Prevention of and Treatment for Substance Abuse Bill [B12-2008]: Deliberations on public submissions

Social Development

27 May 2008
Chairperson: Adv M Masutha (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee and the Department of Social Development tabled and deliberated on the recommendations from the public and other departments on the Prevention of and Treatment for the Substance Abuse Bill. There was not yet an official response from the Department of Social Development, nor a report on the meetings with other departments. Concern was expressed at the absence of the State Law Advisers and Parliamentary Legal Advisers.

Members noted the need to have a policy regarding harm reduction. This issue must be clarified by the Departments of Health and Social Development. Clear principles that spoke to norms and standards should be identified. It was suggested that the mixture of services appearing throughout the Bill should be separated out from the programmes. The Committee would have to check whether ratification of the instruments referred to by the SA Human Rights Commission had taken place. The Committee proposed, under Clause 1, that a definition for “youth” and “vulnerability” be inserted and agreed that many of the proposals made around the definitions made sense. The Committee and Department discussed whether cross-referencing should appear in the Bill, and the Committee emphasised the need for clarity. Members felt that public facilities should be registered, as well as having to comply with minimum norms and standards, that the method of registration must be clearly set out, and that there should be a clear distinction made between programmes and services.  

In respect of Clause 2 it was noted that the Department of Justice would be sending through proposals, that the Central Drug Authority should be a juristic person, that the integrated approach should be stressed both in the objects clause and under principles, and that the content of Clause 6 be moved to Clause 3. The use of the word “combating” substance abuse was explained.

Members then discussed the provisions of Chapter 2 at length, and were concerned that the heading of the Chapter, specifically the reference to “combating” substance abuse, suggested that the Bill addressed more than demand side management. This was the only aspect addressed, as there was separate legislation on the supply side. Some of the Clauses in the Chapter were very broad and vague. There was a feeling that general provisions should be moved to Clause 61 of the Bill. There should be more description on what the intention of the Bill was. The roles of other Departments should be outlined. The Department officials said that they had attempted to be consistent in their formatting, having used a similar way of setting out the clauses as had been used in the Older Persons and Children’s Acts. However, Members criticised the Department for apparently copying sections of other Bills into this one without checking their relevance. The Committee decided that Chapter 2 must be rewritten according to their instructions. The Bill had to be ready within two weeks.

Meeting report

Chairperson’s Opening Remarks
Chairperson apologised for the mishap in communication regarding the meeting arrangements, but noted that the meeting would continue until other Members could reach the venue.

He noted that the Deputy Director General, Department of Social Development (DSD) had indicated that relevant departments had met over the past two days to discuss  ways in which the Bill could be improved, in order to allow for a clear articulation of mandates and roles in the legislation itself. This meeting would discuss the summary prepared by the Parliamentary Research Unit on the public hearings and departmental briefings. The Chairperson added that the Committee did not expect to get a presentation as yet on any further engagements on the part of the Department.

Prevention of and Treatment of Substance Abuse Bill (the Bill) Discussions around the public submissions
Ms Vuyelwa Nhlapo, Deputy Director-General, DSD, stated that her Department had met with various other departments, but at present no report could be given as the various departments needed to have their contributions signed off by their principals.

The Chairperson expressed concern that so few Departmental officials were present, saying that all relevant officials should be present as they would have to draft any amendments. He noted that he was also concerned that there was no appearance by the State Law Advisers.

Parliamentary Researchers Report
Ms Yolisa Ngenga, Parliamentary Researcher, presented a summary of submissions, and said that she would deal with the general comments first. She read them out from the document.

Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative (CSPRI) submissions.
Ms H Bogopane-Zulu (ANC) asked if the minimum norms and standards that the Department developed in 2005 were going to be used.

The Chairperson asked if the Department had norms and standards published in 2005.

Ms Nhlapo stated that the norms and standards for 2005 were for treatment centres, but once the process was finalised the DSD would have to look at all the tools and refine them to ensure that they complied with the revised Act.

Ms Bogopane-Zulu agreed with the reference to children at Treatment Centres in Clause 4, Subsection 1(b)

Ms J Semple (DA) asked if the Department was satisfied that it met with the requirements for the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and the Optional Protocol to that Convention (OPCAT)

The Chairperson stated that this was a policy issue, and the Department should be able to respond to whether proper care had been taken regarding the methods used and to comment whether these were consistent with CAT.

