Questions and Replies

Reply:

It is difficult to report on the statistics relating to convictions of examiners due to the prolonged period it takes to finalise a case; and due to the fact that once a case has been opened with the South African Police Service (SAPS), they must conduct investigations and ultimately prepare the docket for the Department of Justice to prosecute. Therefore a case may take much longer than expected to be finalised. This involves arms of government other than the Department of Transport.

a) It was reported to the Department that no examiners of vehicles in the Western Cape were convicted of issuing fraudulent certificates of road worthiness in the 2016 / 17 financial year.

b) See above (a)

c) See above (b)

Reply:

No	Organisation	(a) Amount Outstanding	(b) Period	(c) Reason and payment dates
(i)	SAMRO (SA Music Rights Organisation)	R14,546,580-00	April 2017	This is based on March 2017 revenue. Payment of SAMRO is scheduled for the 3rd Quarter of the 2017/18 F/Y.
(ii)	SAMPRA (SA Music Performance Rights Association) and IMPRA (Independent Music Performance Rights Association)	R52,751,160-73	March 2014	Both societies have not agreed on the percentage split of the amount based on the play history reports SABC has generated. Then a decision was made that both societies must submit their repertoires lists to SABC for final verification which SABC agreed on the due date of the end of May 2017. Both societies have submitted the repetoires list for the verification process which is still ongoing. Once all is completed and agreed upon by all parties the payment will be made to the societies.
(iii)	AIRCO (Association of Independent Record Companies)	R2,800,000-00	October 2016 -  April 2017	TV division is awaiting invoices from AIRCO for October 2016 – March 2017. Payments are scheduled from May 2017 onwards.
(iv)	RISA (Recording Industry of South Africa)	R2,400,000-00	January 2017 – April 2017	A payment of R19.8m was made at the end of December 2016. Payment is scheduled for the 3rd Quarter of the 2017/18 F/Y.
(v)	CAPASSO (Composers, Authors and Publishers Association)	R3,000,000-00	February 2017 – April 2017	February and March payments have been submitted for payment and are dependent on funds availability. Payment is scheduled for the 3rd Quarter of the 2017/18 F/Y.

Reply:

The Department of Public works manages accommodation requirements of national departments through the Property Management Trading Entity (PMTE). Included in this mandate is the provision of accommodation through state owned and leased properties, construction of new accommodation, major refurbishment of existing properties and management of municipal services.

State-owned accommodation charges are billed quarterly in advance in line with the devolution framework principles developed at the time of establishment of the PMTE. The process that is followed to recover monies relating to private leases, municipal services, Client Infrastructure spending (Capital allocation) and other recoverable infrastructure projects (referred to as PACE and CA) is as follows:

 

• PMTE pays lessors, contractors and municipalities on behalf of user departments;
• At the end of the month, the recoverable costs are consolidated per client;
• Invoices are then issued to clients in arrears;
• User departments have 30 days to settle debts in terms of the PFMA;
• However, in practice this gives rise to 60 days delay in matching the expense with the revenue.

As at the end of March 2017, R2, 854 billion was outstanding from national departments (Annexure: A) and R195 billion from other organs of state (Annexure: B).

In line with established inter-governmental cooperation principles, the PMTE has regular interactions with user departments for the recovery of outstanding debts and is assisted by the National Treasury where additional funding is required.

 

Reply:

(a)  Total amount spent by Government on rating agencies fees

South Africa has solicited the credit rating services of Moody’s Investors Services (Moody’s), S&P Global Ratings (S&P), Fitch Ratings (Fitch) and the Japanese’ Ratings and Investment Information, Inc. (R&I). In terms of the contractual agreements, the government has to pay fees to the rating agencies for the services rendered.

Since April 2008 to May 2017, a total amount of R 81 451 873.00 has been paid to the rating agencies. The table link below illustrates the total spent in rands made to all the four solicited credit rating agencies. S&P is the highest paid rating agency followed by Moody’s.

http://pmg-assets.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/RNW1393Table-170605.pdf

(b) The detailed breakdown of such expenditure per rating agency:

(i) S&P:

S&P’s annual rating fees are based on:

• Annual surveillance;
• Rating of long term debt issuances;
• Ratings of short term debt issuances; and
• Ratings of the Commercial Paper and Medium Term Notes.

(ii) Moody’s:

Moody’s annual and quarterly rating fees are based on:

• Annual and quarterly credit surveillance;
• Ratings of all Non-US Medium Term Notes Programs;
• Ratings of all US Medium Term Notes;
• Ratings of all Global Medium Term Notes Programs;
• Ratings of all Commercial Paper/Short Term; and
• Ratings of all long term debt issuances and Medium Term Notes sales in all markets including local currency debt issuances.

(iii) Fitch

Fitch’s annual rating fees are based on:

• Annual surveillance;
• Ratings of debt issuance; and
• Expense reimbursement for reasonable travel and lodging expense incurred during the annual rating mission to the Republic of South Africa.

(iv) R&I

R&I’s annual rating fee is based on:

• On-going surveillance of the credit rating
• Foreign currency issuer rating;
• Domestic currency issuer rating; and
• Foreign currency short term rating.

Reply:

The Minister and the Board met on the 30th June 2016, after lengthy deliberations on the state of PRASA, the Minister announced her decision to second Mr. Letsoalo to PRASA as its Acting GCEO. The Board accepted the secondment.

Subsequent to the meeting of June 30 2016, the Board requested a meeting with the Minister to discuss the details of Mr. Letsoalo’s secondment and appointment as Acting GCEO. The said meeting was scheduled for 5th July 2016, however the Minister did not attend the scheduled meeting and submitted an apology.

At which Board meeting was his (a) salary, perks and conditions, (b) start and termination date and (c) as well as terms of reference and authority concluded and resolved?

The Board at the meeting of the 5th July 2016 then mandated the Chairman of the Board to write a letter of appointment to Mr. Letsoalo. The letter of appointment by the Chairman to Mr. Letsoalo was written and dated 7 July 2016, which contained the terms and conditions of Mr. Letsoalo’s appointment.

 

Reply:

(a) In terms of the National Road Traffic Act (Act 93 of 1996), there is no provincial inspectorate of testing stations.

(b) No one has been appointed, however the Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC is in the process of appointing a service provider /s to conduct assessment and inspections of driver licensing testing centres and vehicle testing stations.

(c) An open tender, Reference No RTMC BID 05/2007/18 was issued on Friday 19 May 2017 and the closing date is 12 June 2017 at 11:00.

(d), and (e), for reasons stated in (a),(b) and (c) above, the Department only receives copies of the reports on inspections done by the SABS and is not privy to any provincial reports, findings and actions taken by the MEC of the province.

(f), (g), and (h) The Department has started with the process of developing the Anti-fraud and Corruption Strategy that is intended to root out fraud and corruption at the vehicle and driving testing stations; and in terms of the current Departmental Strategic Plan, it is anticipated that the strategy will be approved in March 2019.

Reply:

(a) In terms of the National Road Traffic Act (Act 93 of 1996), there is no provincial inspectorate of testing stations.

(b) No one has been appointed, however the Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC is in the process of appointing a service provider /s to conduct assessment and inspections of driver licensing testing centres and vehicle testing stations.

(c) An open tender, Reference No RTMC BID 05/2007/18 was issued on Friday 19 May 2017 and the closing date is 12 June 2017 at 11:00.

(d), and (e), for reasons stated in (a),(b) and (c) above, the Department only receives copies of the reports on inspections done by the SABS and is not privy to any provincial reports, findings and actions taken by the MEC of the province.

(f), (g), and (h) The Department has started with the process of developing the Anti-fraud and Corruption Strategy that is intended to root out fraud and corruption at the vehicle and driving testing stations; and in terms of the current Departmental Strategic Plan, it is anticipated that the strategy will be approved in March 2019.

Reply:

(a) GCIS had not procured any services or made any payment to the Decolonisation Foundation during the 2016/17 Financial Year.

Reply:

E-government services are the services that Government render to the public online through the internet. In this regard, the Department of Home Affairs has developed an eHome Affairs Portal which enables citizens to apply for smart ID Cards and Passports online. The Portal was launched on 07 April 2016.

(a) FY2016/17 Expenditure

1. Development of the eHome Affairs Portal – R6 960 447.19
2. Post Release Enhancements of eHome Affairs – R2 846 908.79
3. Support and Maintenance of the eHome Affairs system – R887 494.97

It is to be noted that the development of the Portal includes upgrade to Live Capture system and revenue systems to enable EFT payments and integration to various core systems.

​(b) FY2017/18 Budget allocation for eHome Affairs Portal

1. Planned enhancement of eHome Affairs Portal – R2 500 000.00
2. Maintenance and Support of the System – R1 000 000.00
3. Hosting and Internet Connectivity for eHome Affairs (including hardware procurement) – R10 000 000.00

Reply:

As a starting point, I need to state the following to the Honourable Member: SANRAL is in terms of the SANRAL Act, 1998 (Act 7 of 1998) (“the Act”) read together with the Regulations promulgated in terms thereof, empowered to recover outstanding debt from users who traverse the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP) network in Gauteng.

(a)(b) Yes, the recovery is based on a “user pay principle” irrespective of whether the user is registered or non-registered. Such a recovery process will be embarked upon once all the prescribed legal processes have been followed.

(i0 In terms of section 27(1)(b) of the SANRAL Act, read together with the e-Road Regulations (published by the Minister of Transport on 9 October 2013 in Government Gazette Notice No. R. 793 in terms of sections 58(1)(dA) and (dC) of the SANRAL Act ("the e-Road Regulations")), the owner of a vehicle that passes under a gantry (defined as " a toll plaza where the liability to pay toll is recorded by an electrical or electronic device" in regulation 1 of the e-Road Regulations) on the GFIP toll roads is liable to pay toll to SANRAL

(ii) Both registered and non-registered be they individuals and companies registered in terms of our Company Laws of the Republic will be taken to court based on the merit of the case.

(iii) None

Reply:

(a) Number of cases identified by the Auditor-General:	(i) Fruitless	(ii) Wasteful	(iii) Irregular
(aa) 2014-15	1	-	1
(bb) 2015-16	-	1	1
(cc) 2016-17	-	-	-
(b)(i) Total amount in each case:	(i) Fruitless	(ii) Wasteful	(iii) Irregular
(aa) 2014-15	R 67,000.00	-	R 750,865.50
(bb) 2015-16	-	R 50,050.00	R 520,000.00
(cc) 2016-17	-	-	-
(b)(ii) How much was recovered in each case:	(i) Fruitless	(ii) Wasteful	(iii) Irregular
(aa) 2014-15	R 67,000.00	-	-
(bb) 2015-16	-	-	-
(cc) 2016-17	-	-	-

Reply:

It is difficult to report on the statistics relating to convictions of examiners due to the prolonged period it takes to finalise a case; and due to the fact that once a case has been opened with the South African Police Service (SAPS), they must conduct investigations and ultimately prepare the docket for the Department of Justice to prosecute. Therefore a case may take much longer than expected to be finalised. This involves arms of government other than the Department of Transport.

a) The province of Mpumalanga has reported that there were no examiners that were convicted of issuing fraudulent certificates of road worthiness in the 2016 / 17 financial year.

b) See above (a)

c) See above (b)

Reply:

Response:

a) Yes

b) Yes

Response to (i), (ii), (aa), (aaa) (bbb) on table below.

PROGRAMME	ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE	OVG DETERMINED VALUE	DIFFERNCE
LAND REDISTRIBUTION AND DEVELOPMENT	R 116,866,011.00	R 98,264,000.00	R 18,602,011.00
STRENGTHENING OF RELATIVE RIGHTS	R 218,457,051.64	R 176,651,900.00	R 41,805,151.64
RESTITUTION	R 250,376,449.00	R 226,205,265.96	R 24,171,183.04
Total	R 585,699,511.64	R 501,121,165.96	R 84,578,345.68

Reply:

a) In terms of the National Road Traffic Act (Act 93 of 1996), there is no provincial inspectorate of testing stations.

b) No one has been appointed, however the Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC is in the process of appointing a service provider /s to conduct assessment and inspections of driver licensing testing centres and vehicle testing stations.

c) An open tender, Reference No RTMC BID 05/2007/18 was issued on Friday 19 May 2017 and the closing date is 12 June 2017 at 11:00.

(d), and (e), for reasons stated in (a),(b) and (c) above, the Department only receives copies of the reports on inspections done by the SABS and is not privy to any provincial reports, findings and actions taken by the MEC of the province.

(f), (g), and (h) The Department has started with the process of developing the Anti-fraud and Corruption Strategy that is intended to root out fraud and corruption at the vehicle and driving testing stations; and in terms of the current Departmental Strategic Plan, it is anticipated that the strategy will be approved in March 2019.

Reply:

The impasse has been resolved. The Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) awarded the bid to host the Commonwealth Games 2022 on 02 September 2015 at its general assembly in Auckland, New Zealand. At the time of awarding the bid, the finance guarantee by the South African Government was not signed, as certain conditions of the host city agreement were not favourable to South Africa and hence could not be signed. This further meant that the outstanding issues raised by the evaluation commission after their visit in April/May 2015 could not be attended to as it was dependent on the negotiations with the Commonwealth Games Federation around matters contained in the financial guarantee and the host city agreement.

Further to the negotiations, South Africa provided a response to the issues by 30 November 2016. The Commonwealth Games Federation completed its detailed review of the final information submitted by South Africa on 30 November 2016 to determine whether the requisite conditions precedent set by South Africa would be acceptable to the Commonwealth Games Federation. The latter however felt that this did not meet with their methodology of games delivery and considered South Africa's position as a departure from the conditions they had set in the proposed Host City Agreement. The Evaluation Commission of the Commonwealth Games Federation did not accept South Africa's conditions, budget proposals and delivery methodology. It was therefore resolved that the Commonwealth Games Federation should withdraw the rights awarded to Durban to host the 2022 edition of the games.

**************************************

Reply:

(a) The Department has not as yet received the legal fees from its legal team.

(b) Not applicable

(i) The Department has not yet received any taxed costs from the Applicants.

(ii) PRASA did not join legal proceedings, thus there were no legal fees to be paid

Reply:

1. The link below indicates the number of invoices issued and paid for each month since 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2017. The information for April 2017 is not yet available, but will be submitted once it is available.

https://pmg.org.za/files/RNW1328Table-170605.pdf  

2. SANRAL calculates the compliance rate in Rand value due to invoices varying in terms of tariff due to class of vehicle, time-of-day, frequent user discount, etc. Additionally, it should also be noted that once a vehicle reaches the monthly cap, invoices are still issued even though the value is zero.

a) The compliance rate for February 2017, based on Rand value was 29%.

b) Due to the year-end processes and audits still to be concluded, the value of outstanding debt can’t be disclosed. This will be available once the Auditor-General has concluded the audit on 31 July 2017. The audited results as at 31 March 2016, reflects the outstanding value (trade receivables), which would be for unregistered users, as R7 206 million.

Reply:

No, the Department of Communications has not paid any performance bonuses.

 

Reply:

(a) and (b) (i) and (ii) The Department of Sport and Recreation South Africa and the entities reporting to its Executive Authority did not procure any services from and/or make any payments to the Decolonisation Foundation.

Thus (aa), (bb), (cc), (dd), (ee) and (ff) fall away.

************************************

Reply:

(a) In terms of the National Road Traffic Act (Act 93 of 1996), there is no provincial inspectorate of testing stations.

(b) No one has been appointed, however the Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC is in the process of appointing a service provider /s to conduct assessment and inspections of driver licensing testing centres and vehicle testing stations.

(c) An open tender, Reference No RTMC BID 05/2007/18 was issued on Friday 19 May 2017 and the closing date is 12 June 2017 at 11:00.

(d), and (e), for reasons stated in (a),(b) and (c) above, the Department only receives copies of the reports on inspections done by the SABS and is not privy to any provincial reports, findings and actions taken by the MEC of the province.

(f), (g), and (h) The Department has started with the process of developing the Anti-fraud and Corruption Strategy that is intended to root out fraud and corruption at the vehicle and driving testing stations; and in terms of the current Departmental Strategic Plan, it is anticipated that the strategy will be approved in March 2019.

Reply:

(1) Yes

(a) The law does not prohibit any person from serving on more than one Board of the entities reporting to the Minister of Communications.

(b) (i) Ms Khanyisile Kweyama

    (ii) Brand South Africa Board and the interim SABC Board.

    (iii) Serving a three-year term at Brand South Africa and six months at the SABC interim Board.      

    (iv) payment for services rendered were in line with the required prescript

(2) Yes.

Reply:

a) The Metrorail commuter service between Crossmoor (Chatsworth) and Durban was suspended from 22 February 2017 due to the general shortage of serviceable rolling stock experienced by the PRASA KZN Region. As at February 2017, only 32 train sets out of the required 57 train sets were in-service, due to major overhaul/upgrade and maintenance program requirements of the ageing fleet. PRASA was also losing 5 coaches on average per month due to vandalism. As a consequence the in-service fleet is under pressure and run more kilometres than usual, with less time to effect day to day maintenance, having an adverse effect on the performance of the fleet. The over extension and poor performance of the available fleet create serious risks in terms of commuter dissatisfaction and overcrowding.

In balancing the available in-service fleet with overall demand across the KZN region, the Chatsworth and Bluff services were suspended in order to make rolling stock available on higher demand corridors in areas where alternative bus services are not viable due to objections from the taxi industry.

b) A replacement bus service was provided by PRASA between Crossmoor and Merebank, making it possible for commuters to connect with trains travelling to and from the South Coast and Umlazi.

c) Although a partial recovery of the KZN Metrorail fleet availability towards the end of March allowed the train service between Durban and Crossmoor to be reinstated, limited spare trains sets still affects service capacity and performance, resulting in frequent cancellations. Buses are arranged on an ad-hoc basis to augment the train service as far as possible.

d) The train service between Durban and Crossmoor was officially reinstated on 30 March 2017. The train service between Durban/Umlazi and Wests (Bluff) remains suspended due to the ongoing shortage of rolling stock. PRASA is in a process of accelerating the return of additional rolling stock (train sets) to improve the fleet availability across all services in the KZN region.

Reply:

Auditing process in relation to the total amount spent, amongst others, refer to in this parliamentary question is still under away, once the auditing process and all other process has been completed, the amount spent, will be submitted to Parliament as part of the Annual Reports, which will be tabled in Parliament.

Reply:

(a) In terms of the National Road Traffic Act (Act 93 of 1996), there is no provincial inspectorate of testing stations.

(b) No one has been appointed, however the Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC is in the process of appointing a service provider /s to conduct assessment and inspections of driver licensing testing centres and vehicle testing stations.

(c) An open tender, Reference No RTMC BID 05/2007/18 was issued on Friday 19 May 2017 and the closing date is 12 June 2017 at 11:00.

(d), and (e), for reasons stated in (a),(b) and (c) above, the Department only receives copies of the reports on inspections done by the SABS and is not privy to any provincial reports, findings and actions taken by the MEC of the province.

(f), (g), and (h) The Department has started with the process of developing the Anti-fraud and Corruption Strategy that is intended to root out fraud and corruption at the vehicle and driving testing stations; and in terms of the current Departmental Strategic Plan, it is anticipated that the strategy will be approved in March 2019.

Reply:

1. a) The National Department of Public Works is the custodian of the Jonkershoek Forest Reserve Farm 352 and the unregistered portion 4 also known as “Op-die-Bult Jonkershoek”

(b) The National Department of Public Works is currently negotiating with the Stellenbosch Municipality to assume responsibility for the human settlement of former forest workers by means of the disposal of the property to that municipality.

(2) No, currently there are no funds available for the maintenance of the general infrastructure and houses of the settlement, hence negotiations with the
Stellenbosch Municipality to assume responsibility for the settlement.

(3) (a) 18 formal structures have been confirmed at Op-die-Bult, with 123 households recorded in the broader Jonkerhoek Mixed Use Precinct. These
figures are from the time when the property was returned to Department by the South African Forestry Company Limited (SAFCOL) acting on behalf of
the then Department of Water Affairs and Forestry.

(b) (i) No funds have been spent on the infrastructure

(b) (ii) No funds have been spent on the houses

(4) (a) The Department is currently negotiating with the Stellenbosch municipalityto take over the properties together with their inhabitants as it is best-placed to provide appropriate standards of human settlement

(b) Yes, it is envisaged that the Department will hand over the properties to the Stellenbosch Municipality for management of the human settlement according to prescribed standards.

(5) The National Department of Public Works aims to transfer the land to the Stellenbosch Municipality. Other relevant Departments e.g. Department of
Human Settlements, COGTA, Department of Rural Development etc. will then be drawn in as an intergovernmental team to assist with housing and
infrastructure in formalising the settlement in terms of their core function.

Reply:

1. Yes, Erf 81 situated in Tamboerskloof, Cape Town, Western Cape falls under the care of National Public Works Department.

2. The property is being considered for transfer to the Department of Defence, which has requested that this property – as well as all other Endowment properties – be returned to the Department of Defence for their own use. The property is an Endowment property owned by Department of Defence and is under the custodianship of National Department of Public Works.

3. The property is intended to be used by the Department of Defence for their own needs.

Reply:

(a) In terms of the National Road Traffic Act (Act 93 of 1996), there is no provincial inspectorate of testing stations.

(b) No one has been appointed, however the Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC is in the process of appointing a service provider /s to conduct assessment and inspections of driver licensing testing centres and vehicle testing stations.

(c) An open tender, Reference No RTMC BID 05/2007/18 was issued on Friday 19 May 2017 and the closing date is 12 June 2017 at 11:00.

(d), and (e), for reasons stated in (a),(b) and (c) above, the Department only receives copies of the reports on inspections done by the SABS and is not privy to any provincial reports, findings and actions taken by the MEC of the province.

(f), (g), and (h) The Department has started with the process of developing the Anti-fraud and Corruption Strategy that is intended to root out fraud and corruption at the vehicle and driving testing stations; and in terms of the current Departmental Strategic Plan, it is anticipated that the strategy will be approved in March 2019.

Reply:

(1) Yes, since from 17 March 2017.

(2) (a)(b) the FPB conducts benchmarking studies in different jurisdictions and the work on the Online Regulation Policy was a culmination of such studies.

Reply:

1. In terms of the National Road Traffic Act (Act 93 of 1996), there is no provincial inspectorate of testing stations.

1. No one has been appointed, however the Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC is in the process of appointing a service provider /s to conduct assessment and inspections of driver licensing testing centres and vehicle testing stations.

1. An open tender, Reference No RTMC BID 05/2007/18 was issued on Friday 19 May 2017 and the closing date is 12 June 2017 at 11:00.

(d), and (e), for reasons stated in (a),(b) and (c) above, the Department only receives copies of the reports on inspections done by the SABS and is not privy to any provincial reports, findings and actions taken by the MEC of the province.

(f), (g), and (h) The Department has started with the process of developing the Anti-fraud and Corruption Strategy that is intended to root out fraud and corruption at the vehicle and driving testing stations; and in terms of the current Departmental Strategic Plan, it is anticipated that the strategy will be approved in March 2019.

Reply:

Since the inception of e-tolls on 3 December 2013, the payments to date amounted to R2.22 billion for full toll operations. It must be noted that this amount cannot be regarded as compensation directly to the toll operator since it includes amounts that are paid via the e-toll operator to other service providers that provide direct services in terms of the project. Most notably are the following services:

Safety and Security Services	R 19.02m
Insurance of buildings	R 11.72m
Utilities (water, power, property taxes, telecoms), kiosk rental	R 138.49m
e-tags procurement from 3rd parties	R 130.56m
Invoice printing and posting	R 225.30m
SMS's	R 3.72m
	R 528.81m

Excluding the above payments to other service providers (e.g. municipalities, telco’s, e-tags, Post Office, security and insurance companies), the payments made to the toll operator amount to R1.69 billion over a period of 42 months (Dec 2013 to May 2017). From these payments the operator:

• pays salaries (approximately 1000 people);
• performs system maintenance (toll gantries and all other hardware and software), electrical and building maintenance;
• pays software licenses;
• processes toll transactions;
• generates invoices; and
• operates customer service centres, the call centre, violator processing centre etc.

Reply:

(a) The Huguenot Tunnel is not a concession contract, but a state-owned toll road, as it is funded and maintained by SANRAL. The toll operations and tunnel management are outsourced to Tolcon Group, the Operator. SMEC Consulting Engineers are the appointed professional service providers; and are responsible for overseeing the operations and maintenance of the Huguenot Toll Plaza and Tunnel.

(b) Tolcon was appointed on 27 November 2014 and the Operations and Maintenance contract officially commenced on 01 February 2015.

(c) Tolcon and SMEC Consulting Engineers were appointed after an open tender process.

(d) The tender provided for a functionality requirement to be met as a minimum. This was calculated on the following basis:

THE QUALITY CRITERIA AND MAXIMUM SCORE IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE CRITERIA ARE AS FOLLOWS: FORM	DESCRIPTION OF QUALITY CRITERIA AND SUB-CRITERIA	MAXIMUM NUMBER OF TENDER EVALUATION POINTS
B1	Schedule of Work Experience in comparable projects	20
B3	Proposed Personnel for Key staff	15
B4	Continuing professional development of the Key staff	5
B5 (Items 1,4,5, & 6)	Organisational structure, Logistics, support structures and managerial ability appropriate to the size and nature of the work	10
B5 (Item 2)	Financial control structures	10
B5 (Item 3)	Financial information	5
B5 (Item 7)	Maintenance proficiency	15
B7	Toll Systems Replacement: Methodology, Approach & Technical Compliance	15
B8	Toll Manning Configuration	5
Total evaluation points for quality (MS)	100

The minimum number of evaluation points for quality (WQ) was 75.

All compliant tenders who met the threshold moved on to the second stage of the tender evaluation which was Price and Preference (90/10).

Scoring preference:

Up to 100 minus W1 tender evaluation points will be awarded to tenderers who submit responsive tenders and who are found to be eligible for the preference claimed. Points are based on a tenderer’s scorecard measured in terms of the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act (B-BBEE, Act 53 of 2003) and the Regulations (2009) to the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act (PPPFA, Act 5 of 2000).

Points awarded were allocated according to a tenderer’s B-BBEE status level of contributor and summarised in the table below:

The score for price was calculated out of the 90 points using the formula:

A = (1 – (P – Pm)/Pm)

Pm is the comparative offer of the most favourable comparative offer

P is the comparative offer of the tender offer under consideration

The points for Price was then added to the Preference Point for a total point out of 100. The tender is awarded to the highest point scorer.

(e) It should be noted that this is not a concession contract, but the current Operations and Maintenance contract started on 01 February 2015.

(f) The contract was awarded for a 3 year period, with an option to extend for a further 2 years.

(g) Not applicable

(h) The Huguenot Toll Plaza and Tunnel is part of the SANRAL Toll Portfolio. Details of bonds issued in the capital markets to fund the Portfolio with each bonds corresponding coupon rate is disclosed in the SANRAL financial statements.

Reply:

Department

Department did not procure any services or made any payments to (i) the certain company (name furnished) or (ii) any other public relations firms. The reason is because the department did not have a need to obtain the services of a public relations firm.

(aa) Not applicable

(bb) Not applicable

(cc) Not applicable

(dd) Not applicable

(ee) Not applicable

(ff) Not applicable

Airports Company South Africa SOC Limited (ACSA)

Airports Company South Africa has not procured any services from the company whose name was furnished. Airports Company South Africa utilises the services of FTI Consulting for its public relations.

Air Traffic Navigation and Services (ATNS)

1. According to ATNS records, no services where procured or payments made to Bell Pottinger
2. No service or payments were made to any public relations firms. There has not been any reason to procure services or make payments to public relations firms

(aa) Not applicable

(bb) Not applicable

(cc) Not applicable

(dd) Not applicable

(ee) Not applicable

(ff) Not applicable

South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA)

(a) N/A (b)(i)(ii)(aa)(bb)(cc)(dd)(ee)(ff)The South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) procured services from and made payments to a public relations agency called PR Powerhouse. The agency was hired to provide the SACAA with a variety of marketing communications aimed at creating awareness about the organisation, its mandate, and services offered to the public. Examples of outputs include drafting of media statements, setting up media interviews, and related public relations activities. The contract agreement was for a period of six months, ending 31 March 2016. During the contract period, the agency was paid a monthly retainer fee of R54 150, 00 (fifty-four thousand one hundred and fifty rand); amounting to R324 900, 00 (three hundred and twenty-four thousand nine hundred rand). NW1652E

(b) Cross-Border Road Transport Agency (CBRT) has not procured services from nor has it made any payments to (i) Bell Pottinger nor (ii) has it engaged any other public relations firm. The Agency has not established the need to do so.

(aa) – (ff) Not applicable

(b) Road Accident Fund (RAF) did not procure any services from and/or make any payments to (i) Bell Pottinger, but (ii) did procure services from The Brand Leadership Group (Pty) Ltd (“Brand Leadership”), a brand strategy, brand valuation and intellectual property management company, to (aa) provide the RAF with communications, media and public relations services, (bb) at a total contracted cost of R3 102 624, including VAT, over the three year period commencing on 13 January 2014, (cc) the detailed breakdown of such cost is:

Description	Total Cost
Management fee	R2 721 600
Percentage of markup fee for events	Billing principles and terms and conditions
Addition cost	Billing principles and terms and conditions
Total	R2 721 600
Total VAT	R381 024
Total VAT inclusive	R3 102 624

, (dd) of which R 2 879 044.31 has been paid to date, (ee) the purpose of the payment was to compensate Brand Leadership for the contracted services rendered to the RAF, (ff) the detailed breakdown of the payments are set out below:

Date of Payment	Amount	Particulars:
07 April 2014	R7,524.00	Advertisement
09 May 2014	R13 167.00	Brand Management
11 June 2014	R86 184.00	Retainer
19 June 2014	R86 184.00	Retainer
04 September 2014	R86 184.00	Retainer
05 November 2014	R86 184.00	Retainer
12 November 2014	R86 184.00	Retainer
26 February 2015	R86 184.00	Retainer
13 March 2015	R86 184.00	Retainer
17 April 2015	R86 184.00	Retainer
30 April 2015	R86 184.00	Retainer
11 June 2015	R86 184.00	Retainer
01 July 2015	R86 184.00	Retainer
08 September 2015	R86 184.00	Retainer
11 September 2015	R96 159.00	Retainer of R86 184.00 and R9 975.00 for design and artwork
18 November 2015	R99 581.81	Retainer of R86 184.00 and R13 397.81 for road show
20 January 2016	R105 606.75	Retainer of R86 184.00 and design and layout R11 172.75
20 April 2016	R114 114.00	Retainer of R86 184.00, R16 758.00 and R11 172.00 for branding.
22 April 2016	R135 560.25	Retainer of R86 184.00 and design and placement of advert R49 376.25
25 April 2016	R172 368.00	2 X Retainer of R86 184.00
18 May 2016	R172 368.00	2 X Retainer of R86 184.00
20 June 2016	R172 368.00	2 X Retainer of R86 184.00
14 September 2016	R172 368.00	2 X Retainer of R86 184.00
19 September 2016	R182 286.00	Retainer of R86 184.00, advertorial for R87 210.00 and R8892.00 for design and layout for an advert.
19 January 2017	R401 365.50	4 X Retainer of R86 184.00, campaign of R53 437.50 and R3 192.00 for design.
Total	R2 879 044.31

(b) Road Traffic Management Corporations (RTMC) has not procured services from nor has it made any payments to (i) Bell Pottinger nor (ii) has it engaged any other public relations firm. The Agency has not established the need to do so.

(aa) – (ff) Not applicable

(b) Road Traffic Infringement Agency (RTI) has not procured services from nor has it made any payments to (i) Bell Pottinger nor (ii) has it engaged any other public relations firm. The Agency has not established the need to do so.

(aa) – (ff) Not applicable

(b) South African Road Agency Limited (SANRAL) has not procured services from nor has it made any payments to (i) Bell Pottinger nor (ii) has it engaged any other public relations firm. The Agency has not established the need to do so.

(aa) – (ff) Not applicable

South African Maritime Safety Authority (SAMSA)

The South African Maritime Authority (SAMSA) has never done any business nor procured any goods or services from Bell Pottinger or any other public relations firm.

The Authority has its own internal Corporate Affairs department which, among other things, is responsible for stakeholder management and communication.

Ports Regulator of South Africa (PRSA)

(b) The Ports Regulator did not procure any services from and/or made any payments to (i) Bell Pottinger or (ii) any other public relations firm. The reason for not using such services is because the activities of the Ports Regulator so far have not necessitated the use of a public relations firm.

National Railway Safety Regulator (NRSR)

(b)(i) The RSR has not procured any services from and/or made any payments to the company in question, Bell Pottinger.

(b)(ii) The RSR utilised the public relations services of Media Equity South Africa

(aa) The services procured related to the provision of reputation management services for the Regulator

(bb) The total cost of the services is contracted for an amount of R295 000.

(cc) Breakdown for cost relate to the assisting the Regulator to strengthen its relationship with the media and increase awareness of its newsworthy initiatives:

(dd) The Regulator has paid Media Equity SA R95 000 to date.

(ee) For services rendered as per the contract awarded to date

(ff) Detailed breakdown:

• Facilitation of the State of Safety report Launch – R35 000
• Interviews with senior management and staff
• Desktop research and social media analysis
• Securing participation from media houses and ongoing relationship building - R60 000

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA)

          (b) (i) PRASA has never procured services from Bell Pottinger

               (ii) No other PR Agency has been used by PRASA

               (aa) there was no requirement for those services

               (bb) Not applicable

               (cc) Not applicable

               (dd) Not applicable

               (ee) Not applicable

               (ff) Not applicable           

 

Reply:

Yes, the official has been suspended.

a) The official was suspended on 17 March 2017.

b) The official is facing various charges of alleged misconduct, details of which are still confidential pending finalisation of the disciplinary processes. The suspension was to enable the Board to conduct an investigation on allegations of misconduct.

c) Mr Mmberegeni Dzebu.

d) The Council requested the then Minister of Communications to second an official to act as the CEO. Mr Dzebu was found to be a suitable person.

Reply:

It is difficult to report on the statistics relating to convictions of examiners due to the prolonged period it takes to finalise a case; and due to the fact that once a case has been opened with the South African Police Service (SAPS), they must conduct investigations and ultimately prepare the docket for the Department of Justice to prosecute. Therefore a case may take much longer than expected to be finalised. This involves arms of government other than the Department of Transport.

(a) The Eastern Cape Province reported that one examiner was convicted and is still practicing (Case no 217/ 1 /2016 Cradock Magistrate Court). The reason for continuation is that the Department is waiting for the response of the accused. A suspension letter was issued to him and signed by him on 08 May 2017. He was given 21 days to respond and this will end on the 02 June 2017.

(b) See above (a)

(c) See above (b)

Reply:

It is difficult to report on the statistics relating to convictions of examiners due to the prolonged period it takes to finalise a case; and due to the fact that once a case has been opened with the South African Police Service (SAPS), they must conduct investigations and ultimately prepare the docket for the Department of Justice to prosecute. Therefore a case may take much longer than expected to be finalised. This involves arms of government other than the Department of Transport.

a) The Limpopo province reported that there were no examiners convicted of issuing fraudulent certificates of road worthiness in the 2016 / 17 financial year.

b) See above (a)

c) See above (b)

Reply:

(1)(a) 1 130 designated marriage officers

(1)(b) 421 marriage officers are exempted to perform Civil Union Marriages whereby they objected on the grounds of conscience, religion or belief.

(2) This is not a Ministerial prerogative but a provision of the law in terms of section 6 of the Civil Union Act, 2006 (Act No. 17 of 2006) – A marriage officer, other than a marriage officer referred to in section 5, may in writing inform the Minister that he or she objects on the ground of conscience, religion and belief to solemnising a civil union between persons of the same sex, whereupon that marriage officer shall not be compelled to solemnise such civil union. The Act is clear in that marriage officers will not be compelled to solemnise such civil unions.

Reply:

(i) There are three ongoing investigations at PRASA.

1. The investigations into the irregular and fruitless and wasteful expenditure found by the Auditor-General in the 2014/2015 annual financial statements. This was commissioned by the Board of PRASA in terms of its fiduciary duties flowing from the Public Finance Management Act and led by Werksmans Attorneys.
2. The investigations into contracts of more than R10 million concluded between 2012 and 2015 as per the remedial steps recommended by the Public Protector’s Report in August 2015 that are associated with the entities and transactions that were under investigation in (1) above. These investigations were, by agreement between PRASA, the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer of the National Treasury and the Department of Transport, led by Werksmans Attorneys.
3. The investigations into contracts of more than R10 million concluded between 2012 and 2015 as per the remedial steps recommended by the Public Protector in August 2015. These relate to entities and transactions that were not viewed as related to the entities and transaction under investigation in (1) above. These investigations are led by National Treasury and National Treasury has appointed about 20 entities with forensic investigation capacity to conduct the investigation of these transactions and entities.

(ii) There is no new investigation commissioned by the Board of PRASA.

(iii) For the Financial Years 15/16 and 16/17, R148 million was paid for the investigations, and for the 17/18 Financial Year R14 million has been budgeted.

(iv) The timeframes for the conclusion of the investigations is end of July. The Milestones are that reports are submitted to the Board as they are completed. To date the Board has instituted seven court actions and has also forwarded 41 reports to the Directorate of Priority crimes investigations for further criminal investigations and 4 internal disciplinary actions have been instituted against affected employees.

(v) Please see response under (ii).

Reply:

(a) In terms of the National Road Traffic Act (Act 93 of 1996), there is no provincial inspectorate of testing stations.

(b) No one has been appointed, however the Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC is in the process of appointing a service provider /s to conduct assessment and inspections of driver licensing testing centres and vehicle testing stations.

(c) An open tender, Reference No RTMC BID 05/2007/18 was issued on Friday 19 May 2017 and the closing date is 12 June 2017 at 11:00.

(d), and (e), for reasons stated in (a),(b) and (c) above, the Department only receives copies of the reports on inspections done by the SABS and is not privy to any provincial reports, findings and actions taken by the MEC of the province.

(f), (g), and (h) The Department has started with the process of developing the Anti-fraud and Corruption Strategy that is intended to root out fraud and corruption at the vehicle and driving testing stations; and in terms of the current Departmental Strategic Plan, it is anticipated that the strategy will be approved in March 2019.

Reply:

(a)(b)(i)(ii)(aa)(bb)(cc)(dd)(ee)(ff)

The Department and the Entities reporting to the Minister did not procure any services from and/or made any payments to the Decolonisation Foundation.

Reply:

a) The Department of Communications (DoC) spent R958 689.84 on a business briefing held on 26 May 2016 which was organised by the newspaper in question.

b) The entities in the DoC portfolio did not spend on promotional events organised by the newspaper in question since 1 May 2014.

Reply:

(1) The person has resigned from the FPB.

(a) The person resigned on 8 April 2017 and is currently handing over and concluding projects relating to the Annual Report.

(b) The resignation was due to professional reasons.

(2) No.

(3) No. (a) She used to serve on the MDDA Board. (b) Yes. (c) payment for serves rendered are made in terms of the revenant prescript.

(4) Yes, the person has been shortlisted to serve on the Council of ICASA and recommended by the National Assembly.

Reply:

a) In terms of the National Road Traffic Act (Act 93 of 1996), there is no provincial inspectorate of testing stations.

b) No one has been appointed, however the Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC is in the process of appointing a service provider /s to conduct assessment and inspections of driver licensing testing centres and vehicle testing stations.

c) An open tender, Reference No RTMC BID 05/2007/18 was issued on Friday 19 May 2017 and the closing date is 12 June 2017 at 11:00.

(d), and (e), for reasons stated in (a),(b) and (c) above, the Department only receives copies of the reports on inspections done by the SABS and is not privy to any provincial reports, findings and actions taken by the MEC of the province.

(f), (g), and (h) The Department has started with the process of developing the Anti-fraud and Corruption Strategy that is intended to root out fraud and corruption at the vehicle and driving testing stations; and in terms of the current Departmental Strategic Plan, it is anticipated that the strategy will be approved in March 2019.

 

 

Reply:

(aa) 2014-15

ITEM	NAME	DESIGNATION	AIR	CAR HIRE	(a) TRAVEL	(b) ACCOMMODATION
(i)	MS E PETERS	MINISTER	R1 298 747.00	R 667 166.38	R1 965 913.38	R181 172.70
(ii)	MS L CHIKUNGA	DEPUTY MINISTER	No information available	R392 782.61	R392 782.61	R21 345.00
(iii)	MR I MNISI	MEDIA LIAISON OFFICER - MINISTRY	R8 706.17	R17 527.30	R26 233.47	R69 754.38
(iii)	MS N MAPHANGA	PARLIAMENTARY AND MEDIA LIAISON OFFICER - DEPUTY MINISTER	R0.00	R142 222.72	R142 222.72	NO INFO

No information – no record, company insolvent

(bb) 2015-16

ITEM	NAME	DESIGNATION	AIR	CAR HIRE	(a) TRAVEL	(b) ACCOMMODATION
(i)	MS E PETERS	MINISTER	R1 401 868.22	R883 813.53	R 2 285 681.75	R50 760.73
(ii)	MS L CHIKUNGA	DEPUTY MINISTER	R1 008 247.22	R863 496.51	R1 871 743.73	R109 187.69
(iii)	MR I MNISI	MEDIA LIAISON OFFICER - MINISTRY	R104 071.11	R30 607.13	R134 678.24	R52 744.00
(iii)	MS N MAPHANGA	PARLIAMENTARY AND MEDIA LIAISON OFFICER - DEPUTY MINISTER	R219 534.16	R154 047.35	R373 581.51	R124 636.87

(cc) 2016-17

ITEM	NAME	DESIGNATION	AIR	CAR HIRE	(a) TRAVEL	(b) ACCOMMODATION
(i)	MS E PETERS	MINISTER	R750 529.60	R1 047 281.14	R1 797 810.74	R85 616.07
(ii)	MS L CHIKUNGA	DEPUTY MINISTER	R862 245.83	R539 112.08	R1 401 357.91	R152 472.49
(iii)	MR I MNISI	MEDIA LIAISON OFFICER - MINISTRY	R93 865.84	R47 183.02	R141 048.86	R49 622.53
(iii)	MS N MAPHANGA	PARLIAMENTARY AND MEDIA LIAISON OFFICER - DEPUTY MINISTER	R195 974.90	R282 622.46	R478 597.36	R191 802.97

Reply:

It is difficult to report on the statistics relating to convictions of examiners due to the prolonged period it takes to finalise a case; and due to the fact that once a case has been opened with the South African Police Service (SAPS), they must conduct investigations and ultimately prepare the docket for the Department of Justice to prosecute. Therefore a case may take much longer than expected to be finalised. This involves arms of government other than the Department of Transport.

a) The North West Department of Transport reported on the following:

Four (4) Examiners had been arrested and charged.

Of the four (4), one (1) examiner resigned during the process,

One (1) examiner was found guilty by the Wolmaranstad Magistrate Court and sentence will be passed on the 9th June 2017.

Two (2) Examiners' case ongoing at the Tlhabane Magistrate Court, but are currently on bail and the hearing postponed to the 8th June 2017 - Case No. 336/02/2017

One (1) Runner and a Clerk arrested with the Examiner above, case also ongoing - Case No. 336/02/2017

The examiner who was found guilty is not currently working as an examiner.

b) See above (a)

c) See above (b)

 

Reply:

It is difficult to report on the statistics relating to convictions of examiners due to the prolonged period it takes to finalise a case; and due to the fact that once a case has been opened with the South African Police Service (SAPS), they must conduct investigations and ultimately prepare the docket for the Department of Justice to prosecute. Therefore a case may take much longer than expected to be finalised. This involves arms of government other than the Department of Transport.

a) Gauteng Province responded by noting that that five (5) Examiners of vehicles have been de-registered as Authorized Officers for Fraud during the 2016/2017 financial year and are no longer practicing as Examiners of Vehicles in the Gauteng Province due to their registration being cancelled.

b) See above (a)

c) See above (b)

Reply:

(a) In terms of section 40 of the National Road Traffic act, 1996 (Act No. 93 of 1996) read with regulation 136 of the National Road traffic Regulations, 2000 it is the competency of the respective MEC’s responsible for transport to either suspend or cancel the registration of a testing station, if a testing station no longer complies with the requirements for registration. In terms of Regulation 137E the Inspectorate of Testing Stations shall evaluate and inspect as prescribed and make recommendations to the MEC in terms of the compliance or non-compliance of vehicle testing stations in the province. This includes but is not limited to the compliance to SANS 10216. It remains the prerogative of the respective MECs to implement the recommendations of the SABS and the reason for different applications of the recommendations is due to the fact that each MEC may choose to implement according to his or her discretion.

(b) The function of the Inspectorate of Testing Stations is currently performed by the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS). The Inspectorate can only make recommendations to the respective MEC and have no powers to enforce such recommendations. It remains the prerogative of the respective MECs to implement the recommendations of the SABS and the reason for different applications of the recommendations or not implementing at all is due to the fact that each MEC may choose to implement according to his or her discretion. All provinces have replied that the recommendations were adhered to.

(c) The Department is communicating concerns regarding noncompliance at the national forums and via provincial information sessions. This happens on a continuous basis. The Department has further included the development of the Anti-Fraud and Corruption Strategy in its Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plan. The Department is further striving towards publishing the Minimum Requirements for Service Delivery Standard. Both these initiatives strive to address non-compliance at not only testing stations but also Driving Licence Testing Centres and Registering Authorities. All of the mentioned initiatives involves publication in the Gazette and impact studies. The replies to (d), (e) and (f) are dependent on the relevant MECs of each province and are depicted under the applicable provincial heading below.

Eastern Cape:

(d) (i) Upon recommendations by the SABS, Eastern Cape issues a TS4 notice to the contravening vehicle test station in terms of Regulation 136 (1) and (2) NRTA, Act 93 of 1996, and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000, requiring the said VTS to report to the MEC in writing within 14 days from the date of the notification, the reason for such failure to comply and details of the measures taken to rectify and prevent such failure. Standards are applied to in terms of the National Road Traffic Act 93/1996

(ii) (iii) The Province follows up with the VTS after the 14 days, and with the SABS to determine if the recommendations have been implemented and findings cleared. If the findings are not cleared, and of a nature that warrants suspension or cancellation, Eastern Cape then issues a TS5 notice to the contravening VTS notifying of the suspension or cancellation of the registration of such VTS, in terms of Regulation 136 NRTA, Act 93 of 1996, and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000.

No SABS findings were ignored. All recommendations by the Vehicle Testing Centre were rectified and sent back to SABS.

EC Inspectorate Section is doing a follow up to those recommendations by SABS and most were rectified.

The contravening VTS then has the right to appeal to the Minister of Transport within 21 days of receipt of the notice as per Section 51A NRTA, Act 93 of 1996. If an appeal is lodged with the Minister of Transport within the 21 days, and the Province is notified of such, then the Province waits for the decision of the Minister before implementing the suspension or cancellation.

(e) Inspectorate after the visit SABS should immediately forward copy or Email to the Provincial Inspectorate

(f) Eastern Cape Vehicle Fitness Section

Free State:

(d)The Province has started during the 2014-2015 Financial Year to upgrade and calibrate all the vehicle testing equipment at vehicle testing stations in the province.

(i) (ii)The Province reported that 17 stations were upgraded (i.e. Bloemfontein, Trompsburg, Bethlehem, Harrismith, Parys, Heilbron, Sasolburg, Kroonstad, Welkom, Virginia, Wesselsbron, Marquard, Ladybrand, Ficksburg, Odendaalrus, Thaba-Nchu, and Windburg Testing Stations) by the end of the 2016/17 financial year.

(iii) The province endeavors to continue upgrades in the 2017/18 financial year and will further calibrate the equipment of five more stations i.e. Botshabelo, Phuthaditjhaba, Bultfontein, Viljoenskroon and Petrusburg.

(e) The Inspectorate for Vehicle Testing Stations will follow up on the progress reported by the province.

(f) Provincial Monitoring Unit

Gauteng Province:

(d) (i) Upon recommendations by the SABS, Gauteng issues a TS4 notice to the contravening vehicle test station in terms of Regulation 136 (1) and (2) NRTA, Act 93 of 1996, and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000, requiring the said VTS to report to the MEC in writing within 14 days from the date of the notification, the reason for such failure to comply and details of the measures taken to rectify and prevent such failure.

(ii) The Province follows up with the VTS after the 14 days, and with the SABS to determine if the recommendations have been implemented and findings cleared. If the findings are not cleared, and of a nature that warrants suspension or cancellation, Gauteng then issues a TS5 notice to the contravening VTS notifying of the suspension or cancellation of the registration of such VTS, in terms of Regulation 136 NRTA, Act 93 of 1996, and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000. The contravening VTS then has the right to appeal to the Minister of Transport within 21 days of receipt of the notice as per Section 51A NRTA, Act 93 of 1996. If an appeal is lodged with the Minister of Transport within the 21 days, and the Province is notified of such, then the Province implements the decision to suspend or cancel the VTS in question on approval by the Minister

(iii) Addressed in (ii) above

(e)Addressed in (d) above

(f) Gauteng: Vehicle Fitness Section

KwaZulu-Natal:

The KwaZulu-Natal Province abides by the prescripts of SANS 10216. The Inspectorate of testing stations, SABS conducts yearly inspections at KwaZulu-Natal Vehicle Testing Stations and provides recommendations in respect of the findings in terms of SANS codes 10216 and deviations are addressed accordingly.

KZN does adhere to the recommendations made by the SABS. Upon receipt of TS4, TS5 recommendations from SABS, notices of intention to cancel or suspend or suspension/cancellation notices, signed by the HOD, are forwarded to the vehicle testing stations. Responses are followed up.

(c) Notices are sent to the vehicle testing stations, responses are dealt with, and SABS is consulted with regarding the responses.

(d) What are the:

(i) The recommendation is received from SABS. The notice is prepared for the HOD’s signature. On receipt of the signed notice, the notice is hand delivered and from the date of delivery, the testing station is given 14 days to respond.

(ii) The KwaZulu-Natal Department of Transport issued twelve (12) TS4 notices on recommendation from SABS, and 1 TS5 notice is in the process of being served. The representations in respect of the TS4 notices are in the process of being reviewed by SABS/Administration, and

(iii) The proprietor is given 14 days to respond.

(e) Monitor and pend for response, follow up on responses.

(f) The KwaZulu-Natal Department of Transport

Limpopo:

(d) The province is having number of compliance inspections conducted as one of the indicators in the Annual Performance Plan.

(i) Each and every institution is monitored every six months.

(ii) Compliance reports are received from National Inspectorate, follow-ups are made on implementation of the recommendations.

(iii) Monthly reports are received from the Departmental Inspectors and reports are being made to the respective institutions.

(e)(f) The National Inspectorate of Vehicle Testing Stations makes regular follow ups to ensure that these dates are met.

Mpumalanga:

(d) (i) (ii) (iii) Once the testing station report has been received, TS4 is issued to the affected testing station and a response is expected within 14 days. The testing station is given 30 days to put corrective measures.

(e) A follow up inspection is conducted to confirm the corrective measures.

(f) The Senior Manager responsible for Transport Administration and Licensing in the province.

North West:

d) The Provincial monitoring unit conducts follow up inspections to ensure the implementation and monitoring of the recommendations as communicated with the stations.

(i) Stations are given 30 days to respond to the recommendations made by the SA Bureau of Standards.

(ii) Non-compliant stations at the time of the inspection, have implemented all recommendations and now operating effectively. Furthermore, the Provincial Inspectorate conducts unannounced inspections to independently confirm that short comings are addressed accordingly.

(iii.) The provincial deadline for the implementation of the recommendations are linked to the SA Bureau of Standards Inspectorate deadline of 30 days.

e) Provincial monitoring unit conducts regular announced and unannounced visits to the Vehicle Testing Stations to ensure strict adherence to the deadlines, and where slow implementation is experienced, immediate intervention is sought with relevant authorities.

f) The Provincial monitoring unit is mandated with the responsibility of ensuring that all recommendations and deadlines thereto are strictly adhered to by relevant stations.

Northern Cape:

(d) Follow up letters are submitted to the respective Testing Stations in line with the findings and recommendations of the South African Bureau of Standards where TS4/ TS5 notices were issued.

Follow up visits are conducted to determine whether corrective interventions were taken or not. In the case where no corrective actions are taken the Testing Stations are suspended from operation i.e., De Aar, Victoria West, Kathu, Prieska etc.

Regular follow up visits and hosting of information sessions to ensure a common understanding in respect of the interpretation and application of relevant policies governing the Vehicle Testing Station environment.

(i) Quarterly

(ii) Follow up visits are done on Quarterly basis to ensure implementation plans are adhere to.

(iii) Testing Stations are given 14 (fourteen) days to comply in terms of Regulation 136 of the National Road Traffic Act, (Act. 93 of 1996).

(e) Regular follow ups in writing, telephonically and meetings with Municipal Managers/ Testing Station Proprietors.

(f) The Provincial Monitoring Unit.

Western Cape:

(d) Findings raised in reports that are provided to the Department are formally brought to the attention of the VTSs and followed up until rectified:

(i) as soon as the report is received with feedback due to the Department within 21 days (ii) milestones and corrected finding

(iii) reported immediately for a response within 21 days,

(e) The Section Vehicle Regulation and Standards Unit and the Compliance Monitoring Unit do follow up inspections.

(f) The Section Vehicle Regulation and Standards Unit and the Compliance Monitoring Unit

Reply:

(1) FIFA was authorized by the South African Football Association (SAFA) to make the necessary payment to the Confederation of North, Central and Caribbean Football Associations (CONCACAF) and was authorized to do so as the funds were destined for the Host Association being SAFA itself.

(2) There was no inquiry into this matter as the payment was not unlawful and SAFA was well within its right to make the payment in furtherance of a standing government programme of making the World Cup an African World Cup, and a FIFA approved programme of ‘Win in Africa for Africa and One Goal’. No South African law was broken in the transactions that ensured to effect the payment of $10 million by FIFA to CONCACAF.

(3) SAFA does not intend to recover this money as it was paid for a legitimate purpose and there is no verdict of wrongdoing on the part of CONCACAF. SAFA has noted the allegations contained in the indictment by the US Attorney General and will follow the developments closely.

**************************************

Reply:

1. (a) Yes.

    (b) The Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of

Communication–related Information Act (RICA), 2002 (Act No. 70 of 2002) has been earmarked for revision and appropriate amendments. This is as a result of a number of requests for amendments that have been received from various quarters and also as a result of concerns regarding the implementation of the RICA which have been brought to the attention of the Department. These requests relate, among others, to the following:

1. the need to enhance governance, transparency and accountability mechanisms in order to oversee the interception of communications;
2. the need to give further consideration to the compulsory registration of SIM-cards and the regulation thereof; and
3. the broadening of RICA to cater for the combatting of cybercrime, making provision for other forms of electronic surveillance and regulating the use of remote access tools to investigate crime.

The Department is still in an investigative and initial drafting phase. A draft Bill is not yet available. Discussions with some of the law enforcement agencies regarding certain proposed amendments are under way. Public consultation will follow once the Department has processed the draft Bill through the required internal processes.

2. Yes. Section 15 of the RICA deals with the availability of other procedures for obtaining real-time or archived communication-related information. In terms of this section, the availability of the procedures in respect of the provision of real-time or archived communication-related information provided for in sections 17 and 19 of the RICA (applications to the interception judge for real-time communication-related and archived communication related-directions) does not preclude obtaining such information in respect of any person in accordance with a procedure prescribed in any other Act. However, in terms of section 15 of the RICA any real-time or archived communication-related information which is obtained in terms of such other Act may not be obtained on an ongoing basis.

In this regard, section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), 1977 (Act No. 51 of 1977) is relevant. Section 205 of the CPA deals with the power of a judge, regional court magistrate or magistrate, upon the request of a Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or a public prosecutor authorized thereto by the DPP, to require the attendance before a judge, regional court magistrate or magistrate, for examination by the DPP or the public prosecutor authorized thereto by the DPP, of any person who is likely to give material or relevant information as to any alleged offence, whether or not it is known by whom the offence was committed. If such person furnishes that information to the satisfaction of the DPP or the public prosecutor concerned prior to the date on which he or she is required to appear before a judge, regional court magistrate or magistrate, he or she is under no further obligation to appear before a judge, regional court magistrate or magistrate.

The Department is aware of concerns relating to the application of section 205 of the CPA in order to obtain real-time or archived communication-related information. Since section 205 of the CPA can be used to obtain material and relevant information regarding any alleged offence and not only information relating to communication as provided for in the RICA, the Department will consider amendments to section 15 of the RICA together with the amendments referred to in question 1 above.

Reply:

1. Yes.

(a) The following positions are still vacant;

Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

Chief Financial Officer (CFO)

Strategy, Monitoring and Evaluation Director

Research and Capacity Building Manager

Project Director

Executive Secretary to CEO

Knowledge Management Co-ordinator

Assistant Company Secretary

Legal and Contracts Officer

Internal Audit Manager

Travel and Events Officer

HR Officer

Digital Media Co-ordinator

(b) Chief Executive Officer (CEO): A CEO was appointed for the Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA), commencing on 1 January 2017. He subsequently resigned from the Agency, with immediate effect, on 28 February 2017. Recruitment for a replacement CEO commenced immediately with a recruitment advertisement placed nationally with a closing date of 2 April 2017. The candidates have since been shortlisted.

Chief Financial Officer: This position was put on hold to enable the newly appointed acting CEO to be involved in the selection of the Executive Team.

Executive Secretary to the CEO: This position was put on hold to enable the newly appointed CEO to be involved in the selection of the Executive Secretary.

Strategy, Monitoring and Evaluation Director, Project Director: This position was put on hold to enable the newly appointed CEO to be involved in the selection of the Executive Team. On the resignation of the CEO on 28 February 2017, the Board of the MDDA decided not to delay recruitment of the executive positions any further.

Research and Capacity Building Manager; Knowledge Management Co-ordinator; Assistant Company Secretary; Legal and Contracts Officer, Internal Audit Manager, Travel and Events Officer, HR Officer, Digital Media Co-ordinator: These positions are new in the MDDA organogram which was approved by the Board in quarter four of the 2015/2016 financial year. The positions were to be funded through funding from two major funders who only committed this funding in quarter 3 of the 2016/17 financial year.

2. (a) Yes, all positions have been advertised.

(b) (i) and (ii) The positions for CEO, CFO, Legal and Contracts Officer, Assistant Company Secretary and Travel and Events Co-ordinator were advertised in the Sunday Times on 12 March 2017 and on the MDDA website.

The other positions were advertised on 10 April 2016 in the City Press and on the MDDA website.

3. (a) Two of the specified positions are occupied in an acting capacity namely; CEO and CFO.

(b) (i) None (ii) Only the executive positions listed above in (3) (a) are occupied in an acting position. These are recent vacancies.

Reply:

(1) Adv Bilikwana is not appointed to the Board of the Road Traffic Infringement Agency;

(2) There was no appointment made and thus no need for his name to be gazetted;

(a) there was no gazetting because he is not a member of the board. His official employment duties are that of a Company Secretary. In the RTIA’s correspondence therefore, his name is listed along with that of board members, expressly indicating that he is the Company/Board Secretary, in line with best practise