Construction Industry Development Board Annual Report 2010/11

Meeting report

0

Construction Industry Development Board Annual Report 2010/11 briefing
The Chairperson noted that the Committee had already met with the Office of the Auditor-General South Africa (AGSA) and would want to clarify some minor issues in relation to the audit, but asked the Construction Industry Development Board (cidb) to give its presentation.

Mr Bafana Ndendwa, Chairperson, cidb, briefly outlined the content of the presentation.

Mr Peter Mongwenyana, Acting Chief Executive Officer, cidb, noted that the cidb facilitated training and development of contractors through various interventions, including injecting funding for strategic training opportunities. Contractor development was a national priority, and so a steering committee was formed between the cidb and the National Department of Public Works (DPW), which had now concluded its work. A National Contractor Development Programme (NCDP) would be launched within the next three weeks. There would be involvement from the provinces, particularly in regard to improved reporting on all contractor opportunities.

The cidb also dealt with the registration of contractors. A task team was set up between the cidb and Black Contractor Associations to look at all the concerns raised about contractor development. There were issues around downgrading contractors and the restrictive nature of the current registration requirements. A consultative process to improve the registration criteria was finalised, and the cidb Board had approved the amendments, which had now been submitted to the DPW for processing.

Mr Mongwenyana outlined the amendments. In future, contractors would not be required to provide proof of registered professionals, at the stage of registration with the cidb. The annual turnover qualifying values were to be reduced. The value of the largest contract completed (which was part of the track record requirements) would also be reduced. The new regulations would make provision for tender value limit adjustments, with proportional registration criteria adjustment. The previous Method B would be removed from the regulations. In the meantime, there had been a moratorium on any downgrading.

Mr Mongwenyana noted that the cidb was trying to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Registration of Contractors (RoC). The RoC was considered to be “the engine of the cidb” because it ran the entire registration process, yet many limitations had been noted, necessitating a re-writing. The current registration capacity was about 100 000, yet the systems had not been designed to cater for this. The rewriting would include an Electronic Document Management System (EDMS). This project should be concluded by February 2012.

The various components of the Best Practice Contractor Recognition Scheme and Best Practice Assessment Scheme were at various stages of piloting. The Department of Public Works had been brought into the process.

Mr Mongwenyana turned to questions of compliance enforcement. The industry continued to be plagued by various forms of fraud and corruption, and he highlighted that examples of this, as well as the actions taken, were listed on page 52 of the Annual Report. The cidb had an established disciplinary procedure to deal with contractors and clients who failed to comply with the code of conduct, or who participated in fraudulent activities.

He noted that there were very poor levels of compliance with the cidb regulations. An audit sample into the compliance level of the I-Tender within the Public Works environment had shown almost 100% non-compliance, which was very shocking and serious. Cidb had interacted with DPW on the results, and felt that there was a need to be brutally honest about the results.

Two universities were appointed in 2010/11, as centres of excellence to support the research agenda. The ultimate aim was to expose students to research and try to retain them at tertiary institutions.

Mr Mongwenyana then presented the main challenges and priorities. He noted that although the cidb received an unqualified audit report, there were matters of emphasis relating to fruitless and wasteful expenditure, and irregular expenditure. One area requiring particular attention was the area of predetermined objectives. There were shortfalls in compliance with National Treasury framework of accounting. In the 2011/12 financial year, the predetermined objectives would form part of the audit opinion, but it was indicated that cidb was sorely lacking on this aspect, and the Board was taking steps to ensure that the structure was revised. Cidb would soon do an assessment on whether it complied with the SMART principles, and would submit it to the Minister of Public Works.

A new cidb Board was appointed in April 2011, and all Board subcommittees were appointed and were fully operational. The Construction Contact Centres office in the North West would be launched on 24 October.

Mr Mongwenyana reported that the National Stakeholder Forum was held in October 2010, and Provincial Stakeholder Workshops were conducted. The stakeholder forum could not be held in the current year because the term of the members had expired, and new stakeholders were now being appointed. Cidb was also proposing an amendment to the structure of the Stakeholders Forum, to allow for one session where cidb would receive submissions from the stakeholders in the construction industry, and another session to respond on the issues raised. Cidb was trying to ensure as wide as possible stakeholder inclusion, from both  established business and the emerging sector.

Mr Mongwenyana turned to Financial Performance. Revenue of R113.7 million was collected, exceeding the budget amount of R104.3 million. This was the result of the over recovery of registration fees. Total expenditure was budgeted at R104.3 million, but actual was R103.6 million, showing underspending of approximately R1 million. Revenue from government increased by 7% from the previous year, but revenue from registers decreased by 4% from the previous year. Total expenditure increased by 16% compared to the previous year, the bulk of which related to staff and administration costs. Interest income increased by 10%. The surplus for the year was R10 million. The Board applied to, and received permission from National Treasury for a roll over of the funds.

Cash and cash equivalents increased by R18 million, the bulk of which was from investments. Accounts payable increased by R3.8 million, and income received in advance increased by R2.3 million, which related to pre payments received from contractors as part of registration fees.

Mr Mongwenyana then turned to the report of the Auditor General, repeating that it was an unqualified report with matters of emphasis. He gave a detailed description of all the matters of emphasis (see attached report for full details). Item 1 related to a finance lease of R1.335 million, where prior approval of the Minister of Finance was not obtained. Condonation from National Treasury was sought and approved. Item 2 related to transactions amounting to R2. 578 million, where notice was not given to NT and the Auditor-General, due to an oversight. The officials responsible were disciplined. NT and the Auditor General were subsequently advised. Item 3, in the amount of R5,287 million, related to a legacy contract from which cidb could not readily exit, but tenders were issued and the contracts would now be replaced.

In response to the Auditor-General, the cidb had designed a Corrective Action Plan (CAP), which also included timelines in which issues would be resolved, and named the responsible official and the specific actions required. This would be monitored by the Chief Financial Officer, Chief Executive Officer,  Audit Committee and the Board. Over and above this, the Auditor-General also had listed the key control matters that the cidb must take in 2011/12. There were regular meetings arranged between the Auditor-General and management, as well as the Board Chairperson. The internal audit unit of cidb was also conducting follow up audits.

The largest element of the fruitless and wasteful expenditure of R262 000 for filing storage costs was ascribed to capacity problems in the Registers Unit, after key staff were suspended. The contract was now under control. Other fruitless expenditure related to a staff cellphone that was stolen (R13 000) and bad debt written off (R45 000). Action had been taken to recover the R13 000 from the staff member. The bad debt related to refunds incorrectly made, that were not recovered in time, but there were no further instances since that time.

Discussion
The Chairperson highlighted that the Committee had expected the cidb to accompany the Committee to the Eastern Cape on 26 July, but not even a Regional Representative of the cidb was present to address complaints and concerns by contractors. She noted that the cidb must make an arrangement to visit that area, as contractors had warned the Committee of their severe frustrations.

Mr Ndendwa responded that unfortunately the cidb was not aware of the visit at the time. The cidb recognised the problems experienced in the Eastern Cape, and had taken steps to open communications. He would give feedback in a month’s time. He noted that the whole purpose of the Stakeholder Forum was that it must inform the cidb of concerns, so that the cidb was informed of them in advance.

Mr N Magubane (ANC) was concerned about fraud and fronting, asked how far the cidb had gone in investigating fronting, and what steps the cidb took when it found such instances.

Ms Inba Thumbiran, Programme Manager, cidb, said that the cidb could not do anything to stop fronting, but could only report it to the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) because fronting was a criminal offence, according to the provisions of the Preferential Procurement Act.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) asked what caused the downgrading of contractors, and what the cidb was doing to help those contractors, especially in the Northern Cape.

Mr Ndendwa responded that he had also assumed leadership in Black Business. In response to general complaints about cidb management, a summit was convened on 6 September, where one of the first complaints was raised about the regulations. In 2008, the Confederation of Black Business Organisations (CBBO) , was formed, and its concerns were familiar to the cidb. The new Board should be given an opportunity to prove itself, and to be responsive to the concerns experienced.

Mr Ndendwa noted that the actual concerns at the Summit had related to the grading process in general, not specifically to downgrading. The cidb graded contractors according to their capacity at the time of application, looking at the financial capability of the project, the machinery, and what must be done to ensure that a contractor would have the capacity to undertake a project of a certain value, say R3 million. If for some reason the contractor’s capacity was later adversely affected, he might not be able to undertake the R3 million project. There were concerns about the methodology of evaluating contractors overall. If there was a target on downgrading, then it would be better not to grade contractors, because it reflected on their credibility, but rather to look at their evaluation criteria.

Mr Ndendwa added that black businesses were affected by the downgrading, and had met with the cidb, calling for a moratorium for about two years while the new methodology was being considered. If all grading of contractors was stopped, it would result in the death of the industry, because cidb was formed to ensure that certain classes of contractors tendered for contracts.

Mr Ntshekisang Ditibane, Acting Programme Manager: Construction Register Services, cidb, added that downgrading was a measure of last resort. After a period of three years, a contractor applied for re-registration, when s/he was evaluated anew. In many instances contractors gave incomplete track records, named incomplete projects although they had not been paid in full, or failed to mention contractual breaches. These issues were handled in a multi-pronged approach through client investigations in cidb, and through investigations with responsible professionals who had since been appointed.

Mr Sithole referred to the cidb’s training and awareness campaign, and asked how many programmes were offered, and in which provinces. Mr Sithole referred to the establishment of the Employment Skills Development Agency (ESDA), asking how many youth were supported in that programme, and from which provinces they were drawn.

Ms Thumbiran responded that the cidb started a skills development programme for construction procurement practitioners, but because this was not cidb’s specialist field, it had discussed this being taken over by tertiary institutions whose business it was to educate. Cidb was a standards-driven entity and had to put in competence standards. In the new business plan, the cidb wanted to start accrediting people doing work in the public sector, and was looking at where the competencies should lie. It was dealing with the Construction Contact Centres in the provinces, was bringing in more staff to work with stakeholders and advise them better and give the proper guidance. The cidb had a database of information on which clients were trained, and it did ensure training across the country, based on who approached the cidb. Training was continuous, which was beginning to be a problem. Public sector departments faced numerous challenges, one of them being turnover of staff and resources.

Mr Sithole asked for more information on the corrective action taken in response to the issues raised by AGSA in the management letter report.

Mr Mongwenyana responded that the Corrective Action Plan was in place and already been presented to the Board and to the Audit Committee. There were time lines within which the issues would be resolved, who the responsible officials were to resolve those issues, and the specific action that would be taken.

Mr Sithole asked how many staff were suspended in relation to the fruitless expenditure, on what basis, and how long it was before final disciplinary steps were taken.

Ms N November (ANC) also asked for how long staff had been suspended, pointing out that it was costly if they were suspended on full pay.

Mr Mongwenyana responded that initially five staff members were suspended, but two of them resigned. The charges against one were dropped. Two members were still being paid and were working, although the charges were ongoing. The process went to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) but the matters were proceeding very slowly there. One of those who resigned was responsible for the contract that incurred the fruitless and wasteful expenditure but because his employment terminated the matter could not be followed up. Systems were put in place to ensure that there was no repetition of those matters. Lack of capacity at supply chain management level was addressed. All staff had now been trained to ensure that they had a full understanding of policies and regulations of National Treasury.

Ms C Madlopha (ANC) asked what control measures were taken to ensure that the same instances of irregular expenditure did not recur, and whether there was a risk management policy to identify issues that would impact negatively on the organisation.

Mr Mongwenyana replied that the cidb did have a risk management policy, which was one of cidb’s key areas for control purposes.

Ms Madlopha appreciated the report and the comment on corrective action. She would appreciate the Committee receiving quarterly reports as early as possible so that it could follow up and assist with early intervention.

Mr Mongwenyana agreed to submit quarterly reports on a regular basis.

Mr J Steenhuizen (DA) was concerned about compliance, noting that he was aware of interventions on the development in Umlazi, KwaZulu Natal. He thought that cidb faced a real challenge in getting compliance from municipalities, who tended to regard cidb as interfering in their municipal affairs. He asked what interventions would be made for government institutions that did not comply with the cidb regulations.

Ms Thumbiran responded that the cidb had very limited powers as to what it could do if the public sector was not complying. For that reason, it had forged a very special relationship with the SIU, and, when a client was identified, through the regulations, as not performing, the client could be called in for a hearing and, if necessary, fined. However, the client might transgress again, and the cidb had to continuously monitor. The SIU could prosecute. The cidb was doing its best to monitor an entire industry, consisting of 283 municipalities, 27 provincial departments involved in infrastructure delivery, 10 at national level, and the parastatals, despite the cidb’s own limited resources.

Mr Steenhuizen noted that there was a sharp increase in bad debts written off. He asked why this was so apparent from 2010 to 2011.

Mr Mongwenyana explained that that was a once off, and not a trend. Some of the issues had been outstanding for a long period and were related to the fruitless and wasteful expenditure figures of R15 000 and R45 000 mentioned earlier. The R45 000 was paid to contractors who were no longer on the cidb books, so the amount was written off.

Ms P Ngwenya-Mabila (ANC) was also interested in the contractors at Levels 1 and 2, most of whom were black and might stay at this level for years before moving to higher levels, whilst those at levels 7, 8, and 9 were 95% white. She asked why this was so, and how the cidb intended to rectify this. She was also concerned with why downgrading happened.

Mr Ndendwa responded that at Level 1 there were no barriers for entry, as anyone could pay the necessary fee and become a Grade 1. It was difficult to formulate a plan to assist contractors on Grade 1, and management of cidb had seriously considered doing away with this level, since ideally a person should have undertaken some work before being registered. About 90 000 of the cidb’s 130 000 contractors were at this level, so they were previously disadvantaged.

Ms Ngwenya-Mabila requested that the Quarterly Reports sent to the National Department also be sent to the Portfolio Committee.

Ms Ngwenya-Mabila appreciated the launching of the Construction Contact Centres. She was concerned that many contractors moved away from Eastern Cape or Mpumulanga to Gauteng. She asked if cidb was doing enough outreach to contractors, and suggested holding regular meetings to ensure that all contractors understood processes.

Ms N November (ANC) asked which two provinces had not convened the Provincial Stakeholder Workshops.

Mr Gerard Naidoo, Programme Manager: Growth and Contractor Development, cidb, responded that these were not held in Free State and Limpopo.

Ms C Madlopha (ANC) noted that there were challenges around gathering information from the provinces, and she wondered what mechanisms the cidb had in place to get the information, monitor the grievances, and strengthen the reporting mechanisms.

Mr Naidoo related that part of his portfolio was contractor development, and another was the management of the Construction Contact Centres. He went out regularly to visit the contractors. Immediately his department heard of the Committee’s oversight visit to Mthatha, a programme of outreach to the contractors was established, in Mthatha, East London and Port Elizabeth. Cidb met with the associations that were invited to interact with the Portfolio Committee, and he  noted that correspondence had been written expressing some very nasty comments about cidb. However, cidb had interacted to see if common ground could be found, and over the last month, cidb had travelled to eight provinces, and would visit Limpopo on 25 October. In every province, it had met the BBCBE and other black structures, and agreements were signed.

He added that there was also interaction, at head office, with the Construction Development Board(CDB), the Independent Development Trust (IDT) and others. The IDT was able to spend huge budgets, and its policy on contractor development also aligned directly with the cidb’s framework. The IDT was fully compliant and worked with cidb continuously, and the two entities together ensured that all development programmes were aligned to cidb’s guidelines and best practices in contractor development.

Mr Ndendwa said that in the past two months, cidb had formed agreements with IDT, Agrement South Africa, and others in the arena, trying to find areas of commonality. However, there were concerns that these were not actually resulting in contractor development, and this was one of his concerns about moving away from evaluating contractors, as he cautioned that too far a deviation from standards would be to the ultimate detriment of the industry.

Ms Madlopha also asked for clarity on the request to DPW to put a moratorium on the downgrading.

Mr Ditibane responded that cidb was basically concerned with managing risk in construction. He noted that although some of the issues were emotive, the bottom line was that paperwork must be given, including noting skills at grade 1 level, so that the ability of the contractor was supported by documentation.

Ms N Madlala (ANC) referred very poor levels of compliance to the cidb regulations, and asked what steps were being taken to overcome the problem.

Mr Ndendwa responded that the reports had been very serious, showing some instances of total non-compliance. Unfortunately, even government often considered black contractors to be financially irresponsible, yet the very officials who criticised them gave unqualified people contracts that they could not finish, and then blamed them when things went wrong. This was a widespread problem. Mr Ndendwa had asked for a tender adjudication report on a tender, where his own construction company had bid R80 million, yet the contract was awarded to another company who had tendered R112 million. The government agency refused to give a report, when requested, and the cidb did not have the power to force the report. He noted that it was imperative that cidb should have the power not only to make regulations, but to monitor compliance with them, and impose punitive measures on those who did not comply. This lack of ability went to the heart of corruption. There was nothing to stop client bodies from reporting, and nothing to stop cidb from getting a tender adjudication report, which could be made available for all.

Ms Madlala asked for clarification on the 71 semi skilled and 5 unskilled personnel, and asked why no disabled people were employed.

Mr Ndendwa said it was agreed that there should be disabled people in the cidb.

Mr Mongwenyana added that three vacancies had been identified where cidb aimed to recruit disabled people and it was expected that would be implemented shortly. The breakdown of semi skilled and unskilled labour was according to the Employment Equity Act.

Mr L Gaehler (UDM) said cidb was formed to level the playing fields of the emerging sector, yet the Committee heard in Mthatha that the cidb was clearly not meeting the needs of the emerging sector at all. The cidb needed to sit with associations in all provinces, as it appeared that Johannesburg could not deal with its problems. Contractors had to be financially stable, but he asked how an emerging black contractor could achieve this status. IDT upgraded its contractors better than any other body because it made progress payments, and that developed them. The black contractors had to be supported. He continued that technical skills were required, but questioned how an emerging black contractor could retain a quantity surveyor. He pointed out that the situation was even worse because some contractors were not paid by provincial government for a year, so it was impossible for them to have sound financial statements. He suggested that the cidb should liaise with the Department of Higher Education and employ the youngsters that had skills, with retired engineers to monitor them. There was a shortage of artisans, and the cidb was supposed to have a policy on this. He urged that youth should be deployed on major government contracts so that they could obtain skills. A lot needed to be done, and the cidb clearly needed to review its systems.

Mr Naidoo responded that he would ideally like to remove all the stumbling blocks for emerging contractors and make it as easy as possible for a contractor who had been registered, and who had some level of competency, to be sustainable and to take the next step up. About 700 grade ones with potential had been upgraded.  Management and the executive of cidb were asking how to take into account some track record or issues of prior learning, and would come up with recommendations. All the registration requirements in fact ultimately contributed to the development of the industry and to the development of the contractors. Recommendations had been submitted to DPW. One of those was that professionals should be registered not at the point of submission of their application, but at a later point, on assessment of the work for the client.

He noted that Dr Rodney Milford championed the Construction Industry Performance Unit at cidb, which looked at specific issues around artisan development, education and training of contractors, the set up of the Employment Skills Development Agency, the incorporation of youth into the development agencies. Learners at level 4 were under the guidance of professionals.

Mr Ditibane added that the issue of professionals was very problematic. It was a leadership issue. There was a supply side of professionals, of whom the majority were professional engineers, and most were white. He asked how the black contractors and mainly-white engineers could work together, and how much it would cost for black contractors to contract in the necessary other skills. This was something that would ultimately need to be amended.

Mr Gaehler also referred to the downgrading, saying that contractors sometimes did not have work for three years; and were then unable to pay the high fees when they did get work.

Mr Ditibane responded that the cidb had looked into that. Government, who was the major procurer, could not afford to pay contractors up front because of the risk. It was imperative to have at least a little capital to start the project. However, appointment letters received from any user client would serve as collateral to any of the funding agencies within the Republic. Cidb was revisiting the requirements as it was cognisant that many emerging contractors simply did not have the cash flow to start some projects. This was why the decisions had been made around reduction in the available capital and the turnovers, and he conceded that turnover, in relation to incomplete projects, had been a huge problem. Government had been spending but was not getting the service delivery returns. Members were aware of police stations that remained only part-completed, and the question was whether cidb should blindly award more contracts to those contractors, who might simply perpetuate the problem elsewhere. The new Board realised that extensive investigations were needed, and now had the approach where interviews would be conducted with all parties in these cases, which had proved to have good results in most cases.

Mr Ditibane confirmed that in fact, only 2.73% of contractors were downgraded from a variety of grades. As a result of the recession some were not able to retain professionals or to meet the requirements. Some were engaged in building houses, and there was a question whether to continue to rehabilitate RDP houses, where the risk was on the taxpayer.

Mr Gaehler sought clarity as to whether the Infrastructure Improvement Delivery Programme tool kit, was the same tool kit as used by the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA).

Mr Gaehler referred to the Construction Procurement Skills Programme and asked what skills were identified as deficient in the public sector.

Ms Thumbiran explained that the cidb was not a training institution, but a regulatory body. The cidb could not set rules and regulations and could not train the public sector as to how the rules applied. Cidb supplied basic training as to how to put tender documents together, what standard rules applied for a public sector organisation, what to expect from a tender and how to evaluate the tender documents when calling for infrastructure services. However there was also a fine line with the responsibilities of National Treasury in regard to procurement, and she noted that sometimes the head of a supply chain at a municipality might not be sure of his or her role and responsibility, and if the wrong choices were made on procurement, things could go awry.

Mr Gaehler noted that 48% of payments to contractors were made over thirty days or longer, and enquired if this figure related to national government or provincial government. He thought provincial government paid over 90 days, and even 120 days.

Mr Gaehler referred to ownership history and asked why black ownership in grades 2 to 4, 5 and 6, and 7 and 8 had decreased over the period.

Mr Gaehler asked for more information on the Industry ESDA to provide work placement for learners at Further Education and Training (FET) Colleges.

Mr Gaehler referred to item 17 of the audit report, and asked why cidb procured goods and services worth between R10 000 and R100 000 without inviting three written price quotations from prospective suppliers.

Mr Gaehler asked whether it was still open to cidb to appoint provincial stakeholders.

Mr Ndendwa responded that cidb wanted to get associations in the industry to participate as stakeholders, in the Stakeholders Forum, and to present their problems, so that, after six months, the cidb could give full feedback on what it had done to resolve the issues. 

Mr Gaehler was interested to know whether the very poor levels of compliance lay with the government or private sector.

Mr Ndendwa responded that the cidb should be able to intervene in the “packaging” of projects. He pointed out that during preparations for the 2010 World Cup, black companies did not participate effectively on the building of the stadiums, the construction of the roads, or the building of the airports, despite the fact that government should be empowering black business. If the contracts were properly packaged, they should have catered for development of black contractors. The Eastern Cape was given just over R8 billion to build schools, yet the provincial government packaged everything together, and no local contractor was able to tender for a R8 billion project.  The acid mine drainage project in Gauteng was given to one of the “Top 20” contractors, with the argument that black companies should be sub-contractors, rather than involved in a joint venture. He added that for the last six or seven years the cidb had promulgated rules regarding the procurement and the rules that applied to the public sector in engaging contractors. He emphasised again that it was a regulatory body.

Ms Thumbiran said that there was an “audit blitz”. In the past, the monitoring and enforcing had been done on a reactive basis, and cidb relived on matters to be reported to it via the hotline or other methods. This had then been entered on a database and a set of processes for investigation would then ensue. Investigations were expensive. However, from April, cidb had started an “audit blitz” on a sample of 97 institutions across all provinces, specifically targeting those it the public works sector. The levels of non-compliance were very worrying. The first port of call was now the I-Tender system. Cidb started interacting with the clients on the advertisements that they put out, which specified the grade of contractor, the specialist field, and more or less what the tender estimate was. The desktop study done by cidb looked at the websites of those 97 clients, and had found gross non-compliance. She noted that cidb-registered contractors would be SMSed or e-mailed on any work tenders advertised through this system, as they did not always have access to the Government Gazette, but in many instances the clients would not use the I-Tender system, which defeated the whole purpose. Some of the frustrations in the provinces arose from precisely this issue. 

The second area to be targeted was the Register of Projects, which she said had to be significantly strengthened. The CIDB Act had put this register in place, and all information on the nature, size, value and distribution of projects should be entered on it, but it was found that there was only about 10% compliance, so cidb did not have the information it needed to do a proper analysis on the state of the construction industry, whether it was growing, in which province, whether there was better access to work, or whether entities understood the prescripts. The cidb was merely able to fine those who were not compliant, but that was not enough – and would result in qualifications of the cidb’s own financial statements for non-compliance. Far more commitment was thus needed from the public sector.

Ms N Ngcengwane (ANC) said that if the cidb had any policy issues that needed to be addressed, the Committee would like to assist.

Mr Gaehler asked that the Committee receive copies of the proposed amendments. He noted that the engagement with the new Board was very positive.

The Chairperson thanked cidb for its open engagement and for creating relationships with other bodies. However, there were some loose ends that still needed to be addressed. The issues raised at this meeting seemed to have been canvassed and she hoped that the problems would be rectified.

The meeting was adjourned.