Regulations relating to the surveillance and the control of notifiable medical conditions, with Minister

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed the members of the Portfolio Committee. The Committee was gathered to receive a briefing by the Minister of Health on Regulations relating to the surveillance and the control of notifiable medical conditions. The members wanted to have input on these regulations.

The Chairperson welcomed the Minister of Health and the Department of Health to the meeting. He welcomed all those who had joined the meeting, including members of the media.

The attendance and apologies of the Committee were read into the record.

The Minister of Health, Dr Joe Phaala, declared himself present in the meeting.

Dr Sandile Buthelezi, Director General, Department of Health, presented the delegation from the Department that was in attendance.

The Chairperson thanked the members for availing themselves for the meeting during the constituency period.

The Chairperson reminded the members that this virtual meeting was deemed to be a precinct of Parliament and therefore constituted a meeting for the National Assembly for official purposes.

The Chairperson read out the rules for a sitting of the National Assembly and the rules of a victual meeting.

The Chairperson invited the Minister to provide opening remarks and introduce the presentation. 

Briefing by the Department of Health on the proposed amendments Health Regulations to deal with Covid-19 And other notifiable medical conditions outside the National State of Disaster (NSOD)

Minister Phaala said that the Department would present on Health Regulations that had been published for public comment relating to notifiable medical conditions. The Department appreciated this opportunity that had been provided by the members.

The Minister provided a brief background. He discussed what prompted the amendment to the Health Regulations relating to notifiable medical conditions. Since the breakout of Covid in March 2020, Government looked at ways in which it could provide guidance to the public in terms of public health measures in response to the risk factors of the spread of Covid-19. On the basis of that, Government adopted the use of the Disaster Management Act. In terms of this Act, over the last two years various regulations had been passed and directives had been gazetted by the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA), who was the lead Minister of the Disaster Management Act. Various other Ministers, like the Minister of Health, could then issue sub-regulations and directives in terms of the Disaster Management Act. As the severity of Covid was being reduced, more people were being vaccinated and natural immunity was more prevalent Government had found it necessary to exit the use of the Disaster Management Act. Government asked various Departments to look at other regulations within those Departments which could still assist in providing public health measures to reduce the risk and severity of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Department of Health was identified as the Department which would lead this process.

The Department had gone back to the National Health Act and its regulations. The Department had looked at the regulations that were promulgated in 2017 for surveillance and the control of notifiable medical conditions. The Department used that as a base through which it could provide alternative public health measures which could help it manage the remaining threat of Covid-19. After the fourth wave, the country was now at the bottom end of the curve. There were lower infections, lower positivity rates, lower hospital admissions, and lower deaths. Looking at the experience of what was happening elsewhere in the world and the South African experience, the Department was conscious of having gone through the waves over the last two years. There would be the trough where there were lower rates of infections and hospitalisations but then something else would happen. This included the movement of people, the interference of new variants, and then there would be a steep rise in infections again. That was what South Africa had gone through. At this stage, the Department had no basis to believe that that would not happen anymore. Even though the country was at the bottom end of the curve, having just exited the fourth wave, it had been here before.

He detailed the four waves that South Africa had experienced. Until such a time when it could be confirmed that the immunity in society was such that there was no further risk, the Department believed that there still needed to be public health measures. It could be seen what was happening in various countries, even in countries that had a higher rate of vaccination, where there were rises in infections. That was why the Government came to the position that it could not continue using the Disaster Management Act. Departments needed to come up with other provisions which could be used. The Department of Health had looked at the notifiable medical conditions regulations which were already promulgated in 2017. He emphasised this point because in the public there was a misunderstanding and even in the feedback received from the members. There was a misconception that there were completely new regulations. There had been amendments in some cases but in many cases, it was an amendment to regulations that had been in existence for the last five years, from 2017. That was what the Department would be presenting. He assured the members that there was no desire from the Department to want to continue controlling people’s lives unnecessarily. This was purely to make sure that there were instruments to combat this threat that still existed. The Department believed it would not be good to simply just drop everything. The Department intended to keep the barest minimum of what was needed to assist in keeping the infection rate low so that health facilities and healthcare workers were not burdened. They already had a lot of stress as a result of the previous waves. There was a suspicion that these new regulations could go on forever and ever. The Department wanted to dispel that myth. These regulations could be amended as the situation changed. There was a fear that with some of these measures it could go on forever. That was definitely not the case. 

Dr Buthelezi said that there were three sets of regulations that the Department was amending in addition to the notifiable medical conditions. There were regulations that related to the management of human remains, environmental health and public health measures in points of entry.

Adv Lufuno Makhoshi, Chief Director: Legal Services, Department of Health, briefed the Committee on the proposed amendments to the Health Regulations to deal with Covid-19 And other notifiable medical conditions outside the NSOD. The presentation dealt with all four sets of regulations that the Department came up with to deal with the Covid pandemic. The presentation provided a comparison between the 2017 Surveillance Regulations and the 2022 Draft Amendments published for public comments.

Background

• When Covid-19 was declared a pandemic, various legal and legislative instruments were considered to control and contain the spread of Covid-19. 
• The Disaster Management Act was the most viable legislative instrument as the 2017 Regulations were not geared for pandemic but was meant to address the individual cases and mostly in the health establishment settings.
• Due to the fact that Disaster Management is meant to be a temporary tool to assist the State to deal with disaster, the National Department of Health has to embark on the process of amending the Health Regulations in terms of the National Health Act of 2003 and the International Health Regulations Act of 1974 in order to address COVID-19 and other notifiable medical conditions outside the National State of Disaster.

 

Mr Munzhedzi Ramathuba, National Director: Environmental Health, Department of Health, briefed the Committee on the proposed amendments to the Environmental Health Regulations. These were regulations that related to the management of human remains, environmental health and public health measures in points of entry.

Background on Environmental Health Regulations

• The Environmental Health and Port Health Services Cluster in the National Department of Health is the custodian of Environmental Health Services in the country, one of its key responsibilities is facilitating the development of Environmental Health Regulations for promulgation by Minister under Section 90(1)(a)(n) and (w) of the National Health Act, 2003 (Act No 61 of 2003), as amended and implementation of International Health Regulations.
• The proposed regulations relating to environmental health are a proposed new regulation prompted by the legislative gaps created by proclamation repealing the Health Act, 1977 and nullifying all its Regulations; and identified during daily operations by environmental health practitioners on the field.
• Human Remains Regulations are an amendment due to identified need to improve them and close implementation gaps.

 

Conclusion

It is recommended that the Portfolio Committee notes that:

• The Regulations have been published in line with Sections 3 (1) (a) and Section 90 (1) (k) of the National Health Act.
• The termination of the National State of Disaster has created a gap that is as a result of the absence of Regulations to manage future pandemics and other communicable diseases.
• The Department has to embark on the process of amending the Health Regulations in terms of the National Health Act of 2003 and the International Health Regulations Act of 1974 in order to address Covid-19 and other notifiable medical conditions outside the National State of Disaster.
• A public participatory process is currently underway to receive comments on the published Regulations.

