Department Strategic Plan and Budget 2006/07

Meeting report

Strategic Plan for 2006/07 – 2010/11 (PowerPoint Presentation)
Strategic Plan for 2006/07-2010/11 [please email [email protected]]
Original Budget 2006/07 Financial Year (PowerPoint Presentation)
Department Budget 2006/07

SUMMARY
The Department of Correctional Services briefed the Committee on its Strategic Plan for
2006/07–2010/11 as well as their budget for 2006/07. The Committee was particularly concerned about the delay in the building of the new generation prisons and the Department’s plans for recruiting and retaining scarce skills. The issues that had been raised when National Treasury had briefed the Committee earlier that week would be addressed in a later meeting.

MINUTE
The Chairperson proposed that the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) should first give both their presentations after which National Treasury would brief the Committee on some of the issues that emanated from the meeting that had been held on the previous Tuesday.

Mr N Balfour (Minister of Correctional Services) said that he would have thought that the DCS would brief the Committee on its strategic plan and budget for the coming financial year. If the DCS wanted to raise issues that had been raised during the previous meeting, a separate meeting with National Treasury, the Department and the Committee should have been called to deal with those issues. He would have thought that a separate session would have been planned. He requested that the Committee only deal with DCS’s Strategic Plan and the Budget and later have another meeting to deal with the report National Treasury had delivered that Tuesday
He said that he did not want DSC to lose focus of what it was supposed to do.

He informed the Committee that the Department had appointed two new regional Commissioners for KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape, one of whom was a woman. DCS had to ‘walk the talk’ in terms of gender transformation. He hoped that the presentation would also touch on those aspects of the Accelerated Shared Growth Initiative of South Africa (ASGISA) that related to DCS.

The Chairperson responded that he would unfortunately not grant the Minister’s request. National Treasury had made their comments in a public meeting and some of these issues needed clarification.

Mr V Mbethe (Chief Director: Protection Services, National Treasury) responded that National Treasury’s role was to support the secretariat, researchers and chairpersons as far as evaluating and assessing Department budgets. Their role was not to make public presentations to the Committee but to support and assist the Chairperson in probing the Department’s budget.

The Chairperson decided that National Treasury would in this case not make a presentation, but a meeting would be organized at a later stage to deal with the questions that had been raised.

Ms L Mti (National Commissioner, DCS) said that DCS would submit a detailed report on the unrest that had erupted at the correctional facility of the public private partnership (PPP) prison in Louis Trichardt on 1 March. The incident had raised serious concerns about the relationship the DCS had with the PPP prisons. DCS was considering what the impact would be of the incident on the contract with the PPP.

The Commissioner informed the Committee that in order for DCS to ‘tighten up’ their work with Parliament it had made some changes to the personnel that interacted with the Committee and Parliament. The new officials would be introduced to the Committee quite soon. The strategic plan to be presented would be subject to changes as the provinces submitted their operational plans.

Briefing on Strategic Plan and Budget
Mr T Motseki (Chief Deputy Commissioner, DCS) briefed the Committee on the Department’s strategic plan for the next five years. It outlined the background to the development of the 2006/07 strategic plan and budget, the performance achievements of 2005/06 as well as the Department’s strategic priorities for 2006/07 and beyond. The Department was still facing many challenges in terms of, amongst others, scarce skills recruitment, overhauling community corrections and developing their own capacity to be able to manage facilities.

Mr P Gillingham (Chief Financial Officer, DCS) said that DCS’s baseline allocation for that financial year was about R10.6 billion. The bulk of this allocation would be spread among the security, administration and care programmes. The presentation outlined the estimates of national expenditure (ENE) baseline, the ENE allocation per economic classification as well as per programme. It also detailed the amounts that had been allocated to infrastructure and personnel.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked why R3.4 million had been allocated to be spent on the Head Office, and asked what exactly this amount would be spent on.

Mr Gillingham said that the DCS would give a specific breakdown of the allocation when they returned the following week.

Ms S Chikunga (ANC) asked how much of the budget that the Committee had approved the previous year had been spent and not spent.

Mr Gillingham said that the DSC was in the process of finalising some of the tenders that had been awarded during 2005/06. He indicated that the DCS had not overspent on its budget, and did not envisage a major under-spending. DCS would get back to the Committee once everything had been finalised.

Ms Chikunga pointed out that the estimates of national expenditure indicated that in 2004/05 the DCS had met the target set in terms of the 24-hour health service to all facilities. DCS indicated however that there were still many challenges to be faced in terms of the phasing in of primary health care services. She asked if this was this not a contradiction. To her knowledge a 24-hour medical service referred to a hospital with nurses, doctors, etc. She asked if this was what the DCS had meant.

The Minister said that in most of the prisons there were small hospitals or clinics. Only when offenders were very ill were they referred to hospitals accompanied by custodial staff. Even though the DCS was not yet able to provide overnight nurses, it had to ensure that patients were supervised.

The Commissioner said that health care did not necessarily have to be administered by a nurse. Where prisons had their own hospitals, they operated for 24 hours. He apologised for the possibility of the reports being misleading.

Ms Chikunga observed that the briefings indicated that there were many aspects that were still in the process of being developed. She asked when implementation phase would begin. She suggested that the DCS needed to look at its objective as a Department– rehabilitation. Scarce skills played an important role in the rehabilitation process. She had been to a prison in Ermelo the previous year and when she had returned during the current year, all the staff had been changed. DCS was competing with other sectors and did not appear to have a retention strategy in place. The reports always indicated that all was well in the DCS, yet there was a lack of human resources. She questioned if the DSC had done enough in improving the remuneration packages for professionals with scarce skills.

The Minister responded that the absence scarce skills were a national problem, which was also addressed in ASGISA. Professionals with scarce skills played a support role in terms of rehabilitation. He agreed that scarce skills shortage was a serious problem for DCS. It might have a very good retention strategy and still not be able to keep professionals from leaving. DCS paid salaries in tandem with Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA), and had to pay within the scales set by DPSA. He assured the Committee that the DCS was in constant negotiations with the DPSA.

The Chairperson said that the Committee should also try to assist in getting National Treasury to make more funds available for salaries. Without the necessary staff rehabilitation would be virtually impossible.

Ms Chikunga asked what the DCS did to ensure that personnel who went on management training courses implemented what they learnt at all levels. A lot of money was spent on training.

The Minister said that because the DCS was following the rehabilitation path it needed to train officials so that they could become familiar with the programme. Some did not implement what they had learnt in their training. Good managers would make sure that training was implemented and reached all levels.

Mr N Xolo (ANC) wondered how much of the budget had been allocated towards the completion of the 8 new-generation prisons. He asked if money would be allocated every year or if one set amount be given for the entire project, and how long it would be before the prisons would be complete.

The Chairperson requested clarity on whether the prisons that would be built would be private facilities or correctional facilities and if they would be privately owned and run by DCS.

The Minister said that he would be "quite brutal" about a few things. Mr Mbethe had correctly asked what role the National Treasury had played. He raised this matter in light of the presentation National Treasury had made to the Committee two days earlier. It had made him very, very angry. He would deal with the matter at a later stage.

Minister Balfour responded that the Private Public Partnership (PPP) arrangement with the two privately owned prisons had been inherited from the then Minister of Correctional Services, Mr Mzimela. He was very critical of the way in which this arrangement had been implemented. The DCS was faced with the difficult task of reviewing what had happened in 1998 when the agreements had been made.

He said that the CFO would be better able to inform the Committee on the progress that had been made in DCS’s discussions with National Treasury and the Department of Public Works (DPW) as far as the route to take with partnerships between DCS and private companies. The method that they had formulated was one that would suit DCS if opted to have partners. He did not want the management of state offenders to be outsourced. Neither he nor the DCS had made up their minds as to which route to go as far as the four new-generation prisons were concerned. His approach was "let’s build prisons and just manage them". He was adamant that he would not be happy to go the route that had been taken in 1998 when the PPP arrangement had been made.

The Chairperson responded that the Committee had not been involved in the decision that had been taken to build the prisons that were now so contentious. The Committee wanted to be involved in the whole process regarding the four new prisons. The two PPP prisons were a huge problem to taxpayers.

The Commissioner said that the DSC would keep the Committee informed about any developments. One should avoid any hands on involvement in the tender process, as it could get "messy". He said that he wished that he had been present at the meeting with National Treasury so that DCS could have defended themselves. He requested that DCS be invited the following time to such meetings to avoid the confusion that had now arisen.

The Chairperson said that he had called this meeting so that Treasury could raise the issues that had been raised before, in the presence of the DSC. Mr Mbethe had declined the opportunity to do so. He said that a meeting would be held again at a later stage.

Mr Gillingham said that much money had been spent on the facilities to ensure that they would contribute to the objectives the DCS had set. The ideal situation would be to build the facilities on state owned land. The most affordable way to go about the project would be for the prisons to be built and for DCS to be responsible for the operation of the facilities. This would also contribute to job creation.

The DCS could not outsource its legal mandate to manage the facility and to facilitate rehabilitation. The model the DCS would follow was called a Project Finance Model (PFM). Minor changes might be made to the existing design and a private institution would be approached to finance the building of the facility according to the already existing design. The institution would maintain the facility for a period of 15 years, with the possibility of extension. The contract would eventually expire. DCS would be responsible for the operation of the facility. The maintenance of the facility could include a number of options relating to upgrades, etc. Maintenance would only be done after the first ten years. The DCS would then only have to repay the building of the facility. If the DCS entered into an agreement with a private company they would ensure that it used the best materials available. The process would be phased in and DCS would take care to observe black economic empowerment (BEE) principles.

The Commissioner added that there was an allocation for the four prisons on which construction was meant to have started the year before. Treasury would give funding for all eight. The DCS merely had to decide on which model to follow.

Ms Chikunga noted that the President, in his State of the Nation Address, had said that the number of children in prisons needed to be reduced. She had realised that, in some provinces, providing for child offenders was a function of the Department of Social Development (DSD) while in others it was a function of DCS. She asked if DCS could investigate the matter.

The Minister pointed out that it was not the DCS’s responsibility to look after children in prisons. The South African Police Service (SAPS) arrested them and they were supposed to be charged within 24 hours of their arrest. DCS was in constant negotiation with the Justice cluster to try and prevent children from being sent to their facilities. Children who were awaiting trial were supposed to be released into the custody of their families, but this also often proved to be problematic. The DCS could also not simply suggest that they be kept in police holding cells. He assured the Committee that DCS was working closely with DSD to arrive at a solution.

The Commissioner added that it was becoming more difficult to say that children did not belong in correctional facilities. DCS had to think creatively about finding solutions. Big centres could be selected in provinces specifically to accommodate children who were awaiting trials. The number of children in prison was increasing - nearly half of the prison population consisted of children. DCS could not wait on DSD to assist them – DSD dealt with small groups of children, while the number on correctional facilities was growing at an alarming rate.

Ms Chikunga asked whether the migration from Medcor to the Government Employees Medical Scheme (GEMS) has been completed. She asked if there had been any progress as far as the basic life salary for correctional officials was concerned.

The Minister said that the DCS has tried its best. It was difficult to just set salaries. Some adjustments had taken place. This was not done within the context of the bargaining that was being done with DPSA. DCS has been working hard to increase salaries to boost morale. If more money became available, other levels would also be raised.

The Minister responded that the DCS did not want to migrate until Medcor had not been stabilised. He said much progress had been made on the stabilisation of Medcor. The Commissioner added that Medcor’s contract would expire in a year’s time. Officials were encouraged in the interim to compare the benefits they would be receiving from GEMS and Medcor.

Ms Chikunga asked what the budget for the National Council of Corrections (NCC) covered.

The Commissioner said that the NCC had a budget of R250 000 per year which might be increased. The money was mostly used for their meetings.

Ms Chikunga pointed out that the Committee would have difficulty monitoring the DCS’s activities because it had come up with two 5-year plans in the space of two years. The first 5-year plan said that the DCS would recruit 2627 new officials while the latest one indicated that it would only recruit 2211 new officials.

The Minister said that he looked forward to entry-level recruitment each year. He said that he was sure that the numbers indicated in the report had been exceeded. The DCS would have to correct the inconsistencies.

The Commissioner would correct any figures around recruitment that were contradictory. The DCS did make revisions as they developed their strategic plan. The strategic plan was reviewed every year particularly to make such adjustments.

The Chairperson said that he was sorry about the confusion that had arisen from that Tuesday’s meeting. The Committee would discuss the way forward and would arrange a meeting between National Treasury, the Committee and DCS.

The meeting was adjourned.
 

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
9 March 2006
DEPARTMENT STRATEGIC PLAN AND BUDGET 2006/07

Chairperson: Mr D Bloem (ANC)

Documents handed out: