Questions & Replies: Transport

Share this page:
2012-12-31

THIS FILE CAN CONTAIN UP TO 25 REPLIES.

SEARCH ON THE TOPIC/KEYWORD YOU ARE LOOKING FOR BY SELECTING CTRL + F ON YOUR KEYBOARD

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO 3437

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 11 DECEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 23 NOVEMBER 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 42 – 2012)

Mr PJ Groenewald (FF Plus) to ask the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether he has been informed that the Johannesburg metro police department (JMPD) has appointed public prosecutors to act as representations officers despite the contents of Government Gazette 33038 of 19 March 2010; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (a) why has no action been taken to halt this unlawful practice, (b) when will such action be taken and (c) what actions does he intend to take;

(2) What is the status of representations that have been presided over by persons who are not allowed to act as representations officers;

(3) How many representations officers (a) have been appointed to preside over infringement notices issued by the JMPD which are not registered on the Electronic National Traffic Information System (eNaTIS) and (b) are in the employ of the Road Traffic Infringement Agency?

NW435E ________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

Minister of Transport

(1) Due to the lack of capacity at the Road Traffic Infringement Agency, Representation Officers had been appointed in terms of section 5 of the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offenses Act, 46 of 1998 on a temporary basis in order to facilitate the processing of representations. The Road Traffic Infringement Agency Board has instructed the termination of these appointments in November 2012

(2) The representation already adjudicated remains valid.

(3) A total of four representation officers in the employ of the City of Johannesburg as prosecutors of the Municipal Courts were appointed as Representation Officers. The Road Traffic Infringement Agency has eight representation officers appointed.

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO 3436

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 11 DECEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 23 NOVEMBER 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 42 – 2012)

Mr PJ Groenewald (FF Plus) to ask the Minister of Transport:

Whether with reference to his reply to question 2103 on the 13 November 2012, he will take any steps to force the Johannesburg Metro Police Department (JMPD) to act within the provisions of the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Act (Aarto), Act 46 of 1998; if not, why not, if so, what are the relevant details?

NW435E ________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The JMPD will be uploading all infringements onto the National Traffic Information System (NaTIS) as required by the AARTO Act and no longer only onto their own Traffic Management System thereby making the management of all infringements by the RTIA possible that was previously not the case. The RTIA Board has instructed in November 2012 that all appointments for Representation Officers of the JMPD be cancelled. This function is the competency of the RTIA.

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO 3403

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 11 DECEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: WEDNESDAY, 21 NOVEMBER 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 42 – 2012)

Mr G G Boinamo (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

Whether (a) his department and/or (b) any entity reporting to him sponsored any (i) event and (ii) promotion hosted by The New Age newspaper since its establishment; if so, in each case, (aa) what was the nature of the event or promotion, (bb) on which date was it held, (cc) what amount was paid, (dd) for what purpose, (ee) from which budget were the funds derived, (ff) what were the expected benefits to his department and (gg) what actual benefits were derived from the sponsorship? NW4312E

________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

Department of Transport

Response outstanding

Airports Company of South Africa Ltd. (ACSA):

(i) sponsored any event hosted by The New Age newspaper since its establishment Yes, but only in so far as tables were paid for to attend a breakfast function; and/ or

(ii) No

(aa there was one event, namely the New Age Breakfast Briefing with the Minister of Transport at the Cape Town International Convention Centre;

(bb) 16 August 2012;

(cc) what amount was paid – a total amount of R21 392.10 including VAT;

(dd) Three tables for the breakfast function were booked;

(ee) ACSA Communications and Brand Management Department budget, which forms part of ACSA's annual expense budget;

(ff) ACSA to hear from its stakeholders regarding any potential shortcomings that needed to be addressed. In addition, it was an opportunity for ACSA to create awareness of its operations and benefits to stakeholders; and

(gg) Falls away

Air Traffic and Navigation Services Company Ltd. (ATNS):

(b) (i) ATNS has never sponsored any event; and

(ii) ATNS has never sponsored any promotion hosted by New Age.

(aa) Falls away

(bb) Falls away

(cc) Falls away

(dd) Falls away

(ee) Falls away

(ff) Falls away

(gg) Falls away

Cross Border Road Transport Agency (CBRTA):

(b) The C-BRTA has never sponsored

(i) Any event or

(ii) Promotion hosted by the New Age newspaper since its

establishment.

(aa) Falls away

(bb) Falls away

(cc) Falls away

(dd) Falls away

(ee) Falls away

(ff) Falls away

(gg) Falls away

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa Ltd. (PRASA):

(b) Yes PRASA has a Sponsorship Agreement with the New Age

(i) Yes

(ii) Yes

(aa) The Sponsorship Agreement between PRASA and the TNA is for the TNA

Business Breakfast Briefings

(bb) The Business Breakfast Briefings will cover eight (8) briefings – to date the

briefings sponsored by PRASA have featured Dr Zweli Mkhize - Premier of

Kwazulu Natal - 28 September 2012 Mr. Rob Davis - Minister of Trade and

Industry – 29 October 2012

(cc) the Cost is for covered by the Global Sponsorship agreement and covers all 8

briefings

(dd) the Briefings cover the major areas of Development, Infrastructure Investment and

the modernization of our Society as led by Government

(ee) from the PRASA Sponsorship and Marketing budget

(ff) The benefits for PRASA accrue in the form of exposing the modernization of

passenger railways currently underway to the national and commuting public

(gg) The actual benefits for Prasa are listed below

(1) Exposure on SABC 2's Morning Live Programme

(2) Radio spots on the SABC radio stations

(3) Advertisements in The New Age

(4) 2 x tables of 10 guests each at the TNA Business Briefings

(5) Banner advertisements on www.thenewage.co.za

(6) use of social media

(7) logos on all invitations

(8) 6 pull up banners at event

(9) 2 guests to be placed at main table

(10) sponsor speech from podium before keynote address

Ports Regulator of South Africa (PR):

(b) The Ports Regulator has not sponsored any event or any promotion of any sort with any institution since its inception.

(aa) Falls away

(bb) Falls away

(cc) Falls away

(dd) Falls away

(ee) Falls away

(ff) Falls away

(gg) Falls away

Road Traffic Infringements Agency (RTIA):

The Road Traffic Infringement Agency (RTIA) has never been contacted or sponsored any of the New Age newspaper events or business briefings.

(aa) Falls away

(bb) Falls away

(cc) Falls away

(dd) Falls away

(ee) Falls away

(ff) Falls away

(gg) Falls away

Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC):

No, The RTMC has never sponsored any of the New Age newspaper events or business briefings.

(aa) Falls away

(bb) Falls away

(cc) Falls away

(dd) Falls away

(ee) Falls away

(ff) Falls away

(gg) Falls away

Road Accident Fund (RAF):

The Road Accident Fund (RAF) has not sponsored any event or promotion hosted by The New Age since its establishment. Any other responses required are therefore not applicable.

(aa) Falls away

(bb) Falls away

(cc) Falls away

(dd) Falls away

(ee) Falls away

(ff) Falls away

(gg) Falls away

Railway Safety Regulator (RSR):

RSR never sponsored any event; and

RSR has never sponsored any promotion hosted by New Age.

(aa) Falls away

(bb) Falls away

(cc) Falls away

(dd) Falls away

(ee) Falls away

(ff) Falls away

(gg) Falls away

South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA):

(b) The South African Civil Aviation Authority was invited by The New Age to participate;

(i) in a business briefing with the Minister of Transport: Mr Dikobe Ben Martins, MP.

(aa) The event was held in Cape Town at the Cape Town Convention Centre. The initiative is a partnership between SABC 2 and The New Age. The Minister was to host a breakfast business briefing and allow the audience to engage in a debate with him.

(bb) The event was held on 16 August 2012.

(cc) The SACAA purchased a table of 10 costing the organization an amount of

R7 130.70.

(dd) To participate in a business briefing with the Minister of Transport.

(ee) The amount was paid from the Corporate Communications and Marketing department's budget.

(ff) The amount was paid for 10 SACAA employees and SACAA clients that are based in Cape Town to participate in the business briefing as part of the audience. The employees and clients were expected to make contributions or get their questions answered by the Minister on matters related to aviation.

(gg) The benefits derived from the initiative are that an opportunity was given to employees and clients who seldom have access to the Minister to engage him on those matters that are relevant to their various areas within aviation

South African Maritime Safety Authority (SAMSA):

The South African Maritime Safety Authority (SAMSA) has not sponsored any event or promotion hosted by The New Age Newspaper since its establishment.

(aa) Falls away

(bb) Falls away

(cc) Falls away

(dd) Falls away

(ee) Falls away

(ff) Falls away

(gg) Falls away

South African National Roads Agency Ltd. (SANRAL):

SANRAL never sponsored any event; and

SANRAL has never sponsored any promotion hosted by New Age.

(aa) Falls away

(bb) Falls away

(cc) Falls away

(dd) Falls away

(ee) Falls away

(ff) Falls away

(gg) Falls away

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO 3396

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 14 DECEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: WEDNESDAY, 21 NOVEMBER 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 42 – 2012)

Mr N J van den Berg (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

(1) (a) How many copies of each annual report that was produced by (i) his department and (ii) the entities reporting to him were commissioned for print in the 2011-12 financial year, (b) how many copies were actually printed and (c) what were the (i) total and (ii) individual costs of printing these reports;

(2) (a) who printed each specified report, (b) how was the specified printer decided upon and (c) on what date did the specified printer deliver the report to the specified entity;

(3) whether any of the specified reports that had been printed were found to be unsatisfactory; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, in each case, (a) which reports, (b) for which entity, (c) by which printer, (d) what action was taken and (e) what were the costs? NW4303E

________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

National Department of Transport

(1) (a) How many copies of each annual report that was produced by

(ii) All Entities reporting to the Executive Authority have to compile Annual Reports, including Annual Financial Statements for the period 01 April 2011 – 31 March 2012

(b) One thousand (1 000 copies) were printed, and 200 x Memory Sticks.

(c) (i) total costs: R375 500.00

(ii) individual: R335 500.00 for printing of Annual Reports Books (including design, layout and printing of full colour, saddle stitched glossy books), which translates to R335.50 per book

Taking into consideration that the price include design costs.

R40 000.00 for branded 4G memory sticks.

(2) (a) Sisters In Printing cc

Black female owned company with a level 3 BEE level conttibutor

Sisters In Printing Cooperation

PO Box 12553

Tramshed

0126

Tel.: 072 640 6916

E-mail: Sistersinprinting@yahoo.com

(b) Call for three quotations > for procurement less than R500,000.00

Three quotes were received and evaluated on price as follows:

1. Hustle Office Supplies cc – R565 500.00

2. Ramorongwa Trading and Projects cc – R482 456.14

3. Sisters in Printing – R375 500.00

(c) Annual Report 2011/12 was delivered on the 26 September and payment effected by 14 October 2012 upon delivery of memory sticks.

(3) Not applicable. Reports and memory sticks were delivered in good form and according to set specifications.

(b), (c), (d) and (e)? Not applicable

AIRPORTS COMPANY OF SOUTH AFRICA (ACSA)

(1) (a) How many copies of each annual report that was produced by

(ii) were commissioned for print in the 2011-12 financial year?: 350 copies were commissioned

(b) 350 copies

(c) (i) total cost: R105 020 excluding vat

(ii) and the individual costs of printing these reports: R300,05 per copy

(2) (a)Rudisha Consulting

(b) how was the specified printer decided upon: The commissioned company was appointed through the standard procurement process

(c) on what date did the specified printer deliver the report to the specified entity: 27th of August 2012

(3) (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) falls away

AIR TRAFFIC NAVIGATION SYSTEMS (ATNS)

(1) (a) How many copies of each annual report that was produced by

1000 copies were printed

(c) (i) total R275 866.64

(ii) individual costs of printing these reports; R275.87

(2) (a) Stationers Engraving t/a SE Litho

(b) how was the specified printer decided upon and

A 3 quote process was followed. Selection was based on BEE, Price and ability to deliver on time.

(c) on what date did the specified printer deliver the report to the specified entity;

21st September 2012

(3) None of the reports were found to be unsatisfactory

CROSS BORDER ROAD TRANSPORT AGENCY (CBRTA)

(1) (a) How many copies of each annual report that was produced by

(b) A total of 500 copies were printed.

(c) Total costs: R93 109.50

(ii) The cost per copy is R186.22, inclusive of conceptualisation, design and layout.

(2) (a) Kashan Advertising (Reg No. 1996/056808/23) printed the specified report

(b) A request for proposals was sent to four service providers and all four were subjected to the functional evaluation based on the criteria sent to the service providers as part of the specifications. Proposals which scored above a threshold of 70 points (as communicated in the specification document) were then subjected to an 80/20 preferential point system as the procurement is below R1 million.

The following service providers submitted proposals:

· Kashan Advertising;

· Expose IT;

· Overtime Media; and

· Brand Prophet.

(c) The Annual Report was delivered on the 19th September 2012.

(3) All falls away. All reports were delivered in good form ad accordingly to the specifications.

PORTS REGULATOR:

(1) (a) How many copies of each annual report that was produced by

(b) The Ports Regulator produced 270printed copies of the Annual Report for 2011/12 and 20 CD's containing the Annual Report specifically for Transport Portfolio Committee members were developed.

(c) (i) The total costs of the 270 printed reports was R 25 813.02, and the total costs of the CD's were R 180.00 as the cd's were developed internally.

(ii) The individual costs of the printed reports were R95.60 each, and the CD's were R10.00 (CD plus printable blank label sticker) each;

(2) (a) Pinetown Printers (Pty) Ltd printed the Annual Reports and the Annual Reports on cd were developed, labelled and prepared by the Ports Regulator staff,

(b) Pinetown Printers was procured through a 3 written quotes system and the Regulator decided to prepare the cd's internally as the informal quotes received were too expensive in our opinion

(c) The printed copies of the Annual report were delivered on 18 September 2012, the CD's were developed on 17 September 2012;

(3) No printed copies of the Annual report were found to be defective and rejected.

PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY OF SOUTH AFRICA (PRASA)

(1) PRASA printed 1000 copies of the annual report

(2) (a) Egoli forms printed the annual reports (b) they were chosen through a single source method as stipulated in the PRASA Supply Chain Management Policy (c) 27th August 2012.

(3) None of the reports were found to be unsatisfactory

RAILWAY SAFETY REGULATOR (RSR)

(1) (a) How many copies of each annual report that was produced by

(ii) (b) how many copies were actually printed 1 000 copies of the RSR Annual Report were printed; and 500 copies of the RSR State of Safety Report

(c)

Question No.

RSR Annual Report

RSR State of Safety Report

a) How many copies were printed

1 000 copies

500 copies

(c)(i) what were the total cost

R59 052.00

R96 000.00

(c)(ii) individual costs

R59.52

R193.80

(2) (a) who printed each specified report,

Question No.

RSR Annual Report 2011/12

RSR State of Safety Report

a) who printed each specified report

Shereno Printers

NADS Printers

b) how was the specified printer decided upon

Quotations

Quotations

c) on what date did the specified printer deliver the report

Delivery of 481 copies by 21 September and second delivery of 519 by the 08 October 2012

Delivery by 17 Sept. 2012

(3) The printing of the Annual Report by Shereno Printers was found to be unsatisfactory as the page numbers were inconsistent on the first 300 copies delivered. A complaint was lodged with the printer per e-mal and the Printer re-printed at no additional costs.

ROAD ACCIDENT FUND (RAF)

(1) (a) (b) One thousand four hundred (1 400 copies) were printed, and 150 x CD's containing the electronic version were burnt.

(c) (i) Total Costs: R387 361.14

(ii)R274.51 per Report, including editing, design, proof-reading and printing, as well as R3 045.94 for 150 branded CD's.

(2) (a) Kashan Advertising cc

Female owned company with a level 5 BEE level contributor

Kashan Advertising CC

PO Box 12999

Hatfield

0063

Tel.: 012 342 8163

E-mail: Advertising @kashan.co.za

(b) Open Bid process was followed for procurement less than R500, 000.00

The following 4 (four) bidders were shortlisted after functional criteria:

1. Kashan Advertising cc

2. Msomi Puisano

3. Xisiwana

4. HKLM

(c) RAF Annual Report 2011/12 was delivered on 06 September and payment effected by 28 September 2012.

(3) Reports and CD's were delivered in good order and according to specifications.

(a) (b) (c) (d) Not applicable

ROAD TRAFFIC INFRINGEMENT AGENCY (RTIA)

(1) (a) (b) Five hundred (500) copies were produced broken down to 495 hard copies and 5 cds (electronic version)

(c) (i) total costs: R84 337.20

(ii) The reports cost R84 337.20 including design, layout, sourcing images and printing full colour, perfect binding and free negotiated embossing of covers.

(2) (a) Shereno Printers cc 100% black owned company with a level 3 BBBEE status located at:

10 Atlas Road, Dunswart, Boksburg

PO Box 268 Benoni 1500

Email: nirans@shereno.co.za

(b)Procurement process initiated with development and approval of specifications circulated to all prospective bidders at the same time. 10 service providers selected from supplier database on 06 August 2012, 5 service providers responded with price quotations including VAT by 10 August 2012 on the same day as required.

1. Kashan Advertising - R 181 220.10

2. TNT - R 134 705.14

3. INCE - R 395 124.00

4. Shereno Printers - R 84 337.20

5. Overtime Media - R 152 372.24

Selection of service provider was based on the 80/20 preferential points system 20% weighting based on black ownership and historically disadvantaged individuals. 80% weighting based on functionality and price. Shereno qualified on all requirements of black ownership and price.

(c) The RTIA Annual Report 2011/12 was delivered on 03 September 2012 and payment was effected on 24 October 2012 due to the late arrival of the invoice from the printer.

(3) All reports and quality of work was satisfactory.

ROAD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (RTMC)

Response outstanding

SOUTH AFRICAN CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY (SACAA)

(1) (a) 1000 copies were printed by

(i) SACAA

(b) 1000 copies and

(c) (i) Total cost was R116 394.00 and

(ii) The individual cost works out to R116, 40;

(2) (a) Shereno Printers cc printed the SACAA report,

(b) The Supply Chain Management policy was followed of sourcing 3 quotations was followed and

(c) The report was delivered on 30 August 2012 to the SACAA;

(3) The SACAA reports that were delivered were found to be satisfactorily within the SACAA expected standards.

SOUTH AFRICAN MARITIME SAFETY AUTHORITY (SAMSA)

(1)(a) (ii) 1500 hard copies together with 100 CD's were commissioned for print.

(b) 1520 hard copies and 100 CD's were actually printed.

(c) (i) The total costs of printing was R294, 420.96

(ii) The individual cost of printing is R193.69

(2) (a) Msomi Puisano

(b) Through Request for Quotations and SAMSA chose the Company that scored the highest based on the evaluation criteria.

(c) 30 August 2012

(3) (a) None of the Reports printed were found to be unsatisfactory.

(b)(c)(d)(e) falls away

SOUTH AFRICAN NATIOANAL ROADS AGENCY LIMITED (SANRAL)

(1) (a) 2100 copies

(c) R200 338.13 Incl VAT

(ii)R95.40 each Incl VAT

(2) (a) Multiprint Litho

(b) Three quotes were obtained. Mulitprint Litho was the cheapest and able to deliver on time to parliament as per legislation.

(c) 31 August 2012

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO 3317

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 12 DECEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 23 NOVEMBER 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 42 – 2012)

Mr D A Kganare (COPE) to ask the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether he has been informed of the gravity of the problem of potholes, particularly in the Free State; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so what (a) programme has his department developed to solve this problem and (b) are the relevant details, in each case

(2) Whether his department has allocated funds to repair potholes in national roads, if, not, why not, if so, how much will it cost to solve this problem nationally;

(3) How (a) many accidents in the Free State have been caused by potholes in the past two years and (b) much was claimed by motorists since 1 January 2009 up to the latest specified date for which information is available as a result of damages caused by pothole?

_________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether he has been informed of the gravity of the problem of potholes, particularly in the Free State; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so what (a) programme has his department developed to solve this problem and (b) are the relevant details, in each case

(1) Yes, the Department of Transport has been informed of the overall challenges with roads development and the condition of roads in the Free State Province.

(a)The approach of the Department as approved by MINMEC in February of 2011 is to address the road maintenance problem rather than just potholes since the latter is a symptom of lack of maintenance. Through providing supplementary Provincial Road Maintenance Grant funding, the Department is implementing the Shamba Sonke Programme which focuses, on the maintenance of the provincial road networks including addressing pothole repairs where required.

(b) the Department of Transport has made available R 546 930 million from the Provincial Road Maintenance Grant for the 2012/13 financial year to assist the Free State Department of Police, Roads and Transport. From their approved Business Plans, the Free State Department also makes use of a contractor development programme to deploy more than 120 small contractors that employ 2000 local labourers through the Free State to do pothole repair and maintenance.

(2) Whether his department has allocated funds to repair potholes in national roads, if, not, why not, if so, how much will it cost to solve this problem nationally;

The Department's approach again, is to ensure that routine and preventative maintenance is undertaken timeously on the national road network. The total budget allocation for non-tolled National Roads is R9,7 (2012/13) billion which the South African National Roads Agency Limited spends on Routine Road Maintenance, preventative maintenance and emergency maintenance which would also address any emerging potholes on the network.

(3) These roads fall under the authority of the Free State Department of Police, Roads and . as the honourable Mr Kganare is aware, the national department has no jurisdiction over the budgets and administration of the Provinces. The Free State Department of Police, Roads and Transport are responsible for the planning, design, construction, upgrade, maintenance and management of road infrastructure under its jurisdiction. Therefore this question should be referred to the Accounting Officer of the Free State Department of Police, Roads and Transport.

(a)falls away

(b) falls away

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO 3278

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 11 DECEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 16 NOVEMBER 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 41 – 2012)

Mr E J Marais (DA), MP asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether (a) his department or (b) any entity reporting to him, placed any advertisements in The New Age since the inception of the newspaper up until the most recent date for which information is available; if not, in each case, what is the position in this regard; if so, (i) which entity placed the advertisements, (ii) on what date was each advertisement placed, (iii) what was the nature of each advertisement and (iv) what amount was spent on each advertisement;

(2) whether any of these advertisements were placed through the Government Communication and Information System (GCIS); if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details of the advertisements placed through the GCIS;

(3) whether an independent analysis was conducted by his department prior to placing advertisements to ascertain whether The New Age is read by the intended target market; if not, why not; if so, (a) who conducted the analysis and (b) what were the main (i) findings and (ii) recommendations of said analysis;

(4) whether any independent studies of said advertisements were conducted to ascertain whether they were effective within the relevant target market; if not, why not; if so, (a) who conducted the analysis and (b) what were the main (i) findings and (ii) recommendations of said analysis? NW4167E

________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

Department of Transport

(1) (a) The Department of Transport did place advertisements in the New Age from August 2012 to September 2012

(ii) (a) 5 August 2012,

(b)15 August 2012

(c) 7 October 2012

(d)15 October 2012

(ii)(a) Invitation for nominations of person to serve as executive members on the board

of the Board of the Civil Aviation Authority

(b) Advertisements of posts

(c) Invitation for nominations of persons to serve on the SAMSA board.

(d) Invitation by the Minister of Transport for nominations of Members of the

Regulating Committee of the Airports Company South Africa (ACSA) and the Air

Traffic and Navigation Services (ATNS)

(iv)(a) R6 441.00

(b) R 22 682.35

(c) R6 075.63

(d) R7 934.06

(2) The advertisements were not placed through the Government Communication and Information System (GCIS). Quotations were obtained, from three service providers registered on the department' supplier database, to place the adverts in, amongst other newspapers, also in the New Age.

(3) No analysis was conducted

(4) No study was conducted

Airports Company of South Africa Ltd. (ACSA):

(1) (b) Yes, Airports Company South Africa did place such advertisements.

i) Airports Company South Africa (ACSA)

ii) 13 September 2012; 29&30 October 2012

iii) The 13 September advert was for the 2012 financial results whilst the 29/30 October was to October Transport Month.

iv) R81 648, 00; and R135 648, 00 (for both 29/30 October adverts). Figures exclude VAT

(2) No. ACSA is an independent entity.

(3) No independent analysis was done. Like with all advertising placements, ACSA relies on data provided by the media owners and its internal knowledge of media landscape.

(4) No independent studies were conducted. The intention was to raise awareness of ACSA's business activities. General perception survey of ACSA business is conducted at the end of the year to determine impact of ACSA's overall communication efforts.

Air Traffic and Navigation Services Company Ltd. (ATNS):

(1) (a) ATNS has never placed any advertisement in the New Age newspaper since its inception.

(2) There were no adverts places by ATNS through Government Communication and Information System.

(3) (a) (b) (i) (ii) Falls away

(4) (a) (b) (i) (ii) Falls away

Cross Border Road Transport Agency (CBRTA):

(1)(b) The Cross-Border Road Transport Agency (C-BRTA) has not placed any advertisements in the New Age newspaper.

(2.) The C-BRTA has not placed any advertisements through the Government Communication and Information System (GCIS). The current approach allows the Agency to have an acceptable target market reach; however the GCIS option could be explored to enhance the current approach.

(3) (a) (b) (i) (ii) Falls away

(4) (a) (b) (i) (ii) Falls away

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa Ltd. (PRASA):

Response outstanding

Ports Regulator of South Africa (PR):

(1) (b) The Ports Regulator has not placed any adverts on The New Age newspaper

since its inception.

(i) (ii) (iii) Falls away

(2) There were no advertisements that were placed through the GCIS by the Ports Regulator.

(3) (a) (b) (i) (ii) Falls away

(4) (a) (b) (i) (ii) Falls away

Road Traffic Infringements Agency (RTIA):

(1) The RTIA did not place any advertisements in The New Age since the inception of the newspaper.

(b) Advertisements are placed only if there is an identified need to do so in various

media platforms.

(2) Falls away

(3) (a) (b) (i) (ii) Falls away

(4) (a) (b) (i) (ii) Falls away

Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC):

1. The RTMC has not placed any advertisement in the New Age since inception.

2. Falls away

3. (a) (b) (i) (ii) Falls away

4. (a) (b) (i) (ii) Falls away

Road Accident Fund (RAF):

The Road Accident Fund (RAF) has not placed any advertisements, directly or indirectly, with The New Age since the publication's inception. The Fund's responses are therefore:

(1) Falls away. The RAF has a limited advertising budget and has entered into select media partnerships in order to reach the widest target audiences possible at affordable, cost-effective rates. In an effort to take our service offering to disadvantaged communities, free publicity in community newspapers and radio stations is the preferred communication media.

(2) Falls away

(3) (a) (b) (i) (ii) Falls away

(4) (a) (b) (i) (ii) Falls away

Railway Safety Regulator (RSR):

1. The RSR has not placed any advertisement in the New Age.

(i) (ii) (iii) Falls away

2. Falls away

3. (a) (b) (i) (ii) Falls away

4. (a) (b) (i) (ii) Falls away

South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA):

(1) The South African Civil Aviation Authority has never advertised with the New Age newspapers. The SACAA uses trade publications to place any safety information unless the message is directed at the general public. Where the message is directed at the general public and weekly newspapers would be used and those that ate mostly national would be targeted as well. For such messages New Age was never invited to quote us on an advertisement since inception.

(2) Falls away

(3) (a) (b) (i) (ii) Falls away

(4)(a) (b) (i) (ii) Falls away

South African Maritime Safety Authority (SAMSA):

1. The South African Maritime Safety Authority an entity reporting to the National Department of Transport has to date placed one Advertorial in The New Age newspaper.

The placement was part of the media activities in support of the International Maritime Organisation's Diplomatic Conference on Fishing Vessel Safety. The Conference took place in Cape Town from the 9 to the 11th of October 2012.

The placement was on the 19th of October 2012 edition highlighting the successful outcomes of the Diplomatic Conference.

SAMSA paid Three Hundred and Nine Thousand two hundred and seventy seven rand and fourty four cents (309 277.44).

2. The advertorial was not placed through the GCIS. The South African Maritime Safety Authority places all its Advertisements directly with the media houses or their agencies.

SAMSA has not placed any advertisements through the GCIS.

3. SAMSA did not conduct an independent analysis on the newspaper. The placement was decided on the basis of the common knowledge of the circulation and the credibility of the publication.

4. SAMSA measures the effectiveness of the advertisements on a quarterly basis. We are in the process of receiving and quantifying the analysis of this particular advert.

South African National Roads Agency Ltd. (SANRAL):

(1) SANRAL's advertising campaign in the New Age commenced in April 2012. (i) the adverts were placed by SANRAL through its design agency (ii) The adverts were placed on the following dates (iii) see below (iv) See below

DATE PLACED: 03/04/2012 SIZE: 30X6 FULL COLOUR HEADING "IF YOUR E-TAG STARTS BEEPING" PRICE R56 520.00

DATE PLACED: 13/04/2012 SIZE: 30X6 FULL COLOUR HEADING "IMPROVED SAFETY BETTER VISION" PRICE R56 520.00

DATE PLACED: 20/04/2012 SIZE: 30x6 FULL COLOUR HEADING "BETTER NOT GET CAUGHT IN TRAFFIC" PRICE R56 520.00

DATE PLACED: 26/04/2012 SIZE: 30x9 FULL COLOUR HEADING "WE'RE GETTING READY" PRICE R56 520.00

DATE PLACED: 26/04/2012 SIZE: 30x9 FULL COLOUR HEADING "SHORTER JOURNEY'S BETTER FAMILY LIFE" PRICE R56 520.00

DATE PLACED: 26/04/2012 SIZE: 39x7 FULL COLOUR HEADING "SHOW THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR PEOPLE AND ORGANISATIONS THAT REGISTER FOR E-TOLL HAVE CHANGED" PRICE R85 722.00

DATE PLACED: 26/04/2012 SIZE: 54X8 FULL COLOUR HEADING "E-TOLL MAP CLASS A2 E-TAG RATES" PRICE R135 648.00

DATE PLACED: 06/10/2012 SIZE: 21X4 BLACK & WHITE HEADING "ORGINISATIONAL DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT" PRICE R13 272

DATE PLACED: 2/11/2012 SIZE: 30X6 FULL COLOUR HEADING "THANK YOU" PRICE R56 520.00

DATE PLACED: 5,6,7/11/2012 SIZE: 30X6 FULL COLOUR HEADING "ROAD MAP" PRICE R169 560.00

DATE PLACED: 12/11/2012 SIZE: 15X4 BLACK & WHITE HEADING "OPEN DAY" PRICE R17 898

(2) None of SANRAL's advertising placements were done through GCIS.

(3) Yes, the independent analysis was carried out via SANRAL design agency through a media buying house 3 (a) OMD (media buying house) (b)(i) The print schedule did not include reach and frequency as not all print titles are measured (namely community newspapers) which was included in the campaign. The analysis was carried out using the 'AMPS Report Media Type' – the report has been run on AMPS and is able to note data against total population (Age15+) as well as total number of people who own, use or maintain a personal vehicle in South Africa and within Gauteng. B(ii) Due to the nature of the client (SANRAL) and the campaign (registering for e-toll), all road users will be affected by introductions of the toll roads in Gauteng. The print schedule therefore included National Daily, Community Newspapers for Gauteng, Sunday Titles and all Regional Daily to ensure sufficient national exposure.

(4) No research was done as the campaign ran for a very short time in April 2012 due to the Pretoria High Court ruling to halt tolling and the campaign only restarted during this week (19 November 2012). The spend to carry out this type of research for such a short time of advertising is not cost-effective at this stage.

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO 3211

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 11 DECEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 16 NOVEMBER 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 41 – 2012)

Adv A de W Alberts (VF Plus) asks the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether he was notified that (a) Johannesburg Metro Police (JMPS) and (b) Road Traffic Infringement Agency (RTIA) have transgressed the (i) Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences, Act 46 of 1998, (ii) National Road Traffic Act, Act 93 of 1996 and (iii) Criminal Procedure Act, Act 56 of 1955, by JMPS dispatching (aa) Aarto notifications via ordinary mail, (bb) handling the adjudication of representations, (cc) received payments for traffic offences which have been channeled to the RTIA; if not, what is the position in this regard, if so, what are the applicable detail.

(2) If furthermore, he has been notified that the (a) administration of Aarto by RTIA has been privatized in totality through the appointment of companies (i) Traffic Management Systems, (ii) Syntell and (iii) MVS Phumelelo and (b) that the TRIA does not at all provide for the appointment of a representative for juristic persons to whom notifications could be send to, if not, whether he would investigate the violation of the mentioned three Acts; if yes, would he take steps to ensure compliance therewith.

NW 4098A

________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport

(1) (aa) The Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offenses Act, 46 of 1998 does not provide for a legislated oversight function of the Road Traffic Infringement Agency (RTIA) over issuing authorities such as the JMPD to enforce compliance such as the despatching of notices via registered mail.

(bb) this function has been stopped by the RTIA Board in November 2012

(cc) The JMPD has maintained a separate Traffic Management System and not uploading infringement notices onto the National Traffic Information System (NaTIS) as a required by the Act. The lack of a legislative oversight function renders the RTIA incapable of enforcing compliance.

(2) These companies or service providers are that of the JMPD and not the RTIA.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 3105

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 15 NOVEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 02 NOVEMBER 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 38 – 2012)

Mr NJ Van Berg (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

1. Whether his department is currently subscribed to the New Age (TNA) newspaper, if so, (TNA) newspaper, if so, (a) how many subscription does his department have, (b) when was each subscription initiated, (c) what has been the annual subscription fee for each specified initiated, (c) what has been the annual subscription fee for each specified subscription since it was initiated and (d) what is the exact purpose of each subscription.

2. Whether a discount was negotiated for any of the specified subscriptions; if so, (a) for

Which specified subscriptions and (b) what discount in each case?

3. Whether his department has mass-purchased the TNA on an ad hoc basis since the

Inception of the newspapers; if so, (a) on what dates, (b) how many copies in each

case and (c) why were the papers purchased in the each case;

4. Whether (a) the publishers of the TNA and (b) any other entity donated copies of the

paper to (i) his department and (ii) any entity reporting to him; if so, in each case,

(aa) which entity donated the papers, (bb) to which were they donated and (cc) how

many copies were donated?

NW3934E

_________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

1. Yes, the Department is currently subscribed to New Age newspapers.

(a) The Department is subscribed to 21 subscriptions. Are as follows;

Beeld, Business Day, Citizen, City Press, Daily Sun, Mail and Guardian,

The New Age, Pretoria News, Rapport, Sowetan, Star, Sunday Independent,

Sunday Sun, Sunday Times, Sunday Times Extra, Sunday World, The Times

Economist, Engineering News, Finance Week, Financial Week,

(1b) The subscriptions were initiated in the following years;

(a) 11 subscriptions initiated on 01/01/2011

(b) 2 subscriptions initiated on 08/03/2011

(c) 1 subscriptions initiated on 12/04/201

(d) 1 subscription initiated on 01/06/2011

(e) 5 subscriptions initiated on 01/09/2012

(f) 1 subscription initiated on 01/10/2012

(1c) The annual subscription fee for each subscription is R 831.60

(1d) The purpose of each subscription is to keep updated with current affairs.

2. (a) (b) The Department has never negotiated with New Age for any subscriptions and there are no discounts negotiated.

3. (a) (b) (c) Falls away as the Department has no purchases.

4. (a) (b) (i) (ii), (aa) (bb) (cc) Falls away as there are no negotiation.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 3086

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 14 NOVEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: WEDNESDAY, 31 OCTOBER 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 38 – 2012)

Mr I M Ollis (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

(a) Why have only 27 names been made public in his reply to question 1859 on 14 September 2012, detailing the list of subcontractors involved with the Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) consortium, instead of the 33 as was reported and (b)(i) what are the names of the remaining six subcontractors involved in the ETC consortium and (ii) why were these names not included in the initial reply? NW3915E

________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

(a) As previously mentioned, the main contract for the project is between SANRAL and the Electronic Toll Collection (ETC). SANRAL has one contractor to whom it looks for performance under this contract, namely Electronic Toll Collection (ETC).

The contract for the design, build and operation of the tolling system is between SANRAL and ETC (Pty) Ltd and not with the sub-contractors. The lead contractor has sub-contracted work to various other companies (34) as shown below. The so-called unlisted companies are subsidiary companies of the lead member of the JV and thus were not listed. The contractual arrangements with the so-called unlisted companies are regarded as inter-company transactions. The list below includes the subsidiaries of the lead contractor ETC (Pty) Ltd. This list may change as circumstances warrant during the course of the contract.

(b) (i) The information has been sourced and the names and details are provided in the Table 1 attached.

(b) (ii) refer (a) above.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 3084

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 15 NOVEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: WEDNESDAY, 31 OCTOBER 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 38 – 2012)

Dr A Lotriet (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

Whether there are any plans in place to extend the runway at the Port Elizabeth Airport; if not, why not; if so, (a)(i) when, (ii) in what direction and (iii) by how many meters will the runway be extended and (b) what is the anticipated cost of extending the runway?

NW3910E

_________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

Long term master planning and spatial reservation has been made for a future extension of the main runway at Port Elizabeth Airport. Details are as follows:

(a) (i) The timing of the extension will be determined by the sustainable demand created by new flights requiring the additional runway length anticipated to be requested by direct, outbound, long haul passenger and cargo aircraft.

(ii) The Airport Master Plan provides for the extension of the runway in the South Westerly direction.

(iii) An additional runway length of up to 1,200m has been considered in the Master Plan.

(b) No definitive costs have been calculated for the extension as there has been no commitment by stakeholders to the continuous use and/or requirement for the extended runway length. By way of a guideline only, bearing in mind the topographical challenges with the conceived increase in length, and dependent on the final scope of the works, it could cost up to R500m in today's terms.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 3083

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 14 NOVEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: WEDNESDAY, 31 OCTOBER 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 38 – 2012)

Dr A Lotriet (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

Whether it is the intention of the SA National Roads Agency Limited (Sanral) to toll any part of the R27 between Port Elizabeth and East London; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (a) which part of the road is earmarked as a future toll road, (b) when is it envisaged that the upgrading of the road will be completed ahead of tolling and (c) what alternative route will be made available to road users? NW3908E

_________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

No, it is not the intention to toll the coastal road between Port Elizabeth and East London, which is numbered the R72, to which this question is presumed to relate.

The R72 between the Nanaga Interchange (N10/N2 junction) and the East London Airport intersection was declared as a National Road on 10 April 2012 in Government Gazettes 35249 and 35250, in terms of the South African National Roads Agency Limited and National Roads Act. Accordingly this portion of the R72 now falls under the jurisdiction of the South African National Roads Agency SOC Limited (SANRAL).

Prior to this date this R72 road resorted under the Department of Roads and Public Works (DRPW) of the Province of the Eastern Cape. The DRPW had, in 2007, executed a tolling feasibility study for the R72, which included the N2, in collaboration with SANRAL. The outcome of the feasibility study was the project was not feasible as a self-financing toll project. Therefore, SANRAL is not presently intending to proceed with the tolling of the R72 road. However, given the financial constraints, the project may in the future be considered for implementation as a toll project based on a hybrid funding model.

(a) Falls away

(b) Falls away

Note: Since the declaration of the R72, SANRAL has implemented routine road maintenance actions, initially aimed at addressing safety and repair of the road surface.

With the recent prolonged rains in the Eastern Cape, urgent attention was required at 3 locations, where the road structure was damaged and temporary closures were required. For longer term planning SANRAL is executing the design of the upgrade of the Port Alfred – Great Fish River – Keiskamma River section, as well as the asset preservation design of the Keiskamma to East London section of the R72.

(c) Falls away

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 3023

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 15 NOVEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: WEDNESDAY, 24 OCTOBER 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 36 – 2012)

Mr M R Sayedali Shah (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

Whether the accounting officer submitted the annual financial statements for the financial year ending 31 March 2012 to him by 31 August 2012; if not, (a) why not and (b) on what date (i) were the statements submitted to him and (ii) did he submit the annual report and financial statements to Parliament?

NW3791E

________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The accounting officer did not submit the annual financial statements for the financial year ending 31 March 2012 by 31 August 2012, (a) because the printer's proofs were not yet ready.

(b)(i) The statements were submitted on 26 September 2012 and (ii) was tabled in Parliament on 28 September 2012.

lanF�-A�� ȏ mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA'>

The Minister of Transport:

Long term master planning and spatial reservation has been made for a future extension of the main runway at Port Elizabeth Airport. Details are as follows:

(a) (i) The timing of the extension will be determined by the sustainable demand created by new flights requiring the additional runway length anticipated to be requested by direct, outbound, long haul passenger and cargo aircraft.

(ii) The Airport Master Plan provides for the extension of the runway in the South Westerly direction.

(iii) An additional runway length of up to 1,200m has been considered in the Master Plan.

(b) No definitive costs have been calculated for the extension as there has been no commitment by stakeholders to the continuous use and/or requirement for the extended runway length. By way of a guideline only, bearing in mind the topographical challenges with the conceived increase in length, and dependent on the final scope of the works, it could cost up to R500m in today's terms.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 2950

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 20 NOVEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 02 NOVEMBER 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 38 – 2012)

Mr. PJ Groenewald (VF Plus) asks the Minister of Transport

1. Whether the forensic audit report done by KPMG in 2000 regarding the regional manager (Mr. H Taljaart) of ACSA, Cape Town, was published. If not, why not, if so when and what was the findings of the report?

2. Would the Minister be making a statement regarding the matter?

________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

1. ACSA indicated that they have no information on the forensic audit report done by KPMG in 2000.

2. NO

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 2903

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 20 NOVEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: WEDNESDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2012 - INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 34 – 2012)

Mr G R Krumbock (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

Whether his department has considered the impact of the airport (a) charges and (a) landing fees levied by Airports Company SA (ACSA) on tourism; if not; why not; if so, what (i) action has been taken to deal with the matter and (ii) are the further relevant details? NW3579E

________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

The Minister is considering the issue of Airport charges and landing fees, and is consultation with ACSA in regard to this matter.

With regards to tourism figures the Department of Tourism has cited a rise in domestic travel and tourism. The Minister of Tourism reflected a figure of 10.5% of arrivals in South Africa in the first six months of 2012. He mentioned that this is more than double the global average of 5%.

There is a Regulating Committee which ensures that the level of tariffs charged by ACSA are market related.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 2902

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 14 NOVEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: WEDNESDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2012 - INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 34 – 2012)

Mr G R Krumbock (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

Whether his department is currently considering an application from a certain airport (name furnished) to be awarded international status; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details? NW3578E

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

The Department has received two applications for international status from airports within the Gauteng Province, with a 3rd application expected in the near future. The application submitted by Rand Airport is receiving attention and a consultation meeting was held with the Airport Management in August. The Department has also consulted with the Head of Department of the Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport on 28 August 2012 to discuss the Province's planning for current and future airport development, with specific reference to the National Airports Development Plan Project and the applications received from the Gauteng airports for international status.

The applications will be submitted to the Airport Coordinating Committee for consideration as soon as the initial consultation processes have been completed.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 2901

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 20 NOVEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: WEDNESDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2012 - INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 34 – 2012)

Mr G R Krumbock (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

(1) On which (a) regulations, (b) Acts and (c) provisions of the Acts he relies with regard to noise pollution by commercial aircrafts arriving and departing at major airports;

(2) whether his department is currently investigating instances of commercial airline noise pollution; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) what discretion is allowed to commercial (a) airlines and (b) pilots to deviate from prescriptions on noise pollution when arriving and departing at major airports?

NW3577E

________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

1. (a) Civil Aviation Regulations, 2011

(i) Civil Aviation Regulations, 2011, Part 36 Aircraft Noise Certification Standards

(ii) Civil Aviation Regulations, 2011, Part 91 Aircraft General Operating and Flight Rules

(iii) Civil Aviation Regulations, Part 139 Aerodromes and Helicopters

(b) Civil Aviation Act, 2009 (Act No. 13 of 2009)

(c) Civil Aviation Act, Act No. 13 of 2009 has the following provisions:

CHAPTER 14; REGULATIONS; PART 1; Regulations

155. (1) The Minister may make regulations regarding-

x) the regulation, requirements, standards, time tables and procedures

with regard to the managed approach to the phasing out of aircraft

based on aviation safety and environmental considerations, as

guided by the applicable International Conventions and Resolutions

of the General Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization;

y) the calculation of aircraft noise contours and the monitoring of aircraft noise

2. Department of Transport is currently not investigating any instance of commercial airline noise pollution.

Part 139 of the Civil Aviation Regulations, 2011, requires that aerodrome operators report violations to the Director of Civil Aviation, and no such reports have been received. However, in line with the International Civil Aviation Organization's 37th Assembly Resolution and the Civil Aviation Act (Act No. 13 of 2009), Department Transport is working with stakeholders to prepare for the restriction and phasing out of noisy subsonic jet aircraft which were certified prior to 6 October 1977, to further mitigate the impact of aircraft noise.

3. South African Civil Aviation Regulations of 2011, states:

Noise abatement procedures

Civil Aviation Regulations, 2011, Part 91.07.16 states that "no person shall operate an aircraft contrary to the noise abatement procedures established for an aerodrome.

Except in the case of an emergency, airlines and pilots are not allowed to exercise any discretion with regards to deviation from the prescribed procedure.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 2857

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 20 NOVEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: WEDNESDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2012 - INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 34 – 2012)

Mr D J Maynier (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether the South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) received any applications for export certificates of airworthiness for Class I Products (Form CA 21-11) in (a) 2009, (b) 2010, (c) 2011 and (d) 2012; if not, why not; if so, in respect of each specified application in each specified year, (i) what is the (aa) name and address of the exporter, (bb) name and address of the foreign purchaser, (cc) country of destination and (ii) what is the (aa) type and (bb) model of the (aaa) aircraft, (bbb) engine and (ccc) propeller and (iii) on what date was the application (aa) received, (bb) approved or (cc) denied;

(2) whether the SACAA received any applications for export certificates of airworthiness for Class II Products (Form CA 21-11) in (a) 2009, (b) 2010, (c) 2011 and (d) 2012; if not, why not; if so, in respect of each specified application in each specified year, (i) what is the (aa) name and address of the exporter, (bb) name and address of the foreign purchaser, (cc) country of destination and (ii) what (aa) is the part name (bb) was the quantity of parts and (cc) parts are eligible for installation and (iii) when was the application (aa) approved or (bb) denied?

NW3530E

___________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

1. Yes, the South African Civil Aviation Authority has received application for the export of certificates of airworthiness for Class I Products as required in the filling of the CAA form, CA 21-11 in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.

2. In respect of the Class II Products as required in the filling of the South African Civil Aviation Authority form CA 21-11 for the year 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 no such applications were received by such since they relate to the sub-assembly Components of the Aircraft.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 2828

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 12 NOVEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 12 OCTOBER 2012 - INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 32 – 2012)

Mr G R Krumbock (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether Civil Aviation Authority has grounded the two helicopters that were allegedly involved in rhino poaching case against a certain person (name furnished); if not, why not; if so, when;

(2) whether the flight folios have been handed over to the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (Hawks); if not, why not; if so, when;

(3) whether the flight folio contain necessary information about which pilots were involved; if not, why not; if so, which pilots were implicated?

NW3485E

________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

(1) The Accident and Incident Investigation Department (AIID) of the South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) has not grounded the two helicopters. The accident helicopter was severely damaged during the accident and the other helicopter came in to pick up the pilot who was involved in the accident. The Police present at the scene did not indicate any need for the grounding of the helicopters and there was, therefore, no reason for AIID to request SACAA to ground both helicopters.

(2) AIID conducts its investigations in compliance with ANNEX 13 under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, 1944 (Chicago Convention), as contained in the Civil Aviation Act 2009 (Act No. 13 of 2009). The main objective of AIID or the sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident is to prevent the reoccurrence of similar accidents and incidents in future. It is not the purpose or within the authority of AIID and SACAA to apportion blame or liability. The AIID records have, therefore, not been handed over to the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation of the South African Police Services.

(3) As indicated in the reply to question (2) above, the investigations of AIID and the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation are conducted independently. It is therefore recommended that this question be directed to the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation of the South African Police Services as they will be able to deal with the matter relating to, and to answer the criminal aspect of the questions asked.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 2820

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 20 NOVEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 12 OCTOBER 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 32 – 2012)

Mr T W Coetzee (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

What was the average number of days taken to fully discharge a ship of its containers in the Durban harbour (a) in the (i) 2010-11 and (ii) 2011-12 financial years and (b) during the period 1 April 2012 up to the latest specified date for which information is available?

NW3476E

_________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

(a) (i) 1.5 days (See Appendix A for analysis).

(a) (ii) 2 days (See Appendix A for analysis).

(b) 1.8 days (information provided on 30 September 2012) (See Appendix A for analysis).

In interpreting the response to this question the following should be noted:

· The statistics on performance are influenced by vessel types, call sizes, etc. which impact on the number of cranes that can be deployed.

· Due to cost pressures, the industry has witnessed an increase in a) vessel sizes, i.e. capacity increase and b) call sizes due to increased partnership between shipping lines where we see consolidation of ship calls, which increases the size of the calls

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 2819

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 12 NOVEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 12 OCTOBER 2012 - INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 32 – 2012)

Mr G R Krumbock, (DA) MP asked the Minister of Transport:

What were the findings of the Civil Aviation Authority's investigation into the crash of the Augusta 119 helicopter in May 2012?

NW3475E ___________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

1. The accident in question is still under investigation with the Accident and Incident Investigation Division (AIID) within the South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA).

2. According to available information the accident occurred on Thursday, 17 May 2012, at approximately 11h15, on the farm "Norris" in the Kuruman district in the Northern Cape Province. The farm owner, Mr J.J. Olivier, was not aware of the helicopter on his property until the morning of 19 May 2012 when he was informed by the SA Polices Service of the occurrence.

