Department of Labour on Learnership Programmes and Child Labour: briefing

Meeting report

JOINT MONITORING COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN, YOUTH AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
1 November 2002
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR ON LEARNERSHIP PROGRAMMES AND CHILD LABOUR: BRIEFING

Acting Chairperson: Mr. S L Dithebe

Documents presented:
Department of Labour PowerPoint Presentation on Child Labour
Progress Report on Learnership Implementation

SUMMARY
The Department of Labour briefed the committee on the progress made with Learnership Programmess. The delegation described the legislative framework, details and problems of the programmes.

The extent of child labour in South Africa was also outlined to the committee. The legislative framework was explained and the Department's achievements discussed. The delegation informed the committee about the formation of the Child Labour Intersectoral Group and the work that his group had performed. The results of a survey on child labour, in 1999, were discussed and the development of the Programme of Action on Child Labour explained.

MINUTES
Learnership Programs
The chairperson stated that Section 28 of the constitution protected children. He explained that it was important to know how Learnership Programs benefitted children especially those with disabilities.

Mr. S Morotoba, Executive Manager at the Department of Labour briefed the committee on the Learnership Programmes. He stated that the legislative framework for the Learnership Programs was the Skills Development Act. Learnership Programs were replacing what was referred to in the past as apprenticeships. Learners would complete the theory in the classroom, practical at a company and then do a trade test. Some of the problems encountered was the co-operation of companies, the exploitation of learners and the reluctance of companies to take learners. Some companies were reluctant to take learners because they were not sure how they would recover the costs of having a learner.

He explained further that so far 302 learnership programs were registered. The bulk of these were at level three to six. Learnership agreements were between employers, learner and the provider. Incentives were given to employers in the form of tax rebates. Unions were pressurising employers to enter employees who were currently in the employ of companies.

Discussion
Ms. E Gandhi (ANC) noted that many learners who completed these programs, continued to open up their own businesses, but her concern was that conditions at these businesses were not good. She asked who executed the exams for learners and if they were taught business skills as well. She inquired who one had to contact if one wanted training by a SETA. Mr. Morotoba explained that there were many people involved in the setting up of businesses and that the Department of Trade and Industry was more involved and that his department worked with them. He also explained that the emphasis had been on technical skills and not on business skills. Examinations were executed by the college providers in conjunction with the relevant SETA. He explained that outcomes were determined by providers and unions and these outcomes determined the standard. Information could be obtained from the department's publications, any of the departments centres and the website.

Ms. Rajbali (ANC) enquired if learners were trained to produce their own products or if they had to produce certain products only. She asked who controlled the funding of the programs and what the political leadership was like.

Mr. Morotoba stated that his department monitored the funding through the SETAs and that everything was audited. There was a relationship with the Scorpions to assist them. On the issue of political leadership he stated that it was the committee's duty to keep the department on their toes. He explained that the Minister had set targets for which they had to be accountable. One of the targets was that 84% of learners had to be black and 54% women.

Mr. J Mzondeki (ANC) stated that many learners were being taught skills which were not needed and if the department targeted the sectors where skills were needed. He asked what the relationship was between the department and the Department of Labour as far as guidance was concerned.

Mr. Morotoba said that training in South Africa was of a high standard. This was proved by the fact that South Africans were sought after overseas. The relationship with the Department of Education was good. He said that it was a constant struggle to pressure industries to adopt learnership programs.

Mr. L Nzimande (ANC) inquired whether the intake of learners was as a result of a planned strategy. He enquired if the department had psychologists who counseled learners regarding their choices. He was eager to know the breakdown of learners as far as gender and demographics was concerned with specific reference to the rural/urban divide.

Mr. Morotoba stated that the number of psychologists had been scaled down and that they had group counseling instead with videos as well to inform prospective learners. He stated that rural areas had been targeted in their recruitment drive.

The chairperson, Mr. Dithebe, referred to the impact that HIV/AIDS would have on productivity and on learners and wondered about the investment made in these programs. He enquired about a problem racism was especially in sectors where whites dominated.

Mr. Morotoba replied that the Department of Health was doing HIV/AIDS training and that lots of funds had been given to SETAS to do AIDS training. Referring to racism, he said that there were still areas with problems, such as finance, insurance, information technology, and that an imbalance still existed. He cited the problem with mathematics and science teaching as one of the contributing factors.

The chairperson asked if the department had people who could address the general public and if the department had timeframes in which to achieve its targets.

Mr. Morotoba replied that communication was a problem and that there were limitations. They would prefer to speak to larger groups. The Skills Development Strategy was the plan that the department was using to achieve its targets.

Child Labour Briefing
Ms. J Mehlomlala, Deputy Director, Labour Relations made a presentation to the committee on the department's progress with regard to child labour. Please refer to Powerpoint presentation attached.

She stated that there needed to be harmony between the Schools Acts and the Basic Conditions Employment Act (BCEA). The Schools Act stated that children could work once they had passed Grade 9. The BCEA stated that a child could work at the age of fifteen. The problem arose if a child passed Grade 9 at age 14 and wanted to work.

In drawing up the draft policy, children would be consulted. It had been noted that in the past, legislation was made for children without consulting them. Although children under the age of fifteen were not allowed to work, the performing arts sometimes required children to work for example in films or advertisements. Guidelines therefore had to be drawn up for them.

Discussion
Mr. Nzimande (ANC) inquired if the department had interacted with the Department of Arts and Culture regarding customary beliefs where children were expected to work. He added that in these cases it was important to change beliefs. He also pointed out that at special and industrial schools, children worked and it was seen as life skills. Was there was any monitoring of these schools?

Ms. Mehlomlala replied that there had been consultations with the Department of Arts and Culture. There was debate in the National Program of Action (NPA) and that the feeling was that an indigenous definition of child labour needed to be drawn up and that we should not just borrow from the ILO.

Ms. van Zyl, also from the department, added that the BCEA relied on a relationship between employee and employer. She pointed out that sometimes the agreement was between employer and parents and that the children were regarded as independent contractors. In future, employers would have to prove children were independent contractors.

Ms. N Cindi (ANC) pointed out that prisons were full of juveniles and that child labour and sexual abuse occurred in these prisons. She asked if the department had investigated this.

Ms. Mehlomlala said that the Department of Welfare was the key role player but she conceded that her department had a role to play. Up to now they had not been involved and welcomed the input and promised that it would be followed up.

Mr. J Mzondeki (ANC) asked if there was any plan to train members of parliament so that they could be empowered regarding the draft bill and whether the committee members were involved at all in Children's Day.

Ms. Mehlomlala welcomed the invitation to train members.

The chairperson, Mr. Dithebe, referred to the fact that many households were headed by children because of AIDS and asked if the department was taking this into account. He also referred to the draft bill and mentioned that he noticed that there was a comprehensive definition of the best interests of the child.

Ms. Mehlomlala replied that it was important that the draft policy on child labour be aligned with the AIDS strategy. She felt that the Ubuntu culture needed to be revived to care for these homes which had no adults. The department had given input into the bill regarding the best interests of the child.

Mr. Dithebe remarked that once the act was promulgated, it was important that a register of street children be drawn up. He pointed out that these children worked in jobs such as parking attendants, with no employer. He asked how the department controlled this.

Ms. Mehlomlala replied that these children were referred to as typical workers and that they must be protected. Ms van Zyl added that there needed to be a holistic intervention.

Mr. Dithebe referred to the Constitution stating that actions needed to be taken to ensure that the Constitution was upheld. He urged the parliamentary committees to be in line with the culture outlined in the Constitution.

The meeting was adjourned.