Meeting with the Kenyan Committee on Transport, Public Works and Housing; deliberations on the revised version of the Rental Housing Amendment Bill B21-2011

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed the Kenyan parliamentary delegation. She explained the mandate of the Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements and gave a brief history of housing in South Africa. The Portfolio Committee performed an oversight function over the Executive; guided by the Constitution and Parliament’ legislative framework. It was also mandated to give guidance to, and evaluate the Department of Human Settlements’ programmes, strategic plan, quarterly as well as annual reports. The Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act had been passed in 2009 and empowered parliamentary committees to review the budget of the department. After 1994, a number of legislative reforms had taken place including the adoption of the White Paper on Housing and promulgation of the Housing Act of 1997 which guided service delivery. When Jacob Zuma became President in 2009, the portfolio name was changed from Housing to Human Settlements because it was now catering for housing as well as social and economic amenities. Before then, Cabinet had in 2004, adopted the “Breaking New Ground” strategy aimed at developing comprehensive sustainable human settlements. With the new government in 2009, the upgrading of informal settlements was prioritised.

Black South Africans had been dispossessed by the apartheid system and had lost their property rights. However, after independence there was an increased influx of people into the cities looking for economic opportunities and the unplanned migration resulted in the mushrooming of informal settlements. Mandates of the Committee included ensuring service delivery and access to land. The country had a social housing rental programme, through which subsidised accommodation was implemented. Public participation in the Committee business was guaranteed. Through oversight, progress on implementation of programmes was evaluated and challenges were deliberated upon and discussed with the Minister. Since 1994, the government working through the Department of Human Settlements had provided three million housing opportunities.

Mr David Were, leader of the Kenyan delegation and Chairperson of its Committee on Transport, Public works and Housing briefed the Committee on Kenya’s approach to housing and the problems it faced in service delivery before and after the formation of the Government National Unity (GNU) in April 2008. The purpose of the visit was to familiarise their Committee with South Africa’ housing policy, exchange ideas and engage the Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements on matters of common interest. The Parliament of Kenya had 12 Departmental Committees and 27 other Committees specialized in various functions. His Committee oversaw four ministries: the Ministries of Transport, Roads, Housing and Public Works.
 
The Departmental Committee was mandated among other things to: “to investigate, inquire into, report on all matters relating to the mandate, management, administration, activities, operations and estimates of the assigned Ministries and Departments”. The Committee was made up of 11 members and three out of the total formed a quorum. The delegation had learnt a lot from South Africa’s Portfolio Committees on Transport and Public Works which it had already met. Kenya currently had a Government of National Unity (GNU) due to a United Nations-Britain brokered agreement following the disputed 2008 elections that left about 500 people dead.

The GNU had led to the creation of a number of ministries which increased from 27 to 42. The Ministry of Housing had divided its programmes into two, one that catered for government projects and civil servants and one dealing with slum upgrading which sought to address the shortage of reasonable accommodation. The government was looking into ways of involving the private sector in tackling the problem of informal settlements due to budgetary constraints. Construction of houses had began in Kiserian probably the largest informal settlement in Africa which had an estimated population of 250 000 people in 2009. Although the Ministry was developing low cost housing for the inhabitants of informal settlements, after receiving the houses most of them either sold them or rented them to other people and returned to the slums.

One of the problems faced by their Committee was an insufficient budget to deal with accommodation problems. The Ministry had estimated that if no other ways were found to capitalize the budget it could take 100 years to deliver on housing. The country’s budget was tabled on 27 April and the other eight members of the Committee had remained behind to review the budget. The law allowed each member of society a right to housing which was putting the government under pressure to deliver on adequate, reasonable accommodation. The Act empowered members of the public to sue for lack of housing. South Africa had problems, considering what had happened before 1994, but it had 18 years of experience in handling accommodation problems. As such the Kenyan Committee had come to learn ways of addressing the challenge.
 
Discussion
Ms P Duncan (DA) said the two countries had a lot in common in their housing problems and history. How many women ministers were there in the executive?

Mr Were replied that the Kenyan parliament had 224 members, 210 were elected, 12 nominated plus the Speaker and Attorney General. The question about how many women were Members of Parliament had been asked by the other two Committees as well. All parliamentary seats in the 210 constituencies were contested for through universal suffrage and the winners were elected as MPs. People had the liberty to elect female or male candidates but most of the winners had been male. Out of 224 members only 22 were women, about 10% of the total number of members. That explained why there were only 11 women in the executive. His Committee did not have any no women members. The new constitution was trying to address that set up but each constituency seat was fought for. The exception was that provision had been made for the creation of states that would fight for 47 seats. Each state would have a women candidate but if the number of elected women did not make up a third, then beginning from the next election, a nomination process would be entered into.

Mr Kaino said that they had observed that most parliamentary committees in South Africa were headed by women. There was a need for Kenya to focus on gender equity but people generally disliked women candidates.

Ms M Borman (ANC) said the problems faced by Kenya in housing were almost similar to South Africa but the latter was battling with a silo mentality. The Department had created a number of departments to deal with the challenge and the initiative was beginning to bear fruit. How was Kenya handling the issue of cooperatives and what was its unemployment rate?

Mr Were replied that a number of cooperatives were no longer functional. The political problems that rocked the country first in 1992 and the recent election violence of 2008 had destabilised the sector. Cooperatives were strong in previous years, especially in agriculture, but they had been lost along the way.
 
Mr Chanzu, Member of the Kenyan Committee, said the Minister of Cooperatives was looking at reviving the sector and the new constitution was putting together legislation to create cooperatives. There were some cooperatives in his constituency mainly for women who could not access money from banks, but no concrete structure had been put in place to address the challenge. The unemployment rate was 40%.

Mr R Bhoola (MF) said budgetary constraints faced by Kenya were worrying but South Africa was not faced with the same situation. While Kenya was in the process of reforming its constitution did it visualise problems that might be encountered in the future and how was the government ensuring the right to housing for all when it faced financial problems. Was the Kenyan government introducing measures to deter commercialisation of subsided houses so that objectives of addressing poverty, homelessness and property ownership were met?

The Chairperson referred to Mr Bhoola’s comment, saying what he meant was money was not the biggest challenge, rather it was how to manage resources optimally and efficiently.

Ms M Njobe (COPE) said black South Africans were previously denied access to urban areas and were concentrated in townships such as Soweto but under the new dispensation people were free to settle in places of their choice. However accommodation in urban areas was failing to keep up with increasing in-migration which accounted for informal settlements dotted around the country.

The Chairperson said the government had since 1994, committed itself to providing accommodation to the poor through the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) but it was also faced with the problem of commercialisation of the subsidised houses. Similar to Kenya, unscrupulous business people and some beneficiaries were taking advantage of the system by selling the houses or building shoddy houses. The government had identified the problem and measures were being undertaken to rectify the situation and bring culprits to book. Nevertheless, a lot of money had been lost and more would be lost until badly constructed houses were rectified. To stop government subsidised houses from being sold, the Housing Act stipulated that the beneficiaries were supposed to keep the houses for eight years before they could sell it for economic benefit. There was no programme designed to assist public servants with housing but they could get bonds from banks. However a fund had been announced by the President to assist people without guarantees to obtain a loan from banks.

The Chairperson explained that there were 12 committee members and seven made a quorum. The Committee would undertake a study visit to Kenya to learn more about how it dealt with accommodation problems.

Mr Were said slum upgrading was a serious challenge in Kenya. Every person had the right to affordable and reasonable housing, safe and clean water in adequate quantities, to be free from hunger and the right to education, which was putting pressure on the government. The government was considering ways of bringing in the private sector to help and would create independent states with an elected governor who would not be reporting to the president so as to easy pressure on Nairobi. Initially the states would be funded by the government but later they would be expected to generate their own income. The houses that were subsidised by government were not given for free but were built to a certain level and the beneficiaries were expected to pay a certain percentage as rental. Despite houses being built, the slums were not disappearing because the beneficiaries rented the houses to other people to generate money but they themselves returned to stay in the shacks.

Mr Chanzu said a Construction Development Fund (CDF) taking about 2% of the budget had been set aside in each constituency for various development projects and there was the Farm Worker Assistance Development Programme (FWDP). Also, a Youth Fund and Women Fund had been established to empower these groups through entrepreneurship programmes.

Mr Boaz Kaino, Member of the Kenyan Committee, wanted to know who owned the land on which the informal settlements in South Africa were located. Did the government face any opposition from the occupants when they wanted to move them to other areas in order to commence development?
 
The Chairperson said the land belonged to both the private sector and the government. It was a problem relocating people from informal settlements when new developments had to be constructed, especially when they invaded privately owned land. If the area was overpopulated, there was need for de-densification to allow for in situ upgrading of the informal settlements. Women and the youth had a dedicated ministries and the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA) had been created and reported to the Presidency.

Mr Chanzu wanted to know the total South African budget for this year.

The Chairperson answered that this year’s budget had reached R1 trillion but Human Settlements had R236.5 billion including budgets for its allied agencies.

Mr Chanzu wanted to know the absorption rate of the Department’s expenditure.

The Chairperson replied that the Department spent about 80% of its allocation but during evaluations the Committee had established that some funds were not spent. It was important for governments in Africa to exchange ideas on different issues of governance and development.

Ms Duncan (DA) gave a vote of thanks on behalf of the Committee. The Committee was happy to have had the engagement and was looking forward to paying a study visit to Kenya to familiarise itself with housing matters and ways of addressing the socio economic challenges faced by the poor members of society. The delegation was urged to continue empowering women so they became active in politics and governance.

Mr Chanzu said the delegation was grateful for the opportunity of engaging the three Committees and they had learnt much and were looking forward to the Committee visiting soon.

Revised Rental Housing Amendment Bill
The Chairperson informed members that the Committee was going to deliberate on the revised version of the Rental Housing Bill which would be adopted next week before submission to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). The Gauteng Rental Housing Tribunal (GRHT) was going to submit its comments on the Bill although it had defaulted when other stakeholders had presented their submissions at the hearings. The GRHT was to present only on the issue of evictions and the appeal process which the Committee was battling with. Other issues had been agreed on already. The Department, Parliament Legal Advisor and the State Law Advisor had been asked to find a workable solution to the issue of appeals. While the appeal process was necessary, the holdup was on the approach to be taken.

Gauteng Rental Housing Tribunal (GRHT) & Local Government and Housing Department submission
Mr Trevor Bailey, GRHT Chairperson, said the GRHT had not meant to be disrespectful by failing to table its comments in time but most of its members had been away when trying to convene a meeting on the Bill. The submission was going to be limited to the appeal process and evictions. The GRHT did not in principle object to appeals per se because in December 2010 it had put up a proposal that had incorporated appeals. The question to ask was whether it was applicable in the current Bill. Gauteng had previously proposed to deal with its issues as a separate entity but decided against the idea in the interest of a unitary state. Often, it felt as if it was being held back by what was happening in the rest of the country. In 2010, Gauteng had a backlog of 160 cases and currently it had 310. The best solution to the conundrum was that instead of having three or five members hearing a case, one member would do so an appeal process comprising of three members could then be provided. That proposal was suited to dealing with the cumbersome process that entangled the appeal and structural problems of the tribunal. Another solution was to set up an appeal system within the Rental Housing Act which would make provision for the appointment of other members separate from the tribunal, specifically for hearing appeals, to ensure partiality. Alternatively, the appeal members would be members of the tribunal who would not have heard the case but that proposition came with cost implications. The Gauteng Tribunal was the busiest in the country and had since 2001 received over 13 084 complaints. Of these, only 16% were not resolved informally or through mediation. Over 90% were resolved through agreements between parties and none of its rulings had been reviewed in the High Court. The Committee was welcome to visit its offices and see the procedure they had developed which was unique in the country, the continent and could be unique globally. They had adopted an inquisitorial “conversational” procedure as opposed to adversarial approaches used in other courts. As such 95% of the cases were solved through interaction between parties.

The Act made provision for the Department to provide training for information officers and the tribunals, but the GRHT was proposing that a dedicated fund be established for that purpose. Municipalities were battling with training information officers and hence the fund would help to solve the problem. Mr Bailey said he would like to present on other GRHT propositions.

The Chairperson told Mr Bailey to stick to the purpose of the submission.

Mr Bailey said on the referral of evictions to competent courts, it was an unnecessary process but damages awards were necessary. In the case that the MEC powers had been removed by the Minister, it should state “must” make the regulations so that provinces could function properly.

The Chairperson said the matter had been addressed already.

Mr Bailey noted that in Gauteng, interviews were held for the appointment of members to the tribunal. On the issue of the Consumer Protection Act, the legal fraternity was not agreed whether it was applicable to the Act. In Gauteng the Rental Housing Act overrides the Consumer Protection Act; as such they were looking for guidance from the parliament on the matter. They wanted the term of tribunal members to be in line with that of the Competition Tribunal and the Consumer Tribunal who served for five years as opposed to the current period of three years, and as in the Competition Act any Chairperson can not sit for more than two years in that position but could be appointed as a member of the tribunal.

Discussion
The Chairperson said Mr Bailey had made a valuable observation on the Consumer Protection Act issue and the Committee would engage the matter.

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) was frustrated that the GRHT was making valuable suggestions at the tail end of the deliberation process which was complicating the debate. Members wanted to avoid a situation of making legislation for the sake of it. It wanted to make it as practical and applicable as possible. The GRHT could have made the submission earlier and he felt that they were “robbing” the system. What was the rationale behind one person hearing the case and three others standing only for appeals, the purpose of conducting interviews for tribunal members and creation of a dedicated fund? The fact that Gauteng was doing well on appeals meant that it was, therefore, unnecessary for the whole nation?

Mr Bailey said he was sorry that GRHT had inconvenienced the Committee. The Act did not provide for interviews but as per GRHT tradition they always held them because some persons could be great on paper but lacking in skill and also for transparency purposes. Most matters of the tribunal were of a lesser amount than the Small Claims Court, which had one person hearing the case and reviews were done in the High Court. The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) had one commissioner hearing cases and reviews were done in the Labor Court. Having one person hearing the cases would expedite the delivery of justice while under the current system, the appeal was conducted before one magistrate, reviewed by three judges, five in the Supreme Court of Appeal and if it went to the Constitutional Court, it would be nine judges. The GRHT had no problem with the three members of appeal, adding that it would help GRHT achieve 100% delivery and clear the backlog in three months. It was receiving complaints particularly from students from the University of Johannesburg who were being abused.

Ms M Borman (ANC) said the submissions were not entirely different, especially on the appeals, with regards to the fact that it was necessary to have people who had not heard the case before. The issue of creating a dedicated fund needed further consideration because it was valuable.

The Chairperson told Mr Bailey to stop going in circles. It was good that Gauteng was making progress but the Act was not about a single province but how to manage rental stock in the poorest villages. Valuable issues that had been raised by the GRHT would be deliberated upon together with the Department, the State Law Advisor and the Parliament Legal Unit. She asked whether members were prepared to stay longer to hear the recommendations from the Parliament Legal Unit and the State Law Advisor.

Ms Njobe suggested that the Committee must ask for a full day on Wednesday 16 May to deal with the deliberations.

The Chairperson said they could hold the National Assembly debate on 23 May. 

Ms Borman said this suggestion was appropriate since other members would be committed to other committees next Wednesday.

Mr Mokgalapa said it was important that particular attention be paid to the Bill in National Assembly so that it would not be returned by the NCOP with further amendments.

The Chairperson said it was the tradition of the Committee to ensure this. Two Bills had been passed without any problems and there were fewer amendments done in the NCOP after approval.

Recommendations by the Parliament Legal Unit and State Law Advisor
Adv Charmaine van der Merwe, Parliament Legal Advisor, Parliament Legal Unit, said that they had received two submissions from the Social Housing Regulatory Authority (SHRA). The first referred to clear distinction of the state in respect of rental housing and the other dealt with appeals. In respect of the former, it made the proposal that increasing the rental amount and deposit should be regulated. The proposal was set out in clause 14 that deals with Section 15(fB). The Minister may make regulations relating to “the clarification method for escalation of rental … as contemplated in the Social Housing Act, 2008 (Act 16 of 2008)”. If the Committee were comfortable with the comments, the drafters would empower the Minister to make specific regulation relating to rental amounts and deposits. While there were norms and standards that could address the matter, it would not harm to include the submission in the Act.

The second submission was from Mr NaNandi Simone from I AM Rights Empowerment, who said the tribunals did not do justice to the applications that were lodged before them. His proposal could not be put into law because it was more of an oversight function which the Committee, through the Department, could handle better. Mr Simone had proposed that evictions be made possible via the tribunals. However, evictions were a constitutional amendment which could not be catered for in the Bill as stipulated in Section 26 which says it must be an order of the Court and tribunals had no such status.

She turned her attention to the proposals made by Gauteng about training, the Consumer Protection Act, the term and interviews of tribunal members and damages awards. GRHT was proposing that a dedicated fund be established for the training of information officers and the tribunals. The Department would need to handle that through a line function in their budget because setting up a fund was not permissible according to PMFA regulations as the Department could only hold money in the form of a grant.

The Chairperson referred to the SHRA proposal about the creation of a state funded rental project which involved cooperatives. This was unnecessary because its legislation talked to the issue of cooperatives. The Committee had raised the concern that cooperatives were not well placed in SHRA. However, a new Bill specifically dealing with the issue was underway. The issue of Community Residential Units (CRU) programmes was contested but the Department would have to come up with a Comprehensive National Rental Plan.

Mr Mokgalapa said SHRA was not supposed to shy away from its mandate but should do its job by making cooperatives work.

Ms Borman said it was not necessary to establish a special fund for training because that could be dealt with through the Department’ line function. The Committee would, through oversight especially during quarterly reports, ensure that the mandate was carried out, lest more problems be created.

Mr Mokgalapa said it was untenable that a fund be created.

The Chairperson added that the Department had a programme for training marketing through which the matter could be dealt with. The creation a fund would not be allowed by National Treasury.

Adv van der Merwe said general amendments should be left until the final deliberation process. The final edit of the Bill was necessary to ensure that an applicable solution to the appeals was reflected. The GRHT proposal of having one person hearing the case and three handling the appeal was possible – but how to set the qualifications could be considered.

Mr Mokgalapa reiterated that the legislation was not being created for a particular province but nationally. As such, a solution applicable to even the rural areas was needed. The Western Cape had suggested that it would require seven members because it was incapacitated. Gauteng was comfortable with only four members. Other provinces had problems with that arrangement. The solution had to be applicable across the board to avoid a management crisis.

Adv van der Merwe said the Department had proposed to set up an appeals board that would handle the matter. Previously, the Parliamentary Legal Unit had suggested a national board to deal with appeals nationally, but the Department had objected to this as it was conducting research on the best solution globally. The Parliamentary Legal Unit said the Department should create a national housing appeal authority – if possible an independent public entity. In the interim, the structure of the tribunal could be altered to include the appointment of two deputy chairpersons who would chair every committee when the chairperson was not a member of the hearing but dealt specifically with appeals. If the qualifications for the chairperson had to be changed to include legal expertise and knowledge of rental housing it would be possible to use one person for appeals. The precedent could be found in corporate governance, where the chairperson would provide guidance whenever board members could not agree on an issue, and there was nothing in law that prohibited such a proposition. The appeal would thus be changed from an appeal as in the judicial process to an administration appeal as was the case in some European Union countries.

The Parliamentary Legal Unit was concerned with the MEC becoming the appeal mechanism as that would pose a risk for bias as the provincial department owned rental stock. In contrast, in the tribunal, the only aspect that the chairperson should protect was the integrity of the tribunal since cases were subject to a review process.

The Chairperson said the Department was putting the Committee in a conundrum if it had to do research when this Bill was supposed to be passed. In December last year, the Committee had asked the Department, the State Advisor and the Parliamentary Legal Unit to look if it were possible to apply the ombudsman process to rental stock. If the three could not reach a consensus, an external advisor would be solicited. The Chairperson wanted the Department to respond to the practicality of applying the ombudsman process to rental housing.

Ms Betty Kgobe, Director: Gauteng Rental Housing Tribunal, said they were not sure who had promised to do research on the appeal process. The Community Schemes Ombud Service dealt with sectional title owners and rental tribunals dealt with those that rented. As such they were two different mandates.
 
The Chairperson said the Committee knew that the mandates were different but restated that the Committee had asked the Department to look at the applicability of the process to the issue at hand.

Ms Borman said it was unacceptable that the Department could not provide answers on an issue they had been assigned as the Committee wanted to be guided by this. Despite attending all the Committee meetings, the Department had had not arrived at an appropriate solution to the appeal riddle.

The Chairperson said the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act and the Rental Housing Act had the same status. As such, the Department was supposed to provide all possible solutions for discussion by the Committee.

Ms Kgobe sought to clarify that the conciliation process in the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act was same as mediation.

The Chairperson said it was different from mediation. In the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act if a complainant was not satisfied with a decision, a conciliator was supposed to be appointed to deal with the matter – but it was dependable.

Ms Kgobe said she did not have the Act with her but would share the matter with other colleagues. The ombudsman process started with conciliation, followed by adjudication, and finally the decision of the adjudicator was reviewed by the High Court.

The Chairperson said the Bill would not be passed into law if there was no solution to the appeals issue. She asked the State Law Advisor to give its view on the matter. The Committee could change the appeal process and adopt the adjudication process.

