ATC121121: Report of the Standing Committee on Appropriations on the Oversight Visit to Kwazulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape Province from 18 To 22 June 2012, dated 8 August 2012
Standing Committee on Auditor General
REPORT
OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS ON THE OVERSIGHT VISIT TO
KWAZULU-NATAL AND THE EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE FROM 18 TO 22 JUNE 2012, DATED 8
AUGUST 2012
The Standing Committee on
Appropriations, having undertaken an oversight visit to the
1.
Introduction
In terms of section 4(4) of
the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act, No. 9 0f 2009, the
mandate of the Standing Committee on Appropriations (the Committee) is to
consider and report on the following:
·
spending issues;
·
amendments to the Division of Revenue Bill, the
Appropriation Bill, Supplementary Appropriation Bills and Adjustment
Appropriation Bill;
·
recommendations of the Financial and Fiscal
Commission, including those referred to in the Intergovernmental Fiscal
Relations Act, 1997 (Act No. 97 of 1997);
·
reports on actual expenditure published by the
National Treasury; and
·
any
other related
matter set out in the [above-mentioned] Act.
In addition to the above, the
Committee has been tasked to oversee the activities of the portfolio
Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, including youth matters in terms of
National Assembly Rule 199(b) on 1 November 2012.
1.1
Purpose of the visit
The purpose of the visit was
as follows:
·
To engage with the National Youth Development Agency
(NYDA) on the youth development programmes that it was offering and to inspect
the 12 Months Call Centre Training and Internship Programme in Durban,
Kwazulu-Natal;
·
To investigate whether the hospital facilities in the
Kwazulu-Natal and Eastern Cape Provinces have undergone the complete hospital
revitalisation programme in order to assess its readiness for the pilot phase
of the National Health Insurance (NHI); and
·
To do a follow-up visit to the
1.2
Delegation
The Members of the Committee
were as follows: Hon EM Sogoni (Chairperson of the Committee); Hon R J Mashigo;
Hon J P Gelderblom; Hon NNP Mkhulusi; Hon GT Snell; Hon N Singh; Hon M Swart;
and Hon L Ramatlakane.
The delegation was accompanied
by the following Parliamentary officials: Mr D Arends (Committee Secretary), Mr
M Zamisa (Committee Researcher); and Ms T Majone (Committee Assistant).
2.
Terms of reference
The visit was a result of the
Committees extended mandate which included the Department in the Presidency
for Performance Monitoring and Evaluation and the National Youth Development
Agency (NYDA). The Committees engagements with the NYDA during the
consideration of the NYDAs Strategic Plan, Annual Performance Plan (APP) and
budget for the 2012/13 financial year have led to a decision to visit some of
the programmes that it was offering to young people. It was therefore agreed
that the 12 Months Call Centre Project in
The purpose of the Hospital
Revitalisation Grant (the Grant) was to enable provinces to plan, manage,
modernise, rationalise, and transform health infrastructure in line with
national policy objectives and to supplement expenditure on health
infrastructure delivered through public private partnerships (PPP). The
successful roll-out of the pilot phase of the NHI was dependant on the
effective implementation of the Grant. Therefore, the Committee resolved to
assess the extent to which the Grant has been implemented in the
On engaging with the
Department of Basic Education (the Department) during the adjustments budget
period on 16 November 2011, the Committee was informed that the construction of
the 50 schools in the
3.
Engagements during the oversight visit
3.1
National Youth Development Agency
On Monday, 18 June 2012 the
Committee engaged with the NYDA at its
The NYDA reported verbally
that its Durban Branch consisted of 11 staff members out of an approved
organogram of 19.
The Provincial
Advisory Board consisted of only three members out of 11. It was verbally
reported that the following programmes were in place:
·
The National Youth Service was rolling out a programme
with the Department of Public Works in which eight young people were part of
the construction and maintenance of government owned buildings in
·
There were 1333 young people under the Narsec
programme in
·
In the Office
of the Kwazulu-Natal Premier, 3000 young people were placed under the
Youth Ambassadors Programme;
·
The Department of Social Development is responsible
for the Masubatsele programme in consultation with the NYDA in KZN.
The NYDA reported that it did
not have sufficient finances to fund youth development programmes in the KZN
therefore it only offered support in terms of life and entrepreneurship skills.
It was stated that the 11 officials in the
It was stated that the
The Committee undertook a site
inspection of the BizWorks Internship project, which formed part of the 12
Months Call Centre Project and it was reported that an amount of R10 million
has been allocated towards the placement of young people in call centre
services. It was reported that 500 young people were under the programme and
that it commenced in March 2012. A stipend of R2 000 per month was paid to all
benefiting youth under the programme.
3.1.1
Deliberations
The Committee expressed
concern at the fact that the NYDA made verbal presentations at the meeting. The
point was made that there was a lack of coordination at the national,
provincial and local levels of the NYDA which created the impression that there
was no institutional framework.
Concerns were expressed at the
report that the Durban branch, which was the only branch serving the
Kwazulu-Natal province operated on petty cash and clarity was sought on the
relationship between the national, provincial and local structures of the NYDA.
Reference was made to the
education and training programmes that were offered by the NYDA throughout
The Committee noted that a
comprehensive workshop would be essential to ensure better understanding of the
institutional setup of the NNYDA prior to any oversight related engagement.
3.2
Hospital Revitalisation and Health
Infrastructure Grant
3.2.1
The Committee met with the
following national and provincial departmental officials on 18 June 2012 at the
King Edward VIII Hospital in Durban: Kwazulu-Natal MEC for Health, Dr S Dhlomo,
Ms EJ Flemming (National Department of Health, NDOH); Dr ML Mhlongo (NDOH); Mr
S Khosa (NDOH); Mr R Morewane (NDOH); Mr NN Mphephuli (NDOH); Mr NG Manana
(NDOH); Mr M G Gcaba (Kwazulu-Natal Provincial Department of Health, PDOH); Dr
T Mhlongo (PDOH); Dr S Zungu (PDOH); Dr OSB Baloyi (PDOH); Mr P Mkhize (PDOH);
Dr SA Moodley (PDOH); Ms BB Khoza (PDOH); Dr S Mndaweni (PDOH); Dr ST Mtshali
(PDOH); Dr MLB Simelane (PDOH); Dr J Mthethwa (PDOH); Mr G Govender (PDOH); Ms
JN Makhanya (PDOH); Ms N Ncume (PDOH); Mr S Mkhize (PDOH); and Mr M Bhekiswayo
(PDOH); and Mr F Shishi (National Treasury).
The following Members and
support staff of the Portfolio Committee on Health joined the Committee for the
health related matters of the oversight visit: Hon MB Goqwana (Chairperson),
Hon MC Dube, Hon TE Kenye, Hon R Motesepe, Hon BT Ncobo, Hon MJ Segale-Diswai,
Hon D Robinson, Hon DA Kganare, Hon HS Msweli, Ms V Majalamba (Committee
Secretary), and Ms V Makubalo (Committee Assistant).
The Chairperson stated in his
opening remarks that, after consultation with the Chairperson of the Portfolio
Committee on Health it was agreed that due to the fact that the NHI pilot phase
only commenced in March 2012, that the terms of reference of the oversight
visit be changed. The focus would thus be on the performance of the
The Kwazulu-Natal Department
of Health (the Provincial Department) in its presentation and in light of the
fact that the terms of reference for oversight visit has changed only focused
on the history, progress to date, new site, public-private partnership, and
upgrades and renovations to the existing facilities at the King Edward VIII
Hospital. An amount of R52 million for infrastructure projects has been
allocated to the
The MEC for Health in the
In respect of the Hospital
Revitalisation Grant, the Province has under spent on its budget allocation for
the 2011/12 financial year in the amount of R833 million. Under the same
period, the Department reported that the under-funding for infrastructure
projects was estimated at R1.2 billion. The point was made that an optimisation
plan, which would be discussed with the National Treasury, has been developed.
