Committee Report on Department of Human Settlements 2013 Strategic Plan: deliberation

Meeting report

Committee’s draft Report on the Department of Human Settlements Strategic Plan and budget 2013
The Chairperson noted that the Committee would, at this meeting, attend to considering the draft Committee report (the Report) on the strategic plans and budget of the Department of Human Settlements (DHS or the Department), given that the budget debate would be held in the following week. She noted that she would like Members to suggest amendments to the draft and the Chairperson and Committee staff would ensure that all agreed amendments were incorporated into the Report, and it would be circulated so that all Members could check their amendments had been appropriately captured before being finally approved.

The Chairperson reminded Members that this Committee had engaged vigorously with the DHS, from 16 March. Page one of the Report related to the policy and legislation guiding the Committee on its oversight of the DHS and its mandate.

Page 2 set out the issues that needed consideration by the Committee. She reminded Members that the strategic plan was presented, in which DHS set out its key plans and programmes, including the Financed Linked Individual Subsidy Programme (FLISP), rectification, accreditation, social and rental housing units that the DHS had committed to deliver. DHS had also committed itself to improving intergovernmental collaboration and coordination, between itself and other state departments.

the State of the Nation Address (SoNA) had made reference to an amount of R47 billion that had been allocated for the renewal energy programmes. Although this Committee was aware that that programme was not championed by the DHS, because it fell within the competency of the Department of Energy (DOE) the President had nonetheless given DHS a mandate to collaborate with DOE in ensuring those programmes came to fruition. In the Report recommendations, there was therefore a comment that this Committee needed to invite both departments again to appear together. The Chairperson said that on a previous occasion, there was discussion on the collaboration between the two departments, but there had been no clarity on what exactly the two departments had planned, what the role of DHS would be, because the project was not simply to be rolled out by Eskom, and how the departments intended to address the issues. The Committee needed to know, for instance, if the DHS had pledged to have a project in Gugulethu Section One. It was also important to check what level of cooperation and collaboration was ongoing between the DHS and Eskom, to ensure that the plans to instal solar geysers in new houses were on track and they were ready to be installed now, not after a couple of years. These issues and others would need to be consider.

Furthermore, she noted that the DHS, when commenting on the issues in the SoNA that affected that department, had mentioned the Green Economy. DHS had not established a clear strategy on the issue of housing for workers living in mining areas. The Committee still needed to engage the DHS more on that issue, even after the budget debate, and perhaps something should be included on the recommendations on that point.

The Committee had been informed that the National Integrated Development Framework was being undertaken by the Department of Economic Development (EDD), and after the budget vote this Committee would need to double check how far the process had gone and how this Committee could ensure that it was kept in the loop in the processes.

Finally, she noted that the DHS had been allocated R28 billion.

The Chairperson did not think that anything much needed to be said about the programmes, but asked other Members for input.

Ms M Borman (ANC) said that she did not want to dispute anything but asked where the National Upgrading Support Programme (NUSP) fitted in.

The Chairperson replied that NUSP was under Programme 3.

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) said that he thought more was needed in the report on sanitation. It was a priority project, yet there was only a brief reference to it in one paragraph.

The Chairperson said that the Members should double check their notes on sanitation. She recalled that it had been raised under Programme 4, when the DHS had referred to the Rural Households Infrastructure Grant (RHIG), but she understood that Mr Mokgalapa was concerned that there was nothing actually fixing sanitation as a priority area. That should then appear in the recommendations. She reminded Members that the Committee could make recommendations to the DHS even if it had not presented specifically on a certain topic, because sanitation had been prioritised under the Strategic Infrastructure Projects of government. In fact, it was an obligation for this Committee to raise it and ensure that it was included as a SIP priority.

The Chairperson noted that the total budget allocated, for the delivery agreements under government Outcome 8, was 31.07% of the budget.

She noted that when DHS had done the presentation of its strategic plan, there was some confusion between the national priorities and priority projects and outcome eight. She suggested that DHS needed to defined what a “national project” was, and set out who made the decision that something was a national project, and then explain the difference between a national project, and a priority project, and outcome eight projects. The Committee had understood that outcome eight set the government strategic focus.

Mr R Bhoola (MF) asked whether the issues of conditional grants would merge with outcome eight. In view of what the Chairperson was saying with regards to a particular project, he suggested that perhaps emphasis would need to be placed on the conditional grants and how these would align with the relevant projects.

Mr Mokgalapa agreed with both the Chairperson and Mr Bhoola about the confusion and reminded the Committee that he had asked why there were national priorities and priority projects and outcome eight. To compound that even further, there were also strategic intervention projects, and the mining towns were listed at the top of the priority projects. He also did not understand why DHS was saying that there were national priority and priority projects, and agreed that it was necessary to know exactly how the conditional grants fitted in, and with which projects or outcome. DHS must be asked to clarify this. He had not been on this Committee in 2012, and he was not sure who came up with these terms. He had understood that the priority projects included Lephalale, but understood that some mining towns were added in 2013. However, he was still unclear as to what took precedence.

The Chairperson said that in 2012 the Committee had understood that there had been 20% allocations for national projects so that the DHS could cover emergencies, but there definitely needed to be a follow up on that.

Ms Borman said that she did not want to confuse the issue, but if the Committee looked at the delivery agreement for outcomes set for the 2014 target, on page seven, that should translate to the figures on page eight. However, there was not a correlation between them. She would have thought that accelerating the delivery of housing opportunities would have been including the upgrading of informal settlements. Delivery had taken place of 400 000 housing units. She wondered if the figure given was the balance of what was left for 2013. The same needed to be explained for the affordable rental and land parcels. She wondered how the target of 600 000 would link in.