Mr Puseletso Loselo, Chief Director Legal Services: DSD, stated that in Clause 4(1)(b), provision was made for the protection of children as part of the Minimum Norms and Standards, but everyone else had been left out. He added that ‘for the protection of service users’ (as defined in the Bill), should be inserted. This would allow for the type of treatment centre to be indicated in the clause.

The Chairperson noted that  clear principles that talked to norms and standards should be identified.

Aids and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA) submission
Mr Loselo observed that Clause 8(2)(d) did make the link between HIV & Aids and substance abuse, but other infectious diseases should be added to  include a non-exhaustive list.

The Chairperson noted that ARASA had stated that the harm reduction approach had been endorsed by Cabinet. The DSD negated the harm reduction approach and it should be verified whether Cabinet had indeed endorsed this position.

Ms Bogopane – Zulu stated that the National Strategic Plan had argued for consideration of this issue, on the basis that dialogue would take place. Government had to start the dialogue before any decision could be made.

The Chairperson noted that the Department of Health had said that those methods were being explored.

Ms Nhlapo added that there had been no agreement on policy with regard to harm reduction, and it would have to be debated first.

Ms Bogopane-Zulu requested that the Committee should call for a presentation from the Sex Worker Education and Advocacy Taskforce (SWEAT), as they had a programme on harm reduction, funded by the Department of Health, which would shed light on the matter.

The Chairperson stated that the issue should be  flagged for clarification by the Department of Health and the DSD.

The Chairperson asked what the proactive measures were that formed part of the broad sweeping policy objectives.

Mr Loselo replied that anything that would assist families, individuals and communities who were at risk would be regarded as proactive measures.

The Chairperson asked if specific criteria could be listed regarding the kind of pro-active measures that could be taken.

He added that each of the paragraphs was almost a whole field of focus on its own and that this clause sought to outline the broad key areas of focus. The Chairperson added that more thought should be given to the key elements that underpinned each specific area.

Ms Bogopane-Zulu noted that throughout the Bill, there was a mixture of services. She stated that the Department should try to separate programmes from services.

South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) submission
Ms Bogopane-Zulu expressed concern about the SAHRC assertion that Chapter 7 of the Bill deprived users of their rights.

Ms Semple asked what the ‘revocation of licence’ meant in Chapter 7 of the Bill.

The Chairperson replied that as the State Law Adviser and Parliamentary Legal Advisors were not present it would be difficult to answer that question.

Ms Bogopane – Zulu asked if someone could check whether ratification had occurred.

The Chairperson stated that this issue should be flagged for checking.

Mr Loselo verified that South Africa was a signatory but he did not know if the international instrument had been ratified.

Ms Semple asked what was being referred to in Chapter 10 of the Bill under regulations for labour.

Mr Loselo responded that the Bill was silent on rights at treatment centres, and the Department was looking into certain provisions regarding rights.

Mr Loselo added that due process should be followed. The Bill provided that a close relative of a substance abuser could report the abuse to a prosecutor, who would then request that the abuser be apprehended. The abuser would be brought before a magistrate, who, after receiving a report from a social worker, could order that the abuser be placed in a treatment centre.

Ms Bogopane – Zulu noted that the Department of Justice was saying that diversion should be introduced into the Bill, and that the Bill should also embrace the principle of restorative justice.

The Chairperson asked if the Department agreed with the general approach that diversion could be appropriate for the problem of substance abuse as a criminal justice issue.

The Chairperson emphasised that this Bill had to be approved ready for voting on 13 June.

Ms S Rajbally (MF) said that should the Bill not be completed in time, the Committee should  ask for an extension.

The Chairperson agreed and said it would be reported that the Parliamentary Legal Advisers and State Law Advisers were not present at this meeting.

Ms C Dudley (ACDP) asked if the Department could indicate how long it would take to get an integrated draft of the Bill.

The Chairperson responded that the Department would have to have integrated all the responses by 3 June.

Ms Bogopane – Zulu suggested that the Committee should adopt a clause by clause approach to give clear instructions to the drafters from DSD. This suggestion was accepted.

Clause 1
Ms Bogopane – Zulu proposed that in Clause 1 a definition for “youth” and “vulnerability” should be inserted. She also suggested an improvement on the current definition of vulnerability.