The Dr Pixley ka
Table
A:
Budget shortfall of Dr Pixley ka
|
2012/13
R000
|
2013/14
|
2014/15
|
PIP Allocation
|
43.2
|
32.9
|
100.2
|
Required Budget
|
234.8
|
531.9
|
746.9
|
Budget Shortfall
|
-191.6
|
-499.1
|
-646.6
|
The National Treasury
indicated that gaps were identified in the budget for hospitals in the
Kwazulu-Natal Department of Health and that financial infrastructure analysing
skills were needed to address the matter. The National Treasury was in process
of consulting with the Department of Public Service and Administration in order
to address the matter.
3.2.1.1
Deliberations
The Committee expressed
concern at the fact that the sod turning event for the Dr Pixley ka
The point was made that there
was a need to assess whether services have been rendered against the
expenditure to which the Kwazulu-Natal Portfolio Committee on Health responded
that it was closely monitoring the value for money in terms of the NHI
districts in the province.
3.2.2
The Committee met with the
following national and provincial departmental officials at the Rietvei Hospital
in uMzimkhulu, Kwazulu-Natal on 19 June 2012: Mr S Khosa (National Department
of Health, NDOH); Mr R Morewane (NDOH); Mr NN Zuma (Kwazulu Natal Provincial
Department of Health, PDOH); Mr V Singh (PDOH); Ms VJ Khumalo (PDOH); Ms TM
Ngoakaza (PDOH); Ms TC Motseki (PDOH); Mr P Mba (PDOH); Mr C Mutsambiwe (PDOH);
Ms B Zindela (PDOH); Mr M Bhekiswayo (PDOH); ms SE Khumalo (PDOH); Ms JN
Nqopiso (PDOH); Ms NA Mboto (PDOH); and Mr F Shishi (National Treasury).
The KwaZulu-Natal Department
of Health (the Department) in its presentation focused on the progress made and
challenges experienced on the construction of the
An amount of R478 million
under the Hospital Revitalisation Grant has been allocated towards the project
out of which R95 million or 30 per cent has been spent as at the time of the
oversight visit. It was reported that the initial completion date for the
project was August 2010.
It was reported that only four
doctors served the hospital whereas 16 were approved in terms of the
organisational structure. It was stated that the lack of proper accommodation
and the fact that uMzimkhulu was a rural area has affected the ability to
attract doctors to the hospital negatively. Proper accommodation was in the
process of being constructed which would assist in the recruitment of doctors
to the hospital.
The implementing agents for
the project were the Department of Public Works and the Independent Development
Trust (IDT).
The criterion for appointment
of contractors was also identified as a challenge. The practice of awarding
multiple contracts to a single contractor was singled out as the biggest
challenge and reason for the delays. For instance it was mentioned that failure
by a contractor involved in multiple contracts with the Department would
ultimately affect the implementation of multiple projects which would then
result in sustained delays in the overall revitalisation project. According to
the Department, a contractor would abandon a project and enter into a contract
for another project and this would happen haphazardly without any repercussions
to the contractor and no cost recoveries by the Department. The Committee
expressed concern at the fact that the Department seemed not to have an
effective mechanism to indentify and blacklist contractors who failed to honour
the previous contracts with the Department.
The issue of litigations
against the Department was also reported as the reasons for the delays
experienced. For instance it was mentioned that in instances wherein the
Department terminated contracts due to implementation failure or breach of
contracts by contractors, contractors would threaten with legal action. In one
instance a contractor whose contract had been terminated due to implementation
failure attempted to sue the Department for R13 million but lost the case. However,
the project sustained undue delays including financial implications and this
occurred despite the Department winning the court case.
The Department also reported
that the road upgrade was in progress and had been subject to delays relating
to the appointment of a new contractor. Part of the delays in the project was
under phase 3 (a) where the concrete failed as a result of the poor quality of
the pillars which were not up to the required standard. This project included
the pharmacy, stores, laundry, lab, maintenance, waste area, parking, and
generator. The pillars needed to be demolished and this has led to delays which
ultimately resulted in the Department of Health terminating the contract. The
original budget for phase 3 (a) was R47 million and this would escalate,
however the phase would be completed before the end of this financial year. The
Department was in the process of recovering the money in that regard from the
defaulting contractor. It was reported that the envisaged time for the new
contractor to be on site was mid July 2012 in order to finalise the project.
Table B hereunder which was
presented to the Committee depicts the Kwazulu-Natal Department of Health's
planned expenditure per programme over the 2012 Medium Expenditure Framework.
Table
B:
Planned expenditure per programme
Funding
Source
|
2012/13
R000
|
2013/14
|
2014/15
|
Equitable Share
|
1.930
|
2.453
|
2.068
|
Health Infrastructure Grant
|
393
|
416
|
427
|
Hospital Revitalisation
Grant
|
566
|
595
|
659
|
|
16
|
23
|
29
|
Planned Total
|
2.906
|
3.489
|
3.185
|
Allocated Budget
|
1.916
|
2.114
|
2.169
|
Budget Shortfall
|
-990
|
-1.375
|
-1.015
|
3.2.2.1
Deliberations
The Committee expressed
concern at the delay in the completion of the project, especially phase 3 (a)
and clarity was sought on how these delays affected service delivery. The point
was made that the delays in the completion of the project would have
significant cost escalation implications.
The Committee expressed great
concern at the fact that the Hospital had a shortfall of 12 doctors (i.e. only
4 available against a requirement of 16). The Department acknowledged the
shortage of doctors as a huge challenge and bottleneck to the delivery of
health services to the people of uMzimkhulu. The Department reported that
measures have been put in place to attract doctors within and outside of
The Committee sought clarity
as to whether the Department was paying service providers within 30 days of
receipt of invoice as required in terms of Treasury Regulation 8.2.3. The
Department reported that there had been no incidents of late payment since it
had embarked on rigorous monitoring process including Operation Siyakhokha.
The Committee noted the response, however mentioned that it will be requesting
an official report from National Treasury for verification.
The Committee sought clarity
on whether there was a company roster that would ensure that non-performing
contractors did not benefit from any tenders in future.
In closing the Committee
thanked the Department for its presentation, particularly its willingness to
share information regarding the challenges experienced. The Committee
encouraged the Department to effectively deal with the challenges experienced
and ensure successful revitalisation of the
3.2.3
The Committee met with the
following national and provincial departmental officials at the Nelson Mandela
Academic Hospital in Mthatha on 20 June 2012: Mr R Morewane (National
Department of Health, NDOH); Mr MT Tuswa (Eastern Cape Department of Health,
(PDOH); Dr M Xamashe (PDOH); Mr K Tungata (PDOH); Mr M J Masusana (PDOH); Dr TM
Madiba (PDOH); Ms P Pepu (PDOH); Ms UN Bomela (PDOH); Ms NS Ntshanga (PDOH);
and Ms RN Nondoda (PDOH).
The following Members of the
Eastern Cape Portfolio Committee on Health and its support staff were present:
Mr MM Mhlati, Ms MB Ndlangisa-Makaula, Ms N Kuluta, Ms T.W Mbengo, Ms N Mtonyana,
Ms U Millie (Committee Researcher), and Ms TB Qambata (Committee Co-ordinator).
In its presentation the
Eastern Cape Department of Health (the Provincial Department) focussed on its
successes to date, the expenditure as at the end of the 2011/12 financial year,
the budget cuts over the 2012 MTEF period, the implications of the budget cuts,
the structural weaknesses of the Provincial Fiscal Framework, and improving
health infrastructure investments.
The Provincial Department has
spent R1.2 billion or 89 per cent out of a total budget allocation of R1.3
billion as at the end of the 2011/12 financial year. In respect of the Health
Infrastructure Grant, R328.5 million or 87 per cent has been spent out of a total
budget allocation of R376.7 million. With reference to the Hospital
Revitalisation Grant, the Provincial Department has spent R556.9 million or 88
per cent out of a total budgetary allocation of R663.3 million.
It was reported that the
budget cuts by the National Treasury have negatively affected its ability to render
services effectively
to the people. The Department presented Table 3
hereunder which depicts how the budget of the Eastern Cape Provincial
Department of Health has been cut over three years.
Table
3:
Budget cuts in the Eastern Cape Department of Health over three years
Fund
Share
|
2011/12
original
R000
|
2011/12
revised
|
2012/13
original
|
2012/13
revised
|
2013/14
original
|
2013/14
revised
|
Equitable Share
|
825.8
|
456.6
|
890.8
|
435.3
|
939.8
|
481.8
|
Hospital Revitalisation
Grant
|
386
|
382
|
406.9
|
402.6
|
429.2
|
408.7
|
Infrastructure Grant to
Provinces
|
428.7
|
299.7
|
428.7
|
258.8
|
452.2
|
276.9
|
|
|
|
|
14.6
|
|
21.5
|
|
1 640
|
1.138
|
1.726
|
1.111
|
1.821
|
1.167
|
|
||||||
Equitable Share
|
|
369.2
|
|
455.4
|
|
457.9
|
Hospital Revitalisation
Grant
|
|
4.0
|
|
4.2
|
|
20.5
|
Infrastructure Grant to
Provinces
|
|
128.9
|
|
101.1
|
|
175.3
|
Cuts
|
|
502.1
|
|
560.7
|
|
653.8
|
The Department reported that
these budget cuts have negatively affected the payment of contractors and its ability
to plan effectively. The non-payment of contractors has led to:
contractors moving off the sites, legal
contractual challenges, delayed re-start of projects, cost escalations,
maintenance contracts lapsing, and warranties being compromised. The point was
made that these budget cuts would impact negatively on the roll-out of the NHI
pilot phase in the
The Department reported on a
number of planning challenges that were consequent to the budget cuts. It was
reported that the roll-overs on conditional grants that were only being
approved towards the end of the third quarter was a challenge since it left
insufficient time to spend.
Amongst the structural
weaknesses identified by the Provincial Department was the per capita
allocation which did not take the cost of delivery into account and the
inadequate budget for maintenance of infrastructure, which was more extreme in
the rural areas.
It was reported that
due to insufficient budgetary allocations, the Department was not able to
respond adequately to building repairs and an example was made of where the
patients in one hospital had to be moved to the paediatric ward.
A document relating to an
application by the Department to the National Treasury requesting additional
funding was distributed at the meeting. In this document it was stated that the
Department has over-committed in terms of projects under the Hospital
Revitalisation Grant in the amount of R366.2 million for the 2012/13 financial
year. The over commitment for the 2013/14 financial year on the said grant was
projected at R125 million. The point was made that contractors could charge up
to R90 thousand per day in interest if there were delays in the payments by the
Department which would have a significant impact on cost escalations.
3.2.3.1
Deliberations
Reference was made to the fact
that the MEC for Health in the province and the Head of the Department of Health
(HOD) were not present at the meeting. It was suggested that the meeting be
re-convened towards the end of July 2012 since the MEC needed to be present. It
was ascertained at a later date that the MECs office had submitted an apology.
Concerns were expressed at the
report that the NHI pilot phase in the Province would be negatively affected as
a result of the budget cuts and clarity was sought on how these cuts would
impact on the roll-out of the said programme. Clarity was sought on the reasons
for the budget cuts and the point was made that the Eastern Cape Department of
Health has underperformed consistently on the Hospital Revitalisation and
Health Infrastructure Grants for a number of years.
The Committee expressed
concern at the fact that contractors were moving off sites and a report was
requested on the names of the contractors that moved off site in the 2011/12
financial year, inclusive of the original and current values of contracts.
Reference was made to the
reported over commitment of contract by the Department in terms of the Hospital
Revitalisation Grant and concern were expressed in that regard since it would
lead to litigation and cost escalations.
The Committee referred to the
ability of the Department to plan effectively in terms of the awarding of
contracts and the point was made that more controls were needed in order to
address the issue of the abandoning of site by contractors.
3.3
Accelerated Schools Infrastructure
Initiative
The following national and
provincial staff were present at the meeting that was held at the Transet,
Mthatha on 21 June 2012:
Eastern Cape MEC
for Education and Training, Mr M Makupula, Ms V Diale (National Department of
Basic Education, NDOH), Mr R Mafoko (NDOH),
Mr Q Msiwa (Eastern Cape Province Department of Basic Education, PDOH),
Ms N Duntsula (PDOH), Mr A M Katsana (Development Bank of Southern Africa,
DBSA), Mr CW Ramphele (DBSA), Mr RL Matlala (DBSA) and Dr P K Kibuuka (DBSA).
