The question is whether we have received information indicating any wrongdoing around the National Home Builders Registration Council, NHBRC, which was one of our agencies, and whether such information is being dealt with.
Sadly, I must say that we have received such information, plenty of it, through our hotline. Further information has come from this House, from another whistleblower, if I can call him that, the same person who has asked me the question, the hon Steyn. Further information has been given to us by the Special Investigating Unit, SIU. This information relates to conflict of interest around some of the officials of the NHBRC and such conduct has implications and undertones of corruption. We are seized with the situation. I had a meeting this morning with the portfolio committee, where I indicated to them that I would like to have a further meeting with them next week, when I have the finalisation of one part of the report of the SIU.
So, action will be taken, but the first action is to conclude that SIU report. I must indicate to the hon members that the report has come to me and I found a number of holes in it. It was insincere from the SIU and I sent it back. They are re-investigating the whole matter. But the saddest case is that one of the investigators from the SIU crossed the floor and joined the NHBRC. So, under my nose as Minister, and while I had ordered an investigation through the proclamation of the President in a Cabinet which has an IMC dedicated to fighting corruption, a member of the SIU responsible for the investigations, during the same week that the report was being submitted to me, was undergoing interviews and was given a job - a newly created position in the NHBRC. [Interjections.] As the Minister, I refused to approve such a job because, since it was a new job, I had to give the stamp of approval. As part of the investigations about that, I called on the board to suspend that lawyer who was engaged in those investigations and has now crossed the floor. [Applause.] We are on top of the situation, hon members, and I hope that further information which will be divulged to the portfolio committee next week will be of assistance. [Applause.]
Chairperson, I wish to thank the hon Minister for the action that he has taken to date and for the manner in which he has been forthcoming with information, particularly to me as well. However, there are very many senior officials across the Public Service who believe that once they have declared their interests, they are free to do business with the very agency that they work with. I would like to hear what your opinion is on that.
More importantly, the first part of my question referred very specifically to whether you have been informed by a senior person in this agency about their private interest and having a contract with that particular agency because, as you are aware, in correspondence with me, that individual has indicated that she has informed you by letter that she has a contract with the agency.
Yes, I have had discussions with the senior person concerned and I must disclose that it was the chairperson of the NHBRC, who herself is also under investigation. During the course of that investigation she opted to resign. So, the report I referred to is also dealing with that matter and when it is concluded, as I indicated this morning to the portfolio committee, it will come back to this House.
I wish to thank the hon Minister for work well done. I think the Opposition is also very happy about your report. As the portfolio committee we have been very concerned about the issues around the NHBRC. Hon Minister, when is the investigation going to be concluded?
I indicated that the first report, or should I say the draft report, which came to me last month was sent back, because I could see that it was the kind of report that I could not table before this House. The SIU is busy re-investigating this matter and we are in their hands as to when the final report will be provided to the Ministry. Let me assure the House that as soon as that report is available, it will be made known.
Particulars regarding review of status of means test for free access to state hospitals
66. Mr M Waters (DA) asked the Minister of Health:
(1) Whether the status of the means test for free access to state hospitals has been reviewed; if not, (a) why not, (b) what is the income threshold that a person should earn before being charged for the services rendered at a state hospital and (c) how many persons exceeded this income threshold in the 2010-11 financial year;
(2) what amount was (a) charged and (b) collected by state hospitals in the 2010-11 financial year? NO1775E
Chairperson, the question is about the means test for free access to state hospitals and the amount of money collected. The guiding principles are outlined in the National Health Act, Act 61 of 2003, in Annexure H, which is the patient classification policy. This policy was adopted in 2002 by the National Health Council. It provides for salient guidelines in respect of the application and interpretation of patient classification, financing subsidies and user fees.
We have not re-evaluated this since 2002, because we are trying to avoid hardship, especially for indigent people. Section 4 of the National Health Act, Act 61 of 2003, makes provision for certain users to be eligible for free health services in the public health sector. According to section 4(1), the Minister of Health, after consultation with the Minister of Finance, may prescribe conditions as to which categories of persons are eligible for such free health services at public health establishments as the two Ministers might then prescribe.
This means test is the assessment of income - both for a single person and also for a household. The classification is according to H(0), H(1), H(2) and H(3), whereby all H(0) patients are those who are formally unemployed and HG patients are people who, under certain conditions, are exempted, such as old-age pensioners and people on child support grants and veterans' pensions, pensions for the blind, family allowances or disability grants, etc. The issue of the amount collected differs from province to province. It ranges from R29 million in the Northern Cape to R334 million in Gauteng.
I thank the Minister for that response. Minister, over the years the hospitals have failed to collect the levies due to them. This has amounted to tens and hundreds of millions of Rand over the years. There are currently no incentives ... Can you hear me, Minister? Oh, I thought you couldn't hear me. There is currently no incentive for hospitals to collect the money because they don't retain the money. All the money goes to the province. Are you looking into any possibility that would enable hospitals to retain a certain amount of the money that they collect? Thank you.
Hon member, as you know, that is not determined by me. It is determined by Treasury regulations. It is not only in Health where there is this type of problem. But we do have discussions with the Minister of Finance in which we try to look into exactly what you are raising. We are greatly interested in this issue, but we can't change Treasury regulations overnight to suit any one department. But, I think the Minister of Finance is very sympathetic to this view. It is being discussed.
Position regarding steps taken by Minister to remedy certain departmental deficiencies
42. Ms N Y Vukuza-Linda (Cope) asked the Minister of Basic Education:
Whether she has taken steps to remedy (a) a strategic leadership vacuum, (b) the provincial department's structure and culture of poor work ethics, (c) poor financial management systems and (d) the lack of monitoring and evaluation as identified by her department (details furnished); if not, why not; if so, what steps?