Parliamentary Villages Board & National Youth Service Extended Programme: Deparment’s briefing

PUBLIC WORKS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
16 October 2007
PARLIAMENTARY VILLAGES BOARD & NATIONAL YOUTH SERVICE EXTENDED PROGRAMME: DEPARMENT’S BRIEFING

Chairperson: Ms T Tobias (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Review of Parliamentary Villages Board Presentation
National Youth Service Presentation

Audio recording of meeting

SUMMARY
The Department of Public Works briefed the Portfolio Committee on the Parliamentary Villages Board, giving a brief history and requirements for the establishment of the Parliamentary Villages Board. The site at Acacia Park was subject to certain restrictions, set out in the original trust deed, and one of the options was payment of the amount of R110 to the donors, the Graaf Trust, to release the site from the restrictions. This was to be weighed up against the improvements, the cost of relocation and the value of the property. Various options had been presented, but not yet fully investigated, nor had a final decision been taken. It was agreed that the Board must meet soon to provide a detailed report to the Committee.

The Department reported on the National Youth Service, a project that responded to the target set by the President at the beginning of the year to employ 5000 young people. The Department was identifying and training youth in the built environment, and the details of the programmes, the bursaries and the targeted youth, were given. Challenges included cooperation with other departments, lack of funding, targets and the need for coordination, but these issues were being addressed. Members raised queries on the accreditation of learners, complaints that certificates were not provided, the funding, the cooperation at local and provincial government level and the accessibility of the project to the marginalised.

MINUTES
Review of the Parliamentary Villages Board: Briefing by Department of Public Works (DPW)
Mr Manye Moroka, Director General, DPW mentioned that he was the Chairperson of the Parliamentary Villages Board although he had not chaired any meetings yet.

Mr Mandla Mabuza, Chief of Staff, DPW, noted that the Parliamentary Villages Board Act currently governed the position with Parliamentary Villages, giving the Minister of Public Works the responsibility to provide certain essentials to Parliament. The composition of the Board was set out in the Act. The Minister of Public Works appointed the Board. The Board had held four meetings in 2006/2007. In addition it convened a workshop in June to look at the various interpretations of the Act and discuss the possibility of repealing this Act and disestablishing the Board. A specific function of the Board related to transport for Members of Parliament. The Board was in the process of discussing interim arrangements around governance, and what should be done in the event of repeal. Mr Mabuza indicated that the crucial question was to ask who should serve on the Board.

Mr Mabuza then reflected on the current status of the refurbishment in the various Parliamentary villages. 289 units were being completed, and this would leave no houses to be refurbished in Acacia Park although small numbers were outstanding in the other parks. Access had been a challenge, due to Members of Parliament not available or complications within the Department. Acacia Park was established during World War II from the Graff Trust, and had restrictive conditions.  Electricity and water presented further challenges, and although the Department intended to invest substantial capital it could not do anything that would change the Park, without confirming that this would comply with the restrictive conditions. A legal opinion had concluded that the Graff Trust had the right to exercise pre-emptive rights or to be compensated appropriately, should the land be used for different purposes to those under which it was first endowed – namely for defence purposes or for an aerodrome.

The Department presented two options. If the Department could not afford the appropriate compensation, then relocation would cost R300 – R350 million. The market value of the land plus improvements would be R142 million. The land only was worth about R125 million. The Department, in trying to reach an amicable solution, proposed that an amount of R110 million be offered in settlement to the Trust to deal with the restrictive conditions.  Other possibilities were to relocate Members of Parliament to central Cape Town, alternatively to relocate the other two villages into Acacia Park and maintain the Park as central village for Members of Parliament. There had not yet been final analysis of these options, nor a decision on them, but they were tabled at this stage for information, and an updated report would be submitted and terms of reference requested from the Committee on conclusion of the investigation.

Discussion
Mr R Baloyi, Board Member, mentioned that the Board was supposed to receive submissions from Parliament and from the DPW. Parliament briefed the quarterly consultative Forum on the possibility of moving MPs to central Cape Town, but would still have to brief the Board. The Board would meet to explore the options of relocation of Members of Parliament. 

A Member mentioned that presently at Acacia Park there were three new members temporarily accommodated in flats, because the houses allocated had apparently not yet been refurbished. He was surprised now to hear that apparently all refurbishments were done.

Mr Mabuza answered that he was not aware of these three Members’ situation, but would investigate it because the Department’s records showed finalisation.

The Chairperson suggested that the Parliamentary Board meet regularly, and requested the Committee to look at the Act in its current form, including the provision that the Minister appoint the Board. The Committee would need to consider whether to repeal or keep the Act and consider the proposal of de-establishing the Board. It would also look at the legal ambiguities in relation to the functions and the composition of the Board. She suggested that the Committee should also start to discuss refurbishment, reallocation proposals and time frames as this could not be a research subject for much longer. Proposals made must be noted, along with consideration of what budget they would fall under, and the financial implications of decisions. The Board should assist Parliament and the Department. 

The Director General confirmed that there would be a meeting next week and that he would be chairing all Board meetings in the future. He explained the confusion in that some of the issues raised were responsibilities of the Department rather than the Board. He proposed that the discussion from this meeting would be treated as input for the next Board meeting.

Mr Baloyi agreed with the Director General. He noted that the Department was a service provider and could engage on operational issues.

The Chairperson requested that they engage on operational issues.  A date would be given for attendance of the Board before the Portfolio Committee on Public Works. 

Mr L Maduma (ANC) welcomed the report and requested clarification on the unavailability of Members apparently hindering refurbishment. He wondered if there were no other impeding factors that might have impacted.

Mr Maduma stated that the Department had already been given the challenge of looking at options on relocation. The Committee not been briefed fully on all options and the funding available. He noted now that two options remained. He remained if there had been consideration of the money already spent, and whether the money spent on refurbishment would be taken into account as against the costs of relocation.

Ms M Ramotsamai (ANC) was interested in the review of the Board government mechanisms and allocation policy. She suggested that when looking at the policy there should be due weight accorded to Members of Parliament and come up with decisions in their favour.

Ms Ramotsamai mentioned that previously the understanding was that Acacia Park belonged to government. She considered that the sum of R110 million was high, to repeal conditions

Ms Ramotsamai said that each of the options were attractive, but the most cost effective option would need to be found, that would allow Members to be put in a good conducive environment for doing their work correctly.

The Chairperson explained that if the expenditure was R110 million, this indicated that the Department has made quite a cost effective suggestion, which in fact gave savings. She suggested that the Committee must give due consideration to the benefits of staying at Acacia Park and the losses in letting it go

Ms Mabe stated that it was important that Department speed up the finalisation of the Asset register, since there was no final proof of state assets.

Ms Mabe stated that the Board had raised concerns on the quality of refurbishment. She requested clarity. She also asked that the Board give time frames in terms of finalisation.

The Director General replied that the DPW was directed by certain guidelines and it was the prerogative of Members of Parliament to indicate to Department that they had deviated from those guidelines. He further mentioned that complaints should be channelled the correct way. The Department would ensure that the Members had a way of registering their complaints so that the Department could deal with them accordingly.

Mr H Cupido (ACDP)requested clarity on the R110 million, and whether this related purely to a changing of the restrictions, or had to do with the value of the property.

Mr Zingi Ntsaluba, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Public Works, stated that when the land was donated to state there was a restrictive condition that it must be used for defence purposes.  The current trustees, because they were not using the facility as a defence facility, had to do a cost benefit analysis. They calculated that R110 million would be the cost of having those restrictive conditions amended. If the State were to give back the property, then this would involve R350 million consideration. The Department’s analysis indicated that it made sense to settle for the R110 million.

Dr S Huang (ANC) requested a break down of expenditure on the three parks so that Members would be able to make a comparative analysis regarding location. He further mentioned that it would be useful to have the positives and negatives, in terms of expenses, in respect of moving from or staying at the Park.

The Director General suggested that they Board commit itself to meeting on these issues and then present to the Committee on its recommendations.

Mr M Likotsi (APC) requested the guidelines for the Parks, since it would help with the decision making process.

Mr Mabuza stated that it would be important to complete the guidelines so that Members could look at the operational conditions. They have to define who should be accommodated in the villages. The Act indicated that Parliamentary villages should accommodate Members of Parliament and sessional workers, and any changes to the Act would have to come to Parliament.

The Chairperson explained that the Board could not change the law, as this prerogative rested with Parliament.

Members agreed that the Board should be invited, after its meeting, to appear again before the Committee. 

National Youth Service in the Built Environment : an Extended Public Works Programme (EPWP): Department Briefing
Mr Ngwako Tshwane, Director: National Youth Service, DPW stated that the national youth service was an official programme of Parliament,  as conceived in the White Paper. This programme was a response to the State of the Nation address. It aimed to employ 5 000 young people to work in the construction sector, creating jobs for the youth. The Department had realised that it would need to address the key issue of lack of required skills in the construction sector, through addressing the shortage of artisans in the built environment. Almost all state departments would have to make a contribution in job creation. At MINMEC there was agreement to reach the recruitment target of 1000, by recruitment of around 500 youth by each province. The Department had made allocations for bursaries for unemployed youth, especially those with interest in the built environment. The Department would also recruit unemployed graduates and school drop-outs and equip them with the necessary skills. The Department used the normal recruitment methods, and successful candidates would have a written assessment. The training programme took two weeks.

The Department had identified 175 project contractors, of whom 122 were successful, and updated the Committee on the programme. Mr Tshwane stressed that it was important to manage the quality of the programme, and the programme was new in the Department. Challenges in the implementation of the programme included delays from the side of the Department of Labour in approving the applications for training funds, and late responses, which had an effect on the committed numbers. The coordination between the National Youth Service (NYS) and the provinces would have to be addressed, as also the non-alignment of  stipends.

Discussion
Dr Huang requested an indication who paid the recruits and who paid the R1000.

Mr Tshwane replied that the training had different stages. The DPW would pay in stage one, at the training institution, but when the learners were on site the construction companies would pay, and make use of people paid by the programme. He further mentioned that the problem at the Department of Labour was experienced at provincial level,  not at national, and some regional offices were doing well. He indicated that the intention of the programme was to expose people to the built environment,  so that those interested could continue at Further Education and Training (FET) colleges, where the Department would give financial assistance through the bursary schemes. Mr Tshwane mentioned that the DPW would like to review the training as well. The inter-ministerial Committee was dealing with the issues of stipends and people should be issued with certificates at the end of the programme.

Mr Maduma asked about the recruitment strategy, and whether this included radio stations, and would reach the rural areas, bearing in mind that not every one had access to the radio in those areas.

Mr Tshwane replied that DPW would put posters at places that would be accessible to the youth, and were hoping that in the future the information would reach all rural areas. The historical problem was that in the rural areas there was not a great deal of state property, and these projects were mostly operative in respect of state-owned buildings and land.

Mr Maduma wondered if the Department had mechanisms to deal with the dispute resolution, where certain people in a village would complain that some people were favoured. He also asked how the Department addressed lack of communication.

Mr Tshwane answered that DPW did not have a defined mechanism of dispute resolution, but would involve the different youth formations and ensure the project would not end with the ones already absorbed. The project was budgeted over three years and those who did not manage to get entry into the programme on this first occasion would be considered next time.

Mr Maduma referred to the Department of Labour’s alleged delays in payment. He wondered if the Department of Public Works could not establish a task team to address that area instead of waiting for the Department of Labour.

The Chairperson suggested that the Committee undertake an oversight visit to look at those centres where students had been placed, and stipends given by contractors.

Mr Tshwane responded that the DPW would welcome oversight visits by the Committee to see the youth at work.

The Chairperson suggested coordination between the Department’s provincial offices and Umsobomvu provincial offices.

The Chairperson noted that the payment of R500 per province would not be enough to reach the total projected.

Mr Tshwane noted that some provinces, such as Eastern Cape, had committed themselves to recruit 1000 people to cover the target, so they would reach their target in terms of the numbers.

The Chairperson referred to quality checks, and mentioned that the Committee would hope to see substantial work. She wondered why the Department was so small.

Mr Maduma referred to complaints from students that after undertaking the learnerships these students could not get their certificates.

Mr Tshwane replied that he would look into the matter because the students were supposed to receive their certificates.

Mr Maduma suggested that in order to accommodate people in the rural areas DPW should link up on infrastructural development.

Mr Bongani Gxilishe, Deputy Director General: EPWP, DPW, replied that this was what the Department was in fact already doing with the bigger extended public works programmes, where there was work with the municipalities. Funds had been allocated through provincial departments, where they would work through the EPWP programme, and there were resources within the various spheres of government.

The Director General mentioned that the Department had been filling vacancies, and currently in fact had a directorate that was over capacitated.

The meeting was adjourned.