Questions and Replies

Reply:

I have been provided with the requested information by the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of the Department and following the tabling of the information, no statement appear to be necessary.

The information supplied by the CFO is as follows:

1. The service providers for the specified goods are as follows:

 

Service provider	Goods provided	Total amount (R)
Multisurge (Pty) Ltd	Masks	69 000
Evergreen	Gloves	2 493
Triple N Medical Supplies	Gloves, masks, hand sanitiser	117 301
		188 794

2. There were no deviations from standard supply chain management procedures. The procurement for PPE was done in line with the initial Instruction Note from NT in which NT identified and provided a list of suppliers on which the State could urgently procure PPE from identified suppliers.

3. Procurement was assessed and awarded in line with National Treasury prescripts for procurement as per the Health and Safety guidelines issued by the Department of Public Service and Administration due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

-End-

Reply:

The Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) CEO advises me that the acquisition transaction has been successfully executed and the project is currently in development, including a Bankable Feasibility Study is in the process of being finalised and negotiations are underway with all key stakeholders including Eskom. The IDC has concluded it negotiations with the parties and is now a 22.5% shareholder in New Largo Coal (Pty) Ltd (NLC).

By way of background, at the end of 2015, Anglo American plc announced it would be disposing of its coal assets as part of its restructuring and drive to reduce debt. Amongst the South African coal assets was New Largo Mine, which was at an advanced feasibility study stage at the time of disposal.

The IDC, CoalZar and with the Seriti Consortium agreed to co-bid for the purchase, with the purchase price and pre-implementation costs are being funded by shareholder loans. The purchase price was funded in proportion to shareholding. The IDC funding also included funding on behalf of Employee and Community Trusts and the bankable feasibility study review and completion. Seriti and Coalzar continue to fund the New Largo’s operational costs.

The mine will be strategically developed to support Eskom’s Kusile Power Station. Given New Largo Coal’s proximity to Kusile, I am advised by the IDC that it is well positioned as a supplier, and it is expected that Kusile will purchase approximately 70% of the company’s coal production.

The IDC decided to participate in the transaction, since in its view it facilitates the creation of a significant black industrialist in the coal mining space and supports its strategy of increasing production of energy minerals that ensure security of energy supply. I am advised that the project is expected to create 1 100 direct jobs and 478 construction jobs.

The IDC’s participation in the New Largo Coal project, brings the total value of approvals to black industrialists in the mining sector to R8,4 billion since 1 April 2015, supporting 29 deals (net) in the sector over the period. Total approvals to black industrialists across all sectors totals R25,2 billion since 1 April 2015.

 

-END-

Reply:

Since the start of the national lockdown, engagements with members of the Provincial Executive Councils included the following:

1. Meetings convened by the Presidency and attended with Premiers, on discussions related to the Covid-19 pandemic were held as follows:  

• 4 April,
• 18 April,
• 16 May, and
• 17 June.

2. Discussions were held between Deputy Ministers and Provincial MECs in May/June 2020, to discuss the regulation of liquor sales under Lockdown Level 3. A meeting of the Ministry with the MECs in the Economic Development Portfolio was held on 17 June 2020, covering a briefing on Covid-19 recovery plans at provincial level and views on the sale of alcohol.

-END-

Reply:

The essential service certificates issued by the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) were not a compulsory requirement for businesses to operate during the Lockdown.

The CIPC provided a service to businesses, registered under the Companies Act, to register as essential service providers.

The status of the CIPC certificate was made clear in a statement issued by the Department on 26 March 2020. It was stated that possession of a CIPC certificate did not constitute permission to operate during the Lockdown and that companies should be guided by the Regulations as to whether they were permitted to operate.

The information on the number of companies which operated as essential (and later, ‘permitted’ services) enabled government to keep a record of the number of workers who were employed at such companies This information was important when considering the level of movement of workers outside their homes during the early phases of the lockdown; and the appropriate transport directions and regulations. It provided law enforcement officers with proof that a company’s senior management certified that it was an essential service.

Almost 500 000 companies registered on the CIPC’s Bizportal website, as essential service providers and, later, as permitted service providers under Alert Level 4.

I decided not to issue Directions that would have required companies to register, even though I was advised that the Lockdown Regulations would have permitted me to issue such Directions. I took the view that it was preferable to allow companies to determine whether their business fell within the definition of essential services in terms of the Lockdown Regulations.

With effect from 1 June 2020, and the start of Alert Level 3, the concepts of essential and permitted services no longer apply. The CIPC has therefore stopped issuing the certificates.

-- END --

 

Reply:

I have requested the additional information and am advised as follows:

1. The names and the job titles of the relevant employees as per question 259 on 25 May 2020 who have taken sabbatical leave since 1 January 2019 and the details are as follows:

No	(a) Name of employee	(b) Job title	Details
			Period	Duration	Details
1.	Ms Z Kobue	Deputy Director: Technology Architecture	1 March 2019 to 30 November 2019	9 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards an MBA
2.	Ms J.K.M Maifadi	Assistant Director: MCEP	1 April 2019 to 30 November 2019	8 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards an MBA
3.	Mr M.M Mahlangu	Administrative Assistant	1 October 2019 to 31 August 2020	10 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards a Masters in Business Management
4.	Ms A.T Mashimbyi	Assistant Director: SACU	1 May 2019 to 30 November 2019	7 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards an MBA
5.	Mr N.S.C Nkuna	Director: Communication and Marketing	26 July 2019 to 25 January 2020	6 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards an MBA
6.	Ms R Raluthaga	Trade and Industry Advisor	1 August 2019 to 31 October 2019	3 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards a Masters in Public Management
7.	Ms R Ramdhani	Deputy Director: Chemicals and Allied Industries	16 August 2019 to 15 November 2019	3 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards a Postgraduate Diploma in Monitoring and Evaluation
8	Ms B.P Phatlane	Trade and Industry Advisor	16 January 2019 to 31 March 2019	2½ months	Research and writing a dissertation towards a Masters in Public Administration
9.	Mr D.M Ndhlela	Deputy Director: Regional Industrial Development	1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021	12 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards a PhD
10.	Ms A.T.V Lebuso	Director: Organisational Development and Transformation	1 February 2018 to 31 January 2019	12 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards a Masters in Industrial/ Organisational Psychology
11.	Ms A.A Ontong	Director: Human Resource Development	3 April 2018 to 3 April 2019	12 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards a PhD
12.	Mr S.J Melodi	Investigator	1 September 2019 to 31 December 2019	4 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards a Masters in Law
13.	Mr A.N Makhuvela	Deputy Director: Capital Equipment and Allied Industries	1 October 2019 to 28 February 2020	5 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards a Masters in Management (Public Policy)
14.	Ms J Scholtz	Chief Operating Officer	9 February 2018 to 8 February 2019	12 months	Attendance of classes towards an MBA
15.	Ms J.R Vass	Chief Director: Skills for the Economy	1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019	12 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards a PhD
16.	Ms P.Q Myeki	Deputy Director: Industrial Climate Change Response	1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020	12 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards a Doctorate in Business Administration

(2) None of the employees have subsequently applied for an additional period of sabbatical leave.

-END-

Reply:

In my previous response I advised that all travel in the department has been considered in line with internal policies of the department as well as National Treasury’s Instruction Note No. 04 of 2017/2018 on cost containment related to travel and subsistence.

National Treasury’s Instruction Note No. 04 of 2017/2018 allows for the following air travel arrangements for departments and constitutional institutions:

“5.7.3.2 For flights that are five (5) hours or less, business class tickets may only be purchased for:

1. Director- Generals or persons holding equivalent ranks in departments;
2. Persons appointed on grounds of policy considerations in terms of Section 12A of the Public Service Act, 1994 (i.e. advisors to exceutive authorities); and
3. Accounting officers of constiutional institutions

5.7.3.3 For flights exceeding five (5) hours, business class tickets may only be purchased for:

1. Directors- General or persons holding equivalent ranks in departments;
2. Deputy Directors-General and Chief Directors or persons holding equivalent ranks in the department;
3. persons appointed on grounds of policy considerations in terms of Section 12A of the Public Service Act, 1994 (i.e. advisors to exceutive authorities);
4. accounting officers of constitutional institutions;
5. employees at the level of management that report directly to the accounting officer of a constitutional institution;
6. employees at the level of management that report directly to the officials referred to in paragraph (e) above and
7. non-executive members serving on any governance committee of a department or constitutional institution.
8. any other employee to whom authority was granted as indicated in 5.3.7.1.

5.7.3.4 Notwithstanding the provisions of 5.3.7.1, 5.3.7.2 and 5.3.7.3 above, accounting officers or delegated officials of departments and constiutional institutions may approve the purchse of business class tickets:

1. for employees with disabilities,
2. for employees with special needs,
3. in cases where economy class flights are not available, or
4. where the business class ticket is the same price or cheaper than the economy class ticket to the same destination.

In line with the above provisions, the Director-General, Deputy Directors-General, Chief Directors and officials with disabilities and special needs have travelled business class. The names of persons below the level of DDG who travelled business class, as provided by the Department, is submitted below:

Passenger	Job Title
Moosa Ebrahim	Chief Director
Molefane Maoto	Chief Director
Kruger Niki	Chief Director
Jensma Stieneke	Chief Director
Medupe Moloantoa Sidwell	Chief Director
Le Roux Adriaan	Chief Director
Mene Wamkele	Chief Director
Osman Shareen	Chief Director
Hudson Daryl	Director
Xulu Noziphozandile	Director
Mogashoa Ephraim	Deputy Director
Padayachy Meshendri	Deputy Director
Skosana Vusumuzi Jeffrey	Deputy Director
Ndikandika Nangamso	Executive Assistant
Mkhwebane Precious Nthabeleng	Personal Assistant

-END-

Reply:

Following an initial reply from the NLC setting out the reasons why they will not be able to provide the requested information within the available time before the Parliamentary Reply was due and requesting additional time, I requested my office to obtain dates when the information will be available. I have received the following reply from the National Lotteries Commission, which I reproduce in full.

“PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION 1039 AND 1109

The NLC has taken note of the questions raised in the above PQ’s and the information to be collated and prepared to be able to fully respond to them accordingly. On the face of it, the information requested is vast and dates to 2009/10 constituting an overwhelming task. The NLC information is managed through the Grant Management System (GMS) and most of the records have been archived. The implication is that there is need for time and resources to be deployed for the purposes of retrieval of records; particularly those older than 2014 as the Records and Archives Act limits the retention of records to five years. Additionally, the Commission has also migrated from the GMS system to a new ERP.

Given the limitations relating to availability of staff due to Covid 19, the retrieval and processing of information, records retrieval from the old and new platform; the NLC would like to be afforded time to retrieve the records, verify and process the information to be able to properly attend to the questions asked. In terms of the NLC processes, only the Chief Information Officer and Chief Audit Executive can extract the information from the legacy system and archives. The proposed implementation plan for the retrieval of information is as follows:

No	Item	Expected Start Date	Expected End Date
1	Notification of the third party that archives NLC information	10 June 2020	10 June 2020
2	Initiation of the process to access the legacy GMS	10 June 2020	10 June 2020
3	Retrieval of the information from the legacy GMS and archives	15 June 2020	17 June 2020
4	Analysis and packaging of information	18 June 2020	29 June 2020
5	Quality assurance on the information	30 June 2020	1 July 2020
6	Sign-off of the information and submission to the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition	3 July 2020	3 July 2020

We therefore request the Minister to note the NLC plan in retrieving and submitting the required information in response to parliamentary questions 1039 and 1109.

I trust you find the enclosed in order. TCC MAMPANE, NLC COMMISSIONER.”

-END-

Reply:

I have requested the information from the NLC and received the reply set out below. I am of the view that the information requested should be made available to Parliament as requested and that the reply provided by the NLC is not adequate nor sufficient. I have further advised the NLC of my view about the confidentiality of information; and await their reply. On receipt of the information and subject to legal advice, it will be made available to Parliament.

REPLY RECEIVED FROM NLC: “The NLC response to the pandemic has been targeted to assist a distressed civil society for the benefit of vulnerable groups in the country, In line with Section 2A(3) of the Lotteries Act No 57 of 1997 as amended and the approved Pro-Active Funding, the Commission approved urgent pro-active funding of R10 million to 54 Non-Profit Entities, for basic and essential goods, food parcels and cooked meals to assist the most vulnerable groups.

“In terms of the funded beneficiaries, Regulation 8, read together with the Promotion of Access to information Act, 2000 (Act No. 2 of 2000), the Promotion of Administrative Justices Act, 2000 (Act No. 3 of 2000), and the Protected Disclosures Act, 2000 (Act No. 26 of 2000), no person may in any way – (a) Disclose any information in connection with any grant application or the grant itself; (b) Disclose the contents of the report contemplated in Regulation 6(1); or (c) Publish any information obtained in contravention of paragraph (a) or (b); Unless – (i) Ordered to do so by a court of law; (ii) Making a bona fide confidential disclosure or publication to the Minister, the Public Protector, Parliament or a committee designated by Parliament, a member of the South African Police Service or the National Prosecuting Authority; (iii) The Juristic Person who made a grant application and the board consent thereto in writing prior to that disclosure or application; or (iv) provided for in these Regulations, prohibit the disclosure of information pertaining to any grant application or the grant itself, unless the conditions above are met.

“All the National Lotteries Commission (NLC) COVID-19 related grant allocations are subject to internal and external (Auditor General of South Africa) audit in the ordinary course and NLC policies remains applicable. “

-END-

Reply:

During the Portfolio Committee meeting held on 26 May 2020, I addressed the overall approach by the Department to transformation. In short, transformation of the economy is both a social and economic imperative. The bitter legacy of the past has not been reversed – the process of colonial dispossession took place over more than 300 years and inherited privilege (assets, skills and networks) reproduces itself beyond the removal of apartheid laws. The Constitutional values of human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms require active steps for their realisation.

The economy’s long-term growth rate will remain constrained if the level of involvement by tens of millions of citizens, black South Africans, women and young people remains low. The purpose of affirmative processes and laws is to enable this base to be broadened.

In terms of section 3 (c) of the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) Act, the IDC has an explicit statutory mandate to promote the economic empowerment of historically disadvantaged communities and persons. This has not meant that the IDC provides funding only to black South Africans, as the Honourable Member well knows. But it does mean that the IDC must give special emphasis on the promotion of broad-based empowerment.

The qualifying criteria for COVID-19 funding are set with the primary consideration to increase the availability of essential critical personal protective equipment products to supply the local market, in order to save lives. Therefore, the funding criteria cater for ALL South African registered businesses that have capacity to supply the critical products, including but not exclusively for B-BBEE companies.

I am advised that the IDC has now approved R535,5m in funding from this envelope, of which R444m are for companies at which black South Africans hold either a controlling stake or have at least 25% equity.

We should be proud of efforts to broaden the base of the economy, promote entrepreneurship and to foster efforts at greater equity in the economy. Financial incentives should of course be only one of a number of elements to support wider levels of entrepreneurship in society in order to achieve these objectives. Transformation is good social policy. It is good economics too. Government has a legislative mandate to promote these measures and during 2019, an overwhelming majority of citizens voted for political parties which supported broad-based empowerment.

 

-END-

Reply:

The pandemic together with the impact that it has on the economy is placing consumers, workers, firms and vulnerable members of society under enormous pressure.

In order to combat the rapid spread of COVID-19 as effective as possible and limit the damage to the economy, Government has taken a number of measures that have been publicised. Further measures continue to be under consideration.

During the course of addressing both the pandemic and the destructive and other effects of the disaster, the Ministry and Department has been reviewing provisions of legislation within its mandate, including the Competition Act and the National Credit Act, to identify measures that can be taken responsibly to support families and businesses in distress.

On 20 March 2020, I gazetted an exemption from sections 4 and 5 of the Competition Act, to enable banks to meet and agree on terms to support consumers and small businesses in distress. This includes payment holidays and debt relief for businesses and individuals in financial distress; limitations set on asset repossessions of businesses and individuals in financial distress; and the extension of credit lines to individuals and businesses in financial distress.

In respect of the National Credit Act, while the Act imposes prudent measures to mitigate against reckless lending by credit providers, it also contains provisions that are aimed at assisting distressed consumers in cases of disaster or other unforeseen emergencies. These include both the emergency loan provisions; and the public interest loan provisions in the Act. I am advised that, in terms of the Act, the provisions relating to reckless credit equally do not apply to either emergency loans or public interest credit agreements.

In the initial discussion with the Department and the Credit Regulator, there was a recognition of the need for additional finance and facilities that would be required over the period of the COVID-19 national disaster; at the same time, both entities were concerned about the risk of over-indebtedness to vulnerable consumers which may result from reckless lending.

Officials from the Department thus engaged with a range of industry stakeholders on the most appropriate measures to provide additional access to finance to consumers in need, while mitigating any risks which may exist. These engagements included the following:

• Ms Nomsa Motsegare, CEO of the National Credit Regulator;
• Mr Kuben Naidoo, Deputy Governor of the South African Reserve Bank and CEO of the Prudential Authority;
• Mr Lungisa Fuzile, CEO of Standard Bank South Africa;
• Mr. Cas Coovadia, Managing Director of the Banking Association of South Africa at the time;
• Ms. Marguerite Jacobs, General Manager responsible for Legislation & Regulatory Oversight for the Banking Association of South Africa;
• Mr Abdul Waheed Patel of Ethicore, in their capacity as advisors to Microfinance South Africa; and
• Mr Michael Lawrence, Executive Director of the National Clothing Retail Federation.

The National Credit Regulator also engaged with the South African Reserve Bank and relevant Government entities on the matter.

In the course of the discussion with stakeholders, it was clear that the provisions of the National Credit Act were not the only, nor the most important challenge for financial institutions to provide additional credit. Banks in such circumstances are concerned about the repayment of loans advanced. This was a key rationale for the launch of the R200 billion Loan Guarantee Scheme, as a joint effort by the Government, the SARB and commercial banks.

During the consultations, industry stakeholders advised that the emergency loan provisions of the Act would achieve similar objectives to the public interest credit agreement provisions; however further guidelines on the use of the emergency loan provisions would aid the industry.

In terms of the Act, an emergency loan is defined as a credit agreement entered into by a consumer to finance costs arising from or associated with—

• a death, illness or medical condition;
• unexpected loss or interruption of income; or
• catastrophic loss of or damage to home or property due to fire, theft, or natural disaster,

affecting the consumer, a person who is dependent upon the consumer or a person for whom the consumer is financially responsible.

In terms of the Act, no further regulation is required to enable use of the emergency loan provisions, however “reasonable proof of the existence of the emergency” must be obtained and retained by the credit provider. While such “reasonable proof” is not defined in the Act, the National Credit Regulator published a circular on 21 May 2020, to provide guidelines to credit providers on the issuance of emergency loans, and the documentation which constitute “reasonable proof”. These guidelines can be found on the website of the NCR at https://ncr.org.za/documents/Circulars/Circular-05-of-2020-%20Emergency%20Loan%20Guideline.pdf.

The emergency loan definition provides for relief for many of the challenges which consumers will be experiencing during this Covid-19 national disaster, and which may have been specified in any regulation or declaration regarding section 11. Following consultation, I have accepted advice that the emergency loan provisions should be utilised as it requires no additional legislation.

Subsequent to the publication of the emergency loans guidelines, officials from the Department have further engaged with credit providers. I am advised that credit providers have welcomed the guidelines published by the NCR and that BASA have reported that banks have begun to use the emergency loan provisions.

The Department will continue to engage with the sector on the efficacy on these measures. Should the emergency loan provisions in the Act fail to address the challenges which consumers are facing, I may consider which other measures would contribute, and this may include relooking the value of invoking section 11 of the Act to define certain credit agreements as public interest credit agreements.

-- END --

Reply:

The Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (the dtic) supported efforts by Government to provide relief to small businesses, in a number of ways. These include

• Exemptions from certain provisions of the competition legislation to enable small retailers to meet together to discuss engagements with landlords on rental payments and evictions during the period
• Exemptions from the same competition provisions to enable banks and financial institutions to meet to discuss ways of supporting customers, including small businesses, through among others payment holidays and other measures
• Partnerships with development finance institutions to provide funding to among others small businesses
• The issuing of Directions on a number of matters to support clarity and certainty to small businesses, and
• Facilitating the local production of cloth face-masks by inter alia smaller businesses in the clothing industry.

The dtic mobilised resources for COVID-19 relief funding to support companies that are affected by the pandemic. The funding is implemented in partnership with the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC), National Empowerment Fund (NEF) and Small Enterprise Financing Agency (sefa) as an industrial loan facility, to assist manufacturers of identified critical goods to combat the spread of corona virus. Furthermore, the department has granted an extension period for submission of applications and claims to companies affected by the pandemic across various incentive programmes administered by the Industrial Financing Branch.

During the Portfolio Committee meeting held on 26 May 2020, I addressed the overall approach by the Department to transformation. In short, transformation of the economy is both a social and economic imperative. The bitter legacy of the past has not been reversed – the process of colonial dispossession took place over more than 300 years and inherited privilege (assets, skills and networks) reproduces itself beyond the removal of apartheid laws. The Constitutional values of human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms require active steps for their realisation.

The goal of economic inclusion remain critical during the pandemic, as a number of smaller, more recently-established businesses owned by black South Africans, may be particularly vulnerable.

The economy’s long-term growth rate will remain constrained if the level of involvement by tens of millions of citizens, black South Africans, women and young people remains low. The purpose of affirmative processes and laws is to enable this base to be broadened and to foster wider levels of enterprise in society.

The funds deployed are available to all South African businesses, subject to the specific mandate of an entity. For example, the NEF provides funding to companies that meet its criteria, as set out in its legislation and policies. The IDC provides funding to black industrialists, in terms of section 3(c) of the Industrial Development Act. Both the IDC and NEF have also provided funding to companies with a mix of shareholding between black and white South Africans.

In addition to these efforts, the Department has also supported efforts to promote greater levels of local procurement, which can boost the participation of small businesses in the economy.

-END-

Reply:

The Parliamentary Question was received prior to the move of the country from Alert Level 4 to Alert Level 3. As the Honourable Member will know, effective, 1 June 2020 the entire country has moved to Alert Level 3, which permits a substantial reopening of economic activity.

As I noted in a recent Parliamentary Question, each alert level reflects a careful balance between the risk of infection and the readiness of the healthcare system. President Ramaphosa outlined the five levels of the risk-adjusted framework when he addressed the nation on 23 April 2020. As indicated by the President, when he stated:

“Level 5 means that drastic measures are required to contain the spread of the virus to save lives.

Level 4 means that some activity can be allowed to resume subject to extreme precautions required to limit community transmission and outbreaks.

 

Level 3 involves the easing of some restrictions, including on work and social activities, to address a high risk of transmission.

Level 2 involves the further easing of restrictions, but the maintenance of physical distancing and restrictions on some leisure and social activities to prevent a resurgence of the virus.

Level 1 means that most normal activity can resume, with precautions and health guidelines followed at all times.”

When determining which economic activity may be permitted under each of the alert level, Government has considered a number of elements, including, but not limited to:

• The level of social distancing which can be maintained between co-workers and/or customers during the ordinary course of business;
• How essential the functioning of the sector is to other businesses, including its export profile and contribution to GDP and jobs
• Whether the sector performs critical services in the value chain of other economic sectors in South Africa;
• Whether the sector has been able to develop appropriate health and safety protocols and whether the sector has evidenced preparedness with regards to personal protective equipment;
• Whether the opening of the sector will result in substantially greater demand for public transport, and whether the sector is able to manage this increased demand by staggering working hours, or providing private transportation options; and
• The economic impact of re-opening the sector on both the sector itself and the broader economy.

A careful balancing had to be achieved between the legitimate desire of the sectors and investors concerned to reopen as rapidly as possible with the critical consideration of saving lives. In addition, the cumulative effect on health risks of reopening a number of different sectors and economic activities at the same time, had to be considered.

As I also indicated in an earlier reply to a Parliamentary Question:

the dtic has been working closely with industry from manufacturing, construction and retail to get updates on infections and to identify solutions which can be rolled out to the industry.

The success of each level proposed, and the allocation of economic sectors in particular levels, is measured by the contribution to containing the spread of the virus and flattening of the curve of infections. Where necessary, changes are made to the extent of economic activity to the wider objectives of saving lives and protecting livelihoods.

The industry classification system was explained at a joint meeting of Parliamentary Committees dealing with Trade, Industry and Competition portfolio, on 1 May 2020, setting out criteria and the application of the three systems in the country moving from Level 5 to Level 4.

Government has engaged with a number of organisations, from business associations, trade unions, political parties, premiers of provinces, individual businesses and religious institutions to receive feedback on the systems and to consider representations on proposed changes.

The incremental opening of certain sectors of the economy is intended to limit the spread of the virus, and to ensure that any spikes in infections can be identified and managed. In addition, it has enabled a greater level of preparedness in society and in the health system than was the case at the start of the pandemic in South Africa.

In the run-up to the decision to move to Level 3, we engaged a number of sectors on these and other relevant considerations. In addition, Government consulted organised Business, Labour and Community representatives at the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) which represents big and small business; established and informal enterprises; a wide range of primary, industrial and service sectors; and community organisations.

- END -

Reply:

Effective, 1 June 2020 the entire country has moved to Alert Level 3, which permits a substantial amount of economic activity.

Each alert level reflects a careful balance between the risk of infection and the readiness of the healthcare system. President Ramaphosa outlined the five levels of the risk-adjusted framework when he addressed the nation on 23 April 2020. As indicated by the President, when he stated:

“Level 5 means that drastic measures are required to contain the spread of the virus to save lives.

Level 4 means that some activity can be allowed to resume subject to extreme precautions required to limit community transmission and outbreaks.

 

Level 3 involves the easing of some restrictions, including on work and social activities, to address a high risk of transmission.

Level 2 involves the further easing of restrictions, but the maintenance of physical distancing and restrictions on some leisure and social activities to prevent a resurgence of the virus.

Level 1 means that most normal activity can resume, with precautions and health guidelines followed at all times.”

When determining which economic activity may be permitted under each of the alert level, Government has considered a number of elements, including, but not limited to:

• The level of social distancing which can be maintained between co-workers and/or customers during the ordinary course of business;
• How essential the functioning of the sector is to other businesses, including its export profile and contribution to GDP and jobs
• Whether the sector performs critical services in the value chain of other economic sectors in South Africa;
• Whether the sector has been able to develop appropriate health and safety protocols and whether the sector has evidenced preparedness with regards to personal protective equipment;
• Whether the opening of the sector will result in substantially greater demand for public transport, and whether the sector is able to manage this increased demand by staggering working hours, or providing private transportation options; and
• The economic impact of re-opening the sector on both the sector itself and the broader economy.

A careful balancing had to be achieved between the legitimate desire of the sectors and investors concerned to reopen as rapidly as possible with the critical consideration of saving lives.

As I indicated in an earlier reply to a Parliamentary Question:

the dtic has been working closely with industry from manufacturing, construction and retail to get updates on infections and to identify solutions which can be rolled out to the industry.

The success of each level proposed, and the allocation of economic sectors in particular levels, is measured by the contribution to containing the spread of the virus and flattening of the curve of infections. Where necessary, changes are made to the extent of economic activity to the wider objectives of saving lives and protecting livelihoods.

The industry classification system was explained at a joint meeting of Parliamentary Committees dealing with Trade, Industry and Competition portfolio, on 1 May 2020, setting out criteria and the application of the three systems in the country moving from Level 5 to Level 4.

Government has engaged with a number of organisations, from business associations, trade unions, political parties, premiers of provinces, individual businesses and religious institutions to receive feedback on the systems and to consider representations on proposed changes.

The incremental opening of certain sectors of the economy is intended to limit the spread of the virus, and to ensure that any spikes in infections can be identified and managed. In addition, it has enabled a greater level of preparedness in society and in the health system than was the case at the start of the pandemic in South Africa.

In the run-up to the decision to move to Level 3, we engaged a number of sectors on these and other relevant considerations and looked too at the aggregate effect of multiple sectors resuming work at the same time. In addition, Government consulted organised Business, Labour and Community representatives at the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) which represents big and small business; established and informal enterprises; a wide range of primary, industrial and service sectors; and community organisations.

Where certain economic activities remain restricted during Alert Level 3, Government is actively engaging with some of the sectors to conduct an appropriate risk assessment and develop the necessary health and safety protocols to enable the safe re-opening of the sector.

- END -

Reply:

Directions on e-Commerce were gazetted on 14 May 2020 (gazette no 43321).

The directions provide clarity on what goods may be transacted and the protocols which must be observed by retailers, courier and delivery services used by e-commerce retailers.

A copy of the Directions may be accessed from the Department’s website.

-END-

Reply:

1. I am advised by the Director-General that no tenders were awarded. To address the safety of staff and utilizing the guidelines issued by the Department of Public Service and Administration, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was procured through a quotation process. Masks, gloves and sanitizers were bought to the total value of R188 794.

2. The Department advised that standard supply chain management procedures were followed with no deviation and further that all procurement procedures followed the relevant National Treasury prescripts.  

3.  In light of the above, it seems that no statement is required; but should circumstances require a statement to be made, I do so.

-END-

Reply:

The CIPC is not empowered to authorize companies to operate during the lockdown period. It provided a service to companies registered under the Companies Act, to lodge their details as an essential service during the lockdown, based on self-declaration.

A certificate was issued to companies which registered, which enables easier identification of companies whose management believes they are services permitted to operate during periods when the Regulations issued under the Disaster Management Act limited such types of services.

The CIPC websites and certificates were required to state that registration (and possession of the certificate) does not constitute proof of compliance with the Regulations, but was simply proof that the management believed they comply with Regulations as set out above.

Some false or incorrect declarations were made and when these were brought to the attention of the CIPC, the certificates were rescinded.

I am advised that in the matter of Uzalo, the certificate was revoked on 3 May 2020.

-END-

Reply:

The Department of Trade, Industry and Competition has supported the work of Government in reviewing submissions which were received during the public consultation process. In particular, the dtic reviewed a number of submissions received from individual businesses, business associations and trade union.

Officials from the DTIC were given access to review submissions received from individual businesses, business associations and trade unions, largely directed to the nervecentre@cogta.gov.za email address. A team of officials from the Department, including from InvestSA and the Industrial Development Division were assigned to review such submissions.

A number of changes were made to the schedule of services which were phased in under Alert Level 4 and for the schedule recommended for Alert level 3. These changes were based on the feedback received both from individual businesses, business associations, trade unions and from the public. In some cases, the submissions required further consultations with businesses and trade unions. Some of the submissions were in favour of specific proposals and these were taken into account in the process.

To illustrate with a few examples:

1. Changes were made in the wording of some sector descriptions and arrangements (for example in agriculture);
2. Certain sectors or activities were more explicitly addressed in the framework covering those goods which could be manufactured at different levels of employment
3. Value-chain linkages were more clearly addressed
4. The minimum level of manufacturing enabled in level 4 was increased as a result of the submissions
5. The sale of hardware, components and supplies were made more widely available to all consumers; and
6. The opening up of eCommerce to sell goods other than those available in retail stores was also provided

In addition to these changes effected in Level 4, the submissions assisted Government in the drafting of the framework for level 3.

The incremental opening of certain sectors of the economy is intended to limit the spread of the virus, and to ensure that any spikes in infections can be identified and managed. In addition, it has enabled a greater level of preparedness in society and in the health system than was the case at the start of the pandemic in South Africa.

The dtic has been working closely with industry from manufacturing, construction and retail to get updates on infections and to identify solutions which can be rolled out to the industry.

The success of each level proposed, and the allocation of economic sectors in particular levels, is measured by the contribution to containing the spread of the virus and flattening of the curve of infections. Where necessary, changes are made to the extent of economic activity to the wider objectives of saving lives and protecting livelihoods.

The industry classification system was explained at a joint meeting of Parliamentary Committees on 1 May 2020, setting out criteria and the application of the three systems in the country moving from Level 5 to Level 4. The President announced recently that the country would move to Alert level 3, which will enable additional industrial sectors to return to full production.

Government has engaged with a number of organisations, from business associations, trade unions, political parties, premiers of provinces, individual businesses and religious institutions to receive feedback on the systems and to consider representations on proposed changes.

These have contributed to finalising the economic activity which will be enabled under Level 3.

-END-

Reply:

The Solidarity Fund was created on 23 March 2020 to respond to the COVID-19 crisis in South Africa. It is a platform for the general public, civil society and the public and private sector to contribute to the consolidated effort to fund various initiatives.

Ms Gloria Serobe is the Chairperson, Mr Adrian Enthoven serves as the Deputy Chairperson and Ms Nomkhita Nqweni is the interim CEO.

The Fund works closely with government and business, but it is independent of both of them. It is responsible for and controls the funds donated and is accountable for them, with Old Mutual administering the funds on a pro bono basis.

Full governance documentation can be found on the website of the fund at https://www.solidarityfund.co.za/Solidarity_Fund_Governance_Overview_V20200419.1.pdf.

Contributions to the Fund are utilised for four purposes, namely to

• Prevent the spread of the infection by supporting campaigns and communication measures to flatten the curve
• Detect and understand the magnitude of the disease through the supply of testing kits and research
• Care for those in hospital or medical care by ensuring a supply of PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) and
• Support those whose lives have been disrupted by the pandemic through the support of feeding and shelter programmes across the country.

The Honourable Member is encouraged to direct the question of the policies of the Fund to its Chief Executive Officer or to the Chairperson of the Fund.

-END-

Reply:

THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

I have been provided with the following reply by the IDC:

1. & (c)

(b)

Black women
Sector	Value of approvals (R'm)	Number of approvals
	>25%	>50%	>25%	>50%
Agro Processing & Agriculture	324	66	14	6
Basic Metals and Mining	5,643	1,847	15	6
Clothing & Textiles	121	4	18	5
Basic & Speciality Chemicals	725	508	13	8
Chemical Products & Pharmaceuticals	204	66	17	10
Machinery & Equipment	948	635	20	12
Automotive & Transport Equipment	684	356	14	8
Heavy Manufacturing	459	202	21	9
Light Manufacturing & Tourism	1,030	699	19	13
Industrial Infrastructure	808	127	11	5
Media and Audio Visual	585	89	12	6
Other	110	110	3	3
Total	11,642	4,708	177	91

(c)

Refer to above.

 

____________________

Mr L October

Director-General: Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (the dtic)

_____/_____/2020

Supported / Not Supported

____________________

Mr E Patel

Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition

____/____/2020

Approved / Not Approved

Reply:

Over the past 10 years, there has been a significant expansion in the number of black South Africans who were able to access business opportunities or skills enhancement, as a result of BB-BEE programmes.

These included programmes such as

• The Black Industrialist programme promoted by the DTIC and the IDC (Industrial Development Corporation).
• Sector Charters and BEE Codes
• Development Funds introduced through settlements under the Competition Act
• Equity-equivalent programmes introduced for multinational corporations
• Preferential policies used in state procurement
• Support rendered to businesses by the National Empowerment Fund

I have requested that detailed information aggregating the impact of the various policies be prepared for public release and initial results were made available at a public conference hosted by the Black Business Council in March this year. It showed very large levels of funds deployed to promoting wider empowerment across the society.

I intend to release an updated version of the study during the Budget Vote of the Department.

Taken as a whole, while there has been enormous progress in expanding the base of the economy, there are still significant gaps and much remains to be done to build a truly inclusive economy.

Young people are disproportionately represented in the ranks of the unemployed. The presence of women in core productive sectors remain well below what is needed for the country to fully utilize the talents of one half of the population.

Levels of economic concentration remain unusually high in a number of sectors and recent changes in the competition laws are intended to address these.

For the period ahead, we need to:

• improve the implementation of existing policy, including through strengthening the quality of the BEE ‘book’ through stronger business support services and maintaining transparency on beneficiaries.
• scale up the successes of public policy in promoting sustainable empowerment, with resources allocated from the Budget to achieve this
• address challenges in the structure of the economy and the practices that inhibit the participation of SMMES and black entrepreneurs in the economy.

The new Competition Act focuses for the first time on market structure, and the high levels of economic concentration in many parts of the economy. It does not prohibit economic concentration or seek to break up large companies, because in a globalised world and indeed for the success of the African Continental Free Trade Area, the continent will need industrial champions with the scale and size to be successful and to compete with the world’s large US, German, Chinese and Indian companies.

The new provisions of the Competition Act places the impact of structure or concentration of markets, on the entry of SMEs and Black South Africans in a sector. Where concentration acts as an inhibitor that prevents of limits entry and participation, the law now gives the Competition Commission the power to effect remedies.

The law has also been changed to address problems where large suppliers discriminate against SMEs on prices and unfair trading conditions. For example, if a large bakery sells bread at a significantly cheaper price to a large retailer with stores in a township, and sells the same bread at a much higher price to spaza shops and if the effect of this is to prevent a class of small businesses from participating in the market, it would be subject to investigation and remedy.

The law now addresses abuse of power by dominant firms who are buyers: for example retailers in relation to small suppliers; or insurance companies in relation to the panels of authorised panel-beaters.

The price-discrimination and buyer power provisions are intended to assist black-owned companies that have less than 20% of any given market.

These measures are directed at addressing both structural barriers, and conduct of dominant firms that inhibit smaller, newer and in many cases, black-owned firms from gaining a foothold in the market and then expanding.

-END-

Reply:

The sabbatical and travel policies of the two Departments that merged to form the DTIC, were developed and approved prior to the current administration and will be reviewed in due course in line with Government’s oveall policy position.

In respect of the specific questions posed, I have been advised by the Department that the following applies:

(1) The Department’s sabbatical leave is regulated in terms of the Bursary Policy which is an internal document.

The purpose of sabbatical leave is to provide employees with special leave opportunities for a maximum period of twelve (12) months to enable them to prepare for examinations, complete theses or projects in partial fulfilment of their studies. Operational requirements are considered and the line of studies should support the Department’s strategic objectives.

An employee who has been granted sabbatical leave is expected to enter into a contract to serve the Department for a period twice the sabbatical leave. This leave provision has positioned the Department as a learning organisation that promotes continuous learning and development of its employees. Another advantage arising from this provision is the retention of institutional skills and capabilities.

(2) The table below provides details of sabbatical leave since 1 January 2019. No officials from the Economic Development Department (EDD) were granted sabbatical leave.

(a)   Officials who have taken sabbatical leave since 1 January 2019	(b)   Period each official has taken off from work and details
	Period	Duration	Details
Employee 1	1 February 2018 to 31 January 2019	12 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards a Masters in Industrial/Organi-sational Psychology
Employee 2	9 February 2018 to 8 February 2019	12 months	Attendance of classes towards a MBA
Employee 3	1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019	12 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards a PhD
Employee 4	16 January 2019 to 31 March 2019	2½ months	Research and writing a dissertation towards a Masters in Public Administration
Employee 5	3 April 2018 to 3 April 2019	12 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards a PhD
Employee 6	1 August 2019 to 31 October 2019	3 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards a Masters in Public Management
Employee 7	16 August 2019 to 15 November 2019	3 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards a Postgraduate Diploma in Monitoring and Evaluation
Employee 8	1 March 2019 to 30 November 2019	9 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards an MBA
Employee 9	1 April 2019 to 30 November 2019	8 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards an MBA
Employee 10	1 May 2019 to 30 November 2019	7 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards an MBA
Employee 11	1 September 2019 to 31 December 2019	4 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards a Masters in Law
Employee 12	26 July 2019 to 25 January 2020	6 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards an MBA
Employee 13	1 October 2019 to 28 February 2020	5 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards a Masters in Management (Public Policy)
Employee 14	1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020	12 months	Doctorate in Business Administration
Employee 15	1 October 2019 to 31 August 2020	10 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards a Masters in Business Management
Employee 16	1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021	12 months	Research and writing a dissertation towards a PhD

3) This information is disclosed in the dti’s Annual Report as part of the Goods and Services note to the Annual Financial Statements. All travel is in line with the Travel and Subsistence Policy of the department as well as National Treasury’s Instruction Note No. 04 of 2017/2018 on Cost Containment.

4) The dti had a total of 192 transactional business class tickets booked for officials at a total cost of R7 869 924. EDD had a total of 42 transactional domestic business class tickets booked for officials at a total cost of R395 472.

-END-

Reply:

The AfCFTA is a significant step towards the objective of African economic integration. The AfCFTA, as one of the flagship projects of the African Union’s Agenda 2063, aims to build an integrated market in Africa of over 1 billion people, with a growing GDP.

The AfCFTA, the market integration component of a wider African development agenda, combines market integration with infrastructure development and, industrial development to promote intra-Africa trade and sustainable economic growth. Initially, implementation of the AfCFTA will increase opportunities for trade amongst African countries in both goods and services. In Phase 2 rules for Investment, Intellectual Property and Competition will be developed.

The AfCFTA is intended to cover 55 African countries. All African Union Member States, except Eritrea, have signed the Agreement. The Agreement entered into force on 30 May 2019 and 28 countries have now ratified the AfCFTA.

The 33rd Ordinary Session of the Assembly held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia from 9-10 February 2020 endorsed an intensive and focused work programme to ensure that all substantive outstanding negotiating issues necessary for the commencement of preferential trading under the AfCFTA are concluded.

The 33rd AU Assembly also endorsed an Extra-Ordinary Summit on the AfCFTA in May 2020 in South Africa to adopt the concluded rules of origin, tariff schedules and services schedules, for the commencement of trade under the AfCFTA preferences by 1 July 2020.

South Africa is engaged in ongoing consultations nationally and within SACU to ensure that we meet the obligations of a 90% tariff offer for the commencement of negotiations with trading partners on the continent and the finalisation of the Schedules of Tariff Concessions. In terms of Trade in Services, South Africa has submitted an initial services offer on the five priority sectors in preparation for the services negotiations under the AfCFTA, which will be subject to reciprocity.

We also need to anchor the Agreement in a wider context and work programme of structural transformation and industrial development to promote diversification, beneficiation and value-addition in order to realise the opportunities that will arise from a more open continental market.

Effective rules of origin are critical in any free trade agreement to define the extent of local processing and manufacturing of any product is needed to qualify for liberalised trade under the agreement. In this way, the rules of origin ensure that the parties to the agreement are the main beneficiaries of the agreement.

In addition to establishing effective rules of origin to encourage local content, it is also essential to have the necessary capacity in all customs services across the Continent, including in the South African Revenue Service, to monitor and enforce the rules of origin.

Such enforcement is necessary to ensure that non-parties do not take advantage of the more open trade regime on the continent. While SARS has demonstrated its capacity to perform these tasks, including in the SADC context, it is engaged in a process to upscale its enforcement capacity to meet the requirements of more open trade once the AfCFTA is fully operational.

South Africa has finalised sectoral masterplans on clothing and textiles and the poultry sectors to ensure that the country is able to utilise the opportunities presented through the AfCFTA. We are also developing more Master Plans, in traditional sectors like the steel industry, and the sugar industry which is a key livelihood for rural communities; furniture, as well as in new economy sectors such as the digital economy, with its opportunities for young people; and the green economy, to industrialise through a greener growth path.

-END-

Reply:

I am advised as follows:

1. 45 projects were granted approval under the Automotive Incentive Scheme (AIS) in 2018/19 financial year. All completed applications have been adjudicated as end of the financial year. A list of all approved enterprises and projects across all incentives has been published in the 2018/19 incentive performance report that was tabled in Parliament. The report can also be accessed from the Department’s website: www.thedti.gov.za/publications

2. Delays occurred due to lack of information from applicants, internal verification processes as well as late feedback from applicants. The economic implications are that the applicant either continues with the investment or may not invest in line with its business decision.

3. In 2017/18 financial year 115 projects were paid a total amount of R1.5 billion and R1.9 billion was paid to 112 projects in 2018/19 financial year.

4. The process of appointing adjudication committee members under Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC) is underway.

-END-

Reply:

I am advised that a total of 149 companies have been approved under the Black Industrialist Scheme (BIS) since inception to 31 January 2020, supporting 22 176 jobs. This excludes the IDC’s programme.

The list of all approved enterprises and projects across all incentives has been published in the 2018/19 which can be accessed from the Department’s website: http://www.thedtic.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/2018-2019_Annual_Incentive_Report.pdf

-END-

Reply:

It is a fundamental pillar of current Government policy to support and nurture local manufacturing and support local jobs. This applies to both industrial as well as trade policy interventions.

There are two critical concerns relating to trade between South Africa and the People’s Republic of China (PRC):

• First, the composition of trade between the two countries, which has generally been composed of exports by SA of raw materials (particularly minerals) and import of finished goods (consumer and capital goods). This impacts negatively on local value-addition and job creation.
• Second, high levels of under-invoicing and invoice-fraud by SA importers on goods sourced from other countries, including China, which results in a flood of imports of goods, damages local industries, deprives the fiscus of taxes due to it and distorts accuracy of trade data.

These concerns have been followed up with the Government of the PRC.

In respect of the first area, increased Chinese investment in SA manufacturing can assist to create a more sustainable trade composition. Examples of such investment in SA by Chinese investors that have been facilitated includes manufacturing operations in appliance manufacturing, truck and car assembly and high-voltage cable manufacturing.

In regard to the second concern, Government has stepped up actions against illegal imports, including seizing such goods.

Data distortions due in large part to under-invoicing (as well as some product data which does not show up in SA’s bilateral trade data) mean that trade surplus/deficit data needs to be used with some caution. We compare SA data with those from trading partners to develop a fuller picture of trade-flows.

In respect of quotas, there are restrictions to what WTO members may apply in trade with each other.

Government is actively engaged in a range of measures to boost the competitiveness of the domestic industry. Tariff or trade remedies measures are utilised after a process of needs analysis confirms the necessity to implement such measures.

It is not considered appropriate to make a statement at this stage beyond the comments noted herein.

-END-

Reply:

I am advised as follows:

The COVID-19 Black Business Fund administered by the National Empowerment Fund (NEF) received over 250 applications totalling R700 million with approximately 30% of the applications from Gauteng, 20% from the Western Cape, 20% from KwaZulu-Natal and the balance from the other 6 provinces. A total of 12 applications valued at R78 million have been approved since inception of the Fund - of which 4 of the applications are from Gauteng; 5 from KwaZulu-Natal; and 3 from the Western Cape. Transactions valued at approximately R400 million have been declined for various reasons including applicants not being manufacturers of essential products.

Table 1 below outlines the performance of the Manufacturing Competitiveness Enhancement Programme (MCEP) COVID-19 Essential Supplies and COVID-19 Distress Funding administered by the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) since inception up to 08 May 2020.

Table 1

-END-

Reply:

The Department does not currently collect data on the location of taverns, shebeens and liquor outlets, as the regulation of such entities is the responsibility of provincial authorities.

The macro manufacturing and distribution of liquor in terms of the Liquor Act, 2003 (Act No. 59 of 2003) is regulated by the dtic; whereas the Provincial Liquor Boards are mandated to regulate the micro manufacturing and retail liquor sector in terms of their specified legislation. In terms of the relevant legislation the responsibility of closing down taverns, shebeens and liquor outlets is the responsibility of Provincial Liquor Boards.

Having given the matter consideration, I have now requested the Department to contact the provincial regulators and ask for information to be compiled on the matter and for the Department to provide me with advice regarding further steps that national government may need to take in light of such information.

-END-

Reply:

(1) The Commission is financed from money appropriated by Parliament for the Commission and any money lawfully received from any other source. The B-BBEE Regulations permit the Commission to charge a reasonable fee for services rendered by its office, except for complaints, after publishing a schedule of fees by notice in the Gazette.

During the first three years of operation, the Commission focused on putting in place systems and processes to promote, advocate and raise awareness of the B-BBEE Act and its requirements and to support proper implementation of the legislation.

This was done at no cost during this period in order to promote the understanding of the B-BBEE Act and its requirements to encourage voluntary compliance.

I am advised that the Commission has therefore not published the schedule of fees yet, which means the services directly rendered by the Commission is currently free.

The Commission planned to commence consultation processes for the publication of the schedule of fees for its services in this financial year.

(2) Section 1 of the B-BBEE Act refers to the appointment of a B-BBEE Verification Professional Regulator by the Minister, which is a body that is responsible for accreditation and authorisation of a B-BBEE Verification Professionals.

The B-BBEE Act has in section 1 further defined a B-BBEE Verification Professional as a person who performs any work in connection with rating the status of enterprises in terms of B-BBEE compliance on the authority of, or for a rating agency accredited by, a B-BBEE Verification Regulator.

Therefore, by definition consultants are excluded from conducting any B-BBEE verification and/or issuing of B-BBEE Certificates.

The South African National Accreditation System (SANAS) currently serves as the B-BBEE Verification Professional Regulator.

There is currently no regulation of fees charged by B-BBEE Verification Professionals

It is only the Construction Sector Charter Council that has issued a guideline around nominal fees that can be charged for construction-based entities that fall within the category of Exempted Micro-Enterprise (EME) and Qualifying Small Enterprises (QSEs).

(3) B-BBEE Certificates are valid for twelve (12) months.

Regarding the relief of costs of verification for small enterprises, the B-BBEE Act through the Codes has already granted an exemption to EMEs (entities with an annual turnover of less than R10 million) by indicating that they are not to be subjected to a B-BBEE verification process, as part of government’s initiative to ease the cost of doing business for small businesses.

Such entities receive automatic B-BBEE recognition levels and are only required to use a B-BBEE sworn affidavit or a certificate issued by the Companies and Intellectual Property (CIPC) confirming their turnover and level of black ownership. Such recognition is at no cost to the enterprises concerned.

In addition, 51% and 100% black owned and controlled QSEs (entities with an annual turnover of above R10 million but less R50 million) have also been exempted from being subjected to a B-BBEE verification process, and only use a sworn affidavit. The CIPC certificate option is currently not available to 51% and 100% black owned QSEs. It is only EMEs and start-up enterprises that can obtain a CIPC certificate.

Therefore, the costs of B-BBEE verification only apply to QSEs that are less than 51% black owned as well as large entities (entities with an annual turnover of R50 million and above).

In light of the above, I will request advice regarding the proposal for the extension of the validity of the 2019 certificates to cover 2020 and revert to the Honourable Member.

-END-

Reply:

(a) Special Industrial Zones

A working committee to support, enhance and streamline delivery of interventions in Industrial Parks by DTIC through its Industrial Parks Revitalisation Programme (IPRP) and related programmes has been set up. This working committee will also consider an appropriate recommended name for the special initiative.

(b) Dimbaza IP

I am advised as follows:

A sum of R49 million will be spent on Phase One revitalisation of The Dimbaza Industrial Park. The scope of work entails -

• 10.50 km Boundary Fence,
• 2.03 km Diamond Mesh Fence,
• 5 High Mast Lights,
• Prefabricated Security Pods,
• Electrical Works (mini-substation)
• Vehicular Gates.

A Project Steering Committee (PSC) is responsible for project oversight. The Eastern Cape Development Corporation, Buffalo City Municipality, Department of Economic Development Environment and Tourism, DTIC, Development Bank of Southern Africa and Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, are represented on the PSC

I am advised that construction jobs created to-date total 161. There is a focus on youth inclusion, with a reported 40% of the total being drawn from young people from local communities. Upgrading work totalling R4 million is being delivered by 11 SMMEs appointed as Sub-Contractors.

-END-

Reply:

I have been advised by the NLC that funding was provided to organisations linked to the person concerned and to an organization that the NLC says employed his spouse. Details have been supplied to my office by the NLC. I will be requesting further clarity from the NLC in order to determine the accuracy and relevance of the additional information to be disclosed and will thereafter advise the Honourable Member.

-END-

Reply:

I have requested the Department to prioritise trade with the rest of the Continent over the MTEF and accordingly, a growing part of the budget will be directed to trade promotion and the activities of the Development Finance Institutions will also be harnessed.

R80 million of the current export promotion budget supports intra-Africa trade and investments over the MTEF period, but, as indicated above, we will be drawing on a wider resource-envelope.

-END-

Reply:

I am advised by the NLC that according to their records, they have not received any application from the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC) relating to the 2020 Tokyo Olympic & Paralympic Games.

Following a further request for information, they have provided me with additional details that note the following:

1. Funding was provided to SASCOC for activities which in the opinion of the NLC is not related to the Tokyo Olympic Games, namely tracking of team qualifications, athlete tracking and monitoring and sports equipment and apparel.
2. Funding was provided to the organisation Special Olympics South Africa for “Tokyo 2020 Olympics and Paralympics Prospect Medallists, Olympic & Paralympic Athletes and Coaches Support”.

-END-

Reply:

The department has advised as follows:

(1) The matter was concluded on 17 January 2020. All the parties submitted their closing arguments on 31 January 2020 to the GPSSBC as instructed by the Commissioner. The GPSSBC forwarded the closing arguments to the Commissioner on 6 February 2020. I am advised that the employee was found guilty of certain charges by the Commissioner.

(2) (a) There are no current financial transactions.

(b) the dti only processed five (5) payments to the total amount of R11 154 846. Such amount was paid for the milestones that were achieved with details as follows:

Payment	Milestone Achieved	Amount Paid
1	EOH Invoice Paid: Licencing Cost Support	R5,698,799.02
2	EOH Invoice Paid: Pilot (MCEP) Phase Initiation	R393,765.12
3	EOH Invoice Paid: SAP Maintenance Year 1 & 2	R2,858,517.62
4	EOH Invoice Paid: Acceptance of Design (Blue print)	R393,765.12
5	EOH Invoice Paid: Approved Change Request (CR_05) for Additional Requirements	R1,809,999.59

-END-

Reply:

Three applications received since 1 February 2020 are to be considered by the Adjudication Committee and five applications are currently being considered. Details of decisions and the identity of companies concerned who receive the incentive are made public once the process is completed.

In two matters, applications being recommended to be declined are being reviewed to check whether they could be approved. One of these may require an opinion from SARS.

As a result of the need to ensure that public funds are deployed to maximum effect to achieve national goals, it has been necessary to review applications carefully for their economic impact and determine whether they fully assist with achievement of such goals.

To illustrate the value of the approach: a recent approval of a s12i application from Hi-Sense, an electronics company located in Atlantis, will now result in improved efficiencies and the creation of a significant number of new jobs. Further details of these will be released in due course.

-END-

Reply:

I am advised by the NLC that applications for participation in the 2021 Olympics in Birmingham in Alabama, United States, have not been made. All applications received will be considered.

The Sports and Recreation Distributing Agency approved funding for the following women sporting codes in the current financial year (2019/20) - soccer R8 Million (South African Football Association), cricket R1 Million (Cricket South Africa), swimming R2 Million (Swimming South Africa).

-END-

Reply:

The Department is working with the World Bank to identify challenges that result in a low ranking on the Ease of Doing Business Index and as this work progresses, it is expected to impact positively on the country ranking.

The project with the World Bank was launched in March 2019. The Doing Business Report 2020 quoted by the Honourable Member is for the period 1 May 2018 to 30 April 2019, released in October 2019.

A number of the factors that contribute to the country ranking fall outside of the Department’s legal mandate, but through this process, the Department can work with other public entities and the private sector to address concerns that have been identified.

One area that does falls within the mandate of the DTIC in the Starting a Business Indicator, relating to the ease of registering a company. The DTIC and its agency, the CIPC is pioneering an e-government platform through the establishment of the Biz Portal. Today a domestic firm through the Biz Portal can obtain the following online within one day:

1. Company registration;
2. Domain name registration;
3. B-BBEE certificate;
4. Tax registration number;
5. Unemployment Insurance Fund registration;
6. Compensation Fund registration;
7. Business Bank account.

I am advised that since the launch of the Biz Portal pilot in November 2019, 8 759 companies have been registered within a day. This will significantly change the landscape and make strides in the Ease of Doing Business indicator.

It should be noted that the World Bank uses the major city in every surveyed country as a proxy for aspects of business regulation affecting small domestic firms. In the case of South Africa, it is the City of Johannesburg (CoJ) and covers the period 1 May 2018 to 30 April 2019 in the CoJ.

CoJ is directly responsible for following indicators:

(a) Getting Electricity

(b) Registering Property

(c) Dealing with Construction Permits

Progress on the pace of reforms at CoJ have been slow and this indicated in the Doing Business (DB) Report 2020 released in October 2019. The lack of movement on these impacted negatively on our rankings.

Since the appointment of the Executive Mayor of CoJ Mr. Geoff Makhubo, the Department team, World Bank and CoJ have been able to formalise an action plan for the above-mentioned indicators in order to improve turnaround times and service delivery. Since November 2019, the COJ has piloted an e-rates certificate and has issued 5772 e-certificates of which 98% were issued within 24 hours.

The Technical Working Group continues to work on improving the key elements of the measured indicators to ensure that an increase in South Africa’s rankings and I am advised that some of the successes and improvements to date include:

• Measured improved customer service by SARS;
• Service Delivery Charter published by SARS;
• Service Charter developed by COJ for registering a property;
• Increased transparency and availability of information fee schedules, documents for registration and services;
• Expanded Preferred Traders Program rolled out for trading across borders;
• Cut off time for pre-loading stacking vehicles to be at the port was reduced from 72 hours to 24 hours;
• Queuing times are now measured from inside the port gate to the stack and not from outside the gate point of entry to the discharge of goods;
• Transnet port services for import/export of vehicles now fully automated.
• Updated Website by Deeds Office, improving access, quality and transparency of information to buyers and sellers of property.

-END-

Reply:

The trip to the World Economic Forum in January 2020 combined three separate meetings in one round-trip. These were:

1. The 2020 World Economic Forum meeting held in Switzerland to meet investors, analysts and foreign government representatives
2. The World Trade Organisation “Mini-Ministerial” meeting on trade, held in Switzerland to consider the progress made on trade reform at global level
3. A session of the African Union’s Bureau of the Council of Ministers held in Ethiopia, to shortlist candidates for the Secretary General position for the new Secretariat of the AfCFTA.

The travel schedule was a flight from Johannesburg – Zurich followed by a car journey to Davos and back to Zurich; with flights from Zurich-Vienna (transit) – Addis Ababa (meeting) – Johannesburg. Travel for international visits are in business class.

The cost for the Addis Ababa meeting will be compensated by the African Union, as I attended in my capacity as Vice Chairperson of the Council of Ministers. The cost of travel, excluding the portion for which a refund has been made to the African Union, is R111 383, covering both airfare and accommodation.

A Ministerial Advisor attended the WEF meeting, at a cost of R58 454 and flew economy class.

No accompanying person from the Ministry travelled to Ethiopia for the African Union segment.

-END-

Reply:

During 2017, the then Chairperson of the National Lotteries Commission was re-appointed as Chairperson in accordance with section 3(3) of the Lotteries Act, 1997 (Act No. 57 of 1997) (the “Act”) for a further period of 2 years and 4 months. The Act provides that a member of the National Lotteries Commission’s board may be appointed for a period not exceeding five years.

The term of the Chairperson was due to end on 30 November 2019. Before the end this term, the Chairperson raised a number of concerns relating to the lawfulness of the determination of the period of his appointment and specifically the reasons provided therefore; and provided the Ministry with a legal opinion in support of his concern, to the effect that the period of appointment ought to have been for a five-year period.

After considering the merit of the verbal and written representations made to me, and taking into account the advice of the Director General of the Department of Trade and Industry, I concluded that it would be in the best interest of the National Lotteries Commission to secure a settlement and extended the period of appointment of the Chairperson for a one-year period to 30 November 2020, with an explicit agreement that this was in full and final settlement of any claims that he may have or believe he may have.

As the Minister determines the period of appointment and it falls within the prescribed maximum period of 5 years, I am advised this complies with the provisions of the Act as set out above.

The process for the appointment of a new Chairperson will follow the requisite processes as provided in the Act.

-END-

Reply:

I am advised by the Economic Development Department that the report is expected to be completed within six weeks. The key findings and recommendations, together with any actions required from the Commission, will be made public.

-END-

Reply:

1. (a) Neither the Department of Trade and Industry (the dti) nor Statistics South Africa publishes statistics on goat farming.

(b) The South African Revenue Service (SARS) is the legislated entity for statistics on the importation and exportation of goods.

(b) (i) According to SARS data published on the dti’s Trade Statistics portal, downloaded on 13 February 2020, South Africa exported goat livestock to the destinations indicated in Table 1.

Table 1: Goat Livestock Exports by Destination (2014-2019), Rands

2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Destination	Value	Destination	Value	Destination	Value	Destination	Value	Destination	Value	Destination	Value
UAE	3,652,215	UAE	6,981,829	Lesotho	3,381,028	Mauritius	5,243,500	Mauritius	8,275,592	Thailand	4,039,794
Nigeria	2,162,332	Mauritius	3,045,546	Mauritius	2,741,599	Botswana	4,336,366	Singapore	4,490,277	Mauritius	3,199,713
Botswana	1,377,653	Botswana	1,649,694	UAE	2,140,450	UAE	3,250,979	Botswana	8, 931,000	Bangladesh	1,208,881
Mauritius	1,007,450	Lesotho	1,361,258	Botswana	2,015,479	Comoros	2,520,679	Zimbabwe	2,109,291	Zimbabwe	975,177
Kenya	941,285	Namibia	1,120,173	Zambia	1,638,166	Saudi Arabia	1,596,825	Zambia	1,032,570	Lesotho	360 516
Mozambique	851,617	Zambia	902,312	Zimbabwe	1,463,363	Lesotho	1,239,448	Namibia	1,021,529	Eswatini	322,812
Namibia	765,879	Mozambique	887,540	Nepal	1,351,575	Kenya	1,126,666	Thailand	841,705	Tanzania	284,400
Zambia	445,500	Zimbabwe	542,200	Namibia	1,294,689	Bangladesh	941,556	Bangladesh	833,663	Mozambique	192,000
Lesotho	430,896	Angola	415,,000	Kenya	714,037	Zimbabwe	753,059	Sudan	587,470	Zambia	177,845
Angola	350,221	Kenya	320,112	Mozambique	548.428	Namibia	638,238	Saudi Arabia	578,500	Senegal	161, 712
Thailand	170, 955	Cameroon	157,232	Uganda	458,078	Senegal	594,270	Senegal	512,085	Switzerland	137,485
Zimbabwe	156,915	Malawi	100, 000	Eswatini	332,590	Uganda	523,890	Kenya	438,000	Italy	70,947
Malawi	121,200	Eswatini	94, 178	Senegal	310,525	Mozambique	515,526	Uganda	418,698	France	67,340
Eswatini	115, 727	Bangladesh	84, 096	Malawi	77,193	Malawi	424,150	Lesotho	411,445	Kenya	52,477
Dem rep of Congo	56, 214	Tunisia	60,822	unallocated	50,500	unallocated	423,950	Mozambique	284,534	Ghana	49,000
Sri Lanka	34 ,256	unallocated	21,950	Australia	20,372	Nigeria	400,000	Eswatini	262,479	Namibia	24,296
USA	15, 050	UK	6,534	Ghana	882	reunion	47,782	unallocated	204,700	Australia	18,179
India	13 ,206	Netherlands	3, 004			Australia	38,315	Tanzania	8,056	Botswana	9.547
						Netherlands	2,660	Italy	233,954
						Eswatini	2,896	Australia	62,484
						UK	150	USA	74,290
								china	40
Total	12,668,571		17,753,480		18,538,954		24,620,905		25,076,293		11,352,121

(b) (ii) According to SARS data which is published on the dti’s Trade Statistics portal, downloaded on 13 February 2020, South Africa exported goat meat to the destinations indicated in Table 2.

Table 2: Goat Meat Exports by Destination (2014-2019), Rands

2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Destination	Value	Destination	Value	Destination	Value	Destination	Value	Destination	Value	Destination	Value
Namibia	743,764	Lesotho	1,394,909	Lesotho	2,021,099	Namibia	425,875	Mozambique	26,699	Hong Kong	169,827
Bahrain	400,617	Mozambique	47,946	Seychelles	392,160	Lesotho	133,296	Lesotho	230	Botswana	20,092
Lesotho	281,882	Maldives	6,828	Zambia	235,625	Hong Kong	105,147			Lesotho	9,447
Seychelles	256,402	Germany	2,660	Tanzania	34,216	Mozambique	5,854			Mozambique	8,978
DRC	153,718	DRC	1,752	Hong Kong	20,014					Ghana	3,784
UAE	126,435			Mozambique	9,936
Gabon	101,442			Namibia	6,713
Nigeria	95,103
Oman	54,179
Kuwait	49,514
Maldives	49,432
Tanzania	26,236
Eswatini	8,178
Mozambique	5,928
Zimbabwe	4,441
Ethiopia	1,852
Total	2,359,123		1,454,095		2,719,763		670,172		26,929		212,128

-END-

 

Reply:

I have been advised that there is no agreement between the President and the Chinese government for investment in the SEZ Musina-Makhado. The honourable member may be referring to another agreement and is requested to clarify.

In respect of the environmental impact assessment, the Department reports that the assessment for the metallurgical cluster is currently underway and is targeted for completion in 2020.

The initial investor interest was from Chinese enterprises and it is expected that more enterprises, including locally-owned companies, will be encouraged to locate in the zone. I note that subsequent to the approval of this and other SEZs in past years, Cabinet reviewed the policy around SEZs during the latter part of 2019 and adopted a new approach, which formed the basis for the launch of the Tshwane Auto SEZ-hub and will be utilized in future. This includes a stronger role for national government in ensuring effective and higher-impact Special Economic Zones.

The Department notes that SEZs are aimed at attracting industrial investors and hotels would not be covered by the SEZ-designation in the area.

 

-END-

Reply:

I have been advised by officials that the department did not contribute funding to the event.

-END-

Reply:

The Director-General of the Department of Trade and Industry has advised that the disciplinary matter is currently due to be heard through arbitration at a sitting scheduled for 16-17 January 2020, and some of the issues raised in the question may be the subject of dispute. Accordingly, to avoid prejudice in the matter, a fuller reply may be provided on conclusion of the current processes. Subject to the above, I am advised as follows:

The suspension relates to matters involving EOH Mthombo.

The original bid of EOH Mthombo amounted to R20 271 065.83 and was increased to R22 081 065.83 during September 2016. the dti only processed and made five (5) payments to the total amount of R11 154 846.47 as per deliverables. The remaining sum was the subject of a dispute and the Department has not paid this to EOH Mthombo.

Disciplinary action against employees are done in accordance with applicable laws and internal Departmental policies.

-END-

Reply:

I have been advised by the Director General, following consultation with the SEZ concerned, of the following:

1. “The SA Energy and Metallurgical Special Economic Zone has no knowledge nor association with building of Mulilo Power Station.

2. There is no standing or direct relationship between the Musina-Makhado SEZ and MC Mining, who is not an investor in the Zone.

(3) The titles of the 6 (six) working groups are:

1. Governance
2. Infrastructure
3. Environmental Management
4. Investments
5. Town Planning
6. Skills & Enterprise Development”

In addition to the above information, the honourable Member may wish to follow up further queries with the Province or SEZ concerned.

-END-

Reply:

I have been advised by officials in the Department as follows:

(a) Funds for the Industrial Parks Revitalisation Programme projects derives from the Departments’ Critical Infrastructure Programme budget. The Department did not receive additional funding for the Industrial Parks Revitalisation Programme from the national fiscus, necessitating reallocation within existing budget. The outcome of an application for further expenditure related to the Ekandustria Revitalisation Programme will be relayed to relevant stakeholders once the application process has been completed.

(b)&(c) I refer to the response to the question of 18 November 2019. The second phase has been scoped and application for funding submitted. The work for subsequent phases will commence following implementation of each prior phase and subsequent strategic reviews completed. The outcome of the review will determine the extent of further phases and funding.

-END-

Reply:

I am advised that since 2016, the NEF has provided R60 million in funding to four companies in relation to agriculture or land reform projects. The NEF provides business funding as a combination of loans and equity and does not provide grant funding. A supplementary reply will be provided with additional information.

-END-

Reply:

I have been furnished with a reply by the Commissioner of the Competition Commission, Mr Tembinkosi Bonakele, to the question, which follows below:

a) “Ndzabandzaba Attorneys assisted the Commission on litigation of cartel cases, which are currently before the Competition Tribunal and higher courts in respect of which the law firm was briefed or engaged by the Commission in the previous financial years.

b) Please refer to the table below for responses to (i)-(aa)- (bb) and (ii) – (b).”

(i)-(aa), (bb) & (ii) Financial Year	(b) Nature of Work	(b) Value
2017/2018	Litigation of cartel cases	R 27 746 004,33
2018/2019	Litigation of cartel cases	R 32 344 202,95
2019/2020	Litigation of cartel cases	R 5 943 501,84

-END-

Reply:

I have been advised by the department as follows:

“A firm with an annual total revenue of between R10 million and R50 million is classified as a Qualifying Small Enterprise (QSE) under the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act, 2003 (Act 53 of 2003) (the B-BBEE Act).

QSE’s which are majority-owned by black people, do not require verification by a B-BBEE verification professional, and can instead self-certify their status through a standard affidavit. Any misrepresentation in terms of the above constitutes a criminal offence as set out in the B-BBEE Act as amended. A QSE which is 100% owned by black people qualifies automatically for Level 1 B-BBEE status recognition. A QSE which is 51% owned by black people qualifies automatically for Level 2 B-BBEE status recognition.

If 50% or less of an entity’s issued share capital is held by black people, as defined under B-BBEE Act, the entity is required to verify their B-BBEE status using a B-BBEE verification professional.

The B-BBEE Commission became operational in 2016 and one of their functions is to monitor the trends on B-BBEE implementation in the economy. Before the operation of the B-BBEE Commission there was no centralised database which monitor B-BBEE implementation in both the private and public sector. Therefore, the only reliable data on verification for QSEs is for the 2017 and 2018 financial year (Financial year runs from April to March) when the B-BBEE Commission became operational and commenced with the collection of data. This data on QSEs is captured on the B-BBEE Commission’s Portal by the Verification Agencies.

According to the B-BBEE Commission’s National Status and Trends on Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment Report published on 31 March 2019, for the 2018 financial year, there were 588 verified QSEs. QSEs which self-certify are not required to file their status with the B-BBEE Commission and hence are not captured in the Report. There were 851 verified QSEs captured in 2017. The decrease is explained to be largely due to the expansion of the self-certification process for QSEs with 51% or higher ownership by black people.”

The table below provided by the Commission shows the distribution of QSEs by B-BBEE status for those that have been verified by B-BBEE verification professional:

 

Overall Contribution Levels: QSE Entities

Overall Contributions Levels: QSE Entities B-BBEE Status	Percentage of certificate B-BBEE Level (2018)	Percentage of certificate B-BBEE Level (2017)
Level 1	9.69%	12.74%
Level 2	11.05%	10.33%
Level 3	8.33%	6.43%
Level 4	7,48%	9.64%
Level 5	4.42%	3.21%
Level 6	2.72%	4.36%
Level 7	4.76%	4.94%
Level 8	12.76%	10.91%
Non-Compliant	38.78%	37.43%
Grand Total	100%	100%

-END-

Reply:

The Director-General of the Department of Trade and Industry, Mr L October, has advised as follows:

• In 2013/14 a dti official attended the Intellectual Property Conference in Brazil representing the former Minister Dr Rob Davies.
• The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC), together with the dti officials in April 2019 attended the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in particular the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR). SCCR is an expert committee of WIPO responsible for global norm setting in the area of copyright. the dti officials also attended the WIPO General Assembly meeting in 2018 and 2019.
• In November 2015 a dti official attended the African Ministerial Conference on Intellectual Property in Senegal.
• In March 2018, a dti official attended the Africa Internet Academy in Mauritius.
• In October 2018, a dti official attended the Advanced International Certificate on Intellectual Property in South Korea.
• In 2019, the CIPC attended a Regional Conference on Copyright in Kenya, Nairobi.

The African Ministerial Conference on Intellectual Property in Senegal was sponsored by World Intellectual Property Organization. The Africa Internet Academy in Mauritius was sponsored by the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law (CIPIT) at Strathmore University and Google. The Intellectual Property training in South Korea was sponsored by the World Intellectual Property Organization. The Regional Conference on Copyright in Kenya was sponsored by the World Intellectual Property Organization.

Costs incurred for the above-mentioned trips were budgeted for and paid for by the department.

-END-

Reply:

The revitalization of Ekandustria Industrial Park for Phase 2 has been scoped and the application has been submitted for funding but not yet processed. I am advised that part of the scope includes the following:

1. Refurbishment of fire hydrants
2. Refurbishment of Buildings and roofs
3. Solid Landfill refurbishment and compliance
4. Storm water refurbishment
5. Electrical Reticulations and refurbishment of high mast lights
6. Construction of Pre -Treatment Plant
7. Completion of fencing.

b) The second phase has not been initiated as yet pending funding approval.

c) The completion date will be determined following the initiation of the project.

d) The budgeted allocation for the second phase is dependant on budgetary approval.

-END-