Constitutional Court cases requiring legislative amendments; (Sub-Committee on Correctional Services) DCS on state of human resources

Meeting report

Chairperson Magwanishe greeted the members of the Committee. The Committee would deal with the Constitutional Court cases requiring legislative amendments first because he needed to attend the State Security budget vote. He thanked Mr Dyantyi for allowing the Committee to attend to the issues pertaining to Justice. After that the Committee would proceed with the issue of the Sub-Committee on Correctional Services. The Committee would consider the cases requiring legislative amendments as there were Constitutional Court deadlines. He asked who would be leading the presentation from Parliamentary Services?

Ms Daksha Kassan, Parliamentary Legal Advisor: Constitutional and Legal Services Office (CLSO), Parliament introduced herself. The purpose of the presentation today was to brief the Committee on four recent Constitutional Court judgements where the court declared certain sections of legislation that was administered by the Department of Justice and constitutional Development as unconstitutional. The court also put in place suspension orders and reflected a date by which the defects in the judgements needed to be corrected. In the presentation, four separate judgements would be covered. She would start off with the first judgement. She would then hand over to her colleagues to continue with the briefing on the remaining judgements. The delegation from Parliamentary Legal Services included Mr Prince, Ms Halley-Starkey and Ms Ntlokwana. A combined presentation was sent to the Committee Secretariat. She asked for the presentation to be displayed.

Chairperson Magwanishe suggested to the Parliamentary Advisors that they do not go into a lot of detail. The Committee only needed to get a gist of what the respective judgements said and the date by which the Bills needed to be passed to meet the Constitutional Court judgement deadlines. The Committee still needed to go through the same process again of getting a briefing for the purposes of public comments. The presenters did not need to go into much detail so that space was allowed for the Sub-Committee to meet before the plenary sittings that day. The presenters just needed to explain what the court judgements said and provide the deadlines. The Committee would then ask the Department to provide a proper plan as to when a judgement needed to be implemented. This needed to be done so that the Bills were in front of Parliament as soon as possible. He asked if his suggestion was in order?

Dr W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) agreed with the proposal.

Chairperson Magwanishe asked if there was any member not in favour of the proposal.

Adv G Breytenbach (DA) agreed with the proposal.

Chairperson Magwanishe thanked the members and said that there seemed to be a delayed reaction. He said that there might be a problem with the network. The Chairperson asked Ms Kassan to proceed with the presentation and focus on the highlights. The presenters did not have to go into much detail and only needed to tell the Committee the most important issues about Constitutional Court judgement and by when the Bills needed to be received. National Assembly needed to meet all of the Constitutional Court judgements.

Briefing by the parliamentary legal services on Constitutional Court cases requiring legislative amendments

Ms Kassan discussed the first judgement. The first judgement was the Economic Freedom Fighters and Another vs Minister of Justice and Correctional Services. Legal Issue: Section 18(2)(b) of the Riotous Assemblies Act was declared unconstitutional; declared to be inconsistent with section 16(1) of the Constitution (freedom of expression) and invalid to the extent that it criminalises the incitement of another to commit “any offence”. A read in was provided to qualify this section, so that it only applies to any serious offence.

Suspension of the order lapses 26 November 2022.

Ms Noluthando Ntlokwana, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, discussed the second judgement. The second judgement was the Sonke Gender Justice NPC vs President of the Republic of South Africa and Others. Legal Issue: Sections 88A(1)(b) and 91 of the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998 are constitutionally invalid to the extent that they fail to provide an adequate level of independence to the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services. Section 7(2), read with sections 10, 11, 12 and 35 of the Constitution, imposes a positive obligation on the State to establish and maintain a correctional services oversight mechanism that is adequately independent. The close financial and administrative ties between the Judicial Inspectorate and the Department undoubtedly undermine the independence of the Judicial Inspectorate. It is neither financially, nor operationally independent.

No read in provision, nor measure to apply during the suspension or thereafter was provided. Suspension of the order lapses 3 December 2022

Ms Telana Halley-Starkey, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, discussed the third judgement. The third judgement was Smit vs Minister of Justice and Correctional Services. Legal Issue: Section 63 is declared to be inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid to the extent that it purports to delegate plenary legislative power to amend Schedules 1 and 2 to the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act to the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services. The amendments to Schedules 1 and 2 effected since the Act became operational were also accordingly declared to be unconstitutional.

