Housing Beneficiary List Review Plan, Implementation of Joe Slovo Constitutional Court Judgement: Progress Report

Meeting report

Reviewed plan for beneficiary lists
Mr Mziwonke Dlabantu, Acting Director General Department of Human Settlements was accompanied by Mr Johan Minnie, Chief Director: Management Information Services, Mr Joseph Leshabane, Chief Operating Officer, Ms Rashnee Parhanse, Intergovernmental Relations, National Department of Human Settlements.

Mr Minnie briefed the Committee on the reviewed plan for the beneficiary list. He told the Committee that municipalities did not have capacity to effectively execute the responsibility of compiling beneficiary lists. The programme that would be introduced by the Department aimed at addressing some of the challenges and gaps that government faced with the beneficiary list process. During the implementation of the strategy, a housing needs survey would be established and a municipality would ensure that the particulars of all the persons identified during the survey were recorded on the National Housing Needs Register.

The National Housing Needs Register had been established and would be the only official register from which prospective beneficiaries would be drawn. The selection criteria however would focus on a first come first serve basis, and families with children and women headed households would be prioritised. The third level would be indigent families with disabled people and the aged.

The Chairperson and some of the other Members were not happy with the fact that private companies were compiling the list on behalf of the Department.

Implementation of Constitutional Court Judgement about Joe Slovo Community: Progress Report
Ms Christelle van der Westhuizen, Director: Intergrated Business Solutions, National Department of Human Settlements, took the Committee through the progress report on the implementation of the judgement of the Constitutional Court case. The Constitutional Court judgement affected Phase 3 and 4 of Joe Slovo.

The court case was the result of an application made to Western Cape High Court; inter alia, to evict occupiers of the Joe Slovo settlement by the previous Minister of Housing, the Provincial Minister of Local Government and Housing and Thubelisha Homes.

The Constitutional Court confirmed the order for eviction, but it said that those evicted must be consulted with first and must be given alternative housing. Also, 70% of the new formal houses to be built on that land must be allocated to former Joe Slovo informal settlement residents who apply for and qualify for this housing. It had to ensure that the alternative housing met the Court-specified quality of housing necessary for the temporary relocation areas (TRAs); and maintain an ongoing process of engagement between the residents and the respondents.

However the Provincial Minister of Housing in the Western Cape was not happy with the court ruling. He expressed reservations about the immediate implementation of the court order. The court order made no provision for the balance of the occupiers moved to the TRAs and who could not be moved back to the permanent housing constructed at Joe Slovo. This was despite many of the people at Joe Slovo were moved to Delft and some would be moved back to Joe Slovo once construction was completed.

Mr Joseph Leshabane then took the Committee through the strategy document that had been given to the Committee. He told the Committee that the Department of Human Settlements was not about building houses, but about building communities. The strategy was in line with the mandate of the African National Congress and the Freedom Charter.  He told the Committee that the Department was working closely with other government departments who played a crucial role in the formation and delivery of community services.

The Committee felt that some of the matters raised in the presentations by the Department needed to be discussed in a workshop and thus some of the questions raised were not addressed at the meeting.

Discussion on Review Plan for Beneficiary Lists
Mr T Botha (COPE) said that it was clear in the presentation that the Department was facing a number of challenges in the establishment and identification of a beneficiary list. He asked if the developer had a list before building the houses or if they would build the houses then go to the municipality for the allocation of the houses. If they built the houses first without allocation, the houses would be vacant waiting for the allocation process to be concluded and during that time those houses would be vandalised.

Mr Dlabantu, Director General, replied that the Department had confused many things in the process of implementing the programmes. There were many issues with the definition of a developer. However Government was a developer in the provision of the houses.  There were instances where the contractor was given the lists and given the task of allocating the houses and that was not right. However, the contractor had to be isolated from the process, and their task should be limited to building the houses. 

Mr Botha asked who was in charge of compiling and verifying the list. There was always a discrepancy between the original list and the final list.

Mr Dlabantu said that systems were being put in place to ensure that the people who were receiving houses were the intended beneficiaries. There were also instances of corruption in the process and it was being reviewed.

Mr Botha asked how the Department dealt with the issue of backyard dwellers. Whenever an area was identified for development, people would move to that area, even though there were backyard dwellers living in that area for many years. Because the backyard dwellers did not cause problems, they would not be prioritised.

Mr Dlabantu said that systems were being put in place to ensure that the people who were receiving houses were the intended beneficiaries. He said that there had to be a quota to ensure that backyard dwellers were included in the allocation of RDP houses.

Ms M Borman (ANC) asked if the term ‘backyard dweller’ included domestic workers who were living at the houses where they were working, staying in the cottage rooms at the back.

Mr Dlabantu replied that the Department included everybody who was not the primary owner of the property, but who occupied it. Many domestic workers tended to register for a house in the areas that they were from. However if there was a plan to develop houses in the areas that they lived in, then they would be considered for a house in that area. The Department had realised that people moved from one place to another. Even if a person had registered in Eastern Cape, they could get a house in Cape Town if they had moved to Cape Town.

The Chairperson clarified that many people confused the issue of the developer. The developer in many instances was national or provincial government. The province delegated powers to the municipality to conduct the list. The contractor built the houses, but was not a developer. A contractor could not manage the beneficiary list; his role was to build the houses.

Ms Borman said that there were two types of people when it came to providing RDP houses, there were those who could afford to get a bonded house and there were those who could not afford a bonded house and thus qualified for RDP houses. Some people stayed in informal settlements because they had businesses in those areas. They did not want to move out of those areas because they had already built a clientele base. The beneficiary list had to be monitored and controlled. There was a lot of corruption when people were drawing up the list of beneficiaries. She asked what a guideline was the Committee drawing the list given by the relevant stakeholders.

Mr J Matshoba (ANC) asked if the Department took into consideration the fact that people’s status changed all the time. A person might earn a degree and get a better job while living in an RDP house or who had applied for an RDP house. Many would view the system as being corrupt, forgetting that people’s lives changed all the time. People were even building villas in RDP areas. 

Mr Dlabantu agreed that people’s status changed all the time. A person might qualify for an RDP house today, yet tomorrow it could be found that they do not qualify due to changes in their financial status.  In an audit that they had done, it was found that many people were not qualifying for RDP houses, however when the matter was investigated, it was found that those people had qualified at the time the lists were drawn up. The date that was considered when a person was being assessed for qualifying for a house was at the time of application. So a person whose life changes would not be excluded.  The people would be subject to a policy preventing them from selling the house within the first 8 years.

Mr R Bhoola (MF) said that the issue of authentication of the list called for great concern. The mandate and the powers awarded to the various bodies, including municipalities and the groups compiling the list, did not match the capacity that those bodies had. 

Mr Bhoola asked the Department to explain how it arranged the final list of beneficiaries.

Mr Dlabantu replied that if 5000 houses were being built near a settlement of 20 000 who had all applied for houses, there had to be a formulae applied to determine who would benefit from those houses. There was a communication campaign being run in communities to let people know how the lists were used.

Mr Bhoola asked how the Department dealt with challenges where the houses had to be demolished because of inferior quality.

Mr Bhoola said that he was concerned by some of the matters raised in the presentation with regards to the legislation. Scrupulous lawyers and estate agents influenced people to sell their houses for a small amount. The legislation said that it had a time frame of 8 years to address that matter. He asked what the challenges were and did the Department think that 8 years was enough to deal with the matter.

Mr Bhoola asked why there were councillors living in RDP houses, not only having one but many other RDP houses. Councillors had to be excluded from drawing up the list and only the municipality had to be involved.

The Chairperson interjected saying that councillors were part of the municipalities. They were the core of the municipalities. Members of the Committee had to be very careful about how they used terms. Everything in a municipality was built at a ward level.

