Questions and Replies

Reply:

(1)(a)Yes, the National Disaster Management Centre assessed the flooding.

(b) No costs were determined.

(2)Yes.

Reply:

The information requested by the Honourable Member is not readily available in the Department. The Department has however, engaged the Provincial Departments responsible for Local Government to request the relevant information from municipality. The information will be submitted to the Honourable Member as soon as it is received.

Reply:

a) The Department of Basic Education (DBE) does not have resources in the voted funds to provide sanitary towels to female learners.

b) Provinces such as Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Free State and KwaZulu-Natal have implemented local initiatives to provide sanitary towels to female learners.

(i) (ii)The project is a provincial initiative that is led and funded by each of the provinces. The school lists and relevant details remain in the custody of the said Provincial Education Departments (PEDs) and the question may be referred to the said PEDs.

 

Reply:

(i) & (ii) The information requested by the Honourable Member is available in the Department’s Annual Report.

 

Reply:

The information requested by the Honourable Member is not readily available in the Department. The Department has however, engaged the Provincial Departments responsible for Local Government to request the relevant information from municipality. The information will be submitted to the Honourable Member as soon as it is received.

Reply:

Once schools are fit for purpose, a practical completion certificate is awarded. Upon final completion, the asset is handed over to the relevant Provincial Department who then makes sure that there is a maintenance budget and maintenance plan for the school. All 184 schools have been issued with their practical completion certificates.

Reply:

Honourable Member, in accordance with the established practise applicable to parliamentary questions contained in the document titled, “Guide to Parliamentary Questions in the National Assembly”, I will not be able to provide names of the service providers as requested. The document referred to prohibits Members of Parliament, including the Executive, from divulging names of persons, bodies when asking or responding to parliamentary questions. It specifically states the following:

“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)”

In addition, to spend time sourcing information for the past five financial years will take time and it would not be prudent to spend resources on a project such as this one. The Honourable Member is, however, encouraged to provide me with specific areas of concern that she might have in respect of any service provider used by my Department and the entities reporting to me.

 

Reply:

The Ekurhuleni Metropolitan municipality through the Gauteng Provincial Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs provided the information:

The Emergency Management Services Department can confirm that the Executive Mayor, Member of Mayoral Committee (MMC) Community Safety, other political office bearers and the Gauteng Premier did visit the areas that were affected by floods in the City of Ekurhuleni. However, the department cannot confirm whether the Executive Mayor and other political office bearers specifically visited Edenvale. The Office of the Executive Mayor and / or Member of Mayoral Committee (MMC) Community Safety or the Chairperson of the Community Safety Portfolio is well placed to respond to the specific visit to Edenvale from Honourable E R Wilson from Democratic Alliance.

Reply:

According to the information received from Limpopo Provincial Department of Cooperative Governance, Human Settlement and Traditional Affairs:

1. Yes, the Local Labour Forum in the Modimolle - Mookgophong Local Municipality in Limpopo is currently functional.

2. Three Councillors, Trade unions (IMATU and SAMWU), Management (Municipal Manager, Manager: Corporate Services, Manager: Technical Services, Manager: Social Services, Area Manager: Vaalwater and Mookgophong: Legal, Human Resources and Labour Relations Officer.

3. (a) 16 October 2017 (postponed on 27 October 2017, 1 November 2017 and 28 November 2017.

(b) (i) New Limpopo Collective Agreement;

     (ii) Essential Service Agreement;

     (iii) Protective clothing;

     (iv) One job one salary;

     (v) Paid leave; and

     (vi) Progress report of job evaluation and placement.

 

Reply:

No

Reply:

The information requested by the Honourable Member is not readily available in the Department. The Department has however, engaged the Provincial Departments responsible for Local Government to request the relevant information from municipality. The information will be submitted to the Honourable Member as soon as it is received.

Reply:

The information requested by the Honourable Member is not readily available in the Department. The Department has however, engaged the Provincial Departments responsible for Local Government to request the relevant information from municipality. The information will be submitted to the Honourable Member as soon as it is received.

Reply:

(1)

Yes, there are municipalities which have made payment agreements (PA’s) with Eskom and have defaulted on those agreements in each of the past three financial years.

(1)(a)

Annexure A presents the municipalities which have made payment agreements with Eskom and have defaulted on those agreements at some point within each of the past three financial years.

(1)(b)

Eskom together with the intervention of national and provincial (Treasury and Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs) have engaged municipalities in order to agree on realistic payment plans.

(2)

Yes, from the specified municipalities in Table 1 above there are municipalities at risk of having their electricity supply cut off by Eskom. Planned interruptions dates for municipalities at risk of having their electricity supply cut off by Eskom are presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1:

Province	Municipality	Planned Interruption Date
Free State	Nketoana Mantsopa Tokologo Masilonyana Nala Dihlabeng Moqhaka	27-Sep-17 27-Sep-17 27-Sep-17 27-Sep-17 27-Sep-17 27-Sep-17 27-Sep-17
Limpopo	Thabazimbi	21-Sep-17
Northern Cape	Siyancuma Renosterberg Thembelihle1 Tsantsabane	18-Sep-17 18-Sep-17 18-Sep-17 18-Sep-17

Although Thembelihle municipality electricity supply will be interrupted, the municipality does not have a payment arrangement with Eskom.

Annexure A:

Province	2015_2016 Financial Year Municipal Payment arrangement list
	Valid PA's in 2015/16 Fin Year	Municipality	Honouring PA’s in 2015/16 Fin Year	Number of municipalities who did not honour their agreements
Eastern Cape	5	1. Maletswai (Now Walter Sisulu) 2. Nkonkobe (Now Raymond Mhlaba) 3. Nxuba (Now Raymond Mhlaba) 4. Makana 5. Gariep Municipality (Now Walter Sisulu)	0	5
Free State	8	1.  Dihlabeng 2.  Masilonyana 3. Mantsopa 4. Matjabeng 5. Nketoana 6. Maluti A Phofung 7. Metsimaholo Munic 8. Nala Local Munic	1	7
Gauteng	3	1.  Midvaal 2.  Randfontein 3. Westonaria	3	0
KZN	2	1. Abaqulusi 2. Ulundi	1	1
Limpopo	2	Thabazimbi Munic Mookgophong	0	2
Province	2015_2016 Financial Year Municipal Payment arrangement list
	Valid PA's in 2015/16 Fin Year	Municipality	Honouring PA’s in 2015/16 Fin Year	Number of municipalities who did not honour their agreements
Mpumalanga	10	1. Emalahleni 2. Msukaligwa 3.  Govan Mbeki 4.  Lekwa 5.  Emakhazeni 6. Mkhondo 7. Nkomazi 8. Thaba Chweu 9. Chief Albert Luthuli 10. Umjindi	1	9
North West	9	1. Ditsobotla 2. Kgetlengrivier 3. Lekwa-Teemane 4. Mamusa 5. Matlosana 6. Naledi 7. Tswaing 8. Maquassi Hills 9. Madibeng	2	7
Northern Cape	11	1. Kamiesberg 2. Khara Hais 3. Khai - Ma 4.  Nama Khoi 5.  Renosterberg 6.  Tsantsabane 7.  Magareng 8. Siyathemba 9. Siyancuma 10. Dikgatlong 11. Ubuntu	3	8
Western Cape	3	1. Oudtshoorn 2. Kannaland 3. Cederberg	2	1
Province	2016_2017 Financial Year Municipal Payment arrangement list
	Valid PA's in 2016/17 Fin Year	Municipality	Honouring PA’s in 2016/17 Fin Year	Number of municipalities who did not honour their agreements
Eastern Cape	4	1. Dr Beyers Naude (Former Ikwezi) 2. Makana 3. Raymond Mhlaba 4. Walter Sisulu (former Gariep and Maletswai)	1	3
Free State	8	1. Dihlabeng 2. Masilonyana 3. Mantsopa 4. Moqhaka 5. Nala 6. Nketoana 7. Phumelela 8. Tokologo	2	6
Gauteng	7	1. Midvaal 2. Randfontein 3. Lesedi 4. Mogale City 5. Emfuleni 6. Merafong 7. Westonaria	7	0
KZN	4	1. Mpofana 2. eDumbe 3. Ulundi 4. Abaqulusi	3	1
Limpopo	5	1. Musina 2.  Bela-Bela 3. Modimolle 4. Mookgophong 5. Thabazimbi	0	5
Mpumalanga	11	1.    Emalahleni 2.    Msukaligwa 3.    Thaba Chweu 4.    Govan Mbeki 5.    Lekwa 6.    Emakhazeni 7.    Mkhondo 8.    Albert Lithuli 9. Dipalaseng 10. Victor Khanye 11. City of Mbombela	1	10
North West	9	1. Ditsobotla 2. Kgetlengrivier 3. Lekwa-Teemane 4. Mamusa 5. Matlosana 6. Naledi 7. Ramotshere 8. Tswaing 9. Ventersdorp	4	5
Northern Cape	18	1.   Kai Garib (Keimoes) 2.  Kai Garib (Kenhardt) 3.  Kai Garib (Kakamas) 4.    Kamiesberg 5.    Khai - Ma 6.    Nama Khoi 7.    Kgatelopele 8.    Renosterberg 9.  Tsantsabane 10. Magareng 11. Ga-Segonyana 12. Phokwane/Hartswater 13. Emthanjeni 14. Gamagara 15. Siyathemba 16. Siyancuma 17. Dikgatlong 18. Ubuntu	2	16
Western Cape	2	1. Oudtshoorn 2. Kannaland	1	1
Province	2017_2018 Financial Year Municipal Payment arrangement list
	Valid PA's in 2017/18 Fin Year	Municipality	Honouring PA’s in 2017/18 Fin Year	Number of municipalities who did not honour their agreements
Eastern Cape	5	1. Dr Beyers Naude (Former Ikwezi) 2. KSD 3. Makana 4. Raymond Mhlaba 5. Walter Sisulu (former Gariep and Maletswai)	1	4
Free State	8	1. Dihlabeng 2. Masilonyana 3. Mantsopa 4. Moqhaka 5. Nala 6. Nketoana 7. Phumelela 8.. Tokologo	1	7
Gauteng	4	1. Emfuleni 2. Merafong 3. Mogale City 4. Randfontein	0	4
KZN	6	1. eDumbe 2. Mpofana 3. Newcastle 4. Phongolo 5. Ulundi 6. Zululand	4	2
Limpopo	4	1. Modimolle 2.. Mookgophong 3. Musina 4. Thabazimbi	0	4
Mpumalanga	10	1. Albert Lithuli 2. Dipaleseng 3. Emakhazeni 4. Emalahleni 5. Govan Mbeki 6. Lekwa 7. Mkhondo 8. Msukaligwa 9. Thaba Chweu 10. Victor Khanye	0	10
North West	9	1. Ditsobotla 2. Kgetlengrivier 3. Lekwa-Teemane 4. Mamusa 5. Matlosana 6. Naledi 7. Ramotshere 8. Tswaing 9. Ventersdorp	2	7
Northern Cape	14	1. Dikgatlong 2. Emthanjeni 3. Gamagara 4. Ga-Segonyana 5. Kai Garib 6. Kgatelopele 7. Magareng 8. Nama Khoi 9. Phokwane/Hartswater 10. Renosterberg 11. Siyancuma 12. Siyathemba 13. Tsantsabane 14. Ubuntu	4	10
Western Cape	2	1. Oudtshoorn 2. Kannaland	1	1

Reply:

a) Yes, I accompanied H.E President Jacob Zuma on a working visit to the Russian Federation.

b) No

Reply:

a) At the conclusion of the Audit there was a dispute between the Department and the Auditor- General on the amount of irregular expenditure. The Minister of Energy has since met with the Auditor-General and the matter in dispute has been resolved.

b) (i) The area of concern that had been identified by the Auditor- General was understatement of irregular expenditure.

(ii) Steps to be taken to address the areas of concern include strengthening of internal controls.

(iii) As indicated in (ii) above mechanisms will be instituted to avoid the concerns identified again in 2017/18 financial statements as part of the remedial action plan. The Minister and the audit committee will oversee the administration on quarterly basis.

