Public Service Commission Monitoring & Evaluation report on Department of Human Settlements; Nutec Advanced Technology House Building; Issuing of Title Deeds

Meeting report

Public Service Commission Monitoring & Evaluation report on Department of Human Settlements Dr Dr Ralph Mgijima, PSC Chairperson, in his opening remarks said that an important mandate of the Public Service Commission was to strengthen the oversight function of Parliament. The reports that the PSC produced often had great relevance to a number of the parliamentary committees and it was in the light of improving parliamentary committee oversight that they were giving this briefing.

The PSC’s Deputy Director General for Monitoring, Mr Indran Naidoo, spoke on the Monitoring and Evaluation Report, noting that it had been presented to the Department on 25 January with a list of recommendations, which the Department had six months to implement. This was its second assessment, the first being in 2001/2, and in this assessment it had scored extremely well (overall. The Report covered three areas: the background to the evaluation, the presentation of the findings and the way forward. Assessors from the Commission had spent six months at the Department assessing it. They had not looked at everything but had focused on the nine principles of good governance found in the Constitution. As an illustration, how quickly a department moves on misconduct was one of the items that it used in the assessment for Professional Ethics. The Department scored well in most of the categories with an aggregate good administrative governance score total, which was in the top cohort of departmental scores. They believed this was because the recommendations of 2001/2 had been implemented. They had received good cooperation from the Department during the assessment.

Since the last report they had moved from 20% to 75% in Ethics, 80% to 70% in Efficiency & Economy (how well the budget had been spent), 80% to 100% in Developmental State (its contribution to the macro- economic development of the State), 40% to n/a (not applicable) in Impartiality & Fairness, 80% to 80% in Public Participation, 60% to 90% in Accountability, 40% to 100% in Transparency, 80% to 60% in Human Resource Management and 60% to 40% in Representivity.

Discussion
Ms G Borman (ANC) wanted more detail on the human resource backlog and asked why posts were taking on average 39 weeks to fill.

Mr J McGluwa (ID) asked why there was a ten-year gap between assessments. He wanted more elaboration on representivity findings.

Mr A Steyn (DA) was also concerned with the ten-year gap between reports. How was the evaluation done? Was it the average of the years or a specific year in which improvements occurred? How was the process done, was it scientific? Was the process based on paperwork generated or on actual implementation? Regarding the efficiency principle, he said that the Department transferred lots of money to the municipalities and provinces, and this was not necessarily efficient. Regarding transparency, he said the Department had shifted from deliverables such as house completions to one that covered both houses completed and houses under construction and this was not transparency. The Annual Report ignored how many houses had actually been built. Hence there was no synergy between the Department’s budget and actual houses built.

Ms Bam-Ngwenya (ANC) said the report did not reflect what they saw, which was manifestations of non-transparency and non-spending. The demonstrations by public were a consequence of maladies in the Department and this was not reflected in the report.

Ms M Njobe (COPE) asked if there was no link between the function of the Department and the functions of the provinces. What responsibility did the Department have over the provincial governments?

Mr J Matshoba (ANC) said there was a big difference between what was on paper and what was practically experienced on the ground.

Dr Mgijima replied that the core issue was what was being monitored and evaluated. They had mentioned in the introduction that they were monitoring principles found in the Constitution. The challenge was to find the indicators for these principles in its assessments. The indicators were in a continual process of review to assess how appropriate they remained. The ten-year gap was due to resource constraints. They had chosen the annual report as an indicator for transparency as it was the most comprehensive public report. Its assessments were staggered across departments. This assessment was focussed on the National Department, the Provincial Departments had their own reports. They needed skills to assist people to formulate policy. The PSC had evolved a pilot citizens forum in health and social development sectors, as a trial because public responses struck at the core of what policy was needed.

Adv Mamaroba Malahlela, PSC Commissioner, added that the system was evidence based, not based on people’s word. The PSC went out to check houses that had been built. There was a national anti-corruption hotline. Regarding Mr Mashoba’s question, he said the report was not consultant driven. Assessors had spent six months in the Department. On the question on the provinces, he said they had met all the Provincial Housing MECs.

Mr Naidoo commented that there was a disjuncture between national and provincial. He too wanted a shorter time between assessments. He said members should check the provincial reports to compare these with the national departments results. He wanted to put all the reports on a website as this was public information.

Mr Steyn said the fact that the Department did not submit information requested by the PSC could bring the good results of the report into doubt.

Mr Naidoo replied that while the Department had not provided the information, the PSC had concurred with them on the reason the information was not given.

Alternative building technologies for temporary & permanent housing: briefing by Group 5 / Everite
Mr Jurgen Stragier, Managing Director Group 5, said they had a dedicated housing division with an alternative building technologies unit. Although the unit was one year old, the technology that they were presenting was not brand new as they had been working with it for five years. The presentation showed images of three types of buildings: temporary housing, permanent housing using lightweight steel frames and commercial buildings. He pointed out that in America and Australia 30-60% of buildings were not built with brick and mortar. The alternative technologies gave advantages of being faster to build at a lower price with better thermal and acoustic properties.

The temporary houses were 24 to 30 square metres, asbestos free and came with an engineer’s certificate. It could be built in four and a half hours by five people and be dismantled in two and a half hours. The permanent houses were South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) approved and bank approved for purposes of getting a loan. They were not cost effective to build when less than 60 square metres in size but could go three stories high. Commercial buildings like the temporary one at Umtata airport was 1000 square metres and built in seven weeks for 20% less cost. He said they had the production capacity to manufacture 240 houses per week with the ability to double that number.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked how the mindset of the people was going to be changed. The mindset was that if it was not brick and mortar then it was a temporary structure

Mr Steyn asked what G5 was doing to change the mindset. He said the low cost houses looked as if they were made up of panels while the higher cost ones looked like brick houses. He understood that the structures carried less weight therefore did not need a foundation but that the Umtata airport structure looked as if it had a foundation. He asked if the 1500 units in the Eastern Cape were for emergency housing as he had been there recently and no mention had been made of it.

Mr Stragier replied that perceptions could not be changed overnight. They would be pleased if five percent of housing were built using alternative technologies in two years’ time. The mindset change would occur when people experienced it. He said the 1500 houses had been ordered for the Eastern Cape last week. He said structures were a 1/3 to 1/4 the weight of a brick house. The foundation had looked like a strip foundation but was just a façade they had placed there after they realised that the authorities intended keeping the structure there permanently.

Mr McGluwa asked how durable it was against earthquakes.

Mr Stragier replied that the house could handle a magnitude 7.0 earthquake and it could handle strong winds. They were currently supplying a quote to earthquake-prone Chile.

Ms Borman asked how it compared to a same sized brick and mortar house. Would it be blown away by a very strong wind? Were there economies of scale if mass-produced? It had the potential to create jobs locally but it would also reduce jobs in the bricks and mortar building industries. She asked what the level of skills transfer would be.

Mr Stragier replied that economies of scale would lower the cost for mass development. A 40 square metre house would not look like panels but would be plastered. Comparisons could be for either reduced cost or better-finished specifications for a similar priced brick house. Employment opportunities would be lost in the bricks and mortar field but there would be employment opportunities at the job site and new employment opportunities would be created at the manufacturing plant for the panels. There was a 50-year guarantee on the house. That was because the steel manufacturer guaranteed the steel for 50 years. Bricks in normal brick houses were guaranteed for 40 years by its manufacturer. The house would need maintenance like any other house.

A member was not convinced the structure would survive winds, storms and floods because it appeared to stand on a few bricks only.

Mr Stragier replied that those pictures were of the temporary homes. Houses had been blown over but so had the adjacent shopping centre. He said houses were anchored by steel dug into the ground.

A member asked if one could buy such a house as an investment. Would it retain its value after 20 years?

Mr Stragier replied that banks were initially also concerned what prices they would get if a house were repossessed but that it had reflected similar values to brick houses. Banks gave 100% loans for these houses.

Mr Themba Mthetwa, Non-Executive Director Group 5, said they came to help the Department attain its housing objectives. They would like the government to indicate sites to put up show houses to change the minds of people and thus take the process forward.

Mr A Steyn asked if Group 5 participated in tenders. On cost and durability issues, why were they not awarded tenders?

Mr Tabane Zulu, Director General of the Department, said the specification detail of tenders could have hampered them from being awarded a tender. Specifications could be manipulated and the tenders might be specified for brick and mortar and for acceptability by people.

Mr Stragier replied that they had not tendered previously as they had focussed on other sectors of the housing market. Now however they were very comfortable with these products and were willing to put their name behind it.

Ms M Njobe said the mindset of people in the Department should be checked. Group 5 could possibly put houses up in informal settlements to replace their shacks if there was a fire for example.

Mr Stragier replied that they would be willing to go in if a disaster occurred, as suggested, or as in Orlando West where they had built houses to accommodate people whose own homes were being refurbished.

In reply to a question on where such houses had been erected for more than three years, Mr Stragier said that 5 500 temporary houses were put up in Joe Slovo settlement four to five years ago.

Issuing of title deeds: briefing by Department of Human Settlement
The Chairperson said that they were concerned about the selling of government-subsidised houses to non South Africans and this matter needed a policy approach. The purchase by foreigners was causing a lot of resentment and xenophobic feelings.

Mr Neville Cheney, Chief Operating Officer (COO) of the Department, said the registration, transfer and ownership of title deeds of state housing subsidies were the last step of the state housing process. Title deeds were fundamental and important with regard to security of tenure and value. Once registered, title deeds could not be reversed without a court order. The abuse of title deeds was a big issue. People still did not have title deeds two to three years after moving into homes. A lot of title deeds had been processed but not collected by the titleholders. There was a strict process to follow to get the deeds. They were monitoring the deeds process to ensure that there was no double dipping of housing subsidies.

About 1.74 million title deeds had been matched to subsidies. The detailed matching process was laborious and time consuming but ensured that no mistakes were made. Another challenge was that township general plans did not exist in some cases. He gave the example of Kwa Thema Civic Centre, which was sitting on agricultural land. Title deeds could not be issued until the land had been properly zoned. Atteridgeville 17 Township was designed on a portion of land owned by the province. It was not consolidated so there were no title deeds until the township was registered which in turn depended on the land being consolidated. Other challenges were that approved beneficiaries could not be found. There was a need to change the mindsets of people on the importance of title deeds. To avoid delays there was a need to present clear and accurate and full documentation. The Department needed to develop a coordinated early warning system link with the deeds office to inform them to expect an influx of registrations. They needed to implement a community awareness program around the importance and value of title deeds and they were investigating other ways of titling that was not so time consuming and cumbersome. Other possibilities were to link a portion of the housing subsidy to be dependant on the title deed being in the possession of the beneficiary or to link the provision of local government services to the holding of the title deed. This might go some way to preventing illegal occupation or selling of houses to foreigners.

Discussion
Mr Steyn said this was a classic example of what was on paper being different to what was on the ground.
In Janzenville in Limpopo there were people building on ground that did not belong to them. Who facilitated township registration? Counsellors were handing out title deeds contrary to the fact that there was a strict process to follow when it was given to a beneficiary. Who paid the R70 registration fee? Of the 1.74 million deeds that had been matched to subsidies, he asked if this meant the deeds had been given out to people, before even the houses had been built.

Mr R Bhoola (MF) said houses were sold even before the allocated beneficiaries occupied them. He had met with the community and it was havoc on the ground. People had been waiting five to six years for title deeds. A debt release policy needed to be implemented. He knew of a pensioner who owned a huge area of land who had been waiting six years to get a transfer. There were discrepancies between municipalities, some were registering a debt on the deed and some were not. These issues needed to be investigated

Ms Borman asked how many deeds were sitting in municipal offices waiting to be collected. Why they were not being collected was a cause for concern.

Ms Njobe said the Department should have a consistent awareness campaign on the importance of these documents as rural people would have had little experience of these documents.

Mr Cheney said systemic procedural issues needed to be addressed. The 1.74 million had been matched only to a subsidy. The R70 registration came from the subsidy. Counsellors had been an issue and it was not supposed to be happening. The deeds office did township confirmations and it was under the auspices of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. The Department had to monitor municipalities and they had to address the awareness of individuals. It was not as chaotic a mess as mentioned. The title deed system had been inherited from the British and was a cumbersome process. They needed to look into the administration of that.

Mr Tabane Zulu, Director General, said it was a systems issue. A small player in the process could have an impact on the whole process and there was room for corruption. They possibly needed to reduce the number of parties involved in the process down to between one to three. There was a need for a diagnostic assessment of the process. They had inherited the system and they had to change it. He confirmed there were no deeds offices in Mpumalanga and Limpopo.
 
The Chairperson said that, in giving the houses, Government had intended to address asset poverty, where homeowners could get security of tenure and access to loans. He thought that the backlog would only increase.

The meeting was adjourned.