Service Level Agreement: Reports by Departments of Correctional Services & Public Works, & Deputy Minister of Correctional Services, & Oversight Report adoption

Meeting report

Service level agreements between Departments of Correctional Services (DCS) and Public Works (DPW)
Chairperson’s introductory remarks
The Chairperson said that during a previous meeting this Portfolio Committee had asked for a briefing on the service level agreements between the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) and Department of Public Works (DPW) to clarify issues of accountability and responsibility between those two departments. A recent oversight visit by the Committee to Durban Westville Correctional Centre had revealed a lack of hot water, due to broken boilers. At the Rustenburg Correctional Centre, the Committee had found no hot water, leaking roofs, potholes in the floors and a kitchen in bad repair. At Leeuwkop, conditions were almost inhumane because of lack of decent living conditions.

The Chairperson said that it was necessary for the departments to join forces to find a solution, as things could not continue as they were presently. The Committee must ensure that the departments were ensuring that facilities were humane and secure. He pointed out that inmates could be involved in minor everyday maintenance of centres, and indicated that there were many inmates amongst the 12 000 people being held at Durban Westville who would be capable of changing plugs and fixing leaks. At Kokstad, there were only 500 inmates being held in a centre that had a capacity of 1 600, because of faulty ventilation systems. That facility was only eight years old. He said that this could be regarded as  fruitless and wasteful expenditure. Parliament aligned itself with the Government White Paper that emphasised the need for facilities to be secure. The Committee’s oversight visits indicated that some facilities simply did not stand up to that requirement.

The Chairperson therefore called upon the new Commissioner of Correctional Services to inform the Committee where the responsibilities lay between the two departments.

Service Level Agreement briefing
Mr Tom Moyane, National Commissioner of Correctional Services, responded that the Chairperson had correctly captured the essence of the dynamics and challenges involved. He said that he understood what kind of input was being required from his department and that he would meet with the Acting Director General of the Department of Public Works, who could now provide substantive responses.

Ms Sasa Subban, Deputy Director General, Department of Public Works, said that service delivery standards underpinned the Service Level Agreement (SLA) between the two departments. The DCS had pointed out shortcomings in the document, and so it would be enhanced. She apologized, on behalf of the DPW, for the conditions at Leeuwkop to which the Chairperson had referred. She agreed that that the situation was unacceptable.

She pointed out that the Government Immovable Asset Management Act (GIAMA) was the guiding piece of legislation in this regard. The SLA would govern the relationship between the DPW and the DCS about the provision of immovable assets. The DPW would undertake a cost analysis for strategic planning, and would engage with National Treasury to enforce GIAMA. Intervention strategies would include taking condition surveys of the State’s property portfolio. Structures would be created to address planning, budgeting and project implementation.

Discussion
The Chairperson remarked that day-to-day maintenance had become a political question as to whether the DPW had the capacity to deliver on promises. The DCS, and also the Departments of Education and Department of International Relations and Cooperation, had all questioned the capacity of the DPW to deliver on its mandate. Mr Teboho Motseki, Chief Deputy Commissioner for Corrections, had repeatedly pointed out that client expectations were not met, and he stressed that DCS and the DPW both had to be clear about client expectations. He asked the DPW why it was so difficult to achieve cost reduction through the use of inmate labour, and what were seen as the impediments to having inmates fixing windows or doing basic plumbing.

Ms Subban responded that it was difficult to answer questions around capacity. The DPW did its best to obtain resources. There had been meetings with regional offices. At national level, planning and conceptualisation was based on the allocated budget. However, severe problems had to be addressed, even if doing so would cause overspending. She noted, in regard to client expectations, that there had been meetings with the regions two weeks earlier, to work out a performance agreement for regional managers, under which managers would be held accountable. There had to be day to day maintenance planning. The Department understood the need for skilling and rehabilitation through the use of inmate labour. An own-resources policy forbade the use of consultants and contractors. Cost reduction could be achieved through insistence on work that gave value-for-money.

Mr J Selfe (DA) remarked that most Service Level Agreements dealt with the repair and maintenance of existing facilities. He asked about an update on the Public Private Partnership (PPP) facilities that were due to be constructed, and their status.

