Rural Household Infrastructure Grant & backlogs in issuing title deeds: Financial and Fiscal Commission research & proposals

Meeting report

Chairperson’s opening remarks
The Chairperson noted that the Committee had expressed unhappiness about the Rural Household Infrastructure Grant (RHIG) and the Financial and Fiscal Commission (FFC) was asked to brief the Committee on the research that the Commission had conducted in reviewing that grant. She noted that the RHIG had not performed as expected and the challenges were well documented. The Committee needed to come up with proposals and solutions.

Secondly, there was a problem around title deeds not being issued to beneficiaries, and the FFC had also been asked to research and report upon the extent of the challenge here. She noted, however, that the Chairperson of FFC had requested that possible solutions to the funding model not be presented today, as the Commission was still seized with the issue.

Rural Household Infrastructure Grant and problems with title deeds: Review proposals: Briefing by Financial and Fiscal Commission
Mr Bongani Khumalo, Chairperson, Financial and Fiscal Commission, confirmed his request to the Chairperson to hold back on the housing funding model briefing. The FFC was about to finish consultation processes with the Department of Human Settlements (DHS) around public hearings. Consultations would be done in the next week, and a report would be prepared for delivery to the Committee on the outcome of that process.

The FFC had previously given an advice to this Committee on what was happening with implementation of the RHIG, and a substantive submission in relation to the grant was given in March, during deliberations on the Division of Revenue Bill (DORB). The approach to the grant was informed by certain principles, which he would outline.

The FFC had also made recommendations on how the grant should be utilised. There were two key principles that drove the Commission’s views, linked to the national priority programmes that required urgent attention.

Firstly, needs could be addressed and funded through the conditional grant system. There had to be a timeframe for the grants to be spent, and the expectation was that there would be sufficient capacity. At the end of the programme, a review would be done, and there had to be an exit strategy for when the problem had been addressed.

The conditional grant was also used when certain types of services had implications across specific jurisdictions, such as provinces. Examples would be the tertiary health services, for offering training universities with academics or medical specialists had specific fiscal implications, referred to by economists as “externalities”. These cut across provinces or municipalities, and there was a need to compensate provinces who were producing the benefits, by way of the conditional grant system.

Given that rural sanitation was identified as a key priority through a Presidential proclamation, it was proper to establish a conditional grant to deal with sanitation. One aspect related to asking how it would be implemented.  It was up to government to decide upon the location of the function. FFC, on the other hand, decided upon the appropriate funding mechanisms and model. FFC then had to ensure equitable allocation of resources to ensure the function would be carried out. FFC was a party to the initial discussions on the RHIG matter, took a position, and that had not changed. The Commission also had contributed its views to a joint sitting of this Committee and the Standing Committee on Appropriations, but had not received feedback on those deliberations.

The Budget Council meeting to discuss some of the changes to the programme was scheduled for around October 2012, but had not taken place. Consultation around the DORB started around this time and the matter of the sanitation function and RHIG was raised. The FFC had indicated that it was not in support of shifting the grant from its current scheduling, and suggested that the status quo had to remain.

Mr Sabelo Mtantato, Senior Researcher: Fiscal Policy, FFC, said Government identified rural development as a major priority in 2007, and in turn, sanitation was identified as a key programme for the rural development strategy. Government had set itself a target to achieve universal access to sanitation by 2014. When this proclamation was made, it was also indicated that there would be a shift of the sanitation function, from the Department of Water Affairs (DWA) to DHS. However, the legislation giving effect to this decision was yet to be passed.

A grant was necessary to deliver on the function of delivering sanitation by 2014. This was the context in which the RHIG was introduced. Sanitation backlogs at some rural municipalities was still as high as 27% and the country was unlikely to meet the 2014 deadline it set itself. Since the introduction of the RHIG, the performance of the grant had been poor. Last year the allocation was high, but the DHS felt it was challenged for capacity. DHS indicated it could not use all of the funds, and the grant was thus reduced by R138 million.

Since inception, under expenditure on the grant had been a challenge. In February 2011, spending on the grant was only at 11%, but by March it had increased to 55%. Under-spending continued in 2012, where overall spending in February was at 31%, although it had increased by March to 72%. There was potential for fiscal dumping and it was necessary to question whether the figures amounted to real spending, or fiscal dumping. Generally, there had been significant under performance on the grant across all provinces.

In the 2013 budget, the RHIG was changed from an indirect to a direct grant. That necessitated that the grant be changed from schedule 6B to 5B. Implications of this action would include the fact that the money would be transferred directly to municipalities, and allocations per beneficiary municipality should be gazetted. The long lead times for conditional grant spending might reverse, improving the trend. Although the actual implementation role of DHS would cease, it should increase its planning, monitoring and evaluation role.

The Minister of Finance had announced a comprehensive review of local government conditional grants, and any change in the RHIG should have waited for completion of that review.

Title deeds: investigation into delays and challenges
The second aspect that was being addressed by the FFC related to the investigation into the challenges around issuing of title deeds. Some work had been done, but there were database challenges.

Mr Mtantato said more than 3.2 million housing units and serviced sites were delivered by 2010 through housing subsidy programmes. Beneficiaries who received ownership of a house should receive a title deed to the property. The Breaking New Ground (BNG) policy explicitly identified the need to ensure that beneficiaries of subsidised housing should have access to formal title. The exact number of subsidy beneficiaries who still did not have title deeds to their properties was unknown. Shisaka recently estimated that just over one third, or between 1.1 and 1.4 million subsidy beneficiaries, did not have title deeds to their properties.

Because of the reporting formats, it was difficult to separate units completed and those under construction. On average, more than 50% of housing units had been delivered without the registration of formal title. In the 2010/11 financial year DHS estimated that at least 35% of subsidised houses had been delivered without the registration for formal title.

A number of reasons contributed to the delays in issuing title deeds to beneficiaries. There were delays in the township establishment and in implementation of projects, as a result of lack of capacity. Another challenge was linked to the legislation, as there were several different pieces of legislation, such as Provincial Ordinances, the Less Formal Township Establishment Act and Development Facilitation Act, which had added complexities since each Act required different processes and systems.

The challenge was further exacerbated by the withholding of title deeds due to non-payment of fees by the project owner. Beneficiaries may not bother to collect title deeds because they lacked understanding of the importance of a title deed. Another problem was that where the original owner had died, the dependants failed to make a follow up and collect the title deeds. There were also challenges on communal land. In certain instances, the top structure preceded occupation.

The FFC had  recommended that the grant should not be incorporated into the Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) until a proper assessment of the challenges had been done and the implications understood, and the primary objective of the grant had been realised. The FFC reiterated recommendations contained in its submission made for the DORB 2013 that the grant should remained as a schedule 6B grant. This was so, because DHS lacked capacity to implement the grant and rural sanitation remained a national priority.

Should there be a need to review RHIG, this should be done as part of the broader review of all infrastructure grants. The FFC was aware of the challenges that afflicted different grants as a result of new programmes being introduced, and as such welcomed the impending review of conditional grants that NT and Government had committed to during 2013. Government should review and amend those pieces of legislation that delayed issuing of title deeds.

Finally, FFC had concluded that there needed to be ongoing educational programmes with community leaders and ward councillors on the importance of title deeds. The number of units transferred should be used as an indicator in the annual performance plan (APP) and be subject to audit of predetermined objectives.

Departmental comment
Ms Funani Mahlatsi, Chief Financial Officer, DHS, welcomed the FFC presentation and said DHS accepted, at the time appropriation was made, that the schedule of the grant be changed. In terms of the DORA, she noted that DHS accepted that it had powers over and should be directly monitoring the grant to the municipalities. The Department had even resolved, despite all the challenges at municipalities, that when they procured, DHS would prefer to be part of those processes.

The Department had institutional capacity that it wanted to carry forward to municipalities. The lessons learnt would be passed over to municipalities so that performance of the grant was enhanced and had a direct positive impact on the ground. The foundations had been correctly spelt out, even by the FFC, to say DHS had to tighten planning, monitoring and the controls. The Department was developing the current grant framework so that conditions were spelt out to municipalities. \

She indicated there was a list of RHIG beneficiaries, but did not have it ready at the meeting. DHS would do a separate presentation on the performance of RHIG, separately from the briefing on the budget of the Department.

Discussion
Mr M Matshoba (ANC) sought clarity on the statement that funds would be transferred directly to municipalities. The challenge was that DHS indicated it transferred the money to municipalities and yet municipalities, as implementing agents, would not know about the grant funds, and some would not even know about the project. He noted that the DHS claimed to be in charged, but asked if it could actually say where the toilets had been erected. The money indeed got disbursed but the toilets were not there.

Ms D Dlakude (ANC) commented the Committee had received a similar presentation before. Members indeed could only hope that funds transferred to municipalities would be utilised for this purpose and that they would have capacity. It was distressing that the money was transferred but not used and meantime people waited for services. Hopefully the Department would assist the Committee on monitoring; Members wanted value for money on the ground.

Ms A Mashishi (ANC) commented she had noted the challenges on issuing of title deeds. If this was how things were at municipalities, and they were challenged for capacity, it meant that the failure to issue title deeds would continue unabated.

Ms P Duncan (DA) said it was sad that the DHS did not have information ready on which municipalities had been allocated RHIG funding. She quipped that RHIG had, aptly, been referred to as "an elephant" previously, but given the continued challenges, she did not know what to call it now.

Ms Duncan said she was not sure if DHS could tell which municipalities had received the grant and what the status of the grant was in relation to expenditure. The amount of under-spending on RHIG was beyond comprehension and the effect was that people remained without proper sanitation of even the most basic kind.

Ms Duncan sought clarity on the statement that DHS had a direct monitoring obligation to ensure RHIG was implemented. The Department also claimed to have capacity, but if this was so, then she wanted to know why there was still under expenditure. She said it was not sufficient simply to say that DHS had capacity now, as Members wanted to know exactly what it was. She doubted that the DHS did have the capacity to spend the grant and monitor performance.

Ms G Borman (ANC) commented that the reason Members were rehashing the sanitation issue was because the major concerns remained. Sanitation should be one of the easiest things to deliver, yet there was even a challenge in understanding the extent of the problem. She asked who Shisaka was, and whether it had been commissioned to do research by the Department.

Ms Borman said there was no follow up done on the recommendations of the joint meeting with the Appropriations Committee. Between NT, DHS and the Appropriations Committee, somebody - and she asked who - was supposed to ensure follow-up. The challenge with Government was sustaining interaction with each other.

She commented that if RHIG changes and reviews had been gazetted, there was no point in discussing the matter further. It was good to call for reviews, but they should be done more quickly and not follow such drawn out processes. It also had to be borne in mind that changes resulted in instability. She failed to understand why institutions like the FFC existed if, when they made recommendations, departments would just disregard them.

Ms Borman thought the main challenge with the title deeds was the wording of the legislation and that had to be simplified to the benefit of the people.

Ms M Njobe (COPE) commented the only conclusion she arrived at after the numerous presentations on the matter was that solutions were possible, despite the difficulties. It was unfortunate that departments tended to focus on own territory and make decisions alone, and there was a need to continually improve on inter-departmental working relations.

Ms Njobe said recommendations made by the FFC were practical, real and possible and questioned why these were not taken seriously by departments. This should be looked into, as other Committees had similar complaints

Ms Njobe sought clarity on whether it was possible to issue the title deeds when units were given to beneficiaries. The important point was to plan ahead. As the unit was being constructed, the title deed section also should be starting its work, so that targets for units and title deeds matched. If this were to happen, there would not be illegal occupation of houses, as had been the case with some RDP projects. The title deed would enable officials to evict illegal occupiers. When government tried to solve the problems, it in fact complicated them, by small things as not providing title deeds on delivery of units. She asked what practical challenges DHS might face in achieving issuing units simultaneously with title deeds.

Ms Njobe commented she appreciated the FFC presentation on RHIG, particularly since the Committee had not changed its view. Monitoring by DHS was important, but did not seem possible. She sought clarity on the feasibility of the new position. She also said there seemed to be no knowledge among local government officials and councillors on the ground about the existence of RHIG. Last week, she had engaged with a councillor from Amahlathi Municipality who did not have a clue about the programme, and yet a resident in the municipality confirmed that toilets had been built. This showed the extent of challenges with intergovernmental relations.

Ms Njobe said the possibility of fiscal dumping was serious and needed to be looked into. Monitoring was seriously needed, given inconsistencies on expenditure, especially on human settlements in the Eastern Cape. This was tax payers’ money, and it was of great concern to her that it was not being properly spent. MinMEC meetings should assist the Committee.

Ms J Sosibo (ANC) sought on clarity on monitoring, and requested that the response be contextualised against the expenditure jump on the RHIG. Expenditure by end of February was at 11%, and yet at the end of March it had jumped to 55%, which was "unbelievable". She also sought clarity on beneficiaries not collecting title deeds, saying that they could be unaware that their title deeds were gathering dust at someone’s office, and wondered what awareness campaigns were there on title deeds.

Mr R Bhoola (MF) commented that the synchronisation of legislation and policies was vital, because sanitation was key to the country. He said he was sceptical about the announcement of Presidential priority programmes as that nullified government processes; as much as there could be budget to meet targets on priority programmes, there also was a potential to destabilise the work of departments.

Mr Bhoola quipped that the reference to RHIG as "an elephant in the room" was apt. " was moving very slowly and wanting to leave an imprint, but that was good because DHS was picking up on challenges with the intention of making improvements.

Mr Bhoola commented he welcomed the FFC’s recommendations on the involvement of community leaders on the awareness around title deeds. An emphasis should also be placed on ward committees. He requested that the issue of the national database be highlighted. It had come to light last week that there was no housing list. It was proper that the Committee called for a complete and thorough audit on all the areas of performance that remained as challenges.

The Chairperson asked if DHS ever utilised the services of the community development workers (CDWs). This was a structure established by government and it made sense to have direct interaction with them. The CDWs were knowledgeable people within the community, who were aware of all developments and related challenges. She reiterated that people worked as individuals and did not utilise the structures that were already in place.

The Chairperson sought clarity on policy regarding concurrent conceptualisation of projects with processing of title deeds, asking what policies DHS had, and stressing that if there were none, it was high time they were developed. She also asked if there were norms and standards for the RHIG toilets, and if those had been forwarded to municipalities.

Mr Khumalo responded that many of the issues raised were comments, not questions, and required the emphasis also from the FFC. One of the key points on implementation of conditional grants was that the accountability framework had to be firm. Whether the grant was scheduled as 6B or 5B, Government had a direct responsibility to ensure that the money was spent as was intended. Weak intergovernmental relations would always result in challenges, and this would happen if the money was not channelled correctly downwards.

He concurred with the Committee that intergovernmental relations unfortunately did not actually work. Otherwise, it should have been a very simple exercise to get three departments to exercise leadership and indicate how they hoped to deal with a particular challenge. If this did not happen at the level of national departments, one could only wonder how great the challenge was at local level.

This was further illustrated by the example of local councillors in Amahlathi Municipalities who did not know that toilets had been built in their area. He questioned how councillors could not know about the project, and who exercised oversight over the municipality. The whole oversight mechanism clearly did not work if this was the situation. The lack of coordination was a challenge. These little things were a function of local government, money was spent, and yet departments were failing to communicate.

He agreed with Members that at this point the monitoring capability of the Department should no longer be an issue, because a decision had been taken. If the decision was taken, and capacity was only looked at later, that compromised the credibility of the system. This was not only in respect of this grant, because the comprehensive review that the Minister spoke about, when he tabled his budget, meant there would be a change again. When projects failed, the tendency had been to simply change without considering the impact on the people on the ground.*

Mr Khumalo said Shisaka was one of the service providers worked with in reviewing the broader housing funding model. This company provided technical support to the Commission and were commissioned to do some of the work. If there was a need for the technical documents produced by Shisaka, those could be availed to the Committee.

He said if there was non-compliance with conditions associated to the grants, there were dire consequences, which could include National Treasury (NT) intervening to stop transfers over and above the grant itself. The Department should take a lead in tightening the framework. There were indeed real capacity problems in rural municipalities when implementing infrastructure programmes. That could pose a problem if not taken seriously at a national department level and so there was a fundamental responsibility.

Mr Khumalo agreed that the issue of national priorities, legislative framework and presidential projects was interesting, as these might pose problems. There were people who had to deal with those things; when a mandate was given to a sphere of government, the FFC had to come in and advise on financial implications. A funding mechanism had to be clear, once such projects were identified. Whether the decision was taken to use a certain formula or get function committees deciding, the decisions had to be equitable and there was a list of criteria that should be taken into account. The conditional grant mechanism was another way of dealing with matters. However, whatever method was chosen, it was necessary to set targets and ensure that the benefits really filtered down to people. This was not a problem from the FFC’s side, but it was when someone challenged and claimed the function. Such discussions among departments about functions had happened elsewhere, but ultimately the function had to be performed, and this was what the FFC was concerned about.

Ms Mahlatsi commented that DHS would send the information on as to which municipalities had benefited from the RHIG funding. There were quite a few of them that would share the R106 million allocated for the current year. She conceded that it was an oversight not to have brought the list to the meeting. She also conceded that there were districts and municipalities that were not aware of the grant, and the DHS took note of the concerns.

Ms Mahlatsi also noted that DHS accepted the responsibility to monitor RHIG in the same manner the Human Settlements Development Grant was monitored. DHS knew the challenges, even with the accredited metros, but also noted the evaluation that would be done. It was important for DHS to conduct the full review of RHIG as that would confirm whether it was an “elephant”, and to get a clear indication of the kind of challenges that municipalities had, and the kind of controls that were required to address them.

The concerns about possible fiscal dumping were noted. DHS had also noted the increase in spending over the last months of the year, but could justify and give reasons for the increased spending. Despite the delays during the Independent Development Trust’s (IDT) operation, money had had to be transferred to the six new service providers. The increased spending came from Mvula Trust, and the additional new contractors. Their contracts were expiring in two months and there were ongoing discussions about the rescheduling of the grant. The DHS would still come to the Committee with full details on these as well. She noted that DHS had not simply transferred money and then ignored the situation. It had instead paid contractors directly, based on the milestones, invoices and report that was signed off by the project manager. The Department would not therefore agree that the money had been dumped. She also noted that DHS could provide information on where the units had been constructed and where the money was channelled.

Ms Mahlatsi said that DHS believed that its own intergovernmental relations were functioning, but would not argue if someone else saw differently on the matter. It was important for departments to improve overall on intergovernmental relations.

The Chairperson interjected and said that Ms Mahlatsi need not be defensive on the matter. Officials met at the forums, but all Members were interested in was the outcomes of the deliberations. In this case, there had not been proper outcomes as the challenges clearly showed. If intergovernmental relations were functioning properly, the current mess with RHIG would not have been encountered at all.

Ms Mahlatsi said that she was not trying to be defensive. She said she was referring to the matter of norms and standards. She indicated that the Director Generals for DHS and NT had met, as instructed by Parliament, earlier in the year. A meeting was also scheduled next week with the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) and all this was coordinated by NT.

The Chairperson wanted to know when the departments would come to Parliament and report, especially since they were given a deadline. The Committee wanted feedback and she needed to know when that would be received.

Ms Mahlatsi said a report of the meeting was compiled, but another substantial report would be complied after the meeting with DPSA, and that would be provided to Parliament.

Mr Mbulelo Tshangana, Deputy Director General: Project Management Unit, DHS, commented that the FFC’s report was seen as balanced. DHS had geared itself up and built some capacity to manage the RHIG programme. A lot more was required to get the municipalities to perform, and this was not just limited to evaluation. The Department held the view that it had to invest in forward planning and project packaging. If there was no good pipeline of toilets, no department would be able to spend the money.

The DHS agreed with the FFC report and it made perfect sense. DHS had commissioned a study to understand the magnitude of the challenges. Provinces had been instructed to prioritise and expedite the process of awarding title deeds. The Western Cape (WC) and Limpopo had been improving in issuing title deeds. The WC had been able to categorise the problems by municipalities.

He added that there were in fact many reasons for the difficulty in awarding the title deeds. Some contractors had opted to walk away from projects as a result of such instances as the withholding of money by provinces for completed structures, which was one measure the provinces sometimes used to ensure the contractors remained until the title deeds were awarded. If the title deeds were not awarded, then a project was not regarded as complete. This, however, also meant the beneficiary of a unit would not own the property.

Another challenge was found with the ownership of land where projects were located. Often, when projects were started, provinces did not yet own the land, but would simply have permission to build. He cited an example of Roy Dudley Project in Grabouw, where land was owned by the Department of Public Works (DPW), and yet a contractor was on site building. The project would be completed in three months time, but the land still belonged to DPW and not the municipalities. Before the title deeds could be issued to the beneficiaries, it would first be necessary to complete the transfer from DPW to the municipality. Another challenge was with the generational issue of home ownership, and yet another might arise if the original owners had died, but the house was “hijacked” by someone else, who may not even be related to the original owner. MinMEC had decided, in the meeting the previous day, that wherever title deeds could easily be issued, this must be done.

Ms Borman sought clarity on building on land where the transfer had not yet taken place, as she had thought that this was illegal.

