Questions and Replies
13 November 2017 - NW2989
Mileham, Mr K to ask the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs
1) (a) What number of persons were on the payroll of the (i) national, (ii) Eastern Cape and (iii) Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality Community Works Programme (CWP) for August 2017 and (b) what was the total value in Rand of each payroll; (2) what contractual agreements are in place with CWP workers to ensure delivery on community development targets; (3) what are the details of the processes followed to recruit and select workers for the CWP; (4) what are the details of the (a) processes followed to determine the wards in which the CWP is implemented and (b) wards in the specified metropolitan municipality that the CWP is implemented; (5) what budget was allocated to each specified sphere of government for the CWP (a) in each of the past three financial years and (b) since 1 April 2017?
Reply:
- (a) The table below provides the information required as at August 2017
Sphere |
Participation Target |
Actual Participation |
Cumulative Participation (1 April – 30 August 2017) |
(b) Total value in rands |
(i) National |
237 265 |
212 723 |
226 879 |
653 956 252 |
(ii) Eastern Cape |
42 600 |
42 669 |
44 314 |
133 128 086 |
(ii) Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality |
2500 |
1961 |
2080 |
6 243 884 |
2) All CWP participants sign contracts as part of their initial enrolment in the programme. The process of enrolment, including the signing of contracts by participants, is facilitated by Implementing Agents (IAs) appointed to implement the programme on behalf of the department at each of the CWP sites.
3) Potential participants have to meet three primary criteria before they can be enrolled in the programme: a) They have to be poor; b) They have to be unemployed or under-employed, i.e., employed on a part time basis and being available to work two days a week in the CWP; and c) They have to reside in a ward that has been prioritized by Council for CWP implementation (on the basis of poverty and unemployment levels).
The process of recruiting CWP participants involves a number of stakeholders: i) the IAs are responsible for recruiting participants who meet the criteria outlined above, ii) the Ward Councilors for the designated wards confirm (or otherwise) that the potential participant resides in their ward and indeed, meets the other two criteria and is not better off compared to other potential participants residing in the ward, ii) the Municipal representative on the multi-stakeholder Local Reference Committee (LRC) checks whether the potential participant is registered on the Municipality’s Indigent Register and iv) the LRC which decides on participant prioritization or selection criteria in instances where the number of qualifying potential participants exceeds the target participation rate for the particular site.
In deciding on prioritization or selection criteria, the LRC must adhere to the principles of transparency, fairness and non-discrimination, as outlined in the Recruitment Guidelines for Public Employment Programmes (PEPs) developed by the Department of Public Works’ Expanded Public Works Programme – the coordinating department for all PEPs, including the CWP.
4) (a) During the introductory visit to a new CWP municipality, a presentation
is made to the Municipal Council by the respective provincial CoGTA, IA and DCoG on the CWP - covering its objectives, the various role players, the municipality’s own role in the programme and the initial work opportunity target assigned to the Municipality by DCoG on the basis of the available budget. The Council of the CWP Municipality is then requested to determine the wards that are to be prioritized for roll out in the municipality. This is formalised through a council resolution which also states who the CWP champion in the municipality is going to be. In most instances, on the initial introductory visit, the Council only expresses an “in principle” endorsement of the CWP in their municipality and the desire for the CWP to be rolled out to all their wards. However, a full discussion on the matter is often deferred to a follow-up full sitting of Council where the CWP is further discussed, often without other external stakeholders. In that meeting, the CWP is formally endorsed and a municipal champion named through a council resolution. The outcome of the Council meeting is then communicated to DCoG in writing.
(b) Municipalities (Local and Metropolitan) to which the CWP is introduced are always advised to prioritize those wards where unemployment and poverty levels are highest and where socio-economic conditions are most depressed.
According to the information received from the Province of the Eastern Cape, the CWP in the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality is being implemented in the 42 wards listed below:
4, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58,59, 60. |
5) The budget allocated to each sphere for the past three financial years since 1 April 2017 (Wage and Non-Wage) is as outlined below:
Sphere |
2014/15 |
2015/16 |
2016/17 |
2017/18 |
National |
908 613 593 |
927 569 451 |
1 191 628 422 |
1 356 541 631 |
Eastern Cape CoGTA |
191 867 433 |
166 199 184 |
168 319 861 |
224 845 074 |
Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality |
16 540 296 |
19 352 968 |
30 935 317 |
33 065 452 |
13 November 2017 - NW2421
Bergman, Mr D to ask the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs
Whether, with reference to the reply to question 4251 on 21 December 2015, the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality has provided the requested information; if not, by what date will they provide the requested information; if so, what are the relevant details of the information?
Reply:
1. According to the answer provided to PQ 4251 on 21 December 2015, there is no information that was requested from Ekurhuleni over and above the information provided in the reply. For ease of reference, we hereby attach the 21 December 2015 reply.
13 November 2017 - NW3371
Mackenzie, Mr C to ask the Minister of Telecommunications and Postal Services
Does the South African Post Office (SAPO) conduct any business with (a) JMAT Business Advisory Services and /or (b) any other companies associated with any of the specified persons; if not, in each case, what is the position; if so, what are the relevant details in each case?
Reply:
I have been informed by SAPO as follows:
a) The South African Post Office does not conduct any business with JMAT Business Advisory Services.
b) There is no entity linked with Mr Molefe Mathibe that is or was doing business with the South African Post Office.
c) A company associated with one of the former executives, Mr Janras Kotsi is Intimate Date, whose contract has long expired in 2014 and Mr Kotsi only became a director in 2016, two years after leaving SAPO. The details of the contract entailed the following:
- Cleaning of data in respect of addresses on a monthly basis
- Data capturing
- Maintenance of the postal delivery database
13 November 2017 - NW2877
Cassim, Mr Y to ask the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs
What is the detailed (a) breakdown of and (b) valuation for current and non-current assets and investments held by (i) his department and (ii) each entity reporting to him according to (aa) listed assets (aaa) directly held and (bbb) indirectly held and (bb) unlisted investments (aaa) directly held and (bbb) indirectly held by each of the entities, in each case breaking the current assets and investments down by 0-3 months, 3-6 months, 6-12 months and beyond 12 months?
Reply:
(a)(b)(i)(aa)(aaa)(bb)(aaa)
The financial statements of the Department of Cooperative Governance is prepared in terms of the modified cash basis of accounting principles applicable to National Government Departments and do not provide for valuation of current and non-current assets. As prescribed, the Department has no investments.
The Entities
MUNICIPAL DEMARCATION BOARD
(a)(b)(ii)(aa)(bbb)
VALUATION OF NON-CURRENT ASSETS |
||||
Property, Plant & Equipment |
||||
Cost |
Accumulated Depreciation |
Carrying Value |
||
Furniture and Fittings |
2 098 693.04 |
1 211 552.92 |
887 140.12 |
|
Office Equipment |
983 938.70 |
854 870.86 |
129 067.84 |
|
Computer Equipment |
2 637 746.27 |
1 304 066.99 |
1 333 679.28 |
|
Vehicles |
656 315.37 |
353 030.95 |
303 284.42 |
|
Lease hold improvements |
2 503 940.03 |
1 543 861.01 |
960 079.02 |
|
8 880 633.41 |
5 267 382.73 |
3 613 250.68 |
||
Computer Software |
Cost |
Accumulated Depreciation |
Carrying Value |
|
1 896 172.43 |
1 056 177.56 |
839 994.87 |
||
1 896 172.43 |
1 056 177.56 |
839 994.87 |
||
Warranties |
|
|
18 546.08 |
|
Total Value of Non-Current assets as at 31 August 2017 |
4 471 791.63 |
|||
CURRENT ASSETS |
||||
CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS |
||||
Finance-Petty Cash Control |
1 908.10 |
|||
Finance-Bank ABSA/01 Main |
57 464.20 |
|||
Finance-Bank ABSA/04 Call Account |
8 223 039.61 |
* |
||
Total Cash & Cash Equivalents |
8 282 411.91 |
|||
Inventory Account |
|
|
194 781.99 |
|
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS AS AT 31 AUGUST 2017 |
8 477 193.90 |
|||
TOTAL VALUE OF ASSETS AS AT 31 AUGUST 2017 |
12 948 985.53 |
|||
* The positive cash balance is held in a current account and the entire balance is available on call. |
(a)(b)(ii)(bbb)(bb)(bbb)
The MDB does not have unlisted investments.
SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION
See the link: http://pmg-assets.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/RNW2877-SALGA.pdf
SOUTH AFRICAN CITIES NETWORK
(a)(b)(ii)(aa)(bbb)
The valuation for current and non-current assets.
Current assets |
0-3 Months |
3-6 Months |
6-12 Months |
12 Months |
Equipment |
169,551 |
169,551 |
169,551 |
508,652 |
Non-current assets |
||||
Trade and other receivables |
4,875 |
4,875 |
4,875 |
14,625 |
Accrued income |
2,542,043 |
2,542,043 |
2,542,043 |
7,626,129 |
Cash and cash equivalent |
2,054,708 |
2,054,708 |
2,054,708.23 |
6,164,125 |
(a)(b)(ii)(bbb)(bb)(bbb)
The SACN does not have unlisted investments.
