Department Budget Vote Report, Parliamentary Villages Report: adoption

Meeting report

PUBLIC WORKS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
18 August 2004
DEPARTMENT BUDGET VOTE REPORT, PARLIAMENTARY VILLAGES REPORT: ADOPTION

Chairperson: Mr F Bhengu (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Committee Budget Report
Committee Report on Parliamentary Villages
Department Crime Statistics

SUMMARY
The Committee adopted its Department of Public Works Budget Report and its Report on Parliamentary Villages. The Department reported back on certain issues surrounding security and power and water cuts in parliamentary villages. Almost all Members accepted that the situation in Acacia Park was unacceptable. A specific definition of a 'dependent' resident and a set of rules for the residents of the villages were requested from the Department.

The Members went through the two reports and identified certain errors. They discussed the issue of deteriorating housing standards at the parliamentary villages. The Department and a joint Task Team would investigate this. The Committee adopted amendments to the report.

MINUTES
The Chairperson said his office had to improve communication with the Department of Public Works (DPW) on certain issues. The Department should brief the Committee on crime in the Parliamentary villages and recent water cuts.

Ms Luyanda Sipha (Department Deputy-Director: Prestige Accommodation) reported back on certain issues that arose from the previous meeting. There had been security issues in the villages, but the Department had a good infrastructure to issue access cards to the residents to improve security and control access. Burglar proofing would be installed. The contractor was on site. They were busy with the manufacturing and would fit it later.

Two burglaries had been reported to the police, and the Committee had asked to be updated on the investigation. To date, such a report had not been received.

A Task Team had been put in place to ensure that the functions of the Board were carried out. The Department was responsible for co-ordinating the Task Team. After correspondence with the Secretary of Parliament, it has been decided that the first meeting of the task team would be on Friday, 27 August. The Task Team would assist in strengthening the security in the villages and ensuring compliance with the village's Board.

Electricity cuts in Acacia Park had been reported, but the Department believed that the problem lay outside the village. The Department was investigating the possibility of the village's own substation to ensure that there was no tampering with the wires outside the village. Progress would be reported to the Committee.

Water cuts had been reported. The Department had been engaging with the municipality. Routine maintenance interfered with the water supply to the village. Progress will be reported.

Ms Sipha said concerns had been raised about administration and personnel. The Department had investigated the issues and have long-term strategies to deal with the problem. A Client Relations Manager would be employed by the beginning of September and would be responsible for handling all queries.

Ms Sipha was aware of the transport problems of the previous day, 17 August. Buses should leave fifteen minutes after a meeting was adjourned. Government should inform the Department of the relevant times. A meeting with the bus company has been set up and they would investigate. The Chair would be informed of the details. Complaints had also been received regarding the conditions of the buses. This would also be discussed in the meeting with the bus company as a certain standard was stipulated in the contract. The current standard was unacceptable.

Mr Bhengu added that the buses had left after fifteen minutes, but were full. This had been a problem since 1994.

Ms Mdaka (UDF) alleged the electricity problems were outside the village. Their Goodwood neighourhood had had light when the electricity in the village was down. She asked if it was sabotage or only a problem with the power station. She also enquired whether the new Client Relations Manager would be stationed at a particular village office and whether the access cards had been delayed.

Mr Moonsamy (ANC) acknowledged the problem with the village. He suggested stickers or cards to identify Members' vehicles. The Department should know when a meeting would end.

Mr Gogotsha said the responsibility should be placed with service providers to Parliament. The Chair said it went both ways. The service provider would not know the details if the Government did not inform them. The lines of communication did not work well.

Ms Sipha replied that the electricity supply to the village came from the other side of the N1, and was not connected to the same power supply as Goodwood. The problem would be investigated. The Client Relations Manager would be stationed at the village and would report back to the Regional Office. The access cards had been delayed due to the Parliamentary recess. The infrastructure was in place and access cards would be issued. Stickers on Members' vehicles were a good idea and the Department would look into it. The problems were due to a lack of co-ordination.

Ms Mdaka said vehicles were not safe in the park because there were no garages.

Mr Terreblanche said the police had received no complaint of a stolen vehicle. He had reported this to a friend in the South African Police Service (SAPS). After an investigation, he received a letter that stated such a case had been reported. He agreed that cars were not safe.

The Chair asked if it was really necessary for a Member to go to a police friend to check this. A Task Team should be formed as there was no synergy between the SAPS, the Department and Parliament. He had also received the same letter as Mr Terreblanche. The Police had found the vehicle, but no arrests had been made. Two cases of theft had been reported. He requested that the police inform the Committee of such cases.

Mrs Sekgobela said the situation in Acacia Park was getting worse. She requested a Commission of Inquiry.