The Chairperson said that those figures were outcome eight targets for 2014. That was in the report, but the way the DHS had explained it to the Committee had been confusing. The informal settlements upgrading was covering 29 sites and 37 000 units. That would then leave a deficit of 146 000 in the target for the 400 000 units. That was her understanding on that aspect. The DHS had compiled figures in its reports, but something was still missing because the SoNA had clearly said there would be upgrading of 400 000 informal settlements, and those households needed to have tenure. She pointed out that the provision of a serviced site, with a title deed, meant tenure, even if the beneficiary was to construct the house himself. However, in regard to the sites quoted, the Committee was not sure if they were to be distributed to people in Somerset West as an in situ upgrading, or if people were to be relocated to the 37 000 units. DHS had been asked questions on this but had not responded.

Mr Mokgalapa interjected that the package figure was 400 000 households. However, there was a difference between a housing unit and a household. The figures that Members had seen did not speak to 400 000 households, but related to something different.

The Chairperson suggested that, for the time being, Members not try to deal with new issues, but should engage DHS on how it had understood the SoNA and how it was responding to it, as it came up with outcome eight.

Ms Borman agreed with the Chairperson. The figures in the report had come from DHS. However, the Committee must know how many had been delivered of the 400 000.

Mr Mokgalapa interjected that the DHS had said 147 000.

Ms Borman still thought that there was a deficit of 147 000. DHS had delivered 37 000 units on the 29 sites. The issue was whether that added up to what had been delivered in previous years, since some of the figures had been recorded since 2009. However, the Committee needed to get to a point where the DHS figures linked up properly to something that the Committee could monitor. She noted that what the Committee was doing now was correct because it was isolating the issues that needed further attention from the Committee, and ensuring that the Committee report would be correct.

Mr Mokgalapa commented that the Chairperson should check the facts before the final report was produced. During the Committee’s strategic plan debate, the DHS had given the Committee the Millennium Development Goals and outcome 8 progress report, in which it stated that it had delivered 127 000 out of the targeted 400 000 units.

The Chairperson replied that there was another report, but the staff and Chairperson would not alter presentations received from the DHS but quote them directly.

Ms J Sosibo (ANC) believed that the deficit of 147 000 referred to what was left to be delivered in 2014, according to the plan, and there were 200 000 or so outstanding units.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) asked whether there was any report on rectifications from Gauteng and KwaZulu Natal, as he noted that only the Eastern Cape was mentioned in the draft report. There was also nothing on the North West province.

The Chairperson said that there was no breakdown given on the first day when the DHS had produced only the 600 000 figure, and the Committee had requested the DHS to give a breakdown when it returned to the Committee.

Mr Mokgalapa asked whether the Committee could adopt the report without the breakdowns.

The Chairperson replied that it could, because this was what was presented to the Committee. However, there could be amendments made to the recommendations.

The Chairperson asked if Members thought there was anything that had been left out in the comments section of the draft Report.

She believed that the draft had left out the concerns Members had expressed, when the DHS had reported that National Treasury (NT) had approved the budget for the organogram, but not the organisational structure. The Committee had agreed that it was going to make a follow up on that. She wanted that inserted, as it did not appear on the comments, and needed to be noted up front so that the Committee could make a follow up on that point.

Ms Borman wanted to know what sort of “slide” was being referred to in the line reading: “The DHS reported that the budget was not in line with its organisational structure but all programmes were catered for within the R28 billion; that a slide of R3 billion had been added.” She also noted that this related to the Urban Settlements Development Grant (USDG) and Human Settlement Service Grant.

The Chairperson replied that the comment probably was referring to a presentation slide.

The Chairperson she was not sure whether the Committee had received the list of municipalities that had been accredited. There was a need for that list, so that the Committee could assess, when doing its oversight, whether those municipalities had capacity or ability to deliver human settlements.

Ms Borman commented that there was mention of the USDG used, when discussing the provincial allocation of the grant for that period, but what was then listed were the priority projects. She asked where the table was that was giving the USDG figures. She asked that the right table must be included.

The Chairperson said the Report had included two paragraphs from the Minister’s briefing on 14 May, which had been important to note because the Committee had interacted with the Minister. She had not read the Report, but she noted that she insisted on verifying the information, and had told her staff that they should make sure that any areas that the Committee isolated must be corrected, but she herself would be making sure that she read it through in detail before it was finally adopted. She reiterated that the draft Report would be circulated again, once amended, to ensure that the final draft captured everything. If any Member thought of anything after this meeting, she asked that they put it in writing.

Mr Sithole said that there seemed to be no recommendation focusing on RHIG.

The Chairperson replied that the decision had been made in this Report rather to focus on sanitation holistically. It had now been noted that legislation was needed to transfer the sanitation function legally from Department of Water Affairs (DWA) to DHS, because the institutional arrangement was in place and DHS now had the Programme Management Unit (PMU). That was going to be a recommendation on sanitation broadly.

Ms P Duncan (DA) asked whether it would be correct to say RHIG was a national priority programme.

The Chairperson said that the Financial and Fiscal Commission (FFC) was correct and consistent in saying at a recent meeting that when RHIG was introduced, it was a priority project intended for rolling out water and sanitation facilities to rural areas. However, she reiterated that the DHS had a problem of “speaking in tongues” and its meaning on the status of the programmes and projects was not clear.

Ms M Njobe (COPE) asked why the draft Report was vague. If the Committee was speaking about legislation on sanitation, this should be stated.

The Chairperson replied that that was exactly what she was saying. She reminded Members that the recommendations, as they appeared in this draft Report, had been prepared by the Committee staff. However, she would ensure that she refined them.

Ms Borman said that she was thankful for the Chairperson’s and staff guidance on the budget vote.

Members agreed to adopt the draft Report, with the amendments suggested at the meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.