Parliamentary Villages: Department Response

Meeting report

PUBLIC WORKS AD HOC COMMITTEE
9 June 2004
PARLIAMENTARY VILLAGES: DEPARTMENT RESPONSE

Chairperson: Mr F Bhengu (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Department Report on Parliamentary Villages, presented to Committee on 2 June 2004
Department clarifications requested by Committee following 2 June meeting
Parliamentary Villages

SUMMARY
Members and the Director-General expressed severe dissatisfaction with the conditions at Parliamentary Villages. Problems included poor security control by the SA Police Services (SAPS), poor maintenance of buildings, stray cats and dogs, homeless unemployed loiterers on the premises, poor furniture provided, lack of co-operation from Parliamentarians, unauthorised overcrowding of residences by 'extended family members', disfunctional Board and Residents' Committees, unacceptable allocations of dwelling units, and a lack of short- and long-term planning.

Committee proposals for improvement included: a positive identification system for people and cars entering or leaving the premises; deposits to cover possible damages; strict enforcement of rules; reconstitution of the Board to include the Party Whips and SAPS; a comparative study between upgrading of the facilities and allowances in lieu of providing housing.

MINUTES
The Chair gave a brief overview of the problems of the previous ten years at the Parliamentary Villages. The Board did not function well, Members of Parliament did not take their responsibilities seriously, role players apart from the Department of Public Works such as South African Police Services and Parliament were not included in the management team, and reports produced were at cross purposes.

Mr J Maseko, Department Director-General, assured Members that the purpose of the meeting was to brief the Committee on proposed interventions and not to appoint blame. A recent audit had revealed that some 'extended family members' living in the Villages were not on the list and eviction orders had been issued. MPs should not to change the occupants in their dwellings without informing the Department. At the termination of an MPs term of office, he/she was given 30 days' notice to vacate. Domestics' rooms in particular were housing tenants.

Three Parliamentary villages were managed by the Department of Public Works: Acacia Park, Pelican Park and Laboria. Especially at Acacia Park, there was a security problem and much theft. Prevention measures to be implemented included better streetlighting, security lighting, razor wire on the outside fences and house burglar bars. A facility management company had completed a condition survey. An annual building maintenance plan will now go to Treasury. Long-term options included the upgrading of sub-standard structures (particularly at Acacia Park, where many were pre-fabricated); consolidation of the three villages to one location, or relocating to a position closer to Parliament. The major players involved were the Department, the SAPS, tenants and Parliament. Non-compliance to rules had led to excessive number of tenants, animals, and non-activation of alarms. The Department asked for advice on punitive measures. There were vacancies on the Board where the SAPS and Parliament were not currently represented. They proposed: 1) A deposit from tenants to cover possible damages; 2) A reduced response time from the Department; 3) To limit the numbers of tenants; 4) The eviction of illegal tenants; and 5) the enforcement of rules such as police searches at the entrance.

Mr S Opperman (DA) agreed that the rules at the gate had to be enforced, and deplored that he had not received a police eport after his car had been stolen.

Mr Len Joubert (IFP) asked about the criteria for applying for housing.

Mr S Siboza (ANC) pointed out that a procedural problem was created by calling upon Members to provide lists of tenants only on the previous Monday.

The Director-General advised that a report on a stolen vehicle could be obtained from SAPS. A strict security check at the gate for entering and leaving the system was imperative. Allocation of dwellings was done by the Party Whips, not the Department. Pelican Park and Laboria were owned by the State, whereas Acacia Park belonged to Graaff's Trust. In the latter case, this impinged on the level and type of investment.

The Chair asked how flats and houses were allocated, and when the E-block had been built.

Mr Siboza said that furniture in the houses was of very poor quality.

Ms M Ntuli proposed that a new Board be formed or the existing one be strengthened. How fussy were the procedures for accommodating extended families?

Mr Opperman wondered what police were looking for when they opened the boots of cars at the gate. Was the loan from the Graaff Trust for free?

Mr J Blanche (DA) voiced his disappointment at the recent termination of PM parking at Parliament during the recesses.

The Director-General explained that originally flats had been intended for session officials and units (houses) for MPs, but this had not been adhered to. The E-block was built prior to 1994. The Board should include a representative (or more than one) from the Party Whips and the SAPS, and its role should be reviewed so it took responsibility. Control had to be more strict with regard to overcrowded buses, loitering by the unemployed, overcrowded houses (up to 15 inhabitants in one house); and rules had to be tightened. Police were searching for weapons, video cameras, etc. The Acacia Park land was on loan ex gratia from the Graaff Trust. The Parliamentary Whips had decided not to allow parking in Parliament during the recess.

Mr K Moonsamy (ANC) appealed that the rules for the Villages be strictly enforced. Identification for inhabitants and vehicles was imperative, but the rest was simple.

Ms Ntuli appealed that search instruments and dogs be used by police at the gate. Thirty days was too short notice for tenants to vacate their residences.

Mr N E Magubane (ANC) asked that people with no rights to use the buses, not be allowed on. Stray dogs and cats were an ongoing problem.

Mr Joubert suggested that it might be advisable to do away with housing for parliamentarians and offer an allowance instead. Had a comparative study been done?

Ms N Mdaka (UDM) felt unsafe in Acacia Park because of the vagrants living under the bridge nearby. MPs sometimes had many enemies - were the police doing anything about it?

Mr Blanche recounted an anecdote where he inadvertently given a lift to vagrants and in effect smuggled them out through security.

The Director-General stated that tenants had a major role to play in the implementation of the rules but were not co-operating. Residence committees had to be functional and accountable. Eviction orders had been served with the written authority of the Speaker. Ministers had also been given 30 days to vacate. More use of technology would be discussed with the SAPS. A comparative study could be done if the Department was requested to do so. Safety was a collective effort - it should also be remembered that crime was not unique to Parliamentary housing.

The Chair thought that it was more a curse than a blessing to stay in the Parliamentary Villages. A visit to witness the situation in the Parks would be organised for the following week. The Board should be re-constituted, the Act should be studied, and a technical committee should report. Session staff should exclusively be allocated flats and MPs allocated houses. An updated audit of the current situation was urgent. The issue of future accommodation for the people living under the bridge should be referred to the Department of Housing.

Mr Blanche asked that the Act, amendments and the Graaff Trust Agreement be provided to Members. This was agreed.

The meeting was adjourned.