Housing Contract Investigation, Housing Development Agency Regulations, Energy & Water SETA: Departmental progress reports

Meeting report

Opening remarks
The Chairperson indicated the agenda was short, and comprised a progress report into housing contract investigations, conducted by the Special Investigations Unit (SIU). Since the investigations The Department of Human Settlements (DHS) regularly briefed the Committee on progress. DHS would do a presentation on the Housing Development Authority (HDA) regulations, especially that it had been allowed a period of two months to work on those. The work around the regulations needed to be expanded. The Committee would also receive a presentation on the Energy Water Sector Education and Training Authority (EWSETA) sanitation programme. The purpose would be for interested parties to work together in ensuring sanitation was effectively managed and implemented by DHS. She handed over to the Department.
Minutes
Housing contract investigations, in conjunction with Special Investigating Unit: Department of Human Settlements progress report
Mr Thabane Zulu, Director General, Department of Human Settlements, said the Department of Human Settlements (DHS or the Department) had a standard contract arrangement with the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) setting out the scope of the investigations into the housing projects. There had been some institutional changes in management of the SIU, but it did not affect the work that the SIU was doing for the DHS. These investigations into housing contracts were the largest area in which the SIU was involved. Whilst he would give a broad overview, there was a detailed report. However, some elements of the Report were classified because the investigations were ongoing and divulging too much could compromise the investigations at this point. The current presentation was prepared so as not to compromise the ongoing investigations.

Mr Mbongeni Shabangu, Director for Special Investigations, DHS, said the Department identified 59 housing contracts for investigation at the beginning of the 2011 financial year, 42 of which had been finalised. Out of the 42 completed cases, only 14 reports were submitted to DHS. The SIU had indicated that the pending investigations would be finalised in the current financial year. Copies of the final investigation reports were referred to respective Heads of Departments (HODs) in provinces for consideration and implementation of recommendations.

Mr Shabangu reiterated that what he would present was a brief overview and not the detailed information that was set out in the SIU reports. He gave a breakdown of the fourteen completed reports that had been submitted. In the Eastern Cape, four completed reports were sent for Bethelsdorp (Elliot and Cala), Joe Slovo (Port Elizabeth) and Ntabankulu. There were three settlements investigated in Free State, being  Ladybrand; Ventersburg and Viljoenskroon. In the North West, investigations were done into Ba Ga Madi; Ba Ga Phuduhucwana, and Tswaing Letsopa. KwaZulu Natal, Limpopo, and the Western Cape all had one finalised cases each. Northern Cape had two.

All the cases had been referred to provincial HODs for corrective measures, and to check if there was a need to pursue criminal prosecutions or civil liability claims on behalf of DHS. The DHS continually engaged the provincial departments on further action against culprits.

High-level findings indicated that there was fruitless and wasteful, and irregular and unauthorised expenditure in all the cases. It was also found that there was non-compliance with the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), as well as with the Housing Code and the Housing Act.

Other findings included irregular awarding of tenders, an inadequate project monitoring regime, non-compliance with the project payment regime, potential losses and civil recoveries to respective provincial departments, criminal matters and referrals, and disciplinary action. In some cases advance payments were made in contravention of the Housing Code. Several overpayments were made, irregularly. Government had indeed lost a substantial amount of money in respect of these matters. It was therefore decided that there was a need to consider civil litigation, to try to recover whatever amounts were lost to service providers and others fingered in the report. All criminal matters identified had been referred to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for consideration. Disciplinary action was recommended where government employees were found to have colluded in the alleged irregularities.

Mr Zulu reiterated that the information was high level but very sensitive. Some of the details had been presented in this way to protect the ongoing investigations.

Discussion
Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) complained that the presentation lacked detail, and that meant the Committee could not discuss it properly. He commented that investigation of only 59 housing contracts throughout the country was far too little, and unacceptable. He was interested in finding out the kind of punitive measures that were preferred in the 42 cases that were completed. He was not comfortable with the fact that these were being referred to the provinces, since that was where corruption was happening, as well as the municipalities. For this reason, it was not correct to leave it to the provinces to try to effect corrective measures. DHS itself should be doing follow ups and implementing the recommendations, otherwise he feared that no stringent measures would be taken. He suggested a need to find a mechanism where recommendations were given directly to the law enforcement agencies. Most corrupt practices were happening in-house.

However, in light of the fact that DHS had already referred, Mr Mokgalapa requested a breakdown on the cases that had already been acted upon. He sought clarity on the high level findings and whether punitive measures had in fact been preferred against those named in the report. He wanted to know if any cases had been forwarded to the NPA, and whether anyone had been prosecuted.

Mr Mokgalapa said that Free State and the North West were failing in human settlements matters. He commented that it was strange that Gauteng did not appear in the presentation, as surely there must have been investigations in this province. Lenasia (south of Johannesburg) was a troublesome area and he questioned why it was not part of the investigated projects. In the North West, he also wanted more detail, especially given that one project claimed to have a Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) house that cost R8 million. This matter had to be finalised. Again, he was sorry that there was not more detail. All the matters raised in the report were serious issues and DHS had to act on the report. He said that housing was an area offering opportunities for substantial, but well-hidden crime.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) concurred on the comments about the referrals. The recommendations had to be implemented at national and not provincial level, otherwise it was possible that some wrongdoers would be asked to effect their own sanctions. He also agreed that it was unlikely that Gauteng was a province in which there had been no irregularities. He also disputed that only one project was worthy of being investigated in KwaZulu Natal (KZN). He had made available to the DHS evidence of a 2010 housing project that was left half way in Nquthu. There were other projects in Newcastle and Dawnhauser and something had to be done.

Ms M Borman (ANC) concurred there was not much substance in the presentation. She mentioned that in e-Thekwini, there were huge challenges. She sought clarity on the fourteen reports handed in to DHS; the seventeen outstanding; and the 44 finalised and asked the reason for the discrepancies in figures. She too commented that there was simply not enough detail. Members knew what kinds of contraventions took place, but needed information on how many instances there were, and where these officials were to enable the Committee to monitor the situation.

Ms A Mashishi (ANC) said she would have preferred it if details around officials were broken down by province.

Mr J Matshoba (ANC) accepted that investigations were ongoing but said this made the work of the Committee difficult. People in the North West W awaited the Committee's report on the R8 million house, but the Committee still had nothing to tell them. He wondered if the scope of the work that SIU was doing was beyond its power, commenting that far more housing projects in the EC needed to be investigated. He sought clarity on what was meant by the statement that fourteen reports had been submitted and yet 42 cases had been concluded.

The Chairperson wanted to know why the SIU was not spending the money it was allocated by DHS, and what the challenges were, commenting that this seemed to be a problem in many SIU matters, which impacted upon the budgets of the departments making the allocations.

The Chairperson wanted to know the impact of the tranche payments in the North West, which did not only affect one municipality but the entire province. She also commented that, in respect of the Eastern Cape, the Department needed to give information on the Jansenville project.

Mr Zulu replied that clearly the Department would still have to provide a breakdown on issues. He said he was happy that the question of Lenasia had been raised, as it was a classic example to illustrate what he had said. If the information on this project had been declassified earlier, the investigations progress would have been compromised. He explained that some of the cases that the SIU dealt with involved a number of syndicates. He assured Members that once the information had been declassified, full information would be shared with the Members as had been done before. He reiterated that at this stage the DHS had only been able to share information where it was sure this would not compromise investigations.

The Chairperson interjected to seek clarity on how impartial the SIU was when investigating departmental officials. A report by the Public Service Commission (PSC) indicated that there were a lot of conflicting interests at the Department.

Ms Borman clarified that Members were not asking for information that would compromise investigations, but just a proper statistical breakdown of issues. This would at least give the Committee an indication that something was being done.

Mr Mokgalapa also concurred that the Committee was interested in stratified information that indicated there was progress, but this presentation had not give that. He wondered why there was a suggestion that the investigations would be compromised, nothing that the information had already been passed on to provinces. This was of concern to him, and he asked if the DHS was sure that the provinces themselves would not cause a compromise. DHS had to deal with the reports thoroughly, and act stringently. He was concerned that this process seemed akin to the DHS transferring funding to the provinces, without following through to see how it was used.

Mr Zulu replied that each year a specific programme, budget and cases were planned. SIU adopted a systematic approach. Certain cases would be prioritised, and given funding, for a particular year and there was continuation of cases from a previous year. He commented that the underexpenditure by the SIU was an internal systematic challenge, and the DHS was dealing with it.

In relation to the questions about conflict of interest, Mr Zulu said that there were cases within the Department that were being investigated by SIU. If investigations involved the DG then the Minister would give orders. At provincial level there was a mechanism to deal with challenges of conflict of interest and officials were aware of it. He said he could not divulge more on this issue, as that would compromise the SIU's methodology.

Ms Khumoetsile Gaesale, Chief Director: Investigations, DHS, added that investigations into the housing contracts were complex, labour intensive and multi-year. This kind of work did not start and finish within a year as a lot of analysis and sourcing of information had to be done, followed up with affidavits, and testing them through the systems. 59 cases were investigated, because, as previously explained, these were the ones prioritised for the year, in line with the available funding in a financial year. Each year, there would be a new batch of projects. She reiterated that most of the investigations lasted a few years. New cases would also be investigated whilst others were ongoing. There would be a lot more cases coming on stream as the DHS had finished its investigative work, but the SIU and the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development had to get the new proclamation approved.

Ms Gaesale said corrective measures taken included matters being reported to police stations, and case numbers had been issued. Seven cases had been referred to the NPA for Section 86 prosecutions, against finance officers contravening section 38 of the PFMA. All those matters referred to in this report had case numbers already.

The reason that these were then sent to the provincial HODs was to meet the requirements in the PFMA, that provincial offices must execute disciplinary measures where provincial officials were involved. DHS had requested updates and status reports from the various HODs.

She reminded Members that because the cases were multi-year, it might be seen as being delayed, but some had to be prioritised before others to ensure that there was not a backlog that built up.

What appeared to be slow spending by the SIU was the result of a legal opinion obtained in around June, that the SIU Act did not in fact allow for government institutions to be charged for the SIU investigations. As a result of this uncertainty, the SIU had not billed DHS since April, and had indicated that it would not be doing so until the amendment to the SIU Act, which would permit it to levy charges, was passed. The SIU kept the Department abreast with developments in that regard. At the beginning of the year SIU indicated it would need about R22 million from the Department, but to now none of that had been spent.

Ms Borman sought clarity, and questioned who would pay for work that the SIU conducted, and how far the amendment to the SIU Act had gone.

Ms Gaesale replied the funding model for the SIU was such that, in the past, it would do a costing and detail what it would do on the investigation. This would be submitted to the relevant department, which had been asked to ring-fence the funding to pay. The uncertainty had come about when Eskom challenged whether the SIU Act permitted the SIU to follow this procedure. The SIU had obtained a legal opinion, which concurred with the Eskom view, as a result of which SIU stopped billing, until such time as its Act was amended.

Mr Neville Chainee, Acting Chief Operations Officer, DHS, explained further that SIU had been entering into Service Level Agreements, but when the uncertainty was raised, amendments to the legislation were proposed. DHS had ringfenced the money that was agreed upon in the Service Level Agreement and would pay it over when the legislation was finalised. He was not sure how far this had gone but it could be followed up with the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development.

The Chairperson said although she understood the arrangement with SIU, she was not sure that it was above board. DHS knew that the money would not be spent, and she questioned if the ringfencing had been done to allow for shifting of funds to other programmes if there was a need.

Mr Zulu said that whilst the Department would sometimes revise its budget for more effective utilisation of funding, there was “no intention whatsoever” to use these ringfenced funds for anything other than to pay the SIU. DHS did not want to jeopardise the work SIU was doing, as it was vital for the sector, and it had a commitment to the SIU. He agreed that it was a strange matter, but this had what had happened.

Mr Matshoba commented that matters would not move if such an important institution as the SIU could be stalled by this piece of legislation. He asked if the SIU was the only vehicle with which to approach corruption in the housing contract investigations.

Mr Sithole commented that this challenge to the SIU rendered the Unit "toothless", and asked if it had its own budget.

The Chairperson disputed the conclusion that the SIU had been rendered toothless, but said the challenge was that some entities did not want to pay it for services rendered. She felt that this Committee should engage with its counterpart for Justice, to assist SIU, whose work was beyond measure.

Mr Mokgalapa said it was of concern that things would be done without proper legislation. He wondered if financial capacity was deliberately being taken away from the SIU because it investigated the same departments that funded its work. Parliament should move with speed on that legislation.

Housing Development Agency (HDA) regulations
Mr Chainee reminded the Committee that governance regulations had been tabled for the Housing Development Agency (HDA) a while back. The Committee had agreed that the regulations were required, but had questioned the developmental aspect, what was covered, and said that the DHS must carry out performance and developmental reviews of the HDA.

He said that in terms of Section 32 of the Housing Development Agency Act (the Act), the Minister was required to make regulations, but the Committee had wanted the regulations to be considered in relation to a broader review of the HDA’s work. 

Section 7.3 of the Act set out what the Department was undertaking in conjunction with the HDA, and the regulation spoke about declaring priority housing projects for residential purposes, in accordance with the integrated development plan (IDP) and provincial spatial developmental framework. This also fitted in with the National Development Plan, even in respect of the residential package in relation to mining. This regulation could be extended to a whole range of categories.

The regulations allowed DHS, through the HDA, to make special interventions. This would allow the Committee to ask the DHS to give special attention to certain areas, such as farm accommodation, or fast-track housing projects in declared housing development priority areas. The HDA, in conjunction with the Department, developed a policy framework to define principles and declaratory processes. The policy task team at DHS endorsed this and was now consulting with provinces and municipalities. DHS could present the policy to the Committee.

He asked if the Committee wanted the Minister to promulgate the governance regulations, which had been drawn up as a first step. The legal unit at DHS had indicated that the first set of regulations could be ready for the first sitting of the Committee in the New Year.

The Chairperson commented that it was vital to have the regulations promulgated, and if the Minister had the authority to promulgate he could do so, provided that there was a policy provided to the Committee, and that there were set timeframes.

Ms Borman agreed that she supported the provision of timeframes, and commented that this must be done speedily. She asked if consultants had been called in to help with this work.

Mr Taffy Adler, Chief Executive Officer, Housing Development Agency, said that no consultants were used and all the work was done internally by both HDA and the Department.

The Chairperson requested that the Department commit to finalising the regulations by the end of March 2013. She reminded Members that although the governance regulations had been tabled previously, the Committee had not been prepared to pass them until a comprehensive set of regulations was tabled. She reminded the DHS that the Minister needed to continue to pay attention to the Charter.

Mr Adler replied that officials would meet the deadlines.

Energy and Water Sector Education and Training Authority (EWSETA) briefing
The Chairperson explained that the invitation to the Energy and Water Sector Education and Training Authority (EWSETA) was made because the sanitation function had been transferred to the DHS. The intention was to make this programme viable. The Committee understood that sanitation contributed to job creation and empowering local communities. Building toilets was a simple project, but required a level of skill, and this was where the SETA became involved.

Mr Tebogo Mmotla, Chief Operations Officer, EWSETA, indicated that there were slight changes, but not in content, between the hard copy and the electronic version. He noted that the EWSETA was established in terms of the Skills Development Act. The Board was representative of Eskom, the South African Local Government Association (SALGA), Departments of Water Affairs, Energy, and Public Enterprises, but also of organised labour, with representation from about four unions - National Union of Metalworkers SA; Independent Municipal and Allied Trade Union; SA Municipal Workers Union and Solidarity Trade Union – who had one representative -while the National Union of Mineworkers had two.

Mr Mmotla explained that EWSETA had developed a sector skills plan within the framework of the national skills development strategy. The SETA commissioned the national skills plan every year, covering a period of five years. The SETA consulted with stakeholders throughout the country to get a sense of what could be the skills shortages. The team was currently collecting information that would inform the kind of action the SETA would take when it disbursed discretionary and mandatory grants. The SETA then implemented the sector skills plan by establishing learnerships and approving workplace skills plans (WSPs). He explained that the WSPs were submitted by constituent employers to indicate the need and how they would address skills challenges, then used these as a basis for applying for discretionary or mandatory grants. The grants were allocated in accordance with the standard criteria with the employer. The SETA also conducted monitoring and evaluation.

Other functions of the SETA included liaising with the employment services of the departments and any education body established under any law regulating education in South Africa. Another function related to improving information about employment opportunities between training providers and the labour market, and also promoting the national standard established in terms of Section 308, and the Skills Development Levies Act.

The SETA was committed to becoming ethical, professional, customer and stakeholder oriented, and accountable. The scope of coverage included energy generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, renewable and nuclear, and gas. In regard to water services, collection, purification and distribution formed the core business, with a particular focus on the functions of sanitation and water management. There were three sector managers for water, sanitation and waste services, as well as energy.

He said that although there had been an intention to provide universal access to basic water and sanitation by 2012, this was not possible. The backlog was too daunting, and there was shortage of skills, with 3 000 civil engineers needed to work on the specific sector. Most engineers had been lost through high global demand and national issues. This need might, as a stop-gap measure, need to be filled by using technologists in place of engineers. There was furthermore a need for over 7 000 environmental health practitioners and about 4 000 artisans, to overcome the challenges of poor operational and maintenance of infrastructure.

During the 2011 financial year, a Sanitation Job Creation programme had been planned, to help 320 beneficiaries, for which R7.8 billion was allocated, but it never got off the ground, and the funds had been rerouted within the sector. The sector skills plan also pointed to replacement demand. Many workers in the sector were over the age of 65 and ought to have retired, but were irreplaceable due to the failure to transfer skills earlier. There was a dire need for mentoring and coaching more youth in order to rejuvenate the aging workforce.

Mr Mmotla said there was a general lack of well-structured workplace programmes for youths in internships. Some of these youth were qualified engineers but in the workplace were reduced to doing other work, which did not take account of their qualifications. South Africa did not take mentoring seriously and this was needed at the workplace. There were various accredited providers for training in the water and waste services, but a lot more still needed to be accredited.

A strategic priority area for the SETA was the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL). The older workforce was frustrated and uncertain about the future because they did not have qualifications, and SETA was advocating for their knowledge to be recognised in a formal certificate given by the South African Qualifications Authority. These people could be mobilised and directed to cooperatives once they left formal employment, and their wealth of knowledge would be crucial to creating cooperative jobs.

The SETA also looked to identify Small Medium and Micro Enterprises (SMMEs) handling the function of sanitation. A logical step would be to support them through discretionary grants. Another important aspect was the capacity building for Further Education and Training (FET) colleges. There was a need for short courses on various programmes such as sanitation, alternative technologies, water purification and wastewater treatment. Structured programmes for youths, in rural areas and informal settlements, were lacking. There was a need for the curriculum to include water issues. Awareness programmes for managers especially municipal and mine managers were needed. The SETA worked closely with municipalities, and in most instances it had been discovered that councillors lacked knowledge on these functions, and their IDPs were too generic so that particular areas for intervention were not isolated. Structured training was needed to improve on this. Long-term interventions included programmes that would ensure enough civil engineers, artisans, and sewage plants operators. Occupationally-directed programmes would ensure that youth were trained in skills required by the industry. The SETA would ensure linkages with the Water Research Council to facilitate focussed and relevant research that would add value for the water services sector.

He noted that EWSETA had run, and wanted to replicate, a programme in Nkomazi Municipality, Mpumalanga, where 40 youths were enrolled and trained, and some were still in that province, doing business, or in Swaziland.

Mr Mmotla briefly outlined more about the EWSETA. It had received unqualified audit opinions for two consecutive financial years. It was focusing on improving performance against targets, performance reporting, and general control environments within the SETA, and it was interested in collaborative efforts that would help it to achieve this. It believed that government needed to be clear about the Strategic Infrastructure Programme (SIP) 18, which focussed on backlogs in the water and sanitation sector. This necessitated high-level strategic partnerships that would leave communities empowered. There was a great concern around access for sanitation for informal settlements. Sanitation challenges had to involve management at national level, especially around the transfer of the function from Department of Water Affairs to DHS, and to address the inadequate financing to address backlogs in small towns and rural areas.

As a result of the management challenges, the SETA's board did not have a representative from DHS, and there was currently no ongoing relationship with DHS, with cooperation only taking place at implementation, not at strategic level. The system needed to be structured in such a way that implementers had support from the political heads.

Another challenge was that currently, there was lack of clarity on sanitation standards and appropriate technical options, resulting in sanitation facilities that were often not compliant with technical design standards. There was insufficient operation with existing infrastructure, with many sewerage plants not functioning because of lack of funding and skills. Health and hygiene education were also lacking.

Other general challenges for the SETA included backlogs in issuing certificates, limited budget, the need to improve the relationship with the Local Government SETA, and that fact that there was no representation of the sanitation and the waste sector at the board level.

He concluded that by month end the final sector skills plan would be submitted to the Minister for approval.

Discussion
Ms D Dlakude (ANC) said she wished the project in Nkomazi could be replicated in all of the country especially at rural municipalities. She enquired if the SETA knew anything about a specific company doing work around sewer plants, and, if so, wondered what its relationship was.

Mr Mmotla replied the plan was to replicate similar approaches in other municipalities. The municipalities were expected to come forward with proposals that were informed by the wards, communities and targeted beneficiaries. Once such proposals arrived at the SETA, they were packaged for the board’s consideration. Every year, at around this time, the SETA advertised its priorities, in the media and websites, and would correspond directly with stakeholders. It often had to actively approach people to apply. Often, service providers drew plans for municipalities, but these were driven not by the impact, but by the figures, and there was disjuncture between plans and implementation. It would be much easier to do the work if the municipalities themselves drew the plans, since currently the information on the IPD would not allow for clear programmes to be drawn. If SETA got targeted proposals, it would hope to replicate the success of its previous project.

Mr Mokgalapa commented that the presentation was informative, and the Committee was determined that sanitation should be a reality. He sought clarity on how the internship programme at the SETA worked, and asked for comment on partnerships with potential employers, and if the system was able to sustain the qualified but unemployed people, how long they remained unemployed and the cost of this.

Mr Mmotla replied the approach to internships was two-pronged. Firstly, focus was given to unemployed youths who had graduated from university. For them, the SETA facilitated workplace training with member employers and most would be employed by municipalities once they acquired the necessary experience. He cited the example of Vhembe Municipality in Venda, where 150 graduates were employed before they could finish training. Secondly, for students who were still registered, the SETA signed Memorandums of Agreement with the employers and the FET colleges, and during the vacations, students would work at the firms, exposing them to opportunities and potential employers. Sustainable jobs evolved around waterborne systems. SETA would not train learners if there was no prospect of employment, and knew that in the rural areas there were no employers or cooperatives, and only water-treatment plants, not water-borne systems. The Minister had, to try to counter this, entered agreements with rural and township universities. Employers were not yet willing to open up the workplace and there had been engagement with the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) to try to find a strategy.

He noted that the company mentioned earlier had not been specifically engaged. It would be useful to share and exchange ideas.

Ms Borman enquired if there was a proper plan on implementation of projects and accompanying training, given the uncertainty around administering the function of sanitation. She agreed that identifying and training young people in rural areas would always be a challenge, and asked how SETA saw that functioning on the ground.

Mr Mmotla replied that the SETA was guided by the Act, which prescribed that every November, strategic and annual performance plans must be submitted, and those identified the strategic interventions, based on the sector skills plan. This identified projects and learners, but once targets had been identified, the SETA would advertise and seek communities, but many stakeholders did not respond.

Mr Sithole wanted to know why the National Union of Mineworkers had two representatives on the board, whilst all other stakeholders only had one.

Mr Matshoba wanted to know why there was no community representative on the board. It was peculiar that the board was made up of union representatives whilst it was meant to serve communities.

Mr Mmotla replied he could not answer the question, as the SETAs only implemented what was prescribed. The question of the community representative would be raised with the Board. The Chairperson would be able to give more detail on the numbers.

Mr Sithole sought clarity on the replacement demand, and asked if the SETA had the capacity.
 
Ms J Sosibo (ANC) sought clarity on bursaries, and wanted to know how those students who had been awarded bursaries were expected to pay back, or what other commitments they had to honour.

Mr Mmotla replied that the SETA advertised bursaries in the media, but in fact most often the universities would be asked to identify students from poor backgrounds, and the SETA would then top up their study fees to the end of the study period, and did not ask them to repay. Where this was done, there were no student drop-outs.

Mr Matshoba requested a comment on the cause of confusion as to which department was supposed to administer sanitation.

Mr Mmotla replied there were systemic challenges and full commitment in terms of executing duties.

Ms Mashishi commented it was important to educate people, especially in rural areas, about hygiene, and asked who should attend to this.

The Chairperson commented that the Committee would put pressure on other officials when it came to administering the function of sanitation.

The meeting was adjourned.