Department of Correctional Services Budget 2007/08: deliberations

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
09 March 2007
DELIBERATIONS ON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES BUDGET 2007/08

Chairperson: Mr D Bloem (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Department of Correctional Services Budget 2007/08 [Vote 19]
Parliamentary Information Services input on Department Budget

Audio recording of the meeting

Ministry of Correctional Services Media Release on 8 March 2007: Rejection of Mathe Report by Portfolio Committee is Premature, Ill-timed and Lacking Sound Judgement (see Appendix)

SUMMARY

The Committee was briefed on the Department of Correctional Services budget by a parliamentary researcher in preparation for . Several questions were drafted which would be posed to the Department at a future meeting. The spending was below budget, mainly due to new prisons not being built. Significant increases were made for corrections and for prisoner care services. The Department would have to complete feasibility studies on new prisons before funds would be released for building. The care budget was also increased in order to retain medical staff. New prisons could only be built once feasibility studies had been completed.

Members commented on the construction of prisons. Attention had to be paid to medical services in prisons, as well as psychological and social services. The questions arising from this meeting would be put to the Department. A letter was also distributed to members, which was the Department’s response to the Committee’s rejection of the Mathe report.

MINUTES

Ms N Dollie (Researcher, Parliamentary Information Services) said that the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) had not spent as much as expected. The increase had been approximately 1%. National Treasury had taken R 6.4 billion from DCS’s baseline. The Department had not spent this money, most of which would have been spent on new prisons. About R 2.8 million had been rescheduled to other priorities. The returned allocation had been distributed amongst other departments in the cluster.

Money would be spent on security systems such as x-ray machines for access control. R 637 million was budgeted for infrastructure, down from R 1 billion. Allocations for training had increased slightly. The allocation for Corrections had increased by 61.3%, and the other significant increase was for Care, which was up by 13.4%. The only decrease in the budget was for Facilities. She said that by 31 January 2007, 73% of the budget had been spent. This was below the ideal figure of 83%. One of the problems was with the Department of Public Works, which had been late in sending its invoice. Treasury understood the situation as it cut across different departments.

Ms Dollie then went through each DCS programme. The first was Administration, which increased by 7.7%. Catering services were being outsourced. This would be the last time that the seven-day four shift system would be used for staff, and more officials were being recruited to make this possible. A Master Information Systems Plan would be implemented in accordance with the President’s State of the Nation Address. A very important part of this was to monitor the control functions. This would improve the function of the Department. The Human Resources target was not to exceed a 3% vacancy rate. The budgetary implications of the Jali Commission Report would be considered. Talks were being held with Treasury about increasing basic salaries. More feedback was needed on the management remand project. DCS was still responsible for awaiting trial prisoners, but these were accommodated in a separate structure. She questioned whether a cost exercise had been done in this regard.

The second programme was Security, which had received a 5.9% increase. Upgrades would be applied in 66 identified centres, but it was not clear if the funding was only for these centres or for the DCS in entirety. Officials needed to be vetted. In the Mathe case it was clear that there had been some collusion with prison officials in his escape from C Max.

Ms Dollie said that Programme 3: Corrections had received an increase of 61.3%. This would be spent mainly on risk assessment and profiling. Increases were long overdue. Programme 4 was the Care project, and had attracted the second largest increase of 13.4%. R 83 million had been allocated over the MTF to retain medical personnel. Her question was how salaries and allowances could be increased. DCS had conducted an HIV/AIDS prevalence survey, and a preliminary report had been produced.

Programme 5 was relatively unchanged and little had been allocated to Programme 6: Social Re-integration. Her question to be posed to DCS was what percentage of offenders were passing through re-integration programmes.

Programme 7: Facilities had a decrease of 7.8%. This allocation was primarily for the construction of new prisons. The decrease had been the result of a recommendation by the Committee. The argument had also impressed Treasury. Their decision was that money would not be transferred from the budgetary allocation to DCS until a feasibility study was undertaken at each proposed new facility. Treasury was unhappy that the money would be transferred to DCS and then sit and do nothing. The same process would apply regarding the new DCS head office. The Kimberley prison was already being built.

Discussion
The Chairperson thanked Ms Dollie for preparing the document. It had not been an easy job. It was not a problem for money for prisons to be returned, but there were implications. The President had said that the building of prisons must continue. If money was not allocated, then the programme would have to be stopped or at least suspended. Only the Kimberley prison was still under construction. He asked what the implications of this decision would be. There were serious concerns and contradictions in this approach.

Mr J Selfe (DA) said that Ms Dollie had prepared an excellent summary, especially in those areas where the budget was silent. The emphasis was on the implementation of the interrogation of the budget. For over three years DCS’s strategic objectives had shifted dramatically. As DCS either implemented or failed to implement its programmes so the targets were shifted. Key service delivery was indecisive. Current targets were based on those of the previous year, and this was problematic. DCS should be interrogated as to why performance indicators had changed over time. He suspected that DCS had failed to implement its programmes. This went hand in hand with underspending. One of the reasons for this was the fact that some planned prisons had not been built and there were no prisons in other areas. One thing that was not in the document was the roll-out of Centres of Excellence (CoE). The budget was completely silent regarding phase two of this programme. He observed that DCS planned for all areas instead of concentrating on the envisaged CoEs.

It was correct to highlight the area of medical professionals. This was particularly the case with social and psychological counselling. Social workers had held 96 thousand sessions, which equated to only about one social work session per prisoner. Admittedly, he said, some of the sessions would have been group sessions. It was also correct to focus on the re-integration of prisoners into society. The budget did not seem to be aligned to the strategic objectives of the DCS.

Mr S Mahote (ANC) said that if money was not being spent on the Prisons Development Programme (PDP), then it could be spent profitably elsewhere. He queried the need for outsourcing. DCS had a full complement of staff, and he wondered where the people were now. It seemed to him that the DCS was paying for two sets of staff. The Committee had visited prisons, and had found the vacancy rate to be concerning.

The Chairperson noted that these were critical questions.

Ms Dollie noted these questions for the meeting with the DCS planned for 13 March 2007. The relation between the State of the Nation speech and the budget had to be explored. The PDP had not been scrapped, but the correct processes had to be in place before funds would be released. This was totally in line with policy. If the prisons were feasible and the processes were in order, the building funds would be released.

The Chairperson said that the prisons would be built. The President had said that the process would continue during this year. This had been a specific statement. He agreed with the caution expressed by Treasury, but said there was a clash in the wording.

Ms Dollie replied that feasibility studies should be completed by the end of March 2007. Once this was done, the tender process and eventually construction could start.

Ms Z Nawa (ANC) asked how long it would take before building would start. New prisons were still needed in the Free State. A lot of time had been wasted.

Mr E Xolo (ANC) was worried about the security issue. Further training of personnel was needed. The Committee had been critical of DCS in the past, but the Department should expect the Committee to speak out. Prisons were not being built. The Committee was not responsible for the DCS. It was up to the Department to implement policy. Some prisons would not be built. In one case construction had been cancelled due to the presence of a colony of frogs. A new prison was needed in Port Shepstone.

Ms L Chikugna (ANC) looking at the budget, commented that DCS was looking to Estimates of National Expenditure (ENE) and various reports. Something would now be achieved. In some critical areas she felt that nothing was happening. The budget was in place, but there were no outcomes. The prevalence of HIV had to be investigated. Some matters had to be traced. An issue was the lack of planning. DCS talked about building prisons but the feasibility studies had not been done. Even with the Kimberley prison, the DCS had to provide a detailed plan, time frames and allocation of funds.

She said that DCS insisted on employing professional nurses. Enrolled nurses were used at all levels of hospitals but not in prison facilities. Due to the shortages of nurses, she had seen cases of medicine trolleys being left in wards with patients having to help themselves. The Nursing Council had not ended the training of nursing auxiliaries.

The Chairperson said that it would not help simply to pass the budget and not to engage in follow-up investigations. Praise would be given where it was due, but so would criticism. It was now already mid-term, and there was a public perception that there was only talk and no action. Members had to delve into the issues. There was movement forward, but lots of issues had been left behind.

Mr L Tolo (ANC) did not see the R 1.2 billion the Minister had mentioned would be used for new prisons. He asked the researcher if she could verify this, and what the money was being used for.

The Chairperson said that the Committee would meet DCS the following Tuesday, and this issue would be discussed at that meeting.

Mr Xolo asked why the Committee should bother. Decisions were made at Committee level but the Department then went ahead and did just what they wanted.

Mr Bloem replied that the Committee was effective. For example, they had put their foot down during 2006 on the issue of the building of prisons. The money had been held back. The report was still outstanding. They had recommended to Parliament that funds should only be replaced when the phases had been completed. It looked as if the DCS was not listening to the Committee, but the message would eventually sink in. The Committee was effective at raising issues, and had a role to point out issues.

Ms Dollie said that the issue of the R1.2 billion should be raised at the meeting with DCS. It was probably part of the R6.2 billion which had been taken back by Treasury. She noted the question.

