Democracy and Good Political Governance: input from Departments of Safety and Security, Justice and Constitutional Development a

Meeting report

JOINT AD HOC COMMITTEE ON DEMOCRACY AND GOOD POLITICAL GOVERNANCE
24 November 2005
CRIME PREVENTION AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION: INPUT FROM DEPARTMENTS OF SAFETY AND SECURITY, JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT, SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Chairperson: Mr M Baloyi (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Department of Social Development PowerPoint Presentation
Department of Safety and Security: SAPS presentation
Crime Situation in South Africa: Crime trends between 2001/2002 and 2004/2005
Department of Justice and Constitutional Development presentation

SUMMARY
The Committee received presentations from the Departments of Safety and Security, Justice and Constitutional Development and the Department of Social Development. The departments were invited as part of the peer review process to respond on the progress made in the prevention and reduction of crime in South Africa.

The Committee raised the following issues
- Lack of communication between the SAPS and the public regarding progress of reported cases
- Reasons why SA was vulnerable to organised crime and what mechanisms have been put in place to deal with the cases.
- The impact of crime on the economy.

The Department of Social Development noted its vision and mandate, discussed the historical and contemporary causes of poverty in South Africa and provided statistics, from 1996 and 2001, on poverty and unemployment levels in South Africa. They then outlined and assessed the effectiveness of the Department’s various poverty alleviation mechanisms, which included social grants and the Poverty Alleviation Programme. During the ensuing discussion, these topics were covered: the nature of the 'social relief of distress' grants, the Department's access to up-to-date poverty statistics; receiving more than one social grant; the importance of the nodal areas; social grants improving a recipient's prospect of finding employment.

There was no briefing from the Western Cape Community Policing Forum as planned due to a misunderstanding.

MINUTES
The Chairperson welcomed the delegation from the Department of Safety and Security. He briefly explained the purpose of the meeting, indicating that the Joint Ad Hoc Committee was not an ordinary parliamentary committee, but one that was mandated to review the work done in reaching the goals of the African Peer Review System.

The Department of Safety and Security said that it was pleased with the progress made in dealing with crimes such as murder, assault with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm and burglary. However there was still a lot of work that needed to be done, as some trends seemed to increase instead of decreasing. Superintendent Malatji presented the statistics between 2001/2002 and 2004/2005 to indicate these crime trends.

Mr W Hofmeyr from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development acknowledged that South Africa, like many transitional democracies was vulnerable to organised crime, corruption, bribery and drug dealings. He however concluded that despite the challenges, South Africa had an ability to fight activities of organised crime (see document).

Discussion

Ms Camerer (DA) commented that the briefing sounded very good, but she was worried that ordinary citizens would disagree with the figures indicating that crime was under control. She questioned if there was some way to communicate these statistics to communities because people perceived South Africa to be one of the worst crime spots.

Ms Camerer asked why it was difficult for the Department to regularly update the public on the progress made with Zuma's case. She said that there was either insufficient or confusing information given to people about where the South African Police Service (SAPS) was with the case. She also asked why the location of crime hot spots in Cape Town were not available compared to cities such as Johannesburg. She was concerned about the approaching tourist season.

The Chairperson requested the Committee not to use the platform to discuss specific cases such as the Zuma case.

Assistant Commissioner De Kock, SAPS: Social Crime Prevention, informed the Committee that there were relevant statistics accessible to the public, which allowed everyone to see where South Africa was standing with regard to crime prevention. The statistics could be found on the Department's website at www.saps.gov.za and in some stations.

Responding to the question of communication, the Department said that, in its dealings, it took into consideration the importance of acting responsibly especially when they dealt with cases that created conflict. Moreover, the Commissioner decided at what level cases should be communicated to the public.

Ms Mgabadeli (ANC) was concerned about the image that the SAPS portrayed to communities. SAPS was not visible enough especially to local communities. What mechanisms could be used to ensure good working relations between the Department of Correctional Services, SAPS and the communities at large?

Assistant Commissioner Montle responded that integrated case management existed, but that it still posed challenges when it came to local level. The Department needed to ensure that roles were not duplicated because of the joint effort between the Correctional Services and SAPS.

Ms Nkabinde was worried by the increased percentage of reported indecent assault cases. She questioned the skills of the officers stationed at the centres where such crimes were reported. She also asked what the Department was doing with officers involved in crime.

Due to time constraints, the Chairperson proposed that members who still had questions, should raise them with the department who would submit a written response at a later stage. The Department promised to respond by no later than 2 December 2005.

