Department of Health Strategic Plan, Annual Performance Plan and Budget: AGSA analysis and assessment

This premium content has been made freely available

Health

13 May 2020
Chairperson: Dr S Dhlomo (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video: Portfolio Committee on Health, 13 May 2020
Audio: Department of Health Strategic Plan, Annual Performance Plan and Budget: AGSA analysis and assessment 

The Portfolio Committee on Health convened a virtual meeting to be briefed by the Office of the Auditor General of South Africa (AGSA) on the performance plan and budget of the Department of Health.

The AGSA was concerned the same problems persist year after year in the national and provincial departments of health.

The outcomes for the National Department of Health included, but were not limited to, the following:

(1) Findings relating to the incorrect application of Modified Cash Standard (MCS) [were] raised during the interim audit.

(2) There [were] still some concerns with the internal controls implemented to ensure the accurate and complete recording of the immovable asset register.

(3) The turnaround time on investigations was still slow.

(4) The Department has instances of payments not made within 30 days that may be material at year end.

There were also findings for provincial departments of health. The root causes for these outcomes were stated as follows:

(1) Inadequate oversight exercised regarding financial and performance reporting and compliance as well as related internal controls.

(2) Lack of monitoring the implementation of action plans to address internal control deficiencies.

(3) Inadequate implementation of proper record-keeping in a timely manner to ensure that complete, relevant and accurate information is accessible and available to support financial and performance reporting.

(4) There was no implementation of controls over daily and monthly processing and reconciling of transactions.

(5) Lack of review and monitoring of compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

(6) Inadequate consequences for poor performance and transgressions.

The recommendations to the Committee included the following:

(1) Request management to provide feedback on the implementation and progress and of the action plans to address poor audit outcomes during quarterly reporting.

(2) Effective monitoring by the Committee should ensure that officials are held accountable.

(3) Monitoring of appointments for key vacancies.

(4) List of action taken against transgressors should be provided quarterly to Committee for follow-up

Questions from the Committee members centered around the performance, accountability and measurement of outcomes. They also included issues of intimidation of the Auditor General staff, the question of additional oversight and resources, regression in the achievement of overall targets, how the pandemic might affect the achievement of targets, and the fulfillment of key vacancies, among others.

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed all members present in the meeting. He advised members that there would only be one item before the Committee, namely a presentation from the Office of the Auditor General (“AG” or “Auditor General”), after which there would be time for engagement.

He conveyed that there had been tragic loss of Dr Clarence Mini, Chairperson of the Council of Medical Schemes (CMS), due to COVID-19. “He was apologised for when Dr Sipho Kabane [Chief Executive of the CMS] made a presentation.” The CMS is one of the entities which reports to the Committee. He asked members to observe 30 seconds of silence for Dr Mini, someone who had worked very closely with the Committee. After the observation, the Chairperson said “may the soul of the departed colleague rest in peace. Thank you.”

He then recognised the AGSA for the presentation. 

Briefing by Office of the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA)
Mr Eugene de Haan, Deputy Business Executive, AGSA, thanked the Chairperson, greeted members of the Committee, and conveyed his condolences for the passing of Dr Mini.

Mr de Haan, having trouble with sharing his screen, indicated that he would be moving immediately to slide four, which showed what he termed the “accountability wheel,” which indicated how important the different steps of accountability were in terms of the Annual Performance Plan (APP). Accountability in this context could be analysed as follows: “Accountability = Plan + Do + Check + Act.” These are important for measuring the impact made on the lives of citizens.

On the objectives of the APP Review: The APP review is done one year in advance; it is seen as a value-adding initiative for the Department of Health (“DoH” or “Department”). After reviewing the APP, the AG then focuses on the measurability of the targets (and indicators), the programmes which are linked to the mandate of the Department, and from there make a selection in terms of what will be tested.

He then spoke about the scope of the review. The scope, which looks at the measurability of all indicators, will consider (a) the definition of the indicator, (b) its verifiability, and also (c) ensuring that indicators are (1) specific, (2) measurable, and (3) time-bound. These factors are essential for measuring performance throughout the year, and are in alignment with the guidance as set out by the National Treasury (“Treasury”) in terms of the framework for annual performance plans.

There were a few items not covered in the review. The Medium Terms Strategic Framework (MTSF) was not submitted with the draft APP, as the preparation of the document was still in process. For this reason, the AG could not test (1) the relevance of the indicators to MTSF and (2) the completeness of indicators to cover all MTSF outcomes.

Three programmes were reviewed: Programmes 2 (National Health Insurance), 5 (Hospital Systems) and 6 (Health System Governance and Human Resources). Within programme 6, two indicators were to be corrected based on the recommendations of the review. One indicator was not well-defined (per (a) above), and the other was not verifiable (per (b) above).  Although the AGSA had confirmed these with the Department, and although the Department had indicated its willingness to correct these, it could not confirm whether or not they had in fact already corrected them.

Mr de Haan then moved on to what was identified in terms of the main audit findings in terms of the APP and the Strategic Plan (for the five year period). The first audit finding was that there was a “misalignment of principles outlined in the Revised Framework for Strategic plans and annual performance plans.” He highlighted that “[t]he baselines indicated for some of the outcome indicators in the strategic plan were not clear and unambiguous.” That is to say, it could not be determine which baseline was being used for the measurement of performance. This has an impact on the number of provinces complying with Emergency Medical Services Regulations

The second audit finding was that differences were noted between the in outcome indicators in the strategic plan and indicator titles in the Technical Indicator Descriptions in the Strategic Plan [TIDS]. This finding impacts: (a) the contingent liability of current medico-legal cases; (2) the percentage of people requiring preventative chemotherapy for schistosomiasis (which would be reduced); and (3) the implemented National Health Research Strategy and its achieved goals.

The third audit finding was that differences were noted between the source of data described in the TIDS of the strategic plan and those described in the APP.” He reminded the Committee that the AG does an alignment check between the APP, which is an annual plan, and the Strategic Plan, which covers a five year period. This finding would impact the “[n]umber of public nursing colleges accredited and registered to offer quality basic and specialist nursing programmes.”

The fourth audit finding was that the "target linked to the indicator is not measurable because the denominator was not specified in the calculation method.” This impacts the “[p]ercentage of blood alcohol tests completed within a normative period of 90 days.”

The entities which were reviewed included (1) the CMS, (2) Compensation for Occupational
Disease (CCOD), and (3) Office of Health Standards Compliance (OHSC). The entities which were not reviewed included (1) the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA), (2) the Medical Research Council (MRC), and (3) the National Health Laboratory Services (NHLS).

He discussed the budget analysis which was undertaken. Compared to the preceding financial year, 2020/21 saw a significant drop in the National Health Insurance (-30%), and an increase in the Health System Governance and Human Resources (23%). The reason for the drop in the National Health Insurance is due to the phasing-out of the pilot stage; provisions are now being made for the associated grants to be filtered into the normal operations of the Department.

From the total budget received by the Department, “only eight percent (or R4.2 billion) they are responsible for themselves in executing the operations; the R51 billion they transfer out to the provinces” (sic). He added that of the R4.2 billion that the Department was responsible for, 21% were employee costs, 50% were goods and services, and 29% were for capital assets.

He moved on to the analysis of transfers made from the national to the provincial departments (R51 billion). Figures remained “more-or-less” the same in 2020/21 year-on-year. The biggest portion of the transfer went to Comprehensive HIV & AIDS, TB & COS (49%); the next biggest was the National Tertiary Services grant (29%); then the Health Facility Revitalisation grant (13%); and also the statutory human resource and Training and Development grant (8%).

On transfers to national entities reporting to the Department, he said that 43% goes to the NHLS; 40% to the MRC; with the remainder going to the Council for Medical Scheme and also to the OHSC and the SAHPRA. These remained “more-or-less the same” year-on-year.

Touching on the Status of Records Review (SoRR) 2019/20, quarterly reviews were done “as and how” the year progressed; this is to determine if the Department, along with its entities, are “moving in the right direction, either by addressing our audit findings, or just having sufficient controls in place to address financial performance and compliance management within the entities and the Department.” A review was undertaken for the Department along with a combined review for all the provincial departments [presumably referring to the provincial departments of health].

The following were the outcomes of the SoRR for the National Department:

• Findings relating to the incorrect application of Modified Cash Standard (MCS) [were] raised during the interim audit.

• There [were] still some concerns with the internal controls implemented to ensure the accurate and complete recording of the immovable asset register.

