Department Budget 2005/06

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVIVES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
4 March 2005
DEPARTMENT BUDGET 2005/06

Chairperson

Correctional Services Budget Vote 20 in Budget Review

SUMMARY
The Committee was briefed by the committee researcher on the Budget Vote 20. She explained some important points that Members needed to understand about the document and prepared them for their interaction with the Department of Correctional Services following week.

MINUTES
The Chairperson described deliberations on the Department Budget as one of the Committee’s major oversight duties. He asked the Committee researcher to explain the Budget Vote 20 and to lead members through the discussion of pertinent issues. He urged Members to consider the document very carefully in addition to the deliberation because if the budget issue was not dealt with properly and money not allocated efficiently, it would mean a failure on the part of the Committee in its oversight duty.

Members were reminded of this Committee’s visits to ten prisons and the issues that had been raised during those visits such as health and the meal system for the prisoners. It was incumbent upon them to flag these issues and interrogate the department and clarify these matters because voters were counting on them as parliamentarians.

Correctional Services Budget briefing

The Committee researcher, Ms Nadia Dooie, briefed the Committee on the Budget Vote for Correctional Services. She stated that the Criminal Justice Cluster would receive R65 billion and the Department of Correctional Services would receive R9.234 billion of this money. This was an increase in nominal terms from R8.457 billion for last year. This meant that the Department had a little increase that did not take the inflation rate into account. The structure of the Budget Vote had not changed from last year as there were still seven programmes. Within the Budget Review document, there were additional allocations made this year for identified priorities of the Department. The Department would receive an additional R200 million beginning this year, increasing to R333 million next year and R866 million the following year. One of the priorities to be covered by this additional money would be the employment of 7 000 personnel over a three year period. The implementation of the White Paper on Correctional Services, additional infrastructure requirements in relation to the four new prisons to be built this year and the implementation of the seven day working week. This would be fully implemented by 2007 - 08. It would be in the Committee’s interest to ask the Department to explain the White Paper implementation and how was the phasing-in of the seven day working week going to be carried out.

All programmes increase except for the Administration program which decreases by 8.7 percent in nominal terms. The largest increase was for the Security programme by 19 percent in real terms. The increase was due to the large number of prisoners in relation to the number of personnel. The President in his State of the Nation Address spoke about reducing the number of children in police cells and prisons. In this regard, the Committee would want to know the role of the Correctional Services Department in achieving this target. The President also spoke about rehabilitation and the Committee had been pushing for people to be sentenced to do community service rather than serve prison time. These issues were recorded in the Budget Review document, however, what was not made clear was the fact that there would not be an increase in community services personnel. The Committee would need to engage the Department on this.

Discussion
The Chairperson stated that members of the Treasury Department present at the meeting were welcome, but the Committee would set up a meeting with them to answer some of the questions that were flagged by Ms Dooie. He asked Ms Dooie why there were no measurable objectives provided for the Administration programme nor for the implementation of the White Paper.

Ms Dooie replied that she could not explain why there were no stated objectives for Administration and for the implementation of the White Paper. These were issues that the Committee would take up with the Department.

Mr E Xolo (ANC) was concerned that the Department did not have any structures for after care. He wanted to know how was the Department intended to deal with the lack of structures for after care within the South African Police Services (SAPS), for example, and how were such structures going to be established.

The Chairperson stated that Treasury was intending to set up structures at national, provincial and local level, but he would get more clarification and ask the Department to comment on the issue.

Ms S Rajbally (MF) asked about the outcome of the decrease in Administration. She praised the rehabilitation programme and questioned the number of offenders that have been reintegrated into communities.

Ms Dooie responded that it was not a priority to increase salaries of Correctional Services personnel.

The Chairperson added that the salaries of Correctional Services personnel were not within the domain of the Correctional Services Department but within that of the Public Service and Administration Department but further clarification on the issue would be sought. In order to know whether to seek to increase or decrease the allocated Department budget, the Committee should request information on how the previous budget had been spent. Performance measure was important and the Committee would ask the Department to comment on this on 8 March 2005.

Ms M Makgate (ANC) asked if the Committee assessments were only being done at the big prisons. She suggested that the Committee would not be able to reach its objectives if smaller prisons were not assessed as well.

Mr M Phala (ANC) wanted to know if the four additional prisons that were being built would solve the problem of overcrowding of prisons in the country.

The Chairperson stated that members were raising very important questions for the Department. Although he had requested the Department and Treasury representatives not participate, he would allow them to answer to one question which was what was happening to the fund that was allocated to the Parole Board.

Mr J Johnson, Director of Public Finance, Treasury, stated that the question was linked to measurable objectives. Treasury, Government and Parliament did not dish out funds without measuring them. For Treasury, the Parole Board was of concern. If R8 billion was allocated to the Board, Treasury would like to see that the funds were utilised for the procurement of infrastructure, equipment, and employment of personnel.

The Chairperson was pleased that he had given Treasury the opportunity to comment as Mr Johnson had raised some important points. It was very important for the Committee to engage the Department on the budget before the budget vote debate in the National Assembly on 13 April. He also suggested that Treasury and the Committee interact on a more frequent basis.

Ms S Rajbally (MF) stated that her previous question on reintegration had not been answered.

The Chairperson responded that reintegration was not effective in Correctional Services because there was not enough staff to rehabilitate inmates. Rehabilitation was a very important issue that needed to be addressed by the whole system. The problem of overcrowding and rehabilitation was not a problem only for Correctional Services but for Justice and Safety and Security as well. If the issue was not addressed by the cluster, the issue would never be resolved. He also suggested that it was a waste of tax payers money for people who commit petty crime to be taken to prison for three to four months when they could be rehabilitated and reintegrated into their communities.

The meeting was adjourned.