Question & Replies No 1351 to 1400

Printer-friendly version

Question number:

08/1351

[PMG note: Any gaps in the numbering are due to the replies not being provided yet]

Question 1351

Mr R J King (DA) to ask the Minister of Trade and Industry:

(1) Whether the National Lotteries Board (NLB) received an application in any of the past five financial years up to 31 July 2008 from the NG Ministry of Caring in Gauteng; if so, in which financial years did they apply for funding;

(2) Whether the NLB accepted each application; if not, what were the reasons for rejecting the application in each case; if so, (a) how much was requested by the organisation in these financial years, (b) what amount was awarded by the NLB and (c) when was each amount paid by the NLB to the organisation;

(3) Whether there are any outstanding amounts owed to the organisation by the NLB; if so, how much?NW2055E

Response:

(1) The National Lotteries Board (NLB) received applications from the NG Ministry of Caring in Gauteng in 2004, 2005 and 2007.

(2) a. The amount requested in 2004 was R943 718.00, the amount requested in 2005 was R1 029 749.00 and the amount requested in 2007 was R1 068 505.00.

b. The amount awarded to the organisation in 2004 was R300 000.00, the amount awarded in 2005 was R500 000.00 and the amount awarded in 2007 was R708 479.00.

c. Payment was made to the organisation in October 2005 and May 2007.

(3) The outstanding amount owed to the organisation by the NLB is R708 479.00.

Question 1352

Mr M Waters (DA) to ask the Minister of Trade and Industry:

(1) Whether the National Lotteries Board (NLB) received an application in any of the past five financial years up to 31 July 2008 from the MEDUNSA Organisation for Disabled Entrepreneurs in Gauteng; if so, in which financial years did they apply for funding;

(3) Whether there are any outstanding amounts owed to the organisation by the NLB; if so, how much?NW2056E

Response:

(1) The National Lotteries Board (NLB) received applications from the MEDUNSA Organisation for Disabled Entrepreneurs in Gauteng in 2004 and 2005.

(2) a. The amount requested in 2004 was R1.1 million and the amount requested in 2005 was R492 000.

b. No amount was awarded to the organisation, as it did not comply with the funding criteria.

(3) There are no outstanding amounts owed to the organisation.

Question 1353

Mrs D van der Walt (DA) to ask the Minister of Trade and Industry:

(1) Whether the National Lotteries Board (NLB) received an application in any of the past five financial years up to 31 July 2008 from the Lifeline Nelspruit in Mpumalanga; if so, in which financial years did they apply for funding;

(2) Whether the NLB accepted each application; if not, what were the reasons for rejecting the application in each case; if so, (a) how much was requested by the organisation in each of these financial years, (b) what amount was awarded by the NLB and (c) when was each amount paid by the NLB to the organisation;

(3) Whether there are any outstanding amounts owed to the organisation by the NLB; if so, how much?NW2057E

Response:

(1) The National Lotteries Board (NLB) received an application from Lifeline Nelspruit in the Mpumalanga in 2004, 2006 and 2007.

(2) a. The amount requested in 2004 was R 1.2 million, the amount

requested in 2006 was R 2.6 million and the amount requested in

2007 was R 830 000.00.

b. The amount awarded to the organisation in 2004 was R 800 000.00

No amount was awarded to the organisation in 2006, as it did not

comply with the funding criteria. The application from 2007 is still

being adjudicated.

c. Payment was made to the organisation in June and December 2005.

(3) There are no outstanding amounts owed to the organization.

Question 1354

Mrs D van der Walt (DA) to ask the Minister of Trade and Industry:

(1) Whether the National Lotteries Board (NLB) received an application in any of the past five financial years up to 31 July 2008 from the Grace Victim Support Centre in Mpumalanga; if so, in which financial years did they apply for funding;

(3) Whether there are any outstanding amounts owed to the organisation by the NLB; if so, how much?NW2058E

Response:

According to its records, the National Lotteries Board (NLB) did not receive an application from the Grace Victim Support Centre in Mpumalanga.

Question 1355

Mr M Waters (DA) to ask the Minister of Trade and Industry:

(1) Whether the National Lotteries Board (NLB) received an application in any of the past five financial years up to 31 July 2008 from the Limpopo Arts and Culture Association in Limpopo; if so, in which financial years did they apply for funding;

(3) Whether there are any outstanding amounts owed to the organisation by the NLB; if so, how much?NW2059E

Response:

According to its records, the National Lotteries Board (NLB) did not receive an application from the Limpopo Arts and Culture Association.

Question 1356

Mr T D Lee (DA) to ask the Minister of Trade and Industry:

(1) Whether the National Lotteries Board (NLB) received an application in any of the past five financial years up to 31 July 2008 from the Living Waters Centre in the Eastern Cape; if so, in which financial years did they apply for funding;

(3) Whether there are any outstanding amounts owed to the organisation by the NLB; if so, how much?NW2060E

Response:

(1) The National Lotteries Board (NLB) received applications from the Living Waters Centre in the Eastern Cape in 2005, 2006 and 2007.

(2) a. The amount requested in 2005 was R90 000, the amount requested in 2006 was R749 000 and the amount requested in 2005 was R700 000.

b. No amount was awarded to the organisation for the 2005 application, as it did not comply with the funding criteria. The applications from 2006 and 2007 are still being adjudicated.

(3) There are no outstanding amounts owed to the organisation.

Question 1357

Mr T D Lee (DA) to ask the Minister of Trade and Industry:

(1) Whether the National Lotteries Board (NLB) received an application in any of the past five financial years up to 31 July 2008 from the Aurora Special Care Centre in the Eastern Cape; if so, in which financial years did they apply for funding;

(3) Whether there are any outstanding amounts owed to the organisation by the NLB; if so, how much?NW2061E

Response:

(1) The National Lotteries Board (NLB) received an application from the Aurora Special Care Centre in 2006.

(2) a. The amount requested was R722 000.00.

b. The amount awarded was R245 000.00

c. Payment was made to the organisation in April 2007.

(3) There are no outstanding amounts owed to the organisation.

Question 1358

Mr T D Lee (DA) to ask the Minister of Trade and Industry:

(1) Whether the National Lotteries Board (NLB) received an application in any of the past five financial years up to 31 July 2008 from the Association for the Physically Disabled, Port Elizabeth, in the Eastern Cape; if so, in which financial years did they apply for funding;

(3) Whether there are any outstanding amounts owed to the organisation by the NLB; if so, how much? NW2062E

Response:

(1) The National Lotteries Board (NLB) received applications from the Association for the Physically Disabled, Port Elizabeth in 2004, 2006 and 2007.

(2) a. The amount requested in 2004 was R1 million, the amount requested in 2006 was R852 000 and the amount requested in 2007 was R3.6 million.

c. The amounts awarded by the NLB were R1 million and R300 000. The application from 2007 is still being adjudicated.

c. Payment was made to the organisation in February 2005 and June 2007.

(3) There are no outstanding amounts owed to the organisation.

Question 1359

M Waters (DA) to ask the Minister of Trade and Industry:

(1) Whether the National Lotteries Board (NLB) received an application in any of the past five financial years up to 31 July 2008 from the Amatola HIV/Aids Project in the Eastern Cape; if so, in which financial years did they apply for funding;

(3) Whether there are any outstanding amounts owed to the organisation by the NLB; if so, how much? NW2063E

Response:

(1) The National Lotteries Board (NLB) received applications from the Amatola HIV/Aids Project in the Eastern Cape in 2005 and 2007.

(2) a. The amount requested in 2005 was R568 000.00 and the amount requested in 2007 was R1.4 million.

b. No amount was awarded to the organisation in 2005, as it did not comply with the funding criteria.

1360: Mr I F Julies (DA) to ask the Minister of Labour:

(1) (a) How many posts were vacant at Productivity SA on 31 July 2008, (b) at which levels were these posts and (c) how long had each post been vacant;

(2) (a) what was the staff turnover rate at all levels in respect of each of the past 12 months up to and including 31 July 2008, (b) how many senior managers resigned during this period and (c) what were the reasons for resignation in each case? NW2068E

Minister of Labour replied:

1. I am advised that the vacancy situation at the Productivity SA on 31st July 2008 was as per the table attached below:

POSITION	JOB LEVEL	DURATION
1. Executive Manager	2	2 Y 1 month (offer made to a candidate to start in September 2008)
2. Senior Productivity Advisor	5	1 Y 4 months (appropriate candidate identified; finalizing the appointment)
3. Change Facilitators	5	8 months
4. Senior Manager: Value Chains	3	4 months (candidate identified, finalizing the appointment)
5. Programme Manager	4	2 months
6. Administrator: User Groups	7	7 months
7. Change Facilitator	5	4 months
8. Regional Project Manager	4	7 months
9. Senior Productivity Advisor	5	6 months
10. KM Manager	4	4 months
11. Research Manager	4	2 months
12. Change Facilitator	5	1 month
13. Executive Manager HR	2	1 month

QUESTION 1361

1361. Mr. I F Julies (DA) to ask the Minister for the Public Service and Administration:

(1) Whether her department received the list of 21 recommendations made by the Harvard panel of international and local economists in its research papers on economic growth in South Africa, released in May 2008; if not, (a) why not and (b) when is it expected that her department will receive these recommendations; if so,

(2) whether her department has implemented or will implement any of these recommendations; if not, why not; if so, (a) which recommendations and (b) what are the timeframe for each recommendation to be implemented? NW2085E

REPLY

(1) The Department of Public Service and Administration has received the Report and studied the 21 recommendations of the panel of economists from Harvard's Center for International Development.

(2) The National Treasury, as part of the Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative (ASGISA), convened an international panel of economists through Harvard's Center for International Development. This panel spent two years analyzing the South African economy and its growth prospects, and composed 20 papers spanning all aspects of economic policy. These papers were synthesized in this final report, edited by Ricardo Hausmann, director of Harvard’s Center for International Development (CID).

Within the report the panel's assessment of the binding constraints to growth in South Africa are summerised, and specific policy recommendations are provided to help achieve the goal of accelerated and shared growth. The Specific policy recommendations include increased national savings, larger fiscal surplus targets, more liberalized input tariffs, the development of a more “pro-active” competition policy with the intent of reducing barriers to entry, more focused efforts to incubate new products and new businesses, and increased centralization of municipal services for poorly-rated local government agencies.

The major part of the recommendations deals with economic policy matters and therefore falls within the domain of National Treasury and the economic cluster. An inter-departmental committee, led by the Deputy President’s office and the National Treasury, was established that is currently considering these recommendations. The RSA Government has not taken a position on a number of these recommendations. It is therefore recommended that any further queries in this regard should be directed to the National Treasury.

Question 1362

Dr P J Rabie (DA) to ask the Minister of Trade and Industry:

(1) Whether his department received the list of 21 recommendations made by the Harvard panel of international and local economists in its research papers on economic growth in South Africa, released in May 2008; if not, (a) why not and (b) when is it expected that his department will receive these recommendations; if so,

(2) Whether his department has implemented or will implement any of these recommendations; if not, why not; if so, (a) which recommendations and (b) what are the timeframe for each recommendation to be implemented? NW2099E

Response:

(1) the dti has received the 21 recommendations made by the Harvard panel of international and local economists in its research papers on economic growth in South Africa.

(2) The panel’s diagnosis of constraints to the growth of the economy are very similar to those identified by ASGISA and broadly align with the dti’s assessment that the acceleration in economic growth observed since 2004 cannot be sustained if it is to continue to be based primarily on consumer and commodity demand. Consequently, the country will need to accelerate the growth of its tradable sectors to rapidly increase export earnings. It is for this reason that the dti has identified the need for increased focus on improving the production capacity of the economy (interventions to increase efficiency and performance of the production factors) in the main through the implementation of industrial policy.

The key question is whether the Panel’s package of policy recommendations is sufficient to overcome the identified constraints and reverse the declining relative contribution of the tradable sectors to employment.

After careful analysis of the policy recommendations offered by the Harvard panel, it is the dti’s view that a major review of policy is not required. Rather, it is the department’s assessment that what is required is refinement of policy in certain respects as well as the acceleration and strengthening of the implementation of existing policies.

A Cabinet process to assess the recommendations will guide the dti further.

