Hon Chairperson and hon members, the Portfolio Committee on Public Works undertook an oversight visit to the Northern Cape from 5 to 9 September 2011. The purpose was to review the progress made by the province and the municipalities on their asset registers, as well as the implementation of phase II of the Expanded Public Works Programme, EPWP. Oversight included interaction with stakeholders from the construction sector.
All low-capacity municipalities appear to struggle with compiling a proper asset register. The municipalities struggle to comply with Generally Recognised Accounting Practice, Grap 17, and a number of them did not present their asset registers, mainly due to a lack of capacity or the required qualified personnel.
A number of low-capacity and poor municipalities did not have any EPWP project and were unable to access its incentive grant payments. The local elections led to a change in the political leadership at local level, which meant that there was no clear understanding of the requirements of phase II of the EPWP. Different reporting formats were required by the national and provincial departments of public works. What the National Treasury meant was that officials spent large amounts of time writing reports, which interfered with their core responsibilities.
The stakeholders from the construction industry raised issues that included difficulties in accessing finance and small contractors not being properly mentored under the Construction Industry Development Board. Contractors from other areas were appointed at the expense of those from local areas. The criterion used by the CIDB in evaluating contractors was mainly focused on turnover, while the quality of their work and experience was not considered. During its oversight visit to the Northern Cape and the municipalities, the portfolio committee made recommendations that the province and municipalities should make the completion of asset registers a priority; a targeted approach should be used to address the challenges of completing the asset register, particularly the low-capacity municipalities; and that assistance should be provided by the provincial and national departments of public works.
The poor municipalities in the Northern Cape that are struggling to access the incentive grant payments should be assisted in implementing EPWP projects and the proper reporting requirements, so that they are able to do so. At local level, it was suggested that the mayors, members of mayoral committees and the councillors should be more involved in the monitoring of phase II of the EPWP.
With regard to stakeholders in construction, when tenders are awarded, registered contractors in the area must be considered first; local labour should be used, along with materials manufactured locally, where possible; proper mentoring of small contractors should be undertaken; and alternative criteria should be considered by the CIDB when evaluating contractors.
In conclusion, the committee was concerned about the slow progress made to complete the asset registers; the lack of implementation of the EPWP projects; and the municipalities not accessing the incentive grants due to a lack of consistent reporting on the progress made on the EPWP. On behalf of the committee, I table the report for consideration by Parliament. [Applause.] There was no debate.
Chair, I move -
That the Report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report accordingly adopted.