Evaluation of National Housing Subsidy Scheme: briefing by Public Service Commission

Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE

PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
16 March 2003
EVALUATION OF NATIONAL HOUSING SUBSIDY SCHEME: BRIEFING BY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

Chairperson:
Mr PJ Gomomo (ANC)

Documents handed out
Evaluation of the National Housing Subsidy Scheme presentation
Summary of Draft Report on Evaluation of National Housing Subsidy
Report on Evaluation of National Housing Subsidy Scheme (should be available on
www.psc.gov.za by mid-July 2003]

SUMMARY
The Public Service Commission presented the findings of the Report on the evaluation of the National Housing Subsidy Scheme to the Committee. In the ensuing discussion, a point was raised about the lack of consultation with other concerned Departments, including the Department of Housing, before the presentation of the Report. Figures were requested that would demonstrate the extent of the housing backlog in the country. The issue of 'fly-by-night' construction companies was also raised.

MINUTES
Public Service Commission presentation
Prof Lavine (Deputy Director-General, PSC) conducted the presentation. He went through the points outlined in the summary report which was handed out.

Discussion

Mr Gomomo (Chairperson, ANC) alluded to the recommendations listed in the report. He asked whether the report had been presented to the Cabinet eleven or to Parliament at any time prior to this.

Prof Lavine replied that they had not presented this report to any of the Cabinet Members. The Portfolio committee was the first body they had presented this report to.

Ms Mentor (ANC) referred to the Project Typology section of the report, specifically the part that lists the categories of Project Size. She asked whether the Public Service Commission (PSC) delegation was sure that the numbers in the brackets referred to people and not unit structures.

Prof Lavine confirmed that the numbers in the brackets referred to units.

Ms Mentor referred to the subject of skills transfer. She asked whether the report was referring only to skills required for formal jobs in this regard. She asked whether they had not tried to looks at skills such as carpentry and other such informal skills that are often unaccounted for.

Ms Singh (Director, PSC) replied that various skills had been identified and introduced to specific projects.

Ms Mentor raised the issue of the housing backlog. She suggested that the delegation was not quantifying how serious the problem is. She asked whether they had any suggestion about how long it would take to address the housing backlog.

Prof Lavine quoted figures provided by the Department of Housing in 2001 as being above 500 000 in Gauteng and above 400 000 in Limpopo Province. He said that they would provide the Committee with an overall national figure at a later stage.

Ms Mentor referred to the subject of living environments, as mentioned in the recommendation section of the report. She asked what they meant by living environments: whether they were referring to the residents' immediate environment around their homes or the eco-system.

Prof Lavine replied that they were referring to the residents' immediate environment.

Mr Abrahams (ANC) asked how this report slotted in with reports and surveys done by the Housing Department. He also asked whether cognisance had been taken of work done by other Departments such as the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and even that of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. The report may have been more beneficial if it embraced the evaluations from other clusters to get a more comprehensive view.

Mr Waters (DA) suggested that the next time such a report was being presented to them, they should invite the Housing Portfolio Committee.

Prof Lavine explained that the Report was a very independent evaluation done by an independent organ of the state. The report is not aimed at enabling these links between the different government Departments. Other reports which sought to do this would.

Dr Roopnarain (IFP) thanked the PSC for the report, likening it to a barometer. She asked if they could get figures regarding the housing backlog.

Prof Lavine gave figures provided by the Department of Housing in 2001, stating that the backlog was above 500 000 in Gauteng and above 400 000 in Limpopo. They would give the national total at a later stage.

Dr Roopnarain revealed that she felt that after the actual provision of housing, the issue of the provision of water, even before electricity, would follow in importance. She said that she would have liked to see the report make mention of this.

Ms Maloney (ANC) asked whether there were any rollovers that they could speak of when referring to the housing backlog problem.

Ms Singh responded that the Department of Housing had done studies from which it was projected that the rollover would be 320 000 per annum.

Ms Maloney referred to the findings of the report on the issue of the lack of awareness on the part of those who could qualify for housing subsidies. He asked for specific percentages.

Prof Lavine said that they could not provide a figure at that particular point, but they would like to do a study that would go beyond the scope of this particular report. This would provide them with a figure regarding the lack of awareness. He concluded that the lack of awareness did appear to be quite high.

Mr Waters raised the issue of 'fly-by-night' construction companies. He asked how they suggested that the problem be addressed.

Prof Lavine replied that the issue of 'fly-by-night' construction companies was an important one. He said that perhaps now the procurement framework might lead to better quality assurance in the procurement process.

Mr Waters asked whether the issue about wooden houses was ever raised, explaining that they were cheaper and easier to erect.

Prof Lavine replied that they had not really looked at this, but that it was valid point and was noted.

Mr Kgwele (ANC) referred to the power-point presentation, highlighting the point pertaining to Local Authorities. This was a crucial recommendation, especially because it relates to the poor and the most vulnerable. Development had not really taken place in these communities. However, he asserted, the report did not tell them of a 'circle' of housing development, that is, the timeframe in which a person applying for a housing subsidy would be able to see their house off the ground.

Mr Bell (DA) reiterated the same question, asking how long it took for someone who had applied for a housing subsidy and who qualified before they could actually witness a constructed building.

Prof Lavine replied that they had not really quantified the waiting period, but that it varied. He commented that in the Public Satisfaction Survey, this was one of the areas wherein the Department had scored low. This also came back to the issue of the project cycle.

Mr Kgwele commented on the issue of capacity. He stated that the transformation of the public service, overall, might be able to help them address some of the problems pertaining to housing.

Mr Mohlala (ANC) warned that he would be making a general comment. He stated that the provision of housing was one of the more important policy statements of this government. It was therefore their responsibility to ensure that the objectives of the government are realised. The most worrying point was that those who were benefiting from the process were not even the intended beneficiaries. He was specifically referring to the 'fly-by-night' companies. In conclusion, he stated that the identified problems brought forward the question of policy implementation. On a balance of evidence, and despite the problems, he asserted that the government had done well in this regard.

Mr Bell brought up the issue of tender procedures. He knew that in certain areas municipalities had been given the right to take over building responsibilities. He asked whether this was true for all provinces.

Prof Lavine replied that this was taking place more and more, as prescribed by national legislation.

Mr Bell sated that the main problem encountered by the beneficiaries of housing schemes in rural areas was the poor quality of housing. He asked for comment in this regard.

Prof Lavine replied that the issue of quality emerged as a major concern in the Public Satisfaction Survey.

Ms Singh commented that findings showed that housing quality varied in different areas, although there was no clear correlation between quality standard and specific areas and provinces.

Mr Ernstzen (Deputy Chairperson, PSC), in conclusion, stated that any report they presented to the Committee had recommendations. Moreover, these reports were inter-linked and as a collective would create a broader picture. They now had a dilemma, he asserted, when and how they should broaden the focus in any of their reports to the Committee. He felt it more important that they interact with the Committee on critical reports. Linking to the point made by Mr Mohlala about the 'balance of evidence', he stated that the fact that a million houses had been built by the Government was certainly an effort. This report was in no way meant to water down this effort. A great deal had been done but there was still a great deal more to do. He conceded that what they had learnt today was that perhaps they should have engaged in more of a consultative process with concerned Departments before making the presentation before the Committee.

Mr Gomomo said this was why he had asked whether this was the first time that they had presented the report. He suggested that perhaps the Committee needed time to consider all the PSC reports as a collective. The general problem of Committees was the lack of follow-up. Since recess was about to commence, the Committee ought to look at all the reports for this quarter.

Mr Gomomo referred to the trip to the United Kingdom and India. The ANC had chosen Mr Mthembu to fill one of the two seats offered to them. He would also recommend that Dr Roopnarain fill the other seat.

There was no objection from Members.

It was agreed that the Committee representatives would be Mr Mthembu and Dr Roopnarain.

The meting was adjourned.

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: