Department of Correctional Services Annual Report: hearings
Correctional Services
28 October 2005
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE : Mr D Bloem (ANC)
28 October 2005
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ANNUAL REPORT: HEARINGS
Chairperson
Documents handed out:
DCS Annual report 2004/2005
Directives: Complainant Involvement in Parole Boards PowerPoint Presentation
DCS Branch: Corporate Services
SUMMARY
The Department of Correctional Services briefed the Committee on its Annual Report as well as its career advancement programme. The morale of Department personnel, the recruitment of professionals, the retention of staff as well as whether there was a need for more prisons were some of the issues that featured prominently in the ensuing discussion. Members were particularly concerned about the fact that the Department’s audit reports had yet again been qualified by the Auditor General. Deputy Minister C Gillwald appealed to Members to consider alternative solutions to incarceration and called for penal reform to be advocated strongly. She said that the questions raised by the Committee highlighted the challenges the Department was facing. The Department undertook to address those issues it could not answer adequately in a written submission to the Portfolio Committee. The Chairperson also addressed the issue of the Complainant Involvement in Parole Boards Directives having been gazetted without consultation with the Portfolio Committee. It was agreed that the Department would not be required to re-gazette the directives provided such oversight did not occur again.
MINUTES
Annual Report Briefing
Mr Motseki (Executive Manager: Department of Correctional Services (DCS)) reported on a range of developments within the administration, security and correction spheres of the Department. These included the introduction of the Seven Day Establishment, the introduction of biometric access as well as the development of a training manual on unit management. As far as care, social integration and development were concerned, 1086 offenders had been trained as HIV/AIDS educators, seven facilities had been accredited to offer different training programmes and 40% of released offenders had received material assistance. The Auditor General reported that among other achievements there had been a significant improvement with regards to asset control and management. The Department received a qualified report as a result of outstanding medical expenses, accounts not balancing as per legislative requirements, insufficient internal controls and non-compliance with overtime laws.
Creation of Career Advancement Opportunities for DCS Production Level Employees – Briefing
Mr A Fourie said that since July 2001 the Department had been faced with the inability to address vertical mobility within production levels of the custodian and support personnel. Increasing pressure from staff and slow progress in the General Sectoral Chamber providing guidelines for career pathing prompted the Department to explore alternative solutions. It had, amongst others, in 2004 implemented the rank and salary progression of students. Promotion opportunities had been created through the restructuring of the previous interchangeable salary levels 3 to 7. Mr Fourie pointed out that this required no additional funds from Treasury. Numerous organisational gains were envisaged via these promotions, e.g. increased personnel morale, and the reinforcement of the aims and intentions of the Performance Management and Development System. The application, selection and approval process was transparent and
user – friendly, and made use of a number of control measures.
Discussion
Mr E Xolo (ANC) asked what the Department intended to do about the exodus of social workers. Ms S Chikunga (ANC) wondered what problems the Department was facing with regard to the retention of staff, especially in the light of scarce skills within the Department. It had a responsibility to retain staff irrespective of whether they were being recruited from outside.
Mr Petersen, (Chief Deputy Commissioner: Corporate Services) said that there was a range of professionals the Department was struggling to retain. This was due partly to the fact that the working environment was not conducive to the retention of professionals. He reminded the Committee that the Department had advertised positions for medical doctors. Despite increasing their salaries to the level of deputy directors and adding a scarce skills allowance, no applications were received. The situation was such that Treasury was even considering increasing their salaries to the level of directors. The Department had been upgrading social workers’ salaries. This was in line with developments within the broader public sector. The level of dissatisfaction, especially from those who had already benefited from the upgrading, should have decreased.
He told the Committee that the lack of professionals, like social workers, nurses and doctors had impacted on other aspects within the Department as well. In the past the Department had been able to attract teachers, nurses and social workers because it offered overtime benefits. They could perform their custodial duties while working privately over weekends. With the better management of the overtime budget this possibility was disappearing. The Department was aware that this was a difficult situation. It was formulating different proposals in an effort to deal with the dilemma around scarce skills within the Health sector. Representations were being made to the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA), who with the broader public sector, was looking at possible partnerships with Brazil and India. The Department was looking at tightening up its scarce skills and retention policy to make sure that these skills were attracted and retained. Hopefully work around this issue would be completed within the next few weeks.