No read in provision, nor measure to apply during the suspension or thereafter was provided. Suspension of the order lapses 17 December 2022.

Mr Michael Prince, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, discussed the fourth judgement. The fourth judgement was AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC vs Minister of Justice and Correctional Services. Legal issue: The Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication Related Information Act 70 of 2002 (RICA) is unconstitutional in so far as it fails to ensure sufficient safeguards in a number of respects related to the nature of the application (ex parte), the independence of the judge involved in the application, where the subject is a practicing lawyer or journalist, the use of the data obtained and notifying the subject of surveillance when possible.

A read in was provided, but only during the period of suspension. Suspension of the order lapses 3 February 2024.

(See Presentation)

Discussion

Mr X Nqola (ANC) welcomed the report. He said that it seemed like all of these deadlines were at the end of 2022. The Committee did not have much time considering that 2022 must be the end of the entire law-making process. He agreed with the Chairperson that the Committee needed to receive a proper programme from the Department. He wanted the Committee to at least start the work. He proposed that when Parliament reconvened in August that the Committee had already started work on these matters.  

Ms N Maseko-Jele (ANC) supported what Mr Nqola said. When she was reading the report she saw that it was pointing the Committee to 2024 and some to 2022. She proposed that the Department start working on that. When the Committee came back after recess it should immediately get to work. She supported Mr Nqola’s suggestion. The Committee welcomed and noted the report.

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen asked a question in relation to the read-in provisions. Did the wording provided in the read-in provisions need to be included in the final Bill?

The Chairperson asked the presenters to respond to the questions raised.

Ms Kassan responded that the final Bill did not need to include the read-in provided by the court. Parliament was the legislature. Parliament was at liberty to amend the Bill as it saw fit provided that the findings of the court judgements were addressed. Parliament was not obliged to include the read-in provisions in the final Bill.

The Chairperson asked if there were any additions from the other Parliamentary Legal Advisors.

There were no additions.

He thanked the Parliamentary Legal Advisors for bringing this matter to the Committee’s attention. It would be important for the Committee to continue with this format. Every six months the Committee should receive an update on the judgements that had any implications on the Bills. The Committee could then do its own oversight work over the Department as Mr Nqola, as supported by other members, suggested when the Committee come back because Parliament was adjourning this week. When the Committee came back it was going to invite the Department so that the Committee could have a clear programme before the House. He knew that the Bill that dealt with RICA might need the Portfolio Committee on Justice to interact with other Portfolio Committees including Intelligence and Communications. These were some of the issues that the Committee would deal with when it came back. The Committee appreciated the work done by Parliamentary Legal Services so that the Committee could start early in meeting the Constitutional Court judgement. It was one of the pledges the members made when they took over as members of the Sixth Administration. Under their watch they did not want to have a situation where it did not meet Constitutional Court deadlines. The advisors were assisting the Committee to be well ahead of the deadlines and to ensure that the Committee passed the Bills on time to allow the NCOP to meet the deadline. The President also needed time to apply his mind to the Bills passed by both National Assembly and the NCOP. The President did not just accept a Bill if he had reservations that it infringed on the Constitution unduly. The President also had the power to refer that Bill back to Parliament. The Committee needed to work in such a way as to allow itself, the NCOP and the President space to do their Constitutional obligation. The Committee would ‘sit on the neck of the Department’ to ensure that the Bills appeared before it well on time. He handed over to Mr Dyantyi who was the Chairperson of the Sub-Committee on Correctional Services.

Sub-Committee on Correctional Services

Chairperson Dyantyi, Chairperson of the Sub-Committee on Correctional Services, asked the Department of Correctional Services to get ready to deliver the presentation. He welcomed the National Commissioner and his team. The Deputy Minister had sent an apology as he was attending urgent Cabinet matters. The team would be led by the National Commissioner in the presentation of HR matters. He handed over to Mr Fraser.

Mr Arthur Fraser, National Commissioner, Department of Correctional Services, greeted the members of the Committee. He indicated that the Department would make a presentation on the state of Human Resources and specifically on the adoption of learnerships. The presentation was quite detailed so he would not make opening remarks. The presentation would be given and then the Department would respond to questions.

