Questions & Replies: Question & Replies no 551 to 575

Share this page:
2009-07-23

Search this file by selecting Ctrl + F on your keyboard

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

QUESTION*551:

Mr A Louw to ask the Minister of Labour:

(1) Whether his Department makes use of private security firms; if so, how much money was spent on such firms in 2008.

(2) whether these firms are used on a contractual basis; if so (a) how many contracts did his department take out in this regard in 2008, (b) with which firms were these contracts taken out, (c) for what specific purpose was each contract taken out and (d) what was the value of the contract in each case;

(3) why is there a need for his department to use a private security firm as apposed to state security?

The Minister of Labour replied:

1. Yes, the Department of Labour did make use of private security firms.

(a) Total amount spent in 2008 = R19 662 626.76

Total: = R19 662 626.76

(2a) Total contracts signed for the year 2008 = 55

(2b) Listed below are the security firms contracted to the department in 2008

Province

Name of Company

Number of companies

Amount spent

Limpopo

Born to Protect Security

Zacks Business Enterprises

Aaron Security Services

Prelish Security Services

Limpo Security Services

Simuka Protection Services

Shephered Protection Services

Afguard Security Services

8

R477 097,92

R1081 107,96

R446 159,52

R480 844,32

R358 046,40

R714 240,00

R282 768,00

R469 112,28

Total: R4 309 376,40

Province

Name of Company

Number of companies

Amount spent

Gauteng South

Johannesburg L/C-Prospect Security

Alberton L/C-KK Security

Benoni L/C-Pilgrims Den Patrol

Boksburg L/C-Lesetja Traderoffices

Carletonville L/C

Germiston L/C

Kemptonpark

Nigel L/C

Roodepoort

Santon

Sebokeng

Springs L/C

Vanderbijlpark L/C

Vereeniging L/C

Randburg L/C

Soweto L/C

14

R86 800,00

R30 688,80

R26 759,79

R18 376,80

R21 204,00

R23 962,80

R12 448,80

R13 090,80

R14 934,00

R52 269,00

R14 250,00

R20 475,06

R14 250,00

R28 158,00

R14 934, 00

R14 335, 00

Total: R4 883 242,20

Eastern Cape

Sita Security- L/C Fort

National Piece Security-L/C Maclear

Xhobani Security-Prov & L/C EL

Xhobani Security-L/C Mthatha

Secunjalo Security Services- L/C PE

5

R441 600,00

R497 952,00

R1 262 405,62

R321 692,16

R891 285, 12

Total: R3 414 934.90

Province

Name of Company

Number of companies

Amount spent

Free State

Lerumo La Sechaba

Lerumo La Sechaba

2

R205 440,00

R154 080.00

Total: R359 520.00

Northern Cape

Future Officers Security

1

Total: R150 415.02

Gauteng North

Sibongile Security – Ga-Rankuwa

Maphokothela Security – Krugersdorp

Mogalakwena Security – Soshanguve

Billy& Sons Security – Prov. Office

Mogalakwena Security – Bronkhorstspruit

Good Shepherd Security – Temba

TyzerT Security 21– Mamelodi

Tyzer T Security 21– Atteridgeville

Gossip Business Security – Soshanguve

Maphokothela Security – Randfontein

Mandla Security- Atteridgeville

11

R146 854,08

R324 000,00

R153 000,00

R363 365, 88

R299 415,24

R329 820,00

R232 002, 72

R151 920,00

R212 760,00

R252 000,00

R224 352,00

Total: 2 689 489,92

Compensation Fund

Manelisi Private Security Company

1

Total: R1,8m

Unemployment Insurance Fund

NIL

NIL

NIL

KwaZulu/ Natal

Kokstad

Richmond

Greytown

Richards Bay

Prospecto

PMB

Verulam

Pinetown

Newcastle

P/ Shepstone

Ladysmith

Estcourt

Stanger

Ulundi

Vryheid

Dundee

16

R3 166, 49 p.m.

R6 332, 92 p.m.

R2 978, 22 p.m.

R6 000, 00 p.m.

R1, 048 68 50 p.m.

R9 490, 77 p.m.

R3 700, 00 p.m.

R3 700, 00 p.m.

R5 038, 15 p.m.

R3 000, 00 p.m.

R3 203.88 pm

R3 177, 62.pm

R3 000, 00 pm

R6 631.85 pm

R3 205.62 pm

R3 205.62 pm

Total: R915 595.68 pa

Mpumalanga

Greenville – Nelspruit

Double Barrel Security - Witbank

2

R78 362.12

R132 810.08

Total: R211 172,20

Western Cape

Knysna L/C-Allsound Security

Beaufortwest L/C-Beaufortwest Security

Cape Town L/C-Peace Force Security

Athlone-Weskus Security

Atlantis-Red Security

R102 600, 00

R555 224,44

R63 600,00

R59 097,60

R207 456,00

Total: R928 880,44

Indlela

Nil

Nil

Nil

North West

Nil

Nil

Nil

GRAND TOTAL: R19 662 626.76

2(c): To provide a security guarding service.

2(d): Please refer to list under 2(b) above, column four under the amount spent in 2008.

3. (i) The reason for using private security companies is that most of the Provincial Offices and Labour Centre Buildings do not have proper security equipment like metal detectors and cameras as most of the buildings are leased.

(ii) In most cases the Provincial structure does not make provision for in-house security personnel.

QUESTION NO 552

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 10 JULY 2009

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 6)

Adv H C Schmidt (DA) to ask the Minister of Mineral Resources:

(1) Whether her department makes use of private security firms; if so, how much money was spent on such firms in 2008;

(2) whether these firms are used on a contractual basis; if so, (a) how many contracts did her department take out in this regard in 2008, (b) with which firms were these contracts taken out, (c) for what specific purpose was each contract taken out and (d) what was the value of the contract in each case;

(3) why is there a need for her department to use a private security firm as opposed to state security?

REPLY

(1) Yes, the Department makes use private security firms. The money spent the security firms in 2008 is R186 435.60.

(2) Yes the firms are used on contractual basis.

(a) Two firms were contracted in 2008

(b) Siyashesha Security Services and Enforce Armed Response System

(c) Siyashesha Security Services for Physical security at Olifantsfontein training centre and Enforce Security Services for Armed Response System at Durban regional office

(d) The department paid R186 435.60 per annum for Siyashesha Security Services and paid R4 035 to Enforce Security Services

(3) It is government policy.

QUESTION NO.: 554

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 10 July 2009

Dr S M van Dyk (DA) to ask the Minister of Public Enterprises:

(1)Whether her department makes use of private security firms; if so, how much money was spent on such firms in 2008;

(2)whether these firms are used on a contractual basis; if so, (a) how many contracts did her department take out in this regard in 2008, (b) with which firms were these contracts taken out, (c) for what specific purpose was each contract taken out and (d) what was the value of the contract in each case;

(3)why is there a need for her department to use a private security firm as opposed to State security? NW618E

REPLY

(1) Yes, the Department of Public Enterprises makes use of a private security firm. An amount of R137 301,60 was spent during the 2008/09 financial year.

(2) The firm is used on a contractual basis.

(a) One

(b) Magnum Shield Security

(c) Access Control

(d) 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009 – R137 301,60

(3) The Departmentoccupies two floors in a building owned by Growthpoint, previously Investec. The landlord provides general security for the building. To enhance the department's capacity as we only have two permanent security personnel, we have to employ the security company to compliment the existing security services.

QUESTION 555

10 JULY 2009

555. Mr S J MASANGO TO ASK THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS:

(1) Whether his department makes use of private security firms; if so, how much money was spent on such firms in 2008;

(2) Whether these firms are used on a contractual basis; if so, (a) how many contracts did her department take out in this regard in 2008, (b) with which firms were these contracts taken out, (c) for what specific purpose was each contract taken out and (d) what was the value of the contract in each case;

(3) Why is there a need for her department to use a private security firm as opposed to state security?

REPLY

1. R 22 356 474-00

2. (a)Yes, in 2008 the Department contracted about 144 private security firms.

(b) Details on the names of the firms or companies cannot be furnished at this stage.

(c) The contracts were entered into for purposes of guarding vacant state buildings against theft, vandalism, illegal occupation and for manning access control in DPW buildings.

(d) The collective value of all contracts was R22 356 474-00

  1. The department had vacant or unutilised buildings which cannot be guarded by state security because they are either vacated on a short-term while the department is awaiting to place another client department. Other buildings are guarded while waiting renovations in terms of our National Infrastructure Management Programme and cannot be guarded by State security.

QUESTION 558

FOR WRITTEN REPLY

Date of publication on internal question paper: Jul 2009

Internal question paper no:

Ms S P Kopane (DA) to ask the Minister of Social Development:

(1) Whether her department makes use of private security firms; if so, how much money was spent on such firms in 2008;

(2) whether these firms are used on a contractual basis; if so, (a) how many contracts did her department take out in this regard in 2008, (b) with which firms were these contracts taken out, (c) for what specific purpose was each contract taken out and (d) what was the value of the contract in each case;

(3) why is there a need for her department to use a private security firm as opposed to state security? NW622E

REPLY:

(1) Yes, DSD utilizes private security firm to protect its personnel and assets. The DSD went out on a security guarding service tender which was awarded in 2008 for a period of 1 year as per the tender process of the department. The amount spent by the DSD on the security contract was R908 333.52.

The security firm was utilized on a contractual basis

(2) (a) Only one contract was signed by DSD.

(b) The company that the contract was awarded to was Born to Protect.

(c) The specific purpose was Physical Security (Guarding Service)

Institutions are threatened by a variety of risks, which are aimed at its staff members, buildings, property or information. As part of the total counter intelligence process, steps or actions are taken also on the terrain of physical security, not only to defend against these threats, but also to limit the damage in case of an incident (which may include a breach of security of any kind), and to facilitate the eventual investigation into the incident.

The implementation of physical security measures to:

  • Delay, detect or prevent unauthorized intrusion to a department/institution.
  • Activate appropriate responses to such attempts or actual gaining of unauthorized intrusion.
  • The implementation of physical security measures to safeguard employees contractors and visitors from harm.
  • The secure storage, transportation and disposal of assets of the department/ institution.
  • The continuous review of physical security measures at facilities of the department/institution in order to reflect changes in the environment and take advantage of new cost-effective technologies.
  • These steps or actions include, among others, the following:

    • Access control
    • Movement control
    • Record keeping
    • Patrols
    • Escorts
    • Static observation
    • Key control
    • Monitoring actions (iro classified documents)
    • Guarding services

    Access Control

    Access control is a process in which several measures are applied to ensure that any object or person requiring access to premises of an institution, is safe, has a bona fide reason to enter, is entitled and authorized thereto, and that the institution or its staff will not be exposed to danger or to breaches of security during the presence of such a person or due to his/her gaining access.

