Fire at Parliament: Restoration; Upgrading & Sites to Accommodate MPs and Employees

Meeting report

The consideration and adoption of minutes dated 05 May 2023 were postponed to the next meeting.

Both Chairpersons acknowledge the presence of Ms Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula.

Opening Remarks by the Speaker of the National Assembly

Ms Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, Speaker of the National Assembly, was present at the meeting. She suggested to the Committee that Members should consider not doing the tour of the buildings affected by the fire today due to bad weather. Parliament would not want to be held liable for injuries should Members insist on going.

She recognised the importance of updating the Committee and all South Africans on the progress of restoring Parliament buildings following the fire disaster in January 2022. She recalled the budget vote last year where she and her team had undertaken to develop a practical roadmap to the restoration of the parliamentary precinct and to communicate with the public about its progress through this Joint Committee.

She expressed gratitude for the support Parliament received in carrying out its day-to-day business. In particular, she thanked Minister [of Finance] Enoch Godongwana for his consistent support towards the restoration of Parliament. It was agreed that a tripartite team would be formed to proceed with this matter. The task team included Parliament, the Director-General of National Treasury and the Director-General of the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI).

National Treasury has agreed to adjust the baseline allocation with an additional R2 billion that would be used for the restoration of Parliament.

She acknowledged the important work done by the DPWI as the true custodian of state property infrastructure. The DPWI was able to assist Parliament to ensure it gets to the bottom of the problem that caused the fire and implemented programmes that would address and rectify such deficiencies in future.

She thanked the City of Cape Town for the support it had provided through the work of its fire department and availing its City Town Hall, which has now become an extension of Parliament’s infrastructure when there is a big event such as SONA and the Budget Speech.

She expressed her gratitude to all MPs and support staff for bearing the brunt of the inconvenience of this disaster on a daily basis.

She reiterated the R2 billion budget that the Treasury has committed to set aside for the restoration programme. An initial allocation of R180 million during the medium-term policy statement was ring-fenced with unforeseen and unavoidable expenditure as a result of both fire and COVID-19. Infrastructure challenges due to the fire included project planning for the damaged infrastructures; interim arrangements for the physical return of all MPs; resumption of physical sittings for plenary and committees; broadcasting infrastructure and modernisation of committee rooms to enable hybrid meetings.

She reported to the Committee that a lot of progress had been made towards planning the restoration and bringing Members and staff back to normalise the operation of Parliament. The management team’s presentation will cover it.

Lastly, she reminded everyone that restoring Parliament is not about restoring the building structure. It is about restoring and reaffirming the centrality and functionality of democracy to ensure that all duly elected public representatives have a safe place to meet, debate and make decisions that affect people’s lives. It is about preserving South Africa’s history and culture for generations to come.

With that, she concluded her opening remark and indicated to the Committee that Adv. Modibedi Phindela would now take Members through the details of the presentation.

Briefing by the Acting Secretariat to Parliament

Adv. Phindela was serving as Acting Secretariat to Parliament during this week.

Adv. Phindela submitted to the Committee that Mr Xolile George, Secretariat to Parliament, was on leave. He further submitted that the Chairperson of the NCOP was attending Pan-African Parliament. He was present with members of the management team, colleagues from the Development Bank of SA (DBSA), as well as Mr Simon Mashigo, who was appointed to work on the restoration programme since Parliament did not have the capacity to do the work on its own.

Introductory Remark by Acting Secretariat

Adv. Phindela informed the Committee that Parliament had appointed DBSA as the implementing agent for the restoration project.

The presentation covers two parts. The first part related to restoring the National Assembly Chamber and the Old Assembly Chamber. The second part is about the creation of offices for alternative accommodation for Members.

Update on the Restoration of the Buildings Affected by the January 2022 Fire

Mr Mashigo outlined the scope of work his company would be carrying out in Parliament. It is divided into short-, medium- and long-term works.

The presentation also showed photos of the damaged site on the parliamentary precinct and the envisioned outlook of Parliament buildings after the completion of the work.

[See presentation for more details]

Discussion

Mr N Singh (IFP) asked if it was possible to get on the task team instead of calling someone them stop (the point is unclear as Mr Singh’s input was disrupted on the livestream).

He suggested that the construction of the Old Assembly could be a separate phase because, the sooner Members could move in, the better for Members’ work and Parliament’s operation.

He remarked that walking through and seeing all those pictures brought tears to his eyes, as he has been in Parliament since 1994. It is almost like seeing your own home being damaged and destroyed.

The Chairperson sought inputs from Members if they still insisted on visiting the damaged Parliament building site.

Ms R Lesoma (ANC) suggested that the Committee get a second professional advice to capacitate the Committee in making a more informed decision.

Mr B Radebe (ANC) supported his colleague’s suggestion because the Committee needed to know whom it could take legal action against should anything go wrong.

Mr Radebe suggested to the Committee that, since Members had set aside the time in the day to do the inspection, it should proceed, especially with the walkabout on the fourth and fifth floors since those floors were not affected by the fire.

Mr Radebe raised the concern that the presentation content seems incompatible with this Committee's mandate. He clarified to the team that this Joint Committee was the committee that should be overseeing the actual construction work that was taking place.  

Mr J Nyambi (ANC, Mpumalanga) wondered if the Committee should rather wait for the rubble to be removed by 31 July and after the temporary roofing was installed before going into the building. He was asthmatic and the low oxygen level meant that he probably could not go into the building.

Mr M Moletsane (EFF, Free State) said he wanted to enter the building out of curiosity. However, he asked Parliament’s engineering team to give Members more advice around that so that Members could be prepared and informed of what would be expected.

Mr Mashigo responded that the Committee’s key interest would lie in the transparency, which is sacrosanct in terms of his company's work as a constitutional provision. Because of that, he will allow Members to visit the site with caution and within a limited section of the building. He was of the view that, for the purpose of the visit, Members should be purposeful and should consciously assess the work that was going to be done to the building against the fund that would be spent. He cautioned any Members with pre-existing conditions such as asthma or high-blood pressure from going there. He indicated that the pictures that Members had seen in the presentation slides told the story and it might not make much of a difference for Members to physically enter the building.

Chairperson Mabe indicated that she could not go because her lung was not very strong.

Mr T Brauteseth (DA, KZN), Ms S Gwarube (DA), Dr A Lotriet (DA), Mr Singh, Ms Lesoma, Mr Radebe, Mr Moletsane and Ms O Maotwe (EFF) all confirmed that they would physically go into the building.

Mr M Rayi (ANC, Eastern Cape), and Mr X Qayiso (ANC) indicated they would not go.

The Chairperson asked if the Speaker would be going as well.

The Speaker responded that, given her advanced age, she would not go. Her issue was that the physical inspection should only occur after engaging with the submission. What concerned her was that the Committee had been bombarded with a lot of information, which would require Members to sit down and discuss some of those matters. She raised the concern that there are some other forums in which contrary views had been raised to what her team presented to this Committee. So, she pleaded with the Committee, to begin with the engagement of the presentation before the physical inspection.

She highlighted that whether people thought they were healthy or not, there was an age category that needed to be considered.

Dr Lotriet enquired about the asset verification and sought clarity on the reference that the presentation has made to the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA). She asked whether all the artworks that were kept in the basement rooms were part of that asset verification. Should that be the case, she wanted to know what the verification outcome was.

Mr Brauteseth enquired about the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) grading and what grade/level was going to be used in this construction. He wanted assurance from the engineering team that a higher grade would be used instead of some level one or two company getting those opportunities. Given that Parliament is a national heritage site, it needed to ensure that only the top people were involved in this.

Mr Brauteseth asked the team: since the National Assembly was built in the 1980s, does that affect the heritage status?

Mr Brauteseth asked about the timelines on designs, when this Committee and Chief Whips would be presented with the projected design, and when those designs would be signed off. He specifically wanted to know if the restoration would just be a reconstruction of what it was there before.

Mr Brauteseth asked the team about the condition of the Old Assembly, whether it was destroyed or waterlogged, and if Members could use it.

He requested a gallery of all the photos about the damaged site to be circulated among Members so that Members would know the full extent of the damage.

Ms Gwarube said that the Committee would need more details around timelines to hold DBSA to account. Specifically, she needed concrete timelines such as what DBSA plans on doing every month. She remarked that the presentation slides do not sufficiently tell Members that information.

Ms Gwarube wanted to know if additional staff has been appointed that was responsible for playing the liaising role between Parliament and DBSA. She wanted to understand the intersectionality between DPWI, DBSA and Parliament. If so, where are those people located and what are their job functions?