3. Two Accident Investigators dispatched to the scene on Sunday morning, 20 May 2012. On arrival the AIID team was met by approximately twenty (20) SAPS officials. They were from the Severn as well as Kuruman police stations as well as officials from Organised Crime Unit in Kimberley and Endangered species.

4. The wreckage was found to be covered with tree branches. During an interview with the pilot/owner he indicated that he did cover the wreckage because he was concerned that people might tampered with the wreckage and steal equipment from it.

5. The helicopter was recovered later the week by truck and was taken to a hangar at Wonder boom Aerodrome, where several test were conducted on Friday, 25 May 2012. During the tests it was noted that a discrepancy existed between the amount of fuel in the tanks and the amount indicated by the fuel gauges.

6. AIID is awaiting finalization of the tests on both the engine and the fuel gauges and is not in a position to conclude the case without these results.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 2800

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 15 NOVEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 12 OCTOBER 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 32 – 2012)

Mr I M Ollis (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

(1) Why (a) were the routes of the Integrated Public Transport System (IPTS ) in the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality changed recently and (b) have new routes been implemented that were not part of the original design;

(2) whether these routes will be incorporated into the future routes of the IPTS; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether these routes will remain temporarily; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, why are they being implemented?

NW3453E

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

(1) (a) & (b)

The original IPTS routes were reviewed due to the reduced scope of the Pilot phase which comprises 25 vehicles only. Input was received from various stakeholders, councillors and communities. Some concerns raised included but are not limited to: safety, suitability of the facilities and vehicles, impact on existing operators, funding availability and operating licence requirements.

Revised routes were identified jointly by the municipality; Algoa Bus Company and Taxi Operators and were approved by the Municipal Council in August 2012. These routes form part of the original design of the full IPTS but are being packaged differently due to the reduced scope of the Pilot phase. Final approval of the business plan for the Pilot phase will be obtained from the national DoT.

(2) Yes, the revised routes form part of the future full IPTS, starting in the CBD and moving outward on Govan Mbeki Avenue which forms the spine of the IPTS

(3) The revised routes will be fully integrated into the full IPTS as it is phased in over the next 5 years subject to funding availability.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 2797

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 28 NOVEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 12 OCTOBER 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 27 – 2012)

Mr T W Coetzee (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) How many incidents of cable theft have been reported in the Koppies area of the Ngwathe Municipality in the (a) 2009-10, (b) 2010-11, (c) 2011-12 and (d) 2012-13 financial years up to the latest date for which information is currently available;

(2) for each incident, (a) on which date did it take place and (b) what are the (i) relevant details of the incident and (ii) costs involved to (aa) replace and/or (bb) repair the damaged equipment;

(3) whether any of these incidents lead to power outages; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (a) which incidents and (b) for how long was the power out in each case;

(4) whether the department has taken any action to prevent (a) cable theft and (b) theft of other related equipment in the Koppies area; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW3449E

________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

(1) The Minister of Transport is the sole shareholder of the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) in terms of the Legal Succession to the South African Transport Services Act, as amended (Act No. 38 of 2008).

PRASA owns commuter rail infrastructure in Cape Town, eThekwini, Tshwane and Johannesburg metropolitan areas. The remaining rail network is owned by Transnet that reports to the Department of Public Enterprises. Although Shosholoza Meyl, PRASA's main line passenger service provider owns intermediate stations along major inter-city passenger corridors, PRASA does not own any rail infrastructure (track and signaling systems) in the Free State.

Incidents of cable theft in the Koppies area of the Ngwathe Municipality would therefore be under the jurisdiction of Transnet as infrastructure owner.

(2) Falls away

(3) Falls away

(4) Falls away

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 2759

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 13 NOVEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 12 OCTOBER 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 32 – 2012)

Mr P D Mbhele, (COPE) asked the Minister of Transport:

Whether any action was taken against officials in his department who violated the Public Finance Management Act, Act 1 of 1999, in the 2011-12 financial year; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW3405E

______________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

Action was taken against officials in the department who violated the Public Finance Management Act, Act 1 of 1999, in the 2011-2012 financial year.

Relevant details are as follows:

Written warnings were issued against officials as listed below:

Date of written warning

Details of the Violation

15 November 2011

Procurement of a laptop bag without the invitation of competitive quotations

15 November 2011

Appointment of a service provider to establish a National Call Centre for the 2010 Soccer World Cup without following procurement procedures

29 November 2011

Appointment of a consultant to proceed with work after the contract expired without inviting competitive bids

02 December 2011

Appointment of a service provider that quoted the lowest price instead of appointing the service provider that scored the highest points

02 December 2011

Extending a contract with a service provider to replace and upgrade equipment at various sites without following procurement procedures

03 December 2011

(Two written warnings)

Accepting a quotation without having a valid tax clearance certificate on file

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO. 2723

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 01 OCTOBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 31 SEPTEMBER 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 31 – 2012)

Mr N J van den Berg (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

Whether his department has awarded any contracts to a certain company (name furnished) since its establishment in 1996; if so, in each case, (a) when was the contract awarded and (b) what was the (i) nature of the contract and (ii) the total accumulative value of the tender? NW3341E

__________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport

The department has not awarded any contracts to a certain company (name furnished) since its establishment in 1996.

(a) Falls away

(b)(i) and (ii) Falls away

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO 2650

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 19 OCTOBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: WEDNESDAY, 19 SEPTEMBER 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 31 – 2012)

Mr I M Ollis (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

(1) With reference to the incident at the Carousel Toll Plaza, why was the emergency vehicle forced to wait in the queue to pay the toll fees when the patient inside was battling for his life;

(2) whether he intends to launch a full investigation of the extent of the incident; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether he intends to take steps to (a) engage all toll road companies and (b) look at legislation pertaining to this in an effort to ensure that emergency services are exempt from toll fees; if not, why not, in each case; if so, in each case, what are the relevant details? NW3267E

_________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport

(1) A statement received from the paramedic did not indicate that the vehicle was

forced to wait. It appears that the paramedic did not know that an ambulance would get preference to drive through in an emergency situation. Therefore he followed the line and according to his statement took 2 to 3 minutes to pass through.

(2) No, there are no intentions to launch a full investigation of the extent of the incident.

The relevant details are:- the toll road provided a fast and effective travel from the incident site north of Hammanskraal to the Montana hospital [a distance of nearly 50 km] in just 30 minutes. The ambulance went through Carousel Toll Plaza and Pumulani plaza. The paramedic's statement never mentioned any delay.

(3) In terms of section 27 of The South African National Roads Agency Limited and National Roads Act provision is made for the granting of exemption of vehicles of a specific category from not paying toll. The current guidelines adopted by toll plaza's is to allow passage through a toll gate for emergency vehicles if such a vehicle is driven in an emergency situation.

(3)(a) falls away

(3)(b) falls away

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 2615

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 14 NOVEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 21 SEPTEMBER 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 31 – 2012)

Mrs J D Kilian (Cope) to ask the Minister of Transport:

(1) (a) What progress has been made with regard to the extended infrastructure expansion programme announced by the President in his state of the nation address on 9 February 2012, in respect of projects specifically launched in terms of the programme that have so far been commenced by or under supervision of his department, (b) what is the nature of each project and (c) in which province is each project located;

(2) what is the current status of each project in respect of the (a) date when (i) specifications and (ii) tender documents were published, (b) number of tenders received, (c) date on which the tender was accepted, (d) rand value of the contract, (e) name of the successful tenderers and (f) projected completion date? NW3225E

_________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport

(1) The following mega projects are being implemented and overseen by Rail Transport branch;

a. Moloto Development Corridor Feasibility Study

b. Rolling Stock Acquisition Programme

MOLOTO DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR

(1) (b) Nature of the Project: Feasibility Study of a transport development Corridor

(c) Project Location: The province of origin is Mpumalanga but the project cuts across three provinces, i.e. Gauteng, Limpopo and Mpumalanga

(2) (a) (i) & (ii): The tender specifications and tender documents were published on 2012.

(b) A total number of ten (10) proposals were received.

(c) The preferred tender was accepted by the Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC) on

30th of August 2012

(d) The Rand value of the contract is: R10, 156,998.72

(e) The name of the successful tenderer is Vela VKE, Deloitte and DLA Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr Consortium

(f) The projected completion date is 30 April 2014

ROLLING STOCK RENEWAL PROGRAMME

(1) (b) Nature of the Project: After years of lack of investment in new rolling stock, the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) has embarked on a process for the acquisition of a whole fleet of new rolling stock over the next 20 years. The intention is that a total of 7224 new vehicles will be acquired.

(c) The new trains will be deployed in Gauteng, the Western Cape, the Eastern Cape and Kwa-Zulu Natal.

(2) (a) (i) & (ii). The tender specifications and tender documents (Request for Proposals)

were published on 24 April 2012.

(b) No tenders have been received yet, as the bid submission date is 30 September 2012. Only then will it be known how many tenders have been received.

(c) The programme makes provision for the preferred bidder to be announced on December 2012, with Financial Close, signature and effective date of the Manufacture and Supply Agreement (MSA) not later than June 2013.

(d) The financial implications will become known when the tenders are received.

(e) The name of the successful bidder will be known finally in June 2013 formalities have been completed.

(f) The completion date of this contract will be 2024/25.

(1) The following mega projects are being implemented and overseen by Public Transport branch;

(1)(a) The DoT is the national transferring officer for the Public Transport Infrastructure and Systems Grant (a municipal conditional grant as reflected in the Division of Revenue Act). The PTIS Grant is funding the implementation of Integrated Rapid Public Transport Networks in up to 12 cities in terms of the 2007 Public Transport Strategy and in terms of the SIP 7 programme of the Presidential Infrastructure Co-ordinating Commission. In the 2012 MTEF period that spans 3 years until 2014/15, over R16bn has been allocated to implementing IRPTN services, with a focus on six of the twelve cities that are most advanced in their preparations.

So far the cities of Johannesburg and Cape Town are operating initial services (Rea Vaya and My CiTi BRT systems) that fall under the SIP 7 programme. These initial services will be expanded over the course of the next year so that by the end of 2013 it is predicted that Rea Vaya and My CiTi will both carry over 100 000 passenger trips per typical weekday.

There are four other cities (Nelson Mandela Bay, eThekwini, Rustenburg and Tshwane) that have completed operations planning and will be commencing construction and/or pilot operations in the 2012/13 year.

It is envisaged that by 2015/16, the above 6 cities will be operating Phase 1 services to the public.

(1)(b) The Integrated Rapid Public Transport Network project that falls under the PICC's SIP 7 programme, essentially involve the implementation of integrated road-based public transport systems in the 6 cities above which include dedicated bus ways, new trunk and feeder vehicles fleets, enhanced municipal capacity to plan, manage, contract and monitor services under contract, new stations, stops, depots and terminals and a commitment to negotiating a meaningful stake with affected bus and minibus incumbent operators.

Phases 1a, b and c of the Rea Vaya system in Johannesburg will comprise over 60km of dedicated bus ways, over 400 vehicles, around 70 stations and 3 depots at a total cost of approximately R10 billion by 2016 (inclusive of infrastructure, vehicles, compensation to affected operators and operations).

Phase 1 of My CiTi in Cape Town comprises 27km of dedicated lanes, 37 stations, 600 stops, 3 depots and 250 vehicles at a total cost of under R5 billion by 2014.

eThekwini's Phase 1 system is 60km of dedicated bus lanes, 46 stations, 297 feeder stops, 6 Depots and 452km of conventional bus routes at a total cost of R8.5 billion by 2016.

Rustenburg's full system is 34km of dedicated busways, 32 stations and over 500 vehicles at a total cost of R5 billion.

Tshwane is planning a Phase 1 system of 50km of dedicated lanes and 250 vehicles at a total cost of R5 billion.

Nelson Mandela Bay is planning a full system of 5 contract areas with 25km of dedicated busways at a total cost of R5 billion by 2017.

(2) These IRPTN projects are implemented by municipalities and are complex multidisciplinary projects which comprise a multitude of contracts and services that are procured by a city over the project lifecyle. These include separate contracts for planning, infrastructure design, vehicle specifications, marketing, negotiations with affected operators, construction, maintenance, station management, security etc. The DoT as national transferring officer oversees implementation and monitors performance and sets relevant standards. Municipalities themselves are solely responsible for procurement in terms of relevant legislation and regulations.

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO 2585

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 11 DECEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: WEDNESDAY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2012 - INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 30 – 2012)

Mr I M Ollis (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

Whether any Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa's (a) officials, (b) immediate family members and (c) their companions travel (i) at discounted rates and/or (ii) free on the Premier Classe; if not, what is the position in this regard, in each case; if so, in each case, (aa) how many (aaa) discounted and (bbb) free trips were undertaken in the (aaaa) 2009-10, (bbbb) 2010-11 and (cccc) 2011-12 financial years, (bb) how much did these trips amount to, (cc) what are the names of the officials who undertook these trips, (dd) what is their job title and (ee) who accompanied them on these trips?

NW3193E

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

(a) Officials on business trips receive a full rebate

(b) Officials on private trips may receive a discounted rebate

Employee

Trip Information

(c) Companions of officials on private trips pay the full fare price

(aaaa) 2009/10 – R47 621

(bbbb) 2010/11 – R19 710

(cccc) 2011/12 – R27 016

(bb) answers provided above

(cc) see attached list for the names

(dd) see attached list for the job titles

(ee) information of companions not available

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 2561

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 14 NOVEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: WEDNESDAY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2012 - INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 30 – 2012)

Mr G R Krumbock (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

Whether any security breaches have been reported at any of the airports under the administration of the Airports Company of SA in the (a) 2009-10, (b) 2010-11 and (c) 2011-12 financial years; if so, what are the relevant details of each such breach at each airport in each financial year?

NW3168E

__________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

Details of security breaches that have been reported at the airports under the administration of the Airports Company of SA in the (a) 2009-10, (b) 2010-11 and (c) 2011-12 financial years, are as follows:

PERIOD:

NATURE OF SECURITY BREACHES:

NO. OF INCIDENTS

DETAILS:

(a)

2009 - 2010

Unlawful Access To Restricted Area

Bomb Threat

Screening Failure

7

(East London x 1; Bloemfontein x 1; Cape Town International x 4, and King Shaka International x1)

2

(OR Tambo International x1; Cape Town International x1)

10

(Bloemfontein x 2; OR Tambo International x 8)

Details were not recorded at the time

Details were not recorded at the time

Details were not recorded at the time

(b)

2010 - 2011

Unlawful Access To Restricted Area

Bomb Threat

Screening Failure

5

(Cape Town International x 3; OR Tambo International x 2)

5

(OR Tambo International x 2; Cape Town International x 1; King Shaka International x1, and Bloemfontein x 1)

3

(OR Tambo International x 2; Cape Town International x 1)

On 3 occasions culprits apprehended; on 1 occasion culprit absconded (possible attempted theft); on 1 occasion culprit absconded (theft of cable).

On each occasion area was swept and declared safe

ü Qatar - Magazine with 7 rounds found on passenger on arrival;

ü BA Passenger reported to flight attendant that she had a knife in her possession; and

ü BA/COMAIR - Ramp handler noticed a round had fallen from a passenger's bag. In total, 4 loose rounds were found.

(c)

2011 -2012

Unlawful Access To Restricted Area

Bomb Threat

Screening Failure

6

(OR Tambo International x 5; Cape Town International x 1)

4

(OR Tambo International x 1; Cape Town International x 2, and King Shaka International x1

3

((OR Tambo International x 2; Cape Town International x 1)

On 5 occasions culprit apprehended; one occasion stowaway (deceased on arrival)

On each occasion area was swept and declared safe

ü Loaded magazine found on sky check steps in baggage from a passenger from a neighbouring country;

ü Staff member entered airside with small knife

ü Nigeria reported that a passenger arrived with two air pistols, 10 bulletproof vests, and five knives. Other items found on him include uniforms, military combat caps, fez caps, walkie-talkies, tasers, knee pads, tear gas, head caps, chargers, batons and traffic bars. All equipment was in hold baggage and therefore not detected during screening as no explosives were involved.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 2559

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 14 NOVEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: WEDNESDAY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2012 - INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 30 – 2012)

Mr G R Krumbock (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

(1) When will the report on the investigation launched by the Civil Aviation Authority into the stowaway on the British Airways flight to London be finalized;

(2) Whether the report will be made public; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW3166E

___________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

(1) The onsite investigation by the South African Civil Aviation Authority's (SACAA) Aviation Security Department has been completed.

(2) Due to the sensitivity of the findings involving security measures, it is not practice to expose the detailed nature of the findings. Enhanced security recommendations have, however, been implemented in a fully committed approach to preventing a similar reoccurrence.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 2514

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 14 NOVEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: THURSDAY, 05 SEPTEMBER 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 30 – 2012)

Mr D A Kganare (Cope) to ask the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether there are any litigation cases pending against the State as a result of damages caused by pot holes in any province; if so,

(2) (a) in which provinces and (b) how much did each province pay as a result of these cases?

NW3014E

_________________________________________________________________________

3. THE REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

1 No,

However, please refer to the note and Table 1 below.

Note: As the honourable Mr D A Kganare is aware, the National Department of Transport is only responsible for National Roads and implements its mandate through the South African National Roads Agency Ltd (SANRAL), which was established in April 1998 by an Act of Parliament, namely The South African National Roads Agency Limited and National Roads Act 7 of 1998.

Being part of the construction environment, SANRAL follows world known processes and practices in the appointment of contractors/service providers, for the purposes to execute the construction, rehabilitation and maintenance of roads/infrastructural work on its behalf, including the Routine Road Maintenance (RRM) Contractors.

In terms of the appointment, the contractors are, responsible for the timeous repair of potholes and other defects. It is standard contractual practice that the contractor would indemnify SANRAL against any damages/claims arising due to performance of their assigned work.

Therefore, there are no claims against SANRAL or the Department of Transport. Nor has SANRAL or the Department of Transport incurred any legal cost, as the alleged claims remain the responsibility of the relevant appointed contractor. If a claimant would wrongfully submit their claim to SANRAL, it would be redirected to the rightful contractor/s working in a section of the road where the incident occurred.

In this regard a list of claims made by any claimant, against the contractor/s, where the alleged cause is because of poor road infrastructure is as follows:

Province

Number of Claims

Cost incurred by SANRAL

Claims referred to contractor-

Total claim value

Legal Cost incurred a Province

Kwa-Zulu Natal

6

Nil

Yes

R21 786.12

Nil

Free State

10

Nil

Yes

R85 973.39

Nil

Eastern Cape

8

Nil

Yes

R12 054.84

Nil

Gauteng

106

Nil

Yes

R536,616.01

Nil

Mpumalanga

35

Nil

Yes

R294,277.31

Nil

Limpopo

12

Nil

Yes

R25941.00

Nil

North West

18

Nil

Yes

R28,839.33

Nil

Western Cape

2

Nil

Yes

R25 051.50

Nil

Northern Cape

7

Nil

Yes

R114 826.69

Nil

Table 1: Total number of claims in each Province

Note: The Department of Transport does not have statistical information on claims where the alleged cause is because of poor road infrastructure. This information has to be requested directly from the Accounting Officer of any particular province by the Honourable Mr D A Kganare.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO 2502

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 16 OCTOBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: WEDNESDAY, 04 SEPTEMBER 2012 - INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 29 – 2012)

Mr M W Rabotapi (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether (a) his Ministry, (b) his department and (c) any entity reporting to him plan to host end-of-year parties; if not, why not, in each case; if so, in each case, (i) for how many people and (ii) at what cost;

(2) whether the cost of the specified end-of-year parties has been budgeted for in the current financial year; if not, from where will the funding be sourced; if so, (a) what amount has been budgeted and (b) from which part of the budget will it be incurred? NW3108E

____________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

Ministry of Transport:

(1)

(a)

The Ministry does not plan to host an end-of-year party, because the Ministry will participate if the Department hosts an end-of-year party.

(1)

(a) (i)

Falls away.

(1)

(a) (ii)

Falls away.

(2)

The Ministry did not budget for an end-of-year party.

(2)

(a)

Falls away.

(2)

(b)

Falls away.

Department of Transport:

(1)

(b)

The Department of Transport currently does not plan to host an end-of-year party, because it is not a necessity.

(1)

(b) (i)

Falls away.

(1)

(b) (ii)

Falls away.

(2)

The Department does not specifically budget for an end-of-year party. If an end-of-year function is held, the funding is sourced from the budget of the Office of the Director-General.

(2)

(a)

Falls away.

(2)

(b)

Falls away.

Air Traffic and Navigation Services Company Ltd. (ATNS):

(1)

(c)

The company plans to host a year-end function.

(1)

(c) (i)

A total of 100 staff members will be invited to attend the function.

(1)

(c) (ii)

The total cost is estimated to be R120 000

(2)

The cost of the function has been budgeted for.

(2)

(a)

R120 000

(2)

(b)

The budget will be incurred from the marketing budget as part of the social functions costs.

Airports Company of South Africa Ltd. (ACSA):

(1)

(c)

Airports Company South Africa SOC Limited (ACSA) will be holding year-end parties at the various business units.

(1)

(c) (i)

The total number of employees who will be attending these parties is approximately 2300.

(1)

(c) (ii)

The total cost of the parties will be R1,4 million.

(2)

The cost of the specified end-of-year parties has been budgeted for.

(2)

(a)

R1,4 million.

(2)

(b)

The cost has been budgeted for under the Communications and Brand Management Division's budget.

Cross Border Road Transport Agency (CBRTA):

(1)

(c)

The Cross-Border Road Transport Agency will host an end-of-year party.

(1)

(c) (i)

The end of year party will be hosted for two hundred and eighty six (286) employees.

(1)

(c) (ii)

The estimated cost is R250,000.

(2)

The cost of the specified end-of-year party has been budgeted for.

(2)

(a)

The amount that has been budgeted for is R250,000.

(2)

(b)

The amount for the end-of-year party will be incurred from the Employee Wellness budget.

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa Ltd. (PRASA):

(1)

(c)

The Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa Ltd. did not yet decide whether or not it will have end-of-year functions.

(1)

(c) (i)

Falls away.

(1)

(c) (ii)

Falls away.

(2)

The cost of corporate functions has been budgeted for.

(2)

(a)

The budget for corporate functions for the current financial year is R1,5 million.

(2)

(b)

Budget for corporate functions.

Ports Regulator of South Africa (PR):

(1)

(c)

The Ports Regulator of South Africa plans to host an end-of-year function.

(1)

(c) (i)

The function is planned for 21 people.

(1)

(c) (ii)

The cost is estimated at R6,500.

(2)

The cost of the specified end-of-year party was not budgeted for, and will be funded from savings in other areas.

(2)

(a)

No amount was budgeted for an end-of-year party.

(2)

(b)

The cost of the function will be funded from savings in other areas of current expenditure.

Railway Safety Regulator (RSR):

(1)

(c)

The Railway Safety Regulator does not plan to host an end-of-year party due to budgetary constraints.

(1)

(c) (i)

Falls away.

(1)

(c) (ii)

Falls away.

(2)

The cost of a specified end-of-year party has not been budgeted for.

(2)

(a)

Falls away.

(2)

(b)

Falls away.

Road Accident Fund (RAF):

(1)

(c)

The Road Accident Fund plans to host end-of-year parties for all staff members within the Fund.

(1)

(c) (i)

1,844 staff members

(1)

(c) (ii)

The cost will be R 971,788 at R 527 per staff member.

(2)

The cost of the end-of-year party was budgeted for in the current financial year 2012/13.

(2)

(a)

An amount of R971,788 was budgeted.

(2)

(b)

The cost will it be incurred from the budget allocation under Executive: Marketing, Communications & Stakeholder Relations.

Road Traffic Infringements Agency (RTIA):

(1)

(c)

The Road Traffic Infringement Agency does not plan to host an end of year party for 2012/13 period due to budgetary constraints.

(1)

(c) (i)

Falls away.

(1)

(c) (ii)

Falls away.

(2)

No amount was budgeted for an end-of-year party.

(2)

(a)

Falls away.

(2)

(b)

Falls away.

Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC):

(1)

(c)

The Road Traffic Management Corporation plans to host an end-of-year party.

(1)

(c) (i)

The anticipated number of people is 150.

(1)

(c) (ii)

The cost to the Corporation is R0, the staff will pay for the end of year party out of their pockets, a norm adopted by the Corporation on internal social gatherings due to the limited financial resources of the Corporation.

(2)

The cost of a specified end-of-year party has not been budgeted for.

(2)

(a)

Falls away.

(2)

(b)

Falls away.

South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA):

(1)

(c)

The South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) is planning to host a Year end function for staff members and their partners.

(1)

(c) (i)

The SACAA staff complement is 450 and the entity normally budget to host 600 guests including partners.

(1)

(c) (ii)

The estimated cost of the year end function is approximately R500 000 for a formal evening function.

(2)

The cost of the year end function has been budgeted for in the current financial year.

