were implemented to the letter. Offenders would be classified as either petty criminals, first time and vulnerable offenders, or hardened criminals and would be incarcerated separately.

Mr Modise added that DCS was planning to procure uniforms for awaiting trial detainees (ATDs), to avoid the situation that had happened at Harrismith, in order to make identification and classification, as well as re-arrest if there was an escape, easier.

The Chairperson asked whether only a section of Boksburg CC or the whole of Boksburg CC was going to be an RDF.

Mr Modise replied that Boksburg would be a RDF, but there would be a need for sentenced offenders who had undergone courses in food handling and preparation, and psychological testing, to prepare food for ATDs.

Mr James Smallberger, Regional Commissioner: Western Cape, DCS, replied that Boksburg had a Medium and Juvenile section.

The Chairperson asked DCS to provide the Committee with a list of the CCs which would hold only ATDs.

Service Level Agreements between the DCS and the NDPW
Mr Modise said that the new Service Level Agreement (SLA) had been signed by the National Commissioner of Correctional Services, Mr Tom Moyane, and was submitted to the NDPW on 31 March 2011 for signature, following meetings with NDPW. The new agreement was revised to limit services provided by Independent Development Trust (IDT). DPW’s legal advisors were assessing the changes.
He noted that the relationship between the two departments had improved, and their senior officials were in regular contact with each other. DCS had stressed the necessity to ensure that DPW work in DCS facilities was high quality and offered value for money, both in respect of maintenance and acquisition of buildings.

Mr Matutle confirmed that the matter was still under consideration by DPW’s legal services section, and apologised for the delay, undertaking that it would be concluded by end-May 2011.

Discussion
The Chairperson noted that the process commenced late in 2010. The Committee had regularly heard about delays in delivery arising from late billing; although user departments were supposed to pay DPW within 30 days, the DPW failed to bill in time. This was given as a reason for DCS under-spending. He also noted that there was lack of clarity as to responsibility for small maintenance, such as fixing of taps, non-flushing toilets, and broken windows. All parties had to be realistic about the commitments made, such as the promise to respond to emergency repair requests within 24 hours. The Committee would ensure that both parties complied with the SLA.

Ms Subban replied that DPW’s financial administration system could only bill quarterly, not monthly. She agreed that the relationship between the DCS and DPW had improved tremendously. She would check with the Chief Financial Officer, and report back, but she believed that at this stage there was no billing backlog. She confirmed that DPW as in the process of improving its systems. Following meetings with DCS, DPW had increased the budget for the day-to-day maintenance like taps, toilets, light bulb replacements and broken windows, from R30 000 to R100 000 per item. This would form an addendum to the SLA. The facilities received the money in their budgets, rather than DPW billing them, and this draft policy had now been in effect for about six months. She agreed that DPW had agreed to do emergency repairs within 24 hours.

Mr Abram again took issue with the grammatical errors and misspellings in the SLA, and particularly pointed to “broilers” instead of “boilers”.

The Chairperson said that the real and pressing problems related to non-functioning taps and toilets, not emergencies. The Committee was now aware that DCS already had funding to do small repairs.

Ms Ngwenya added that the Committee had initiated the preparation of the SLA precisely because of the challenges it noted, during oversight, around leaking taps and showers, and broken windows. These were often long-standing problems, and affected inmate health. Whenever the Committee raised these, DCS officials would blame the DPW. It was apparent that DCS had not been telling the truth, and it had never advised that it had received allocations already for small repairs. She urged DCS to be honest about the maintenance budget that they got from DPW.

Mr van Anraad said all responsible officials in the regions had been alerted to their responsibility for small repairs. However, there were now improvements with the raising of the allocation to R100 000. He added that it must be understood that some repairs required qualified repairmen, such as electricians, and this raised issues around compliance. There were shortages of artisans in the DCS, but the larger allocation would allow for wider sourcing of skills. He agreed that there was, however, no excuse for broken glass and leaking taps remaining unfixed.
.
Mr Modise expressed appreciation for the opportunity to interact with the NDPW and the Committee. He assured Members that he had taken note of, and would provide, the further information requested.

Ms Subban concurred with Mr van Anraad that the policy indicated that certain categories of specialised repair work had to be done by DPW, but the R100 000 allocation would be used for leaking taps, showers and toilets, replacing broken window panes, replacing door handles, and replacing light bulbs, as now articulated in the SLA. She thanked the Committee for its input and for seeing to the increase of the allocation to R100 000.

Other business
Rev L Tolo (COPE) raised something unrelated to the previous presentations. He commented that even after 16 years of affirmative action, he was concerned that there were not many Indian or Coloured officials in high-ranking positions. He was concerned that minority groups had to be acknowledged and not discriminated against, as well as the need for gender equality. He was dissatisfied that people from other provinces had been appointed as commissioners in the Western Cape, commenting that those native to the Western Cape should have been appointed.

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.

Share this page: