NSFAS, CHE & SAQA 2020/21 Annual Performance Plans; with Deputy Minister

Meeting report

Deputy Minister’s introduction

Mr Buti Manamela, Deputy Minister: Higher Education and Training, introduced the presentations from the three entities, and apologised for the Minister’s absence. He said the reports were extensive. The COVID-19 pandemic meant that government had to operate in an unimagined manner, and many programmes that were previously delayed needed to be fast-tracked. Students had to be placed in virtual classrooms, and teaching and learning processes needed to be improved upon. The National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS), the Council on Higher Education (CHE) and the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) should play their roles differently during these times.

The Minister had appointed a ministerial task team to advise the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), the Minister and the National Command Council on assessing the impact of COVID-19 on the post-school education and training system. All three entities presenting today had played crucial roles in helping government understand and navigate through the COVID-19 crisis, including funding for students and reorganising the entities’ assigned work.

NSFAS strategic and annual performance plans

Dr Randall Carolissen, NSFAS Administrator, briefed the Joint Committee on the NSFAS 2020/25 strategic plan and 2020/21 Annual Performance Plan (APP). He said that as entities continued in a virtual/cyber environment, the issue of cyber security needed to be taken seriously for students and the Department’s protocols.

The presentation outlined the NSFAS APP and strategic plan; its mandate, vision and mission; a situational analysis; the key performance indicators; the annual and quarterly targets; and the 2020/21 budget.

Dr Carolissen updated the Committee by saying that NSFAS had disbursed close to R12bn to institutions so far for registered students. Since the lockdown had started, it had paid all institutions and managed to close out considerable administrative backlogs using a virtual operating framework. NSFAS was moving towards direct payments to students’ bank accounts, and that tender was currently out for proposals and would likely be finalised in 2021. At the moment, it used institutions to pay students on its behalf. 18 of the technical and vocational education and training (TVET) colleges were still paying on NSFAS’s behalf, and of the 32 remaining TVET colleges, NSFAS was paying directly to students.

Slide 7 of the presentation on the situational analysis addressed the policy issues. One of the challenges in NSFAS was that it had been working under two different regimes -- as a loan bursary scheme and as a full bursary -- from 2018. After 2018, the threshold for funding was R350 000 as a full bursary covering all the costs of the student, with a funding horizon of N+1. Students prior to 2018 might still have debt, since the funding was not comprehensive.

Dr Carolissen said that part of his job as the NSFAS administrator was to clear out the declared R7.5bn in irregular expenditure. Of the 400 000 irregular records, the entity had cleaned out 200 000 so far. There was a dedicated task team working on clearing out the history and the plan. The entity was setting up a reconciliation framework so that it could reconcile each student account down to the student level. The entity was hoping that in the next annual report, it would be able to clear out this historical irregular expenditure. This did not necessarily mean the money was lost to the fiscus -- in many cases it meant it would have to pass journals to reverse those amounts or recover that money from institutions. The total loss to the fiscus last year was estimated at R1 billion.

NSFAS had compiled a risk register, and the presentation listed the major risks. NSFAS was completely reliant on the exchange of information from institutions and their institutions’ information on registered students. It was also reliant on institutions for appeals data on students for reinstating disqualified students. One of the key risks found was that the entity’s information Communication Technology (ICT) systems were not fit for purpose, so it had had to focus on re-looking at the whole system and the cyber security. It had stabilised the system, and Dr Carolissen was confident that it would work well over the medium term.

NSFAS had introduced extensive financial management controls, quality management and governance. The previous extremely concerning labour relationships, staff morale and a poor organisational climate -- including grievances, in-fighting and sexual harassment issues -- had been addressed by the entity restoring its relationship with labour. Labour protocols were now in place. As the entity was working on an offsite basis, the staff had shown up really well. There were still outstanding issues, and there were still a number of people facing disciplinary hearings, but the entity had stabilised the staff so that it was clear that the forensic and fraud investigations were not aimed at staff members per se, but rather at rooting out criminal elements and syndicates.

Most of the risks on the detailed risk register had been mitigated down to more containable levels. The one risk the entity was still working with was the cyber security risk, and it had responded by shutting down all the portals that had been found, dismissing those involved in the exchange of programming material. It had received an allocation from the Department to invest in cyber security containment. NSFAS was working with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) to strengthen this work, and had made progress.

At the start of this administration, NSFAS had had an issue with the voucher system creating an unfavorable climate. Students had started to trade with these vouchers, and some retailers had a monopoly. There were also several third parties that disbursed money on behalf of NSFAS. It had since removed the voucher system and many of the intermediaries. The only intermediary in the system was the institutions that processed funding on NSFAS’s behalf. The aim was that in 2021 there should be a full TVET disbursement payment direct through the banking system to students’ bank accounts.

NSFAS had also made progress on the differences between TVET colleges and universities, though this had not yet been fully equalised. Postgraduate funded students seem to be much poorer off and were struggling, and the entity was working with the Department to resolve this. NSFAS had accepted that a country-wide system for housing allowances would not work because of the host of inequalities across the country, and had allowed institutions to set their own housing policies so that NSFAS funded them this way, whether on or off-campus.  It was working towards a more standardised system of housing allowances. There was a vexing question about the payment of housing allowances during the lockdown. NSFAS’s position was to continue to pay, as students needed to pay wherever they were staying at the moment. However, the entity was awaiting guidance from the Department on that question.

With the introduction of free education, there had been a hiccup in debt recovery, but the entity was doing relatively well in the area of debt recovery and historic debt. Students working for the government and in large companies were subject to direct deductions from their incomes.

Dr Carolissen highlighted that post-COVID-19, the medium term strategic framework (MTSF) targets were certainly going to be challenged, as there things happening under the current crisis that society would have to live with. However, NSFAS would await guidance from the Department and the Portfolio Committee on how and when to adjust targets.

The number of students that were supported by NSFAS for 2019 was 414 399, while TVET students were just under 295 000, and projections had been made on this basis for the academic years going forward. At the moment, NSFAS funded 42% of all university students. A lot of the currently self-funded students could potentially move into the NSFAS eligibility criteria under the economic impact of COVID-19. This would of course have budget implications, and NSFAS was considering the different possible scenarios.

NSFAS received a qualified audit in 2019 which was no surprise, given the R7.5bn in irregular expenditure. It was aiming towards a much better outcome in this financial year. The outcomes indicators showed that it was compliant with all governance requirements in the delivery of its mandate. It was aiming for an unqualified audit opinion for next year and the years after. The entity was also committed to improve the level of maturity coming from an extremely low base, and to bring it in line to operate at the expected levels in light of the large amount of money the entity worked with.

The level of respect to cyber security was previously below zero in a rating of one to five, and had now lifted to a level one. The work that the entity was doing with the CSIR, and the introduction of additional controls was aimed at lifting this rating to a level three, which was the required rating for an organisation like NSFAS. The reason this year’s target was modest was because NSFAS needed a review, or a complete change of ICT systems.

NSFAS had been investing in research and analysis to advise the Minister on policy, rules and guidelines for the students. It aimed to strengthen this research function, as it was useful for policy formulation and had since been exceeding the targets for annual policy briefs. Some of what had been found in this reporting was that NSFAS students did 10% better than the national cohort; that the NSFAS dropout rates were 10% lower than the national cohort; and that there was an increase in NSFAS students taking science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) courses.

Looking at the level of brand awareness, the indicators showed that many people were aware of NSFAS through media campaigns and publicity. In last year’s outreach campaign, the time spent there showed that many people in rural areas were not aware of what NSFAS did and how it aimed to support poor and vulnerable people. The entity was working with the Department of Basic Education (DBE) to infuse NSFAS information in the guidance curriculum.

NSFAS had disbursed R12 billion in financial aid to students, but not all this money had gone to them. From the number of complaints received from the TVET environment, it was clear that money was not flowing efficiently to students. The entity needed to find a way to better streamline this, and expected better outcomes as it moved into the banking sector. NSFAS was ready to go ahead with the banking streamlining in June, but this process had been delayed on advice to go through a proper tendering process, to avoid future disturbances.

Most of NSFAS’s administration dealt with the R35 billion received from the DHET. Because of the perception that NSFAS was now better administered, and that challenges of the past were being resolved, it had received requests from the sector education and training authorities (SETAs) and other institutions to administer DHET funding on their behalf, which provided NSFAS with an additional income stream. NSFAS had found ways to structure partnerships with the SETA environment to direct students who did not qualify for NSFAS towards SETA funding.

Dr Carolissen said that the Minister had asked NSFAS to visit the Walter Sisulu University to look at the issues. During that visit, it had found that 70 medical students were not funded by NSFAS because they were initially funded for their MSc degrees, and these students had now been funded because of this partnership with the Health and Welfare (HW) SETA. SETA was looking at extending this fund for the remainder of this course and for other institutions. This Illustrated the extent to which NSFAS was engaging partners to cover the gaps where it was not funding.

Dr Carolissen provided details of the targets for each quarter. He flagged that in preparation for this presentation, NSFAS found some errors in the initially submitted document, and would be approaching the Minister to add an addendum to resolve them. He took personal responsibility for the nagging inconsistencies in the submitted NSFAS targets.

Looking at the budget, he highlighted that the cost of administering NSFAS was less than 1%. It was on its way to capacitate NSFAS permanently from a technical perspective. It used to be over-managed, with 60 or more managers and few technical people. All vacancy monies were now reserved for technical expertise. The entity had also started a process of overhauling the management structure in its entirety, and modernising the entity’s ICT systems.

One of its key achievements was the collaboration with the Department of Social Development (DSD), which was working so well that half of NSFAS students were South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) beneficiaries, which showed that it was now hitting the right audience. Part of the agreement was that once the SASSA status of students was determined, they automatically got through to the funding. In many cases, NSFAS was confronted with many of the socioeconomic challenges of South Africa. When young people apply and said that they were reliant on grandparents, the Department of Home Affairs data would show that the parents were alive and earned enough money, which resulted in disqualifying some students. This had been a big challenge for NSFAS.

CHE strategic an annual performance plans

Professor Themba Mosia, Chairperson of the Board: Council on Higher Education (CHE), started by responding to the Committee Chairperson’s opening remarks on the importance of finding out the readiness of each entity to meet the challenges of COVID-19. However, Professor Narend Baijnath, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), had to take over the presentation due to sound issues.

Prof Baijnath said that for the planning period 2020 to 2025, the CHE had identified five strategic outcomes:

1. Effective custodian of the Higher Education Qualifications Sub-Framework (HEQSF);
2. Comprehensive and coherent Quality Assurance (QA) system for the sector;
3. Be a reputable centre of intellectual discourse, knowledge generation and advice on higher education;
4. Governance, compliance and risk management; and
5. Sustainable, responsive and dynamic organisation.

The APP outlined the implementation programmes and sub-programmes, planned activities, measurable outputs, performance indicators and performance targets, and described identified operational risks. In order to realise the five strategic outcomes, there were four implementation programmes, including the management of the HEQSF, quality assurance, research, monitoring and advice, and corporate services. The presentation disaggregated this information on the performance plan.

Prof Baijnath stressed that qualifications standards development and review were a very important vehicle for quality assurance, as it ensured that there was consistency across the higher education sector, despite varying backgrounds. The numerical targets and timelines to achieve this were specified. The targets for maintaining a comprehensive database of qualifications and other indicators had been modestly set at 75%, as this was partly in the control of the higher education institutions. He commented private institutions in particular tended not to submit the data by the deadline.

The plan to review and undertake further development of the HEQSF had been place since 2011. The alignment process had been under way, and 31 December 2019 was the closing date for any non-aligned institution to be aligned, otherwise they had to apply for accreditation afresh. This had taken the CHE to full implementation of the HEQSF, and having done that, it was opportune now to review it and see what further requirements may be effected and further developments put in place in collaboration with the Department and the other quality councils (QCs) so that the national qualifications framework (NQF) system worked seamlessly.

Prof Baijnath said the CHE had prioritised collaboration with regional, continental and global bodies to ensure that South Africa’s quality assurance regimen, the NQF and the regulatory frameworks, were comparable to other jurisdictions. This was because there was a lot of student mobility from other African countries and from wider fields. Throughout the financial year, the CHE organises and convenes several quality fora aimed at capacitating the sector, and the presentation indicated these plans. Other resources provided for the sector were good practice guides, and the CHE was in the process of finalising a new quality assurance framework.

The presentation outlined the sub-programmes of Programmes 2 (Quality Assurance), which consumed the bulk of the CHE’s resources and capacities. The target for accrediting new programmes, in all the online applications received and processed, was 85% processed. Ultimately the application was approved by the HEQSF, and the aim was to complete this whole process within eight months. The same target of 85% was indicated for the re-accreditation process.

Prof Baijnath emphasised that institutional audits were very critical to the quality assurance function. The CHE had identified 15 institutional audits that would be undertaken during this year. The major audits planned for the year – the first being at UNISA -- had been started, but had been slowed down by the lockdown situation. The Council was in the process of developing the terms of reference for the audit, and had identified panelists to be finalised in the next few weeks. As soon as it was practical, these major audits would be initiated.

