Expanded Public Works Programme: briefing by Department of Public Works

Meeting report

Briefing by the Department of Public Works (DPW)
Mr Stanley Henderson, Deputy Director-General, DPW, briefed the Committee on the incentive grant allocations for 2012/13 financial-year.  Only 246 municipalities of the 278 had met the eligibility criteria set for the grant.  An area of concern was KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) which had 36 eligible municipalities out of 61 in the province. This was due to the non-participation of municipalities in the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP).  The grant allocation for this financial period was expected to create 337 170 work opportunities.

The advantages of the new incentive grant included:
•           ensuring an allocation to small and poor communities;
•           making the first tranche of payment at the beginning of the year, after the approval of the business plan;
•           as part of the conditions of the grant, municipalities would provide project lists to see what projects would be implemented, using the grant;
•           making appropriation simpler for treasuries
•           performance against the grant target would be assessed to inform further disbursements, and ensure the public body was implementing its budget plan.

Regarding EPWP and the Local Government Sector Education and Training Authority (LGSETA) labour- intensive training, it was highlighted that 193 municipalities had participated in the training at National Qualifying Framework (NQF) level 5, while 233 had participated at NQF level 7. The total number of trained municipal officials was 980 for NQF 5 and 214 for NQF 7.  The DPW had held workshops with North West Province and Mpumalanga in June 2012 to brief them on the new EPWP Incentive Grant Model, the importance of developing and endorsing EPWP policy, the establishment of district forums, and the Ministerial Determination and Code of Good Practice.  On the issue of EPWP Vuk’Uphile Learnership Programmes, 210 learnerships had been established in the provinces.

Mr Henderson said the EPWP work opportunity targets had been disaggregated into youth, women and disabled people. The participation of people with disabilities was poor. The National Economic and Development Labour Council (NEDLAC) Community Constituency had made a commitment to assist the Non-State Sector Programme management team to engage with People with Disabilities forums to create awareness on the National Statistics System (NSS) programme by the end of 2012/13 financial-year.

Through the NSS awareness workshops held in municipalities, people with disabilities had also been engaged to understand the application criteria for the EPWP NSS.  An NSS summit action plan had been developed, from which a stakeholder plan to engage people with disabilities had been developed. The summit resolutions had noted that a stakeholder strategy would be developed in the 2012/13 financial year to give direction on how to engage with women, youth and people with disability groups.

The DPW had engaged the Department of Labour to seek approval to implement the Food for Waste Programme, where beneficiaries were compensated with food parcels. A legal opinion had been received from the principal legal officer of the Department of Labour, indicating that it was permissible to compensate with food parcels. The DPW had made a presentation to the Employment Conditions Commission to seek amendment to the EPWP Ministerial Determination to pay in kind (food parcels), as this programme was addressing food security. Twenty-six municipalities were participating in this programme and it had created 2 600 work opportunities. People were being paid R63.18c per day.

He concluded that the EPWP would continue to engage stakeholders on compliance issues and develop the strategy to increase participation by people with disabilities. A new model had been implemented to make sure eligible municipalities were receiving their first payments. The second payment would be paid on 15 November 2012.

Discussion
Ms N Madlala (ANC) wanted clarity on the issue of the basic conditions of employment, as against the EPWP Ministerial Determination.

Mr Henderson explained that the Ministerial Determination stipulated requirements and should be read as a sub-section of the Basic Conditions of the Employment Act. The Ministerial Determination was not taking away the rights of employees of the EPWP.  Though the projects were short-term in nature, the Ministerial Determination gave people a chance to participate in another round.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) asked for the reasons for the non-participation of KwaZulu-Natal municipalities in the EPWP.

Mr Henderson said it was because the municipalities were not adhering to Division of Revenue Act (DORA) requirements. They were expected to report before the end of October so that they could get DORA allocations for the current year.

Mr M Swathe (DA) enquired how the Department was going to ensure that all projects were complying with the EPWP, seeing that the grant was performance-based.

