Relocation of two missions in New York: DIRCO update, with Minister & Deputy Minister

Meeting report

Opening Remarks
Acting Chairperson Mpanza apologised that the meeting was starting late as there was an overlap with the Plenary. He would begin the meeting in the absence of Chairperson Ms T Mahahbehlala (ANC) who would join later. He introduced the agenda items.

Introduction of Acting Director General by the Minister
Dr Naledi Pandor, Minister of International relations and Cooperation, stated that the Acting Director-General (DG) was the current Deputy Director General serving as head of Consular Services in the branch, she was also the Chief of Protocol in South Africa, Ambassador Nonceba Losi. She would lead the presentation.

Ms T Msane (EFF) pointed out she had raised a point of privilege in the previous Committee meeting where the Acting DG was not present. She had reserved it so that she could table it at this meeting when she would be present. She was raising an issue apart from the findings of the previous meeting which could be made as additions to the point she wanted to raise. She requested that the Acting DG highlight to the House, what the Members of Parliament did for the country and how the Acting DG’s roles and responsibilities interlinked with the Members roles and duties. 

She requested that the Acting DG apologise for her ‘unbecoming’ behaviour and expressions voiced about Members of Parliament, specifically about Members of this House over a telephone conversation on 27 February 2021. She had phoned the Acting DG requesting assistance for a desperate South African who was stuck in Oman. She requested that these two matters be addressed before the meeting moved to the next agenda items.

Mr M Chetty (DA) stated that he also wanted to hear the response from the Acting DG. The previous meeting had to be called off – that was the first meeting that the Acting DG would have been present at and the Committee was not told that she would not be there. Her colleagues tried to mislead the Committee as to whether she was or was not present in the meeting and tried to contact her to come to the meeting. She needed to prioritise which meeting was important. He requested an apology in this regard. The Committee had a scheduled meeting that she was not present at. The Members wasted their day setting time aside for the meeting which was then cancelled. 

Acting Chairperson Mpanza asked Ms Msane whether the telephone conversation took place when Ms Losi was Acting DG, or prior to that. He asked for clarity as to whether the conversation was in Ms Losi’s capacity as Acting DG.

Ms Msane clarified that Ms Losi was already in the position of Acting DG and she had spoken to her in that capacity.

Ms Losi stated that from the outset of the meeting she had intended to apologise to the Committee members unreservedly. She took full responsibility for not attending the meeting on that particular day, which had clashed with the Audit Committee Meeting. She had asked her Office to apologise – but she took full responsibility. She apologised for having wasted the Members time.

On the issue raised by Ms Msane, the phone call took place on a Friday evening. Ms Msane had wanted the cell number of the Ambassador in Oman. She had asked Ms Msane to phone the Ops Room to get the number. She profusely told her that she did not have the number. Ms Msane started to shout at her. She kept repeating that she did not have the number. Ms Msane had said the Ops Room was engaged. She told her that the Ops Room was often inundated with calls related to repatriation due to COVID-19. Ms Msane was very angry and she even threatened to tape her. She had informed Ms Msane that if she wished to tape her – she could go ahead because she was being honest – she did not have the number. That was why they had a 24-hour Ops Room. If the Member felt that she had disrespected her, she apologised unreservedly for that. She had been with her sisters on that evening – and had said to them, this was how they were treated – and it was true. If she felt disrespect – she fully and unreservedly apologized for that.

Chairperson Mahambehlala stated that she was perturbed by what the Acting DG had just said in the meeting - that she had directed Ms Msane to a toll free number. Was this how Members of Parliament were going to be treated? When they needed information from the Department and the Acting DG in particular – they would be directed to a ‘toll free number.’ Ms Msane had called her after that call and had wanted to write a letter and complain about the whole matter. The level of respect amongst the Committee and officials required that it be mutual. Once one got no information certainly one was bound to be frustrated and especially when someone had an ‘attitude’ – someone who was supposed to assist Members of Parliament.

Ms Losi responded that she would find out from ICT how to deal with getting such information in future.

Mr Mpanza stated that he wanted to wrap-up this matter and make a proposal and deal with the questions of the day.

Mr Chetty stated that it was important that they cleared the matter up right there. There were various problems when they came to this Committee initially especially the manner in which officials were treating Members of Parliament. During the previous year when they were busy with repatriation of South African citizens from abroad in the context of COVID-19, the former/suspended DG offered the courtesy of responding to Members calls or sending a message be it at 11:30pm or at 1am in the morning. He suggested that to just give an unreserved apology as if to say ‘it was ok’ and carry one – was unacceptable. The Members of Parliament represented the people of the country. The Committee dealt with South African citizens who were stranded abroad and their days and times differed from South Africa. For them as Members of Parliament to do their job diligently and make sure they were representing South Africans – they could not have the highest position in the Department, even though it was an acting position – ‘having that sort of an attitude.’ He did not take kindly to the fact that the Acting DG ‘washed it away with an apology.’

Since Ms Losi had taken over as the Acting DG, had any other officials in the Department – apart from the suspended DG – been suspended surrounding the New York project?

Mr Mpanza also wanted to note that the documents were received very late from the Department. The Committee had to cancel a previous meeting as the document was received too late for Members to adequately prepare for the meeting.

Ms Losi stated that once more she apologised for what happened and reassured the Committee that she was ready to serve the Committee and the Department. It was not out of disrespect – and she profusely apologised.

Ms Msane stated that the question was very clear. The question that arose from the whole matter was how would Members of Parliament be treated moving forward. The Committee dealt with a lot of issues relating to South Africans who were stranded abroad. Their role and responsibility – does the Acting DG understand what was the role and responsibility as Members of Parliament? How does her roles and responsibilities interlink to what they were there to do? The whole frustration of being given a toll-free number on a Friday and someone ‘entertaining her friend or sister’ – and stated that ‘this was how they were treated by members of Parliament.’ Was this how they were going to be treated moving forward? They were not sitting in Parliament representing themselves. She found it very ‘disturbing’ for the Acting DG to just come and brush off the matter with an apology that ‘was not even worth the mike that she was speaking on.’ She wanted the roles and responsibilities of Members of Parliament and the Acting DG to be outlined very clearly. They were used to a certain working method – and how they assisted South Africans abroad. Their name as a country was put in jeopardy wherever these people were. The matter was still not resolved to date – and she did not know whether the person was ‘alive or dead.’ Her role was to make sure that the person was rescued from the situation that they were in.

Mr Mpanza stated that it was a rough start between the Committee and the Acting DG but it needed to be dealt with so that it did not happen again. He proposed that the Acting DG put her apologies in writing, directed to the Office of the Chairperson, so that the Chairperson could take the Committee through the written apology at the next meeting. In that letter it needed to state that, as indicated during the meeting, this would be the first and last time of such an occurrence. The letter also needed to cover how the Acting DG would relate to the Committee.

The second proposal was that the Minister and Deputy Minster deal with the matter directly with the Acting DG and should discuss how the Acting DG should relate to the Committee and treat the Committee. As the Chairperson stated, the respect was mutual, if she respected the Committee, the Committee would respect her.

Regarding the matter that Ms Msane had stated was still not resolved, he requested that the Minister together with the Acting DG and Deputy Minister ensured that that matter was followed up and resolved. Going forward, this should not happen. If any members of the Portfolio Committee were to phone her, if she could not assist, she should refer the Member to the most senior official who had authority to assist with a particular issue.

The matter would not be concluded that day – the Committee would receive the letter from the Chairperson in the next meeting. He also requested that the Minister provided a progress report as to how the issue was dealt with at a departmental issue.

Briefing by DIRCO
Ms Losi presented an update on the relocation of the Chancery in New York. The presentation provided an overview of the market research relating to the relocation, the suitability of the preferred property, the approval process, contract negotiations, current status and next steps.

Background
- The Mission entered into a lease agreement for the Chancery in a property situated at 333 East 38th Street from 01 April 1990 until 30 April 2004. For the first 10 years of the lease, i.e. to April 2000, the rental was fixed.  On 1 May 2004 the monthly rental escalated and remained fixed at this level until 30 April 2014, when the lease terminated.
- The contract was signed with SL Green, who sold the building to New York University Langone in 2013. - The new owners bought the property with the exclusive aim of converting it into a medical facility.
- In view of the above, the new owner did not wish to renew the lease at its termination in April 2014. 
- The lease agreement did, however, allow for a continued occupation on a hold over basis, which was agreed to by the owner.
- Currently, the South African Mission is the only non-medical tenant at the hospital. 
- The NYU Langone hospital is one of New York’s largest COVID-19 Testing Centres, which makes it dangerous and unsafe for staff and our clients to operate from.

Market Research
- The Committee’s oversight visit and the subsequent Covid-19 situation compelled the Department to initiate urgent steps to relocate the Mission.
- The Mission contacted 3 real estate agencies on its database and viewed available office accommodation in close proximity to the United Nations in July 2020.
- 12 properties were viewed and three properties were shortlisted for consideration as they met the criteria of affordability, security, accessibility and space.

845 Third Avenue (Floors 9 & 10): 51,843 square metres – partially fit out required
205 East 42nd Street: 48,836 – Bare shell, full fit out required
220 East 42nd Street: 40,737 – Bare shell, full fit out required.

- A Joint Committee was established between the Permanent Mission to the UN (PMUN) and the Consulate, including Partner Departments, to consider the options.
- The Missions recommended the property situated at 845 Third Ave as the most suitable, representational, safe and move-in ready building. The building is also in close proximity to the United Nations, Grand Central Station and is centrally located.
- The two other buildings were not move in ready, the floor space needed a complete fit out as they are a bare shell.
- The recommended property will be subleased from the British Consulate for a fixed term until February 2025.

 Approval process
The Missions’ request to relocate was considered as per the prevailing Delegations of Authority and approved by the Director General in September 2020.
The approval was subject to the following:
- Conversion of the offer document into a legal contract;
- OCSLA to advise on the desirability of a sublease as well as the terms of the contract;
- The Missions to submit actual relocation costs rather than estimated costs; and
- Head Office (Security and Information and Communications Technology (ICT)) to engage with the Mission regarding security and ICT requirements for the layout of the two floors.

In early November 2020, the Department received comments from a Partner Department, mainly related to the sublease. Specific concerns related to –
- The ability of the landlord, being the British Government, to have access to the floors for inspection and maintenance;
- The need for the landlord to be informed of structural changes to the property; and
- Possible implications for South Africa’s sovereignty where the mission is accommodated in another mission.
These concerns were addressed by means of renegotiating the sublease agreement (landlord access and termination rights). In this process, the mission was assisted by Office of the Chief State Law Adviser (OCSLA)

Contract negotiation
- Contract negotiations commenced in September 2020 and the final agreed text was received on 6 March 2021.
- In terms of the final text the landlord will not have access to the floors without the express permission of the tenant. The Mission also secured its rights to termination in the event of breach of contract
- The Mission does not intend making structural changes to the property and will occupy the space fully – as such, the partner department concerns have been addressed
- OCSLA has indicated that it is satisfied with the final text

Current status and next steps
- The matter was referred to National Treasury to confirm whether a sublease complies with the PFMA and to give guidance on how the department should proceed. The matter is currently with the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer (CIO) at National Treasury
- The Partner Department will be engaged to ensure proper security arrangements at the new premises.
- The Mission is currently updating its Project Plan to reflect the time needed for ICT cabling, procurement of some furniture and actual relocation.
- The final timeframe for the relocation is set to be by end of June 2021, however, this is dependent on the response from National Treasury, partner department security requirements and timing for ICT connectivity. 
- In terms of the lease agreement, the Missions will receive a 6 month rent free period. The rental saved over this period will be applied towards the funds needed for the relocation activities.

Discussion
Mr D Bergman (DA) noted that there was no mention of the price of the three prospective properties. This would be a useful factor to take into consideration. What was becoming more and more evident, was that when diplomats left the properties there was a trend of leaving a ‘signature trademark there’ which was costing South Africa quite a lot of money. Not only was the country not getting its deposit back but damages needed to be paid. There was an alleged one in Austria where 40 000 Euros was being costed to DIRCO. Was this not an opportune time for the Committee to look into the possibility of making a change to the Foreign Services Bill to build into it a clause that diplomats took responsibility for rental properties and would also take responsibility in cases where the deposit was not paid back. They could take responsibility personally for damages.

Mr B Nkosi (ANC) stated that he was happy that in the contract negotiations, they had an ‘opt out’ clause that enabled them to cancel the contract should they find that there was a breach on the part of the lessor or landlord. Was there still temporary accommodation until they found alternative accommodation for the Mission as planned in the pilot project? Was the Department doing this on its own or was there somebody – a professional assisting it to identify the property and advise on the transaction itself, in line with the market in that area? He requested clarity regarding the budget and the length thereof. Was it sustainable? Was the size versus the cost comparable? The size was a little bit bigger – but was the cost in line with the size? Were the buildings fit for purpose for the operations of the Mission? They wanted to avoid escalation later – of making the properties fit for operations at a later stage.

Mr Chetty stated that the Acting DG had said that part of the reason for the urgency in the relocation was due to the fact that the current building was housing the medical centre and was now one of the busiest COVID-19 stations. The Committee’s oversight visit took place prior to COVID-19 and as a Committee they had already made the comment that the building was not suitable to be housing the Embassy/Mission. It did not bode well for South Africa’s image to be housed in a hospital. COVID-19 was being used an excuse for the haste in the tender processes. The fact that the Department ‘dragged its feet’ from 2004 up to 2021 made him question whether, had there not been COVID-19, they would have even tried to move.

How much was the rental that was agreed for the new property? He referred to the slide where the three properties were listed. He had raised this matter previously with the Minister at the last meeting. 835 Third Avenue, 205 East 42nd Street, 220 East 42nd Street. During the remarks by the Acting DG – she had appreciated the work of the oversight Committee when they went abroad. This had also augmented the decision to move premises. The first building the Committee had seen on their visit was a run-down burnt dilapidated abandoned building – which was not mentioned in the presentation. The second one they visited was 885 Second Avenue, and the third one was 665 Third Avenue. The ones that the Committee had viewed and put into its report – the very report that this presentation had made reference to – did not seem ‘to gel.’ Did the Acting DG and her team consider the inputs from the report the Committee submitted? When did the three properties listed on the presentation emerge? When were they sourced? What happened to the other properties which the oversight Committee were tasked to go and visit? The one building the Committee had seen already housed other embassies for safety purposes. The one that was preferred at the time was the best shell. At that point in time they received the quotations for those buildings and the associated rental. Were the feasibility studies and inspections, on the ones that that the Committee were led to go and see, done? How much was the rental on the property being proposed versus the ones offered when the Committee was there?

Ms Msane echoed the questions raised by Mr Chetty. When the Committee did its oversight visit, it had gone to see three buildings. In the report which was presented, none of those were highlighted. She requested clarity on the inclusion of the State Law Advisor during the process. In previous meetings they had found out that the Department had always overlooked the inclusion of the State Law Advisor in making decisions / giving advise relating to matters of importance. 

She echoed the sentiments of the Mr Mpanza. It disadvantaged the Committee to receive reports late. The procurement of the ICT – was it an internal company that would handle the ICT? Were the processes and procedures followed if it was someone new? Was the Department’s Infrastructure Committee now involved in the current new space which the Committee had not got to witness? How did they get to this new location/offices? How much was the rent – were they renting? Given the recommendations and findings of the oversight report for the pilot project to take place – the Department had decided to follow a different process of housing the missions. Has that changed?

Chairperson Mahambehlala stated that on the oversight visit they had been directed to a property that was not a building but just a parking lot. She referred to the presentation where the Acting DG had stated that the Committee’s oversight visit and the subsequent COVID-19 situation compelled the Department to act – how so? The two properties they visited, one of which was a parking lot of a ‘horror movie’ and the second which was more suitable and favoured by the missions – why did they not continue with that property? Was the Department not compelled at that time to do the same thing? She requested an explanation on that.

She stated that the Committee might brush off the late submissions of the presentations – but it was becoming a norm. She was not sure whether the late submission was intentional and intended to deliberately disarm the Committee from thoroughly engaging on the matter. In the next meetings with the Department, she requested that the Minister needed to ensure that they got the presentations the day before the meeting.

The Mission had been ready to move out of the building since the oversight visit – she believed they were still ready to move. Why did the Department want them to move in June/July? What were the legal opinions around this matter? It was important that the Chief State Law Advisor was involved – last time the Committee was told that they were not involved. Of the buildings selected, which building did the Missions prefer? They were better placed to advise the Department as to which building was suitable. The lease was for five years – what were the plans for an alternative permanent office? As the Portfolio Committee, they had been consistent in that a property needed to be acquired on an ownership basis, as opposed to renting, rental was very costly for the Department. They needed to move away from renting as it was not viable for the Department nor the missions. What happened to the buildings that were identified and seen on the oversight visit in New York? The buildings that were presented in the presentation were new.

Ms Losi responded to the question raised by Mr Bergman. The accommodation policy had been discussed in the Department given what took place in Vienna Austria. The Department had been instructed to review the accommodation policy for their transferred officials and ensure that officials would take responsibility for the properties that they rented.

The contract was in effect till 2025 but there was an escape clause, that was negotiated through their legal team, in terms of the contract. The Missions in New York contacted three real estate agencies from the mission supply database. According to the report that was supplied to the Department, they had an opportunity to view 12 buildings. The three buildings shown on the presentation were shortlisted. The mission had proposed that there was one that was fit for purpose and was at market value and cheaper than the other two buildings per square metre. The amount was within the current budget allocation and the building was fit for purpose as it was previously used for the same function that the Department would use it for. There would be no escalated fees as a result of alterations later on, as it was included in the contract that no changes would be made ‘to the structure.’ This was the contract that was negotiated.

She referred to Mr Chetty’s question about the fact that the current building was not conducive to work in – this was indeed correct as it was a hospital. The reference made to COVID-19 in the presentation related to the fact that the hospital was being used for COVID-19 related treatment and that was where the urgency had come. Not necessarily because of the greater COVID-19 pandemic/lockdown – but because the building was being used as a hospital and it posed a risk. She agreed with the Committee – and further noted that the Committee had brought this up following its oversight visit.

ICT would mainly assess the needs of the mission which would determine if the Department needed to hire a private company or it could be done internally by their ICT. The Chief Information Officer (CIO) had also confirmed that they were busy with the approval processes. The Department had advertised and was busy with the relevant processes. They wanted to finalise this as soon as possible. She assured the Committee that there were procurement processes in place.

Regarding the question of why the Mission could not be moved immediately, this was due to the fact that the Department did not want to take shortcuts. The Department did understand the urgency but they were consulting with Treasury so that they did not miss any steps. The move was planned for June 2021 based on the National Treasury’s response, ICT and security.

The Mission had proposed and recommended the building. The Department would like to consider permanent accommodation; they would be speaking to the Treasury to ensure that they followed the correct process in terms of the availability of the Budget.

Minister Pandor stated that she wanted to go back to the question that was posed by Ms Msane and the Chairperson regarding the office of the Chief State Law Advisor. The Chief State Law Advisor had been fully involved, based on the report she received from the Acting DG, on the lease process. Advice was given in relation to the content of the lease and any amendments that were made following the discussions with the Mission.

Chairperson Mahambehlala highlighted that there was a question not answered - as to why the relocation was not done in 2014 when the lease expired? This was not covered in the presentation. She was happy to hear that the Mission had recommended the building under consideration. However, the Committee needed to know what happened to the other buildings that were seen during the oversight visit in New York. One of the buildings was preferred by the Mission – the Committee had thought that the building was decent enough to be the Mission.

Ms B Swarts (ANC) commented on the manner in which the Committee received presentations. It was as if the Department attempted to disarm the Committee by receiving presentations late. This made it difficult for the Committee to fully engage. What were the processes the Department was going through to acquire a property for rental purpose? What kind of procurement processes were being undertaken by the Mission or Head Office with respect to the relocation exercise? How had the Mission branch and Head Office played a role in this respect?

Mr Chetty stated that his questions had not been answered. The negotiations started in September 2020 and in March 2021 they received information that it was confirmed. During the course of seven months the Department managed to start the process, look for the building, identify the building and get the confirmation. He found it very strange that they had a lease for ten years, where the lease rental was fixed and thereafter it was increased up until May 2004. That ran up until April 2014. From April 2014 till March 2021 they were paying an exorbitant amount, above what the lease agreement was. During all of this time the very same Department could not find and move fast enough to relocate the Missions to a new premises. All of a sudden, ‘magically,’ within seven months the Department managed to do this. Some people would say that the Committee was being difficult, that the Committee should be happy that things were moving – this was where the problem lay. If the urgency was there to move, why were the buildings that were already identified at the time of the oversight visit not being considered?

The Minister had on a previous occasion said she was ‘not into real-estate’ and would not know what the rentals were. Today they had received the presentation that told the Committee that it was 42 United States Dollars (USD) a square metre. The two buildings the Committee had seen were 31 USD a square metre and 37 USD a square metre. That was why he had asked how much the rent was – what were they paying at the new place versus the old place? What would have been the cost had they taken the option that the Committee had overseen and visited? The other issue was that the New York Pilot Project had been a ‘thorn in their sides’ from the day they got to the Committee. He found it very strange that the Department was already in negotiations as of September 2020 and there was no report or feedback presented to the Committee when they had previously met. Was it not a courtesy to inform the Committee of progress?

Had they not learnt anything? They previously took on the rent of a building for over ten years. Somebody else had then bought it and it became a hospital and the rental was increased – they had no option but to pay it for the last ten years. They were now getting into the same deal. Why would they want to sublease out of the British Consulate? Why were they not going in on their own? He understood that currently the British Consulate had that lease – who said that it needed to be taken over by the South African Mission? Surely, there were other properties – like the ones the Oversight Members had viewed? When he had asked the Minister this, she had responded that ‘her job was not to go out and look for the properties.’ He agreed in this regard but then there were those of them who came to Parliament to perform their oversight role. If the Department went and viewed 12 sites, and of the 12 sites, three were shortlisted as they met the criteria of affordability, security, accessibility and space. Of the three, only one required limited adjustments. The other two were the best shells. Common sense would suggest that if one was looking for offices, surely of the 12 options, there should be more than one option that was fully kitted and ready for use. There were many offices to let in New York – there was an ‘abundance’ of them. The previous Committee may have faltered in not having gone out and looked at what was being purchased or what had been identified. When the Committee went out there – they saw what it was. In the words of the Minister, ‘they had nothing to show for the 180 million wasted.’ Surely if one looked at 12 sites – some of them should be partially fitted and ready for use.

He noted that there was very bad forward planning on this matter. He could not understand why they had gone into this sort of lease agreement that mirrored that of the one with the hospital. If the Department had come to the Committee – they would have advised in this regard. There would be problems in time to come with that deal. The Department was not being honest with the Committee. The Committee could even go out and procure property at less than 42 USD a square metre – accommodation that would be suitable for the Department.

Ms Msane asked for the name of the state agency that the Department said it had used. She queried the model of Public-Private Partnership (PPP) that had been used which had previously been proposed to incorporate a mix of rental stock and ownership in order to reduce cost. Had this been abandoned by the Department? In 2015 the then Portfolio Committee delegated to the Department that it needed to find a suitable model of how to accommodate missions abroad. In 2015, the Department came up with the PPP model. Since the New York project failed, which was supposed to be the pilot project, was the Department abandoning the strategy?

If she had heard the response from the Acting DG correctly, that the Department ‘had procured a new ICT company,’ – or they were in ‘ the process of procuring a new ICT company’ – why was that so? The Committee believed that the Department was currently under a total overhaul of ICT. She referred to the minutes of 18 March 2020, the Committee was informed that an ICT task team had been established in order to make sure that the Department got an overhaul. Why were they then procuring external contracts/new contracts in order to deal with ICT? The overhaul incorporated linking everything to the hub, which was the headquarters in Pretoria. Where did this new ICT company fit in?

She thanked the Minister for confirming that a report was received from the Department that noted that the State Law Advisor was involved in the process. As ‘friendly’ advise, she hoped that the Minister had ‘really gone through’ the report and the State Law Advisor was involved and that the Minister had satisfied herself in this regard. The Committee did not want to hear later that the State Law Advisor was side-lined in the process.

Ms Swarts stated that in terms of ICT, they could send someone from South Africa to do the work unless they had no specialist in the Department. She stated that the Department would ‘delay and delay again.’ The Department would come up with something soon to block the move of the Mission from the hospital. It was dangerous currently at the hospital due to the COVID-19 cases. This Mission needed to move by the month’s end. The process could not be prolonged any further. It was long overdue and it was becoming dangerous for the country’s people in New York. She reiterated that by the end of the month the Mission must have moved. All the ‘stories’ were too long.

She agreed with Ms Msane regarding the ICT; the previous year the Committee was given a presentation that assured it that there was a task team that was implementing an overhaul. If the Committee was now being told of ‘company this, and company that….’ The Committee had not been given an update ICT report. She suggested that the Committee be given a separate presentation on ICT, as to where the Department was with the processes.

