FINANCIAL YEAR 2001/2002
Resolution 34/2003
VOTE 13 - WELFARE AND POPULATION DEVELOPMENT (2001/2002)
1. Noting:
the unacceptably long time periods taken by the SAPS and State Attorney to investigate and finalise fraud cases for the Department, in some instances taking nearly two years:
The Committee resolves:
1. for the Department to compile a complete list of all outstanding fraud and corruption investigations reported to the SAPS and State Attorney, providing such details as the date to which each case was sent to the SAPS and/or State Attorney, the amount involved, the nature of the investigation and the case numbers, and submitting this to the Committee by 16 May 2003; and,
2. to call on the State Attorney, the Provincial Commissioner of the Police and all other relevant personnel from the SAPS to appear before the Committee by not later than 31 May 2003 to explain the unacceptable delays in investigating and finalising criminal cases reported to it by all provincial Departments by not later than 31 May 2003.
2. Noting:
the lack of controls in the distribution and recovery of social relief grants
The Committee resolves:
1. to request the Department to provide copies of the old and new regulations regulating the distribution of social relief grants in the province;
2. with respect to the social relief grants being allocated to those individuals who do not qualify for the standard grants such as pension and disability, to which no recovery will be made, to call on the Department to provide a report on:
1. the budgeted amount for Social Relief for both the 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 financial years
2. the amount of this budget allocated to the ‘non-recovery’ category for each financial year
3. how many of these ‘non-recovery’ social relief grants have been allocated from each departmental office for each financial year
4. the communication strategy employed to notify destitute people of the availability of these grants
3. to request the Department to supply details of the supplier of the food vouchers, and the procedure followed for people to access food, for example, does the recipient take his/her food voucher to a supplier outlet in his/her area; and how many outlets does the supplier have and where are they located?
3. Noting:
that for the second financial year the Auditor-General has reported that there is no system of adequate control over payments by Cash Paymaster Services which could be relied upon for audit purposes, which has resulted in a qualification of the audit on the Department,
The Committee resolves:
to request the Department to:
1. provide a copy of the departmental contract with Cash Paymaster Services
2. submit a report detailing:
1. on what justifiable grounds did the Department extend Cash Paymaster Services’ contract for a further two years, given this contractor’s continued failure to comply with PFMA regulations;
2. What is the total amount paid to Cash Paymaster Services for services rendered, including commissions, for the periods specified below:
* from date of appointment to date;
* for each financial year (listed separately) following their date of appointment;
* service fees, including commission, charged per beneficiary (in this instance the Committee requires the amount of the charge, not a list of the beneficiaries)
4. the demonstrated proof that the Department has obtained value for money. Please could the Department indicate the performance criteria used to justify its conclusion.
5. have all reconciliations been done to date proving that: Cash Paymaster Services has only paid legitimate beneficiaries; and that the beneficiaries actually received the grant owing? Has this information been submitted to the Auditor-General for audit purposes?
The Department is to forward its responses to all the above resolutions to the Committee by 31 May 2003.