Budget Vote Hearings

Meeting report

JUSTICE AND CONSTITUITONAL AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
9 May 2000
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BUDGET: BRIEFING

Chairperson: Adv. JH de Lange

Documents handed out:
Employee Relations Action Plan 1999/2000
Report on Disciplinary Matters in the Justice Department
Overview of the 1999/2000 financial year
Comparison between 1999/2000 and 2000/2001 Financial Year (Appendix 1)
Budget Growth from 1994/95 - 2000/2001 Financial Year (Appendix 2)
Programmes of the Department
1998 Audit General's report

SUMMARY
The Director-General reviewed the budget by comparing the 1999 and 2000 financial years. The Deputy Director General in his address cautioned that although there had been a 10% increase in the department's budget, this figure was misleading. He emphasised that if the increase of real activities, undertaken by the department, were to be taken into account, there was actually a deficit.

The Deputy Director General commended the department on its budget expenditure, saying that the department had spent its money prudently and efficiently. Questions were raised as to the high incidence of 'unauthorised or irregular' expenditure in the department's budget. Respondents from the Justice department said the unauthorised payments (R79 million) reflected in the Budget Review were, in fact, related to two years before. However, this issue was in process of being attended to by the department.

The committee was also briefed on legislation that had yet to be implemented. The Chair criticised the department and the Legal Aid Board for not being able to complete the Legal Aid Guide for the Legal Aid Amendment Act, 1996. The Chair refused to accept such a passive stance by the Department, and urged the Department to pass the guide as soon as possible.

Both the Criminal Procedures Amendment Act, 1996, and the Witness Protection Act, 1998 have been delayed by the South African Police Services (SAPS). The Chair criticised SAPS actions regarding the implementation of these and other Acts. He accused the police of undermining the integrity of Parliament and the portfolio committee, stating that they were "way out of bounds." He demanded that the department not give into SAPS, but make sure that the Acts were properly implemented.

MINUTES
The Director-General, Adv V Pikoli, reviewed the Justice department's budget by comparing the 1999 and 2000 financial years. Both he and his deputy, Mr H Ebrahim, noted that the appearance of a 10% increment in the budget was deceptive. If the real activities of the department, in the current year, were taken into consideration, there was in effect a deficit and the department had far less than the previous year. Overall, the department spent 67% on personnel and 33% on business.

Mr Ebrahim examined the breakdown of the budget into programmes. The main points to emerge were:
- There was a 25% increment in Programme 1: Administration due to the department's change in activity. A centralised system, involving new data systems, for the payment of all departments had been instituted.
- There was a 121% increase in budget spending on Programme 4: National Prosecuting Authority as this was seen as a core activity.
- Programme 5: Auxiliary and Associated Services showed a notable decrease as there had been a 41% decrease in expenditure on the Truth and Reconcilation Commission with a scaling down of its activities.
- A noteworthy increment was in the area of government motor transport management. Mr Ebrahim assured the committee that this was not due to the purchasing of more cars for their officials, but that the burden of providing transportation for officials was no longer with the Department of Transport but within their department. This expenditure item would now be reflected in the Department of Justice's budget expenditure.
- There was an overall R27 million overspending on the budget. This was due to the unplanned increases in magistrate's salaries and the pressure from the increment of prosecutor's salaries.
- The Administration of Justice sector had a R48,312 000 deficit due to these salary increases.
- The Administration programme had a R5,160 000 surplus.
- Legal Aid did not under nor over-spend.

Mr Ebrahim felt that the department had improved on their expenditure, which he described as 'prudent and efficient'. In conclusion he highlighted that the department had faced changes and amalgamation in the past few years but had still managed to institute new activities. In dealing with these activities Mr Ebrahim raised the issue of available resources in the department. He felt that when laws were being made in parliamentary committees, the committees must consider and address the issue of the requisite resources for the implementation of such legislation.

Discussion
Questions were addressed to Mr Kambule from the Auditor- General's Office.
The first issue discussed was that of the 'unauthorised expenditure' of R79 million as an ex-gratia payment of an inspector. The Director-General pointed out that this had been authorised by the previous auditor-general. Adv. De Lange (ANC) wanted proper accounting for this deficit. Mr Kambule said that the deficit was reflected in the current papers but was actually a deficit carried over from two years previously. Adv. De Lange wanted to know the reason for this current reflection. Mr Ebrahim noted that if it was overspent money, it had to be taken to Parliament for it to be condoned. Mr Kambule added that if there was no condoning, then the department's budget would have to be reduced in order to clear the figure.

Ms Camerer (NNP) was concerned that the financial reports of the Justice Department reflected the same problems (the previous year as well). She felt that cases of unauthorised spending were on the increase annually and it was not being controlled.

Mr Ebrahim acknowledged the mistakes highlighted in the Auditor-General's reports of the past three years. He said, however there had been improvements as some of the expenditure burdens had been cleared. Issues such as fraud have been addressed or are in the process of being dealt with.

Dr Delport (DP) emphasised that the real issue was what was going to be done about the unauthorised expenditures still reflected.

The Director-General said that the department would have to decide whether they would take the expenditures to parliament to be condoned or pay them back from their budget.

On this issue the chair concluded that it was an unhappy state of affairs. He suggested that another report should be submitted in three month's time (August) to update the committee on steps taken towards ratifying the issue. Adv De Lange said it was unacceptable to leave the matter the way it was. He understood the technical difficulties that the department has had but felt that the department should have brought solutions to resolve its issues.

Deposit accounts were discussed briefly. Mr Kambule said that cheques were now run from commercial banks and not from the Reserve Bank. This meant that no cheques would be dealt with in the offices of the department. No cheques have been stolen thus far and if it were to happen, it would be possible to cancel the cheque at the national office. Another departmental official noted that deposit accounts were going to be automated and this was in the plans for this year.

The chair wanted to know if the new system of accounts was working. Mr Ebrahim replied that the new plans would be phased in over three years. At the moment only interim steps had been taken.

Mrs Camerer questioned why the Department was only employing 500 security officers, when the Minister clearly stipulated that there was a need for 2000 security officers. She asked if this reflected the percentage of the budget spent on personnel?

Mr Ebrahim replied that the Department of Public Service and Administration was responsible for approving the number of posts in the department, but that State Expenditure had not given enough money to fill all the posts. Subsequently, the Department was underfunded by 1000 posts. The Department of Public Service and Administration thought that security was not part of the core functions of the department, and recommended that these posts be outsourced. As a result, there are 500 security officers within the department, and all additional security is provided through private companies.

With respect to personnel, Mr Ebrahim stated that the percentage of the budget allocated to personnel has decreased to approximately 67% from 75% three years ago. In terms of the number of people employed, this related to a reduction in the number of staff, but an increase in salaries.

Dr Delport (DP) asked whether the Department was happy with the increases and decreases between the 1999/2000 Budget and the 2000/2001 Budget, and whether it would enable them to perform their services effectively?

Mr Ebrahim stated that this year's budget was an improvement, and they would be able to cope. Most of the money will be allocated to performing the core functions of the department. Additional money will also be given to the lower courts. It is expected that the department will experience financial problems, but that they will not effect the core functions or services provided by the department.

Mr Pikoli added that the department was currently establishing mechanisms to ensure that the money was managed properly, and more effectively utilised.

Dr Delport then asked if the department was aware that the Master's Office in the Eastern Cape had run out of money, and that they had stopped delivering services. Mr Ebrahim responded that it was a result of weak budgeting on behalf of that office. The Chair did not accept the response and insisted that the department find out who was responsible. He was adamant that this office receive sufficient funding to ensure that services are delivered.

Mr Solomon (ANC) asked whether the 2% overspending of the budget was allowed by law?

Mr Ebrahim responded that the department was allowed by law to overspend by 2%. He added that the department received a "globular budget" from the Department of Finance. The only prescriptions on that money was that a certain amount must be allocated for personnel, and also for special projects, if any exist. The spending of the remaining amount is based on prioritisation by the Department.

Ms Jana asked, in reference to the Auditor-General's Report, what action had been taken in regards to the irregular spending of R90 million in the lower courts in the Eastern Cape?

Mr Ebrahim responded that the department, in connection with the Heath Commission, and the Public Prosecutor had been investigating the matter for over a year. Many charges had already been laid, but the investigation was still on-going.

The Chair asked how the increase of R154 million for the lower courts was being used?

Mr Ebrahim stated that the money was being used for personnel expenditures. It was used to fill vacancies in the lower courts, as well as to employ additional prosecutors and magistrates. The money was also going to perform the core functions of the lower courts.

Briefing on Legislation
The committee was briefed by Mr T.D. Rudman, Deputy Director-General of Legislation. (See Appendix)

Mr Rudman outlined for the committee sections of Acts that have yet to be implemented. Three Acts from 1996 had yet to be fully implemented. The Justice Laws Rationalisation Act will be fully implemented by 1 June, 2000.

Legal Aid Amendment Act, 1996
Mr Rudman stated that they were waiting for the Legal Aid Guide to be finalised. A draft guide had been submitted to the Department, but it was thought to be inappropriate because it gives the Director too much discretion over legal matters. This was found to be problematic since the Director did not hold a law degree.

The Chair stated that it was completely unacceptable that the Guide had not been completed in four years. He criticised the Department for not creating guidelines, stating that the Act gave the Department veto power over the Legal Aid Board. The Chair refused to accept such a passive stance by the Department, and blamed them for the delay of the Guide. He strongly urged the Department to submit guidelines to the Legal Aid Board outlining what they wanted, and to pass the guide as soon as possible.

Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 1996
Mr Rudman said the South African Police Services (SAPS) were unhappy with section 11 which abolishes confessions to police officers.

The Chair stated the police were totally out of order. He accused the police of undermining the integrity of Parliament by delaying the implementation of this Act. He dismissed the actions of the police stating it was a "slap in the face to the integrity of this committee." He demanded that the Department not give into SAPS, but make sure that the Act was properly implemented.

Criminal Procedures Act, 1997
Mr Rudman stated that they were awaiting the finalisation of the Legal Aid Directives.

The Chair asked that the directives be made available to the committee by tomorrow.

Witness Protection Act, 1998
Mr Rudman stated that there were experiencing problems with the police on the secondment of staff to protect witnesses lives.

The Chair stated that it was unacceptable that the police would think they are above Parliament. He attacked SAPS actions regarding the implementation of this and other Acts, including the Judicial Matters Second Amendment Act, 1998, arguing that they were "way out of bounds". He demanded that a report be submitted to the committee by tomorrow morning on why the draft regulations had not been implemented.

The meeting was adjourned due to time constraints.

Appendix 1:
COMPARISON BETWEEN 1999/2000 AND 2000/2001 FINANCIAL YEAR

Appendix 2
BUDGET GROWTH FROM 1994/95 --- 2000/2001 FINANCIAL YEAR