The following Members and
support staff of the Portfolio Committee on Health were present at the meeting
Hon H H Malgas (Chairperson), Hon F F Mushwana, Hon A C Mashishi, Hon A
Lovemore, Hon W Madisha, Hon A M Mpontshane, Mr D Bandi (Content Advisor), Mr L
Mahada (Parliamentary Researcher) and Mr L Brown (Committee Secretary).
The following Members and
support staff of the Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature were present:, Mr P
Van Vuuren, Ms M Matomela, Mr V Limba, Ms M Michael-Peter, Ms A Ponco, Ms J
Bici, Ms MJ Daniels (Committee Coordinator) and Ms N Myataza (Committee
Researcher).
The Department gave some
background to the School Infrastructure Backlog Grant and indicated that the
purpose of the grant was for eradicating of entire inappropriate schools as
well as providing basic levels of water, sanitation and electricity to schools.
In its presentation, the Department reported on progress made during the
2011/12 financial year in respect of eradication of inappropriate schools, the
water and sanitation and electrification programmes. The Grant was also
referred to as ASIDI (Accelerated School Infrastructure Delivery Initiative).
The targets for ASIDI over the 2011 Medium term Expenditure Framework (MTEF)
were
as follows:
Infrastructure
Category
|
Baseline
|
2011/12
|
2012/13
|
2013/14
|
Inappropriate Structures
|
496
|
50
|
100
|
346
|
Water
|
1257
|
188
|
1069
|
|
Electrification
|
878
|
164
|
714
|
|
Sanitation
|
868
|
354
|
514
|
|
Specialist Classrooms
|
|
|
50
|
|
The budget allocation for the
ASIDI programme over the 2011 MTEF period was R8.2 billion. An amount of R700
million has been allocated for the 2011/12 financial year, R2.3 billion for
2012/13 and R5.2 billion for the 2013/14 financial year.
The Committee received a
breakdown of the overall contractors physical progress as at 11 June 2012
showing the percentage progress achieved for all contractors. Further, the
Committees were given a detailed breakdown of progress for each contractor.
This breakdown included the number of schools allocated, the names of these
schools and the percentage building progress to date for each school.
In its analysis of progress
the Department indicated that the programme was behind schedule on all of the
schools. Contractors were behind schedule by between 15 and 77 days based on
their baseline programmes. Progress at 6 of the schools was between 3.2 and 10
percent. Progress at 16 of the schools was between 10.1 and 20 percent.
Progress at 17 of the schools was between 20.1 and 30 percent. Progress at 6 of
the schools was between 30.1 and 40 percent. Progress at 3 of the schools was
between 40.1 and 50 percent. Progress at 1 of the schools was over 50 percent.
The Department indicated that contractual provisions had been invoked for non
performing contractors. It was reported that penalties of at least R32 thousand
per day would be applied and where necessary, there was a ten per cent
retention and ten per cent guarantee.
Based on the current rate of
progress of contractors, the Department indicated that the indicative practical
completion dates for the completion of the 49 schools in the ASIDI Schools
Building Programme was as follows:
5 Schools
-
August
2012
11 Schools
-
September
2012
22 Schools
-
October
2012
11 Schools
-
November
2012
The Department alluded to some
of the factors that influenced the slow progress in respect of the
inappropriate schools as follows:
·
Difficulty of obtaining material supply since the suppliers
were not in a position to meet the demand placed by the ASIDI contractors;
·
Adverse weather conditions;
·
Difficult terrain requiring unusual earth works and
poor access to schools;
·
Redesign of site drawings due to unforeseen physical
features on site for instance grave sites;
·
Poor performance by contractors; and
·
Competition with other business sectors for
transportation of bulk material.
The Department also mentioned
the risks identified and related mitigation actions. In conclusion, the
Department indicated that from close monitoring and analysis conducted, it was
evident that not all schools would be completed by the end of August 2012.
Construction work at all schools would be completed on, or before November
2012. DBSA continued to engage the contractors with the view of a practical
approach to expedite the work to ensure that more schools were completed by end
of August 2012. In order to assist effective monitoring, the DBSA has opened an
office in the
3.3.2
Deliberations
Members were concerned, and
raised issue with the high target levels projected by the Department and were
not certain whether these were attainable. Serious concern was expressed at the
report that the envisaged completion date of the 49 inappropriate schools in
the
With reference to the report
that there were challenges regarding material, concerns were expressed and it
was stated that this was used as an excuse for poor performance.
The Committee advised that material suppliers
from the
There was further concern over
the criteria used to select contractors and the rationale for awarding a
numbers of schools to certain contractors over others who got only one. It appeared
that those contractors who were awarded more than one school were not
performing. Clarity was sought on whether contractors who had their contracts
terminated were blacklisted from doing business with Government or given a
second chance.
Of importance was how the
programme was aligned to the overall rationalisation/redesign of schools. The
Committee noted that all schools needed to be built as per the Departments
minimum guidelines for construction. The Department responded that school
construction was done in line with the guidelines on the norms and standards.
The Department further mentioned that in respect of class-size, the smallest
school comprised seven classrooms (135 300 learners) and included an
administration block, laboratory, sport field and nutrition centre.
Members questioned the role of
the Provincial Departments of Education and the Department of Public Works in
the projects. Of concern was the delay in the digging of the boreholes at
certain schools and that it was important that the Department had a risk
management plan in place.
4.
Findings
The Standing Committee on
Appropriations, after deliberating with the stakeholders made the following
findings:
4.1
The National Youth Development Agency
only had one branch, i.e.
4.2
The National Youth Development Agency has a shortage
of staff in its Durban Branch with only 11 staff members out of an approved
organogram of 19.
4.3
The National Youth Development Agency
4.4
The Rietvlei Hospital has a shortage of doctors with only
four out of the approved 16.
4.5
The Rietvlei Hospital project under the
Hospital Revitalisation Grant was originally scheduled to be completed by the
end of August 2012 but to date; only 30 per cent has been completed.
4.6
The Eastern Cape Department of Health
has over committed funds under the Hospital Revitalisation Grant during the
2012/13 and 2013/14 financial years amounting to R366.2 million and R125
million respectively. This was a serious cause of concern and could open the Provincial
Department up for litigation by the contractors for non-payment.
4.7
The
4.8
The completion date for the construction
of the 49 schools under the Accelerated Schools Infrastructure Development
Initiative (ASIDI) has been shifted to the end of November 2012. The initial
completion date for the 49 schools was 31 March 2012, which has been shifted to
the end of August 2012 during the Committees oversight visit to the
4.9
The Department of Basic Education
reported that there were challenges with the supply of material in the
4.10
The lack of contract
management by the Department of Public Works and the Provincial Health
Departments during the implementation of Hospital Revitalisation Grant and
other capital projects.
4.11
Some contractors have not been
able to complete their construction projects awarded by government.
6.
Recommendations
Having engaged with the
stakeholders on the above mentioned matters, the Standing Committee on
Appropriations recommends as follows:
6.1
That the Minister of Health ensures that
the Department of Health submit a report to the National Assembly on its recruitment
strategy for doctors relating to the
6.2
That the Minister of Health ensures that
the Department of Health submit a report on the extent to which the budget cuts
in the Eastern Cape Department of Health would impact on the roll-out of the
National Health Insurance pilot phase in the province.
6.3
That the Minister of Basic Education should
ensure that the Department of Basic Education submit a report on the envisaged
cost escalations that would arise as a result of the shifting of the completion
date for construction of the 49 schools in the
6.4
That the Minister
in the Presidency for Performance Monitoring and Evaluation should ensure that
the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA) in the next budgeting cycle prepare
a separate budget for each of its provincial and national offices.
6.5
That the Members of Executive Committee (MECs) for
Public Works should ensure that the Provincial Departments of Public Works
improve the Management of contractors together with other departments
particularly when implementing capital projects.
6.6
That contractors be properly scrutinized before awarded
or given any government work or tender in order to identify the non performing
contractors. And those that are not performing must be black listed.
7.
Conclusion
The recommendations as set out
in section 6 above should be submitted to the National Assembly within 90 days
of the adoption of this report by the House.
Report to be considered.
Documents
No related documents