Update on issues raised during oversight Visit: briefing North West Provincial Department on Human Settlements
Meeting Summary
The North West Department of Human Settlements briefed Members on progress registered, challenges encountered, and issues that need to be attended to following the Committee’s oversight visit. The presentation covered the illegal occupation of 405 housing units at Naledi Local Municipality; tranches and Special Investigation Unit investigations at Ba-ga Phuduhucwana and Naledi; rectification; the provincial housing backlog and informal settlements; a municipal audit to identify land for housing; developments at the Rooigrond Housing project; and an update of housing projects at Letsopa Extension 5, Delareyville Extension 7, Swartruggens; and the Moses Kotane projects at Saulspoort, Ramokokastad, Mogwase and Mabaalstad, and the Popo Molefe informal settlement. Challenges consisted of problems with developers and contractors and geotechnical issues related to the North West being dolomitic.
The Department reported that it had entered into an agreement with the Housing Development Agency (HDA) with a view to identify public and well located land to expedite housing delivery in line with Outcome 8 deliverables. To date 259ha of land has been purchased in Ventersdorp Local Municipality. With the assistance of the HDA the Department had planned to purchase another piece of land in Coligny for this financial year. The aim of the purchase is to address the housing backlog in that area, particularly for people who are residing on areas that are on a flood line. Currently the department received a report from the HDA indicating the transfer of Farm Rietspruit 594 JQ to the Rustenburg Local Municipality for sustainable human settlements purposes as well as Portion 48 of the Farm Klipgat 249 JQ to Madibeng Local Municipality.
Members indicated that the Committee was against rectification. There was concern about the lack of new building projects, low expenditure by municipalities, and service backlogs. There were objections to developers and contractors running the show, as it was phrased. There had to be more information on informal settlements. Contradictory reports on the presence of dolomite caused concern. The Department was cautioned about the NHBRC. Members were concerned about the lack of fit between units erected and beneficiaries. Members called for more thorough planning before building.
The briefing on sanitation noted that advertisements had been place to attract more players. There was compliance with the audit. Sanitation was a long process and there had been delays. Municipalities had to know which contractors were working in their regions. R57 million had been allocated to the North West for sanitation. There was permanent funding for sanitation through the Municipal Infrastructure Grant.
Members agreed that sanitation had become a major problem, and that the Committee was seeing no improvement. No sanitation in rural areas was said to have also become a health problem. The capacity of Independent Development Trust as service provider was questioned as was the fact that more was allocated to them than to Mvula Trust. There was underspending everywhere. There was the feeling that people on the ground were being exploited through high sanitation unit prices. Members asked for cost breakdowns according to raw materials, labour and maintenance. A member objected that the Department had given misleading information about the bucket system, which was still in operation. A member noted that private companies were offering solutions, and yet Independent Development Trust was still persisted with, although that company itself had indicated lack of capacity. More stakeholders had to participate in the costing of units. Quantity surveyors had indicated that the current sanitation project plan could not work. The Chairperson stated that Parliamentary intervention would be sought. Local municipalities were uninformed about the sanitation programme.
Meeting report
Briefing by the North West Provincial Department of Human Settlements
Mr Thupi Mokhatla, Head of Department: DHS North West, noted that the purpose of the presentation was to provide the Committee with a progress report on all the issues it had raised during the recent oversight visit to the province. The oversight activity was to visit respective projects to assess the state of delivery in the province.
Discussion
Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) told the Head of Department (HOD) that he would make a good spokesperson for the Department. His report had been very evasive, but comprehensive as well.
Mr Mokgalapa stated that the Committee did not encourage rectification- it could result in fruitless and wasteful expenditure. It might have been unavoidable up till then, but steps had to be taken to avoid it in future. Much money had been spent on what had become known as old new projects. It was tragic that no new projects had been undertaken in the North West. Resources were still used for projects that commenced in 2002. There was planning, but it was planning backwards.
Mr Mokhatla responded that HODs countrywide had decided against rectification. It happened that houses were built and had to be rectified within 6 months. Henceforth, contractors had to be registered City Improvement District (CID) and NHBRC contractors. Moving away from rectification was a process, and it could not happen overnight. A case had to be built against it. The Department was dealing with old new projects. There was a need to streamline this. Past issues could not be ignored, and there were also new issues to be looked at. Land had been secured at Ventersdorp for new projects. There was pipeline planning. A workshop had been organised by the National Department.
Mr Mokgalapa said that the Committee had received the Departmental report on Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) funding. He asked why it had not been spent. The report did not look good. There was a backlog in services, and money had not been spent, or spent on wrong projects. There was low expenditure in the municipalities, and non-compliance with Section 71.
Mr Mokhatla replied that dealing with MIG funding was the responsibility of local government. It was not possible to move if this sphere of government did not spend.
The Chairperson noted that Outcomes 8 had to be clear. Access to basic services had been allocated to the Department. MIG funding would be available if the Department wanted to build.