 

The Minister noted that as the Department was working through the post-disaster transition, the public health measures had been tailored down. The Department was still receiving comments and last night it had met with the South African Council of Churches, which had been chaired by the President. There were various stakeholders who had made inputs. The Department was extending its period of receiving comments until 24 April. It opened a WhatsApp line (060 012 3456) to allow for further comments. As advice kept coming the Department may need to separate the broader public health measures from the specific measures which were now implemented under the post-disaster recovery. Those were the considerations and the Department waited for the comments from members.

Discussion

The Chairperson thanked the Minister and his team for the presentation. He thanked the Department for the extension; it was necessary as it had been raised by quite a number of people. The members had raised that other people needed to be given an opportunity to provide input on these regulations. Looking at what was presented, it was clear that the Minister had applied his mind very broadly to what was still outstanding in terms of the National Health Act. The government learned that it needed to have certain regulations that were in place, as the country had experienced Covid. He thanked the Department for having brought the regulations and allowing the public to give comment on those regulations.

Mr P Van Staden (FF+) thanked the Minister for seeing the Committee this morning. He was going to be very straightforward with the Minister. The Department needed to stop sugar-coating the regulations. There was a big public outcry from South Africans against these regulations. People could not understand why the Government was still clinging to these types of restrictive regulations, which had already caused so much damage to this country. The low occupation of hospital beds and the recovery rate of 97% suggested that any further regulations would harm South Africa.

The regulations published on 15 March were nothing more than a copy and paste of level five regulations that were published under the Disaster Management Act on 24 March 2020 and the regulations under the Department of Health on 17 July 2020. It was not only the regulations of 15 December 2017.

He discussed the matter of a notifiable medical condition and the classifications thereof. The Department had said that it was already gazetted in December 2017 on pages 22, 23, and 24. He noted that Covid-19 was not listed as a notifiable medical condition. How would the Covid-19 matter be addressed if it was not listed there? How could the Minister publish these new Health Regulations if Covid-19 was not even listed in the regulations as a notifiable medical condition? He wanted that matter further explained.

This week there were various reports in the media, and he had received a lot of complaints from people and stakeholders who were submitting their comments to the Department and them receiving an email saying that their message was deleted without being read. He would send the Department the screenshots that had been sent to him. If this was the case, then this action by the Department was a violation of a stakeholder’s constitutional right to comment on the far-reaching regulations. It also placed a big question mark on the whole process of public participation and comments. It was the view of the Freedom Front Plus, and other stakeholders, that although the Minister was empowered in section 90(1)(k) of the National Health Act of 2003 to publish regulations without consulting the public that once the Minister opened the process for public participation and comments, the Minister and the Department was then committed to this process. The public participation framework needed to be complied with. There was an outcry against these regulations and therefore the Freedom Front Plus urged the Minister not to extend only the comments by more than a week but to withdraw the published Health Regulations of 15 March and not to promulgate them into law.

On 6 April the Minister stated in the media that the target for vaccinations was initially to reach 70% of the population. Everyone knew the reasons why it did not happen in the first place and how targets were shifted time and again. He did not want to be labelled as an anti-vaxxer as he had received all of his vaccinations. He had stated in previous meetings, to the Minister, that compulsory vaccinations against Covid-19 could not be allowed as it was every person’s choice to take the vaccine or not. That could not become mandatory. He had referred many times to sections 12 and 27 of the Constitution. He had also referred many times to the President’s speech on 1 February 2021, where he said that nobody would be forced to take the vaccine. With all these assurances that had been said by the Department and the President, for what reason then was it published in the regulations of 15 March 2022 that before entering a shop or place of worship or gatherings or sporting events or the country that people needed to show their vaccination certificate or a negative Covid test that was not older than 72 hours? Was this not compulsory and mandatory vaccination? Was the Department trying to hide the Government’s failures in the procurement of vaccinations in 2019 and implementing the vaccination programme in good time? Should the Department not rather make attempts to persuade the public that getting vaccinated was the best way to combat the pandemic rather than by promulgating these regulations? These regulations would be used to punish citizens. The replacement of the state of disaster with these new regulations was a transfer of political power from one Minister to the other. It was clear that the proposed regulations were not well thought out and that the Government had learned no lessons from the previous restrictions in terms of the state of disaster.

What had been brought before the Committee today was more or less the same Health Regulations that had been brought in front of the Committee by Minister Mkhize in October 2020, and the Committee had rejected it. Were any of the regulations that were before the Committee in line with science and thus goal orientated? He noted that any restriction that had no scientific basis was senseless and amounted to an abuse of power. He noted section 15 which spoke about the designation of quarantine facilities that were required. The National Department of Health, the provincial health departments, the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure, and municipalities had to allocate and designate these facilities. Had the Government not learned from the chaos that happened during 2020 in many places in South Africa that were shut down due to the facilities being inadequate? The government now had the opportunity to correct the mistakes of the past two years to ensure that South Africans benefited from the lessons learned from the Covid-19 restrictions.

He heard in the media that there were 185 000 submissions made so far on these regulations to the Minister’s office. What was the number of submissions received as of this morning on these regulations? How seriously was the Minister taking these submissions and these objections? The Freedom Front Plus urged the Minister to withdraw the published Health Regulations of 15 March and not to promulgate it into law.

Ms M Clarke (DA) thanked the Minister for availing himself for the meeting as these were very important discussions and if the meeting went over the allocated time then it would just have to be like that. The Committee needed to have serious, in-depth discussions around these regulations.

She agreed with Mr Van Staden. It seemed like these regulations had just been copied and pasted from the Disaster Management Act into Health Regulations. There was massive concern from the public that these regulations infringed on people’s constitutional rights, freedoms, and liberties. It was something that the Department needed to take cognisance of.

What scientific evidence were the regulations based on? According to Professor Shabir Madhi of the Wits Vaccinology Centre, 73% of people in South Africa already had some type of herd immunity. Why had all NMC been clustered under the same regulation? This was not reasonable at all. For example, Hepatitis or lead poisoning should not feature under the same conditions as Covid. Did these regulations align with the WHO and their view in terms of NMC? What were the reasons that the Government decided that the Disaster Management Regulations should be transferred to the Health Regulations? Did the Minister have the power to place the country under lockdown without consulting with scientists and medical specialists? What were the reasons for the Government changing its position in terms of Covid? Recently the regulations were changed to say that if a person tested positive and had no symptoms then that person did not have to quarantine. In terms of these regulations this had changed yet again, and one would be forced into mandatory isolation. People would now be forced to submit themselves to medical examinations, tests and treatment.