Ms Mdaka said Members picked up pedestrians. The police did not search the people in the vehicles. They only looked in the car and the boot.

Ms Ramotsamai (ANC) rejected the idea of a Commission of Inquiry. She suggested that they look at the issues over an extended period and then consider the options. A Commission would require large resources.

Mr Maduma supported the idea. Members should be accessible and there was a need for a common understanding of who was considered a dependent.

The Chair suggested a fully-fledged meeting about the issue of dependency before they rose in September. Members should look at how dependents should be registered.

Mr Terreblanche said the villages were the homes of the Members so family, children and friends should have free access to visit.

Ms Sipha welcomed the suggestions and access programmes. The definition of dependents had always been a problem and the current definition was too wide. The Department had been using the definition in the same manner as Parliament. The Department did not want to infringe on the rights and independence of the Members. It would be the responsibility of the Task Team to look at the roads. There should be control over the number of occupants in each unit. It had been difficult to put such controls in place.

Mr Phungula (ANC) said in Zulu that it seemed likely that some of the legitimate inhabitants of Acacia Park were themselves involved in criminal activity.

Ms Ramotsamai said Members knew that their children gave problems, but still took them to the villages. Children should not be allowed into Parliamentary precincts if they were not appropriately behaved.

The Chair said they needed the Task Team in place to define dependents.

Mr Gogotasha explained the situation in the villages during recess. Seven and nine-year-old children had been causing problems at the local shop and telephone booth, and had been playing loud music at night. He asked to whom this problem should be addressed.

Ms Ramotsamai said that the Committee should be discussing legislation and not Acacia Park and administrative problems. The Committee should discuss things that concerned the country and focus on Department issues.

Mr Kotwal (ANC) said the focus should not only be on the Members, but also the Officials who lived in the villages.

Mr Siboza (ANC) said there should be a rule of no exception in the villages.

A Member said emphasis should be place on corruption in Acacia Park. She agreed with the suggestion of a Commission of Inquiry. The situation had been affecting all Members as people who were not related to the Members lived in the village. She proposed that everybody should disclose what they saw during the day and at night.

Mr Terreblanche said it was privilege to live in a parliamentary village. There should be rules for the Members and Officials. They should sign in before entering the village. Members should conduct themselves in a certain way and not break the rules. He suggested that the privilege should end if anybody broke the rules.

Ms Mdaka added that the domestic workers also have their dependents in the village.

The Chair thanked Mr Terreblanche and agreed they should look into the rules. He had stated that a Commission of Inquiry entails a lot. It could only be formed if they have tangible proof to give to an institution. He asked if they had such information. Is corruption an allegation or a fact? He said they would look into the matter.

The Chair had gone through the crime statistics. Assault and theft had been reported to the police. Cases D66 and D58 referred to burglary cases. D66 had a case number, but there had been no mention of any suspects. There had been a suspect in custody for case D58.

The Chair said that they have a five year programme to deal with. He added that if Members were frustrated where they lived, they could not perform their functions effectively. The matter should be taken seriously. The issue should not be found in the media or go back to the Committee. It would lead to the derailment of their real commitment.

The Chair said that Members raised two amendments to the reports of the previous week.

Department Budget Vote Report
The Chair said that the reports were being drafted. The report should not reflect badly on the Members and it should not say anything that it was not supposed to. The reports should carry a true reflection of what they discussed.

The Chair paged through the report. He asked for comments.

Mr Terreblanche referred to a grammatical error on the third line on page 2.

The Chair said it did not make sense and the Secretary had used the sentence directly out of a document. He suggested that the line should be taken out.

Mr Maduma referred to the last paragraph on page two "the Committee congratulates the Department achievements have been done over ten year, but a lot needs to be done". He suggested it should be changed to "the Committee congratulated the Department on their achievements over the last ten years, but a lot still needs to be done". It was accepted.

The Chair turned to the last page and referred to "the maintenance of the state properties should be attended to". He said it leaves a lot to be desired.

Ms Ramotsamai proposed that they leave it as it was and only change the grammatical error.

Mr Gogotsha said it was bad grammar when a sentence started with "there".

The Chair referred to bullet number two. He asked if the sentence was suitable. Was it a recommendation? The co-ordination would happen in a particular way. It had been understood that it had been defined. He asked why it had to be defined.

The Chair and Mr Opperman (DA) replied that they also understood it that way.

Ms Ramotsamai agreed with the notion. The responsibility of the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) should lie with the Department.

Mr Terreblanche said the Minister asked why it would be done at a workshop. It stated that "the role and co-ordination and accountability aspect of the EPWP must be clearly defined at a future workshop".

The Chair was concerned whether it really must be the workshop. He asked how should it be different and what form should it take. He requested that the Department create a schedule or guide for ordinary Members to know what it is all about. It should be simplified.

