Questions to Ministers

04 November 2020 - NW2102

Lees, Mr RA to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises

What are the details of the (a) sources of the funds and (b) progress made to obtain the funding required for the implementation of the business rescue plan of the SA Airways (SAA) that was approved by the SAA creditors on 14 July 2020?

Source
Link

Reply:

a) Various sources of funding are being considered including the strategic equity partner, application for funding from Government through the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework process, approaching Development Financial Institutions and Commercial Banks.

b|) The process has reached an advanced stage, which we will be able to announce in due course. Due to the sensitive nature of these negotiations we are unable to pronounce at this stage.

04 November 2020 - NW1890

Mkhaliphi, Ms HO to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises

What are the reasons that (a) he has not taken any action against a certain company (name furnished) amidst the allegations of corruption and money laundering and (b) the contract of the specified company was extended by Transnet; (2) Whether he has found that a certain person (name and details furnished) received a donation of R300 000 from the specified company through a foundation?

Source
Link

Reply:

According to the information received from Transnet:

(1)(a) According to MNS the allegations of bribery and kickbacks as published in the City Press were malicious and defamatory. As a result, MNS lodged a complaint against City Press with the Press Council.

The Press Council rejected the City Press allegations of bribery and kickbacks and directed City Press to publish an apology to MNS and to Mr Ndlovu for:

1.1.1 Unjustifiably reflecting in its reportage, both in the headlines and in the text of the article, that MNS had been implicated in kickbacks, alleged acts of corruption and bribery; and

1.1.2Unnecessarily tarnishing their reputation.

(1)(b) MNS was appointed onto Transnet’s legal panel through a fair, just and equitable procurement process during 2017. The panel was appointed for a period of 3 years.

(2) The allegations of Dr Molefe receiving R300 000 from MNS have been peddled since June 2019 and despite the facts being put on the table on numerous occasions, the allegations are repeated by the EFF.

MNS received a request from the Popo Molefe Foundation Charitable Trust to make a sponsorship/donation to the Charitable Trust to provide bursaries to previously disadvantaged students who cannot afford the costs of tertiary education. MNS was not the only recipient of this request. A number of companies and individuals were approached with a similar request. A copy of the request letter is attached hereto as Annexure “A”.

The Charitable Trust organized a Golf Day and Gala Dinner on 31 May 2019 as part of its fund raising programme. All potential donors/sponsors could contribute to advance the educational aspirations of previously disadvantaged students. In this regard MNS contributed an amount of R350 000 to the Charitable Trust, which entitled MNS and other sponsors/donors to inter alia be recognized and listed on the various branding platforms that the Charitable Trust employed. This included amongst others, being publicly mentioned at the Gala Dinner and listed on Charitable Trust’s website for the contribution made to the Charitable Trust in the 2019 fund raising programme.

There was no direct or indirect benefit to either Dr Molefe or any of his family members arising from the funds donated to the Charitable Trust. The sole beneficiaries of the Charitable Trust are disadvantaged students benefitting from the Charitable Trust through bursaries to pay for their tertiary fees. Save for the donation referred to above, MNS has not, either directly or indirectly advanced any donation/loan/payment to Dr Molefe or any of his associated entities.

04 November 2020 - NW2134

Van Minnen, Ms BM to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises

(1)(a)What financial payments that were requested have been paid to Eskom since 1 January 2020, (b) On what exact dates were the payments made and (c) What amounts were paid; (2) What is the; (a) Total cost in each month of transporting diesel from Cape Town to the gas turbine power plants in the Republic over the past 12 months and (b) Cost per litre of diesel in each month for the past 12 months for the gas turbine power plants; (3) Whether the report of the Medupi Conveyor Belt accident has been completed; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (4) Whether he will furnish Mrs B M van Minnen with a copy of the report; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Source
Link

Reply:

According to the information received from Eskom

(1)(a)(b)(c) Since the question regarding financial payments is not specific, Eskom assumes it refers to payments received in line with the Government Appropriations.

Since January 2020, Eskom received the amounts set out in Table 1 below, as part of the Appropriations and Special Appropriations Act of 2019.

Table 1: Payments received by Eskom in line with Government Appropriations

Financial Year	(b) Date	(c) Amount paid, R'm
2020	03-Feb-20	4 000
2020	11-Feb-20	4 000
2020	28-Feb-20	5 000
2020	31-Mar-20	9 500
2021	29 May 20	1 000
2021	11 Aug 20	5 000
Total for the 2020 Calendar year	28 500

(2)(a) The cost of transport is included in the diesel price. Transport of diesel to Ankerlig and Port Rex is via truck, while transport is via pipeline for Gourikwa and Acacia.

(2)(b) The cost of diesel per litre in each month over the past 12 months for the gas turbine power plants is as set out in Table 2 below. Eskom received an average discount of 35c/l over this period.

Table 2 Cost of diesel per litre in each month for the gas turbine power plants

Month	Wholesale Price (R/l)	Average Discount	Nett Price (R/l)
04-09-19	14.05	0.35	13.70
02-10-19	14.30	0.35	13.95
06-11-19	14.14	0.35	13.79
04-12-19	13.99	0.35	13.64
01-01-20	14.08	0.35	13.73
05-02-20	14.03	0.35	13.68
03-03-20	13.49	0.35	13.14
01-04-20	12.09	0.35	11.74
06-05-20	10.48	0.35	10.13
03-06-20	10.70	0.35	10.35
01-07-20	12.43	0.35	12.08
05-08-20	12.88	0.35	12.53

(3) The report of the Medupi conveyor belt accident has been completed.

(4) The report is a product of an internal investigation that was commissioned in accordance with Eskom’s established integrated risk management processes. The report is therefore an internal report for consumption by the relevant Eskom senior executives and cannot be made public. However, Eskom endeavours to provide a summary of key findings from the report once internal governance processes are finalised.

04 November 2020 - NW2133

Van Minnen, Ms BM to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises

What; (a) Is the current municipal debt outstanding to Eskom by each municipality and (b) Attempts have been made to collect the outstanding specified municipal debt to Eskom? NW2696E

Source
Link

Reply:

According to the information received from Eskom

a) The total debt owed by municipalities as at 31 July 2020 is R46.1 billion, of which R31 billion is overdue debt. The details of the age analysis of the total debt owed by each municipality to Eskom, as at 31 July 2020 are set out in Annexure A.

b) Eskom has implemented several interventions to collect the outstanding debt owed as set out in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Interventions by Eskom to collect outstanding debt

Interventions by Eskom

Implemented concessions as agreed with SALGA

Eskom increased the payment days from 15 to 30 days for all non-metropolitan municipalities, reduced the interest rate on arrears, and applies payments to capital first before interest.

Eskom offers payment plans as a means to make the payment of the arrear debt more affordable over a period of time.

Interventions by Eskom

Focus on enhancing and enforcing current revenue management processes

This includes direct engagement with defaulting municipalities, issuing contract breach notices with the intention of encouraging a remedy of the breach, interruption of supply, and also litigating by issuing summons for payment.

Legal pursuance of debt owed also extends to the attachment of assets and bank accounts of certain municipalities.

Partnering with government

Eskom fully participates in intergovernmental structures such as the Eskom Political Task Team and the Multi-disciplinary Revenue Committee that is convened by the Office of the Deputy President.

Eskom offers its services and expertise in the form of active partnering with stakeholders to improve revenue collection within municipalities.

Eskom works closely with National Treasury, which provides municipal financial oversight, thereby ensuring municipal budgets are funded and payment obligations to Eskom are met.

ANNEXURE A - PQ2133
REPORTING MONTH : 2020/07/31
Name of Municipality	(a) Age	Total debt is made up of
	Current	16 - 30 days	31 - 60 days	61 - 90 days	90 days+	Total	(b)(i) Total Capital	Total VAT	(b)(ii) Total Interest
	*EASTERN CAPE*	1 045 309 406	2 530 451	82 838 040	54 125 462	1 094 964 881	2 279 768 239	1 795 121 602	268 812 797	215 833 839
1	ALFRED NZO DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY	-206 089	247 583	38 373	9 043	92 140	181 051	153 815	19 010	8 225
2	AMAHLATHI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	5 173 481	10 224	4 674 349	1 760 031	16 357 033	27 975 119	22 424 224	3 363 616	2 187 279
3	AMATHOLE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY	1 274 342	1 087 143	1 210 463	981 709	1 092 622	5 646 278	4 836 768	727 414	82 097
4	BLUE CRANE ROUTE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	14 094 374	0	0	0	0	14 094 374	12 255 977	1 838 397	0
5	BUFFALO CITY METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY	237 804 629	0	36 963	1	0	237 841 592	206 746 921	31 094 356	315
6	CHRIS HANI DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY	-723 145	101 341	4 198 860	221 205	432 114	4 230 375	3 786 403	389 371	54 601
7	DR BEYERS NAUDE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	12 712 692	69 099	8 824 386	7 206 803	85 385 606	114 198 585	87 592 369	13 119 997	13 486 219
8	ELUNDINI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	152 619	0	0	0	0	152 619	134 562	18 057	0
9	EMALAHLENI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	2 019 976	0	5 877	0	0	2 025 852	1 756 485	263 473	5 895
10	ENGCOBO LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	0	0	0	0	0	0	0,05	0,01	0
11	ENOCH MGIJIMA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	42 663 040	15 051	31 083 743	20 638 507	298 112 955	392 513 295	305 419 072	45 776 831	41 317 392
12	GREAT KEI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	1 562 521	0	484 587	10 368	3 802 232	5 859 708	4 665 931	699 858	493 919
13	INGQUZA HILL LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	250 676	34 647	257 909	0	0	543 232	469 595	70 439	3 198
14	INTSIKA YETHU LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	527 757	0	0	0	0	527 757	458 919	68 838	0
15	INXUBA YETHEMBA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	12 308 862	0	8 968 063	5 983 581	140 121 530	167 382 037	119 397 835	17 741 834	30 242 368
16	JOE GQABI DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY	11 361	134 482	109 492	1 496 472	0	1 751 808	1 500 303	225 045	26 459
17	KING SABATA DALINDYEBO LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	101 419 957	31 501	424 314	1 441 991	112 009 461	215 327 225	180 089 083	27 617 009	7 621 133
18	KOUGA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	31 699 079	0	798	0	0	31 699 876	27 563 600	4 134 540	1 737
19	KOU-KAMMA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	704 582	0	308 878	0	0	1 013 460	877 925	131 689	3 847
20	MAKANA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	17 097 721	0	0	0	36 749 083	53 846 804	45 909 235	6 829 881	1 107 688
21	MATATIELE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	6 988 990	0	0	0	0	6 988 990	6 077 383	911 607	0
22	MBASHE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	1 827	0	219	333	0	2 378	1 992	299	87
23	MBIZANA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	93 301	0	0	0	1	93 302	80 413	12 067	822

Name of Municipality	(a) Age	Total debt is made up of
	Current	16 - 30 days	Current	16 - 30 days	Current	16 - 30 days	(b)(i) Total Capital	Total VAT	(b)(ii) Total Interest
24	MHLONTLO LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	199 361	45 970	34 821	0	0	280 152	242 800	36 420	932
25	MNQUMA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
26	NDLAMBE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	7 573 353	0	0	0	0	7 573 353	6 518 988	1 054 365	0
27	NELSON MANDELA BAY METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY	513 455 879	527 935	0	0	0	513 983 814	446 942 072	67 041 372	370
28	NGQUSHWA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
29	NTHABANKULU LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	30 151	0	276	0	0	30 427	26 458	3 969	0
30	NYANDENI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY FBE	107 342	0	0	0	0	107 342	93 341	14 001	0
31	O R TAMBO DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY	-468 490	225 060	222 275	174 269	193 240	346 355	263 672	64 209	18 474
32	PORT ST JOHNS LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	303 262	0	0	0	0	303 262	263 706	39 556	0
33	RAYMOND MHLABA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	9 715 887	0	7 687 542	4 832 117	166 402 968	188 638 514	122 480 855	17 928 459	48 229 201
34	SAKHISIZWE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	1 995 628	12	0	0	0	1 995 640	1 720 822	258 121	16 698
35	SENQU LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	5 340 493	0	0	0	0	5 340 493	4 643 910	696 582	0
36	SUNDAYS RIVER VALLEY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	3 538 619	0	2 510 673	1 583 566	0	7 632 858	6 176 658	926 499	529 701
37	UMZIMVUBU LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	44 043	403	0	0	0	44 446	38 649	5 797	0
38	WALTER SISULU LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	15 841 324	0	11 755 177	7 785 466	234 213 897	269 595 865	173 510 863	25 689 820	70 395 182
	*FREE STATE*	558 515 003	247 880 311	275 222 401	206 877 352	11 474 620 510	12 763 115 577	8 663 638 405	1 258 736 678	2 840 740 494
39	CENTLEC MUNICIPALITY	3 430 414	0	0	0	0	3 430 414	2 971 169	445 675	13 570
40	DIHLABENG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	26 792 920	0	18 576 125	13 342 424	347 465 405	406 176 873	296 860 680	43 919 008	65 397 185
41	KOPANONG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	5 331 508	0	10 065	15 155	1 226 544	6 583 272	5 556 785	825 596	200 892
42	LETSEMENG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	4 981 926	0	4 272 604	2 347 114	46 973 170	58 574 813	45 544 488	6 840 068	6 190 257
43	MAFUBE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	13 032 629	0	12 416 681	15 357 066	98 532 534	139 338 910	101 708 119	14 920 993	22 709 798
44	MALUTI A PHOFUNG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	103 018 183	662 361	89 820 631	72 908 612	5 140 907 401	5 407 317 188	3 416 686 863	493 591 612	1 497 038 713
45	MANGAUNG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY	4 952 986	247 171 599	12 040 567	0	13 886 892	278 052 045	241 698 211	36 254 997	98 836
46	MANTSOPA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	8 029 084	0	14 084 839	7 374 869	192 387 328	221 876 119	144 565 922	21 065 830	56 244 367
47	MASILONYANA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	6 792 694	0	5 811 351	2 434 505	60 087 494	75 126 044	60 368 482	8 906 425	5 851 137
48	MATJHABENG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	178 222 967	7 893	49 033 516	44 390 457	3 129 712 117	3 401 366 950	2 277 416 556	329 785 275	794 165 118
49	METSIMAHOLO LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	44 243 387	0	0	0	13 500 000	57 743 387	49 953 693	7 493 054	296 640
Name of Municipality	(a) Age	Total debt is made up of
	Current	16 - 30 days	Current	16 - 30 days	Current	16 - 30 days	(b)(i) Total Capital	Total VAT	(b)(ii) Total Interest
50	MOHOKARE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	67 803	0	66 300	65 412	192 350	391 865	334 842	50 226	6 796
51	MOQHAKA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	40 234 333	0	15 742 628	0	298 357 452	354 334 414	274 732 913	40 968 278	38 633 222
52	NALA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	25 440 184	0	2 973 884	17 704 568	346 273 371	392 392 006	298 390 489	43 565 352	50 436 165
53	NGWATHE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	37 416 763	0	31 989 813	18 228 528	1 221 468 050	1 309 103 154	986 444 975	142 542 453	180 115 726
54	NKETOANA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	20 562 888	0	5 750 543	5 557 075	321 984 368	353 854 874	239 246 224	34 691 455	79 917 195
55	PHUMELELA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	8 037 971	26 578	2 314 024	2 213 297	124 528 836	137 120 705	99 794 356	14 859 853	22 466 496
56	SETSOTO LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	11 717 024	11 879	210 852	0	0	11 939 755	10 275 707	1 541 356	122 692
57	TOKOLOGO LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	5 006 543	0	4 049 180	2 839 483	93 121 829	105 017 035	78 046 722	11 542 190	15 428 123
58	TSWELOPELE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	11 202 797	0	6 058 799	2 098 788	24 015 370	43 375 754	33 041 210	4 926 979	5 407 565
	*GAUTENG*	6 262 789 360	707 633 991	259 734 441	182 966 557	2 405 224 960	9 818 349 309	7 967 389 189	1 194 170 609	656 789 511
59	CITY OF EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY	1 841 503 839	703 358 185	14 068 423	331 637	0	2 559 262 084	2 226 904 328	334 200 566	-1 842 810
60	CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY	1 670 743 142	85 603	3 778 616	0	2 275	1 674 609 637	1 456 122 030	218 418 546	69 062
61	CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY	1 508 561 807	724 170	384 906	0	0	1 509 670 884	1 312 835 323	196 828 012	7 548
62	EMFULENI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	626 500 695	3 386 573	158 757 750	110 805 767	1 833 220 909	2 732 671 694	1 968 807 647	294 487 852	469 376 196
63	LESEDI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	39 965 438	0	0	0	0	39 965 438	34 753 416	5 212 022	0
64	MERAFONG CITY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	106 995 000	79 460	30 161 686	26 536 973	363 916 132	527 689 250	382 220 081	57 162 147	88 307 021
65	MIDVAAL LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	43 316 862	0	0	0	0	43 316 862	37 666 837	5 650 026	0
66	MOGALE CITY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	226 714 381	0	168 198	0	0	226 882 579	170 075 997	25 511 623	31 294 960
67	RAND WEST CITY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	198 488 196	0	52 414 862	45 292 180	208 006 073	504 201 310	377 934 338	56 689 438	69 577 534
68	SEDIBENG DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY	0	0	0	0	79 570	79 570	69 192	10 379	0
	*KWAZULU NATAL*	2 640 303 110	5 626 740	38 055 628	32 493 098	482 404 486	3 198 883 061	2 686 612 419	403 032 475	109 238 166
69	ABAQULUSI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	52 536 257	12 584	0	0	17 281 243	69 830 084	56 131 678	8 421 628	5 276 778
70	ALFRED DUMA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	42 465 418	0	0	0	0	42 465 418	36 926 450	5 538 968	0
71	AMAJUBA DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY	365 343	0	243 797	16 239	41 156	666 535	577 233	86 800	2 502
72	BIG 5 HLABISA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	-2	0	0	0	0	-2	-2	0	0
73	CITY OF UMHLATHUZE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	135 633 196	1 230 235	153 317	148 200	0	137 164 948	119 267 789	17 893 124	4 036
74	DANNHAUSER LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Name of Municipality	(a) Age	Total debt is made up of
	Current	16 - 30 days	Current	16 - 30 days	Current	16 - 30 days	(b)(i) Total Capital	Total VAT	(b)(ii) Total Interest
75	DR NKOSAZANA DLAMINI ZUMA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	18 415	0	2 545	0	0	20 960	18 208	2 731	21
76	EDUMBE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	5 118 208	0	0	0	0	5 118 208	4 450 616	667 592	0
77	EMADLANGENI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	2 020 573	0	0	0	0	2 020 573	1 757 020	263 553	0
78	ENDUMENI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	18 996 139	0	0	0	0	18 996 139	16 519 983	2 476 156	0
79	ETHEKWINI METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY	1 512 335 557	0	5 185	0	0	1 512 340 742	1 315 078 890	197 261 841	11
80	GREATER KOKSTAD LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	-1 633	0	0	0	0	-1 633	-1 633	0	0
81	HARRY GWALA DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY	-584 999	161 024	0	0	0	-423 975	-427 098	1 947	1 175
82	ILEMBE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY	819 821	780 852	1 013	0	0	1 601 686	1 392 771	208 916	0
83	IMPENDLE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
84	INKOSI LANGALIBALELE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	51 163 261	0	0	0	25 207 105	76 370 366	59 246 542	8 886 539	8 237 286
85	JOZINI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	32 710	0	0	0	0	32 710	28 443	4 266	0
86	KING CETSHWAYO DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY	156 948	166 379	0	0	0	323 328	279 853	43 474	0
87	KWADUKUZA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	104 639 975	0	0	0	0	104 639 975	90 991 283	13 648 692	0
88	MANDENI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
89	MAPHUMULO LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	1 839	0	0	0	0	1 839	1 599	240	0
90	MKHAMBATHINI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
91	MPOFANA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	7 921 418	0	5 957 353	3 952 182	168 480 033	186 310 986	137 797 506	20 384 739	28 128 740
92	MSINGA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	-3 304	0	0	0	0	-3 304	-2 782	-522	0
93	MSUNDUZI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	480 468 091	0	45 104	24 039	1 592 529	482 129 763	415 304 937	62 535 103	4 289 724
94	MTHONJANENI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	2 547 629	0	0	0	3 571 696	6 119 325	5 203 446	781 578	134 301
95	MTUBATUBA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	11 550	9 548	0	0	0	21 098	17 917	2 688	493
96	NDWEDWE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
97	NEWCASTLE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	125 363 929	0	30 242 547	21 597 294	166 566 605	343 770 375	262 288 394	39 461 437	42 020 544
98	NKANDLA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	4 021 175	0	0	0	0	4 021 175	3 484 208	522 631	14 336
99	NONGOMA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	25 992	0	26 194	0	0	52 186	45 379	6 807	0
100	NQUTHU LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	3 574 987	0	0	0	0	3 574 987	3 108 684	466 303	0
101	OKHAHLAMBA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	1 455	0	0	0	0	1 455	1 265	190	0

Name of Municipality	(a) Age	Total debt is made up of
	Current	Current	Current	Current	Current	Current	(b)(i) Total Capital	Total VAT	(b)(ii) Total Interest
102	RAY NKONYENI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	14 348 518	0	0	0	0	14 348 518	12 476 972	1 871 546	0
103	RICHMOND LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
104	UBUHLEBEZWE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	35 627	42 770	33 220	0	0	111 617	96 508	14 569	540
105	UGU DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY	305 961	1 673 529	0	0	0	1 979 491	1 721 959	257 037	494
106	ULUNDI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	22 836 934	0	8 111	6 586 606	99 612 854	129 044 505	93 943 656	13 991 774	21 109 076
107	UMDONI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	-57 247	70 103	0	0	0	12 856	10 655	2 201	0
108	UMFOLOZI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	99 443	19 360	0	0	0	118 803	103 307	15 496	0
109	UMGUNGUNDLOVU DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY	8 567	0	0	0	0	8 567	7 449	1 117	0
110	UMHLABUYALINGANA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	-1 000	0	0	0	0	-1 000	-870	-130	0
111	UMKHANYAKUDE DISTRICT MUNIC	3 832 673	0	79 841	0	0	3 912 513	3 409 374	502 361	779
112	UMLALAZI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	7 920 573	0	0	0	0	7 920 573	6 887 455	1 033 118	0
113	UMNGENI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	20 381 396	0	0	0	0	20 381 396	17 722 952	2 658 443	0
114	UMSHWATHI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	-2	0	0	0	0	-2	-2	0	0
115	UMUZIWABANTU LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
116	UMVOTI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	10 353 066	0	0	0	0	10 353 066	9 002 666	1 350 400	0
117	UMZIMKULU LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
118	UMZINYATHI DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY	897 411	221 356	710 537	148 451	51 264	2 029 019	1 758 677	267 133	3 209
119	UMZUMBE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	171 762	0	0	0	0	171 762	148 285	22 243	1 234
120	UPHONGOLA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	3 736 084	0	0	0	0	3 736 084	3 248 768	487 315	0
121	UTHUKELA DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY	4 311 747	199 515	181 736	16 056	0	4 709 054	4 094 838	614 217	0
122	ZULULAND DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY	1 471 651	1 039 484	365 126	4 032	0	2 880 292	2 491 189	376 216	12 887
	*LIMPOPO*	365 644 212	83 934	36 521 267	19 461 882	799 096 597	1 220 807 892	917 389 531	136 409 206	167 009 155
123	BA-PHALABORWA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	10 296 929	0	0	0	0	10 296 929	8 953 852	1 343 078	0
124	BELA-BELA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	12 529 223	0	16 264 129	6 505 124	534 614	35 833 091	22 204 295	3 349 128	10 279 668
125	BLOUBERG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	5 796 357	0	68 663	0	0	5 865 021	5 100 018	765 003	0
126	CAPRICORN DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY	231 179	0	108 572	0	0	339 751	293 593	44 456	1 701
127	COLLINS CHABANE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	442 394	0	0	0	0	442 394	344 466	97 928	0
128	ELIAS MOTSOALEDI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	10 791 749	0	0	0	0	10 791 749	9 366 960	1 405 044	19 744

Name of Municipality	(a) Age	Total debt is made up of
	Current	Current	Current	Current	Current	Current	(b)(i) Total Capital	Total VAT	(b)(ii) Total Interest
129	EPHRAIM MOGALE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	5 984 035	0	0	0	0	5 984 035	5 203 508	780 526	0
130	FETAKGOMO - GREATER TUBATSE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	695 238	0	0	0	0	695 238	604 571	90 668	0
131	GREATER GIYANI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	94 137	0	0	0	0	94 137	81 859	12 279	0
132	GREATER LETABA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	2 276 535	0	0	0	0	2 276 535	1 979 595	296 939	0
133	GREATER TZANEEN LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	62 478 617	0	0	0	0	62 478 617	54 097 570	8 114 634	266 412
134	LEPELLE NKUMPI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	333 195	0	0	0	0	333 195	289 735	43 460	0
135	LEPHALALE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	12 968 872	0	83 097	0	0	13 051 969	11 340 038	1 702 157	9 774
136	MAKHADO LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	40 837 585	0	0	0	0	40 837 585	35 510 944	5 326 642	0
137	MAKHUDUTHAMAGA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	36 690	0	0	0	0	36 690	31 904	4 786	0
138	MARULENG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	27 376	0	0	0	0	27 376	23 805	3 571	0
139	MODIMOLLE-MOOKGOPHONG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	24 901 644	0	19 975 470	12 956 758	541 353 824	599 187 696	430 035 176	63 881 053	105 271 466
140	MOGALAKWENA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	28 617 694	68 719	21 335	0	0	28 707 749	24 643 089	3 696 463	368 196
141	MOLEMOLE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	369 567	0	0	0	0	369 567	321 362	48 204	0
142	MOPANI DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY	2 782 672	0	0	0	0	2 782 672	2 342 185	440 487	0
143	MUSINA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	14 281 246	0	0	0	62 547 185	76 828 431	52 507 211	7 863 053	16 458 168
145	POLOKWANE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	110 045 238	0	0	0	0	110 045 238	95 690 601	14 354 637	0
146	SEKHUKHUNE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY	2 727 234	0	0	0	0	2 727 234	2 424 021	303 213	0
147	THABAZIMBI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	9 035 505	0	0	0	194 660 974	203 696 479	147 869 991	21 522 136	34 304 352
148	THULAMELA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	941 719	0	0	0	0	941 719	818 886	122 833	0
149	VHEMBE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY	6 121 581	15 215	1	0	0	6 136 796	5 310 296	796 827	29 673
	*MPUMALANGA*	907 660 119	7 516 615	437 595 269	295 614 172	8 067 142 378	9 715 528 552	6 871 695 575	1 013 313 981	1 830 518 996
150	BUSHBUCKRIDGE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	8 592 270	9 556	41 218	47 295	2 795 848	11 486 187	9 591 898	1 438 956	455 332
151	CHIEF ALBERT LUTHULI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	11 152 692	0	12 654 701	44 644	3 064 943	26 916 980	18 370 903	2 755 567	5 790 510
152	CITY OF MBOMBELA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	233 332 697	7 506 989	59 540 611	50 613 658	119 353 057	470 347 013	347 286 841	52 077 008	70 983 163
153	DIPALESENG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	10 767 510	0	3 135 474	28 792	40 966 490	54 898 267	36 562 627	5 480 622	12 855 018
154	DR J S MOROKA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	45 430	0	46 800	0	0	92 230	149 401	-58 126	955
155	DR PIXLEY KA ISAKA SEME LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	11 194 699	0	0	0	0	11 194 699	9 734 521	1 460 178	0
Name of Municipality	(a) Age	Total debt is made up of
	Current	Current	Current	Current	Current	Current	(b)(i) Total Capital	Total VAT	(b)(ii) Total Interest
156	EMAKHAZENI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	9 110 334	0	7 624 258	4 727 831	14 106 323	35 568 745	19 644 348	2 945 752	12 978 645
157	EMALAHLENI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	202 206 778	0	184 122 466	105 468 608	3 765 940 297	4 257 738 149	2 980 551 539	438 233 357	838 953 253
158	GOVAN MBEKI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	118 537 253	70	75 977 923	56 430 543	1 845 400 427	2 096 346 216	1 491 685 244	220 881 471	383 779 501
159	LEKWA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	51 751 210	0	35 985 637	27 920 218	1 061 620 169	1 177 277 234	771 943 754	113 585 356	291 748 124
160	MKHONDO LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	23 505 497	0	19 843 787	10 989 345	140 688 284	195 026 912	143 033 710	21 658 341	30 334 861
161	MSUKALIGWA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	40 017 013	0	25 819 186	16 502 497	98 578 799	180 917 495	129 653 393	19 441 736	31 822 366
162	NKANGALA DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY	38 741	0	0	0	0	38 741	33 549	5 032	159
163	NKOMAZI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	18 159 927	0	19 840	0	0	18 179 768	15 801 662	2 370 249	7 857
164	STEVE TSHWETE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	79 812 695	0	38 668	0	10 023	79 861 386	69 443 904	10 416 429	1 053
165	THABA CHWEU LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	53 638 796	0	9 123 742	8 066 497	731 152 976	801 982 010	607 390 361	87 677 266	106 914 383
166	THEMBISILE HANI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	273 419	0	0	0	0	273 419	237 756	35 663	0
167	VICTOR KHANYE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	35 523 158	0	3 620 958	14 774 245	243 464 742	297 383 103	220 580 164	32 909 122	43 893 817
	*NORTH WEST*	841 754 173	2 233 012	257 373 301	114 059 427	1 616 955 797	2 832 375 711	2 045 584 616	303 446 819	483 344 276
168	CITY OF MATLOSANA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	245 873 306	686 256	57 731 377	49 476 792	295 308 522	649 076 254	498 853 779	74 629 652	75 592 823
169	DITSOBOTLA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	19 888 630	9 034	15 811 342	10 967 219	580 419 857	627 096 083	403 251 980	58 948 453	164 895 650
170	DR RUTH SEGOMOTSI MOMPATI DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY	76 928	0	43 745	0	0	120 673	104 973	15 700	0
171	GREATER TAUNG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	1 736 478	0	0	0	0	1 736 478	1 510 345	226 133	0
172	JB MARKS LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	127 779 494	0	22 790 470	0	0	150 569 964	130 832 609	19 624 891	112 464
173	KAGISANO-MOLOPO LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	338 156	0	218 868	0	0	557 024	484 492	72 532	0
174	KGETLENGRIVIER LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	8 221 795	22 347	3 127 140	2 967 531	128 124 786	142 463 600	102 472 991	15 057 349	24 933 259
175	LEKWA-TEEMANE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	16 374 286	11 979	5 295 415	4 105 005	28 438 977	54 225 662	45 013 631	6 752 309	2 459 722
176	MADIBENG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	61 889 822	112 129	46 638 872	27 191 585	49 111 665	184 944 072	146 411 142	21 880 992	16 651 938
177	MAHIKENG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	434 909	46 888	82 618	99 498	4 887 425	5 551 338	4 299 862	616 684	634 793
179	MAMUSA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	5 765 300	230 076	4 542 741	2 651 415	84 228 354	97 417 888	64 355 570	9 487 426	23 574 891
180	MAQUASSI HILLS LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	17 729 506	1 037 353	4 969 338	5 017 932	10 719 534	39 473 662	29 198 825	4 354 983	5 919 854
181	MORETELE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	822 572	0	0	0	0	822 572	705 339	105 799	11 434
182	MOSES KOTANE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	548 174	0	0	0	0	548 174	476 087	72 087	0
183	NALEDI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	28 783 257	0	7 755 111	7 018 725	325 325 325	368 882 419	248 644 382	36 372 825	83 865 212
Name of Municipality	(a) Age	Total debt is made up of
	Current	Current	Current	Current	Current	Current	(b)(i) Total Capital	(b)(i) Total Capital	(b)(i) Total Capital
184	NGAKA MODIRI MOLEMA DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY	-295 536	0	0	0	0	-295 536	-215 388	-80 148	0
185	RAMOTSHERE MOILOA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	9 014 105	76 950	6 463 760	4 232 882	45 036 315	64 824 013	49 482 277	7 418 730	7 923 006
186	RATLOU LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	946 515	0	0	0	0	946 515	823 499	123 015	0
187	RUSTENBURG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	281 951 757	0	81 890 831	318 076	470 551	364 631 215	270 476 067	40 580 472	53 574 676
	*NORTHERN CAPE*	344 185 847	491 368	72 340 140	33 725 145	1 657 186 468	2 107 928 968	1 459 764 851	215 637 494	432 526 623
188	!KHEIS LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	48 605	69 735	0	0	0	118 339	101 008	15 151	2 181
189	DAWID KRUIPER LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	28 287 216	0	0	0	0	28 287 216	23 958 504	3 593 776	734 936
190	DIKGATLONG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	4 921 723	0	11 199 072	2 405 857	114 259 861	132 786 514	89 544 028	13 103 909	30 138 577
191	EMTHANJENI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	11 133 067	0	8 300 662	4 886 344	71 524 133	95 844 205	70 079 616	10 497 178	15 267 411
192	GAMAGARA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	40 057 404	0	10 154 304	10 199	229 882 298	280 104 206	204 883 347	30 542 311	44 678 547
193	GA-SEGONYANA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	16 881 579	0	0	0	0	16 881 579	11 686 218	1 752 933	3 442 428
194	HANTAM LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	2 883 373	0	0	0	0	2 883 373	2 507 281	376 092	0
195	JOE MOROLONG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	1 412 277	0	707 836	0	0	2 120 114	1 740 990	261 101	118 023
196	KAI !GARIB LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	9 161 264	0	6 550 145	4 832 837	318 372 016	338 916 262	233 828 207	34 086 755	71 001 300
197	KAMIESBERG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	823 637	353 168	1 213 979	997 020	19 450 858	22 838 661	17 337 681	2 589 369	2 911 612
198	KAREEBERG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	-270	0	0	0	0	-270	-512	242	0
199	KAROO HOOGLAND LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	30 511	0	0	0	0	30 511	26 531	3 980	0
200	KGATELOPELE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	3 289 068	0	0	0	0	3 289 068	2 211 400	331 710	745 958
201	KHAI-MA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	1 231 326	64 307	906 888	633 133	17 567 862	20 403 516	13 323 309	1 977 493	5 102 715
202	MAGARENG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	2 931 296	0	2 357 735	1 645 332	58 243 830	65 178 194	42 469 756	6 244 447	16 463 991
203	NAMA KHOI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	10 417 488	0	8 818 618	6 424 048	110 568 882	136 229 036	90 015 279	13 537 080	32 676 677
204	PHOKWANE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	19 782 404	0	5 952 228	5 309 723	116 395 538	147 439 893	105 562 316	15 735 134	26 142 443
205	RENOSTERBERG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	1 477 358	0	1 185 868	989 069	88 517 636	92 169 930	55 603 383	8 014 615	28 551 933
206	RICHTERSVELD LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	1 962 553	4 158	1 434 466	1 146 780	8 269 265	12 817 222	9 932 841	1 489 888	1 394 493
207	SIYANCUMA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	12 218 530	0	3 488 128	0	150 826 726	166 533 384	104 722 521	15 334 349	46 476 514
208	SIYATHEMBA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	3 388 979	0	2 709 253	1 774 437	63 576 385	71 449 053	50 090 782	7 391 879	13 966 392
209	SOL PLAATJE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	145 089 302	0	9 043	7 744	0	145 106 089	120 503 185	18 075 478	6 527 427
210	THEMBELIHLE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	1 990 003	0	1 654 177	1 227 199	77 900 543	82 771 921	49 523 127	7 197 184	26 051 609

Name of Municipality	(a) Age	Total debt is made up of
	Current	Current	Current	Current	Current	Current	(b)(i) Total Capital	(b)(i) Total Capital	(b)(i) Total Capital
211	TSANTSABANE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	13 003 441	0	3 368 820	60 023	147 252 789	163 685 073	106 538 739	15 626 285	41 520 049
212	UBUNTU LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	2 621 811	0	2 131 961	1 375 400	64 577 847	70 707 019	45 485 525	6 645 686	18 575 807
213	UMSOBOMVU LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	9 141 904	0	196 956	0	0	9 338 860	8 089 790	1 213 469	35 601
	*WESTERN CAPE*	2 128 610 643	468 097	13 559 252	8 907 022	4 955 170	2 156 500 183	1 871 098 781	280 628 568	4 772 834
214	BEAUFORT WEST LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	16 618 073	2	1 350 357	0	0	17 968 433	15 290 788	2 293 692	383 953
215	BERGRIVIER LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	13 025 659	0	0	0	0	13 025 659	11 326 660	1 698 999	0
216	BITOU LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	14 779 187	367	0	0	0	14 779 554	12 851 778	1 927 776	0
217	BREEDE VALLEY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	46 785 107	0	0	0	0	46 785 107	40 682 700	6 102 407	0
218	CAPE AGULHAS LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	12 318 050	0	0	0	0	12 318 050	10 711 347	1 606 702	0
219	CEDERBERG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	11 422 826	129 097	9 243 198	6 468 139	3 421 849	30 685 109	25 517 245	3 827 587	1 340 277
220	CITY OF CAPE TOWN METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY	1 344 766 378	203 828	52 964	13 250	89 301	1 345 125 721	1 169 720 089	175 397 831	7 801
221	DRAKENSTEIN LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	209 005 120	0	0	0	0	209 005 120	181 253 161	27 210 855	541 104
222	EDEN DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY	66 031	0	0	0	0	66 031	57 192	8 579	260
223	GEORGE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	71 141 484	0	0	0	0	71 141 484	61 862 160	9 279 324	0
224	HESSEQUA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	4 483 848	0	0	0	0	4 483 848	3 898 092	585 757	0
225	KANNALAND LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	4 738 693	0	2 901 594	2 425 633	1 444 020	11 509 940	8 530 103	1 279 516	1 700 321
226	KNYSNA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	27 494 603	15	1 431	0	0	27 496 048	23 908 113	3 586 217	1 718
227	LAINGSBURG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	469 439	0	0	0	0	469 439	407 232	60 963	1 244
228	LANGEBERG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	42 248 052	0	0	0	0	42 248 052	36 737 436	5 510 615	0
229	MATZIKAMA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	14 285 691	0	0	0	0	14 285 691	11 833 676	1 775 051	676 964
230	MOSSEL BAY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	50 700 673	0	0	0	0	50 700 673	43 985 167	6 597 775	117 731
231	OUDTSHOORN LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	23 009 623	0	0	0	0	23 009 623	20 008 367	3 001 255	0
232	OVERSTRAND LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	40 485 198	0	0	0	0	40 485 198	35 204 520	5 280 678	0
233	PRINS ALBERT LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	1 646 075	0	52	0	0	1 646 126	1 431 369	214 705	52
234	SALDANHA BAY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	40 339 866	96 939	0	0	0	40 436 804	35 161 624	5 274 246	935
235	STELLENBOSCH LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	52 626 589	37 845	9 337	0	0	52 673 770	45 803 178	6 870 478	115
236	SWARTLAND LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	33 945 087	0	320	0	0	33 945 407	29 517 468	4 427 614	325
237	SWELLENDAM LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	9 975 014	0	0	0	0	9 975 014	8 673 880	1 301 134	0
Name of Municipality	(a) Age	Total debt is made up of
	Current	Current	Current	Current	Current	Current	(b)(i) Total Capital	(b)(i) Total Capital	(b)(i) Total Capital
238	THEEWATERSKLOOF LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	9 787 132	0	0	0	0	9 787 132	8 510 552	1 276 579	0
239	WEST COAST DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY	1 194 027	0	0	0	0	1 194 027	1 038 255	155 738	34
240	WITZENBERG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	31 253 122	3	0	0	0	31 253 124	27 176 630	4 076 494	0

04 November 2020 - NW1985

Van Minnen, Ms BM to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises

What (a) total amount did Eskom pay for coal that was above the annual average price for coal purchases in each year since 2007, (b) is the name of each company that the coal was purchased from and (c) were the coal volumes purchased from each specified company?

Source
Link

Reply:

According to the information received from Eskom

(a)(b) and (c)

The request to disclose the prices and names of associated suppliers is commercially sensitive. The utility is currently progressing coal supply negotiations with existing and potentially new coal suppliers. By disclosing the requested information to parliament and to the public, suppliers could potentially use this information to erode Eskom’s bargaining power.

04 November 2020 - NW1986

Van Minnen, Ms BM to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises

What (a) Total volume of coal that Eskom purchased at (i) Above average and (ii) Acceptable pricing since 2007 was found to be unsuitable and was therefore unused for power generation and (b) Is the name of each company that the unsuitable coal was purchased from in each year?

Source
Link

Reply:

According to the information received from Eskom

(a)(i) and (ii) All coal at Eskom’s coal stockyards will be used for power generation.

The request to disclose the prices and names of associated suppliers is commercially sensitive. The utility is currently progressing coal supply negotiations with existing and potentially new coal suppliers. By disclosing the requested information to parliament and to the public, suppliers could potentially use this information to erode Eskom’s bargaining power.

(b) Not applicable.

04 November 2020 - NW2195

Phillips, Ms C to ask the Minister of Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation

(1)With regard to the Seraleng Housing Project situated along the Z543 Meriting, Rustenburg, GPS co-ordinates -25.592018, 27.254960, what is the (a) name of the company to whom her department awarded the tender to build the houses, (b) total number of houses that were planned for the specified project and (c) total amount of the tender that was awarded; (2) on what date did the (a) building of the houses commence and (b) project grind to a halt?

Source
Link

Reply:

(1)(a) The tender for the Seraleng Housing Project was not awarded by my Department but by the North West Provincial Department of Human Settlements. With regards to the request for name of a contractor involved in the housing project referred to in this question, I am constrained and prohibited by the document titled “Guide to Parliamentary Questions in the National Assembly” from providing the Honourable Member with the name of the contractor. The document referred to states that:

“Questions are to be framed as concisely as possible. All unnecessary adjectives, references and quotations are omitted. Names of persons, bodies and, for example, newspapers are only used in questions if the facts surrounding the case have been proven. As the mere mention of such names could be construed as publicity for or against them, it should be clear that this practice is highly undesirable. If a question will be unintelligible without mentioning such names, the Departments concerned are notified of the name (-s) and this phrase is used: ".......a certain person (name furnished)”

(b) I am informed that the total number of houses to be built was 557.

(c) The total amount of the tender was R89 146 104.11

(2)(a) I am further advised that the building of houses commenced in October 2015 and

(b) the project was halted in 2018.

04 November 2020 - NW2132

Van Minnen, Ms BM to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises

What is the (a) Daily electrical megawatt savings achieved through load shedding (i) In each province and (ii) In each metro over the past 60 days of load shedding and (b) Total amount of accumulated man-hours which have been load shed (i) In each province and (ii) In each metro over the past 60 days? NW2695E

Source
Link

Reply:

According to the information received from Eskom

(a)(i) The estimated daily megawatts load shed in each Eskom operating unit (OU) is as set out in Annexure A.

Most of Eskom OUs are aligned to the provincial boundaries with the following exceptions:

Gauteng OU also includes most North West province
Limpopo OU includes the Rustenburg region of the North West province
Western Cape OU includes the Kalahari region of the Northern Cape province
Free State OU includes the Kimberley region of the Northern Cape province

(a)(ii) Daily megawatts load shed in each metro is to be sought from the metros.

(b) Eskom does not have a measurement of man-hours which have been load shed. On the assumption that the intention was to request information on the megawatt- hours (MWh) that have been load shed.

(b)(i) The estimated daily megawatt-hours load shed in each province is as set out in Annexure B.

(b)(ii) The estimated daily megawatt-hours load shed is to be sought from the metros.

Annexure A

Estimated megawatts load shed per Eskom Operating UnitPeriod: 1 July to 3 September 2020

	10-Jul-20
	*08:00-10:00*	*10:00-12:00*	*12:00-14:00*	*14:00-16:00*	*16:00-18:00*	*18:00-20:00*	*20:00-22:00*	*22:00-00:00*
Western Cape	N/A	N/A	203	133	198	210	138	0
Gauteng	N/A	N/A	378	316	255	287	402	0
KwaZulu Natal	N/A	N/A	134	126	125	208	140	0
Free State	N/A	N/A	180	118	38	93	241	0
Limpopo	N/A	161	162	172	121	176	148	0
Eastern Cape	N/A	70	65	60	68	78	74	0
Mpumalanga	N/A	182	196	143	178	173	196	0
Total	N/A	412.29	1317	1069	982	1225	1338	0

	11-Jul-20
	*08:00-10:00*	*10:00-12:00*	*12:00-14:00*	*14:00-16:00*	*16:00-18:00*	*18:00-20:00*	*20:00-22:00*	*22:00 - 00:00*
Western Cape	152	110	210	109	206	138	188	N/A
Gauteng	314	339	429	343	354	346	488	N/A
KwaZulu Natal	127	116	168	103	123	153	147	N/A
Free State	122	210	86	175	68	149	191	N/A
Limpopo	N/A	164	153	129	162	168	158	95
Eastern Cape	N/A	59	67	53	40	56	57	60
Mpumalanga	N/A	158	156	181	207	154	182	196
Total	715	1156	1268	1093	1160	1163	1411	350

	12-Jul-20
	*08:00-10:00*	*10:00-12:00*	*12:00-14:00*	*14:00-16:00*	*16:00-18:00*	*18:00 - 20:00*	*20:00-22:00*	*22:00-00:00*
Western Cape	102	185	239	344	109	122	249	N/A
Gauteng	298	337	396	298	376	405	293	N/A
KwaZulu Natal	215	138	176	147	218	138	100	N/A
Free State	63	160	101	154	89	238	52	N/A
Limpopo	98	114	159	151	131	169	130	63
Eastern Cape	56	72	74	64	37	55	67	30
Mpumalanga	N/A	182	147	181	189	158	156	181
Total	832	1187	1291	1339	1149	1284	1047	274

	13-Jul-20
	*08:00-10:00*	*10:00-12:00*	*12:00-14:00*	*14:00-16:00*	*16:00-18:00*	*18:00-20:00*	*20:00-22:00*	*22:00-00:00*
Western Cape	131	118	162	134	90	110	175	N/A
Gauteng	274	347	349	353	350	332	324	327
KwaZulu Natal	120	113	108	129	86	145	128	N/A
Free State	88	236	142	75	161	152	180	N/A

	13-Jul-20
	*08:00-10:00*	*10:00-12:00*	*12:00-14:00*	*14:00-16:00*	*16:00-18:00*	*18:00-20:00*	*20:00-22:00*	*22:00-00:00*
Limpopo	N/A	164	148	152	120	159	117	140
Eastern Cape	N/A	84	88	60	49	78	84	37
Mpumalanga	N/A	173	196	126	182	147	181	189
Total	613	1235	1191	1028	1039	1122	1189	694

	14-Jul-20
	08:00-10:00	10:00-12:00	12:00-14:00	14:00-16:00	16:00-18:00	18:00-20:00	20:00-22:00	22:00-00:00
Western Cape	130	185	123	203	208	177	172	N/A
Gauteng	375	441	571	490	314	387	285	216
KwaZulu Natal	107	128	112	121	144	142	165	N/A
Free State	151	205	140	56	100	260	147	N/A
Limpopo	N/A	158	162	161	121	176	148	152
Eastern Cape	N/A	70	82	64	74	98	97	50
Mpumalanga	N/A	182	196	143	178	173	196	126
Total	763	1368	1386	1237	1138	1413	1210	543

	15-Jul-20
	*08:00-10:00*	*10:00-12:00*	*12:00-14:00*	*14:00-16:00*	*16:00-18:00*	*18:00-20:00*	*20:00-22:00*	*22:00-00:00*
Western Cape	37	96	78	226	132	215	115	N/A
Gauteng	421	495	312	208	309	395	306	336
KwaZulu Natal	41	66	54	134	158	206	152	N/A
Free State	117	36	40	50	161	225	120	N/A
Limpopo	N/A	78	63	161	166	158	162	172
Eastern Cape	N/A	38	19	45	65	80	89	56
Mpumalanga	N/A	162	187	213	154	182	196	143
Total	617	971	753	1037	1145	1460	1141	708

	16-Jul-20
	*08:00-10:00*	*10:00-12:00*	*12:00-14:00*	*14:00-16:00*	*16:00-18:00*	*18:00-20:00*	*20:00-22:00*	*22:00-00:00*
Western Cape	102	107	64	167	92	273	138	N/A
Gauteng	0	163	233	204	120	391	204	363
KwaZulu Natal	93	97	62	144	106	212	N/A	N/A
Free State	0	85	134	80	231	108	154	N/A
Limpopo	N/A	78	64	141	158	153	71	N/A
Eastern Cape	N/A	42	43	37	52	78	62	N/A
Mpumalanga	N/A	147	181	189	158	156	181	N/A
Total	195	718	781	960	917	1369	809	363

	13-Aug-20
	08:00-10:00	10:00-12:00	12:00-14:00	14:00-16:00	16:00-18:00	18:00-20:00	20:00-22:00	22:00-00:00
Western Cape	165	160	189	140	92	222	143	N/A
Gauteng	287	289	327	335	351	361	459	N/A
KwaZulu Natal	126	110	110	138	83	102	112	N/A
Free State	77	223	136	105	149	141	175	N/A
Limpopo	122	176	148	143	114	159	151	141
Eastern Cape	76	87	95	65	67	65	88	38
Mpumalanga	N/A	173	196	126	182	147	181	189
Total	852	1217	1201	1052	1037	1197	1310	368

	14-Aug-20
	08:00-10:00	10:00-12:00	12:00-14:00	14:00-16:00	16:00-18:00	18:00-20:00	20:00-22:00	22:00 - 00:00
Western Cape	165	160	113	157	113	63	76	N/A
Gauteng	354	363	488	492	327	347	191	N/A
KwaZulu Natal	128	127	135	106	180	79	N/A	N/A
Free State	124	185	103	37	83	150	7	N/A
Limpopo	173	158	162	158	122	83	89	N/A
Eastern Cape	76	87	95	65	67	65	88	38
Mpumalanga	154	182	196	143	178	173	196	126
	1174	1261	1291	1159	1070	960	646	164

	18-Aug-20
	08:00-10:00	10:00-12:00	12:00-14:00	14:00-16:00	16:00-18:00	18:00 - 20:00	20:00-22:00	22:00-00:00
Western Cape	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	136	204	132	N/A
Gauteng	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	402	477	312	N/A
KwaZulu Natal	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	166	169	139	N/A
Free State	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	221	147	98	N/A
Limpopo	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	169	148	152	120
Eastern Cape	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	91	111	84	60
Mpumalanga	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	173	196	126	182
	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	1358	1452	1042	362

	19-Aug-20
	08:00-10:00	10:00-12:00	12:00-14:00	14:00-16:00	16:00-18:00	18:00-20:00	20:00-22:00	22:00-00:00
Western Cape	189	66	158	93	187	133	164	N/A
Gauteng	306	383	374	355	494	571	309	N/A
KwaZulu Natal	111	79	119	112	141	157	178	N/A
Free State	81	169	70	142	192	148	54	N/A
Limpopo	N/A	158	161	173	150	157	172	122
Eastern Cape	N/A	47	51	63	68	83	98	63
Mpumalanga	156	181	207	154	182	196	143	178
	843	1082	1139	1091	1413	1444	1119	362

	20-Aug-20
	08:00-10:00	10:00-12:00	12:00-14:00	14:00-16:00	16:00-18:00	18:00-20:00	20:00-22:00	22:00-00:00
Western Cape	163	195	192.4	101	228	149	249	N/A
Gauteng	405	305	396	421	224	138	300	N/A
KwaZulu Natal	97	89	130	96	152	115	151	N/A
Free State	115	173	116	211	106	175	77	N/A
Limpopo	N/A	131	141	172	153	158	161	173
Eastern Cape	N/A	65	39	60	70	44	63	61
Mpumalanga	147	181	189	164	156	181	207	154
Total	927	1139	1204	1226	1088	959	1207	388

	01-Sep-20
	08:00-10:00	10:00-12:00	12:00-14:00	14:00-16:00	16:00-18:00	18:00-20:00	20:00-22:00	22:00-00:00
Western Cape	101	182.6	204	234	311	413	373	N/A
Gauteng	292	292	309	309	941	941	817	N/A
KwaZulu Natal	166	133	168	171	334	299	394	N/A
Free State	89	79	186	280	355	335	328	N/A
Limpopo	153	158	133	173	317	296	309	280
Eastern Cape	66	44	30	67	112	132	122	114
Mpumalanga	161.55	187	213	160	346	394	350	360
	1028	1076	1241	1393	2716	2810	2693	754

	02-Sep-20
	08:00-10:00	10:00-12:00	12:00-14:00	14:00-16:00	16:00-18:00	18:00 - 20:00	20:00-22:00	22:00-00:00
Western Cape	101	183	204	234	311	413	373	N/A
Gauteng	292	292	309	309	941	941	817	N/A
KwaZulu Natal	166	133	168	171	334	299	394	N/A
Free State	89	79	186	280	355	335	328	N/A
Limpopo	153	158	133	173	317	296	309	280
Eastern Cape	66	44	30	67	112	132	122	114
Mpumalanga	162	187	213	160	346	394	350	360
Total	1028	1076	1241	1393	2716	2810	2693	754

	03-Sep-20
	08:00-10:00	10:00-12:00	12:00-14:00	14:00-16:00	16:00-18:00	18:00-20:00	20:00-22:00	22:00-00:00
Western Cape	332	355	389	203	359	458	351	N/A
Gauteng	864	981	871	857	607	724	688	N/A
KwaZulu Natal	293	266	344	326	254	256	271	N/A
Free State	302	287	262	343	328	271	292	N/A
Limpopo	290	248	269	283	297	253	283	283
Eastern Cape	107	133	99	120	110	139	N/A	N/A
Mpumalanga	346	394	350	360	347	394	350	354
Total	2534	2664	2583	2491	2302	2495	2235	636

Annexure B

Estimated megawatt-hours per Eskom Operating UnitPeriod: 1 July to 3 September 2020

Date	Western Cape	Gauteng	Kwazulu Natal	Free State	Limpopo	Eastern Cape	Mpumalanga	TOTAL	Stages

Fri 10-Jul-2020	1764	3275	1466	1341	830	830	2134	11 639	Stage 2
Sat 11-Jul-2020	2226	5225	1875	2000	2058	783	2465	16 633	Stage 2
Sun 12-Jul-2020	2700	4805	2264	1714	2026	911	2388	16 808	Stage 2
Mon 13-Jul-2020	1840	5312	1658	2068	1998	959	2387	16 222	Stage 2
Tue 14-Jul-2020	2396	6158	1834	2118	2153	1069	2385	18 114	Stage 2
Wed 15-Jul-2020	1798	5564	1624	1499	1921	786	2471	15 663	Stage 1/2
Thu 16-Jul-2020	1886	3356	1427	1580	1327	626	2024	12 227	Stage 1/2
Thu 13-Aug-2020	2222	4818	1562	2014	2304	1161	2387	16 468	Stage 2
Fri 14-Aug-2020	1694	5128	1508	1377	1888	1161	2692	15 448	Stage 2
Tue 18-Aug-2020	944	2383	948	933	1176	691	2749	9 825	Stage 2
Wed 19-Aug-2020	1980	5585	1791	1712	2186	943	2790	16 988	Stage 2
Thu 20-Aug-2020	2555	4377	1657	1947	2178	804	2757	16 275	Stage 2
Tue 01-Sep-2020	1884	2962	1337	1180	1665	809	2066	11 903	Stage 2
Wed 02-Sep-2020	3636	7802	3330	3304	3637	1372	4344	27 425	Stage 2/4
Thu 03-Sep-2020	4894	11183	4020	4170	4408	1414	5791	35 880	Stage 4

Additional Information

An overview of the days were load shedding was implemented and the corresponding stages between 1 July to 3 September 2020 is as set out in the table below.

Date	Load shedding Stage	Date	Load shedding Stage
10-Jul-20	Stage 2	14-Aug-20	Stage 2
11-Jul-20	Stage 2	18-Aug-20	Stage 2
12-Jul-20	Stage 2	19-Aug-20	Stage 2
13-Jul-20	Stage 2	20-Aug-20	Stage 2
14-Jul-20	Stage 2	01-Sep-20	Stage 2
15-Jul-20	Stage 1 / 2	02-Sep-20	Stage 2 /4
16-Jul-20	Stage 1 / 2	03-Sep-20	Stage 4
13-Aug-20	Stage 2

04 November 2020 - NW982

Cachalia, Mr G K to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises

(1) With reference to the ongoing business rescue process at the SA Airways and following the statement he made to the Portfolio Committee on Public Enterprises on 6 May 2020 (details furnished), (a) how is the Government planning to keep the airline running without any further financial support from the fiscus; (2) Whether he will furnish Mr G K Y Cachalia with a copy of the business rescue plan with proposals on the alternative transition process that he presented to the business rescue practitioners; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Source
Link

Reply:

(1) (a) The Department and National Treasury have been tasked by Cabinet to consider alternative sources of funding for SAA to ensure that a restructured airline emerges from the Business Rescue process. Government will have to consider various sources of Funding including Strategic Equity Partnerships.

(2) Yes, a copy of the business rescue plan with proposals on the alternative transition process that he presented to the business rescue practitioners will be provided accordingly. (Kindly note the attached copy of the BR Plan for consideration).

03 November 2020 - NW2490

Hlengwa, Mr M to ask the Minister of international relations

(1) In light of recent reports that have allegedly linked an employee of her department to the murder of two women in Sudan (a) what steps has her department taken to co-operate with the Sudanese government in resolving the matter (b) how does her department ensure that diplomatic immunity is not used to cover up crimes and misconduct by employees posted abroad?

Source
Link

Reply:

1. (a) South Africa and Sudan share cordial bilateral relations and the former is co-operating with the Sudanese authorities with regard to investigating the allegations levelled against the partner of the departmental employee. Communication was received through diplomatic channels and subsequently conveyed to the South African Police Service (SAPS) and the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD) for their guidance.

(b) The Department has no intention of abusing diplomatic immunity nor covering a crime allegedly committed by any employee. The Department has referred the matter to the relevant departments dealing with allegations of this nature.

03 November 2020 - NW2383

Msane, Ms TP to ask the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation

What multilateral programmes do the Southern African Development Community bloc and other African regional blocs have in addressing human trafficking on the continent?

Source
Link

Reply:

Most Member States in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and African Union (AU) have acceded to the first universal instrument dealing exclusively with human trafficking namely the United Nations (UN) Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children which serves as a supplement the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (2000) known as the Palermo Protocol. This instrument provides the basis for cooperation and sharing of good practices among UN Member States to address human trafficking which is by nature a cross border phenomenon.

At the continental level the African Union adopted the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights in 1981, which prohibits slavery and human trafficking. The Charter is further complemented by the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child and the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, which make specific provisions for the protection of women and children against slavery.

Furthermore, the Ouagadougou Action Plan to Combat Trafficking in Human Beings, Especially Women and Children, adopted by the African Union in 2006, reaffirmed the provisions provided for in the continental instrument on human trafficking and encouraged African States to adopt legislation and institutional measures to combat trafficking in human beings. It aims at developing co-operation, best practices and mechanisms to prevent and combat trafficking in human beings. The Action Plan takes a holistic human rights approach and includes measures to protect the victims and prosecute the traffickers.

SADC adopted a Regional Strategy to Combat Illegal Migration, Smuggling of Migrants and Trafficking in Persons. This Strategy includes capacity building and training, revision of the legal frameworks, public education, awareness raising and victim support. Complementary Strategies to this Regional Strategy are the Revised Strategic Plan of Action on Combatting Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children, and the SADC-United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Regional Programme. Progress from these programmes was noted, amongst others, in the following areas: enactment of legislation criminalising Trafficking in Persons; the development of National Action Plans, Victim Identification Guidelines; Implementing Regulations, Standard Operating Procedures and referral mechanisms; and the establishment of the Regional Database on Trafficking in Persons. As the Regional Strategy to Combat Illegal Migration, Smuggling of Migrants and Trafficking in Persons is due to lapse in 2023, the SADC Secretariat, in conjunction with Member States, are reviewing the Regional Strategy.

Member States of the East African Community (EAC), namely; Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, Uganda and Tanzania, are all party to the United Nations (UN) Convention Against Transactional Organized Crime and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa. Article 124 of the EAC Treaty read together with Article 12 of the Protocol on Peace and Security, requires Member States to undertake joint operations in controlling and preventing transnational and cross-border crimes including human trafficking. EAC Member States have specific laws on counter-trafficking in persons which are in line with the above UN Convention and the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children. However, the penalties for offences under the laws of Member States differ from one jurisdiction to another.

In 2016, the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) passed the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Bill. The object of the Bill is to provide for a legal framework for the prevention of trafficking in persons, prosecution of perpetrators of trafficking in persons, provision of protection mechanisms and services for victims of trafficking in persons and development of partnerships for co-operation to counter trafficking in persons in the Community.

02 November 2020 - NW2321

Mabhena, Mr TB to ask the Minister of Transport

What has the SACivil Aviation Authority done, except to attend a meeting on 27 June 2019 and issue an instruction almost a year later, to ensure that a certain company (name furnished) meets the conditions of their operating licence?

Source
Link

Reply:

South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA)

The SACAA maintains oversight over its license holders through annual inspections and, if required, additional surveillance. The SACAA has therefore conducted oversight audits on this operator as per the mandate of the Regulator.

The licence holder is currently in compliance with the conditions for which the operating certificate was issued, as contemplated inPart 139 of the Civil Aviation Regulations.

02 November 2020 - NW2254

Mabhena, Mr TB to ask the Minister of Transport

Of the R30 million adjusted budget for the procurement of personal protective equipment (PPEs) to support taxi ranks, (a) what amount of that budget was paid to the service providers and (b)(i) what are the relevant details of exactly what items were bought, (ii) how was it distributed, (iii) which taxi ranks received the PPEs and (iv) is there an acknowledgement of receipt?

Source
Link

Reply:

a) What amount of the budget was paid to the service providers, and

An amount of R30 055 626, 16

b) (i) What are the relevant details of exactly what items were bought,

Procurement of PPE’s for Public Transport Industry – Type of PPE’s and Cost

GOODS	ITEMS	AMOUNT
Public Transport: Activation at Taxi Ranks	Mask Surgical, Gloves - Surgical, Sanitisers, Disinfectants, SanitiserRefils, Disinfectant Wipes, Non-contact Infrared Temperature Scanners	R141 940,00
Public Transport: Round 1 - DOT assistance to the taxi industry and commuters	Mask Surgical, Gloves - Surgical, Sanitisers empty refillable bottles, Disinfectants,SanitiserRefils, Disinfectant refill, Disposable Protective Wear, Fogging Machines	R12 142 082,38
Public Transport: Round 2 - DOT assistance to the taxi industry and commuters (Multiple Award)	Sanitisers empty refillable bottles, Disinfectant refill, Disposable Protective Wear, Fogging Machines, Mask Surgical, Disinfectant Spray, SanitiserRefils	R12 589 210.03
PT: Assistance to DBE by providing Sanitisers and Disinfectant to Scholar Transport	Disinfectant refillable bottle, Disinfectant Refils, Gloves-Surgical, Sanitiser refillable bottle, SanitiserRefils	R5 182 393.75
	TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON PPE	R30 055 626,16
	TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON PPE – TRANSPORT SECTOR	R30 055 626,16

(ii) How was it distributed?

The PPEs were distributed proportionally among provinces based on the number of taxi vehicles registered and issued with valid Operating License in each province. See attached tables A and B.

TABLE A: TAXI INDUSTRY

Note: Deliveries Round 1 completed - 20/04/2020 Deliveries Round 2 completed - 19/05/2020
ITEM	UNIT OF MEASURE	PROVINCIAL DISTRIBUTION	TOTAL QUANTITY DELIVERED
	GP	KZN	WC	MP	L	FS	NW	EC	NC
PENDO-FOG machine to disinfect surfaces and taxis	per item	3	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	19
Taxi Disinfectant Spray Bottle	2 units per taxi rank x 300	170	167	161	109	117	117	117	117	117	1192
Disinfectant refill for taxis	2 x 20 litres per rank x 300	173	169	163	111	119	119	119	119	119	1211
Sanitizers 1 litre bottles for each taxi for use by driver and passengers	per item	16247	15750	24210	16650	16650	15900	16650	16900	14300	153257
Sanitisers 20 litre refill	20 litre	451	302	336	253	253	252	253	286	223	2609
PPE suits for Marshalls	per item	130	126	126	100	106	103	106	106	96	999
Masks	per item	98000	78890	78840	54940	54940	58890	54940	55700	44900	580040
Gloves	box of 100	1060	851	60	928	928	815	828	860	760	7090

TABLE B: SCHOLAR TRANSPORT

Note: Deliveries completed by 05/06/2020
ITEM	UNIT OF MEASURE	PROVINCIAL DISTRIBUTION	TOTAL QUANTITY DELIVERED
	GP	KZN	WC	MP	L	FS	NW	EC	NC
Sanitizers 1 litre bottles for use by driver and passengers	per item	500	133	209	153	180	310	137	757	121	2500
Sanitisers 10 litre refill	10 litre refill	757	85	500	133	180	153	137	121	209	2275
Disinfectant litre bottle for Transport	per item	500	133	209	153	180	79	137	757	121	2269
Disinfectant 20 litre refill	20 litre refill	500	133	209	153	180	79	137	757	121	2269
Gloves for drivers	box of 100	757	90	500	133	180	153	137	121	209	2280

(iii) Which taxi ranks received the PPEs, and

The PPEs were received by the Provincial Representatives who then distributed them in the different taxi ranks within the Provinces.

(iv) Is there an acknowledgement of receipt?

The Provincial Representatives received and acknowledged receipt of the PPEs.

02 November 2020 - NW2308

Hunsinger, Mr CH to ask the Minister of Transport

(1)What (a) are the reasons that the Road Accident Fund (RAF) ignored the court order by Judge Wendy Hughes on 1 June 2020 to retain the lawyers for six more months and (b) plans are in place to assist with clients’ claims during the specified time period; (2) (a) how does the RAF intend to source more state attorneys, (b) what are the timelines and (c) why has the RAF chosen to take the specified route and move away from the previous approach; (3) whether the specified change that the RAF has embarked on will be more cost-effective for the specified entity; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the (a) details of the costing and (b) further relevant details; (4) what has been the total cost to the RAF to have the panel of 103 attorneys disbanded?

Source
Link

Reply:

1. (a) The reasons that the Road Accident Fund (RAF) ignored the court order by Judge Wendy Hughes on 1 June 2020 to retain the lawyers for six more months was that the RAF launched an appeal against the order, which appeal has the legal effect of suspending the operation of the order. However, the Applicants then brought an application in terms of section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act, 2013 for the order to be implemented pending the outcome of the petition to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which application was granted by the Judge, but was subsequently set aside by a full bench of the Court,following an appeal by the RAF in terms of section 18(4) of the Act; and (b) the RAF has put plans in place, as required by section 4(1)(b)of the RAF Act, to assist with clients’ claims by investigating and settling the matters returned by its former panel of attorneys and inviting plaintiff attorneys to block settlement meetings, where the RAF purposefully pursues the settlement of matters that are capable of settlement, and by referring disputes for voluntary mediation through a pilot project. Majority of these matters were litigated unnecessary as they are capable of settlement. This approach is beneficial to the claimants as they no longer need to wait for future trial dates in order to have their claims settled but rather settled earlier;

2. (a) the RAF intends to source more state attorneysthrough its usual recruitment processes and this will be informed by the volume of work (number of litigated matters where there are triable disputes) versus the reasonable number of attorneys required to attend to such matter efficiently; (b) with a timeline for the initial targeted number set for the end of the current financial year and (c) the RAF has chosen the specified route to move away from the previous approach because the Road Accident Fund Act, 1996 (the Act) provides that the RAF must pay compensation to road accident victims in accordance with the Act, which allows the RAF a period of 120 days from the date on which the claim is lodged to investigate its liability and to settle the claim. It is only in exceptional cases that litigation is contemplated, and it is not anticipated that the RAF would outsource its investigation of claims to an external panel of attorneys, as has been done. It is important to mention that a study conducted by Professor Hennie Klopper on the RAF matters set down on the court roll in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria revealed that 99.56 % of the matters are settled at the doorstep of court and less than 1% (0.45%) proceed to trial. This study was done in the Pretoria High Court which has the highest number of litigated matters countrywide. Although the research focused on Pretoria, the RAFs observation is that this is reflective of the general trend in all the courts in South Africa. RAF matters get settled by both parties and the settlement agreements are then made orders of court. Moreover, the panel of attorneys and the RAF are regularly criticized for the manner in which they manage these outsourced claims. In a recent Judgment in Mpumalanga High Court in the matter of Mncube v RAF, Legodi JP said the following

“More than 90% of matters on our trial roll are the Road Accident Fund which is funded through public purse. One would have thought the parties and or legal practitioners in dealing with these matters, will be more expedient and professional. However, the contrary appears to be the case. This is despite continuous financial woes the Fund finds itself in.”

In the unreported judgment of Daniels and Others v Road Accident Fund and Others, Binns-Ward J, after reviewing 17 cases where the RAF was rebuked by various judges for their handling of claims and litigation, said the following:

“A depressing feature of all of the aforementioned judgments is that they instance examples of cases in which the Fund must have incurred substantial legal expenses in taking to trial, or on appeal, claims which it had no basis to responsibly contest. In the context of the evidence before us that legal expenses constitute a very significant component of the Fund's overall expenditure, this is an aspect of the Fund's conduct which is demanding of conscientious attention by the responsible authorities…”.

Currently, the RAF owes claimants many billions of Rand in settled claims. It is however unable to pay these claimants and yet spends R10.6 billion on legal costs annually. By getting rid of the current operating model, with unaffordable panel of attorneys, and by adopting the new operating model the RAF could save substantial amounts in legal fees. The RAF 2020-2025 Strategic Plan targets a 75% saving on legal costs over the five-year period, which will assist the RAF to pay claimants promptly from the anticipated saving. In addition, this new operating model will lead to very few RAF matters coming before courts, which will lessen the workload of the overworked judges;

(3) it is foreseen that the change will be substantially more cost-effective for the RAF (a) by reverting to an operating model which gives effect to section 4(1)(b) of the RAF Act, where the RAF capacitates its Operations (claims) Department for Claim Handlers to investigate and settle claims, as opposed to outsourcing claims to a costlypanel of attorneys, and by pursuing voluntary mediation, as opposed to expensive and protracted litigation, through which significant savings in legal cost can be achieved and (b) where litigation cannot be avoided, referral of the matter to a salaried state attorney, as opposed to a private attorney, will achieve further savings. In terms of the previous model, any attendance by an attorney on a particular litigated matter resulted in a charge of approximately R 292,50 per quarter of an hour and with RAF litigation being handled by the office of the State Attorneys, such attendances will no longer attract any fees;

(4) the service level agreements concluded between the RAF and its former panel of attorneys expired due to effluxion of time on 31 May 2020 following amendments which were made to the Service Level Agreement which was due to expire in November 2019. Of significance with the amendment is that a provision which allowed for making copies on handover of files was amended. The provision of copying costs was going to result in legal costs of R 1, 3 Billion at any time when the RAF changes the panel of attorneys. The total cost to the RAF to have the panel of attorneys disbanded is unknown, as it is a function of the difference between the R 3.6 billion approximately spent by the RAF annually on its former panel of attorneys, and the cost of the implementation of the new operating model, which is expected to achieve substantial savings on legal cost, as alluded to in the earlier response to the prior question.

02 November 2020 - NW2270

Nolutshungu, Ms N to ask the Minister of Transport

With regard to the Public Protector’s report on the illegal conversion of the panel vans into Toyota Quantum 16-seater passenger minibus taxis, which confirmed the allegations levelled against his department and other organs of the State, on what date will he take action against the SA Bureau of Standards, National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications, Management Information Base, Toyota South Africa and all the financial institutions involved in this corruption?

Source
Link

Reply:

In the report on “Illegal Conversion of Toyota Quantum Panel Vans into Minibus Taxis” (Report No 37 of 2018/19), the Public Protector issued remedial action that must be implemented by the Minister of Transport. In terms of the report, the appropriate steps that the Minister is instructed to take urgently is to engage all affected stakeholders to ensure that these vehicles are removed from the roads. There is no suggestion or directive in the PP Report for the Minister to act against any of the entities mentioned above. However, the Minister is forging ahead engaging these stakeholders as directed in the PP Report to find a permanent solution.

02 November 2020 - NW2394

Nolutshungu, Ms N to ask the Minister of Transport

(1)What amount did his department budget for the maintenance of the roads from Maphumulo in the iLembe region in KwaZulu-Natal joining Glendale, Jimu, and Mvozane to Tongaat and Mazibuko, to the Mvoti pedestrian bridge, which has been under construction for six years, and which gets flooded during the winter season, making the roads dangerous and difficult to use; (2) (a) why has the construction of the specified roads taken so long and (b) on what date is it envisaged that the construction of the roads will be completed?

Source
Link

Reply:

It was assumed that the following projects are the one that they are refering to as they are the only two projects that have challenges on site with stoppages by poor perfomance of the same contractor which is Tekeweni Civils,

1. Backround information on P711 (Upgrade Project)

Main Road 711 is situated within the Ilembe District in KZN and commences at km 0,000 at the intersection with P104 and ends at km 33.49 at the intersection with P20/1 (R74). The last 4.11 kilometres of the road has a blacktop surface while the remainder of the road is gravel. The route closely follows the existing alignment in a north to south direction intersecting with a number of district and local access roads. In addition, the route also serves a large population, approximately nine secondary and primary schools, three crèches, two health facilities including the Mtandeni Hospital, four places of worship (viz. churches) as well as agricultural lands. The KwaZulu-Natal Department of Transport has elected to upgrade the entire gravel section of Main Road 711 to a blacktop standard together with seven major structures in order to enable safer and greater travel between the towns of Maphumulo, Stanger, the King Shaka International Airport and the Dube Tradeport.

Projeced budget Expenditure & Output

Financial Year	Budget Required on Construction	Budget Required on Design	Km Outputs	Major Structures	Persons days	Jobs created	Training

2020/21	R 37 259 436.00	R6 227 491.50	5	3	2440	18	10
2021/22	R 65 620 951.20	R7 599 328.80	5	3	5640	30	10
2022/23	R 44 982 268.20	R4 432 941.80	4.08	1	3670	23	10
Sub Total	R 147 862 655.00	R18 259 762.10	5	7	11750	71	10
Grand Total	R 331 987 483.90	R112 441 022.83	29.08	8	65674	1433	10

The general project information is as follows:

GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
Extent of Project (Region)	Mtandeni to Maphumulo– (King Shaka)
Project Description (Technical, Social, Developmental)	To upgrade the corridor between Maphumulo and Stanger/ Tongaat and the DubeTradeport. To facilitate the development in the area
Latest Total Project Budget Estimate	R 444 428 506.73
Total No of kms of Project	29.080 kms
Start Date (Design year)	October 2010
Start Date (Construction year)	July 2011
Anticipated construction completion	July 2022

( 1) Backround information on P100 (Upgrade Projects)

P100 will be designed from km 15+400 to the end at km 45+192, at the uMzinyathi River Bridge. The existing portion of the route requiring upgrading extends from the Mdloti River Bridge in the north to the uMzinyathi River Bridge in the south. The proposed alignment closely follows the existing alignment, with both horizontal and vertical realignments proposed to meet the minimum geometric standards required. The road has been classified as a Secondary Road (SR), catering for medium to long distance movements between primary roads, towns and agricultural areas. The design and construction of uMzinyathi River Bridge will include the realignment of the bridge, use of the existing structure as a temporary deviation, construction of a new bridge and the removal of the existing bridge.

Projected budget expenditure & output

Financial Year	Budget Required on Construction	Budget Required on Design	Km Outputs	Major Structures	Persons days	Jobs created
							Training
2020/21	R64 570 445.25	R6 410 593.35	3.78	2	2960	22	10
2021/22	R16 267 597.85	R4 273 728.90	0.412	1	990	45	10
Sub Total	R80 838 043.10	R10 684 322.25	4.192	3	3950	67	0
Grand Total	R473 451 595.16	R97 583 990.24	34.42	12	164 567	3673	10

The general project information is as follows:

GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
Extent of Project (Region)	Ndwedwe to Inanda
Project Description (Technical, Social, Developmental)	Type 3: Secondary Road. 6.5m wide, 2-lane, black-topped surfaced road, traversing generally mountainous terrain with climbing and passing lanes due to percentage of heavies. Highly urbanized for a portion, catalyst for development due to proximity to Inanda, Ntuzuma&KwaMashu, Development potential for opening agricultural areas and access to schools, clinics and housing.
Latest Total Project Budget Estimate	R 571 035 585.41
Total Length of Project	29.72 km
Start Date (Design year)	2001
Start Date (Construction year)	April 2003
Anticipated Construction Completion Date	March 2022

(2) (a) why has the construction of the specified roads taken so long and

The construction of this road takes so long due to the following challenges:

Challenges	Remedial Measures
The contractor’s slow rate of progress	The contractor was issued with two contractual notifications highlighting slow rate progress. The contractor has not increased productivity therefore, this contract is currently following the termination process within the department. The annual contract ZNT4198 has been planned and submitted to the department for approval, should the current contract be terminated, in order to complete the remaining works on P711 between Km 9.080 to Km 14.080.
The unmarked grave sites within the road reserve	Ongoing consultation with local community members
The relocation of ilembe water main affects approximately 1,2km of the existing road.	The contractor has been instructed to provide a programme of works in order to complete the relocation.
Community Protests due to non-payment to sub-contractors by the main contractor	Ongoing engagement with the main contractor and community at PLC and special meetings.

(2) (a) why has the construction of the specified roads taken so long?

The construction of this road takes so long due to the following challenges:

Challenges	Remedial Measures
The contractor’s slow rate of progress	The Contractor was issued with two contractual notifications highlighting slow rate progress. The contractor has not increased productivity therefore, this contract is currently following the Termination process within the Department. The annual contract ZNT4198 has been planned and submitted to the Department for approval, should the current contract be Terminated, in order to complete the remaining works on P100.
The relocation of external services within the road reserve	Ongoing consultation with external service providers
Community Protests due to non-payment to sub-contractors by the main contractor	Ongoing engagement with the main contractor and community at PLC and special meetings.
The maximisation of CPG opportunities in a contract that does not have a CPG allocation due to the tender being advertised in 2015 and engagement with the respective local business forums	This is being addressed through PLC meetings and ongoing discussions with the contractor.

02 November 2020 - NW2320

Mabhena, Mr TB to ask the Minister of Transport

Whether, in light of the fact that a certain company (name furnished) failed to establish the Environmental Consultative Committee as directed and has contravened section 139.02.11 (1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations (details furnished), sanctions have been imposed on the specified company for the contravention of the regulation; if not, why not, if so, what are the relevant details?

Source
Link

Reply:

South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA)

The establishment of an Environmental Consultative Committee (ECC) is not a default regulatory requirement and only becomes a legal requirement when the Director of Civil Aviation (DCA) issues an instruction to that effect. The license holder was therefore not in contravention with the regulation before the issuance of such an instruction, on 04 June 2020. Such an instruction by the DCA, is issued when environmental matters at an aerodrome does not get resolved through other means and it becomes necessary for the license holder to establish a formal consultative structure with interested parties in the area to resolve environmental matters.

02 November 2020 - NW2338

Tarabella - Marchesi, Ms NI to ask the Minister of Basic Education to ask the Minister of Basic Education

Whether, with reference to her reply to question 1266 on 13 July 2020, teachers who have been diagnosed with co-morbidities have returned to school; if not, why not; if so, what number of the specified teachers have returned to schools?

Source
Link

Reply:

As at the end of COVID-19 Alert Levels 2, a total of 22 392 educators had been granted concession to work from home or remotely in terms of Collective Agreement 1 of 2020. These educators were expected to return to work commencing on 21 September 2020 upon the inception of Alert Level 1, and the expiry of the concession granted in terms of Collective Agreement 1 of 2020. As at 09 October 2020 all affected educators had returned to work as expected, except those who had applied for and granted various types of leave in terms of the normal leave dispensation. In total 3 975 educators had not returned to work by 09 October 2020; and of these edu8cators, only 475 had not been granted leave in terms of the applicable leave dispensation.

02 November 2020 - NW2393

Nolutshungu, Ms N to ask the Minister of Transport

What criteria will he use in appointing the next board of the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa to prevent what was experienced with the previous board?

Source
Link

Reply:

The composition of the Board of control of PRASA is provided in Section 24 of the Legal Succession to the South African Transport Services Act, 1989 (Act No. 9 of 1989). Section 24(1) empowers the Minister to appointment a Board of Control of eleven (11) Members.

The criteria for appointing the Board of Control is as follows:

a) Publication of an advert in the Media calling for nomination of persons to serve as Members of the Board of Control of PRASA.

b) Shortlisting of nominated persons.

c) Recommendation for appointment of suitable candidates.

d) Request Cabinet approval for appointment of recommended candidates.

e) Once Cabinet approves/supports the recommendations, the Minister will appoint the approved candidates.

f) The candidates will be given appointment letters and will be inducted and resume their duties.

02 November 2020 - NW2307

Hunsinger, Mr CH to ask the Minister of Transport

(1)What (a) was the reason that the Road Accident Fund (RAF) decided to disband their panel of 103 attorneys that was set up in 2014 and (b) is the new litigious model that the RAF will be following; (2) what total number of (a) in-house lawyers does the RAF currently have, (b) vacancies exist and (c) lawyers does the RAF intend to hire in the 2020-21 financial year?

Source
Link

Reply:

1. (a) The reason the Road Accident Fund (RAF) decided to disband its panel of attorneys is because the Road Accident Fund Act, 1996 (the Act) provides that the RAF must pay compensation to road accident victims in accordance with the Act, which allows the RAF a period of 120 days from the date on which the claim is lodged to investigate its liability and to settle the claim. It is only in exceptional cases that litigation is contemplated, and it is not anticipated that the RAF would outsource its investigation of claims to an external panel of attorneys, as has been done. It is important to mention that a study conducted by Professor Hennie Klopper on the RAF matters set down on the court roll in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria revealed that 99.56 % of the matters are settled at the doorstep of court and less than 1% (0.45%) proceed to trial. This study was done in the Pretoria High Court which has the highest number of litigated matters countrywide. Although the research focused on Pretoria, the RAFs observation is that this is reflective of the general trend in all the courts in South Africa. RAF matters get settled by both parties and the settlement agreements are then made orders of court. Moreover, the panel of attorneys and the RAF are regularly criticized for the manner in which they manage these outsourced claims. In a recent Judgment in Mpumalanga High Court in the matter of Mncube v RAF, Legodi JP said the following

“More than 90% of matters on our trial roll are the Road Accident Fund which is funded through public purse. One would have thought the parties and or legal practitioners in dealing with these matters, will be more expedient and professional. However, the contrary appears to be the case. This is despite continuous financial woes the Fund finds itself in.”

In the unreported judgment of Daniels and Others v Road Accident Fund and Others, Binns-Ward J, after reviewing 17 cases where the RAF was rebuked by various judges for their handling of claims and litigation, said the following:

“A depressing feature of all of the aforementioned judgments is that they instance examples of cases in which the Fund must have incurred substantial legal expenses in taking to trial, or on appeal, claims which it had no basis to responsibly contest. In the context of the evidence before us that legal expenses constitute a very significant component of the Fund's overall expenditure, this is an aspect of the Fund's conduct which is demanding of conscientious attention by the responsible authorities…”.

Currently, the RAF owes claimants many billions of Rand in settled claims. It is however unable to pay these claimants and yet spends R10.6 billion on legal costs annually. By getting rid of the current operating model, with unaffordable panel of attorneys, and by adopting the new operating model the RAF could save substantial amounts in legal fees.

The RAF 2020-2025 Strategic Plan targets a 75% saving on legal costs over the five-year period, which will assist the RAF to pay claimants promptly from the anticipated saving. In addition, this new operating model will lead to very few RAF matters coming before courts, which will lessen the workload of the overworked judgesand (b) the new litigious model that the RAF is following seeks to capacitate its operations for Claim Handlers to investigate and settle claims, as opposed to outsourcing claims to a costly panel of attorneys, and by pursuing voluntary mediation, as opposed to expensive and protracted litigation, and where litigation cannot be avoided, referral of the matter to a salaried state attorney, as opposed to a private attorney;

(2) (a) the RAF currently has a total number of 62 attorneys to be seconded to the Office of the State Attorney to deal exclusively with RAF matters, (b) the further recruitment of additional attorneys will be informed by an analysis still be done on the ability of the current attorneys to deal efficiently with the current number of litigated matters, where triable disputes exists, and (c) the RAF aims to further recruit on an ongoing basis such additional attorneys informed by the number of litigated matters which requires representation in Court. The number of attorneys to be recruited in the 2020 – 21 financial year is unknown at this stage.

02 November 2020 - NW2272

Motsepe, Ms CCS to ask the Minister of Basic Education

What (a) total number of schools in the Republic still use pit toilets as at the latest specified date for which information is available and (b) is the provincial breakdown of the specified schools?

Source
Link

Reply:

a. The site assessment and scoping report recently completed (09/10/2020) revealed that, about 719 Schools require new sanitation facilities as they still make use of the pit toilets. All the other schools which were declared as part of the 3898 have been actioned (allocated to Implementing Agent, who have commenced with planning, or are under construction, or have reached final completion; while some small unviable schools have been merged with other such schools)

b.

PROVINCE	NUMBER OF SCHOOLS
Eastern Cape	561
Kwa-Zulu Natal	89
Limpopo	69
TOTAL	719

30 October 2020 - NW2267

Msane, Ms TP to ask the Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture

What (a) role does his department have in the process of accrediting basketball coaches, (b) is the Basketball Association of South Africa doing to develop and accredit basketball coaches in the Republic and (c)(i) total number of black coaches are currently accredited and/or are affiliated with the Basketball Association of South Africa and (ii) areas are the basketball coaches from?

Source
Link

Reply:

(a). The Department supports the Federation by providing Basketball South Africa with Financial Support for capacity building programs towards training of coaches programs across the country through our Provincial Associations working with Provincial Departments.

(b). Basketball SA indicated that the Federation has National and Provincial Accredited Facilitators from Basketball's world governing body, Federation of International Basketball (FIBA) to train and accredit coaches who are ready for all Level 1 up to an International coaching license. Basketball South Africa through its National Coaching Commission trains coaches at district and provincial levels with the assistance of Provincial Department of Sport Arts and Culture. During the Lockdown, FIBA organised virtual coaching sessions and at least 50 of the coaches both Men and Women had an opportunity to participate in these sessions. In this capacity building program of coaches, schoolsport coaches are also provided with an opportunity to be trained.

c)(i) Basketball SA further indicated that there are 350 trained black coaches currently involved in active coaching of clubs, schools and universities. (ii) The coaches are situated in all nine provinces including previously disadvantaged communities, coaching clubs, schools and universities.

30 October 2020 - NW2376

Singh, Mr N to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

In light of the fact that eight environment ministry officials have been suspended in relation to a R2 billion tender fraud (details furnished), and her department's undertaking that it would, in due course, implement system recommendations that were outlined in the forensic investigation report, what(a) are the recommendations and (b) is the expected timeline for the implementation of the recommendations?

Source
Link

Reply:

A The forensic investigation report made the following recommendations with regard to improvement to supply chain management processes:

The Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF) should revise its functionality criteria for tenders such that these is compliance with the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, 2000: Preferential Procurement Regulations, 2017.
The DEFF should revise its practice of appointing the same officials to serve on the Bid Specification Committee (BSC) and Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC). The functions of bid specification and evaluation should be segregated in order b minimise the risk of allusion between officials.
The DEFF should implement a system whereby all BSC, BEC and Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC) meetings are mechanically bearded. Such recordings should be filed for reference.
The Supply Chain Management (SCM) Directorate should ensue that all minutes of BSC, BEC and BAC meetings are prepared within a reasonable period and filed. Such minutes should be signed by the relevant officials present at such meetings.
The DEFF should cancel all contracts and/or negotiations with bidders who did not meet the mandakry and functional requirement of the bid.

B The following recommendations have been implemented to date:

1. Criteria far evaluation of tenders have been amended b ensure objectivity and transparency. All Terms of Reference are reviewed by a quality assurer and are approved by the BAC.
2. BAC meetings are recorded and minutes are prepared timeously. The BAC will only consider tenders for adjudication of the BSC and BEC minutes are included in submission.

The following recommendations will be implemented in due course:

iii. Amendments to the SCM with regard B the BSC and BEC composition

lv. Contracts as currently being reviewed by Counsel to consider any legal risks and to advise regarding the due process that must be followed when contracts are cancelled.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP
MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISIJERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: 27/10/2020

30 October 2020 - NW2485

Phillips, Ms C to ask the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy

Whether he will provide Mrs C Phillips with a list of any companies that (a) he and (b) his immediate family members are shareholders in and/or benefit from financially, that have applied for prospecting and/or mining rights; if not, why not; if so, what are the further relevant details?

Source
Link

Reply:

The Minister makes annual declarations to Parliament through the Parliamentary Ethics Committee. The Member can, if she is interested, make a request of the Ministers Declaration of Financial Interests from the Committee.

30 October 2020 - NW2482

Van Dyk, Ms V to ask the Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture

With reference to naming of streets to acknowledge persons and promote heritage transformation, (a) what (i) total number of streets in each province have been earmarked for this purpose and (ii) is the reason that some streets remain unnamed and (b) how does the Government intend to address the issue of unnamed streets? NW3090E

Source
Link

Reply:

(a). (i) – (ii) The naming and renaming of streets remains the mandate of the local municipalities and does not fall within the mandate of the Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture.

(b) The Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture is responsible for the naming and renaming of national features as per the South African Geographical Names Council Act, (Act No 118 of 1998).

30 October 2020 - NW2353

Winkler, Ms HS to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

On what data will her Department set up a meeting to discuss shark fishing quotas, considering that shark numbers are dwindling and that catch-and-release has shown B cause slow and painful death by drowning according to studies?

Source
Link

Reply:

There has been no date set by this Department to specifically discuss 6hark quotas or allocations as yet. Previously, rights in the Demersal Shark Longline sector were allocated by the then Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fi9henes in 2013 and will be expiring at the end of 2020. A Total Applied Effort(TAE) of 5 vessels was allocated in the sector previously.

In May 2020, the Minister appointed an Expert Panel to formally review South Africa's National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (NPOA-Sharks). The Panel was mandated to, among other things, focus on alignment with the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (lPOA-Sharks) of the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), as well as to advise regarding progress on the current plan. The Expert Panel must also make recommendations on the plan generally with a view to improving it and ensuring its proper implementation so as to ensure the Department’s commitment to the long-term sustainable consumptive and non-consumptive use of the species. The Panel is expected to provide the Minister with a report by mid-November 2020

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP

MINISTER 0F FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT

DATE: 30/10/2020

30 October 2020 - NW2299

Singh, Mr N to ask the Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development

Whether she will explain why the National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) who is mandated in terms of the Animals Protection Act, Act 71 of 1962, to support the SA Police Service in enforcing legislation that protects and prevents cruelty to animals, is not funded directly by the Government, but has to rely on funding from the National Lottery and private organisations; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the full relevant details; (2) whether her department is considering a more direct budget-related funding model so as to ensure that the NSPCA can fulfil its lawfully mandated tasks; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the full relevant details? NW2871E

Source
Link

Reply:

1. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1993 [No. 169 of 1993] which is the founding legislation which covers the National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) provides for control of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, and for matters connected therewith. These societies are non-profit organizations and through this Act are enabled to collect contributions or raise funds country-wide in any lawful manner; and may receive financial grants from public funds and accept donations and bequests from any person or estatesubject to the provisions of, and as contemplated in, the Fundraising Act, 1978 (Act No. 107 of 1978). The NSPCA has been sustaining itself through revenue streams which are provided for within the Act.

2. No.The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development is not considering direct budget allocations to the NSPCA. The Department is currently working on legislation that will also empower government officials to enforce the Act.

30 October 2020 - NW2351

Winkler, Ms HS to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

(1) (a) What is the reasoning behind the Kruger National Park dropping fences to areas bordering members of the Associated Private Nature Reserves (ANPRs) B allow movement of animals that are meant to be safeguarded in protected areas, allowing for trophy hunting of these protected animals, (b) what are the reasons that the decision to drop the fences to surrounding APNRs was not bought before the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs, Forestry and Fisheries when it undermines the purpo9e of protecting wildlife in national parks, and (c) whether she will furnish Ms H S Winkler with the concept document for the dropping of fences to the APNRs; (2) what are the terms of the agreement on trophy hunting with the APNRs and (b) who provide oversight; and (3) whether she has been informed of the hunting of a young bull elephant that was shot 18 times in a Kruger National Park APNR in December 2016 in an unethical hunt in front of tourists; if not, chat is the position in this regard; if so, (a) what are the relevant details and (b) what steps has she taken to hold those responsible for the unethical hunt accountable?

Source
Link

Reply:

1. (a) The western boundary fence was dropped alongside fourteen (14) Private, Community and State managed conservation areas and was not limited B the Associated Private Nature Reserves (APNR). The reason this include, but are not limited to, support for integrated ecological management, with ecosystem processes, e.g. catchment processes, ecological corridor, climate change processes, natural species migration routes, following a west-east landscape gradient(from the mountain catchment west of the KNP).

The fence dropping is also in fulfillment of the international Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Treaty (GLTFCA, 2002), promoting integrated land use approaches, including the inclusion of Private, Community and State conservation areas into the open conservation estate within South Africa, Mozambique and Zimbabwe. This promotes ecological and socio- economic outcomes, as per Treaty objectives. In addition, the inclusion of these areas is also aligned to South Africa's international commitment to expand the conservation estate in the country.

The fence dropping with Private, Community and State area look place in the late 1990s and early 2000s, as per the above explanation. The GLTFCA Cooperative Agreement (2018), its objectives, associated legislative requirements and workplan were presented to the Portfolio Committee during 2019.

The GLTFCA Cooperative Agreement is the first Agreement that provides a consistent framework for the regularisation of all 14 reserves open to KNP, as guided by the legal framework. The Agreement provides a uniform and consistent management framework based on the protected area and associated legislation. Please find attached a copy of the Agreement(Addendum 1c1-2).

2. (a) Approved protocols need to be formalised within reserves that conduct hunting, as per legislative requirements (NEMPA, NEMBA). Please refer attached Addendum 2 for requirement that need to be met.

(b) The Provincial Conservation authorities; Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency (MTPA) and the Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism (LEDET) are responsible for the regulation of the hunting within these reserves, together with the management structures of such reserves overseeing the management plans and associated practices, such as hunting, in the reserves (NEMPAA Act, 2003{Act No. 57 of 2003)).

3. (a) and (b) SANParks does not allow hunting within the Kruger National Park.

According to information at my disposal, the said elephant bull was hunted in a reserve within the APNR, in accordance with the relevant statutory requirements and the APNR Hunting protocol. Such hunts are overseen by the management structures of the reserves, together with the Provincial Conservation Authorities, they being the regulatory authorities tasked with monitoring compliance with the Protocol. I am advised that during the particular hunt being referred to, no "tourist' besides the hunting party were witness to the hunt. I am also advised that the LEDET provided the documentation to substantiate that the permit were legally issued and that no laws were contravened.

According to information at my disposal, the hunt was legal and took place in accordance with the APNR Hunting Protocol. The APNR off-take committee furthermore reviewed the incident and provided a ruling that the hunt was in accordance with the Protocol. The provincial environmental authority (LEDET) conducted a full investigation into this matter.

Regards

MS BD CREECY, MP

MINISTER 0F FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: 30/10/2020

30 October 2020 - NW2286

Sithole, Mr KP to ask the Minister of Tourism

Whether she will furnish Mr K P Sithole with an update regarding her statement dated 30 May 2020, entitled Covid-19 alert level 3 risk adjusted strategy tourism sector response measures and directions, and in particular advice on the progress of the R30 million financial relief package that was set aside for tour guides as there are many registered tour guides who are yet to receive financial relief; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?

Source
Link

Reply:

1. Following the Minister’s address earlier this year, a budget of R30million was set aside to provide financial assistance to the tourist guiding sector, particularly to tourist guides that operate as freelancers. To be eligible to access the fund, the following minimum requirements had to be met:

Be a registered tourist guide with the relevant Provincial Registrar; and
Be a freelance tourist guide (i.e. not registered with the Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) as an employee)

2. The Department implemented a “no application’’ process. As the custodians of the information pertaining to registered tourist guides, Provincial Registrars (from all nine (9) provinces) provided the Department with their respective databases of registered tourist guides whose details (including cellphone numbers) had been verified and updated.

3. Based on the information that was received by the respective Provincial Registrars, further verifications were conducted with UIF. Based on the outcome of the UIF verification process, payments to a total of 4415 tourist guides have been processed to date. The 4415 tourist guides that were processed for payment met the criteria that is outlined above. As per the UIF data, 4778 tourist guides did not qualify for the funding.During the verification process it was found that 260 were duplications or their information was incomplete or incorrect.The breakdown of the number of guides submitted by the respective provinces and the payments that have been processed per province is outlined in the table below:

Province	Number of guides submitted by province	Number of guides that met the criteria for payment	% of guides received funding
1. Eastern Cape	505	179	35%
2. Free State	38	24	63%
3. Gauteng	1167	963	83%
4. KwaZulu-Natal	745	410	55%
5. Limpopo	418	145	35%
6. Mpumalanga	1197	434	36%
7. Northern Cape	109	105	96%
8. North West	242	116	48%
9. Western Cape	5032	2039	41%
Totals	9453	4415	47%

4. A total of R19 867 500.00 has been committed for the payment to 4415 tourist guides. By end of October 2020, all 4415 tourist guides will have received a total payment of R4500 (R1500per guide X 3 months).

30 October 2020 - NW2224

Gondwe, Dr M to ask the Minister of State Security

Whether the State Security Agency has the forensic capabilities to conduct lifestyle audits of the (a) Executive Councils of (i) the Eastern Cape, (ii) Gauteng and (iii) KwaZulu-Natal and (b) senior officials in each specified province; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Source
Link

Reply:

The State Security Agency possess partial forensic capabilities to conduct lifestyle audits and where there is a lack, collaborate with other organs of state such as the South African Police Services (SAPS), Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC), e.t.c. to compensate the discrepancy.

The lifestyle audit framework currently at the drafting stages will, once completed, lay a foundation of the requisite capabilities to conduct a lifestyle audit.

30 October 2020 - NW2370

Kohler-Barnard, Ms D to ask the Minister of State Security

(1)Whether, in relation to the recommendations of the High-level Review Panel into the State Security Agency, there has been an investigation into and a report produced on the involvement of members of the Executive in intelligence operations and measures to prevent this; if so, (a) which members of the national Executive exceeded their mandate in this regard and (b) what consequences have they faced; (2) whether, in relation to the recommendations of the High-level Review Panel into the State Security Agency, there has been an investigation into and a report produced on the policy framework including legislation that governs operational activities conducted by members of the national Executive; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; (3) whether, in relation to the recommendations of the High-level Review Panel into the State Security Agency, there has been an investigation into and a report produced on the development of guidelines that will enable members to report a manifestly illegal order as envisaged in section 199(6) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996; if not, why not, if so, what are the relevant details; (4) whether, in relation to the recommendations of the High-level Review Panel into the State Security Agency, there has been an investigation into and a report produced on the effectiveness of (a) Training and Development Programmes in capacitating members of the Agency and (b) intelligence and counter-intelligence coordination within the Agency and between the agency and other South African intelligence entities and the capacity and role of the National Intelligence Coordinating Committee in this regard; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details; (5) whether, in relation to the recommendations of the High-level Review Panel into the State Security Agency, there has been an investigation into and a report produced on the effectiveness and appropriateness of the existing oversight mechanisms in ensuring accountability and transparency; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the further relevant details?

Source
Link

Reply:

(1) Yes. Investigations have been instituted. These investigations are on going.

(2) The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa prohibts involvement of the Members of the Executive into the intelligence operations of the State Security Agency (SSA). Furthermore, the existing National Strategic Intelligence Act (Act 39 of 1994) and Operational Directives of the SSA also prohits involvement of the Members of the Executive into the intelligence operations.

Both the National Strategic Intelligence Act (Act 39 of 1994) and the Intelligence Services Act (Act 65 of 2002) are under review for amendment as part of the intelligence reforms recommended by the High-level Review Panel.

(3) Review of Operational Directives and Standard Operational Procedure is a work in progress. The review seeks to amongst others enable SSA Members to report manifestly illegal order. Furthermore, a process on Amendments to Regulations is currently underway, the Regulations will strengthen accountability and good governance of the Members.

(4) The Intelligence Academy is in a process of reviewing its training programmes with a view to adequately capacitate Members of the intelligence community. Furthermore, the intelligence amendments currently underway seeks to improve coordination of intellligence and counter intelligence.

(5) The Reports are instrumental in the reform and the legislative amendments, aimed at strengthen the oversight structures. The legislative amendments will be submitted to Parliament for consideration, inputs and processing.

30 October 2020 - NW2298

Singh, Mr N to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

Whether she will explain why South Africa has not yet signed the Leaders' Pledge for Nature, which has already been signed by 70 countries, and which will commit South Africa B implement immediately actionable policy in order to ‹averse biodiversity loss over the next decade; if not, why not; if so, what are the full, relevant details?

Source
Link

Reply:

The Leaders' Pledge for Nature deals with a number of issues that are currently the subject of multilateral negotiations within the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), amongst others.

Given the fact that this Leaders' Pledge for Nature is not a multilaterally agreed document, nor did not form part of any multilateral negotiations and that it contains element which are the subject of ongoing negotiations as well as its requirements for a commitment to act and take accountability, it is prudent for any responsible Government to study the actions required and it implications on the country, prior to committing. The Leaders' Pledge for Nature is still open for endorsement and therefore, South Africa may still sign it after careful study of its content and the implications thereof on its biodiversity policy.

Our country remains committed to the implementation of its goals and objectives, and are committed to working towards an adoption of a post-2020 global biodiversity framework at the COP15 of the CBD in Kunming, China next year.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP
MINISTER OF F0RE8TRY, FISHERES AND THE ENVIRONNENT
DATE: 30/10/2020

30 October 2020 - NW2359

Weber, Ms AMM to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

Whether she will furnish Ms A M M Weber with the (a) hunting offtakes recommended by SA National Packs (SANParks) for the individual private nature reserves that form part of the Associated Private Nature Reserves for 2020, (b) latest census information on which the decision was based and (c) copies of the letters of recommendation from SANParks to (i) Timbavati Private Nature Reserve, (ii) Balule Nature Reserve, (iii) Umbabat Nature Reserve and (iv) Klaserie Private Nature Reserve regarding 2020 hunting offtakes, noting that the previous Managing Executive of SANParks promised to make the hunting offtake figures public; if not, in each case, why not; if so, chat are the further relevant details in each case?

Source
Link

Reply:

(a) SANParks does not recommend hunting off-takes to the Private, Community and State managed reserves open to Kruger National Park (KNP). SANParks comment on the scientific- based animal off-take reque9B reC9ÏVed from such entities, in 00n9Ultation with the provincial regulatory authorities overseeing the allocation of such quotas; namely Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency (MTPA) and Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Tourism and Environment (LEDET).

(b) Census and scientific reports are submitted by the neighbouring Private, Community and State managed areas, which inform and support the off-take requests. The reports are then considered, and if supported, they are approved by the MTPA and LEDET, as the regulatory authorities. The MTPA and LEDET are the custodians of the Census information.

© SANParks comment on the hunting off-take request (See Addendum 1). The allocation of quotas is approved by the MTPA and LEDET, as the regulatory authorities. Approved quotas can be obtained Atom the aforementioned provincial regulatory authorities. However, some of the reserves publish the off-takes quotas on their websites and within their annual reports.

MS B D CREECY, MP
MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: 30/10/2020

30 October 2020 - NW2227

Masipa, Mr NP to ask the Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development

Whether she has been informed of any officials in her department who are still doing business with her department since 3 August 2020; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (2) whether she will furnish Mr N P Masipa witha list of all the officials who are still doing business with her department; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what (a) are the relevant details and (b) is the value of each contract?

Source
Link

Reply:

1. Yes, I havebeen informed that the Auditor-General South Africa identified three officials during its preliminary audit processes. This audit has not yet been finalised. Once the audit has been finalised, normal government processes will be applied in dealing with the alleged contravention of the law.

2. Yes, the details will be shared once the audit has been finalised by the Auditor General of South Africa.

(a),(b) Falls away.

30 October 2020 - NW2306

Lotriet, Prof A to ask the Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture

What total number of athletes from each sporting code represented the Republic at the past three (a) Olympic Games and (b) Paralympic Games?

Source
Link

Reply:

The following is the information provided by the South African Sport Confederation and Olympic Committee,

a) Olympic Summer Games
Venue	Year	Female	Male	Total
Beijing	2008	57	79	136
London	2012	58	67	125
Rio	2016	45	93	138

b) Paralympic Summer Games
Venue	Year	Female	Male	Total
Beijing	2008	17	38	55
London	2012	17	45	62
Rio	2016	17	29	46

30 October 2020 - NW2303

Van Dyk, Ms V to ask the Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture

(1) With reference to his department’s partnership with the Department of Small Business Development, (a) what are the reasons that the amount of R22 million was ring-fenced before the Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) had been determined and (b) by what date will the MOA be submitted to Parliament for referral to the Portfolio Committee (PC) on Sport, Arts and Culture. (2) How was the amount of R22 million established? (3) Whether he will advise if the specified PC will receive a copy of the Cultural and Creative Industries of South Africa’s (CCIFSA) problem statement; if so, why does the CCIFSA need more money, since they, like all entities , receive a budget allocation from his department; (4) Whether, given that the PC needs clarity because the ring-fencing of money for the specified entity was not discussed within the PC, he has found that the entity has managed its finances well; if not, will the proposed allocation be additional to their budget allocation?

Source
Link

Reply:

1.(a) Processes to obtain National Treasury approval for the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture to contribute an equal amount to what the Department of Small Business Development had set aside for this partnership, and the signing of Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) were undertaken in parallel to each other.

1.(b) The Director General of the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture and the Acting Director General of the Department of Small Business Development signed the MoA between the two departments on 07 October 2020, prior to the call for applications going out. The MoA is ready and available to be shared with the Portfolio Committee.

2.The total amount of R22 282 000. was solely based on what both departments had available for the COVID-19 Relief funding; and took into account the size of the sub-sectors that needed to be supported.

3.This Relief Funding is being managed by both DSAC and DSBD; with Provincial Implementing Agents that will be doing the end-to-end administration of application, to whom funding will be transferred for processing to successful applicants. This funding is not being routed through CCIFSA

4.This Relief Funding was not routed through CCIFSA; neither is it being managed by them. See response above.

30 October 2020 - NW2401

Hendricks, Mr MGE to ask the Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture

(1) Given that a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Department of Basic Education and Sport and Recreation South Africa regarding an Integrated School Sport Framework that provides for clarity on roles and responsibilities for all stakeholders in school sport was signed on 30 May 2018 in Cape Town, which currently is not being followed, what steps will he take to reclaim full autonomy over school sport by stopping federations from discarding the well-organised school sport bodies to start their own sport bodies; (2) whether his department has been informed of the division and confusion the discarding of the specified MoU is causing amongst schools, as they do not know which school sport body they need to affiliate to; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; (3) whether his department has been informed of the extent to which the specified problems are disadvantaging learners; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; (4) whether he will intervene to stabilise the situation so that learners can once again enjoy school sport; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?

Source
Link

Reply:

1. The former Department of Sport and Recreation and the present Department of Sport, Arts and Culture (DSAC) continues to implement its responsibilities as indicated in the MOU signed on 30 May 2018.

This is illustrated by the fact that DSAC has aligned its Mass Participation and Sport Development Conditional Grant funding on School Sport, to ensure that the outcomes as it relates to its roles and responsibilities in the MOU are effected. It should be noted that DBE is responsible for levels 1-3 of the MoU and DSAC is responsible for levels 4-6. and to this effect from the Conditional Grant funding, School Sport has a ring-fenced 40% allocation, which is further allocated as follows:

Provinces MUSTring fence R10 million to provide transport, attire and delivery of provincial teams to the National School Sport Championships. An allocation to a province will include all funds that are necessary for the hosting of the National Schools Championships and will include accommodation, breakfast and dinner for the provinces that will be hosting the 4 segments of the National Schools Championships a year, (Autumn, Winter, IG Festival and Summer).

The remaining School Sport allocation is further allocated as follows:

10 % for training of people to deliver school sport;
20% to purchase equipment and or attire for schools below quintal 1- 3 identified through participation in leagues;
40% to deliver district and provincial competitions;
15% to remunerate co-ordinators who co-ordinate, support, monitor and evaluate school sport at district and local level; and
15 % to support school sport structures.

School Sport is a joint co-operation between the Department of Sport , Arts and Culture and Department of Basic Education and thus each has a responsibility to ensure that School Sport is fully implemented as indicated in the MoU. National Sports Federations are recognized in terms of the Recognition of Sports Bodies Regulations and are custodians of the code of sport. School Sport is a critical pipeline for the honing of skills talent identification and it forms the foundation of the athlete development pathway. No School Sport structure can function on its own, without the support of the Federations. Federations are the custodians of their codes and must take ownership to ensure that there are school sport structures and School Sport has representation within the Structures of the Federation.

There is no intention to close school sport structures, however all school sport structures must adhere to the guidelines for the establishment of school sport structures, must be recognized and an affiliate of the Sports Federations and must be representative of educators for the purpose of accountability and safeguarding. The Department provides dedicated, ringfenced funding to the priority codes for School Sport. There is an allocation of funding within the Conditional Grant allocated to provinces for the establishment of School Sport structures.

2. The stakeholders meet regularly on a quarterly basis as an Extended Joint National Task Team comprising Federations, National Departments of Sport and Education, Provincial Departments of Sport and Education, Teacher unions and School Governing Bodies Associations to discuss programmes and policy matters related to the MoU. Progress reports from all stakeholders are shared.

To date there has not been any indication of confusion about structures. The only matter that has been a challenge is with regard to Athletics SA and their affiliate School Athletics. All School Sport structure know that they must account to the Federation, as the custodians of the code and also report quarterly to the extended JNTT.

Schools Athletics had sought to operate outside the mother body with disregard to resolutions taken at a Council meeting. They were subsequently suspended by the Federation. All our operations regarding sporting codes is done through Sport Federations and not School Sport structures.

3. Indeed, the challenges in School Sport have far reaching implications for the learners. We are guided by the National Sport and Recreation Act which empowers the Minister to recognise one sporting body per code. There is also the Recognition of Sport and Recreation Bodies Regulations, which gives effect to that act. Resources are provided to Federations to implement school sport and work through them to ensure that school sport structures are accountable. We also acknowledge that the active teachers play a central role in the structures and their participation in the programme is important. The resistance of some of the School Sport structures to adhere to this principle creates a challenge that ultimately leads to other undesirable effects. In an effort to sustain such autonomous structures, learners / parents are expected to pay for participation. This, then creates a wide gap between those who have and those who have not. The far-reaching consequence is that athletes participating outside the Federations jurisdiction do not gain official recognition for achievements, setting new records and the awarding of National colours which falls within the jurisdiction of the National Federations.

4. The department stands ready at all times to intervene in resolving these matters and we have intervened previously where there has been misunderstanding between structures and federations. As indicated above, the Department convened a meeting with Athletics SA, the Department of Basic Education and the Teacher Union to resolve the impasse around the Schools Athletics Championship that was disrupted by COVID-19 Lockdown.

30 October 2020 - NW2369

Kohler-Barnard, Ms D to ask the Minister of State Security

Whether, in relation to the recommendations of the High-level Review Panel into the State Security Agency, there has been an investigation into and a report on the (a) impact on the work of the civilian intelligence agencies of the amalgamation of the previous services into one agency and the appropriateness of the change, (b) appropriateness of the current structure of the agency to its core mandates and to effective command, control and accountability, (c) mandate and capacity of the State Security Agency (SSA) and to examine the compatibility of its structure in relation to this mandate, (d) effectiveness of controls to ensure accountability and (e) institutional culture, morale, systems and capacity to deliver on the mandate; if not, in each case, why not; if so, what are the relevant details in each case?

Source
Link

Reply:

All the matters raised above by the Honourable Member of Parliament have extensively been dealt with in the Findings and Recommendations of the High-Level Review Panel, particularly as outlined in Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 13 of the High-Level Review Panel’s Report. These matters therefore do not require additional investigation as doing so would duplicate the work done by the Panel. The Honourable Member is also reminded that the President of the Republic, HE President MC Ramaphosa, accepted the High-Level Review Panel report with all its findings and recommendations.

Processes such as drafting of a new legislative framework and the review of internal departmental regulatory processes have been initiated to address the implementation of the recommendations and these are at various degrees of development and implementation. Some of the recommendations in relation to capacity, etc., are however dependent on the finalisation of a new legislative framework.

30 October 2020 - NW2231

Van Dyk, Ms V to ask the Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture

(1) What are the details of how the money of the relief funding will be distributed between the (a) sports sector and the (b) arts and culture sector; (2) what are the reasons that practitioners from the arts and heritage sector only allocated R12 million while practitioners from the sports sector were allocated R65 million; (3) (a) whether R11 million has been ring-fenced, therefore leaving R66 million and what are the details of how the money is split?

Source
Link

Reply:

(1). The Department regards all sectors under it as of equal importance; and as per the presentation made to the Portfolio Committee in September 2020; the projections were based on the total balance of budget, to cater for sport, arts and heritage practitioners, there was never a distinction for distribution of funds for either Sports or Arts and Culture. The department approached National Treasury to get approval to utilise the balance, to cater overall for Sport, Arts and Culture.

(2). Initially the available balance of the Budget was for Sport; but after approval from National Treasury; the department was then able to redirect its existing conditional grants toward responding to the outcry due to the pandemic to cater for all practitioners serviced by the department.

(3). Yes, R11 million has been ring-fenced and committed to enable entering into a partnership with the Department of Small Business Development (DSBD) to cater for audio-visual, crafts, visual arts and design sector which were not catered for in the second wave. The rest of what remains of the budget was aimed at responding to applications received from both sports and all other cultural domains within the arts, culture and heritage for the second wave of relief funding.

30 October 2020 - NW2491

Hlengwa, Mr M to ask the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation

In light of the fact that the Nigerian government is currently experiencing widespread protests against police brutality and its governance structures, what (a) is the Government’s position on the current situation in Nigeria and (b) agreements are in place between the South African and Nigerian governments that can allow for a sharing of experiences and assistance in police reform and better governance in Nigeria?

Source
Link

Reply:

(a) South Africa supports the statement issued by the Chairperson of the African Union Commission, Mr Moussa Faki Mahamat, on 21 October 2020, strongly condemning the violence that erupted on 20 October 2020 during protests in Lagos, Nigeria that has resulted in multiple deaths and injuries. The Chairperson reiterated the African Union's commitment to continue to accompany the government and people of Nigeria in support of a peaceful solution, and encouraged the Nigerian authorities to conduct an investigation to ensure the perpetrators of acts of violence are held to account

South Africa stands ready to assist should such a request come through the competent authorities of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

(b) The Agreement between the Republic of South Africa and the Federal Republic of Nigeria in respect of Police Cooperation was signed on 14 March 2001 during the 3rd Session of the Bi-National Commission between South Africa and Nigeria. The Agreement came into force on 27 July 2005 and makes provision for the exchange of working experience, as well as training of personnel. Cooperation within the framework of the agreement is on the basis of a request received from the interested competent authority.

30 October 2020 - NW2225

Gondwe, Dr M to ask the Minister of State Security

(1)Whether her department commissioned the recent lifestyle audits of the (a) Members of the Executive Councils of (i) the Eastern Cape, (ii) Gauteng and (iii) KwaZulu-Natal and (b) senior officials in each specified province; if so, (2) Whether she will make the findings of the lifestyle audits available to the public; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Source
Link

Reply:

1. Yes, the State Security Agency was approached by the aforesaid provincial governments to conduct lifestyle audits of the members of the respective Executive Councils.

2. Reports of the lifestyle audits will be submitted to the respective provincial government, which will decide whether or not to make them available to the public.

30 October 2020 - NW2365

Masipa, Mr NP to ask the Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and RuralDevelopment

What total number of farmers received loans with the backing of the R200billion guarantee scheme announced by the President of the Republic, Mr M C Ramaphosa, to fight the effects of Covid-19?

Source
Link

Reply:

The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development does not grant loans to farmers and is therefore unaware which farmers received loans from the said amount.

30 October 2020 - NW2486

Phillips, Ms C to ask the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy

Whether he will provide Mrs C Phillips with a list of any companies that provide mining companies with goods and/or services that (a) he and (b) his immediate family are shareholders in or benefit from financially; if not, why not; if so, what are the further relevant details?

Source
Link

Reply:

The Minister makes annual declaration of Financial Interest to Parliament through Parliamentary Ethics Committee. The Member can, if she is interested, make a request to access such declaration from the Committee.

30 October 2020 - NW2489

Luthuli, Mr BN to ask the Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture

(1) With regard to the recent media reports, wherein it is alleged that he has written to the International Cricket Council (ICC) about his intention to intervene in the running and management of Cricket South Africa (CSA), what contingency plans does he have in place to (a) ensure that the ICC does not ban the CSA from international cricket as a result of his intervention and (b) safeguard the livelihood of players when the ICC bans the CSA from international cricket; (2) Whether he will furnish Inkosi B N Luthuli with the strategic document on how he plans to intervene, stating the envisioned outcome of his intervention; if not, why not; if so, what are the full, relevant details?

Source
Link

Reply:

1.(a) The Minister is empowered by the National Sport and Recreation Act, 1998 (Act No. 110 of 1998) to intervene in any dispute, alleged mismanagement, or any other related matter in sport or recreation that is likely to bring a sport or recreation activity into disrepute. Furthermore, the International Cricket Council (ICC) notice dated 11 November 2011 sent to all members headed in relation to “Regulations relating to the Independence of Member Board” provides that Naturally, a government (or any office thereof) would also not be prevented from investigating the affairs of a Member Board in order to ascertain whether any criminal offences have been committed, including fraud, dereliction of directors’ duties (including fiduciary duties) or contravention of any relevant legislation. Similarly, there may be circumstances where a government rightfully seeks to intervene in the event that a Member Board is dysfunctional. The ICC Governance Review Committee believes that this is a question of accountability, not interference.”

(b) There is a difference between intervention and interference. Hence, the Minister is not seeking to interfere in matters relating to the selection of teams, the administration of the game and the appointment of, or termination of the service of, the Executive Members of cricket.

The word “intervene” has, according to its dictionary meaning, a positive connotation of attempting to come between disputing parties, to intercede, to mediate, and to prevent further damage or harm from occurring.

To “interfere” has a negative connotation according to dictionary meanings, and generally people are resentful of attempts to “interfere” because it has connotations of meddling in other people’s business, to interpose in a way that hinders or impedes or that involves colliding with or coming into opposition with another party. It normally is associated with having a damaging or negative effect.

2. The Sport and Recreation Act is the strategic instrument and it will be premature to disclose the modus operandi related to any action as outlined in the Act. By disclosing the envisaged outcome will really compromise the process. As this is a developing story, updated information will be provided at the appropriate time.

30 October 2020 - NW2352

Winkler, Ms HS to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

What(a) pollutants require mandatory monitoring and reporting in all air quality monitoring stations, (b) are acceptable levels of the specified pollutants and (c) steps are taken once a station reports on excessive levels of pollution at a station of the SA Air Quality Information Systems or a municipal station?

Source
Link

Reply:

In terms of Section 9 of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act 20 of 2014 (NEMAQA), the Minister is empowered to identify ambient air pollutants which present a threat to human health and well-being of the environment, and to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the identified pollutants. In this regard, the Minister established national ambient air quality standards for particulate matter (PM10. articles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometres (10-6 m) and PM2.5, particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micrometres), sulphur dioxide (SO2). nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), ozone (O3) and benzene (CsH6). The NAAQS include averaging periods, limit values or concentrations, permitted frequency of exceedance per year, and compliance dates.
The table below shows the ambient standards for the criteria pollutant.
Where excessive levels of pollution at a station are reported by the South African Air Quality Information System or a municipal station, the information is shared with the public to empower them about the possible impacts their human health, as well as to guide them on how to carry out their daily activities to minimise the effects. In addition, tailor-made interventions are designed in air quality management plans or other strategic government programs to identify sources contributing to the pollution levels, and to implement necessary emission reduction measures. Within the regulated pollution sources such as industries, these interventions include enhanced compliance monitoring and enforcements through the atmospheric emission licencing command and control regime. For non-regulated pollution sources, air quality management interventions are designed to target those pollutants with reported excessive levels, towards progressive realisation of air that is not harmful to the health and wellbeing of the public.

Regards

MS B D CREECY, MP
MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DATE: 30/10/2020

30 October 2020 - NW2304

Van Dyk, Ms V to ask the Ms V Van Dyk (DA) to ask the Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture

(1) With reference to his department’s partnership with the Department of Small Business Development and the established panel to distribute funding, (a) what reasons has he found deemed it necessary to appoint yet another panel and (b) at what cost total cost will the additional panel be appointed; (2) What are the names of the companies that will benefit from the R22 million that will be ring-fenced; (3) Whether he will furnish the Portfolio Committee on Sport, Arts and culture with (a) a list of all specified successful companies and (b) the criteria applicable to ascertain why the ring-fencing of the R22 million was done before the Memorandum of Understanding had been reached; if not why not; if so, what are the relevant details in each case?

Source
Link

Reply:

(1.a) Both Departments went through a consultation process with sector organisations and to provide them with the opportunity to nominate panel members specifically for the targeted sub-sectors. The Department of Small Business Development and the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture, working with each of the nine provinces, have set up adjudication panels comprising of representatives from the following entities/organizations in each province:-

- A representative from the province’s craft hub or development agency
- A representative from the Visual Arts Network of South Africa (VANSA)
- A representative from the South African Screen Federation (SASFED)
- A representative from the Creative & Cultural Federation of South Africa (CCIFSA)

The Department of Small Business Development and the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture, together with the provincial Departments’ of Art and Culture, as well as Economic Development will provide over-sight and support to the above Provincial based adjudication panel.

1. (b) The Department uses Treasury Guidelines for remuneration of committees, which is R327.00 per hour for committee members and R570 for chairpersons of committees. In this case the total amount to be spent will depend of actual number of committee members and the number of hours they spend adjudicating received applications/requests.

2. The names of the companies that will benefit from the R22 282 000.will be known once the adjudication panels in each of the Provinces have sat to evaluate received application/requests.

3. (a) Yes; upon request.

3(b) Processes related to approval of the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture contribution to the R 22 282 000. from National Treasury and the signing of the MoA were done parallel to each other.

30 October 2020 - NW2480

Van Dyk, Ms V to ask the Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture

(1) Whether the mandate of the task team on the removal of statues, symbols and monuments that do not reflect the constitutional values of a post-colonial and post-apartheid democratic order to theme parks has ended; if not; what is the position in this regard; if so, on what date; (2) (a) what total number of persons were on the task team and on what date were they appointed, (b) how was the selection made and what was the criteria, (c) how and by whom will future audits on the statues, monuments and symbols be done, (d) what budget allocation will be made available, (e) what total number of heritage sites in the Republic can sustain themselves and (f) who decided to use the name theme parks; (3) On what date will the final report be made available to the committee and the public and has the final report been made available to task team members; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; (4) Whether the final report has been made available to task team members; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Source
Link

Reply:

1. The mandate of the task team was to conduct public hearings in all nine provinces on the transformation of South Africa’s Heritage Landscape. The Task Team was specifically asked to consult the public on the fate of statues, symbols and geographical names that commemorated figures and the heritage of both colonial and apartheid figures and cultures. The Task Team was also requested to consult on the fate of statues, symbols and monuments that do not reflect the constitutional values of a post-colonial and post-apartheid democratic order.

2. (a)The total number of task team members was thirteen (13), they were nominated on 17 April 2015 at Freedom Park during the National Consultation workshop on the Transformation of the Heritage Landscape. I signed the letters of appointing task team members on 04 May 2015.

(b) The Task Team members were nominated during the National consultation workshop at Freedom Park. Members nominated are Heritage Practitioners, Academics specialising in history and heritage and persons representing stakeholder institutions and interest groups within the South African Society to assist the department to implement the 20 resolutions taken during the national consultative workshop. Prof M Ndletyane, Dr D Webb, Ms L Callinicos and Dr S Fikeni are historians and academics. Mr J Mohlala was chairperson on the South African Geographical Names Council, Dr A Bailey represented Afriforum, Mr E Fereira represented the Afrikaans KultuurTaalVereeneging, Mr C Le Fleur represented the National Khoisan Council and Mr C Maxwele represented the Rhodes Must Fall youth movement, Advocate S Mancotywa and Advocate T Ramagoma represented the National Heritage Council, MrDumisaniSibayi represented the South African Heritage Resources Agency and Mr V Ndima represented the then Department of Arts and Culture.

(c) The South African Heritage Resources Agency will do the national audit of all statues in South Africa and after public consultations a determination will be made where there is a need for the removal and repositioning of some of the symbols and statues, the process will be guided by SAHRA’s removal and relocation guidelines as per South Africa Heritage Resources Act no 25 of 1999.

(d) The affected municipalities will be required to allocate operational budget.

(e) Heritage sites in South Africa are funded by the government.

(f) The public consultation process will inform decisions on the location of theTheme Parks.

4. The final report on the Transformation of South Africa’s Heritage Landscape was published on 23 February 2018.

30 October 2020 - NW2305

Lotriet, Prof A to ask the Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture

(a). What is the current financial status of (i) the SA Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee, (ii) the SA Sports Trust and (ii) all national federations and (b) which of the specified entities are not currently financially viable?

Source
Link

Reply:

(a)(i)&(b). SASCOC indicated that the Audited Annual Financial Statements for the year-end 31 March 2020 will be presented for adoption at the Annual General Meeting scheduled to be held on the 7 November 2020. These financials contain independently audited financial reporting that provides information on the financial viability and going concern concept for SASCOC. Once the Audited Annual Financial Statements has been adopted by the membership on the 7 November 2020 it will be available for circulation/public consumption.

(a)(ii). The Sports Trust indicated that based on the analysis done regarding financial status of The Sports Trust is moderately healthy. The current ratio (current assets/current liabilities) determines that The Sports Trust will be able to honour its operational expenses for the next 12 months 1.57:1.The business cash flow is also in a moderately healthy position to honour the day – to – day operations of The Sports Trust.

(ii)(b). The Sports Trust further indicated that with the current economic situation, The Sports Trust as an NGO is mainly reliant on collaborations and partnerships with government and the private sector companies for donations and grants. The Sports Trust has also been affected by the current Covid-19 pandemic and is pleased to announce that we managed to secure a few partnerships and collaborations during this time of uncertainty.

The financial viability of The Sports Trust can therefore be defined as moderately healthy and place us in a position to deliver on our mandate, our day-to- day operations and some of the contractual agreements that we have in place.

Another lifeline of The Sports Trust is the interest that we receive from our investments due to our Seed Capital solution.

(a)(iii)&(b). The following federations provided responses / information regarding their financial status and viability:-

See information below:

Federations	Responses
Jukskei South Africa (JSA)	(a) Current financial status Jukskei indicated that they have sufficient resources to continue as a going concern in the medium to long term. However, the Pandemic may have a temporary impact on their Revenue in the 2021 Financial year. (b) Financially viability? Indicated that they are viable and have two streams of revenue. Affiliation fees, these fees were due and payable by mid-July. We have received 8 of the 9 Provinces affiliation fees and are in contact with the last Province to pay their fees. Registration fees, fees for athletes to be registered at JSA. JSA has implemented a Covid operational plan for jukskei activities to continue under Level 3, 2 and 1. Based on the current lockdown regulations the federation is able to host events without spectators and therefore athletes will need to be registered in order to participate. In terms of expenses, the federation has cut down operational budgets to ensure reduced revenue is sufficient to cover all expenses. Indicated that they were able to cut expenses for operational activities, however will not be able to run any of the development projects including high performance programme, development programme on grassroots level (schools and rural areas) and support to national teams in respect of national tours.
Softball South Africa (SSA)	a) Current financial status Federation indicated that the organization is stable b) Financially viability Indicated that they are viable for an amateur sport
South African Hockey Association (SAHA)	a) Current Financial status The federation indicated the following; The SA Hockey Association has the following annual funding streams: Provincial Affiliation Fees – this is a nominal amount that Provinces pay to SA Hockey annually to Affiliate as a Province or Affiliate Member. Member Affiliation Fees – this fee relates to amounts paid annually by all registered hockey players. These fees are set based on our National Office Operational Costs and charges to affiliated members Sponsorship Revenue – this revenue covers specific projects such as the respective 6 National Teams per Gender Coaching Education Fees – these fees are generated from hosting courses Broadcast Rights Fees – these fees are generated from broadcast rights annually for specific projects such as the Premier Hockey League Project Partner Fees – these fees are generated from specific projects such as the Modified Hockey Programme where funders can partner on CSI projects DSAC Grants – these grants have a set portion to assist with operational costs - 10% of the grant and the balance to deliver programmes to grow the game Player Payments – these fees paid by players relate to events that players participate it – leagues, provincial interprovincial tournaments, national camps and events that national teams participate in b) Financially viability The federation indicated that this is a very broad question for the current financial year and can confirm the following regarding the above. As at to date only line item no. 1 has been collected in the current financial year due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. We continue to receive line item no. 4 as these are offered online Funds related to projects, events, national teams etc. have not been received and all events for the hockey season were cancelled. Hockey is a Winter Sport and as such the entire competition season of 2020 was impacted by the National State of Disaster from Levels 5 to Level 1
South African Table Tennis Board (SATTB)	a) Current Financial status The federation indicated that the South African Table Tennis Board (SATTB)’s financial status is sound. b) Financially viability Indicated that the federation is financially viable
Swimming South Africa (Swimming SA)	(a) Current financial Indicated that the organization was only just solvent at the last financial year end 30 April 2020 (b) Financially viability Indicated that normally the organization is viable but due to the lockdown it is in need of financial assistance
South African Equestrian Council (SAEC)	a) Current financial status Indicated that due to Covid-19, memberships stagnated from March to the end of July. In order to get memberships Kick-started we implemented a 50% reduction of membership fees. The SAEF is currently is still in a positive position but expect an impact on memberships moving forward. b) Financially viability Indicated that the SAEF runs a tight ship and are financially viable.
Darts South Africa (DSA)	Indicated that Darts South Africa confirms that despite the Covid-19 pandemic, the organisation is financially viable.
South African National Archery Association (SANAA)	a) Current financial status Indicated that currently the federation’s financial status is sound b) Financially viability Indicated that at the moment the federation is viable, however expect membership income to drop drastically in 2021 due to financial strains on members. This means that clubs could also suffer.
Badminton South Africa (Badminton SA)	Indicated that the Federation is in a) a financially status and (b) financially viable position
Ringball Association of South Africa (RASA)	Federation indicated that a) it is non-profitable national sport federation b) only viable when receiving membership fees however not viable without receiving membership fees
Snow Sports South Africa (SSSA)	Indicates that the federation is a) financially sound and b) financially viable
South African Confederation of Cue Sport (SACCS)	(a) Current financial status The federation indicated that; SACCS is a National Composite Confederation with autonomous membership that includes full members of South African Blackball Federation (SABF) established in 2008, Pool South Africa (PSA) established in 1995 and Snooker and Billiards South Africa (SABSA) established in 1920, also have an associate member called Pool 4 Change established in 2019. The members of these organisations form the Executive Committee on the SACCS Board. These organisations are self-sufficient and generate their income from their members to run their operations. SACCS and their members SABF, PSA and SABSA administrative costs are derived from DSAC funding, and if DSAC funding is reduced in a given year then the administrative contributions to SABF, PSA and SABSA are reduced accordingly. The main purpose of SACCS is to establish itself as a member of good standing with SASCOC and thus get recognition from DSAC. SACCS is funded by DSAC in meeting their goals of mass participation and thus more than 50% of DSAC funding allocations are geared towards projects for our people in the previously disadvantaged communities. SACCS through the years has built up contingency funds of approximately R100,000 to fund the operating costs through the year until our administrative funding is released by DSAC. SACCS is very much a DSAC project driven operation as all National Tournaments are the responsibility of our autonomous members. SACCS is therefore financially stable and can only engage in projects that are DSAC approved. (b) Financially viability Indicated that SACCS is financially viable and a well-managed organisation that does not operate on any loans or bank overdrafts. The SACCS Board’s Treasurer publishes monthly management accounts that are distributed to the Board’s members monthly. SACCS is also managed strictly by an approved budget.
South African Body Building Federation	(a) Current Financial status The Federation indicated that Bodybuilding South Africa current financial status is solvent as its realizable value of its assets is greater than its liabilities. Its cash flow statement, contains 3 sections: cash from operations, cash from grants and sponsors and cash from investing (b) Financially viability Indicated that Bodybuilding South Africa has employed sound financial management practices to remain financially viable over the last 3 decades.

30 October 2020 - NW2302

Van Dyk, Ms V to ask the Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture

2. What are the reasons that the money from Relief Fund was reduced from R20,000.00 to R2,200.00 (b) why did some artists receive R53,000.00; 3. whether he stated on 3 August 2020 that the rationale of expanded public works rate structure is used to determine the R2, 200, 00; (b) if not, what is the position in this regard, if so, why is the allocated amount R2, 200.00 and not at least R3, 000.00- R3, 500.00 per month when the government self-stipulated that the minimum wage is the bare minimum living wage of R3, 500.00.

Source
Link

Reply:

(1). a) There was a difference in approach between the first wave and the second wave of the Covid-19 Relief Funding. In the first wave the amounts were based on loss of confirmed income by art practitioners and this was capped at R20 000, 00 per application to accommodate the demand. The second wave approach was open to all arts practitioners regardless of whether they had confirmed gigs or not. The intention was to reach as many art practitioners as possible in an attempt to respond to the outcry from the sector that, many did not have the opportunity in the first wave due to the indicated criteria.

b) The first wave Relief Fund had two categories, first was for loss of income and the second was for new digital solutions projects. The loss of income category was capped at R20,000.00 and the new Digital Solutions projects at R75 000,00 per application. In administering all approved Digital Solutions applications the disbursement of funds was divided into two tranches. All applicants awarded the maximum of R75 000,00 grant received R53,000,00 as the first tranche and R22,000,00 as second tranche. This accounts for the figure in question.

(2). Yes. The EPWP guidelines for wages were used with slight adjustments. That is, R100 per day on a 22-day month period. It is to be noted that this was not remuneration as no work or services were performed by the applicants. In this case, the Department’s intention was to, within the available resources, provide relief to as many practitioners as was anticipated due to the relaxation of criteria.

30 October 2020 - NW2380

Ngwenya, Ms DB to ask the Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture

In view of the announcement by his department in May 2019 that a new contractor had been appointed to complete the process of converting the house of Ms Winnie Madikizela-Mandela in Brandfort into a museum and that a budget of R2 million had been allocated towards the specified project of which the construction was to be completed by November 2019, (a) what caused delays in completing the project, (b) by what date does he envisage will it be completed and (c) what actions has he taken against those persons responsible for the specified delays? NW2955

Source
Link

Reply:

The Minister in May 2019 announced that a new contractor had been appointed to complete the process of converting the Ms Winnie Madikizela-Mandela house in Brandfort into a museum and that a budget of R2 million had been allocated towards the specified project of which the construction was to be completed by November 2019.

a) The construction of the project was not delayed.

b) The construction was completed on 19 November 2019.

c) No action is necessary as the project was completed within the planned time.

Questions and Replies

04 November 2020 - NW2102

Lees, Mr RA to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises

Reply:

04 November 2020 - NW1890

Mkhaliphi, Ms HO to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises

Reply:

04 November 2020 - NW2134

Van Minnen, Ms BM to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises

Reply:

04 November 2020 - NW2133

Van Minnen, Ms BM to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises

Reply:

04 November 2020 - NW1985

Van Minnen, Ms BM to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises

Reply:

04 November 2020 - NW1986

Van Minnen, Ms BM to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises

Reply:

04 November 2020 - NW2195

Phillips, Ms C to ask the Minister of Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation

Reply:

04 November 2020 - NW2132

Van Minnen, Ms BM to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises

Reply:

04 November 2020 - NW982

Cachalia, Mr G K to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises

Reply:

03 November 2020 - NW2490

Hlengwa, Mr M to ask the Minister of international relations

Reply:

03 November 2020 - NW2383

Msane, Ms TP to ask the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation

Reply:

02 November 2020 - NW2321

Mabhena, Mr TB to ask the Minister of Transport

Reply:

02 November 2020 - NW2254

Mabhena, Mr TB to ask the Minister of Transport

Reply:

02 November 2020 - NW2308

Hunsinger, Mr CH to ask the Minister of Transport

Reply:

02 November 2020 - NW2270

Nolutshungu, Ms N to ask the Minister of Transport

Reply:

02 November 2020 - NW2394

Nolutshungu, Ms N to ask the Minister of Transport

Reply:

02 November 2020 - NW2320

Mabhena, Mr TB to ask the Minister of Transport

Reply:

02 November 2020 - NW2338

Tarabella - Marchesi, Ms NI to ask the Minister of Basic Education to ask the Minister of Basic Education

Reply:

02 November 2020 - NW2393

Nolutshungu, Ms N to ask the Minister of Transport

Reply:

02 November 2020 - NW2307

Hunsinger, Mr CH to ask the Minister of Transport

Reply:

02 November 2020 - NW2272

Motsepe, Ms CCS to ask the Minister of Basic Education

Reply:

30 October 2020 - NW2267

Msane, Ms TP to ask the Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture

Reply:

30 October 2020 - NW2376

Singh, Mr N to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

Reply:

30 October 2020 - NW2485

Phillips, Ms C to ask the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy

Reply:

30 October 2020 - NW2482

Van Dyk, Ms V to ask the Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture

Reply:

30 October 2020 - NW2353

Winkler, Ms HS to ask the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

Reply:

30 October 2020 - NW2299