• The IT environment remain[ed] a concern as it has not improved from prior years. The impact thereof was evident on the operations of the Department. If the matters go unresolved, this might impact the final audit.

• The turnaround time on investigations is still slow

• The Department has instances of payments not made within 30 days that may be material at year end.

The following were the outcomes for the sector-wide SoRR (combined provincial departments):

• Slow response from the accounting officer and senior management to implement the action plans and effectively address significant deficiencies in internal control on financial, performance and compliance reporting.

• Reconciliations for the period April 1, 2019 – Sept 30, 2019 between DHIS, registers and input forms were not prepared and reviewed and this may continue to result in material findings being reported on performance objectives.

• Poor contract management may lead to extension of contracts which could result in irregular expenditure being incurred.

• Investigations on irregular expenditure, fruitless and wasteful expenditure are being delayed or have slow progress or are not yet started at all.

• The sector has instances of payments not made within 30 days that may be material at year end.

• Effective and appropriate steps are still not taken to prevent irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure.

• Budget constraints within the sector threaten the financial viability of the departments.

• There are vacancies in key positions in some of the departments which could contribute to a stagnant outcome.

The root causes for these outcomes were stated as follows:

• Inadequate oversight exercised regarding financial and performance reporting and compliance as well as related internal controls.

• Lack of monitoring the implementation of action plans to address internal control deficiencies.

• Inadequate implementation of proper record keeping in a timely manner to ensure that complete, relevant and accurate information is accessible and available to support financial and performance reporting.

• No implementation of controls over daily and monthly processing and reconciling of transactions.

• Lack of review and monitoring of compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

• Inadequate consequences for poor performance and transgressions.

Recommendations were given in three parts, to the (1) leadership, (2) management, and (3) Portfolio Committee on Health. They were given as follows:

Recommendations for Leadership:

• Exercise oversight responsibility regarding financial and performance reporting and compliance as well as related internal controls.

Recommendations for Management:

• Implement proper record keeping in a timely manner to ensure that complete, relevant and accurate information is accessible and available to support performance reporting.

• Prepare accurate and complete financial and performance reports that are supported and evidenced by reliable information.

• Review and monitor compliance with applicable legislation relating expenditure and procurement and contract management.

Recommendations for the Portfolio Committee:

• Request management to provide feedback on the implementation and progress and of the action plans to address poor audit outcomes during quarterly reporting.

• Effective monitoring by the Committee should ensure that officials are held accountable.

• Monitoring of appointments for key vacancies.

• List of action taken against transgressors should be provided quarterly to Committee for follow-up for all irregular expenditure incurred.

The Chairperson thanked the AG for the presentation and opened the session for discussion.

Discussion
Mr A Shaik Emam (NFP) queried to what degree the added powers which were now vested in the AGSAbased on the amendments in the Act were helpful to it. He wanted to know what has been done thus far with regard to these added powers: how many different departments the AG has taken action against; and whether the AG could provide a list of transgressors along with an explanation as to what steps have been taken.

He also asked the AGSA to provide observations derived from officials within the Department who do not appear to have the requisite capacity to report on outcomes and targets adequately.

He brought up media reports of intimidation from bureaucrats within various state departments towards the AGSA. He wanted to know what impact this intimidation was having on the AGSA, and whether officials within the AG were still willing to do their work under these conditions.

Ms N Chirwa (EFF) wanted to follow up on the “procurement and maintenance plan” cited, according to her, in the “report in 2017, on medical equipment in particular in clinics and hospitals.” She wanted to know how far along this was, and how effective and efficient it was.

She wanted clarity on “risks and concerns on slides 19 and 20.” She wanted to know what the top three risks were of those highlighted in red.

She queried if there is any other “viable and clear” accountability processes apart from oversight.

She also wanted to know what additional resources were to be “tapped into” to “ensure that obligations are met in facilitating sustenance and thorough prioritisation of primary health care in particular.”  

She asked, also, what recommendations can be made for the CMS, CCOD and for the IT systems.

Ms S Gwarube (DA) said that there seemed to be a regression in the overall targets which were set. “If we look at this report, it actually paints quite a dire picture, I mean if you look particularly at slides 19 and 20 where we look at the National Department’s […] indicators, particularly around financial management, IT management and compliance management, there is a problem there because, particularly for me, financial management, if it is being flagged as something that […] requires intervention” (sic). She sought clarification from the AG. She reiterated that there appeared to be a regression in the Department’s ability to meet its targets, and to manage the “key levers”. She asked the AGSA what were some of the reasons for this regression.

