DoL & UIF & Compensation Fund & CCMA & NEDLAC & Productivity SA & Supported Employment Enterprises 2018/19 APP

Meeting report

Department of Labour: Annual Performance Plan

Mr Thobile Lamati, Director General: Department of Labour (DOL) confirmed that the strategic plan had not changed, but the APP would change, given the changes in the budget allocations.

Ms Marsha Bronkhorst, Chief Operations Officer: DOL, took members through the four programmes of the Department, and also made a brief presentation on one of the entities, the Supported Employment Enterprises (SEE).

Administration programme.

An objective was to leverage the Management Performance Assessment Tool (M-PAT) to improve the management practice of the Department thus improving strategic management and support to the DOL. The plan was to have M-PAT standards at level 3 and 4 by March 2019.The DOL was also targeting to improve communication and marketing of the department, including developing a draft communication action plan for 2019/20 by 31 March 2019. The financial statements were to be finalised by 31 May 2018 and the interim statements 30 days after the end of each financial quarter. Another target set was the detection of all cases of irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure, and all such cases to be reported to the Accounting officer.

Inspections and enforcement

The target was to inspect 218 732 work places in the course of the year. The target for the period of serving non-compliance notices to employers was 14 days, and for referral for prosecution to be done within 30 calendar days.

Public employment services

The DOL aimed to have 650 000 work seekers registered on the Employment Services of South Africa (ESSA) system, and the target for the number of work and learning opportunities registered on ESSA was 85 000. The targeted number of work seekers to be provided with counselling was 200 000, while the target for the annual number of placements was 42 500.

Labour policy and industrial relations

The DOL was working to have a number of policy instruments developed and published to enhance the Employment Equity Act. The target for the introduction of the National Minimum Wage Bill was set at 1 May 2018, but Ms Bronkhorst cautioned that this may not be achievable. The DOL was aiming at having two reports on the implementation of bilateral and multilateral cooperation. It planned to have all collective agreements extended within 90 calendar days of receipt by the end of March 2019. Another key target was to have all labour organisation applications for registration approved or refused within 90 calendar days of receipt. Four annual labour market trend reports were to be produced, and four research reports were also to be produced and submitted to the Deputy Director General. The DOL was working to moderate workplace conflict by amending the Labour Relations Act and measuring its impact.

Supported Employment Enterprises (SEE)

The SEE had a target of 100 additional persons with disabilities provided with work opportunities by the end of March 2019. The objective was to achieve a 10 % annual increase in sales revenue from goods and services.

DOL Budget

The total money allocated was R3.295 billion, the bulk of which would go to labour policy and industrial relations, which would receive R1.197 billion. The administration department would receive R 917.4 million, inspection and enforcement services would receive R598.2 million, and the public employment services would receive R582.6 million. The total transfers for the medium term expenditure framework (MTEF) period was R 1.274 billion.

Mr Lamati reminded Members that the entities accounted separately for their allocations.

Discussion

Mr M Bagraim (DA) wanted to know why the DOL had to give much money to the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Why had the DOL asked for a small increase compared to last year on the allocation made for the inspection programme? He had also noted that there had been only a small increase given to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). He remarked that the DOL should be pushing government for more money on labour, since the future of the country depended on job creation. He did not see the DOL planning properly in relation to the budget it was pushing for. He pointed out that with the National Minimum Wage Bill being implemented, there would be a need for more inspectors, and wanted to know whether the DOL had planned for this.

Mr Lamati responded that the ILO protocols provide that member states have to contribute. South Africa was a member state. There were benefits which the country received, such as technical assistance and specialised programmes run by the ILO. The contribution was based on the gross domestic product (GDP) of the country. In Africa, South Africa was the highest contributor and the amount contributed was influenced by the exchange rate. If the rand strengthened, the DOL paid less as a contribution.

On the budget allocations made to the inspection programme and the CCMA, he agreed that the allocation was small. The DOL had asked for more money, but what had been allocated was less. The DOL had tried its best to ensure what was in the APP reflected the budget allocations, and it had come up with a number of innovations. One way of ensuring it used the limited resources available was its plan to make use of the Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) payroll auditors, thus freeing up the number of inspectors available to carry out other duties.

Mr D America (DA) agreed with Mr Bagraim on the allocation of funds to the CCMA, saying he did not see how the work of the Commission could grow in the next year an the allocation of R963 million.

Mr Lamati responded that CCMA had requested R122 million specifically for the new responsibility of the National Minimum Wage Bill, but it had been given only R57 million. However, it was possible to get budget adjustments in the course of the year.

Mr B Mashile (ANC) reminded the DOL of the previous report of the Auditor General (AG), which had touched on the utilisation of resources and the issue of internal controls. He insisted on the importance of financial discipline, and reminded the DOL that it had a responsibility for oversight over itself and over the entities working under it. He also asked what mechanism existed to ensure labour inspectors did not collude with employers, and whether the inspections carried out did yield results.

Mr Lamati answered that there were oversight structures within the DOL which looked at compliance and internal controls. There was an audit committee and a risk management committee.One of the targets under the administration programme was to reduce fruitless expenditure. All the entities had governance structures, and the DOL had an oversight responsibility over the entities. The DOL was aware of what the entities were doing, and members of the DOL sometimes sat on the boards of the entities. The entities provided quarterly reports which were interrogated by the DOL. As the Director General, he also had regular meetings with the heads of the entities.

On inspectors and cases of bribery, he responded that the DOL had a code of conduct for the inspectors. Efforts had also been made to make use of technology, and inspectors now carried gadgets which monitored their location. The cars given to inspectors were tracked so that the DOL knew which companies had been visited. The DOL worked with enforcement agencies when issues arose. He gave an example from the recent past, where two inspectors who were issuing false compliance certificates, upon arrival for inspection, had found the Hawks waiting to apprehend them.

Mr W Madisha (COPE) commented that from the layout of the budget, it seemed that workshops were playing a more important role. He asked the DOL to look into workshops in relation to their delivery to establish whether the information given in the workshops translated to changes.

Mr B Martins (ANC) wanted to know what mitigating measures were being taking to reduce fruitless expenditure.

Mr Lamati responded that DOL had made it the responsibility of each manager to ensure wasteful expenditure was eliminated. Steps were also taken to find ways of recovering the money. The occurrence of wasteful expenditure had gone down in the recent past.

He said that the DOL did not prioritise workshops over service delivery, and what it did was to subsidise workshops run by institutions. He gave the example of how it subsidised workshops for the blind, which were run by the National Council for the Blind. Subsidising workshops was an obligation of the DOL in terms of the Public Employment Service Act.

The Chairperson asked the DOL to comment on the implementation date of 1 May 2018 set for the implementation of the National Minimum Wage bill. She also wanted to know why the number for the placement of work seekers was low.

Mr Lamati answered that the placement rate continued to be a concern. The DOL worked with organisations to improve the placement rate. It also had a comprehensive database of job seekers. It continued to prepare job seekers for job opportunities, and also addressed the mismatch of skills.

He commented that there was a strong possibility of meeting the target date of 1 May for the implementation of the NMW Bill, and the DOL hoped it would still be within the quarter

Mr Mashile commented that once an entity had an internal audit unit in place, it should not have problems with internal controls. Either the auditors did not have skills or did not have the authority to ensure controls were adhered to. The internal audit was an internal capacity that should advise the management. He advised the DOL to have an external audit committee that was independent. He was sceptical of the oversight role of the DOL on its entities, because if the role was being carried out well, the Compensation Fund would not have been in the situation it was currently in. He also asked whether the DOL was making contributions to another international organisation, other than the ILO.

Mr Lamati clarified that the DOL also made contributions to the African Regional Labour Council based in Harare. He also insisted that the DOL’s internal audit unit had capacity and that although the management had been slow in addressing the issues, the DOL was working with all the managers to implement the AG’s recommendations. He asked the Committee to appreciate where the DOL had come from, and not to judge it based on what the AG said.

Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF): APP

Mr Teboho Maruping, Commissioner: UIF, said the Fund had estimated the inflation rate and engaged actuaries and financial advisors in drawing up the budget. Some of the targets which were out of the scope of control of the UIF had been removed from the APP, and kept in the work plan.

Its targets included paying all valid invoices within 30 calendar days after receipt, and to have its vacancy rate reduced to below 10% by March 2019. It had introduced two new targets. One was the number of provincial sites upgraded with free Wi-Fi to access UIF systems, and the goal was to have 126 provincial sites by next March installed with Wi-Fi. Young people could come to labour centres and use their smart phones to access the DOL offerings.

The UIF had also taken an aggressive approach to paying beneficiaries as soon as possible, and intended to develop, test and deploy an integrated claims management system by 1 March 2019. In order to support the registration of documents, the target was to have applications with complete information issued with compliance certificates or tender letters within 10 working days.

The number for newly registered employees with the fund had been moved to 250 000 for the year. The turnaround time to transfer funds to partners after receipt of accurate invoices had been set at 30 days. It had introduced a target for UIF beneficiaries to be provided with learning and/or work place experience opportunities to 450 000.

There was an increase in the budget of R2 billion in benefits payments, and that figure may be increased in September 2018, depending on the impact. The UIF had also put aside R900 million for labour activation.

Discussion

Ms T Tongwani (ANC) asked what caused delays in the turnaround time for the transfer of funds to partners after receipt of accurate invoices.

Mr Bagraim wanted to find out why the UIF was delving into other activities, including training and the placement of people, yet its focus should be on insurance.

Mr Mashile wanted the UIF to confirm whether it had the capacity to implement its targets, although it had weaknesses within its on organisation. He sought more information on the financial management of the Fund, and how it related with the DOL. He wanted the DOL to confirm whether it recorded expenditure when the entities received funds, or whether it waited until the entities spent the money.

The Chairperson wanted to know how many employees the UIF would add, since Mr Lamati had indicated that payroll auditors from the UIF would assist in reducing the work to be done by the inspectors.

Mr Lamati responded that the Act provides that the DOL must provide the UIF with employees, and the payment of the UIF staff was also done by the DOL, which thereafter claimed the money back from UIF. The UIF did not receive money from the fiscus, and 15 % of the contributions from employers were used to run the Fund. He confirmed that the UIF had the necessary capacity and that the disclaimer by the AG had been as a result of the UIF not consolidating the earnings from investments they had made through the Public Investment Corporation (PIC), and it had not been a case of financial mismanagement.

Mr Maruping added that the UIF had the capacity to deliver on its APP. It had the funds necessary for the planned 450 000 activation programmes, and it had already appointed the payroll auditors two years ago.

In response to the question of it being an economic agency, he said that the UIF was moving to employment insurance, as it was happening across the world. The focus was on how it could intervene in job preservation and how it would quickly introduce people back into employment.

On the delay in invoice payments, he said the UIF had wanted to pay within 10 days, but this was not in line with the regulations which provided that the UIF had to pay within 30 days. The earlier target had been an ill-defined target.

Compensation Fund (CF): APP

Mr Vuyo Mafata, Commissioner: CF took the Committee through the two strategic objectives that would guide the operations of the CF The first was to provide faster, reliable and accessible compensation for occupational injuries and diseases (COID) services by 2020, and the second was to provide effective and efficient client-oriented support services. He briefly went through the targets of the four programmes of the Fund.

The administration programme targeted increasing the fund risk maturity level to four, and to have 85% of projects on the risk-based plan implemented. It also planned to have an annual investment return at a rate of the consumer price index (CPI) + 2 % from funds invested eith the PIC. COID was the core business of the Fund, and the target was to have 98% of approved benefits paid within five working days. Other targets were to have 75 % of active registered employers assessed annually by 31 March 2019, and for 90 % of claims to be adjudicated within 40 working days of receipt. The CF aimed to have 85% of medical invoices finalised within 60 working days of receipt, and 85 % of received pre-authorisation requests responded to within 10 working days. In the fourth programme of orthotics and rehabilitation services, the target was to have 85% of requests received for assistive devices responded to within 30 working days. The total budget expected to support all the four programmes was R11 billion. The new unit for orthotic and rehabilitation services had a budget of R2.45 million.

Discussion

Mr Bagraim commented that there were still judgments outstanding against the CF, yet he did not see it featured in any of the targets.

Mr Mashile referred to the institutional arrangement capacity of the Fund, and wanted to know whether there was any need to worry about the arrangement. His sought clarification on the return on investment targets set by the CF. Would the targets set result in a backlog?

Mr Mafata responded that litigation was a symptom of what had not been done, and the CF was focusing on processing claims within time frames to avoid litigation. The legislation provided that if a person was not happy with a decision, one could appeal to the Director General and thereafter to the high court. This was what contributed to the large number of litigation cases against the CF.

On the return on investment target, he confirmed that the CF did not abdicate its responsibility to the PIC -- it set the mandate, and the PIC invested depending on the investment mandate. He stressed that the CF was a pension fund which needed to reserve money for future pay outs of pensions.

He said that the fund had not been well structured in the past, and did not have adequate skills. As part of its restructuring, it had created three core units. These were the compensation and pension benefits unit, the medical services unit, and the disability care unit. The CF had also appointed the professionals it required.

He added that there would be no backlog, as the quarterly targets set were cumulative figures.

National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC): APP

Mr Madoda Vilakazi, CEO: NEDLAC, said the objectives of NEDLAC were implemented through three programmes: administration, core operations and constituency capacity building.

NEDLAC received a grant of R33.5 million from the DOL, and expected to receive interest from its call deposit of R603 000. It also expected to receive R147 000 as ‘other income’ from the disposal of equipment no longer needed. Programme 1, which was administration, would receive the biggest chunk of the annual budget allocation, at R23.4 million. It expected its expenditure to grow by about 5.5% every financial year.

Mr Vilakazi confirmed that the 2015/16-2019/20 strategic plan had been amended to ensure the alignment of terms used throughout the document and to ensure that performance indicators were “SMART.” Some indicators that were deemed as being of less strategic importance had not been recorded in the 2018/19 APP, as they had been incorporated in the DOL’s operation plan.

Discussion

Mr Bagraim wanted NEDLAC to comment on the complaints by groups of people who claimed that the inputs given to NEDLAC had not been incorporated into the National Minimum Wage Bill. He saidthis had upset some of the trade unions. He also wanted NEDLAC to comment on the spending being done on constituency capacity building. The South African Federation of Trade Unions (SAFTU) was saying that it had been left out of NEDLAC, and he sought clarification on the issue between NEDLAC and SAFTU, and what NEDLAC was doing to address the voice of the unemployed.

Mr Vilakazi responded that money was given to constituencies, since constituencies had employees hired by NEDLAC. The money went towards their salaries and training. Other constituencies may also want to be assisted in areas of research, and may request more funds.

On some groups alleging that their inputs did not translate in the Bill, he said that was not true -- people had to pinpoint exactly what had been left out. Some of the inputs given would be dealt with once the Minimum Wage Commission was implemented.

On SAFTU being left out, he said that SAFTU had never applied for membership in NEDLAC until 6 March 2018.The application was being considered, and one of the requirements was that it must produce audited annual financial statements for the last two years.

On the voices of the unemployed, he answered that the community constituency was part of the platform of representation represented by six broad community organisations, and NEDLAC could always look at ways of introducing new participants.

Mr Bagraim thanked NEDLAC for having a look at the voices of the unemployed, but added that the trade unions insisted that their input had not been included in the Bill. He asked NEDLAC to read the documents containing the inputs from those trade unions. He remarked that the requirement to produce two years of books of accounts meant that SAFTU may not be able to join NEDLAC for the next two years.

Mr Vilakazi responded that there must have been a good reason for having the condition of 24 months of books of account, and if the rules were to be changed it had to emanate from the constituencies themselves.

On funds deployed and given to constituencies, he confirmed that NEDLAC followed the procurement process. In regard to reaching its targets, NEDLAC did performance assessments and on average reached 90% of set performance targets. He added that NEDLAC took pride in the fact that in the last financial year, it had received an unqualified audit opinion, though there were some findings which had since been addressed.

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA): APP

Mr Cameron Morajane, Director: CCMA informed the Committee that the CCMA’s 2018/19 APP contained 19 performance indicators and targets, compared to the 15 of the previous year. The CCMA was trying to move towards the labour market accepting and implementing dispute management and prevention. Instruments were in place that could be applied to prevent disputes and where the disputes could not be prevented, the CCMA should be able to manage the disputes. The current case load was 195 000 cases, and there was an expected increase of 30 % with the implementation of the National Minimum Wage Bill.

Referring to improved collective bargaining, he gave an example of the current bus strike, and said there was a lot that could have been done prior to the strike. The CCMA would invest in a pre-collective bargaining process during negotiations, and would not wait to engage when parties were already in disputes. The other key performance target was the area of providing thought leadership. The CCMA would work on convening a shop steward conference and a labour law conference, because the content from the previous conferences had been beneficial. There was another conference coming up for small businesses, which would look at how small businesses operate with the labour market. The conference was due for implementation in June.

The CCMA would extend capacity building on effective negotiation skills to the bargaining councils. Negotiation skills had a bearing on the period of negotiation and the quality of outcomes. It had also created four private agencies to ease the backlog of cases. Three of the agencies were struggling, but the CCMA would assist them with capacity building.

Another target for the CCMA was an advocacy campaign on the NMW Bill. Mr Morajane insisted that it was not training, only advocacy. Its target on employment security remained unchanged at 35%, since it had achieved 36 % on job safety in the previous year.

Two collective pre-bargaining conferences were planned for 2018, and the CCMA was expected to participate more in the workplaces to transform them. The challenge of reaching this target was the limited resources because of the number of work places it was supposed to cover. The CCMA was targeting to develop and deliver capacity-building programmes for users aligned with the needs of the labour market, and it had planned for 96 capacity-building programmes, and this did not include the minimum wage capacity-building. Minimum wage capacity building was a special programme, because the NMW Bill had influenced other employment laws.

He informed Members that when cases were referred to the CCMA, they had to be concluded within 30 days, and the delivery of awards was a question of law, not strategy. The law prescribed 14 days for the issuance of the awards, yet it took the CCMA 10 days to conclude the internal administrative process because, since the awards must be qualified, they had to be perused before being authenticated. Even though it was difficult to achieve this target, the CCMA was setting it.

He said there was a struggle in ensuring minimum service agreements were concluded and implemented, and there was also the compliance and observance of minimum service agreements which had to be done. The CCMA wanted to ensure at least 10 Enterprise and Supplier Development (ESD) agreements, Minimum Service Agreements (MSAs) and Minimum Service Determinations (MSDs) were monitored for compliance and observance. On governance, compliance and risk management, it had set a target of a maturity level of 4.

Mr Morajane said the budget had not catered for the work that would be coming because of the NMW Bill. What was reflected in the budget was the usual 5.5% normal increase. The CCMA was working with what it had and was trying to find a way, together with the DG, to deal with the situation, because the funds available did not match the work requirements. He cautioned that the CCMA was heading for a disaster because of budget constraints.

On administration and social services, apart from the normal 5.5% increase, there was also interest which the CCMA got from investments, while other income included the limited fee charged for arbitration and the sheriff’s fee charged to assist implement awards to vulnerable workers.

Mr Lamati said he agreed with Mr Morajane that the DOL had made an assumption that the National Treasury knew it would struggle and not start implementation of the national minimum wage by 1 May 2018. When the budget adjustments were done in the middle of the financial year, the issue of the NMW Bill would be factored in. The DOL may have to use its own savings and submit a request for funding next year. It would do that because it would have an estimate of the costs, since this year would be a test case.

Mr America congratulated the CCMA on its audit outcomes. He said there were always competing interests, but he advised the CCMA to consider getting cost orders, where employers could be charged for costs on disputes brought before the CCMA. He also wanted confirmation on who held the bargaining council accountable for the money given to them.

Mr Morajane responded that the CCMA did not charge costs the same way the courts did. The majority of cases brought before the CCMA concerned unfair dismissals. Where an employee referred a matter to the CCMA, there was a possibility that in 75% of cases that may come with the order, the ruling would be that the dismissal was fair. The side effect was that this would instil a fear factor in employees, who would be reluctant to refer matters to the CCMA because of the threat of costs. The CCMA approached the issue of costs consciously from an equity point of view, and when there was the postponement of a case when not warranted, it would award costs. It had guidelines and there were 15 factors to be considered by a Commissioner before awarding costs.

On bargaining councils, he said that both the DOL and the CCMA played a role in having the councils accountable. If the bargaining councils did not meet the requirements, the CCMA did not accredit them. Bargaining councils received a subsidy from the CCMA, and there was a quarterly monitoring system, but the system could be improved. The problem was that the CCMA had only two professionals dealing with the bargaining councils.

Mr Bagraim remarked that the 30 % increase in the case load because of the NMW Wage Bill would result in a 50% requirement from the CCMA budget. He applauded it for its efforts in preventing disputes and in outsourcing the training of commissioners to the universities. Although the National Minimum Wage Bill would help avoid strikes, he did not see the legislation being implemented for another year. He also commended the CCMA for planning to extend shop steward training, and congratulated it for winning the Luthuli Award. He advised it to try and approach the ILO for training on minimum wages. He added that he had noticed a massive weakening of bargaining councils, and suggested that the CCMA should work on strengthening them. He commented that the private agencies could assist in lessening the case load, but the CCMA should consider gate keeping so as to lock out cases that should not come before it. On the proposal by the Director General to request more money in July, he warned that it may be too late since training needed to begin early, given that it took about a year to train a Commissioner.

Mr Mashile advised that targets in the form of annual targets would not assist the CCMA to manage its performance, and that the goals needed to be divided per quarter. On the reference in the presentation to biannual collective bargaining conferences, he sought clarification on whether there would be one conference in two years, or two conferences in one year. He said the process of preparing the budget was done by the National Treasury in collaboration with the Department, so the DOL should therefore not claim to having been frustrated by Treasury. He added that there was currently no Act on the minimum wage, so the DOL did not have a mandate until the Act was signed.

Mr L Khorai (ANC) asked how the CCMA accounted for the money collected and charged that was not part of the APP. He also asked how it made the bargaining councils accountable.

Mr Morajane responded that the 30% increase in case load was a conservative figure.

The universities’ project on training of commissioners was achieving its objective, and the CCMA was working to increase the study material. It was also working with the universities to get a return on investment, since the universities charged a lot for this training which did not get back to the CCMA.

There was a high demand for the training of shop stewards, and they needed to be better prepared for their cases .

On additional assistance from the ILO, he confirmed that the ILO had done a presentation on minimum wages at a previous conference. The CCMA wanted to expand the assistance from the ILO, especially in the agriculture sector, since more vulnerable groups were found there.

He agreed about the weakening by the bargaining councils, and said that the biggest problem was the the public sector never wanted to settle cases and always wanted to proceed.

In response to the question on gate keeping, he answered that gate keeping was tricky because sometimes the CCMA got a wrong referral, and the only time this was discovered was when the parties were in the hearing room. It tried to do pre-conciliation telephonically in order to lock out cases that should not come before it.

On the suggestion by Mr Mashile that the CCMA should wait until the minimum wage Act was signed, he advised that it would be suicidal to wait for the legislation before acting. He said that in all amendments, most of the work was done before the law was in place. On consultations with Treasury in preparing the budget, he responded that the CCMA worked with the budget allocated to it by Treasury.

Mr Lamati added that the case load was a symptom of not preventing disputes, and that the DOL was working closely to have the strategy of prevention of disputes implemented. He said the DOL was not waiting for budget adjustments in June, and that training on the NMW Bill had commenced. The DOL had arranged for road shows on the NMW. The Director of CCMA had also made a commitment to train the commissioners.

Productivity South Africa (PSA): APP

Mr Mothunye Mothiba, CEO: PSA, said the entity’s focus was on employment and income growth. He touched on the work PSA did together with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in the special economic zones, where it was working to improve the exporting capacity so that the companies could be more competitive.

The second area of focus was enterprise development and productivity training programmes, to enhance the appropriate capacities of small and medium enterprises. The R53 million that it was requesting from the DOL was centred more on the area of enterprise development.

PSA was collaborating and working to build early warning systems on job preservation so that it could approach quickly and intervene in time so that jobs were saved. The programme for job preservation was funded by the UIF.

On the work done with the DTI, the sectors that were prominent in the industrial policy action plan were agriculture, energy, information communication technology (ICT), manufacturing and mining. He confirmed that R53 M was coming from the DOL, and that the rest of the funds were received from the UIF and DTI.

Mr Mashile asked whether PSA was productive as an institution, given the criss-crossing between the DTI and labour. He commented that as a country, South Africa was not sitting well in terms of job creation.

Mr B Martins (ANC) asked the PSA to confirm whether it had an adequate budget.

Mr Mothiba responded that PSA was productive as an institution, and that if the budget presented to the Committee was received in time and in full, PSA was capable of carrying out its mandate..

The meeting was adjourned.