Commissioner Teboho Motseki, Chief Deputy Commissioner: Corrections, DCS, replied that the bulk of work had been done on a revision of specification. There had been a Ministerial directive to look into tender specification, and that set out what the DCS must work out.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) felt that taxpayers’ money was being wasted. The centres that the Committee had recently seen during its oversight visit were in a “disastrous” state. She felt there was lack of cooperation between the DCS and the DPW. She stressed that the two departments had to establish a relationship.

Mr S Abram (ANC) commented that even the best of documents guaranteed nothing until it was put into practice. He quoted the adage that talking was cheap, but what mattered was delivery on the ground. The presentation had indicated that agreements had not yet been signed, which pointed to the existence of only an informal arrangement. The proposed SLA stated that DPW’s Head Office had to be informed on a continuous basis. Those stipulations currently existed. He asked why, in terms of the current stipulations, minor services such as fixing taps could not be attended to.

Ms Subban responded that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) already existed before the SLA was drawn. The SLA would go further, and the DPW would improve on delivery time frames. There was a new sense of urgency, and a commitment to performance agreement timelines.

Mr Abram called on the DPW to be brutally frank, and state up front whether it had the capacity to enter into the SLA. It seemed that so far the DPW had thus failed miserably in implementation. He asked what would change. If the three-monthly reports that the Service Level Agreement now contained been effected prior to this, it would have avoided years of poor performance. He insisted that the DPW must be honest about capacity constraints, and that it respond with integrity.

Ms Subban responded that the Acting Director General and Chief Financial Officer of the DPW would be working together to turn matters around. They would ensure that there was implementation in the regions. There were regular meetings being held. There had also been representations made about inadequacy of the budget, resulting from the economic downturn, during the Medium Term Economic Framework (MTEF) presentations. However, the DPW and DCS could tackle these issues through collaboration. A user asset management plan would point out the affordability of what the DPW wanted to deliver. She said that this was a first attempt to define issues. There had to be frequent bilateral meetings with the DCS.

Mr A Fritz (DA) referred to an amount of R20 000 that was made available for centres to do maintenance work independently. He said that urgent attention must be paid to improving the provincial competence of the DPW, and the relationship between the national and provincial offices. There was an asset lifecycle of immovable assets that had to be adhered to. He asked if there was a regular audit of conditions at correctional centres.

Ms Subban replied that the amount for everyday maintenance had been increased to R30 000, and this covered work such as like fixing locks or taps. She noted that these day-to-day matters were not dealt with at Head Office. There had to be a focus on client strategic matters. The DPW accepted that there was major deterioration as regarded boilers. The question was whether to maintain or replace them.

The Chairperson asked the DCS Commissioner to state whether he was comfortable with the SLA, and reminded him that when the agreement had been signed, he would bear the responsibility.

Ms N Madlala (ANC, Member of Portfolio Committee on Public Works) noted that the DPW lacked R200 million in budget funding for maintenance. She asked if there was an interim plan to compensate for that. She said that the National Treasury could provide an indication of what the aims were.

Ms Hlengiwe Mkhize, Deputy Minister of Correctional Services, said that the relationship between the DCS and the DPW was previously fraught with frustrations and problems, and this hindered the present tone of discussion. Officials at any correctional centre would admit that people were dying whilst imprisoned. There were still too many dark areas in the DCS that remained unseen. The Department would have to come up with strategic interventions.

Mr Godfrey Oliphant (ANC, Chairperson, Portfolio Committee on Public Works) said that old debates were constantly being re-hashed. It had previously been indicated that the SLA would be signed in February. It was now June, and the goalposts were being shifted.

Ms Subban responded that the initial deadline had in fact been June, although a draft had been circulated in February.

Mr Oliphant said that although he appreciated what was being said, it still seemed that there was a lack of urgency. There were complaints across all departments. Money was needed from rollovers to address resource problems, many of which were old problems. There had to be a report back on boilers.

Comm Motseki pointed out the importance of maintaining day to day standards, within an overall plan with specific targets. Such a plan would be presented in November. The DPW could supervise inmate labour, as inmates needed skilled supervision. There also had to be an offender labour framework. The question was indeed where the responsibilities lay, including the ultimate responsibility. There had to be an institutional framework. If there was disagreement, then the Directors General would have to discuss these matters without delay. Detailed response mechanisms were needed. He agreed that there was a necessity for strategic intervention.

