Department of Correctional Services and Special Investigating Unit Annual Report & Financial Statements 2008/09: hearings

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed Members and delegates to the first hearing of 2010.

Dr Jenny A Schreiner, Acting National Commissioner, Department of Correctional Services, conveyed the apologies of the Minister of Correctional Services, Ms Nosiviwe Noluthando Mapisa-Nqakula, who had a prior commitment to attend a meeting of the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services that was being held at the same time.

Mr R Ainslie (ANC) expressed his disappointment and frustration that an opportunity for the two Committees to meet together with the Minister to discuss the very same issues on their respective agenda had been lost.

The Chairperson noted Mr Ainslie's observation and said that the Committee of Chairs had recently discussed this kind of problem. He said that the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services had found himself faced with an unavoidable problem with the committee programme.

[The Minister, however, was able to join the meeting for the second half of the proceedings.]

Hearing on Special Investigating Unit’s Annual Report & Financial Statements 2008/09
The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) received in the 2008-2009 financial year an unqualified audit opinion (with other matters). This was for the second year running. The Auditor-General had indicated, under key governance responsibilities, that material amendments were made to the financial statements post submission, and that the strategic plan was not submitted and approved in terms of the Treasury Regulations.

The Chairperson said that a major portion of the Committee’s work was interrogating the various serious challenges presented in the financial statements of departments and entities which had performed unsatisfactorily. However, the Committee now intended to extend its interactions to departments and entities which had done well in order to prove that it was possible to correct mistakes and get things right. There was, however, ‘just one little hump’. It was necessary to interrogate this and a few issues in the financial statements. He asked in particular about prepayments.

Advocate Willie Hofmeyr, Head, Special Investigating Unit (SIU), responded that the Unit worked in cooperation with the private sector. Item prepayment was largely a matter of convenience. However, the Unit did obtain the National Treasury’s permission every year. It was really an issue of timing. The Unit’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO) could give more details.

The Chairperson said that leave provision and study leave had increased dramatically. (Annual Report, page 66)

Ms Veronica Marshsmit, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), SIU, responded that leave remaining untaken had increased considerably.

The Chairperson asked about fixed assets. (Annual Report, page 38). The process had not been completed with regard to contingent liabilities.

Advocate Hofmeyr responded.

The Chairperson asked about the decision of the Constitutional Court. (Annual Report, page 52).

Ms Marshsmit replied that the SIU had wanted to be transparent.

The Chairperson asked for a reconciliation of certain expenses from an accounting point of view. The amount for travel and accommodation, R6.4 million, raised his concern. (Annual Report, page 52).

Ms Marshsmit responded that the total amount was R12 million.

The Chairperson asked how SIU had explained car hire separately. 

Ms Marshsmit responded that cars were hired when staff members of the SIU visited other regions. For visits in its locality, staff members used their own cars, for which they were reimbursed with travel expenses. The separate accounting was more for control purposes.

Advocate Hofmeyr added that the SIU had quite a large fleet because staff members were required to travel extensively to perform their duties. 

The Chairperson asked about outside service providers.

Advocate Hofmeyr replied ‘Who will guard the guards themselves?’ He said that the SIU used an outside service provider for a lie detector test.

The Chairperson inferred that this test would be for consultants.

Ms Marshsmit confirmed that it would be outsourced.

Advocate Hofmeyr spoke about the actual conducting of the lie detector test.

The Chairperson remarked that the SIU’s consultancy fees had increased sharply.

Advocate Hofmeyr replied that he understood that the issue of consultancy fees was the reason for SIU’s presence at the meeting. The increase had happened because of the process of organisational redesign. The SIU had grown very rapidly over the previous eight years at a compound rate of 50 per cent per annum. SIU’s equipment had become outdated. It had been necessary for SIU to reassess its situation.  Apart from the back office support, it was easy for members of small organisations to know what their colleagues were doing. SIU had engaged some of the best experts in South Africa in its endeavour to convert itself to a project-based organisation. He was, however, acutely aware that SIU could be spending too much on consultants. The challenge was to work effectively with SIU’s staff to implement the new technologies.

The Chairperson noted that the unit had not suffered any losses through criminal misconduct. He asked about irregular expenditure and the process of appointment to a committee.

