Formal Consideration and Discussion on Annual Report

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
25 October 2005
FORMAL CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION ON ANNUAL REPORT

Operational Plan for the National Assembly on Legislative Oversight through Annual Reports
Parliament's Information Services Section: Department of Correctional Services Annual Report 2004/05
Department of Correctional Services Annual Report 2004/05

SUMMARY
Researchers from Parliament's Information Services briefed the Committee on the analysis of department annual reports and particularly the Department of Correctional Services’ Annual Report. The Chairperson emphasised that Members should study these documents as well as the Department’s annual report thoroughly in preparation for its meeting with the Department on 28 October. Members were particularly concerned about how they could establish whether an annual report gave an accurate reflection of the department’s activities and challenges.

MINUTES
Parliament's Information Services Section presentation
Mr Zepe and Mr Ganief, parliamentary researchers and two of the researchers involved in the drafting of "An Operational Plan for the National Assembly on Legislative Oversight through Annual Reports" briefed the Committee on how best to study and analyse annual reports. The Operational Plan presented a process and schedule for the National Assembly to implement the processes described in the report. A portfolio committee’s oversight duty should consist of preparation, hearings, report writing as well as follow up on issues raised in the annual report. The report went into detail as to how each of these processes should be conducted.

Department of Correctional Services: Annual Report 2004/05
The Committee discussed a research report on the Department of Correctional Services’ annual report for 2004/2005. The report was drafted by Ms Ester May, a parliamentary researcher. It aimed to highlight certain successes and shortcomings against the targets set in the Department’s Strategic Plan. It also raised key questions relating to service delivery. The report analysed the annual report with regard to its administration, corrections, development, care and aftercare as well as facilities. It concluded with the key issues that had been raised in the Auditor General’s report. Ms May raised a number of questions that the Committee could raise when meeting with the Department. What measures were in place to ensure that the asset control register was properly maintained and updated? What factors hampered the Department in reaching its target of awarding parole to 55% of the prisoners reviewed?

Discussion
The Chairperson asked how one would go about interrogating an annual report without taking the Auditor General’s report into account. One could not separate a Department’s annual report from the report by the Auditor General. Mr Zepe replied that the Auditor General’s report should be taken into account as it very often raised pertinent issues.

The Chairperson asked how the Committee could verify what a Department claimed in an annual report? What could a Committee do if they found that an annual report was not an accurate reflection of a Department’s activities?

Mr Zepe agreed that annual reports might not be objective enough. Annual reports often did not represent the full picture because they were compiled by the Departments themselves and not by independent observers. He admitted that it was very difficult to verify whether information was exact or not. Committees could always use their study tours to ascertain whether claims made in annual reports were accurate. The Committee could raise their doubts or concerns and seek answers. It could also monitor developments itself. Mr Ganief advised that the Committee could request the Department to verify the report and then to report back at a later stage.

A Member wondered whether it was the Committee’s responsibility to report any irregularity it came across in the Annual Report to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA). Mr E Xolo (ANC) shared the same concern. What should the Committee do if it became aware of any evidence of fraud or corruption?

Mr Zepe said that the legislation did not specify what should be done if the Department was not accurate in its reporting. This was a weakness in the legislation. Any financial misconduct should be reported to SCOPA.

A Member added that if there was something the Committee was aware of, but SCOPA was not, it would have a responsibility to report it. The Chairperson concurred that the Committee should have an ‘open line with SCOPA on each and every thing’. SCOPA should be aware of everything that needed further investigation. Mr Zepe added that SCOPA too had a responsibility to inform the Chairperson of any issues it became aware of regarding the Department of Correctional Services. He said that he was aware of an instance in which the Chairpersons of Committees had been invited to hearings and given the opportunity to raise their concerns. Chairpersons often understood issues better since they dealt with them on a daily basis.

Mr J Selfe (DA) commented that the Department of Correctional Services had a tendency to change its strategic plan from year to year. Which one should the Committee consider when analysing annual reports? How did one hold the Department accountable when its strategic plan never stayed the same?

The Chairperson requested the Committee to be very serious and vigilant in performing their duties. He said that he had attended a SCOPA meeting last year where a Member had compared two reports, and had come to the conclusion that the previous report had merely been copied. He urged Members to go through both years’ documents thoroughly. He advised them to disregard the appearance of the reports and to focus on the content.

Mr Zepe agreed that it was very important to thoroughly analyse the information that was being given. ‘Cutting’ and ‘pasting’ was unacceptable. He said that Departments updated their strategic plans every year. It was important to consider the outputs in the strategic plan and to compare them to what was reported in the annual report for that same period. Ideally, the annual report and the strategic plan should complement each other. Mr Ganief agreed that it was important to bear in mind that the information in the annual report for a particular year was based on the strategic plan of that year.

The Chairperson said that a similar meeting would be arranged since the information was very important. Information was power. The Committee could not thoroughly fulfill its oversight duties if it did not have the relevant information and skills. Mr Zepe and Mr Ganief would be contacted to assist the Committee from time to time since they were experts. Members had to show interest in and dedication to the process. Mr Zepe said that he would forward a guideline to assist with the interrogation of annual reports specifically to the Committee.

The Chairperson voiced concern about the fact that Members were coming to meetings without the relevant documents. He said that Parliament was taking its work very seriously. When Members received documents, they were expected to familiarise themselves with the contents. He emphasised that researchers could not do the work Members were meant to do, because they might miss some very important aspects.

The Chairperson said that the research done by Ms May should serve as a guideline when considering the Department of Correctional Service’s Annual Report. Members should go through the annual report and come up with their own questions in addition to those she had recommended in her report.

Ms S Rajbally (MF) said that the research documents contained interesting facts. With regard to the dangerous things that occurred in prison, she commented that there was a great need to improve the rehabilitation function of the correctional services. More people needed to be rehabilitated and released conditionally. She was pleased that the Committee had an opportunity to discuss amongst themselves how to assist in reducing the number of inmates.

The Chairperson responded that the Committee had to consider the realities the Department of Correctional Services was facing. The question of rehabilitation had been raised with the Minister and the response was always the same: the Department was acting on the sentencing of Magistrates and could not make decisions that would clash with those made within the Departments of Safety and Security or Justice. He added that while early release was a possibility if petty crimes had been committed, it was not always possible when serious crimes had been committed. Mr M Phala (ANC) added that if the Committee wanted to improve the situation in correctional facilities they would have to start with oversight.

Mr N Fihla (ANC) noted that the Department was always getting a qualified audit report. When the Committee had visited correctional facilities it witnessed that policies were not being implemented effectively. This reflected a lack of political will from management and was coupled with a lack of financial discipline. This resulted in the qualified audits.

A Member raised a concern regarding those aspects the report did not address. She mentioned that the tracking system that had been implemented at great cost at the correctional facility at Durban-Westville was not being used. This had resulted in a loss of about R7 million, yet this was not mentioned in the report. This was "a serious waste of tax payers’ money". She added that it was dishonest to indicate that everything was going well, when in fact this was not the case. She urged that this specific issue be raised when the Committee met with the Department on Friday. The report did not indicate all the challenges they were facing.

The Chairperson reminded the Committee that the information they received should be thoroughly studied in preparation of their meeting with the Department on Friday.

The meeting was adjourned.