Mr Mokgalapa objected to the fact that contractors were running the show. Contractors could not be responsible for beneficiaries. He asked why there were developments where the amount of beneficiaries was not in line with housing units. Sometimes 700 would apply, and only 200 could obtain housing. Units had to be matched with beneficiaries.
Mr Mokhatla replied that it had been decided that decisions about beneficiaries would no longer be left to contractors. Municipalities had to interact with the Department about that. The quantum had formerly contained an item for administration of beneficiaries. That was no longer allowed.
Mr Mokhatla responded that if there were 1000 subsidies but only 800 beneficiaries, the subsidies were relocated to other areas. Projects without beneficiaries would be closed out. Municipalities had to make sure that they received accurate information about beneficiaries from the MEC. The demand register could provide accurate figures. In the past allocations had been made without asking about the number of beneficiaries. That was no longer done in new projects.
Mr Mokgalapa referred to informal settlements. 42% of settlements had no services at all. It had to be known which ones could be upgraded. There had to be more information about upgrading. The Department currently had a good map, but service delivery remained unchanged. He commended the demand register.
Mr Mokhatla responded that an informal settlement atlas had been handed to the Department in April. An analysis could be conducted and the Department could report on that.
Mr Mokgalapa noted that VIP targets were always used. He advised that alternative water technologies be looked into. There were contradictory reports about dolomite in the North West. It was said to be everywhere, and yet some investigations contradicted that. The presence of dolomite was used to block projects. He asked if the Department was receiving any help from the NHBRC.
Mr Mokhatla replied that the North West was dolomitic. The first phase would be a technical investigation on the kind of soil. In most cases reports were non-existent or old.
Mr Mokgalapa pointed out that the Department had been silent on tribal land issues. There were settlements on such land where some had water and some not.
Mr Mokgalapa asked if housing standards were being improved by fitting kitchen sinks.
Mr Mokhatla replied that there was also a demand for ceilings. Decisions had to be made between fittings like verandas and sinks.
Mr Ndoda Ngemo, Chief Director, North West, added that there had been compliance regarding dolomite on the part of the Provincial Department. Communities were involved. The MEC had to say why there could not be building in an area, and where people had to be taken. There was trouble when new studies contradicted the previous ones. Sinks and ceilings would be costed.
Ms M Borman (ANC) commended the efforts of the North West. This was a tough situation to manage. During oversight the Department had been honest and upfront with the Committee. With regards to planning initiatives, she remarked that new ground had last been broken in 2004. Since that, little planning had been done before structures were erected. A meeting had been promised during the visit about the 405 invaded houses. It was stated that this meeting would take place soon, when would this be?
Mr Mokhatla responded that meetings would be held within the next 4 weeks.
Ms Borman remarked that contractors and developers had proved to be shoddy and fraudulent. She urged that the situation should not be perpetuated in future through giving work to the undeserving.
Mr Mokhatla agreed that bad contractors had been used. Contracts were being terminated, as had happened at Kheteng. He did not know if that contractor would sue.
Ms Borman said that there had to be certainty about the facts around rectification. The Department had to have a business plan, and had to do an assessment. There was a total backlog of 11000 houses. Money should be made available to remedy this. The last statistical survey had been done in 2007. Much had changed since. Total figures related to informal settlement, were needed. She asked about time frames.
Mr J Matshoba (ANC) voiced his concerns about the NHBRC. It had taken long to deal with the situation of the 405 invaded houses. In the Eastern Cape municipalities used their own companies.
The Chairperson invited the Mayor of Mafikeng to comment.
Cllr Lenah Miga, Executive Mayor of Mafikeng, noted that the Department had met with the Committee, and that people at Rooigrond would not be evicted. There was a need to engage with traditional leaders. There was no water in the Mushawana area.
Ms M Njobe (COPE) asked what happened when a project was planned for 1000 beneficiaries and there were only 800. She asked what happened to subsidies, and if all monies were used.
Mr Mokhatla replied that most projects had been approved long ago. It sometimes happened, as at Moretebe, that the lives of occupants had since improved, and they were currently formal households. The project had been planned 7 years before. When a person no longer needed a subsidy, it was taken to another.
Ms Njobe asked if all funds could be accounted for.
Mr Makhotla replied that all funds could indeed be accounted for.
The Chairperson remarked that a summit was needed. She questioned whether a subsidy taken away due to improved circumstances was a fair process. The Committee had to invite technical councils to clarify about dolomite.
Cllr Miga remarked that the provinces were not hearing from the National Department about disasters and emergencies. When houses were blown away, municipalities did not have the authority to build houses. Municipalities had to know where to go in an emergency.
Briefing on sanitation
Mr Nono Maloyi, MEC for the North West, noted that there had been advertisements placed to attract more players. There was compliance with the audit. Sanitation processes took long. There had been delays. Municipalities had to know which contractors worked in the regions. R57 million was provided to the North West for sanitation in the current year. There was permanent funding for sanitation through the MIG.
