WEDNESDAY, 12 MARCH 2008 __

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
                                ____

The House met at 15:01.

The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL REPLY

                   SOCIAL SERVICES AND GOVERNANCE
                              Cluster 2

MINISTERS:

            Position regarding influx of Kenyan refugees

1. Ms S Rajbally (MF) asked the Minister of Home Affairs:

   Whether there has been an influx of Kenyan refugees as a result of the turmoil in that country; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details? NO636E

The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon member for the question. Yes, hon member, 58 Kenyan citizens applied for asylum seeker status during January 2008. This figure can be compared with 2007, when an average of 28 Kenyans applied each month. No statistics are available for February 2008 as yet.

Mr R B BHOOLA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Hon Minister, could you kindly elaborate further on whether the department is involved in any other efforts with the Department of Foreign Affairs to secure the safety of South Africans based in Kenya, and give details? Thank you, Minister.

The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Madam Speaker, Mr Bhoola, I’m really sorry, hon member. I deal with Home Affairs. I deal with asylum seekers and refugee issues. I am sure that you can direct that question to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I am really not being rude. Honestly, I wouldn’t be able to give you that answer. Thank you very much.

Mr C M LOWE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Good afternoon, Minister. Minister, I wonder if I could ask you just to revisit the statistics you gave us this afternoon? It said 58 since February 2007, and 28, you said, in the period from February 2006.

Minister, with great respect, I ask you how you can rely on those figures, because not only are they a year out of date, but by your own admission, you say that the statistics for February are not yet available.

As you know and I know, we have porous borders in this country. You, too, have visited many of the border areas. We know how easy it is for people to cross the borders of South Africa. How do we actually know what the refugee or the asylum seeker situation is in South Africa? I would put it to you that we don’t actually know. It’s very difficult to manage; in fact, it’s almost impossible. So, along with Kenyan refugees - asylum seekers is the correct term – we have Zimbabweans or Botswanans or Swazis or whatever; we simply don’t know.

My question to you would be: How do we address that? Arising from a meeting of the Portfolio Committee on Local Government yesterday, I understand that even ANC members, never mind traditional leaders, are really unhappy about people moving into their areas illegally, hiding in their areas, bribing local people to carry out crimes and do bad things, and to take their jobs. It was a largely very unhappy meeting that took place yesterday. It’s largely because of problems, not just in Kenya; it’s a long way away. It’s from other areas as well.

My question to you, Minister, is: What are you going to do to address that situation and make these statistics believable?

The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Well, Mr Lowe, fortunately you are a member of the committee. Not only are you a member of the committee, but you have the advantage of accessing information, for instance, about what the workstream dealing with asylum seeker situations and refugee issues is doing about this matter.

Firstly, I said it was 58 for January. Last year, we had an average of 28 asylum seekers per month. I would say that is the average. The 58 are Kenyan citizens who applied in January. We don’t have the figures for February, but I do want to say that we do have an idea of what is going on in the country around the issue of asylum seekers.

Obviously, asylum seekers are people who will come and knock at your door and report their presence in the country, unlike the issue of migrants, who are simply coming into the country illegally and, obviously, will not report their presence to any of our offices. They will not report their presence to the police or to the Department of Home Affairs.

I also want to say that, obviously, the situation of people who do not report their presence, who live amongst our people, is not acceptable. Also, you know that there is a challenge to all of us as citizens of South Africa to ensure that there are no xenophobic tendencies and attitudes from our people which are directed towards migrants, be they illegal or undocumented migrants or refugees. There can never be any justification for a negative attitude towards people who are foreigners in our country.

So, it’s a challenge to public representatives, through our constituencies, to continue to make our people aware of the circumstances of these people in their countries of origin, and why some of the people land up in South Africa as well as why they leave their countries of origin.

Most of the time, they don’t leave their countries because they want to go. I don’t think there’s a man or a woman who’d just one day leave his or her country to go to an unknown destination. You leave because circumstances, socioeconomic conditions and conflicts force you to flee your country.

I think that it can never be justified that there is a sprinkling of South Africans who have this negative attitude. Obviously, it is not only South Africans. Also, we can’t say that because there’s crime in South Africa and we have undocumented migrants, we pass the buck and attribute this crime to undocumented migrants. I think we should take responsibility as South Africans, and say that we do have a crime problem, and we must deal with it. Obviously, where we find that undocumented migrants are responsible for some of the criminal activities, we then have to deal with those as such. Thanks.

Mr C M LOWE: Madam Speaker, hon Minister, thank you very much indeed for your detailed response, and also for correcting me about the statistics. I was wrong about those. Thank you. I didn’t realise that those were monthly figures.

Hon Minister, the point remains, however, that the DA would agree with you absolutely that we cannot just target immigrants and asylum seekers for xenophobic reasons. We absolutely support their right to be here. In fact, we want to make them far more welcome.

The problem we have - and the problem remains the same - is that we simply don’t know how many people are coming into South Africa, because we are an attractive option for people whose lives, frankly, are desperate. They live in war-torn areas, and there’s no hope for them. South Africa offers them opportunity and hope.

Moeletsi Mbeki, in his article a couple of weeks ago in the Mail & Guardian, made that case.

The SPEAKER: Hon Lowe, could you just ask your question, if you have a question. Mr C M LOWE: I will do that, Madam Speaker.

Minister, my question is simply to repeat that we understand the problem; how do we address it? Could you perhaps share with the House what the department is going to do to make sure that we actually count the number of people coming in legally or illegally, so that we can account for them, help them and help South Africans as well? Thanks, Madam Speaker.

The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Mr Lowe, hon member, I can take responsibility for people who come into the country legally. But I would certainly be misleading Parliament if I were to come to Parliament and give an undertaking that, at some point or other, I would be able to provide statistics in respect of people who come into the country both legally and illegally. Obviously, the fact that they come in illegally makes it impossible for me to provide numbers, precisely because they come in illegally. I don’t know how they come in.

If you said to us that we should provide monthly or quarterly statistics of how many people we deport, then we would be able to do that. We can furnish you with that information, because that would give you a sense of how many people we deport. You should also remember that it could be that we may come back and say we’ve deported 9 000 people, let’s say, this month, but you may discover that amongst the people we deported this month, are the same people who were deported three months ago.

You know the problem we are confronted with. So, I don’t want to give an undertaking that we would be able to come and give you those kinds of statistics, because I think that we would be totally misleading the House if we gave that kind of undertaking. Thank you very much.

Mrs C DUDLEY: Thanks, Madam Speaker. Hon Minister, I think it was in January that two young boys from Kenya came into the country via the Eastern Cape on a ledge behind some cargo boat or whatever. It was a 16- year-old and an 18-year-old. I believe that immigration officers then handed them to police, and one of the youngsters was going before a court.

I just wanted to know if you have contingency plans in terms of the unrest in Kenya, and the likelihood of more children finding their way into the country, and plans to deal with that adequately. I believe they were trying to contact the parents of the 16-year-old, but what would happen if the parents are not contactable? What sort of plans are in place for this situation?

The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Well, yes, you should remember that some of the children come into the country unaccompanied. Some of them are not asylum seekers and they don’t want to remain in the country. In situations where unaccompanied minors come into the country and would like to go back to their countries, the necessary arrangements are made for them to go back to their countries. But, in the event that those minors would like to remain in the country, obviously work is done, together with Social Development, to make arrangements for those children to remain in the country.

I must say that I have not followed up to establish and, for purposes of this session, give a report on what happened to those stowaways. I am aware of the two children who were stowaways who arrived in the country at the beginning of the year. Thanks.

 Establishment of National Education Evaluation and Development Unit

1. Mr B Mthembu (ANC) asked the Minister of Education:

   (a) What measures are being envisaged by her department to deal with calls for the establishment of a National Education Evaluation and Development Unit and (b) what other strategies are being considered to improve the professional development of teachers? NO868E

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Madam Speaker, the reply is as follows: Yes, we are in the process of establishing a National Education Evaluation and Development Unit. We intend that the unit should be independent, somewhat at a distance from the Department of Education. It will oversee a number of quality management systems, and it is our plan to have the building blocks in place before the end of this year.

With respect to the (b) part of the question, we are implementing a number of strategies to strengthen teacher education. Firstly, we have carried out a review of the Integrated Quality Management System, and are currently effecting changes to the implementation of that system, given the recommendations that came out of the review. I believe the changes that we are implementing will make the IQMS simpler and more user-friendly.

Secondly, we have already advertised for the employment of external moderators, who will visit schools to check on the quality of the IQMS implementation. Members may recall that I have mentioned in the House before my concern that, given the reliance on peer review, the IQMS has not given us a sufficiently reliable, objective evaluation of teaching. We believe that the use of external moderators will give us that additional eye, as well as assist us in identifying what the professional needs of teachers are. We would then base any programmes for teacher development on these identified needs.

Thirdly, we have introduced our Continuing Professional Teacher Development Points System. Through this system we will require teachers to earn professional development points, through successfully engaging in professional development activities. The system seeks to ensure that teachers are able to benefit from training programmes which would have been certified and endorsed by the SA Council for Educators.

Finally, discussions are taking place between the Department of Education and the provincial departments to establish how they are currently using the 1% skills levy in terms of the Skills Development Act. The discussions involve the utilisation of the 80 hours earmarked for professional development. So we are actually carrying out an analysis as to whether we are using those 80 hours for purposes of professional development. We believe that the improvements that will arise from this particular review of the skills levy utilisation will assist us in implementing the professional teacher development system. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr B MTHEMBU: Madam Speaker, thank you to the Minister for her incisive response, as well as for providing us with a deeper insight into what is envisaged to develop a system of professional development.

Minister, one of the contentious issues around the current system of teacher evaluation is the fact that a single instrument is being used to achieve both accountability as well as professional development. That seems to provide challenges, in that the requirements for professional development are quarter-specific, whereas the requirements for accountability are supposed to be universal.

I just want to find out: Is there any possibility of delinking these purposes, so that we have one system for professional development and another for accountability purposes?

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Madam Speaker, thank you, hon member. I must say, my colleagues are saying, that is a far more incisive question than the Minister’s reply was!

Thank you very much, hon member. The intention of the proposals and strategies I have indicated, is to seek this separation, which is so important, as you have indicated. The Integrated Quality Management System, by the way, is a good system, and one that took a long time to negotiate, given the history of conflict with respect to inspection and evaluation in South Africa. I think the IQMS is a good system and therefore should be retained, but we need to add to it this objective evaluation related to accountability standards. That is why we are now creating this unit.

What we hope is that these instruments, despite their distinctiveness, will form a coherent whole that begins to add to the achievement of the kind of quality education that all of us seek to achieve in our education system in South Africa. So the creation of the National Education Evaluation and Development Unit will in a sense be that objective part that plays a role in establishing whether accountability measures, that is, learner performance, records, etc, are indeed being achieved, while the IQMS allows for the internal peer review process, where in situ, you then have professional development occurring.

So I hope through the new strategies we will begin to achieve the unity and distinctiveness that your question has referred to. But it is going to be difficult, and I think, as we move to implement, we must hold in our heads all the time that in South Africa we have not had inspection of education for 24 years. Therefore, essentially, most of us have no idea what is actually happening in the classroom. And that has to change if we are to support teachers better, and if our children are to acquire the kind of education that all of us believe our nation actually requires and deserves.

Mr A M MPONTSHANE: Madam Speaker, hon Minister, evaluation of teachers has been a perennial problem. It is for this reason that we welcome the establishment of this independent unit and the acknowledgement by the Minister of the weaknesses inherent in the peer review system.