    • Access Control is multifunctional. The different levels must be applied in accordance to the needs of the department, regarding the protection of equipment, patrolling and monitoring of the building;
    • Security officials control access to the building by monitoring and identifying people and equipment before they are allowed access;
    • The Head of the institution is responsible for the enforcement of the provisions of the Control of Access to Public Premises and Vehicles Act (Act 53 of 1985). The purpose being to safeguard the building under the control of Government Departments;
    • Section 2(2) of the act entails the furnishing of information, the furnishing of identification, declarations concerning hazardous objects and the contents of any suitcase, briefcase, handbag, bag, etc, the subjection of persons to electronic examinations and the handing over of any hazardous objects to the security official.

    Functions of Physical Security

    • To physically safeguard staff, property and information;
    • To prevent any unauthorised access into the building, surrounding area, equipment and information;
    • To make access difficult for intruders;
    • to combat or prevent malpractice.

    (d) The value of the contract was R908 333.52

    (3) The question whether institutions should make use of their own in-house Security Division for safeguarding personnel, information and property or rather out-source these services to a private security contractor, have been the subject of much debate. In some instances, contract guarding services are used by institutions, while others refrain from using such services. Arguments can be raised for and against both these viewpoints. The current trend, however, tends to be the out-sourcing of security services to private contractors for the following two reasons:

    - it is a much cheaper option than maintaining a Security Division;

    - down-sizing of the security components of many institutions.

    The contract security industry in South Africa has shown dramatic growth over the last decade. Due to the amount of competition present in the marketplace, very aggressive marketing techniques are used by private companies in this sector of the security industry. The result of this is that the lowest bidder is normally awarded the contract. This in turn often results in inferior service delivery. Care should therefore be taken to also consider aspects such as a proven track record, resources, ability and professionalism before a contract is awarded to a private security company. The old adage "If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys", can ring very true in this regard.

    The following are some of the advantages and disadvantages regarding the utilization of in-house or contract security services:

    IN-HOUSE SECURITY

    CONTRACT SECURITY

    Advantages

    Advantages

    1. Better control.

    2. Loyalty to institution.

    3. Screening procedures utilized by the Government more thorough than that of private companies.

    4. In-house security can handle all the dimensions of security (e.g. ICT, physical, document and personnel security and specifically key control).

    1. Lower costs.

    2. Guarding company responsible for training and equipment.

    3. Guarding company must ensure that all personnel or backup personnel are on duty at all times.

    4. Private companies normally utilize the latest technology in the security industry.

    Disadvantages

    Disadvantages

    1. Costs of maintaining a security component (e.g. salaries, training, uniforms, equipment).

    2. Provision for an expanded post establishment to cater for absences.

    3. Budget constraints usually limit the effectiveness of the security component (acquisition of new equipment).

    4. Posts cannot readily be terminated.

    5. Shortage of personnel during crisis situations.

    1. No loyalty towards the organization.

    2. Problems might arise with respect to control of the services rendered.

    3. Private security companies cannot have access to IT networks, communication networks, restricted areas or keys.

    4. Private companies concentrate mainly on physical security and not information security.

    5. Constant audits must be conducted by the institution to ensure proper service rendering and compliance with contract specifications. Some security personnel must therefore still be employed by the institution.

    6. High turnover of personnel.

    FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF IN-HOUSE Vs CONTRACT SECURITY

    Due to budget constraints usually limit the effectiveness of the security component and costs of maintaining a security component (e.g. salaries, training, uniforms, equipment) it was decided to utilise contract security which has a cost savings element and utilise the savings in other areas of security.

    A break down example of the estimated financial implications is as follows:

    Departmental Security Officers

    Per Month

    Per year

    5 X Senior Security Officers

    ±R88 828-40

    ±R 444 142-00

    10 X Security Officers Grade 3

    ±R77 717-30

    ±R 777 173-00

    15 X Uniforms per annum

    ±R 4000-00

    ±R 60 000-00

    15 X Training per annum

    ±R10 000-00

    ±R 150 000-00

    15 X Overtime due to

    unforeseen circumstances

    ±R 5000-00

    ±R 75 000-00

    Total ±R 1 526 315-00

    Private Security Company

    Per Year

    Per Officer

    Per Month

    5 X Senior Security

    ±R4700-00

    ±R23 500-00

    10 X Security Officers

    ±R4000-00

    ±R40 000-00

    Total cost per year

    ±R 282000-00

    Total cost per year

    ±R480 000-00

    The cost implications for the Department of Social Development is a saving of R764 315. 00 per annum. Due to the current economic climate it make good financial sense to out source the physical security service as this brings about a saving for the department

    Finally, it must be stressed that overall accountability for ensuring the implementation and maintenance of effective security measures at institutions will remain with the head of the institution. This entails that the entire security function at institutions can NEVER be outsourced to a private contractor. The institution will always need a core group of in-house security personnel to attend to those security functions that cannot be outsourced. This core group of individuals will, of course, include the security manager of the institution.

    QUESTION: NO 559

    (Internal Question Paper No 6 – 2009)

    Mr T D Lee (DA) to ask the Minister of Sport and Recreation:

    (1) Whether his department makes use of private security firms; if so, how much money was spent on such firms in 2008?

    (2) Whether these firms are used on a contractual basis; if so,

    (a) How many contracts did his department take out in this regard in 2008?

    (b) With which firms were these contracts taken out,

    (c) For what specific purpose was each contract taken out and

    (d) What was the value of the contract in each case?

    (3) Why is there a need for his department to use a private security firm as opposed to state security?