Mr M Phala (ANC) said that during the Committee’s study tour it had come across many correctional centres where staff had complained about shortages of personnel. The presentation indicated that there were some vacancies. Where were these vacancies situated? Ms Chikunga asked what the Department’s targeted official –inmate ratio was. How did the recent recruitment drive impact upon (a) realising this target, (b) effective implementation of the Seven Day Establishment and (c) addressing the shortages of staff? Ms Makgate noted that the Annual Report indicated that recruitment had been outsourced to three agencies. She pointed out that at Zonderwater prison, there was only one white recruit out of 498 new recruits. How did the Department monitor these agencies?
Mr Petersen responded that the Department was trying to move certain staff to more supervisory functions via its Interim Promotional Arrangement. With its Seven Day Establishment it aimed to increase the number of staff by 8300 new recruits over the next three years. The Department was on target as far as this programme was concerned. He added that it was difficult to give ratios especially in light of the fact that some buildings were quite old and did not facilitate easy administration. When approaching such facilities issues around ratio became theoretical. The Department wanted to emphasise that it was able to do rehabilitation work and that it was able to ensure that security was guaranteed. Ratios had to be consistent with these two objectives.
The Department had experienced some difficulties around its overtime budget. In the last financial year it had a budget of R740 million, while it had a projected expenditure of R920 million. In anticipation of the fact that there was not going to be enough funds for overtime payments, the Department had to contain the advertising of vacant posts. Due to the impact that overtime spending had on the departmental budget the filling of vacant posts has had to be a very slow process. Despite the threat of labour action the Department tried to tackle this problem head on. Their action started showing benefits in their expenditure patterns. Last year for example, overtime spending was within budget. Once the Department had realised that it was able to curb its overtime expenditure, very little could be done to embark on a process of filling vacant posts. This process has now started however. In 2005 alone the Department had filled 4000 posts. It was important to also note that the Department was currently involved in one of its biggest recruitment drives. This presented risks of fraud. It also presented challenges as far as managing the process with agencies was concerned. Agencies were not that disciplined. Mr Petersen pointed out that he was in regular discussion with the Chairperson and insisted that agencies submitted regular reports. The Department was currently reviewing its recruitment processes. It had just embarked upon a project that would zoom in on retention, recruitment and turn-around time issues.
Ms Chikunga noted that the Department aimed to fill 1960 vacancies for supervision officials over the medium term. This would reduce the ratio to 13 parolees per supervision official. Has the Department achieved this? She also noted that the new Nursing Bill compelled nurses to do community service. Was the Department considering registering with the Department of Health in order to benefit from this Bill?
Mr Petersen pointed out that the health sector had been plagued by nurses flocking to the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia. It has now declared some nursing skills as scarce and introduced the rural allowance in an attempt to retain staff. The DCS has also introduced rural allowances for nurses but because the health policy stated that only nurses who worked in specialist health care facilities were considered to provide scarce skills, it was difficult for the Department to declare its nurses as providers of scares skills too. Recent trends have forced the Department to have discussions with the DPSA regarding having its nurses declared as providers of scarce skills too. This might be a way of attracting skills. Work towards achieving this goal was being finalised.
Ms M Makgate (ANC) asked how the Seven Day Establishment had impacted on the morale of staff. What was the level of absenteeism and sick leave? Did the Department have an effective employee assistance programme in place?
Mr Petersen responded that the phasing in of the Seven Day Establishment did in deed impact on the morale of employees. The Department was concerned about the issue. It has just completed a perception study that had interesting results. The moral of lower level staff was not as high as expected. These members were most affected by the implementation of the Seven Day Establishment. Morale was higher in the lower to middle management staff. The research results were quite different to what the Department had anticipated. If one looked at the trends in terms of people leaving the Department or the number of people who committed suicide however, it was clear that there were still a number of challenges. A new project has been launched at Drakenstein. The project aimed to establish an EAP centre in order to intensify employee assistance. Ways in which to improve the salaries of staff were also being considered. It was also working with Treasury on the Rehabilitation Quality Reassurance Project which was aimed at improving the basic income of the members. The Department was aware that it would have to qualify this request. It was thus working on a project that would indicate to Treasury what members would give in return for an increase in their salaries. The revitalisation of the code of ethics and the professionalisation of the Department’s services would further assist in raising morale.
