PC Public Works: Consideration of Oversight Visit Reports

Meeting report

Ms M Mabuza (ANC) welcomed Committee Members, made apologies and then opened the meeting by informing members that they would start with the report on their oversight visit to the Eastern Cape.  The Chairperson took the members through the report one page at a time asking for corrections or comments. 

Corrections to Writing Style
The majority of suggested corrections comprised of edits to style and grammar; changing future tense to past tense, rephrasing of sentences and breaking up long sentences and paragraphs for ease of reading, omitting commas, finding synonyms, formalising the language and the use of capitalisation. The secretary captured all these changes. 

Corrections to Content
There was one correction made to the content of the report for accuracy: a bridge that the Department of Public Works was responsible was used by 300 children each day, not 400 as was stated in the report.

Suggestions for Clarity
There was one site mentioned in the report that the Committee members had been unable to visit. On this point, Ms Mabusa (ANC) suggested that the report be written so that readers of the report would clearly understand that this site looked good on paper, but that they had been unable to visit it and make an assessment.  Ms Madlopha (ANC) recounted how they were taken out that day with the intention of visiting the project, but were told that it could not be reached by road. 

Mr L Gaehler (UDM) added that even the Mayor had not been able to visit the project in person, which showed that there was no monitoring system in place for the project. This was captured by the Secretary.

In section 5.9.5 of the report, the Researcher was asked to clarify what was meant by “definition of state land”. 

The researcher explained that the lack of clarity on this point was due to the way it was explained by Mr Pretorious at the Eastern Cape Office regarding their predicament in finding a solution to property vesting. The office has had difficulty vesting property since it couldn’t be clearly stated whether it is provincial, state or municipal property.  She said that the definitions need to be unbundled, but not by the Committee.

Ms Madlopha (ANC) suggested that Members change the report to say that there was no clarity on land ownership rather than using the term ‘definition of land.’

The researcher and secretary were asked to rephrase the way that the matter of consultants was presented in the report to reflect that it was the ‘continuous use’ of consultants rather than simply the ‘use of consultants’ which was a concern to the Committee, and that this was a concern because it had not allowed a transfer of skills to the employees of the institution. 

The researcher was asked to clarify point 8.2 on page 25 which had to do with the need for both parents to produce IDs in order to get grants which presented various difficulties for grantees. 

She explained that this was a requirement of the Department of Social Development (DSD), and it was therefore decided that this was a matter for DSD and did not belong in the report under review. It was decided that it would simply be raised in this section as a matter that needs attention of the DSD and to channel it to them.   This was agreed and captured by the secretary.

Breakdown of Spending
In section 4.8.2 the Secretary was tasked with finding out exact figures of how funds were allocated in order to assess if there is enough budget and what is being used for stipends.  This was similarly the case in Section 4.9 where the total of R87 000 was reported but did not specify what this was spent on. 

Format of Report
On page 26 the sequence of conclusions and recommendations was queried and it was agreed that the Secretary would go and check the template from the previous year’s report and make sure that the order in which conclusions and recommendations were presented is consistent.

Mr Gaehler was concerned that the format of the report was not good because the findings and recommendations were not clearly distinguishable.

Mr Gaehler then summarised the findings from the report which were as follows:  the over-reliance on consultants; people with disabilities not benefitting; what is on paper does not match reality; lack of intergovernmental cooperation; lack of monitoring of officials; technology that is adopted must have a provision for its entire lifespan; tender documents are not DPW compliant; the business sector needs to plough back to development projects; there is no one to assist at some projects; no maintenance plan for the hanging bridge; the problem of the National Department in Eastern Cape not knowing what land Mr Gaehler’s concern was that these findings do not directly talk to recommendations.

However, the Committee agreed to adopt the report with the corrections and suggestions that the secretary had noted.

The Chairperson then said that it would not be proper to deal with the second report, which was on the oversight visit to the Northern Cape, as the Committee had run out of time.  She requested that the Members all go make their own notes on the report and come back to discuss it at the next meeting.  This was accepted and it was decided to end the meeting.

Announcements
The Chairperson announced that the Secretary would be on study leave for two weeks and while she was gone there would be a stand in.

The Chairperson then announced that due to the appointment of a new Minister for Public Works, that it would be important for the Committee to meet the new Minister before the end of the year.  The Secretary was requested to set up a meeting with the Minister and highlight urgent issues for the Minister’s attention.  The Committee Members were requested to put forward all their ideas for this meeting at the next meeting.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee welcomed the appointment by the President of the new Minister, remarking that it was sad that the last one didn’t work out, but urged the Committee to support the new appointee.

The Secretary asked the Committee if they felt that Entities should be invited to report to the meeting with the new Minister, but it was agreed that the first meeting should be an in-house meeting only, so that the Committee could have a frank discussion and build a relationship with the new Minister. It was therefore agreed that the meeting with the CEOs of the Entities would take place on 8 November 2011, and that a separate meeting with the new Minister would be set up.

The meeting was then adjourned.