She discussed prophylaxis treatment for Covid. This treatment was only via vaccination based on these regulations. Would the Government force citizens to have mandatory vaccines? Was the input of scientists and medical specialists taken into account when these regulations were drafted and published? Currently, scientists were sharing contrasting views on the regulations with many saying that it was not necessary to wear masks indoors anymore as long as there was good ventilation. The quarantine requirements in the regulations were unrealistic for many South Africans. How could this be adequately implemented considering that many would not be able to meet such quarantine requirements? When travelling internationally and returning to South Africa, an individual would either need a vaccination certificate or be subjected to a 72-hour PCR test upon entry. Was Government 100% sure that these PCR tests were effective and were they really necessary? When entering the country, an individual would have to write to the Department of Health to inform them within 72 hours of being tested positive. The individual would have to send the Department details of the isolation site. How would this be managed considering that Government did not even have the capacity to do this? She noted that if one tried calling any Government Department that they would not even answer the phones. Why had South Africa not followed the lead of other countries that had completely abolished regulations and taken the view that the virus had to be lived with? What made South Africa different? Why had the Government not looked at alternatives based on scientific evidence and experts in the field as to the appropriate steps to be taken in the short term to combat NMC? Government needed to take into account transparency, accountability and rationality. What plans did Government have in place to ramp up its vaccination drive to reduce the threat of Covid as that was what these regulations had been drafted for? There were no other notifiable medical conditions that Government was struggling to control in this country so why bring these additional regulations? She thanked the Department and welcomed the extension for the next seven days as well as the WhatsApp number that was going to be provided. However, considering reports that emails were deleted before they were read, would an audit be conducted? It was feared that submissions were lost. Did the Minister know the cause of this? Was it a technical issue? Or was it a human error? She had written to the Minister about this matter. She thanked the Minister for responding promptly and she had sent the examples to the Department.

Ms H Ismail (DA) said that the Committee needed time to deal with this matter because it affected citizens’ lives. Did the requirement of 30 days comply with the law? Should it not be 90 days for comment? There were comments and inputs made by people whose inputs had been deleted without being read. This had been brought to everyone’s attention. It was quite frustrating when the Department did not read the emails and then the members were inundated with a thousand emails a day because people did not know who else to correspond with because they were not receiving any responses from the Department. That was crucial because if this thing went to court then due processes were not followed because of the deletion of emails.

On what scientific evidence qualified these amendments since most countries had lifted regulations as new variants of Covid-19 seem to be less infectious? Many people have said that many of these amendments were inconsistent and illogical in the draft amendments.

She discussed the issue of masks. There were various studies that showed that masks did not work. A professor had said on radio and in newspaper articles that most of the people wearing masks were wearing masks incorrectly. There was no real evidence that these masks were actually working or were effective in not spreading the Covid-19 virus. The government needed to be factual and constructive. People could not be wearing masks for the sake of wearing masks. Many people felt stifled and those with comorbidities felt more of a health risk wearing masks. On 22 March, six medical researchers slammed the draft regulations. If professionals and medical researchers were telling Government that the draft regulations were ineffective then why was the Government allowing for this? She commented on a few matters that had been brought to her attention.

These amendments, if passed, would directly infringe religious rights. Places of worship may be forced to close again in any perceived outbreak of the virus. For certain religions, prayers needed to be taken place in congregation. The number of people performing prayers in a congregation would be permanently restricted once these amendments were passed. Face masks and social distancing would become permanent if there was another outbreak and this would affect the religious regulations and the matter of prayers. The reality was that any person who sneezed or coughed in a place of worship and was suspected of being infected could potentially be reported as a risk referred to for testing and forced treatments. Someone may be sneezing because they suffer from hay fever or there may be dust in the air. This amendment gave the right to the Department to do testing and force quarantine. She believed that the regulations were going a bit too far.

She discussed washing the bodies of the deceased. This had been highly affected during the time of Covid, when it was level one and level two restrictions. Religious organisations were worried that this may be disrupted again at the discretion of the State. This left a painful memory for those who had lost loved ones and those who were deprived of affording loved ones the last rights, according to their religious practices. It was biased and inhumane to some when they did not have a sense of closure. The government would have the authority to enforce any medication or vaccine whether or not it was certified halaal or harmful or beneficial. No one would be held accountable for any harmful consequences. This was very important for certain religions. The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) had deemed it unconstitutional that companies want to make it mandatory for all staff to be vaccinated against Covid-19. This had been stated by the SAHRC Chairperson, Adv Bongani Majola, who said that this was a violation of employees’ rights. When the Government thought of these regulations had it really thought of the consequences of these? The regulations had major consequences on the citizens of this country.

Dr S Thembekwayo (EFF) said that when the Minister started the presentation he noted that the Government did not want to take control of people’s lives. However, these measures showed that the Minister was trying to control people’s lives. Why was the power being shifted? The state of disaster was being replaced by the new regulations under the National Health Act. This was another way of the Government to continue with strenuous economic restrictions. Only the Minister would have permanent power to lock down the country as well as force the Covid-19 vaccination. The Minister was the only one who had the power, unchecked, to declare lockdown without seeking any advice from experts or any medical council, including the Portfolio Committee on Health.

The Committee had never been briefed about this. The Department only came to brief the Committee today because the Committee forced the Department to brief. It was unacceptable. The Committee needed a briefing on the allegations and complaints that some emails were being deleted without being opened or read. If that was taking place, then there was a selective choice of emails that were to be received by the Minister. Regulation 15 dealt with people who refused to be medically examined. This was clearly a way to micromanage people. The government was going to arrest people and force people to take medication. Why was this supposed to be this way? The Minister failed to properly trace the infected individuals to ensure that they did not transmit the virus. The Department had failed in other things it was supposed to do and now it came up with these unacceptable regulations that were to become law. The EFF did not agree with what the Minister was trying to do. The Department needed to concentrate on the improvement of infrastructure, hospitals and clinics, which were falling apart. The Minister needed to resolve the PPE saga and the general laissez-faire attitude in the Department. There was also unaccountability in the Department. No one was happy with the regulations. She believed that the emails received by the Department reiterate the fact that the regulations were not needed. She rejected them.

Ms A Gela (ANC) supported the proposed amendments to the National Health Act, proposed by the Government published in the Government Gazette on 15 March 2022. She had questions to ask the Minister. What was the significance of these amendments or the new regulations? Some of the regulations based on the 2003 Health Act came into effect in 2013. Had these not been adequate? If not, how had the Department been operating all along? Why was it important to have these regulations? If these regulations were not promulgated, then what would be the implication for the country? Were there any other means that the Department could deal with the Covid-19 pandemic other than these amendments to the Health Regulations? Did the country need all of these regulations to deal with Covid-19? Or could there be more Covid-19 specific regulations to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic. She knew that the Minister would never mislead the country. She believed in what the Minister had said. She was happy that the Minister had met with the religious sector, with the President, to discuss these regulations.

