Public Sector Education and Training Authority (PSETA) Assessment in skills development in the Public Service

Meeting report

The Chairperson explained that the annual programme was in line with the 5 Year Strategic Plan, with an emphasis on the Committee’s oversight role. The Budget would be presented by the Minister in the National Assembly on 21 April.

Dr Ralph Mgijima (Chairperson: PSC) introduced Mr Mashwahle Diphofa (DG), and Ms Mmathari Mashoa (Chief Director).

Public Service Commission
Skills development was considered to be of importance in Public Service labour relations in South Africa. The Public Service Education and Training Authority (PSETA) was one of the institutions established to facilitate the improvement of skills, and to advance the competence of employees in the Public Service. Because of that the PSC felt the need to evaluate the PSETA to determine its contribution to the development of skills and career progression of employees in the Public Service.

The objectives of the study were to establish the extent to which Public Service employees had benefited from training and skills development facilitated by the PSETA; the extent to which persons provided with learnerships through the PSETA were employed in the Public Service; and the impact of training and skills development facilitated by the PSETA on the career progression of Public Service.

The methodology used for the study included desktop research and literature review, specifically annual reports of the various Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs), as well as reports of the PSC, Department of Labour, PALAMA and DPSA on SETAs and published papers on training and SETAs.

Two sets of questionnaires were used, a general questionnaire for officials in service provider institutions and other SETAs, and a semi structured questionnaire for beneficiaries of training facilitated by PSETA and also used in interviews with officials of respondent institutions departments and Premiers of the provinces. Responses to questionnaires and information gathered were analysed and a focus group discussion was held with officials from offices of the Premiers at a workshop, conclusions reached were collated.

Ms Mashao went through the findings of the study in detail.
- Between 2004 and 2006 PSETA was on a learning curve and concentrated more on the compliance in the submission of Work Skills Plans and Annual Training Reports by department, legislatures and other public service institutions. During that period attention was not given to facilitation of training, monitoring and tracking of learners after they underwent learnership and training programmes.

- In 2005 no service provider institutions were recognised as Institutes of Sectoral and/or Occupational Excellence (ISOE) but from 2006 to 2008 100% of target was achieved.
- In 2005 – 2008 learners who participated in the PSETA programmes did not find placement.
- The number of learners in critical skills and further education and higher education agreements that were assisted to gain work experience in 2006/07 was very high. That was because in the previous year PSETA was not able to do follow up, and when follow up was done in the subsequent year the number was too big because it was actually the combination of two years. In 2008 it was 0%.
- In 2008 the target of 50% for learners who completed programmes was exceeded at 195%, whereas in the previous years 0% was reported.
- The target of unemployed people assisted to enter programmes was 100% in 2005, declined to 11% in 2006/07, and increased to 54% in 2008.
- From 2005 – 2007 the 50% target of successful completion of learnerships and apprenticeships stood at 0% and increased to 176% in 2008.
- Workers across all ABET levels who completed training stood at 16% in 2005, declined to 0% in 2006/07, increased to 12% in 2008.
- Training of workers across all ABET levels stood at 0% in 2005, increased to 156% in 2006/07 and declined to 40% in 2008.
- On training of skills development facilitators and sector specialists in 2005 0%, 200607 31%, and 100% in 2008, which showed that PSETA was picking up on ensuring that skills development facilitators were on board.
- Annual training reports 18% in 2005, 77% in 2006/07 and 0% in 2008.
- Work skills plans were 81% in 2005, 92% for 2006/07 and 53% in 2008. With this programme the compliance was much higher compared to other indicators because PSETA took this role very seriously from the beginning to ensure that responding institutions complied in that area.

- The findings on PSETA with regard to training and education facilitation improved gradually. From 2007 to 2008 more than 140 departments, nine legislatures plus the National Assembly, and 15 parastatals were provided with this service.
- Despite having only four out of a staff complement of 13 in the Skills Planning Unit, that Unit’s processes improved steadily.

- In 2007/08 of the 3755 learnership enrolment, 2485 were workers and from the total number 1467 completed the learnership and 1535 certificates were issued (some were carried over from the previous year).

- The Education and Training sector performed far better than other SETAs with regard to numbers, because Education had a lot more in training than some of the sectors.

A pilot programme on Public Finance Management learnership was conducted over five provinces during 2005/06 and PSETA’s competence rating was recorded. In the Eastern Cape only 53% of learners who had completed the programme and were assessed achieved the relevant competence, in the Northern Cape only 50%, Mpumalanga 69%, North West 52%, and KwaZulu-Natal 70%.

An official from a province that participated in the Public Finance Management learnership programme set out the reasons why the competencies were not achieved. He raised the issue that PSETA facilitated the implementation of the learnership and ensured that the service provider was accredited, and had to do the monitoring and follow up, as well as assessment. That compromised the speed at which it had to be carried out. The assessment took six months to complete and certification was only done more than one year after completion of the pilot.
Only one service provider was contracted by PSETA to do all five provinces. The service provider lacked capacity to manage the programme. This development stretched PSETA to the extent that actual training was not monitored and in the end quality assurance was not properly done.
Programme implementation was flawed in that unemployed learners who were not placed in finance operating positions did not acquire the skills that they expected to get and those that were in finance positions they were not tasked to operate in finance roles but made photocopies and served as transport clerks, messenger or other unrelated tasks.

The Commission contacted 75 of those who had undergone courses on Human Resources, on Financial Accounting, Project Management, and Business Administration. Of the 75 interviews conducted it was found that 54% were unemployed even after undergoing training and 46% were employed subsequent to undergoing training. The completion rate was 89%.
Career progression after undergoing learnership programmes was that 76% were subsequently employed by the departments where they underwent the learnership programmes (showing commitment), 15% remained unemployed (there was no promise of jobs post training), 2% were self employed (small sewing enterprises), and 2% changed employment since training.

The Education and Training Quality Assurance Unit in PSETA dealt with accreditation of qualification and processed registration of the service providers. The Unit was regarded as being slow due to lack of capacity; regardless of the challenges of capacity the effectiveness of the unit was established in several areas.
Successes were employment of people with disability at OPSC, PALAMA used PSETA accredited programmes, and a cleaner in Gauteng started with ABET and advanced to be a clerk.

The Commission also looked at the structure of PSETA itself. The majority of respondents plus senior managers considered the board to be weak / dysfunctional / uncommitted.  No feedback was obtained from current board members due to unavailability despite requests made. The view of the Acting CEO was that the board was functional but poor participation could be attributed to disagreement regarding financial and operational matters. Other factors were PSETA’s helm was unsteady with seven Acting CEOs in four years; PSETA was not regarded as autonomous as board members were hardly available to provide strategic direction, and perceptions of interference by DPSA in PSETA’s management were regarded as the sources of tension between the board and DPSA and management and the board.

At the time of the study PSETA had 19 employees out of an ideal requirement of 50. The low number impacted negatively on the degree of execution of the tasks in Public Service employees’ skills development and progression.

The PSC recommendations were:
- PSETA should be an independent entity formally institutionalised to be a PFMA Schedule 3A and appropriate policies and procedures should be introduced in line with PFMA.
- As a follow up to that the board should include the private sector as a percentage of PSETA’s programame beneficiaries were employed in the private sector.
- The PSETA board should be the final decision maker with the CEO reporting to the board on all matters that would report to the Minister.
- The CEO’s position should be filled by an employee on the basis of a well-defined agreement, taking into account lessons learnt from appointment of CEO in 2005/06.
- A structured approach should be undertaken for all members of staff seconded from DPSA to consider and decide whether they would like to go back to DPSA or be incorporated in the new PSETA.
- Suitably qualified employees should be appointed to vacant posts within three months after PSETA became a PFMA Schedule 3 entity.
- Branding of PSETA should be considered through a consultative process once it had been transformed to be independent.
- PSETA should develop a standardised reporting framework that other SETAs should adopt; outsourcing of some of the key functions such as assessment of programmes, training of Skills Development Facilitators, and accreditation of providers should be considered; facilitation of employment of learners and precedent of Mpumalanga may be considered where HRD in Office of the Premier facilitated all processes; PSETA’s service delivery committee should be reconstituted once PSETA had been modified or transformed to be autonomous; and a function for management of stakeholders should be created as stakeholders were not managed by PSETA.

Discussion
Ms A Dreyer (DA) interjected with a query on unemployed people entering learnership, she asked how more people could have completed the learnership programme than had entered?

Ms Mashao clarified that workers enrolled for learnership meant that those people were already in employment when enrolling, unemployed people were maybe from High School or University, not employed.

Ms Dreyer said despite all the difficulties that PSETA was struggling under, it had performed remarkably well compared to other SETAs. The biggest problem was not so much delivery as governance – the board, the CEO and the relationship between the PSETA and the department seemed to be the main problem. She concurred with the Commission’s recommendations.
Why was PSETA placed under DPSA and not with all the other SETAs under Labour, although they were now under Higher Education?

Ms Mashao said the DPSA was the department well placed to do oversight, but with the Department of Higher Education the roles would be swapped.

Mr Mashwahle Diphofa, Director General of PSC, commented on PSETA, saying that one of the points coming out of the study was that even when PSETA was established there was a concern about the difference between PSETA as a cross cutting SETA and the line function SETAs. Departments were saying they already had the line function SETA. When paying the 1% levy, they already had a SETA, so where did the PSETA come in? What was the financial model for the PSETA, given that the departments already had something they related with? It was then agreed to have the financial arrangement with DPSA. Whether it was still relevant, it originated as an appropriate financial model.

Ms H van Schalkwyk (DA) asked what was the relationship between PSETA and PALAMA? PALAMA seemed to be more of a facilitator than a service provider, she thought PSETA was the service provider but according to the presentation PSETA was also a facilitator with certain service providers.

Ms Mashao said PALAMA looked specifically at public service training and PSETA at skills development. PALAMA was responsible for facilitating training but PSETA specifically worked on skills, ensuring that for skills that were critical, there were service providers and those service providers were accredited. Their roles were really very different.

Mr Diphofa added that the issue of PSETA and PALAMA was an issue for further discussion. Both organisations were going through some form of transformation. PALAMA was seen as a training institution, PSETA did not provide the training itself - it played a number of roles in facilitating learnerships but was not a service provider in terms of the training itself. As part of the transformation PALAMA was going through the question would have to be asked as to where the institution lay. In terms of programmes of accreditation that PALAMA used PSETA as well because PALAMA could not do the accreditation.

Ms van Schalkwyk also asked how they intended solving the problem of shortage of staff.

Ms Mashao said she was not able to deal with that.

Mr A Williams (ANC) found the report to be quite shocking. Fundamentally PSETA had been receiving 1% of the public service wage bill since 1996, which must be billions of Rands.
What NQS level of training was taking place? If it was only ABET training unemployed people to read and write then there was a problem. There must be billions of rands sitting in a PSETA account somewhere accumulating interest.
How could PSETA not be independent if the Skills Development Act specified the board should be made up of 50% employer and 50% of labour? Was labour not standing up or the employer not standing up? There was a problem there and labour was ignoring it.

Ms Mashao agreed it was 50% employer and 50% labour.

Mr Williams asked if the PSC felt that the current PSETA had the capacity to implement the Skills Development Act?

Ms Mashao replied that PSETA did not currently have capacity but the intention was there to execute what was expected of it. But obviously if there were not enough staff members, they would not be able to proceed with what PSETA was expected to do.

Mr Diphofa added that capacity had been strengthened in terms of numbers. When dealing with learnerships once the learners were placed, the challenge was not just to get them placed, what happened after that? Were they being used to do photocopying, were learners being placed where they were not getting the actual experience they needed? The learnership programme was in Public Financial Management but were they placed where they were used for other things? If the ability to manage learnerships and to establish what was happening in the learnerships, was not there, then one could not say that PSETA did not have the capacity required to perform all its strategic functions.