For the new quality assurance framework, there would be an intensive consultative process over the next few months. The framework would be presented to the higher education and quality committee in a few weeks, and then taken to the sector for consultation. This would involve a two months-long process before the document was finalised.

Programme 3 on research, monitoring and advice, was critical to cultivating a critical discourse on higher education matters, looking at trends in the sector and undertaking research for advising the Minister on policy. It had three sub-programmes which were disaggregated in the presentation, showing the numerical targets for commission research, platforms for fostering critical discourses, the dissemination of research findings through scholarly publishing, and synthesising and packaging research findings into policy briefs.

Monitoring involved publishing a higher education monitor/review and VitalStats, which plotted trends in the sector. CHE also aimed to produce 20 institutional profiles with data that minimised the burden on institutions to produce this data. The Portfolio Committee had initiated a request, which the Minister had brought to CHE’s attention, for an enquiry into the salaries of vice-chancellors, and the Council’s Chairperson was leading this.

Programme 4 addressed the leadership, oversight, systems, activities and structures of CHE for the efficient fulfilment of its mandates, and had four sub-programmes. The presentation identified the policy reviews intended to be undertaken for information communication technology (ICT) systems and human resources (HR) in particular. 22 scheduled governance meetings would be organised and held by 31 March 2021 in order to fulfil its mandate. The entity made 50 planned interventions for staff training so that every staff member had at least one opportunity during the year.

Mr Thulaganyo Mothusi, Chief Financial Officer (CFO): CHE, sketched the key elements of the budget for 2020/21. The main reason that corporate services constituted 60% of the total goods and services budget was because CHE owned the building. The large figure was informed by the maintenance of the building, and included the contracts under facilities and the IT-related equipment for maintenance and licensing, as the work of the CHE was mostly system-related. Regarding the legal fees, the CFO pointed out that the CHE was faced with legal challenges from institutions about accreditations. Because there was no in-house legal team, this process was outsourced to legal firms.

SAQA strategic and annual performance plans

Dr Toni Penxa, Chairperson: South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) Board, highlighted that the team in attendance consisted of four women. She said SAQA was a s3(a) public entity, existing under the National Qualifications Framework Act 67 of 2008, with an unbroken record of unqualified audit opinions in its 23 years of history, with the current one being a clean audit report as well. The SAQA board had ten members appointed by the Minister of Higher Education, Science and Technology.

The term of the current board would end on 31 December 2020. The former CEO, Mr Joe Samuels, had retired in 2019, and the board was still in the process of filling this vacancy. Under the lockdown, management and most staff were working remotely, as per its prepared action plan. Risk assessment had been done and the risk plan was in place. Under level 4 lockdown, proper procedures were in place to ensure social distancing, temperature monitoring, cleaning and sanitising the organisation’s building. A phased-in approach to returning to work was being tested for easy implementation. What she was concerned about was revenue generation, as verification and evaluation services had been affected by the lockdown.

Ms Julie Reddy, Acting CEO, presented the Strategic Plan from 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2025. This had been widely consulted, and SAQA’s key focus in this planning cycle was on improving efficiency. The amendments to the NQF Act 2008 had given SAQA more responsibilities and authority, and the plan was mindful of this. She assured Members that SAQA would be ready to implement the Act once it had been proclaimed.

The Strategic Plan focused on SAQA’s mandate, strategic focus and the monitoring of key performance. It detailed the constitutional, legislative and policy mandates, together with the relevant consultative documents. SAQA’s strategic priorities were linked clearly to the DHET priorities of expanded access, improved efficiency and improved quality.

Some of the key challenges were financial sustainability, efficiency (including automation), transitional arrangements and implementation of the recent amendments to the NQF Act. Ms Reddy outlined the mechanisms put in place to respond to these challenges, and also listed the five-year targets as per SAQA’s five outcome indicators. Under outcome 2, she said that SAQA reached over five million people through its advocacy and communication initiatives, and that the National Learner’s Record Database (NLRD) reflected 24 million learner achievements. Under Outcome 3, she highlighted that given the challenges faced under COVID-19, SAQA was already thinking about restructuring the entity to better suit its purposes. Outcome 4 was focused on competency and its capacity to develop and maintain the NQF, while Outcome 5 was focused on aligning stakeholders and role-players to deliver on the NQF.

Ms Nireen Naidoo, Director: Office of the CEO, SAQA, took Members through the Annual Performance Plan for 2020/21. This included six programmes which were listed in the presentation and disaggregated in relation to the strategic outcomes. The programmes were:

• Programme 1: Administration;
• Programme 2: Registration of qualifications and the recognition of professional bodies;
• Programme 3: National Learners’ Records Database and the verifications project;
• Programme 4: Foreign qualifications, evaluation and advisory service;
• Programme 5: Research;
• Programme 6: SAQA’s international liaison

Ms Naidoo highlighted that under outcome 4, less than 50% of SAQA’s revenue was from government, so they had a target to develop a strategy to secure alternative funding. Under outcome five, it had a target to register qualifications recommended by QCs that met all SAQA’s criteria within four months of submissions, and once the planned IT workflow systems were put in place, this target would go down to three to four weeks as turnaround times.

Ms Precious Mbingo, Finance Director: SAQA, said the entity’s budget had increased by 17.15% from 2019/20 to 2020/21. Within this, the government’s grant income had increased by 5.5%, and the bulk of the rest of the increase in the budget was ascribed mostly to SAQA’s internal revenue generation. SAQA’s operating expenses were projected to increase by 15.93%, resulting in a surplus which was an allocation to capital expenditure.

The financials showed that 44% of SAQA’s revenue budget came from the government grant income, and the rest constituted income from Directorate of Foreign Qualifications Evaluation and Advisory Services (DFQEAS) evaluation fees; income verifications; rental income; sundry income; interest received and income from the professional bodies. The expenditure budget showed that 64% of the budget was dedicated to personnel costs, 31% to administration costs and 5% to capital expenditure. After the budget approval process, SAQA had identified COVID-19 as a threat to the income, as some of these services required direct contact with clients. Another issue was the delay in the proclamation of the Act.

Ms Mbingo said one of the major deliverables for SAQA for the next five years was to improve efficiency within the organization, and there were plans to automate some of the processes. Much of the operating expenses were related to IT systems that needed to be automated.

One of the major problems for the verification of national qualifications was that there were old learner achievements in boxes that needed to be digitised to improve on SAQA’s turnaround time. The SAQA building was also old, with serious challenges requiring refurbishment to comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Act. SAQA had budgeted to remove carpets, and to fix plumbing and ventilation issues affecting employees’ health. SAQA was also planning to have hardware enhancements in line with improving the systems.

Ms Reddy provided responses to issues raised by the Portfolio Committee in October. These dealt with advocacy communications, support and human resources.

Discussion

Prof B Bozzoli (DA) asked all the entities how their plans were being reconsidered in light of the anticipated big change in budgets, as the national income was expected to drop by a huge amount. She also asked about the absence of the Auditor General of South Africa (AGSA) from the meeting.

On NSFAS, she asked about the R7.5bn of irregular expenditure which existed when Dr Carolissen took office. What had this figure had been reduced to, and how did NSFAS’s plan to get rid of it entirely? Since criminal syndicates had been involved in this irregular expenditure, was there going to be a prosecution process? She urged NSFAS to prioritise cyber security as a crucial area, particularly as most work was being done remotely. The Minister had mentioned the possibility that universities might be opened for a longer period, some till February 2021 -- what impact would this have on NSFAS’s funding?

The CHE budget had been cut by R18 million, which seemed to be an enormous amount -- what was the effect of this on the entity? The CHE should furnish the Committee with the new framework when it was ready, and receive comments. She urged the CHE to pursue the University of South Africa (UNISA) investigation and evaluation.

She asked SAQA to enlighten members on what the Addis Ababa protocol was. The SAQA budget was up by 17% and the CHE budget down by 25%, and she asked for comment on this.

Mr B Nodada (DA), as a general comment, said that whatever budgets and APPs were put in place, they needed to speak tangibly to the quality impact on the ground.

He asked how NSFAS was monitoring the TVET colleges and all the universities dispersing student allowances on NFSAS’s behalf. He was often receiving complaints about students not receiving the allowances on time, or at all, from campuses like the Northern Cape rural TVET college. He asked that the entity briefly update the Committee on clearing out the 12 000 manual applications and appeals it had.

He pointed out that pages 32 to 34 of the NSFAS APP were not the same as the presentation submitted, which was misleading to the Committee. The presentation had been incoherent, and had not been specific on several points that he listed. NSFAS’s plans on slide 25 indicated that the annual target was an unqualified audit, but page 34 of the APP said the target was a qualified audit opinion. Moreover, the information and communication framework talked to level 2, and the APP talked to level 1. There was no target or timeline set for the ministerial task team to review the business model of NSFAS. There was a policy document adopted around missing middle students’ funding, but there was no timeline or targets on it in the APP. On the delay in the dispersing of students’ allowances, there was no target set, but there was a principal agreement that that needed to be reviewed and monitored. He said that the APP needed to be looked at again in its entirety, and the correct targets given to the Committee. He asked the NSFAS administrator to comment on the accusation that the APP had been outsourced to a particular person who had been paid R500 000 to put it together, and whether the preparation of the APP process had been done properly.

He asked SAQA whether the gazetted general freezing of salaries for senior managers across the board had affected the work being done on retaining staff members and attracting new staff members. Did the increase in outsourced services provided by SAQA reflect a challenge of internal capacity? Had IT infrastructure been put in place to maintain the registers that SAQA maintained?

Did both the CHE and SAQA deal with the qualifications articulation for TVETs into universities? Had there been a policy framework or discussion put in place for this?

Mr Nodada said there were quite a few institutions experiencing delays in receiving accreditation from the CHE. He gave the example of the Walter Sisulu University (WSU), saying that their nursing and education qualifications had not been fully evaluated, which had meant that the 1 000 students accepted for those courses had had to forfeit their acceptance because the course was not accredited by CHE on time. He asked what process the CHE followed to accredit and review qualifications on time. Was the challenge internal capacity, or were the institutions themselves a challenge?

Mr W Letsie (ANC) said that on 30 April, the Minister had announced that there would be the procurement of laptops for both TVET and university students. He asked what the estimated cost for this process was, and whether this procurement was going to be done through the NFSFAS budget. If it was not, where would the budget come from?

He asked NSFAS to clarify why it was targeting an unqualified audit. He said there was a Daily Voice article in which Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT) students claimed their funding had been cut because they were institution hopping. In the same article, the CPUT spokesperson had said that after doing some investigations, it had been found that some of the students who had had their funding cut, qualified for funding. He asked whether this was not creating a problem for the sector if there were funding cuts before investigations were concluded.  One of the NSFAS mandates was to recover student loans from those who had studied prior to the 2018 fee-free education. Looking at the target of R776.7m per annum, would this be achieved post COVID-19, given that the government was expecting several people to lose their jobs? For those who were paying, had NSFAS considered giving them a payment holiday in light of the economic impact of COVID-19 on salaries?

Since StatSA, National Treasury and the South African Revenue Service (SARS) had said that the country was likely to see a lot of people losing jobs, was NSFAS working with them to assess the possibility of a significant increase in the number of the “missing middle” who would move to the category of eligible students? He asked what mitigating factors were being put in place to assist those students.

Mr Letsie said that during the State of the Nation Address (SONA), the President had announced a new university in Ekhuruleni -- what role was the CHE playing in advising the Minister during the feasibility study period now, and at what point would it take part in advising on qualifications?

Regarding SAQA, the chairperson had written to them as a portfolio committee in February and even released a press statement about the allegations surrounding the qualifications of the CFO. The CHE had said that its foreign qualifications unit had been hugely affected, but what was the turnaround time for resolving this? If there were developments, the Portfolio Committee ought to be briefed thoroughly as soon as possible.

Chairperson Mapulane advised Members that the Committee had received a letter from the Auditor- General saying that they had not been able to finalise their audit, and therefore could not be present at this meeting.

Mr M Bara (DA, Gauteng) said that just before the COVID-19 outbreak, most higher learning institutions were dealing with crises and unrest because of NSFAS funding. Had NSFAS used this period to engage with the different institutions where there were problems to ensure that that some of them were dealt with. He urged NSFAS to respond to the issue of prosecutions, as raised by Prof Bozzoli.

The reorganisation of the academic year in effect meant that campus’s 2020 terms would move to 2021. How ready was NSFAS for this change on the funding and subsidies for students? For those students that were unemployed, was there any kind of relief for their debts? With the change to online learning, was there a mechanism to ensure that the quality of education was not compromised in the process?

Co Chairperson Nchabeleng raised some questions and concerns. On NSFAS, he said he had seen in the Department’s strategic plan there was a response to the “missing middle,” but this was not an item in the NSFAS plan. Was there a NSFAS policy on the missing middle, and if so, what was being done to accommodate these students? He asked what had been budgeted for investigations, and about the progress on resolving the issues of money that had been stolen.

Ms N Mkhatshwa (ANC) said government needed to be proactive about the impact of COVID-19 on the plans and budgets of these entities. She asked NSFAS if there had been a budgetary consideration on how to equalise the stipends between university and TVET programmes. She also asked about the current contactless situation on campuses, and whether consideration was being made about appeals on NSFAS applications for the next year, to ensure that no one fell through the cracks. In the case that institutions completed their academic years at varying times, what impact would this have on prospective NSFAS applicants, and how would it ensure that no one was left behind?  What documents or preparations had been put in place for good governance and consequence management in light of the term of the administrator ending in August, to ensure that progress was maintained? She raised a concern about the institutional capacity and integration between NSFAS and the institutions, and said there should be a plan to avoid the recurring challenge of a “back and forth” between the two.

She asked the CHE what the implications were on the integrity of the qualifications of the academic year 2020 in light of COVID-19, and the change to remote learning and further changes of assessment methods. She referred to students enrolled for professional qualifications and asked what impact the calendar changes would have on fair competition in the workplace. How did government and the CHE ensure that the change to the academic year did not exacerbate the inequalities one saw in society?

The CHE needed to update the committees on the matter of irrelevant qualifications coming out of the TVET sector, as it had been asked about this before. What plans were there to upskill those in the higher education sector in preparation for remote learning, as they might not be well prepared for this? What efforts had been made by the CHE regarding the duplication of academic qualifications between the TVET sector and the Community Education and Training (CET) sector? She asked that the CHE clarify the roles that each should play. Had any research been done by the CHE on the ICT capacities of universities and the sustainability of remote learning?

Mr P Keetse (EFF) told NSFAS said that it was common knowledge that its support came with transport allowances. Because of the lockdown, was this money reaching students or was it being withheld? If it was being withheld, what would happen moving forward?

He raised a concern with the CHE on the programme alignment of all the various qualifications in the institutions of higher learning, as it was the Council’s responsibility to advise the Minister. At this stage, the Committee did not know how the quality of education was going to be compromised by the uncertainty created by COVID-19, and this was a matter that should be addressed by CHE. He said that government should avoid putting pressure on students, as many of them did not have access to classes while work and assessments were continuing. He asked the CHE to clarify what was happening to preserve the quality and credibility of qualifications coming out of this academic year in as specific terms as possible.

Ms D Christians (DA, Northern Cape) said Dr Carolissen had mentioned that the forensic investigations and sexual harassment cases at NSFAS were continuing, and the progress and outcomes of these forensic investigations and sexual harassment cases should be clarified.

Referring to the disbursement of NSFAS funds, she said the government had received many complaints from both universities and TVET colleges on the inability of organisations to pay money over to them. These allowances were apparently not being paid timeously. What monitoring, oversight and accountability did NSFAS carry out to ensure that students received their money timeously?

She asked how far SAQA was in digitising the pre-1992 learners’ records. Regarding the NQF, the entity should clarify whether there were staff on the verification project that were currently on fixed term contracts. If so, how long were these contracts, and were there any plans to ensure that the appointment of these staff members was made?

Ms J Mananiso (ANC) commented on NSFAS’s performance management and leadership, saying it was better than before. She asked it to provide the timeframes for taking over the TVET allowances. All the entities that had presented should clarify the implications of lockdown on their targets for 2019/20, and what mitigation steps they were each taking for carrying out their daily work.

She urged NSFAS and DHET to prioritise the “missing middle” issue.  If a decision was taken, the Department should strengthen its lobbying and advocacy efforts on this and make the decision widely known.

She commented that DHET and NSFAS needed to check their strategic plans so that they spoke to each other. Their presentations had shown that there were tasks where both needed to work together, but the presentations had not integrated their responsibilities well.

Ms N Ndongeni (ANC, Eastern Cape) asked whether NSFAS had a plan to eliminate delays in the distribution of funds. She also asked that whether SAQA provided proactive advice to the executive authority, or if this done was only when it was requested.

Chairperson Mapulane said that there was not enough time to allow for responses from the entities. He would engage the Chairperson of the House to allow an additional hour for meetings so that entities could respond, as some questions required detailed responses.

The meeting was adjourned.