The Parliamentary Researcher read out, from the document, the proposed amendments from SANCA, the Central Drug Authority (CDA), Substance Misuse Advocacy Research Training (SMART) and the National Youth Commission (NYC) (see attached document).

Ms Bogopane – Zulu stated that most of the proposed definitions were good and would improve on some of the definitions as drafted.

Ms Nomathemba Kela, Chief Director:DSD, stated that the Department had considered the proposals and incorporated them. She added that the input of the Committee was required on behavioural addiction, as this matter needed clarity. 

She added that with regard to defining treatment centres for children, all treatment centres were dedicated to all age groups.

Mr Pierre Viviers, Deputy Director: Substance Abuse, DSD, stated that children with addictions were referred to treatment centres that made provision for both adults and children, but which had separate facilities for children.

Ms Bogopane – Zulu stated that the Committee did not want there to be cross-references regarding the definition of a  treatment centre. A decision had been taken that there should be no distinction between public and private centres. She added that government run institutions were not fully compliant and had the worst facilities. It must be clear in the regulation that the Minimum Norms and Standards should apply to both public and private institutions. She requested that all definitions, with the exception of those relating to clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill, should have their cross-referencing removed. The issue of other addictions could not be dealt with in this  piece of legislation.

Ms Dudley stated that the words ‘included but not limited to’ should be added where there were lists, and that care should be taken regarding limiting private treatment centres to 24 hour treatment centres.

Ms H Weber (DA) asked if scheduled drugs should be specified.

Mr Loselo stated that, as a drafting principle, cross referencing was permissible, as long as definitions were clear. He added that there was a need to elaborate on requirements for registration of public and private treatment centers.

The Chairperson stated that there was no style of drafting that excluded cross-referencing. However, there must be clarity in the approach as there may be certain conditions included which were appropriate for public and private centres.

Ms Kela emphasised the need for clarity on the kinds of exclusions used and said that one of the issues was how best to ensure that inspections were done in public treatment facilities. She added that in clause 4 of the Bill no distinction was made between private and public treatment centres. She thought that in Chapter 5 of the Bill a clause could be included to ensure that public treatment centres complied with Minimum Norms and Standards.

Ms Bogopane-Zulu argued that the solution that Ms Kela was proposing was not good enough. She said that a programme and service were at issue. For the purposes of registration,  public facilities came in different forms. This Bill was referring to a place where a service was going to be provided. Whatever happened at such a place must therefore be registered and formalised.

The Chairperson asked what would happens if a public facility no longer complied.

Ms Kela responded that a public facility was like any other service, for which the Minister was accountable to parliament.

The Chairperson asked what would be done if a facility fell short of the set norms and standards.

Mr Loselo replied that the Minister could give notice to close the facility. The requirements for private treatment centres were more stringent. In order to establish such a private treatment centre a letter must be written to the Director-General, who would assess whether there was compliance with the prescribed requirements. The Director-General could permit conditional registration or refuse registration. This would not happen with public centres.

Ms Kela stated that control mechanisms could not be enforced by way of registration. She suggested that a clause could be inserted that ensured compliance with norms and standards for public treatment centres by the Minister. She added that she was not sure how registration alone would solve the problem.

The Chairperson asserted that there was no difficulty in separating the licensing or registration of public and private centres, but it could not simply be assumed, based on past experience, that systems were in place for the public.

Ms Bogopane-Zulu responded that she and Ms Kela partially agreed on the cross-referencing issue. However, she believed that it was essential that there be uniformity. She suggested the insertion of a section that would deal with registration, how it should be done, and assigning it to the municipalities. Ms Bogopane-Zulu asserted that the section should also separate programmes from services.

Mr Loselo stated that this issue had been raised by SANCA.

Ms Kela  referred to Clause 28 of the Bill and stated that  the Department would look further at the concerns and revert to the Committee.

Clause 2
The submissions raised under Clause 2 were read out to the Committee (see document).

The Chairperson noted that the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DOJ) had proposed that a Preamble and Guiding principles be inserted, along similar lines to those inserted into the Children’s Bill during the drafting process.

Mr Loselo confirmed that the Department of Justice had promised to send their proposals to the DSD by 30 June. The Department supported having the Central Drug Authority (CDA) as a juristic person.

Ms Semple stated that the CDA did not have enforcement capabilities.

The Chairperson noted that the principle of an integrated approach to service delivery was not reflected in the body of the Bill, and it was also not stated as an objective.

