Correctional Services Amendment Bill:Deliberations and Voting; Inmate Tracking System; Budget:Briefing

Meeting report

SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
4 June 2001
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL: DELIBERATIONS AND VOTING; INMATE TRACKING SYSTEM; BUDGET: BRIEFING

Acting Chairperson: Mr T Taabe

Relevant Documents:
Correctional Services Amendment Bill [B8B – 2001]
Budget presentation
Inmate Tracking System presentation

SUMMARY
The Committee commenced the meeting with deliberations on Clause 30 of the Correctional Services Bill. It had been amended by the National Assembly to allow to the Minister to release unsentenced prisoners subject to conditions determined by the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister of Justice. It was adopted after a lengthy debate on the provision in the clause that allows for the Minister to use his discretionary powers in releasing unsentenced prisoners. A presentation was made to the Committee on the Department’s highly technological Inmate Tracking System. The Committee was impressed with forecasted technological benefits and advantages of the system but actual implementation was of greater concern to members. Finally, the Committee was briefed on the Department’s Budget. Mundane budgetary issues were raised which left little opportunity for engagement with the Department.

MINUTES
Correctional Services Amendment Bill
Clause 30: Amendment to section 81 of Act 111 of 1998
The amendment agreed to by the Portfolio Committee is as follows:

30. Section 81 of the principal Act is hereby amended –
(a) by the substitution for subsection (1) of the following subsection:
"(1) If the Minister is satisfied that the prison population in general or at a particular prison is reaching such proportions that the safety, human dignity and physical care of the prisoners are being affected materially, the matter must be referred to the National Council." and

(b) by the addition of the following subsection:
" (4) In the case of unsentenced prisoners the Minister may release any such prisoner or group of such prisoners subject to such conditions as may be determined by the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister of Justice."

Discussion
Mr Paxton (Legal Unit of the Department of Correctional Services) felt that the original provision in the Act should remain. He was of the opinion that Clause 30 as it stands creates an administrative burden on the Department.

Mr De Lange (Legal Advisor of the Department of Justice) felt that if further consultation with stakeholders on the provisions of the Bill is needed they are open to suggestions.

Mr P Matthee (NNP, KZN) felt that leaving Clause 30 as it is would give the Minister unlimited discretionary powers and did not guard against potential abuse. He suggested that the conditions on which prisoners are to be released should rather be expressly stated in the clause.

Inspecting Judge Fagan said that the situations in the prisons at present are unacceptable. One third of prisoners who are incarcerated are awaiting trial. The courts are facing backlogs that are impossible to eradicate. He insisted that urgent action is needed and could not be delayed. Judge Fagan stated that the Constitution guarantees the Minister’s powers. The provision as it stands is totally constitutional and there is no infringement of the separation of power doctrine. The fact that the Minister has to consult with the Minister of Justice is a clear indication that the interests of the courts are being considered. He explained that the provision would not apply to prisoners who have committed serious crimes. Clause 30 merely allows for the conditional release of unsentenced prisoners to the confines of their home. It is as if they have been released on bail. They would still have to appear in court to face the charges against them. He felt that the public should at least have some faith in the discretion of the Minister.

Mr L Lever (DP, North West) stated that he could suggest possible conditions that could be included in the clause. However in light of what Judge Fagan said, he decided to withdraw his suggestion, as the situation requires a solution urgently.

Mr Mathee asked Judge Fagan if he would be opposed to the inclusion of the express conditions in the clause.

Judge Fagan stated that he would not per se be opposed to its inclusion but he was more concerned about the delays that it would cause in finalising the legislation.

Mr Mathee asked how long it would take to refer the legislation back to the National Assembly.

Mr De Lange stated that it normally takes about two weeks.

The Chair asked Mr Smit (State Law Adviser) what his view was.

Mr Smit stated that either the legislation could be left as is or the conditions could be inserted.

The Chair asked the Committee to make a decision.

The Committee unanimously voted in favour of the Clause 30 and the Bill going through as amended by the National Assembly.

Inmate Tracking System
Mr Esmeraldo (Department of Correctional Services) made a brief presentation on the Inmate Tracking System. The system operates by means of an electronic device being placed on the person of the prisoner so as to monitor his movement at all times. It also acts as a personal identification device in order to circumvent problems in identifying prisoners. This is especially useful during prisoner roll call and when visits with prisoners are arranged. The system would initially monitor the whereabouts of prisoners within the prison itself at all times but before long it would be a means to keep track of prisoners who are transferred between Departments in the criminal justice system, specifically the courts. This would facilitate effective court appearances by prisoners.

