HIV/AIDS Initiatives: Correctional Services Department briefing; Judges’ & Magistrates’ Remuneration Proposals: adoption

Meeting report

SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
13 September 2006
HIV / AIDS INITIATIVES: CORRECTIONAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT BRIEFING; JUDGES’ AND MAGISTRATES’ REMUNERATION PROPOSALS: ADOPTION

Chairperson: Kgoshi L M Mokoena (ANC, Limpopo)

Documents handed out:
Current initiatives on HIV and AIDS and an Overview on Medical Parole (DCS Power Point presentation)
Judgment of the Pietermaritzburg High Court
Government Communication and Information System statement on judgment (see Appendix)

SUMMARY
The Deputy Minister and Department of Correctional Services briefed the Committee on their current HIV and AIDS initiatives. The Deputy Minister apologised for not being able to brief the Committee on the Pietermaritzburg High Court judgment, because there were still outstanding issues and disputes. The Department emphasised the fact that they did not, and never intended to undermine the court’s decision. They were only exercising their juristic right to appeal and the main reason for the appeal was that they lacked the capacity to fast track the distribution of anti-retrovirals as the Treatment Action Campaign had demanded. The Committee expressed concern that a judge’s comments could be misconstrued and misrepresented by the media. It wanted to know the criteria used for accrediting ARV facilities and agreed that it was important to mobilise the community to support programmes such as voluntary HIV testing. The Committee also wanted to know the exact number of inmates receiving ARVs.

The Department of Justice clarified issues that were raised by the Committee concerning the Department’s proposals on the remuneration on magistrates and judges. The Committee was satisfied with the explanations and unanimously approved the two proposals.

MINUTES

Current initiatives on HIV and AIDS and overview on medical parole: Department of Correctional Services (DCS) presentation

Ms L Jacobs, Deputy Minister of Correctional Services, introduced her delegation as Mr L Mti (National Commissioner); Ms J Sishuba (Chief Director: Corrections); Mr L Kabeni (Media Liaison Officer); Ms M Mabena (Director: Health Care Services); Mr W Gustav (Director: HIV and AIDS); Mr T Motseki; Mr R Mbuli (Director: Legal Services); Advocate T Mzobi (Head: Ministerial Services) and Mr M Ncame (Deputy Commissioner). Ms Sishuba made the presentation. She focused on three core areas which were further subdivided. These were current initiatives, the prevalence survey and medical parole. In current initiatives she explained the mandates for undertaking the comprehensive HIV and Aids Programme which was split up into the following areas: prevention, care and support and treatment. She named their partnerships and provided detail on the prevalence survey. She highlighted the reasons for the survey, the methodology used, their findings, the obstacles they came across when carrying out the survey and the proposed solutions and way forward. She talked about the action roll out plan and lastly briefed the Committee on the medical mandate, process of identification, consideration and the challenges.

Discussion
Mr S Shiceka (ANC, Gauteng) suggested that there should be a strategic meeting between the Committee and the department to mobilise people to change flawed community perceptions.

Ms Jacobs welcomed the proposal and stressed the need for the department and the Committee to work together to arrive at a workable solution.

Mr Shiceka asked how the department was creating incentives to retain and gain more professionals.

Mrs Jacobs replied that the issue of capacity was a major problem primarily because their area of work was not only stressful but highly dangerous as well. Therefore most professionals withdrew when they have read the terms and the area of work. One solution to this was to lobby the Public Service and Administration Department for assistance.

Mr Shiceka asked whether the department had Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs) where prisoners can disclose their HIV status in confidentiality. The reason was that most inmates did not disclose their status early and by the time ARVs were administered, AIDS would be fully developed. This could be because they are afraid of prejudice if they disclosed their status.

Ms Mabena replied that they had EAPs and if they were unable to handle existing cases it would be referred to external experts.

Mr Shiceka asked what criteria were used by the department to accredit a site to administer ARVs.

Ms Jacobs replied that the criteria were determined by the Department of Health. It also determined the amount of nurses, doctors and pharmacists that were needed.

Mr Shiceka requested discussion of the recent court judgment to obtain the department’s view so that they were in a position to publicly defend the department as the matter was now in the public domain.

Mr Mbuli stated that, although the matter was public, it would be inappropriate to discuss it since there was still a dispute between the parties.

