Budget presentation for 2000/2001 Financial Year: briefing

The budget allocation also provides for an amount of R164.913 million (317%) for the purchase of departmental equipment for, amongst others, the implementation of the first phase of the electronic monitoring of probationers and parolees.

The operational cost of the two Asset Procurement and Operation Partnership System (APOPS) projects was included by means of the "freezing" of financed posts in the 2001/2002 and 2002/2003 financial years due to the non-financing of the requested additional funds. The Department (as represented by Mr A Esmeraldo: Head of Operational Support) pointed out that, since formal financial closure on the projects will only be done within the next few months, the indicated frozen posts might be amended on finalisation of the cash flow. That will be done in the next MTEF process.

The Department indicated that the financed daily average prisoner population for 2000/2001 numbers 150 000, whilst the current prisoner population is 157 000. According to the departments projections, the budgeted upper limit of 150 000 will definitely be exceeded with the result that the department, according to Mr Esmeraldo, will have no other option but to request additional funds in the normal budgetary process during the 2000/2001 financial year.

Discussion
Adv H Schmidt (DP) commented that it seems as if the privatisation programme is not a major aspect of this budget. Schmidt also raised his concern about a deficit of +6000 prisoners who are not accounted for in the budget, which then resulted in him suggesting a serious revision of the figures.

Mr Esmeraldo responded that when they were compiling the budget, the projected figure for prisoners was 150 000, vis-à-vis the actual figure which is
166 000. This additional cost, that is unaccounted for in the budget, therefore automatically falls under the budget figures for "unforeseen circumstances". The department (Mr Esmeraldo) did not respond on the comment about privatisation.

Mr N Fihla (ANC) asked how far the department is (in terms of pace) in converting the number of prisoners to community corrections.

Dr S Mzimela (UDM) said that the electronic monitoring system was first tested in 1997, and by July 1998 was testified to be successful. His question then is why has it become necessary to employ the services of consultants for the electronic monitoring system, disregarding the fact that it was approved.
Dr Mzimela registered his concern about the silence of the budget regarding the funds that were allocated every year for the electronic monitoring system.

Dr Mzimela further asked how much the government is spending in keeping one prisoner. Lastly, he asked if it is possible for the department to be run by consultants.

Ms J Sosibo (ANC) asked when the department intends implementing public/private partnerships, and how much the costs will be

The Portfolio Committee Chairperson (Ms Capa) asked if the department could reveal the number of prisoners still awaiting trial.

The department collectively responded to the above questions as follows:
The department does not have the powers to release a person on parole before finishing his sentence - that is the domain of the Department of Justice.

About the electronic monitoring system: The technology was not possible to use in rural areas. That is what forced the department to employ the services of consultants in order to make electronic monitoring usable by means of satellite technology.

Follow up question from Dr Mzimela: Why did the department bother itself by employing the services of consultants when it knew that satellite technology is appropriate when using an electronic monitoring system in rural areas.

Mr Esmeraldo responded that the department did not have the technical knowledge so that is why they had sought the services of consultants.

Mr Esmeraldo also said that the funds that Dr Mzimela is concerned about were rolled over for the following financial year, and that is the rule when funds allocated for a certain activity have not been used. Mr Esmeraldo said that for 2000/2001 financial year, the electronic monitoring system has been allocated R 85 million.

Dr Mzimela asked why there has not been a contract signed between the department and APOPS, although funds were set aside to finance APOPS. Further what happened to those funds, Dr Mzimela probed.

Mr Esmeraldo responded that, because APOPS has been a pilot within the government itself, it has taken a lot of time due to legal consultations and negotiations, hence the delay in signing the contract. But on a positive note, Mr Esmeraldo indicated that the government last week at last gave the
go-ahead as APOPS has been approved.

Mr C Dialie (ANC) asked how many juvenile prisoners are there in South African prisons.

Mr Esmeraldo responded that, at the present moment, they do not have the records with them, but they will definitely make sure that such information is made available to the committee as soon as possible.

The Chairperson asked what will happen to those posts, that the department indicated the strong possibility of their being frozen, if they are occupied.

Mr Esmeraldo responded that the posts are not yet occupied and the future of those posts will be determined by whether or not the department is able to get the money that it needs.

Mr J Durand (NNP) asked whether the department has, once again, budgeted for the Sithole Scholarship. Mr Durand went on to say that APPOPS has had no activities yet, but, in all that, R4 million has been set aside for it - what is this R 4 million for? Mr Durand registered his concern about the lack of clarity in so far as the work of the personnel in APPOPS is concerned.

Mr Esmeraldo responded that R18 million has been set aside for the budget item, Academy, under which the Sithole Scholarship also falls.

The Chairperson intervened on the side of Mr Durand and the committee as whole, saying that Mr Esmeraldo was not being clear. He has to be specific about the amount of money the Sithole Scholarship will receive out of this R18 million Mr Durand has mentioned.

After Mr Esmeraldo failed to answer the question directly, due to lack of the available information at that moment, as he said.

The chairperson proposed that the committee convene another committee meeting to discuss and debate the budget report. Thereafter the department be wil be invited to answer those questions that it failed to answer, to submit the details of the Sithole Scholarship and answer the questions that emanate from that committee meeting. This proposal was endorsed by the committee meeting. The meeting was adjourned.