    NW623E

    REPLY:

    1. Yes, the department spent R 4 176 962.10 in 2008.
    2. Yes, the firms were used on a contractual basis.

    a) 2 Contracts

    b) Eldna Security and Kwena Manyane Protection

    c) Eldna Security was contracted to provide Security and Access control services at SRSA headquarters in Pretoria and Kwena Manyane was contracted to provide security services at the Zone VI Games in Tlokwe.

    d) Eldna Security – R491 940 and Kwena Manyane Protection – R3 685 021.10

    1. It is more convenient and cheaper for the department to use private security as opposed to creating an additional organizational structure for security services on its establishment to secure its premises and it is also not possible to use state security for events like the Zone VI games due to the short time span of such events.

    Question No. 560

    For Written Reply

    DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 03/7/09

    (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 5 -2009)

    NW624E

    Mr TW Coetzee (DA) to ask the Minister of State Security

    (1) Whether his department makes use of private Security firms; if so, how much money was spent on such firms in 2008;

    (2) Whether these firms are used on a contractual basis; if so (a) how many contracts did his department take out in this regard in 2008, (b) with which firms were these contracts taken out, (c) for what specific purpose was each contract taken out and (d) what was the value of the contract in each case;

    (3) Why is there a need for his department to use a private security firm as opposed to state security?

    REPLY:

    In terms of the above questions, I kindly refer the Honourable Member to the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence (JSCI), as the oversight body for clarity and information on questions relating to the operations of the Intelligence Services. In this regard, I have tabled the response to your question with the JSCI.

    QUESTION NO. 561 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 6 of 2009

    DATE OF PUBLICATION: 10 July 2009

    Ms M R Shinn (DA) to ask the Minister of Tourism:

    (1) Whether his department makes use of private security firms; if so, how much money was spent on such firms in 2008;

    (2) whether these firms are used on a contractual basis; if so, (a) how many contracts did his department take out in this regard in 2008, (b) with which firms were these contracts taken out, (c) for what specific purpose was each contract taken out and (d) what was the value of the contract in each case;

    (3) why is there a need for his department to use a private security firm as opposed to state security?

    NW625E

    MS R M SHINN (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

    HANSARD

    PAPERS OFFICE

    PRESS

    561. THE MINISTER OF TOURISM AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

    (1) The department does not employ any private security firms.

    (2) Falls away.

    (3) Falls away.

    Question 562

    Mr S J F Marais (DA) to ask the Minister of Trade and Industry:

    1. Whether his department makes use of private security firms; if so, how much money was spent on such firms in 2008;

    2. Whether these firms are used on a contractual basis; if so, (a) how many contracts did his department take out in this regard in 2008, (b) with which firms were these contracts taken out, (c) for what specific purpose was each contract taken out and (d) what was the value of the contract in each case;

    3. Why is there a need for his department to use a private security firm as opposed to state security? NW626E

    Response:

    1. the dti does not have a contract with any private security firm, as security services are provided through the concession agreement entered into at the time of the construction of the dti campus.

    QUESTION NO 563

    DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: THURSDAY, 27 AUGUST 2009

    DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 10 JULY 2009 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 6 – 2009)

    Mr J J van der Linde (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

    (1) Whether his department makes use of private security firms; if so, how much money was spent on such firms in 2008;

    (2) whether these firms are used on a contractual basis; if so, (a) how many contracts did his department take out in this regard in 2008, (b) with which firms were these contracts taken out, (c) for what specific purpose was each contract taken out and (d) what was the value of the contract in each case;

    (3) why is there a need for his department to use a private security firm as opposed to state security?

    NW627E

    REPLY:

    The Minister of Transport:

    (1) No private security firms were used by the Department of Transport in the 2008/2009 financial year.

    (2) (a), (b), (c) and (d) Fall away.

    (3) Falls away.

    QUESTION NO. 564 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 6 of 2009

    DATE OF PUBLICATION: 10 July 2009

    Mr M W Rabotapi (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

    (1) Whether her department makes use of private security firms; if so, how much money was spent on such firms in 2008;

    (2) whether these firms are used on a contractual basis; if so, (a) how many contracts did her department take out in this regard in 2008, (b) with which firms were these contracts taken out, (c) for what specific purpose was each contract taken out and (d) what was the value of the contract in each case;

    (3) why is there a need for her department to use a private security firm as opposed to state security?

    NW628E

    MS N W RABOTAPI (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

    HANSARD

    PAPERS OFFICE

    PRESS

    564. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

    (1) The department does not employ any private security firms.

    (2) Falls away.

    (3) Falls away.

    QUESTION: 566

    566. Ms A M Dreyer (DA) to ask the Minister for the Public Service and

    Administration:

    (1) Whether his department makes use of private security firms; if so, how much

    Money was spent on such firms in 2008;

    ( 2) Whether these firms are used on a contractual basis; if so, (a) how many contracts did his department take out in this regard in 2008; (b) with which firms were these contracts taken out, (c) for what specific purpose was each contract taken out and (d) what was the value of the contract in each case;

    (3) Why is there a need for his department to use a private security firm as opposed to state security?

    NW630E

    ANSWER:

    (1) The Department utilizes in-house security however it has a contract with the ADT Armed Response unit and Alarm Response. The department has spent R32954.86 for the installation of the alarm system. It will further utilize R11 400 by August 2009 as annual contract fee.

    (2) Yes, the department has entered into an annual contract with ADT. (a) Two contracts (b) The ADT Armed response and Alarm Response (c) For alarm system and armed response (d) R32954.86 and R11 400 (by August 2009).