Reply:

(a) The allegations as contemplated in section 2(2) of the Special Investigating Unit and Special Tribunals Act, 1996 (Act No. 74 of 1996) ('SIU Act') were made to the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) in respect of the affairs of the Greater Sekhukhune District Municipality and the Elias Motsoaledi Local Municipality ("the Municipalities"). The allegations pointed towards loss having been suffered by the two municipalities and as such had to be recovered. In order to recover the losses suffered by the municipalities, the SIU made an application to the President of the Republic of South Africa with the support of the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs in order to apply for a proclamation. The SIU deemed it necessary that the said allegations should be investigated, and civil proceedings emanating from such investigations should be adjudicated upon.

(b) The investigation in respect of the Proclamation in the two municipalities were never withdrawn and they are still on going.
 

Reply:

The information requested by the Honourable Member is not readily available in the Department. The Department has however, engaged the Provincial Departments responsible for Local Government to request the relevant information from municipality. The information will be submitted to the Honourable Member as soon as it is received.

Reply:

The Ekurhuleni Metropolitan municipality through the Gauteng Provincial Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs provided the information:

The Roads and Storm Water Department of the City of Ekurhuleni appointed Consultants for the assessment of the roads and storm water infrastructure under its jurisdiction, damaged during the floods in Edenvale and Eastleigh Spruit at an estimated fees amount or R4, 3m from its own consulting fees budget allocation.

R 10 million was not allocated for the rehabilitation, reconstruction and/or repair of priority roads and storm-water infrastructure. The R10 million funding was earmarked within the disaster management vote to be used for the structural assessment, design and implementation of roads and storm water infrastructure projects following the flooding that occurred in November 2016. During the procurement process, it was realised that the earmarked allocation cannot be utilised as this may be against the municipal supply chain policies.

(a)(i) No amount was spent on the repair bridges. , roads in Edenvale and the Eastleigh spruit.

(ii) No amount was used to repair roads in Edenvale.

(b) No amount was used to repair the Eastleigh Spruit

Reply:

a) The evaluation section is currently busy valuating the properties, the latest information will be provided as soon as it is available.

b) In terms of security reasons we cannot disclose which Minister occupies which property.

The Ministerial residences in Cape Town are located in:

• Rondebosch
• Groote Schuur Estate
• Kenilworth
• Claremont
• Oude Westhof
• Gardens
• Newlands
• Van Riebeeckshof
• Platekoof
• Mouille Point
• Milnerton
• Bishopscourt
• Welgemoed
• Parliament Village
• Sunset Beach
• Mowbray
• Woodstock
• Seapoint

The Ministerial residences in Pretoria are located in:

• Bryntirion Estate
• Waterkloof
• Fearie Glen
• Moreleta Park
• Brooklyn
• Mooikloof
• The Wild Estate

c) Maintenance Expenditure

Cape Town:

Property	(i) 2014/15 Oct 2014-Mar 2015	(ii) 2015/16 Apr 2015-Mar 2016	(iii) 2016/17 Apr 2016- Mar 2017
1	62,479.98	155,723.95	154,802.88
2	16,861.74	86,056.76	34,733.52
3	72,271.44	226,883.39	174,726.97
4	105,826.20	355,908.13	705,797.16
5	67,959.96	176,119.12	165,370.87
6	141,979.02	327,572.31	313,827.96
7	66,625.02	231,348.56	194,234.24
8	134,008.14	316,195.80	279,961.34
9	67,930.32	259,840.64	449,981.19
10	120,948.30	308,431.49	253,007.95
12	121,553.64	246,294.72	246,294.72
13	145,962.18	293,258.16	293,258.16
14	107,418.78	239,411.08	215,637.84
15	104,348.76	209,495.52	236,643.48
16	144,097.14	299,509.74	309,058.56
17	352,320.42	1,960,033.67	828,366.80
18	149,473.38	596,665.12	301,137.84
19	136,451.16	281,788.85	274,475.52
20	117,552.24	248,602.06	238,606.56
21	72,347.82	238,108.33	262,343.91
22	82,595.28	172,544.93	170,542.81
23	97,737.90	197,812.25	196,526.88
24	101,896.62	206,555.69	220,111.20
25	96,007.38	201,386.06	210,158.90
26	77,069.70	161,839.65	169,817.71
27	80,250.30	167,726.95	168,339.24
28	112,443.90	255,889.67	303,727.33
29	82,207.68	178,308.04	176,560.73
30	78,027.30	157,529.76	164,871.52
31	67,507.38	136,430.64	180,480.02
32	114,308.94	549,985.32	256,291.38
33	63,145.74	196,832.62	169,603.11
34	79,746.42	214,542.54	217,707.65
35	68,173.14	212,825.50	462,111.38
36	62,400.18	141,654.92	515,571.54
37	60,627.48	141,890.48	217,049.10
38	98,061.66	223,121.78	320,707.80
39	84,103.50	189,661.95	197,490.96
40	89,821.74	205,080.18	200,138.40
41	77,437.92	172,013.87	288,480.63
42	109,675.98	235,810.52	240,699.60
43	101,760.96	280,127.63	515,039.33
44	116,786.16	234,967.68	234,967.68
45	85,378.02	198,747.94	589,947.50
46	121,585.56	301,902.34	282,295.66
47	73,783.08	190,880.76	184,722.41
48	27,964.20	56,922.48	56,922.48
49	28,226.40	57,250.80	63,526.60
50	20,982.84	76,840.36	44,875.43
51	59,268.60	143,810.57	155,329.21
52	57,262.20	151,081.02	151,088.41
53	112,804.14	239,647.83	283,916.03
54	100,897.98	202,847.04	218,390.18
55	54,550.14	110,151.36	123,865.70
56	53,660.94	167,869.28	108,372.96
57	54,686.94	114,238.73	133,341.70
58	53,729.34	127,321.20	125,909.02
59	50,193.06	114,654.75	105,167.80
60	50,307.06	101,710.80	101,710.80
61	76,976.22	261,580.08	299,899.71
62	64,020.12	182,400.01	234,515.07
63	79,294.98	194,842.04	736,907.09
Grand Total	5,535,780.72	14,886,485.45	15,729,966.11

c) Maintenance Expenditure

Pretoria:

PROPERTY	(c) 2014 – 15 FY	2015 – 16 FY	2016 – 17 FY
1	R 98 062,21
2	R 10 409,67		R89, 940
3	R 312 956,70	R375, 259	R148, 567
4	R 8 629,42	R44, 026	R7, 173
5	R 130 892,42	R7, 480	R59, 756
6	R 82 980,56	R11, 507	R308, 013
7	R 429 430,50	R400, 010	R75, 336
8	R 6 657,60	R6, 657	R15, 394
9		R8, 263	R16, 249
10	R 112 005,00
11
12
13	R 40 413,06
14
15
16		R38, 818	R332, 125
17	R 2 300,00	R2,300	R5, 073
18	R 1 852,04	R214, 933	R29, 176
19	R 1 648 181,00	R1, 106, 419	R2, 706, 338
20	R 438 345,20	R424, 997	R14, 198
21		R418, 550	R39, 297
22	R 113 311,50	R890, 798	R51, 703
23	R 129 716,30	R129, 136	R180, 494
24		R74, 038	R289, 364
25		R1, 334, 274	R221, 158
26		R19,614	R92, 116
27		R785, 545	R126, 798
28		R1, 121, 381	R64, 876
29		R1, 855, 682	R174, 558
30		R29, 568	R48, 387
31		R2, 145, 814	R123, 256
32		R205, 687
33		R197, 314	R135, 307
34		R547, 882	R32, 018
35	R 10 697,39	R158, 540	R156, 598
36	R 147 836,40	R1, 028, 012	R189, 624
37		R40, 106	R147, 898
38		R6, 564	R76, 579
39	R 32 479,84	R421, 847	R463, 552
40		R35, 644	R403, 290
41		R1, 218,565	R283, 406
42	R 12 003,00	R183, 032	R113, 156
43	R 45 930,42	R948, 443	R473, 396
44	R 5 640,00	R173, 464	R313, 890
45	R 50 801,95	R1, 009, 990	R458, 879
46	R 27 629,03	R2, 689, 301	R302, 634
47		R617, 585	R488, 831
48			R86, 691
49		R85, 203	R81, 680
50	R 2 885,67	R21, 317	R107, 459
51		R3, 293	R50, 261
52			R28, 660
53			R103, 042
54			R162, 163
55
56			R1, 163
57
58		R24, 202	R37, 470
59			R198, 087
60			R178, 132
61			R103, 847

c) Upgrades

Cape Town:

RESIDENCE	PROJECT AMOUNT	SCOPE OF WORKS
1	R 2 141 127.07	Construction of boundary walls, Construction of guard hut, Installation of cameras and monitors, Installation of electric fence.
2	R 3 420 177.74	Construction of boundary walls, Construction of guard hut, Installation of cameras and monitors, Installation of electric fence.
3	R 3 830 050.66	Construction of boundary walls, Construction of guard hut, Installation of cameras and monitors, Installation of electric fence.
4	R 58 771.61	Entertainment Facility
5	R 34 468.03	Entertainment facility

c) Upgrades

Pretoria:

PROPERTY	2014/2015	2015/16	2016/17
1	R 0.00	R 158 301.19	R 2 107 035.90
2	R 0.00		R 1 835 818.72
3	R 0.00		R 1 319 303.55
4	R 0.00	R 2 398 350.77	R 89 124.35
5	R 0.00	R 0.00	R 2 597 583.51
6	R 0.00	R 0.00	R 2 828 604.88
7	R 0.00	R 0.00	R 2 784 102.34
8	R 0.00	R 3 133 499.05	R 333 263.99
9	R 0.00	R 197 826.19	R 2 501 531.73
10	R 0.00	R 920 961.98	R 1 200 680.99
11	R 0.00	R 0.00	R 2 658 529.98
	Grand Total	R0.00	R 6 808 939.18	R 20 255 579.94

(2) (a)

Acquisitions:

Cape Town
RESIDENCE	PURCHASE PRICE	AREA
1	R 8, 000 000.00	Van Riebeeckshof
2	R 6 039 363.00	Claremont
3	R 6 100 000.00	Platekloof
4	R 7 000 000.00	Van Riebeeckshof
5	R 5 950 000.00	Milnerton
6	R 6 142 203.00	Claremont
7	R 6 041 917.00	Newlands
8	R 4 138 878.00	Newlands
9	R 5 500 000.00	Milnerton
10	R 5 700 000.00	Van Riebeeckshof
11	R 8 900 000.00	Kenilworth
12	R 8 500 000.00	Van Riebeeckshof
13	R 6 650 000.00	Van Riebeeckshof
14	R 7 203 398.00	Sunset Beach
15	R 5 139 515.00	Kenilworth
16	R 8 600 000.00	Kenilworth
17	R 5 942 166.00	Newlands
18	R 4 850 000.00	Van Riebeeckshof
Grand Total	R116,397,440

2. (a)

Acquisitions (Pretoria)

Residence	(ii) Purchase price	(iii) Purpose for which the property was purchased	(iv) Total amount spent on upgrades and maintenance
1	R5 445 131	Residential accommodation
2	R4 747 822	Residential accommodation
3	R4 033 091	Residential accommodation
4	R4 546 625	Residential accommodation
5	R4 548 107	Residential accommodation
6	R5 814 200	Residential accommodation	R882,645.33
7	R6 351 080	Residential accommodation	R1, 191, 328.00
8	R6 351 080	Residential accommodation	R1, 611, 423.00
9	R6 148 800	Residential accommodation	R1, 039 ,586.00
10	R4 941 190	Residential accommodation	R1, 230, 492.00
11	R3 663 210	Residential accommodation
12	R6 245 950	Residential accommodation
13	R3 634 780	Residential accommodation	R542, 336.00
14	R2 928 585	Residential accommodation
15	R2 425 165	Residential accommodation	R1,774,540.37
Grand Total	R71,824,816		R8,272,350.70

(v) The Valuation Section is still busy with valuations.

Reply:

The Question has been referred to all the Provincial Education Departments and the response will be provided as soon as it is received.

Reply:

The following response was provided by the Chief Albert Luthuli Local Municipality:

(1) (a) (i)(ii)

The municipality budgets for the maintenance and repair of (i) roads and (ii) storm-water infrastructure covering all wards. It doesn’t budget ward-wise.

The municipality budgeted a total amount of R 9 000,00 thousand for the past five years from 2012-2013 to 2016-2017. The year-wise budget amounts are detailed below in thousand Rand:

Roads and storm-water maintenance budget for 2012-2017 period

2012/13 (000 )	2013/14 (000 )	2014/15 (000 )	2015/16 (000 )	2016/17 (000 )	TOTAL (000 )
1 100,00	2 400,00	1 900,00	1 400,00	2 200,00	9 000,00

(1) (b)(i)(ii)

According to the municipality, it spent a total amount of R 2 500,00 thousand for the past five years from 2012-2013 to 2016-2017. The year-wise expenditure amounts are detailed below in thousand Rand:

Expenditure for roads and storm-water during 2012-2017 period

2012/13 (000 )	2013/14 (000 )	2014/15 (000 )	2015/16 (000 )	2016/17 (000 )	TOTAL (000 )
450,00	600,00	550,00	600,00	300,00	2 500,00

(2) According to the municipality, it allocated a total budget of R 1 800,00 thousand for the 2017-2018 financial year for maintenance and repair of roads and storm-water.

Reply:

The information on the incidents mentioned has been requested from the Eastern Cape and the KwaZulu-Natal Departments of Education and will be provided as soon as it is received.

Reply:

1. (a) No procurement and/or services were made to Travel with Flair (Pty) Ltd by the Department of Energy

(i) Not applicable

(ii) No payments were made to Travel with Flair (Pty) Ltd.

(b) (i) Other than the National Nuclear Regulator none of the other entities reporting to the Minister of Energy have procured any services from Travel With Flair

(ii) R 2, 027, 867.96

2. (a) Travel with Flair (Pty) Ltd did not provide international travel for the Department of Energy.

(i) Not applicable

(ii) Not applicable

(iii) Not applicable

(b) (i) The revelation of such information would allow others to develop a profile of the operations of the National Nuclear Regulator which could impact on both safety and security.

Reply:

a) A legal firm had been appointed to conduct investigations. The investigations took longer than expected. The report presented had gaps due to the method used by the investigators. The Minister directed that the report must be able to meet the principles of natural justice i.e. Ald. at partem. The financial aspect conducted by KPMG had to be subjected to a reliance audit and this further caused more delays.

b) When the Minister was supposed to receive final report the service provider on the legal part declared a conflict of interest. The Minister has instructed CEF and SFF to expedite the investigations without further delays.

Reply:

The information requested by the Honourable Member is not readily available in the Department. The Department has however, engaged the Provincial Departments responsible for Local Government to request the relevant information from municipality. The information will be submitted to the Honourable Member as soon as it is received.

Reply:

Information on the question is the information included in the USB flash drive that was submitted to the Portfolio Committee on 17 February 2017 and to the questions office.

Reply:

(1) The number of projects undertaken since the 2014/15 financial year in Limpopo in:

(a) Modimolle LM: 4 projects;

(b) Mookgopong LM: 6 projects;

(c) Bela Bela LM: 9 projects;

(d) Lephalale LM: 15 projects;

(e) Thabazimbi LM: 2 projects.

(2) (a) According to the information provided by the Provincial Department, not all projects mentioned above have been completed. Some projects are being implemented over multi-year periods.

(b) The names of incomplete projects and their monetary value are indicated in the table below:

NO.	PROJECT INFORMATION	(b) MONETARY VALUE
1.	WATERBERG/ MODIMOLLE / HOMES 2000 (78) (Delayed due to contract not being signed by the contractor)	R6 474 000
2.	WATERBERG/BELA-BELA/ MMAMOLOKO (86 URBAN)	R7 138 000
3.	WATERBERG/BELA-BELA/ HIGH POINT (92) URBAN	R7 636 000
4.	WATERBERG/BELA-BELA/ BARORISI (92) RURAL	R7 636 000
	(for the three projects above, site handover is in process after recently appointing contractors)

 

 

(c) Honourable Member, in accordance with the established practise applicable to parliamentary questions contained in the document titled, “Guide to Parliamentary Questions in the National Assembly”, I will not be able to provide names of the contractors as requested. The document referred to prohibits Members of Parliament, including the Executive, from divulging names of persons, bodies when asking or responding to parliamentary questions. It specifically states the following:

 

“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)”

(3) All the specified municipalities, except the Thabazimbi Local Municipality, use waiting lists. Thabazimbi Local Municipality is making use of the previous instrument, the Beneficiary Status Report. Beneficiaries were approved using this instrument. The Limpopo Province’s current waiting list is still a manual one, and is not yet automated as is the case with the National Housing Needs Register (NHNR). The province is in a process of uploading data the NHNR system.

(4) Yes, 3 205 beneficiaries have title deeds registered in their names for houses built in the specified (new) projects.

Reply:

The information requested by the Honourable Member is not readily available within the department and the reply below was sourced from the Housing Development Agency and the Provincial Deeds Office in Limpopo Province.

There are a total number of 3594 units which still needs to be transferred by the Limpopo Provincial Government to Modimolle-Mookgopong local municipality. The breakdown is provided in the table below.

Municipality Name (amalgamation considered)	Place name	Number of title deeds
Modimolle Local Municipality	Phagameng Ext 8	22
	Phagameng Ext 10	35
	Phagameng Ext 4	413
	Phagameng Ext 11	220
	Phagameng Ext 12	716
	Vaalwater	670
	Vaalwater Ext 1	668
	Vaalwater Ext 4	505
Mookhopong Local Municipality	Mookgopong Ext 5	345
Total outstanding title deeds	3 594

According to the records from the office of the Deeds Registry in Limpopo Province, there are no properties from the Provincial Government of Limpopo which were transferred to Modimolle-Mookgopong Local Municipality since 01 January 2017.

Reply:

There was no member of the specified family that was part of the official delegation that accompanied the President to the State Visit to Zambia.

Reply:

(1) I have been informed by Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality that the reported expenditure of R24 714 000 was for work in progress. The social housing projects are multi-year projects and the housing units are reported when the block of social housing units are complete, handed over and a completion certificate is issued. The projects have since been completed with 256 units delivered, in Germiston Fire station phase 1(144 units) and Delville (112 units) respectively, at the end of the 2016/17 financial year.

(2) (a) The contract of the appointed service providers had expired on 30 June 2016, therefore no construction could commence until new service providers were appointed. The appointment of the new service provider was finalised on 18 November 2016 and appointment letters from the Tender Office were issued on 15 December 2016. There was a period of six months where the Municipality had no service providers for the construction of houses. In addition, the late gazetting of the Human Settlements Development Grant (HSDG) funds by the Province to Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality also contributed to the poor expenditure of 2016/17. The Metropolitan Municipality received this part of HDSG in March 2017.

(b) The Municipality received an Urban Settlements Development Grant (USDG) allocation of R1, 985 billion for the 2017/2018 financial year.

(3) The approved National Subsidy Quantum is R111 000. The Provincial Subsidy Quantum on the other hand is capped at R102 953.55. The unit cost did not reduce as the National Subsidy Quantum stands at R111 000. Further, the Metropolitan Municipality reported that there were certain houses under the category of work in progress, as they were at various phases of construction. In addition, there were expenses for completed houses which were not included as they were subject to internal payment approval process at the time of reporting.

Reply:

Upon receipt of this question, the Department of Cooperative Governance (DCoG) approached the Department of Development Planning in the City of Johannesburg to request information pertaining to Erf 11208. In the response, the City has provided details in relation to the zoning history of Erf 11208 as per the table below:

ERF NUMBER	OWNERSHIP	ZONING	REZONING HISTORY
11208 Bramfischerville Ext 8	Rand Leases	Residential	None
11208 Cosmo City Ext 10	Mashile Aubrey	Residential 1	None
11208 Diepkloof	Motaung Elizabeth	Residential	None
11208 Dobsonville Ext 2	Mbatha Itumeleng and Velaphi	Residential	None
11208 Ivory Park Ext 10	City of Johannesburg	Residential	None
11208 Lenasia Ext 13 (now subdivided into 8 portions of Erf  12263)	Gauteng Provincial Housing Advisory Board	8 Residential 1 stands	The current rezoning application, submitted in 2014, which includes erven 11192 and 11206 is pended due to non-submission of a geotechnical report. The rezoning application is to increase the residential density from 1 house per stand to multi storey walk ups.
11208 Meadowlands	Tseleli Tsohleho	Residential	None
11208 Orange Farm Ext 7	Makhubu Phumuzile	Residential	None
11208 Orlando	Khumalo Bavelile	Residential	None
11208 Pimville Zone 2	Makau Paulina	Residential	None
11208 Stretford Ext 6	Bokaba Maurice	Residential	None

Reply:

The matter raised by the Honourable Member can best be responded to by the National Treasury, as the competent authority.

Reply:

In carrying out its mandate, the Department develops legislation, undertakes programs and projects, and in that process interacts with a plethora of stakeholders and industry players of varying nature. This for example may take a form of bilateral meetings, visits, conferences, etc. and therefore it is practically impossible to mention with specific engagements that the department, often represented by different officials at different levels, has undertaken.

Reply:

1. The unsolicited offers received in May 2017 were not considered and the Department is in the process of advertising all its surplus properties to solicit
offers from the public.

2. Yes. The Department has appointed security services to safeguard the property.

3. No. The Department has not been informed of any assessment done on the structure relating to the preservation of the property.

Reply:

The Honourable Member needs to note that the matters that are being raised here, fall within the mandate of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. And the question should therefore be re-directed to it as the relevant authority.

Reply:

(a) (i) 2014/15 financial year: Nil

2015/16 financial year: Nil

2016/17 financial year: Nil

(ii) 2017/18 financial year: R111.1 million

 

(b) 2014/15 financial year: 50 million

2015/16 financial year: 50 million

2016/17 financial year: Nil

2017/18 financial year: Nil

2018/19 financial year: R 28.4 million

 

(c) 2014/15 financial year

No additional allocation

2015/16 financial year

No additional allocation

2016/17 financial year

Nil Allocation

2017/18 financial year

No additional allocation

2018/19 financial year

No additional allocation

Reply:

SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION (SALGA) AND SOUTH AFRICAN CITIES NETWORK (SACN)

a) Not applicable. In respect of Salga, positions are filled through elective conference linked to the Local Government Elections while the board members of the SACN are mandated by their respective municipalities to form part of the board based on municipal council resolutions of each municipality.

b) Not applicable. Positions are filled through elective conference linked to the Local Government Elections.

MUNICIPAL DEMARCATION BOARD

(a) (b) The applications for persons to be appointed as a member board are advertised in accordance with Section 8(1)(a) of the Municipal Demarcation Act, Act 27 of 1998.

COMMISSION FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF CULTURAL, RELIGIOUS AND LINGUISTIC COMMUNITIES (CLR COMMISSION)

(a) (b) The current Commissioners were appointed in March 2014 for a five-year period, expiring in March 2019.

Reply:

(a)

	Value	(aa) Listed assets	(bb) Unlisted Investment
		(aaa) Directly held	(bbb) Indirectly held	(aaa) Directly held	(bbb) Indirectly held
	R’000	R’000	R’000	R’000	R’000
a) Current assets		N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Unauthorised expenditure	6 488	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Cash and cash equivalents	863 651	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Other Financial Assets	-	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Prepayment and advances	497 761	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Receivables	61 867	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Loans	-	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Aid Assistance prepayments	-	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Aid assistance receivables	-	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
(b) Non-Current assets		N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Investments	-	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Receivables	96 632	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Loans	-	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Other Financial Assets	-	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

(b) Public Entities detailed breakdown of and valuation for current and non-current assets and investments:

SACE

Assets: Less than months <	(aa) Listed assets	(bb) Unlisted Investment
	(aaa) Directly held	(bbb) Indirectly held	(aaa) Directly held	(bbb) Indirectly held
Assets/Investment	R’000	R’000	R’000	R’000
Buildings	0.00	N/A	N/A	N/A
Motor vehicles	0.00	N/A	N/A	N/A
Office equipment	84 602.99	N/A	N/A	N/A
IT equipment	72 870.90	N/A	N/A	N/A
Leasehold improvements	0.00	N/A	N/A	N/A
Intangible assets	20 736.23	N/A	N/A	N/A
Current assets	47 208 088	N/A	N/A	N/A
Assets: 3-6 months
Buildings	0.00	N/A	N/A	N/A
Motor vehicles	0.00	N/A	N/A	N/A
Office equipment	276 926.90	N/A	N/A	N/A
IT equipment	51 688.33	N/A	N/A	N/A
Leasehold improvements	0.00	N/A	N/A	N/A
Intangible assets	39 465.59	N/A	N/A	N/A
Current assets	24 210 996	N/A	N/A	N/A
Assets: 6-12 months
Buildings	61 110 936.74	N/A	N/A	N/A
Motor vehicles	0.00	N/A	N/A	N/A
Office equipment	851 192.17	N/A	N/A	N/A
IT equipment	76 444.51	N/A	N/A	N/A
Leasehold improvements	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Intangible assets	270 527.15	N/A	N/A	N/A
Current assets	25 095 798	N/A	N/A	N/A
Assets: 1 year and older
Buildings	0.00	N/A	N/A	N/A
Motor vehicles	138 000	N/A	N/A	N/A
Office equipment	3 078 392	N/A	N/A	N/A
IT equipment	3 857 437	N/A	N/A	N/A
Leasehold improvements	1 409 972	N/A	N/A	N/A
Intangible assets	5 524 281	N/A	N/A	N/A
Current assets	98 072 547	N/A	N/A	N/A

UMALUSI

	Value	(aa) Listed assets	(bb) Unlisted Investment
		(aaa) Directly held	(bbb) Indirectly held	(aaa) Directly held	(bbb) Indirectly held
	R’000	R’000	R’000	R’000	R’000
b) Current assets		N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Cash and cash equivalents	1 504	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Short-term deposit	70 835	N/A	N/A	70 835
Receivables from exchange transactions	4 379	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
(b) Non-Current assets		N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Property, plant and equipment	43 344	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Operating lease assets	17	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Comment

• The short term investment is available cash invested with the Corporation for Public Deposits (CPD). The CPD is governed by the Corporation for Public Deposits Act 46 of 1984. The CPD accepts all deposits from the public sector and invests the funds in short-term money-market instruments and special Treasury bills. All funds invested with the CPD, and the interest earned on these funds, are payable on demand.

Reply:

1. The requested information is not readily available and is being sourced from municipalities through provinces and will be provided later when received.

2. The requested information is not readily available and is being sourced from municipalities through provinces and will be provided later when received.

 

Reply:

(1) The complaint was investigated by the South African Council of Educators (SACE) on 7 September 2017. The investigator, after conclusion of the case, recommended that no charges be levelled against the accused educator and furnished his reasons for the findings (Case 135/2017-GP).

(2) The educator in question was charged by SACE with 53 counts of applying corporal punishment on the learner. She has been placed on medication by her doctor, Dr Lugongolo for 6 months with effect from 08 August. This means that she may be fit for work in February 2018 and all that is known is that she has a mental condition. We tried contacting the school to ascertain her status, but the only number available keeps ringing unanswered and the landline number is no longer in service according to Telkom. The school is Prince Dokodoko High School (Case 119/2016-KZN).

(3) Without having to repeat the full reading of the charges, the Principal of Mphaphuli Secondary School was charged with three (3) charges:

• The first one was for refusing to cooperate with a SACE investigator;
• The second one was for refusing to grant the investigator access to the educators in the school; and
• The third one was for refusing to grant the investigator access to the learners or complainants in the school.

The hearing was scheduled to take place on 10 November 2017, but was postponed as his representative was engaged in arbitration on the day in question. The hearing will proceed in February 2018 (Case 133/2017-LP).

(4) The disciplinary hearing was finalised on 20 November 2017 and the presiding officer promised to furnish his report by 09 December 2017 (Case number 476/2016-MP).

(5) We have been informed by the school that the matter was postponed in court until January 2018. The accused will appear again in 2018.

Reply:

(1) (a) The municipality has not purchased land on its own from the year 2011 to date. However, the Housing Development Agency (HDA) bought land to address housing backlogs in Bela- Bela. The land in question was registered in the Deeds Office by HDA. Size of the land is 72.5 hectors off stand 1491, portion 170 of the farm Roodepoort 467KR.

(b) The cost for the land as per the Deeds information is R65 400 000.00, the land is owned by HDA.

(c) In the municipal valuation roll these piece of land (stand 1491 Ext 25) is not valued.

(d) The previous owner of the land as per documents in the municipal record was Messrs SBNP Family Trust, Number IT3162/2004.

(2) HDA had finalised detail design of 1200 units in this area. The housing project has not yet started. Progress on this project matter can be provided by the HDA and Coghsta Limpopo.

Reply:

PRETORIA
Residence	Scope (b)	Cost of Security Installation (a)
1	Installation of Security Cameras,Alarm System, beam detectors, security fence and intercom.	R 549,196.00
2	Installation of Security Cameras,Alarm System, beam detectors, security fence and intercom.	R 740,661.00
3	Installation of Security Cameras,Alarm System, beam detectors, security fence and intercom.	R 714,045.87
4	Installation of Security Cameras,Alarm System, beam detectors, security fence and intercom.	R 858,044.40
5	New Installation of Security Cameras,Alarm System, repairs to beam detectors, repairs to security fence and intercom.	R 87,636.00
	Installation of new Security Cameras and using recently installed/functioning cameras,Installation of new Alarm System, panic buttons, security fence and some repairs to existing intercom.	R 478,065.00
6	Installation of New Security Cameras,panic buttons , Alarm System, repairs to security fence and intercom.	R 131,864.00
7	Installation of new Security Cameras, panic buttons and using the functioning and simingly recently installed security cameras,New installation of Alarm System,security fence , repairs to the beam detectors, and intercom.	R 198,275.40

8	Installation of Security Cameras,Alarm System, beam detectors, security fence and intercom.	R595 326.54
9	Installation of Security Cameras,Alarm System, beam detectors, security fence and intercom.	R598 792.24
10	Installation of Security Cameras,Alarm System, beam detectors, security fence and intercom.	R598 792.94
11	Installation of Security Cameras,Alarm System, beam detectors, security fence and intercom.	R598 792.94
12	Installation of Security Cameras,Alarm System, beam detectors, security fence and intercom.	R598 792.94
13	Installation of Security Cameras,Alarm System, beam detectors, security fence and intercom.	R598 792.94

Cape Town

RESIDENCE	Security Measures/ Upgrades	Works Description
1	R1,843,796	Construction of Guard hut, installation of cameras, monitors, alarm system, electric fence.
2	R2 017 778.46	Construction of Guard hut, installation of cameras, monitors, alarm system, electric fence, installation of palisade fencing.
3	R800,537	Installation of cameras, monitors, alarm system, electric fence.
4	R1,577,403	Construction of Guard hut, installation of cameras, monitors, alarm system, electric fence.
5	R909 178.58	Construction of Guard hut, installation of cameras, monitors, alarm system, electric fence.
6	R740 296.26	Construction of Guard hut, installation of cameras, monitors, alarm system, electric fence, installation of palisade fencing.
7	R1 424 990.71	Construction of Guard hut, installation of cameras, monitors, alarm system, electric fence.
8	R1 577 163.93	Construction of Guard hut, installation of cameras, monitors, alarm system, electric fence.
9	R1 277 020.84	Construction of boundary wall, Installation of cameras, monitors, alarm system, electric fence, construction of boundary wall.
10	R1,633,106	Installation of cameras, monitors, alarm system, electric fence, boundary fence.
11	R2 314 295.09	Construction of Guard hut, construction of boundary wall, installation of cameras, monitors, alarm system, electric fence.
12	R2,079,495	Construction of Guard hut, installation of cameras, monitors, alarm system, electric fence.
13	R3,025,157	Construction of Guard hut, construction of boundary wall, installation of cameras, monitors, alarm system, electric fence.
14	R1 388 126.30	Construction of Guard hut, installation of cameras, monitors, alarm system, electric fence.
15	R1 677 185.52	Installation of palisade fencing, Installation of cameras, monitors, alarm system, electric fence and construction of guard hut.
16	R1 927 147.29	Installation of palisade fencing, Installation of cameras, monitors, alarm system, electric fence.
17	R1 774 199.82	Installation of palisade fencing, Installation of cameras, monitors, alarm system, electric fence.
18	R1,083,913	Construction of Guard hut, construction of boundary wall, installation of palisade fence, installation of cameras, monitors, alarm system, electric fence.
19	R 3 830 050.66	Construction of Guard hut, construction of boundary wall, installation of cameras, monitors, alarm system, electric fence.
20	R 2 141 127.07	Construction of Guard hut, construction of boundary wall, installation of cameras, monitors, alarm system, electric fence.
21	R 3 420 177.74	Construction of Guard hut, construction of boundary wall, installation of cameras, monitors, alarm system, electric fence.

Reply:

The response is still awaited from the Gauteng Provincial Disaster Management Centre and the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality.

Reply:

1. a) NERSA did not reverse any decision related to Eskom‘s coal contracts and costs. The decision taken by NERSA was that Eskom‘s information relating to coal contracts and cost not be published as it contained commercially sensitive information. Eskom has submitted all requested information to NERSA.

b) NERSA did not reverse any decision. (Limiting information only to the personnel of the Regulator is standard practice with all commercially sensitive information).

2. a) No decision was reversed by NERSA.

b) No decision was reversed by NERSA

Reply:

The Department utilises many service providers over the a wide range of service areas. The number of service providers utilised by the Department over the past five years is average. In accordance with the kind of services the Department renders.

UNQUOTE.

Reply:

a) The matter was asked during the meeting of the Portfolio committee on Energy on the 22 November 2017.

b) The Minister reaffirms the same answer provided to the committee.

Reply:

The information requested by the Honourable Member is not readily available in the Department. The Department has however, engaged the Provincial Departments responsible for Local Government to request the relevant information from municipality. The information will be submitted to the Honourable Member as soon as it is received.

Reply:

(1) There were 22 employees who submitted applications for remunerative work outside of official hours, and were covered in terms of the Public Service Act, 1994, Section 30, Subsection 3(b), as no formal permission was granted by the Executive Authority.

(2)(a), (b) and (c) None of the 22 employees have declared any business dealings with Government.

Reply:

The Free State Government has spent 91.57% of their Learner Transport Budget in the first two financial quarters. Information received from the Free State Department of Police, Roads and Transport indicate that the Executive Committee of the Free State Government has earmarked Learner Transport to receive provincially earmarked funds. The funds will be made available during the budget adjustments and services will proceed without interruptions. An additional R10m was already made available on the adjustments budget and the Department is busy assessing internal funds for reprioritisation.

Reply:

The response from Ekhurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality is narrated underneath:

The Municipality appointed consultants to investigate the bridges. They had submitted the report to the Municipality. The answers are based on the report and Municipal comments.

(a) Central Avenue

The bridge was not closed. Visual inspections by the relevant department of the municipality indicated that it appeared to be stable enough to allow traffic through it. This was confirmed by the appointed Consultants.

(b) Van Riebeeck Avenue

The bridge was not closed. Visual inspections by the relevant department of the municipality indicated that it appeared to be stable enough to allow traffic through it. This was confirmed by the appointed Consultants.

(c) 4th Avenue

The bridge was not closed. Visual inspections by the relevant department of the municipality indicated that it appeared to be stable enough to allow traffic through it. This was confirmed by the appointed Consultants.

(d) 1st Avenue in Edenvale

This was the only bridge that was closed as the visual inspection indicated damage to the deck overlay. It is a small bridge constructed with culverts, which is the reason for closing the bridge until it could be certified as stable/ safe by specialist consultant. However, the bridge was opened for traffic after getting certification from the consultant.

(i) The appointed consultant assessed the stability and safety of the mentioned bridges for any movement/ displacement that could have taken place. They checked the stability of the abutments, floor slabs, approach roads and discharge/ downstream apron slabs. They also checked the extent of the erosion of the embankments and any movement/ damage to the decks/ overlays.

(ii) The consultant’s finding confirmed that all the bridges were structurally stable. They recommended that the upstream and downstream embankments require extensive rehabilitation due to the erosion and/ or flood damage to the areas around the wing walls.

(iii) The estimated costs for the remedial measure or to rehabilitate the bridges are as bellow:

(a) Central Avenue bridge: R 63 000 000.00 (it may vary depending on which design option is acceptable to the Consultants and Department of Water and Sanitation)

(b) Van Riebeeck Avenue bridge : R 300 000.00

(c)4th Avenue bridge/canal: R 5 600 000.00

(d) 1st Avenue bridge: R 800 000.00

(iv) The process has already been started. In order to execute the remedial measures designed by Specialist Consultants, approval from GDARD and Department of Water and Sanitation is required. These approvals and authorization requests have been submitted and approval is awaited.

(aa) Yes it does. The process has already been started. The municipality is awaiting the approvals and authorization of the design requests have been submitted and approval is awaited form GDARD and Department of Water and Sanitation.

(bb) All the bridges have been declared stable and have been open for traffic for quite some time now.