Ms Kela expressed the need to look into this matter, in terms of the implementation of an integrated approach as set out in Chapter 6 of the Bill.

The Chairperson stated that this probably would be correctly placed under the Objects clause, and could be reiterated in the Principles clause,  so that an integrated approach could be the overarching theme of the Bill.

The Chairperson wondered if the location of Clause 6, under combating substance abuse, was satisfactory, and if Chapter 2 underpinned the Act.

Ms Kela responded that the content of Clause 6 could be moved to Clause 3.

The Chairperson asked what the public was saying regarding the combating of substance abuse.

The Parliamentary Researcher read out the submissions from ARASA, SANCA, the CDA, SMART, the Department of Education and the  Department of Health (see attached document).

The Chairperson asked whether “combating” substance abuse was different from “prevention”.

Mr Viviers responded that the work being done by the Department was called drug-demand reduction, but because the CDA was dealing with demand and supply reduction, the word “combating” was chosen to cover both.

Clause 3
Ms Kela referred to the comments around Chapter 2, Clause 3 (1) of the Bill. She advised the Committee that it would not be the sole responsibility of the Minister of Social Development to develop the programmes, but that a number of ministries would be involved. The question was how to manage the whole programme. The Department would review this clause and find a better way to express it.

The Chairperson said that the Minister must create a framework.

Ms Kela said that the Department had agreed to the review. Her last comment was that DSD had held discussions with the Department of Education (DoE) on the subject of accredited training. The DoE had made a proposal on how to structure the training.

The Chairperson asked who would accredit the trainers.

Ms Kela replied that it was the training itself that would be accredited. Several Acts of Parliament would have to be invoked. These included the National Health, Social Services and Health Professionals Acts, amongst other applicable pieces of legislation.

The Chairperson asked about the use of the word “combating”. It seemed to him that it covered the whole spectrum and would embrace both demand and supply side interventions. The Bill addressed only the demand side, and to use the word “combating” might be misleading. The heading confined the entire Bill to the area of prevention and treatment, and alluded to four elements, all of which were concerned with prevention and treatment. If the Bill was about “combating” then it would have to concentrate on all aspects of combating substance abuse, including the supply side intervention. This was the purpose of the Bill.

He said that there were four components of demand side management. The Bill should not pretend that there was a cross-reference to the supply side. It would be difficult if there was not a cross-reference. The Central Drug Authority (CDA) that would be created seemed to be intended to cover both supply and demand aspects. However, the body of the Bill did not have the same intention.

Mr Loselo said that the DSD wished to combat drug trafficking and substance abuse. The titles were not that crucial, and he did not agree that the use of “combating” was that significant. The Bill did not deal with drug trafficking.

The Chairperson said that the long title was not the body of the Bill.

Mr Loselo said that the long title should explain the intent of the Bill.

The Chairperson said that there were two programmes of combating. He did not have sufficient information. He wanted to reflect on the question of what to do differently in Chapter 2, and suggested that perhaps some of the terms could be defined more clearly.

Ms H Bogopane-Zulu (ANC) requested a break, during which discussions could take place.

On resumption of the meeting, Adv Masutha noted that there had been some informal discussion. It was the Committee’s view that Mr Pierre Viviers, Deputy Director: Substance Abuse, DSD, was correct. A full range of interventions and strategies was needed to combat substance abuse. This included removing both the substances and abusing off them from society in general. Removing them from this country only was not enough. He asked what involvement DSD had with international campaigns against substance abuse. The South African Police Services (SAPS) were operating in an international context. Ms Kela had spoken of combating drug trafficking, but that was only one component. The Bill should talk to all areas, but as framed it was not about combating substance abuse in its entirety, but only concentrated on one aspect. It should not deal with combating in any particular chapter. The Bill should not re-invent the wheel by addressing supply side intervention. It should allude to links between supply and demand in order to achieve the overall goal. The CDA would co-ordinate government efforts

Ms Kela said that the Bill would look at reducing demand through the programmes that would be created. The CDA would be involved in the totality of substance abuse and would look at overall programmes. The CDA’s involvement in supply management would be highlighted in the chapter that created the CDA. The Bill was more about the reduction of demand.

Ms Bogopane-Zulu said she could live with this even though she was not fully happy. An intervention mechanism was needed. She asked if there were incentives included to assist in combating abuse, as she believed that this was necessary. She also asked if the issues of central protection and security were addressed anywhere in the Bill. The role of education was interesting. This Bill made no attempt to stop the supply of substances, as this was a job for the SAPS. She asked what security measures were included.