Briefing by Department of Correctional Services (DCS) on the state of Human Resources

Ms Cynthia Ramulifho, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Human Resources, DCS, briefed the Committee on the state of Human Resources in the Department, provided an update on the absorption of learnerships as well as challenges contributing to the filling of these posts.

Problem Statement

The budget cut by National Treasury on the Compensation of Employees budget by an amount of R2.7 billion in this financial year 2021/2022 and throughout the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) period at a rate of R2.6 billion, R3.5 billion and R4.7 billion respectively, would inevitably have dire consequences on the future of the DCS on the provisioning of its mandate. Scarce and critical skills personnel, Correctional Officials, Learnership, Nurses, Artisans may be negatively affected. The Learnership Programme was intended to augment human resources capacity within Correctional Centres (Theatre of Operations) especially in view of the shortage on human capacity. This plan however could not be realised due to the change on the economic outlook which resulted in the reduction on the Compensation of Employees’ (CoE) budget. DCS was a labour intensive that required Capacity Capability to operate on a 24-hour daily basis.

Absorption of Learners

Approval was granted by the National Commissioner for 923 learners be appointed with effect from 1 June 2021. Learners will be considered and prioritised through Departmental budget reprioritisation and natural attritions process under 2021/22 financial year. Communication had been issued to the Regions to start facilitating the absorption of learners as from to date. A disclosure of family/relative form has been sent to the Regions for learners to declare family members in the Department.

Conclusion

Due to HR Directive No. 4 of Moratorium on appointments all levels delayed the planned filling of posts in the Department due to Budget Cuts.  DCS is reprioritising Core and Essential Critical posts. The Department will continue the engagements with relevant departments/parties to explore possible solutions to ease the budgetary constraints. Centre based (coalface) activities are labour intensive. Additional funds were required to address the staff shortages at the coalface needs as well as resources required to deliver on self-sufficiency strategy. Budget cut on CoE had serious implications for the Department in the current financial year and in the MTEF period and required urgent intervention to prevent Correctional Services being affected negatively in delivering its mandate. 

(See Presentation)

Discussion

Chairperson Dyantyi invited the members to make comments and interact with the presentation on HR matters.

Mr J Selfe (DA) asked a question relating to the SANDF intake. He did not understand it. It appeared that a group of SANDF learners were absorbed into DCS but there was no other mention of those learners throughout the briefing. What were the financial implications of absorbing those learners? Did those learners go through all the same stages? For example, the DCS learners had to do two security vetting. There was also a series of other steps to go through. Was that applied to the SANDF group of learners as well? It disturbed him that in the presentation it stated that during lockdown stages four and five, last year, there were restrictions on the employment of people in correctional centres. If that was so, what were the implications of those restrictions on correctional centres? It was not quite clear in the presentation. He then discussed slides 16 and 17. There was a column that said ‘twelve-month costing’ and there was another column that said ‘total cost per month’. The figures were the same. He did not understand the presentation and he did not understand why those figures were the same. Could the Department give the Committee some indication about how long it would be before the second group of learners were absorbed into the Department? He understood that those people would be absorbed when vacancies arose. He wanted to know an estimation of the time that would be required to absorb all of those learners.

Ms Ramulifho explained that those learners were no longer part of the SANDF because they had been absorbed. As part of the Department’s risk strategy during the Covid-period in March 2020 when it was preparing for level five, level four and level three, there was a need for the Department to address the capability within the centres. There needed to be a reduction of Covid amongst officials. There was a challenge with that. The strategy plan was that the Department needed to have capability in terms of the reserve system and that was why it engaged with its sister Department. DCS utilised the Department of Defence’s reserve system to bring on board the learners because the Department’s learners were not ready at that time to be absorbed within the system. There were 4000 learners projected but the Department only used half of that figure. The Department was then able to do an assessment and after that the learners were able to be absorbed. The Covid restrictions of the Department under level five and four were in line with the strategic operation procedure of the Covid risk strategy of the Department. The Department needed to have a capability backup support. There were issues of 50/50 as an essential service the Department needed to have those reservists on board. The Department was currently working with those learners and they were no longer part of the SANDF. They were now employed by the Department.

She responded to the question of how long it would take the Department to absorb the second group. As part of the natural attrition programme plan the Department was looking into that matter. It would be within the second quarter or by the end of the third quarter. The placements would take place within this financial year as positions were becoming available the Department would ensure they were filled.

She commented further on the issue of learners. The programme of the youth correctional service was part of the initiative that the Department needed to have correctional centre youth reservists. In the future the Department would have a pool of youth reservists that could be absorbed into the Department to fill vacancies. If the Department received additional funding it would be able to absorb the youth with immediate effect.

She responded to the budget calculations on slides 16 and 17. On slide 17 if one subtracted 37% of in lieu benefits it would provide the latter amount. What the Department did for the cost of the employees and number of vacant positions was a ten-month costing projection and then a one-year costing projection. The ten-month costing projection resulted in an amount of R241 million. The reason why the Department was utilising that was to determine whether it was exceeding its cost budget planning in terms of the cost per employee. If the 37% in lieu of benefits were subtracted, then it would be a figure of R219 million. If that was added it would be a figure of R289 million. That was a yearly budget projection plan. The Department was also guided by National Treasury and the Department’s CFO so that during the midterm it was able to indicate its expenditure report within HR. The Department was able to project how much it would spend one month, in ten months and 12 months. This was in line with the budgetary processes. Slide 16 discussed the SANDF reservists which were now part of Correctional Services. The slide showed the figures that were projections and how the Department would be managing the absorption. Slide 17 detailed the budget plan for the outstanding DCS learners on a level four salary in line with the DPSA and the Correctional Services Act.

Ms Maseko-Jele acknowledged the challenges of budget cuts. She appreciated the work done and initiatives taken by the Department in assisting the country in easing the challenges of unemployment. She noted the issue of the balance the Department was trying to bring when it did its recruitment in terms of female accommodation. The Committee appreciated that too. She asked how recruitment was done, particularly during the time of lockdown. Was the Department implementing and using the E-recruitment system? Those were the questions she wanted the Department to provide clarity on.

Ms Ramulifho replied that the Department would continue to address gender parity in terms ensuring that there was a gender balance at all the recruitment levels. She discussed the Department’s Human Resources recruitment strategy. There were annual recruitment processes. Due to the budget cuts in 2020 until now the Department had not embarked on recruiting a new learnership programme. The Department did have in its system applications a list of youth within the provinces that had submitted their curriculum vitae. The Department was now limited. The online systems, in terms of provinces to submit CVs online, was not yet being done due to the challenges of budget cuts. The Department went the extra mile to engage with the SASSETA grant to ask them to assist it with skills development. For this financial year the Department would be assisted through the grant so that it was able to recruit a minimum number separate from the Correctional Services youth programme. This was done to ensure that the Department was complying with Government’s call of ensuring that the youth were absorbed. The Department had also submitted a proposal for the Presidential Youth Programme for Correctional Services. The Department was awaiting the outcome from National Treasury and the President so that it would be aligned to the Department’s recruitment programme. If the Department was assisted with the budget, then the recruitment would be much easier. The Department would then be able to comply with the recruitment strategy by recruiting a bigger number and address service delivery. The Department would then also be able to rejuvenate its capability of the corrections, security and custodial services.

Mr Nqola commended the Department for its concerted effort to absorb the learners. This might have been something that some people may have taken lightly but it has caused an uproar in the country. The Department was working tirelessly to ensure these learners were absorbed into the Department. He would take the Department’s report and submit it to the Youth Parliament. The Youth Parliament was very interested in matters of this nature. He commended the Department for the work well done.

He noted that there were 923 learners absorbed starting from today. There was also a backlog from 2018/2019. Did the 923 include all the learners from 2018/2019? Was that figure inclusive of everyone? Or were the learners categorised according to how they finished their learnership programmes? How did the Department come about with the figure of 923? Was there still a number of learners left that still needed to be considered? If there were still some groupings that had to be absorbed what would the turnaround time for that be? How long would it take to absorb any of the remaining learners? He did not see that being discussed in the presentation.

He then discussed the filling of posts and the vacancy rate. He did not consider it to be too bad. A number of posts had been filled in relation to the Department’s target. The presentation spoke of budget cuts that had made a negative impact on the filling of posts. When the Department spoke of budget cuts, had that impacted on the filling of posts which posts was the Department speaking about? Was the Department talking about the funded but not filled posts? In his opinion the Department should fund according to the posts it had. He doubted that there could be funded posts but not filled due to budget cuts. There could not be existing posts but not filled due to budget cuts.

He said that there was a ‘cold war’ between the learnership graduates and the SANDF reservists. It was caused by the fact that those whose who had gone through the DCS learnership programme believed that it was unfair to them that there were SANDF reservists that were taken to fill posts in DCS whilst the DCS had trained those learners to do that job. He wanted to check if the Department was able to balance this correctly. He heard in the presentation that when the Department took the SANDF reservists it trained them as well. He thought that when the Department said it was taking SANDF reservists that those people were already skilled and could do the job. There was another nurturing programme that the reservists had to undergo before they were allowed to do DCS work. He was not sure how that would be balanced and cost effective that was. Was it true that there was generally a prioritisation of SANDF reservists against those who went through the learnership programme within the Department?

Ms Ramulifho said that the Department had planned in terms of its HR strategy plan. It projected that its positions would be filled during the 2020/2021 financial year. However, when the Department spoke about funded vacancies those were vacancies that were planned to be filled in terms of the budget that was available. When the decision by National Treasury was reached on the budget cuts it impacted on the funded positions which were planned to also be filled, like learnerships and other scarce skills positions. According to the HR code the funded positions were planned, budgeted positions in all levels. Those positions were planned.

She responded to the questions relating to the Department of Defence SANDF youth programme reservists monitoring and skills development. As one Government, as a cluster and the DOD being a sister Department during the period of Covid it was critical that the Department addressed the issue of capacity. She indicated that the training the Department did with the SANDF learners was an orientation and induction. It was meant to bring in the culture of Correctional Services to the youth of the sister Department. The training explained the code of conduct and what it was that the officials did in the correctional centres. The learners had already received skills training at the SANDF but then the learners also needed to adopt the culture of the Correctional Services in terms of its security standards and other programmes. The training was meant to re-orientate them. It was easy for those learners to adopt the culture of the Department. If the Department was allocated a budget, then it would run training programmes that would be an interface between itself and the SANDF to enhance certain skills especially those that were important when dealing with security. The Department compared its skills programme through the SANDF partnership. This was done so that the Department was able to build up the capability of the Correctional Services reserve system. The Department offered orientation and induction training at a regional level that was centre-based and not at a college.

She discussed the turnaround time with regard to the second group. The Department planned and envisaged that within the second and third quarter of this financial year that the second group would be absorbed through its natural attrition programme. The Department would also communicate with the learners that it was preparing for them with regards to the process of absorption. There had already been a number of learners who had responded. There was an indication that many of the learners that had been confirmed, and certified by SASSETA, had gone through various stages of security clearance and verification had reported to the Department’s centres. There might be some learners who felt that they were left out. they were left because they could not meet the SASSETA competence assessment programme which was in line with the Correctional Services accreditation in terms of the learnership programme. There were also those who had pending cases and who could not yet be given a security clearance. Only one individual was dismissed in the Eastern Cape.

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen said that June was Youth Month. There had been many attempts to put youth in employment. She thanked the Department for its attempts as well. She was puzzled by the numbers. In the projections there was the number of 4000 positions to be filled but because of budget cuts and Covid the number had to be reduced to 2000. On slide 11 it stated that 1317 of the planned 2000 had been appointed. On slide 14 it stated that 923 had been appointed. Were those the same numbers? Was it 923 plus the 1317? Or was it two different groups? She wanted the Department to clarify how it was doing the calculations and the figures. It was a bit puzzling from the presentation. She then discussed the disclosure of family members. She was aware that some family members followed the tradition of doing the same job generation after generation. There could be family members all working for Correctional Services. Would the Department transfer them to a separate centre or would there be family members working in the same centre? She asked for a breakdown to be given of the 923. In which positions was the Department putting them in? Did it include positions such social workers, psychologists, nurses or did they work only as wardens? She wanted the Department to inform the Committee what jobs the learners took up. She had a concern that if a person went through training and then at the end of the training they were vetted, in terms of security, and the person could not be admitted. That person went through all that training but the Department could not use them or absorb. Why was the police clearance and vetting not done before a student was enrolled into the training? The Department needed people who were cleared of any security issues. If those people were already trained, then those resources and materials were used but the Department was not able to absorb them in the end. She wanted clarification as to why that was done at the end and not at the beginning.

