Department of Higher Education and Training 2016/17 Annual Report

Meeting report

Opening remarks

The Chairperson welcomed the delegation and announced the Minister’s apologies not being able to attend the meeting when he committed himself to attend. She said the Minister could not make it due to a matter of national importance and would avail himself next week for all the questions Members might have.

Briefing by the Department of Higher Education and Training on its Annual Report (2016/17)

Mr Gwebinkundla Qonde, Director-General, DHET, took the Committee through the Annual Report and highlighted that the Department presented its 2016/17 Annual Performance Plan in April 2016 and undertook to deliver on 70 key departmental performance targets. He said that the Department also undertook to monitor and report on the performance of the Post School Education and Training (PSET) system in relation to 34 performance indicators across the four delivery programmes of the Department. Of the 70 targets, the Department managed to achieve 80% (56 targets). This was a 5% improvement from the 2015/16 financial year. A total of 47% (16 targets) of the 34 targets related to Universities, TVET colleges, CET colleges and SETAs were achieved. Under programme three, University Education, it was reported that for the year under review 29 targets were planned. 22 (76%) of the targets were achieved, seven (24%) were not achieved and subsequently, two of the seven targets not achieved, were achieved.  

He said that a Code of Good Governance and Governance Indicators for South African Universities was approved by the Director-General on 28 March 2017. The Policy on Minimum Requirements for Programmes leading to Qualifications in Higher Education for Early Childhood Educators was approved by the Minister on 23 March 2017 and published as policy in Government Gazette No. 299 on 31 March 2017. Of the 15 targets in the university system in terms of access, 12 (80%) were achieved. In addition, the DHET over-achieved its target of 984 000 students enrolled in public university to 985 212 during the year under review as well eligible students obtaining financial aid to 225 950 (target: 205 000).

He noted that under programme four, TVET, for the year under review 11 targets were planned. Of these, eight (73%) were successfully achieved. In addition, a revised current costing model for TVET colleges was approved by the Director-General on 25 March 2017. In terms of oversight reports, two Monitoring and Evaluation reports on TVET institutions were approved by the Director-General on 28 September 2016 and 27 March 2017. The implementation report on teaching and learning support plans was approved by the Director-General by 15 January 2017. The implementation report on student support services plans was approved by the Director-General by 25 March 2017. A report on TVET college infrastructure maintenance was approved by the Director-General on 31 March 2017. Of the 12 targets in the TVET college system, only one (8%) was achieved.

In terms of access to TVET colleges, he said that the DHET under-performed regarding headcount enrolment by 741 542 against the set target of 829 000; and over-achieved providing financial assistance to qualifying students supporting 225 557 against the target of 200 000. As for programme five, skills development, for the year under review, nine targets were planned and all (100%) were achieved.

He said that with regards to programme six, Community Education Training, for the year under review seven targets were planned. Of these, five (71%) were successfully achieved and the two outstanding ones were later achieved on 5 April 2017. For programme two, planning, policy and strategy for the year under review, this programme had nine planned targets and all (100%) targets were achieved as planned. Lastly, programme one, administration for the year under review, the programme planned to deliver five targets of these, three (60%) were achieved as planned, namely:

• 92.3 % of approved funded positions were filled
• Invoices from creditors were paid on average within 29 days
• The ICT procurement plan was approved by the Deputy Director-General on 28 February 2017

He said that the report of the Auditor-General reported a significant uncertainty that the large increase in contingent liabilities was attributable to the possible pension liability of 500 TVET college staff. There were uncertainties relating to the amount of the outflow in respect of claims for the possible pension liability of R113.120 million as calculated by actuarial valuators. In terms of non-compliance with legislative requirements and National Treasury regulations, goods and services of transactions to the value above R500 000 were procured without inviting competitive bids. He said that deviations were approved by the Accounting Officer even though it was not impractical to invite competitive bids. Quotations were accepted from prospective suppliers who did not submit a declaration on whether they were employed by the State or connected to any person employed by the State. Effective steps were not taken to prevent irregular expenditure amounting to R63 817 223 as disclosed in note 27 to the annual financial statements.

He said that financial information under the appropriation statement outlined reasons for deviations. Programme 1 (Administration) amounted to R6.911 million. This was due to attrition posts that became vacant during the year that could not be filled as projected, as well as vacant funded posts that was advertised as part of the TVET and CET function shift process during 2015/16 that was only filled mid 2016/17 due to the large volume of applications received and the concomitant savings on goods and services and machinery and equipment.

For Programme 2, Planning, Policy and Strategy, there was a deviation of R14.768 million. He said that this was due to outstanding invoices for litigation matters that was not received on time, saving on transfers to India, Brazil, South Africa (IBSA) as no invoices were received and the favorable Rand/Dollar exchange rate that was applicable when payments were made to Commonwealth of Learning.

Under Programme 3, University Education, R15.969 million was deviated. He said that this was due to attrition posts that became vacant during the year that could not be filled as projected as well as challenges in finding suitable candidates for specific professional posts.

On Programme 4, TVET, there was a deviation of R1.635 million and Under Programme 5, Skills Development, R0.808 million. Both deviances were due to natural attrition and slow filling of vacant posts due to large volumes of applications received.

On Programme 6, CET, R10.626 million deviations were found. This was related to claims in respect of Community Education and Training lecturers that were not received on time as well as uncertainties on the division of posts and regional offices and the posts provisioning norms of the various payrolls that were transferred to the Department.     

He said that irregular expenditure for the 2016/17 financial year amounted to R63.817 million as reflected under Note 27 of the Financial Statements. The departmental surplus decreased due to the filling of identified critical posts. However, large volumes of applications received for attrition posts, claims in respect of Community Education and Training lecturers that were not received on time, uncertainties on the division of posts and regional office establishments were still having an impact on the under expenditure on Compensation of Employees.

For the 2018 MTEF bids in the current year, the Department was again not allowed to submit budget bids. The Department communicated the key unfunded priorities to National Treasury, and the proposed utilisation of the provisional allocation of R5 billion as announced during the 2017 MTEF budget process, was provided to National Treasury.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee was supposed to deal with the certificates matter as well.

Discussion

Professor B Bozzoli (DA) asked if this was the toughest AGSA report the DHET ever received, because it seemed tough and critical. She asked whether the report was a reflection that the Department did not have enough money. Therefore, the systems that were set up in place for the smaller departments or branches were stretched out to a point where they were beginning to break down.

She noted that the DHET was R44 billion short as outlined in the report so would this then not be time for a strategic re-think of the Department. If it was true that the AG’s report was a result of the breakdown of the Department’s ability to manage this vast empire, then it was really concerning and the lack of money was not a short-term problem but could have a carousal effect on the entire Department.

She also wanted to know what the biggest strategic plans were that the Department put in place to address the persisting issues. The TVET colleges needed special attention as it seemed that they had an unfunded mandate so the Department was sitting with TVETs that were funded and unfunded and some of them were doing very well. She suggested that a strategic plan needed to be effected for TVETs. She also asked for the national curriculum for the CET. The Department outlined that it was completed so what did the Department think the CETs would be teaching?

She highlighted that the AGSA said that all irregular expenditure from last year including the colleges’, and 94% of the investigations regarding those cases were not completed; she asked for some comments on this. The uncertainty of the statistics in the number of the people trained in the TVETs and CETs was concerning as it seemed that the SITAs did not know how many people they were training. She asked if the SITAs paid the Department for the work that it did and if not, why not. In addition, she asked for the definition of the missing middle. Lastly, she asked the Department to clarify the R400 million worth of unfunded posts in administration; if this was the real figure then there was a serious problem in the Department and this was one of the biggest departments in government.

Ms J Kilian (ANC) stated that when looking at the audit report it appeared that there were more findings this year than last year, and this point to weaker internal controls in the Department. She asked how the Committee could be assured that there would be changes effected by the audit plan. She was concerned about the problem with TVETs, Skills Development and CETs in slide 24. These were very important programmes and it appeared the statistics and information was very limited. How did the Department manage something that it had no baseline on? In addition to that, how could it submit bids to National Treasury without information to substantiate the bid?

She also wanted to know whether the Department submitted a provision for additional funding to National Treasury when it was not aware of its statistics. This was where the serious problem was; how management’s interventions would be improved. Was it a capacity problem or a performance management problem? Were there enough skills available in the Department to ensure that efficiencies and systems were implemented?

With regards to the disciplinary cases, 22.4% were resolved within 90 days. She said that it was mentioned that on the regional level there was a capacity problem but surely there had to be a way around those matters. The large volumes of applications received was part of the reason positions were not filled within reasonable time, so why could the Department not put in place a system online where people could utilise and be assessed on that basis. Even with goods and services, there was non-compliance. The AGSA pointed this out, so the question stood regarding whom the people were doing that and why there was no consequence management. In relation to that, she also wanted to know the amounts that were involved in the non-compliance of goods and services.

Ms S Mchunu (ANC) asked where the budget would come from to complete the five outstanding targets because the Department fully utilised its budget as per the AG’s report. The CET budget spent was about 90% but nothing was achieved in terms of the targets. It appeared that the Department’s report contradicted the AG’s report. The Department painted a good picture of itself when that was not the case so perhaps the DG could share some light on these conflicting reports.

Secondly, it was reported that a service provider was appointed in the third quarter to capture the large volume applications; however, the target was not met on filling up the posts within 180 days. What was the reason for appointing the service provider if the targets were not met? She highlighted that this reflected fruitless expenditure. Again, on administration, the Department reported to have achieved the target of payment to creditors but the AG’s report stated that it took the Department 32 days to pay the creditors whilst in the annual report it was outlined that the creditors were paid within 21 days.

On the TVET sector, the Department needed to explain how it utilised 100% of the budget but one out of 12 targets were achieved as per the AG’s report.

With regards to the approval of National Admission and Promotion Guidelines for NCV, she asked why the target was difficult to implement. In addition, she asked what challenges were experienced by Umalusi in finalising the process and did it release a draft NCV qualification policy for public comment as promised. It said that it would be released at the end of the 2016 financial year, but could Umalusi assist in answering this.

On Slide 67, it was indicated that the Department was not allowed to submit the budget bids, and she asked why and what would inform allocation for 2018/19 MTEF if bids were not submitted. Lastly, on irregular expenditure, this was very disappointing especially if one looked at reasons outlined on the slide. Why was nothing being done about this? The AGSA clearly outlined that effective steps were not taken to prevent irregular expenditure; the list of things that were contravened was mere silly. She asked who was involved and why was nothing being done about those things.

Mr A Van der Westhuizen (DA) stated that the Department tried to take on too much and centralised too much; for example, the application process for vacancies was an indication of the failed attempt to centralise the Department. Therefore, strategic thinking was needed to resolve these problems. He said that the resources were available for the Department but they were not utilised effectively. Secondly, there was capacity and infrastructure that was not utilised at this current time due to costs as there were colleges that were empty and hostels that were not occupied which was a real concern. The AGSA was far more outspoken by pointing out the leadership issues and the people who needed to take these strategic decisions were not doing so to get a lot done with the resources available.  

He asked for clarity regarding the pension of people who resigned as his impression was that if those people were in the employment of provincial departments, that money must have been transferred to the government employee pension fund.  So why was the department making provision for this by paying the pensions itself? Secondly, he asked what the Department’s plan was to transform and achieve greater efficiencies with the CETs and TVETs so that next year the country was not in the same position and experienced improvement.  

He stated that the Department chose the most expensive option because there was a time when the College Council employed a significant percentage of lecturers at local level and it seemed that they were getting more value for money. What did the Department do to ensure that freedom to get the value for money was retained at College level?

The Chairperson asked about the technical quality of the report and she said that the PFMA spoke quite a bit about how the report should look like and the content. The Department’s report was one-sided, because cumulatively everything presented here needed to relate to whether the Department could achieve all its targets and move the country forward as it related to higher education. The macro issues were important and the Department should worry about how far and close it was to the bigger picture of the country’s plans. She felt that Members were correct to say that there were not enough reasons provided for the deviations and between the DG and the CFO, how did the Department deviate without giving a reason and how did it find itself in terms of doing the things that the PFMA expected it to do. Was it not time that the Committee approached the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) in terms of assisting around filing in the posts and which systems had to be given attention in relation to the structure of the DHET.

The DG responded that the Department realised that one of the things that were important to look at in the system was the reconciliation between policy decisions that were taken at the leadership level and the availability of the resources to implement those decisions. In as much as there was policy decisions in place, the resources to give effect to those policy decisions were not available. For example, the Department looked at the system in respect to the needs of the country and what was needed to address these challenges in respect to education and skills required so a White Paper for post school education and training was then development in line with the NDP. He said that the work that was done to achieve the targets in the NDP and the White Paper in respect to the TVET colleges would need R77.5 billion over the MTEF period but that was not available. This meant that those targets could not be achieved.

He said that the enrolment that was required in TVET colleges over the MTEF was R24.1 billion which was not available that was why the Department was only funding at the less required percentage (80%). What needed to be happen, taking into consideration the constraints, was that the Department sought to rethink and revise some of the targets set so that it could compensate the resources that were available in more practical terms and relieve some pressure on the system but there was pressure in society to get into the system. Therefore, revising the targets would shift the challenges instead of addressing them.

Secondly, the Department was working on improving efficiencies within its limited resources. He said that there was a question that came out repeatedly in respect to the unavailability of data for TVET colleges. In response to this, the DG stated that government established Higher Education Management Information System in 2002 for universities and it only matured over 15 years hence it was only working effectively now. With respect to TVET colleges, that IT expertise resided with state information technology agents, and it was also responsible for certification. The Department was working together with it to address some of the challenges. The information that was used which was available at its disposal was head count enrolment at TVET colleges and the Department could go to every college and come up with figures and then apply acceptable estimates in respect to other variables required. National Treasury knew that this was the basis in which the Department worked.

He said that there were a number of interventions put in place to try and improve the pass rate at TVET colleges. The training of lecturers was also improving. The financial regime of the TVET college sector through partnering with AGSA and SAICA (South African Institute of Charted Accountants) where it determined the control environment and the measures that needed to be put in place in terms of policy, systems, processes and procedures was coupled with the appointment of qualified Charted Accountants to assist every college in respect to that. Also, the Department identified policy gaps in colleges and developed packages of policies which were put into the attention of Council so that they could adopt those policies to implement at TVET colleges. He noted that there might be a few colleges that might not have adopted the policies but they had the policies.

He said that the Department put to the attention of the Councils that the question of learning and training should be made the core business because that was the defining feature of a college, for training to take place. The Department was also there to ensure that happened, so for governance systems they needed to ensure that took place. Also, there was no support to colleges in respect to the availability of subject specialists at provincial levels except the Western Cape. The Department was in the process, through assistance by the National Skills Fund, of appointing subject specialists that would be based at provincial level to support the colleges. Lastly, the Department put standard operating procedures to the disposal of colleges in every respect in the operation and functional level of the TVETs to implement.

Mr Zac Joubert, Chief Director: Financial Planning TVET, DHET, responded that the pension liability arose specifically from the staff members of the TVET colleges who received top up payments from the college payroll. He said that when they worked in the provinces, there was a moratorium placed on Personal and Salary Administration System (PERSAL). Basically, if there were staff members who received an increase in their salaries, they had to be paid through the College Council payroll, not through PERSAL. This meant that they would have received two salaries because the salaries would have already been placed on PERSAL, one on PERSAL and the one from the College. If someone’s salary was increased on PERSAL today, the salary levels became higher and one would have to pay back those pensionable years that pension was not paid. The pension liability rose because there was no reconciliation done on PERSAL and the College Council when the salary levels increased.  

Ms M Lumka, Chief Director: Human Resources, DHET, added that the pension fund liability rose because it was part of the salary of the staff members and some of them were promoted and that promotion was not effected on PERSAL effectively when it was done. If you were on salary level 7 and promoted to salary level 8, the Department of Basic Education did not promote them to salary level 8 as well, so the College Council took a decision to pay the difference between salary level 7 and 8 to be paid through the College Council payroll and that was where the liability arose from.

The Chairperson stated that there must be caution in this area.

Mr Joubert responded that the one out of 12 targets that were achieved were system related targets. The system related targets were not directly linked to the cost budget per line items. He said that emanating from the AGSA’s report, there was a regression because the AGSA ensured that it interrogated everything. However, by adding the AGSA in the process it added credibility in the entire process, and some of the audits over the last two years indicated an increase in efficiency and there was reason to believe that in the next audit there would be improvement.

Mr E Mahlobo, Acting Deputy Director-General, DHET, responded that Umalusi released the new draft qualification policy on the NCV. It was available and it would then be handed over to the Minister to be signed and published on the gazette.

Mr F Toefy, Chief Director, DHET, responded that this was not the toughest report the Department has ever received as last year’s report was tougher. He said that was important to note that the Department did not have material misstatements in the annual financial statements. If one looked at the action plan, it might indicate that the Department had a few extra findings and with the findings that the Department currently had, management conducted an in-depth findings analysis and drew up an action plan that outlined the in-depth root causes and corrective actions.  He said that there was agreement between management and the AGSA that whatever management said would be implemented and there would be engagement with the AGSA to ensure that those action plans were implemented.

In terms of the findings, there were still remnants of the functions as indicated. He noted that the Department was stretched and there were about 30 findings in Human Resources; some of them were small things that could have been sorted out. In terms of the irregular expenditure, the reasons for this in several cases was a lack of planning and this put the DG in a very awkward position, so moving forward the DG would not approve any deviations. With TVETs, a lot of hard work was put in and there were additional plans that were put in place to assist the sector.

Ms Lumka responded that in terms of the disciplinary cases, it was true that the function was not doing well as only 22% of the targets were achieved. She said that when the migration occurred, the regional offices in terms of support did not receive any capacity; it was only recently that capacity was increased in that level. Hopefully, there would be improvement in that regard and there was a plan on how to train the Chairpersons to assist in equipping them to deal with the disciplinary cases effectively. All these cases were occurring at the TVET level but there were similar challenges in the first and second quarter. In terms of recruitment, the system was going to be introduced soon, by 1st April 2018, and even though a service provider was appointed the Department did not achieve its targets.

The DG responded that in terms of senior managers who did not submit performance agreements, 71 of them were picked up in the system and 38 were found to have transgressed and were now facing disciplinary inquiry.

An official from the DHET responded that the Department ran 30 exams and it was a strain. There were a lot of regularities, remarking, and other things involved. The Department worked in a war room organised by the DG and it worked closely with the Umalusi and the Department’s system administrators.

Mr Theuns Tredoux, Chief Financial Officer, DHET, responded that as for irregularities, the Department would submit a detailed report on them so that the Committee could get a comprehensive detailed report on them and scrutinise every case. As for 30-day payments, the Department had a thorough system in place and the average time it took to pay suppliers was 29 days. However, there were a few cases where the Department went over the 30-day payment. In some cases, one found that the banking details of service providers were not accurate and sometimes service providers change their banking details without notifying the Department. There were also problems where invoices reached the department very late and in most cases, they were volumes of invoices that needed to be verified and signed off.  

An official from the Department responded that the number of workplace learners that were presented with opportunities were over 240 000 and this was the figure that was provided to the AG. In the process the Department has its own standard procedures that looked at the duplication and it was the Department’s fault where some of the learners were kicked out accidentally and this was due to the fact that the system was done manually, but now information would be received electronically.

Another official from the Department responded that the process around policy development was linked to the operational budget. The process of recognising the missing middle was underway because the universities still needed to go through the process of applications from students and based on information provided, verify the household incomes of the students, and they were currently finalising their list and it would be provided to the Department. Once that was complete, the Department would have a good record in terms of how it could go forward in terms of this issue.

Prof Bozzoli stated that the Department stipulated that it created a policy to guide the colleges but a policy had no legal impact so was it not necessary to regulate through proper public regulations specifically regarding putting accountability steps in place for principals of colleges? Secondly, it was concerning that the Department did not have to report on irregular and wasteful expenditure because it was not listed in Schedule three of the PFMA. What was going to be done to bring them into the fold to ensure that when the AGSA investigated the financials of those colleges, the Committee was in fact getting comprehensive information?

Mr Joubert responded that what had to be noted was what the PFMA said about the higher education institutions and colleges, and it clearly stated in section 47(4c) that the Minister may not list any higher institution in the PFMA which was the reason why higher education institutions were not listed on the PFMA. He said that this was a good thing to implement and the only way to go forward was to revise the CET Act, but in the interim the Department could prescribe the reporting format for colleges and higher education institutions and make certain components necessary to be reported.

DHET on the certification backlog

An official from the Department stated that the it was working in partnership with the college management, State Information Technology Agency (SITA) and the quality assurer Umalusi in a special project to clear outstanding NCV certificates for Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) colleges going as far back as 2007. Since last year, the Department managed to process and issue several outstanding certificates. As at September 2017, a total of 236 982 certificates were processed and released to colleges.

The Department, in collaboration with SITA, commenced a NCV certificate backlog completeness test. This process sought to corroborate the completeness of certification of candidates. For example, as at 11 September 2017, a total of 4 506 certificates were identified with the same ID and sequence numbers but with different names and/or surnames amongst others, which were being aligned and may result in the issuing/reissuing/non-issuing of additional certificates. As at 26 September 2017, 1 343 records were aligned and SITA and the Department continued to update these records on weekly basis. The Department was also in the process of integrating the examination IT system with the Home Affairs ID number information system to prevent these kinds of challenges in the future. The Department also ensured that TVET colleges candidates who sat for the November 2016 and supplementary examinations, and were eligible for certification, received their certificates.

TVET Colleges Governor’s Council (TVETCGC)

Mr Xolile Xuma, Secretary General, TVETCGC, took the committee through the presentation and highlighted that the 2015 TVETCGC Annual General Meeting resolved to pay attention and support colleges in dealing with issues of audit outcomes because of poor audit outcomes for prior years. The poor audit existed even though colleges were supported by SAICA CFO’s, hence TVETCGC engaged the Auditor General to establish the in-depth causes of this poor audit outcomes. The meeting resolved that AGSA would support TVETCGC in raising awareness through national and provincial workshops regarding the audit outcomes.

The TVETCGC partnered with the AGSA to host workshops with all the relevant structures including the DHET and the purpose of the workshops aimed at the following:

• AGSA to present audit findings to colleges
• To present common trends and challenges
• To present best practices for colleges to learn from each other
• For colleges to interact with AGSA and commit to prepare audit action plans
• To assist TVETCGC to produce consolidated audit action plans and strategies to improve college audit outcomes
• To evaluate the support of SAICA to colleges
• To create awareness to Councils on their oversight responsibility on the implementation of audit action plans.

Mr Xuma said that in terms of college engagements with the AGSA and the DHET to address the challenging areas, key focus areas were:

• TVETCGC would continue to convene the AG workshop with stakeholders including the Institute of Internal Auditors would be held annually nationally and provincially
• TVETCGC currently co-ordinating the submission of individual Colleges Audit Action to prepare a consolidated National Audit Action by end of November 2017
• TVETCGC would conduct monitoring and evaluation of colleges audit action plans implementations quarterly
• TVETCGC to request AGSA to conduct interim audits
• TVETCGC to convene meetings with SAICA and Internal Auditors to evaluate the progress on the implementation of the Audit Action plans

He said that challenges of the TVETCGC in monitoring and evaluation were:

• TVETCGC members were part-time and this work was done on given intervals
• TVETCGC had inadequate human resource capacity to carry out its mandate
• TVETCGC had insufficient financial resources to properly executive effectively monitoring of the Audit Action Plans
• DHET failed to provide financial support for the implementation of this programme
• Performance management of the principals that lied with DHET in terms of the Act required legislative amendments.
• Lack of recognition of TVETCGC as a statutory body resulting in limitation of authority and resources
• TVET Colleges underfunding and huge deficit resulting in increase of numbers colleges declared by AGSA as non- going concerns and unable to pay subscriptions

He said that in conclusion, TVETCGC was committed to perform its support, advocacy and oversight role to Councils with its limited resources. The Council was committed to clean good governance and clean audits in the TVET sector.

Discussion

Prof Bozzoli asked how the Council decided who sat on the audit committee, the quality of these people and their experience. She wanted to know whether any check existed with the kind of audit committee that the Council wanted to have.

Mr Van der Westhuizen asked about the process of electing members of the College Council and what was done to ensure that the relationship between the Council and the managers was distant and the roles were clearly defined. He said that the funding framework of the colleges was very interesting and this was ignored by the presentation (it was recently published). From a stability point of view, this was the most important aspect because the Council needed that framework and the formula to do its medium and long-term planning for the institutions. Were Council’s comments already submitted regarding the framework and what was the response to the document?

He also wanted to know how the Council could introduce a system that assisted it to establish and verify where an applicant was employed and currently doing his/her practical’s and verify whether that employment was in line with the Department’s requirements. Lastly, the stakeholders have come a long way, but he asked for more information about the details of the current backlog and whether the learners who wrote exams in June received their certificates.

The Chairperson stated that on the certificates, the Committee was talking to the Council for a long time now, and that the backlog needed to be addressed. She asked moving forward, what would it require to address this matter and what was being proposed by the Council/SETA to address these matters? The Committee needed to hear what systems and plans or strategies were put in place to address the backlogs.

An official responded to the published report about the Ministerial Task Team and the reason it was not raised up in the report was because it was already responded to and raised directly. Two presentations were made to the Task Team and some of the things that were mentioned in the report were raised in that submission. However, three things were raised that were not in the report that included inputs versus outputs as a principle of funding. Secondly, it was the lowest cause cost that was used throughout the system, because it distorted the real cause of the programme as the scientific results of the programme were heavily influenced by the cost. Thirdly, it was the full time equivalent because that was a combination. If one had three engineering students and because of the number of the subjects they did in a year, 3:1 so one had three but only one was funded and the exception was NCV first year where the headcount was used. A headcount was preferred because that was what would reveal the cost incurred by the colleges per students. He noted that they could be called to the Committee any time if Members required more information on this matter.

The official also responded that with the appointment of council members, the status quo mentioned was no longer applicable due to the current legislations that were being applied. What happened now was that the Minister would advertise nationally and then people would apply to the Ministry, and then appoint external council members. Those appointed members would also appoint other members in terms of the different expertise and that would be the institutional process applied; advertising locally and nationally. The view was that if there were no intensive and sustainable formal and customised capacity programmes that were ceased to build those relationships, and then there would always be conflicts with one and the other. The other issues interpreted as a conflict that was not really a conflict was the issue of the Council being responsible for the performance of the colleges, and the principal was contracted through performance agreement to the DHET. This created a crisis in terms of how the two could be consolidated, but it was not necessarily a conflict and the legislation needed to be relooked to see how relationships could be consolidated.

Another official responded to the audit committee question, and stated that the audit members were appointed based on areas of expertise, and there was no challenge in that regard. The Council would look at the bottom line of those colleges that were sitting at the bottom with adverse outcomes, disclaimers and qualified opinion and a consolidated audit outcome plan would then be drafted to assist those colleges.

In terms of the certification backlog, one of the things that would improve the measurement of the process was to bring the public standard operating procedures that would guide the process of how it could be executed and ensure that all the actions that should have been taken, were taken. Secondly, after enrolment, the personal information of the candidate would be checked thoroughly and right during the process the information would be checked before the certification phase to ensure that the correct information was captured. This would improve the process and certification would be done within the three months period that was set. In terms of the system issues, one of the challenges that were reported on was the consolidation function and that was largely replicated in the NCV process. All the lessons learned were migrated into an application site to make sure that all programmes were aligned to that and the first phase was implemented and they were ready to see how the process was going to pan out.

The Chairperson thanked the delegation, and declared the meeting adjourned.