The Chairperson asked if it was a question of how people should be protected from exposure to such substances.

Ms Bogopane-Zulu said that someone might be fully aware of the harmful effects of substances, but still could not stop using those substances. Some substances should be deregistered. Drugs took a hold of people, with the result was that more had to be spent on aftercare and treatment.

The Chairperson said that the Domestic Violence Act could be used as an example, as here interdicts were used to prevent exposure. It would be hard to prove that a drug deal went beyond the bounds of research. The community felt powerless. Everybody knew the drug dealers. They had easy access to children. He asked if there were enough tools. Programmes were described, but few tools were created in the Bill to achieve their objectives. He quoted the Children’s Bill, where a tool was needed to enable the removal of an abusive person from the environment rather than taking the abused child out of his home. He felt that tools must be developed, and said that they would have to be meticulously crafted. However, there was a two-week deadline to finalise the Bill. There was a sense of helplessness as he could see where the gaps were but they could not be plugged.

The Chairperson said that Chapter 2 was misleading. There should be synergy created between the Bill and the other range of interventions currently in place, even if it was only through the principle being stated. If this was done then the Chapter would not be seen simply as something creating programmes, but rather as something that was identifying the problems. Recognition of substance abuse was the first problem, and it could then be combated by special steps. This was part of overall government strategy.

He said that the principles clause should be confined to services on the demand side. It might need to be amplified, and perhaps should be located elsewhere. More thought was needed on this. There were two primary objectives. The first was that the Bill had to deal with the core function, which was social development. The second was that a co-ordinating mechanism had to be created, and this must go hand-in-hand with substance abuse. The Committee could leave this point for the meantime and ask the Department to look at it further. The chapter might need to be split. He asked Members to move on to Clause 4.

Ms Kela said that when drafting the Older Persons Act (OPA), DSD had created a chapter on norms and standards. She suggested that, similar to this, clause 4 could be deleted from Chapter 2 and transferred to another chapter.

The Chairperson referred to the sections on principles and norms and standards. Clause 5 provided for support for services to be delivered by a third party. He questioned whether it belonged in Chapter 2. Since it related to funding, perhaps it should be in the same Chapter as the regulations. He was not sure about this proposal.

Ms Bogopane-Zulu was happy with the control over funding. However, she suggested that this clause was not correctly placed in the chapter, as the question of funding was addressed before planning. It must be stated who qualified for assistance. Funding should be addressed after regulations.

The Chairperson said that the clause dealt with broader aspects. The OPA had the same headings, and it seemed that it had been used as an example. He wanted to sure that the Bill was compliant but was now getting confused.

Ms Bogopane-Zulu said that the drafting of this Bill seemed to have involved the cutting and pasting of issues that were not the same.

The Chairperson said that this level of debate was not needed. The Committee should not be involved in the drafting of the legislation. He stressed that this new legislation should be independent of previous decisions as it clearly involved new issues.

Ms Kela said that the Committee needed to assist the Department. The Bill created an enabling environment. There were some generic concepts in service delivery, but specific service areas were handled separately. This approach made sense. If support for service delivery was to be provided by a third party, the nature of the service was irrelevant in this part of the Bill. It was just a mechanism to get funds to an organisation.

Ms Bogopane-Zulu said that the Members and the Department were not finding agreement in their approaches.

The Chairperson noted that it was already late, but the Committee should complete its instructions to the DSD by the end of the week.

The Chairperson asked if Clause 6 referred to anybody other than those people who were already addicted to substances.

Ms Kela said that it referred to all persons who had a dependency or were abusing substances. It also referred to those who were affected by substance abuse, such as family members.

Mr Loselo said that the term was explained in the chapter on definitions.

The Chairperson said that the wording started as being narrow and clear, but moved towards being vague. He cited the instance of a person who would commit theft in order to pay for drugs, and asked if the victim of the theft would be a person affected by substance abuse.

Ms Kela said that children had to be educated. Other applicable areas were crime prevention and the use of drugs for research purposes. There were some inputs from the Department, and there were also issues about prevention.