Ms Ramulifho responded to the question on slide 11. There were actually three groups of learners. The first group of absorption was the SANDF youth reservists. The Department planned to place 2000 but was only able to absorb 1317. The second group was the Correctional Services Learnership Programme. The Department also planned to place 2000 but due to the budget cuts the Department had absorbed 923 learners. There was a third group of about 1068 which the Department would absorb during this financial year through natural attrition. She clarified the different groups in terms of the Department’s plan. There were 4000 vacancies and that was divided by two. The first group was 1317 from the SANDF. The second group was 923. Then there was a third group of about 1068. All the learners had to go through the Department’s security programmes. The basic training also touched on security.

She responded to whether the learners were absorbed as nurses or other professions. She indicated not on this level. The scare skills were not filled through this group. Through the 923 that the Department absorbed it discovered that it did have graduates who had Master’s degrees and PhDs in criminology and had gone through the basic training. They were now absorbed into the Department and would be directed accordingly in terms of the coalface vacant positions that had been allocated for the 923. Those people had been identified within the Department’s programmes. The absorption could also be broken down per province and region. Each region had a certain allocation of learners. The Department had also managed to work on a programme on incarceration and correction in terms of the nurses. The Department would be able to present the professionals which were included in its programmes to the Committee.

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen said that her questions on disclosure of family members and the vetting were not answered.

Mr Dyantyi said that the Committee would come back to those questions as a follow-up.

Mr W Horn (DA) asked a follow-up to the question relating to the question Dr Newhoudt-Druchen asked about social workers. It was a concern that the Committee heard about learnerships which seemed to focus on incarceration services while the highest vacancy rates at the DCS were for the professional and semi-professional services. What plans were there to bring down that perennially high vacancy rate in respect of doctors, social workers, dentists and criminologists? It was sad to hear that people with a doctorate in criminology had to go through learnerships in order to be accommodated. That was something that needed to be addressed. He discussed the budget cuts and its impact on the ability of DCS to deal with HR issues. He wanted further detail on the Occupation Specific Dispensation (OSD). Previous reports received by this Portfolio Committee indicated that it had not been finalised yet and that it had been dragging on for years on end. What was the current state of affairs on the backlog of implementing OSD? What would the impact of the budget cuts be on the Department’s plans to finalise the implementation of that?

Ms Ramulifho responded to the question of declaration of family members. As part of the Department’s ethics programme, it had to ensure that it did an exercise on declaration and conflict of interest. This was done so that the Department did not find senior officials or middle management having family members working in the centres. The officials needed to be compliant with the Correctional Services security standards and procedures. The Department had to conduct that exercise. There were no centres where the officials or managers were managing their family members. It was part of the Department’s programme to ensure that they were compliant with the directive from the Minister, Deputy Minister and National Commissioner.

She responded to the question on vetting standards and security processes of the Correctional Services. It was one of the Department’s requirements that when someone was recruited they were first checked in terms of a security police clearance which had to be obtained from SAPS. One month before the absorption of the individual the Department applies again with the security standards of verifying. The Department might find that during the training an individual might have a criminal record. That was one of the vetting standards and security standards that the Department had to comply with. The Department had done that. She indicated that a total of 173 learners were also found to have pending security police clearances that had not been issued by SAPS due to other criminal records. It was a very tight check and balance that the Department did in terms of its security standards.

