Hon Chairperson, hon Ministers and Deputy Ministers, hon members, comrades and friends, the purpose of the Bill, when it was tabled by the Minister of Social Development, was to amend the Social Assistance Act of 2004, so as to have a definition for "disability", and to regulate the application process for the grant.
Furthermore, it aimed to regulate the work of the agency to reconsider the decisions it took with regards to grants; to clarify the process of appeals against the decisions of the agency, and also to effect certain textual corrections, and to provide for matters connected therewith.
Now, as we all know, one of our key and effective antipoverty programmes implemented since the establishment of democracy, is the Expanded Social Assistance Programme. Since then, the number of beneficiaries receiving social grants has increased from fewer than 1 million in 1994 to 14 million today. This is indeed a monumental achievement, given that the programme is focusing on the most vulnerable members of our society, who are the children, women, the disabled, orphans and older people.
The committee had public hearings in Parliament that were attended by various stakeholders. Most of the stakeholders raised concerns about the state of readiness of our health system to assess disabilities, and the fact that the definition, as it stands in clause 1 of the Bill, excluded people with chronic illnesses. They also lobbied us for a chronic illness grant of R1 000 a month.
Now, chairperson, there are currently 1,4 million South Africans on the disability grant programme. Disability is determined through a medical process which is done by doctors in the public sector and in the private sector. About 230 000 beneficiaries are in receipt of a temporary disability grant. This grant is defined as a grant that will last for a period of more than 6 months but less than 12 months.
The grant processes have been complicated for a very long time now, and that needs to be addressed. One of the contributing factors lies in the lack of uniformity of assessment methods, which results in errors of inclusion or exclusion. By this I mean that there are people who are receiving the disability grant, but who are not eligible or entitled for such a grant, because they are simply not disabled.
We are further well aware that many of these people are poor and unemployed, and as a result are manipulating the system by collaborating with the doctors in their area, because of lack of income support to these unemployed people.
Let me give you an example, let us take a Dr Van Wyk who knows a Mr Khumalo very well, and this Mr Khumalo has a condition called asthma. His asthma can be managed through appropriate medication and he can still enter the labour market. Now, in medical terms asthma is regarded as a chronic illness and not a disability.
A chronic illness can be defined as an illness that is prolonged, and would not be resolved spontaneously, but can be cured completely. A person with a purely chronic illness alone cannot be deemed to have a disability. Yet Dr Van Wyk would classify Mr Khumalo as disabled for the purpose of the opportunity to receive the disability grant, because he is sympathetic to him, as Mr Khumalo is unemployed and lives in poverty.
Hon Chairperson, the opposite can also be true. There are instances where a person who has asthma goes to the same doctor, but that doctor does not classify that particular person as disabled despite the person being poor and unemployed. I am sure that you will agree that such a practice opens the social grant system to fraud and abuse, and in the long run it undermines the integrity of the system.
Now, in view of this challenge, some time ago Cabinet approved a definition of disability for a disability grant and free health care to address this challenge. The Bill as tabled sought to activate that particular definition. During the public hearing, as I said earlier, the stakeholders consistently raised the issue of exclusion rather than inclusion.
As the Portfolio Committee on Social Development, we also invited the national Department of Health to explain to us the sector's readiness to implement the Bill since its medical officers and other health professionals have a responsibility to use the health assessment tool when they assess disability; and we wanted also to ascertain their state of readiness to dispense chronic medicine, as the Minister said.
I want to commend the department for their open and frank approach to the matter. They, together with the provinces, are in the process of strengthening their primary healthcare facilities in order to timeously dispense medicine, although the shortage of healthcare professionals is also one of their challenges. The committee report, if one looks at it, actually elaborates on this matter in detail.
Now, since we are the Parliament of the people, and especially an activist parliament, we have listened to the people. We have, therefore, decided that only the clauses that have unintended consequences be considered, as well as the clause that deals with the appeals process of the agency.
The committee has rejected the clauses that define "disability" and other clauses that are related to it, and have referred them back to Cabinet for reconsideration. Both the Department of Social Development and the Department of Health must keep the committee abreast on their progress with regard to the state of readiness of the said clauses. The committee will obviously monitor their progress in this regard.
So, the long title of the Bill will now read:
To amend the Social Assistance Amendment Act 2004, so as to enable applicants and beneficiaries to apply to the agency to reconsider its decision; to further regulate appeals against decisions of the agency; and to effect certain textual corrections and to provide for matters connected therewith.
There should be a distinction in the definition of "disability" for children and adults. Also, there should be an assessment tool for the care dependency grant. The department has assured that there is a draft that is ready, but it has not yet been approved by the executive. The draft assessment tool for the care dependency grant determines disability and the extent to which a child requires care and support.
Let me comment on the issue around corruption, because as far as the social assistance grant is concerned, the definition of "fraud" is thrown loosely around, and there are also some allegations. I now want to use this opportunity to commend the Minister and the South African Social Security Agency for the fact that 13 000 public servants and civilians have been convicted of swindling the state about R191,3 million through fraudulent welfare grant claims.
I want to laud them for their action of actually tracking those people down and having them prosecuted so that they can pay back the money to the state. [Applause.]
Sometime I get the impression that members ...
... verlang terug na die vleispotte van Egipte ... [... are longing for the flesh-pots of Egypt].
There was no such thing, and no issue around fraudulent grants. Those of us, who lived in communities where people got grants - if they were lucky - know about the schemes that were there. So far the department has recovered R56 million, and the committee will monitor Sassa closely to see whether they are recovering the rest of the money.
Most of the public servants supplied false information when they applied for social grants, so now that Sassa has access to the Government Pension Fund they can do runs with other government agencies. I am sure they can clean up the system thoroughly.
Obviously, when you have 14 million beneficiaries on the system you will have grantees that fall through the cracks and that come on to the system fraudulently, but when you do your checks and balances that is when you track them down. So the will to prosecute is commendable. It is obviously the right thing to do, and we hope that government will recover all its money.
In conclusion, the ANC supports the Bill as amended by the Portfolio Committee on Social Development. I thank you. [Applause.]