Ms Gwarube was aware of the internal investigation into the fire and asked the Speaker for the details about the findings.

Ms Gwarube noted that the DBSA would charge Parliament 4.5 percent of the total fees which was subjected to negotiation. She sought assurance that Parliament would not be subjected to further escalating cost since five percent of R2 billion is one thing but five percent of R10 billion is something entirely different. She expressed her concern if there is any way that Parliament can be protected from the escalating cost since the DBSA is allowed to negotiate the rate.

Ms Gwarube requested more information about its sub-contractors.

Mr Singh reiterated his colleagues’ view around timelines to enable Members to better monitor. He recalled the unhappy experience with his kitchen renovation that went beyond its original timeline and estimated cost.

Mr Singh asked who was responsible for the security of the assets in the building. He received information yesterday that many items underground were removed after the water damage.

He reaffirmed to the team that they should be clear that the accountable committee to oversee this restoration project is this Joint Committee. He was under the impression that the team seems to be mistaken on that since it is the Chief Whips’ Forum that has been receiving regular updates.

Ms Lesoma appreciated this presentation as compared to the previous verbal report which shows progress in the team’s willingness to be held accountable.

She emphasised the importance of the organogram of the structure so that each partner has a clear role and responsibility.

Since the ANC is the worst affected party [in terms of office space], she was certain that her party would push to fast-track the restoration processes. But she also emphasised that the expedition should not mean compromising the quality of offices and other spaces in Parliament.

Ms Lesoma highlighted the importance of putting in sufficient security measures to protect Parliament from similar incidents again. Parliament should learn from those previous incidents.

She reaffirmed that the beneficiaries of this project should include local people, the youth population, etc.…

[There was a connectivity problem with livestream]

Responses

Speake Mapisa-Nqakula said that the steering committee leading this process would be accounting to this Joint Standing Committee. On accounting for finances and progress made in the restorative process, she said that the issue was also raised by the Chief Whips’ Forum last week.

When Parliament appointed STP, Parliament was in the process of working on building a modular structure within the Parliament precinct. When Parliament received the quote vis-a-vis the report from a second source, building a modular structure would have cost R300 million, whereas rebuilding the Old Assembly would cost the same amount. A decision was taken to rebuild the Old Assembly than to have a temporary structure that would cost the same amount. During the MTBS, Parliament had been allocated an amount of R118 million for unforeseeable expenditure, ensuring 155 Members’ office space was Parliament’s priority. During the engagement with National Treasury, she pled with them for more funding because MPs do not have office space at the moment which led to that R118 million budget allocation.

In the interaction with the Chief Whips, her impression was that Parliament should start rebuilding from the Old Assembly building. She reminded Members that the delay was attributed to the timeous handover of the building. The building had previously been occupied by the police, for some seven months. Parliament still had no control or access to the building. Her objective now is to ensure that Members have office space during the second term. Having offices means having an IT system, as most destroyed offices also lost gadgets. She guaranteed that, although not much detail is available at this stage, she can guarantee that Members would have decent office space to operate from.

She did not want to comment on the milestones of the events prior to the commencement of the restoration programme since there was a lot of confusion around that process. She indicated that she was very confident and satisfied that all due processes are in place and the programme is all full steam ready to hit the ground. The accounting officer of Parliament led the steering committee, the Secretariat to Parliament, the Directors-General of Treasury and the DPWI. She agreed with the suggestion to include SAHRA and the Office of the Auditor-General in that committee, as there would be continuous auditing of finances, and the work being done as the restoration programme continued.

She reminded the Committee of the letter which she and the Chairperson of the NCOP had both signed instructing the management of Parliament to conduct an investigation. That engagement took place about three to four weeks after the Parliament fire. The main content of that investigation was around the areas that Parliament needed to be mindful of in terms of its security measures to prevent further incidents. In their first engagement, when Mr George was appointed the new STP, it was made clear that an investigation needed to be conducted to assess the fire incident. Although the police bear some responsibilities in patrolling the parliamentary precinct as a national key point, more responsibilities should be about the parliamentary protection services. A fire inside Parliament in March 2021 resulted in a comprehensive report by the Cape Town fire brigade. She informed the Committee that a forensic investigation report was provided to Parliament two weeks ago. She suggested having another meeting where the STP could brief the Committee about the findings of that investigation. She described that the investigation was almost like one was in a movie, and that it is shocking that a person should be able to occupy the parliamentary precinct for about 16 hours. She refused to accept the explanation that the PPS staff who should have been on site were all on leave.

She confirmed to the Committee that there were suspensions following the fire incident, including the Acting Secretariat to Parliament. However, the suspension was not related to the fire but rather they did not do certain things which they had been directed to do, such as the investigation, which had never been conducted right until June-July.

She clarified that the modular structure would cost the same amount of money as the restoration of the Old Assembly building. However, she indicated to the Committee that there was no guarantee that the Old Assembly would be ready with the speed with which Parliament was remodelling offices for Members because Parliament was given a directive by Members that all Members, with no exception, should have office space. Although all those processes would run concurrently, the priority would be to ensure that Members would have decent office space to operate after their recess period.

Adv. Phindela reaffirmed the authority of Mr George as the Secretariat to Parliament as the accounting officer of the restoration project and other teams are supporting him in the implementation of the project. Mr George has made an undertaking to the Committee that the process should be transparent and, at all times, shall come to account when called upon. He reiterated the involvement of the AG from time to time.

Adv. Phindela referred to slide four for the project’s timelines and indicated the team’s commitment to meeting those timelines. He was also willing to provide further information about the timelines at a later stage.

He noted the suggestion about the inclusion of SAHRA on the steering committee and would report back to the Committee.

He confirmed that the assets on sites remained the assets of Parliament, and Parliament remained the custodian of those assets.

Regarding the relationships between the DBSA, DPWI and Parliament, he indicated that since the budget is being allocated directly to Parliament, Parliament remains responsible for the restoration project.

He indicated to the Committee that although the Old Assembly chamber might look from the outside like it had not to have been affected by the fire, the condition inside is not so. There is water damage, damaged cupboards, and the various other conditions found prevalent in the National Assembly building. He confirmed to the Committee that the Old Assembly building could not be a suitable venue for any purpose in its current condition. He also welcomed those Members who volunteered to visit the site later to peek into the building and have a look.

The Chairperson reminded Adv. Phindela to respond to Ms Gwarube’s question about whether new staff members had been appointed to deal with the liaison between Parliament, DPWI and other stakeholders.

Adv. Phindela replied that he had introduced Mr Mashigo at the beginning of the meeting and had indicated that Mr Mashigo had been appointed to assist Parliament with managing a project of this magnitude because Parliament does not have the capacity to do so.

Mr Mashigo replied that the removal of rubbles would commence on 20 June and be completed by 31 July.

He confirmed that the task team has a continuous engagement with SAHRA, and SAHRA did indicate that it would make resources available to be part of the team whilst retaining regulatory independence.

He confirmed that the restoration of the Old Assembly building would be run independently of the New Assembly. There would be a separate contract and the appointment of a contractors and professional teams. The rationale for avoiding putting all the work in one company was to manage risks in case of contractual disputes. He explained to the Committee that, as much as it appeared that the Old Assembly building had not been affected by fire, a lot of work needed to be done for statutory requirements. Certain corridors would inevitably be demolished for compliance for work of that nature. That process with the SAHRA process would thus mean it could take more than 18 months to finish the whole restoration process.

He confirmed that the artworks were part of the asset verification but it did not form part of the assets that were to be reported to the AG because the evaluation of those assets is different from those of other assets. The task team did the verification and tracked the whereabouts of those assets. It is also working with Dr Kirsten, an in-house heritage asset specialist. Some artworks have been removed and put into safe storage, and some still need to be removed from the basement. Before they could be stored, the artworks needed to be sanitised. There is a register of all those assets. The task team knew where they were currently stored and had a process of how those artworks could be removed and taken for safe storage.

He explained to the Committee that the grading of CIDB is a requirement for the advertisement process. He was of the view that for this programme, it should not be about the grading per se but rather about the broader objectives of the programme. CIDB has a built-in programme which states that, apart from appointing the main contractor, one of the requirements is to have learnerships and a mentor to supervise all those learners that have been brought in.

[There was a connectivity problem with livestream]

Mr Mashigo explained to the Committee that there was a Service-Level Agreement (SLA) between Parliament and DBSA. Regarding timelines, there is also an infrastructure programme management plan (IPMP) that Committee Members could use to monitor the various timelines for various phases of the project. The plan would be prepared and the Secretariat to Parliament would be signing on Monday and present it to the Committee. That plan outlines strategic objectives, and how those objectives would be met. It also defines the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders, defines timelines and budgets, and outlines the scope. So, that would be an ideal instrument for Members’ oversight. Further, DBSA also has to prepare an infrastructure programme implementation plan which speaks to the briefs that the task team gives. Those two documents together would be the governance documents which the Joint Committee used to assess the task team’s performance accordingly.

Mr Mashigo indicated to the Committee that the initial correspondence between the DPWI and Parliament concerned the issue of who should provide the custodian functions to Parliament. The current position of the DPWI is that it may legally review s19 of the Government Immovable Asset Management Act (GIAMA), which speaks about delegating those functions. But before that review process is concluded, the interim arrangement between the two partners is that the Minister of DPWI can invoke s18(1) of GIAMA, which makes provision for the Minister to assign certain functions to an organ of the state, namely, the work related to the restoration of the building. So at present, the custodianship responsibility lies within Parliament. He assured the Committee that just because that legal review is taking its course, it does not mean that Parliament cannot continue its construction work. Parliament has engaged with Treasury which thus led to the appropriation. And the DPWI will participate in the technical and compliance committee. Parliament is also having continuous engagement with the DPWI.

Mr Mashigo confirmed that the rate of DBSA has to be negotiated. It cannot be a straight line and indicate the set-out amount in the initial phase.

He explained that the appointment of sub-contractors will be biased towards empowerment. The task team would outline the issue of sub-contracting once the work begins.

He reiterated that the AG would have to do real time audit. Since it is a statutory requirement, he did not include it in the governance structure. He committed that the AG would get all the information for auditing purposes.

The Speaker reminded the Committee that those Members who had been in Parliament long enough would recall that the previous presiding officer had contracted a team of architects some years ago to do an overall assessment of the Parliament precinct. The report included several recommendations and the point that some changes ought to be made to reflect the new era. She and the task team are firm that those recommendations would be incorporated into the work which was being unfolded.

Mr Chuene Ramphele, Group Executive, DBSA, indicated his role in leading this project. He accounts to the Secretariat to Parliament on the project. He replied to Mr Singh about whether the construction team would be using Parliament Road and what safety measures would be in place. Concerning the routes to be utilised, he indicated that the City of Cape Town was one of the key stakeholders in this process. An application has been made. The inclusion of the City of Cape Town in the process was also to ensure the expedited process and not experience unnecessary delay. The application has been considered and is really about the nuances of how possible that was going to be.

He replied to the question about the phases of the project. In the design process, the team would look at the things that can be done now and the work that would be completed at the end of the restoration project. It is guided by the key principle that whichever parts of the buildings have less damage and can be dealt with now will be dealt with.

He assured the Committee that the task team has the 3D scanning process to document the damage throughout the journey. The purpose of that 3D process is to combine all the pictures and compare the finished work with how it looked in the past.

He reiterated the team’s commitment to provide timelines to the Committee. He highlighted that the team would specify the milestones concerning those timelines when they presented to the Committee.

On the issue of fees, he explained that, as an organ of state, it was clear from the very beginning that it would charge six to nine percent. Then the STP indicated during the engagement that Parliament really could not afford the six percent. Then the DBSA replied that it understood its responsibility as an organ of state to assist the government. It thus conceded and adjusted the percentage rate to 4.5 percent. In its report, he also highlighted that the beneficiation of youth, etc., was incorporated in its development indicators.

He explained to the Committee that the adjustment of the completion date of Members’ offices was due to various other factors such as ventilation, air-conditioner, etc. It was not the building and structuring of those offices that took a lot of time. The aim was to provide functional offices to Members. Further, the team was aware of the urgency of having those offices ready and is thus running three shifts on site.

The Chairperson noted the responses and indicated to the Committee that the PPEs were ready for Members’ use to go onto the site for oversight.

She also noted the report of the investigation. The Office of the Co-Chairperson would communicate with the Office of the Speaker about when that report would be presented to Members. She suggested slotting that briefing in the meeting next week. Given that this year is very short and Members would have longer constituency weeks, the Committee should try its best and not leave too much work for the next administration.

She agreed with the Speaker that Members should have decent offices and complained that some offices are not decent enough to operate from. She highlighted the importance of providing decent office space not only for Members but also for parliamentary support staff as they play an instrumental role in the operation of Parliament. Her office and Mr Rayi’s offices look like storerooms.

The meeting was adjourned.