Ms Bongiwe Lufundo, State Law Advisor, said the matter was difficult to find a workable and appropriate process for implementation. Initially they had provided for the MEC to handle the appeal process but the Committee had opposed that, raising concern about the possibly lack of objectivity by the MEC since he/she owned rental stock as the head of the province. However, there was no “personal” interest from the MEC that could motivate for bias. With regards to the submission from the GRHT, the arrangement was available in the National Credit Act. One person dealt with an issue and the Chairperson appointed an Appeals Board made up of three members of the tribunal representing the appeal board, whose decision was subject to review. In that case, one person was enough, and if the Committee agreed, it would be considered. The question was if it workable for the National Credit Act to be applied to rental housing.

On the issue of utilizing tribunal members for the appeal – that would not be part of the hearing –
would be considered, but there was possibly conflict arising. As such, an independent body outside the tribunal was the best solution.

Regarding the submission by the Parliamentary Legal Unit, she had a concern with one chairperson dealing with the appeals because he/she would not be objective enough. The matter would be engaged further and more information would be provided during the deliberations.

The Chairperson wanted to know the State Law Advisor‘s response to the creation of a Board by the Department to handle appeals which would obviously carry financial costs. An independent person who was not part of the tribunal structure was needed to handle appeals.

Ms Lufundo said it was not in the Minister’s domain to create a board but was a function of Parliament and Parliament could not legislate against uncertainties.

The Chairperson asked about the applicability of the ombudsman process in rental housing before a matter was taken to court.

Ms Lufundo said the matter would be considered for the purpose or rental housing but it could involve a long process.

Adv van der Merwe suggested that the MEC appointed three people separate from the tribunal to review decisions. The adjudication process was not an appeal. The MEC would appoint people with different expertise to handle the appeal.

Mr Mokgalapa said the Committee would not budge on the issue of having the MEC playing the referee and the player and a national board was not possible because it would not be accessible to people in rural areas and could results in backlogs. The idea was to decentralize service and find a solution that would deliver justice quickly, ensure transparency and was accessible to all the people nationally.

Ms Borman said she too did not support the MEC proposal but rather a simple solution that would be accessible to all the people.

Ms Duncan wanted to know the difference between the Parliamentary Legal Unit’s proposition on appeals and that of the GRHT.

Adv van der Merwe answered that the Parliamentary Legal Unit’ suggestion was provisional because the Department had to create a relevant board in the future while that of appointing the chairperson to deal with appeals was permanent.

The Chairperson said the Committee could not rely on one person to handle appeals and asked the Parliamentary Legal Unit to explain further about the administrative appeal.

Adv van der Merwe said there would be two committees. The chairperson would appoint three or four members to do the appeal process. Clause 17(1) and (2) could be amended

The Chairperson said the seven members including the chairperson could be divided into two committees. The group that would not be part of the hearing would handle the appeal but the problem was that the decision was a decision of the whole board.

Ms Lufundo said that if the full board handed down the decision there was bound to be contradictions.

The Chairperson said it was clear that the appeal could not be a decision of one person.

Adv van der Merwe explained that that was the reason the Parliamentary Legal Unit had suggested two committees: one that heard the case and the other that deliberated on the appeal. Provinces had the leeway to appoint seven or four tribunal members.

Ms Borman clarified that her sense was that each of the committees would hear different cases but the decision was that of the overall tribunal, and asked whether or not the creation of deputy chairpersons was not going to create further problems.

The Chairperson agreed that the decision of the committee was collective and while it agreed on the administration appeal, it was opposed to the creation of two committees for the purposes of hearing cases and appeals.

Mr Mokgalapa said that the two committees would have to do separate cases to fast track the process. As such it was unnecessary to refer a decision of a committee to the tribunal.

Mr Tsakani Bila, Deputy Director: Rental Housing in the Department of Human Settlements, suggested that the legislation should empower the secretariat to appoint adjudicators in cases where there was an appeal – as and when such cases arose.

Ms Borman said this was the best solution because sometimes there would be only a few appeals.

Ms Lufundo said having two committees would provide for a collective decision to be made but it was problematic for appeals. This was because the three members who would not have been part of the decision making, would hear the appeal but later meet with the decision making committee. This could create conflict when the overall decision would be handed down by the tribunal.

The Chairperson said it was the simple solution that the Committee was looking for. The Chairperson asked the state law advisor, the Parliamentary Legal Unit and the Department to work on the proposition which would be heard during deliberations the following week.

The meeting was adjourned.