13 November 2017 - NW3252
Jooste, Ms K to ask the Minister of Social Development
(a) On what date will the North Gauteng High Court ruling lapse which allows the SA Social Security Agency to continue paying foster care grants and (b) what is the total number of foster care grants that will be affected when the specified ruling lapses?
Reply:
a) The North Gauteng High Court order will cease to have force or effect On 31 December 2017.
b) The total number of foster care grants that will be affected is estimated at about 34 000. However the actual number remaining will depend on progress made in extending the foster placement orders by 31 December 2017.
13 November 2017 - NW3355
Ketabahle, Ms V to ask the Minister of Telecommunications and Postal Services
Whether (a) he or (b) his Deputy Minister made use of a chartered private jet during the period 1 January 2013 up to the latest specified date for which information is available; if so, what (i) were the reasons for using a chartered private jet, (ii) was the travel route in each case and (iii) did the use of the jet cost the department in each case?
Reply:
a) 01 January 2013 to date: None
b) 01 January 2013 to date: None
(i) The Minister was representing our President at the inauguration of the President of the Republic of Chad.
(ii) Direct route to Ndjamena, Chad.
(ii) The Department did not pay for the use of the chartered private
13 November 2017 - NW3379
Mackay, Mr G to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs
(a) On which date did Eskom approach her department to conduct environmental impact assessments for Duynefontein as the preferred site to establish another nuclear power station as part of the Government’s new nuclear build programme, (b) what are the details of the grounds on which her department approved the specified site as the preferred site for a new nuclear power station and (c) why did her department approve the specified site as the preferred site for a new nuclear power station when the Government’s new nuclear build programme determinations and intergovernmental agreements relating to the programme have been declared unconstitutional and invalid by a court of law?
Reply:
Eskom lodged an application for environmental authorisation on 1 May 2007, for the proposed construction and operation of a Nuclear Power Station in South Africa. The independent consultant appointed by Eskom as an Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) identified five sites as alternatives for the proposed development during the Scoping Phase of the Environmental Impact Assessment, namely Brazil and Schulpfontein (Northern Cape); Duynefontein (Western Cape); Bantamsklip (Western Cape) and Thyspunt (Eastern Cape). The Brazil and Schulpfontein sites were considered unsuitable for the proposed development and were eliminated from further assessment during the Scoping Phase. Bantamsklip was eliminated from further consideration in the Environmental Impact Assessment stage as there were shortcomings relating to transportation risks, urban planning and the level of detail provided in the assessment report on the transmission of power from the operational station was found to be inadequate when compared to the other two sites. The Thyspunt and Duynefontein sites were the only two sites that progressed to the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) phase and were presented as viable sites for the proposed development. The Duynefontein site was eventually approved by the Department from the two sites that were presented as viable options. There were numerous specialist assessments undertaken by experts in their respective fields which culminated in extremely voluminous specialist assessment reports. Some of these reports were subjected to a peer review during the EIA process. In addition however, these reports were also subjected to an independent review process by a panel of experts outside of the Department - before the department made a final decision.
The Duynefontein site was selected given that there were generally less overall environmental impacts associated with this site relative to impacts associated with the development of a “greenfields” site, i.e. Thyspunt. The refinement of the Duynefontein footprint to a terrestrial area of approximately 265ha, immediately north of the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station and inland from the coast has materially reduced the footprint-related environmental impacts of the project. In addition, the Duynefontein site is adjacent to the existing Koeberg Nuclear Power Station, thereby allowing for a suite of logistical and operational synergies.
The Western Cape High Court judgement found the request made by government for proposals to be submitted for the procurement of 9.6 gigawatts of nuclear to be unlawful and uncostitutional. The ruling had no bearing the application for the Environmental Authorisation as it had nothing to do with procurement processes.The application for environmental authorsation was lodged in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, Act 108 of 1998 and the associated environmental impact assessment regulations. Therefore the selection of Dynefontein as a prefereed site through the Environmental Impact Assessment process does not violate the High Court ruling, as it is an unrelated process.
10 November 2017 - NW3421
Figlan, Mr AM to ask the Minister of Transport
With reference to the bridge over the N3 that collapsed in August 2017, (a) what was the cost of the repair, (b) on what dates were inspections of the bridge undertaken in the past three financial years, (c) what did each respective report reflect, (d) who prepared the reports respectively, (e) (i) on what date was the report on the August 2017 collapse finalised, (ii) what did the report reflect and (iii) who prepared the report and (f) what early warning systems have been put in place before any bridge collapses?
Reply:
a) The bridge has not been repaired yet.
b) A detailed inspection was done in 29 July 2016 by consulting firm Arcus Gibb according to requirements of the Committee of Transport Officials (COTO) of South Africa.
c) The inspection report reported "minor" defects with minimum "relevancy". No repairs were necessary.
d) The 29 July 2016 inspection report was done by consulting firm Arcus Gibb.
e) (i) The report was completed on 31 August 2017.
(ii) The report reflected that an 18.1 ton coil of steel came off a truck and impacted the pier above the protective barrier. The pier complied with the then TPA impact requirements when the bridge was constructed in 1978. The report also highlighted that the large impact was considered an extremely rare occurrence. The report did not deal with why the steel coil came off the truck. The report concluded that the collapse of the bridge was as a result of this impact and not any maintenance issues. All reinforcing and pre-stressing steel was not corroded and lack of maintenance did not lead to the collapse.
(iii) The bridge collapse report was compiled by the consulting firm Superstructures Consulting Engineers.
f) Although the highway is monitored with 24-hour CCTV, these systems cannot detect and warn against a bridge collapse caused by vehicle accident as experienced with this incident.
10 November 2017 - NW3363
Bozzoli, Prof B to ask the President of the Republic
(1)(a) Why has he not yet released the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Higher Education and Training and (b) by what date will he release the specified report; (2) whether he has found that the findings and recommendations of the report might lead to a student revolt; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?
Reply:
The report is under consideration and will be released immediately after it has been finalised. The Inter-Ministerial Committee on Higher Education Funding and the Presidential Fiscal Committee are assisting the President to process the report.
10 November 2017 - NW3299
Mulaudzi, Adv TE to ask the Minister of Transport
(1)Whether the (a) chief executive officer and (b) chief financial officer of entities reporting to him are employed on a permanent basis; if not, (2) whether the specified officers are employed on a fixed term contract; if so, (a) what are the names of each of the officers and (b) when (i) was each officer employed and (ii) will each officer’s contract end?
Reply:
1. Transport Entities CEO’s are appointed on a five (5) years fixed term contract. Some of the entities CFOs are appointed on a permanent basis and others on a five (5) years fixed term contract.
2. Department of Transport entities CEO’s and CFO’s employment status
Name of Entity |
Name of CEO |
Contract Expiry Date |
Name of CFO |
Contract Expiry Date |
|
1 |
SANRAL |
Mr Skhumbuzo Macozoma |
30 November 2021 |
Ms Inge Mulder |
Permanent |
2 |
PRASA |
Mr Lindikaya Zide |
Acting |
Ms Yvonne Page |
Acting |
3. |
ATNS |
Mr Thabani Mthiyane |
30 June 2018 |
Mr Mtome Moholola |
Acting |
4. |
SAMSA |
Mr Sobantu Tilayi |
Acting |
Mr Phumlani Myeni |
Permanent |
5. |
SACAA |
Ms Poppy Khoza |
30 Novemeber 2018 |
Mr Asruf Seedat |
30 November 2021 |
6 |
ACSA |
Mr Bongani Maseko |
30 May 2018 |
Mr Dirk Kunz (Acting) |
Acting |
7 |
Ports Regulator |
Mr Mahesh Fakir |
30 April 2019 |
Mr Thokozani Mhlongo |
31 October 2020 |
8 |
C-BRTA |
Mr Sipho Khumalo |
30 June 2021 |
Mr Nchaupe Maepa |
Acting |
9 |
Road Accident Fund |
Ms Lindelwa Jabavu |
Acting |
Mr Rodney Gounden |
31 August 2022 |
10 |
RSR |
Mr Nkululeko Poya |
31 October 2021 |
Mr Regardt Gouws |
Permanent |
11 |
RTMC |
Adv Makhosini Msibi |
31 December 2018 |
Ms Liana Moolman |
Permanent |
12 |
RTIA |
Mr Japh Chuwe |
30 September 2021 |
Ms Palesa Moalusi |
Contract 31 July 2018 |
10 November 2017 - NW3422
Figlan, Mr AM to ask the Minister of Transport
(1)With regard to bridges constructed by the SA National Roads Agency in the past three financial years, (a)(i) what total number has been built and (ii) where were they built in each specified financial year, (b) what were the total costs in each case and (c) to which companies were the tenders awarded in each case; (2) on what date (a) did the construction of each bridge commence and (b) was each bridge completed; (3) (a) what public participation and consultation processes took place in each case and (b) what impact did the consultations have on each project?
Reply:
1. (a) (i) 21 bridges have been built over the past 3 years by SANRAL.
(ii) Please see attached Table for relevant details on location.
(b) Please see attached Table for relevant details of the project under which bridge was built. Bridges are normally constructed as part of a road construction project, a price is tendered for the complete project and not each bridge individually.
(c) Please see attached Table for relevant details.
2. (a) Please see attached Table for relevant details on the project start and end dates. Please note that the start dates refer to date when consultant was first appointed.
(b) Please see attached Table for relevant details on year built of each bridge.
3) (a) The public participation process for each project is guided by the relevant requirements of the National Environmental Management Act and related Regulations.
(b) The impact of consultations on each project is varied and can range from no impact to complete realignment of a route been required, and these recommendations are captured in the Record of Decision issued by Department of Environmental Affairs for each project.
10 November 2017 - NW3357
Tlhaole, Mr L S to ask the Minister of Arts and Culture
1. Whether (a) he or (b) his Deputy Minister made use of a chartered private jet during the period 1 January 2013 up to the latest specified date for which information is available; if so, what (i) were the reasons for using a chartered private jet, (ii) was the travel in each case and (iii) did the use of the jet cost the department in each case?
Reply:
- The Department did not procure any use of a chartered private jet for the Minister or Deputy Minister.
10 November 2017 - NW3428
Hadebe, Mr TZ to ask the Minister of Transport
(a) How is the current tariff system of the National Ports Authority calculated and (b) how does it compare to international tariff systems and structures?
Reply:
(a) The tariffs of the NPA are calculated on the basis of a comprehensive Tariff Methodology based on the widely used internationally best practice Required Revenue approach. The current tariff decision is based on the third tariff methodology published by the Regulator having been aproved and published in March 2017 after a number of rounds of public consultation. See annexure A: Port Tariff Methodology For Tariff Years 2018/19 – 2020/21
The tariff strategy published in July 2015 sets out a transparent and rational approach to an efficient and cost reflective pricing structure. Long term tariff targets are published on an annual basis to increase transparency and stability in the sector and significant progress have been made in the rebalancing of port tariffs on a sustainable basis. The tariff strategy is fairly unique as very few port pricing systems are publicly regulated but does reflect an advanced approach to port infrastructure pricing. Please see Annexure B: Tariff Strategy for the South African Ports System 2015/16.
10 November 2017 - NW3034
Carter, Ms D to ask the President of the Republic
(1)In light of a statement issued by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) which indicates that he will issue a proclamation in due course authorising an investigation by the SIU into Eskom, (a) what matters does he intend that the SIU investigate regarding Eskom and (b) over what period; (2) whether he will request that the SIU investigation should cover the emergency coal and diesel contracts that Eskom had entered into since 1 January 2001; if not, why not
Reply:
I have not yet received the Proclamation relating to ESKOM from the SIU.
10 November 2017 - NW3419
Steenkamp, Ms J to ask the Minister of Transport
(1)With reference to the payment of overtime for officers and staff members in the Road Traffic Management Corporation since 2015, (a) why has some overtime payments owed not been paid to the officials concerned and (b) when will these payments be paid; (2) will interest on these overdue payments be paid to those affected; if not, why not; if so, what amount in percentage interest will be paid; (3) will those affected be compensated in a different way; if not, why not; if so, what are the details of how they will be compensated?
Reply:
- All overtime due to officers and staff members has been paid and there is no outstanding payment.
- See (1) above
- See (1) above
10 November 2017 - NW3538
De Freitas, Mr MS to ask the Minister of Transport
Whether the next Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Road Accident Fund has been appointed; if so, (a) who has been appointed, (b) what criteria were used to appoint the new CEO, (c) (i) how many applications were received and (ii) what are the names of each candidate and (d) why were the unsuccessful applicants not successful in each case?
Reply:
The next Chief Executive Officer of the Road Accident Fund has not been appointed, and paragraph (a)(b)(c)(i)(c)(ii) are therefore not applicable
10 November 2017 - NW3220
Grootboom, Mr GA to ask the Minister of Arts and Culture”
(a) What are the full reasons that his department achieved only 58% of its predetermined objectives while it spent 99% of its budget in the 2016-17 financial year?
Reply:
The Department achieved 73% (52/71) of its predetermined objectives in contrast to the 58% achievement stated in the question. Similarly, the Department spent 97.4% (3.9 billion) of its appropriated budget and not the 99% indicated in the question.
Below are the generic reasons that resulted in the non-achievement of some of the planned performance target.
- Delays due to prolonged consultative processes.
- Compensation budget constraints.
- Delays in the submission of compliance documents by the beneficiaries to allow the Department to process payment.
- Delays in the procurement processes
The 2016-17 Annual Report contains specific details for each target that was not achieved.
10 November 2017 - NW3415
Dreyer, Ms AM to ask the Minister of Transport
(a) What plans are in place to integrate minibus taxis into an integrated public transport system,(b) what are the time frames, time lines and milestones in this regard,(c)(i) what consultation has taken place (ii) with whom (d) what are the main features of the integration?
Reply:
a) In terms of public transport strategy the incumbent operators (taxi and bus operators) should be the core of the integrated public transport system. Currently, the Integrated Public Transport Networks (IPTNs) are being operated by the incumbent operators as envisaged in the strategy. In most of the cities minibus taxi are feeding to the trunk or will feed to the trunk once the system is up and running.
b) The system is being rolled out in phases, as a result of that various cities are at different stages in terms of their system roll out.
c) (i) Consultation has taken place with various affected taxi associations and operators
(ii) It is mandatory for municipalities to consult all affected operators (minibus taxi and bus operators) when planning to implement the IPTNs.
d) In some corridors minibus taxi operators withdraw their operations and join the Vehicle Operating Company (VOC), whereas in certain cases minibus taxis remain in operation either as a feeder to the trunk of the public transport system or compete with the public transport system.
10 November 2017 - NW3381
Maimane, Mr MA to ask the President of the Republic
Whether he intends to remove Mr M C Ramaphosa from the position of Deputy President of the Republic, in terms of the powers conferred on him in section 91 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (a) by what date and (b) what are the further relevant details in this regard?
Reply:
My office has already publicly refuted the reports that suggest that I am intending to remove Mr Cyril Ramaphosa as the Deputy President of the country.
10 November 2017 - NW3383
Maimane, Mr MA to ask the President of the Republic
Whether he intends to make representations to the National Prosecuting Authority relating to the 783 counts of fraud, corruption and racketeering against him before the deadline of 30 November 2017; if so, (a) by which date and (b) what are the further relevant details?
Reply:
This matter is currently before the National Prosecuting Authority and I am taking legal advice.
10 November 2017 - NW2673
Mashabela, Ms N to ask the Minister of Mineral Resources
What is the total number of mines that his department has found to be not fully compliant with obligations of the Mining Social and Labour Plans (SLP) as required by the Mineral Petroleum Resources Development Act, Act 28 of 2002, (a) in the 2016-17 financial year and (b) since 1 April 2017?
Reply:
Number of companies found to be not fully compliant with Social and Labour Plan
(a) 76
(b) 65
Approved/Not Approved
Mr MJ Zwane, MP
Minister of Mineral Resources
Date Submitted:-……………/………………/2017
10 November 2017 - NW3555
James, Ms LV to ask the Minister of Transport
With reference to a certain court case (details furnished), (a) what are the costs of the specified court case to date, (b) what are the reasons for the costs, (c) what are the relevant details of the cost orders to date and (d)(i) why is a certain company (name furnished) applying for leave to appeal the ruling and (ii) what has he found to be the reason for the specified application?
Reply:
(a) The costs are unknown at this stage as the Department is yet to receive the accounts of the Departmental Advocates from the State Attorney.
(b) The costs are for the services rendered to the Department by the Advocates.
(c) The Court ordered the Department to pay the costs of Comair and the Court Order became suspended when the Department filed the leave to appeal through the State Attorney.
(d)(i) Another Court could come to a different conclusion as the High Court may have erred in concluding that the Air Services Licensing Council has taken a decision to suspend a license of an applicant (Comair), when there was an existing interim order directing the Air Service Licensing Council not to take a decision.
(d)(ii) The Air Service Licensing Council ought to be allowed the space to make a decision on the shareholding issue to ensure clarity and finality on the matter.
10 November 2017 - NW3424
Groenewald, Mr HB to ask the Minister of Transport
With regard to airline compliance reports required by the SA Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA), (a) which airlines have failed to comply in the past three financial years, (b) what reasons were given for the noncompliance in each case, (c) what were the specified airlines requested to do to rectify each noncompliance issue, (d) what steps have the airlines taken in this regard, (e) which of the airlines failed to do any rectifications, (f) what did the SACAA do in each case and (g) what are the cost implications in each case?
