Briefing by the Department of Human Settlements on 2024/25 Third Quarter Performance

Meeting report

The meeting began at 9:00 AM. The Chairperson confirmed that the agenda would proceed despite the absence of the Minister and Deputy Minister, who had both sent apologies. The Minister was attending a Cabinet meeting while the Deputy Minister was accompanying the President on an official visit to the Free State. Further apologies were received from Mr S Dithebe (ANC) and Ms T Magagula (ANC). The Chairperson also remarked on the recent heavy rains and flooding in KwaZulu-Natal and North West Province, acknowledging the devastating impact on communities. He hoped that they would receive a briefing from the Department on the situation in those provinces and explained that, at some point, they would need to visit affected areas to assess the damage first-hand. He also mentioned the International Construction Conference in Cape Town on April 8-9 and invited Members to attend.

The Chairperson said that discussions were ongoing with the Office of the Minister of Human Settlements to arrange a date for reviewing outstanding matters. It was tentatively scheduled for April. The Committee also wanted progress reports on smart cities and the work being done by the City of Johannesburg to reclaim hijacked buildings so that it could provide support and assistance where necessary.

Dr Alec Moemi, Director-General, Department of Human Settlements (DHS), said the Department would put together the reports the Committee had requested.

Presentation by DHS on 2024/25 Third Quarter Performance

Dr Moemi said the Department had successfully achieved all 28 performance targets for the third quarter. This represented a significant improvement over the previous two quarters. The internal audit team had audited both the performance data and the portfolios of evidence to confirm that these targets had indeed been met. This proactive approach had been taken to ensure that when the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) conducted its assessment, its findings aligned with the Department’s claims. The Department would closely track the remaining targets for the full fiscal year. Unlike earlier quarters, when targets could be carried forward, there would be no additional time to make corrections after the end of the fourth quarter. To ensure that 100% target completion was achieved, the Department was monitoring progress on a monthly basis to allow for immediate intervention if performance issues arose.

Key performance highlights

The Department had maintained compliance with the 30-day invoice payment regulation. It was in the final stages of finalising grant frameworks, despite receiving a delayed response from Treasury only yesterday. However, it was confident it could still meet its target deadlines. The Department had completed all required quarterly assessments. A detailed breakdown of the assessment data has been compiled into summary reports. These reports had already been shared with provinces and metros to ensure they were well-informed. The Department had finalised its report based on the 2024-2029 Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF). New targets from the Medium Term Development Plan (MTDP) have been incorporated and converted into actionable goals. Support had been provided across all nine provinces for the implementation of the Informal Settlements Upgrading Partnership Grant (ISUPG). However, some provinces, particularly Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal, had fallen behind in implementation. The Department had conducted disaster awareness training for both provinces and metros for the first time, and the initiative had been well-received. The Department had begun reviewing the disaster management framework to allow smaller-scale disasters to be managed directly at municipal and provincial levels. This would enhance response times and efficiency.

The Department had set four targets for the Rental & Social Housing programme and achieved all four. The Portfolio Committee had previously raised concerns about poor management of rental stock, questioning whether further expansion was feasible without ensuring proper oversight. In response, the Department now reported significant improvements in social housing performance. 90% of social housing institutions were now performing well, there was a 95% tenancy rate and a 96% rent collection rate, which was higher than some private sector benchmarks. The Department was now confident about expanding the rental housing stock and is also strengthening support for the Social Housing Regulatory Authority (SHRA) to sustain these improvements.

The Department had revived the Community Residential Units (CRU) programme and was actively working with five provinces that still had hostels. Key to this revival was the ring-fencing of 15% of the housing grant specifically for provinces and metros with CRUs. The Department continued to provide support to provinces across multiple affordable housing initiatives.

On the issue of title deeds, it has been determined that municipal-level challenges were the main bottleneck. As a result, a municipal conference had been planned to directly engage local governments and resolve administrative issues. A special seminar on titling was also scheduled for March to address ongoing legal and procedural hurdles. The Department is working on ministerial directives to unblock long-standing issues. A key strategic move involves municipalities passing special resolutions that would allow the Minister to declare special dispensations for title issuance, even in cases where townships had not yet been officially declared. This policy shift aimed to reduce the backlog in property ownership documentation. The Department had maintained its support for Breaking New Ground (BNG) housing projects, which focussed on providing fully subsidised housing for low-income households.

The Department continued to support several National Priority Catalytic Projects, which included smart cities. A full briefing on these projects would be provided.

