Chairperson, earlier on, a number of members congratulated me on my appointment and I just want to express appreciation for those comments.
The answer to hon Van Schalkwyk is yes, we are taking steps to ensure that officials are not suspended with full pay for extended periods of time. This is one of the commitments that we have to make as the Ministry for the Public Service in the signing of our delivery agreement with the President in respect of Outcome 12, of which the Department of Public Service and Administration, DPSA, co-ordinates.
The commitment that we have given is that we will reduce the time that it takes to finalise disciplinary processes by, amongst others, developing a strategy to ensure that suspensions with full pay are finalised within a 60- day period. To this end, the department has developed draft guidelines on precautionary suspensions emanating from the recommendations of the research which was conducted by the department in 2010. Currently, the department is busy consulting with various other departments and key stakeholders within government before a Cabinet submission can be made to get Cabinet's approval. Thank you.
Chairperson, Minister, as you have mentioned, the Disciplinary Code and Procedures, Resolution 1 of 2003, provides for suspension of 60 days within which disciplinary hearings should be held. Responses to a DA parliamentary question revealed that at least R93,6 million has been paid to 365 senior management officials who are suspended with pay since April 29. Minister, when will you ensure that hearings take place within the 60-day period?
Chairperson, as I said, the department has developed guidelines which should be persuasive to try and get these disciplinary cases to comply with the 60-day deadline. Unfortunately, we appear to be, at this point in time, captive to the process itself, in that, for a number of reasons these disciplinary cases get prolonged and they are not able to be finalised within the 60-day period. This leads to a kind of situation where I think it is untenable and unacceptable that these cases continue for much longer than 60 days.
It is actually quiet a serious problem and it is a problem that I certainly would want to take up quite strenuously with the Public Service because it does in fact interfere with the operations of the department. When you have a senior official suspended on precautionary suspension, you must understand that the individual cannot be dismissed because a proper process of hearings has to be conducted so that the person is either found guilty or not guilty. If the hearing has not been completed within 60 days, the person is entitled to come back to the department.
We have established guidelines, we are now going to make them persuasive and we will look for additional measures to try and ensure that we comply with the 60-day period. Thank you.
Chairperson, hon Minister, because you have talked about developing guideline and strategies, my question is as follows: Are you willing to provide comprehensive details in the not so distant future on the strategy and guidelines that the DPSA has developed to address this matter? When does the Ministry expect this to be implemented? Thank you.
Chairperson, we certainly will be able to provide the details of those guidelines, but for the moment we may say that an employee may be suspended for purposes of a disciplinary enquiry. A suspension may take any one of the following forms: The individual could either be suspended on full pay or he or she could be transferred to another section in the workplace. However, you must understand, to suspend an employee the following elements have to be prevalent: the employee must have allegedly committed a serious offense; the presence of that employee at the workplace must jeopardise any investigation into the alleged misconduct, or it might endanger the wellbeing or safety of any person or state property.
Before an employee is suspended we have to ensure that a hearing is conducted to comply with the audi alteram partem rule. An employee should not be suspended unless there are prima facie grounds for believing that that particular employee has committed a serious misconduct and that there is some objectively justifiable reason for excluding the employee from the workplace. Once an employee has been suspended, the stipulation is that the disciplinary hearing must be held within a period of 60 days, depending on the complexity of the matter and the length of the investigation.
Now, we often find that because of the nature of the legal processes, for example by the defence of the employee that face the misconduct charges, these cases are being processed. The guidelines are being formulated and are being taken to the Cabinet for approval. Thank you.
Chairperson, Minister, as my colleague has said, suspensions with full pay have cost South Africa R93,6 million just in the 2009-10 financial year.
When government wastes money like this the real victim is not the fiscus, it's not the department, but the victims are ordinary South Africans who rely on government service delivery every day of their lives. They can't get the services they need because the officials are sitting at home on full pay.
Will the Minister work to hold the directors-general accountable if disciplinary cases are not resolved within 60 days? Secondly, will the Minister consider stopping the paying of salaries after the 60-day time window has expired? Thank you.
Chairperson, hon member, I think both you and I must agree on something. The thing that we have to agree on is the initial part of your question, which was in the form of a statement, that neither one of us should countenance the possibility that the state should waste money on matters like this. I think we have a common purpose on that one.
It will be quite incorrect for us to hold directors-general responsible for a legal process over which they have no control. Let me give an example of what happens in some cases. I'm aware of an instance where an employee has been suspended on a serious allegation of misconduct. Sixty days have come and gone and the hearing has not even taken place, because by the time the lawyers come together to agree on a hearing suddenly a lawyer is not available due to some other appointments. The case then gets postponed for 30 days until he is available.
These are some of the procedural matters that result in these cases taking longer than they should. So there is no wilful commitment for a director- general to keep somebody suspended, because it can't be so.
The minute an official is suspended with full pay it means that neither the executive authority nor the director-general can put somebody else in that place. That is where you and I have a common purpose. We have to find the means and mechanisms to cut this process to the point where we are able to accelerate the completion of the hearings that must finalise the allegations. That is the target that we will try to achieve in the work that we are doing. Thank you.
Chairperson, after having listened to the Minister, it is clear that the intention is there to take action. However, from our side there is a concern that weaknesses within the Public Service and in specific departments are leading to these protracted processes of disciplinary hearings, etc.
In some cases, Public Service Commission lawyers are approached for guidelines whether a person should be reinstated or not after there was a failed process. I know of different departments who did not follow the advice given by the Public Service Commission. The critical issue is: who should be held accountable? Is it the Minister or is it the director- general? You say that it would not be fair that the director-general is held accountable, but somehow there must be consequences for failure to do the right thing. Different Ministers must really access the right advice on these matters. Thank you.
Chairperson, I think the hon member is making a good suggestion. Certainly, it is the responsibility of the head of department, HOD, to ensure that the matter is accelerated and speeded up. But once the case has been brought before a hearing the HOD has no control over it, because the matter is now taking a legal process which is outside the control of the HOD.
That is the point that I was trying to make. You cannot hold the director- general responsible for a legal part of that process over which he or she has no control. If I was the director-general of the department and if an official is suspended it is my responsibility to ensure that my human resource, HR, department institutes proceedings immediately. If my HR department does not institute proceedings in a short period then I am being lax and for that we should take action against the director-general and the HODs.
But if a director-general does in fact ensure that there are procedures in the department where this has happened then we should give support to that department. That is what the Department of Public Service focuses on - to find the mechanisms to give support to those departments that may not have the capacity to accelerate the institution of the disciplinary process. Thank you.
The time allocated for questions has expired. Outstanding replies received will be printed in Hansard.
See also QUESTIONS AND REPLIES.