Mr Henderson stated that once the 40% (first payment) had been released, the onus was on the recipient to report on what had been done in the previous year and what was planned to be done in the new financial year. It was a challenge to enforce this, but Treasury had forced the Department to intervene and withhold funds for a period of 30 to 90 days. The Department was not disqualifying municipalities, but its duty was to make sure municipalities adhered to reporting requirements.

Ms N Ngcengwane (ANC) wanted to find out why people who were getting disability grants could not participate in the EPWP projects for disabled people even though the projects were short-term and meant for them.

Mr Henderson elaborated that this was a tricky situation, because if a person was getting a disability grant, it meant that the person was already receiving money from the government.  At this stage, the DPW was trying to get a clear policy directive on the matter so that people could declare their disability grants before they were employed on EPWP disability projects. He further indicated if a person was getting a disability grant, then that person would have to forfeit his or her grant if he or she wanted to work on the short-term EPWP disability projects.

The Chairperson supported Mr Henderson, arguing that it was indicated that one could not receive two salaries from one coffer. People getting disability grants would have to forfeit their grants if they chose to work on EPWP disability projects. It would be impossible for people getting disability grants to terminate their grants for short-term EPWP disability projects.

Ms P Ngwenya-Mabila (ANC) suggested there should be a thorough debate on the child support grant and disability grant so that the Committee could have facts on the advantages and disadvantages when discussing Food for Waste projects.   A clear distinction should be drawn between permanent and temporary disability when dealing with disability grants.

Ms N November (ANC) asked why not all provinces were represented in the Vuk’Uphile Learnership Programme.

Mr Henderson explained that buy-in to the programme across provinces was not entirely satisfying. The level of participation had been expected to be higher. Some municipalities had not indicated learnership areas that needed to be addressed.

Ms Ngwenya-Mabila asked why figures on NQF7 were less than those of NQF5 in respect of labour- intensive training.  She also remarked that it appeared that more officials were being trained, but most municipalities were not participating in the EPWP projects.

Mr Henderson said in terms of training, that was a natural phenomenon.  NQF7 was a higher level course, so participation was expected to be lower than NQF5. The issue also depended on the needs identified by municipalities. Priority had always been focused on NQF5.

Responding to the issue of training of officials, he said the Department believed that municipal officials should be trained so that budgets could be implemented. It was not right to have a budget, but no personnel to implement it, as this meant work opportunities would not be created for local service providers. There were technical requirements that were important for municipalities and provinces, especially for EPWP projects, so those projects needed people with technical know-how.

Ms N Ngcengwane wanted to know how the Department was planning to bridge gaps like paying for school fees, if people accepted being paid in the form of food.

Mr Henderson replied that current research showed that EPWP participants spent most of their income on food. The research also pointed to a range of other needs, like school fees. The Food for Waste Programme afforded participants the chance to work for two days a week, while they could augment their income with money from other piece jobs. The programme was not a Monday to Friday kind of work. The DPW had considered a hybrid model, where money would be paid to participants.

Mr Swathe asked how long the Food for Waste project was going to run, because it appeared that the food parcels were decreasing every year.   That was signaling the project was going to stop.

Mr Henderson said that the cycle of the project was three years, hence the decrease. Waste management was the core business of municipalities, not of the DPW.  The Department was doing this through municipalities in order to create jobs. It was hoped the project would be fully institutionalised in the fourth year, and there was no need for municipalities to withdraw.

Ms N Ngcengwane asked what the Department was doing to ensure improved reporting.

Mr Henderson said the Department had developed an integrated reporting system. It was being piloted. The first quarter data had been captured across provinces. Two provinces in the second quarter would be moved on to the new system and others would remain in the old system until such time that all risks had been minimised.

The Chairperson expressed concern that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) had reported less spending by Gauteng, Western Cape and North West on EPWP projects.

Mr Henderson stated that the money would be re-prioritised. There had already been a commitment that the money would not be returned to Treasury.

The meeting was adjourned.