Mr Oliphant asked if the DCS was sure about DPW supervising inmate labour. It was a core function of the DCS to supervise inmates. He asked why the R30 000 grant for everyday maintenance was not being used.

Mr Motseki said that there was a budget shared between the DPW and the DCS. The DPW had to account for what it held. The R30 000 grant for maintenance could prove inadequate. He said that he wanted the Commissioner to be satisfied that the agreement had sufficient “teeth”.

Mr Oliphant noted that there might be a delay in the SLA, caused by the need for a legal opinion.

Mr Moyane referred to the remark by the Chairperson, that once he signed the SLA, he would be held accountable. He fully accepted that position. The document would remain in his office until he had studied it fully and was happy with it. Once it had been signed, he would hold himself solely accountable. He would prefer that a legal opinion be obtained on that document, and one could be made available by the end of the month. Time lines had to be specified. The SLA would be signed by the Directors General, but third parties had to deliver on contracts. He agreed that the accountability of each service provider must be worked out. A final draft would be made available at the end of the month.

Mr Moyane then referred to discussions around using the labour of inmates. The DCS would appreciate the support of the DPW. Using inmate labour was a matter of policy. There had to be an audit in correctional centres to determine what skills were available among inmates, and a skills profile of inmates could ensure that officials knew, for example, who could fix a broken door. He said that supervision and assistance from the DPW was in order, but it was also incumbent on the DCS ultimately to supervise the inmates. He said there had to be monitoring and evaluation of how the R30 000 maintenance fund was used.

Ms M Phaliso (ANC) said that at Rustenburg Correctional Centre, officials told the Committee Members that job cards had to be filled in, and a long process would have to be followed even to have small maintenance jobs done. She commented that although this centre was described as the Rustenburg Centre of Excellence it was in fact a disaster centre. It also was holding children. She too commented that she could not see a sense of urgency. Answers about the Rustenburg centre had been vague. She asked specifically if the DPW had the necessary capacity.

Mr Selfe remarked that he was worried about delays in finalising PPP models. Mr Motseki had referred to another tender process. Such matters were delayed several times. He said that once a contract was signed, it could be used to enforce accountability. The private sector would routinely include penalty clauses in contracts. At the Kimberley Correctional Centre there was no accountability for delays and incomplete work, matters would go around in circles and there was a sense that decisions were not followed through.

Ms Ngwenya said that she was worried about the answers given by the DPW. There seemed to be insufficient grasp of what was going on with regard to day to day maintenance. She was happy to hear that the DCS Commissioner would be properly considering the SLA. However, she still had doubts about the relationship between the DPW and DCS.

Ms M Nyanda (ANC) referred to windows without glass, and cold water being provided in the cells at the Rustenburg Correctional Centre. Although she noted that a full plan would be submitted in November, she pointed out that the current situation was likely to pertain throughout the winter. There had been complaints about the DPW at the Barberton Correctional Centre. She told Commissioner Moyane that he was in a troubled situation, and that staff might have to be reshuffled.

Mr Abram said that he had become used to hearing good reports and promises yet seeing little happening on the ground. He predicted that the SLA would prove to be a worthless document if the will and integrity to implement it were lacking. Three years after the MOU had been entered into, still nothing significant was produced. There had to be a change in attitude. In the private sector, such lack of delivery would have led to the agreement not being renewed. He commended the new Commissioner for being cautious not to sign the SLA too hastily, but said that alternatives must also be considered. DPW was lethargic, showing no commitment or pride, and it must become imbued with more public spirit. He was vexed to see public buildings, including correctional centres, in South Africa going from bad to worse. An ethos of delivery had to be developed. He feared that regular meetings could turn out merely to be talkshops. His own experience in committees showed that officials always managed to come up with good reports, but that was not enough. He called on the two Departments to get things in order and serve the country properly.

Mr Fritz also commended the caution in signing the agreement. He pointed out that at Kutama Sinthumele Correctional Centre, the PPP managers had ensured that the rooms that had been damaged and burned during riots were fully repaired within two weeks. At Durban Westville, on the other hand, everything remained broken. There were groups in correctional centres who could build an entire facility, as in Paarl.

Deputy Minister Mkhize remarked that there were certain challenges around working with DCS. It utilised resources for 24 hours a day. There was as yet no certainty. The Parliamentary oversight visits had not yet produced a difference. There was no immediate relief for the coming winter. The President had referred to the current year as “a year of action” but the question remained whether certain things could in fact be done.  Committee Members had provided concrete examples. She agreed that it was necessary to look at all levels, including the Ministers, the Portfolio Committees and the Directors General, and that there had to be a sense of urgency. However, she cautioned that an agreement between the departments on offender labour should not lead to a situation where no one was responsible for quality. She noted that there was a lack of public confidence. Political will, integrity and a change of attitude were all needed. There had to be transparency about large budgets and the suspected corruption must be addressed. She advised the Commissioner to talk to all senior managers.

Mr Oliphant commented that the DPW still had no permanent appointment at Director General level. The new Director General would have to sign the SLA, which could cause further delay. He agreed that consideration should be given to alternatives to models that clearly did not work. It might prove necessary to reshuffle staff. Matters could not be allowed to proceed as they were. It was not known who had to account fully for the situation at the Kimberley Correctional Centre, where three times the budgeted amounts had been used. He agreed with Mr Abram that if matters were not resolved now, they would simply recur. DPW needed to visit the correctional centres and see what was going on. The DPW complained of inadequate funding, yet it could not account for money spent. He told the Commissioner that an inmate skills audit was long overdue.

The Chairperson said that the oversight visits had been a means to an end. Members from both Portfolio Committees had raised their frustrations. He proposed that representatives from the DCS and DPW should accompany the Portfolio Committee visits to Kokstad and Durban Westville Correctional Centres. These visits could take place by the end of July, and further visits would be undertaken in February 2011. Rustenberg Centre would also be visited. If no improvements were apparent by February, stern disciplinary steps would be taken and the Auditor-General would be asked to qualify the annual audit report because of wasteful expenditure.  There would be another visit in February of the following year. If by then there had been no improvement, the Auditor General would be asked to qualify the audit report for the 2010/11 financial year because of wasteful expenditure. Both Portfolio Committees had to account to constituencies and local government, and therefore wanted to see changes. If these were not apparent then this would have an influence on bonuses.

Ms Phaliso requested that the Kimberley Correctional Centre should also receive a visit. She described this as a new centre that still seemed to maintain old attitudes.

The Chairperson agreed with this request.

Commissioner Moyane asked if the visits would take place on 26 July.

The Chairperson replied that 26 July to 6 August was set aside for oversight. The final venues and dates would be made known before the end of June. Although the departments need not respond on the proposed visits, they must acknowledge that the Committee was serious. Further visits could be undertaken. Pretoria Central Centre for Women, Leeuwkop (where children were held in custody), St Albans and Zonderwater were likely choices. Ms Nyanga would want to see Barberton included.

The Chairperson urged that the issue of community responsibility must receive attention at the Parole Boards. There would be interaction with the Inspecting Judge about whether the Independent Correctional Centre Visitors were indeed independent. Further topics needing attention included overcrowding, the 7-day establishment, Occupation Specific Dispensation implementation and the implementation of a legislative framework.

Other Committee business
Draft oversight report
The Chairperson asked for comments on the recommendations contained in the draft Committee Oversight Report.

Mr Fritz noted that at Rustenburg Correctional Centre, children were locked up with adults of up to 25 years old.

The Chairperson replied that lack of segregation would be included in the Report. He noted that Heads of facilities had to fast track the bail process. There was reference to a new cadre of DCS officials in training. It had to be ascertained if inmate labour was acceptable to officials. The report also referred to assaults by officials on offenders, and improved management after lockup. Collusion and ineffective communication were included.

The Committee adopted the draft Report.

Future oversight visits
The Chairperson discussed logistical details of oversight visits with members.

Ms Nyanda noted that correctional centres were far removed from each other in Mpumalanga, and called for assistance from the Committee Secretary.

The Chairperson asked about the desirability of individual visits to centres.

Ms Ngwenya said that it was beneficial for Members to also visit other provinces. It was also easier to resource visits by the Committee rather than individual Members.

Mr Abram suggested that the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Public Works be asked to ensure that that committee also visited centres; although the emphasis would primarily be on infrastructure, it would also be necessary to look at inmates.

Adoption of Minutes
The Committee adopted its minutes of 9 February, 10 March, 17 March, 23 March and 14 April.

The meeting was adjourned.