    (3) The private company the department has employed has as its core business rapid response whilst our state security is not equipped in that field.

    QUESTION 567

    DATE OF PUBLICATION: FRIDAY 10 JULY 2009 [IQP No 6 -2009]

    FIRST SESSION, FOURTH PARLIAMENT

    Question 567 for Written Reply, National Assembly: Mr. L L Bosman (DA) to ask the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries:

    (1) Whether her department makes use of private security firms; if so, how much money was spent on such firms in 2008;

    (2) whether these firms are used on a contractual basis; if so, (a) how many contracts did her department take out in this regard in 2008, (b) with which firms were these contracts taken out, (c) for what specific purpose was each contract taken out and (d) what was the value of the contract in each case;

    (3) why is there a need for her department to use a private security firm as opposed to state security? NW631E

    REPLY:

    1. Yes, the Department of Agriculture is utilising contract security. During the 2008/09 financial year the department committed funds to the amount of R868 000 for the appointment of private security contractors at various sites.

    2. Private security contractors are appointed on a 12 or 24 months contract period. During 2008 the department appointed the following contractors:

    (a) Plant and Animal Quarantine Station, Stellenbosch – Sechaba Security Services, World Focus Security Services – Access control and guarding – Value R336 000.

    (b) Roodeplaat Evaluation Centre, Pretoria – Bandile Security Services - Access control and guarding – Value R312 000.

    (c) Animal Quarantine Station, Kempton Park - Manelisi Security Services, Eldna Security Services - Access control and guarding – Value R220 000.

    3. The Contract Security Industry in South Africa has shown a dramatic growth over the last decade and the following are some of the advantages for utilising contract security opposed to in-house security:

    (a) It is a much cheaper option than maintaining a security component,

    (b) The service provider is responsible for the training of staff, providing security equipment and administers its own HR matters.

    (c) Normally utilise the latest technology in the security industry,

    (d) Insured against claims,

    (e) Ensure that all personnel or backup personnel are on duty at all times (No shortage),

    (f) Maintenance of high service standard to retain contracts.

    It must be stressed that the overall accountability for ensuring the implementation and maintenance of effective security measures in an institution will remain with a core group of in-house security personnel to attend to those security functions that cannot be outsourced. The security industry in South Africa is regulated by the Private Security Industry Regulation Act, Act 56 of 2002 which came into effect on 14 February 2002. The main purpose of the Act is to exercise effective control over the practice of occupation of security service provider in the public and national interest and the interest of the private security industry itself. Although in-house security is appointed in terms of the Public Service Act, Act 103 of 1994, all security whether in-house or private are regulated by the PSIR Act.

    QUESTION NO568

    DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: .10 JULY

    2009 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 6-2009

    "568.Prof A Lotriet (DA) to ask the Minister of Arts and Culture:

    (1) Whether her department make us of private security firms; If so how much money was spent on such firms in 2008.

    (2) Whether these firms are used on contractual basis; If so (a) how many contracts did her department take out in this regard in 2008,(b) with which firms were these contracts taken out,(c) for what specific purpose was each contract taken out and (d) what was the value of the contract in each case,

    (3)Why is :there a need for her department to use a. private

    NW632E

    REPLY:

    (1) Yes, R2228862.19 was spent


    (2) Yes; The firms were used on a contractual basis;

    (a) Two

    (b) Freedom Fighters Security and Bushido Security Services

    c) To provide (24 hours a day, 7days weak) access control services at the premises of the National Department of Arts and Culture, National Archives and National Film, Video, and sound Archives, to patrol the perimeter and grounds, noting and reporting of security breaches and risks Identified, monitor the building entrances, exits and all external security control over the movement of assets at control points and to act as authorized officers in terms the Control to Public Premises and Vehicles Act 53 of 1985 (Act 53 of 1985)

    (d) The value of the contracts in 2008 was:

    Freedom Fighter Security Services, R1 519 839.63

    Bushindo Security Services, R 709 022.56

    The cost of making use of a private security firm for permanent access control services to those government premises are much lower as opposed to having to appoint full time government security officials to render such access control duties. Should use be made of full time government security official for access control duties, such officials will need to be trained, supervised, controlled and monitored continuously which will require an extensive security supervision and managerial personnel resources capacity

    QUESTION NO 569

    DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 10 JULY 2009

    (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 6)

    Mr AM Figlan (DA) to ask the Minister of Mineral Resources:

    (1) (a) How many sand mining operations have been authorised by her department (i) in or (ii) adjacent to the Umgeni River system and (b) what is the name of the entity that has been awarded approval to mine in each case;

    (2) whether the sand mining operation run by an entity called Crossmore near the Anthurium Place access road in eThekwini has been authorised by her department; if not, what action will be taken against this operation; if so, when was the application granted;

    (3) whether steps are being taken to ensure that the operation complies with the Environmental Management Plan; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

    (4) whether any directives have been issued against the operation; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW633E

    REPLY

    1. The following mining permits have been issued on the Umgeni river:

    (a) (i) 12

    (b) (ii) 4

    1. X Moor Transport cc 379MP

    2. X Moor Transport cc 74MP

    3. BHD Zuma 218MP

    4. M A Hall 246MP

    5. C N Shabalala 216MP

    6. Ziyasha Logistics (Pty) Ltd 204MP

    7. A B Sibisi 260MP

    8. Very Nice Trading (Pty) Ltd 168MP

    9. P T Dube 254MP

    10. Little Rock Trading 45cc 147MP

    11. Quebeka Euzils Building Material Suppliers cc 355MP

    12. Uzuzinikela Trading 9 cc 233MP

    13. Versatex 486 (Pty) Ltd 58MP

    14. Invincible Panther Co-operative Limited 141MP

    15. Tack it Trading cc 370MP

    16. Gamelihle Sand and Pebble Suppliers cc 169MP

    (ii) The following rights/permits have been issued adjacent to the Umgeni River

    system:

    1. K Lutchman (Tributary adjacent to Umgeni River) 232MR

    2. V Govender 45MP

    3. Kovacs Investments (Pty) Ltd (Qala Quarry – adjacent to Umgeni River System) -

    102MR

    4. Invincible Panther Co-operative Limited (Granite Quarry adjacent to Umgeni river) -

    146MR

    2. From the Department's records there is no company by the name of Crossmore which is a holder of any permit or rights

    3. Question not applicable, see Question 2 reply.

    4. Question not applicable, see Question 2 reply.

    QUESTION NO. 570 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 6 of 2009

    DATE OF PUBLICATION: 10 July 2009

    Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

    (1) How many boat-based whale watching (BBWW) licences were granted for Walker Bay and what are the names of the individuals or entities to whom these licences have been awarded;

    (2) with reference to the regulations that govern BBWW, what are the provisions that govern the approach of cow/calf pairs in Walker Bay;

    (3) whether studies have been conducted along the coast to determine the effect of BBWW on cow/calf pairs; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

    (4) whether she has been informed that BBWW licence holders in Walker Bay at times transgress the regulations that govern BBWW by making closer approaches to cow/calf pairs than are permitted; if so, what steps are envisaged against such transgression;

    (5) whether any directives have been issued against these licence holders for transgressions relating to cow/calf pairs since the licences were first issued; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

    NW634E

    MR G R MORGAN (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

    HANSARD

    PAPERS OFFICE

    PRESS

    570. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

    1. Licences were granted to 2 (two) operators in Walker Bay as follows:

    a. Sandown Fishing Company (PTY) LTD, based at Hermanus Harbour, operating on alternative weeks in Sandown Bay and Walker Bay.

    b. Eubalaena Sea Safaris CC, based at Gansbaai, operating in the Walker Bay area only.

    2. BBWW operators must remain more than 300m from cow/calf pairs (allowance is however, made for brief approaches to confirm cow/calf pairs found in groups or in poor weather conditions). Once the cow/calf group has been confirmed, the operator must immediately retire to a position of more than 300m from the pair. Members of the public may not approach closer than 300m to any whale.

    3. Aerial surveys are conducted annually by the University of Pretoria, Mammal Research Institute along the South African coast, covering the most important distribution areas of Southern Right Whales. Historical surveys have indicated that the numbers of whales (including cow/calf pairs) residing within the Walker Bay area are increasing annually (1999-2008), indicating that strict BBWW permit conditions have ensured that there is little or no disturbance of unattached whales and cow/calf pairs, despite allegations of disturbance. The Hermanus Tourism Association has also indicated that they are satisfied with the BBWW operators and their behaviour around whales within Walker Bay.

    4. BBWW operators have at times transgressed the conditions that govern their operations. In the case of such transgressions, the necessary actions were taken (please refer to point 5 for details).

    5. Specific areas within and outside BBWW operating areas are designated as closed areas (refuge areas) for all whale species, into which BBWW operators may not enter. Specific breeding areas along the South African coast are closed (completely) to any BBWW operators (e.g. San Sebastian Bay and the De Hoop MPA) in order to protect the breeding populations. In the case of Walker Bay (Annexure A) there is a Whale Sanctuary Area specifically for whales, closed to all vessels entering from the western boundary (Westcliff beacon) of the new Hermanus harbour up to an area called Sopies Klip in which no vessel may enter during the whaling season (1 July to 30 November in any year ). In addition to this MPA in Walker bay, there is a closed area (refuge area) from a position close to the northern boundary of the Gansbaai harbour to a position close to the north of Die Kelders. In between these two areas there is a restricted area in which all private vessels except permitted fishing vessels and BBWW operators may not enter during the whaling season (1 July to 30 November in any year).

    Historically, one illegal operator has been prosecuted and one BBWW operator has been charged (and paid an admission of guilt fine) for entering a closed area. On three further occasions a particular Walker Bay resident reported that Eubalaena Sea Safaris either entered a closed area or approached cow/calf pairs. In all of these cases the operator was able to prove conclusively that he did not approach a cow/calf pair (affidavits from foreign tourists) and the inspectorate investigated a logging GPS which proved that the operator did not enter a closed area. In a more recent allegation this resident produced a clip from the media supposedly supporting his allegations that legal operators are approaching calves. The picture was forwarded to whale experts who all agreed that this person had mistaken a near fully grown southern right whale (10m) to that of a calf.

    The Department will (and has) prosecute(d) any transgression involving BBWW permit conditions and have encouraged BBWW tourists to report any transgressions. Future safeguards are envisaged for operators including Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) to be fitted to all BBWW operators' vessels.

    QUESTION NO. 571 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 6 of 2009

    DATE OF PUBLICATION: 10 July 2009

    Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

    (1) Whether white rhinos from the Kruger National Park by SA National Parks (Sanparks) will be sold to entities for hunting; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details;

    (2) whether any studies have been conducted to determine the impact of the capture operation on the social structure of affected white rhino populations; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

    (3) (a) how many white rhinos are expected to be sold this year and (b) what is the expected revenue from the sales;

    (4) how will the funds raised from the sales be used by Sanparks?