She responded to the question on OSD. The Department was working on finalising the OSD categories of the 2018 group. The Department had prepared a presentation. However, it was still going through the approval processes in the Department. The Department said that it should be ready on the issues of the OSD in terms of the payments that it should have given to the grades it was supposed to have given to the junior staff on their career growth in the Correctional Services. The OSD had also faced financial implications. It had been impacted due to the budget cuts especially the CB1 and the CB2 which the Department had a total of 4985. In the current financial year, it was R872 million and the Department needed to have an approval of about R18 billion so that it could accommodate all of the backlog. In order to address the backlog, the Department had to regrade the positions in terms of the higher level. She said that the Department had been preparing a presentation for the National Commissioner and that it could be presented to the Committee. It contained all of the information in terms of addressing the issues of OSD as per the settlement agreement of 2016 which the Department needed to implement of the phase two of the OSD.

Chairperson Dyantyi asked if there were any follow-ups from the members.

There were none.

Chairperson Dyantyi noted that the Commissioner had listened to the contributions by members. It was quite clear that there were a few issues that the Department needed to further furnish because some were very detailed. For example, Dr Newhoudt-Druchen asked that the Department breakdown the 923 in terms of levels and categories. The Department was not able to do that in the meeting so the Committee might need that to be forwarded and submitted to it. Members were appreciative of the effort that already 923 had already been absorbed. It was not a small number. That was close to 1000. Those had been absorbed into full employment from learnerships. It was an important intervention. The problem in the past with learnerships had been that people were trained and then thrown in the street. If the Department had a significant percentage of absorption into employment, then it went a long way. Mr Horn made an important point about how the absorption was addressing the challenges the Department already had in relation to vacancies. He pointed to the critical vacancies that the Department had in the care areas. The Department might want to share more on that matter and not necessarily now. It could be in the form of a written submission. The Department also made a point about delaying other critical posts. What exactly were these critical posts that the Department was going to delay in filling those vacancies? The Committee should receive a list of those so that it could understand what the impact would be if the Department delayed. The objective of delaying was to save in order to do more on learnerships. It needed to be balanced. From what the Department was saving how was it going to impact service delivery in the Department? He wanted the Department to say which gaps it had identified, was working on and needed the support of the Committee besides the issue of reprioritisation and budget cuts. Were there any others that the Department had picked up? He handed over to the Commissioner to make comments.

Mr Fraser thanked the members for their questions. There was a need for the Department to provide a comprehensive submission to the Committee to provide the details because it was not as simple as it may seem. Before this group of learnerships the Department had not taken in a group of learnerships since 2015. As a result of the extent of the vacancies the Department had during the year 2018/2019 and the fact that the Department could only train or educate 1032 learners at an instance there was a decision taken that the Department was going to have two intakes of learners. Because the vacancies were in excess of 4000 the Department felt that if it was able to draw from another pool of learnerships, which was the SANDF, then the Department would be able to accelerate its intake. What the Department did not anticipate was the reality of Covid. That really compromised the Department significantly. The Department had taken in 2340 learners in this period and that included those learners from the SANDF. He indicated that with regards to the SANDF, the Department applied the same criteria. They had to meet the criteria of Correctional Services. The Department was not able to take in the full 2000 but rather the 1317. The issue of collaborating with the SANDF was based on a member of the DCS, Ms Nomsa Stuurman, being murdered in Goedemoed. The Department then developed a programmed with the SANDF to ensure that the Department did self-defence training for all female officials and thereafter the male officials. The collaboration with the SANDF on the issue of training continued. The Department also made an agreement with them that it would use some of their training facilities. All of these initiatives were prior to Covid and had subsequently been disrupted. The Department was not only looking at learnership intake. The Department was looking at how it would be restructuring the Department so that it streamlined its bureaucracy and ensure that it placed its resources at the coalface. The CDC mentioned the theatres of operation. The Department was looking at how it was able to support and create greater resources. With the learnerships the Department had put a high emphasis on graduates. The Department accepted that the intake it would have from the SANDF was going to into the space of custodial services. The security and warden officials were going to be filled by that group of learners. The Department would give a comprehensive briefing on this matter to the Committee. The Department would also take about the areas of prioritisation. Some of the centres had acting people as heading the centres and that really impacted on service delivery. The Department was looking at how it could prioritise to focus on service delivery. The Department hoped that through this balancing act it would be able to bring in learnerships during quarter two and three and to ensure that at the coalface the Department had permanency.

Chairperson Dyantyi thanked the Department and the members for their contributions. The Committee Secretariat would be sending out a batch of minutes for the members to read so that it could be attended to it in the next meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.