Ms J Maluleke (ANC) asked how the Commission determined the shortage of skills, PSETA used to check with municipalities where they were short of skills and trained people who would be used by the municipalities. AGRISETA trained people according to the projects that municipalities had.

Ms Mashao said that was a role that had to be played by a many people, for instance the department would know what type of skills were required, and once that was established the information was fed to the next role player so it was not determined by one institution.

Ms Mbikane said that confirmed that they did not have a monitoring mechanism. There was a system used within skills development to ensure that proper skills audit was done to ensure appropriate training in those departments. Was the Commission saying that those monies went out and there was not a way of assessing that they came back in the same manner, value for money was not there, and there was no evaluation in place?

Ms Mashao said the reason the role needed to be clarified because the department clarified the skills it needed and somebody had to do the training, and once that was done then at the end would say PSETA had accomplished what was needed. If the department did not say what it needed then nobody could conduct the training.

Mr A Williams (ANC) said PSETA had to come up with a Sector Skills Plan for a period of five years. The public service needed 750 000 NQS level entrants or whatever the position was, and then workplace skills plans. In their research did the Commission find a sector skills plan that was up to date and in line with what was needed? If there was no sector skills plan then the PSETA was not complying with the legislation and should be penalised.

Ms Mashao said the department was well capacitated to provide work skills plans for each year and was also able to provide PSETA annual training reports in that regard. The Sector Skills Plan was one of the issues raised by PSETA on their road shows. There was a need to conduct a research skills profile in the public service and give the report to the Minister and to the PSETA board and the Department of Labour. She was not sure whether that was done and suggested that question also be put to PSETA.

Mr Suka said surely the DG of a particular department should be able to say there was a skills shortage at a particular level. The next step was for PSETA to deal with that.

Mr Diphofa said the capacity to assess the skills needs and the actual process of determining what went into the workplace skills plan was inadequate. The process that generally happened instead was that the department said to individual employees in developing their performance agreements to indicate in their personal development plans what areas they wished to develop, and those personal development plans became the basis for the development of the workplace skills plan. In turn, the workplace skills plans became the basis for the development of the sector skills develop plan. There was a gap there. The process started on the basis of individuals saying in discussions with their supervisor that was where the gap was. How did one improve the quality of that process?

The point made in the report was about capacity to manage stakeholder relations. PSETA had to engage with the department it worked with, not only in terms of placements but also about the way in which skills needs were being determined. That was one of the areas that came out very strongly in the report. The department had to effectively implement the Skills Development Act by improving the way it determined the skills needs.

Ms Dreyer cautioned not to get into the technical issues of what the PSETA was doing or not doing. The Committee’s oversight was actually over DPSA, and that department’s relationship to the PSETA. It was very clear from the report from the PSC that there was an improper relationship between the PSETA and the department. It was very clear that the main obstacle to the PSETA was actually the department. The Committee should call in the department and grill them on what they had been doing to hamstring the PSETA.

The Chairperson reminded Ms Dreyer that it was not about that; the report would be utilised in doing oversight. She suggested closing the matter.

Dr Ralph Mgijima, Chairperson: Public Service Commission said that was a very critical question. It was noted that the DG said there was a lack of skills audit in all departments and in all sectors, including in the private sector. PSETA was in the business of quantifying the skills in order for them to reach their target. They had to be able to say what was needed and their plans going forward. The DG said the department was not doing its work and PSETA also was not diligent, the question was who was doing oversight on whom. If the answer was the Commission was doing oversight on PSETA then they would be able to pin them down on that, and those that had oversight on the department and the private sector should be able to concretise their skills audit.
 
Ms Maluleke added another recommendation, that PSETA must train people in the skills that were needed and not just numbers.

Ms F Mbikane (ANC) felt that the report was based on a particular approach to the research work done; she did not see it covering the actual implementation of the Skills Development Act. One of the greatest problems in the department was whether the skills audit issues were being conducted.
Were the programmes really relevant to the problems or challenges experienced in those particular departments in terms of capacity building? The skills audit did not reflect whether PSETA complied with the1%; they had to submit a skills workplace plan on an annual basis which was relevant to the number of people trained.
The presentation indicated that there was still a challenge to place those that had gone through learnerships within the department, which indicated that PSETA was not addressing the challenge of shortage of skills within the department and also the relevant number of people. The actual problems that PSETA experienced were not visible for the Committee to determine as to whether the report was good or not but did give the Committee an area of oversight to go into. In the direction the research took it did get results but did not answer to the relevance of what the Hon Member said in terms of relationship between PALAMA and the PSETA to avoid duplication.
There was a need to show each other a different approach on how to further interrogate the issue of the PSETA.

Mr L Suka (ANC) said things must be done differently. PSETA had a serious problem with regard to the organogram with only 19 staff out of a requirement of 50; and even those were seconded from DPSA. Despite the objectives being very clear, especially regarding skills, serious intervention was needed to stabilise that situation as soon as possible. There might be underspending in the execution of their responsibilities because they did not have capacity when it came to HR. The Commission’s recommendations were good, and the board of the PSETA should be the final decision maker and then the Minister. Strained relations were caused by frustration in terms of responsibilities.

Dr Mgijima said the board was ineffective. The report said that in order to have proper governance the board should exercise fiduciary duties and be able to take decisions to the Minister for finalisation. The board was not functioning, and not attending meetings.

Mr Suka said the research was conducted between 2004 and 2007/08 and it was currently 2010. He would have expected the research to be more up to date in order to influence the Committee in terms of the budget. On the graph of percentages there was a gap for 2009/10.

Ms Mashao said the PSC looked at the period 2005 to 2008 because that was the period it was performed.
 
Mr Suka stated certification was lowered. Had PSETA learnt from other countries when it came to literacy programmes, especially from Cuba and how it had turned the country around in a very short space of time? Cuba had fought what our country was confronted with today. The Commission’s statistics on the graph fluctuated too much.

Ms Mashao explained that it took time for people to go through the process, after completing the programme they were assessed according to their competencies and the certificate was issued long after that period, which was why the large numbers when some were from the previous year.

Ms N Gcume (COPE) was concerned that one service provider was contracted for all provinces; government had been criticised for a number of years and people were saying there was no service delivery because of the reports from departments saying all was well

Ms Mashao said PSETA would respond to that when they presented to the Committee.

The Chairperson asked whether the PSC was able to establish why there was only one service provider?

Ms Mashao replied that the programme was conducted during the previous period.

Mr Diphofa said it should be taken up with PSETA as well. If many service providers were appointed and as an organisation that did not have the capacity to manage service providers, the problem would continue because PSETA had to manage all those service providers. It could be easier to manage one service provider. It was an issue that may have to be taken up with PSETA.

The Chairperson said the Committee would like specific bridging, the information must be clear as to, for instance, where in the Eastern Cape were the people who had gone through learnerships. Who were they, where were they and what were they doing?

Ms Mashao said unfortunately the report concentrated on how PSETA performed on skills development and career programmes, the Commission was not able to come up with that information.

The Chairperson said the findings were not good, people in those areas did not even know about a SETA. The people who underwent the learnership programmes were the people who were there at the time. A lot of people outside could not access the SETAs; the Commission should have documents, fliers, and information disseminated to the rural people. She was satisfied with the findings but there must be solutions, and there must be action. PSETA was said to be doing nothing, strong evolution and a monitoring tool was needed.

Ms Mashao thought PSETA did well in publicising the information disseminated, but because of the nature of their work would be known by people who interacted with the department and public institutions.

The Chairperson went through the issues for follow up by the PSC.

Dr Mgijima responded that the crucial question was, did such a report lend itself to proper oversight by the Committee? In order to ensure that, all the aspects discussed in the strategic planning session were very relevant, including those of research and that the Committee could input on the research of the Commission.

Ms Mbikane pointed out that certain inputs on the research would have been made had there been closer input by the Committee. There was no doubt that the question of whether the targets were reached and whether the targets set by PSETA were relevant to the Act were questions that could be answered, but he had no doubt that a report of this nature did lend itself to oversight by the Committee. There were problems that pertained to the core functions of PSETA in terms of training and skills, and there were aspects that looked at governance and structural aspects. Looking at the recommendations being made in the report, they fitted very snugly into the oversight function of the committee where the department or entity committed itself to certain recommendations being made and those could be monitored over time.

In reply to a question on the “training of legislatures” Ms Mashao said that this referred to people employed in the legislatures. When the Chairperson asked what PSETA was training them on, Ms Mashao replied that they were not able to gather that information.

Ms Mbikane said something was not right. The report detailed the types of skills. How did they do that if they were not able to identify the type of skills?

Ms Mashao explained that when conducting the research, questions had been asked about what relationship they had had with PSETA. They had been provided with a workplace skills plan and given a report at the end of the year. Thereafter the learners had been asked about what programmes they had undergone and their progress.

Mr Diphofa added a very critical issue to follow up in terms of the Skills Development Act was when it came to determination of skills needs. The question was how to determine whether the skill were there or not. Departments did it in different ways. There were competency assessments. Currently in the public service it was only compulsory for senior managers that were newly appointed, which meant that senior managers who had already been appointed and were already in their positions did not undergo training. The conditions for newly appointed managers were that they should undergo training. The assessments identified strengths and weaknesses. Other departments used that approach even for people below senior manager level. The challenge was it was an expensive undertaking where service providers charged about R5000 per person. Another option used by departments was using qualifications as a proxy for the skills. Qualifications were not always an indication that the person possessed those skills. In other instances they used personal development plans. Here as part of personal development plans, a person told the supervisor what weaknesses he believed he had and what skills he would like to develop. Those personal development plans then became the basis for work skills plans.

There was a responsibility at the level of departments in ensuring that the workplace skills plans were meaningful. PSETA then went through those documents and submitted to the Department of Labour the criteria they were using for a good workplace skills plan. There was responsibility on both sides to ensure there were quality processes around the determination of the skills needs.

Ms Dreyer said the report read very clearly that the main stumbling block was the Department of Public Service itself. She asked whether PSC had brought the report to the attention of DPSA and, if so, what was the response of the department, especially to the recommendations PSC was putting to them with regard to PSETA. That would be an issue for the Committee to follow up. PSETA would not be able to function properly unless a proper governance structure was in place.

Mr Williams said the departments had their own SETAs, so who was PSETA’s primary customer? PSETA was only now considering doing a skills audit in the sector when they had existed for ten years. The need to have a PSETA should be seriously considered; was there a need when every department had their own SETA?

Ms Mbikane said, looking at the strategic plan, the Committee was asking whether PSETA was still an entity of DPSA. He suggested the Committee should take the route it had done with other entities where the board was dysfunctional. It should ensure that the board was reconstituted to improve the situation as nothing was being done in terms of oversight. In the strategic plan, there was a need for zero tolerance for non-compliance, especially with the DPSA entities. Was PSETA complying with the Skills Development Act? Something seemed to be slipping there especially in terms of the Department of Labour now looking into whether the money given them was working. The Committee had oversight of PALAMA and she maintained that PSC should direct research as to what would be ideal for the public service, and for PALAMA in particular, to exist or not, or for PSETA to exist or not.

Ms van Schalkwyk referred to Dr Mgijima’s remarks on the incompetence and dysfunctionality and non-existence of the board. She asked why the turnover of the executive of PSETA was so high, would it not help if a competent CEO could be found to get the board going?

Mr Suka said the curriculum was fundamental. If a person was qualified in skills with which they could not find employment, then one should reshape the curriculum to what one needed it to be. They were grappling for solutions in a piecemeal fashion in responding to the challenges of PSETA.

The Department was custodian of the policies and if they did not serve the outcomes for which they were intended, then the Committee should intervene without interfering in terms of interaction. The Committee needed to take those matters up.

In conclusion the Chairperson said it had became very clear that the issue of PSETA and the Skills Development Act was a matter that required further interrogation. Based on the findings, DPSA should ensure there were performance agreements and evaluations and they should start with heads of departments. The report from the PSC would empower the Committee in its oversight work of PSETA and PALAMA, how they worked, and issues of standards and compliance. The Committee would have to take on board the matter of the board and issues of non-compliance. A plan of action was needed.

Committee Report on the Budget Vote 11 Report
After the Committee Secretary took the Committee through the minor corrections that had been effected from the first draft, the Chairperson proposed the adoption of the report.

Ms Dreyer proposed that the report should not be adopted, the motivation being that on page 3 under item 2.3 ‘the single public service’ featured quite prominently, there was a budget and a co-ordination of design of the single public service and oversee implementation. There was currently no single public service and there was no bill before the Committee to implement a single public service, the programme had not even been started so she could not see how the department could start budgeting to implement a programme on which no decision had been made at all. That was not acceptable. How could they agree to a budget for the implementation of something that had not been agreed on yet?

Under accountability of the PSC and PALAMA, she focused on the PSC. The PSC previously had a separate budget and had now been brought under the department, the writer of the report pointed out very clearly why that was wrong and Ms Dreyer agreed with that paragraph about the problems of accountability. The PSC was an independent body established under the Constitution and reported to Parliament. Parliament approved the new members of the PSC and they reported ultimately to Parliament and not to the Director General or to the Minister of DPSA. She thought that was wrong, they should have a separate budget. She saw the PSC in a similar role to the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General was fully independent and maintained that independence also through a separate budget and was accountable only to Parliament. If the Auditor-General suddenly fell under the Minister of Finance that would be wrong, in the same way that the PSC falling under the Minister was wrong, they should have their separate budget and should not receive the budget from the department. Ms Dreyer supported the sentiments expressed in that paragraph but that was the reason why the Committee should not approve the budget.

The Chairperson said it was a pity that apologies were received from the Democratic Alliance for the workshop; those issues had been discussed there. On the issue of a single public service, the single public service was co-ordinated by design. No one said a single public service, it said co-ordination of design, and that co-ordination would have financial implications.

Mr Suka submitted that design went with feasibility study and research, consulting the various people involved, and funds would probably be used for that purpose.

Ms Mbikane said it was co-ordination and design of a programme for creating the single public service and overseeing its implementation.  She suggested rather than not approving the report, one should say co-ordinate the design of the programme towards developing a bill. It was just a matter of changing the wording.

Mr Suka understood to co-ordinate the design of the programme; programme was inclusive of any other matter, including the bill.

Ms Mbikane said Ms Dreyer was not at the meeting discussing the Budget and the incorporation of PALAMA and the PSC budget into the DPSA. It was one of the areas where the PSC itself supported the sentiment in terms of compromising their autonomy. They had agreed with what was said there as they were already part of Budget Vote 11.

Mr Williams referred to item 5.3 of the Committee recommendations about the PSC’s budget allocation for 2011/12 placed either separately or as part of Parliament’s budget vote. As this was already done, it would have to move forward and change it back again. In the workshop it had discussed the PSC and how vital it was, which was why he said it should be changed back again.

The Chairperson reminded Members that the budget vote by the Minister of Finance had already been passed by Parliament. The Committee was not happy about that arrangement. The Auditor-General concerns had come out very clearly as well. The Kader Asmal report on Chapter 9 institutions was currently before Parliament. PSC had the characteristics of a Chapter 9 institution and the Public Service Commission had been identified as one in that Report. It had repercussions for the Committee as well, as it had appointed the National Commissioner of the PSC.

Ms Dreyer submitted that Parliament had the power regarding the budget, but the Committee had the power to amend the budget.

The Chairperson said it was a matter of how best to move forward. The PSC’s independence was compromised.

Ms Mbikane still had a problem with the wording of co-ordinate the design of the programme for the single public service and suggested amending that.

Ms Maluleke proposed adopting the report with recommendations.

Moved by Mr Andrews, seconded by Ms Gcume, the report was adopted.

Committee Report on the Supply Chain Management Practices under the R200 000 threshold
The report compiled by the Committee on the PSC Evaluation of Supply Chain Management Practices under the R200 000 threshold was adopted.

The meeting was adjourned.