Mr Esmeraldo stated that the system would initially focus on the 64 000 awaiting trial prisoners causing overcrowding in the prisons. With this system even if prisoners were provisionally released from prison they would still be able to be tracked.

Discussion
Mr T Setona (ANC, Free State) stated that a common problem facing the police is that many criminals go by different names or aliases. He asked how this problem was going to be addressed.

The Acting National Commissioner, Mr Tshivase stated that the new AFIS identification system utilises both fingerprints and photographs in its identification procedure.

Mr L Lever (DP, North West) asked when the AFIS finger printing system would be implemented.

Mr Esmeraldo stated that two pilot projects were planned to begin in Durban and Johannesburg by February 2002.

Mr Lever was disappointed in the fact that only two projects are going to be initiated considering the huge budget allocated to the project. Further he asked if the inmate tracking system would be tamper proof. He asked how prisoners would be prevented from swapping tags amongst themselves.

Mr Esmeraldo stated that an alarm would be triggered if the tags are tampered with.

The Chair asked for a time frame for the implementation of pilot projects for the inmate tracking system. He also asked when it would be applied to sentenced prisoners.

Mr Esmeraldo stated that provided everything goes according to plan, AFIS will be implemented by February 2002. The pilot projects will focus on prisoners awaiting trial. He could not be specific on when it would be applied to sentenced prisoners.

Ms C Nkuna (ANC, Northern Province) asked what the Department’s definition of an "inmate" is, since people in mental institutions are also called inmates.

Mr Paxton stated that the term "prisoner" should be used rather than "inmate". He stated that the tracking system should be called the ‘Prisoner Tracking System’.

Ms E Lubidla (ANC, Northern Cape) asked whether the Inmate Tracking System would be used by both by the SAPS and the Department of Justice.

Mr Esmeraldo stated that the system would be fully integrated. As soon as the prisoner’s details are entered into the system at a certain point, they will immediately be reflected on the systems of the relevant Departments in the criminal justice system.

The Chair asked for details on the tendering system used by the Department. He was especially interested in their efforts to encourage Black Economic Empowerment (BEE).

Mr Tshivase apologised for not having the data at hand but promised to make the information on their tenders available to the Committee as soon as possible.

Department of Correctional Services Budget (2000-2001, 2001-2002)
Mr Tshivase made a detailed statistical presentation to the Committee on the Department’s expenditure for the previous financial year and how it affects their budgetary allocation and expenditures for the current financial year.

For detail on the actual figures referred to, please refer to the attached document.

Discussion
Mr Lever commented that the money that is rolled over from one financial year to the next has to be financed twice. He asked who pays for this financing. Secondly, he asked how the Department calculates the rate of inflation when it is used to determine its budget. Finally he asked whether flexitime had been considered as an option doe Department employees. Currently, Mr Lever argued, employees are abusing the overtime facility of the Department.

The Chair added that in previous meetings the Department had concerns about the large amounts of overtime paid to staff. He asked how this issue was being addressed.

Mr Tshivase responded by saying that National Treasury bears the cost of the financing. Secondly, the National Treasury provides the Department with inflation rates. Currentloy the inflation rate is 6%. Finally, Mr Tshivase stated that the Department is working on a 7 day working establishment plan. It seems to be the cheapest option.

Ms Nkuna (ANC, Northern Province) asked whether transfer payments were a standard item in the Departments budget. Further she asked if the Department transfers funds from one project to the next, and if so at what point in the financial year these transfers take place.

Mr Tshivase affirmed that transfer payments is a standard item on their budget. If no transfer payment takes place the amount is reflected as zero. He explained that funds are not transferred from one project to the next and that this is not allowed. If funds have not been used for some reason or the other these funds are rolled over to the following year.

The Chair asked about the extent of human resource development in the Department. He also asked if a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for the Department has been appointed yet.

Mr Tshivase said that there had been an increase in expenditure on human resource development from R64m in the period 2000-2001 to R72m in the period 2001-2002.
He also pointed out that he had been appointed as CEO from the 1 March 2001.

Mr T Setona (ANC, Free State) highlighted the fact that the delegation from the Department seems to be male dominated. He asked about the extent of female empowerment. Further, he said that the budget is quiet on expenditures for programmes on the rehabilitation and skills development of young prisoners.

Mr Tshivase stated that he would forward statistics on the progress of empowerment in the Department and on their juvenile prisoner programmes to the Committee.

The Chair asked the Department to provide the Committee with all the promised statistics before the 19 June 2001.

The meeting was adjourned.