Ms Duncan sought clarity as to when the commissioned study would be released. She was sure that it was likely to open a can of worms, especially around the Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs). She noted the earlier comments on councillors being unaware of RHIG, and said that councillors should know every detail, especially since the Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) indicated the extent of the backlogs. The intergovernmental relations were definitely not working if councillors did not even know that toilets were being built in their areas. The Department reported to Parliament quarterly and the councillors should be able to get that information without having to go and research it.

Ms Duncan said she failed to understand how NT could cut RHIG funding if it knew there was a backlog. The Committee accepted that there were some challenges around spending but cutting the sanitation budget was somewhat insensitive. She asked DHS to indicate if the programme would record yet more under-expenditure.

Ms Duncan said she had written to the Public Protector asking for an investigation on all municipalities who had stock. Another challenge with the title deeds was that when projects were started, beneficiaries were not educated. Municipalities could put in place a programme during the construction phase of the houses, to raise public awareness.

The Chairperson commented that DHS had to lead the process of synchronising legislation. Human Settlements was the portfolio that suffered from the fragmented pieces of legislation.

Mr Anton Arendse, Chief Director: Policy and Strategy, DHS, commented that the Department was mindful of some of the shortcomings in terms of deeds and titles. However, the response was multi-faceted. Department had called upon the expertise at the Estate Agency Affairs Board (EAAB) to get the detailed information on the main issues.

He said a decision was taken at technical level that the Department would monitor the deeds registration. Apart from monitoring projects and houses delivered, DHS would also be enquiring about the title deeds that had been issued by provinces. There were other various projects for which DHS provided secure tenure, but not title deeds. Another challenge was the issue of secure tenure on communal land as there was no legislation that made provision for title deeds for tribal land.

Mr Arendse explained that, typically, a Permission to Occupy (PTO) was used on communal land. This was a challenge because it hinged on officials at the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR) being able to vet the land, or confirm ownership, and allow communities to own a portion of communal land. He said there was too little time at this meeting to detail the level of secure tenure provided by the PTOs, as opposed to title deeds. That could, however, be added to the report that DHS would be providing later.

Ms Mahlatsi said an extensive report on RHIG would be made available to the Committee. The report would be comprehensive and cover all the minute details, including the history of the programme, backlogs, toilets constructed to date and work in progress. It should also include the work that was not attempted at all by service providers, especially by the IDT.

She said there was proof of what had been spent, relating to the 51% spending on the R340 million allocation, and she assured the Committee that DHS did not just surrender the money to NT, but its allocation was cut as a result of the inability to spend. R240 million of the money was spent, and DHS was negotiating with NT to roll over the additional R100 million.

Ms Borman sought clarity on whether the Department supported the review of legislation as recommended by the FFC.

Ms Njobe sought clarity on RDP houses built on communal land, and the title deeds for these.

The Chairperson requested that those matters be shelved for another day. The Department had a responsibility to ensure it secured the tenure.

Mr Tshangana replied that the suggestion for legislative review first required thorough investigations with regard to the current conveyancing system in the country. According to a report DHS obtained from Sulimak and Urban Landmark, the current conveyancing arrangements were not originally intended for, nor suited the BNG, RDP or subsidised sectors. The whole system was too cumbersome and too expensive and was conceived for “first world” situations. One school of thought called for a new arrangement in the RDP sector, but there were also those who called for a local conveyancing arrangement that addressed the needs of the poor. Conveyancing was expensive.

Mr Arendse reiterated there was a need for more time to engage on issues around communal land. DHS was not here so concerned about the conveyancing aspect, but had to work very closely with DRDLR. Work had been commissioned with the EAAB, and the terms of reference included the extent of the problem with backlogs. This dealt with such issues as challenges faced by provincial departments when asking for Permission To Occupy, from DRDLR, and what was done before the PTO was issues. These kinds of institutional arrangements had to be tightened at DRDLR.

Closing remarks
The Chairperson said this was a seemingly never-ending matter but human settlements was a complex sector. Quite a lot of underlying issues were omitted and people tended to just focus on houses and how they were being built. The Committee still had a lot to do, and the information provided today was of assistance. She said the Department needed to be upfront with the information, because Members were not aware of some of the issues, which were hard core and which would have to be tackled, head on, by this Committee. She urged officials not to be afraid of being quite straight with the Committee, as the human settlements needs had to be overcome.

The meeting was adjourned.