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.