The Chairperson concluded that the clause should indicate all strategies to combat substance abuse. In the OPA and Children’s Act there were specific issues relating to these people. There were certain broad principles regarding vulnerable people. Acts which afforded protection could be seen as akin to “mini-Bills of Rights”. He felt that the efforts in this Bill were clearly directed to the combating of substance abuse, and that programmes to combat the supply side were outside of the ambit of the Bill.

Ms Kela agreed.

The Chairperson said that the Bill was dealing with dependent people. A wide class of people could be described as being affected, and he believed that this definition was too vague. There was in the clauses a statement of the principles to inform any intervention regarding substance abuse. This could include research, and there would be a full range of interventions which would be co-ordinated by the CDA. There had to be synergy between both aspects of the Bill, and he felt that as it read there were too many areas of discrepancy. 

Ms Bogopane-Zulu said that the principles dealt with access to services. This should include provision for disabled people and those with special needs. There was mention of issues of age and gender, but children had to be recognised specifically, and their interests should not be mixed with those of their elders.

The Chairperson was worried about what was emerging from the deliberations on the true form of Chapter 2. He wondered if the guidelines and principles should be kept in this Chapter. He wondered if they should be amplified. The Chapter might have to be reorganised. Clause 6 went beyond services such as research. There was a gap in the combating of substance abuse.

Mrs H Weber (DA) suggested that the reference to efforts be removed.

The Chairperson said that the guiding principles dealt with combating substance abuse. Clause 3 listed a full range of interventions. The chapter on the CDA dealt with demand and supply. The second clause of the chapter should explain what was meant by combating substance abuse. It might be advisable to list demand and supply side interventions. The third clause should list the principles of intervention.

Mr Frank Jenkins, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, said that Clause 3(2)(e) had to be much more specific.

The Chairperson said perhaps more than just the principles should be stated in the Clause. There should perhaps be a sub-clause that would list international approaches and examples of what was meant. The principles could be kept here; alternatively consideration should be given to restructuring of Chapter 2. He would prefer to see the Bill restructured, and the principles clause perhaps moved elsewhere.

Ms Kela said that the meaning of combating should be set out first, and then the principles could then follow.

The Chairperson said that he would be prepared to accept that. The concept of an integrated response could be a primary concept. There should be an outline of what combating substance abuse entailed. There could be two sections to deal with the aspects of supply and demand. The matters that may be dealt with could be listed, and the results of tests given. Outlines for combating substance abuse could be set out. Priorities should be listed, and these should not be confined to treatment.

Ms Bogopane-Zulu felt strongly that there should be guidelines, and that these should come first.

The Chairperson disagreed. The third area was that of integrated response. This should be both private and public. There needed to be a culture of collaboration with the different departments. There should be an expansion on Clause 3 (2) (e). Key information was needed. There should be inter-sectoral collaboration.

He asked if the norms and standards could be applied more broadly. He asked how wide they could be made.

Mr Loselo said that the section was well located. This would indicate what the context was.

Ms Bogopane-Zulu read through Clause 4, which she commented was merely in the form of a list.

The Chairperson said that the section on regulations should be included in the chapter on general provisions. These could not apply to support structures. The norms and standards related to the regulations. It would be confusing if these were kept in Chapter 2. It might not be possible to re-allocate these to separate areas.

Ms Kela said that the remarks of the Committee were confusing her. The DSD had been told to be consistent, and it had tried to adopt a consistent approach in drafting the OPA, the Children’s Act and this Bill. In the Children’s Act there had been provisions for the rights of children. The norms and standards in this Bill did make provision for child care. The OPA had the norms and standards in the same location. This Bill was entirely consistent with those two other pieces of legislation insofar as the placement of clauses was concerned.

The Chairperson said that if they agreed on the processes of combating substance abuse then it should be restricted to the demand side. The norms and standards should then either be confined to these areas or should go beyond them. The Bill was not talking to the other fields.

Ms Bogopane-Zulu commented that the clause should be used as an enabler of mechanisms for interventions. These provisions could be moved to Clause 61, which dealt with regulations and the instructions delegated to the Minister. There was therefore no need to have the norms and standards set out in Chapter 2. There should be a separation between services and programmes. She referred to the provisions of the Children’s Act, and did not understand why Ms Kela was confused. The Bill should be looked at as a whole, and enabling mechanisms had to be detailed.

Mr Loselo said that if the guidelines were moved elsewhere then any reference to Ministerial regulations should be moved to the general provisions. There had to be consistency throughout the Bill.