Mr Terreblanche asked for more user-friendly guidelines.

Ms Ramotsamai referred to the recommendations and the word "constant". Constant could mean anything. She recommended that they tie it to a time.

Mr Opperman suggested that that they meet twice a year. Ms Ramotsamai said that she agreed on quarterly meetings or twice a year. She proposed twice a year. It could be more than twice a year, but not less than twice.

Parliamentary Villages Report
Mr Terreblanche referred to the fifth bullet on page 2. He asked whether the emphasis should be placed on the deterioration or the pre-fabricated houses.

The Chair said more houses would be built in Acacia Park and the site was under a trust. Some pre-fabricated houses had been deteriorating. The Members would have to look at alternative accommodation. He had been unsure if the sentence was correctly phrased.

Mr Gogotsha said MPs had been unhappy about having to live in pre-fabricated houses.

The Chair said that they did visit the villages. He asked whether it was worthwhile for MPs to stay in the pre-fabricated houses.

Mr Maduma said they should not stay in pre-fabricated houses.

The Chair said that they should leave the sentence as it is.

Mr Terreblanche said that he did not have any problems with the houses. If there had been deterioration, the houses should be rebuilt and refurbished.

Mr Maduma stated the pre-fabricated houses were not durable. It would be more wasteful if they built more pre-fabricated houses. He proposed that they build brick structures as it would save money.

Mrs Nwamitwa-Shilubana agreed. She said the pre-fabricated houses were cold in winter.

Ms Ramotsamai asked what the long-term plan for Acacia Park was.

The Chair said that they were still waiting for the report, but the houses should be refurbished appropriately for the time being. The Members should not only think of themselves, but also the future of their children would need to live there.

Mr Opperman referred to the middle of page two. He said the information still only applies to the Officials and not the Members. The information had been incomplete.

The Chair agreed Members should be included.

Mr Leburu (Clerk) said all the blocks refer to the Officials.

Mr Maduma said it should be two-bedroom houses.

Mr Opperman referred to the last bullet in block C. He asked who had typed the report. He requested that the typist read through the reports to check for any errors before it goes to the Committee.

The Chair said he would look into the matter.

A Member referred to bullet number 5. He said it should read "disfunctioning" and not "disfanctioning".

The Chair said that the problem was with the computers. The problem would be looked into. The Committee had no Personal Assistant (PA) at that stage, but the matter had been referred to senior officials of Parliament.

Mrs Nwamitwa-Shilubana referred to the correction of number five on page three "electric subsystem must be built". The Chair accepted it.

Mr Terreblanche said that an electric distribution centre in the village would not solve the problem. The problem had been between the municipality substation and Acacia Park. Further investigation was needed.

Mr Opperman asked whether the electricity could not be connected to those next to the N1.

The Chair proposed that they let the experts look into the problem. The Members should not be prescriptive.

Mr Siboza asked why they could not accept the document as the work of humans. The corrections could be sent to all the Members.

Ms Ramotsamai suggested the report should be adopted. The Chair could then look at it.

The Chair proposed that they could work on that. The amendments would be made before the next day. He would communicate with the Members.

Mr Opperman asked whether this procedure was in the rules and asked whether the same meeting should not adopt the report?

The Chair said some of the Members had received the document while others had not. If there would be any further amendments, they would be able to adopt it. He proposed that they read through the document.

Mr Gogotsha said most of the amendments had been about substantive issues and not grammatical issues.

The Chair suggested that they would adopt the report, but if the process had been wrong, they would go back to adopt it.

Mrs Ramotsamai said the Members should just check what they have adopted.

The Chair informed the Members about two letters that he would distribute. The first letter had been from a member of the public. The second letter had been from the Speaker of Parliament. The letter had been a question about what the Department have done to accommodate women in their programmes. The Secretary had been asked to compile a document. The document would be circulated to all Members and comments would be welcomed.

Mr Terreblanche asked what had happened to the handicapped people.

The Chair said that the issue would also be included in the document.

The Chair said it was demanded that the Committee had a strategic plan for the next five years which should be informed by the Committee budget according to a certain format. They would not need to put any figures into it. This matter had been raised in the chairperson's forum. The Committee would look into the matter during the next meeting in the following week. The budget should be submitted before the end of the month. Thereafter, the Members would align themselves according to that particular format. The next Wednesday would be used to discuss the budget.

The Chair informed the Members that he had invited Mrs Kerswar from Parliament to present this particular issue to the Committee. This would enable the Committee to know what is expected of them.

The Chair said the Members had proposed that the workshop take place during the following week. There would also be block computer training for a certain week. He would communicate it to the Members. He had emphasised that the strategic plan was the most important issue.

The meeting was adjourned.