Dr F van Heerden (FF+, Free State) said it was a relief that the department had emphasised the fact that they did not refuse to comply with the judgment despite what the media had said. He requested confirmation that the department had appealed because of lack of administrative capacity to comply with the ruling.

Mr Mti confirmed Dr van Heerden’s question. They had not refused to provide inmates with access to ARVs. What they were unable to do was to fast track the distribution of ARVs as the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) had wanted because of lack of capacity and the fact that they depended on other departments such as Health to carry out this function. He referred the Committee to a statement released on this matter by the government through the Government Communication and Information System (GCIS). This statement dealt with the comments of the judge, the separation of powers and whether there was a constitutional crisis. This statement should address any confusion on the part of the Committee.

Mr J W Le Roux (DA, Eastern Cape) asked to which court they appealed.

Mr Mbuli replied that they appealed to a full bench of the Natal division of the High Court.

Mr Le Roux asked the reasons for the appeal and the expected outcomes.

Ms Jacobs replied that government departments were juristic persons who had legal standing and they were exercising their legal rights by appealing having been given leave to appeal.

Mr Le Roux asked for the numbers of HIV cases they were dealing with and for the number of inmates that was receiving ARVs.

Mr D A Worth (DA, Free State) also asked for the number of inmates receiving ARVs since he knew of only three sites that were currently administering ARVs.

Mr Gustav replied that at June 2006, the number of known cases were 9 241, up from 8 577 in 2005. These figures were not conclusive because of the reluctance of inmates to disclose their status. He added that currently there were 800 inmates on ARV treatment and about 1700 on the adherence programme which they had to finish before going onto ARVs.

Mr M Mzizi (IFP, Gauteng) asked what the department meant by the "buddy system".

Ms Sishuba replied that it was a programme that helped to foster friendships and encouragement among those who had disclosed their status.

Mr Mzizi noted the reference to the private and public sectors and asked who the stakeholders were in these sectors.

Ms Sishuba replied that the private sector referred to the drug companies that were supplying them with the necessary medication like Pfizer.

Mr Mzizi asked why their scientific research was limited to AIDS and syphilis. He knew that AIDS and gonorrhea could be inter-related but they did not investigate this. It was a contradiction to say there was no correlation between AIDS and syphilis, yet both were prevalent.

Ms Sishuba replied that they could not extend the research to other diseases as this would mean more service providers and more money to do the research. The data indicated that there was no link between syphilis and AIDS, although these were the most prevalent Sexually-Transmitted Diseases (STDs) they found.

Mr Mzizi noted that it seemed that the burden of burials was on hospices or pauper’s burials.

Mr Woleka replied that the hospice and pauper’s burials were the last resort if they could not locate the family of the victim.

Mr Mzizi asked how much money they had received from donors.

Ms Sishuba replied that they got their funds from donor foundations like the Presidential Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Between 2000 and 2005 they received US$600 000; for 2005/06 they received US$1million and they were expecting US$1.8 million more.

Mr Mzizi asked whether the family could bring in their own doctors to diagnose patients.

Ms Mabena replied that the offenders were allowed to bring in their own doctors, but when they did so they would bear all the costs. Previously they could bring in their own doctors at the expense of the department, but this became very expensive because the doctors would prescribe alternative drugs to those approved by the Health Department.

Mr Mti submitted the court judgment to the Committee and urged Members to study it as it would help them appreciate the department’s position and would clear up much of the current confusion.

Mr Shiceka asked whether they administered prophylaxis and how much was at their disposal.

Ms Mabena responded that it was administered to personnel who sustained injuries whilst on duty and to HIV patients who did not have tuberculosis so that they would not contract it. They did not have exact figures at this time.

Mr A L Moseki (ANC, North West) remarked that he had noticed a lack of facilities for women on a prison visit and wanted to know what the department was doing about this.

Ms Jacobs responded that most jails had been built without taking female requirements into account. They were trying very hard to equip existing facilities for female inmates, but needed the Committee’s help to build prisons that were suitable for women.

Mr Woleka added that they were looking to increase the capacity of prisons to accommodate females.

Mr Shiceka asked why the department was using external service providers to train their personnel.