My question is: Have all the teachers’ unions been consulted in this process? If they have, what have their responses been? Each time the Minister has set up these different types of evaluation systems, we have found that the unions have put spokes in the wheels of these processes. This time, what have their responses been? Thank you.

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Madam Speaker, hon member, up to this point, because we do not have the concept on paper, the process of consultation has been primarily informal. There would, of course, be a formal process, in which I hope the portfolio committee will also play a role. However, as I have said, the initial response that we got was one of some objection and fear, because of the residue and knowledge of what occurred in the past, that the inspection of schools was actually the imposition of ideology, rather than a support for quality education.

It is for this reason that in formulating the content of the unit, we have spoken of educational evaluation and development, so that it is understood that it would certainly be seeking accountability, but in the context of providing for development support, because we recognise that not all our schools are at a similar point, where you can just say an objective eye is sufficient. Therefore, this link between evaluation and development is one which I think would enjoy support from all who are concerned about ensuring that we achieve quality in our schools.

Now I am, I think, executing the belief that was articulated at the ANC conference in December last year, which was that there should be non- negotiables in education, that there should be teachers in class, teachers teaching and conducting themselves as professionals, and of course that we as parents and communities must support teachers to ensure we have disciplined children and that parents lend the proper support to our schools. It is in that vein that the current plans are being conceptualised and formulated.

Mrs D VAN DER WALT: Madam Speaker, Minister, research has proved, and this is to be seen in the best school systems in the world, that the key – in fact, I believe, the only key - to better performing learners is better teachers. Very little action is taken against nonperforming teachers.

There are over 300 000 educators employed in South Africa and examples of learners left in the lurch by inexplicably absent or nonperforming educators can be found in many schools across the country every day. Yet, in the three years between 2004 and 2006, the SA Council for Educators has only dismissed two. Why are teachers who are not performing not fired, like the teachers who could not even pass their own maths exam or test that they give to their students?

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Madam Speaker, you know, the DA’s impulse to everything is: Fire! Fire, fire, fire! [Interjections.] They will be doing so much firing on the imaginary day that they become part of government that there will be nobody working in South Africa.

I think that no system which has the character that our system has can rely solely on firing people. [Interjections.] The man who is the Minister of Education over there can reply on my behalf.

The SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, can we please have order, so that we can hear what the Minister is saying.

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: The “Minister of Education” across the floor can answer on my behalf. There is another “Minister of Education in waiting” over there. Once they have finished doing the job, I will be able to speak.

The SPEAKER: Please proceed, hon Minister.

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Of course, we wish they had been as vigorously interested when we had the troubles in this country. Nevertheless, Madam Speaker, it has to be said that we have inherited a dreadful system in our country, which we have to take vigorous steps to correct. The fact that we have developed a teacher development system for educators in South Africa and that we have published a policy which requires teachers to undertake a specific number of development modules in a three-year period, indicates that we want to attend to the challenges that confront us in the system.

As to whether we have sufficient knowledge to fire a person, as I said, for 27 years there has not been inspection in South Africa, so you do not have the base that you can utilise to act within the law, to actually then sanction or do something else to those who are not performing. When you have a unit, and you have inspection, and you have reports, then you have the basis on which to take the necessary steps.

Mr S J MASANGO: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Minister will agree with me that during the time when inspectors visited schools and actually inspected teachers, schools were producing good results, because teachers were spending time in class. Now the Minister is actually sourcing out the evaluation unit. Is this an admission on the part of the department of failure in this regard? Those inspectors used to work as employees of the department, and they knew exactly what was going on between teacher and learner, and how the whole system of education worked. If you source it out, are we not creating another problem?

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Madam Speaker, I don’t quite understand what the member means by “source it”. Is he referring to peri-peri or tomato sauce? What I said, was that my department will establish the unit, at a sufficient distance to carry out its work objectively. So that is all. But the Ministry must have political responsibility for that unit. So this is what I mean by “at a sufficient distance”, not that it will be some new, external institution. It would be under the authority of the Ministry of Education, but not a small unit in my department in Schoeman Street.

The member may think that the previous inspectors were really excellent people. He might think the fact that there was underenrolment for black children under apartheid was what led to the good results. I am afraid I don’t agree with the hon member, and I would suggest that he read a few of the short stories of Prof Es’kia Mphahlele to get an indication of how teachers under apartheid experienced the inspectorate.

We will not have that kind of intrusion, but we will have professionals who can go into schools, assess what is happening, and actually ensure that we have reports as to what is going on in schools and that we can provide the necessary support and any other remedy that would be indicated by the inspections. [Applause.]

           High vacancy rate across government departments

1. Mr K J Minnie (DA) asked the Minister for the Public Service and Administration:

   (1) What are the reasons for the high vacancy rates that exist across government departments;

   (2) whether her department has introduced initiatives or systems to determine the vacancy rate in government departments accurately; if so, what are the relevant details; if not, why not;

   (3) whether she has determined who is responsible for failing to deal with this problem; if not, why not; if so, who is responsible;

   (4) whether any action has been taken against the person or persons responsible; if not, why not; if so, what action? NO914E

The MINISTER FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION: Deputy Speaker, on this particular question, I would like to say that the main reason for the published high vacancy rates can be attributed to the fact that the vacancies that exist are those for which there is no funding and, therefore, those positions cannot be filled.

For example, if one reads the data available from Persal, they revealed a vacancy rate in the region of 31% as at January 2008. However, the underspending of government departments on the compensation of employees for the same period was only 1,6%. This shows that most of the posts that appear on Persal as vacancies are not funded posts; they are unfunded posts. This means, in effect, that they cannot be filled because there are no funds available for this.

The reason for unfunded posts is that departments determine their post requirements based on their mandate and then submit their proposals to national and provincial treasuries for funding. Funding for the proposed structures are not always obtained, and then departments need to redesign their structure and post allocation based on the available funding. In many cases, the redesign does not occur, and the structures reflected on Persal and published in the annual reports are the ideal ones based on the mandate of the department rather than on looking at the mandate as against available funds.

I think we should also bear in mind that due to the dynamic nature of the labour market, posts are consistently being vacated and filled. The Public Service would appoint approximately 120 000 employees per year and roughly the same number of employees would terminate services. These posts, as they are vacated and in the process of being filled, will be reflected as part of the vacancies as determined in a specific month. I think there is a need to note the dynamic nature of human resources.

We are developing a new information system, the Integrated Financial Management System, and through the implementation of this system, we will aim to improve the extent of our human resource information as well as its quality. The Integrated Financial Management Project is a joint National Treasury, Department of the Public Service and Administration, and State Information Technology Agency initiative to consolidate and renew the government’s back office applications.

In the interim, as well, my department has developed a strategy to enhance the accuracy of information on Persal and the initial focus is on information regarding posts. This strategy is based on some short-term actions that will focus on measures that can be implemented via Persal to improve the quality of implementation.

You should bear in mind that human resource management is decentralised across the Public Service, so it is the responsibility of every director- general, under the supervision of Ministers, to ensure that that information is placed on Persal in order to ensure the accuracy of data. Thank you. [Time expired.]

Mnr K J MINNIE: Agb Minister, baie dankie vir ’n volledige antwoord en ook die skriftelike gedeelte wat ek ontvang het. Ek wil u graag verwys na ’n verslag van die Staatsdienskommissie wat handel oor “The audit on vacancy rates in national and provincial departments”.

Daarin sê die Staatsdienskommissie onder andere: “All departments should design and implement specific strategies for the filling of vacant posts. They should prioritise areas where service delivery is compromised by high vacancy rates.” Dan gaan die verslag aan oor die akkuraatheid van inligting op Persal en dit maak ’n klomp aanbevelings wat departemente moet implementeer.

Agb Minister, dit gaan my verstand egter nog te bowe dat, ná al die jare, Persal nog in soveel chaos is. As deel van u antwoord wil ek vir u vra: Waarom huiwer u om op te tree teen individue wat verantwoordelik is vir die mislukking van stelsels? Wat gaan u doen om daardie individue vas te vat? Ek dank u.

Die MINISTER VIR DIE STAATSDIENS EN ADMINISTRASIE: Dankie Adjunkspeaker en agb lid. Ek wil eerstens sê ek het juis gesê daar is verskeie … (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Mr K J MINNIE: Hon Minister, thank you very much for a very comprehensive answer and also for the written version that I received. I would like to refer you to a report by the Public Service Commission regarding “The audit on vacancy rates in national and provincial departments”.

In this report the Public Service Commission states, inter alia: “All departments should design and implement specific strategies for the filling of vacant posts. They should prioritise areas where service delivery is compromised by high vacancy rates.” The report then goes on to discuss the accuracy of the information on Persal and makes a number of recommendations that departments should implement. Hon Minister, I simply cannot understand why, after all these years, Persal is still in such a chaotic state. With reference to part of your answer, I would like to ask you: Why are you hesitant to act against individuals that are responsible for the failure of systems? What are you going to do to clamp down on those individuals? I thank you.

The MINISTER FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION: Thank you Deputy Speaker and hon member. Firstly, I want like to state that I specifically said there are various …]

… that we have started various interventions to correct the problem that exists in Persal. The very report by the Public Service Commission that was referred to is precisely what I reflected upon earlier when identifying particular gaps that exist. The measures identified by the commission and the measures identified by the Department of the Public Service and Administration have come before Cabinet, as well as the lekgotla, for implementation.

We have also put in place what we call a Public Service management watch and, through this, the Department of the Public Service and Administration has been reporting to and advising government departments on their performance. In view of the practical problems that have been experienced, we have not taken the approach of dealing with a specific individual, but thought that we should start by ensuring that we put more systemic corrective measures in place to take it forward. These have been adopted by Cabinet.

I think you would recall, hon Minnie, through you, Deputy Speaker, that you actually opposed the amendment to the Public Service Act that had required greater accountability from departments, Ministers and MECs on this very issue of human resource management. I think we should be careful about having our cake and eating it, and should be quite consistent around how we deal with the challenges, because we have said that there are measures that are being put in place.

We are using the Public Service management watch. We are looking at accounting and will provide consistent, regular reports to Cabinet – both nationally and provincially – to indicate what the situation is on the filling of vacant posts. Thank you.

Ms M J J MATSOMELA: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Minister, in your response to hon Minnie’s question, you indicated that vacancies exist in the Public Service for which there is no funding. How, then, does the Department of the Public Service and Administration ensure that the nonfunding of such vacancies does not have a negative impact on service delivery? Thank you.

The MINISTER FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION: Thank you, Deputy Speaker and hon member. I also indicated in the response to the hon Minnie that in certain instances these vacancy organograms that were presented by departments may have been an ideal type of organogram, and that is why we have taken a decision, as Cabinet as well, that there is a need for organograms to come to the Minister for the Public Service and Administration for consideration in order to determine whether it is the kind of structure that is facilitating the required service delivery.

In that way, in collaboration with particular government departments and sectors, we do take into account the fact that we should ensure that the structures are able to meet the service delivery requirements and, in this instance, as Treasury looks at the organograms, they take into account that it is responding to the efficacy of the service delivery needs of departments and the Public Service as a whole. So, I don’t think that we should fear that it will impact negatively on the service delivery requirements.

Mr N SINGH: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. Mine is going to be a double-barrelled question. Whilst, hon Minister, we agree that no funding can be one of the reasons that some of these vacancies exist, is it not possible that these vacancies also exist because the kind of salaries that are paid within the Public Service are not commensurate with the salaries paid in the private sector? Secondly, has your department or government considered the establishment of Public Service training academies? Thank you.

The MINISTER FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION: Thank you, Deputy Speaker and hon member. It is an interesting question. We have spoken about the issue of unfunded vacancies and say that there are definitely those that are not funded and hence project a figure that is not real. I think we should also bear in mind that there are departments that function very well in spite of fact that there may well be existing vacancies.

Are salaries not commensurate with the private sector? We have agreed that, when it comes to specialist skills in the public sector, we have not been competitive with the private sector and hence the kind of review that has looked at the occupation-specific dispensation, where we have looked at salary packages that take into account the specifics of particular sectors, and are more flexible than the norm has been in the public sector.

In terms of lower-level public servants, they actually get paid more than in the private sector. I think it could be argued that with some of the most senior posts, like director-general level, we are out of kilter with the private sector but, broadly, the senior management service, generally, is competitive. So, I think it is something that we may need to have a separate question and discussion on in order to engage in the details further.

On the issue of Public Service academies, you are aware that the SA Management Development Institute, Samdi, is being restructured, reconfigured, and has a new mandate to serve as an academy linking up with provincial academies. We are looking at a virtual link-up between national and provincial levels, with close collaboration with institutions of higher education and so on, in order to ensure the kind of developmental interventions required in building and improving the capacity of the Public Service. Thank you.

Mnr K J MINNIE: Agb Minister, die feit dat die regering nie individue wil aanvat nie, gaan hierdie land nog duur te staan kom. Dit is my eerste punt. Die tweede punt: u weet wat die rede is dat ons verlede jaar teen die Staatsdienswet gestem het. U weet ook dat ons hierdie jaar, as die wetsontwerp oor ’n “single Public Service” ter tafel gelê gaan word, daarteen gaan stem en dat ons dit teenstaan.

Minister, net ’n vraag: die DA het onlangs navorsing gedoen oor vakatures in die Staatsdiens. Ek het daardie dokument persoonlik by u afgelewer, by u kantoor. My vraag is: het u daardie dokument ontvang? Stem u saam met al die gegewens daarin vervat en wanneer kan ek u kommentaar daarop kry, asseblief? (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Mr K J MINNIE: Hon Minister, the fact that the government is failing to clamp down on these individuals, will still cost this country dearly. That is my first point. The second point is: You are well aware of the reason why we voted against the Public Service Act last year. You also know that should the Bill on a “single Public Service” be tabled this year, we will vote against it and oppose it.

Minister, the DA has recently done research into vacancies in the Public Service. I personally delivered that document to you, at your office. My question is: Did you receive that document? Do you agree with all the information contained in it and when can I have your comment on this, please?]

The MINISTER FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker.

Dankie, agb lid. Ek wil eerstens sê die Minister van Onderwys het vroeër gepraat oor hierdie situasie van individue – nie soveel individue aanvat nie, maar die hele ding van mense … [Thank you, hon member. Firstly, I would like to state that earlier the Minister of Education raised this issue regarding individuals – not clamping down on individuals as such, but the whole issue of …]

… simply looking at firing people.

Ons het nie gesê ons sal nie individue aanvat nie. Ek het gesê in terme van hierdie spesifieke probleem kan ons nie net kyk na die individu nie. Ons moet ook kyk na die sisteem en daarom moet ons seker maak dat ons … (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[We did not state that we would not be clamping down on individuals. I said that in terms of this specific problem, we could not only focus on the individual. We should also look at the system and therefore we have to ensure that we …]

… do make interventions that are going to deal with improving the system as a whole, because you need to be developmental in your approach. You then deal with the individuals, and I think that is the kind of approach we take.

Ek wil ook verder sê, as u gestem het teen die Enkel-Staatsdienswet, het u vir iets verkeerd gestem, want ons het nog nie eens daarby gekom nie. Dit kom eers later hierdie jaar, so ek dink u moet gaan kyk waarvoor u wel gestem het.

Die dokument waarvan u praat, het ek wel ontvang, maar dit is as ’n persverklaring uitgereik en ek het ook daarna ’n persverklaring uitgereik. So, dit lyk asof ons deur die pers met mekaar gepraat het, maar ek sal seker maak dat daardie verklaring by die lid uitkom. Dankie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Furthermore, I wish to state that if you voted against the single Public Service Act, then you have voted for the wrong thing, because we have not even reached that stage yet. That will only come later this year, so I think you will have to look again at what you did vote for. In fact, I have indeed received the document to which you are referring. However, it was released as a press statement and I also issued a press statement afterwards. So it seems as if we have been communicating with each other via the media, but I shall ensure that the member receives that statement. Thank you.]

      Government’s views on a National Health Insurance System

1. Mrs M M Madumise (ANC) asked the Minister of Health:

   Whether the Government considers a National Health Insurance System as an ideal mechanism to provide equitable health services; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NO864E

The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Deputy Speaker, I’d like, first of all, to thank the hon Madumise for the question. Countries across the world face the challenge of providing equitable, accessible and affordable health services to all their citizens. Many developed and developing countries have adopted a national health insurance system as a mechanism to provide an equitable, accessible and affordable health service for all their people.

This is primarily because the underlying principles of the national health insurance system are: universal health care coverage for all; promotion of equitable health care financing; compulsory, mandatory participation to promote the risk of pooling and cross-subsidisation; and controlling cost escalation in the health sector.

Over the past decade the national Department of Health has developed and implemented a number of policy reforms directed at creating an environment that will help ensure a smooth transition towards a national health system that promotes universal access to needed health care services for all South Africans. The reforms include, amongst others, the introduction of the Medical Schemes Act, Act 131 of 1989, and its subsequent amendments related to community rating, open enrolment, prescribed minimum benefits and the risk equalisation process.

Additional regulations aimed at controlling the cost escalation in the private health sector have also been implemented and these include the single exit price regulations, the introduction of the Public Service medical scheme and free primary health care for all.

The national Department of Health is currently developing a variety of policy proposals that will achieve universal coverage through a more equitable financing system. Thank you very much.

Mrs M M MADUMISE: Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you Minister for the well- thought-out answer. [Interjections.] Has the Minister considered introducing an indigent citizens’ medical scheme similar to the Public Service medical scheme? The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Thank you, hon Madumise, for the follow-up question. Rather than refer to an indigent citizens’ medical scheme, I would want to believe that the hon member would consider low-income medical schemes. There is a difference between the two. The policy of this government, in fact, has always been to redress the plight of the poor and the unemployed, who fall within the category of indigent citizens.

As the hon member knows by now, we will be introducing a Bill that enables a scheme to exist. All those that are unable to afford health care have access to the public health sector at no cost to themselves. Free health care is provided to them.

Yes, indeed, we have been exploring universal health coverage for all citizens of our country and we are convinced – and this is in line with the ANC’s resolution over the past three national conferences - that the most appropriate route to follow to ensure equitable, accessible and affordable health care services for all, at least the prescribed essential benefit, is indeed national health insurance. Of course, this is also in line with the ANC’s vision that is contained in the ANC health plan of 1992, and we are indeed pursuing that and exploring it. Thank you.

Mrs S V KALYAN: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Madam Minister, you refer to the ideal situation of providing equitable, accessible and affordable health services with this new plan. But I think you forget that the public health service in South Africa is in a dismal state. We lack the essential resources to provide a world-class service. At the present moment the ratio is one nurse to 241 patients. Now tell me, Minister, can you even try to tell us how the lack of proper human and nonhuman infrastructure is going to be addressed so that you can deliver better health for all?

The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Chairperson, thank you very much. I think the hon member is treading on very dangerous ground. I think she is. [Interjections.] Everybody must aspire to an ideal situation. I can’t imagine myself sitting here and wanting third-rate health care services. I must have a vision and this is what the ANC aspires to. [Interjections.]

When they are quiet, I will continue. Chairperson, when the members are quiet and are really expecting an answer from me, I will continue. If they have the answers themselves, then I am willing to sit down.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M B Skosana): Hon members, please give the Minister a chance to finish her reply.

The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Chairperson, I don’t know whether the member is part of this Parliament, and indeed listened to the Minister of Finance as he articulated the budget allocations for the next MTEF and the increments thereof. I don’t know. Perhaps she is not. I don’t know whether the hon member has been following the discussions in Kampala of the Global Workforce Alliance, which indicate that what she is talking about here is indeed a global problem in terms of human resources. This is why I am saying: She is indeed treading on very dangerous ground.

We now know that from all developing countries, one in four doctors emigrates to developed countries, and South Africa is no exception. One in twenty nurses migrates from the developing countries to the developed countries. In that regard, unlike the hon member who is not following the international debates, we agreed in Kampala that we needed to develop a code of conduct to ensure that the recruitment is transparent and does not disrupt the health care services in developing countries.

The developed countries themselves recognise that they have had a role in the emigration of health professionals from developing countries. I wish she would, early in the mornings, perhaps download all the information on health so that she asks questions that are relevant.

Mrs C DUDLEY: Thank you, Chair. Hon Minister, can you tell us what research has been done in terms of analysing the effectiveness of such systems in countries where national health insurance systems are in place? What are the pros and cons in terms of the department’s assessment? As you say that you are moving towards this system, what timeframes are envisaged in terms of implementing?

The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Chairperson, thank you very much for that follow-up question. At least that is a reasonable question to ask. We have indeed been to a number of countries - not just the Department of Health. We have been, together with the Department of Social Development, to countries like Brazil, Mexico, Britain, Iran.

There is a conference taking place right now here in this country on the same subject, including national health insurance and universal coverage for health care services. So, yes, indeed, we have done extensive work in this regard. But as I said, at the end of the day we are convinced that everything else would not answer to the health needs of the people of this country. In this regard we are guided by the resolutions of the ANC on the establishment of national health care insurance.

The hon member is a member of the committee, so I am rather surprised that she doesn’t know what steps we have been following. If indeed she was participating fully in the committee meetings, she would know that a lot of ground has been covered. Indeed, over these remaining months, whilst we are in Parliament, we will be finalising national health insurance as a full package, but perhaps not completely.

I might just inform you that when we were in Germany, they told us that it took them 124 years to fully implement national health insurance. It is not just an easy job so that I can give timeframes. The policies are there and will be refined and when the time comes, we will begin the implementation. [Applause.]

Mr L M GREEN: Thank you, Chairperson. Hon Minister, could you inform the House whether in consultations with private health care facilities they have shown a willingness to partner with the state on a national health insurance system? If not, why not; and if so, what are the relevant details?

The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Fortunately, in this regard, there is “if not, why not”, and “if so, when will it happen?” It happens all the time. Even our structure in the National Health Act provides for such consultation and for the establishment of such committees. Therefore, if we were not consulting, in fact we would be violating our own Act. Regarding the consultations, you will listen to me when I make a statement in a few hours’ time, about what consultations have been taking place between ourselves and the private health sector. Yes, indeed, we consult all the time. Thank you.

   Exit strategies with regard to Expanded Public Works Programmes

1. Mr J D Arendse (ANC) asked the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry: What exit strategies exist in her department regarding the Expanded Public Works Programme for Working (a) for Water, (b) on Fire and (c) for Wetlands? NO877E

The MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY: Chairperson, the question about what happens to people once they exit the Working for Water Programme has been a challenge to the department since it launched this very successful programme. Hon members must remember that this programme is an Expanded Public Works Programme, and Working on Fire as well as Working for Wetlands are subprogrammes of Working for Water.

Working for Water, being part of the government’s Expanded Public Works Programme, is directed by the Ministerial Determination on Special Public Works Programmes and associated code of good practice for employment. In terms of this determination beneficiaries of the programme must exit these programmes after 460 days of work in a five-year cycle.

The principles of the Expanded Public Works Programme are poverty relief, job creation and economic development, skills development, capacity- building, and temporary and short-term employment. Skills development and capacity-building are critical and training is taken very seriously in all of the programmes so as to equip people once they have exited the programme.

Over the years, the department has been investigating mechanisms to support the people exiting the programme, as we had noted that these people faced challenges when they went back to the areas from where they were recruited, where they found that there were no employment opportunities. In addition, the low skills level of many of the beneficiaries meant that the training provided might not be sufficient.

An exit strategy whose key components include, firstly, the compilation of a database of existing and exited workers and contractors has since been developed. Secondly, we have established a partnership with the Media, Advertising, Packaging and Printing Seta, the energy Seta and the Forest Industry Education and Training Authority to co-ordinate and manage accredited skills development. Training interventions will be offered both to individuals in the programme and SMMEs, to equip them with the necessary expertise and qualifications so that they can be absorbed by the labour market as they exit the programme.

We are piloting this exit strategy in the Western Cape, the Northern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal, the Eastern Cape and the North West with an intake of about 1 500 beneficiaries, and these pilots will be starting in April 2008.

A further partnership has been established with the Small Enterprise Development Agency of the Department of Trade and Industry to assist the beneficiaries with registration of their companies, business funding and business opportunities in the respective provinces. This initiative will create an enabling environment for the beneficiaries to graduate from the second to the first economy.

A development framework is also being developed with the Expanded Public Works Programme for emerging contractors from this Working for Water Programme and its projects to access government and private sector contracts.

I said that we have already compiled a database for both exiting and existing contractors … [Time expired.]

Mr J D ARENDSE: Chairperson, Minister, the training that the participants receive, especially in these three programmes, currently equips them to find work in the sector where they participated. However, more often than not, work is available in other sectors and they have not received training to equip themselves to find work in other sectors in the areas where they reside. I would like to ask the Minister whether she would consider investigating the possibility of upgrading the training that participants in these programmes receive, so that they would be equipped to find work in other sectors of the economy where they reside.

The MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY: Chairperson, well, firstly, I think it is important to say that the question is about the exit strategy. So what I have outlined is what we are doing to try and help the contractors and the participants as they exit the programme. It is important to note that as they enter the programme, before the 460 days, these employees are given skills both in the areas in which they work and through training initiatives run by these programmes.

They acquire skills and knowledge of the environment, of the invasive species and why these must be removed, of fire fighting, fire hazards, safety measures, and chainsaw operation - this enables trainees to work with wood and wooden materials - working with wood, and advanced driving, particularly for the workers in the Working on Fire Programme, because they have to approach their work very carefully since situations can turn ugly if people have not been trained properly.

They are also given business and entrepreneurial development support, as well as marketing skills. Some of these skills that they acquire during their training as well as during their time at work can be utilised when they are sent back to the areas from which they were recruited.

What we are also trying to do - as I could not finish my answer because I ran out of time - is that, as they exit the programme they go with these skills, but they are also trained in producing artefacts and other items. We have very successful businesses – I can’t even call them small businesses because some of them are quite huge and are supporting some of the garden furniture that you buy from the nurseries.

They are manufacturing coffins which are used by people all over, particularly in KwaZulu-Natal. There are many others that are manufacturing very expensive and advanced items, such as memory sticks, which are very attractive these days. So, there are various areas in which they can participate in business other than the areas for which they were trained.

Mr M M SWATHE: Chairperson, the Minister articulated very well the programme that she is thinking of implementing. However, I want to ask her whether she and her department are convinced that the public works programme of which she has just spoken will produce well-trained, qualified and skilled fire fighters needed by the market; if not why, why not; if so, where are these people going to get the qualifications? Because we have just read in the report that the standard of training is of a low quality.

Those people can’t even fight fires effectively. They do not comply with international red card standards that actually show that those people are competent in fighting fires. Thank you.

The MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY: Chairperson, I am not sure to which report the hon member is referring, because, to tell you the truth, we are on record as having said that the training received by our Working on Fire employees is one of the best, and as a result they are in demand.

Hon members must remember that this is a hazardous area of work, so we attract younger people who go through a very rigorous fitness test. They are highly disciplined. Even when they are not contracted, they are forced to continuously be engaged in physical training. So, from my point of view I don’t know which standards were used to measure those firemen and -women that the hon member is referring to. Those people are highly trained.

The biggest challenge of this programme is that, it being an Expanded Public Works Programme, you can pay certain levels of income but you cannot have people permanently engaged in the jobs. In order to improve the situation we might have to change the programme and make it something else other than a public works programme.

However, we have managed to come up with an exit strategy in order to get as many people going through the programme as possible. If you remember how the Expanded Public Works Programme was formulated: it is a special programme of government that is targeting poverty, particularly in the areas where our people cannot find work. It does not require very high levels of skills to enter this profession and enables as many people as possible to go through work opportunities. That is then able to catapult them to other levels of work. We are happy with what it has achieved up till now.

We welcome the fact that hon members have been challenging us about people exiting the programme, asking: What do you expect them to do without any plan? We have now come up with this exit strategy and we need to give it a chance to work.

As I have said, we are piloting the plan as of next month. Let’s see how it works. We can already say that we have seen very successful enterprises. People who came in with nothing emerge from the programme as contractors, buying their first, second and third trucks. We have seen people setting up businesses to deal with woodwork. So, we have seen a development of what was started … [Time expired.]

Mr J P I BLANCHÉ: Chairperson, does the Minister have any records of the number of people who have been skilled in these various programmes? Can she tell us whether these programmes have been successful? If one looks at what happened around Acacia Park, where the Port Jacksons were supposed to have been removed, they started growing again. Is this a sustainable programme? The programme seems to be sustainable, but we don’t seem to get good results.

The MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY: Chairperson, well, that is why there is such an interest in the programme, by the way, and that is why today it is being considered as part of the Jobs for Growth under the Joint Initiative for Priority Skills Acquisition programme with the Presidency, because it has the potential to provide work to even more numbers of poor people, particularly those without any skills. In some instances it requires no education at all. Those people are trained, their dignity is restored and they are able to put food on the table for their children and families.

Working for Water provides employment and training opportunities to over 29 000 people, of whom 56% are women, 45% are youth and just under 2% are people with disabilities. Of course, most of them, as I have said, are poor people and marginalised groups.

Regarding the success of the programme, I think it has been successful to such an extent that it is being extended. You must remember that initially this was a programme that was primarily aimed at increasing our water availability by removing these aliens to make our land more productive, and improving ecosystems by removing invasive alien species. The aims of poverty alleviation, job creation and development came after this primary aim, but we have seen the potential of the programme and we are increasing it.

I must tell you that dealing with invasive species is a very difficult challenge, and it is not only the responsibility of the department and government. Large tracts of farmland that have invasive species belong to private people, and we encourage farmers and private owners of properties to use these people that have been trained by our programmes and get them to clear the invasive species in their areas.

So, it is a big challenge and not easy. We have thousands of alien species, the majority of which are invasive … [Time expired.]

Mrs D VAN DER WALT: Chairperson, I saw “Minister Jordan”. I had a brief name change; I was in the wrong seat.

Minister, you just mentioned the success rate in respect of contractors after they leave the programmes. Can you tell us exactly how many people were employed in this programme and how many did become successful contractors who are now buying, so to speak, second and third vehicles?

The MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY: Chairperson, that is a very specific question, which I think the hon member will have to provide in writing, so that I can come with correct figures and data that I don’t have to suck out of my thumb. Thank you.

          Investigation into and report on passport scandal

1. Mr C M Lowe (DA) asked the Minister of Home Affairs: (1) Whether she will table the findings of the investigation into and report on the passport scandal in which 10 000 authentic blank South African passports were discovered in Britain last year in Parliament; if not, why not; if so, when;

   (2) why, despite instituting an investigation into the passport scandal, she has until now neither tabled the findings in Parliament nor made them public? NO919E

The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Thank you, hon Lowe. No such investigation exists from the side of the Department of Home Affairs. The information on which the hon member is relying is incorrect in a number of respects. The true position can be summarised as follows.

On 17 July 2001, a vehicle containing 4 000 passports, including 1 000 children’s passports, en route to the Department of Home Affairs from the Government Printing Works, was hijacked. The matter was reported to the SAPS, which conducted an investigation. Approximately half of those passports were recovered by the SAPS and handed back to the Department of Home Affairs.

During the period January to June 2005, parcels couriered to the UK were intercepted by the UK authorities. A total of 400 passports, including 232 South African passports, were intercepted. Senior officials from the Department of Home Affairs and the Government Printing Works travelled to the UK to assist their law enforcement agencies with the investigation.

It transpired that all 232 South African passports were from the batch that had been hijacked in 2001. Of the 232 passports, 70 were blank and 133 had been fraudulently personalised with the details of Nigerian citizens.

I was advised at the time that the UK investigation into the scam by a Nigerian syndicate operating in the UK, intercepted not only South African passports, but UK passports and a large batch of Nigerian passports as well.

Mr C M LOWE: Chairperson, I thank the hon Minister for that very comprehensive reply.

Forgive me, Minister, if my facts are not completely correct at times - I don’t have access to all the information you have - but I think you will agree with me that the basis for the question remains the same: Whether 4 000 passports were hijacked or 10 000 or even 100, I think we agree that we have a problem.

Minister, my information is that last year, round about April, the head of the Government Printing Works actually addressed the portfolio committee and admitted that there had been a problem in the United Kingdom, and said that a team from GPW had been sent over to investigate, and that they were awaiting a forensic report at that stage. That was April last year.

Now, that may or may not be the complete truth of the matter. It doesn’t really matter, for the purposes of this question, whether it is or is not.

My question to you, Madam Minister, is this: When these issues arise – and unfortunately they seem to arise too often – we have a situation that leads the United Kingdom government to use that as part of the reason for threatening perhaps to have visas …

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M B Skosana): Hon member, you are running out of time. Ask the question, please.

Mr C M LOWE: We shouldn’t have to have that situation, Minister. What can be done to address that? When one hears that perhaps six months went by before the government of the United Kingdom could get an interview with you to talk about the matter, one obviously is concerned. Is that the situation and what is the situation for the future? Will we be able to address that or will we have visas being required for citizens wanting to visit the United Kingdom? Thank you, Chairperson.

The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Chairperson, that’s the problem. The problem arises when you don’t rely on information you receive from us, but rather prefer to rely on the information you receive from the British government. [Interjections.]

No, no, no, just hold on! For instance, you are saying that it took them six months to interview me, when, in fact, I interact with them on a regular basis. That’s the first thing that’s incorrect.

Secondly, the information which you have suggested that the Department of Home Affairs had been conducting an investigation based on 10 000 passports. In fact, it is not true and this again is information which you have not received from us.

I will seek clarity from the portfolio committee, which includes yourself, about the report you received from GPW.

Regarding the issue of the imposition of a visa regime on South Africa, as we all know, to date there has been no official communication from Britain to suggest that a visa regime has been imposed on South Africa. But again, it was brought here to Parliament by those of you who prefer to receive communication or rumour from the House of Commons, rather than to wait until such time as I, as Minister of Home Affairs here in South Africa, come to Parliament and present a report - when it is necessary to do so - about whether or not in fact a visa regime is being imposed on us by Britain.

The problem arises when people would rather listen to other people from elsewhere, than trust and rely on their own. [Applause.]

The last thing I would like to say, hon member, is: trust us. We are fellow South Africans. Have confidence in us. We are all patriots; we are all South Africans. At the point when the British government has taken that kind of decision, we will take you into our confidence by coming here and giving that report.

By the way, we should also remember that Britain, like South Africa, has its own challenges and is managing to deal with those challenges in the same way that we are trying to grapple with ours. They are dealing with their own security problems in the same way that we, in South Africa, are trying to deal with our crime problems. And, obviously, they are going to find different ways of dealing with those problems.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M B Skosana): Hon Minister, your time has expired.

The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Thank you very much, and I’m sorry, Chair. [Applause.]

Mr C M LOWE: Minister, thank you once again for your comprehensive reply. Minister, if only the House of Assembly here worked in the same way that the House of Commons does. Do they take accountability seriously? Do they take transparency seriously? There they hold Ministers to account, and, more importantly, if you want information, you get it.

With great respect, Minister, I could bring a pile of questions about your department to this House. In fact, I would like to challenge you: I will bring them next week. Will you please answer those questions? Will you reply to the letters? Will you give me answers and the information I seek? And then perhaps I shall have more up-to-date information.

In the meantime, Madam Minister, on the matter of confidence: Of course I have confidence in you and the director-general, but the people of South Africa have no confidence in the Department of Home Affairs, because it is not doing its job, and I am trying to help you by pointing out where there are problems.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M B Skosana): Hon member, you are running out of time. Ask the question.

Mr C M LOWE: My question to you this afternoon, Madam Minister, is this: Is there a forensic report being prepared into why these passports, blank or otherwise, are disappearing; if so, where is it; and if not, why not? When will it become available? So that together we can try to address the problems in the Department of Home Affairs, not for you and me, but for all the people in South Africa who want a passport, an ID, a birth certificate, and cannot get it now. They can get it in Britain, but they cannot get it now, and that is the question you need to answer.

The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Chairperson, why would I keep a forensic report away from the hon member? Why would I keep it a secret? If I have given an instruction for a forensic audit to be conducted by the department, why would I keep it away from the hon member? Why would I not make it available to you?

You are saying “in the interests of accountability and transparency”. I believe that we are one of the most accountable and transparent governments, but I still think if people prefer to get their information from statistics which are given by members of parliament and officials of other parliaments elsewhere, tough luck!

I think that we are trying our best, as much as possible. I think it is incorrect for anyone to use information, in the process misleading the whole country, and throw the country into a state of hysteria on the basis of information on a matter which was being debated in the House of Commons.

I think it was totally irresponsible. I think it was totally incorrect to throw the country into a state of hysteria on the basis of misinformation. It was not you, Mr Lowe, you are not responsible for it, but I think those of you who did that, were incorrect and irresponsible. [Applause.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M B Skosana): Thank you, hon Minister. The next question is Question 52, which has been asked by the hon A H Gaum to the Minister of Education.

Mr C M LOWE: Chairperson, on a point of order: I understand there are three follow-up questions available after the proposal. One plus three is four, we’ve only had three. With respect, sir, there is one still to come.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M B Skosana): You are correct, Mr Holomisa wasn’t here. [Interjections.]

You see, hon members, I am looking at a machine here. When you press the button and your name comes up here, then I call your name. But if you don’t, you cannot just stand up and say “I want to ask a follow-up question”. That is not how it is done. The names are here and the name that I ended with was the hon S V Kalyan, which you took yourself. There is no other name here. That is why I am proceeding.

 Position regarding students dropping out of school after grade nine

1. Adv A H Gaum (ANC) asked the Minister of Education:

   Whether the findings of the Ministerial Task Team, that a considerable percentage of students is dropping out of school after grade nine, are having a detrimental impact on the education and training of skills amongst our students; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (a) what is her view in this regard, (b) what are the reasons for this unhealthy phenomenon and (c) what steps will her department take to keep learners in the system until the end of their school careers? NO870E

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, the reply to the question is as follows.

Mrs S V KALYAN: On a point of order, Chairperson: I pressed the button twice. You’ve had three speakers and I still believe there is one chance available. I did press my button. May I have that opportunity now?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M B Skosana): Hon member, you pressed the button, the name came up and I called your name. You gave your chance to somebody else. Mrs S V KALYAN: Yes, that was the third question.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M B Skosana): There was no other name given.

Mrs S V KALYAN: No, I pressed it several times before the hon Chauke. [Interjections.] Would you give me the opportunity to ask a question, please?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M B Skosana): Hon member, I can ask you to come here. You will see one name, which you pressed once. There is no other name. The name that appears here now is that of the hon H P Chauke.

In the interests of time, because it is not really my fault, let me ask the Minister of Education to answer her question. We will deal with those machines when we get there.

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Thank you, Chairperson. The reply to the question is as follows: My view is that all schoolchildren who are at risk of dropping out should be supported and encouraged to stay on into the post- compulsory phase of schooling, because, as we all know, improving your prospects in education supports improved opportunities for employment and entrepreneurial activity.

With respect to (b): The report that I received indicated that there are a number of reasons for learners dropping out of school before they arrive at Grade 12. The household surveys that have been done in our country have shown consistently that a lack of money impacts quite dramatically on children’s access to education. Cited as well in previous reports is the impact of teenage pregnancy on girls dropping out of school.

We did not ask the ministerial committee to establish the reasons for dropping out. We asked them to look at the retention and dropout, but they did make the point that one of the key features that was related to high dropout rates was grade repetition. This was identified as a powerful predictor of dropping out.

We have taken a number of steps in our efforts to encourage learners to stay on until the last year of schooling: Firstly, we have revised the curriculum in order to offer children a more varied set of learning areas; secondly, we have the no-fee schools policy through which the parents of over 5 million learners no longer pay school fees in our country; thirdly, we’ve provided bursaries to all children who cannot find the means to attend an FET college – they are now funded through a bursary for such attendance; fourthly, we’ve provided support to young people to enter higher education; and fifthly, for those children living in the most remote rural parts of our country, all provinces now have a provincial scholar transport assistance scheme. Finally, by 2010 it is our intention that the majority of learners entering Grade 1 should have attended an accredited early childhood development programme, because as all research has shown, learners who attend ECD are more likely to do well in school, and are therefore able to proceed smoothly through the system and be retained to complete their learning.

Adv A H GAUM: Thank you, Chairperson. Minister, what progress has been made with some of the solutions proposed, such as the tracking of learners and career guidance?

Secondly, there is a strong view that skills training, instead of so-called academic education, could assist in bringing down the drop-out rate. This could be achieved through the rerouting of learners to FET colleges, as you’ve stated, or technical or focus schools that concentrate on technical subjects.

What are the Minister’s views specifically with regard to the establishment of more technical or focus schools? And would the Minister agree that language barriers, due to a lack of mother tongue education, might contribute to lower levels of functional literacy, resulting in a lack of conceptual skills and eventually the dropping out of learners? Thank you.

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, it would take all day to answer these questions properly. With respect to tracking, we are currently finalising the work towards creating a national learner records information system, where every learner in our country will have a unique registration number given to them when they enter the schooling system, which will be their registration number right through from Grade R until they exit at Grade 12. I am hoping that by the middle of this year we will be able to get that system under way.

With respect to guidance in schools through the life-orientation programme, we have modules on career information for young people. It is perhaps an area that I think we should do more on and we are certainly looking at how we can improve in this regard, but it is currently within the Curriculum for Life Orientation, which is taken by all learners at all grades in the system.

On skills training, I think this is where we have made a great deal of progress. One of the things that was clear from the report on retention was that, while we have identified this bulked exit at Grade 9, it would seem that it has some relationship to the growth in access at the FET college level in the level 1 programmes. We’re not certain, because we’ve not tracked it, but there is this growth which seems to somehow be associated with this exit of 16-year-olds at the end of the compulsory phase of schooling.

Certainly, the FET colleges are an important part of the kind of skilling and opportunity that we need to provide to young people; hence government is ensuring that we provide bursaries for young people that enter this field.

The hon member is correct that technical schools and support to them have to be another element that we address. I am meeting, early next month, with all heads of the existing technical schools in the country. I think they haven’t received sufficient support. We need to renew their facilities: just as with the recapitalisation we’ve had for the FET sector, I think with the technical schools such recapitalisation is necessary and must be attended to.

We are proceeding quite well in some provinces with the establishment of focus schools, where young people can have a number of learning areas which are within a set of cognate skills, so that they may follow technology as subjects, or subjects in theatre and drama. This is working in particular in Gauteng and the Western Cape. [Time expired.]

Mr A M MPONTSHANE: Chairperson, the Minister has mentioned quite a number of interesting issues surrounding the drop-outs. One of them is the need to keep these drop-outs in the compulsory phase of schooling – I agree with that. I would guess that some of the people who would be responsible for keeping the drop-outs in this compulsory schooling phase would be parents. The SA Social Security Agency, in fact, puts the responsibility for keeping learners within this compulsory phase on the shoulders of parents. My question would be: Are there any efforts by the department to make parents aware of this responsibility of assisting in keeping these learners within that compulsory phase? I thank you.

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, let me just make it quite clear. Perhaps I didn’t state it clearly. In terms of the report and our own statistics, most of the children in South Africa who enter school at Grade R, complete their compulsory schooling. The problem we’re meeting is that at Grade 9 we are seeing a massive drop, and this is the worry, that we’re not retaining beyond the compulsory phase - not in it, but beyond.

Also, within the compulsory phase are large amounts of repetition. The hon member is aware that in our country we don’t have enough educational support services, as I’ve mentioned before. So a child, for example, who might be dyslexic, is construed as not being able to learn a particular subject, whereas they need specialist assistance with reading, mathematics and other areas of learning activity.

We need to improve the educational support element, so that we reduce repetition rates and stop children from becoming so discouraged that, rather than staying in school, they leave school. We also have the problem that children who repeat too many times then reach an age where they don’t wish to be in school, and the overage phenomenon was also cited as one of our problems in terms of retention.

As regards the role of parents: We engage parents, we send out communications and we will continue to do so. But I think we don’t want to get to a point where we start to arrest parents for not ensuring that children are in school. I do, however, think we need to do more, as other countries have done, with truant officers and so on, in regard of tracking young people and getting them back into school. These are aspects that we are looking at.

Mr G G BOINAMO: Chairperson, Minister, clearly the acute shortage of skills in South Africa is aggravated by a high percentage of learners dropping out, either at or after Grade 9, because, consequently, a very low number of students enter skills training.

Has the ministerial task team identified the following as some of the key causes of this drawback: Firstly, an unstable curriculum; secondly, a lack of learner discipline and commitment to school work; thirdly, the failure and gaps in the governance of the whole system of education; fourthly, the absence of reward on completion of matric in terms of employment; and fifthly, a lack of funds to further their studies at tertiary level?

This phenomenon is not unique to schools. South African universities are also experiencing high drop-out levels and low throughputs for similar reasons to those pertaining at schools. What is the education department doing to reverse this vicious cycle?

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, I am not quite sure. I thought I’d answered some of these questions. Let me repeat: Among the reasons identified, there are three which are actually universal in all countries that have studied this phenomenon of retention. Firstly, children from lower-income groups are more likely to drop out than children from higher- income households, hence our policy of no-fee schools, so that we don’t burden parents with this problem. Also, the attainment of children in the age group 16 to 20 is higher for those children whose parents have a higher per capita income. This relationship was established in the research report we received.

Secondly, I’ve mentioned grade repetition – a serious problem in South Africa, where children are kept back and eventually, because no options are made available and no support is provided, they essentially exit the system.

Then there is also the matter of overage entry to secondary schools. You have an 18-year-old, who has repeated many times in primary school, coming to secondary school and deciding not to go from Grade 8 to 12 and he or she exists. These are some of the features which were identified by a team of very able researchers.

They did not focus on the curriculum. They did not look at gaps in governance. These were not seen as being related to the drop-out rates that we have seen at Grade 9. But what they did identify was the important need for us to ensure that our system has sufficient flexibility, both in the curriculum offered as well as in support to students, to actually ensure retention.

Our new curriculum, with its mix of general and vocational subjects, responds to some of the matters that have been identified. And, as I said, we haven’t established whether there’s a link between the numbers dropping out and the growth in the FET sector. If it is indeed a link, that is very exciting for South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mrs C DUDLEY: Chairperson, hon Minister, would it not be desirable to have a dedicated social worker or suitable person in schools who would be able to pick up early warning signs in children at risk in general? Has the department considered a measure of this sort? Thank you.

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, I think I’ve spoken several times about my intention that there should be educational support services that would include professionals such as you’ve referred to, but I’ve said it has to be a district-wide centre with adequate numbers of staff located within it. I do not believe, given the gaps in our country, that we can afford that all 26 000 schools should have a social worker, when we can hardly provide a social worker for every community that needs one in the country.

So I wouldn’t, given the resources of the state, and the numbers of professionals within it, say that every school should have a social worker, but I do believe we must have a set of professionals available in an education support centre in every district, who can provide schools with the kind of counselling and other support you are referring to.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr M B Skosana): Thank you, hon Minister. Hon members, before I go on to Question 55, it behoves me just to mention a few elementary matters.

If a member wants to ask a supplementary question, you press the button to talk so that your name appears here. Members may not press buttons on behalf of other members, because then it confuses the whole system. We also have to take into account Rule 113, section 7, which states that a supplementary question may not consist of more than one question.

I think members have been trying to circumvent the system and stacking a question with more than one question. I think we don’t need to abuse the system. The system is for us.

Mass mobilisation and communication plan in respect of departmental basket of services offered

1. Mr B M Solo (ANC) asked the Minister of Social Development:

   What is his department’s mass mobilisation and communication plan in respect of the basket of services available to those who need it to ensure that they are aware of the range of services offered and know how to access these services? NO874E

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson, the department’s mass communication strategy rests on three pillars – media liaison and marketing, public liaison and events, and communication tools such as publications.

With regard to media liaison and marketing, the Department of Social Development has a proactive media liaison strategy and disseminates information regularly through media statements, media briefings and speech dissemination. In addition, various public education campaigns are conducted through mass media to promote programmes and services. The content of the messages is to inform the public of the existence of services and how to access them.

Most advertising campaigns focus on the promotion of certain calendar events, such as Child Protection Week in May; Children’s Day; Day for Older Persons; Family Day; 16 Days of Activism for No Violence against Women and Children; International Day for the Eradication of Poverty; and World Food Day, amongst others. Campaigns are also utilised to raise awareness on substance abuse, new legislation such as the Children’s Act and the Older Persons Act, and youth-directed campaigns such as “Ke Moja”. Some of the very successful campaigns undertaken to date are the antifraud campaigns, which resulted in 86 000 people coming forward to ask for amnesty for obtaining social grants illegally.

In conjunction with the SA Social Security Agency, Sassa, the department is engaged in a massive community outreach programme to take social grants registration to very remote areas in the country. The innovative integrated community registration programme involves the participation of various departments – the Department of Social Development, Sassa, the Departments of Home Affairs, Health and Education, and the SAPS, going together to rural villages and bringing services to the people. Thank you, Chairperson.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): Order! Hon members, can you lower your voices, please!

Mr B M SOLO: Thank you, Chairperson. Thank you, Deputy Minister for the informative answer we got. But surely you will agree with me that we still face huge capacity challenges, particularly in rural and previously disadvantaged communities, with regard to access to these services. The President, in his state of the nation address, declared war against poverty by bringing together certain departments - in which case your department, I suppose, should be the leading department in this regard. Given all the measures you stated, how do we ensure that the message reaches the intended recipients? How does the department monitor, measure and evaluate the impact of these strategies that you have just given us? What is the department effectively doing with the capacity challenges experienced by provinces? Thank you.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson, in addition to what I have mentioned already, the department hosts various outreach programmes during the year to communicate directly with the public in order to promote services. The programmes intensify during the Imbizo Focus Week in April and October and the NCOP’s Taking Parliament to the People programme.

There are various events and exhibitions that are held throughout the year that provide an opportunity to interact with the public. The department has a partnership with SABC Education to conduct career exhibitions, where we market social work as a career due to the serious shortage of skills. The department also has publications and online communications. There is a database with about 4 000 subscribers. These are all various ways in which the department informs the people.

I can’t really say that there is a very effective monitoring campaign. I suppose we can still improve on monitoring the effectiveness of the messages. Thank you, Chairperson.

Ms J A SEMPLE: Chairperson, the department quite rightly focuses on providing services to the poorest of the poor. But in many cases, these are the very people who cannot benefit from the services. In a recent Sunday Times article the 10 worst places to be a child in South Africa are listed, and they are all in the Eastern Cape, Deputy Minister. A teacher there, who has worked in the area for 20 years, says that while many children need to benefit from a grant, they battle to produce the necessary documentation - and I am pleased to see that the Minister of Home Affairs is here. They can’t even afford the bus fare to go and access the grant. And she says:

We’ve tried to convince Social Development officials to open satellite offices on specific days of the week nearer to our villages, but our plea falls on deaf ears while young children die of hunger.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): Order! Hon member, you are running out of time. Can you put your question?

Ms J A SEMPLE: Can you guarantee, Deputy Minister, that your office will take satellite offices to these people who need it most?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson, well, we don’t always believe what the Sunday Times prints. But anyway, as far as I am aware, there are mobile vehicles that go to rural areas and provide services to people in remote rural areas. I don’t know about “guarantees” because, as the member well knows, the delivery of most services happens at provincial level.

Since the SA Social Security Agency has come about, there has been an improvement in people getting access with regard to social security. These grants have been expanded from 3 million in 1997 to 12,4 million in 2008. Old age grants have been increased, war veterans’ grants have also improved, as well as disability grants. The foster care grant increases were recorded and are projected to increase from 368 000 to 483 000. So, there is an improvement, and we try to improve all the time. Thank you, Chairperson.

Ms J A SEMPLE: Deputy Minister, you said that since Sassa came into being, there has been an improvement in the delivery of services. However, there are over 300 cases on court rolls at the moment of people who are complaining because they are not getting access to their grants. What is your department doing about this?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson, as I have said, the department tries to improve all the time. As complaints are raised, these get addressed. The SA Social Security Agency is improving all the time as vacancies are filled. So, there are improvements all the time. Thank you.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): We now proceed to Question 89, which has been asked by the hon Mrs D van der Walt to the Minister of Education. Sorry, hon Minister. We have caught you unawares.

            Consultation regarding proposed school pledge

1. Mrs D van der Walt (DA) asked the Minister of Education:

   Whether, in light of the widespread debate that has arisen regarding her department’s proposed school pledge, she will take any steps to ensure proper consultation from the members of the public and other stakeholders on this issue; if not, why not; if so, what steps? NO916E

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: My apologies, Chairperson. The reply is that we have put the proposed pledge out for public comment. We note that there are wide-ranging debates. We have received quite a significant number of submissions and we will clearly take all of this into account as we work towards finalising exactly what we should do. So, we are not planning a new consultative process. The process is under way, and the public and organisations are responding. Mrs D VAN DER WALT: Dankie, Voorsitter. [Thank you, Chairperson.]

Minister, I see the last day for comment in the Gazette is 20 March 2008, which is next week. The DA believes that the pledge must be a creation of the people and not the state - I said so in my speech when we had the debate. Minister, would you give the responsibility of considering the public inputs to an independent task team of credible experts? If not, why not?

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, I think it would be very unwise of me to make policy on the hoof in response to a question. My preference is to look at what emerges from the public process. Following that, I will then determine what further steps I should take.

Prof S M MAYATULA: Thank you, Chair. Hon Minister, given the enthusiasm with which this debate took place, both here and outside, I am happy to hear that there is enthusiasm even in submissions. Do you think it would be necessary to extend the time for submissions at this point in time?

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Thank you, Chairperson, and thank you to the chairperson of the portfolio committee. Clearly, as I have said again, let us wait and see what the conclusion of the process brings about. I am not averse to an extension if it becomes clear that such a process is necessary. But I really would like to look at all the submissions together and see what people are saying, and on the basis of that determine exactly what I should do.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): Thank you, hon Minister. We now proceed to question 83, which has been asked by … [Interjections.]

Mrs D VAN DER WALT: Chair, is there no opportunity for another supplementary question? I did press my button.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): It didn’t show on the screen. But you are most welcome to ask a supplementary question.

Mrs D VAN DER WALT: Minister, thank you. I would just like to know, when the final product is on the table - for debate, I hope – whether you will ensure that this final product will be made available in all our official languages. Thank you.

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, I certainly will make it available in all official languages. With respect to Afrikaans, I will ask the Afrikanerbond to help me, because they indicated that in one of the newspapers the word “pledge” had been translated into Afrikaans as “oath”, and they are not the same thing. Therefore, I certainly would ask professionals to assist.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): Hon Van der Walt, I see your name down for the next question. Is that the mistake that happened? [Interjections.] Okay. Thank you.

            Fee increment crisis in tertiary institutions

1. Mr A M Mpontshane (IFP) asked the Minister of Education:

   (1) Whether her department has a plan to resolve the fee increment crisis in tertiary institutions; if so, when will such a plan be implemented; if not,

   (2) whether her department intends taking any steps in this regard; if not, why not; if so, what steps;

   (3) what is her department’s response to Higher Education South Africa’s, Hesa, rejection of the idea of capping tuition fee income? NO910E

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, no, we do not, at this moment, have a specific plan to reduce fee levels as a policy of government. However, because of my concern over the rising fee levels at higher education institutions, I did direct the department to initiate a review of funding trends in the higher education sector.

The preliminary report that I received indicated a number of critical resource issues. One of them related to school fees - that they had become a large part of the income of universities in the context of the declining state subsidy level.

We are currently looking at ways of responding to all the issues that were identified in the report, and I am pleased to say to the House that we have already substantially increased the total allocation for higher education in the current Medium-Term Expenditure Framework.

I am in engagement with vice-chancellors – who I am meeting this week, once more - to seek from them some indication that the improved allocation from government does provide room for universities to provide financial assistance and support to students who are financially needy. Hesa, Higher Education South Africa, has indicated that at the meeting we are going to hold this week they will present a copy of their report to me.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): I see several names on the screen, starting with Mrs Camerer. Are you asking a question, Mrs Camerer?

Mrs S M CAMERER: Chair, I was trying, during the previous question, to draw your attention to Mrs Van der Walt.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): Mr Mpontshane?

Mr A M MPONTSHANE: Chair, I think I listened carefully to the Minister’s response. I was waiting to hear more on universities’ response to this issue of capping of fees. However, I understand that they will be making a report available to the Minister in this regard. I will await their report, because the newspapers have already indicated that they are, in fact, against this capping of what students receive from NSFAS, the National Student Financial Aid Scheme. What is the position in this regard?

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, I really would like to ask our colleagues, particularly in the portfolio committees, to perhaps assist with the processes of policy development by initiating their own investigations into critical questions in our society.

I think that relying on what the papers say is a very dangerous route for us to take. Let me reiterate that I do not have a plan at this time to cap fees, but I do have the intention to improve the current financial aid scheme provision. I believe that there should be an injection of funds there and I am intending to address that.

Secondly, while I am concerned about school fees, unfortunately, when I investigated the funding of higher education, it became very clear that there had been a significant decline in state support for higher education. Because of the decline, universities then used the route of tuition income as a means of meeting their costs.

So, if government does not improve the subsidy, you cannot insist that fee levels be addressed. However, now that government is going to make quite significant injections to the subsidy grant amount in the next three years, I think universities are in a better position to address the tuition fee levels.

Ms M J J MATSOMELA: Chairperson, we really appreciate the fact that the Department of Education has, since 2006, been taking the issue of rising fees very seriously. However, despite the continued increase in the total funding allocation to institutions of higher learning, these institutions continue to raise fees annually, and this leads to strikes and the destruction of valuable property, as well as the disruption of lectures.

So, I would like the Minister to tell us whether there are any kind of remedial measures that are envisaged in the short term, especially in preparation for the meeting with Hesa, in the near future. Thank you.

The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, I thank the hon member. One of the things we want to do is to improve the funding available through the National Student Financial Aid Scheme. What is happening with the current funding levels is that students who actually meet the criteria of the means test, but just fall a little above the cut-off point, don’t get any funding. So more funding must be made available in order for them to actually have support for tuition costs. So we must improve the NSFAS amount. That is step one.

Secondly, we must get universities - and this Parliament could help – to begin to look at how they are using their budgets. What are the current salary levels of some of the senior managers at our higher education institutions? Are the salary levels outpacing all segments in the public sector? Are senior managers giving themselves executive packages, which then put a real squeeze on the universities’ budgets, or is something else happening?

Members would recall a story, which I did relate in the House, of a vice- chancellor who had recently been employed having a new house built. Why should a new house be built for a vice-chancellor when there is an existing residence? All of these matters are matters with which, I believe, Parliament should assist us by investigating them.

All institutions publish annual reports; the figures are there. Let’s take a closer look at them and begin to make recommendations as to how members believe we must address the particular challenges that we face.

I do think, and I have said, that the fee increase levels, which are far beyond the inflation levels in our country, are, in my view, unacceptable and unwarranted, and signify lack of attention to the poor circumstances of many young people who enter our institutions. Therefore, I have asked universities to really address those high increases that many of them have put in place.

I re-emphasise this point, but, unfortunately, in terms of legislation, I do not have the force of law to compel institutions to charge a specific fee amount, because the subsidy levels are of such a nature that I could not, in all honesty, execute such a statute.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): Thank you, hon Minister. There are several names on the screen, but unfortunately the time allocated for questions has expired. Outstanding replies received will be printed in Hansard.

See also QUESTIONS AND REPLIES

         MULTIPARTY DELEGATION TO OBSERVE ZIMBABWE ELECTIONS

                         (Draft Resolution)

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I move the draft resolution printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows: That the House –

(1) notes that Zimbabwe is holding joint presidential and parliamentary elections on 29 March 2008; and

(2) resolves, subject to the concurrence of the National Council of Provinces, that –

   (a) the South African Parliament sends a fifteen-member multiparty
        delegation to observe these elections;


   (b) the delegation forms part of the SADC observer mission;


   (c) the delegation observes the campaign in the run-up to the
        elections, the casting of votes and subsequently the counting of
        the votes; and


   (d) the delegation presents the mission’s report to Parliament on
        its return.

Agreed to.

                        PRIVATE HEALTH COSTS

                             (Statement)

The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Chairperson and hon members, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to address you today, on the rapid escalations in the cost of private health care services in South Africa. This sector provides care for about 7 million people, or close to 15% of all South Africans, but consumes more than the total expenditure of the public health sector.

The per capita expenditure in the private health sector is about eight times more than that in the public health sector. Put another way, the public health sector spends about R1 000 per patient per year, whilst the private health sector spends about R8 000 per patient per year.

The private sector spends an estimated 5,5% of gross domestic product. In addition, this sector employs more doctors, pharmacists and dentists than the public health sector. Clearly, this level of inequity cannot be left unchallenged.

By increasing tariffs, the private sector will add to this high level of inequity by making private health care services even more inaccessible to insured and self-paying patients. While people are typically paying for private health care through membership of medical aid schemes, a number of people pay exclusively out of their own pocket. As the cost of private health care increases, the cost of medical aid membership also increases.

Hon members, we’ll recall that the medical aid industry was poorly regulated when we came to power in 1994. Through legislation passed by this House over the years - the Medical Schemes Act and its amendments, for instance - we successfully stabilised the medical aid industry, ensured its solvency, introduced community rating, made it illegal to exclude people because of pre-existing conditions and introduced prescribed minimum benefits.

With the assistance of hon members sitting in this House, we worked hard to reduce the cost of medicines through, for example, the introduction of the single exit pricing system. As we speak, the reduction in the cost of medicines is around 22%, and we hope that after the international benchmarking exercise that we are engaged in, we shall be able to bring the cost of medicines down further in our country.

The single exit pricing system covered the regulation of the price of anaesthetic gasses. The private hospital sector responded to our measures to contain costs by shifting profiteering from medicines to ward and theatre fees, and continue to make profits on anaesthetic gases.

I’ve been concerned about the high rate of cost escalations in the private health sector for a while, and therefore convened the role-players in the industry in September last year to discuss this matter. At this indaba with the sector, everyone agreed that all was not well in the private health sector. There was unanimous support for government intervention to regulate the sector to ensure its survival.

In addition, towards the end of last year, I became aware that the private hospital industry was overcharging patients for anaesthetic gases. I wrote to the CEOs of the private hospital groups and warned them to comply with the law in this regard. Unfortunately, when I met them in January this year to discuss the 2008 tariff increases, I learnt that many of them were not compliant with the law, and I informed them that they would be charged and prosecuted for this transgression.

Many of them have written to the department, informing the department of the commencement of the implementation of the regulations with regard to anaesthetic gases – those that did not, of course, observe the regulations. I do not think that they should have waited for the Minister to remind them of their responsibilities. [Interjections.] This is my responsibility I’m talking about!

During the January meeting with the CEOs I informed them that their tariff increases were unacceptable as they were way beyond the CPIX. I asked them to reconsider these increases and peg them at CPIX at worst.

I also agreed that the department would meet with each of the groups to understand how they decided on their tariffs and what cost pressures they were responding to. This we have done, and I shall report on that in a while.

After the meeting with the private hospital groups, I met with the medical schemes industry. I was shocked to hear that they were by and large forced by the private hospital groups to enter into agreements on tariff increases, even though they felt that the demands of the hospitals were not justified. They reported that the attitude of the hospital groups was, “If you don’t like the increases, pay us for whatever you want, and we’ll recover the balance from your members.”

This, of course, pits the member against the medical aid as the hospital will inform the patient that his or her medical aid has refused to pay the required tariff and that the hospital, therefore, has no option but to bill the patient directly.

It is therefore clear that the playing field is not level. I met the private hospital groups again a few weeks ago to report on the results of our bilateral consultations that they had requested. I informed them that the information that they provided to justify their increases were inadequate and by and large unconvincing.

They informed us that the salary increases for nurses in the public sector had forced them to increase their salaries to be competitive, and that the tariff increases were therefore necessary. It is clear that we cannot sustain unregulated private health care service delivery in this country and at the same time regulate the medical schemes industry. We must, therefore, regulate providers and the industry as a whole.

The department has been working hard to draft legislation to present to this House that will enable us to contain costs, prevent bad business practices and protect consumers. I hope to table this draft legislation within the next two months for debate.

The Minister of Health has, and will, provide leadership on all aspects related to health care provision in this country. Some may ask, “Why are we so worried about the private health sector, which only provides care for a mere 15% of the population?” The answer to this question is simple: The private sector is part of the national health system. What happens in the sector affects the entire health sector.

When, for example, a person cannot afford private health care any longer because of the cost escalations, they turn to the public sector, thus increasing the number of people that are dependent on the public health sector. In addition, government must protect the interests of the citizens of our country, including those that use the private health sector itself.

When we debated the issue of private health care costs in this House on previous occasions, there was widespread condemnation of the practices by some of the role-players in the private health sector. Even the hon Kalyan raised problems with the way the private sector is doing business.

I’m sure that when we bring draft legislation to this House to regulate the private sector, all parties represented in this House will support us. And I look forward to the debate on the drafted amendments to the National Health Act - which is a quoted chapter in this regard – in which we shall propose to make the private health care services in our country more affordable to all our people. I thank you very much.

Mrs S V KALYAN: Chairperson, there are two things that we in the DA and the Minister of Health agree on and that is, firstly, the high cost of private health care and, secondly, collusion in price-fixing of pharmaceutical products.

However, we need to look critically at whether overregulating the private health care industry is the solution. The reality is that the public health sector in South Africa is in crisis. It does not deliver an equitable, accessible and affordable world-class health service.

There are 103 000 beds in public hospitals, a vacancy rate of 24% of registered nurses – that is 241 patients per nurse – and a vacancy rate of 30% of registered pharmacists. A dire skills shortage and, in many cases, crumbling physical infrastructure are a sure recipe for disaster.

Yes, medical inflation, by its very nature, is high - in fact, much higher than general inflation - but then again, the private health care sector offers the patient cutting-edge technology. Granted, it’s twice the price in half the time!

But, rather than capping the private health care industry, Madam Minister, you should seriously consider encouraging competition. Free up the health care market and create an environment for equal competition, and in the simple terms of supply and demand principles, prices will drop.

The fact that there is a moratorium on the granting of permission to build new private hospitals means a greater demand on the existing 28 000 beds and is one of the main reasons for the high medical inflation in South Africa.

In conclusion, there is a general consensus among all the stakeholders that private hospitals need to do more. The DA supports any constructive initiatives by both the Ministry of Health and the private health sector to make health accessible to all, but overregulation, litigation and taking from Peter to heal Paul is not a solution. [Interjections.]

Dr R RABINOWITZ: Chairperson, Minister, the IFP agrees: health costs must be as low as possible and access, quality and medical scheme membership as high as possible. But we believe that the hon Minister is working against her own goals by overregulating the private sector, subjecting it to contradictory regulations and not regulating some aspects at all.

Take medical devices: for 10 years the hon Minister has refused to regulate medical devices, yet she accuses the hospitals of taking kickbacks on medical devices. The medical schemes accept the practice. The Minister is complaining about her own inaction.

Medical schemes are tightly regulated. The Department of Health argues nobly that schemes may not be profit-making, but their administrators are, and who draws a clear line between the two? Not our Department of Health! According to Statistics SA, from 2002 to 2007 specialist doctors were the highest contributors to medical inflation, followed by medical schemes.

Hospitals account for 35% of medical scheme expenditure. What about administration and what about broker fees? The hon Minister complains about hospital monopolies. There has been a moratorium on new hospital licences since 1996 and regulations would inhibit newcomers. The Board of Health Care Funders and the Competition Commission work against each other. We’re in a royal regulatory conundrum.

Do we have solutions? Yes, a short list and a long list, but we only have time for the short list. Hon Minister, we suggest you negotiate good prices for large-volume services for the private sector to operate for the state. Outsourcing hospitals, clinics, mobiles in rural areas, medicine distribution everywhere and nurses’ training will bring prices down and quality up.

Regulate for maximum exit prices only in medicine supplies, for medical devices to ban kickbacks and for minimum standards. Regulate complementary and traditional medicines for minimum standards. Ensure that all standards are maintained by health ombudspersons, not health charters, and policed by independent bodies. Demand transparency along the entire chain of medicine supplies and between medical schemes and administrators, and from hospitals on tariff increases.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): Order, hon member, your time has expired. Dr R RABINOWITZ: Foster choice and use incentives and competition to draw personnel to underserved areas.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): Order, hon member, your time has expired.

Ms N C NKABINDE: Chairperson and hon members, the escalation of private health care costs is an undeniable fact. Many factors give rise to this inflation. The concern that we have is that a vicious cycle develops, in which medical aid schemes will also raise membership contributions.

On the other hand we need to acknowledge that private health care has carried a massive burden for society by providing services which the public health care system has failed to deliver.

The truth is that the disease burden and overall demand for health care in our country has risen dramatically. There are various reasons for this, including HIV/Aids, TB and a wide range of lifestyle diseases which give rise to diabetes, cardio-vascular disease and certain types of cancer.

Indeed, we must also acknowledge that health care infrastructure designed to accommodate only a fraction of the population prior to the advent of democracy has not been sufficiently expanded since then to meet the needs of an entire nation. In this context we sympathise with calls for more reasonable private health care costs, but we must also be realistic and acknowledge that private health care providers are themselves forced in this direction by escalating demand, inflation and an ineffective public health care system. It is important not to engage in an antagonistic approach to private health care providers. They are our partners in providing health care. [Time expired.]

Mrs C DUDLEY: Chair, the lack of access to quality health care for a large portion of South Africans is a major challenge that needs urgent attention. While it is logical that we should be looking at access and affordability of hospital services, it is even more pertinent to look at access to medical aid. The ACDP is perturbed that progress in terms of a national health insurance scheme appears to have stagnated.

The Minister and her department, in their onslaught on the private health sector, repeat claims that 80% of the budget is spent on 20% of the people. This, however, is technically inaccurate, as spending through Public Works, Defence and other budgets is not included.

Private hospitals pay for buildings and maintenance themselves. Actually, 42% of people using health services – that’s almost half of users – choose to use private facilities.

The Minister has once again lost focus. The question is, are we spending enough on the public health sector, especially in view of the HIV/Aids epidemic that we are facing? In reality the minimal increases in the health budget barely keep up with inflation, let alone address escalating needs. Public hospitals must become a viable option.

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): Order, hon member, your time has expired.

Mrs C DUDLEY: Why does government insist … [Laughter.]

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): I regret your time has expired.

Mrs C DUDLEY: Could I have just five seconds more?

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): OK.

Mrs C DUDLEY: Thank you, because we have a short debate today. Why does government insist on interfering in private provision of services to the point that no services remain in this country? Have they not learnt anything from the Eskom fiasco?

Mnr W D SPIES: Voorsitter, as die Minister van Gesondheid die moeder is van ongewenste staatsinmenging in gesondheidsorg, dan is die geldgierige en onverantwoordelike bestuur in die privaathospitaalbedryf die vader daarvan. Maar twee verkeerdhede bring nié ’n korrektheid teweeg nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[Mr W D SPIES: Chairperson, if the Minister of Health is the mother of undesired state interference in health care, then the greedy and irresponsible management of the private hospital industry is the father thereof. But two wrongs don’t make a right.]

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Die probleem in hierdie stadium is dat die regering vir elke enkele probleem met ’n stel regulasies kom wat daarop gemik is om probleme op te los, en dit los nie die probleem op nie. Die probleem wat ons het, is staatshospitale wat in ’n hopelose situasie is. Mense se lewe is vir hulle al hul geld werd. Mense is bereid om enigiets te betaal vir hulle lewe.

Om daardie rede sal private hospitale vra wat hulle wil, want die staatshospitale wat as alternatief behoort te dien, is te hopeloos om daardie dienste te lewer. Los die probleem op. Vee voor u eie deur. Kry die staatshospitale in orde en die res sal vanself kom. Ek dank u. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[The problem at this stage is that for every single problem the government is offering a set of regulations that are aimed at solving the problems, but do not solve the problem. The problem we have is that state hospitals are in a hopeless situation. People’s lives are worth all of their money to them. People are prepared to pay anything for their lives.

For that reason private hospitals will charge whatever they like, because state hospitals that should serve as an alternative are too hopeless to deliver those services. Solve the problem. Sweep in front of your own door. Put the state hospitals in order and the rest will take care of itself. I thank you.]

Mr B E PULE: Chair, the alleviation of poverty among the poorest of the poor in South Africa is a household word in the mouth of every citizen. Private health care has become unaffordable, even to those people with medical aid, whilst services in community hospitals, cheap as they may be, leave much to be desired. Poor people without medical aid have one alternative, which is to go to these community hospitals, where they die.

Intervention by government in the entire health system is imperative so that everybody, irrespective of class, can get good health care. Let the public health care system be improved, then private health care will obviously be marginalised, and they will therefore be forced to bring their prices down. I thank you. Mr R B BHOOLA: Chairperson, it is indeed an upsetting dilemma when we know that access to medical care is limited by the exorbitant hospital rates and charges.

It is even more discouraging to note that, even though the hon Minister had brought to the table her dissatisfaction on this matter, some private hospitals have continued to increase costs by 33%. We do, however, acknowledge those hospitals that have increased prices in line with CPIX at 8,8%.

We are pleased that the hon Minister is aiming to address this situation through legislation that will monitor and oversee the relationship of medical costs between hospitals and medical aid schemes.

We think it’s extremely important that we do not lose sight of the fact that to overcome poverty we need to ensure people’s access to services such as good health care. We have also previously acknowledged that because of health care technological developments, the cost of health care administration always increases. We need to buffer these developments, not by making the patients pay for these instruments, but for the treatment needed.

We look forward to the alleviation of the shortage of beds, doctors and medical assistants at government hospitals, where patients are forced to wait in agony for hours before being attended to. We have faith that the Minister will address these shortfalls. Thank you. [Time expired.]

Mrs M M MADUMISE: Chairperson, the Portfolio Committee on Health has been extremely concerned about the escalating costs in the private health sector. We have seen many people opt out of medical scheme membership as their premiums have become unaffordable. It is estimated that low-income households spend about 14% of their income on health care. The escalating costs will put a significant burden on such households.

The implementation of the medicine pricing regulations has produced savings of over 20% on medicine expenditure. There has been an increase in the volume of medicines sold, which suggests that more South Africans are now able to access medicines. We understand that the legislation on international benchmarking will serve to reduce medicine prices even further, but this saving has been contradicted by the unfortunate rising costs, above the inflation rate, of expenditure on private hospitals, specialists’ fees and medical schemes administration.

To counteract this tendency, the Minister convened a private sector indaba to discuss her concerns about the escalating high costs in the private health care sector. At this indaba, everyone agreed that all was not well in the private health sector, and that government would indeed have to introduce regulatory measures to ensure that the sector was sustainable.

A few months after the indaba, we heard that the private hospital groups were raising their tariffs with effect from 1 January 2008. Even more disturbing was the rate of increase that was reported. Despite the high costs of private health care and decreasing affordability … [Interjections.] Shut up!

The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr G Q M Doidge): Order! Hon Madumise, I don’t think it is conducive to good debate to be saying to members, your colleagues, that they should shut up. I also want to address them. I don’t know what they had for lunch, but if you are not on the speakers’ list, try and get onto the speakers’ list so that you can have the podium. [Interjections.] Order, order! Let us allow the member at the podium to be heard. [Interjections.] Hon member, please withdraw that.

Mrs M M MADUMISE: Thank you, Chairperson. I do withdraw it.

Despite the high cost of private health care and decreasing affordability of medical scheme membership, health care providers and schemes continue to implement price increases that are unaffordable to the majority of South Africans.

There have also been reports of overbilling. The lack of transparency in costs within the private health sector has to be addressed. In this regard, the reference price list regulations that take account of the true costs of a particular service were developed. Hopefully this process will bring greater transparency to private health care costs.

One of the reasons for the high costs from providers relates to the inability of medical schemes, particularly the smaller schemes, to negotiate reasonable tariffs with large provider groups such as the private hospitals. I understand the Minister and the department are looking at a legislative regime that will provide a fair basis for negotiations between medical schemes and providers.

Medical schemes have also been increasing their premiums and decreasing benefit packages so their members are paying more for less. The Medical Schemes Amendment Bill will also be presented to Parliament this year. The amending Bill strengthens the governance structure of medical schemes, thereby making the trustees and principal officer of the scheme more accountable for the administrative costs of a scheme. It seems that as we regulate one part of the private sector, other costs escalate.

This further illustrates the need for the introduction of a national health insurance system as the ultimate solution to these challenges. Such a system will make the government responsible for the financing and procurement of basic health care services for all South Africans. This will remove the burden of the cost of health care, particularly from the poor and vulnerable. We urge the government to speed up the process in order for all South Africans to enjoy universal health coverage. I thank you. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONAL SERVICES ON ANNUAL REPORT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES FOR 2006-07

Mr D V BLOEM: Chairperson, allow me to briefly raise some of the matters that, according to the committee, are critical and need urgent attention.

Firstly, again this financial year, 2007, a qualified audit opinion was expressed by the Auditor-General on the financial statement of the Department of Correctional Services. This is the fifth qualified financial statement for this department. Secondly, unacceptable amounts were spent on claims against the department. Thirdly, there are a high number of staff on suspension - an amount of R9,7 million was spent on 483 staff members on suspension. Some of them have been sitting at home for longer than two years now. Fourthly, there are serious concerns over the increase in the use of consultants. Fifthly, five new prisons were built, at Paarl, East London, Port Shepstone, Nigel and Klerksdorp. Sixthly, ongoing corruption between some of the officials and inmates is still visible in the department. Seventhly, there is a lack of women at senior level - out of 125 only 47 women are in senior positions.

Chairperson, I am just touching on a few of these matters. I am not going to go into details on these matters because they are in our report that we are tabling here today for anybody to read. I want to urge all members and the public at large to read it, especially the DA. You must go and read this report. [Applause.]

A list of recommendations on how the department can address these challenges is being put forward by the portfolio committee. But I think it would only be correct to thank all loyal, honest, dedicated and hard- working officials, including the National Commissioner, Mr Vernie Petersen, and the new Chief Financial Officer, Ms Singh, for working hard to change the image of the department. [Applause.] Let me also not leave out the Minister of Correctional Services for trying very hard to change this department. [Applause.]

The committee supports the rehabilitation policy of the department. We believe that that is the only way to go. But rehabilitation is a process and not an event. We are saying privileges can’t be rights. We are saying prison must be a place where criminals feel that they have done something wrong to society.

We are talking here about cruel, merciless, heartless monsters - monsters who rape and kill innocent and defenceless children, who rape our mothers and sisters, who kill our police officers and who kill innocent law-abiding citizens.

Chairperson, a week ago the country once again was robbed of a precious asset - talented actor Shimmy Mofokeng. He was robbed and shot dead by these heartless monsters. He was laid to rest yesterday. Not long ago they took the life of well-respected and peace-loving Lucky Dube in the same brutal way as Shimmy.

When these monsters are sitting in prison, all of a sudden they will talk about their human rights. They know their rights. They themselves did not respect the human rights of other people. [Applause.] Chairperson, I’m quite sure that Shimmy Mofokeng and Lucky Dube had great respect for other people’s lives and therefore their rights.

In conclusion, let me say that we as the portfolio committee are saying – and we want to stress this – a life sentence must be a life sentence, and not 10 or 15 years’ imprisonment. A life sentence means 25 years imprisonment before one can be considered to be placed on parole. I am saying “be considered to be placed on parole”. I am not saying that one qualifies to go on parole. I think it is quite urgent that we must review the privileges that these monsters enjoy in prison. I have the pleasure to present this report before this House for adoption. Thank you very much, Chairperson. [Applause.]

There was no debate.

Mr S K LOUW: Chairperson, on behalf of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party, I move:

That the Report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report accordingly adopted.

The House adjourned at 17:43.