Mr Xolo asked what the Department would do about corruption in prison. Many prisoners were able to ‘buy’ their freedom. In Durban-Westville for example members were using prisoners to write their assignments. Ms Makgate wondered whether the Department’s fraud prevention strategy was effective.
Mr Petersen answered that a correctional facility by its very nature lent itself to corrupt behaviour between inmates and officials. Various measures were in place to discourage and detect this. Once discovered, it was dealt with ‘quite harshly’. In the past year the Department had strengthened its investigative capacity. The number of fraud and corruption cases had increased. He stressed that the Department could quite clearly not be aware of all cases. He urged the Committee to report all allegations to him. He pointed out that he was the Acting Regional Commissioner for KwaZulu-Natal and would like to follow up on the incidents Members had raised. He assured the Committee that the Department was not afraid to investigate and charge its members for crimes, but it was also aware that these punitive actions were not what it needed. He shared that at an executive management retreat held recently it was determined that there was a need to look at the culture of the DCS. While the Department had a code of ethics it was not clear whether members were familiar with it. In support of the White Paper the Department had embarked on a process called ‘harnessing our organisational culture’. This was aimed at re-educating members around the code of ethics. Rewards and recognition would be included in this process. It was also looking at revitalising batho pele within the Department itself. Issues around branding would also be looked at more closely. The Department was aware that misbehaviour and corruption would occur in facilities, and would focus on detection and follow up processes.
Mr Xolo said that in KwaZulu-Natal new charges against ‘loitering and disturbing the peace’ have been introduced. This would result in unnecessary arrests, and would add to the problem of overcrowding in prisons. What did the Department have to say about this? He was curious about the correct procedure to follow when requesting a transfer from one correctional facility to another.
Mr L Tolo (ANC) noted that the report indicated that 40% of released inmates received material assistance. What form did this assistance take? Mr Motseki said that those inmates who had participated in skill training for specific trades received basic tools upon their release. While these tools did not set them up as small businesses they assisted them to operate.
Ms Chikunga (ANC) said that at some point during the financial year the Department had launched its White Paper. The Committee was aware that by July 2005 the Department’s total spending had been at 24, 6% of its budget. Has the Department managed to make some progress in prioritising the aims of the White Paper to fit its current allocation? If Yes, has the Department’s spending been in line with the priorities so far?
Ms Chikunga asked what the cost differential between public and private prisons was. How did the Department benefit as far as quality of service was concerned? Mr Petersen said that private facilities were quite expensive. Private prisons could not be compared to the State’s Correctional facilities in terms of per capita costs. The State’s Correctional Centers accommodated more persons; therefore their cost per capita was lower. The Department had appointed transaction advisors to engage with the two private entities to see how costs could be reduced and to renegotiate a contract. The possibilities to reduce operational expenditure on these two facilities were very limited. The proposals to recoup some of those expenses included increasing the capacity at these facilities. This would then reduce the per capita costs. All these proposals were still being evaluated before a mandate would be given to proceed with negotiations
Mr S Mahote (ANC) asked what was being done as far as development was concerned in terms of state prisons. Mr Petersen responded that it was not merely a question of space. The private prisons were more sophisticated than state prisons. He said that there was no reason why the Department could not ensure effective rehabilitation and participation programmes, despite lack of facilities. The Seven Day Establishment would create opportunities to better capacitate the Department. More time would be spent working with the offenders and less time on administrative processes. It was necessary for the Department to use their professionals differently. The Department was excited about the changes the Seven Day Establishment would facilitate with regard to improved interaction with inmates. The outcomes would be guaranteed.
Ms Chikunga said the Inspecting Judge’s report indicated that by March 2005 there were 9311 awaiting trial detainees each with unpaid bail of R1000.00 and below. Section 6 (f) of the Criminal Procedure Act was clearly not being implemented effectively. What was the Department doing in order to improve the application of this section of the Act? What action was taken when policies were not being implemented? She commented that there appeared to be a problem as far as communication and management was concerned. Something needed to be done. Ms Mgwenya (ANC) asked whether the steps for reducing the number of prisoners have been implemented. Have conditions improved?
Ms Chikunga requested clarity regarding the delay in the building of the prison in Kimberley. Was the National Office aware of some of the problems that were being faced there? Have remedial steps been taken? Ms Makgate asked for clarity on what the tender specifications for the prison had been. The report the Committee had received indicated that the company who had tendered for the contract increased the tendered amount once the contract had been awarded to them. How many of the new generation of prisons were already up and running? The Chairperson said that in September 2002, the Committee had been told that these new prisons would cost R50 000 a day. By June 2004, this figure had increased to R121 626. A year later the cost had escalated to R185 000 per day. This brought the total cost to R500 million for each prison. In the light of these figures how could the Department still claim that this exercise was cost effective? He added that the Committee had been embarrassed when they were unable to answer questions posed by managers at the site regarding the development of the prison.
Mr Petersen agreed that the Department had to fundamentally question the need to build more prisons. He added that building projects by their very nature took a while to take off. There were many variables that impacted on the process. The Department had estimated that the project would cost R350 million per facility. When the pre-bid predictions were being done the cost had already escalated to R463 million. When the tender was put out the total price came to R609 million per facility. A number of factors including the increase in the price of steel and competition from other projects impacted on the increase in cost. The market was not ideal for building projects. The Department was engaged in talks with the Department of Public Works (DPW) as well as Treasury to try and come up with solutions. They were looking at alternative ways of achieving the same objectives while still remaining within the allocated budget. Deputy Minister Gillwald added that the reality was that the contract for these prisons had already been signed. Breaching these contracts would impact on the Department’s expenditure.
Ms Chikunga raised concerns about the confusion around the roll out of anti-retroviral drugs at institutional level. She realised that the Department was dependent upon what the Department of Health gave them, however there needed to be clarity as to who bought the drugs and who paid for it. Prisoners who qualified for ARVs could not apply from outside of their region. What was being done to improve this process?
Ms Chikunga asked when the Department anticipated receiving an unqualified audit report. Ms Makgate noted that the Annual Report indicated that an audit had been conducted. How many cases have been successfully investigated and concluded? How many were still outstanding?
Mr Motseki said that the Department audited the procedures and extent to which it was able to capture its assets. This audit reflected a figure of 98%. Some of the assets could not be accounted for because they were changed through production (e.g. wood, steel). That the Department should not be made to account for such items had been raised with the Auditor General, but it was still felt that the Department should be able to account for such items. He added that this was one of the reasons why the annual report was qualified.
The Department had made an elaborate assessment of why their annual report was qualified. Some aspects had to be corrected by the Department itself. It has improved on the Basic Accounting System (BAS) and the systems operating around it. Medcor would not feature in its next financial year. He said the only real reason he could see for the Annual Report being qualified was because the Department did not close its books in March. Other contributing factors included the relationship between the DCS and the Office of the Auditor General. Department staff felt ‘instantly policed’ by officials from the Auditor General’s office. He added that often documentation was sought and by the time this documentation made it to the Auditor General’s office it too was under pressure to complete their report.
He said that the Department had indicated to the Auditor General’s office that they should discuss ways in which the process of auditing and the Department’s process of accounting could be improved. During the previous week the service level agreement had been signed between the Department and the Auditor General. The Department was confident that by next year they would have an unqualified report.
Deputy Minister Gillwald added that either the Treasury or the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) had advised the Department’s financial officers to work on Saturdays since there was not enough bandwidth to absorb the amount of information that was being fed into the system. BAS would improve the Department’s financial management but it was not without its own problems.
Ms Mgwenya (ANC) asked whether the number of prison wards have increased. If not, why not?
Ms Mgwenya wondered why women and children who were in prison appeared to be getting the same attention as men did. She added that children who were in prison with their mothers were not prisoners. Were there facilities for these children?
Deputy Minister Gillwald said that the Committee had been very precise in their oversight. The tours of examination into the DCS’s service sites had been invaluable. She commented that the range and complexity of the questions indicated the challenges the Department was faced with. She pointed out that prisons were essentially closed environments, but still needed provisions such as health care, education, etc. Very often there was not enough space to offer even the most basic facilities. She said that the issue around the roll out of ARV’s was a symptom of a much greater problem. If the Department did not have the facilities to screen incoming inmates for drug resistant TB, imagine the impact of drug resistant TB getting into an overcrowded cell.
As far as people being imprisoned for petty crimes such as loitering or disturbing the peace, she said that care had to be taken to get the ‘bad guys’ into jail. Petty criminals would become real criminals within the current system. Deterrents needed to be brought into the system. If this was not possible via the integrated justice system, it was necessary to start driving the process by setting achievable goals: a sentencing framework which supported the minimum sentencing framework on the one hand while clearly indicating that some offences one could not go to jail for, for example. She said that she would much rather see pressure being put on Treasury by herself and the Committee to take the money from the capital account and investing it in community corrections. South Africa has 400 prisoners per 100 000 people. Why would one want to build more prisons? Building more prisons required a lot of money.
She wondered whether it was not time to change the focus by investing in a community corrections service that magistrates and judges could trust. Such a service would have to have a drug programme, a conflict resolution programme, and basic education for kids. Such a service would give judges and magistrates, who were constantly being accused of not using alternative sentencing, a system they could trust.
She urged the Committee to "invest in warm bodies". If there was a social worker overseeing small groups of people, lay parole officers and lay community corrections officers could be employed. They would not need to be paid salaries but would be paid for the work they had done.
She said that unless the thinking was changed the Department would continue to struggle with for example ARV roll out. It was not the Department of Health’s fault that DCS could not get accreditation as service providers. Should the capital budget not be expended on programmes where inmates were allowed to do the work instead of being incarcerated for 23 hours? Inmates should get a Sector Education and Training Authority (SETA) qualification once they had completed their training. She added that the Department should also look at expunging low risk criminal records. A criminal record made it very difficult to change your life, to get a job, to stay out of prison.
She added that by asking the questions that reinforced the structural faults, importance was being added to them. The legislation should be redrafted in terms of getting time spent awaiting your trial taken off your sentence for example. She emphasised that all these changes were doable. She said that the Committee knew the system well. Perhaps the stakeholders were becoming so intimate with the problems that they were becoming incapable of finding new solutions.
Parole provisions on low risk criminals should be reduced. Getting out of the prison system should be incentivised. Harsh sentencing frameworks did not reduce crime, especially as far as young people were concerned. It was becoming increasingly difficult to provide a decent service with an increasing prison population. It was difficult to make transformation happen under some of the conditions members had to work in. If the Department continued to do business the way it did, it would ‘constantly be bruised’. It had to effect change with ‘radical surgery’. She said that 60 000 persons had been released from prison and only 1% was re-arrested. She said much of society would want one to lock criminals up for good. Penal reformers were generally way ahead of their societies. Penal reform was on the cutting edge of development.
The Chairperson concurred that money should not be spent on building more prisons. The Department of Correctional Services was spending money in the wrong areas. It should be spending money on preparing people to be reintegrated into society so that they could contribute positively to it. Instead money was being wasted on accommodation for thousands more. He would be one of the people who would oppose any future plans to build more prisons. He fully agreed that the awaiting trial population should be reduced urgently.
Mr Tolo told of a lady who had been sentenced to five years in prison. She had now been in prison for much longer than that. How did the Department miss such things? Mr Petersen said that it was a disheartening situation that someone’s rights could be trampled upon by serving a sentence longer than the one that had been determined by the courts. It was very important for the Department to address this case and to determine whether there were any other similar cases. He commented that the old system might have wanted criminals to be locked up and then forgotten. The idea behind rehabilitation was to begin to change this notion. Each official should be a rehabilitator. When a person entered a facility he or she should be assigned a case officer who would know exactly what happened to the prisoner from the time he or she entered the facility to the time they were released. The whole idea behind introducing the case officials, the case management committee and the parole boards was aimed at preventing such cases. He admitted that the Department was aware that the system was not geared towards functioning in such a way. It was looking at ways of strengthening the case assessment teams and correctional intervention teams. In order to manage the process appropriately, addressing the shortages of staff was also necessary.
Mr Mahote asked whether the Annual report referred to people who had been given work opportunities or whether it referred to the number of opportunities available. He asked how the development of baseline measurements and needs based programmes could be reconciled with accreditation by the SETA.
Mr Motseki said that the Department had in its annual report set out a daily average of people who would be offered daily job opportunities. The Department managed to give such opportunities to 65 000 inmates. It offered 303 technical programmes. Although not all of them were accredited, he pointed out that there was an ongoing relationship between the Department and certain SETAs. The Forest Industries Education and Training Authority (FIETA) and the SETA for Manufacturing, Engineering and Related Services (MERSETA) have accredited a significant number of the Department’s training programmes. The Department aimed to ensure that its centres as well as the programmes they offered would be accredited in future.
The Chairperson pointed out that the report contained only 38 pages of relevant information. The rest was made up of unnecessary photographs. Considering that the Department had a budget of close to R10 billion it was expected that it would produce more than only 38 pages of information.
He noted that a comparison of the report with the strategic plan was made very difficult by the fact that two different formats were used for the two documents. This made it difficult to compare plans against progress. What was referred to as ‘key departmental objectives’ in the strategic plan were often reflected as ‘outputs’ or ‘indicators’ in the annual report. He said that this did not facilitate accountability or transparency.
There were a number of instances in which the Department reported on activities that were planned and undertaken, but failed to report on the outcomes of these activities.
Forty-six audits had been conducted as part of service evaluation and audit, yet the report did not reflect the results and impact of the audits.
The Report only stated that under correctional administration ‘numerous’ imbizos had been held. What was the exact figure? Had the objectives been achieved?
At the meeting on 10 November 2004, the Auditor General noted that taxes were due by Department staff on medical aid contributions. The Department admitted that the outstanding amount was in excess of R 341 million. It then undertook to approach Treasury for assistance. What progress has been made on the resolution made by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA)?
The report indicated that one year after SCOPA had made its resolution; discussions with regard to issues relating to information technology were still underway.
In June 2005 the Department reported that consultants were receiving R25-27 million for each of the four new generation prisons. How could consultants receive this amount for the same designs in four different localities? How could the Department continue to maintain that it was a cost-effective exercise? He requested an explanation.
The Auditor General’s report indicated that a substantial amount of staff debt would not be recovered. Why not?
The report also indicated that for more than 5 years the Department had shown a lack of internal controls. What was being done to address this problem?
The report indicated that the Department had failed to report financial misconduct. Who was supposed to report this misconduct? Why was it not done?
The Chairperson urged Members to compare p72 of the new annual report to pp43-46 of the previous one. PP45-47 of the old report (capacity constraints, overcrowding, insufficient prisons) were exactly the same but for the figures. Who authored the reports? The same appeared to be the case for the sections dealing with tariff rates.
Mr Petersen said that it was vital for an organisation to ‘package’ their results and achievements in a manner that would satisfy their stakeholders, particularly if that stakeholder was a Portfolio Committee. The Department would welcome any recommendations for improvement. He said that as the performance measurement structures within government and particularly within the state departments were being strengthened, measurable accountability would become a key cornerstone. He admitted that the executive management team was aware that there were still weaknesses in terms of the monitoring tools and capturing and analysis of information. Initiatives were underway to improve measurability through a number of mechanisms and tools. This should also improve on the reporting of measurable outcomes.
The Department really wanted to address the issue of the lack of cohesion between its strategic report and its annual report. It would have to establish were the rift between the two was and consider measures to ensure that it reported what it purported to report. He assured the Chairperson that the Department had to acknowledge their shortcomings and undertook to address them. The team responsible for writing the report had a difficult enough task and the Department was still struggling around issues of quality control. He pointed out that the executive management was responsible for the annual reports. Information on the provinces was received via the chief deputy commissioners who were responsible for managing branches. The different chief deputy commissioners would have to account for any discrepancies within their relevant sections of the report.
The Department had had a range of meetings with Treasury and the SA Revenue Services (SARS) to deal with the tax liability around Medcor. Treasury was in favour of the Department approaching SARS with a request to write off the amount owing, since the Department could not hold staff responsible for the fact that it had not deducted taxes. SARS indicated that it was not in their power to write off the amount without some legislative changes being made. The second possible solution was for Treasury to give the Department the amount of money outstanding, but Treasury was not keen. Mr Petersen said that SARS met the Department half way – they decided to write off the interest as well as the penalties on the amount owed. The remaining amount could then be settled from savings from within the personnel budget.
The substantial amount of staff debt that the Department would not be able to recover related to debt accumulated over many years. This mainly resulted from staff leaving the organisation. The Department still did not have systems in place that would ensure that once a person left, it would be possible to accurately ascertain whether or not a person had outstanding debts. Some may have left or passed away without certain components deducting money from them. Due to the number of years over which this has been happening, getting the relevant information was highly unlikely. It was important that the Department improved their system so that it knew what was owed to it, as well as to have mechanisms in place to recover the money when there was a termination.
Mr Petersen added that a huge amount of the debt related to the White Commission cases which resulted from the irregular promotions that had occurred in the Transkei and Ciskei prior to democratisation. These promotions had to be undone and the Department had to find ways of recouping this money. This was a long-term process. Treasury had given the Department a number of years over which to recoup this money. The staff debt to manage around these cases has improved considerably and no major problems could be reported. A large amount of the money relating to staff debt was a result of the White Commission.
Labour relations were responsible for capturing the number of members who had been charged with misconduct and to translate this information into financials. This documentation has been put into place but there has been some misunderstanding. The Public Service Commission in terms of legislation required this documentation. It was also required by Treasury, but there was no proof that it had been forwarded to it. The information had been tracked but could not be submitted to all the relevant stakeholders in time. The Department was currently in the process of doing a system process flow improvement strategy within corporate services and finance to ensure that it was able to track all requirements for the submission of information to avoid this type of mishap.
Mr Motseki added that the action plan on correcting some of the issues that had been raised by the Auditor General was already in place. He requested an opportunity to brief the Committee on this action plan at a later stage. This had been done to act on SCOPA resolutions previously but has now been improved to provide for the issues raised by the Auditor General in this financial year.
Mr Petersen requested permission to respond more thoroughly in writing to these questions and those that had not been answered.
The Chairperson asked what the difficulties were with the inmate tracking system at Durban-Westville. Mr Petersen said that from a management point of view the Department was quite disappointed. The Inmate Tracking System (ITS) had been piloted at Durban Westville. The whole purpose of the inmate tracking system was to identify awaiting trial detainees speedily and thus fast track the movement between facilities and the courts. A number of problems had been experienced. First and foremost there was a lack of commitment from the management of the prison. This resulted in a lack of commitment from the staff at the prison. Much resistance to the new technology had been experienced. Some of the straps had disappeared and no one could account for them. Some inmates were still able to remove the bracelets. All stakeholders had tried to correct the problem areas during the piloting phase.
Mr Petersen said that he was happy to report that the Area Commissioner was committed to the new project. The Department has also been able to correct some of these concerns. As a result of the problems faced and lessons learnt in Durban, the functioning at the second pilot site (Johannesburg) seemed to be less difficult.
Mr Kriek (Director: Prison Service) admitted that a lot of difficulties had been experienced with the ITS. Officials did not see the use of the project and undermined it. It was seen as an extra burden on them. As far as he knew the system was working, save for some of the tags that had been lost.
Ms Makgate asked what the agreement had been between the company that supplied the equipment and the Department. The Chairperson pointed out that the Minister of Finance had commented on the same issue the day before. The tender process was lacking in that very often departments had no guarantee that projects would be completed after a contract had been awarded. What was the tax loss resulting from the difficulties experiences with ITS? Mr Mahote asked at what point the tags had been lost. Mr Phala asked how the tags could so easily be lost. The Chair added that 8000 had been lost. Mr Motseki replied that they were lost at prison. Mr Mahote said that at most prisons that were visited as part of the Committee’s oversight duties centres complained about managers who did not manage. What action was taken against those managers who refused to implement ITS? Mr Xolo pointed out that some of the equipment used in the ITS could be struck by lightning. Was the Department insured against this possibility? How could the government spend R28 million yet have no insurance cover?
Mr Motseki responded that ITS was a pilot and as such there was risk involved. The Department was in a learning process regarding the system. The questions that were being raised would assist in finding solutions. The Department was under increasing pressure to roll the system out across the country. The project team estimated that the ITS was a worthy investment despite the risks involved. The Department had indicated previously that an investigative team had been sent out to assess the sources of the problems involved with the system. If carelessness were reported the Department would act "very harshly". The tracking part of the system had in some instances been disabled deliberately. He was not sure as to the risk lightning posed, but said that it was a serious concern.
Mr Petersen added that the human element should not be underestimated. The Department had to find better ways of attracting the " right" people. It was looking at ways such as recognition awards and incentives to acknowledge those who did well.
The Chairperson asked when the investigation would be concluded. A R 7 million loss was predicted. Who would be held responsible? He said that management should be held responsible. The Committee considered the matter very serious and would follow up. It expected a thorough briefing. The same applied to the four new generation prisons. How much was spent at Kimberley? The Department should expect resistance from the Committee with regards to their next budget.
Mr Tolo asked what distance the tracking system covered. Some people said it covered 3m, others said 100m. Why did it not cover 1-2 km in case of escape? The Chairperson said that this question should be responded to in the report.
The Chairperson commented that from the Committee’s interaction with staff, it gathered that one of the reasons morale was low was related to promotions. He requested that the documentation relating to the Department’s promotion policy be made available to the Committee. The document should be simplified in order for Members to be able to understand it.
It was agreed that the Department would be ready with their written submission regarding unanswered questions by the following Friday.
The Chairperson said that questions were being raised not out of negativity, but partly because the Finance Minister had urged Members to take annual reports and budgets more seriously. He emphasised that Members of Parliament would also have their performance evaluated.
He commented that the Government had inherited a corrupt department. The Committee would assist in addressing some of these issues.
Directives: Complainant Involvement in Parole Boards
The Chairperson said that he had received this document in October 2005. It had already been gazetted and the President had signed it. According to legislation, the Committee should have been involved in the entire process. Deputy Minister Gillwald said that it was her understanding that the Criminal Procedure Act required the Commissioner to table the directives in Parliament for review by the Portfolio Committee. The Chairperson admitted that he too had been confused about this, and had sought legal advice. The Department had made a serious error in tabling and gazetting the Directives without consultation with the Committee.
Ms Gillwald assured the Committee that the Department would not have done this intentionally. She apologised for the mistake. The Chairperson said that the process could not be reversed. He said that in future procedures had to be adhered to. Ms Gillwald said that there had clearly been a breach of procedure. She asked whether there would be any possibility of the directives being resubmitted to the Department and if necessary re-gazetted. The Chairperson responded that he had tried to avoid the consequences of this breach. If the process were to be reversed there would be serious consequences for the Minister and the Department. He did not want the matter to take that route.
Ms Chikunga suggested that the matter be taken back to the study group so that an informed decision could be made. Mr Mahote said that he would support Ms Chikunga’s suggestion if there were enough time to do so. If however there was not enough time he would agree with the Chairperson’s suggestion. Mr Phala said that if the matter were to be extended other people would be exposed more. Mr Tolo said that if the Deputy Minister agreed the matter should just be approved. Ms Gillwald said that she was very grateful. She assured the Committee that someone would be held responsible. She would try to trace how this error had occurred. She said that she would not take responsibility for the breach. The Chair ruled that the directives would be approved on condition that this type of breach never happened again.
The meeting was adjourned.
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.