Deputy Speaker, the Portfolio Committee on Public Works undertook an oversight visit to Mpumalanga from 24 to 26 January 2011. It included the district municipality of Ehlanzeni, as well as the Nkomazi and Umjindi Local Municipalities. The portfolio committee reviewed the progress and implementation of the Asset Register, the Expanded Public Works Programme, EPWP, and the Lebombo border post.
We noticed that the Mpumalanga province, as well as the municipalities struggled with compiling proper asset registers, as required by the Government Immovable Asset Management Act, Act No 19 of 2007. Reporting by the municipalities on the progress made in the EPWP was often poor and inconsistent. Most projects used the EPWP principles of labour intensity, but reports received about on-site employment were nonspecific. Officials' reports on projects implemented contained inadequate information that could not be submitted to the portfolio committee.
With regard to the Lebombo border post, phase one of the border post was incomplete and stakeholders refused to sign off an acknowledgement of completion of the project. Concerns included the lack of proper ablution facilities, searching areas, unopened pedestrian entrances and uninstalled security glass for the police service. The land on which the border post is built was reportedly leased to a private individual for a period of 99 years at an amount of R10 per annum.
With regard to the recommendations by the portfolio committee, it made the following recommendations during its oversight visit to Mpumalanga: On the asset register, it was suggested that a targeted approach should be piloted in the province as a solution to the challenge of completing the asset register of Mpumalanga province as well as that of the municipalities. An amnesty process should be undertaken to ensure that all unknown properties are identified, especially those situated at national, provincial and local levels, with particular consideration being given to the former homelands.
Regarding the EPWP, municipalities should consider providing dedicated personnel to manage the planning, implementation and monitoring of EPWP projects. They should address the high unemployment levels at district level and local municipality level by implementing more EPWP projects and ensuring proper reporting on work opportunities created under the programme in order to access the incentive grant. Regarding the Lebombo border post, we need to clarify the status of the land at the border post and a report must be provided to the portfolio committee. The national Department of Public Works reported that the matter was being investigated and a report would be provided to the portfolio committee at a relevant later date.
In conclusion, the portfolio committee was informed that the implementation of the EPWP and the completion of the asset register were negatively affected because the municipalities face a number of challenges, including a lack of skills and a high rate of poverty and unemployment. There are also financial constraints in and problems with the hiring of competent staff to fulfil the municipality's core functions and mandate, as well as huge losses of resources and revenue due to illegal connections to the water and electricity supply. Some municipalities reported losses of up to 50% of income generated by the supply of water due to illegal connections. [Applause.]
There was no debate.