The Chairperson said that enabling areas should relate to the different chapters where they were relevant. It was fine if they were all in one clause. He gave his concept of what Chapter 2 should look like. Clause 6 was too limited, and so was the rest of the chapter. There should have been a place where the gap was plugged. Chapter 2 had to deal with a broader framework. It should talk to government as a whole, and provide a clear mandate. Clause 4 could no longer talk to a broader picture. Demand side issues were to be addressed. General provisions should be moved to Clause 61. In all cases where the Minister was empowered to take action, there should be general provisions set out in Clause 61 to enable this. The power to make regulations could also be included where there was a specific context. It was irrelevant if the structure of this Bill was different to other Bills.

Mr Loselo accepted the decision. There was no point in belabouring the issue.

The Chairperson said this was not necessary unless there were policy differences.

Mr Loselo said the emphasis on the need for consistency had been noted. The wording from this clause would then move to Clause 61.

The Chairperson said this related only to the general provisions. The Committee might feel differently when they continued their deliberations the following day.

Ms Bogopane-Zulu had scanned through the Bill. She had only found a relevant cross reference in Clause 26.

The Chairperson said this confirmed the point. Most other Departments would be dealt with in relation to Chapter 2. The Committee was being dogmatic, but was attempting rather to find a suitable place to deal with collaboration.

Ms Kela noted the decision and undertook to move the clause.

Ms Kela noted that there was a minimum requirement for detoxification. An issue like the testing of children for substance abuse fell within the province of Department of Education. The extent of the incorporation of standards from other departments had to be considered.

The Chairperson said that as Clause 4 stood, norms and standards were set by the Minister for Social Development. All other areas of delivery fell under the DSD.

Ms Kela said the challenge now was acknowledging an integrated approach. She asked if it would still be appropriate. In certain areas the DSD was not competent.

Ms Bogopane-Zulu said this was in important issue. In some cases the Minister of Social Development would have to act in consultation with other Ministers.

The Chairperson said that this was a separate issue. The norms and standards related to the listed services. The DSD had to take the lead, but other Departments would also provide services. The only relevant areas were those in which there was direct service delivery. Facilities like child care centres were the prime responsibility of the DSD. Issues relating to school curricula should be decided in collaboration with the Minister of Education. In some areas the Minister of Social Development would have no input.

He said that a broad statement was needed to reflect that, in developing norms and standards regarding service delivery aimed at combating substance abuse, the DSD had to act in collaboration with other departments. There had to be some kind of uniformity. For example, the Bill must guard against schools isolating themselves and following their own rules. There was a general duty to engage in collaborative effort.

He said that Chapter 2 was still needing to be strengthened as much as possible. The role of the DSD had to be specified, and perhaps the role of other departments as well. This might solve one major criticism. Clause 5, on the question of funding, was particularly directed to the DSD while some of the other clauses were applicable to a broader spectrum.

Ms Bogopane-Zulu read Clause 5 aloud.

The Chairperson noted that it was very broad. It tended to place everything on the shoulders of the Minister of Social Development.

Ms Bogopane-Zulu said this was a direct copy of the provisions in the OPA. The Department should have been more careful only to copy the relevant sections. There were areas of treatment that would be funded by other authorities, such as aftercare and detoxification. The DSD wanted to facilitate these activities. However, the clause should be very clear what the DSD would fund. In some cases the DSD would build facilities and in other cases it would only fund programmes.

The Chairperson proposed a way forward. It was clear that this Clause, as it stood, was dangerous as it could expose the Minister to unidentified obligations. There were specific concepts set out that were not relevant. Some common ground should be created. He asked what had been done in the Children’s Act regarding general government obligations in terms of financial support. He wanted to see this Bill talk to the issue of collaboration and be geared towards co-ordination of funding. In terms of HIV/AIDS programmes, certain people took the same message to different departments. The departments did not talk to each other with the result that the same programmes were being funded by different departments simultaneously. An integrated approach was needed. He asked the officials from DSD for their opinion and if they wished to explore the issue further.

Ms Kela said that the DSD would take its instructions from the Committee. They would rewrite the Bill so that the responsibilities of other Departments could be spelt out. This would prevent the double funding described by the Chairperson. Anything relevant to the DSD only would be moved to other areas.

The Chairperson said that now that Chapter 2 of the Bill had been sorted out, the rest of the deliberations would follow more easily.

The meeting was adjourned.

Share this page: