Department of Human Settlements Quarter 3 & 4 2021/22 Performance

Meeting report

The Chairperson opened the virtual meeting, welcoming the Members and the delegation from the Department of Human Settlements.

Briefing by the Department of Human Settlements (DHS)
The briefing was done by:
Mr Mbulelo Tshangana, Director-General
Ms Lucy Bele, Acting Chief Financial Officer
Ms Nonhlanhla Buthelezi, Acting Deputy Director-General: Human Settlement Delivery Frameworks
Ms Nelly Letsholonyane, DDG: Corporate Services
Ms Ipeleng Khumalo, DDG: Executive Support
Mr Jan Maritz, DDG: Entities Oversight
Mr Neville Chainee, DDG: Research, Policy, Strategy and Planning
Dr Zoleka Sokopo, Chief Director: Human Settlements Strategy

The DHS presented the third quarter performance which covered October to December 2021, and the fourth quarter performance which ended 31 March 2022.  (See presentation document for further details.)

Quarter Three
The DHS reported that in Q3, it achieved 56% performance –this was an increase of 9% from Q2

Human Settlements Development Grant (HSDG) Expenditure Performance as at 31 December 2021
-Two provinces (MP and WC) had spent above 80% of their annual allocations, with probabilities to exhaust funding before the end of the financial year;
-Three provinces (EC, FS and LP) spent below 60% of their total allocations, at risk of inability to fully spend their allocations by the end of the financial year;
-NW’s reported expenditure includes transfers made to other organs of state. NW is yet to submit Protocol Agreements on these transferred funds and expenditure thereof. Further, the NW December tranche was withheld due to non-compliance. Despite these, NW expenditure is still low.
-Provinces submitted various reasons for the under-spending.

Informal Settlements Upgrading Partnership Grant (ISUPG)- Provinces Expenditure Performance as at 31 December 2021
-Two provinces (EC and KZN) reported expenditure above 60% whilst Northern Cape overspent its annual allocation;
-NC has already exceeded its annual allocation and the Province will get a formal request to explain the reason(s) for this over expenditure;
-Gauteng, Free State, Limpopo and North West Provinces are most likely to underspend their annual

Provincial Emergency Housing Grant (PEHG) Expenditure Performance as at 31 December 2021
-Only two provinces (KZN and MP) have reported expenditure under the emergency funding;
-The funds transferred to FS are to cater for Maluti A Phofung Municipality;
-Limpopo and Northern Cape Provinces are the main concern having failed to spend their funds despite numerous requests to get reasons for their inability to spend their transferred funds and
-NC will lose the funds as they are already approved rollovers. The province has failed to respond to requests to explain reasons for the inability to spend their allocations.

Urban Settlements Development Grant (USDG) Expenditure as at 31 December 2021
-All Metros have spent below 50% of the total available funds except Mangaung which is at 56%.
-Three Metros spent lower than 35% of the total available funds, namely Nelson Mandela Bay at 32.5%, City of Ekurhuleni at 26% and City of Johannesburg at 33.1%.

Quarter Four
The Department reported in Q4, 57% performance was achieved

Highlights:
15 integrated implementation programmes for PDAs were prepared
The approval of the 2022/23 Human Settlement Grants Framework
Three evaluation studies were completed – Baseline evaluation of informal settlements, Rental Housing Tribunals Implementation and the implementation Evaluation of the Finance Linked Subsidy Programme (FLISP)
The report on affordable housing was completed, Feasibility of Mortgage Default Insurance Inception report (Feasibility of Mortgage Default Insurance)

Challenges faced by the DHS:
Verification of reports submitted by provinces
The restructuring of the Department
Late payment of invoices
Service providers that were affected by COVID-19 to supply material and had labour shortage
Termination of contracts and appointment of new contractors to continue with projects

Discussion
Ms S Mokgotho (EFF) asked about the third quarter report where it mentioned that the DHS failed to make payments of some of the invoices within 30 days. Why was it difficult to make payments of invoices within 30 days? Did the DHS apply consequence management to the project manager and branch manager who did not pay invoices in time? If they did, what penalty did they give to either the project manager or the branch manager who was responsible for not paying invoices on time?

Why is there still an acting CFO? Why is it difficult for the DHS to fill in the post of CFO on a permanent basis as it is long overdue?

Why is the Housing Development Agency (HDA) taking so long to release land within the priority development areas (PDA) for rezoning? This has made it difficult for the DHS to meet its target, for example, the third quarter target of 20% of acquiring land within the PDA was not met.

Can the DHS provide reasons for zero achievement of the BNG houses during the first, second and third quarters?

There is a high need for residential land by majority of the people in South Africa, yet the DHS failed to service 9 916 sites which they had planned to have completed by the end of the third quarter. What is the reason for failure to meet the target?

The DHS has also failed to use the Urban Settlement Development Grant (USDG) to service 13 750 sites while there is a huge backlog of housing in the urban areas. What have they put in place to assist the metros to use their USDG? Why are the metros not using 100% of their USDG? Is there any consequence management being applied so that metros do their work effectively?

With Programme 3: Informal Settlements Upgrading, it stated three of nine targets were achieved. Which of those targets were achieved, and which targets were not achieved and why not? Is it because the DHS did not act in time or monitor the work to realise that something was wrong? Did the DHS not realise that the majority of the targets would not be achieved by the end of the third quarter?

In the fourth quarter report it mentioned that the upgrading of Phase 3 for informal settlements was not done. Why did the DHS not intervene on time in order to ensure that Phase 3 of informal settlements upgrading was done by the end of the fourth quarter?

Ms E Powell (DA) asked if the figures on slide 8 were cumulative or if they were just the fourth quarter figures.

She commented that there had been an improvement on title deeds but it is far from where it needs to be.

Ms Powell asked about the money that was taken away from the Title Deed Restoration grant. Where is the money being put and how is the Department ensuring that those responsible for the awarding of title deeds give out the required funds?

Why has Johannesburg achieved zero for FLISP or the ‘Help Me Buy A Home Programme’?

Why are there different grant sources mentioned for the upgrading of service sites? There is one for the Human Settlements Development Grant (HSDG), and another one for USDG. Please explain the split.

Ms Powell was also concerned by the DHS’s missing the target for the Phase three informal settlement upgrading. Why has it been three years that the target has not been achieved? The excuse in 2021 was COVID. What is the DHS doing?

The percentage of land acquired is 0 out of 30% in the priority development areas on slide 42. It was a huge problem last year, so what is the DHS doing in terms of the rezoning. The blame cannot fall completely on the National Department for the PDA rezoning because it’s a municipal process but are there any intergovernmental engagements taking place for example IGM or even discussions with COGTA to speed up those rezoning applications?

She noted that overall there is significant improvement in a lot of the metrics, but there is still a lot to be concerned about.

Ms R Mohlala (EFF) said that the fourth quarter report spoke about employees leaving the establishment. What are the main reasons for that? South Africa has a high rate of unemployment so how can others not have work, but others are leaving their jobs.

Under programme four of the third quarter and fourth quarter report, the expenditure on transfers that were not captured in the fund segments of basic accounting system is a recurring issue. It was reported in the first, second and third quarters’ expenditure reports of the 2021 and 2022 financial years. How is the DHS going to address this issue?

The programme for monitoring and evaluation is not doing well. The percentage of projects under implementation is not monitored properly. What could be the cause of this? If there is a budget given to different entities to get a good result then there should always be monitoring and evaluations. Otherwise, there will be room for corruption.

Ms Mohlala gave an example of an RDP house built by the DHS in Thulamela which is close to collapsing. She believed it was because of the failure of monitoring and evaluating projects that houses are in bad conditions. She sent information about failing projects but there has not been any response from the Chairperson or the DHS.

Ms N Tafeni (EFF) said that the presentation given by the DHS was disappointing for South Africa, but especially for the Eastern Cape and Free State. The reports given in the public hearings deal with large amounts of money but none of it is used for its purpose in the various provinces.

She asked why the DHS has not given access to the National Housing Finance Corporation (NHFC)?

She asked for more details about the Employee Wellness programme.

Ms Tafeni reminded the Chairperson and the DG of the letter she previously forwarded about an elderly woman in the Mnquma Local Municipality who needed a house. The DHS says it prioritises the elderly, but many of them, just like this woman, still have not been built houses.

Dr N Khumalo (DA) spoke about both reports for the third and fourth quarter. The DHS said that there was a challenge around the methodology to report on performance of the affordable housing, which has resulted in a reflection of zero percent. What was actually achieved?

What is the agreement to get information from the National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC)? Is this a new challenge that is being experienced by the DHS? If not, why are there still the same issues around acquiring information from NHBRC?

The DHS says they’ve given instruction notes to provinces with timeframes to ensure that they give the information on projects. If that is the responsibility of the provinces, what level of responsibility is the DHS taking to get that information? In the process of getting information from the provinces, what guarantee is in place to make sure that the provinces use the money for what has been agreed on?

She asked about the late payment of invoices, what actions have been put in place in the past and has there been any significant improvement in addressing this issue. It was mentioned that actions were going to be taken, but what has been done in other quarters and previous financial years? 

Dr Khumalo asked about vacancies, and if there was a plan for addressing the SAQA (South African Qualifications Authority) challenge? Issues with SAQA were said to be the reason for the delay of recruitment processes. Has the DHS made an effort or thought about some level of memorandum of understanding (MOU) with SAQA to make sure the challenges are addressed.

What are the targets and timeframes for the recruitment processes in the year plan based?

Why do provinces not have the technical systems to report when it comes to the recovery plan? Is this unique to this financial year? The same question applies to the mentioned poor coordination between the DHS and the various provinces.

The upgrading of informal settlements is a huge concern, and it is not the first time she is seeing low performance in this area.

Dr Khumalo made a comment about taking away grants in provinces that are not using them. Although that is how the DHS works, it is ultimately the residents of those provinces that suffer. Why are the provinces not using the grants?

How well have the recovery plans worked in the past?

Ms C Seoposengwe (ANC) asked about the updating of the informal settlement and what the DHS's turnaround strategy is of laying services on the site to be ready for top structure?

She asked about title deeds, where in the first, second and third quarters there were no deeds registered. Before 1994 or even after, it has been a complicated process to make sure that title deeds are handed over to the rightful owner. What are the real challenges which cause the DHS not to deliver? Title deeds give power to the owner and allow the generations after to also inherit and have control over that house or land.  She suggested inviting the different provinces so that they can share what their challenges were and why they could not meet the targets.

Ms Seoposengwe asked about the funds that are not being spent by the provinces. Poverty is a big problem, yet money is not being spent. She made the same suggestion of inviting the provinces to speak to the Committee and explain the lack of spending in their budget.

With the Northern Cape disaster grant, it has been two years since they have spent their R 69 million but it was transferred to the HDA. What was the money used for and what progress resulted from the transfer?

Adv M Masutha (ANC) asked about title deeds when it comes to interstate succession. When there is equal right to inheritance, how will the title deed system ensure that there is access to all those who inherit the title deed? If the asset is not registered under one individual, where it is a co-ownership, how does the system make sure that the arrangement is respected? The inheritance of title deeds could either fall under customary law or common law depending on what conditions it has.

He made an example of land in the rural areas where the issue of title deeds might not arise as the land is held in trust by the traditional authority for the benefit of all the residents of that area. How can the DHS ensure the rights of individuals were preserved to various pieces of land under those circumstances outside of the title deed system? He suggested that there be a joint presentation between the DHS, Land Affairs and the municipal sector around the challenges regarding issuing title deeds.

Adv Masutha noted that the DHS is not completely at fault when conditional grants are not being properly used. With the issue of monitoring and evaluation in the implementation, even if the DHS allocated the money to municipalities and provinces, they are limited with what they can do, particularly in consequence management. Does the DHS have the authority to take disciplinary action against officials that do not perform according to the legislation? Provinces and municipalities should also take responsibility to implement consequence management for people that report to them.

Adv Masutha asked who issues service site permits and if the DHS has any authority on rezoning.

Ms N Sihlwayi (ANC) said that the DHS has shown lots of success, however there are still many challenges, if managed well, things could improve. There is a lot of work to do especially with monitoring the performance of individuals in the provinces and municipalities. She asked the DHS to give their recovery and go into detail about why they’re failing in issuing title deeds. She said that a lot of money has been given to the budget, but people are still unhappy about what the government is doing for them. The issue of provinces returning money and transferring it to other provinces is a big issue, especially because many of the provinces are struggling.

Ms Sihlwayi asked that the DHS go into detail about the figures they gave in their presentation. How have women and youth benefitted from the programmes and what improvements had the DHS made?

She asked about the technical capacity of the people working in the DHS as the target was not achieved.

She asked about the emergency grant for disasters. The DHS said that money had been sent to the KZN for the old disasters, but what about the most recent one. There must be a report to detail previous disasters in the provinces and what the DHS did.

She asked about the upgrading of informal settlements. It should not just be about returning land but ensuring that there is development and that there is good engineering, water, sewerage and electricity.

DHS Response
Ms Bele (Acting CFO) answered the questions raised by Ms Mokgotho and Dr Khumalo about the invoices not being paid within 30 days. There has been a report created to show the reasons for late payment and the responsible units. The biggest reason was that it was out of the control of the DHS such as verification processes that take place when suppliers change their banking details. Another delay was caused by the system they use to generate purchase orders where they had to log a call and the response time with the service provider took more than 30 days. Out of the 5 011 invoices that were processed in the DHS only 15 were delayed, however there are detailed reasons and responsible people.

Ms Bele answered the question raised by Ms Powell about the Title Deeds Restoration Grant (TDRG). When this grant was introduced, a portion of the Human Settlements Development Grant (HSDG) budget was taken to deal with the backlog of title deed restoration. It was agreed that the TDRG would only run for 3 years where after the budget would be returned to the HSDG which has a portion that deals with title deed restoration.

DHS has requested HDA to send proof of the funds. HDA is governed by National Treasury and is a schedule 3A public entity, so when making a request of the financial statements to National Treasury, they need to request the extra money available. All the funds that were transferred including the Northern Cape disaster money that is sitting with the HDA will be checked by National Treasury, National Treasury will communicate with DHS if the funds go back to the National Revenue Fund or if the money will be kept with HDA. National Treasury will always communicate about additional funds that are sitting with public entities otherwise the money is taken back to the revenue fund.

Ms Bele answered Ms Sihlwayi about the emergency housing grant and why there is underperformance and transfers to other provinces and metros. A report will be submitted regarding all the emergency housing grants that have been transferred as the data is available. The emergency housing money has been taken from the USDG and HSDG and DHS will have to go back and relook at how to better handle these funds.

Mr Chainee replied to Ms Mohlala and Ms Powell about land identification, acquisition, and release either to a municipality or province. The HDA has done their part and has been doing so since 2010. The target of 30% refers to the sections of land that have been acquired by the HDA and released within the Priority Housing Development Area (PHDA). The steps after identification, acquisition and release are rezoning and development which will be included in the performance framework. The goal is 30% per year so that 100% is achieved by the end of this financial year. The responsibility for zoning lies with three parties. The HDA, if they have land will handle it on behalf of the municipality or province, especially where they own land.

The most important tool they have for accountability is the Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on land reform which is chaired by the deputy president and the Minister of COGTA, the Minister of Public Works and other ministers. The monitoring of the 30% is done at a political level and the Minister has been requested to report on the progress of rezoning at the next ordinary IMC. There is a technical DG that addresses any log jams in the HDA. The target is taken seriously as it is an indicator of other issues, for example, if DHS rezones established townships, some of the delays with title deeds will fall away because that has been the biggest problem. There are intergovernmental relations processes, and quarterly meetings with the provinces and the municipalities where DHS accounts and responds to areas of deficiency. DHS also has one-on-one meetings with the HDA to make sure they get assistance for matters out of their power such as getting approval.

Dr Sokopo answered questions about the technical indicators, and what was achieved and not achieved by DHS. Three main items that were not achieved out of the nine indicators are the 40% target for monitoring the budget for designated groups, the circulation of the Upgrading of Informal Settlements Programme (UISP) report which contains the research done and the target for 100% implementation of the capacity assembly programme.

Partially achieved items include the inception report which is related to community participation in the informal settlement and socio-economic serving, the monitoring of 100% of projects under implementation and then the management of the 33 informal settlements to be upgraded to Phase 3 which is a direct responsibility of the branch.

Dr Sokopo explained the work that needed to be done before projects could be handled in Phase 3.

Provinces:
• The Eastern Cape had 114 informal settlements that were under Phase 2 which needed the DHS to conduct feasibility studies, deal with land acquisition, provide bulk infrastructure (water, sewerage and electricity), and provide temporary services and basic services if they are needed.

• The Northern Cape had 1 project in Phase 1 which is a new settlement which needs pre-feasibility studies and social facilitation. Pre-feasibility studies include land surveys, and environmental and technical reports which are desktop studies in Phase 1 but go into detail in Phase 2 by testing the soil and looking at geographic contours. Northern Cape also had 14 projects in Phase 2 and 19 in Phase 3.

• The Western Cape had zero projects in Phase 1, 8 in Phase 2 and 50 in Phase 3.

• KwaZulu-Natal has 50 in Phase 2.

• Limpopo has zero in Phase 1, 11 in Phase two and 11 in Phase three.

• Mpumalanga has 1 in Phase 1, 12 in Phase 2 and 37 in Phase 3.

• Gauteng has 37 in Phase 1, 36 in Phase 2 and 0 in Phase 3.

• Free State has 15 in Phase 2 and 18 in Phase 3.

• North West 65 in Phase 2 and 6 in Phase 3.

A total of 505 projects for the provinces.

Municipalities:
• City of Cape Town - 19 in Phase 1, 12 in Phase 2 and 18 in Phase 3

• Buffalo City - 13 Phase 2 and 37 in Phase 3.

• Nelson Mandela Bay - 7 in Phase 1, 2 in Phase 2 and 12 in Phase 3.

• eThekwini - 217 in Phase 2 and 13 in Phase 3.

• City of Ekurhuleni -  68 in Phase 2 and 39 in Phase 3.

• City of Johannesburg - 14 in Phase 2 and 31 in Phase 3.

• City of Tshwane - 2 in Phase 1, 5 in Phase 2 and 15 in Phase 3.

• Mangaung - 21 in Phase 3

Total of 545 projects for the municipalities

Phase 3 deals with all the municipal engineering services that need to be done, this includes water at the site, electricity and sanitation. If any of these are not included then it is regarded as incomplete, but in a majority of the cases, some or one of these have been installed but not yet 100% complete. The end of Phase 3 provides serviced sites. Other parts in Phase 3 include social and economic amenities such as parks, bus stops and taxi ranks, the layout plans for townships are also approved.

One of the informal settlements in the municipality of Umzimvubu in the Eastern Cape has progressed to Phase 3. It is still in the final design and not yet completed. Another example is Mbhashe Municipality which has an informal settlement called zone 14 where they have started placing bulk infrastructure.

The Free State has an informal settlement where the progress to date includes 70% of the work being completed. The project has targeted 2 044 sites with 1 431 sites that have been serviced.

Dr Sokopo wanted to give the Committee further detail on the projects in terms of Phase 3 which is not well presented in the third and fourth quarter reports. DG asked Dr Sokhopo to create a report containing all the progress to be given to the Committee.

Ms Buthelezi said many of the targets were not achieved because of poor planning and how they were targeted. With BNG housing, the DHS was expected to verify the performance achieved by provinces. This is a long process as the verifier cannot just take the report given by the province, but they must get the actual evidence. When a title deed has been registered, and it is included in the reports, DHS also has to get actual evidence of what got registered. Provinces are still submitting project numbers which will make a difference in the annual report.

It is difficult for the national department to provide verification at a provincial level, it needs to be simplified and regulated so that provinces can do it. There are plans are for the NHBRC to do the inspections, send reports to the provinces, and then the provinces forward the reports to the DHS. This plan still does not provide the real evidence needed to verify projects, so the plan should include digital transformation where entities such as the NHBRC and provinces can upload information onto a single platform and provide all the details of the projects.

Ms Buthelezi responded to Ms Powell about the numbers on slide 8. The numbers are for each quarter as they are calculated for the three months. Slides 9, 10 and 11 show cumulative numbers based on what the provinces gave to the DHS. Other amounts shown in the presentation have been explained on the slides, this will also be explained further in the annual report.

FLISP for Gauteng was zero because the report shows what has been distributed to the provinces and not to NHFC. Gauteng did perform, but the issue is around how the target was created. The target for NHFC was not included in the FLISP target as it gets calculated as part of targets that are reported under NME.

There will be a workshop with relevant sector departments who will help devise strategies to target the challenges around title deeds. Challenges include family disputes which Adv Masutha spoke about and lack of capacity in municipalities. There are some interventions in place like the educational programme running across the provinces to teach people about what is expected when it comes to title deeds such as leaving a will. The DHS is also working with the Banking Association of South Africa (BASA) to help people draw up their wills. BASA will be working with the provinces to support with the lack of skills challenge the Committee commented on.

Rural ownership requires the DHS to have a separate conversation with the Department of Rural Development to bring back systems that were discontinued. Ms Buthelezi made the example of issuing a title deed that covers all the family members in the event of death. In the past, the deeds office arranged for a family title deed which gave rights to all the people included in the title deed, but this was phased out.

Ms Letsholonyane answered the issue regarding vacancies and the efforts the DHS has made to reduce vacant jobs.

The challenges to filling up vacant job posts included difficulties in getting SAQA reports, delays in verifying competency which is now a requirement and delays caused by the restructuring of the DHS which included rewriting job descriptions and evaluations for new positions before they could be advertised.

Although the report showed high levels of vacancies, the DHS has a limited budget for hiring people. Some of the jobs have been in the DHS for many years and have no value, so it would be better to remove those positions as the needs of the DHS have changed. Going through all the positions in the structures and determining which ones are valuable will provide a more accurate report on filling the vacancies.

Employees who have left the DHS include staff in critical posts retiring and the end of contracts that were not renewed. With retirement, the DHS did not have good planning to advertise and fill the positions in time.

Ms Letsholonyane spoke about the Employees Wellness programme for internal staff where the DHS was doing well in taking care of the mental health and wellness of the officials.

Mr Maritz answered questions about monitoring and evaluation of housing. The DHS is monitoring the cases of the collapsing houses, most of them are part of block projects, and it is the DHS’s aim to focus on the block projects. He also said the DHS must improve on coordination and engagements with the provinces to make sure the systems in place were smooth when it comes to reporting. The way projects are being presented in the report is new because in the previous financial year the DHS would do reporting and identify the needs, but it is now done by the provinces which don't have the reporting systems in place.

The DG answered about the CFO position which became vacant on 28 February 2022 after the contract ended. The CFO was a former employee of the DHS and was transferred from a municipality but has now been returned to her original position by the former minister. The DHS and Minister are looking to fill that position as soon as possible.

DG agrees that moving funds from one province or municipality to another does not solve problems and does not benefit the citizens, but this is used as a last resort. Significant amounts of money were not spent in some of the provinces; Limpopo is an example, so it was decided to use this money to help in other provinces.

The DHS does not work alone, so when there is poor performance in a province, the DHS expects the officials in charge to act especially if corruption takes place. The Minister has no control over provincial officials such as the MECs or HODs, only the Premier can act out consequence management on a provincial level. The DHS does however have systems where it can take control of other spheres in the department such as rejecting business plans if they were not credible. The DHS did not meet the target on business plan approval because some of the plans proposed would not assist in meeting the Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF) targets. Some of the business plans proposed by provinces were delayed and only approved after they had been changed. This had an effect on the payment of contractors and the start of projects.

The DG said that the government needs to find a better delivery model than what is present. It might not be efficient for the DHS to transfer money to provinces that then transfer money to municipalities to pay organisations that deliver services. It would be better for the DHS to transfer money directly to those that provide the services such as developers and contractors. The intergovernmental fiscal system has been in place for more than 25 years and should be reconsidered.

He made an example of the 2010 World Cup where the three spheres of government (national, provincial, and local) created a local organising committee in the host cities to make decisions. The targets were clear and were achieved with limited movements of money between government. A similar approach could be used for the DHS.

One of the problems with issuing title deeds is beneficiary administration. Before a title deed is issued to a person, the person must be approved for a subsidy to get the stand. Many provinces use the housing construction list to create the housing beneficiary list. Contractors build without knowing who the owner of the house is, and the province only assigns owners once construction is complete. The Annual Performance Plans of provinces do not include beneficiary approval which is creating a backlog to deliver houses.

The DG gave an example of a developer in Mpumalanga who is doing well to deliver title deeds. The lesson is that simplified systems provide faster results. If one developer is in charge of everything from planning, and construction, then giving out title deeds then people can get their houses and title deeds faster. The developer is linking beneficiary approval to housing development so that a stand can only be developed if it has an owner.

The Chairperson made her observations on the presentation. She asked that the progress of projects be put in one report. They will continue to engage with any follow up questions when the DHS presents the annual report.

The Chairperson had engaged with the support staff about the statement Mr A Tseki (ANC) made earlier that one of the Committee Members must “shut up”. She asked Mr Tseki to withdraw his statement, which he did.

The meeting was adjourned.