Department of Justice and Constitutional Development
Mr Willie Hofmeyr, Head of the Asset Forfeiture Unit of the National Prosecuting Authority, noted that South Africa was vulnerable as it continued to be a centre for organised criminal activities. Organised crime was becoming more like a business as activities of drug dealing, bribery and corruption continued to increase in South Africa. He acknowledged that they still faced challenges which included lack of skills and capacity to deal with the reported cases. Another challenge that they faced was the lack of inter-agency cooperation.

Discussion

Ms Mgabadeli asked why organised crime continued to pose a threat to South Africa. She questioned what measures were used to deal with the problem of organised crime. She felt that the presentation did not reflect the actual number of crime cases reported in the Eastern Cape. She believed that the Eastern Cape had a lot of organised criminal cases when compared to any other province.

Mr Hofmeyr responded that most transitional democracies faced the problem of organised crime. South Africa was vulnerable as organised crime manifested itself by means of corruption. However, the Department was confident that South Africa had the ability to overcome organised crime even though more work still needed to be done. Further, the country realised the importance of taking strong measures to ensure that government dealt with organised crime

Responding to the question on the statistics of organised crime in the Eastern Cape, he pointed out that serious organised crime took place in big cities where more money was believed to be generated.

MINUTES
The Chairperson stated that the Social Development Department had been invited to brief the Committee on issues that were relevant to the African Peer Review Mechanism. This included discussing the key causes of poverty; a geographical overview of poverty; and the poverty alleviation initiatives that the Department was undertaking. This would contribute towards the self-assessment process that was being undertaken as part of the African Peer Review Mechanism.

Department of Social Development: Briefing
Ms S Follentine (Western Cape Department of Social Development: Policy) began by discussing the vision and mandate of the Social Development Department, which was to provide poverty alleviation; to promote social inclusion and integration; to facilitate employment creation; and to promote human development. She noted that poverty had multiple dimensions. Indeed, poverty was a state of deprivation that prevented an individual from attaining a minimum socially accepted standard of living. She added that impoverished people in South Africa faced various challenges, which included living in overcrowded conditions, being unable to adequately feed themselves and their families; being excluded from secure work; experiencing the fragmentation of their family lives; and being unable to access certain basic services.

Ms Follentine outlined the key causes of poverty in South Africa:
- The legacy of apartheid and discrimination that led to the under-development of the townships and the homeland areas. Added to this, the manner in which the apartheid economy evolved overtime contributed towards a high unemployment rate.
- An increase in the unemployment rate. The current increase in unemployment was due to structural unemployment, retrenchments, and the development of extremely capital intensive production processes.
- The negative impact of globalisation on South Africa’s labour market. This included an increase in unemployment due to trade liberalisation and tariff reductions. Globalisation had also led to a decline in the demand for unskilled labour.
- The negative impact of HIV/AIDS

Ms Follentine discussed certain statistics around poverty in South Africa. She noted that the unemployment rate had increased from 33.8% in 1996 to 41.6% in 2001. Nonetheless, the number of households earning less that R 6 000 per annum had decreased between 1996 and 2001. Ms Follentine provided a geographical overview of poverty pockets in South Africa. She noted that poverty pockets were found mainly in the townships and former homeland areas. In addition, she noted that thirteen Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Programme (ISRDP) poverty nodes and eight Urban Renewal Programme (URP) poverty nodes had been identified.

Ms Follentine discussed the Department’s poverty alleviation mechanisms, which were:
- Social grants, such as the old age grant; the disability grant; the war veterans grant; the care dependency grant; the child support grant; and the social relief of distress grant. Over R 60 billion in social grants was dispersed to nine million recipients annually. These grants were positively impacting on poverty levels, economic growth and the employment prospects of the recipients and their family members.
- The Poverty Relief Programme. Through this, the Department funded and supported community projects that were aimed at the aged, the youth, women, disabled people and ensuring food security. Indeed, the Department was funding and supporting 426 projects.
- The National Food Emergency Scheme (NFES). This was a three year grant that was aimed at providing food aid to vulnerable people that lacked sufficient access to food. However, the NFES would be phased out in the 2005/06 financial year and would be replaced by the National Integrated Social Development Grant. The Department had spent R 860 million on the NFES. In 2004/05, approximately 490 000 food parcels had been distributed to people in need.
- The ISRDP and URP. These programmes were aimed at supporting renewal, reconstruction and poverty alleviation initiatives in the rural and urban areas.
- The Expanded Public Work Programme (EPWP) Social Sector Initiatives. This involved training and employing people in community based care and early childhood development initiatives. Indeed, there were 4 284 care givers that had been employed on 18 month contracts.

Ms Follentine commented that most of the beneficiaries of the Department’s services and grants were women and children. The government also allocated funds to the social sector to address some of the needs of the poor and vulnerable. Ms Follentine concluded that skills development was a priority, which could enhance the quality of human resources and the provision of an institutional framework that could guide the formulation and execution of social and economic policies.

Discussion
Ms N Nkabinde (UDM) pointed out that the social relief of distress grants were once-off payments to individuals that had been affected by disasters. She enquired what happened after the person had received the social relief of distress grant. Would a person be provided with any other forms of assistance if they needed it?

Ms Follentine acknowledged that the social relief of distress grant was a once-off payment, which was made to individuals that had been affected by disasters. Nonetheless, the Department did provide financial support to entities, such as the Red Cross, to provide ongoing support to the victims of disasters. For example, the Department was providing ongoing funding to the Red Cross to assist the Joe Slovo fire victims.

Ms Nkabinde noted that if an individual was sent to prison, they would lose any social grant that they were receiving. She asked what happened to the families of such individuals once the grant was stopped. Were the families of such individuals offered any support? Ms Follentine acknowledged that a person would lose their social grant if they were imprisoned. This was due to the fact that prisoners were wards of the state. Nonetheless, the Department would examine whether a prisoner had any children. If these children were eligible, the family could then access a child support grant.

Ms Nkabinde was concerned that the food parcels, of the National Food Emergency Scheme (NFES), were only distributed for three months in a year. She asked what happened during the other nine months. Ms Follentine replied that issues surrounding the food parcels were highly contentious. Indeed, some people had questioned whether there should be a food parcel programme because food parcels were only distributed for three months in a year. Nevertheless, the food parcels often assisted people and enabled them to survive. Ms Follentine added that, unfortunately, there had been corruption around the food parcel system. It was partly due to this that government had decided to end the project.

The Chairperson asked whether it was possible for a person to simultaneously receive more than one of the social grants. For example, could an individual simultaneously receive a disability grant, a care dependency grant and a child support grant? Ms Follentine replied that an individual could not receive more than one grant. Nonetheless, it was possible for a family to receive more than one grant. For example, in one family there could be a member receiving a pension, another member receiving a disability grant, and another member receiving a child support grant.

Ms H Mgabadeli (ANC) asked whether the Department had explained the importance of the ISDRP and URP nodes to its social workers. Added to this, she asked whether the Department’s management had informed the social workers about the priorities that had been identified by the President. Ms Follentine replied that social workers in certain provinces were told about the importance of the nodes. For example, social workers in the Western Cape were informed about the importance of the nodal areas. However, in other provinces it was possible that social workers were not being told about the importance of the nodes. Thus, the situation differed from area to area.

Ms Mgabadeli enquired whether the training, which social workers received, was practically aligned with the situations they would face once they were employed. Ms Follentine responded that the Western Cape Department attempted to align the social workers’ training with the realities that they would face when they were employed.

Ms Mgabadeli was concerned that it appeared as if many of the social workers were referring people to the social grants system rather than conducting social work amongst these people. Ms Follentine acknowledged that there was a problem with social workers referring people to the social grants system rather than conducting social work. This practice stemmed from the fact that social workers were scarce. As a result, social workers in South Africa had extremely heavy workloads. In the United Kingdom the average social worker would have a caseload of approximately five to seven cases. In South Africa, the average social worker would have a caseload of approximately 180 to 220 cases. This resulted in some of the social workers simply referring some people to the social grants system.

Ms Mgabadeli responded that there were many social workers that were unemployed or that were working in other professions. Hence, social workers were not scarce. The Department should be tracking social worker graduates. This would allow the Department to find people to fill its social worker posts. She suggested that some of the social workers could be used as trainers to train people in social work skills.

Ms Mgabadeli noted that the EPWP was officially the responsibility of the Department of Public Works. However, other departments, such as the Department of Transport and the Department of Social Development, were also undertaking EPWP projects. She asked which Department was actually taking the lead role. Ms Follentine responded that the EPWP was the responsibility of the Department of Public Works. In the Western Cape, the Department of Social Development worked closely with the Department of Public Works around the EPWP. For example, the Department of Social Development had identified grant beneficiaries that could be employed in the EPWP.

Ms S Camerer (DA) was concerned that the Department was still using statistics on unemployment and poverty from 2001. It was difficult to produce an adequate assessment and report without up-to-date statistics. The Committee needed up-to-date statistics from the Department. Ms Follentine acknowledged that it was perhaps problematic that the Department was working with 2001 statistics. She added that the situation had changed in South Africa since 2001. The Department needed to acquire good management information systems. Nonetheless, Ms Follentine noted that the Department would send its updated statistics to the Committee.

Ms Camerer stated that it was appalling that nearly 50% of households in South Africa had an income of less than R 6 000 per annum. She asked whether there was proof that social grants increased the beneficiaries’ prospects of finding employment. Ms Follentine responded that various studies had been conducted on the impact of social grants. For example, PLAAS (www.uwc.ac.za/plaas) had conducted a study on the impact of social grants in the Eastern Cape. She would make these studies available to the Committee.

Ms Mgabadeli enquired whether the Department had a monitoring mechanism to assess its performance. She asked if social worker students at the universities were still conducting outreach work as part of their degrees.

Ms Camerer stated that the Department’s delegation had blamed the legacy of apartheid for the high unemployment rate in South Africa. However, unemployment had risen from 1996 to 2001. Ms Camerer questioned how long one could continue to blame apartheid for unemployment. She felt that, as a Democratic Alliance representative, the high unemployment rate in South Africa was also linked to the country's labour laws. Nonetheless, without up-to-date statistics, one could not know whether the unemployment rate had increased or decreased since 2001.

Ms Mgabadeli stated that she was concerned that Ms Camerer was defending the apartheid system. She added that apartheid had only ended eleven years previously. It was impossible for the government to have completely addressed apartheid’s legacy after only eleven years. She commented that Ms Camerer should not be speaking directly on behalf of the DA in this particular committee. This Committee was tasked with undertaking self-assessment as part of the African Peer Review Mechanism. The meeting should not be about party politics.

Ms Camerer retorted that she had not defended the apartheid system. She acknowledged that apartheid was one of the causes of high unemployment in South Africa; however she felt it was not the sole cause. There were indications that unemployment had worsened from 1996 to 2001. The DA felt that this was due to South Africa’s labour laws.

Ms Camerer stated that the Committee was sitting as a body of parliament and, as a result, Members should not be arguing in front of the delegation. She added that the Members’ questions and comments should be directed at the presenters, and not at each other. It was not appropriate for Members to openly attack each other in the meeting. The point of the meeting was for the Committee to garnish information from the presenters. All people had their own individual views, but these should not be attacked in the meeting.

Ms Mgabadeli pointed out that Ms Camerer had stated that she was speaking as a DA representative; and not as an individual. Hence, Ms Camerer was guilty of bringing party politics into the meeting.

The Chairperson called for order. He asked the Members to rise to the maturity levels that were expected from them by the public. The Chairperson noted that some issues were emotive; but all Members, including Ms Camerer and Ms Mgabadeli, needed to refrain from arguing with each other. The Committee’s approach was to ensure that Members worked together and were tolerant of each other. The Committee Members needed to engage with the presenters; not each other.

The Chairperson commented that the Department’s presentation should have included greater analysis of the impact of the poverty alleviation mechanisms. The Chairperson asked whether the Department could provide a written in-depth analysis of the impact of the poverty alleviation initiatives to the Committee by 2 December. Ms Follentine replied that a report, which contained a written in-depth analysis of the Department’s poverty alleviation initiatives, would be sent to the Committee.

The Chairperson commented that there were various issues surrounding poverty that needed to be considered and examined. For example, the Wits University Forced Migration Study Programme had highlighted the problem of permanent refugees not being able to access social grants. However, Wits had failed to provide any concrete solutions to this problem. The Committee and Department needed to seriously consider this issue. Both the Committee and the Department needed to consider whether refugees, who were almost naturalised, should be given the right to claim social grants.

Western Cape Community Policing Forum: briefing
The Chairperson noted that, due to a misunderstanding, the Western Cape Community Policing Forum would not be available to brief the Committee. They had apologised for not being present at the meeting.

Committee Programme
The Chairperson stated that the Committee would no longer be meeting in the week of 28 November to 2 December. The Chairperson commented that the Committee’s management team, which included the researcher, would be assessing the written submissions on Objective Two, which related to constitutional democracy, democratic competition, opportunity for choice, the rule of law and citizens rights.

It was noted that the Committee would be meeting on 6, 7 and 8 December at the Gauteng legislature. On each of these days, organisations would be briefing the Committee on their views on issues surrounding Objective Two. It was planned that the Independent Electoral Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the Public Protector and Auditor-General would be briefing the Committee on 6 December. On 7 December, the four largest political parties would be briefing the Committee. The Institute for a Democratic South Africa (IDASA), the South African Council of Churches, and the South African Non-Governmental Coalition (SANGOCO) would be briefing the Committee on 8 December. There would also be open sessions after each of these briefings.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee would also be meeting on 12 December, in Parliament, to deal with Objective Five, which related to the separation of powers between the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary. During the 12 December meeting, an academic, the Speaker of Parliament, the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces, the Office of the President, and the Chief Justice would be briefing the Committee on Objective Five.

The meeting was adjourned.