Correctional Services Bill: discussion

Meeting report

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
26 August 1998
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES BILL: DISCUSSION

Document handed out:
Minister's proposed amendments (see appendix)
Note: The amendments proposed by the department were not made available.

The meeting opened with the deputy chairperson proposing a motion of desirability (a step that is taken when the Bill has been considered thoroughly and political parties have put forward their positions and these have either been reflected/not in the amended bill). The deputy chairperson said that the committee had to approve the amendments made by the department .

However Ms Seaton (IFP) disagreed with this proposal because problem areas had been raised by members in a previous meeting which needed further clarification from the department and the state law advisors. Secondly, the IFP had not perused the Minister's proposed amendments. Hence they could not make a final decision on the Bill. (In a previous meeting, the new minister, B Skosana, had raised concerns on the proposed function of the judicial inspectorate, suggesting that he should also deal with cases of corruption within the prison staff.)

Mr Gous (NP) supported the IFP position. Mr Botha (FF) was of the same view. At this point Mr Bloem (ANC) called for a 5 minute caucus, which was supported.

The Chairperson proposed that the department take the committee through the document with whatever amendments were made by the department. Mr Paxton, from the department, took the department through the document highlighting amendments where made.

Issues raised
1. Meal times
This issue was raised by Ms Seaton. She stated that the Bill should specify times as this should not be left to the discretion of the warders given current practice, or state the intervals between each meal e.g. 4 hrs should be allowed between every meal.

Mr Kathrada (ANC) questioned the cost implications i.e. overtime pay should the above proposal be provided for.

Mr Bloem suggested that a shift system be implemented to deal with this. As a follow-up, Mr Nel (ANC) suggested that the prison staff should address the committee on the feasibility of a shift system and regular meal times generally. Mr Paxton supported the suggestion for an insertion into the Bill that would specify meal times. He said that he would arrange for a prison official to address the committee in this regard.

Other committee members who made contributions were Ms Sosibo (ANC), Ms Thompson (ANC), Mr Fihla (ANC) and Mr Neerahoo (IFP)

2. Contact with the community
The department proposed an amendment to section 13 of the Bill to the effect that: if requested by a spouse, partner, next of kin, the Commissioner must as soon as is practicable with the written consent of the prison, give the particulars concerning where a prisoner is being detained.

Mr Bloem queried the financial and resource implications this could have on the department.

Mr Kathrada wanted clarity on what is meant by ‘contact with the community’. [Ref section 13(3)]. Mr Paxton responded that practically this could mean one hour contact period could be spread over a month (15 min per week).

Mr Nel said that there could be a situation where a visit could result in a possible threat to a prisoner (who may not want to be visited by a relative for security reasons. Mr Paxton responded that the amendment was provided for in the constitution. Mr Nel continued that genuine people could be excluded from visiting a prisoner and that a clause should be inserted to cater for this category of person.

Other issues that were raised
1. Whether the section on separate accommodation for adults and children is sufficiently clear in the light of prisoners who render services to other prisoners i.e. adult prisoners who teach children.
2. General question on section 12 regarding health care.
3. The Bill is silent on the disposal of bodies in prison. The Department's opinion regarding publicising information on the number of deaths in the prisons and causes.
4. The department's opinion on section 22, which could mean dual punishment in effect.
5. Disciplinary infringements are too wide particularly where a prisoner can be found guilty if he/she fails to answer a question. This, it was felt, needs to be qualified (i.e. failure to respond truthfully to a legitimate question)
6. Clarity is needed on the difference between segregation and solitary confinement and what are the implications of HRC’s/PAN submission in this regard.
7. Regarding searches, it was suggested that there has to be reasonable grounds for performing a strip search and where there is a rectal/vaginal inspection.

Appendix
MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
11 August1998

NEW CORRECTIONAL SERVICES BILL
I have thoroughly studied and have also been fully briefed by the department on the New Correctional Services Bill.

I am pleased to inform you that I have found the Bill to be well drafted, both on subject matter and the scope it covers.

However, during my deliberations thus far I have found two clauses in the BiIl to be of particular concern to me.

It would therefore be appreciated if the Committee can give the following two clauses some special consideration.

CLAUSE 86 (2)
I have been notified that the words "and any corrupt or dishonest practices, in terms of the Judicial Inspectorate will be deleted from the Bill.

It is my view that we may create a vacuum it these words are deleted because we. do need a specific point -where corrupt or dishonest practices can be reported. It is imperative to create and maintain a nodal point outside the formal Correctional Services structure where these matters can be registered and dealt with appropriately.

I am not insisting that the Office of The Independent Judge should deal with the corrupt and dishonest practices in prison, but rather that his office acts as a channel through which these matters can be reported, referred for attention and monitored.

CLAUSE 113
In terms of Clause 113 the Commissioner may unilaterally decide to take control of a privately operated prison under certain specified circumstances.

The Committee will agree that such a decision will have serious and far reaching consequences. I would therefore argue that it is not fair to put the responsibility for making such a decision, on the shoulders of one individual only

I can see that circumstances may arise where decisions must be taken swiftly and where quick actions are called for. I therefore wish to suggest that instead of opting for an elaborate process to assist the Commissioner, we specify in the Bill that such a decision should be taken in consultation with the Minister and either, the President or the Deputy President, depending on their availability.

Please also be advised that I have not yet finalized my evaluation of the Bill. I may therefore submit further comments to you before the next meeting, should the need arise.

In conclusion please accept my appreciation for the valuable contributions you and your committee have made and will still make in refining the Bill.

BEN SKOSANA
MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES MP