Financial Performance

Ms Lucy Bele, Chief Financial Officer, DHS, said that as of the end of the third quarter the Department had spent 67% of its total adjusted budget. The reason for the low expenditure percentage was the additional emergency funding received, which had increased the total budget allocation.

Spending per economic classification was as follows:

- Compensation of employees: 67% expenditure.

- Goods and services: 42% expenditure (this included procurement of fire kits and building materials).

- Transfers and subsidies (grants): 69% expenditure.

- Payments for capital assets: 24% expenditure (this included emergency housing funds and departmental assets).

Ms Bele explained that when grants were excluded, the Department’s operational budget performance was weak, with spending at only 51%. Spending on goods and services had been slow and required corrective action. Remedial plans were being developed to prevent budget reversions to the revenue fund. She provided reasons for underspending in each of the Department’s programmes (see slide 21). When it came to grants, 100% of funds were expected to be transferred. She noted that scholarship programme expenditure was at only 44% due to the fact that university intakes happened in January-February. Invoices from tertiary institutions were still being processed, but once cleared, spending would improve. Spending for emergency housing was at just 29%. One reason for the low percentage was that many invoices were still being processed, and when this was complete, the picture would improve. Other key challenges were underspending in critical areas such as title deed processing, informal settlements, and emergency housing assessments. Bureaucratic delays in fund transfers to external entities like the United Nations (UN) Habitat South African Country Office and slow implementation of Temporary Residential Units (TRUs), had also hindered spending in this area.

Ms Bele summarised spending on conditional grants (slides 26-29). Where provinces were struggling to spend their full allocations, the Department asked the province to submit recovery plans, assessed which provinces needed additional funding to prevent budget reversions, and engaged National Treasury to approve reallocations to provinces that demonstrated the capacity to spend effectively. Treasury had approved the reallocation of R550 million in Human Settlements Development Grant (HSDG) funding from Free State, Gauteng and the Western Cape to KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo and Mpumalanga. R250 million in ISUPG funding would be reallocated, but Treasury had rejected the proposal to reallocate the money to the Northern Cape. Spending of the Urban Settlement Development Grant (USDG) and ISUPG was poor across metros.

Ms Bele reported that Treasury had initiated action under Section 18 of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), which grants them the authority to withhold funds if they anticipate underspending. Treasury had sent official notices to six metros, instructing the Department not to transfer the final tranches to underspending metros. Treasury had also requested written justifications from the affected metros, requiring them to explain why their funds should not be stopped and submit a detailed recovery plan outlining how they would utilise the remaining funds effectively. The National Department is actively involved in these discussions, aiming to prevent budget reversions and ensure that the funds remained within the sector.

see attached for full presentation

Discussion

Ms B Kegakilwe (ANC) asked why the Department had spent only 67% of the allocation for integrated human settlement planning and development, 65% on informal settlements, while the country was facing enormous outstanding challenges in these areas. She was also not entirely convinced by the explanations offered for underspending on goods and services. What was causing delays in procurement processes? She observed that there were unpaid invoices for emergency housing services. What was the reason for the delay in paying service providers? What was standing in the way of finalising the agreement for payment with UN Habitat? She asked why there was underspending on transfers and subsidies while local government was struggling with funds for service delivery. She asked why the Northern Cape had spent just 25% of its Human Settlements Development Grant (HSDG). Did the Department have plans to assist that Province? Did it have plans to help other provinces to spend their Informal Settlements Upgrading Partnership Grants (ISUPGs), rather than reallocating the money? How did the Department ensure that grants were spent effectively?

Mr K Sithole (IFP) expressed frustration with the slow pace of housing delivery in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng, asking what steps were being taken to support these provinces and ensure that they met their targets. He also inquired about the Department’s efforts to tackle the backlog in housing delivery, which had been compounded by inefficiencies at the provincial level. He was also concerned about underspending on compensation of employees and on UN Habitat, temporary residential units not being replaced with permanent housing, and the mushrooming of informal settlements and land occupations in Gauteng particularly. This last was a longstanding issue but nothing was happening. There was a Departmental programme that was supposed to address it.

Ms Z Abader (MK) said that the housing situation in every province was a mess, and wondered why funds were being transferred between provinces and reallocated. It would result in budget cuts in later years. It made no sense. Huge sums were being under-utilised. The Department could not complain about budget cuts when it didn’t spend its allocation. R550 million in grants had had to be reallocated due to underperformance. She called on the Department to present a concrete action plan to ensure full expenditure of budgets in the final quarter of 2024/25. Quarterly expenditure reports should be tabled before the Committee. She also observed that there was a misalignment between the Department’s 100% achievement of its performance indicators and significant underspending. The performance indicators appeared to be merely an administrative checklist. What immediate measures were being taken to address procurement bottlenecks? She called for monthly reports in agreement with Ms Kegakilwe. She also shared Mr Sithole’s concerns about mushrooming informal settlements.

Mr T Gamede (MK) questioned the sustainability of the Department’s 100% target achievement, emphasising the need for long-term impact beyond numerical success. He raised concerns about underspending due to procurement delays and inefficiencies and urged the Department to clarify its measures to improve budget execution and prevent future financial rollovers. He commended the reallocation of unspent funds to high-demand provinces but cautioned that systemic inefficiencies in underperforming regions required capacity-building and financial oversight rather than simple fund transfers. He recommended proactive financial management strategies, improved forecasting, and stronger interdepartmental coordination to prevent bottlenecks and enhance spending efficiency. He emphasised the importance of impact assessment and quality assurance, recommending qualitative reviews to evaluate real-world impacts on communities. Independent audits and beneficiary feedback mechanisms should be integrated to ensure that delivered projects effectively addressed housing challenges.

Ms S Frenchman (NCC) said that giving the Committee access to provincial reports would enhance their effectiveness in assessments and decision-making. Relying solely on the Department’s presentations limited their ability to conduct comprehensive evaluations. She also requested a status report on fraud and corruption within the Department, including actions taken to address such issues.

Mr C Poole (DA) raised several critical concerns regarding Departmental expenditure, underspending, and budget reallocation criteria, referencing slides 19, 21, 5, and 6 of the presentation. He questioned whether the Department could effectively utilise the remaining funds within the last quarter, given the significant portions still unspent. Referring to slide 21, he highlighted serious issues of underspending across programmes. These issues were interconnected and their solution would require a competent, corruption-free administration. He expressed concern over delays in service provider appointments and questioned what consequence management was implemented for missing deadlines. What was the nature of these delays, their causes, and their impact on Departmental performance? Inefficiencies ultimately prevented South African citizens from receiving essential services. On slides 5 and 6, he focused on emergency housing, where the CFO acknowledged underspending, yet goods and services expenditures remained at 0% due to pending National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC) invoices. How long must the Department must wait for these invoices before funds could be properly allocated? A clear time-frame was needed to ensure spending aligned with service delivery needs. Lastly, he expressed confusion over the budget reallocation criteria. How had provinces with under 80% expenditure been selected for additional funding? He pointed out that one province with 74% expenditure had received additional funds while another with 75% had had its funds reduced, and questioned the transparency and fairness of the process.

Mr L Mphithi (DA) raised several pressing concerns, beginning with excessive travel expenditures by the Department. He strongly criticised reports that R16 million has been spent on travel. Luxury hotel stays exceeding R100,000 had allegedly been funded. He urged Committee members to condemn such spending and demanded an explanation from the Department. He highlighted the non-payment of contractors by provinces, particularly those responsible for BNG and social housing projects. He had heard numerous complaints from contractors that had not been paid despite completing work, citing cases in the Eastern Cape. He pressed the Department for its strategy to resolve these payment failures, adding that the issue was widespread and worsening. He also sought clarity on the reallocation of funds, recalling a previous Committee meeting where the Department had stated it would no longer reallocate funds but instead work with provinces to ensure budgets were spent within the financial year. He was surprised that reallocation was still happening and requested an explanation for the policy shift.

He described the issue of title deeds as a crisis, noting its severe impact in Gauteng and other provinces. He called for urgent intervention to expedite title deed issuance. People should receive ownership documentation with dignity while they are still alive. He urged the Department to provide clarity on its efforts to accelerate this process and ensure that municipalities and provinces were held accountable. He also asked what recourse beneficiaries had when their newly built houses began to fall apart. If consequence management was ineffective, there would be no accountability for substandard construction. Who should beneficiaries contact in such cases and what systems were in place to address housing defects and hold contractors accountable?

Finally, he addressed emergency housing assistance, specifically the process for Committee members and other officials to request building materials for disaster-affected communities. He noted confusion surrounding how quickly materials were deployed and whether those outside formally recognised municipalities could access assistance. He asked the Department to provide examples of instances where emergency aid had been swiftly delivered and to explain how the process could be streamlined to prevent disaster victims from being left without support for extended periods.

Responses

Dr Moemi noted that there were constitutional limitations on national government interventions in provincial and metro-level governance. While national government provided support where necessary, constitutional autonomy often restricted direct intervention. He cited successful interventions in Limpopo and Mpumalanga, where the Department’s assistance had helped improve financial and operational efficiency, preventing fund reallocations. In contrast, the North West province, under Section 100 interventions, continued to struggle due to historical financial mismanagement, leading to non-payment of contractors and a backlog in project completion. The Department had now enforced a policy requiring provinces to clear existing debts before committing to new projects, aligning with the Minister's directive to apply an 80-20 budget split, prioritising historical debt clearance over new commitments.

He explained that CRUs were funded through transfers to provinces and metros, rather than being direct departmental expenditure. Johannesburg was cited as a leading metro in implementing CRU projects. On student housing, Dr Moemi clarified that while DHS oversaw general housing, responsibility for student accommodation primarily fell under the Department of Higher Education and Training. However, the National Housing Finance Corporation (NHFC) had been mandated to finance the construction of new private student accommodation. The Housing Development Agency (HDA) had also been tasked with acquiring abandoned buildings for redevelopment into student housing and social housing stock, including the potential use of the Expropriation Act to re-purpose neglected properties.

On Temporary Residential Units (TRUs), Dr Moemi acknowledged that many had remained longer than intended due to provinces failing to transition residents to permanent housing. To address this, the Department restructured the emergency housing response, centralising oversight to improve coordination. He also addressed Northern Cape’s financial constraints. Until the province settled its debts with the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA), the Department’s intervention options were limited. Although the national Department had initially opposed their financial approach, constitutional provincial autonomy prevented intervention, and now DBSA repayments had restricted their budget flexibility.

Regarding concerns about fund reallocation, Dr Moemi clarified that while the Department previously aimed to stop reallocations, persistent underspending in certain provinces had necessitated shifting funds to high-performing provinces. If this was not done, Treasury could cut the human settlements budget, negatively impacting the sector. The same rationale was applied to the USDG, where metros must demonstrate financial capacity before accessing additional funds. Treasury had already invoked Section 18 of the PFMA to stop and reallocate funds based on performance metrics.

Responding to Ms Abader, Dr Moemi defended the Department’s target-setting and oversight role, arguing that the national Department did not directly control how provinces and metros implemented their budgets. However, the Department regularly assessed performance, withheld funds where necessary, and provided assistance, as seen in Mangaung, where poor planning resulted in withheld grants until a recovery plan was approved. He emphasised that the Portfolio Committee itself had a role in oversight, particularly in addressing failures at provincial and metro levels.

Regarding Mr Gamede’s concerns on budget inefficiencies, Dr Moemi reiterated that measures were in place to track and improve spending, including Treasury’s independent verification of provincial financial capacity before reallocating funds. Addressing Mr Poole’s concerns on seemingly unfair reallocations, he explained that provincial spending percentages alone do not dictate fund distribution. Rather, provinces must present credible recovery plans. For instance, a province with 74% expenditure may receive more funds if its spending trajectory suggests it will fully utilise the funds, while another at 75% may lose funding if it lacks a viable expenditure plan. Treasury independently validated these assessments before reallocations occur.

On NHBRC invoice delays, Dr Moemi acknowledged long waiting periods and proposed a new approach where NHBRC invoiced in smaller, more frequent batches rather than waiting until the assessment of thousands of houses was complete. This would prevent financial bottlenecks and improve cash flow for housing projects.

Responding to Mr Mphithi’s concerns about excessive travel expenditure, Dr Moemi asserted that all travel expenses were within budget and compliant with financial regulations. Internal audits had found no irregularities, and an external audit would confirm compliance. On non-payment of contractors, he reiterated that budget cuts and financial constraints had contributed to delays, and that the Department was prioritising clearing outstanding debts before initiating new projects.

Regarding title deed delays, Dr Moemi cited historical complexities, including pre-1994 land administration issues, undeclared townships, and outdated municipal regulations, all of which blocked title deed issuance. The Department was engaging municipalities to implement a special dispensation that would allow title deeds to be issued even where there were regulatory obstacles. He confirmed that the Minister had already requested exemptions from Planning and Land Use Management Act provisions to accelerate title deed issuance. Additionally, pressure was being applied on the North West Housing Corporation to release state-owned land parcels to facilitate title transfers.

On poor-quality housing, Dr Moemi highlighted improvements in oversight, including strict NHBRC compliance requirements for new builds. Current measures prioritise early quality checks to detect defects before completion. The NHBRC now mandated insurance for all new builds, ensuring that poorly constructed homes were fixed without incurring additional government spending. If a house was poorly built, insurances and deposits of contractors could be forfeited, and the NHBRC stepped in to rectify the issue. However, he acknowledged that defective houses built before this system was implemented remained a challenge. The Department was actively lobbying Treasury for a new window under the rectification programme to address these cases.

On emergency housing, Dr Moemi outlined the Department’s response framework. Within 48 hours of a disaster, teams were on the ground. However, municipalities were responsible for verifying and listing affected beneficiaries before housing support was provided. The Department had deployed teams to assist municipalities with beneficiary identification to expedite the process and ensure affected individuals received assistance quickly.

Dr Moemi reassured Members that the Department would spend its annual budget as planned but noted that reckless expenditure would be a bigger problem than under-expenditure. He cited Eastern Cape TRU projects as an example, where had the Department spent the allocated funds on improperly appointed contractors, it would have resulted in massive irregular expenditure. He stressed the importance of balancing accountability and service delivery, referencing COVID-19 procurement irregularities as a cautionary lesson. The Department, he stated, would not be pressured into irresponsible spending and would ensure funds were utilised in compliance with regulations. He also highlighted the personal accountability risks faced by accounting officers under the Public Audit Act, noting that if irregular expenditure occurred, AGSA could demand repayment from him personally.

Regarding the UN Habitat Office, he explained that the delays in payments were due to complex legal and diplomatic processes involving the Department of International Relations and Cooperation, the Presidency, and the Vienna Convention. The Department had anticipated finalising payments by January, but bureaucratic delays had pushed the timeline back. However, he assured the Committee that the remaining R19 million for the establishment of the country office would be spent before the end of the financial year.

Follow-up discussion

Ms Kegakilwe asked about the finalisation of the Department’s organisational structure. How far had the process progressed?

Mr Sithole reiterated his concern about the rapid expansion of informal settlements. Budget allocations for informal settlements were substantial, yet their growth remained unchecked, with new informal dwellings emerging within existing settlements. This trend presented a significant challenge, particularly during rainy seasons, as informal settlement residents were most vulnerable to disasters. He urged the Department to explore ways in which national government could collaborate with provinces and municipalities to monitor and control the expansion of informal settlements. If left unaddressed, the issue could escalate into a major crisis.

Mr Mphithi reiterated his concerns over travel expenditures, clarifying that the issue was not about whether spending followed proper procedures, but rather about excessive and unnecessary spending on luxury accommodations. He strongly condemned reckless spending of taxpayer funds, questioning why officials opted for expensive hotels when more affordable options were available. He called on the DG to ensure a culture of financial prudence within the Department. He argued that the former minister had played a central role in the issue and should be held accountable.

Dr Moemi provided an update on the Department’s organisational structure. The macro structure had been finalised and submitted to the Minister for consideration. However, the Minister had requested alignment with the finalised Medium Term Development Plan (MTDP) and strategic targets before approval. This process had been completed the day before. Once the Minister gave final approval, work would commence on the micro structure. He noted that consultations with unions had taken place and that the departmental bargaining chamber was handling related processes. Following ministerial approval, the Department would seek further approval from the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) to finalise the structure.

Addressing the mushrooming of informal settlements, Dr Moemi acknowledged the serious financial and planning burden caused by uncontrolled land invasions. Once people occupied land for 48 hours, the law prevented their removal without alternative accommodation, which in turn obligated municipalities and national government to provide services. However, national government lacked legal standing to stop land invasions directly, as this fell under municipal jurisdiction. The dysfunctionality of some municipalities, coupled with local politicians encouraging land occupations, had worsened the situation. To mitigate this issue, the Department had allocated a portion of the ISUPG to assist metros in preventing illegal land occupations. He cited Mangaung’s intervention in Laurier Park as an example where national support had enabled quick municipal action. Additionally, the Housing Development Agency (HDA) has been tasked with developing a geo-mapping system to monitor informal settlements weekly, track expansion, and detect land invasions in real time. The goal was to implement this system as an early warning tool to alert municipalities within the critical 48-hour period so they could take legal action before settlements became permanent. He also observed that many invaded areas were unsuitable for housing due to factors like steep slopes or poor drainage, and this sometimes complicated formalisation efforts.

In response to concerns regarding extravagant travel expenses, Dr Moemi reiterated that the Department strictly adhered to National Treasury’s cost-containment measures, which set limits on travel expenditures. He maintained that no unauthorised or irregular spending had taken place, and that Parliament had approved these funds for their intended purpose. While acknowledging Mr Mphithi's concerns about prudent financial management, he disagreed with the characterisation of the Department’s travel spending as reckless. He assured the Committee that AGSA’s review would determine whether any financial mismanagement had occurred, and reiterated his confidence that all expenses were within compliance standards.

Ms Kegakilwe appreciated Dr Moemi’s explanation regarding ministerial accommodation expenses. She pointed out that the Minister did not personally select hotels but rather followed arrangements made by officials. She disagreed with Mr Mphithi’s assertion that the Minister should have opted for cheaper accommodation, arguing that even Committee members did not personally select or negotiate their lodging arrangements, and cost considerations were not typically their responsibility. She defended the officials, stating that they would not exceed set financial limits, and urged Members to avoid pointing fingers unfairly before reflecting on their own practices regarding official travel accommodations.

The Chairperson sought to bring closure to the debate on accommodation expenses. He suggested that Mr Mphithi submit specific details of any overly expensive accommodations to the Chairperson’s Office. This would allow the issue to be formally presented to the Department for verification and response, ensuring a conclusive resolution instead of ongoing debate.

The Chairperson thanked Dr Moemi, his team, and Committee Members for their questions, recommendations, and contributions. He stressed the importance of addressing title deed backlogs, emphasising that title deeds were a matter of dignity for the people. He recalled that the Department had launched "Title Deeds Friday", an initiative aimed at making regular progress on issuing outstanding title deeds. He suggested that officials begin gathering data from provinces to compile a detailed progress report on title deed distribution.

Further, the Chairperson drew attention to a model CRU project in the North West, which was considered a best-practice example. He proposed that the Committee visit this project during their next trip to the Northwest to gain insights that could be replicated elsewhere.

On the organisational structure, he acknowledged that progress had been made and proposed that the Committee receive a briefing on it once the Minister approves it. While the Committee would not make changes, understanding the new structure would facilitate future interactions with the Department.

The Chairperson also asked whether it was possible to adjust funding based on previous spending capacity. Perhaps provinces that failed to fully spend their budget in one year should receive proportionate allocations in the next, instead of the same amount, which often led to subsequent budget reallocation. This would prevent continuous fund shifting and prevent sector-wide budget cuts by Treasury.

Lastly, he requested a report on accredited municipalities outside of metros, such Buffalo City, which had been given authority to handle BNG housing projects. Had these municipalities begun receiving direct allocations?

Dr Moemi responded to the Chairperson’s concerns about budget allocations, explaining that National Treasury already considered historical expenditure patterns and other financial factors when making new allocations. However, the Money Bills Act allowed only a limited five-day window for the Department to review and challenge indicative allocations, making it difficult to analyse all nine provincial and metro schedules. Despite this constraint, the Department had rarely disagreed with Treasury’s allocations, as they were based on extensive assessments and the equitable share formula. He clarified that while conditional grants were originally meant to supplement funding, they had now become primary drivers of service delivery, reinforcing the importance of allocating funds strategically.

Regarding the CRU programme, Dr Moemi acknowledged the existence of successful projects, particularly in five provinces that had made significant progress since funds were ring-fenced. However, he highlighted challenges related to community resistance, noting that some hostel residents opposed the transition to family units and would prefer simple upgrades to existing structures. This conflicted with the original intent of the CRU policy, which aimed to convert hostels into more sustainable housing solutions.

On the Department’s organisational structure, Dr Moemi confirmed that the Department was required to present it to the Committee as part of the Annual Performance Plan (APP). However, once the Minister finalised her review and granted approval, the Department was willing to brief the Committee earlier. He assured the Chairperson that once approved, the structure would detail employment costs, goods and services budgets, and economic classifications, ensuring full transparency in how the Department was structured and operated.

Conclusion

The Committee secretary reported that Mr S Dithebe (ANC) had joined the meeting.

Mr Dithebe said that he was visiting the Polihali Dam in Lesotho, which was part of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project. He said that he was simultaneously attending a Water and Sanitation meeting. He emphasised the importance of ensuring water availability when developing human settlements, highlighting that 750 billion litres of water per year were supplied to South Africa.

The Chairperson acknowledged Mr Dithebe’s update on water and sanitation, emphasising the importance of serving the citizens of South Africa. He thanked everyone for their participation.

The meeting was adjourned.