Ms M Njobe (COPE) said that when government was building houses, they had to take into consideration the environment that the houses were in. RDP houses built in rural areas did not complement their surrounding and thus they spoilt the image of the rural areas. People ended up not occupying the houses because of the poor quality and the design of the houses.

The Chairperson asked what were the terms that were given to the service providers in charge of collecting the names of beneficiaries in the communities. What measures did the Department have to ensure that the service providers did the work properly?

Mr Dlabantu replied that the Department had made use of the services of Nkonki & Nkonki. They helped the Department design the programme, and also the invitation and implementation. The main point of having a service provider was to ensure that the process of compiling the beneficiary list was not manipulated. Nkonki & Nkonki collected the names for the Department and helped clean out the previous system. Those were the kind of service providers that the Department was looking for.

Mr Minnie said that the responsibility of the service providers was to ensure that the department officials received the information. The questionnaire that was given to the service providers was standardised.

The Chairperson said that she had a problem with service providers, as the Department was not aware of how the service providers treated the people on the ground.  The Committee members experience on the ground was different to what the Department was saying. The Committee wanted facts and not stories.

Mr Dlabantu replied that the service providers in the Western Cape made use of local people who were aware of the issues that were happening on the ground.

The Chairperson said that the answer still did not satisfy the Committee. There were areas that the consultants failed to go into. Employing consultants did nothing to solve the problems and thus the Committee wanted to know how the Department worked with those service providers. The Committee did not want information on the Western Cape, but on what would be done in the Eastern Cape.

Mr Dlabantu said the matter was a management issue. Someone in the Department managed every contract. The Department however did not have a full plan on what would be done in the Eastern Cape.
           
It was then suggested that a workshop with the Department was necessary to address some of the questions raised by the Committee. Both the Committee and the Department agreed that a workshop should be organised to deal with some of the issues raised in the meeting.

Discussion: Progress Report on Implementation of Judgement of Constitution Court Case
Ms Borman said that the Committee was not there to interrogate the report, however she felt that the Department had given the Committee a very comprehensive report.

Mr Bhoola added that the report by the Department was very informative and he welcomed the report.

Mr Matshoba asked if the communities spoken about in the report were organised communities, because if they were not organised properly the Department would not know with whom to liase in the communities.

Ms Christelle van der Westhuizen, NDHS, replied that the community groups were very organised. They had legal representation and the Department was comfortable with dealing with them.

Discussion: National Human Settlement Strategy
Mr Botha asked if the Department was communicating with other departments that it needed to work with. Human Settlements would be able to provide houses, but not bulk infrastructure that was much needed by the communities. However, he felt that the matters raised in the meeting required a workshop, as not all of them could be discussed fully in the meeting.

Mr Dlabantu agreed that there should be a workshop between the Department and the Committee on the matters raised in the meeting.

Ms Borman said that the programme envisaged by the Department was huge and would need a lot of coordination. She asked if the Department was referring to all the departments mentioned in the presentation when it spoke about institutional realignment. 
 
She asked if the National Department of Human Settlements would control some of the functions of the sphere of government that provided water and sanitation and was there an agreement in place for this.

Mr Leshabane replied that the Department was not proposing to take over functions of other departments. There had to be mechanisms to achieve coordination with regards to priorities. There simply had to be mechanisms to better coordinate projects that need more than one department.  And this answer also applied to the question on realignment.

Ms Njobe asked if the Department was getting support from the departments involved in matters of human settlements.

Mr R Mdakane (ANC) said that he was not sure how the mandate of the Department was linked to the National Planning Committee.

Mr Leshabane replied that the Human Settlement mandate was different and the dialogue was in the clusters. However there was indication that the Department was waiting for a strategy that it could respond to and that the strategy was on the question of interface. The Department believed that there was specific input that it was making to the national plan. The Department wanted to see mechanisms for development and that was something that they wanted to work on.

The meeting was adjourned.