Department of Correctional Service Annual Report 2010/11, Draft regulations under Correctional Services Act

Meeting report

Department of Correctional Services Annual Report 2010/11: Briefing
Members’ opening remarks
Mr  D Bloem (Free State-COPE) noted that neither the Minister of Correctional Services nor the National Commissioner of Correctional Services was present at the meeting. He commented that the Minister did not seem to take the meetings of this Committee seriously.

Mr Bloem also indicated that he would be asking questions about the employment equity issues reported on by the media.

Mr A Matila(Gauteng-ANC) was also concerned by the absence of these parties and agreed that the meeting was not accorded the importance it deserved.

Dr Jenny Schreiner, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Operations and Management Support, Department of Correctional Services, presented the Annual Report of the Department of Correctional Services (DCS or the Department). She described the achievements made by this Department as well as outlining the challenges (see attached presentation for full details). Among the achievements cited in the report were the decrease in overcrowding in prisons, from 38% in the 2009/10 financial year, down to 34.87% in 2010/11. This was attributed to the Department’s collaborative efforts on the Criminal Justice System (CJS) Review, as well as to the implementation of a multi-pronged strategy to address overcrowding. There was also an improvement of 161% in the percentage of prisoners participating in corrections programmes. The main challenge faced by the Department remained the unfilled posts in several departments, which were more fully set out (see attached reports), and the scarce skills vacancy rate remained high, being 38.28% for social workers, 50.86% for  psychologists, 26.23% for nurses, 26.67% for medical practitioners, and 37.25% for pharmacists. The Administration division showed a vacancy rate of 15.28% in the current year, which was an increase from the 12.6% of the previous year. The skills shortage had also affected activities such as the involvement of offenders in production workshops, due to the fact that 118 artisan posts were vacant. The report also touched on other issues, such as security, corrections and development.

Discussion
Mr Matila raised his concerns on the number of acting positions, pointing out that this was directly contrary to the promises that the Department had made at a previous meeting to fill these posts with permanent appointees.

Mr Terrence Rasenoka, Deputy Commissioner: Executive Matters, DCS, explained that the posts of regional commissioners had been advertised, but of the five advertised, only one post could be filled, because the majority of those who had applied were not suitably qualified to fill the posts. As for those posts at level 12 and below, the main problem was natural attrition. Around one hundred individuals were leaving the Department each month. However, a plan had been put in place by the Human Resources division to deal with this problem.

Mr Bloem was of the view that the problem lay not only in the senior posts that were not filled, but in fact across the whole department. He enquired how many recruits were currently enrolled at the two training colleges. He noted that the Department could not be properly managed by a myriad of people who were in an acting capacity. He asked if these people who were acting were also considered for permanent appointment to the posts.

Mr J Gunda (Northern Cape-ID) was also concerned why those people who had been working in an acting capacity were not employed permanently in those positions, asking why, if they were not suitable for permanent appointment, they were allowed to act in those posts in the first place.

Mr B Nesi (Eastern Cape-ANC) also wanted to know why those holding senior posts in an acting capacity were left to continue to act if they were not suitable and he suggested that perhaps the root of all the Department’s problems lay in the fact that the wrong people were appointed to jobs for which they were unsuitable. The Department had also to clarify its position on the 118 vacant artisan posts, and to say when this matter would be resolved.

Mr Matila was also concerned about the amount of funds allocated for the vacant posts. The Department did not explain to the Committee the impact of those employees who were leaving. He noted that from the previous financial year there had been a decline.

Mr Rasenoka explained that key performance areas were identified and posts were advertised. He was not sure why the people who were acting were said to be unsuitable, but this was the decision of the recruitment panel, who would recommend the suitability of candidates, based on their performance during the interviews.

Mr Nesi , Mr Matila and Mr Bloem all wanted to know why people who had been considered unsuitable for full appointment were then still acting.

Mr Rasenoka explained the status of some of the individuals who were formerly acting. Ms Tiyane was no longer acting, as someone had been appointed in her place. Ms Grace Molatedi was appointed area commissioner for Pretoria this year. Mr Modise was finally moved to the national office in 2010.

Mr Gunda asked for the number of Area Commissioners who were in an acting capacity.

Mr Rasenoka was not sure of the actual number.

Mr Bloem wanted to know when Mr Modise’s suspension was lifted.

Dr Schreiner explained that the suspension was lifted in 2009. He was then moved form the Free State to the National office in 2010.

Mr Nesi proposed that the Committee should, at another meeting, hear a full report on all the individuals who had been in acting posts. He was not sure that all the information had been accurately presented.

Mr Matila agreed, saying that this would give a more holistic picture on the issue of vacancies.

Mr Bloem wanted further clarity on the operations of the two colleges.

Mr Rasenoka explained that the two colleges had currently enrolled two intakes of 1 031 recruits each, who had gone through training.

Mr Nesi said that 2011 had been declared as a year of job creation and all departments were urged to fill vacant posts. He asked whether the Department had established why so many people were leaving.

Mr Bloem further explained that Kroonstadt College had stood for a very long time without any enrolments and he was surprised that now the Department was talking about high recruitment numbers. There was a serious problem of people who had no jobs, and he assured the Department that he personally would be verifying these figures.

Mr Rasenoka agreed that the Department had heard the call to create jobs. In that respect it had identified all the vacancies and advertising had started at the end of 2010. Learnership programmes were divided into periods of three months, after which the recruits would be put on a nine-month practical training before deployment. They were also plans to increase recruitment by doing this in every quarter of the year, which was not happening currently. There were challenges, however, in Corporate Services, of people who were not suitably qualified. As an organisation DCS was trying to turn this around by recruiting professionals.

Mr Matila wanted to know if the Head of Corporate Affairs was also appointed in an Acting capacity.

Mr Rasenoka agreed that this was correct.

Mr Siphiwe Sokhela, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Correctional Services DCS,  explained that 496 students were out studying in college, under the management programme. He suggested that there were many graduates who were qualified but were not employed because they lacked the requisite experience. They should be allowed to come into the organisation to assist with issues such as asset management, and if vacancies did arise they should be employed. People who were leaving were taking with them their valuable experience. He agreed that internships should be introduced in order for qualified youths to gain these skills before experienced people left.

Mr Bloem was concerned that the three-month recruitment strategy did not work. The previous strategy was more effective.

Mr Bloem questioned how much was being spent on suspensions.

Dr Schreiner said that she had no information to that effect, but promised to respond to this in writing.

Mr Nesi wanted to know why there was no information on employment equity in the report. He thought that the Minister should be invited to attend a meeting with this Committee where she would be asked to explain these issues. Mr Rasenoka should be commended for his honesty, but he thought that nothing more could be solved without Ministerial input.

Mr Bloem wanted the Department to clarify its position on employment equity. The main problem with this policy was that it did not take into account the problems of language that would be encountered if a person was moved to a province which spoke another language. There would be communication problems and for these reasons he did not agree with the policy.

Mr Gunda asked how many offenders were on the community correctional programme.

Mr Gunda asked why Van Rensburg Correctional Centre was taking so long to be completed.

Mr Gunda also asked how many Area Commissioners were in acting posts.

Dr Schreiner asked the Committee to give the Department a chance to put these answers in writing.

The Chairperson, having discussed the issue briefly with Members, noted that the Minister would be invited to answer some of the queries raised.

Presentation of Draft Regulations made in terms of the Correctional Services Act, 1998(Act no 111 of 1998)
Dr Lirette Louw, Legal Advisor to the Ministry of Correctional Services, tabled the draft regulations created in terms of the Correctional Services Act (the Act). She firstly noted the definitions, and then read out a number of regulations (see attached presentation for full details).

The Department was, in particular, requesting the Committee to adopt the amendments of regulations 29A and 29B.

Dr Louw also noted that Regulation 13A was intended to amend the current law in relation to mental health in the correctional centres. Regulation 8 was amended to include reference to electronic communications, and to allow for cell phone blocking.

Discussion
Mr Gunda wanted to know how the Department was going to monitor communication in the correctional centres, and if it indeed had the necessary mechanisms to do so.

Mr Bloem asked why inmates were being allowed to have cell phones in the first place.

Mr Matila explained that cell phones were being brought in for inmates by their relatives. The Regulations, in his view, should relate to the use of cell phones by officers, not the inmates, because the way the current regulations were worded seemed to suggest that the use of cellphones by inmates was being legalised.

Mr Nesi said the Department had, in his opinion, failed to control the inmates getting cell phones and if this was so, then he had no problem with the Department placing restrictions on their usage.

Dr Louw explained that previously there was no mechanism in place to control the situation around cell phones and that was why it was being introduced now. It remained illegal for inmates to have cell phones, but this regulation would further control those who did manage to access them.

Mr Bloem was of the view that this was as good as legalising it.

Mr Loyiso Jaftha, Representative of Ministerial Task Team, Ministry of Correctional Services, said that all the amendment was actually doing was empowering the Department to control its communications. The Department was given permission to intercept electronic communications by the Electronic Communications Act, and this amendment was being sought for the same spirit and reasons.

Mr Jaftha also elaborated on Regulation 26H. This regulation stipulated the steps that the police had to take if they wanted an inmate who was in remand. These included medical checks and the number of days the person would stay under police custody.

Dr Louw then focused attention on regulations 29A and B. Regulation 29A provided a step by step process for the processing of medical parole. These conditions were developed by medical practitioners in consultation with South African Medical Association. Regulation 29B would pave the way for the appointment and composition of a Parole Advisory Board (the board).

Mr Gunda hoped that the drafters had taken into account the fact that the provinces were different in size, which meant that they could not have an equal number of representatives on the board.

Mr Bloem proposed that Parliament should be represented on the Board because of the sensitive nature of issues around medical parole.

Dr Louw highlighted the fact that regulation 29B only dealt with medical assessments, which would be done by medical professionals. The board therefore would be technical in its composition, and for this reason, there seemed to be no need for the involvement of MPs.

Mr L Nzimande (Kwa-Zulu Natal-ANC) wanted to know if an inmate would still be allowed to seek a second opinion from independent experts.

Dr Louw explained that the parole process would not be altered. What the new amendment sought to do was to provide a second expert opinion as a safeguard.

Mr Nzimande proposed that the amendments to the Regulations be adopted.

Mr Bloem wanted clarity on the issue of co-opted members before the amendments could be adopted.

Dr Louw again explained that the parole process would not change. The Parole Board would continue with its assessments in the normal way.

Dr Schreiner added that there was no provision for MPs to be part of the advisory board. The MPs’ participation would only be restricted to nomination of the board.

Mr Matila suggested that there should be a further investigation of whether it would be necessary to include MPs on the advisory board. He agreed that the Committee adopt the amendments in the meantime, and further amendments could be proposed, if it was found necessary to do so.

Members agreed to recommend the adoption of the Regulations.

The meeting was adjourned.