    NW635E

    MR G R MORGAN (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

    HANSARD

    PAPERS OFFICE

    PRESS

    571. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

    (1) No, white rhinos are sold to a wide variety of stakeholders who may have different legal and legitimate conservation business interests.

    (2) Yes, studies are ongoing and they all indicate that there is no detectable negative impact on current and future growth patterns on the population. There are no visible social pattern disruptions. Below is a graph that shows the population growth of rhino since 1970, and I would like to point out that rhino sales have been happening for approximately 25 years:

    Figure 1. Estimates of white rhino population size in the Kruger National Park. From 1977 to 1997 estimates are based on total counts for which the likely 95% confidence interval was estimated from the relationship between CVs and the inverse of the square root of the estimate, derived from estimates and CVs calculated from distance sampling conducted between 1998 and 2007. Rhinos continue to increase exponentially.

    (3) (a) An excess group of 200-350 has been identified for removal, however it is impossible to remove such a large number within a year as sales depend on demand. We do not set estimates on wildlife sale, they are treated in the same way as we treat donations and fund-raising.

    (b) Prices vary, based on market conditions and as stated above. The number sold is always dependent on our ability to move the animals, i.e. logistical requirements.

    (4) The funds realized will be used for land acquisition to expand the rhino range, anti-poaching programmes and equipment where necessary

    QUESTION 574

    (a) How will (i) housing needs be registered, (ii) housing subsidies be allocated, (iii) the database be managed and (iv) fraud and corruption be curtailed in terms of the "new allocation strategy" and (b) how does it differ from the current waiting list system?

    REPLY

    (a)(i) All housing needs will be recorded on the recently established National Housing Demand Data Base.

    (a)(ii) In respect of so called new "green field" developments, the provincial Governments and municipalities will use the National Housing Demand Database as the source from which prospective housing subsidy beneficiaries will be invited to apply for housing subsidies.

    (a)(iii) The National Housing Demand Data Base will be managed by the National Department of Human Settlements.

    (a)(iv) It is envisaged that the recording process, which is subject to the pre-screening process, the invitation of persons to apply for subsidies when housing opportunities become available and the allocation committee process of evaluation and recommendation to the MEC for approval will resolve the fraudulent allocation processes of the past.

    (b) The current allocation process differs from the previous waiting list system in that:

  • Applications for housing subsidies are not accepted and recorded on waiting lists anymore;
  • Households now register their particular housing needs on the National Housing Demand Database;
  • When housing development projects are completed, households are invited from the Database to apply for housing subsidies, the purchase of vacant stands and/or the purchase vacant stands and to apply for credit linked subsidies etc.;
  • The allocation process has been depoliticised and an allocation committee, comprising officials of the provincial departments of human settlements and the municipality will evaluate applications and table recommendations for consideration by the MEC; and
  • The National Demand Data Base now comprises all the relevant housing needs of a community or area and not just the details of subsidy qualifying beneficiaries.
  • QUESTION 556

    INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER [NO 6–2009]

    DATE OF PUBLICATION: 10 JULY 2009


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

    (1) Whether his department makes use of private security firms; if so, how much money was spent on such firms in 2008;

    (2) whether these firms are used on a contractual basis; if so, (a) how many contracts did his department take out in this regard in 2008, (b) with which firms were these contracts taken out, (c) for what specific purpose was each contract taken out and (d) what was the value of the contract in each case;

    (3) why is there a need for his department to use a private security firm as opposed to state security? NW620E

    THE MINISTER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM:

    (1) Yes. R10 754 560.29.

    (2) Yes.

    (a) 37.

    (b) Please refer to the attached schedule.

    (c) These contracts were taken out for the purpose of providing guarding services, access control, escorting of visitors and patrolling.

    (d) Please refer to the attached schedule.

    (3) As the Honourable Member is aware, this is a policy question. The Minister is still new in the Department of Rural Development and land Reform and is therefore familiarizing himself with such issues. He will therefore, after consulting broadly, respond to the question.

    LIST OF SECURITY FIRMS CONTRACTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM IN 2008

    NAME OF SECURITY FIRM

    VALUE PER MONTH

    TOTAL VALUE PAID IN 2008

    Aquagem

    R30 039.00 X 12

    R360 468.00

    Aquagem

    R11 400.00 X 6

    R68 400.00

    KSA Security

    R15 625.75 X 11

    R171 883.25

    Comwezi

    R16 215.44 X 1

    R16 215.44

    KZN Security

    R11 106.34 X 11

    R122 169.74

    Aquagem

    R20 497.20 X 1

    R20 497.20

    Maquba

    R8 106.70 X 12

    R97 280.40

    Maquba

    R8 810.76 X 12

    R105 729.12

    Push Protection

    R11 985.64 X 12

    R143 827.68

    Condor

    R10 417.91 X 10

    R104 179.10

    DT Risk

    R11 309.45 X 2

    R22 618.90

    Push Protection

    R4 848.60 X 6

    R29 091.60

    Molweni

    R5 700.00 X 6

    R34 200.00

    KZN Security

    R31 566.00 X 12

    R378 792.00

    KZN Security

    R5 118.60 X 10

    R51 186.00

    Push Protection

    R23 534.00 X 12

    R282 408.00

    Masakhane Security

    R7743.24 X 4

    R30 972.96

    Eldna Security Services

    R20 900.00 X 5

    R104 500.00

    Matsobane and Karabo

    R22 300.00 X 7

    R156 100.00

    Optimum Security

    R15 486.45 X 8

    R123 891.60

    Mbovula Security Services

    R38 646.00 X 3

    R115 938.00

    Mbovula Security Services

    R56 612.40 X 9

    R509 511.60

    Khayalami Security

    R68 320.00 X 3

    R204 960.00

    Tshegane Business Enterprise

    R41 488.30 X 4

    R165 953.20

    Billy & Son's Civil & Security

    R50 766.48 X 2

    R101 532.96

    Billy & Son's Civil & Security

    R17 175.08 X 3

    R51 525.24

    Billy & Son's Civil & Security

    R19 266.00 X 4

    R77 064.00

    Thornburn Security

    R77 000.00 X 12

    R924 000.00

    Serve All Security & Car Surveillance

    R32 951.28 X 2

    R65 902.56

    Serve All Security & Car Surveillance

    R16 475.64 X 3

    R49 426.92

    Serve All Security & Car Surveillance

    R16 475.64 X 4

    R65 902.56

    Khayalami Security

    R29 070.00 X 1

    R29 070.00

    Sunlights Security Services

    R40 000.00 X 2

    R80 000.00

    Sunlights Security Services

    R12 530.00 X 3

    R37 590.00

    Sunlights Security Services

    R18 795.00 X 4

    R75 180.00

    Hlwai Security Service Enterprise

    R30 303.48 X 1

    R30 303.48

    Khayalami Security

    R27 160.00 X 6

    R162 960.00

    Naphtronics

    R25 699.05 X 3

    R77 097.15

    Naphtronics

    R26 867.20 X 3

    R80 601.60

    Naphtronics

    R21 592.38 X 3

    R64 777.14

    Naphtronics

    R28 017.99 X 1

    R28 017.99

    Naphtronics

    R24 140.82 X 8

    R193 126.56

    Ihashe Elimhlophe

    R11 500.00 X 6

    R69 000.00

    Bilane Security

    R11 970.00 X 6

    R71 820.00

    White Horse

    R8 150.00 X 12

    R97 800.00

    Big Star

    R7 787.34 X 12

    R93 448.08

    Matsobane and Karabo

    R193 268.35 X 8

    R1 546 146.80

    DIKS Security

    R215 688.00 X 4

    R862 752.00

    Sidas Security Guards

    R27 024.00 X 12

    R324 288.00

    Sidas Security Guards

    R70 035.00 X 12

    R840 420.00

    Davidson Security Services (Alarms)

    R163.00 X 12

    R1 956.00

    Freedom Fighters

    R29 298.00 X 6

    R175 788.00

    Freedom Fighters

    R9 576.00 X 12

    R114 912.00

    Freedom Fighters

    R29 298.00 X 3

    R87 894.00

    Most- Khoza Business Enterprise

    R18 911.93 X 2

    R37 823.86

    Most- Khoza Business Enterprise

    R38 228.40 X 4

    R152 913.60

    Most-Khoza Business Enterprise

    R24 397.14 X 1

    R24 397.14

    Arron Securities

    R25 098.36 X 12

    R301 180.32

    Chubb Security

    R 331.45 X 6

    R1 988.70

    ACP/Isitha/Capital

    R310,00 X 2

    R620.00

    ACP/Isitha/Capital

    R341.00 X 4

    R1 364.00

    Chubb Security

    R 180.00 X 12

    R 2 160.00

    Beaufort Alarm

    R 281.30 X 12

    R3 375.60

    Suidpunt Security

    R 120.00 X 1

    R120.00

    Sechaba Protection

    R 27 295.02 X 12

    R327 540.24

    TOTAL

    R10 754 560.29

    QUESTION NO: 573

    PARLAMENTARY QUESTION NO NW637E: INCIDENCE OF BLOCKED PROJECTS AND PROGRESS MADE IN UNBLOCKING THEM

    REFERENCE: BP/PQ/NW637E

    MINISTER

    1. PURPOSE

    To obtain approval of the draft reply to parliamentary question NW637E

    2. DETAILS OF THE QUESTION

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

    1. Whether any housing projects have been blocked in each province during each of the past five (5) years up to the latest specified date for which information is available.

    If so:

    (a) how many government housing projects were blocked; and. (b) for each project that has been blocked:

    (i) where is situated?

    (ii) when was it blocked?

    (iii) why was it blocked?

    (iv) how much was spent on the project?

    2. Whether these projects are still blocked?

    If so, why?

    If not:

    (a) when was the project; and,

    (b) when was or will it be completed?

    3. Discussion

    The relevant question was received by the Department on Monday, 13 July 2009. The information required to provide Mr Steyn with a comprehensive reply is not readily available in the Department and needs to be obtained from and verified by Provinces.

    The question also requires sourcing additional historical information from the Provincial Human Settlement Departments which is no longer contained in the Housing Subsidy System (HSS), such as the following:

    • Identification of projects that have been blocked during the past five years, but have since been unblocked;
    • to establish the various reasons for the blockages; and,
    • to establish the dates on which the projects were unblocked, and have since been completed or are projected to be completed.

    4. RECOMMENDATION

    In view of the above it is recommended that Hon. Steyn be provided with a comprehensive reply once all the information has been obtained from the Provinces, and that an interim reply be provided as follows:

    The information required to provide Mr Steyn with a comprehensive reply is not readily available in the Department and needs to be obtained from and verified by Provinces. A detailed response will be tabled once all the required information has been obtained and verified with the nine Provincial Human Settlement Departments.


    DIRECTOR-GENERAL DATE

    DEPUTY MINISTER DATE


    1. Recommendation In paragraph 4 approved /or.....


    2. Interim reply approved /or ......

    MINISTER

    DATE