Mr E Siwela (ANC) said that the proposed amendments were supported. He had two questions to ask. What would be the role of the Department of Health with regard to Port Health Services when the Border Management Authority took over with their border guards at the ports of entry? Was there any plan to train the funeral undertakers with regard to the new regulations since they were equally affected by the pandemic?

Ms X Havard (ANC) asked if the new regulations would lead to a return to the national state of disaster? How have the rural communities been informed about the draft regulations and what about the involvement of the traditional leadership? 

Mr T Munyai (ANC) welcomed the presentation by the Minister. These powers of the Department of Health were not new. They had been there during apartheid. The difference was that it was not a democratic state and there was no consultation. Now South Africa was a democratic state and there was a process of consultation. He noted that the Minister brought a concrete presentation to the Committee. There had been concerns about the effect of the regulation relating to funerals encroaching on cultural rights and practices. Had this been considered by the Department? What informed the Minister to decide on the new regulations when the National Health Act was in place? What was the current number of Covid-19 cases? Were they such that they would warrant new regulations? How ready was the Department for the fourth wave that was much spoken about in the media? Was there any plan to train the funeral undertakers with regard to the new regulations?

Ms M Sukers (ACDP) said the impact and the importance of the current regulations demanded that the Committee needed to spend significant time on having a discussion. If needs be then the Committee should request that it have a follow-up meeting to discuss this matter.

She thanked the Department for the extension. She believed that the regulations should be withdrawn and not promulgated.

Many members articulated the concerns that the public had as well as the fact that the country had suffered over the last three years under the national state of disaster. It needed to be noted that South Africans had made significant sacrifices and had been living under abnormal circumstances for over two years. Society as a whole had been severely impacted. She sat on the Education Portfolio Committee and did oversight in disadvantaged schools. She noted the impact of the pandemic on the education sector and the impact that Covid had on the mental health of people, regardless of where they found themselves economically. The abnormality was not sustainable. That was just from a social-impact perspective. From a legal perspective, it could not be tolerated that South Africans lived under a police state. The Department could not put forward these regulations in light of where South Africa was in the pandemic. South Africans gave the Department 21 days and even gave a further month for the health system to be stabilised in order to death with what was then an unusual health crisis. South Africa could not afford this. Consideration from a social perspective as well as from a legal perspective, in terms of constitutional rights, needed to be considered.

During the period of the initial lockdown, and for the last two years, the Government had spoken about ‘following the science’. The same scientists have now called the Government’s draft regulations ‘incoherent, illogical’ and that it constituted the real state of disaster. The scientists called the draft regulations ‘ill-conceived, misdirected and oblivious to the new realities of Covid-19 two years into the pandemic’. If she considered those comments and looked at the fact the country was facing multiple crises and the Department brought in regulations that would severely impede the rights of South Africans, then the Department was actually adding to a combustion that could affect this country. In terms of a social and stability perspective of the nation, the Minister needed to seriously consider what the Department was proposing. There was no justification for what the Department was proposing.

She discussed the submission process. What was the composition of the task team that was going to review the submissions? How many members were on it and who would they be? What were their qualifications? There were allegations that the Committee had received the previous day. The allegations stated that the process was being compromised and the submissions were being deleted. Would the Minister launch an urgent investigation and provide a report to the Committee? Given that 150 000 submissions had been received it appeared that the overall timing of the call for comment and the expiry date of the stop-gap regulations did not allow for sufficient time for careful consideration. This also created suspicion that this was a mere performance process. The current regulations would lapse in 30 days. The comment period for the proposed regulations closed on 23 or 24 April. If it was the intention that the amendments to the regulations issued in terms of the Health Act would replace the stop-gap regulations this left barely one week for detailed review. The Committee requires clarity from the Department on what the planned regulatory timeframe would be. Was ample time being allowed to consider comments? Was it possible that the current regulations would be renewed? Or was there the possibility that the Department would introduce more stop-gap regulations and allow for ample time to comment? She was talking about the process.

She discussed the no-fault compensation fund. She had sent a letter last year asking about how it worked. Mention had been made of a designated judge. She had spoken to the Deputy Minister at the same time last year as well. The constituencies needed to know how the fund was being managed and who was managing the fund. The Committee needed to have a meeting to discuss the specifics of how to conduct oversight on the consultation process as well as the no-fault compensation fund. The Minister mentioned meeting with the South African Council of Churches. Evangelical and Pentecostal churches had millions of members. Did the President actually meet with those groups as well? The ACDP would be more than willing to facilitate that. Will the Department list Covid-19 as a notifiable medical condition? Or would it differentiate between the variants of the virus? Would the Delta variant be listed as a notifiable medical condition and not the Omicron variant? If the Department did not intend to differentiate between the variants, what was the scientific justification or reason for not differentiating when Omicron was not sufficiently harmful to be considered a public health concern or risk?

Ms E Wilson (DA) said that she found it frustrating that it was on the insistence of the Committee that it received a briefing by the Minister. Nothing was ever discussed with the Committee, and this was the Portfolio Committee on Health. This was the Committee that held the Department of Health, including the Minister, accountable. It concerned her that perhaps the Committee was sidestepped in this process. The Committee was there to fulfill a role and the Committee had the mandate to do oversight over Acts, Bills and that included holding the Minister and the Department of Health to account. It was the Committee’s mandate, and it could not be sidestepped.

She acknowledged the horrific flooding, particularly in KwaZulu-Natal and also in the Free State and areas of the Eastern Cape. She uplifted all the families who had lost loved ones, homes, valuables, and everything they possessed due to the floods. She prayed that the families would receive strength and peace. She hoped that the families would be supported in every way that they were needed.

She agreed with Mr Van Staden. She did not see Covid on the list of notifiable diseases. She was not sure why the notifiable diseases part of this Act was being used to change everything. If it was not notifiable then it was not notifiable. It then brought into question the rest of the Act.