Advocate Hofmeyr replied that he had appointed the committee from among all employees of the SIU. An adjudication process had to happen over the Christmas period. The CFO had acted in good faith, though he admitted that the procedure was not regular. However, the SIU believed that it had taken appropriate steps. The Auditor-General had agreed that there had been no ulterior motive. Mr Hofmeyr possessed a copy of the letter of confirmation to the National Treasury, and admitted that it was the one blot on the SIU’s report.

The Chairperson commented that the paragraph was very well written.

Advocate Hofmeyr said that SIU had put a lot of effort into its supply chain management structure. However, it had experienced pressures and time constraints. The main issue was planning. He was confident that the same issue would not recur, and explained that SIU had been learning by experience. 

Ms M Matladi (UCDM) questioned what appeared to be a double expenditure. R44 million was an exorbitant amount, compared to R6 million the previous year.  

Mr Zola Ntolosi, Head of Strategy, SIU, responded.

Ms Matladi asked if it implied extra costs

Mr Ntolosi replied that SIU would in the subsequent period ‘look after the other ones’.

Ms Matladi asked if there were going to be extra costs.

Advocate Hofmeyr said that would be the end of the process.

Mr Ainslie asked if the Correctional Services internal unit could use this tool. He referred to the November 2010 meeting of the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services.

Advocate Hofmeyr replied that all SIU’s investigations were conducted in collaboration with the Department of Correctional Services and funded by the Department. SIU could thus detect patterns. SIU worked with SARS in this process. There was much interest in data services. There was a high risk. An audit of all procurement transactions generated the red flags. There was an expanding use of cross-government partnership. SIU wanted it to be a live system. SIU had done some detailed work. Even with three quotes for the type of procurement, it was a passionate area.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Ainslie for his pertinent question.

Mr N Singh (IFP) said that lawyers preferred lengthy investigations because those led to a greater fee. He asked if the unit was providing tax payers with value for money. He asked secondly about investigations into housing and local government, and the mechanism for detecting irregularities. (Annual Report, page 14)

Advocate Hofmeyr replied that the SIU did try to provide value for money. It appreciated that Government spent heavily each year on forensic investigations. Especially over the previous six months, the SIU had been overwhelmed with requests. The scope of the investigations included ad hoc cases. It was necessary to improve capacity. Follow up was an issue; it was the Department’s responsibility to implement. The difficult areas were the disciplinary processes, and public servants who had failed to declare their interests. Implementation was often weak. There was perhaps a need for a central unit to drive implementation. SIU was helping some departments with disciplinary processes.

The Chairperson asked if failure of departments and entities to act on the SIU’s advice devalued its work.

Advocate Hofmeyr replied that others share the same level of frustrations.

Mr M Steele (DA) asked about the SIU’s exponential growth, whether the SIU would be able to liaise effectively with the Auditor-General’s office, and on the SIU’s investigation into the Department of Correctional Services.

Advocate Hofmeyr replied that he did not think that corruption was growing. However, he did think that the SIU’s capacity needed to be increased sufficiently. The team was not prepared to deal with the issues of the Department of Correctional Services. He asked if SIU could respond in writing with further details.

Mr T Bonhomme (ANC) asked about social grants and beneficiaries. He asked how SIU felt that it could induce the Department ‘to walk the straight and narrow’.

The Chairperson said that what had been done was to identify the culprits. It was not guess work.

Mr N du Toit (DA) said that the Committee’s work also dealt with solutions. The crux of the matter was that there was no disciplinary action. It was necessary to take matters to their logical conclusion.

Advocate Hofmeyr asked that he not be misquoted.

The Chairperson ruled that the matter be left as a moot point. The Committee was not addressing the core of the challenge. For once the Committee was ‘able to talk and smile without frowning’. When the SIU was faced with more work, it meant that there was much wrongdoing. He thanked Mr Hofmeyr and his colleagues. 

Hearing on Department of Correctional Services’ Annual Report & Financial Statements 2008/09
The Department had received a qualified audit opinion from the Auditor-General on its financial statements for a third year in succession. It had been qualified on asset management. There had been lack of supporting evidence for the current year adjustment of the opening balance and therefore the closing balance and movable tangible assets. Other matters included unauthorised expenditure, non-compliance with legislation, material misstatements, and shortcomings in performance information. Root causes were insufficient monitoring and guidance by senior management to ensure that there was an adequate internal control environment, preparation of financial statements, and availability of documentation.

The Chairperson welcomed the Minister of Correctional Services.

Mr Steele asked about tangible assets. (Annual Report, pages 88-89), and the problem of insufficient audit evidence. (Annual Report, page 88, paragraph 7)

Ms N Mareka, Acting Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Department of Correctional Services, said that the Department had been migrating piecemeal. It had drafted an action plan to address the issue of audit evidence to forward to head office the supporting documentation. The process of reconciliation was taking longer than the Department had hoped.

The Chairperson confirmed with the Department that it was in the process of reconciliation.

Mr Steele asked if the Department believed that it had effective control over their regional structures.

Ms Mareka replied that, for example, one person was doing something different the next day.

The Chairperson asked the Minister to note down the questions and give herself the opportunity to talk to the Committee at the end.

The Chairperson asked if there was any effective control from the centre.

Ms Mareka replied that the Department had decentralised asset management; it had never been centralised. The proposal was addressing that structural problem.

Mr Steele asked about the difference between the amounts. It was not possible to confirm assets.

A Member asked the Department about its migration to the Logistical Information System ( LOGIS) - a governmental provisioning, procurement and stock-control system that integrated all accounting systems, and a further asset verification process.

Mr Steele quoted the Committee’s previous resolution that the Department of Correctional Services be required to implement LOGIS. The migration to LOGIS caused some of those discrepancies. However, the resolution was not being implemented. (Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services, 26 August 2009 meeting. Mr Solomon Jiyana, Senior Manager, Auditor-General of South Africa, on implementation of the new LOGIS system)

Dr Schreiner said that there was a need to ensure dedicated capacity. That was the way to a permanent solution. The Department was in the process of consultation around the new structure. The Minister had endorsed that process.

The Chairperson said that he would have to listen very attentively.

Mr Steele asked why the percentage of posts vacant had increased, whereas the Department was saying that it had a lack of capacity, and was unable to hire the staff at the levels required. Did the Department have any solutions?

Mr S A Tsetsane, Chief Deputy Commissioner, Corporate Services, responded on the overtime budget.

Mr Du Toit said that he wondered which financial year was under discussion. The Committee had not heard any dates on the proposed restructuring and realignment.

Ms Matladi commented that it was not as if we were teaching people from grade one. The LOGIS new method was introduced in 2008. The Department’s top management should have picked up the problems.

Dr Schreiner replied that the question was valid. It was important to ensure that the Department did not end up with employees transferred. Unfortunately, one did not necessarily acquire a dedicated supply chain personnel.

Ms T Chiloane (ANC) asked about unauthorised expenditure. She asked why those additional findings were not made available, and could, perhaps, the National Treasury explain.

Ms Mareka replied that there had been a drastic decline in the overtime commitment.

The Chairperson asked about the decision on occupational specific dispensation (OSD).

Ms Mareka responded.

The Chairperson asked for further clarity on OSD, and for the Department to explain the usage of overtime funds for OSD in the light of National Treasury’s having said that there was no extra money available.

Mr Tsetsane replied that the reality was there was no overtime budget.

The Chairperson asked why there was no overtime money.

Mr Tsetsane replied.

The Chairperson asked if it had come from the Department.

Mr Tsetsane replied that the Department of Public Service and Administration was concerned. It had not come through the Department. 

Mr Philip van Schalkwyk, Director, National Treasury, replied that the Treasury did not allocate money for overtime.

Dr Schreiner replied that the Department was not paying for overtime.

Mr Tsetsane replied that the communication had never reached the Department.

Mr Steele asked for clarity.

Mr M Mbili (ANC), asking about governance issues, asked why National Treasury would be expected to provide an overtime budget.

Mr Tsetsane replied on overtime. It was to give time off.

Mr Mbili raised a point of order question.

The Chairperson said that he was acquiring the impression that the Department was under pressure to ask employees to work overtime.

The Chairperson said further that in a previous hearing of the Committee on the Department of Correctional Services officials had made contradictory statements. If Section 38 of the Public Finance Management Act had been violated, the executive authority must take disciplinary action. Either somebody ‘had let us down’ or ‘one of you had let us down’. Merely to refer to the National Treasury was unsatisfactory.

Dr Schreiner referred to the resolution of 2007.

The Chairperson referred to a decision that OSD must be paid from overtime money. 

Ms Mareka responded that the legal opinion was very clear.

The Chairperson asked Ms Mareka if she was alleging that the Auditor-General was incorrect. 

Ms Mareka responded that the Auditor-General was right.

Dr Schreiner attempted to clarify the matter.

The Chairperson said that he inferred that therefore OSD had nothing to do with overtime

Mr Tsetsane assented

Ms Mareka explained.

The Chairperson inferred that what the Department of Correctional Services had sent to the National Treasury was a request.  The over- expenditure was overtime not OSD, which was separate. However, it did not justify the over expenditure.

Ms Chiloane asked about compliance with applicable legislation. Accounting remained a serious problem. She asked for an explanation.

Dr Schreiner referred to the various prongs of the strategy. She confirmed that the Department of Correctional Services received prisoners from other departments, and spoke of the court processes.

Mr Singh asked for clarity.

Mr T J Motseki, Deputy: Chief Deputy Commissioner, Corporate Services, Department of Correctional Services, responded. 

Mr Mbili objected that the Committee had heard it all before. The Department of Correctional Services was breaking the law. The senior management themselves were breaking the law. He asked what could be done with them. 

The Chairperson asked the Minister to ‘flag’ Mr Mbili’s remark. There needed to be direction at a political level.

Ms Chiloane asked what measures were taken to correct the situation.

Ms Mareka replied that she was just talking of legislation.

The Chairperson clarified that Ms Chiloane wanted to ask about compliance with Section 38 of the Public Finance Management Act.

Ms Mareka responded.

The Chairperson said that on compliance with Section 38 there was agreement. He asked the Department what it was doing to comply.

Ms Mareka replied that the Department needed a permanent solution, but it was ‘not sitting back’.

The Chairperson asked for the framework.

Ms Mareka replied that the challenge remained but the Department was engaging with it. She asserted that there were improvements.

The Chairperson stated that senior officials were paid to do a job, and it must be done as effectively as possible. There was no implementation yet. So the problem remained.

Ms Chiloane said that the status of human resources in the Department was not as projected. She asked for an updated human resources plan.

Mr Tsetsane responded on the human resources plan.

Mr Mbili said that his questions had been partly covered. He referred to the Auditor-General’s report of 2009 on governmental employees who were doing business with the Government.

Ms Matladi preferred that the above question be treated as a follow-up.

Mr Mbili was not satisfied with the Department’s academic distinction between food and food supply. He asked what has been done to reduce the overcrowding in South Africa’s prisons. Moreover, South African prisoners suffered a double punishment because they become infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (HIV/AIDS) in prison.

Ms S Moodley, Chief Deputy Commissioner, Development and Care, Department of Correctional Services, responded on rape.

The Chairperson asked why the Department was reacting only now.

Ms Moodley said that the Department had acknowledged rape to be a major problem in its centres, and that it had to manage it in a more proactive way.

The Chairperson said that the matter of rape stood out. 

Ms Moodley spoke of the legal aspects at Central Services.

Dr Schreiner clarified.

Mr Mbili asked what it was that the Department was doing so wrongly.

The Department of Correctional Services responded that there were claims that had not been paid.

Mr Mbili asked about maintenance (Annual Report, page 128).

Ms Mareka replied, with reference to the Department’s inventory.

Mr Mbili asked about transport.

Ms Mareka replied that it was governmental transport.

Mr Mbili asked if the Department used leased vehicles.

Ms Mareka replied that there were four ministerial vehicles.

Mr Mbili asked about internal controls (Annual Report, page 71).

Dr Schreiner said that the fundamental issues to be addressed were those of staffing. The Department had been attending to the issues of managerial accountability. The Department held the managers accountable.

Mr Mbili suggested that maybe timeliness would assist the Committee, which had a sense that Correctional Services was one of the most corrupt departments. (Annual Report, page 171) He asked if the senior management considered the Department to be effective, and if it was ‘going to get it right’. Timeliness was of the essence.

The Chairperson inferred that the Department was progressing beyond the planning stage.

Mr Mbili asked if it was correct to assume that the senior management team could not do its work. He had not suggested that the Department was not doing anything.

The Chairperson said that it was not possible to continue this way for the next three years. It was necessary to uphold the law. The present picture was not good. It was part of the challenges.

Dr Schreiner said that the Department would agree with the Committee very solidly on that. She referred to the White Paper. The Department was big and decentralised.

Ms Matladi asked about the memorandum of agreement, the repairs and maintenance project, and if these investigations were tabled if done.

Dr Schreiner responded.

Ms Matladi, asking about investigation and performance audit, wanted to know about the five reports.

Dr Schreiner referred to the medical aid matter.

Ms Matladi asked if the investigations had been completed, and if there were any outstanding reports. The Department was so full of fraud cases. She asked if any action had been taken against the perpetrators, and what kind of action.

Dr Schreiner replied that it would be hard to answer that question. Correctional Services was not one of the departments that had not acted on recommendations of the SIU, if one was considering cases holistically.

The Chairperson observed that commitment was not in short supply; however, implementation was. He was sure more could be done.

Ms Matladi asked that the written responses to the Committee be outlined case by case.

Dr Schreiner responded.

The Chairperson asked for clarity

Ms Matladi asked about the report, and what the Department had done.

Dr Schreiner replied that the Department had put this in writing. It had taken steps regarding disclosures. It was acting on its commitments made to the August meeting of the Committee.

Ms Matladi asked about theft, her last question.

Dr Schreiner responded.

The Chairperson asked for follow-up questions. 

Mr Mbili asked for more detailed figures.

Ms Mareka replied that the Department would respond in writing.

Mr Mbili said that the Department’s response thus far had not assisted him. He suggested that the Chairperson was being ‘protective’ or conciliatory.

The Chairperson assured Mr Mbili that the Department would supply the figures.

The Department said that it detained persons who were brought to it with a warrant of detention. The same applied when the Department was required to release people. The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development had to produce a warrant.

The Chairperson referred to the Annual Report, page 148.

Mr Ainslie strongly suspected that what Advocate Hofmeyr’s had observed earlier that morning applied to other departments which had failed to take decisive action. Criminal charges had not even been mentioned. He asked about outstanding cases. In 2002 the SIU had identified medical aid fraud in the Department. Mr Ainslie called for specific case information.26 doctors should have been charged; ten officials had been charged.  He referred to page 171 of the Annual Report; 289 cases should have been identified: what had happened to those criminal cases? It was very commendable that the second objective of the Department was to fight corruption, but not one single criminal case had been mentioned. He asked about the old cases. Those concerned should be named. Secondly, he referred to the second partnership that the Department had signed with the SIU in 2006. Many of those cases were still in process. The Committee did not expect details or names, but wanted a status report. Thirdly, he asked why a further agreement with SIU had not been signed given that there was work outstanding.

Mr Du Toit said that he was shocked to learn in the meeting that the top management of the Department regarded rape so lightly that it could not give figures; it was not even able to say whether hundreds, thousands, or ten thousands of rape cases had occurred. (Annual Report, pages 91 and 92).  He was secondly shocked with regard to the extensive discussion on middle management. It was now necessary to discuss the top management present at the meeting. He asked what had happened to the Department’s strategic plan. The Department had failed on ten points out of twelve. How could this be allowed? The audit committee had scored nothing. How could the Department have failed so miserably?

Dr Schreiner said that there had been a printing error on page 91 of the Annual Report, which would explain ‘that element’: Dr Schreiner apologised. She would ensure that in future staff would be deployed at the printer to ensure that there was no recurrence of such an error. The Department had an annual process by which it reviewed the strategic plan. There was a regular stock-taking of work that had been done.

The Chairperson asked why, according to the Annual Report, page 92, the impression given was that there was no strategic plan.

Dr Schreiner asserted that the Department had always had a strategic plan.

The Chairperson accepted Dr Schreiner’s response, in view of which his question fell away.

Dr Schreiner said that the strategic plan was reviewed on an annual basis. Performance information was included in the strategic plan. She did not have a copy of the relevant correspondence, and asked if she could provide details subsequently. 

The Chairperson referred to page 91, on the Audit Committee. He asked Dr Schreiner to ensure that in future the Annual Report was carefully checked for any errors before going to press.

Dr Schreiner asked, with reference to paragraph 8, page 91, if she could provide further information subsequently.

The Chairperson asked the Auditor-General to confirm certain matters. If so confirmed, the question would fall away.

The Auditor-General replied that the Department was correct with regard to paragraphs 6 and 7 on page 91, but a query regarding paragraph 8 remained.

The Chairperson accepted the Auditor-General’s response.

Mr Du Toit said that this response proved his point, that senior managers concerned did not take the trouble to proof read the most important parts of the Department’s Annual Report. Such mistakes were not acceptable. They should at least make a contingency plan in case of mistakes, and provide an errata slip.

The Chairperson said that the accounting officer would take this matter forward. 

Mr Steele shared Mr Ainslie’s concern about the non-renewal of the contract with the SIU and requested a serious explanation. He still had an unanswered question about the re-award in 2009 of the catering contract to a contractor described by the SIU as ‘deeply flawed’.  He was very surprised that the Constitutional Court had not yet entertained a submission on the grounds of an abuse of human rights from prisoners in overcrowded facilities, that their punishment had become ‘cruel and unusual, rather than simply restrictive’; the matter of the human dignity of prisoners really needed to be addressed not only as a priority but as a matter of the utmost urgency. 

Ms Schreiner responded to concern about contracts. She said that with the handover to a new Minister, the Department had been unable to renew contracts without reconsideration and due process. At the time that the catering contract was renewed, there had been no evidence before the Department that there was anything untoward. She said that the Department was addressing the issue of overcrowding as best it could, and regarded it as a matter of priority on the criminal justice agenda.

The Chairperson observed that the Department was between ‘a rock and a hard face’. Society required that dangerous criminals be imprisoned, but space was limited.   The space problem was a challenge that went beyond the scope of Correctional Services. He thanked the Department for the efforts made to provide the Committee with answers. However, he had to point out that the issues of asset management were fundamental, and needed to be addressed. They should have been addressed already. He did not understand how such issues had not been seen as central to the management problem from the beginning. How assets should be managed needed to be addressed. The Committee had already resolved on the matter. (Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on the Annual Report and the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) for the Financial Year ending 31 March 2007, dated 29 January 2008; Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services, 26 August 2009: Mr Solomon Jiyana, Senior Manager, Auditor-General of South Africa, on Scopa’s insistence on an accurate asset register). The Chairperson hoped that the Committee would not have to hear long explanations again. He wanted to see the problem addressed, not explained away. Secondly, the issue of organisational culture was fundamental. Even with the Department’s understaffing, if its orientation had been correct, the problems would have been less. The Committee hoped to see increasingly a proactive approach. He urged the Department to renew its contract with the SIU. He appealed to the Minister to resolve the dependence on acting positions in senior management.

The Minister said that the Auditor-General was considering the removal of overcrowding as a compliance issue. It was a matter that the Department had discussed in September 2009 with the Auditor-General’s Office. However, overcrowding was a common problem worldwide in correctional facilities. There were additional facts that increased the magnitude of the challenges. The Department wished to invite Members to undertake inspections of facilities, and it had taken certain steps to reduce overcrowding. Most of the problems with overcrowding required a broad cluster approach. It was often difficult to release prisoners on bail, because it was not possible to verify their physical address. There was a backlog with the parole system. There was also discussion of the conversion of custodial sentences to community supervision. There was also the challenge of the medical parole system. She did not believe that psychiatric cases belonged in correctional centres. Such centres should not be used as dumping grounds. On a daily basis the Department dealt with people who were raped in its centres. Condoms were supplied, but without justifying issues of rape. She admitted a need to address the whole area of risk management in the Department. New members had been appointed to the audit committee. Because of the moratorium, the Department had such a high vacancy rate for the past two or three years. It was working on a permanent deficit. This required the allocation of funds. The Department sought to identify critical vacancies. The Department had a shortlist for the position of chief financial officer, and was being assisted by the National Treasury to fill the position, which it hoped to fill as quickly as possible. The Department had in particular sought the help of the Accountant-General in the selection process to ensure identification of candidates with a proven track record. The previous commissioner had won her case against the Department, and been cleared of all charges. The Minister did not want to go into the merits and demerits of the case. The criminal investigation had dragged on at length. She hoped to obtain a report from the Department of Public Service and Administration the following day. The sooner the Department had a permanent commissioner the better it would be. There were many matters on which the Department could have responded. She thought that the Department’s team had done its best, but could have responded more eloquently to some of the Members’ questions. She was certainly not very happy with the quality of some of the answers, and really believed that the Department could have done better.

The meeting was adjourned.