As to the recommendations put forward by the AGSA, she sought more elaboration, since in the past the Department has not seen such a regression. She wanted further insight into the root causes over and above the explanations which had been provided in the presentation. 

She emphasised that the recommendations put forward to the Committee be taken more seriously, and said that a list needed to be made in order to “constantly” follow up with the Department in order to gauge their progress.

She wanted the AGSA’s input into how the COVID-19 pandemic might affect the targets and budgeting of the Department.

The Chairperson then read out a question from Ms E Wilson (DA), who, due to technical difficulties, could hear the proceedings but could not herself be heard. The question read: “Year-on-year we are seeing no improvement on outcomes, especially in the finance areas. Now we are in a crisis with COVID[-19], and there [are] no controls that are in place, so there is carte blanche for how to do what [the Department] wants” (sic). On this, the Chairperson indicated that the AGSA’s comment was required.

Mr P van Staden (FF+) asked what the impact of COVID-19 will be on the performance plans of the Department.

On the root causes (slide 22), he said that it looked “more-or-less the same” as the report from October 2019; that is to say, no improvement.

He said that he “would support the recommendations of the AGSA.”

Mr de Haan, responding to Mr Shaik Emam’s question, said that indeed the AGSA’s mandate has been extended and that “we can now actually hold people accountable.” The National Department and all provincial departments are “scoped in for a second phase implementation of our ‘PAA’ update.” In relation to the impact, if it is identified that there is a “material irregularity,” the framework for which was presented in October 2019, then the accounting officer (be it the Head of Department within the provincial departments, or the Director General within the National Department) will be requested to explain how the transgressors were held accountable. If no action has been taken, specific recommendations will be written for the accounting officer to take against such transgressors. A report on these irregularities, actions taken, and consequent recommendations will then be compiled and elevated. Some irregularities will be liable to investigations which can be initiated by the AGSA itself, and other Chapter Nine institutions can also be leveraged in this regard. The progress on implementation, and the subsequent engagement with the Department, has, however, been “sidetracked” in the past two months due to the lockdown. The Department has also requested that it “not be a priority at this time” as they are in the forefront of dealing with the pandemic. The AGSA has nevertheless been in contact with the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) to identify what the impact would be of the “special health budget that the President was referring to in terms of his speech for [the Department of] Health.” R20 billion has been allocated to the Department, and the AG has made a commitment to look into this allocation specifically, and also how this will be allocated from the National Department to the provinces and who will be incurring the expenditure.

On the threats to AGSA officials, Mr de Haan said “Yes, we have experienced that [i.e. threats] at different auditees. It should be noted that within the health portfolio we haven’t received anything like that regarding any AG officials being threatened, but it is something we do take serious[ly]” and is something on which the AG is putting “a lot of emphasis” due to its extended mandate (sic). The AG is, for this reason, providing safety and communication measures for its staff. To date, these threats have not affected the performance of the AG, and “sessions” are undertaken with staff to ensure that there is no undue influence. He added that this is something the AG takes seriously, and in regard to which the AG has support agreements with the SAPS.

“Slide 19 and 20,” he continued, “talks to the actual early warning system […] It is a status of record review.” Either in quarter three or quarter four of the financial year, the AG does a review of the key control areas in the Department which “we feel every entity or department should have to ensure complete [and] accurate reporting.”

For the Department, the IT environment, firstly, was identified as an issue; the failure on improvement for which has been occurring “year-on-year”. This impacts on target reporting since these are generated from the IT system.

A second identified area was the financial management, in regard to which we see that the “immovable asset register, which is made up of significant amounts” does not improve year-on-year. Here, we have identified material correction being made on the submitted financials. It also relates to where the Department relies on “implementing agents” to effectuate certain infrastructure projects. One concern is that the information being provided to the Department by these agents are “not always accurate.” The CFO has taken note of this and was working on it.

A third area identified was compliance management in terms of execution and payment terms (i.e. 30 days).

A fourth area was the identification of fruitless and wasteful expenditure. 

As mentioned, the major concern is with regard to the provincial departments (slide 20). The issues highlighted there are not improving. If the identified eight areas of internal controls are not addressed, then you will “always have significant matters coming through.” We therefore recommend to the Heads of Department and Directors General to take the AGSA’s SoRR as an early warning system. The AGSA will flag certain controls which are not working as intended, from which the relevant department (as requested) can implement the given recommendations prior to our year-end audit of the financial statements.

He stated that the AGSA has not identified a regression as such in the portfolio or in the National Department of Health, but rather a stagnation; i.e. things remain the same year-on-year. This remains concerning for the AG and is something the AG is attempting to address with the SoRR initiative.

The reason the same root causes are continually being raised is because “we keep on finding the same material issues” relating to the financials, performance, or compliance. What actually happens is that the AGSA comes in, identifies “misstatements” which are then rectified during the then-current audit process, but which is seen during the succeeding annual audit to have reverted; that is to say, the same issues keep cropping up. This suggests that the root cause is not being addressed. It is thus important for the audit action plans and recommendations to be tracked, not only by Directors General, but also by the Committee.

On the question of additional resources: some of these questions fall outside the scope of the AG’s review. It will be recalled the AG only looked at the APPs and did a quick budget review. He believes, however, that the questions raised about additional resources is “quite strong” and will be recommended to the Department to address, going forward.

He then handed over to his colleague.

Ms Thabelo Musisinyani, Senior Manager, AGSA, addressed the question of the procurement plan of 2017/18 in relation to medical equipment.  When the 2018/19 outcomes were reported, there was a section which dealt with radiology equipment. The findings in that report noted some improvements. However, it also noted that some equipment were not being used, even though “huge amounts” were spent on their procurement. In the current year, there was a plan to do another report on radiology equipment, however due to the pandemic this plan remains tentative.

On the question of regression in outcomes, it should be noted that the SoRR is done at a specific point in time. In this instance it was done as at December 31, 2019. When we look at the SoRR at a moment in time, the outcomes do not “look good.” For instance, the status of financial management and compliance as at the aforementioned date is different from that of the final audit, where final implementation of recommendations is performed, correcting the areas of concern in the financial statements.

The Chairperson started the next round of questions.

Ms H Ismail (DA) wished to highlight the allocation of the R51 billion to the provinces. She urged that there must be tool of accountability, since this cannot be going on each year where new audit reports raise recurrent issues. This, she said, affects service delivery on the ground.

She also raised the issue of “IT concerns and vacancies”. Here she emphasised the need for a mechanism of accountability to ensure recommendations were properly addressed.

Dr K Jacobs (ANC) urged that the Committee set aside some time to go through all the concerns which were highlighted in slides 19 and 20; he thought that the report required immediate action. He thanked the audit team for their presentation and for highlighting the recurring issues, their recommendation and for elaborating on their expanded mandate.

Ms A Gela (ANC) asked if the AGSA gave the management in the Department a turnaround timeframe in which to implement the former’s recommendations.

Dr P Dyantyi (ANC) asked if the AGSA had any new concerns over and above the old ones in regards to which implementation has not been effectuated in terms of the action plan.

She also asked the AG whether the programme of collaboration between the provincial departments and the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA), recommended previously, was effective, and whether there were other improvements which would be recommended beside the aforesaid programme.

As to the unfilled key vacancies, Dr Dyantyi asked which areas will need to be filled in order to improve upon the stagnant performance in achieving outcomes.

Ms M Hlengwa (IFP) said that the filling of key vacancies were crucial for the improvement of services on the ground. She pointed out that this was a recurring issue.

She raised the issue of wasteful and fruitless expenditure which, she pointed out, was also a recurring issue. Since it deals with tax payer money, she urged for the appointment of a suitable person to accurately monitor and record all expenditure as to avert such wasteful spending.

She added that such fruitless expenditure could be seen in the Minister traveling “up and down” to all nine provinces in a situation in which a budget has been allocated for provincial MECs to do the work he—the Minister—is now doing. The MECs, or someone suitable within each province, should monitor progress on COVID-19 and then report to the Minister instead of him trying himself to intervene in each province.

The Chairperson wished to raise further points which he acknowledged could perhaps not be addressed immediately and therefore he would accept a response to them by the AGSA when they next met.

Dr Tshilidzi Muthivhi, Director: Health Research,  National Department of Health, interjected and requested to make a comment before the Chairperson had the opportunity to continue with his points. This was acceded to.