She discussed the Electronic Vaccination Data System (EVDS). Everyone was now required to have the vaccination certificates to either travel overseas, enter public places or enter events. Yet, the EVDS was an absolute disaster. She had submitted documents to Dr Buthelezi earlier this week with regards to this matter. She had been inundated with complaints from people who were trying to access their vaccination certificates on the online portal. The information was incorrect. Their last vaccinations had not been registered when they had them three or four months ago. The ID numbers, names, and other information had been captured incorrectly. There was no point in putting all of this in place if people could not get the absolute basic requirements, and that was the vaccination certificate. It had been causing huge frustration and it was very time-consuming. This situation needed to be addressed and it needed to be addressed urgently. All of the regulations in the Act came to nought, as far as vaccination certificates were concerned, if people could not access them in the first place or receive the correct information. She noted that the whole point of the first lockdown was for the Department of Health to get on top of the then not-so-good health facilities. It was to ensure that there was infrastructure to cope with Covid and that there were sufficient beds. What had happened since then was a backward trend in health facilities. Health facilities were not coping. There was no infrastructure. There was no staffing and there was no assistance. There was no medication. The government missed the starting blocks right from day one. If a person went to a hospital, it was suspected that that person had Covid, and the hospital wanted that person to undergo treatment and that person refused, it may be on medical grounds or religious grounds, the Act said that the person may get a legal representative and the Department of Health could apply for a court ruling to force this person to undergo treatment or isolation. What would happen if an individual refused to undergo treatment? If the person walked out of the hospital, what was the Department going to do about it? Was the Department going to chain the person to a bed? Was the person going to be arrested? How would these people be held in a hospital? She did not understand it. With the current backlogs in South Africa’s courts at the moment, how long would it take to get a court order? By the time the Department had a court order to sort someone out and force them to undergo treatment, it could be all over. She questioned the legalities because an individual could not be held in a hospital against their will unless they were arrested or chained to the bed. She did not know how the Department was going to manage that. There was no point in making changes to an Act that could not be implemented. She did not see how the Department was going to implement this. She discussed people coming into the country. She provided a recent example of a South African citizen who returned from overseas. It was suspected that he had Covid on his arrival. Port Health bundled him into an ambulance. He was taken to a hospital 80 kilometres away. It was insisted that he go into quarantine. He wanted to go home and quarantine. He had more than sufficient facilities to do it. It was insisted that he go to a hotel and quarantine. He had to book himself in for five days and had to pay R2000 per night. It took the DA three days to get him out of there because he was in a situation to isolate at home. It cost them R6000. PCR tests at the airport needed to be looked at very carefully.

The costs of having PCR tests were astronomical. In her opinion, this had been turned into a money-making scheme.

She discussed the quarantine facilities during Covid. The Department used Telkom and Eskom facilities and they were disgusting. They were not clean. The food was disgusting. There were insufficient facilities.

She discussed the issue of funerals. She lived in a rural province and travelled great lengths in the province. Every Saturday and Sunday she saw funerals taking place. Hundreds of people attended these funerals under tents, in marquees. Who was monitoring this? Those implementations could not be put in place unless someone was there to monitor and ensure compliance. It was impossible. She did an oversight at a hospital. There were 200 people in the queue sitting on top of each other. The morgues were full. There was no point in passing an Act that could not be implemented. The DA opposed it. It was against human rights. It could not be implemented. It could not be monitored. It could not be sustained.

Ms N Chirwa (EFF) said that the Minister mentioned that the severity of infections had reduced dramatically. The Minister pointed out why that was. He pointed out vaccinations and the decreasing severity of infections, among others. The curve was at the bottom and the lowest that had been seen in a while. What then justified the absorption of the regulations into the National Health Act? Had there been scientific evidence and information that the members did not know of that leaned towards the probability of the country returning to where it was? If there was, why was the country not being taken into confidence? The information that was being held with the State needed to be shared with the country. She asked for the Department to share the scientific information stating the precursors that informed this decision. If these regulations could in the future be removed, put back in, and removed again then why were they being absorbed now if they could be re-implemented if the need for them arose in the future? Was the readying of the public health care systems for the absorption of the draft regulations also going to be matched? Responsibility needed to match the kinds of power that were being given to the Minister through these draft regulations. What responsibilities did the Minister have that would result in healthcare being increased, more healthcare workers being absorbed and other healthcare issues in the Department being addressed? South Africans often heard what they had to do. They had to vaccinate, had to wear a mask, had to self-isolate and quarantine. South Africans do not hear what the Minister and the Department were going to do. If South Africa did hear what the Minister and the Department were going to do, then they always did a shoddy job.

She discussed contact tracing. The Department did a shoddy job with contact tracing. Could the Committee see how the Minister and the Department would match, as part of their responsibilities, the need to have these draft regulations enacted in the National Health Act? Regulation 15 dealt with persons who may refuse to be medically examined.

She was concerned about bodily autonomy, body choices and liberty, which seemed to be threatened by this particular regulation. What were these ‘other measures’ that the regulation spoke of? It was not in the draft regulations. The Committee did not know what these ‘other measures’ were? The EFF supported vaccination, but it condemned any attempt to make it mandatory. The Department needed to clarify what these ‘other measures’ were any why they were not included in the draft regulations? The Committee needed to know what to expect, especially with regard to regulation 15.

She discussed self-isolation. Self-isolation was impossible for most of the country. It had been covered widely in documentaries and on the news. There were issues in informal settlements. Homelessness was a pandemic on its own. What infrastructure was the Department developing in the interim or making available for those who would not be able to self-isolate? Could the Committee be appraised with the names and places of these facilities so that the members could go there and perform oversight? The Department needed to match the powers that it had and match the responsibility of what it required to happen consistently. How would the Department contact trace consistently now when it was not able to do it efficiently during the peak of the pandemic? Were there technological developments the Department was implementing that would see this being a success? Did the Department still have the records from previous contact tracing? How was it being stored? The Department needed to appraise the Committee on the issue of contact tracing. If it was the same system from the previous two years then she already knew that the Department was going to do a very terrible job at contact tracing. If the Department would be able to do it, how would it be able to do it differently and more efficiently than how it did it in the past? What was the point of requiring vaccinations certificates from people leaving the country if the country they were going to did not ask for vaccine certificates? 

Mr A Shaik Emam (NFP) said his first concern was that the Department had not convinced the members of Parliament, who were public representatives. If the Department had not convinced the members, then how would it expect to convince the people on the ground? Should the first point of contact not be engaging with the Portfolio Committee on Health? The Committee could then deliberate on this matter extensively and then come to a decision as to whether it was in the interest of the people of South Africa. He was not sure if this was an omission or disrespect to the Committee or what it was. The Minister needed to understand that the members represented South Africans. The members needed to be convinced. The Department was not able to convince the people on the ground about anything, even on the vaccines.

He thought that the anti-vaxxers had done a better job than the Department and SAHPRA had done. On Ivermectin it was exactly the same situation. He noted that it was the same situation with the regulations. Until the Department got the message to the people on the ground, in a language they could understand and make an informed decision, it was not the appropriate route to go. The impression that was being created was that the Department, through draconian interventions, wanted to implement these regulations without proper consultation. He was glad that the Department was extending it but one week was not going to solve the problem. In all the responses the Department received, how many responses were for and how many against? The regulations spoke about people who did not have internet, did not have a phone, or disposable eating utensils. These people did not have food let alone disposable eating utensils. These people did not have food and were dying of malnutrition and hunger.