Ms Losi stated that the first question from Ms Swarts dealt with the procurement processes for rental. The Mission identified the properties within the necessary norms, using the local estate agents. Then the Mission Housing Committee, that made recommendations and shortlisted the three properties that were alluded to, made recommendations and confirmed that there were funds left in the current financial year. This matter was referred to OCSLA, which was their legal Department, OCSLA gave its opinion on the contract specifically and then they had to get the approval of the delegations of authority. This was where they were. The Mission would then need to sign the contract when all the approvals had been made. There would then be a handover, inspection and the signing of indemnity documents. That was the process that was followed. For that delegation of authority - they were currently engaging with Treasury.

The Department would be honoured to present the ICT report on the overhaul of the Department to the Committee – indeed a lot had been done in this regard. This could be done to keep the Members abreast of what was happening.

In terms of the rates per square metre, they were currently paying 62 USD per Square metre. In the building that was identified, they would be paying less than 40 USD per square metre, they would be paying 37 USD per square metre.

In terms of other buildings that were fit for purpose, the Mission told them that they had viewed 12 buildings. This was the report received form the Mission and the three were shortlisted.

In terms of the PPP project, the Department’s wish was to procure a permanent accommodation for the Mission, they had not abandoned the project. This was dependent on the available funds from the Treasury.

Deputy Minister Alvin Botes stated that it was highlighted that there was a need for DIRCO at a substantive level to present their property maintenance strategy. Given the fact that when they spoke about properties, in particular for foreign services, it consisted of Chancerys, official residences and staff accommodation, it was important that the Department took the Portfolio Committee into confidence, specifically in relation to the number of properties that were actually occupied and were state owned. They currently only rented properties where no other state-owned properties were available and fit the norms and standards of the Mission in question. The Department could show how it carried out maintenance on the properties it was currently occupying – particularly state owned properties. If the Committee could find time for them to have one particular session where they could substantially discuss the property portfolio – this would be constructive in terms of the overarching guidance. 

Minister Pandor agreed with the suggestion made by the Deputy Minister. She recognised from the letter she received from the Chairperson that the next few meetings would begin the process of providing an overview of the properties. There was no intention to appoint a new ICT company. She apologised that the presentation was given to the Committee late, they would ensure that in future the Committee had sufficient time to read over the presentation. The matters that the Members were raising were indeed in the presentation. They now had a new Chief Information Officer who was beginning to lead the section very well. The Department was working hard to ensure that they did not waste resources. She also wanted to ensure Mr Chetty that there was no ‘fancy footwork,’ they were not by any means being dishonest with the Portfolio Committee. They would seek to ensure that the Committee increasingly developed trust both in the officials of the Department and in themselves as the Ministry.

Chairperson Mahaambehlala hoped the Department would keep to the commitments it had made. They needed to be mindful that the Mission was in a ‘danger zone,’ the hospital where the Mission was located was working specifically on COVID-19 cases. With that in mind the Mission needed to move out of that building – they could not wait for ICT – it needed to be done as soon as possible.

Mr Chetty stated that he did not mind accepting what the Minister had said – about there being ‘no fancy footwork.’ Unfortunately, he could justify it, he suggested they go back and listen to the recording, the Acting DG just misled them by telling them it was 37 USD per square metre, the presentation said it was 42 USD per square metre. This made a big difference when they were renting two floors. That was why he raised the issue around the previous one that they were getting for 31 USD per square metre. This issue would not be left, at the next Committee meeting they would deal with this. The Mission must move – but out of 12 properties, there was only one that was suitable? That was unacceptable. More could be found. The Acting DG had evaded all of the questions he had asked – there were reasons why that was done. He had asked previously, apart from the suspension of the Director General, had any other officials been placed under suspension in the Department. He was still waiting for that answer – it had not been answered.

Ms Losi replied that there was one official suspended since the suspension of the Director General.

Closing Remarks
Chairperson Mahambehlala wanted to bring to the attention of the Minister that Cushman and Wakefield was mentioned to be the estate agents that assisted the Mission to find property. Those were the same people that presented a parking lot to the Committee when they were in New York. They were sitting on a time bomb again. They might have problems at that property – that was probably why the Department did not want the Mission to move early. They would visit the Mission of New York again as a follow-up. She really wanted to bring the attention of the Minister and Committee to the issue of Cushman and Wakefield as it was presented to them when they were in New York. They hoped by the end of the month, the Mission would have moved to their new building and they could operate properly from there.

The meeting was adjourned.