In defense of the Minister’s extensive travels, which Ms Hlengwa had referred to as “fruitless expenditure,” he pointed out that South Africa had a unitary, as opposed to a federal, government. Thus the Minister had a responsibility to “go everywhere” since he is “running the whole country.” There is therefore, according to him, “no need to question the Minister” since officials in “some provinces” do not “follow the guidelines.”  He cited as an instance the “huge problem” concerning the “human rights report” (sic) which had “been violated” in the Western Cape as “a result of [the] ill-treatment of homeless people exposed to COVID-19 and so on.”  

The Chairperson made remarks but these were not in English. [Timestamp: 1:09:46 to 1:10:04.]

The Chairperson then turned his attention back to the AGSA, from whom he requested assistance on the following. He said: “I would imagine that among the action plans you probably indicated was the filling in, not just of critical posts, but in particular of CFOs. If between now and the day we meet the Minister you could indicate to us which provinces have not filled in those posts because that is absolutely fundamental—you would not see any improvement in any province for as long as you don't have a CFO who is [employed] full time.”

He added that, in conjunction with Dr Dyantyi’s remarks, there were provinces supported by SAICA. He therefore wanted to know whether or not SAICA was functioning properly. He wanted to know of the specific challenges, especially where certain mechanisms were already put in place but where improvements were yet to be seen. Some provinces, he conjectured, may be worse off than others, due to a chronic underperformance in reporting and for this reason may need more assistance and oversight. He again acknowledged that this information is not available to the AGSA at the moment, and therefore asked the AGSA to prepare such answers for the next time the Committee meets with the Minister.

Mr de Haan, in response to the question about the R51 billion allocated to the provinces, said “Yes, what happens is, it gets transferred out to the provinces and then the provincial departments are responsible for the implementation for the execution of that grant. But the National Department still has the responsibility to accept monitoring reports and still needs to make sure that the grants have been spent for [the] intended purposes. So what you can do from a Portfolio Committee side is you can request” the Department to “provide feedback [as] to how they are actually monitoring the transfer of the different grants and how they are ensuring that the grants are being spent for its intended purposes” (sic).

On the question of the timeframe, he said the recommendations made usually require implementation subsequent to the audit process or “even after a SoRR.” The AGSA does not necessarily attach timeframes to recommendations, although it does track the actions taken to address its recommendations.

“It should be noted,” he added, “that if we identify a material irregularity, as defined in terms of our new extended mandate, and we feel that we need to make recommendations as to how the Department needs to resolve that material irregularity going forward, then that can be included in the audit report as a remedial action and it will also be subject to timeframes which we will track.” And this is the only instance in which timeframes are attached.

As to the action plans, they are reviewed year-on-year, and the AGSA ensures that they are being tracked by those charged with governance, specifically audit committees and accounting officers. There is a concern in which material control deficiencies have been identified; in these case recommendations will be made to address material matters which are included into the audit action plans, but here there is no tracking. This explains recurrent issues and stagnation in addressing them. 

In response to the questions concerning vacancies, he said that three key vacancies are reviewed from the point of view the AGSA: the CFO, the Head of Supply Chain Unit, and the Monitoring and Evaluation Unit Head (which latter is responsible for performance monitoring). In this regard, the AG looks at whether the position is filled, and whether the person who has been recruited is well capacitated and has the requisite credentials. He added he will prepare a report for the Chairperson highlighting the status of these three positions in each province.

Responding to the question about SAICA, he did not have the appropriate information before him, but will seek feedback from the Department regarding what they are “monitoring and tracking”. This information would be provided to the Chairperson before the next meeting with the Department.

The Chairperson thanked the Office of the Auditor General for its presentation, and asked Mr de Haan whether he could meet with the Committee “much more frequently.”

Mr de Haan agreed and said the AGSA would make itself available and will provide feedback on the questions raised.

The Chairperson also noted the recommendations meant for the Committee and advised to members that the Committee look into these.

The Chairperson said that the Committee needed to find another slot in order to adopt the Department’s report and forward it on to Parliament before the Minister’s budget vote. He said that there were certain things he would discuss with the House Chairperson that afternoon (May 13) and that he would brief members of the Committee in due time. These discussions concern any limited oversight which may be undertaken during the pandemic.

He thanked all present and adjourned the meeting.

 

Audio

No related

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: