Committee Report on Transport Budget

Meeting report

Apologies had been received from Deputy Minister Sindisiwe Chikunga.

Outstanding Committee Minutes
Minutes dated 6 April 2016
Mr C Hunsinger (DA) asked if lowlight on page 5 was intended to mean the opposite of highlight. He said lowlight should be removed and it should read “Key successes from 2015/16”. The word should not be seen as coming from the Parliament as there was no such word. Since there were a lot of questions that there were not answered on page 6 there should be an additional sentence stating that outstanding questions were not answered

Mr L Ramatlakane (ANC) did not know if any of the questions were answered in writing as the Committee had said the questions should be answered before the finalisation of the report. He suggested that there should be a sentence in the minutes, under deliberations, saying that the questions that were outstanding should have been answered within five days.

The Chairperson said it would be clarified from the Secretary, when she arrived, if the questions were responded to as they were meant to be part of the report that was being dealt with.

The minutes were adopted with amendments. 

Minutes dated 7 April 2016
Mr Hunsinger said a number of questions were also not answered on page 4. He said there should be a sentence that gave that indication.

The minutes were adopted with that amendment.

Minutes dated April 2016
Mr Hunsinger said “Financial and borrowing plan “on Point No. 4, page 3, should be replaced by “Financial Management Strategy “which included the borrowing plan.

The minutes were adopted with that amendment.

Minutes dated 12 April
Mr Ramatlakane said the sentence on page 4; section 4.6 was correct but lacked the confirmation from the Acting Group CEO. The response to this particular question was positive and should be captured.

The Chairperson replied that it would be corrected.

Mr M Maswanganyi (ANC) said PRASA’s responses were not captured. Once adopted it would go to the archives so it should be properly captured

Mr Ramatlakane said that was also his dilemma. Section 4 gave the impression that there were only questions and no responses.  On page 4; section 4.10, there were some responses in the positive. RSR had said there were three outstanding requirements for PRASA to submit. He suggested that the Secretary went back to the minutes to give more details.

Mr Hunsinger said the first three reports gave the impression that there were no questions from Members of the Committee whereas the fourth one had many questions from Members and no answers from the Department.  The minutes should have same and not different standards. The Committee should decide to completely leave out section 4 and approve sections 1-3 or the Committee should allow the whole minutes to stand over.

Mr Ramatlakane agreed that minutes of 12 April should be allowed to stand over for correction and to be considered in the next meeting.

The Chairperson said the minutes of 6. 7 and 8 April had been adopted with the proviso to deal with the gaps when the responses arrived. Minutes of 12 April would stand over pending the verbal responses that were given in the meeting and the ones that were still outstanding. The Committee would request the responses from the parties concerned and the DOT as speedily as possible.

Mr Hunsinger said Sections 6.2 – 6.6 were full of inconsistencies. He said there were many more points than the few that were mentioned in section 6.6. He was still writing as there a lot of issues and inconsistencies..

Committee Report on Department of Transport Budget and Strategic Plan
The Chairperson said she did not know how the report would be dealt with since there were outstanding issues that the Committee had not received from the Parastatals and the Department.

Mr Ramatlakane said the Committee should find out from the Secretary the time frame to submit, as he was not certain the Committee could finalise the report since a whole lot was still outstanding. He suggested the setting of another time frame.

Ms V Carelse, Committee Secretary, said when the Committee asked the Department to provide clarity, there was no time frame given. She had reminded the DOT last Friday that the Committee would look at the recommendations and observations today and the information was applicable for the Committee to formalise the recommendations. She was informed that the Exco would meet to take a decision but was not sure when that would be .In terms of the timeline check, the Committee would not be sitting next week because of the APC. The next meeting would be on 3 May. This would provide an opportunity for Members to ask additional questions, make suggestions, observations and recommendations. The Committee had till 5 May to finalise its report

Mr Ramatlakane replied that the Committee should request that the Department submit the responses by Friday this week. The Committee could not be tied to the EXCO, as it was the DDGs’ meeting. The consequences of that were that Members who still wanted to write would do that under phase 2 of the batch of things to be submitted. Documents received would be circulated to Members in preparation for the next meeting when observations and recommendations would be dealt with.

The Chairperson asked if the other Members agreed to the proposal by Mr Ramatlakane, mindful of the fact that the Committee would not be sitting until the 3rd May. It would assist Members to internalise the reports on budget and the APP

All the Members present agreed to the proposal.

The Chairperson said the Committee was going on oversight to the Cape Town train station where there had been much vandalism and challenges with the signals, which had resulted in delays, and also Kraaifontein train Station where locomotives were burnt. This was to assist the Committee to familiarise itself with what was happening.  PRASA had indicated that the burnt locomotives had been taken to Salt River. The Committee would rework its plan so that it would also visit Salt River Station in order to know the crux of the matter. The incidents had defeated the ideal of a better life for all. The Committee would close this part of the meeting and proceed to the Stations.

Mr Maswanganyi suggested that the Committee, through the Chairperson, wrote statements of condolences to families of the ANC who died in a crash recently on the way from a Rally and those that were involved in another crash in Sanhdene on the way from Moriah

Mr Ramatlakane supported the proposal made by Mr Maswanganyi. He asked if any notes had been prepared for the oversight.

Mr Hunsinger said there were 600 000 daily commuters using the trains in the Western Cape. To execute the current schedule there was a need for 141 transit coaches and locomotives to meet this demand and currently the stop level was at 79. It had been frustrating for a lot of officials and people had been fired from work because of delays in the arrival of these locomotives.

Mr M Sibande (ANC) commented that the Committee was on the right track and appreciated the intention to visit the stations. People must start to save what belonged to them as some of the delays were due to vandalism, cable theft and burning of the trains. There must be a means to balance the budget. Putting more money in the Western Cape was a concern when it had more trains than the other Provinces.

Mr Hunsinger said there was need to have better co-operation with SAPS as there were only 4 000 railway Police to cover all nine Provinces. He suggested a quick ratio would indicate the coverage per asset.

The meeting was adjourned.