(2)

(a)

R600 000

(2)

(b)

The cost is budgeted under the Corporate Communications and Marketing departmental budget.

South African Maritime Safety Authority (SAMSA):

(1)

(c)

The South African Maritime Safety Authority plans to host end-of-year parties for its staff.

(1)

(c) (i)

190 Staff members.

(1)

(c) (ii)

The cost will be R114,000.

(2)

The cost of the specified end-of-year party was budgeted for.

(2)

(a)

R114,000

(2)

(b)

The cost was budgeted for under current expenditure.

South African National Roads Agency Ltd. (SANRAL):

(1)

(c)

SANRAL hosts award and recognition evenings to give recognition to its staff members for achievements and performance. These evenings are held at the end of the year so that it also serves as an end-of-year party.

(1)

(c) (i)

The event will cater for staff and their partners / spouses making it a family event catering for approximately 490 people.

(1)

(c) (ii)

The cost will be approximately R433,000 (inclusive of all associated costs).

(2)

The cost of a specified end-of-year party has been budgeted for.

(2)

(a)

The amount of R433,000 was budgeted for.

(2)

(b)

The amount was budgeted for from the overall budget of SANRAL.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO. 2479

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 01 OCTOBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: WEDNESDAY, 04 SEPTEMBER 2012 - INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 29 – 2012)

Mr G R Krumbock (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

Whether the contract for the re-branding of the South African Rail Commuter Corporation (SARCC) to the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa) went to tender; if not, why not; if so, (a) how many companies submitted bids for the tender, (b) which company were awarded the contract, (c) what was the total amount spent for this contract and (d) what are the further relevant details? NW3085E

___________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

The contract for the rebranding of SARCC to PRASA went out to tender.

(a) 7 (Seven) companies submitted bids for the tender

(b) The contract was awarded to The Brand Leadership Group

(c) The total value of the contract was R13, 426, 886.55

(d) The rebranding contract of PRASA included the trademark and copyrights of the brand, launch events inclusive of regions around the country, and rebranding of our buildings, stationary, new website and intranet.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO. 2478

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 01 OCTOBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: WEDNESDAY, 04 SEPTEMBER 2012 - INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 29 – 2012)

Mr I M Ollis (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

Whether the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa) paid any sponsorship fees for the 2010 Fifa World Cup Soccer tournament; if not, why not; if so, (a) who was directly sponsored, (b) how much did Prasa pay in sponsorship fees, (c) what was the total amount of fees paid by the agency and (d) what are the further relevant details?

NW3084E

__________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

PRASA did not pay sponsorship fees for the 2010 FIFA World Cup, but was designated "National Supporter" status by FIFA for the tournament and entered into a Value-In-Kind partnership for the provision of Rail and Bus transport services.

(a) (b) and (c) Falls away

(d) PRASA entered into this partnership with FIFA as explained above to fulfil Government's obligations and commitment of providing an efficient public transport service to ensure a successful tournament.

Reply received: December 2012

QUESTION NO 2470.

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 14 DECEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: WEDNESDAY, 04 SEPTEMBER 2012 - INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 29 – 2012)

Mr I M Ollis (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

Whether the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa) Group Chief Executive Officer has appointed any special advisor/s; if not, why not; if so, (a) what is the name of the advisor/s, (b) when was he/she appointed, (c) what does his/her duties entail, (d) what is the nature of his/her contract, (e) what is the term of the contract, (f) what is the total value of each contract referred to and (g) what are the further relevant details? NW3073E

_________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

(a) AR CHIMHANDA CONSULTING

(b) JANUARY 01 2011 to 31 December 2011

(c) (1) Advice the PRASA GCEO on the suitability or desirability of certain strategies identified by management aimed strengthening the financial position of PRASA

(2) Advice GCEO Office of Group Strategy and Integration point, with the underlying principle to realise a unified "Strategy and Integration Operation Model"

(3) Support and give input to Group Strategy Officer on approach and methods to reduce or minimise silos or bottlenecks that hinder realization of PRASA's Corporate Plan

(4) Work with the Chief Strategy Officer to develop strategy framework, controls, recommend processes, systems and tools to implement and monitor group integration initiatives

(5) Review monthly financial information/reports/statements and the financial performance of PRASA as a whole before the meetings of PRASA's executive committee and audit committee and advice the GCEO accordingly

(6) Evaluate the consolidated budget of PRASA and those of its businesses, identify risks and advise the GCEO on how budgets could best support and give effect to corporate strategy and how to mitigate identified risks in the budget

(7) Review information on the retirement funds and advice the GCEO accordingly

(8) Provide technical support and evaluate financial information to enable the GCEO and/or his office to make informed decisions on key financial matters affecting the business

(9) Undertake work or assignments or attend meetings as directed by the GCEO from time to time

(d) To undertake work as stated above

(e) JANUARY 01 2011 TO DECEMBER 31 2011

(f) R2 295 559,20

(g) No further relevant details

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 2437

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 13 NOVEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: WEDNESDAY, 04 SEPTEMBER 2012 - INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 29 – 2012)

Mr S B Farrow (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether there are any bilateral transport agreements with Australia which ensure an easy conversion of the K53 driving licence to the equivalent Australian driving licence; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) which other countries recognise the K53 driving licence;

(3) whether he has found that the K53 driving licence is recognised worldwide as of acceptable standard; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?

NW3037E

_________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport

(1) Currently, there is no bilateral agreement between South Africa and Australia regarding conversion of South African driving licences. However, when a South African citizen visits Australia his or her driving licence is accepted to drive with in Australia. However, when a South African wishes to convert their South African driving licence to an Australian driving licence they are first submitted to a road test. The Department is at present in consultation with the Australian authorities to have driving licences issued in South Africa recognised for conversion purposes in the Australian driving licence.

(2) South Africa is a signatory to both the Geneva and Vienna Conventions and all countries that are signatories to the Conventions recognise each other's driving licences for the purposes of driving of a motor vehicle in their respective countries. The recognition of driving licenses does not necessarily mean that those countries allow for the conversion of those driving licenses. Furthermore, signatories of the South African Development Community (SADC) Protocol also recognize South African driving licences.

(3) The contents of the South African driving test (K53) was explained and submitted to the Driving Standard Agency (DSA) of the United Kingdom by an official from the National Road Safety Council (NRSC), which was incorporated into the Department of Transport during an official visit in the early 1990's. It is believed that as a result of this action the United Kingdom changed their legislation to allow the conversion of South African driving licences to that of British licences

The Department has not been in a position to verify the standard of testing with other countries, however towards the end of 1990 or early 2000 the Dutch government visited South-Africa and evaluated the South African driving test (K53) and in principle accepted the standard of the test, however, expressed reservations in terms of the duration of the road test. They indicated that in the Netherlands the duration of their road test is considerably more than South Africa's minimum of 20 minutes. This would appear to be similar with a heavy motor vehicle licence in the UK where the duration of the road test is up to 60 minutes compared to our minimum of 20 minutes.

The K53 test is based on a system applied in the United Kingdom known as the System of Car Control, which originated after the Second World War and was used by the British police as a standard of driver training. Our system is the same, but is known as the System of Vehicle Control which is the same as the British system. The system is a procedure or set of components that a driver must consider, in sequence when approaching an intersection or a hazard.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO 2377

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 04 OCTOBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: TUESDAY, 28 AUGUST 2012 - INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 28 – 2012)

Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

(1) Why did the Airports Company of SA (ACSA) request a certain company (name furnished) to remove a billboard promoting a campaign against the international trade in lion bones from OR Tambo Airport;

(2) what is the (a) name and (b) designation of the employee of ACSA who issued the request to the said company;

(3) whether any complaints about the billboard were received from members of the public; if so, (a) how many and (b) what was the nature of the complaints;

(4) whether any of the complaints were from political parties or government departments; if so, (a) from which (i) political parties and (ii) government departments and (b) what are the further relevant details?

NW2959E

__________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

(1) ACSA received a verbal complaint from a member of the public to the effect that the complainant found the said advertisement objectionable. The ACSA Executives, after due consideration of the complaint in the context of the contents of the advertisement, requested the advertising manager to have the advertisement removed on the grounds that the content was objectionable, inappropriate and could possibly offend certain passengers.

(2) (a) and (b)

When ACSA received the verbal complaint, it was escalated to the relevant Executives at ACSA. The ACSA Executives then exercised their minds collectively and reached the decision to request the advertising manager to have the advertisement removed. The request for the removal of the advertisement was an ACSA decision based on the complaint received and as such was not decided on or actioned by an individual at ACSA.

(3) (a) and (b)

One verbal complaint was received from a member of the public, who indicated that they found the advertisement objectionable.

(4) (a) (i) (ii) and (b)

ACSA did not receive any complaints from either political parties or Government Departments.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO. 2356

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 01 OCTOBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: TUESDAY, 28 AUGUST 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 28 – 2012)

Mr J F Smalle (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether his department has imported any bitumen (a) in the (i) 2009-10, (ii) 2010-11 and (iii) 2011-12 financial years and (b) since 1 April 2012; if not, why not; if so, for each year, (aa) from where, (bb) at what cost and (cc) what quantity of bitumen was imported;

(2) whether his department has a supply chain management plan for bitumen in place to complement the National Infrastructure Build Programme; if not, what steps does he intend taking to deal with this situation; if so, what are the relevant details? NW2937E

___________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport

All maintenance and construction work performed by the South African National Roads Agency SOC Ltd, are done by private sector contractors. Based on the contractual arrangements between the parties, the responsibility for procurement of bitumen are with the contractor, as a result the Department of Transport through SANRAL, is not directly involved with bitumen imports and supply.

1. Falls away.

2. Yes.

The relevant details are:

Due to the strategic importance of the product, the Department of Transport and SANRAL has had numerous engagements with Industry, Department of Energy and National Treasury over the last 2 years in an attempt to stabilised the supply of bitumen. A working committee on bitumen supply has been established with the South African Civil Engineering Contractors (SAFCEC) and the South African Bitumen and Tar Association (SABITA).

Some outcomes of the above engagements include:

i. An application was lodged by industry with the International Trade Administration Commission (ITAC) for creation of a rebate for the current 10% customs duty on imported bitumen, as this should lower cost of imported bitumen. Notice 653 of 2012 was Gazetted on 17 August 2012 by ITAC for comments on the above-mentioned industry application and this request by industry has been supported by the Department of Transport.

ii.SANRAL initiated a research project with regard to modifying bitumen properties to enable the use of bitumen during the winter period April to August on low volume roads. Three experimental sections were constructed during past winter months and if successful, this should contribute towards smoothing out bitumen demand during the year.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO. 2351

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 01 OCTOBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: TUESDAY, 28 AUGUST 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 28 – 2012)

Mr A P Van Der Westhuizen (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

Whether the SA National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL), (a) laid any criminal charges with the SA Police Service (SAPS) regarding malicious damage to (i) roads and (ii) infrastructure in the past year and (b) assisted the SAPS to apprehend vandals; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW2932E

_________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport

(a) (i) and (ii) YES

(b) YES

The relevant details are listed in Table 1 below. Note, the cases are still ongoing and yet to be resolved.

Province

Route

Date of Incident

Type of damage

Case Reported to SAPS

Mpumalanga

N2/ Section4

February 2012

Two Mining companies Usutu Colliery and Mashala Resources for stockpiling removed top soil in an unrestricted area along the N2/34, causing damage to the road fence and preventing natural drainage of stormwater

Yes

Gauteng

N1 Botha Avenue

December 2011

Cable vandalised and vandals arrested with assistance of the security personnel.

Yes

Gauteng

N1Rand Airport

March 2011

Cables vandalised and vandals arrested, with assistance of the security personnel

Yes

Gauteng

N1 Braakfontein

July 2012

Cables vandalised and vandals arrested with assistance of the security personnel.

Yes

Kwazulu-Natal

N11 Section 2/R301 Interchange Bridge

April 2012

Damage to the Interchange Bridge due to the vehicle exceeding the maximum permissible height

Yes

Kwazulu-Natal

N2 Section 25 Km8 abandoned Eendrag Pedestrian

November 2011

The truck owned by Supermine and Civil Construction cc caused the damage to the pedestrian bridge and the driver detained for negligent and reckless driving

Yes

Western Cape

N7

March 2012

Vandals caught by the Route Manager attempting to steal the fence

Yes

Western Cape

N7

August 2012

Vandals caught by the Route Manager attempting to steal the fence

Yes

Table 1: Summary of Incidents with related Criminal Charges

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 2317

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 13 NOVEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 24 AUGUST 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 27 – 2012)

Mr S Esau (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport

(a) What steps has he taken to give effect to the performance agreement that he signed with the President in 2010, (b) what outcomes have been measured and (c) what follow-up steps has he taken with regard to each specified outcome?

NW2872E

_________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport

(a) The Performance Agreement between the Minister of Transport and the President was signed in October 2010.

Performance is measured as per set outputs per delivery area on a quarterly basis.

The outputs are clustered per delivery sector namely;

i. Transport,

ii. Communications,

iii. Energy,

iv. Public Enterprises and,

v. Water Affairs,

(b) The following outcomes (outputs) have been measured in the transport sector and form the core delivery areas as outlined in the Department of Transport Strategic Plan 2011-2013.

Service Delivery Agreement: Infrastructure Development Cluster (IDC﴿ - Outputs are:

1. Improved competition and regulation.

2. Reliable generation, distribution and transmission of energy.

3. To ensure the maintenance and strategic expansion of our road and rail network, and the operation efficiency, capacity and competitiveness of our sea ports and rail.

4. Maintenance and supply availability of our bulk water infrastructure.

5. Information and communication technology.

Department of Transport- In order to implement the strategic objectives of the Department, the following six (6﴿ outcomes were identified:

1. An efficient and integrated transport infrastructure network for social and economic development;

2. A transport sector that is safe and secure;

3. Improved rural access, infrastructure and mobility;

4. Improved rural transport systems;

5. Increased contribution to job creation; and

6. Increased contribution of transport to environmental sustainability.

Outcomes were measured and documented as per audited Annual Report 2010/2011 (report available on the Departmental website and distributed to Parliament﴿.

(c﴿ Follow up steps taken include:

Revision of the Ministerial Service Delivery Agreement in order to ensure that targets are properly outlined and aligned, and to factor into the Agreement the work of the Presidential Infrastructure Coordinating Commission (PICC﴿

The Infrastructure Development Cluster (IDC﴿ is leading the process of review and envisages having a revised agreement signed off by the Minister not later than February 2013.

Reply received: September 2012

QUESTION NO 2167

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 17 SEPTEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: WEDNESDAY, 15 AUGUST 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 25 – 2012)

Mr S Esau (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport

Whether (a) his department or (b) any entity reporting to him makes use of private security firms; if so, in each case, (i) which firms and (ii) what is the (aa) purpose, (bb) value and (cc) duration of each specified contract? NW2684E

___________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport

The following abbreviations were used to identify the various entities that responded to the questions:

DOT

Department of Transport

ATNS

Air Traffic and Navigation Services Company Ltd.

ACSA

Airports Company of South Africa Ltd.

CBRTA

Cross Border Road Transport Agency

PRASA

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa Ltd.

PR

Ports Regulator of South Africa

RSR

Railway Safety Regulator

RAF

Road Accident Fund

RTIA

Road Traffic Infringements Agency

RTMC

Road Traffic Management Corporation

SACAA

South African Civil Aviation Authority

SAMSA

South African Maritime Safety Authority

SANRAL

South African National Roads Agency Ltd.

Entity

(a); (b)

(i)

(ii)(aa)

(ii)(bb)

(ii)(bb)

(ii)(cc)

Names of firms

Purpose

Value

Value

Duration

DOT

Yes

Eldna Security Services CC

Physical security and access control

R 1,872,000

Total value

2 years

ATNS

Yes

Fidelity Security Guards

Monitoring access by all visitors; guarding the building after working hours and patrolling the parking areas

R 19,562

Per month

1 year

ACSA

Yes

Reshibile Aviation Protection Services

To assure the protection and safety of passengers, crew, ground personnel, the general public, aircraft and facilities

R 3,471,118

Per month

3 years

G4S

R 3,180,674

Per month

3 years

Bosasa Security Services

R 7,148,164

Per month

3 years

CBRTA

Yes

Urban Protection Services

Provide physical security and access control for the premises

R 12,540

Per month

2 years

PRASA

Yes

Gauteng:

Vusa-Isiswe Security Services

General Security Protection Services

R 29,932,524

Total value

12 months

Royal Security

General Security Protection Services

R 44,538,660

Total value

12 months

Vimtsire Protection Services

General Security Protection Services

R 14,441,976

Total value

12 months

Hlanganani Protection Services

General Security Protection Services

R 14,548,680

Total value

12 months

Sinqobile Equestrian Services

General Security Protection Services

R 17,790,840

Total value

12 months

Changing Tides

General Security Protection Services

R 15,488,496

Total value

12 months

Futuris Guarding Systems

General Security Protection Services

R 6,279,120

Total value

12 months

R1 Security

General Security Protection Services

R 18,468,000

Total value

12 months

Enlightened Security

General Security Protection Services

R 46,185,848

Total value

12 months

Afri-Guard

General Security Protection Services

R 5,441,904

Total value

12 months

Scheme Security

General Security Protection Services

R 2,565,000

Total value

12 months

World Watch Security

General Security Protection Services

R 7,489,800

Total value

12 months

Advanced Detacthment

General Security Protection Services

R 6,874,200

Total value

12 months

Western Cape:

Supreme Operations

General Security Protection Services

R 17,400,000

Total value

12 months

Comwezi

General Security Protection Services

R 6,209,160

Total value

12 months

Chippa

General Security Protection Services

R 13,920,000

Total value

12 months

Sechaba

General Security Protection Services

R 15,660,000

Total value

12 months

Chuma

General Security Protection Services

R 1,914,000

Total value

12 months

Illiso

General Security Protection Services

R 17,400,000

Total value

12 months

Kwa-Zulu Natal:

Ilanga Security

General Security Protection Services

R 15,688,664

Total value

12 months

Security International

General Security Protection Services

R 7,990,980

Total value

12 months

Ibhubesi Security

General Security Protection Services

R 10,597,430

Total value

12 months

Eastern Cape:

General Security Protection Services

Enlightened Security

General Security Protection Services

R 9,116,352

Total value

12 months

PR

No

N/a

N/a

N/a

N/a

N/a

RSR

No

N/a

N/a

N/a

N/a

N/a

RAF

Yes

Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd

Render a physical security service (guarding and access control) that provides protection of staff, clients, assets and information of the Fund

R 7,666,000

Total value

18 months

RTIA

No

N/a

N/a

N/a

N/a

N/a

RTMC

Yes

VIMBA Security

To safeguard state assets and employees

R 1,500,000

Total value

3 years and 8 months

SACAA

Yes

Hlanganani Protection Services (Pty) Ltd.

Guarding and physical security

R 3,335,768

Total value

24 months

SAMSA

Yes

ADT/Kusela Security Solutions and Chubb Security Services

Render guarding services 24 hours per day and monitoring the alarm and armed response systems

R 468,780

Per month

1 year

Atlas Security and ADT

R 7,310

Per month

1 year

Chubb Security Services

R 4,560

Per month

1 year

Brakkenjan Security Services

R 3,840

Per month

1 year

SANRAL

Yes

Camo

Monitoring and Demoliton of Illegal Structures & Security

R 68,200

Per month

Monthly contract

Chubb Security

Armed Response

R 2,534

Per month

Monthly contract

Craig Hartung

Property Security

R 19,000

Per month

Monthly contract

Dyncorp Security Solutions

Property Security

R 8,570

Per month

Monthly contract

Imvusa Security Services

Property Security

R 28,380

Per month

Monthly contract

JD Louw t/a AJA Informal Housing Services

Monitoring and Demoliton of Illegal Structures & Security

R 79,182

Per month

Monthly contract

Khuselani Security

Property Security

R 10,023

Per month

Monthly contract

Lugaja Security Services

Monitoring and Demoliton of Illegal Structures & Security

R 11,270

Per month

Monthly contract

Majalamba Security

Property Security

R 28,580

Per month

Monthly contract

Makjus Security Services

Property Security

R 101,959

Per month

Monthly contract

Makjus Trading Enterprise

Property Security

R 27,540

Per month

Monthly contract

Masiqhame Trading 586 cc

Monitoring and Demoliton of Illegal Structures & Security

R 52,849

Per month

Monthly contract

Nceda Cleaning & Security Services

Property Security

R 100,263

Per month

Monthly contract

Phuthadichaba Trading Enterprise

Property Security

R 28,094

Per month

Monthly contract

Servest Group

Property Security

R 55,546

Per month

4 months

Sikhusele Security Services CC

Property Security

R 72,082

Per month

11 months

SJC Guarding

Property Security

R 46,150

Per month

1 month

Reply received: September 2012

QUESTION NO 2138

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 14 SEPTEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 17 AUGUST 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 25 – 2012)

Mr I M Ollis (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether he has been informed of the (a) discrepancy between the various contract escalation formulate and (b) actual percentage escalation in the commuter bus industry allowed in terms of the Division of Revenue Act, Act 5 of 2012; if not, why not; if so, what (a) are the (i) percentage differences and (ii) actual financial impact on bus companies in the (aa) 2009-10, (bb) 2010-11 and (cc) 2011-12 financial years;

(2) (a) what was the impact on the commuter bus industry and (b) how has it affected (i) service delivery to commuters and (ii) the safety of commuters;

(3) whether he allowed an expansion of subsidized commuter contract bus services funded by his department via the provinces; if not, (i) why not and (ii) how long has the moratorium on the expansion of commuter contract bus service been in place; if so, when was the bus service expanded;

(4) whether he has any plans in place to overcome the challenges of the financial sustainability of the commuter bus industry; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details of the plans in the short term? NW2658E

____________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport

1. (a) Yes. There is a total of 110bus contracts of different types in the country (interim contracts, tendered contracts and negotiated contracts), each with its own escalation formula based on the bus industry's key cost drivers ie. fuel, labour and CPI.

(b) Yes. Operators are paid subsidies in terms of a Public Transport Operations Grant (PTOG), which is a supplementary grant received by the Department of Transport from National Treasury and paid over in full to provinces as prescribed in the Division of Revenue Act. The grant baseline is increased annually by National Treasury and the increase for 2012/13 is 3.95%.

(i) The percentage difference between the PTOG baseline increase and the contract escalations will differ from province to province since some of the contracts were amended in 2009 when the PTOG was introduced.

(ii)Bus companies would be in a better position to provide the actual financial impact of the discrepancy over the different financial years since the impact would again differ from operator to operator and from province to province.

(aa) See (a)(ii) above

(bb) See (a)(ii) above

(cc)See (a)(ii) above

2. (a)The impact on the commuter bus industry is not known since it would differ from province to province as per (i) above and also from operator to operator as per (ii) above.

(b)(i)The effect on service delivery will differ and is not known. See (a) above

(b)(ii)The effect on safety to commuter will differ and is not known See (a) above

3. (i) Subsidised bus contracts are funded through PTOG, which is a supplementary grant to provinces, and therefore expansion of services would depend entirely on the province's ability to afford, over and above what the grant provides.

(ii) A moratorium was put in place in 2001 but was subsequently lifted following the amendments to the National Land Transport Transition Act (Act 31 of 2001). Provinces that could afford to expand services are allowed to proceed, bearing in mind that currently the PTOG is a supplementary grant to what provinces may have allocated for subsidies.

4. In the short term, the Department is finalising a Public Transport Transformation Plan that will focus on immediate and viable intervention options to make a business case for the replacement of current subsidised bus contracts that are being extended on a short term or monthly basis. This plan is being developed jointly with provinces and will assist in petitioning additional funds from the National Treasury in order to allow the necessary interventions.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 2137.

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 28 NOVEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: WEDNESDAY, 15 AUGUST 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 25 – 2012)

Mr I M Ollis (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether the Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC) is currently working on a draft road safety strategy; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) what measures have been put in place to avoid (a) duplication of the work done in compiling the 2010 strategy that was based on the Decade of Action discussions in Geneva, with specific reference to consultation (i) in all provinces and (ii) with all road safety experts in the country and (b) frivolous expenditure in view of the RTMC having started the entire process again?

NW2657E

_______________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

(1) The Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC) is responsible for the implementation of the Road Safety Strategy developed by the Department of Transport. The Agency as the major role-player within Road Safety, submit inputs on the development and finalisation of the Road Safety Strategy. The RTMC was established to pool all the powers and functions that resides in the three tiers of Government. In this regards, it would coordinate and standardize implementation strategies across the Republic.

(2) The Department, is currently liaising with all Provincial Department of Transport including the RTMC on streamlining and the finalisation of the process leading to the review of the National Road Safety 2006-onwards and development of new Road Safety Strategy that would encompass best practices that have worked in other countries

As highlighted herein the road safety interventions contained in the new Strategy would be based what will work for the Republic and include some of the Pillars as contained in United Nations' Decade of Action on Road Safety discussed in Geneva.

The current draft Road Safety Strategy by the Department of Transport went through a consultative process with all the road safety experts and stakeholders across the Republic. The RTMC is developing a Road Safety Implementation Plan that would focus on those functions that are ascribed the Agency and ensuring a coordinated streamlined strategic planning amongst the three tiers of Government..

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 2103

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 13 NOVEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 17 AUGUST 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 25 – 2012)

Adv A de W Alberts (FF Plus) to ask the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether he has taken note (a)(i) of the statement by a certain official (details furnished) that driver's and vehicle licenses will not be renewed if notices of alleged offences which, notwithstanding Section 30 of the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Act (AARTO), Act 46 of 1998, sent to offenders only by way of ordinary mail, are not paid and (ii) that this threat is already being applied in practice and (b) that traffic officers at road blocks (i) threaten motorists with arrest and (ii) arrest them for non-payment of notices of alleged traffic offences which were sent to them only by way of ordinary mail (details furnished); if so,

(2) whether he intends instituting an investigation into the (a) statement of the official and (b) occurrence of the said practices; if so,

(3) whether he intends taking any steps against officials who violate the AARTO in this regard; if not, why not; if so, what steps;

(4) whether he intends amending the AARTO in such a way that authorities and officials who violate the Act, can also be criminally prosecuted; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW2610E

________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

(1)(a)(i) Section 30 of the AARTO Act, 1998, (Act No.46 of 1998), deals with the service of documents. It is clear that any document required to be served on an infringer in terms of this Act, must be served on the infringer personally or sent by registered mail to his or her last known address. Therefore, any Issuing Authority that does not follow the prescripts of Section 30, by forwarding documents that is required to be send via Registered Mail, via normal surface mail, is ultra virus the provisions of Section 30 and such document can be interpreted as never been served upon the alleged infringer.

The withholding access to eNaTIS transactions, such as the issue of driving licences, professional driving permits and vehicle licence discs, is authorised under Section 20 of the AARTO Act, 1998, (Act No.46 of 1998), and will only be done if an Enforcement Order has been issued in respect of such infringer.

No enforcement order will be issued, unless the Registrar of the Road Traffic Infringement Agency is satisfied that-

a. a notification contemplated in section 18(7) or a courtesy letter, as the case may be, has been served on the infringer in question;

b. a period of at least 32 days has passed since the date of service of the said notification or courtesy letter, as the case may be;

c. the applicable penalty and fees have not been paid;

d. there are no pending representations in the case of a minor infringement;

e. the infringer has not elected to be tried in court, or has elected to be tried in court as has failed to appear; and

f. the infringer was at the time of the alleged infringement either the owner or operator of the motor vehicle or the driver of it

The non-payment of infringement notices is no ground to put in force the provisions of Section 20 as stated above unless, as previously stated, that such infringement notice should be in a status of Enforcement Order.

(1)(a)(ii) The provisions of Section 20 is already in force for those infringement notices served as required under Section 30 and no courtesy letter or enforcement orders will be authorised by the Registrar, for notices not conforming to the requirements under Section 30.

(1)(b)(i) The AARTO Act does not make provision for motorists to be arrested for outstanding penalties owed for infringement notices and my office has not yet received such complaints from members of the public.

(1)(b)(ii) Please refer to answer given under (1)(b)(i)

(2)(a) No intention for investigation until such time as a formal complaint has been logged.

(2)(b) Please refer to answer given under (2)(b)

(3) The AARTO Act does make provision under Section 18 for infringers to make Representations to the Road Traffic Infringement Agency if they want to dispute any matter related to the alleged infringement notice as served.

(4) No intention to amend the AARTO Act in order to charge issuing authorities or officials who violate the provisions of the AARTO Act or its Regulations as alleged infringers may challenge / dispute the matter, either by submitting a representation, or elect for the matter to be challenged in a court of law.

Reply received: September 2012

QUESTION NO 2084

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 11 SEPTEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 10 AUGUST 2012 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 23 – 2012)

Mr S Esau (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether (a) he, (b) his Deputy Minister and (c) any official from an entity reporting to him will be attending or attended, the 2012 Olympic Games; if so, what is the (i)(aa) name, (bb) rank and (cc) position/designation of each specified person accompanying (aaa) him, (bbb) his Deputy Minister and (ccc) each specified person and (ii)(aa) nature and (bb) official reason for the visit;

(2) what (a) total amount will be spent or has been spent on the trip, (b) is the (i) description and (ii) detailed breakdown of the amounts that will be spent or have been spent on (aa) accommodation, (bb) travel and (cc) subsistence costs and (c) from which budget will these funds be incurred in each case?

NW2564E

__________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

(1)(a)(b)(c) The Minister, Deputy Minister and officials of this Department did not attend nor will be attending the 2012 Olympic Games and there were no trips to the United Kingdom whilst the 2012 Olympic Games were being held.

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

Reply received: September 2012

QUESTION NO 1954

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 11 SEPTEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 27 JULY 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 21 – 2012)

Mr J R B Lorimer (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

1. Whether (a) his department or (b) any entity reporting to him has budgeted for (i) financial donations or (ii) sponsored services in the (aa) 2009-10, (bb) 2010-11 and (cc) 2011-12, (dd) 2012-13 financial years; if not, why not; if so, in each case, what amount was (aaa) budgeted and (bbb) spent?

NW2343E

____________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

Question no. 1954

Reply

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

The Department of Transport did not budget for (i) financial donations or (ii) sponsored services in any of the financial years, because it does not have programmes for financial donations or sponsored services. The Department however made donations and sponsored services in the interests of the State from savings on its operational budgets.

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

The Air Traffic and Navigation Services Company Ltd. budgeted for (i) donations in 2011-12 and for (ii) sponsored services in 2012-13. It did not budget for (i) financial donations or (ii) sponsored services in any of the other years.

The Airports Company of South Africa Ltd. did not budget for (i) financial donations in any of the years, but (ii) budgeted for sponsored services in all of the years.

The Cross Border Road Transport Agency did not budget for (i) financial donations or (ii) sponsored services in any of the years, because there were no planned activities that required the use of donations or sponsorships.

The Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa Ltd. did not budget for (i) financial donations in any of the years, but (ii) budgeted for sponsored services in all of the years.

The Ports Regulator did not budget for (i) financial donations or (ii) sponsored services in any of the years, because it needs to increase its budget to expand capacity into all its mandate areas and did not make provision for financial donations or sponsored services.

The Railway Safety Regulator did not budget for (i) financial donations or (ii) sponsored services in any of the years, because its financial position does not allow it to budget for donations or sponsored services.

The Road Accident Fund did not budget for (i) financial donations or (ii) sponsored services in any of the years, because it has a marketing budget that includes promotions, branding, media and stakeholder engagements.

The Road Traffic Infringements Agency did not budget for (i) financial donations or (ii) sponsored services in any of the years, because there were no planned activities that required the use of donations or sponsorships.

The Road Traffic Management Corporation did not budget for (i) financial donations or (ii) sponsored services in any of the years, because there were no planned activities that required the use of donations or sponsorships.

The South African Civil Aviation Authority did not budget for (i) financial donations in any of the years, but (ii) budgeted for sponsored services in all of the years.

The South African Maritime Safety Authority did not budget for (i) financial donations in any of the years, but (ii) budgeted for sponsored services in all of the years.

The South African National Roads Agency Ltd. did not budget for (i) financial donations in any of the years, but (ii) budgeted for sponsored services in all of the years.

Question no. and Reply

(aaa) Amounts budgeted (R,000)

(bbb) Amounts spent (R,000)

(aa)

(bb)

(cc)

(dd)

(aa)

(bb)

(cc)

(dd)

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

(1)(a)(i) Financial donations:

Department of Transport:

-

-

-

-

6

2

-

-

· Donation towards the burial of an intern

-

-

-

-

6

-

-

-

· Donation to African Charity in Canada by the South African office at the International Civil Aviation Organisation

-

-

-

-

-

2

-

-

(1)(a)(ii) Sponsored services:

Department of Transport:

-

-

-

-

20

41

209

-

· Sponsor Ilembe District Municipality to celebrate Ilembe Heritage Month

-

-

-

-

20

-

-

-

· Sponsor Human Settlements Sports Tournament

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

· Sponsor Sithengile Secondary School Art and Culture initiative as part of maritime awareness

-

-

-

-

-

10

-

-

· Sponsor International Transport of Dangerous Goods and Environment Conference

-

-

-

-

-

30

-

-

· Sponsor a dinner during the World Assembly of the International Council of Aircraft Owners and Pilot's Associations

-

-

-

-

-

-

100

-

· Sponsor a Summit for Rural Women, Widows and Domestic Workers

-

-

-

-

-

-

100

-

· Sponsor gifts for guests to the South African office at the International Maritime Organisation

-

-

-

-

-

-

8

-

· Sponsor a sports tournament amongst departments

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

(1)(b)(i) Financial donations:

Air Traffic and Navigation Services Company Ltd.

-

-

700

-

-

-

700

-

(1)(b)(ii) Sponsored services:

Air Traffic and Navigation Services Company Ltd.

-

-

-

1,800

-

-

-

-

Airports Company of South Africa Ltd.:

25,000

35,000

56,000

56,000

24,300

32,000

64,800

-

- Social development programmes

- Co-sponsored events from marketing budget

26,100

14,200

12,100

1,900

11,600

7,900

3,400

-

Cross Border Road Transport Agency

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa Ltd.

25,200

25,400

18,300

22,800

39,700

24,300

17,100

10,500

Ports Regulator of South Africa

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Railway Safety Regulator

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Road Accident Fund

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Road Traffic Infringements Agency

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Road Traffic Management Corporation

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

South African Civil Aviation Authority

138

170

3,413

3,800

88

93

1,000

176

South African Maritime Safety Authority

100

390

2,274

4,489

100

195

1,242

-

South African National Roads Agency Ltd.:

- Bursary scheme for external students in the engineering field

2,000

3,100

4,000

5,600

1,500

3,200

4,400

2,700

- Scholarships to focus on civil, electronic and transportation engineering

2,500

2,500

2,000

1,700

657

1,600

1,300

664

- Sponsor the Chair in Pavement Engineering at the University of Stellenbosch and University of Cape Town

650

650

1,200

1,300

580

1,000

2,110

641

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO 1940

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 04 OCTOBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 03 AUGUST 2012 - INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 21 – 2012)

Mr D J Maynier (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

Whether the SA Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has received any applications for the cancellation of certificates of registration (details furnished) (a) in (i) 2009, (ii) 2010 and (iii) 2011 and (b) since 1 January 2012; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, in respect of each specified application in each specified year, (aa) what is the (aaa) full name and (bbb) trade name of the applicant, (bb) what is the name of the manufacturer of the aircraft, (cc) what was the manufacturer's type designation of the aircraft, (dd) what was the registration date, (ee) what was the reason for the cancellation, (ff) to what country was the aircraft exported and (gg) what was the deletion date?

NW2329E

____________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

The South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) has received applications for the cancellation of certificates of registration over the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively.

These registrations and cancellations range from various aircraft models and different manufacturers provided below, amongst others:

(a) (i) In 2009, a Beech Aircraft ZS-PSP was registered on 24 March 2006 and deregistered on 18September 2009, as a result of the aircraft being exported to Kenya;

(ii) In 2010, a Cessna Aircraft ZS-JBZ registered on 02 June 1992 and deregistered on 06 December 2010, as a result of the aircraft being exported to Malaysia;

(iii) In 2011, a Bombardier Aircraft ZS-GJB1 was registered on 10April 2003and deregistered on 20 April 2011, as a result of the aircraft being exported to the United States of America; and

(iv) In 2012, an Embraer ZS-OEN was registered on 02May 2006 and deregistered on 10February 2012. A Eurocopter Helicopter ZS-HJNB2 was registered on 23 February 2012 and is still registered. An Airbus A340-212 Aircraft ZS-ALD1 was registered on 29 August 2003 and deregistered on 17 January 2012, as a result of the aircraft being exported to France. A Boeing 737-236 Aircraft ZS-NNG was registered on 16 September 1995 and deregistered on 10 February 2012,as a result of the aircraft being exported to Canada.

The overall statistics of aircrafts registered and deregistered are as follows:

i. In 2009,292 new aircrafts were registered and 106 were deregistered;

ii. In 2010,356 new aircrafts and 120 were deregistered;

iii. In 2011,388 new aircrafts were registered and 114 were deregistered; and

iv. In2012,33 new aircrafts were registered and 7 were deregistered.

In respect of the(aaa) full name and (bbb) trade name of the applicant, (bb) the name of the manufacturer of the aircraft, (cc) the manufacturer's type designation of the aircraft, (dd)the registration date, (ee) the reason for the cancellation, (ff) the country where the aircraft was exported and (gg) the deletion date can be established within the aircraft register which is a public document and accessible to the public upon request.

Reply received: September 2012

QUESTION NO 1859

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 14 SEPTEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 27 JULY 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 20 – 2012)

Mr I M Ollis (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

1 When will the list of the 33 South African National Roads Agency Limited (Sanral) subcontractors involved with the Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) consortium be made public;

2 Whether all the names and details of the 33 subcontractors will be revealed in full; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW2251E

____________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

1. The list is hereby attached.

Note, the main contract for the project is between SANRAL and the Electronic Toll Collection (ETC). SANRAL has one contractor to whom it looks to for performance under this contract, namely Electronic Toll Collection (ETC).

The contract for the design, build and operation of the tolling system, applicable to the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project, was concluded by the SANRAL with the company, ETC Proprietary Limited (ETC). This was pursuant to a competitive tender process undertaken by SANRAL. In terms of the Contract, ETC is obliged to design, build and operate the tolling system and has a contractual relationship with SANRAL in this regard.

Although ETC may have subcontracted part of the work, it is solely ETC that is accountable to SANRAL and SANRAL has no contractual or other relationship with the subcontractors appointed by ETC, in terms of the main contract. This is usual practice in contracts of this nature. SANRAL has one contractor to whom it looks to for performance under this Contract and has no contract with the subcontractors. However, in the spirit of transparency, ETC has acceded to the request to provide the list of its subcontractors.

2. The names and details are provided in the Table below.

Sub-Contractor

Scope of Supplies & Services

Status

Eltonation Electrical

Building and electrical maintenance services

closed

Heritage Gardens

Landscaping, Irrigation and Indoor plant Rental maintenance Services

closed

3D Design

Design, Branding and Installation of PK's

current

Scan Display/Ndlovu Manufacturing

Construction of Temporary Kiosks

current

Tsebo holdings t/a FEDICS

Provide canteen services

current

Impumelelo

Provision of furniture

closed

Clean Care Mobile

To provide cleaning, pest control, waste management and hygiene Services

current

Vodacom Service Provider Company (Pty) Ltd

Provision of connectivity. In particular MPLS VPN; Fibre - design & build, SLA, Routers; Internet; Temporary Microwave - design & build, Diginet design & build, SLA; 3G APN - design & build

Current

Internet Solutions

Provision of connectivity for remote sites and kiosk. In particular MPLS VPN VRF; Network Connectivity, Internet Breakout

Current

Neotel (Pty) Ltd

Provision of digital telephone lines from COC & Dalpark to the public. Providing design & build services and operations services

Current

e-Logics

Provision of SMS Gateway solution to TCH, VPC & ORT business units

current

G4S Secure Solutions

Cash in Transit

current

Omniscience

Development of static and dynamic Website

current

Supaswift (Pty) Ltd t/a Fedex Express

General Logistics and Central warehousing services (Tags and Consumables)TCH Services Goods Quality checks, Goods Storage/ Warehousing Inventory and Stock, Management Threshold monitoring Shipment preparation, Return, logistics Compilation of "tag in a bag", ORT Services Distribution of goods, Call centre for road users Delivery to road users, Delivery to ETC sites, Emergency deliveries

current

Pepic & Kraus Print (Pty) Ltd

Printing of leaflets and instruction manuals

closed

CardPlus

Supplier of customer identification card

closed

Callforce

Supplier of temporary staffing for Call Centre, Manual Validation, Claims & Complaints and VPC

current

Softline VIP

Supplier of Payroll System & payroll services

expired

BidpaperPlus t/a Lithotech

Provision of: * 560k DL Envelopes; * System ; Development; * Stationery; * Automated Processes - print and postage services; * Packaging

Current

B/Sure Wright Surveillance

Purchase of Electrical fencing with a 1 year warranty

current

Fidelity Security

provide armed response and alarm monitoring services

current

Protea Coin

provide manned guarding services

current

Bidvest Magnum

CCTV System: Equipment purchase & installation agreement

closed

FNB

Rental of Pin Entry Devices

Current

Hyphen

Provision of Trade Quest Online Card Authorisation System

Current

Gijima Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Provision of: Account & Service Delivery Management; Service Management Tool Incident Management, Problem Management, Change Management, Logical Security Management, Asset & Configuration Management, Capacity Management, Availability Management, Network Support, IT Service Continuity Management, Database & Data Warehouse Services & Management , Support & Installations.

current

Q-Free Africa (Pty) Ltd

Tag Supply

current

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO 1852

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 16 OCTOBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 27 JULY 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 20 – 2012)

Mr G R Krumbock (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

1. What is the (a) scope, (b) findings and (c) recommendations of each d study conducted by the Department on key sectors within the maritime industry; (details furnished);

2. Whether these studies will (a) be made public and (b) tabled before the Portfolio Committee, if so, what are the relevant details?

3. Whether the department has finished its study which focuses on the efficiency of local ports; if not, (a) why not and (b) when will it be finished; if so what are the main findings and recommendations of the study;

4. Whether this study will be (a) made public and (b) tabled before the Portfolio Committee and (c) Parliament; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

5. When will the Department's maritime policy be submitted to Cabinet for discussion and approval? NW2244E

____________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

(1)(a) The scope of the study was to:

(i) Analyze the general economic trends of the maritime transport shipping sector and its impact on the SA economy, with respect to job creation and small business development

(ii) Evaluate the current context of coastal shipping and identify opportunities for job creation and business development

(iii) Analyze the prospects for trans-shipment facility in SA, which ports would provide global competitiveness, and the opportunities for job creation and economic growth

(iv) Identify the areas for maximum job creation in the shipping industry, namely ship building, ship and oil rig repair, green ship recycling

(v) Identify needs for training, mentorship and coaching in the maritime shipping sector for seafarers as well as entrepreneurs

(vi) Outline the opportunities for hosting shipping services that are now being set on offshore basis. Such services include freight forwarding, fuelling, call centres, insurance brokering, etc.

(vii) Outline opportunities for passenger cruise shipping business in SA

(viii)For each of these areas, provide the advantages and disadvantages for the SA economy and identify possible policy interventions that would enable job creation and business development

(1)(b)The findings of this study are:

(i) The shipping industry is a multi-nationally owned and operated business that cut across several lines of business such as logistics planning, fuelling, insurance brokering, financing, crewing, etc. No single shipping line is entirely controlled by one nation.

(ii) The shipping industry is highly monopolized with about 30 companies serving the global market.

(iii) Niches of specialization have been exploited by developing countries. For example, Phillippines excel in producing seafarers for the world market. And Nigeria is well renowned for fuelling of vessels.

(iv) W.r.t ship registration, with advent of open flag registers such as Panama, Marshall Islands; all the closed ship registers have suffered 40 to 60% flagging out. The EU countries lost about 50 to 60% of national ships to open flags. As a counteract measures, European countries introduced a second register known as international ship register. Panama register carries 70% of global vessels.

(v) There is no correlation between ship registration and job for seafarers. In fact Phillippines provide 70% of world crew and yet their register is insignificant. On the other hand, Panama carries 70% of world flags and yet there is less than 3% of Panamaian seafarers.

(vi) Open ship registers are considered attractive because of ease of administrative requirements, availability on 24 hours basis, worldwide accessibility to highly qualified surveyors, recognition of wide range of certificates, easy access to mortgage facility and tax concession in terms of tonnage tax. In an exclusive interview with the Department, the shippers reckon that none of these features is currently available from the SA ship registrar.

(vii) Only one shipping line serves the domestic interport requirement, Ocean African Coastal Liner (OACL).

(Viii)There is not enough cargo for sustainable domestic coastal shipping. conomies of scale are achievable if regional coastal shipping is introduced.

(ix) The turnaround time to handle containers is too long compared to other transshipment ports. Nigeria can handle 46 cranes an hour whereas SA averaged 25 per hour in 2010.

(x) Most trans-shipment ports are operated by either a global liner or a global terminal operator or as a PPP in order to guarantee cargo and competitiveness.

(xi) In China and South East Asia, the trans-shipment ports are adjacent to special economic zones to promote industry development and job creation.

(xii) The ship and oil rig repair industry creates between 4000 to 5000 jobs annually and some 10 000 indirect jobs related to supply of materials.

(xiii) A dozen of oil exploration projects are planned off the west coast of Africa for next five years. This will create the need for oil rig maintenance and repair in the region.

(xiv) The ship construction (bigger than 500gt) is dominated by China and Korea. China can sell a vessel at around US$30 million. It will cost around US$40 million to build one locally.

(xv) Subsidization of vessel construction eventually leads to subsidization of foreign buyers.

(xvi) Thousand of direct low-level skilled jobs can be created with the introduction of green ship recycling. And even more jobs can be created indirectly in handling of scrap metals and recycling of navigation equipment.

(xvii) At present Indonesia and India provide cheap labour for ship breaking. It is performed in very hazardous conditions. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has introduced a new convention "The Hong Kong Ship Recycling Convention", to protect the environment and the health of workers in the ship recycling industry.

(xviii) South Africa possesses the skills and resources for small ship building and IPAP supports boat building.

(Xix) South Africa's dry docks need to be refurbished and there is no infrastructure for repair and maintenance of Cape size vessel. Cape size vessels are too huge to go through the Suez Canal and are forced to sail around the Southern African waters from east to west and vice versa.

(xx) Management of repair schedules and cost of facilities are prohibitive, according to the shippers, and not in line with other global ports. In Singapore, a dry-dock facility can be made available in 2 weeks for repairs, but in SA, the ship master has to book 12 months in advance.

(xx) Cargo reservation to protect national shipping lines has proven to be very costly in countries like India and the US. The Indian shipping fleet is a cost burden to the government rather than an income generator.

(xxi) Protectionism still prevails amongst the bloc nations albeit not openly. Cabotage is for instance applied in the EU and the US. It is subsidized by the Government.

(xxii) Considerable opportunities exist for development of business in the passenger cruise liner industry in SA. There are more job opportunities on the cruise liner than on a cargo vessel that employs a maximum of 20 people per voyage.

(1)(c)The recommendations of this study are summarized below.

To develop the SA shipping industry,

(i) Exporters and imports have to be induced to create cargo for local shippers

(ii) Prospective shipping entrepreneurs need to consider the entire value chain of shipping business ventures such as chartering, marketing of cargo space, fuelling, crewing, freight forwarding, logistics planning, insurance brokering, etc

To improve the SA ship register,

(i) A nominal fee needs to be introduced as opposed to the current triple taxation on shippers (company tax, Capital Gains tax, dividend tax)

(ii) Administration of current ship register needs to be made more efficient and attractive in line with global practices

(iii) The Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 105/1983 needs to be reviewed to facilitate shipping mortgage

(iv) The Maritime Labour Convention (MLC2006) needs to be ratified by Department of Labour to bring the conditions of employment of SA seafarers in line with ILO (include advantages like tax concession)

(v) Recognition of foreign certificates to be in line with global benchmark.

To boost the development of coastal shipping

(i) Concessions or differential pricing have to be introduced to encourage SA entrepreneurs to enter the market of coastal shipping

(ii) Public warehousing facilities have to be made available at minimal or no cost

(iii) Intermodal transportation at harbours has to be revamped

(iv) Multi-lateral agreements with African and Indian ocean countries to promote regional coastal shipping

To position Ngqura as a globally competitive trans-shipment hub,

(i) A decision has to be taken as to whether to appoint a global liner or a world class terminal operator or form a PPP or maintain status quo of Transnet Port Terminal as the operator to develop and manage the new container berths and improve efficiency

(ii) SEZs (special economic zone) have to be established to enable footloose or intermediate processing of cargo at Ngqura

To grow the ship and oil rig repair industry

(i) Transnet needs to upgrade the dry docks and other infrastructure and transfer operation to private enterprise

(ii) Dry-dock facilities have to be introduced for repair of bigger vessels such as Cape Size vessel

(iii) Appropriate space has to be dedicated at selected ports for timely repair and maintenance

(iv) Scheduling of repairs and pricing have to be efficiently managed

To introduce green ship recycling

(i) The Hong Kong Convention of 2009 on the safe and environmentally sound recycling of ships has to be ratified in consultation with Transnet

(ii) Based on EIA (environmental impact assessment), suitable sites in port precincts have to be identified

(iii) Skills development need to be prioritized to enable the development of this industry

Regarding subsidization of national shipping

(i) Cargo reservation will restrict shipping opportunities of exporters

(ii) The findings reveal that in general national shipping lines worldwide run at a loss and depend on heavy subsidies from government instead of being income generator for the State

(iii) Flag preference will result in negative diplomatic and trade retaliation

(iv) Subsidization of vessel building will be around US$10 million per vessel whilst job creation is cyclical and very dependent on global trends

(1) (d)Further studies need to be undertaken to introduce and boost the development of passenger cruise industry in South Africa.

(2)(a) Yes. The findings of the studies were distributed for comments from October 2011 till January 2012, to all relevant stakeholders who might be impacted by the policy interventions being proposed. The relevant stakeholders include National Treasury, Department of Trade and Industry, Economic Development Department, Department of Public Enterprise, Department of Justice, Department of Labour, Department of Environmental Affairs, Transnet (Including National Ports Authority), Ports Regulator, SAMSA.The study was also published on the Department of Transport's website in November 2011.In March 2012, a workshop on the policy proposals was held, whereby the relevant stakeholders were invited as well as representatives from the shipping industry (Grindrod, Maersk, SASSOA, etc). The proposals/recommendations of the study were then reviewed based on the comments received in the workshop.

(2)(b) Yes. The outcome of the study has been utilized to inform the development of the current draft green paper on the maritime shipping policy. This green paper is being discussed within the department. Once all comments have been considered, a decision will be taken by the Minister of Transport, on whether to launch the green paper or to conduct further research to augment the current policy proposals within the green paper. The green paper will subsequently be presented to the Portfolio Committee and it will follow the cabinet and parliamentary procedure for public comments.

(3)(a) No, such a study has not been completed yet. The Terms of Reference for a study on the efficiency of SA ports has been drafted. The departments, together with the Ports Regulator, are currently scanning the industry for experts who would be able to assist with this study.

(3)(b) This study is planned for completion in January 2013.

(4)(a)Yes. The department will follow the same process as described above for the maritime shipping study.

(4)(b) Once the findings have been commented and reviewed, the study will be presented to Portfolio Committee and it will then follow the cabinet and parliamentary processes for public comment.

(5)Once the process of, public comments on the green paper of the maritime shipping policy, has been completed, the department will initiate the development of the white paper. It is anticipated that the white paper will be ready for Cabinet approval in the third quarter of 2013.

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO 1850

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 04 OCTOBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: WEDNESDAY, 25 JULY 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 20 – 2012)

Mr P Van Dalen (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether his department issued a safety permit to the Eihatsu Maru for entry into South Africa's (a) exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and (b) the port of Cape Town; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) Whether his department assessed the risk involved in granting the specified permit in respect of insurance and/or guarantees in the event that the ship should run aground according to regulations as set out by the SA Maritime Safety Authority (SAMSA); if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) Whether his department has launched an investigation into the running aground of the Eihatsu Maru; if not, why not; if so, what were the findings;

(4) Whether his department has taken measures to hold the owners of the Eihatsu Maru liable for payment of the costs incurred during the salvage operations; if not, (a) who will carry the costs and (b) what total amount was incurred in costs; if so, (i) what total amount was incurred in costs and (ii)(aa) when and (bb) how will payment be made;

(5) Whether his department has taken steps to prevent other vessels entering our EEZ running aground as the Eihatsu Maru fishing vessel did; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW2242E

____________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport

(1) No, my Department did not issue a safety permit to the Eihatsu Maru for entry into South Africa's (a) Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and (b) the Port of Cape Town. The reason was that there is no legislation requiring safety permits to foreign fishing vessels visiting South Africa and the Port of Cape Town. Only foreign vessels such as passenger ships, cargo ships of 500 gross tonnage or more and mobile offshore drilling units are regulated under the Merchant Shipping Regulations, 2004 (Maritime Security) are regulated.

(2) No, my Department did not assess the risk involved as there was no application for a clearance certificate, as this was a fishing vessel of a 439 GT falling short of 500GT as required by the regulations in South Africa and internationally. There was therefore no opportunity to do risk assessment, which in any event considers security concerns and not insurance. Further, there is no international or local regime which requires mandatory insurance from foreign vessels entering South Africa's EEZ.

(3) Yes, my Department, as represented by SAMSA launched an investigation into the running aground of the Eihatsu Maru and the findings were as follows:

(a) The MFV Eihatsu Maru was not appropriately manned for the voyage as there was only one watch-keeper who was not qualified as required by the Japanese flag state.

(b) The vessels bridge was not appropriately manned as required by good

seamanship as there were only lookouts on the bridge-wing who were not allowed inside the bridge where the captain was asleep.

(c) In restricted visibility the captain did not adhere to the requirements as

set out in the International Collision Regulations by using all available means to keep a proper lookout (e.g. the use of radar and depth sounders).

In addition, the vessels Auto Pilot repeater was reading ±12° low in comparison to the gyro compass. No regular compass and gyro error readings had been logged in the deck log book. If the error was known the Master could have applied the correct course setting in order to steer to the anchorage.

(d) The vessel's position was not sufficiently monitored by:

(i) Plotting the position on paper charts.

(ii) Waypoints on the GPS monitor.

Had this been done the Auto Pilot repeater's error would have become apparent and therefore rectified.

(e) The vessel crossed the Cape Town VTS in total contravention of rule 10

of the Collision Regulation, without any comment from the VTS

operators.

(f) Once the vessel was within the area between North and South Lion's

Paws, the Master became disorientated, which resulted in the vessel steaming in an anticlockwise direction, finally returning to Clifton 1st beach.

Due to these actions and the use of searchlights by vessels crew, the investigating officer believes that the vessels radar was not in operation at this time.

(g) There was no obvious reason why the Master did not anchor and await

better visibility.

(4) Yes, my Department has had a series of meetings in order to resolve the cost issue, a settlement was finally reached in which both parties agreed to settle out of court. The legal representatives of the owners of the MFV Eihatsu Maru tabled an offer on behalf of their client to the South African Maritime Safety Authority (SAMSA) and the offer was discussed and accepted by both parties.

SAMSA accepted the out of court settlement because firstly, the vessel had no insurance and the owner could only afford the settlement offer and still have enough money at his disposal to effect the necessary repairs to make the vessel seaworthy again and remove it from Cape Town harbour.

Secondly, were SAMSA to have approached the High Court and apply for a judicial sale of the vessel, the catch and the diesel the likely proceeds would have been much less than the settlement offer due to:

a. Very high attorney and court fees;

b. Import duty of catch and diesel;

c. VAT;

d. Port and harbour fees during the long period this would take;

e. Cost of a "Care Taker" during the legal process which can take months;

Lastly, there is no guarantee that the total or any money will be recovered at a judicial sale.

(5) Yes, my Department has taken steps to prevent other vessels entering South Africa's EEZ and running aground as the Eihatsu Maru fishing vessel did. The Department is now working on a piece of legislation (Maritime Security Bill) that will regulate vessels with a gross tonnage of 300 and above as well as fishing vessels. This will ensure that the vessels such as the Eihatsu Maru are regulated and closely monitored when moving in the republic's waters.

Reply received: November 2012

QUESTION NO 1847

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 13 NOVEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: WEDNESDAY, 25 JULY 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 20 – 2012)

Mr M Swart (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

1. What is the current backlog on the (a) maintenance and (b) repair of (i) signals and (ii) infrastructure of Metrorail's commuter transport system,

2. (a) What provision has been made in the (i) 2011-12 and (ii) 2012-13 financial years to deal with the backlogs and (b) what progress has been made in dealing with the said backlog?

NW2239E

________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

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

The current maintenance renewal backlogs is estimated at R1,3bn for signalling and R0,7bn for infrastructure. The investment backlogs in signalling and infrastructure, including maintenance depots for rolling stock, relate more to an obsolete system at the end of its design life and outdate technology, due to decades of under investment in the system, now requiring total renewal and modernisation. Only 14% of the national signalling installations have not reached the end of their design life with replacements parts not being available anymore. The total investment backlog, including technology modernisation, for signalling and infrastructure is estimated at R90bn.

2(a)(i)& (ii) Expenditure and budget provisions for backlogs

2011/12

R'm

2012/13

R'm

Signaling

688

768

Infrastructure

1 500

2 400

(b) Good progress is being made with R9bn committed to the resignaling of all the signalling installations in Gauteng, KZN and Western Cape, with tenders for all these projects concluded and to be executed over the next 5 – 7 years.

Investment in infrastructure is directed through Prasa's modernisation and safety critical program over the next three years which includes the modernisation of 134 stations, the rehabilitation of substations, track foundations, drainage and track quality in order to increase speeds to 120 km/h in preparation of the new technology rolling stock expected into the system by 2016.

PRASA capital investment program is summarised in the table below, reflecting the investment program over the next 3 years.

SUMMARY OF INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM FOR

2012/13 – 2014/15 MTEF PERIOD

Rolling Stock Refurbishment (existing fleet)

R 7.5bn

Stations, Buildings and Rail Facilities

R 2.7bn

Signaling and Telecommunications

R 2.6bn

Infrastructure Modernisation and Capacity Enhancement

R 6.9bn

Rolling Stock Renewal Program, Depots and Equipment

R 6.2bn

TOTAL

R25.9bn

___________________________________________________________________________

Reply received: October 2012

QUESTION NO. 1803

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 01 OCTOBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: WEDNESDAY, 25 JULY 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 20 – 2012)

Mr M Swart (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

1. What is the current backlog on the (a) maintenance and (b) repair of (i) National Roads; (ii Provincial Roads and (iii) Local Government Roads;

2. (a) How is the backlog determined and (b) what provision has been made for addressing such backlogs in the (i) 2011-2012 and (ii) 2012-13 financial years? NW2194E

____________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

1(a) (b) (i) According to feedback received from SANRAL, there are no routine or periodic maintenance backlogs for the national road network and the backlog, as at 31 March 2012, with regard to strengthening of the national network was 952kms.

However, SANRAL has incorporated 2075km of additional roads from the Eastern Cape province with effect from April 2012 and a further 1 441kms from the North West Province is under consideration for incorporation into the national road network. Depending on the level of maintenance and repairs required; the new roads may change the status of the backlogs for the national road network.

1(a) (b) (ii) Based on a study and analysis and extrapolation of all available visual condition data for the provincial road network; the estimated backlog for maintenance and repairs for provincial road network is for 10980 km of the paved road network and for 69 216km of the gravel road network.

1(a) (b) (iii) Based on a study and analysis and extrapolation of all available visual condition data for the road networks under the jurisdiction of Local Government; the estimated backlog for maintenance and repairs of the Local Government road network is for 3490 km of the paved road network and for 90 962 km of the gravel road network. However, it must be noted that there is very limited road network data available for the Local Government road network.

2 (a)Repairs and maintenance backlogs are determined from analysis and extrapolations of all available visual condition data during 2009, for condition index value below 50, as per the international norm. All sections of the network obtaining a condition index value below 50 are classified as "poor to very poor".

2 (b) The following budget provisions are made by the Department of Transport to SANRAL and Provinces; whilst the provision for Municipalities is made by the Department of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs:

2(b) (i) 2011/12 - National Roads Budget (SANRAL's non-toll network) = R8, 6 billion

2011/12 - Provincial Road Maintenance Grant = R6, 47 billion

2011/12 - Municipal Infrastructure Grant (Total Roads Budget) = R1, 5 billion

2(b) (ii) 2012/13 - National Roads Budget (SANRAL's non-toll allocation) = R9, 7 billion

2012/13 - Provincial Road Maintenance Grant = R7, 9 billion

2012/13 - Municipal Infrastructure Grant (Total Roads Budget) = R1, 6 billion

Note: There is no ring-fenced funding for addressing backlogs. Road Authorities have to strategically prioritize, plan and schedule their maintenance strategies to ensure optimal use of the limited funding allocations they receive. Therefore, the Department is driving a project for the implementation of Road Asset Management Systems by all road authorities.

For National Roads managed by SANRAL, roads managed and operated by SANRAL are funded through transfers from the Department of Transport. All the toll roads are self funded from the toll income; therefore no financial support is provided by the Department of Transport for the tolled road network.

In the case of Provincial Road Authorities, the Department of Transport is providing supplementary grant funding to provinces in addition to the funding received from their equitable share budget. The Provincial Road Maintenance Grant has a primary focus for road maintenance and has a prescript from National Treasury to allow for flood damage repairs that may arise.

In the case of municipalities, the primary funding source of the road budgets is the Municipal Infrastructure Grant, the Expanded Public Works Incentive Grant and/or funding from within their equitable share budget allocations.

Reply received: August 2012

QUESTION NO 1772

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 21 AUGUST 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: THURSDAY, 26 JULY 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 19 – 2012)

Mr S Farrow (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether (a) his department and (b) all of its entities make payment to (i) suppliers and (ii) service providers within the 30 day payment period as specified by the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), No 1 of 1999; if not, in each case, (aa) how many service providers are awaiting payment, (bb) what is the monetary value of outstanding payments and (cc) how long is payment overdue;

(2) Whether (a) his department and (b) all of its entities are liable for any interest charged on overdue payments in any of the cases mentioned; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, in each case, what is the (i) percentage and (ii) monetary value of interest charged;

(3) Whether (a) his department and (b) all of its entities have negotiated revised payment schedules with each of the service providers mentioned; if not, why not; if so, in each case, what are the relevant details;

(4) What are the reasons for (a) his department and (b) all of its entities not making payment within 30 days as specified by the PFMA;

(5) Whether (a) his department and (b) all of its entities have implemented any measures to (i) ensure full compliance with the PFMA and (ii) facilitate immediate payment for overdue accounts; if not, why not; if so, in each case, what are the relevant details? NW2163E

________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

The following abbreviations were used to identify the various entities that responded to the questions:

DOT

Department of Transport

ATNS

Air Traffic and Navigation Services Company Ltd.

ACSA

Airports Company of South Africa Ltd.

CBRTA

Cross Border Road Transport Agency

PRASA

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa Ltd.

PR

Ports Regulator of South Africa

RSR

Railway Safety Regulator

RAF

Road Accident Fund

RTIA

Road Traffic Infringements Agency

RTMC

Road Traffic Management Corporation

SACAA

South African Civil Aviation Authority

SAMSA

South African Maritime Safety Authority

SANRAL

South African National Roads Agency Ltd.

Question no.

Entity

Reply

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

DOT

The department does not make payments to all (i) suppliers and (ii) service providers within the 30 day payment period.

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

ATNS

Payments to suppliers are made within 30 days from receipt of invoices.

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

ACSA

Payments to the service providers and suppliers for goods and services are done monthly. Where the payment terms are outside the 30 days from date of statement, payments are done to match the terms agreed to with the supplier

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

CBRTA

The C-BRTA makes payments to suppliers and service providers within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoices. Where there are disputes on the invoice, such an invoice is paid within thirty (30) days of resolving the dispute.

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

PRASA

Payments are made within 30 days, or any other agreed upon payment terms with suppliers

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

PR

The Ports Regulator always pay suppliers and service providers within the 30 day period.

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

RSR

All payments are made within 30 days from receipt of invoices.

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

RAF

The Road Accident Fund makes payment to (i) suppliers and (ii) service providers within the 30 day payment period as specified by the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA).

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

RTIA

Road Traffic Infringement Agency maintains a policy of paying its service providers within 30 days as required by the PFMA except payment to South African Post Office.

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

RTMC

The Corporation's policy is to pay all its suppliers within 30 days, however there are suppliers and service providers that have been paid outside the 30 days period due to financial difficulties and the cash flow crisis.

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

SACAA

The policy and procedure for the payment of suppliers is such that payments are made to suppliers within 30 days and within 7 days for Small and Medium Enterprises.

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

SAMSA

SAMSA paid service providers within the 30 day payment period as specified by the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), No 1 of 1999.

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

SANRAL

All suppliers and service providers are paid within 30 days or whichever period determined in the agreement with the supplier or service provider.

1(a)(aa)

DOT

A total of (i) 9 suppliers and (ii) 8 service providers were awaiting payment during July 2012, all of which were paid during July 2012.

1(b)(aa)

ATNS

None

1(b)(aa)

ACSA

There are currently 143 suppliers awaiting payment.

1(b)(aa)

CBRTA

A total of 10 invoices were outstanding for longer than 30 days due to disputes.

1(b)(aa)

PRASA

N/a

1(b)(aa)

PR

Nil

1(b)(aa)

RSR

Nil

1(b)(aa)

RAF

A total of 21 suppliers are awaiting payment.

1(b)(aa)

RTIA

One service provider is awaiting payment.

1(b)(aa)

RTMC

A total of 44 service providers are awaiting payments as at 31 July 2012.

1(b)(aa)

SACAA

A total of 7 service providers are awaiting payment.

1(b)(aa)

SAMSA

Nil

1(b)(aa)

SANRAL

Nil

1(a)(bb)

DOT

The monetary value of outstanding payments were (i) R3,000,442 for service providers and (ii) R300,112 for suppliers.

1(b)(bb)

ATNS

N/a

1(b)(bb)

ACSA

The total value of overdue payments is R17 million.

1(b)(bb)

CBRTA

The total value of overdue payments is R75,528.

1(b)(bb)

PRASA

N/a

1(b)(bb)

PR

Nil

1(b)(bb)

RSR

Nil

1(b)(bb)

RAF

The monetary value of overdue payments is R1,397,092.

1(b)(bb)

RTIA

The monetary value of the overdue payment is R3,2 million.

1(b)(bb)

RTMC

The monetary value of outstanding payments is R5,467,418.

1(b)(bb)

SACAA

The monetary value of outstanding payments is R180,597.

1(b)(bb)

SAMSA

Nil

1(b)(bb)

SANRAL

Nil

1(a)(cc)

Payment was overdue by (i) 6 days for the 9 suppliers and by (ii) 20 days for the 8 service providers. Excluding one service provider with problematic invoices, payment was overdue by 8 days for 7 service providers.

1(b)(cc)

ATNS

N/a

1(b)(cc)

ACSA

Most overdue payments are more than 60 days overdue.

1(b)(cc)

CBRTA

Payments were overdue for more than 120 days.

1(b)(cc)

PRASA

N/a

1(b)(cc)

PR

N/a

1(b)(cc)

RSR

N/a

1(b)(cc)

RAF

Payment was overdue by over 30 days for 19 service providers, by over 60 days for 1 service provider and over 90 days for 1 service provider.

1(b)(cc)

RTIA

The payment is three months overdue.

1(b)(cc)

RTMC

Payments were overdue by 90 days. Due to the cash flow crisis the Corporation had to postpone payment and service providers were made aware of the delay.

1(b)(cc)

SACAA

For 5 service providers, payment was overdue by more than 30 days, and for 2 service providers, payment was overdue by more than 60 days.

1(b)(cc)

SAMSA

N/a

1(b)(cc)

SANRAL

N/a

(2)(a)

DOT

The department is not liable for interest charged on overdue payments and did not incur charges for interest on overdue accounts.

(2)(b)

ATNS

ATNS is not liable to any interest payable on overdue account.

(2)(b)

ACSA

ACSA has not incurred any interest charges on overdue accounts.

(2)(b)

CBRTA

The CBRTA is not liable for the interest on the above mentioned overdue accounts as the disputes have been communicated to the suppliers or service providers.

(2)(b)

PRASA

The group had an expense of R5 million for March 2012 as interest on overdue accounts; this was due mainly to cash constraints of Main Line Passenger Services not being subsidised. Other than mentioned, the Group is not liable for interest on overdue accounts.

(2)(b)

PR

No interest was incurred on overdue accounts.

(2)(b)

RSR

N/a. Accounts are paid on time.

(2)(b)

RAF

The Road Accident Fund was liable for interest charged on overdue payments for the financial year ending 31 March 2012 of (i) 0.1% of total expenditure at an interest rate of 14% and (ii) R 80 142 of interest charged on overdue payments.

(2)(b)

RTIA

Agreement has been reached that interest is not charged on the overdue amounts.

(2)(b)

RTMC

The RTMC is liable for interest charged on overdue accounts. Some suppliers are charging interest on overdue accounts. The interest rate charged varies depending on the account.

(2)(b)

SACAA

The SACAA is not liable for any interest charges on the balances above as the creditors are aware of the information that is still outstanding from their side.

(2)(b)

SAMSA

N/a. Accounts are paid on time.

(2)(b)

SANRAL

No interest was incurred on overdue accounts.

(3)(a)

DOT

The department did not negotiate revised payment schedules with any service providers.

(3)(b)

ATNS

ATNS has not negotiated any revised payment schedules as it does not have long overdue payments.

(3)(b)

ACSA

The terms are standard. It is only on large contracts that ACSA might agree to retain a portion as guarantee until resolution of issues such as defects.

(3)(b)

CBRTA

The CBRTA has communicated the dispute with the service providers or suppliers and that payments will be effected once the disputes are resolved.

(3)(b)

PRASA

Revised payment schedules were negotiated with major suppliers on rolling stock.

(3)(b)

PR

No payment arrangements were negotiated as all payments are made on time.

(3)(b)

RSR

No payment arrangements were negotiated as all payments are made on time.

(3)(b)

RAF

The Road Accident Fund did not negotiate revised payment schedules with any service provider. These suppliers were not registered on the Fund's procurement supplier database in time due to their late submission of statutory compliance documents, such as original tax compliance certificates in terms of 16A.9.1 (d) of the Treasury Regulations and company and close corporation registration documents.

(3)(b)

RTIA

A revised payment schedule has been agreed and the payment will be effected once the RTIA has secured the funding related to the outstanding amounts.

(3)(b)

RTMC

The Corporation is in the process of negotiating revised payment schedules with service providers.

(3)(b)

SACAA

50% of overdue amounts is towards a payment to the travel agent. The travel agent agreed that payment of their balance will be made with the August payment.

(3)(b)

SAMSA

No payment arrangements were negotiated as all payments are made on time.

(3)(b)

SANRAL

No revised payment schedules were negotiated as all payments are made on time.

(4)(a)

DOT

Reasons for not making payments within 30 days include incorrect banking details provided by service providers, tax clearance certificates that expired and needs to be renewed, incorrect invoices that are submitted for payment, the financial accounting system is very slow, capacity constraints and a backlog of payments existed because new allocation codes had to be captured after the restructuring of the department.

(4)(b)

ATNS

N/a

(4)(b)

ACSA

Reasons for late payments include supplier bank accounts closed, banking details that have changed and need to be re-verified, amount invoiced does not match the goods or services received.

(4)(b)

CBRTA

Payments were not made within thirty days in circumstances where the invoices are in dispute and such dispute declared with the service providers.

(4)(b)

PRASA

When any other agreed upon payment terms with suppliers are made, or when the company is not satisfied with the service provided or delivery of products or disagrees with the price negotiated.

(4)(b)

PR

N/a

(4)(b)

RSR

N/a

(4)(b)

RAF

Suppliers to provide statutory compliance information in terms of the supply chain policy to effect payment, such as outstanding tax clearance certificates and company registration or close corporation documents, and a supplier did not comply with the basic conditions of contract.

(4)(b)

RTIA

The RTIA's challenges related to the payment of the South Afrocan Post Office account is the prescription in the AARTO Act requiring documents to be served by registered mail, which costs far exceed the budget allocations for the entity, averaging close to R3 million per month, whereas the total grant allocation is R5 million for the year.

(4)(b)

RTMC

The Corporation is experiencing cash flow difficulties, hence the non-compliance.

(4)(b)

SACAA

Payments are withheld if the relevant supporting documentation has not been attached for example: invoices are not authorised, there is no order attached and the services have not been rendered yet.

(4)(b)

SAMSA

N/a

(4)(b)

SANRAL

N/a


Question no.

Entity

Reply

(5)(a)(i)

DOT

Measures taken to ensure full compliance with the PFMA:

(5)(a)(i)

DOT

The department issued a circular to require that payment documents must be completed 15 days before the due date for payment together with correct allocations.

(5)(a)(i)

DOT

A register is kept of when invoices are received in the department, which is marked off when an invoice is paid. Officials were tasked to follow up payments from the register to ensure that invoices are paid in time.

(5)(a)(i)

DOT

Budget Controllers were delegated powers to sign off invoices for the rental and usage of photocopy machines to prevent delays in payments to these suppliers.

(5)(a)(i)

DOT

A list that provides the cost allocations for all staff was provided to Office Services to assist with the allocation of travelling costs.

(5)(a)(i)

DOT

To improve the slow Basic Accounting System (BAS), the State Information Technology Agency was requested to test the system and to make recommendations. The following recommendations are being implemented:

(5)(a)(i)

DOT

An information Technology Technologist was tasked to import workstations to a domain controller to prevent individual upgrades that congest the bandwidth and contribute to the slow system.

(5)(a)(i)

DOT

The current operating system of the Basic Accounting System (BAS) is being upgraded by the State Information Technology Agency.

(5)(a)(i)

DOT

If the above interventions to improve the speed of the Basic Accounting System (BAS) does not improve the situation, the department will increase the current bandwidth via the State Information Technology Agency as the Agency has recommended.

(5)(a)(i)

DOT

The processing of payments were amended to prioritise older payment documents to be processed first.

(5)(a)(i)

DOT

Meetings are held three times per month with a particular service provider that generates the most invoices to the department, to resolve incorrect or unsubstantiated invoicing. Excluding this service provider, the average days that service providers were paid late would reduce from 20 days to 8 days in July 2012.

(5)(a)(i)

DOT

Vacant posts were advertised, and attempts will be made to increase staff capacity to address capacity constraints.

(5)(b)(i)

ATNS

ATNS has measures in place to ensure that payments to suppliers are made on time.

(5)(b)(i)

ACSA

ACSA's policy is to pay within 30 days from statement date. The current policy is under review. Any payments that go beyond this date are flagged for followed up.

(5)(b)(i)

CBRTA

The CBRTA has put in place measures to comply with the Public Finance Management Act and this includes the PFMA and Treasury Regulations compliance checklists.

(5)(b)(i)

PRASA

Internal controls are in place to ensure that approved and authorized payments are made within agreed time lines.

(5)(b)(i)

PR

The Ports Regulator has implemented a creditor's control system that tracks payments running behind schedule.

(5)(b)(i)

RSR

Measures are in place to ensure that payments are made on time.

(5)(b)(i)

RAF

Training all supply chain management officials and all staff on 16A.5 of Treasury regulations; Revising the RAF's procurement policy and procedures for effective and efficient procurement within the ambit of the PFMA; Actively addressing poor performance by staff who are responsible for the delays; Including a key performance indicator to pay all suppliers and service providers within 30 days of invoice date in the Road Accident Fund's Strategic Plan 2013-2017 and in the performance agreements of management, in compliance to Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), No 1 of 1999; and Implementing a contract management system to effectively manage procurement and contract performance.

(5)(b)(i)

RTIA

Measures have been implemented to curb the expenditure related to the serving of documents, by delaying their service and furthermore, the legislative amendments have been prepared and submitted for approval, which would protect the Agency's revenue, and National Treasury has been engaged for the increment in the Agency's funding allocations.

(5)(b)(i)

RTMC

The Corporation has implemented measures by starting to negotiate revised payment schedules, and further notifying the National Department of Transport and National Treasury of the cashflow challenges.

(5)(b)(i)

SACAA

The SACAA is constantly improving its processes, procedures and its policies to elevate the importance of paying suppliers within 30 days and SME 's within 7 days.

(5)(b)(i)

SAMSA

N/a

(5)(b)(i)

SANRAL

N/a

(5)(a)(ii)

DOT

To facilitate immediate payment of overdue accounts, overdue accounts are taken to officials who are responsible for certifying invoices by hand to prevent any further delays in payments.

(5)(b)(ii)

ATNS

5) ATNS has measures in place to ensure that payments to suppliers are made on time.

(5)(b)(ii)

ACSA

Any payments that go beyond 30 days are flagged for followed up.

(5)(b)(ii)

CBRTA

Monthly reconciliations are being performed and all long outstanding items followed up. Where invoices are in dispute, such disputes are communicated in writing to the service providers with a view of resolving the disputes. Furthermore, the CBRTA has implemented a policy of making supplier payments twice a month to alleviate the cash flow challenges for the small and medium size enterprises. Follow ups are being made with the affected service providers to resolve the disputes so that the overdue accounts and settle the accounts.

(5)(b)(ii)

PRASA

N/a

(5)(b)(ii)

PR

N/a

(5)(b)(ii)

RSR

N/a

(5)(b)(ii)

RAF

Payment of overdue accounts will be effected when the reasons for the delay indicated in paragraph 4 (b) above are resolved in terms of the 16A.5 of National Treasury Regulations.

(5)(b)(ii)

RTIA

N/a

(5)(b)(ii)

RTMC

As and when funds are available either from allocation or income sources, suppliers are prioritised. Suppliers are also notified in advance that payment may not be effected to them within the prescribed period.

(5)(b)(ii)

SACAA

Payments are done weekly every Friday to ensure compliance.

(5)(b)(ii)

SAMSA

N/a

(5)(b)(ii)

SANRAL

N/a

Reply received: September 2012

QUESTION NO 1677

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 12 SEPTEMBER 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 22 JUNE 2012 - INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 19 – 2012)

Mrs H Lamoela (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether he has been informed of the lack of lighting along the R24 from the OR Tambo International Airport to the Edenvale offramp; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (a) what are the reasons for the lack of lighting, (b) how long have the lights not been working, (c) what is the estimated cost of repairing the lights and (d) when will the lights be repaired;

(2) whether he has been informed that there are gaps in the fencing along the R24; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, when will the fencing be repaired and what is the estimated cost of repairing the fencing;

(3) whether he has put a maintenance plan in place for the upkeep of the R24; if not, why not; if so, why is it not being implemented? NW2018E

____________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

The responsible Road Authority for the Routine Road Maintenance is the Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport and for the street lighting are both the Province and the Ekurhuleni Municipal Council.

1) The Department of Transport became aware of complaints with regard to the lack of lighting along the R24 from the OR Tambo international Airport to Edenvale off-ramp.

(a) The Department of Transport has engaged with the Gauteng Provincial Department of Roads and Transport and has established that there are disputes and problems related to the electricity billing system between the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and the Gauteng Province, which resulted in the disconnection of the power supply; therefore the street lights on this section of the road are not working. The Department of Transport has also established that there are different accounts allocated for the street lighting for different sections of the road.

(b) The Department of Transporthas established that the lights have not been working since August 2011.

(c) The Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality has to verify their records and consolidate the different electricity accounts, which they have created on their billing system, into one account and determine what amount is due by the Gauteng Provincial Department of Roads and Transport. At this stage, Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality has determined that there is an outstanding account balance of R278 000 for one billing station. The reconciliation of the electricity account and the calculation of the final amount due to the Municipality by the province is pending.

(d) The Gauteng Provincial Department of Roads and Transport has indicated that the lights shall be switched on as soon as the account is settled and the power supply is restored. However, the final electricity account from the Municipality is pending.

2) Yes, the Department of Transport is aware of complaints with regard to gaps in the fencing along the R24 road. The Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport has confirmed that a road maintenance contractor was appointed with effect from June 2012 until March 2013 for the routine road maintenance works, which includes the repairs to the fencing and has not yet provided the cost of the fencing repairs to the Department of Transport.

3) Yes, the Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport has put a plan in place for routine road maintenance works, which includes the upkeep of the R24.

Reply received: August 2012

QUESTION NO 1613

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 21 AUGUST 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 08 JUNE 2012: INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 17 – 2012)

Mr M M Swathe (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether any traffic fines were incurred with regard to any of his official vehicles in the (a) 2009-10, (b) 2010-11 and (c) 2011-12 financial years; if so, what (i) amount in fines was incurred in respect of each specified vehicle in each specified financial year and (ii) are the further relevant details in each case? NW1942E

______________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

Members of the Executive once appointed in their portfolio are allocated an SAPS VIP Driver/ Protector'' to provide security and driving services to the member for all official purposes.

The above drivers who at any given time drive the official motor vehicle allocated to the Executive, drives such motor vehicle within the course and scope of this or her employment, therefore in the execution of their duties.

With respect to the Minister of Transport, he has been appointed in his current portfolio effectively from 12th June 2012 and to date has not yet accumulated any traffic fines. Furthermore, during the 2009-10, and 2010-11 and (c) 2011-2012 financial years did not have any official vehicle allocated him.

Reply received: July 2012

QUESTION NO 1481

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED:20 JULY 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 01 JUNE 2012: INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 15 – 2012)

Mr I M Ollis (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether any provincial traffic officers have been trained by the Gauteng Department of Community Safety on behalf of SA National Road Agency Ltd (SANRAL) for managing its peace officers for the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (a) in (i) 2010 and (ii) 2011 and (b) since 1 January 2012; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, how many in each year;

(2) whether trainees were offered employment by SANRAL on conclusion of their training; if not, why not; if so,

(3) whether trainees were permanently appointed by SANRAL and receive salaries; if not, why not; if so, how many;

(4) whether the Gauteng Department of Community Safety (a) provided or (b) transferred any (i) traffic officers and (ii) provincial peace officers to SANRAL (aa) in (aaa) 2010 and (bbb) 2011 and (bb) since 1 January 2012; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, in each case, (aaaa) how many and (bbbb) what are their designations and ranks;

(5) whether all trainees received the same training; if not, what different categories of training were provided; if so, what are the relevant details? NW1758E

____________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

(1) (a) (i) and (ii) and (b)

There were no provincial traffic officers trained by the Gauteng Department of Community Safety on behalf of the South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL) for any activity in the period under discussion.

(2), (3), (4) (a) and (b) (i) and (ii) (aa) (aaa) and (bbb), (bb) (aaaa) and (bbbb) and (5)

Fall away

Reply received: August 2012

QUESTION NO 1478

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 03 AUGUST 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 01 JUNE 2012: INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 15 – 2012)

Mr M R Sayedali Shah (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) When was the current Director-General of his department appointed;

(2) whether the Director-General was appointed in a permanent capacity; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details? NW1755E

____________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

1. 25 February 2010

2. The Director-General was appointed on the contract for a period of three years, with

effect from 25 February 2010. His contract appointment expires on 24 February 2013

Reply received: August 2012

QUESTION NO 1433

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 21 AUGUST 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 01 JUNE 2012: INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 15 – 2012)

Mr I M Ollis (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether he has been informed of any (a) Toyota Quantum panel vans and (b) other vehicles that have been illegally converted into minibus taxis since 2005; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether he has launched an investigation into the illegal conversion of panel vans into taxis; if not, why not; if so, how many (a) panel vans were illegally converted and (b) are currently operating on the roads;

(3) whether these converted vehicles (a) are licensed, (b) carry SABS approval, (c) are fully roadworthy and (d) conform to (i) departmental safety standards and (ii) current transport regulations; if not, what action has his department taken to ensure that these requirements are met; if so, what are the relevant details in each case;

(4) whether these converted vehicles were (a) licensed and (ii) captured on the eNatis system; if not, why not in each case; if so, what are the relevant details in each case;

(5) whether his department has taken any steps against the owners of such illegal conversions; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW1709E

___________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

1. (a) (b) In February 2010 the a process to correct this was approved and operators with illegally converted vehicles were requested to follow the approved process to correct their vehicles.

2. The SIU was requested to conduct an investigation into this matter. (a) An investigation into the data on the E-natis system revealed that 2 353 vehicles have been illegally converted. (b) We assume the same number will be operating on the road;

3. (a) These vehicles are registered as commercial vehicles as panel vans, (b) for the reason in the 3(a) they will be complaint as commercial vehicles, (c)they will be road worthy (d) (i) they conform with safety standards as commercial vehicles (ii) but do not conform to Taxi Recapilisation standards,

4. (a) They are licensed and (ii) captured on the eNatis system as panel vans not passenger vehicles for reward (Taxi); the illegal conversion was a process of just converting vehicles without doing the necessary changes on eNatis; therefore the details are still 3 seater and panel vans.

5. The Department has approved a process whereby operators can have these illegal conversion corrected so that the essential safety critical issues such as seat anchorage can be corrected. An approved Manufacturer, Importer, Builder (MIB) with a national footprint is conducting these conversions. The approval of this process was done with the SABS and the National Regulator for Compulsory Standards (NRCS)

Once each vehicle has been converted the NRCS inspects it and a certificate for TRP compliance is granted in the form of a Letter of Authority (LOA).

Reply received: July 2012

QUESTION NO 1430

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 20 JULY 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 01 JUNE 2012: INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 15 – 2012)

Mrs J F Terblanche (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) What mechanisms have been put in place to ensure that road infrastructure work on the N12 and other earmarked roads in the North West will be suitably completed by the successful bidder;

(2) whether the tender was awarded in terms of prescribed tender processes; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW1706E

____________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

(1) A construction period is tendered by the successful tenderer, which forms part of the tender/project document. Therefore, should the contractor not complete the works within that period, then the contractual penalty per day is payable. The principle of a penalty is standard across all contracts of the South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL), in terms of the conditions of contract. The contract is supervised on a daily basis by the site staff. Progress is measured on a monthly basis and if the contractor is falling behind due to his own fault, he/she has to speed up by bringing in more resources or working longer hours, etc. The contractor also has to bring in mitigating measures to come back onto programme. Obviously, factors like rain and climate-related delays are not the contractor's fault (risks), but these are shared between SANRAL and the contractor.

(2) Yes, the correct procedure was followed in procuring, evaluating and awarding the various tenders on the N12. This is the same procedure as is done for all SANRAL tenders.

Reply received: July 2012

QUESTION NO 1380

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 20 JULY 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 25 MAY 2012: INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 14 – 2012)

Mr I M Ollis (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether any quality checks were conducted after the construction on the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP); if not, why not; if so, (a) how many kilometres were (i) inspected and (ii) found to have defects and (b) what were the causes of these defects;

(2) whether remedial work on the defects discovered has been completed; if not, why not; if so, what were the financial costs and implications incurred for correcting these defects;

(3) whether any contractual (a) warranties and/or (b) guarantees bound contractors to cover (i) latent defects and/or (ii) repair and/or (iii) any remedial action found to be necessary owing to (aa) poor and/or (bb) defective construction; if not, why not; if so, what are the contractual terms;

(4) what (a) were the costs for (i) repair and (ii) maintenance for the 2011-12 financial year and (b) are the expected costs for (i) repair and (ii) maintenance for the (aa) 2012-13 financial year and (bb) financial years up to 2020? NW1629E

____________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

(1) All construction work executed by contractors has to comply with a set of specifications that is contained in the contract between the contractor that execute the work, and the South African National Roads Agent (SANRAL). SANRAL appoints consulting engineers and independent accredited laboratories to supervise the execution of the works and execute quality control procedures. The quality of the work being constructed is checked on a continuous basis during the contract. The contractor will have a quality assurance plan and programme and perform process control, and the monitoring team of engineers will apply a quality assurance plan and programme and perform acceptance control. Quality assurance consists of various aspects, e.g. visual inspections, measurements, sampling of materials and testing these materials. The frequency of inspections, measurements and sampling and testing of materials are based on statistical analysis and pre-determined and specified in the applicable documentation.

A year after the construction work is complete the works are inspected for any visual defects. This period is called the defects liability period. Any defects that manifested itself during this period and that can be attributed to defective material or bad workmanship by the contractor, will be corrected by him.

(a) (i) The whole of each Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP) contract was subjected to inspections based on the frequency as indicated above. Inspections and testing are therefore not recorded according to kilometres but rather the measurement unit for each type of measurement and test. As an example, for asphalt surfacing, tests will be conducted on the mixture during the design phase before it is placed on the road. A trial section will be placed and more testing will be performed. The asphalt is placed on the road sampling and testing are done per lot, where a lot is one day's production, which can be in the order of 1 000 metres of a single lane. On a lot, up to 8 different types of tests are performed and 6 tests per test type.

(ii) From the above it is clear that a large number of tests are/were performed and any non-conformance is corrected by the contractor and re-tested to ensure that the final product complies with the specifications and requirements. Only a few of the GFIP projects have, to date, reached the end of the defects liability period. On the few that had reached the end of the defects liability period, any defects found are repaired.

(b) The causes of non-conformance can vary from non-conformances with dimensions on drawings, non-compliance to specifications and standards, bad workmanship by the contractor or defective materials. The causes of defects are due to bad workmanship by the contractor, defective materials and external factors like weather and traffic.

(2) On the contracts where the defects liability period has lapsed, the defects recorded during the period have been repaired. However, latent defects can still appear in future and will be addressed in terms of the contract and common law, as and when required. As indicated above, the contractor is responsible for the costs of defect repairs/corrections, should it be attributable to him, e.g. bad workmanship. If defects are attributable to inferior designs by the consulting engineers the cost of repairs will be recovered from them.

(3) (a) and (b) (i), (ii) and (iii) (aa) and (bb)

The contractor as well as consulting engineer is bound by contracts between them and SANRAL. These contracts contain the terms and conditions under which they perform their duties and responsibilities. The contracts make provision for guarantees as well as the retention of monies until the work has been completed and it complies with the terms and conditions of the contract. The contracts also require the parties to have their work and services adequately insured. Certain products used will also have separate and individual guarantees/warrantees. The contract documentation, as well as warrantees and guarantees, make adequate provision to cover all defects, repair work and remedial action attributable to the contractor and/or consulting engineer.

(4) (a) (i)

As indicated above, the actual costs incurred by either the contractor or consulting engineer for defects attributable to their actions are not recorded and therefore unknown.

(ii) SANRAL budgets for routine road maintenance on the GFIP under two contracts. The total expenditure for these contracts for the 2011/12 financial year was R92.83m (excl VAT).

(b) (i) The expected costs for defect repairs cannot be determined due to the following reasons:

§ Defects are only determined during the inspection at the end of the defects liability period and repair costs thereof can only be determined once identified; and

§ SANRAL is not responsible for costs of defect repairs and it is not required from the contractor and/or consulting engineer to provide their actual costs for these defect repairs.

(ii)(aa) The GFIP routine maintenance budget for the 2012/13 financial year amounts to

R106.16m (excl VAT).

(bb) Routine road maintenance is budgeted for future years at a rate of R650 000 per kilometre (excluding escalation and VAT).

Reply received: August 2012

QUESTION NO 1379

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 21 AUGUST 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 25 MAY 2012: INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 14 – 2012)

Mr I M Ollis (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether any provincial roads in the Eastern Cape (a) have been or (b) will be transferred to the SA National Roads Agency Limited (Sanral) for (i) upgrades, (ii) maintenance or (iii) construction; if not, why not; if so, in each case, what (aa) are the total kilometres of road to be transferred, (bb) progress has been made on roads already transferred and (cc) are the further relevant details;

(2) whether a budget has been allocated for this road management for the (a) transfer and (b) execution of projects; if not, where will the funds be sourced; if so, (i) who manages the budget and (ii) what are the further relevant details;

(3) whether any requests for transfer of funds were made from the provincial government and/or Sanral for the (a) management and (b) related projects of these provincial roads; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) whether his department (a) has conducted or (b) will be conducting any investigations into the provincial department with regard to (i) ensuring service delivery, (ii) budgetary practice and (iii) execution of roadwork projects; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(5) whether he intends tabling a report in the National assembly in respect of the state of transportation infrastructure especially roads, in the Eastern Cape; if not, why not; if so, when? NW1628E

____________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

(1)(a) Yes, some provincial roads in the Eastern Cape have been transferred to SANRAL.

(1)(aa) A total of 2075 kilometers of provincial roads from the Eastern Cape Province have been transferred to SANRAL on 10 April 2012 in terms of Government Gazette Notice 35249.

(1)(bb) All these roads have been included in SANRAL's current 2012/2013 budgetary programme for routine road maintenance. Road assessment has been completed.

(1) (cc) No further information or details are available

(2) No budget has been allocated for the Road Management for the

(a)Transfer and

(b) Execution of projects on the transferred roads.

(i) These roads will progressively be included in the SANRAL budget for periodic and/or special maintenance; or rehabilitation and/or upgrades as required.

(ii) The relevant action will be decided after conducting detailed road assessments and structural road pavement investigations.

(3) No. The procedure is that after a provincial road has been transferred to Sanral, road assessment has to be conducted. These former provincial routes will now be funded as part of SANRAL's non- toll national road portfolio.

(4) The department of Transport is already assisting all Provincial Road Authorities with regards to their service delivery mandate. All provinces have been allocated funds from the Provincial Road Maintenance Grant (PRMG), which has been established to supplement into roads upgrade.

The long term vision is for road infrastructure projects to be selected, prioritised and budgeted using Road Asset Management Software (RAMS), which is also useful to recommend the type of intervention required after conducting proper traffic engineering and structural road pavement investigations.

Therefore, provision has been made in the PRMG for all Provinces to use up to R10 million to hire technical staff and to use up to R1000 per km for conducting Visual Condition Inspections (Road Condition Assessments) for a defined road network.

(a) No such investigations were conducted.

However, there is on-going monitoring of projects being funded and implemented from the Provincial Road Maintenance Grant.

(b) (i) and (ii) and (iii)

No investigations shall be conducted on service delivery until the above mentioned interventions are in place and/or if a need arises.

However, the department shall continue to monitor the delivery of projects funded from the Provincial Road Maintenance Grant and all road infrastructure projects registered in the Infrastructure Reporting Module (IRM).

(5) The Department of Transport shall consider tabling an update of the "state of all provincial roads in South Africa" once all provinces have implemented and updated their Road Asset Management Systems, and the data is analyzed and a report is produced.

Reply received: August 2012

QUESTION NO 1377

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 21 AUGUST 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 25 MAY 2012: INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 14 – 2012)

Mr I M Ollis (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether his department maintains statistics of (a) road accidents and (b) deaths from motor vehicle accidents; if not, why not, in each case; if so, what are the statistics (i) for the (aa) 2007-08, (bb) 2008-09, (cc) 2009-10, (dd) 2010-11 and (ee) 2011-12 financial years and (ii) since 1 April 2012;

(2) whether, with reference to the statistics provided by the National Mortality Surveillance System (NIMMS), his department has drawn a comparative analysis with the statistics of (a) road accidents and (b) deaths from motor vehicle accidents for the said periods; if not, why not, in each case; if so, what are the (i)(aa) reasons and (bb) causes for the difference between the figures and (ii) further relevant details;

(3) what steps (a) have been taken or (b) will be taken to ensure correct reporting of these figures? NW1626E

____________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

(1) (a) and (b)

Yes, the Department of Transport, via its road traffic agency, the Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC) maintains statistics of road accidents and deaths from motor vehicle accidents.

(i) The statistics for the following financial years are as follow:

(aa) 2007-08: road accidents = 11 674; deaths from motor vehicle accidents = 14 711

(bb) 2008-09: road accidents = 10 661; deaths from motor vehicle accidents = 13 706

(cc) 2009-10: road accidents = 10 948; deaths from motor vehicle accidents = 13 932

(dd) 2010-11: road accidents = 10 845; deaths from motor vehicle accidents = 13 803

(ee) 2011-12: The statistics for this period are yet to be released.

(ii) There are no further relevant details.

(2) (a) and (b)

With reference to the statistics provided by the National Mortality Surveillance System (NIMMS), the RTMC has not drawn a comparative analysis with the statistics of road accidents and deaths from motor vehicle accidents for the said periods.

(i) (aa) The reason for this is that the System produces information on non-natural deaths and causes from 37 mortuaries in 6 provinces, which makes it a sample and not the total

fatalities recorded.

(bb) The causes for the difference between the figures is that data is collated from only

6 provinces by NIMMS, compared to national collation of accident data from all the

Provinces by the Department of Transport. The NIMMS data is also not consistently

recorded.

(ii) Further relevant details are that comparative analysis has been started this year to

confirm the trends.

(b) RTMC has proposed a partnership with UNISA and Medical Research Council (MRC)

with a view of forming a collaboration for these purposes.

(3) (a) and (b)

The following steps have been taken to ensure correct reporting of these figures:

§ The development of the Crash Information Management System (CIMS) will address the challenges of late reporting of accident data and also to inter-phase with the different data systems used by relevant stakeholders that collate the accident data;

§ receiving advisory services from industry experts in order to improve the quality of statistics;

§ working with the International Road Traffic and Accident Database (IRTAD) on international benchmarking of statistics;

§ working towards the standardization of statistics with Statistics South Africa (SSA); and

§ the finalisation of a partnership with the Universtity of South African (UNISA) and the Medical Research Council (MRC).

Reply received: August 2012

QUESTION NO 1348

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 06 AUGUST 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 25 MAY 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 14 – 2012)

Adv A de W Alberts (FF-Plus) asked the Minister of Transport

(1) Whether he has ordered an investigation into the double tax burden on motorists in Gauteng, who, in terms of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (e-tolling project), are paying tolling fees while their tax monies are also being utilised to cover the tolling fees of Government vehicles; if so, what are the relevant details; if not, why not;

(2) whether he intends to investigate this matter; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW1589E

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

1 There is no need to order an investigation. Honourable Adv A de W Alberts may recall that as early as 1996, the White Paper on National Transport Policy accepted road tolling as a principle to support the development and maintenance of road infrastructure in accordance with sustainable economic and financial considerations. The 'user pay' principle is not a tax. A user charge is a direct payment for the service used.

2 Not applicable.

Various reports and information about GFIP and the e-tolling can be accessed through the SANRAL website www.nra.co.za

Reply received: August 2012

QUESTION NO 1347

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 06 AUGUST 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 25 MAY 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 14 – 2012)

Adv A de W Alberts (FF-Plus) asked the Minister of Transport

Whether, in terms of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (e-tolling project), the Government intends to keep the e-tolling system running until all debts incurred by the Government for this project have been paid off; if not, for how long does the Government plan to implement this tolling system; if so, what are the relevant details? NW1588E

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

Honourable Adv A de W Alberts may recall that as early as 1996, the White Paper on National Transport Policy accepted road tolling as a principle to support the development and maintenance of road infrastructure in accordance with sustainable economic and financial considerations.

The original intention was for all debt incurred and for the inclusion of future maintenance and expansion of GFIP to be exclusively funded from the tolls collected.

Yes, the Department intends to keep the GFIP on, until final decisions of an Inter-Ministerial Committee responsible for reviewing GFIP are announced.

The Inter-Ministerial Task Team, which is chaired by the Deputy President, is engaging with various stakeholders on the proposed e-tolling in Gauteng and the discussions includes alternative funding models for road construction and maintenance. There have been no final conclusions reached on this item as yet

It must be also noted that the tolling of GFIP is subject to the outcome of the court proceedings which is in progress.

The final details of the e-tolling with regards the tariffs and regulations shall be finalised after the current court case processes against e-tolling is finalised and concluded.

Various reports and information about GFIP and the e-tolling can be accessed through the SANRAL website www.nra.co.za

Reply received: July 2012

QUESTION NO 1330

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 20 JULY 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 18 MAY 2012: INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 13 – 2012)

Mr I M Ollis (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether his department has received an application in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information (PAIA) Act, Act 2 of 2000, to disclose the details of contracts for all the specified contractors involved in the Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) consortium; if so, what was the outcome of the application;

(2) whether applicants have lodged an appeal under PAIA for his department to disclose the details of all contracts with all ETC contractors; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so,

(3) whether his department has (a) approached and (b) requested all ETC contractors to disclose the details of the contracts in terms of the appeal process for third parties as set out in the PAIA; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW1575E

____________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

(1) Yes, my Department has received an application in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information (PAIA) Act, 2000, (Act 2 of 2000). However, as the Honourable Member is aware, the information requested forms part of a subject matter of a court challenge between OUTA (Opposition To Urban Tolling Alliance) and OTHERS ("applicants") versus the South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL), et al, in the North Gauteng High Court. The Court granted an interim interdict to the applicants. This matter is now at the Constitutional Court, and for the reasons given, I am not in a position to provide any further details on this matter.

(2) and (3) (a) and (b)

Fall away.

Reply received: July 2012

QUESTION NO 1264

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED:20 JULY 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 18 MAY 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 13 – 2012)

Mr P D Mbhele (Cope) asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), Act 1 of 1999, and Treasury Regulations on Risk Assessment and Management had been adhered to prior to the introduction of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (e-tolling project); if so, what were the relevant findings; if not, why not;

(2) whether there was consensus to pass the findings by the board members in spite of any findings to the contrary; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details? NW1460E

____________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

(1) All the requirements in terms of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), 1999 (Act No.1 of 1999 as amended by Act 29 of 1999) and Treasury Regulations on Risk Management had been adhered to. This included the tender rules that complied with the Supply Chain Management Policy of the South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL), as prescribed by the PFMA. The report of the Auditor-General (AG) to Parliament on the financial statements of SANRAL for the year ended 30 March 2010, includes the AG's findings related to compliance with the PFMA. The AG had no matters to report in this regard.

(2) The project benefits far outweighed the costs. The various reports, in connection with the economic impact, social impact studies, etc, are available on the SANRAL website at www.nra.co.za. The Honourable Member can be provided with copies of these reports, if required.

Reply received: August 2012

QUESTION NO 1257

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 06 AUGUST 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 01 JUNE 2012: INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 15 – 2012)

Mr L S Ngonyama (Cope) asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether the Government has any policy regarding the (a) manufacturing, (b) licensing and (c) utilisation of three-wheeler taxis, particularly the electric model, to facilitate easy and affordable inner city transport; if not, (i) what is the position in this regard, (ii) when does he envisage that such a policy will be implemented, (iii) when does the Government intend to introduce the legislative framework in support of the introduction of the (aa) three-wheeler taxi and (bb) the electric version; if so, what are the relevant details in each case?

NW1453E

_________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

The Department currently does not have any policy regarding the (a) manufacturing, (b)

Licensing and (c) utilisation of three-wheeler taxis.

(i) Where these types of vehicles are in operations or there are plans to introduce them, it them the responsibility of the planning authority (municipality) to provide for them in their Integrated Public Transport Network Plans (IPTN's)

(ii) and (iii) are subsumed in (i)

Reply received: August 2012

QUESTION NO 1205

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 06 AUGUST 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 14 MAY 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 12 – 2012)

Mr A Watson (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

What amount has his department spent on (a) catering and (b) entertainment (i) in the (aa) 2007-08, (bb) 2008-09, (cc) 2009-10, (dd) 2010-11 and (ee) 2011-12 financial years and (ii) since 1 April 2012? NW1402E

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

Year / period

Catering

Entertainment

2007/08

R 785,115.55

R 352,561.59

2008/09

R 1,331,836.99

R 318,662.88

2009/10

R 645,974.01

R 373,234.21

2010/11

R 874,127.09

R 475,167.19

2011/12

R 1,002,161.10

R 482,184.25

1 April 2012 to 17 May 2012

R 24,395.00

R 52,497.53

Reply received: August 2012

QUESTION NO 1144

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 02 AUGUST 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 11 MAY 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 12 – 2012)

Adv A de W Alberts (FF-Plus) asked the Minister of Transport

Whether, with regard to the implementation of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (e-tolling project), the SA National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL) has met all legal requirements, including regulations as contained in the Trade Metrology Act, Act 77 of 1973, if so, in terms of this Act, what are the relevant requirements in respect of the (a) certificate references and (b) exemption references? NW1332E

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

The South African National Roads Agency (SOC) Limited (SANRAL) considers itself to be in compliance with all legal requirements relating to the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP) and the tolling thereof. The tolling of national roads in South Africa and the determination, levying and collecting of tolls are regulated by virtue of the provisions of the South African National Roads Agency Limited and National Roads Act, 1998 (Act No. 7 of 1998). Tolls are not determined by virtue of the provisions of the Trade Metrology Act, 1973 (Act No. 77 of 1973).

Reply received: August 2012

QUESTION NO 1160

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 21 AUGUST 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 11 MAY 2012: INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 12 – 2012)

Mr I M Ollis (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether he intends to investigate the delay in the implementation of the Integrated Public Transport System (IPTS) in the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether any measures have been put in place to avoid delays in the implementation of the IPTS; if not, why not; if so, what (a) are the time frames for completion of (i) routes and (ii) stations and (b) are the further relevant details;

(3) (a) when will the first buses be operational on the system and (b) what plans are in place to ensure that damage to private vehicles and trucks will not occur as a result of the engineering and narrow lanes on the system? NW1352E

____________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

(1) The Department has investigate these delays and found out from the municipality that they were caused by a court interdict preventing continuation of the project until the membership dispute among the nominated empowerment partners within the taxi operators.

(2) According to the municipality the project is now led at the level of the Deputy Mayor and should get necessary attention and impetus.

(a) The Municipality has committed to re-start the project focusing at the initial stage with a pilot service by November 2012.

(i) The construction phrase for the full system (routes and stations) is projected to last four years from date of commencement.

(ii) Please see (2) (a) (i) above.

(b) There are no further details

(3) (a) The municipality has indicated that the 25 buses procured in 2010 for the World Cup usage will be utilized for the pilot service mentioned in (2) (a) above.

(b) It is expected that construction projects of these nature to be executed in terms of contracts that have built-in safety measures as provided in the General Conditions of Contract (GCC)

Reply received: August 2012

QUESTION NO 1159

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 21 AUGUST 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 11 MAY 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 12 – 2012)

Mr S B Farrow (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) (a) Which (i) nominees have been shortlisted as candidates to the National Public Transport Regulator and (ii) criteria was used to select these members, (b) what specific (i) transport and (ii) tourism-related (aa) qualifications, (bb) experience and (cc) skills do these nominees have and (c) when will he announce these candidates;

(2) whether he will provide a short resumé of each shortlisted nominee; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether he intends to have a transport regulator for each province or major city to facilitate easy movement of operators across each province; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW1351E

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

The establishment and appointment of the National Public Transport Regulator remains the prerogative of the Minister of Transport in terms of the National Land Transport Act, No.5 of 2009.

However, in order to enables public participation and transparency the Department advertised on the 27th November 2011 in the public media for members of the public to nominate persons to serve as members of the Regulatory Committee of the National Public Transport Regulator.

The Department through its internal process is still busy with this matter and when the Department is ready Gazette, more information will be provided

Reply received: June 2012

QUESTION NO 1143

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: Tuesday, 05 June 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 11 MAY 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 12 – 2012)

Adv A de W Alberts (FF-Plus) asked the Minister of Transport

(1) Whether any (a) companies, (b) subsidiaries of companies, (c) shareholders in companies or (d) employees of companies that obtained contracts from the Government in 1999 for the procurement of arms, obtained contracts from (i) the Government or (ii) the SA National Roads Agency Limited (Sanral) for the construction, upgrading and management of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (e-tolling project); if so, (aa) which (aaa) companies, (bbb) subsidiaries and (ccc) shareholders of companies were involved in the arms deal and (bb) what is the total amount that was paid to each entity in each case;

(2) whether any national industrial programmes were included in the contracts in terms of which the (a) international companies, (b) subsidiaries, (c) shareholders and (d) employees have to fulfil certain obligations or make investments in South Africa; if so, what is the (i) nature and (ii) total value of the national industrial programme in each case;

(3) whether he has been informed about (a) claims of (i) bribery and (ii) any other irregularities and (b) investigations that were launched (aa) locally and (bb) internationally into such claims that were made with regard to the Government's arms deal against any companies, subsidiaries or shareholders in companies that also obtained contracts in the e-tolling project; if so, what are the relevant details? NW1331E

REPLY:

The Minister of Transport:

(1) (a), (b), (c) and (d) (i) and (ii)

No, not to the knowledge of the South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL).

(aa) (aaa), (bbb) and (ccc) and (bb)

Fall away.

(2) (a), (b), (c) and (d) (i) and (ii)

The contracts for the construction and upgrading of the road network, which form part of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP), were in the main, entered into with large South African construction companies, and as such there was no requirement relating to "national industrial programmes". The contract for the design, build and operation of the tolling system applicable to the GFIP was ultimately concluded with a South African company, ETC Proprietary Limited (ETC), which was formed to undertake the project. As such, the shareholders of ETC, including the foreign shareholders, were required to fund the company in South Africa and provide SANRAL, in South Africa, with guarantees, including demand guarantees drawn on a South African Bank, worth in excess of R1 billion. ETC has to date, and in respect of the contract, created employment opportunities in excess of 1 800 South African employees. In addition, SANRAL was entitled to and has benefited from an Export Credit Agency (ECA) loan (a foreign loan), which is guaranteed by the Austrian Export Credit Agency, the OeKB, in an amount of several hundred million Rands. This loan was made available to SANRAL at a favourable interest rate by virtue of the guarantee provided to the lenders by the OeKB. This guarantee applies by virtue of, and in particular, as a consequence of equipment imported into South Africa by ETC, as part of the GFIP contract. The ECA loan has been internationally recognised as an innovative funding structure and SANRAL has recently received an international award with regard to such facility.

(3) (a) (i) and (ii) and (b) (aa) and (bb)

Unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations have been made in the media. SANRAL has requested the Public Protector to investigate these allegations.

Reply received: June 2012

QUESTION NO 1110

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: Wednesday, 06 June 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 04 MAY 2012: INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 11 – 2012)

Mrs M Wenger (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) (a) What are the (i) yearly rental and (ii) floor space of the (aa) current and (bb) previous premises occupied by his department's head office and (b) when (i) was the current building occupied and (ii) does the current lease expire;

(2) whether his department publicly invited tenders prior to the leasing of the current premises; if not, why not; if so, (a) when, (b) where was it published and (c) which (i) companies and (ii) properties were shortlisted;

(3) what (a) floor space was offered and (b) annual rental was tendered (i) by each shortlisted company and (ii) with regard to each shortlisted property? NW1298E

____________________________________________________________________________

REPLY:

The Minister of Transport:

(1), (2) and (3)

All property-related matters (insofar as the question above), including rentals, are dealt with by the National Department of Public Works. The Honourable Member should therefore re-direct this question to the Honourable Minister of Public Works for a detailed response on this matter.

Reply received: July 2012

QUESTION NO 1056

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 20 JULY 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 04 MAY 2012: INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 11 – 2012)

Mr I M Ollis (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) (a) How many claims from the Road Accident Fund (RAF) remain (i) unpaid and (ii) unresolved, (b) what measures are in place to reduce the backlog and (c) how will the 2012-13 budget affect it;

(2) (a) how many cases of fraud against (i) attorneys, (ii) advocates, (iii) medical professionals and (iv) staff of the RAF are currently being processed and (b) what measures are in place to reduce fraud in the fund? NW1241E

____________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

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

Open claims (supplier and non-supplier): 253 111 in total (un-audited)

(b) The Road Accident Fund (RAF) has accumulated a backlog of claims, which must be run off over the next two to three years. The RAF Operations Unit will deploy strategies to run off the backlog of claims. These strategies include, but are not limited to the following:

§ Propose amendments to RAF legislation and court rules in an effort to reduce legal costs to the Fund;

§ segment claims according to volume and type and distinguish between value and type;

§ consolidation and redistribution of claims amongst the processing regions;

§ develop targets, which are pragmatically geared to the characteristics of each segment;

§ monitor performance against targets per segment;

§ optimize resource capacity to reduce claims volumes;

§ reduce active litigation through proactive claims settlement;

§ monitor customer experience levels in partnership with the Customer Service Network (CSN); and

§ reduce/curb fruitless and wasteful expenditure in respect of claims costs by introducing control measures to ensure claim payments are made timeously.

(c) For the 2012/13 financial year, R12,6 billion is budgeted that will be utilized to pay

the projected figure of 210 789 personal and supplier claims.

(2) (a) the number of cases of fraud against (i) attorneys, (ii) advocates, (iii) medical professionals and (iv) staff of the RAF that are currently being processed are as follows:

Attorneys

Advocates

Medical experts

Internal Staff

20

2

20

23

(b) The following measures are in place to reduce fraud in the Fund:

· Fraud Detection and Prevention Awareness campaign;

· anonymous fraud hotline;

· cooperation agreements with law enforcement agencies to assist in the battle against fraud;

· active forensic investigations;

· whistleblower policy, and

· internal control procedures to prevent and detect fraud.

Reply received: August 2012

QUESTION NO 1047

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 21 AUGUST 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 04 MAY 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 11 – 2012)

Mr P D Mbhele (Cope) asked the Minister of Transport:

How many claims instituted against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) by patients in hospitals since 1 August 2008 have not been processed as the result of the time lapse? NW1231E

____________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

· Two types of claims are received by the Road Accident Fund (RAF). These are:

o Claims in terms of section 17 (1) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, as amended (the Act), which are claims by the actual victims of road accidents, being the injured or the dependents of breadwinners killed in accidents; and

o Claims in terms of section 17 (5) of the Act, which are claims by medical services providers that rendered treatment to injured persons.

· For operational and reporting purposes the RAF refers to the first claim type as "personal claims" and to the second claim type as "supplier claims".

· The Act provides for two prescription periods, one being the time within which a claim must be lodged and the second being the time within which legal action must be instituted against the RAF. Claims must be lodged with the RAF:

o Within two years from the date of accident if the identity of neither the driver nor the owner of the responsible vehicle has been established, in other words in the case of hit and run accidents; and

o Within three years from the date of accident if the driver or owner of the responsible vehicle has been established, unless the claimant is subject to a legal impediment such as in the case of minors or persons under curatorship.

· In both hit and run claims and identified claims, a claim will prescribe unless legal action is instituted within 5 years from date of accident.

· In respect of claims relating to accidents that occurred on or after 1 August 2008 (which claims are referred to as Amendment Act claims), the RAF as at 31 March 2012 had:

o Finalised 225,824 Amendment Act claims (216,487 supplier claims and 9,337 personal claims); and

o Not processed to finality 100,863 Amendment Act claims (46,688 supplier claims and 81,559 personal claims).

· Not all of the 128,247 Amendment Act claims that were unfinalised as at 31 March 2012 will relate to persons who were hospitalised. In so far as the personal claims are concerned, reasons for this include:

o Personal injury claims are lodged not only by persons injured in accidents but also by dependents of persons killed in accidents and in the latter instance if the death was instantaneous, no hospitalisation would have resulted; and

o Persons who suffer more minor injuries do not always require hospitalisation for treatment of their injuries.

· Likewise, not all the 46,688 supplier claims that were unfinalised as at 31 March 2012 will have been generated due to a person having been an in-patient at a hospital. A portion of these claims will have been lodged by healthcare service providers who rendered treatment to patients whose injuries did not warrant hospitalisation.

· The RAF is in the process of extracting data to establish how many of the 128,247 Amendment Act claims that were unfinalised as at 31 March 2012 relate to persons who received in-patient care in hospital. This information will be provided as soon as it is available.

Reply received: August 2012

QUESTION NO 1046

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 21 AUGUST 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 04 MAY 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 11 – 2012)

Mr P D Mbhele (Cope) asked the Minister of Transport:

(a) How long does it take the Road Accident Fund (RAF) to process a claim and (b) why? NW1230E

____________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

(a) The time by the Road Accident Fund to process a claim to finalisation depends on a number of factors including, but not limited to, the nature and severity of the injury, whether the claimant has suffered a ''serious injury'' and is therefore entitled to claim for non-pecuniary damages, the complexity of the claim in general, the difficulty involved in proving blameworthy conduct on the part of another driver and the availability of medical and other evidence to prove the origin, nature and extend of the injury.

According to the Road Accident Fund the average delay between lodgment and settlement for personal claims lodged by claimants who have been injured or have suffered a loss as a result of the death of a breadwinner is 39 Months. (Source: Road Accident Fund 2011 Integrated Annual Report at page 32)

According to the Road Accident Fund, the average delay between lodgment and settlement of claims lodged by suppliers for the provision of accommodation in a hospital or nursing home, or the supply of goods and services to accident victims is 12 months.

(Source: Road Accident Fund 2011 Integrated Annual Report at page 32)

Reply received: August 2012

QUESTION NO 1045

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 21 AUGUST 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 04 MAY 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 11 – 2012)

Mr P D Mbhele (Cope) asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether his department achieved its objectives in the (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11 and (d) 2011-12 financial years; if not,

(2) whether any persons were held accountable for such failure in the specified financial years; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW1229E

____________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

(1) Vision: Transport, the Heartbeat of Economic Growth and Social Development!

The Department of Transport Medium Term Strategic Framework (MTSF), which covers the period 2009-2014, saw DOT undergoing a comprehensive restructuring process, in order to enhance the achievement of Outcome 6, namely – "An efficient, competitive and responsive economic infrastructure network". In so doing the Department changed from being a policy making organisation to a more functional structure by grouping related functions together that eventually resulted in seven mode based programmes.

The success of the Department over the MTSF period is thus measured against the achievement and/or implementation of the Key Performance Indicators per area of delivery/mode, in line with the six (6) Departmental Outcomes, which are:

Outcome 1: An effective and integrated infrastructure network that serves as a catalyst for social and economic development

Outcome 2: A transport sector that is safe and secure

Outcome 3: Improved rural access, infrastructure and mobility

Outcome 4: Improved rural transport systems

Outcome 5: Increased contribution to job creation

Outcome 6: Increased contribution of transport to environmental sustainability

(a) and (b) 2008-09 and 2009-10 Financial Years

All Programmes have duly achieved some of their set objectives and reasons for deviation were noted as such in the comprehensive Annual Reports (per Financial Year) that are published in line with the Treasury Regulations.

(c) 2010-11 Financial Year

All Programmes have achieved some of their objectives and reasons for deviation were noted as such.

During this financial year the Department undertook a comprehensive organisational restructuring and designed a new business case in order to improve alignment across the transport sector. This process-driven organisational design matched people and processes to the purpose, vision and strategy of the Transport sector in order to improve efficiency. As a result, the Programmes were changed to follow a mode based design:

i) Programme 1: Administration

a. Sub-programmes: Ministry, Office of the Director-General, Office of the Chief Operations Officer (COO), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and Transport Information Systems

ii) Programme 2: Integrated Transport Planning

iii) Programme 3: Rail Transport

iv) Programme 4: Road Transport

v) Programme 5: Civil Aviation

vi) Programme 5: Maritime Transport

vii) Programme 7: Public Transport

A comprehensive Annual Report is available from the Department.

(d) 2011/12 Financial Year

The Department is currently finalising the Annual Report (including Annual Financial Statements) for presentation to the Audit Committee and Auditor-General.

This Annual Report will be tabled in Parliament by end of September 2012.

(2) None of the DOT officials were held accountable for a lack of achieving objectives, because sufficient reasons for not achieving some of the set targets as per strategic objectives were provided throughout the performance cycle by means of regular performance monitoring and evaluation reports.

Reply received: August 2012

QUESTION NO 1017

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 21 AUGUST 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: THURSDAY, 26 APRIL 2012 - INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 10 – 2012)

Mr I M Ollis (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

Whether any subsidised buses travel the Moloto Road (R573) daily, transporting commuters to Tswane/Pretoria; if not, why not; if so, how many? NW1199E

____________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

Contract no

No. of buses

Average number of passengers / month

Subsidy allocated 2011/2012

IC52

634

3 050 219

R 513 625 649.25

Reply received: August 2012

QUESTION NO 1009

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 06 AUGUST 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: THURSDAY, 26 APRIL 2012 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 11 – 2012)

Mr I M Ollis (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether (a) he and (b) the Ports Regulator have been informed of the increase with regards to the Transnet Port Terminal tariff that was published for the 2012-13 financial year, if so, what is the position in this regards

(2) whether Transnet had consulted with the Ports Regulator prior to the tariff increase, if not, why not, if so, what (a) is the scope of the consultation and (b) are the further relevant details

(3) whether a comparative study of international tariffs and standards had been conducted before the increase were signed off, if not why not, if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) what steps have been taken to limit excessive increases in order to make harbours competitive in international shipping and freight markets? NW1191E

____________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

Ports Regulator of South Africa.

The Minister of Transport and the Ports Regulator were not informed of the increase in the Transnet Port Terminal tariff. There is no legislation that governs the terminal operators in South Africa. As a result there is no legal requirement for the Ports Regulator to approve Transnet Port Terminal's tariff or that of any other Terminal Operator.

However, Section72 (2) of the National Port Act, 2005, states that the National Ports Authority (as the landlord) must, prior to alteration of a tariff, consult the Port Consultative Committees (PCC's) and the National Port Consultative Committee (NPCC) as established by the Minister of Transport, in terms of section 81 and 82 of the National Ports Act. The NPCC is chaired by the Director General of Transport. Through the NPCC, the Minister of Transport was not informed about the increase in the Transnet Port Terminal's tariff.

This matter will be raised at the next NPCC meeting, in September 2012, and a resolution will be proposed that, not only NPA's tariffs, but Transnet Ports Terminal's tariff as well as other operators' tariffs be presented to the NPCC prior to implementation.

REPLY TO QUESTION 2:

The Ports Regulator was not consulted about the increase with regards to Transnet Port Terminal tariff for the 2012/13 financial year, either prior to or subsequent to the decision.

In terms of section 56 of the National Ports Act the Authority is empowered to enter into agreement with any person for a period stated in the agreement, for that person to operate a terminal or a facility. Neither the Act nor the Port Regulation specifies the details of the tariff adjustment for Terminal Operators.

REPLY TO QUESTION 3:

Comparative studies of international tariffs and standards have been conducted and completed in July 2011 by the Ports regulator and quantitative elements were submitted to Transnet for the comments, prior to the report being developed.

REPLY TO QUESTION 4

The Regulator only approves the tariffs for the National Ports Authority. Approval for the tariffs for Terminal Operators is not clearly articulated under the Act or Regulations, but falls within the jurisdiction of the National Ports Authority as they manage the South African Port system through the leasing and rights granting process. The Department of Transport together with the Port Regulator will conduct a study on Ports efficiency and competitiveness. The outcome of this study will enable the government to take measures for ports to become more competitive on the global market.

Reply received: August 2012

QUESTION NO 1007

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: 02 AUGUST 2012

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: THURSDAY, 26 APRIL 2012 - INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NO 10 – 2012)

Mr I M Ollis (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether his department approved funds for the development of a railway line to improve public transport for communities along the Moloto Corridor (R573); if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, (a) when and (b) how much was approved for this project;

(2) whether construction has commenced; if not, when will the project commence; if so, when is it expected that the project will be completed;

(3) whether the project has been delayed; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what were the reasons for the delay;

(4) whether there are any (a) scoping and (b) engineering reports available on this project; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW1188E

____________________________________________________________________________

3. THE WRITTEN REPLY

The Minister of Transport:

(1) (a) and (b)

No funds have been approved for a railway line for the Moloto Corridor, as the feasibility of a rail solution to the public transport situation in the corridor has not been adequately proven.

(2) Construction has not commenced. Construction of the preferred solution, once decided upon, will only commence once funding has been allocated and approved accordingly.

(3) The project has not been delayed, as no decision on the final solution has been taken.

(4) (a) and (b)

There are no scoping or engineering reports available, because the project has not reached that stage yet.