Expanded Public Works Programme Phase 2: briefing by Western Cape Public Works MEC & Department

Meeting report

Western Cape Department of Public Works briefing
The delegation comprised of Mr Robin Carlisle, MEC Department of Transport and Public Works, Ms Cybil Muller, Senior Manager: EPWP, Mr Richard Petersen, Chief Director: EPWP, and Mr Johan Fourie, Acting HOD of Department of Transport and Public Works.

Mr Robin Carlisle, in his introduction, remarked that the Western Cape had the second highest achievement on the EPWP after KZN. The idea was for the EPWP to make unemployed persons employable and thereafter for them to obtain permanent employment. However the EPWP had to be fair and transparent.

Ms Cybil Muller, Senior Manager EPWP conducted the briefing and said that the Western Cape had the second highest achievement on the EPWP after KZN. The Phase 1 2004-2009 with a target of creating 1 million work opportunities. The target was achieved ahead of time during 2008.Phase 2 was to create 4.5 million work opportunities for poor and unemployed persons in SA so as to contribute to halving unemployment by 2014.

The location of clear political and administrative accountability for EPWP work creation targets across all spheres of government and the alignment of EPWP outputs with core mandates and programmes of implementing public bodies were amongst the critical success factors of Phase 2. The EPWP incentive was based on paying all public bodies that create work above a minimum threshold for the EPWP target group an incentive of R50 per day of work created. Eligible bodies that wished to participate in the incentive would have to enter into an agreement with the National Department of Public Works. While indicative performance targets and incentive amounts were set for each eligible public body, they would only be able to claim the incentive upon proving that work had been created. In response to the lessons learnt during EPWP Phase 1 and the challenges set by the renewed approach of Phase 2 the Chief Directorate: EPWP and the Chief Directorate:

Policy Implementation in the Department of the Premier developed a Strategic Directive to effect its mandate to drive, co-ordinate and support the institutionalising, planning, implementation and reporting of the EPWP in the province. A key objective was to provide a planning platform for EPWP per sector with a key output being a sector implementation plan. The sectors identified were infrastructure, environmental and social and non-state.

Members were given a breakdown of figures for the Western Cape for targets and achievements per sector for the third quarter. The performance per sector was illustrated by comparing targeted figures with actual performance. Provincially 97% of the annual performance target was reached at the end of the third quarter. Mr Carlisle, MEC for Transport and Public Works, questioned why the figures for environmental was so low. Ms Muller responded that work opportunities were being created but that reporting was not taking place. The Committee was also given insight into the Provincial Department’s projects per sector. A breakdown of figures on the performance per eligible municipality as well as incentive grants payouts was given. In order to receive actual payouts municipalities had to sign incentive agreements.  Municipal participation, training and best practices was identified as some of the key challenges. Alignment of different financial years as part of implementation planning, fostering and strengthening partnerships with SETAs (Sector Education and Training Authorities) and evaluating existing records to improve and identify gaps were respective recommendations made to address the aforementioned key challenges. Ms Muller concluded by stating that there needed to be ongoing awareness and advocacy and increased support to municipalities. The Western Province had the potential to exceed national targets.

Discussion
Mr G Oliphant said that the Committee was encouraged by the presentation. The Provincial Department had a much organised infrastructure and it seemed to be the recipe for the Department’s success. The Chairperson however asked what the participation by municipalities was. Was the participation high or low? Did municipalities sign incentive schemes?

Ms Muller responded that only seven municipalities qualified for the incentive grant. There were however other municipalities coming on board. The Western Cape Provincial Department had scheduled an EPWP session with municipalities on the 11 March 2010.

Mr Robin Carlisle said that Drakenstein was a big municipality and was not part of the system. It was an issue that needed addressing. He said that many municipalities had the EPWP but was not on the system.

The Chairperson asked how much the allocated incentive was. Was it correct that it was 97% achieved?

Mr Richard Petersen, Chief Director EPWP, responded that the allocated incentive grant was R18.5m. The understanding was that it was an indicative allocation. The R18.5m was now a finite amount and the amount was not to increase. R11.5m of the R18.5m had already been allocated. The remaining R7m was to be allocated in the remaining two quarters.

The Chairperson remarked that the R18.5m figure seemed low.

Mr C Kekana (ANC) said that the job opportunities created were aimed at the youth and women. What about disabled persons?  He said that the UN had declared SA as having the worst conditions of poverty for disabled persons. 

Skills shortages affected EPWP in other provinces. Did the Western Cape Department also experience skills shortages?

He asked how job opportunities were being turned into permanent jobs. Were SETAs used? Was there an accreditation system?

Ms Muller said that disabled figures were sector specific. National figures on disabled persons were also not high. It was perceived that the Social Sector would make provision for disabled persons. The national minimum for disabled persons was 3%. Overall the figures for disabled persons were not that good. A great deal of work needed to be done. She said that career pathing had taken place on Phase 1 of the EPWP. For example persons that had obtained training had obtained jobs in hospitals. Once persons received training it could lead to permanent jobs. Phase 2 emphasised national standards.
 
Mr L Gaehler (UDM) was also concerned about municipalities not participating. He asked who oversaw the Independent Development Trust? Figures had shown that the town of George had exceeded its target of incentives. If more funds were to be allocated to George, from where would the funds come and would that not prejudice other municipalities? Another concern was the lack of support for and coordination of Integrated Development Plans (IDPs). It was important that in order for IDPs to achieve their targets, both the national government and the municipalities needed to complement each other so that IDPs could achieve their goals. IPDs had a five year plan to implement and it was important that the national department did not do anything that would interrupt the implementation of the IDPs.

Ms Muller said that the National Department had identified the Independent Development Trust to provide implementation support for the EPWP. She said that the Provincial Department did work with the non state sector via the IDT. Incentive amounts were paid by way of incentive agreements that were signed by the implementing body.

Mr Carlisle said that the implementation of IDPs was encouraged. IDPs were considered useful. He said that it was a shame that the training component of the EPWP had been removed and hoped that the Committee would raise the issue. The Western Cape Provincial Department’s EPWP was labour intensive. KZN had higher figures on labour intensive as it was more densely populated.  A reality was that the more labour intensive one went, the greater the costs were.

The Chairperson asked what lessons had been learnt from the Phase 1 of the EPWP.

Mr Carlisle said that lessons had been learnt from Learnership 1000, a scheme started three years ago. One had to first find companies to place the persons for training purposes. The second was to ensure that the SETAs would certify learners. He noted that many of the youngsters had not received practical training and had not received certificates. A valuable lesson had been learnt from the Learnership 1000 scheme and it would not be embarked on again. Other provinces could learn from the experience.

Ms N Madladla (ANC) referred to the R50 incentive that was paid per person per day. Were there different amounts for different areas? She asked what the status of the Provincial Department’s Asset Register was. Was it complete or not.  How effective was the maintenance of the assets. Concern was raised over vacancies in the Provincial Department. How did it impact upon the implementation of the EPWP?

Mr Petersen said that the R50 payment was the same in rural and metro areas.

Mr Johan Fourie, Acting Head, Department of Transport and Public Works said that the asset register was 99.9% up to date. Outside contractors were used to compile the asset register. There were some challenges relating to leases and contracts. He conceded that vacancies were high in the Provincial Department. There was a scarcity of skills, hence retired personnel were brought back to assist. Retired persons were especially brought back to assist with the maintenance of buildings.

The Chairperson asked what the vacancy rate as a percentage was.

Mr Fourie said that it was between 30-35% in some of the sectors.

Mr M Manana asked why was retired persons recruited to fill gaps. Why weren’t young graduates being used?

Mr Carlisle replied that retired persons were used in context and not at the expense of young persons. The relationship between retired persons and youngsters was a mentoring one. Retired persons were training youngsters.

Ms N Ngcengwane (ANC) was concerned that there were municipalities that did not participate in the EPWP. 

Mr M Manana (ANC) said that if there was a problem with reporting it should be addressed.

Mr Kekana stated that there were 4.8m disabled persons in SA. Action was needed. Disabled persons were becoming a phenomenon. Disabled persons also wished to make a contribution towards the economy. 

Mr Carlisle said that the Provincial Department worked with a figure for disabled persons of 2.75% of the population. He was not too sure about the figure of 4.8m. It was however difficult for disabled persons to work on the EPWP. Working on roads and bridges could be dangerous for disabled persons. He pointed out that too many persons were looking for work at the bottom end of the construction industry and in the taxi industry. These areas were already overtraded. The Provincial Department only had 500 tenders in any case. Assistance was obtained from the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB).

Mr Kekana responded that the difference in figures for disabled persons could be due to the fact that there were different definitions of who was considered a disabled person. He understood a disabled person to be visually, hearing, intellectually or emotionally handicapped. The point was more so that the disability issue needed to be addressed.

Mr Carlisle said that the definition of disabled persons was difficult. The Provincial Department worked on 11 or 12 classifications. According to calculations disabled persons were roughly 3% of the population which came to 940 000 individuals. The Western Cape Provincial Department figure on its disabled persons complement sat at approximately 0.5%.

Mr Oliphant emphasised that the issue of disabled persons needed further discussion. He also noted that the vacancy rate of the Department nationally was also high. There were so many unemployed persons yet the gaps could not be filled. Were the necessary skills not there? The Committee should take the matter forward.

Mr Gaehler felt that it was clear that some consultants from the private sector were taking government for a ride. Consultants hired by the Provincial Department should take people on board and train them. It should be a requirement. 
 
Mr Carlisle said that consultants were used by the Provincial Department but the province was not consultant hungry.

The Chairperson was encouraged by the progress that the Provincial Department was making. He added that the asset register of the National Department was an issue that the Auditor General considered to be critical.

The meeting was adjourned.