Reply:
South African Civil Authority (SACAA)
The airline industry in South Africa needs to comply with the Civil Aviation Regulations of South Africa. According to these regulations, each airline must be certified to operate by complying with the requirements for an Air Operator Certificate (AOC). On an annual basis each airline must renew its certificate by participating in a renewal audit. The SACAA also conducts surveillance audits to ensure that all operators (airlines) comply with the SACAA’s safety and security regulations. Airlines from foreign countries are also subjected to ramp inspections; these are surprise inspections, conducted at the airports and the purpose of these inspections are to ensure that foreign airlines comply with the regulations of South Africa to operate in this country. These requirements are known upfront by all operators from foreign States wishing to conduct civil aviation activities in South Africa.
(a) In terms of local airline operators, in the past three financial years, only South African Express failed to comply with the requirements emanating from the audit conducted into their operations which affected the renewal of their Air Operator Certificate (AOC).
In relation to Foreign Air Operators:
- Air Zimbabwe;
- Qatar Airways;
- Turkish Airlines; and
- Saudi Airlines; did not qualify with the regulatory requirements for a Foreign Operator Permit (FOP).
(b) The reasons given for the non-compliance in each case is as follows -
- South African Express failed to comply with the requirements emanating from the audit conducted into their operations that related to the effective management of their safety management system;
- Whilst the aforementioned airlines were not in possession of the required Foreign Operator Permits.
(c) South African Express was expected to address the non –compliances identified during the safety oversight inspection as per the timelines communicated by the SACAA to them and the four Foreign Operators were required to obtain the Foreign Operator Permits.
(d) Following the grounding of the airline, South African Express eventually addressed the non-compliances identified by the SACAA in terms of the regulations. Their approval was subsequently reinstated. The four Foreign Air Operators did manage to obtain their Foreign Operator’s Permits after complying fully with the SA Civil Aviation Regulations in this regard.
(e) None, all the airlines addressed their non–compliances.
(f) South Africa Express: Air Operator Certificate (OAC) was suspended and the above-mentioned foreign airlines were restricted from exercising the privileges of an approved Foreign Air Operator.
(g) The SACAA did not incur any additinal cost for these oversight activities as this forms part of our planned oversight activites. (Shoud we mot list thepenalties for the FOP non-complainces though just in case or is it too much information?)
NW3816E
10 November 2017 - NW3420
Steenkamp, Ms J to ask the Minister of Transport
(a) Why have the requests for more regular meetings of the Air Services Licensing (ASL) Council not been granted or accredited to, (b) how many requests for additional ASL Council meetings have been received in the past three financial years, (c) why have none of the requests been responded to and (d) what has he found to be the legislative implications of not acceding to the requests?
Reply:
Civil Aviation Branch
(a) The Air Services Licensing Council (ASL) normally meets monthly to consider applications for licenses. In terms of section 8(1) of the Air Services Licensing Act (Act No. 115 of 1990) (hereinafter referred to as “the Áct”), it is the prerogative of the Council to hold meetings at such times and places as may from time to time be determined by the Chairperson of the Council. The Council is, therefore, not required to request approval for the scheduling of additional meetings.
(b) and (c) Meetings of the Air Services Licensing Council are planned and organized monthly over a period of twelve months. Council is mandated in terms of the Act to hold meetings at such times and places as may be determined by the Chairperson, aligned with budgeted funds. Various additional meetings were held during the past three financial years, details as follows: In the 2015/16 financial year, Council held 14 scheduled monthly- and 3 additional meetings (total of 5 additional meetings for the year); during the 2016/17 financial year, Council held 12 scheduled monthly- and 3 additional meetings and in 2017/18 (to date), Council held 7 scheduled meetings and 2 additional meetings.
(d) No legislative implications are inherent in this regard, since all meetings of the Council are conducted within the mandate of the Act.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Air Services Licensing Council is a statutory body established in terms of Section 3 of the Air Services Licensing Act (Act No. 115 of 1990). The Council is concerned with the licensing and control of the domestic air services. In addition, it is responsible for the promotion of high standards of safety and to ensure that the domestic air services are rendered within the legislative framework.
In terms of Section 7, “A member of the council shall receive, from moneys appropriated by Parliament for this purpose, such remuneration and allowances as may be determined by the Minister of Transport, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, in general or in any particular case.” Provision is made within the Branch Civil Aviation’s budget for the normal activities of the Council, which include monthly scheduled meetings as well as a nominal allocation for additional meetings to address licence applications as well as aviation industry-related meetings. Planning of additional meetings and other activities of the Council must, however, be done with due regard to the available budget as well as the cost cutting measures currently in place within the public service.
The Council conducts both scheduled and additional meetings as and when required. Various additional meetings were held during the past three financial years, details as follows:
- In the 2015/16 financial year: Council held 14 scheduled monthly- and 3 additional meetings (total of 5 additional meetings for the year);
- During the 2016/17 financial year, Council held 12 scheduled monthly- and 3 additional meetings; and
- In 2017/18 (to date), Council held 7 scheduled meetings and 2 additional meetings.
10 November 2017 - NW2830
Vos, Mr J to ask the Minister of Finance
What is the total amount of value-added tax that the SA Revenue Service received from the sales of (a) domestic airline tickets and (b) international airline tickets for each airline (i) in each of the past three financial years and (ii) since 1 April 2017?
Reply:
The SARS systems do not differentiate the various transactions that are subject to VAT in a manner which will allow SARS to identify the VAT transactions for airline tickets separately. It should be noted further that International Airline tickets are charged VAT at 0% as they are exported services.
SARS is therefore unable to provide the data as requested.
10 November 2017 - NW3046
Mokause, Ms MO to ask the President of the Republic
With reference to the comments that he made when he recently handed over a minibus to a certain maskandi group (name and details furnished), (a) what is the total amount of the bonus, (b) what was the reasoning and legislative basis behind the allocation of the bonus and (c) who is the employer in question?
Reply:
The President of the Republic is remunerated in terms of Section 2(1) of the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers Act of 1998 and there is no provision for a bonus. The matter of the bonus was thus raised on a lighter note rather than in the literal sense.
10 November 2017 - NW3426
Groenewald, Mr HB to ask the Minister of Transport
With reference to his reply to question 2529 on 4 September 2017 pertaining to statistics from arrests during the 2016-17 festive season, (a) why does the Road Traffic Management Company (RTMC) not keep record of the data requested and (b) from what other source does the RTMC obtain this data?
Reply:
a) The recording of blood test results from Police Forensic laboratories is a mandate of SAPS. Traffic Officers only serve as complainants on the matter and the docket is processed by SAPS detectives. All 2016/17 cases are still pending.
b) The data is kept on SAPS CAS system and Department of Justice Register.
10 November 2017 - NW3263
Maimane, Mr MA to ask the President of the Republic
What are the relevant details of the total (a) annual salary of and (b) performance bonus amounts paid to each of his five advisors (names and details furnished) in the 2016-17 financial year?
Reply:
The remuneration of the advisors is regulated in terms of the Dispensation for the Appointment and Remuneration of Persons (Special Advisers) appointed to Executive Authorities on Ground of Policy Considerations issued by the Minster of the Public Service and Administration. The Dispensation is attached for the benefit of the Honourable Member.
10 November 2017 - NW3382
Maimane, Mr MA to ask the President of the Republic
Whether he intends to appoint a certain person (name furnished) to a position in Cabinet in terms of the powers conferred on him in section 91 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (a) by what date and (b) what are the further relevant details in this regard?
Reply:
The appointment of Ministers is the prerogative of the President in terms of Section 91 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. In exercising this power, I exercise discretion after careful consideration and the appointments are made public.
10 November 2017 - NW3562
Kruger, Mr HC to ask the Minister of Arts and Culture
(a) What is the total number of supplier invoices that currently remain unpaid by (i) his department and (ii) each entity reporting to him for more than (aa) 30 days, (bb) 60 days, (cc) 90 days and (dd) 120 days and (b) what is the total amount outstanding in each case?
Reply:
a) The total number of supplier invoices that currently remain unpaid in my department are as follows
(aa) (bb) (cc) (dd)
30 days |
60 days |
90 days |
120 days |
1 |
2 |
N/A |
N/A |
b) The total amount outstanding in each case in my department is as follows
(aa) (bb) (cc) (dd)
30 days |
60 days |
90 days |
120 days |
R16 500.00 |
R36 449.50 |
R0.00 |
R0.00 |
10 November 2017 - NW3219
Grootboom, Mr GA to ask the Minister of Arts and Culture”
Wheteher he instituted disciplinary action against the officials of his department who were found to have been implicated in the adverse findings of the auditor-general ‘s 2016-17 report on the financial statements of his department; if not, why not; if so, (a) what are the total number of officials who have faced disciplinary action and (b) what are the detail in case?
Reply:
a) The total number of officials who have faced disciplinary action were 18.
b) Details of disciplinary action in each are as follows:
Incident Description |
Official No 1 |
Procurement of services not done through SCM and approval of appointment of service provider not done by the delegated official |
Incident Description |
Official No 2 |
Procurement of services not done through SCM |
Incident Description |
Official No 3 |
Decision to appoint the service provider not done by a delegated official. Supplier/service provider appointed without having an original Tax Clearance Certificate and BBEE Cetificate |
Incident Description |
Official No 4 |
Procurement of services not done through SCM and no evidence of recommending and approval by the Accounting Officer |
|
Payments made to the supplier in excess of the approved contract amount and no approval of extension of contract by the Accounting Officer |
Incident Description |
Official No 5 |
Performing artists appointed not registered on CSD |
Incident Description |
Official No 6 |
Procurement of service not done through SCM and approval not done by the delegated official |
Incident Description |
Official No 7 |
Procurement of services not done through SCM and approval of appointment of service provider not done by the delegated official |
Incident Description |
Official No 8 |
Supplier/service provider appointed without having an original Tax Clearance Certificate and BBEE Cetificate |
Incident Description |
Official No 9 |
Procurement of services not done through SCM and approval of appointment of service provider not done by the delegated official |
Incident Description |
Official No 10 |
Procurement of services not done through SCM and reasons provided to deviate are not justifiable |
Incident Description |
Official No 11 |
Procurement of services not done through SCM and approval of appointment of service provider not done by the delegated official (DG). |
Incident Description |
Official No 12 |
Procurement of services not done through SCM and approval of additional items not done by the delegated official |
Incident Description |
Official No 13 |
Method or procurement used is incosistent with those prescribed in terms of PN 8 of 2007/2008 paragraph 3.2 |
Incident Description |
Official No 14 |
Decision to appoint the service provider not done by a delegated official |
Incident Description |
Official No 15 |
No tax clearance certificate was submitted by the supplier during the procurement of services |
Incident Description |
Official No 16 |
Procurement of services not done through SCM and approval of repairs not done by delegated official |
Incident Description |
Official No 17 |
Award of procurement was made without an original Tax Clearance Certificate and no completion of SBD documents |
Incident Description |
Official No 18 |
Appointment of consultants without following a competitive bidding process |
|
Competitive bidding process were not followed in in the awards of bids |
|
Procurement of services not done through SCM and reasons provided to deviate were not justifiable |
|
Request for quotations did not stipulate the preference point system to be applied |
|
Appointment of service providers without valid tax clearance certificate |
|
Three quotations were not obtained and reasons provided were not justifiable |
|
BBEE points allocated on invaliud certificate resulting in incorrect award |
|
Expenditure not committed by a delegated official |
|
Evaluation criteria applied differs from original request for quotation |
|
Supplier with lowest quote not selected and no reasons provided and approved by the delegated official |
|
Performing artist appointed not registered on CSD |
|
Variation order in excess of 15% not approved by National Treasury |
|
Required number of quotes not obtained and reasons provided were not justifiable |
|
No evidence that the bid was received before the closing date and time |
|
EME affidavit used to allocate BBEEE points instead of certificate, resulting in incorrect allocation of points and award |
10 November 2017 - NW3500
Hunsinger, Dr CH to ask the Minister of Transport
(1)Has Swifambo Rail Leasing (SRL) taken back the Vossloh Espana-built locomotives; if not, (a) why not and (b) where are the locomotives currently; if so, by what date; (2) what (a) has happened to the balance of the budget, (b) alternatives are being considered upon failure of the judgement and return of locomotives to SRL and (c) is the setback in terms of loss to upgrade the services to passengers in relation to the initial refurbishment plan?
Reply:
1. No
(a) Swifambo is appealing the judgement
(b) The Locomotives are currently staged in the following depots:
Braamfontein: 6 locomotives,
Bloemfontein: 3 locomotives,
Beaufort West: 1 locomotive,
East London: 2 locomotives, and
Port Elizabeth: 1 locomotive.
2. (a) The whole matter has been put on hold pending the appeal
(b) See (a) above
(c) The availability and reliability of locomotives are the biggest challenge to ensure reliable inter-city services in the Main Line Passenger Services (MLPS) business, as well as for Metrorail operations in the Eastern Cape. The original PRASA locomotive programme intended to address this challenge. While the height of the locomotives provides some limitations on certain lines, the AFRO4000 locomotives could be deployed on corridors without over-head power structures or with power over-head power structures of correct profile.
PRASA has entered into an agreement with Transnet to purchase 7 x 7E refurbished locomotives for use in the Eastern Cape. Due to the lack of available locomotives for the MLPS business, PRASA will approaching the market for the lease of locomotives especially for the upcoming high peak season over December/January.
10 November 2017 - NW3333
Mulaudzi, Adv TE to ask the Minister of Transport
What is the total number of vehicles in each gross vehicle mass category that are registered in each metropolitan municipality?
Reply:
It should be noted that vehicles are categorised on the National Traffic Information System in the following manner:
- Heavy load vehicle with a GVM exceeding 3500Kg which is equip to draw
- Heavy load vehicle with a GVM exceeding 3500Kg, not equipped to draw
- Heavy passenger motor vehicle designed to carry 12 or more persons
- Light load vehicle with a GVM 3500Kg or less
- Light passenger motor vehicle designed to carry less than 12 persons
- Motorcycle, Motor-tricycle, Motor Quadru-cycle
- Special Vehicles
- Unknown: In this instance, the GVM is known but the vehicle category is unknown. This is old data and it is usually farming equipment that is specially classified.
Annexure A Table 1 contains a summary of the above-mentioned categories per metropolitan municipality. Data as found on the NaTIS as on 30 September 2017.
Annexure A
Table1:
Vehicle Population per Category and Metropolitan Municipality as at 30 September 2017
|
|||||||||
Metropolitan Municipality |
Heavy load veh(GVM>3500Kg equip to draw) |
Heavy load veh(GVM>3500Kg, not to draw) |
Heavy passenger mv (12 or more persons) |
Light load vehicle (GVM 3500Kg or less) |
Light passenger mv(less than 12 persons) |
Motorcycle / Motortricycle / Quadrucycle |
Special Vehicle |
Unknown |
Grand Total |
Bloemfontein |
6607 |
5485 |
2906 |
50211 |
102801 |
7535 |
4870 |
685 |
181100 |
Buffalo City |
2195 |
2137 |
4098 |
40264 |
94900 |
2839 |
2645 |
281 |
149359 |
City of Cape Town |
19741 |
13899 |
19204 |
263116 |
915221 |
56544 |
15120 |
1556 |
1304401 |
Ekurhuleni |
47848 |
36604 |
24863 |
315273 |
768452 |
36745 |
24067 |
643 |
1254495 |
eThekwini |
20542 |
16413 |
22829 |
180856 |
569450 |
16763 |
9218 |
666 |
836737 |
Johannesburg |
27727 |
21557 |
39927 |
367802 |
1175211 |
50612 |
16030 |
847 |
1699713 |
Mogale City* |
5383 |
3489 |
4951 |
59097 |
118303 |
6124 |
4515 |
184 |
202046 |
Nelson Mandela Bay |
4847 |
5100 |
5088 |
69036 |
181752 |
11645 |
4537 |
856 |
282861 |
Pretoria |
21236 |
15470 |
24546 |
313808 |
763596 |
39256 |
21625 |
874 |
1200411 |
Sedibeng* |
10145 |
7250 |
7458 |
92034 |
194083 |
10097 |
8347 |
256 |
329670 |
Grand Total |
166271 |
127404 |
155870 |
1751497 |
4883769 |
238160 |
110974 |
6848 |
7440793 |
* Not officially declared as Metropolitan Municipalities but regarded as substantial.
10 November 2017 - NW3548
Hoosen, Mr MH to ask the Minister of Transport
With regard to the functions taken over from Tasima, (a) who has taken over these functions, (b) what are the functions, (c) how is it ensured that functions are properly executed, (d) what (i) are the costs since taking over these functions, (ii) additional staff have been appointed for this purpose and (iii) are their functions and (e) when were they appointed?
Reply:
a) The Road Traffic Management Corporation’s Road Traffic Information Systems (RTIS) Unit took over all functions related to the operation and managements of the NaTIS with effect from 05 April 2017.
b) The functions include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Software Development
- Business Engagement
- Business Intelligence
- NaTIS User Training
- NaTIS Infrastructure Support
- Project Office – deployment of new NaTIS sites, replacement of equipment, deployment of communication services
- NaTIS Site Support – Hardware and network support
- System Support – End-user Software Trouble shooting
- Information System Security and Governance, Risk and Compliance
- NKP Physical Security
c) The Corporation employed a compliment of technical staff with over 700 years accumulated NaTIS experience in 2015. This staff compliment has been augmented with existing support functions in Finance, Human Capital, Risk Management, etc to ensure that all functions are properly executed.
d)
(i) Costs to date
Road Traffic Information Systems costs incurred, YTD September2017 |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
Economic classification |
|
|
|
Amount |
Compensation of Employees |
|
|
|
R39 011 781.40 |
|
|
|
|
|
Goods & Services |
|
|
|
R56 878 696.10 |
|
|
|
|
|
Capital Expenditure |
|
|
|
R 1 528 044.60 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total spent on eNaTIS |
|
|
R |
97 418 522.10 |
|
|
|
|
|
(ii) No additional staff have been appointed in the RTIS Unit since the takeover. Corporation continues to review its staff requirements in terms of its strategic mandate.
(iii) Not applicable, see (d)(ii) above as no new staff have been appointed.
e) Not applicable, see (d)(ii) above.
10 November 2017 - NW2962
Marais, Mr S to ask the Minister of Finance
(1)(a) What total amount of additional revenue will be raised by the SA Revenue Service (SARS) following its amendments to the allowable deductions from taxes for persons with disabilities and (b) why did SARS (i) make the determination on the specified amendment, (ii) not phase the changes out and (iii) apply the specified amendments retroactively; (2) whether SARS has conducted any studies and/or investigations to determine what the financial and economic consequences of the specified amendments will be on taxpaying (a) persons with disabilities and (b) the dependants of the specified persons; if not, in each case, why not; if so, how (i) will the specified (aa) persons and (bb) dependants be affected and (ii) were these outcomes determined?
Reply:
1. It is not clear which amendments the honourable member is referring to, so it is assumed that reference is being made to the list of qualifying disability expenses that SARS is currently in the process of updating. The changes in the list are not about raising additional revenue. The changes are being made to ensure that the list of expenses prescribed by SARS is as comprehensive as possible and that the expenses are in line with the paragraph (c) of the definition of “qualifying medical expense” in section 6B(1). This will ensure that the list does not create inequity as far as persons who do not have a physical impairment or disability are concerned. (e.g. If a person with a disability purchases a vehicle because a person is using a wheelchair, it will unfair to allow such an expense instead of only allowing modifications to the vehicle to allow the wheelchair easy access in and out of the vehicle). The prescribed expenses must, as far as possible, only include expenses without which a person with physical impairment or disability will not be able to perform activities of daily living. (e.g. If a person cannot walk, the wheelchair is an aid that assists that person to be able to move from point A to point B. Without this wheelchair, the person cannot do this activity of daily living on his or her own and will always require assistance from other people to do so.) The amendments are, therefore being made to ensure that the list is line with the requirements of the legislation; which are based on practice in other leading democracies, such as Canada. It is understood that SARS’ understanding of the requirements of the legislation has been unsuccessfully challenged by “at least” one taxpayer in the Tax Board. SARS will monitor the outcome of any appeal to inform its future decision making. The amendments will only come in on the effective date of the updated list going forward and are not made with retrospective effect.
2. Since the list is only being amended to ensure that it is as comprehensive as possible, while ensuring that the expenses listed are in full compliance with the legislation, SARS has not conducted any studies and/or investigations to determine what the financial and economic consequences of the changes to the list are to persons with disabilities and their dependants. National Treasury would determine the financial and economic consequences of substantial changes in legislative policy, such as the change from a deduction to a tax credit system for these expenses.
10 November 2017 - NW3528
Brauteseth, Mr TJ to ask the Minister of Transport
(1)What subsidy has his department paid to the Brakpan Bus Company over the past three financial years; (2) whether he has been informed of a 2014 feasibility study into future options of the specified bus company; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, which option does his department support; (3) (a) what are the relevant details of the kind of oversight that this department has over the bus company, in view of the subsidy paid by the taxpayer; (4) (a) what (i) fraud and/or (ii) corruption has been identified in the running of the bus company and (b) why is the bus company running at a loss?
Reply:
(1) Subsidized bus services are managed and administered by Provincial Departments of Transport and subsidy is paid by Provinces through the Public Transport Operations Grant, which is a supplementary grant. The Brakpan Bus Company contract is managed by Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport and their subsidy allocation for the past three financial years is:
- 2014/15 – R11 554 076.00
- 2015/16 – R18 291 488.00
- 2016/17 – R23 293 376.00
2. Brakpan Bus Service is a municipal owned bus company and any decision about the future of the company is the prerogative of the municipality as long as it is aligned with all legislative prescripts governing public transport. The Department is conscious of the fact that Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport has appointed CSIR to conduct a due diligent exercise for all subsidized bus contracts in the Province, including Brakpan, with the aim of designing new public transport contracts in future.
3. The bus company is monitored by the Province through a Supervisory and Monitoring Firm (SMF) appointed by Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport to ensure that the operator complies with all contractual obligations.
4. a) The running and performance of the bus company is solely the obligation of the municipality as the owner.
b) Same as (a) above.
10 November 2017 - NW3425
Groenewald, Mr HB to ask the Minister of Transport
(a) (i) How often are toll prices of long distance and inter-provincial toll roads revised and (ii) what criteria are used to arrive at a decision to revise the prices, (b) how many price increases have taken place in respect of each toll road in the past three financial years and (c) what are the details of the increases in each case?
Reply:
a) (i) Toll prices are revised once every year effective 1 March, or closest subsequent date, determined by the Minister’s approval of the tariffs and their publication in the gazette.
a) (ii) The average CPI during the previous 12 months (November to October) or, in the case of concessions (public private partnerships), the year on year CPI, as determined by the respective concession agreements.
b) Three price increases in the past three financial years, one per year, effective 7 March 2015, 1 March 2016 and 3 March 2017. GFIP e-tolls were not adjusted in 2015; they were adjusted in 2016 and 2017.
c) Details of the increases are as follows:
- The previous year’s unrounded tariffs were adjusted for Consumer Price Index:
- The CPI for 2015: 6.0167%
- The CPI for 2016: 4.6750%
- The CPI for 2017: 6.0417%
- The adjusted tariffs were rounded off, to the closest 20 cents, 50 cents or Rand
10 November 2017 - NW3429
Hadebe, Mr TZ to ask the Minister of Transport
(a) What are the current arrangements regarding the shared rail infrastructure between the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa) and Transnet, (b)(i) how often is the specified arrangement reviewed and (ii) how are such reviews conducted, (c)(i) what is the total length of the shared infrastructure and (ii) what is the length of the rail that has been transferred for use by (aa) Prasa and (bb) Transnet, (d) what are the current financial arrangements in this regard, (e) what amounts were (i) paid to Transnet and (ii) received from Transnet in each month in the past three financial years?
Reply:
a) METRORAIL
PRASA owns the majority of rail infrastructure in the Metropolitan areas, with some rail corridors owned by Transnet on which Metrorail is currently the main operator. Arrangements are as per original allocation of assets in 1990 when PRASA was formed, while traffic over these corridors have changed since 1990 and where PRASA has become the majority user. Metrorail is dependent on Transnet for operational performance and maintenance on these corridors owned by Transnet, as follows:
KwaZulu Natal
- Umgeni – Effingham – Duff’s Road.
- Duff’s Road – Stanger.
- Train control system of entire KZN region controlled by Transnet.
Western Cape
- Cape Town – Kraaifontein/Wellington/Worcester.
- Cape Town – Monte Vista.
Gauteng
- Vereeniging – Houtheuwel.
- Greenview – Pienaarspoort.
- Oberholozer – Miday.
- Meyerton – Vereeniging.
Eastern Cape
- Entire Port Elizabeth network.
- Entire East London network.
In coastal regions such as KZN, Western Cape and Eastern Cape infrastructure ownership and train control are regarded strategic assets for Transnet in terms of access to harbours, and in other regions ownership interest for Transnet is driven by control of freight traffic through the PRASA used network.
The current infrastructure arrangements also include 167 stations owned by Transnet and used by PRASA at a nominal lease amount, plus bulk service charges payable to municipalities and recovered from PRASA.
MAIN LINE PASSENGER SERVICES (SHOSHOLOZA MEYL)
The MLPS business has been transferred to PRASA in 2008/09 whereas MLPS is totally reliant on Transnet for track access at market related costs. The MLPS business uses Transnet infrastructure for all long distance passenger rail services and PRASA is totally dependent on Transnet for its service performance and support.
The MLPS business uses 100 Transnet stations, of which some were to be transferred and others leased to PRASA. These arrangements were not concluded and PRASA pays Transnet pro rata usage for bulk services at these stations payable to municipalities.
Usage of shared infrastructure between Transnet and PRASA is governed by various agreements (Interface, Commercial and Safety agreements).
b) (i) and (ii)
Most of the current agreements between the parties have expired, while agreements have been extended until new agreements are negotiated. PRASA and Transnet have agreed to review and rationalise the agreements, including reviewing the original asset allocation between the parties based on the principle of the main user to retain ownership. The process has not been concluded and requires policy interventions on the appropriate model for asset allocation and access charge regimes for use of each other’s assets. PRASA presented that the current market related access charges proposed by Transnet is unaffordable to PRASA. The Department of Transport has commenced with a study on the determination of fair/appropriate access charges.
(c) (i) and (ii)
- Shared infrastructure Metrorail: 400km.
- Shared infrastructure MLPS: 6 000 – 8 000km
- PRASA owned rail infrastructure: 2 200km
- Transnet owned Freight Rail Infrastructure: 22 000 (including branch lines and heavy haul lines)
(d)
Interface arrangements are governed through access and commercial lease agreements.
A Mutual use agreement governs usage and charges for shared infrastructure between Metrorail and Transnet.
An Access and Haulage agreement governs usage and charges for MLPS, while MLPS is totally reliant on Transnet for network access.
Transnet has been moving to market related rates over the past 5 years. PRASA presents that the proposed rates are unaffordable to PRASA in terms of its subsidy allocations and PRASA has therefore negotiated zero percentage increases since 2011/12 until new agreements are concluded.
(e)
At fixed 2011/12 Rates |
PRASA pays Transnet per annum R’m |
PRASA receives from Transnet per annum R’m |
Metrorail train control |
90 |
21 |
Metrorail operational support |
120 |
|
Property expenses |
50 |
10 |
MLPS haulage |
200 |
|
Shared Infrastructure |
36 |
60 |
TOTAL |
496 |
91 |
Notes:
- Transnet’s new price proposals for market related rates include increases of up to 150% on above rates paid by PRASA over the past 5 years.
- Due to the lack of funding for the MLPS business over the past 5 years, a considerable debt has been accrued by PRASA and owed to Transnet on the above access/service charges valued at R600m.
10 November 2017 - NW3235
Topham , Mr B to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services
Whether any progress has been made by the National Director of Public Prosecutions in dealing with the final report that was prepared by a certain person (name furnished), into the collapse of African Bank, (details furnished); if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?
Reply:
The South African Reserve Bank referred its report into the collapse of African Bank to the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) on 17 May 2016. The NDPP requested the Head of the Specialised Commercial Crime Unit (SCCU) to attend to the matter as it fell within the mandate of the SCCU.
In March 2017, in response to Parliamentary Question No. 200, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) advised that the report was in its final stages of preparation. The prosecutor allocated the matter finalised a comprehensive report wherein he sets out that criminal investigations related to fraud, the Banks Act 94 of 1990 and Companies Act 71 of 2008 were warranted. He therefore recommended that the matter be referred to the South African Police Service for investigation and that a prosecutor be allocated to guide the investigations in the matter. Currently, the matter is under investigation by the Serious Economic Offences Unit of the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI).
10 November 2017 - NW3318
Matiase, Mr NS to ask the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services
Whether the (a) chief executive officer and (b) chief financial officer of entities reporting to him are employed on a permanent basis; if not, (2) whether the specified officers are employed on a fixed term contract; if so, (a) what are the names of each of the officers and (b) when (i) was each officer employed and (ii) will each officer’s contract end?
Reply:
The tables below provide information of the appointed Chief Executive Officers (CEO) and Chief Financial Officers (CFO) of entities reporting to me:
Name of Entity |
Type of employment |
|||
CEO Permanent |
CEO Fixed Term |
CFO Permanent |
CFO Fixed Term |
|
1. Legal Aid South Africa |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
2. Special Investigating Unit (SIU) |
Yes |
No |
No |
Yes |
3. South African Board for Sheriffs |
No |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
4. Council for Debt Collectors |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
5. South African Law Reform Commission |
The South African Law Reform Commission does not have its own CEO and CFO as the Commission is part of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD). |
|||
6. Legal Practice Council |
(a) The Executive Officer of the National Forum (NF) is Ms Charity Mhlungu, appointed on 1 December 2015 and will be in this position until the dissolution of NF. She is seconded from the DoJ&CD, and was a full time employee of the DoJ&CD Finance Department. (b) The NF’s budget is held by the DoJ&CD; therefore the financial reporting is done by the CFO of the Department. |
|||
7. Rules Board for Courts of Law |
The Rules Board does not have its own CEO and CFO as it is part of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. |
|||
8. National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) |
The NPA does not have CEO and CFO positions in its organisational structure |
Name of Officers employed on Fixed Term |
Period of employment of the CEO |
Period of employment of the CFO |
|||
CEO |
CFO |
Start Date |
Completion Date |
Start Date |
Completion Date |
CEO of Legal Aid South Africa: Ms V Vedalankar |
Not Applicable |
28/10/2002 (The contract was renewed periodically based on performance) |
31/10/2019 |
Not Applicable |
|
CEO of SIU: Not Applicable |
CFO: Mr A Gernandt |
Not Applicable |
17/10/2016 |
31/03/2018 |
|
CEO of SA Board for Sheriffs: Ms S Snell |
CFO: Mr A Simon |
01/08/2015 |
31/07/2018 |
01/01/2012 |
31/12/2017 |
10 November 2017 - NW3180
Mokoena, Mr L to ask the Minister of Arts and Culture”
1. What are the details including the ranks of service providers and /or contractors from which (a) his department and (b) the entities reporting to him procured services in the past five years; 2. What (a) service was provided by each service provider and /or contractor and (b) what amount was each service provider and /or contractor paid; 3. (a) how many of these service providers are black-owned entities, (b) what contract was each of the black-owned service providers awarded and (c) how much was each black-owned service provider paid?
Reply:
1. The information required to respond to the question posed by the Honourable Member is detailed and is archived by the National Treasury. I have requested the National Treasury to release such information, the process takes long. However, as soon as the information is availed by the National Treasury I will forward it to the Member.
10 November 2017 - NW3550
Hoosen, Mr MH to ask the Minister of Transport
(a) On what date will a new Board of the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa) be appointed, (b) why has a new board not been appointed, (c) how is Prasa functioning without a board, (d) how are financial documents signed off in the absence of a board?
Reply:
(a) The Interim Board of PRASA was appointed with effect from 19 October 2017.
(b) Not applicable.
(c) Not applicable.
(d) All the financials will be signed off by the PRASA Board of Control.
10 November 2017 - NW3262
Maimane, Mr MA to ask the President of the Republic
With reference to the Presidency’s 2016-17 Annual Report, what was the (a) total cost and (b) detailed breakdown of the costs of the 10 international trips that he undertook from 6 April 2016 to 10 February 2017?
Reply:
The Presidency does not incur costs for the President’s international trips.
When the President undertakes official international trips, host countries often extend courtesies for the President’s travelling expenses. In the absence of these courtesies, the Department of International Relations and Cooperation is responsible for the cost of the logistical arrangements with the Department of Defence being responsible for air travel.
10 November 2017 - NW3554
James, Ms LV to ask the Minister of Transport
(a) Why have the outstanding overtime payments of Road Traffic Management Corporation officers and staff not been made, (b) by which date will the payments be made and (c) why have staff members been requested to take time off in lieu of overtime payment?
Reply:
a) All overtime has been paid and
b) N/A
c) The policy allows staff members to take time off in lieu of overtime
10 November 2017 - NW3556
James, Ms LV to ask the Minister of Transport
With reference to the provincial regulating entities and the applications for licenses, (a) what (i) are the reasons for delays in these applications, (ii) is being done to get up-to-date on applications and (iii) is the average turn-around time in processing applications, (b) how is this average turn-around time calculated, (c) what is being done to reduce turn-around times in future and (d) what mechanisms, processes and procedures have been put in place in this regard?
Reply:
a) (i) Slowness of the system, National Land Transport Information System (NLTIS), used to process applications for operating licences and failure by operators to submit required or additional information for upliftment of licences.
(ii) In the short term, officials work overtime to process as many applications as possible. The medium term solution is to redesign the NLTIS.
(iii) Approximately 90 days for the processing of applications. However, the turnaround time differs in each Province, subject to capacity constraints in each Provincial Regulatory Entity (PRE).
b) Calculated using the first-come-first-processed scheduler. Complete application will take a minimum of 5 days at phase 1: helpdesk, 35 days at registration and publication phase, 10 days for board preparations and adjudication and 10 days for board minutes and upliftment of operating licences.
c) PREs have developed standard procedure manuals. The PRE committee has delegated the over the counter transactions to officials to reduce the turnaround time.
d) The Department is in a process of redesigning the system (NLTIS).
10 November 2017 - NW3412
De Freitas, Mr MS to ask the Minister of Transport
With reference to the Prasa signalling systems and maintenance work thereof, (a) what are the details of the work that is still outstanding in the 2017-18 financial year in each province, (b) why have these maintenance projects not been completed, (c) what is being done to resume and complete the maintanance work in each area respectively, (d) what are the timelines and deadlines for each area in this regard, (e) what are the amounts already paid in respect of each project and (f) (i) what are the total outstanding amounts in respect of each project and (ii) when will the outstanding amounts be paid in each case?
Reply:
Capital Expansion program for Resignalling
(a)(b) (c) (d)(e)
In 2013, PRASA commenced with a 7 year rollout of the new modern signaling system to replace existing signaling interlocking, which consist mainly of obsolete mechanical and electro-mechanical systems, with electronic interlocking as the technology of the future. In the Gauteng region, Stages 1 and 2 have been integrated into one overall programme whose contract was awarded to Siemens at an investment totaling R3.8 billion (exclude inflation). In the Durban and Western Cape regions, the signalling contracts were awarded to Bombardier for R1.3 billion (exclude inflation) and Thales/Maziya for R1.8 billion (exclude inflation), respectively. The overall investment amounts to approximately R7 billion across the three regions.
The scope of work of the signaling programme across the three regions includes the construction of central control centres for trial monitoring and control. Further, the programme includes the installation of new interlocking systems to improve operational capacity, safety and flexibility.
The overall Gauteng signalling work is currently at 48.9 per cent completion against a planned target of 55.9 per cent. The lagging behind against the planned target is due to additional scope of works which include the implementation of the Automatic Train Protection system between Pienaarspoort and Pretoria station in line with the introduction of a new service. To date, 19 (of 92) stations (Midway, Lenz, Lawley, Stretford, Grasmere, Residensia, Irene, Olifantsfontein, Kaalfontein, Leralla, Tembisa, Randfontein, Robinson, Krugersdorp, Luipaardsvlei, Roodepoort, Boksburg East, Dunswart, Benoni) have already been commissioned
The Gauteng Nerve Centre (GNC) building is 100 per cent complete and already operational. The GNC currently operates Irene, Olifantsfontein, Kaalfontein, Leralla and Tembisa Corridor. The Southern line (Midway – Residensia) is next to being migrated to the GNC before the end of the current financial year. In total, eight Centralized Traffic Control Center’s (CTC’s) across Gauteng will be migrated to the GNC. The remaining mini control centres (Pretoria North, Germiston, George Goch, New Canada and Dunswart) will be migrated over a period ahead.
Project expenditure for Gauteng up to October 2017 amounts to R3 billion (including inflation adjustments).
The overall progress in Western Cape is at 68.3 percent completion, which includes design work, ordering of long lead items, pilot installations of signalling and communication, trenching and cable laying and installation of track side equipment for first two phases. The works currently underway and yet to be concluded include the construction of the Cape Metrorail Control Centre (CMCC) at Bellville and the installation of new interlocking systems at various rail lines. In addition, the works currently underway includes telecoms, power supply, OHTE and Perway adjustments across the different railway lines. Project expenditure up to October 2017 amounts to R842 million.
In KwaZulu Natal, the current works of the project includes the establishment of the Durban Central Traffic Control (CTC) at Rossborough and the installation of new interlocking systems from KwaMashu – Durban – Umlazi, Isipingo- Umbogwintini, Pinetown line and Crossmoor line. The overall Signalling work in Kwa-Zulu Natal is at 58.7 percent completion, consisting of detailed designs, track work installations, civil works, ordering of bulk material items and installation of first new point sets and signalling equipment. It is anticipated that the Pinetown line will be commissioned with a new signalling system by the fourth quarter of the current financial year. Project expenditure up to October 2017 amounts to R653 million.
Rehabilitation Program
The above renewal programme is a long term plan that will renew the system once all the projects are completed. In the interim, minor rehabilitation projects and maintenance of the existing system are taking place to ensure continuity of operations while the projects are being rolled out.
The Details of work covered during the 2017/18 financial year covers the following
- Replacement of vandalized and stolen signalling system which directly affects train services
- Constructive maintenance on worn-out signaling equipment affecting system reliability. Majority of this work is covered by a resignalling program discussed above
- Routine maintenance and minor corrective work covered under operational maintenance
The above interventions are aimed sustaining the reliability and safety of the current (old) signalling system; however there remains a backlog of maintenance and repairs. This outstanding work is caused by ongoing theft and vandalism of signalling equipment and lack of human capital to deal with obsolete equipment and constraints in the operational funding for maintenance.
These challenges are addressed through major renewal program discussed above and the capital intervention program (minor rehabilitation projects). The Gauteng signalling rehabilitation amounts to R32.5 mil, KwaZulu Natal amounts to R8mil and Western Cape amounts to R19.5mil. In total the signalling rehabilitation program amounts to R60 mil covering all three regions; the actual spending is R22mil with projects still in execution and planned to be completed by end of the financial year. The outstanding amount of R38mil will be fully utilized by end of the 2017/18 financial year with the completion of the various rehabilitation projects.
10 November 2017 - NW3200
Xalisa, Mr Z R to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs
(a) What number of tenders have been awarded by the Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency since 1 April 2014, (b) what were the specified tenders for, (c) what was the total monetary value of each tender, (d) what are the names of the companies that each tender was awarded to and (e) what is the nature of the relationship between each specified company and a certain person (name and details furnished)?
Reply:
This is a provincial competency that would require the question to be reffered, for response, to the Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism as the Management Authority in charge of the Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency.
---oOo---
10 November 2017 - NW3551
Horn, Mr W to ask the Minister of Transport
(a) Why did Road Traffic Management Corporation officers who have been trained since 2015 receive non-credit bearing certificates, (b) what is being done to ensure that the affected officers receive accredited training and (c) why were some officers awarded accredited courses without drivers’ licenses?
Reply:
a) Officers who were issued with non-credit bearing certificates did not fully meet the entry requirements for the Examiners of Vehicle course.
An Executive decision was taken to expose these officers to non-credit bearing up-skilling learning areas to address other critical skills which necessary to ward off the escalating carnage on the country’s roads.
b) The affected official were put on progamme by the Corporation to obtain the required driving licenses, and are scheduled to be enrolled for the credit bearing course in Examiner of Vehicle which is due to start on the 13 November 2017.
c) All officers who were enrolled for the accredited course possessed the relevant driving licenses in line with the applicable legislation
10 November 2017 - NW3195
Shivambu, Mr F to ask the Minister of Finance
Has he found that South Africa can afford nuclear energy?
Reply:
National Treasury conducted preliminary analysis on the costs and economic impact of a nuclear build on the fiscus and the economy in 2015. This was based on the 2013 pre-feasibility study undertaken by the Department of Energy to procure and build 9.6GW of nuclear generated energy, as per the 2010 Integrated Resource Plan.
With limited information available in the pre-feasibility study, the analysis show that a 9.6GW nuclear programme would have significant implications for national income, South Africa’s total debt burden, international financial position, the balance of payments, for taxpayers and electricity consumers who will bear the full costs of the programme.
The deteriorating fiscal position and increasing fiscal risks, as outlined in the Medium Term Budget Policy Statement makes it harder to finance and/or guarantee a programme of this nature. An accurate assessment of the affordability of the nuclear new build programme needs to be based on a full socio economic cost benefit analysis, which shows the price path, affordability to households, implications for inflation and national income.
10 November 2017 - NW3546
Groenewald, Mr HB to ask the Minister of Transport
(a) What steps has been taken by his department to ensure that all (i) metered taxis and (ii) e-hailed taxis are operating legally, (b) what number of the specified taxis were found to be operating illegally in the past three financial years and (c) what are the details of sanctions that were imposed on the illegal taxis?
Reply:
a) On the 19th July 2017 I met with the Minister of Police and the Acting National Commissioner and his team to discuss the state of affairs between the metered taxis and /app-based operators and to propose a more focussed enforcement strategy.
In addition, I met with the MEC for Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport and the MMC’s of the relevant metropolitan municipalities on the 24th July 2017.
Furthermore, I met with the Gauteng Metered Taxi Council, the Concerned Metered Taxi Operators and the app-based operators on the 27th July 2017 in Midrand.
I also arranged a walk-about programme on 11th September 2017 in Sandton to sensitize operators that they must abide by the prescripts of the law which requires them to have a valid operating licence and that there will be no compromise on law enforcement.
b) During the above engagements, the Gauteng Province indicated they have received 6001 applications for e-hailing services as at 15 September 2017. Only 2077 applications were approved and only 1 was rejected. The Gauteng province further indicated that 3923 applications are still pending before the Gauteng Provincial Regulatory Entity (GPRE).
Regarding the metered taxi service, the GPRE received 3326 applications and 1368 of those applications were approved. GPRE also rejected 1958 applications.
During the October month the Province embarked on an outreach program where a total of 1078 applications were received and 162 licences were issued after this program. However, the information changes all the time as the Province is busy processing the licences to assist those who want to comply.
c) The National Land Transport Act, 05 of 2009 creates an offence to anyone who provides a public transport service without the necessary operating licence. If found to be providing public transport services without the licence, the relevant vehicle must be impounded and a determined fine must be paid before the vehicle is released by law enforcement. The fine varies from Province to Province since this power rests with the MECs and it goes up on a second and third offence.