Discussion
Ms Borman remarked that sanitation was a huge problem. It had become an elephant in the room. The Committee was fed up with it. It became a Committee responsibility. There were legislative problems. No sanitation in the rural areas posed a health hazard. Service providers were not providing. R32 million had been awarded to IDT in 2010/11 and there were no completed units. Oversight had to follow money, but the Committee could not go to every municipality. Service providers had in some cases not been appointed, and things were going backwards. The National Department was responsible for overseeing MIG funding. There was underspending everywhere. A report from the Department of Water Affairs had suggested a budget for the unit.
Ms Borman asked about minimum and maximum prices for units in the North West. She had the minimum price as R7000. A cost breakdown had to be given, as regarded materials, labour and maintenance. She advised that the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) be approached to find out what skills and knowledge was available. The problem had to be approached from the point of view of health.
Mr Matshoba remarked that the Committee had been told by the National Department that the bucket system no longer existed, but Mayors were saying that it was still there. The National Department did not know what was happening. He objected against the employment of people from other provinces, as was the case with using people from Kimberley for the Eastern Cape. That was where corruption started. IDT was mentioned everywhere. Things had remained unchanged since 2010.
Mr Mokgalopa wondered, amidst laughter, how the elephant mentioned by Ms Borman had managed to get into the room. The question was how to get it out. Target for the Rural Household Infrastructure Programme (RHIP) had not been achieved. The Water Department had said that it would take over sanitation. He asked what criteria were used to choose areas. Some rural areas had not been listed.
Mr Mokgalapa asked what was done with shortfalls from previous years. Sanitation was a big issue everywhere. Private companies were saying that they had solutions. Yet IDT were being persisted with, even though they themselves had said that they lacked capacity. The Minister had to be asked about that. The whole issue could not be driven by emotion or politics. It was shocking for South Africa in 2012 to still have a bucket system.
Mr Matshoba advised that Parliament intervene.
The Chairperson questioned the fact that there was a flat rate for all the provinces. Only the National Department was currently involved in costing. The question was whether other stakeholders had to participate. Stakeholders had declared the price of a unit to be R9000. Money was being paid with nothing happening. There were challenges around IDT. Issues were not being addressed. The Committee had been told that there would be a recovery plan. The Department had agreed with the PC the year before that the IDT plan was too good to be true. Quantity surveyors had said that the plan could not work. IDT figures had been amended so as not to overburden Mvula Trust. IDT was servicing 18 departments. There was uncertainty among the PC about IDT performance. Intervention would be sought from Parliament, because there was no output.
Mr Phillip Chauke, Chief Director in the DHS, said with regard to allocations to service providers that it was not clear who would work at which municipalities in the current year. When the 3 year allocation was made, it was only in terms of who would be with IDT.
The Chairperson remarked that there had been no change. She asked why more had been allocated to IDT than to Mvula Trust.
Mr Chauke replied that IDT had tendered 2 years before per municipality.
The Chairperson remarked that IDT had received R32 million, and Mvula Trust R11 million.
Mr Mokgalapa noted that Bojanala had not been allocated to. He asked on what basis allocations were made.
Mr Chauke replied that allocations were based on backlog figures. Urban areas received more.
The Chairperson objected that IDT was being consistently justified. She asked about costing of units.
Mr Cyprian Mazubane, Director of the Sanitation Unit, said that part of the unit cost was made up by other services. The DHS had still been with the Department of Water Affairs when costing was developed, and later worked with the Department of Cooperative Government and Traditional Affairs (COGTA), who managed the MIG allocation. Stakeholders would develop an inclusive unit cost.
Mr Matshoba remarked that people on the ground were being exploited. He asked how many consultants were involved in the unit cost. The Committee had to be informed what the raw materials would cost. Jobs were being created for consultants.
The Chairperson remarked that the Department of Water Affairs had suggested single and double units, and movable and non-movable units. Costs could be lowered. She asked who the stakeholders were in costing.
Mr Mazubane replied that the most critical after COGTA was SALGA.
The Chairperson remarked that the Department did not deliver for SALGA. There had to be a structure from national to provincial to local.
Mr Matshoba remarked that local municipalities did not know about programmes.
Mr Chauke responded that the Department had declared the previous year that it would henceforth be performance based. 70% of contractor wages would be based on completed units. Programmes had been explained 2 weeks before in terms of MIG and RHIP. Municipalities would assume responsibility for sanitation in the following year.
The Chairperson insisted that it would have to be under Departmental monitoring and evaluation. The question was how the Department was managing its sanitation mandate.
Mr Chauke replied that Mayors had to know the percentage of the MIG for water and sanitation, which was 70%. Municipalities were being taken through that.
Mr Maloyi remarked that it caused problems when the 10% allocated to rectification, was not spent.
Mr Chauke added that in inhouse departmental team worked with the provinces.
Mr Maloyi concluded that honesty would be needed on the way forward. Politicians had come up for criticism. Administrators had been appointed to advise politicians.
The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.
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.