He discussed masks. The Department had not done a single thing to convince the people on the ground whether the wearing of masks was healthy or not. People were expected to wear these masks for eight to ten hours at a time. He provided an example of employees in the retail sector. They spent the entire day wearing masks and interacting with customers all the time. The Department had done nothing on the issue of masks. Did the Department engage with the pro-and anti-vaxxers on every other issue? The Department was not doing that either and that was a problem.

He discussed the no-fault compensation fund. It was an absolute mess. The Minister was forcing it down the throats of people to believe that most of those cases had nothing to do with the vaccine. Yet, there was so much evidence from the anti-vaxxers. He emphasised that he was not an anti-vaxxer. The evidence indicated that the vaccines were not safe. How did the Department expect the members to support this intervention when the Department had not convinced the members? The members could then go out and engage with their people.

He raised a point about public participation. Only a select few had the opportunity, because of resources, to be able to participate in a process of this nature. At this stage, he was not convinced that this was in the best interest of the people of this country. The NFP believed that there needed to be greater participation. The Department needed to convince the Committee before it went to the people on the ground so that there was buy-in. There were already legal threats coming that the matter was going to be taken to court. Despite all that, the Department wanted to continue and accelerate the process of wanting to implement this. He did not think that that was the route to go. Everyone had a role to play. In the end, maybe some of the Department’s interventions would be the right thing to do but there was no proper understanding of why the Department was going this route when the numbers were so low. Covid-19 was almost a thing of the past and it was not even one of the notifiable diseases. He did not understand what the urgency was. He was not questioning the Minister’s integrity. He had total confidence in the Minister. He did not think that the Department was going about it in the correct way. The Department needed to relook at this. The rights of individuals in the country could not be infringed upon, in a draconian style.

The Chairperson thanked the members for all of the questions and comments. It was interesting for him to listen to the various views, which he would speak about later. He read the questions of Ms Hlengwa. Ms Hlengwa had four questions for the Minister. Did Government have a standard it would work to when providing accommodation for those who needed to isolate but were unable to do so due to lack of formal residency? Was there continuous funding to hospitals to provide PPEs across the country? What were the anticipated effects of the flooding in KZN, in providing safe spaces and places for isolation? How will and what standards will the Government impose on public-private partnerships to ensure that quality hospitals and clinics were established and run over the next ten years in relation to the requirements of the above legislation?

The Chairperson proceeded to discuss his own opinions. He found the discussions that were around the suggestions put forward to deal with issues that could potentially save people’s lives, very strange. When Covid started, this was the Portfolio Committee that was right at the coalface. This Committee was right there with every attempt to save lives. There was the slogan, ‘save lives, saving the economy’. The Committee was right there at the onset and had urged the Department to do certain things with regard to the coronavirus, the spread of the coronavirus infection, and combating the spread of that infection. The Committee was there in the beginning when it said that the facilities needed to be put in place. The Committee put up fights for field hospitals, ventilators, CPAPs, oxygen and other items. At every turn, when something had been put in place, the members were the same people who would then object to what had been put in place. He found this strange and illogical. South Africa and the entire world were caught so unaware of the coronavirus. The government then realised that there were no regulations in place to manage the coronavirus infection. The National Disaster Regulations were then put in place in order to assist Government. Members were involved in the discussions about wearing masks, social distancing, using sanitizers, and washing hands.

Those regulations had contributed to the decrease in the number of infections. There was no way that the members could say that the wearing of masks should not happen. It had contributed to South Africa having a lower number of infections. It was also true that South Africa had come through its summer period and that it would be going into a winter period. It was also true that the countries that had been in their winter period, experienced increased numbers of infections. It was just fortunate that the Omicron variant was not as dangerous in terms of getting serious illness or death. He noted the vaccines, the natural immunity, the regulations with regards to non-pharmaceutical prevention strategies, and the prevention strategies that were all discussed by the members. The Department had risen to the occasion and had put all of these things in place in order to save lives. He remembered a time when this same Committee begged for vaccines when it was released. Now that there were vaccines, the members asked why the Department brought the vaccines. He guessed that was the nature of the human being, when something is brought then something else would be asked for. The members needed to be mindful that South Africa was approaching a winter period and it was important to have something in place when it had nothing in the beginning. The country had nothing in the beginning and then urgent interventions were necessary to save lives, to save the economy. Now there was an attempt to put something in place to manage similiar incidents, challenges and even a possible fifth wave, as the country went into the winter period.

He heard many members comment on the medical scientists and what the medical scientists were saying. As a medical scientist, he would give his opinion. He believed that these regulations were extremely important. Every single country needed to have in place regulations to manage notifiable diseases. Where the Government released that it had a deficit or a gap, it needed to fill that gap. He thanked the Minister and the Department for thinking about the regulations, bringing them to the attention of the public and for allowing a process of public participation. He urged the Department to work with speed because it was the middle of April. Next month the country would be entering the winter period. There had been floods in KZN and the challenges there. These things could happen at any point in time. He hoped that the regulations would be gazetted and to ensure that the South African people were protected from any possible future similar infections, notifiable diseases. He emphasised that the country was going to be entering the winter period. No one knew what was lying ahead. These were the concerns that the members had raised with the Department. He handed over to the Minister to respond as best as possible to all the concerns raised by members.

Minister Phaala thanked the members for the comments raised. He corrected the members who said that the Department had been forced to come to the Committee. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Department was requested by the Department to come and share information on this matter. The Department had immediately agreed. What the Department was doing was exactly in terms of the legal procedure. There was an Act passed in Parliament in 2003, the National Health Act. The legal advisor from the Department had gone through the procedure. The Act empowered the Minister to pass regulations. The regulations which the Department was amending were passed in 2017 by the Minister who was in office at that time. The Department was amending that. The Act also made provision for the Minister to make regulations and promulgate them without public consultation if the Minister was of the view that there was urgency in terms of promulgating those regulations. That was within the law. That was what the law, which had been passed by Parliament, enabled the Minister of Health to do. There were similar provisions within various other legal frameworks of other Portfolios. That was to ensure that the executive could function and provide particular regulations when there was a necessity, once the framework had been passed by Parliament. Once the framework of law was passed, the Ministers of those Portfolios would be able to promulgate regulations if it was catered for in their legal framework. Some of those regulations provided for public consultation and in certain circumstances, those regulations could be implemented immediately, as was the case with the Disaster Management Act and the National Health Act. He wanted to lay that matter to rest. Once the Department received indication from the Chairperson of the Committee that there were certain requests, the only thing it had to agree on was the logistics of time and date. Any notion that the Department came to the meeting forced should be laid to rest because it was unfounded. He responded to a few other matters.

He discussed why Covid was not listed on the list of notifiable medical conditions. The list as provided in the regulations was not exhaustive. It would have categories. There were certain conditions that were already registered and existed. Infectious diseases change. Covid-19 did not exist when the regulations were first promulgated. There was a category of pathogens that caused respiratory diseases. He would ask Adv Makhoshi to read the exact clause which dealt with that. There would be other viruses that would come. It depended on what category of infectious disease it was. It would be looked upon and managed according to notifiable medical conditions in terms of the category in which it was found. The category was there and that was how Covid was being dealt with as a notifiable medical condition.

The Department would look at the emails issue. He was convinced that it had been a technical matter which the Department would sort out. The Department had also provided a WhatsApp number which created further opportunities for comment.

He responded to the view of certain of the members that the Department should remove all the regulations. He drew attention to the fact that this was within the law that was passed by Parliament, it was in the regulations as provided for. These regulations were being amended, which had been promulgated almost four or five years ago. There were some members who went so far as to say that in terms of these regulations the Minister of Health was assuming powers to cause a lockdown and force people to be tested. There was no such thing. There were very limited powers in terms of these regulations. All that these regulations largely wanted to protect, in terms of public health measures, was the basic minimum.

Some members had questioned the wearing of masks. After a bit of uncertainty earlier on in 2020, the World Health Organisation and scientists throughout the world did a lot of work in confirming that because the infection was spread by droplets and that once those were trapped through the mask that would limit the spread. The country had seen very clear benefits of that. There was very little flu infection during the course of 2020 and over the last two years because of the use of masks. If there were still people who questioned whether masks worked, he was not sure what more evidence members still required.

He responded to the comments about the regulations infringing on the rights of people. That was very far from the truth. The only basic public health measures that remained now was the protection indoors, making sure that masks were worn indoors. There were only a few. Scientists, like in any profession, would never agree on everything. The Department looked at where the majority of views and observations of particular measures lay. The use of masks, especially indoors, was advice from the WHO and was very firm. He noted that crowded gatherings were one of the major triggers for a spike of infections, especially indoor crowded gatherings. One of the areas these regulations, as empowered by the Act, wanted to assist in was in terms of gatherings. That was why there was a limit on the size of gatherings without the vaccination because vaccination did help to protect. When there were bigger gatherings those needed to be accompanied by vaccination or a negative PCR test. If those gatherings were indoors, then they needed to also be accompanied by the wearing of masks.

He discussed the infringement of social liberties. There were very limited restrictions on social gatherings. All of those things were happening. He did not know exactly what members were raising in reference to the infringement of people’s rights. He refuted claims that the regulations empowered the Minister to enforce a lockdown. There were very limited, basic health measures.

He discussed forced medical treatment. This was only in specific situations. These amendments were being prompted while Covid was still a threat. He was disappointed to hear from Mr Shaik Emam that he believed Covid was a thing of the past. That was really causing problems when people believed that Covid was over. That was far from the truth. The Department could provide an analysis from Professor Abdool Karim, who was the first Chairperson of the Covid-19 Advisory committee, who analysed the trend of Covid over the last two years. The Department could provide information about where the country was now that it was a trough. Every three months the same trend happened. The notion that Covid was gone was misplaced. The country was not there. Everyone hoped that it was going to happen. The interventions were very basic and minimum. The provisions made were also buttressed by legal support. Even where someone had been proven to be infected by a notifiable medical condition that could be passed on to other people and that person refused to take the necessary medical intervention, there had to be an approach to the courts. The only way a forcible treatment could be enforced was with the support of a court order. It looked as if some of the members had disregarded the fact that in the regulations, which were derived from the 2017 regulations, there was a requirement for a court order. The only change with regards to the courts from the previous regulations was that instead of only using the High Court, lower courts could be approached. The health authorities should be able to approach a lower court to obtain such a court order. That was what was being provided for. The concern that there would be forced vaccination and forced treatment was unfounded. If members could look through the regulations properly they would find that there was no such provision.

He responded to the question of whether the regulations were based on science. Of course, it was. The science behind these regulations was that Covid was not over. There was an expectation that there would be another wave of Covid. The Department did not know exactly when. The factors which influenced that were the variants but also as more people gathered indoors. The countries which had gone through their winter had experienced spikes. That was why in China, in a big city like Shanghai which had more than 20 million inhabitants there was currently a lockdown. Various other countries had to reinstate control measures. The Department was receiving regular updates on the various variants that were still doing rounds. Fortunately, these had only been variants which were of interest but not variants of concern. They were not accompanied by a significant spread in South Africa, but it had happened in other countries. What was driving a rise in infections in some of those countries was also variants and because of the fact that those governments had reduced control measures. That was the science the Department was listening to. Even South African scientists had never, at all times, all agreed on one. The regulations that had been published encompassed broader controls in terms of surveillance and control of notifiable medical conditions. It was an amendment to the existing regulations.

He discussed issues of quarantine and isolation. The Department had already issued directives that because of where the country was with Covid that it was not continuing with contact tracing, with a compulsory quarantine, and with specific facilities for that. The regulations were providing not just for now. What the Department was considering, as it worked towards the completion of this process, separating the amendments which were just upgrading from the broader control of notifiable medical conditions as distinct from the measures which were still needed for Covid. Covid was one of the existing pandemics which needed to be dealt with. The Department had spoken to some of the scientists and their concern was the fact that the regulations looked like the country was going back to the measures of contact tracing, quarantine, isolation as the Department did in 2020. The Department was looking at the possibility of separating what would just be standard measures where there was a new notifiable condition, especially respiratory one, as compared to where the country was with the control of Covid and the measures which were not being utilised anymore. Some of the scientists the members mentioned, had specific concerns on the question of reinstating quarantine, isolation and contact tracing.

He discussed the allegations of the infringement of religious rights. There was no such infringement. Where the regulations spoke of gatherings it was gatherings across the board. There was no restriction that was aimed at religious gatherings. Religious gatherings also benefited from the provisions which were there in terms of without a vaccination check there could be up to 1000 people gathered, with a one metre distance. There was a maximum of 1000 indoors and 2000 outdoors. That catered for religious gatherings. There was no specific infringement on religious freedom. He discussed the significance of the regulations. It was simply to make sure that people could continue to be protected. He agreed with Ms Sukers that South Africans had made a lot of sacrifices. The Department agreed with that. In recognition of that, it would be irresponsible for Government to then lead the country to an approach that did not protect the sacrifices which many people had made. All that the Department wanted to make possible was to guide the country in a manner such that the sacrifices which had been made would not be brought to zero. Government should continue to manage the pandemic, taking into account the warnings as the country was moving into winter and there were more gatherings indoors rather than outdoors. There were various variants coming through so a rise in infections and a fifth wave were likely to happen. The government could not be at a stage where it dropped everything. He noted that there were only three basic measures in place. This included the mask, the control of gatherings and the ports of entry. He discussed the ports of entry. The approach now was to leave the issue of those leaving the country to the measures required by the country of destination. Many countries still required a vaccination certificate, and some required a PCR test. South Africans who were travelling overseas should study what was required by the country of destination. The significance of these regulations was really to make sure that people were protected, and that the country did not lose the investment which it had made in terms of the protection which had served the country well up till now.

He discussed the role of the Border Management Authority versus Port Health. The functions of Port Health at the borders would be under the Border Management Authority. The policy would still come from the Department of Health, but the operation of Port Health would be under the auspices of the Border Management Authority. He responded to the questions about the training of funeral undertakers. From the Environmental Health side, the Department would continue with the sharing of information and training. He responded to whether the Department had considered rural areas. The Department had considered rural areas during the consultation process. He thanked members for pointing out that emails might not be accessible to everybody. Even in rural areas, most people had access to and used WhatsApp. During the consultation process, the Department was sure that people in rural areas and traditional leaders would comment. The country was on the lower end of the curve where the infection numbers were fluctuating. Generally, much lower than it was at the end of November and December. The country had not gone to the lowest level of where the country was at the end of October 2021. This was because mutations were happening. The numbers fluctuate. The Department was still in an area where it watched every day because there were always indications that there were spikes here and there which it had to follow.

He discussed the time for considering submissions. As submissions were coming in he could assure members and the public that the Department was taking this seriously. The Department was not waiting for the end of 24 April. The analysis was happening on a continuous basis. There was a team within the Department that brought in specialists who were able to help in the analysis. This was a process, within the National Health Act, that was in the hands of the Ministry and the Department of Health. He assured everybody that the Department took all of the submissions seriously. That was why the Department was concerned that emails had been deleted. The Department was going to make a very serious follow up.

He responded to whether the Department differentiated based on variants. The Department did not. There were categories of notifiable medical conditions. For example, haemorrhagic fever conditions or pathogens which caused respiratory diseases. In terms of Covid-19, the Department did not then classify it in terms of every variant. The physiology of the disease remained the same so that was why it was treated as Covid-19 irrespective of the variants.

He re-emphasised that the Department had not been forced to come to the meeting. The law empowered the Department to make regulations but once it received an indication that the Committee wanted to engage then the Department was ready to engage.

He responded to the question about why the regulations were being put in place when the infection rate was going down. Over the last two years, there was a pattern and the Government could not relax simply because the country had been there before where there were very few infections. The only difference is that back then most people had not been vaccinated. South Africa’s vaccination rate was not as high as other countries and that was why Government had to be concerned. That was why there still needed to be further protection. The Department was not going to be using quarantine, isolation, and contact tracing for the current Covid-19 pandemic. That matter was behind the Department. Because the regulations looked at the future, other pandemics, and other notifiable conditions, and that was why the Department was looking at what was required just for Covid-19 and what was required for future pandemics. He responded to members who called these regulations draconian. He did not know how these regulations were draconian. If these regulations were draconian then he did not know what an appropriate public health measure would be.

Adv Makhoshi said in terms of the 2017 regulations, annexure A, table one, item 18 provided for respiratory disease caused by a novel respiratory pathogen. It included examples of novel respiratory pathogens. This was the version by which Covid-19 was dealt with within that framework. Annexure A had not been amended and was still part of the existing regulations. 

Ms Sukers said that the Minster was saying that there was a misunderstanding between how the members, and the public, saw the regulations and the Department. In the Portfolio Committee on Social Development and the Portfolio Committee on Basic Education there had been roundtable discussions. She suggested that this Committee do the same. Because of the wider implications of the regulations, there should be a roundtable discussion with the Minister.

She responded to what the Minister had said now about the scientists. She could send the Minister the article. It was not about the broader implications alone.

She discussed the wearing of masks. The same scientists were saying that it provided little to no protection against being infected. Will these regulations be implemented in place after the 30 days? With Covid as a notifiable medical condition, would these regulations be implemented? That was what the Committee needed to know as a matter of urgency.

Mr Van Staden agreed with Ms Sukers that the Committee hold a roundtable discussion with the Department. Since the start of the pandemic in 2020, it felt as if most of the time the Committee was kept in the dark about certain matters. It was important to have roundtable discussions with each other before there was a situation which got out of hand. He did not remember anyone saying that the Minister was forced to come to the meeting. He had thanked the Minister at the beginning of the meeting for coming because the Committee had requested him to come. He just wanted to clarify that.

Ms Clarke agreed with the previous two members. This needed a lot more discussion. She highlighted that in the current form of the proposed regulations the DA completely objected to the proposed regulations to the Health Act.

Mr Munyai said that there could not be endless discussions because the platform had been provided for anyone to make an input. The Minister answered all of the members’ questions. He proposed that the Committee move forward having had its concerns clarified by the Minister.

Ms Gela said that she supported Mr Munyai.

Mr Van Staden raised a point of order and said that the meeting was not being run in the correct way.

The Chairperson said that there would be no more discussions. He allowed the Minister to respond to the short points raised. No other members were to speak.

Minister Phaala assured the members that the Department would consider the views which had been expressed. The Department did not agree with an outright rejection without providing an alternative. The government had a responsibility to guide the public in the midst of a pandemic that was still there. The pandemic was not over until the WHO declared the pandemic over. The Department would consider the submissions. The Department remained available, whether it was on the pandemic or any other matter, at any time if there was a request from the Committee for further engagement. The Department carried on doing its work that was mandated by the people of South Africa and the laws which governed how it was to function. The Department was available for further discussions on this and any other matter, not just Covid-19.

The Chairperson thanked the Minister for briefing the Committee. It was a wonderful briefing with robust discussions. It was very well answered and provided clarity to the members of the Committee. He took cognisance of the fact that this was a live broadcast. It was a wonderful opportunity for the people of South Africa to deal with these issues, regulations and processes first-hand.

He recognised the families of those whose lives were lost in the floods in KZN. There was also so much property damaged. He noted the visit of the President and Ministers to the province of KZN. He noted the number for WhatsApp that was provided by the Department. The public should note this number to provide comments on the regulations relating to the surveillance and control of notifiable medical conditions. The Committee would resume normal activity on 19 April. The Committee would be receiving presentations from the entities. The Committee would also be adopting the Committee’s Report. The Committee had a lot of work to do.

Ms Wilson discussed the zlist. This Committee did not even feature on the zlist. The members planned their lives accordingly. There was a lot of other work that the members did. The Committee was not on the zlist. It made it difficult for the members to plan ahead.

The Chairperson asked the Committee Secretariat to note that. The Committee needed to appear on the zlist. There was a stringent process to go through for these programmes to be agreed to by the Programming Committee. The Committee was usually way ahead with its programme.

The Chairperson wished the members well over the Easter weekend.

The meeting was adjourned.