Questions & Replies: Question & Replies No 1951 to 1975

Share this page:
2009-11-05

Search this file by selecting Ctrl + F on your keyboard

[PMG note: Replies are inserted as soon as they are provided by the Minister]

QUESTION 1974

DATE OF PUBLICATION OF INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 23/10/09

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER 22-2009)

Ms A Mda (Cope) to ask the Minister of Basic Education:

(1) What (a) plans are in place to ensure that matric results will be announced timeously, (b) are targeted dates for issuing of final matric results in each province, (c) contingency plans for the exams prepared by her department; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW 2539E NW2286E

REPLY:

(1) (a)A comprehensive plan is in place to ensure that the National Senior Certificate (NSC) results are released timeoulsy. This plan has been developed in conjunction with the provincial education departments and has been communicated to all key participants in the examination process.The matric results will be announced on 7 January 2010 and the reason for the change in the date of the release of the results is to allow the national and provincial officials more time to ensure accurate capture of all marks, to verify the processing of the results and to allow for more intensive checking of the final results before they are released to candidates.

(b) The NSC results will be released at all schools in all provinces at 08:00 on 7 January 2010.

(c) As part of the normal planning for all public examinations there are contingency plans for every aspect of the examination process. These cover, inter alia, the setting of question papers, the printing, packing and distribution of question papers, the writing of the examination, the marking process and the resulting and release of results. The DoE is confident that the system is prepared to cater for any eventuality in the examination process, without compromising the credibility of the examinations.

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

FOR WRITTEN REPLY

QUESTION NO 1971

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 23 OCTOBER 2009

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 24 - 2009)

Date reply submitted : 15 December 2009

Mrs D A Schäfer (DA) to ask the Minister of Police:

(1) In respect of each version of the 2008-09 annual report of his department and the annual reports of each statutory and other entity reporting to his department, (a) what was the (i) budgeted cost, (ii) actual cost and (iii) breakdown of cost in respect of (aa) printing, (bb) graphic design, (cc) other costs and (dd) unit cost of each annual report and (b) how many copies of each were (i) produced and (ii) distributed;

(2) whether any version of the abovementioned reports was retracted or withdrawn; if so, (a) how many times were each annual report withdrawn or retracted, (b) what (i) were the reasons for each withdrawal or retraction and (ii) was the amount spent on each version and (c) how many copies were withdrawn in each case;

(3) how was the decision taken to award the contract to the (a) graphic design company and (b) printing company;

(4) whether (a) his department or (b) any of those public entities that fall under his department held a function on tabling their 2008-09 annual report; if so, in each case (i) what was the name of the public entity, (ii) how much did the function cost, (iii) what is the breakdown of that cost, (iv) where was the function held and (v) how many guests were invited?

NW2535E

REPLY:

(1) (a) (i) R530.000.00

(ii) R252.605.85.

(iii) (aa) R252.605.85.

(bb) The graphic design of the annual report was designed by Corporate Image, Communication and Liaison Services of the South African Police Service (SAPS).

(cc) None.

(dd) R56.13

(b) (i) 4 500.

(ii) 4 350.

(2) (a) No version of the annual report was retracted or withdrawn.

(b) (i) None.

(ii) None.

(c) None.

(3) (a) The South African Police Service (SAPS) made use of its internal graphic design personnel to design the layout of Its annual report

(b) The South African Police Service (SAPS) made use of the Government Printing Works who subcontracted the printing of the report to a printing company.

(4) (a) No function was held.

(b)(i) Not applicable.

(ii) Not applicable.

(iii) Not applicable.

(iv) Not applicable.

(v) Not applicable.

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

FOR WRITTEN REPLY

QUESTION NO 1970

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 23 OCTOBER 2009

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 24 - 2009)

Date reply submitted : 15 December 2009

Mrs D A Schäfer (DA) to ask the Minister of Police:

Whether any steps have been taken to prepare for the implementation of the Safety at Sports and Recreational Events Bill [B7-2009]; if not, (a) why not and (b) how long will his department take to be adequately prepared to implement this bill; if so, what steps?

NW2534E

REPLY:

(a) No, because most of the aspects presently before the Joint Portfolio Committee of Sports and Recreation and Police in respect of the Safety at Sports and Recreational Events Bill [B7-2009], are already implemented in practice. Examples of these provisions include Clauses 16, 17, 18, 21, 24 and 25 of the Bill. Provisions related to the submission of a schedule of events as contained in Clause 5 of the Bill will be implemented by the national and provincial operational structures in the South African Police Service presently dealing with major events. A risk assessment (categorisation) of events as contained in Clause 5 of the Bill is already done by the national and provincial structures in the South African Police Service.

(b) The department is adequately prepared to implement this Bill and the additional tasks related to the receipt and processing of the various schedules of events will be dealt with internally in the national and provincial operational structures by way of national instructions.

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

QUESTION 1967

QUESTION FOR WRITTEN REPLY

1967. Mr J Schmidt (DA) to ask the Minister of Energy:

(1) Whether (a) she, (b) any specified officials and (c) any other persons have been issued with a government or official credit card; if so, what are the relevant details for her and each holder of a credit card in respect of the (i) name, (ii) job title, (iii) credit limit, (iv) outstanding amount as at the latest specified date for which information is available, (v) monthly expenses incurred for each month since receiving the credit card, (vi) reason for such persons being issued with a credit card and (vii) uses that such a credit card is intended for;

(2) whether any such credit cards are over their credit limit; if so, (a) whose credit cards are over the limit and (b) what is the reason for the credit cards exceeding the limit;

(3) whether any action has been taken against such persons for exceeding their credit card limits; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW2531E

REPLY

On 4 November 2008, Cabinet decided to withdraw credit cards issued to Political Office Bearers (POBs), Directors-General and other affected officials at National, Provincial and Local levels of Government.

They were replaced by corporate credit cards. Where necessary, a corporate card maybe obtained in the name of the individual only with the express authorization of the Director-General or relevant Accounting Officer.

No official may exceed the credit limit and there have been none experienced by the department.

The Department has implemented a corporate credit card scheme with a registered financial institution in terms of the Banks Acts and the scheme is limited in scope to travel related expenses as defined in the Departmental Policy.

Only POBs and Directors-General may apply for a corporate credit card.

The Department funds servicing costs of the cards as far as these costs relate to the official purchases only (including lost card protection fee). The Department is not liable for any interest charges on the corporate credit card. It is incumbent upon any person utilizing the corporate credit card scheme to ensure that all claims are submitted on time to avoid interest being levied on official transactions paid for by utilizing the said card.

No expenses have been incurred since the Minister and the Acting Director-General do not have corporate cards.

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

QUESTION 1966

QUESTION FOR WRITTEN REPLY

1966. Mr J Schmidt (DA) to ask the Minister of Energy:

(1) In respect of each version of the 2008-09 annual reports of her department and the annual reports of each statutory and other entity reporting to her department, (a) what was the (i) budgeted cost, (ii) actual cost and (iii) breakdown of cost in respect of (aa) printing, (bb) graphic design, (cc) other costs and (dd) unit cost of each annual report and (b) how many copies of each were (aaa) produced and (bbb) distributed;

(2) whether any version of the abovementioned reports was retracted or withdrawn; if so, (a) how many times were each annual report withdrawn or retracted, (b) what (i) were the reasons for each withdrawal or retraction and (ii) was the amount spent on each version and (c) how many copies were withdrawn in each case;

(3) how was the decision taken to award the contract to the (a) graphic design company and (b) printing company;

(4) whether (a) her department or (b) any of those public entities that fall under her department held a function on tabling their 2008-09 annual report; if so, in each case (i) what was the name of the public entity, (ii) how much did the function cost, (iii) what is the breakdown of that cost, (iv) where was the function held and (v) how many guests were invited?

REPLY:

(1)

(a) (i) R200,000.00

(ii) R 281,380.50

(iii) (aa) R 137,297.00

(bb) R 82,600.00

(cc) R 26 928.00

(dd) R137.30

(b) (i) 1000

(ii) 500 to Parliament; 140 to management and the rest of the copies are stored in the library and are available on request to the public

(2) No

(a) N/A

(b) (i) (ii) N/A

(c) N/A

(3) In terms of the PPPFA.

(4) (a) No

(b) No

(i) N/A

(ii) N/A

(iii) N/A

(iv) N/A

(v) N/A

ENTITIES

EDIH

REPLY

(1)

(a) (i) R263,001.00

(ii) R155 861.00

(iii) (aa) R199 060.00

(bb) R12 504.00

(cc) R51 437.00

(dd) R131.50

(b) (i) 1500

(ii) 500 to Parliament; 1000 to staff and the public

(2) No

(a) N/A

(b) (i) (ii) N/A

(c) N/A

(3) In terms of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act.

(4) (a) No

(b) No

(i) N/A

(ii) N/A

(iii) N/A

(iv) N/A

(v) N/A

NECSA

REPLY

(1)

(a) (i) R348,000.00

(ii) R435 835.83

(iii) (aa) and (bb) R398 131.70

(cc) R80 704.13

(dd) R159.61

(b) (i) 1500

(b) (ii) 500 to parliament; 1000 to staff and the public

(2) No

(a) N/A

(b) (i) (ii) N/A

(c) N/A

(3) In terms of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act.

(4) (a) No

(b) No

(i) N/A

(ii) N/A

(iii) N/A

(iv) N/A

(v) N/A

CEF

REPLY

(1)

(a) (i) R450,000.00

(ii) R389 489.00

(iii) (aa) R314.389.00

(bb) R74 000.00

(cc) R500.00

(dd) R259.90

(b) (i) 1500

(ii) 1000 to Parliament; 500 to staff, other stakeholders and the public

(2) No

(a) N/A

(b) (i) (ii) N/A

(c) N/A

(3) In terms of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act and the tender policy

(4) (a) No

(b) No

(i) N/A

(ii) N/A

(iii) N/A

(iv) N/A

(v) N/A

NNR

REPLY

(1)

(a) (i) R350,000.00

(ii) R277 594.71

(iii) (aa) R112 368.96

(bb) R17 362.00

(cc) R147 593.75

(dd) R185.06

(b) (i) 1500

(ii) 900

(2) No

(a) N/A

(b) (i) (ii) N/A

(c) N/A

(3) In terms of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act and the tender policy

(4) (a) No

(b) No

(i) N/A

(ii) N/A

(iii) N/A

(iv) N/A

(v) N/A

NERSA

REPLY

(1)

(a) (i) R240,000.00

(ii) R292 410.00

(iii) (aa) R167 000.00

(bb) R70 000.00

(cc) R19 500.00

(dd) R83.50

(b) (i) 2000

(b) (ii) 500 to parliament; 1500 to staff and the public

(2) No

(a) N/A

(b) (i) (ii) N/A

(c) N/A

(3) In terms of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act.

(4) (a) No

(b) No

(i) N/A

(ii) N/A

(iii) N/A

(iv) N/A

(v) N/A


QUESTION NO: 1965

QUESTION

1965. Mr A C Steyn (DA) to ask the Minister of Human Settlements:

(1) Whether (a) he, (b) his deputy minister, (c) any specified officials and (d) any other persons have been issued with a government or official credit card; if so, what are the relevant details for him, his deputy minister and each holder of a credit card in respect of the (i) name, (ii) job title, (iii) credit limit, (iv) outstanding amount as at the latest specified date for which information is available, (v) monthly expenses incurred for each month since receiving the credit card, (vi) reason for such persons being issued with a credit card and (vii) uses that such a credit card is intended for.

(2) whether any such credit cards are over their credit limit; if so, (a) whose credit cards are over the limit and (b) what is the reason for the credit cards exceeding the limit;

(3) whether any action has been taken against such persons for exceeding their credit card limits; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

REPLY:

1(a) The former Minister of Housing was issued with a government credit card, the current Minister of Human Settlements has not been issued with a government credit card.

(b) The Deputy Minister was issued with a government credit card.

(c) The Director General was issued with a government credit card.

(d) No other persons have been issued with a government credit card.

RELEVANT DETAILS

(i) Name

(ii) Job title

(iii) Credit Limit

(iv)Outstanding amount on 29/09/2009

Ms ZA Kota-Fredericks

Deputy Minister

R20,000.00

R14, 634. 47

Mr IW Kotsoane

Director General

R10,000.00

R10, 570.35

In addition to the above there is a total corporate limit of R50, 000.00 which should not be exceeded in a month. In this way where an individual card credit limit is reached special approval is given to exceed the individual limit on condition that the corporate limit is not exceeded. This is to avoid embarrassing circumstances, situations which may compromise security as well as during foreign trips.

(v) Monthly expenses since receiving the card:

Ms Z A Kota-Fredericks Deputy Minister

July 2009

R 319.98

August 2009

R1,037.60

September 2009

R14,634.47

Mr I W Kotsoane Director General Issued May 2006

May 2006

R 216.69

June 2006

R8,261.48

July 2006

R3,534.65

August 2006

R2,351.05

September 2006

R3,084.29

October 2006

R5,626.34

November 2006

R3,400.25

December 2006

R7,170.63

January 2007

R 751.63

February 2007

R2,182.95

March 2007

R1,593.28

April 2007

R7,720.09

May 2007

R1,942.70

June 2007

R4,881.20

July 2007

R3,291.00

August 2007

R 388.68

September 2007

R6,048.57

October 2007

R4,609.79

November 2007

R 978.00

December 2007

R10,004.56

January 2008

R0.00

February 2008

R2,946.60

March 2008

R7,060.04

April 2008

R 337.00

May 2008

R3,519.25

June 2008

R1,950.00

July 2008

R5,307.74

August 2008

R4,469.85

September 2008

R11,477.20

October 2008

R2,250.59

November 2008

R6,152.50

December 2008

R8,475.80

January 2009

R10,082.50

February 2009

R15,749.60

March 2009

R2,318.20

April 2009

R5,937.00

May 2009

R8,549.00

June 2009

R9,285.15

July 2009

R6,451.91

August 2009

R6,760.27

September 2009

R10,570.35

(vi) A Corporate credit card was issued to these officials for official purposes and with the approval of the Director-General in terms of the Cabinet decision on the 4th of November 1998.

(vii) Official domestic and overseas transport;

Official domestic and overseas accommodation;

Official domestic and overseas telephone expenditure;

International cellular phone rental expenditure;

International conference and registration fees;

Parking fees;

Tollgate fees;

Domestic and overseas subsistence; and

Official personal entertainment

2. (a)The Director General's credit card has exceeded the individual credit

card limit although the corporate limit has not been exceeded

(b) The Director General had to use the credit card to pay for a special

meeting he had with the provincial Heads of Departments.

3. The Director General has arranged to settle the amount.

QUESTION 1963

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER [No 24-2009]

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 23 October 2009

1963. Mrs A Steyn (DA) to ask the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform:

(1) Whether (a) he, (b) his deputy minister, (c) any specified officials and (d) any other persons have been issued with a government or official credit card; if so, what are the relevant details for him, his deputy minister and each holder of a credit card in respect of the (i) name, (ii) job title, (iii) credit limit, (iv) outstanding amount as at the latest specified date for which information is available, (v) monthly expenses incurred for each month since receiving the credit card, (vi) reason for such persons being issued with a credit card and (vii) uses that such a credit card is intended for;

(2) whether any such credit cards are over their credit limit; if so, (a) whose credit cards are over the limit and (b) what is the reason for the credit cards exceeding the limit;

(3) whether any action has been taken against such persons for exceeding their credit card limits; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW2527E

THE MINISTER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM:

(1)(a)-(d) No.

(i)-(vii) Falls away.

(2)(a)-(b) Falls away.

(3) Falls away.

QUESTION 1962

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER [No 24-2009]

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 23 October 2009

1962. Mrs A Steyn (DA) to ask the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform:

(1) In respect of each version of the 2008-09 annual report of his department and the annual reports of each statutory and other entity reporting to his department, (a) what was the (i) budgeted cost, (ii) actual cost and (iii) breakdown of cost in respect of (aa) printing, (bb) graphic design, (cc) other costs and (dd) unit cost of each annual report and (b) how many copies of each were (i) produced and (ii) distributed;

(2) whether any version of the abovementioned reports was retracted or withdrawn; if so, (a) how many times were each annual report withdrawn or retracted, (b) what (i) were the reasons for each withdrawal or retraction and (ii) was the amount spent on each version and (c) how many copies were withdrawn in each case;

(3) how was the decision taken to award the contract to the (a) graphic design company and (b) printing company;

(4) whether (a) his department or (b) any of those public entities that fall under his department held a function on tabling their 2008-09 annual report; if so, in each case (i) what was the name of the public entity, (ii) how much did the function cost, (iii) what is the breakdown of that cost, (iv) where was the function held and (v) how many guests were invited? NW2526E

THE MINISTER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM:

(1) Please refer to Annexure A.

(2) No.

(a), (b)(i)-(ii) and (c) Fall away.

(3)(a) and (b) Normal departmental procurement processes were followed and the cheapest quote selected.

(4)(a) and (b) No.

(i)-(v) Falls away.

2008-09 ANNUAL REPORTS

Details

Department of Land Affairs

Commission on Restitution of

Land Rights

Ingonyama Trust Board

(1)(a)(i) Budgeted

cost

R450 000.00

R250 000.00

R80 000.00

(ii) Actual cost

R356 734.50

R223 350.00

R76 842.11

(iii)(aa) Printing

R280 491.30

The actual cost included both the cost for the printing and graphic design.

The actual cost included both the cost for the printing and graphic design.

(bb) Graphic

design

R76 243.20

(cc) Other

costs

R20 000.00 (photography)

Nil.

Nil

(dd) Unit cost

R83.71

R14.89

R25.61

(b)(i) Copies produced

4 500

15 000

3000

(ii) Copies distributed

2 400

13 500

1000

QUESTION NO. 1960 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 24 of 2009

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 23 October 2009

Ms A T Lovemore (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

(1) Whether, with reference to her reply to question 477 on 31 July 2009, a decision has been made to issue a directive to the company managing the oil tank farm; if not, (a) why not and (b) what are the details of the decision not to issue a directive; if so, what are the terms of the directive?

NW2524E

Ms A Lovemore (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

1960 THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

Following a thorough review of the comprehensive representations submitted by Shell, it was necessary to meet with representatives of the company in order to clarify certain issues and to provide them with an opportunity to address the officials that would be responsible for recommending enforcement action.

The bulk of Shell's representations focussed on the measures and steps that Shell is currently implementing and will implement in order to address the leak from the tank farm, as well as the other concerns raised in the pre-directive. Based on the discussions in the meeting and the review of the representations, the law requires the Department to apply its mind to whether or not a directive should now be issued. A directive issued in terms of section 28 of NEMA can only be used in circumstances where a person is causing significant harm to the environment AND is not taking reasonable measures to manage and eliminate such harm. If a conclusion is therefore reached that the measures being taken are indeed reasonable, then it is not legally possible to issue this directive.

In order to properly apply its mind and determine the reasonableness of the measures, it was therefore necessary for Environmental Management Inspectors to go back onto the site and check that the stated measures were in fact being implemented. This inspection took place in September 2009 and the Department is currently reviewing additional information submitted following the inspection. It is hoped that a decision will be made in relation to the final directive in the next few weeks. It should also be noted that other relevant authorities (province, local authority and Marine and Coastal Management) are also providing inputs in relation to the enforcement process and it is therefore necessary to ensure co-ordination in this regard.

QUESTION NO. 1959

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 24 of 2009

DA TE OF PUBUGATION: 23 October 2009

Ms A Lovemore (OA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs;:

(1) Whether a decision has been made to issue a directive to Transnet, as was referred to in her reply

to question 476 on 31 July 2009; if not, (a) why not and (b) what are the details of the decision not to issue a directive; if so, what are the details of the directive;

(2) What measures are required to manage dust impacts of the manganese ore facility;

(3) Whether monitoring of dust emissions requires analysis of samples for constituents other than

manganese; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) Whether the permit issued to Transnet in 1992 for the operation of the manganese ore facility

complies with the requirements of the Air Quality Act, Act 39 of 2004; if not, what action is required to ensure compliance; if so, what are the relevant details?

Ms A Loveemore (DA)

SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

1959 THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENT At AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

1a) Following a thorough review of the comprehensive representations submitted by Transnet, it was

necessary to meet with representatives of the company in order to clarify certain issues and to provide them with an opportunity to address the officials that would be responsible for recommending enforcement action.

The bulk of Transnet's representations focused on the measures and steps that Transnet is currently implementing and will implement in order to address the impacts from the manganese facility (specifically air and water pollution) raised in the pre-directive. Based on the discussions in the meeting and the review of the representations, the law requires the Department to apply its mind to whether or not a directive should now be issued. A directive issued in terms of section 28 of NEMA can only be used in circumstances where a person is causing significant harm to the environment AND is not taking reasonable measures to manage and eliminate such harm. If a conclusion is therefore reached that the measures being taken are indeed reasonable, then it is not legally possible to issue this directive.

In order to properly apply its mind and determine the reasonableness of the measures, it was therefore necessary for Environmental Management Inspectors to go back onto the site and check tl1at the stated measures were in fact being implemented. This inspection took place in September 2009 and the Department is currently reviewing additional information submitted following the inspection.

1b) It is hoped that a decision will be made in relation to the final directive in the next few weeks. it

should also be noted that other relevant authorities (province, 10cal authority and Marine and Coastal Management) are also providing inputs in relation to the enforcement process and it is therefore necessary to ensure co-ordination in this regard.

2) The dust impacts from the manganese ore facility are managed in a variety of manners, depending on the source of the emissions. Prior to the unloading of the ore from the rail, cars are dampened by water sprays. During the unloading process I tippling, the emissions are minimised by water sprays that are automatically activated. The ore is then transferred on conveyor belts to the stockpiles. All conveyor belts, except those on the sides of the ore stockpiles are fully enclosed.

Each transfer point on the conveyor belt is fitted with a dust extraction system to reduce the emissions from this source. While the ore \s being stored on the stockpiles, the fine fraction of the ore is susceptible to wind erosion. To reduce this, the ore is stored in below ground bunkers with Iimited area exposed to wind erosion. As the material is being reclaimed for loading on ships, the reclaimed bucket is fitted with water sprays to dampen the material to reduce emissions. Telescopic loading chutes are fitted to the loading gantry. This equipment minimises the dust produced during the loading of the ship. All of these dust control measures are in line with international best practice for dust management at bulk terminals.

3) Continuous dust monitoring is currently taking place at 3 sites (Algoa Bay Yacht Club, Eastern Side

.. of the Ore Tippler and Comer of Ore Stockpiles near Kings Beach Parking Lot) in and around the

facility. Analysis of the manganese content of the dust is undertaken on a weekly basis, After a meeting held between Transet, the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro and the Department of Environmental Affairs (Air Quality Management) on 8 October 2009, it was resolved that the chemical analysis of the dust samples would be expanded to include silica analysis, This information would provide an indication to the naturally occurring dust component of the total dust measured,

4) Registration Certificate 1186/1 was issued to Transnet in terms of the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act (No. 45 of 1965). The section dealing with atmospheric emission licencing in the National Environmental Management Air Quality Act (No, 39 of 2004) has not yet commenced. As such, it is not possible to comment whether the permit is in compliance with this legislation.

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

FOR WRITTEN REPLY

QUESTION NO 1957

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERFIAL QUESTION PAPER: 24-2009 IN 'THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF 23 OCTOBER 2009 FOR A WRITTEN REPLY

1957. Dr A Lotriet (DA) to ask the Minister of Arts and Culture:

1) Whether her department undertook to pay a certain sum of money (details furnished) in 20Q9 to a certain organization (name furnished); if not, (a) why not and (b) when will the money be paid to the ;said organization; if so, (i) what amount was paid and (ii) when?

a) Yes, my department has undertaken to pay The Black Tie Ensemble project. The project in question was allocated R750, 000.00 for 2009/2010 financial year.

b) Of the total allocation 5 % was paid on the 17th of July 2009. An amount of R375 000 is owed to them.

There have been engagements with regard to the consolidation of required reports by the Department which were subsequently corrected and resubmitted. There has been communication going on between the BTE and the Department regarding the progress payment of 25% (R 187,500.00)

On the 19th of October 2009, a meeting was held with the BTE Incubator Project Manager and administrator Mr Arnold Oswald and Mr Unathi Mtirara, where clarifications and agreements were done and reached on the way forward to effect the payment.

My Department is currently working on paying the project second payment of R 187.500 before the end of November 2009.

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

QUESTION FOR WRITTEN REPLY

QUESTION NO.:1985

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 30 October 2009

1985. Mr P J Groenewald (FF Plus) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:

(1)Whether all of Eskom's transformers are actively operational and delivering at full capacity; if not, (a) how many (i) are and (ii) are not delivering at full capacity and (b) why not;

(2)(a) what effect do transformers that are not delivering at full capacity have on the total electricity output and (b) what would be the total electricity output if all transformers were delivering at full capacity;

(3)whether she will make a statement on the matter? NW2609E

REPLY

(1)(a)(i-ii)(b): All of Eskom's installed transformers are operational given that it runs an interconnected grid. Transformers that are kept as spares are not operational until installed. The level of utilisation of each transformer can vary from minute to minute as it is dependent upon the level of electricity demand in the area that it supplies. It is not desirable that a transformer is run at its maximum rating for extended periods of time as that would have a detrimental effect on its lifespan and would also not allow for growth in electricity demand. Planning is therefore done to ensure that transformer and network upgrades are undertaken timeously to ensure that overloading does not occur.

(2)(a-b) The total electricity output of the national electricity grid is not purely dependent on the load carrying capacity of transformers installed; it is a function of the generation capacity (Power Stations) that is available as well as the network capacity (includes power lines and transformers) to carry the power generated.

(3) No, the Minister will not make a statement on the matter.


NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

FOR WRITTEN REPLY

QUESTION 1956

DATE OF PUBLICATION OF INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 23/10/2009

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER 22-2009)

Dr A Lotriet (DA) to ask the Minister of Higher Education and Training:

(1) Whether his department provides additional financial support to higher education institutions where more than one language has to be provided for as a language of instruction; if so, what are the relevant details; if not,

(2) whether he intends providing such financial support; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether only historically Afrikaans universities are expected to provide education in more than one medium of instruction; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the (a) reasons in this regard and (b) further relevant details? NW2520E

REPLY:

The funding formula that distributes public funding to public higher education institutions currently does not allocate funds to institutions that provide tuition in more than one language of teaching and learning. The Department of Higher Education and Training however has funded, through donor support a number of projects that support multi-lingualism in higher education institutions.

There are currently no plans to revise the subsidy allocation formula to the delivery of teaching and learning in more than one language.

The Ministry of Education published the Language in Education Policy (1997) and the Language Policy for Higher Education (2002), which are designed to promote multilingualism in the education sector. Their aim is to ensure that all South African languages are "developed to their full capacity while at the same time ensuring that the existing languages of instruction (English and Afrikaans) do not serve as a barrier to access and success." Universities have the prerogative to develop and determine their language policies, consistent with the above policies in terms of the Higher Education Act. It is thus the choice of individual institutions to have more than one language of teaching and learning.

QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN REPLY

FRIDAY, 23 OCTOBER 2009

[No 24 – 2009] First Session, Fourth Parliament

1956. Dr A Lotriet (DA) to ask the Minister of Higher Education and Training:

(1) Whether his department provides additional financial support to higher education institutions where more than one language has to be provided for as a language of instruction; if so, what are the relevant details; if not,

(2) whether he intends providing such financial support; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether only historically Afrikaans universities are expected to provide education in more than one medium of instruction; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the (a) reasons in this regard and (b) further relevant details? NW2520E

Reply

(1) The funding formula that distributes public funding to public higher education institutions currently does not allocate funds to institutions that provide tuition in more than one language of teaching and learning. The Department of Higher Education and Training however has funded, through donor support a number of projects that support multi-lingualism in higher education institutions.

(2) There are currently no plans to revise the subsidy allocation formula to the delivery of teaching and learning in more than one language. However, the Ministerial Statement on Higher Education Funding for 2010/11 does indicate a review of the subsidy allocation formula.

(3) The Ministry of Education published the Language in Education Policy (1997) and the Language Policy for Higher Education (2002), which are designed to promote multilingualism in the education sector. Their aim is to ensure that all South African languages are "developed to their full capacity while at the same time ensuring that the existing languages of instruction (English and Afrikaans) do not serve as a barrier to access and success." Universities have the prerogative to develop and determine their language policies, consistent with the above policies in terms of the Higher Education Act. It is thus the choice of individual institutions to have more than one language of teaching and learning.

Question 1955

Mr A P van der Westhuizen (DA) to ask the Minister of Trade and Industry:

Whether his department instituted any court action(s) against the defaulters that failed to honour loan agreements that they have taken up through the SA Micro-Finance Apex Fund funding; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW2519E

Response

Yes, samaf did institute legal action (debt recovery, liquidation and foreclosures including arbitration procedures) against defaulting Financial Intermediaries. In brief, five are under debt collection for defaulting on their payments while a further eleven are under foreclosure and liquidation as they have ceased operating (please note that these cannot be disclosed due to legal processes underway). One FI is under litigation for failure to report in accordance with samaf standards. It must be understood that the ones under debt collection are still operating and they have made undertakings to pay back.

The process of litigation has been triggered by samaf's robust monitoring and evaluation. The processes normally included mediation and after this failed, it was escalated to litigation. The objective of foreclosures and liquidation is to obtain court orders so that they may be removed from the active loan portfolio.

QUESTION NO 1953

Mr A P van der Westhuizen (DA) asked Minister of Trade and Industry:

(1) What were the circumstances that led to the delay of more than one year in the signing of a certain document with National Treasury which affected the Export Credit Insurance Corporation of SA Ltd (ECIC);

(2) Whether this delay resulted in any loss of business for the ECIC; if so, (a) what are the relevant details and (b) what has its impact been on the economy;

(3) Whether any steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of this; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW1924E



REPLY:

(1) The document referred to is the Export Credit Support Agreement (Agreement) which facilitates internationally competitive interest rates on export credit loans which are credit insured by the Export Credit Insurance Corporation of SA Ltd (ECIC).

Proposals for a revised agreement were submitted to National Treasury in February 2008 and were approved on 14 October 2008.


From November 2008 to March 2009 the cost of liquidity associated with US Dollar terms loans made the Agreement, as designed, too costly to apply. Revised proposals to apply in such circumstances were submitted to National Treasury on 9 March 2009 and approved on 19 June 2009.

(2) (a) It is difficult to estimate the total loss of business as some banks and exporters did not approach the ECIC with potential projects whilst no Agreement was in place. Generally what happens is that international project promoters would procure projects from other countries in such circumstances.

(b) Due to the lack of detail on actual business lost, the impact on the economy is difficult to calculate. With actual supported projects ECIC can establish what had been procured from South Africa, but this is not possible with regard to potential projects that could have happened.


(3) The dti is engaging National Treasury on an ongoing basis to ensure this process in managed effectively in future and to ensure that this does not recur.

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO 1952 / NW2516E

A Louw (DA) to ask the Minister of Labour:

(1) Whether (a) he, (b) any specified officials and (c) any other persons have been issued with a government or official credit card; if so, what are the relevant details for him and each holder of a credit card in respect of the (i) name, (ii) job title, (iii) credit limit, (iv) outstanding amount as at the latest specified date for which information is available, (v) monthly expenses incurred for each month since receiving the credit card, (vi) reason for such persons being issued with a credit card and (vii) uses that such a credit card is intended for;

(2) whether any such credit cards are over their credit limit; if so, (a) whose credit cards are over the limit and (b) what is the reason for the credit cards exceeding the limit;

(3) whether any action has been taken against such persons for exceeding their credit card limits; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW2516E

THE MINISTER REPLIED:

No official has been issued with a government or official credit card .

TUESDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2009

QUESTION* 1951 /NW 2515 E

Date reply submitted:04/11/2009

Mr. A. Louw (DA) to ask the Minister of Labour:

1. In respect of each version of the 2008/09 annual reports of the department and the annual reports of each statutory and other entity reporting to the Minister/Department (a) what was the (i) budgeted cost, (ii) actual cost and (iii) breakdown of cost in respect of (aa) printing, (bb) graphic design, (cc) other costs, please specify, (iv) unit cost of each annual report and (b) how many copies of each were (i) produced and (ii) distributed?

2. Whether any version of the 2008/09 annual report of the department and the annual reports of each statutory and other entity reporting to the Minister/Department was retracted/withdrawn for any reason; if so, (a) how many times were each annual report withdrawn/retracted, (b) what were the reasons for each withdrawal/retraction, (c) what was the amount spent on each version of the annual reports, (d) how many copies were withdrawn each time?

3. How was decided on the (a) graphic design company and (b) printing company to be used?

4. Whether (a) your department or (b) any of those public entities that fall under your department held a function on tabling their 2008/09 annual report; if so, in each instance (i) what was the name of the public entity (ii) how much did the function cost (iii) what is the breakdown of that cost (iv) where was the function held (v) how many guests were invited?

MINISTER OF LABOUR REPLIED:

ANSWER- 01

1.1

Entity Name

Budgeted cost

Actual cost

Breakdown cost in respect of printing

Breakdown cost in respect of Graphic design

Other costs

Unit costs per Annual Report

How many copies of each were produced

How many copies were Distributed

Compensation Fund

R60 000.00

R53 425.00

R53 425.00

N/A

N/A

R53.50

1000

700

UIF

R5 230 000.00 (Total budget for printing and publications

274 780.60

R234 851.40

R39 877.20

N/A

R54.95

5000

2 200

Department of Labour

R210 000

R108, 417,06

R108 417,06

Layout and Design

Done Internal

N/A

R108,41

1000

730

1.2: Inputs obtained from the CCMA and OTHER ENTITIES-ANNUAL REPORTS are as follows: 2008/2009

2008/2009 OTHER ENTITIES - ANNUAL REPORTS NTITY

a

(i) Budgeted Cost

(ii) Actual Cost

(iii) Unit Cost

b

(i) Copies Produced

(ii) Copies Distributed

CCMA

R145,000

R112,848.60

R16.12

7,000

(i) 550 copies to the National Assembly

(ii) 3 copies to the Director General and Minister of Labour

(iii) 15 copies to the Government printers

(iv) 15 copies to the Auditor General

(v) 15 copies to National Treasury

(vi) 100 copies to Department of Labour

(vii) 10 copies to the CCMA Governing Body

(viii) 15 copies to Mr O Ludick (Parliamentary Services –Office of the Auditor General)

(ix) 10 copies to Legal Deposit libraries

(x) 6 000 copies distributed to CCMA staff, stake holder groups and the public

1.3 SETAS: ANNUAL REPORTS

ENTITY

a

(i)Budgeted cost

(ii)Actual cost

iii

(aa).Breakdown cost in respect of printing

(bb).Breakdown cost in respect of Graphic design

(cc).Other costs

(iv).Unit costs per Annual Report

b

(i)How many copies of each were produced

(ii)How many copies were Distributed

AGRISETA

R185, 900.00

R133,127.81

R104,224.25

R15,793.56

R13,110.00

(Editing and 3 language translations: Afrikaans, Xhosa, Sotho)

R53.23

Inclusive of translations and design

2500

2346

BANKSETA

R290 000.00

R280211.03

R150 784.40

R66 598.01

Photography – R19 881.60

R233.51

1200

638

Copy writing - R25 080.00

Courier - R3,790.82

DVD Reproduction – R14 076.20

CETA

R486,800

R234,324.74

R195,351.74

R38,850

R133.89

2450

1750

CHIETA

R165000.00

R141011.00

R94000.00

R47011.00

Nil

R70.51

2000

1642

CTFL

R77 000

R68 303

R39 252

R25 291

R3 760

R68,30

1000

750 as per distribution list. Remainder (250) copies distributed to stakeholders.

ESETA

R260,000.00

R258,276.12

R119,674.92

R10,260.00

R128,341.20

R129.14

2000

0

ETDP

R499360

R165610

All in quote

All in quote

R55.20

3000

2516 so far

FASSET

R132 000

R129 094.89

R93 341.38

R29 252.40

R6 720.11

R20.43

6000

1000 ( Fasset is still distributing copies

FIETA

R123 900

R118 303.27

R79 999.27

R34 770.00

R3 534

R39.43

3000

651

FOODBEV

R180 000

R189 075

R 43 188

R139 967

R5 920

R67.53

2 800

2 700

HWSETA

R263 000

R270 066

All inclusive

All inclusive

13 900 (proofs & editing)

135

2000

INSETA

R186,635

R186,635

R186,635.Both printing and Graphic design was included in one invoice

R93.32

2000

635

ISETT

R120 000

R104 994.

R6 3954

R41 040

0

R104.99

1000

998

MAPPP

R 250 000

R 138 772.20

R 89 010

R 30 920

VAT

R 17 042.20

R 69.38

2 000

1200

MQA

R260,000.00

R224,711.78

R109,023.60

R61,000.00

R54,688.18 Project Management, Editing, Photography, 1000 CD's

R74,90

2000 annual reports

1000 cd's

635

MERSETA

R600 000

R328 890.00

R206 596.80

R52 676.00

R69 617.2

R34.43

6000

6000

LG SETA

R200 000

R198 559

R132 709

R65 850

0

R99-28

2000

1300

SASSETA

R170 000

R137 524

R106 926

R18 058

R12 540

R91.68

1 500

745

SERVICES

R2,502,266

R 633,495

R 464,775

R168,720

R63.35

10,000

5000 Distributed

5000 currently in print and t be distributed

TETA

R220 500

R132,647

R62,527

R6,500

R63,620

R88.43

1,500

1,404

THETHA

R175 993

R205 177

R93 138

R94 803

R17 236

R136.78

1 500

1000

W&RSETA

R300,000.00

R179,926.20

R83,465.10

R34,143.00

R62,318.10

R60.00

3 000

1469

1.4 OTHER ENTITIES - ANNUAL REPORTS

ENTITY

a

(i)Budgeted cost

(ii)Actual cost

iii

(aa).Breakdown cost in respect of printing

(bb).Breakdown cost in respect of Graphic design

(cc).Other costs

(iv).Unit costs per Annual Report

b

(i)How many copies of each were produced

(ii)How many copies were Distributed

CCMA

R145,000

R 129 093

R18.44

7,000

6733

CF

R60 000.00

R53 425.00

R53 425.00

N/A

N/A

R53.50

1000

700

NEDLAC

R540 000

R512 442

R401550

R79890

R31002

R256.22

2000

1000

NPI

R200 000

R130 000

R73 957.20

R6 500

R34 000

R65.22

2000

1100

UIF

R5 230 000.00 (Total budget for printing and publications)

R274 728.60

R185 059.62

R39 877.20

N/A

R54.95

5000

2 200

UMSOBOMVU

R250,000

R 247,658

R230,135

R 8,436

R 9,088

R 165,10

1,500

1,200

ANSWER 02

2.1 SETAS: RETRACTED/WITHDRAWN ANNUAL REPORTS

ENTITY

(a) Number of times Annual report withdrawn

(b)Reasons for withdrawal

(c)Cost

(d) Copies withdrawn

AGRISETA

The Annual Report of the AgriSETA was never retracted or withdrawn

BANKSETA

No annual report was withdrawn nor retracted

CETA

700 copies were replaced as it was discovered that it had an erratum

Estimated cost of replacement R38, 864.00

700

CHIETA

No annual report was withdrawn nor retracted

CTFL

CTFL SETA Annual Report was not withdrawn/retracted for any reason.

ESETA

Our annual report was never withdrawn.

ETDP

Not applicable – no withdrawals or retractions

FASSET

Our annual report or parts there of was not retracted / withdrawn

FIETA

No annual reports was retracted/withdrawn

FOODBEV

No versions of the annual report have been withdrawn or retracted.

HWSETA

The HWSETA Annual Report was not withdrawn/ retracted for any reason.

INSETA

No versions of the annual report was withdrawn or retracted

ISETT

N/A as there was only one version of the 2008/9 annual report and this version was NOT withdrawn and/or retracted

MAPPP

The 2008/2009 Annual Report for the MAPPP-SETA was not retracted/withdrawn

MQA

None of the 2008/09 Annual Reports were retracted or withdrawn for any reason or whatsoever.

MERSETA

There were no versions retracted or withdrawn

LG SETA

No version of any annual report was withdrawn for the 2008-09

SASSETA

No annual report was retracted / withdrawn

SERVICES

Our annual report or parts there of was not retracted / withdrawn

TETA

The annual report for TETA was never withdrawn or retracted

THETHA

Never retracted/withdrawn

W&RSETA

No version of 2008/2009 annual report was retracted/withdrawn


2.2 OTHER ENTITIES - RETRACTED/WITHDRAWN ANNUAL REPORTS

ENTITY

(a) Number of times Annual report withdrawn

(b)Reasons for withdrawal

(c)Cost per version

(d) Copies withdrawn

CCMA

There was no withdrawal/retraction of the 2008/09 annual report

CF

There was no withdrawal/retraction of the 2008/09 annual report

NEDLAC

Not applicable

NPI

No retraction or withdrawal was made for this annual report 2008/09

UIF

No annual reports of the UIF was retracted/withdrawn

UMSOBOMVU

No annual reports of the UYF was retracted/withdrawn

ANSWER 03

3.1 SETAS: DECISION ON GRAPHIC AND PRINTING COMPANY

ENTITY

(a)Decision on graphic and printing company

AGRISETA

Companies were sourced from the Preferred Provider List (PPL) of the AgriSETA. Quotations were requested from the providers, as well previous Annual Reports published by the company to see the quality thereof. The lowest quotation was accepted, pending on the quality of the previous annual reports published by the preferred provider. The location of the publishing company was also taken into consideration, in case there were any urgent final changes to be made and the AgriSETA staff could sit with the graphic designers to amend these changes.

BANKSETA

BANKSETA Marketing and Communications Manager as the provider is contracted to the BANKSETA

CETA

C & R Business Systems was selected for both design and printing primarily due to quality, price and experience. Also it scored well in our procurement scoring. The Three House was called upon when we realize that the date to submit annual report to Parliament was closer than originally communicated. We selected The Three House because helped us last year and that they more capacity to print the required volumes at a limited space of time.

CHIETA

Normal procurement process in terms of the organisation's Supply Chain Management Policy which is aligned to the National Treasury Regulations and the PFMA was followed

CTFL

The CTFL SETA called for quotations for the printing of the Annual Report. The contract was awarded based on price (lowest quotation) and was supported by previous performance of the supplier (Fishwicks). The CTFL SETA appointed a preferred Supplier (Candy Ads) to do the Graphic Design based on service delivery from previous years (designed the CTFL SETA Annual Report for the last 5 years). The short lead times and necessity for accuracy requires an established relationship between the SETA and the supplier to ensure quality, accuracy and quick turnaround/response times.

ESETA

Three quotations were obtained from the database. And the one with the lowest cost was taken

ETDP

Printing company decided by standard SCM procedures. Donna Reid Designs used

FASSET

The same service provider is used for both the design and the printing. This was done by a tender process

FIETA

This was done through the procurement department. 3 Quotations were received and the best suitable supplier was used

FOODBEV

The choice of the graphic design and printing company was chosen based on our supply chain requirements and aligned to the procurement policy

HWSETA

The design and printing of the Annual report 2008-09 was done by the same supplier. Supplier on the database and other suppliers were invited to quote base on specifications. The bidder were then selected and chosen based on price, functionality and HDI in according with the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, 2000, using the 80/20 preference system. Tax clearance certificate was obtained form the successful bidder.

INSETA

A closed tender process was used to determine the printing company for the annual report

ISETT

The printing and graphic design of the annual report was an open tender and quotes from 3 suppliers were obtained. The job was awarded to the company that submitted the lowest quote. (Please note that there were not separate quotes for printing and graphic design, but the job was awarded to the company with the lowest TOTAL cost for the annual report (design and printing in one)

MAPPP

The graphic design and printing was carried out by the same company. The selection of the company was based on an assessment of potential providers that responded to quotation requests in terms of the Supply Chain Management Framework which takes into account price, quality, BEE status, etc.

MQA

The Supply Chain Management Policy stipulates that for goods in services less than 300 000, three written quotation must be submitted by the potential service provider. In these case written quotes was received and the successful service provider was selected from the three quotations

MERSETA

The budget was R600,000. Therefore the MERSETA did the procurement by a public tender process as prescribed. The technical evaluation criteria were decided by management and the evaluation done by the bid evaluation committee and approved by the Procurement Committee, Chief Executive Officer and Board

LG SETA

(a) We followed a procurement process and chose among six companies.

(b) We followed a procurement process and chose among six companies.

We used the same company for both graphic design and printing.

SASSETA

SASSETA has a contract with Shereno Printers CC that will ends in March 2010. This company designs and prints the annual reports for the Seta

SERVICES

The printing company was a preferred supplier and the Graphic Design company was selected by way of followed the procurement process

TETA

The decision on who to appoint was informed by the outcome of a competitive bidding process in line with SCM policy and procedures

THETHA

3.a The prescripts of all relevant Acts, Regulations and Policies regarding the procurement of goods or services by a Government organisation was followed.

3.b The prescripts of all relevant Acts, Regulations and Policies regarding the procurement of goods or services by a Government organisation was followed.

W&RSETA

Supply Chain Management Procurement Process was followed


3.2 OTHER ENTITIES - DECISION ON GRAPHIC AND PRINTING COMPANY

ENTITY

(a)Decision on graphic company

(b)Decision on printing company

CCMA

The decision to appoint and contract the company that designed and printed the 2008/09 report was made in accordance with the Supply Chain Management policies of the organisation. As the cost was below the R200,000 threshold, quotations were obtained from three (3) service providers and the lowest bidder was selected.

CF

1. Head Office decided on the graphics and printing was done at H/O

NEDLAC

The company used for the graphic design and the printing was the same company. It is the company that Nedlac had been using for the previous 5 years and based on the quality and costs provided by them, Nedlac continued to use the same company.

NPI

The process of producing our annual report was initiated in May. Companies were required to design, layout and print the report.

A call to tender was therefore issued, inviting companies to submit their proposal and budget requirement for the production of the annual report.

The tender was advertised in Citizen Newspaper and Government Tender bulletin on the 15 May 2009, inviting companies to attend a compulsory briefing session held on 20 May 2009.

During the briefing session, prospective bidders were given the following documents:

  • All companies were given a specification documents for all reports
  • Evaluations forms indicating the weighting and scores
  • Productivity SA brand guidelines
  • Copies of previous annual reports

The appointed company was selected on their ability to design and produce quality reports, and the following points were considered:

  • Their impressive track record, having produced annual reports of high quality
  • BEE profile- Qualified according to our scorecard
  • Their tender proposal demonstrated a clear understanding of the requirements for the production of Productivity SA annual reports and in meeting the expectations of Productivity SA
  • Their creative input, and creative rationale including graphic designs, came very close in articulating our brief.
  • Their individual budget was within specified limits.

Both the graphic design and the printing work was awarded to one company

UIF

The UIF appointed one printing company, no graphic design company was appointed in this regard by the UIF. The appointment of the printing company was done via the UIF's SCM procurement process in line with Practice Note 8 of 2007/2008 for procurement of goods and services below R500 000, three quotations were obtained and only the appointed service provider was prepared and able to deliver the documents as was required. For this reasons a deviation request in line with Treasury Regulations 16A6.4 was made to the UIC that the appointed service provider be appointed as the preferred service provider.

UMSOBOMVU

UYF procurement policy was followed in deciding on the design and printing company. Based on the policy three quotations were sourced from UYF preferred supply database. These quotations were duly evaluated and a selection was made taking into the price, capacity of the service providers etc

ANSWER 04

4.1

The Department, UIF, CF, CCMA, PSA and UYF did not host any function.

SETAS: FUNCTION ON TABLING OF 2008/09 ANNUAL REPORT

ENTITY

(ii) Cost of the function

(iii)Breakdown of cost

(iv) Where was the function held

(v) How many guests were invited

AGRISETA

No function was held for the launch of the Annual Report

BANKSETA

R104 709.46

Venue Hire & Catering – R23 500.00

Melrose Arch Hotel

60

Invitations – R5 961.43

Newspapers adverts- R75 248.03

CETA

Did not have a function to table the 2008/9 annual report

CHIETA

R47485.00

Venue & equipment hire R24 820

Birchwood hotel

61

Subsistence & cateringR5 605.00

Accommodation R10 265.00

CTFL

Not Applicable – CTFL SETA did not have a special function

ESETA

We have not yet held the function and we usually held it at the premises

ETDP

Not applicable – no function held

FASSET

R235 885.22(

The AGM was held together with the best practice award and thank you function

The budget for the AGM

Venue & refreshment

R52 986

Event co-or

R56 314.80

Décor, printing, technical production–

R12600

Kyalami Theater on the track - Midrand

All stakeholders invited 3000

136 RSVP

FIETA

Function yet to be held

n/a

n/a

n/a

FOODBEV

R16 500 AGM

Venue Hire R6 500

Sun City

160

Audio and Technical R5000

Refreshments R5 000

HWSETA

Function not held as yet

R170 116 for venue, cocktails eats and drinks, décor, promotional gifts

The Lord Charles

238

Guests are responsible for their own travel and accommodation costs.

INSETA

R9,513

Venue Hire & Catering: R8,436

Booking fees: R1,077

Houghton Boardroom

All INSETA Stakeholders were invited

ISETT

No other function except Annual General Meeting (AGM) will be held. However Isett Seta will only have their AGM in November 09. IE no function has been held

MAPPP

R22 681,11

Venue hire with light snacks all included

Emoyeni

+/- 50

MQA

R150,000.00

Venue, Audio Visual Equipment, Catering

Indaba Hotel

200

MERSETA:

MerSETA Regional AGM's

42 250

Venue hire and conference package

Cape Town

147

MerSETA Regional AGM's

33 170

Venue hire and conference package

Durban

118

MerSETA Regional AGM's

42 300

Venue hire and conference package

Witbank

143

MerSETA Regional AGM's

70 551

Venue hire and conference package

Johannesburg

230

MerSETA Regional AGM's

37 227

Venue hire and conference package

PE

80

MerSETA Regional AGM's

16 753

Venue hire and conference package

Bloemfontein

70

TOTAL

R242 251

788

LG SETA

No function has yet been held for 2008/09

SASSETA

The Annual General Meeting (AGM) to table 2008/09 annual report will be held on the 29 October 2009

SERVICES SETA

R 31,000

Newspaper Ad

R 26,000

Refreshments

R 5,000

Service Seta Conference Facilities

Open Invitation as per press advert, all board members were invited, 40 attended the AGM

TETA

NIL

NIL

Emperor's palace

350 invited

400 attended

THETHA

no function on tabling of 2008/2009 annual report

W&RSETA

R 58 072.00

Venue & catering costs –

R 43 081.00

Travel and accommodation for Board members (3) (from Board budget) – R 17 252.06

Gifts – R 14,991.00

Gold Reef City Casino, Johannesburg

A public advert was published in national newspapers. Emails and faxes were sent out to 10 000 registered companies.

106 attended