Ms Sishuba replied that the reason they called in external service providers was because they did not have specialised personnel in certain fields. For example, since they were not health oriented their health personnel received training from the Health Department. Moreover, there were particular NGOs that specialised in areas such as peer group training and they would be invited to provide this service on behalf of the department

Mr Shiceka acknowledged that the buddy system was an excellent initiative but wanted to know how they identified the group.

Ms Sishuba responded that when inmates were diagnosed with HIV, they went to group sessions where they were encouraged to form support groups.

Mr Shiceka asked the approximate amount the full roll-out project was going to cost.

Mr N J Mack (ANC, Western Cape) reminded the Committee about the importance of information and its dissemination to the public. He also requested the department’s financial projections and noted that these were crucial.

Ms Jacobs replied that the cost implications were difficult to determine since they were not sure about the magnitude of the problem. They would absorb the human resources costs, while the Department of Health would absorb the cost of the drugs.

Ms Sishuba added that the cost of the current survey was about US$2 million and they got most of their funding from PEPFAR.

Ms F Nyanda (ANC, Mpumalanga) asked for the reasons for the acknowledged lack of cooperation between management.

Ms Jacobs replied that the lack of cooperation and participation in management could be attributed to the lack of cooperation and participation among inmates and this was due to the reluctance of people to disclose their status or be diagnosed.

Mr Shiceka asked if the department had a process of re-incarcerating an offender that had been given parole due to terminal illness, but then engaged in crime after recovering.

Ms Jacobs replied that the issue of parole based on terminal illness was a big challenge, because about four or five years ago they released an inmate on this basis who then recovered and committed a sexual offence. That offender is now back in prison. Although they recognised the constitutional rights of inmates to die with dignity surrounded by their family, they were wary of given parole for terminal illness.

Mr Woleka added that even thought this was a tricky issue; there was a committee that functioned as a parole board known as the Supervision Committee that sought to monitor and ensure that the inmate complied with parole conditions. These conditions changed as circumstances changed so that the released offender did not pose a threat to the public.

Mr Shiceka asked who should be given preference: law-abiding citizens or offenders. There has been much "clamor" for prisoners to be given ARVs, but they were not the only ones in need.

Ms Jacobs responded that there is a thin line between deciding the person more deserving of treatment; they were guided by the Constitution and the law in making their decisions. Despite this, their core mandate was the safe keeping of offenders in the most humane way possible.

Department of Justice clarification of remuneration of magistrates proposal

The Department of Justice was represented by Mr J B Skosana (Director: Policy) and Mr E J Allers (Parliamentary Liaison Officer)

The Chairperson summarised the questions the Committee needed clarification on before they voted on the proposals.

The Chairperson asked why magistrates were not being subsidised by the state when purchasing vehicles.

Mr Skosana replied that magistrates were no longer civil servants and civil servants were the only ones that qualified for government subsidies. An independent commission was now handling magistrates’ concerns and complaints about their remuneration. He added that they would be given a car allowance enabling ownership of vehicles upon purchase. Alternatively, they were given a choice to write off their formerly subsidised cars by paying the government the balance on the car if it has not traveled the specified distance.

The government would also act as guarantor for magistrates who have a poor credit record and who might not receive financing. In such cases, the government will provide surety to financing companies that debt would be offset against the magistrate’s car allowance.

Mr Skosana added that the situation was different with judges. A judge would get a car from the department, but he/she would not own it. It would be returned to the government after four years and auctioned to the public to retrieve costs. If the judge wanted to retain the car, he/she would have to bid for it at the auction.

The Chairperson said the Committee appreciated the salary increments for magistrates; however there seemed to be no other lucrative incentives to retain magistrates.

Mr Skosana replied that the blanket salary scales removed the system of merit, but there were a new set of incentives. First, the vehicle financing scheme that allowed magistrates to own their vehicles on purchase. Second, a new policy offered upward mobility as they could be appointed as judges after they served a particular number of years. This policy rewarded experience which the merit system did not. Moreover, not all magistrates were currently at the same level. There was the ordinary magistrate, the senior magistrate and the chief magistrate who is equivalent to the regional magistrate. As the magistrate moves up the ladder, the package gets bigger. He remarked that with such incentives it was most likely that they were not only going to retain magistrates, but might attract large numbers of prospective magistrates.

The Committee unanimously approved the department’s proposals on the remuneration of judges and magistrates.

The meeting was adjourned.