Economic and Social Rights 2016/17 SAHRC Report | PMG
Meeting Summary
The Committee welcomed the offer by the South African Human Rights Commission to assist the Committee in understanding the issues around special needs housing as that was one of the urgent policy needs that had to be dealt with by the Committee.
The South African Human Rights Commission briefed the Committee on the study of the provision of adequate housing for people with special needs in South Africa by the Economic and Social Rights Research Unit as part of the South African Human Rights Commission on the report on Economic and Social Rights Research Policy Brief 2016-17. The Special Needs Housing Plan (SNHP), its legal framework and recommendations were outlined and discussed, including the trauma experienced by the patients at the Life Esidimeni Healthcare Centre. The SAHRC requested the Committee to ensure the Department of Human Settlement, and its sister departments, had a policy in place and that it was implemented equally and uniformly by all departments, so that the problems regarding Special Needs Housing could be addressed. The Commissioner noted that, when undertaking visits to various provinces, especially to organisations for disabled persons, there was a great outcry from those bodies about older persons, child-headed families and persons living with disabilities who needed special housing.
The Committee was pleased with the timing and nature of the Policy brief as it answered many questions, while posing further questions crucial to the care and wellbeing of persons with special needs.
The Department of Human Settlements explained that, as part of the National Housing Code, the Department currently provided particular housing for persons with disabilities. There were specific norms and standards which could be applied in normal Breaking New Ground houses or rental houses in relation to the needs of those people. When people applied for a housing subsidy, they could indicate their particular type of disability and the province could fund such additional facilities, required by the person, from the Human Settlement Development Grant. The main challenges in terms of developing and implementing policy were those of coordination and operational costs. The Department, through the provinces, would have to provide for the capital costs of such facilities and ensure that norms and standards were applied in such a facility. The challenge was that those costs had to be borne by the relevant department, for example, the Department of Social Welfare or the Department of Health, depending on the special need at play. The Department of Human Settlement could not stand in for the operational costs for facilities. It was easy to provide facilities but, there were operational issues and costs to be dealt with by the other departments. The Department believed that coordination between provincial departments of Human Settlements, that managed its allocation of human settlement grants, with either the Department of Health or the Department of Social Welfare, was possible if properly facilitated.
Members asked if, in an ideal policy environment, the policy would address the concerns that the SAHRC sought to address; if there were figures in relation to what was happening in the various provinces regarding special needs and in relation to housing development; if the policy was seeking a different scope of application, or if it was to enhance what was already in place. Members queried the role of the Department of Social Development and asked what the Department of Human Settlements needed to do as part of that engagement. They asked if direct engagement with municipalities or the South African Local Government Association was possible; if there were figures available for child-headed families; for information about domestic violence in relation to young boys; about the decrease in funding from the private sector and if the SAHRC ever liaised with structures on the ground.
The Committee intended holding a workshop early in the new year and the issue of the special needs policy was on the agenda. The Commission was invited to present at the workshop.
Meeting report
Opening Remarks
The Chairperson welcomed the representatives from the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC). She informed everyone that that would be the last meeting for the Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements for the year. She apologised to the SAHRC for the postponement of the meeting, but the previous week there had been a House sitting in the morning. The Committee was giving the SAHRC the opportunity to present before the House rose for the December/January recess. One of the reasons for giving the opportunity to the SAHRC was that November was the month of looking at people with disabilities. There was almost a full complement of Committee Members and the Chairperson hoped that Members would be enriched following the engagement with SAHRC. She noted that officials from the offices of the Minister and Deputy Minister were in attendance. She noted that although the Department of Human Settlements was in attendance, the DG was not well and had been excused. He was represented by the DDG, Mr Philip Chauke. The SAHRC could be assured that their concerns would be addressed.
Briefing by the South African Human Rights Commission
Adv Bokankatla Joseph Malatji, Commissioner: Older Persons and Disability SAHRC, thanked the Committee for having allowed them to make a presentation. When undertaking visits to various provinces, especially organisations for disabled persons, there had been a great outcry from those bodies about older persons, child-headed families and persons living with disabilities who needed special housing. They had lodged complaints with the Human Rights Commission who, therefore, had to attend to those complaints. When those complaints had been discussed with provincial government, SAHRC found that in two thirds of the provinces there was no policy in place, or they did not know about the national policy. It was the SAHRC’s request that the Committee should at see what it could do, so that ultimately the Department of Human Settlements had a policy in place which was implemented equally and uniformly by all departments so that the problems regarding Special Needs Housing could be addressed. He asked the that the policy brief of the Commission be presented.
SAHRC on the report on the Economic and Social Rights Research Policy Brief 2016-17
Ms Yuri Ramkissoon, Senior Researcher: Economic and Social Right Department SAHRC, said that during the 2016/2017 financial year, the Research Unit within the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) undertook a study on the provision of adequate housing for people with special needs in South Africa. Furthermore, the SAHRC had a mandate in terms of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, to monitor the realisation of economic and social rights (ESR) in the country. The Commission’s 6th ESR report and 2016 Housing report highlighted the need for housing projects to consider the requirements of people with special needs. Despite significant strides made by the Department of Social Development, the Department of Human Settlements (DHS) and Non-profit Organisations (NPO) sector, there was insufficient availability of Special Needs Housing (SNH) and, often, existing group housing was unaffordable to many vulnerable people.
The SAHRC research also showed that in 2016, approximately 94 mental healthcare patients died in 16 non-governmental organisations and three hospitals, after the Gauteng Department of Health (GDoH) had terminated its service provider contract with the Life Esidimeni Healthcare Centre. That figure had since increased. An investigation showed that the NGOs to which people were sent were not equipped to care for mental health patients, none were licenced, some were undergoing renovations, most lacked funding, and the transfer of patients was poorly coordinated and rushed.
The Esidimeni case illustrated not just the need for additional SNH facilities, but the need for institutional funding and capacity. Further, there was a need for coordination of non-governmental organisations that provided such services to the state and people. Following such lobbying by civil society organisations from 1995, the DHS had developed the SNHP (Special Needs Housing Policy) in June 2015.
The Special Needs Housing Plan (SNHP) set out the minimum requirements for applicant non-profit organsations, including eligibility requirements of target beneficiaries and funding arrangements. It described the funding model and costs and specifications, with a list of housing typologies such as foster care homes, safe homes, child and youth care centres.
Two Key Recommendations were:
-To utilise existing structures to ensure the provision of SNH in the short term, coupled with best practice training. Clarity was required on that recommendation because it had not been accepted.
-The development of an implementation plan.
Adv Malatji noted that when the Commission visited provinces, especially disabled people organisations, and other civil society organisations, there was a great outcry about the need for special housing by vulnerable people, especially older people, people with disabilities and child headed households. They lodged complaints with the SAHRC, which then had to attend to those complaints. When they discussed the complaints with provincial governments, two thirds of the provinces do not have any policy, nor did they know about the policy that was there. The Commission, therefore, requested that the Portfolio Committee see what it could do so that DHS had the policy in place and that it was implemented, equally and uniformly, by all the departments so that the need for special needs Housing could be alleviated.
The Chairperson thanked the Commission for the presentation and noted that it was comforting that the interaction between the Commission and departments that was in progress. It was good to hear that a distinction had been made between individual housing needs and shelters. Before comments by the Members, she asked the Department to comment on the Special Needs policy so that Members did not raise issues that had already been addressed.
Source: Parliamentary Monitoring Group
