Chairperson, the officials who have been declared medically unfit are handled in terms of the Policy and Procedure on Incapacity Leave and Ill-Health Retirement for Public Service employees, commonly known as Pilir. In compliance with this policy, the department has appointed a health risk manager who makes recommendations to the delegated authority within the department for decision-making in such cases.
Once a person is on ill-health retirement or any form of termination of service, the department has no control over that person. The policy is also applicable while the official is still employed by the department. Once the official is medically boarded, the policies of the Department of Correctional Services, DCS, no longer have legal jurisdiction over such an employee. DCS, therefore, has no record of retired officials who are employed by other security services. Thank you.
Chairperson, I'm actually quite astounded because if a person is declared medically unfit, does it not mean that that person gets a pension when he is retired? Do you understand my question?
It's for the Minister; let's first check whether the Deputy Minister understands.
Mr Chairperson, the reason I'm asking this question is because I'm sitting with a case like this in Kouga Local Municipality where the mayor has appointed three of those officials. One of them happens to be his brother-in-law and not one of the positions are actually on the organograms. The Minister says they have no further jurisdiction over them, but I thought that when a person is medically boarded, he or she is off on pension? Thank you.
I will provide two answers to this. On the one hand, the primary consideration, of course, is whether or not the said person is doing the same job for which he or she was boarded. If that's the case, this should be reported and the Department of Correctional Services will investigate.
On the other hand, I think that when hon members or any hon member is aware of instances like these, he or she should report the matter so that it can be investigated. Should hon members do that, the relevant department can take a decision on the matter, whether it has jurisdiction over it or whether it should be referred to the Public Service Commission. The question is general and one can't deal with conjecture. If there was a specific issue which the question related to, then that issue should have been raised in the question so that we provide a response that deals with that particular issue. Thank you.
Maybe the last comment by the Deputy Minister must, in actual fact, be a comment that is relevant to all of us in the House because the tendency is that the question, as put, is general, but the person has got further details. When one makes a follow-up then one brings that detail up. At that point it becomes difficult for the executive to then respond to those specific matters. I would really suggest and appeal to members that, in future, they should rather provide the executive with more information in order for them to respond to the kind of specifics we want them to respond to.
Hon members, Question 20 is also affected by Rule 246(4). Therefore we will then go to the last question because Question 22 is also affected. The last question would be the question by the hon Sinclair to the Minister of State Security. Let me take this opportunity to thank the Ministers who have responded to questions. They may leave the House if they so wish. We appreciate your presence. Thank very much.
Allegations in media report regarding a certain person's access to documents of department and repudiation of statements by Minister, and details relating thereto
21. Mr K A Sinclair (Cope) asked the Minister of State Security:
(1) Whether a certain person (details furnished) had access to documents of his department as alleged in a media report (details furnished); if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details;
(2) whether he will repudiate the statements; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?