Mr Selfe asked Ms Dollie if it would be possible to generate a tabular layout which could be used to compare plans and outcomes.

The Chairperson echoed this request. He thought Ms Dollie might need one or two assistants to do this.

Ms Dollie said that this would be a comprehensive exercise, and would have to be done correctly. She was facing time constraints and would be unable to produce this before the following week’s meeting. She could do a more comprehensive layout for later use, which could then be seen as a mid-term review.

The Chairperson said that the budget vote debate in the House would be in May, and this could be done before then. Members could then highlight issues during the budget vote debate. It was very important to do this, and help would be given. The budget vote was a public document, and the taxpayer had a right to know where the money was going.

Mr Xolo referred to Programme 5: Development. He questioned the use of employment agencies in providing staff.

The Chairperson replied that three recruitment companies were used. He did not know what 1 200 people were doing when all functions had been outsourced. For example, catering services were outsourced but it was the inmates who were doing all the cooking. The only evidence of outsourcing was a solitary overseer. The Committee would be meeting with the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) on Friday, where a deep analysis would be done. It was the duty of the Committee to keep DCS on its toes. The Annual Report and Auditor General’s Report would also be interrogated by the Committee, as there were still deeper outstanding questions to be answered by the Department. He instructed Members to review the Budget Vote 19 document over the weekend. He did not want to fight with anyone, but wanted to help the Department. This was their patriotic duty, and nothing must be hidden.

He said that there would be a meeting with DCS on 13 March and a budget hearing on 20 March. No meeting was planned for 16 March. Members should think of people to be invited to attend public hearings.

Mr Selfe said that the statement received from DCS regarding the Committee’s rejection of the Mathe report should be discussed.

The Chairperson wanted to propose a new system of a structured interrogation. Specific areas should be assigned to each Member. This was particularly effectively done by SCOPA.

Ms Nawa seconded the proposal. Members would have more time if they concentrated on a specific issue.

The Chairperson said that perhaps it should rather be left to parties to explore specific issues.

Mr Selfe said that it would be easier to allocate tasks to the different parties in a multi-party environment.

The Chairperson said that he should rather discuss this proposal at the study group.

The meeting was adjourned.

Appendix:
MEDIA RELEASE
THE REJECTION OF THE MATHE REPORT BY THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE IS PREMATURE. ILL - TIMED AND LACKING SOUND JUDGMENT
For immediate release
CAPE TOWN - Thursday. 8 March 2007

The Department of Correctional Services dismisses the Portfolio Committee's rejection of the Mathe Report as premature, ill- timed and lacking sound judgment.

The rejection of the report of the multi - departmental Investigation team reflects poor judgment which is coherent with very weak political leadership in

the committee. This was a report presented to the Joint Parliamentary Oversight Committee comprising the National Council of Provinces' Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs and the National Assembly's Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services.

The rejection of the report follows consultation with various stakeholders and role - players who have been briefed on the investigation into the escape of Ananias Mathe from C - Max In Pretoria.

It is quite clear that the leadership of the Portfolio Committee failed to exercise sound judgment as well as critical analysis and in - depth interrogation of the Mathe Report before driving the committee towards its rejection.

It appears that the recommendations of the Investigation team as contained in Page 27 of the Mathe Report were ignored as they explicitly and correctly deal with the demands and reasons expressed by the committee in their rejection of the report.

It has been stated that the SAPS, one of the security agencies in the multi ­departmental investigation team is currently proceeding with the second leg of the probe with relates to the criminal investigation against 9 implicated officials whilst both the NIA and the SAPS are also investigating the corruption and bribery charges against the implicated officials in fine with the Team's Recommendations.

Therefore it was premature for the committee to have pronounced itself by rejecting the report whilst the second criminal probe has not been finalized. We expected that the committee would await the report on the outcome and findings of the second investigation.

The rejection therefore pre - empts the outcome of the criminal Investigation and further casts aspersions on the credibility and Integrity of the two state security agencies.

The calling for a new probe headed by a retired judge and senior advocate reflects a poor comprehension of the legal and constitutional implications of such a call, as the powers to appoint such a probe do not rest with the Minister. It would be a fruitless exercise to conduct a new probe 4 months after escape of Mathe from C - Max, as surely such investigation will not yield any different results.

We are hoping that Parliament will reject the committee's recommendations when they are tabled and debated. We are also confident that when the matter is put before the joint parliamentary committee - NA and NCOP - that conducted the fact - finding probe into the matter, the Portfolio Committee's Jack of sound political leadership and judgment will be exposed.