Question 1363

Mr L B Labuschagne (DA) to ask the Minister of Trade and Industry:

1) Whether the Government has granted market economy status to any foreign countries; if not what is the position in this regard; if so, (a) to which countries and (b) why;

2) Whether such status has impacted negatively on any sector of the economy; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (a) on which sectors and (b) to what extent;

(3) Whether any jobs have been jeopardised since granting such status; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details? NW2103E

Response:

1) The South African government granted market economy status to:

a) The People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam

b) Granting of market economy status was done in recognition of positive changes in both countries and to facilitate closer economic relations with them.

2) After granting the PRC market economy status, the International Trade Administration Commission (ITAC) and the Bureau for Fair Trade (BOFT) of the PRC entered into a Record of Understanding to clarify what the market economy status meant with regard to anti-dumping investigations. This was done to ensure that the granting of market economy status did not undermine our ability to carry out investigations and, if necessary, implement appropriate trade remedies. The same approach is being used for the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. In case of the PRC, granting of market economy status paved the way for a framework for cooperation between the two countries in terms of which anti-dumping practices and the administration of quotas on certain categories of clothing and textiles were clarified.

3) It is worth noting that granting market economy status to a country does not increase its access to the South African market. Instead it places an onus on South Africa to follow a stricter investigative process if dumping activity is alleged. It is difficult to assess whether the granting of market economy status has any significant impact on the ability to implement trade remedies.

QUESTION NO.: 1364

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 15 AUGUST 2008

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

(1) (a) How many consultants are currently working for the SA Airways and (b) how much money was paid (i) in the (aa) 2004-05, (bb) 2005-06, (cc) 2006-07 and (dd) 2007-08 financial years and (ii) during the period from 1 April 2008 until 1 August 2008 to (aaa) consultant agencies and (bbb) individual consultants;

(2) whether SAA consultants are accommodated in five-star hotels; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) why have 51 pilots and 217 technicians resigned from the service of the SAA of their own accord since 2007;

(4) (a)(i) since the Competition Commission’s inception, with how much money has it fined the SAA up to the latest specified date for which information is available and (ii) what were the reasons in each case, (b) how much money was (i) directly by the State or (ii) via the SAA to the Mango airline and (c) what is Mango Airline’s current financial position in respect of (i) the asset-liability ratio, (ii) cash reserves and (iii) its profits or losses as recorded in the 2007-08 financial year;

(5) whether the Mango airline has any debt burden; if so, what are the relevant details? NW2104E

REPLY

(1) (a)The SAA database does not at this stage allow for the ease of retrieval of such information. It would entail a significant amount of effort and time to extract the detailed information. Notwithstanding this, SAA can confirm that there are 5 consultants that contribute on average to 90% of the spend per annum four of which were audit firms.

(b)(i)(aa) In 2004/05 was R46,9 million.

(bb) In 2005/06 was - R 52,9 million.

(cc) In 2006/07 was - R 103,1 million.

(dd) In 2007/08 was - R 115 million financial years, and;

(aaa-bbb) Unable to provide response to the question as it is unaudited information.

(2) Some SAA consultants are occasionally accommodated in five-star hotels according to the terms of the contracts concluded with such consultants.

(3) Pilots and Technicians have resigned due to the following:

- Emigration and job security

- Salary opportunities at other airlines

- Development/training/other industry opportunities

- Retirement

- Voluntary Severance Packages and;

(4) (a)(i) SAA paid a total of R100m to the Competition Commission in respect of administrative penalties.

(ii) Following a complaint by Nationwide Airlines, which was referred by the Competition Commission to the Competition Tribunal, SAA’s conduct in regard to the operation of its travel agency incentive schemes was found to be in contravention of the Competition Act. SAA was ordered to pay an administrative penalty of R45m.

SAA concluded a settlement agreement with the Competition Commission in respect of three investigations conducted by the Commission into possible anti-competitive conduct. The investigations related to: (i) possible collusion of members of the Association of Southern African Airlines (ASAA) in regard to fuel levies; (ii) a Comair complaint in regard to travel agency incentive schemes; and (iii) management of the code share relationship between SAA and Lufthansa. On application by the Commission, the Tribunal confirmed the settlement agreement as appropriate consent orders in terms of Section 58(1)(b) of the Competition Act. In the consent orders SAA agreed to pay administrative penalties amounting to a total of R55m.

(b) (i) The Government did not invest any money directly into Mango.

(b) (ii) SAA has invested an amount of R 373m into Mango.

(c) (i) Asset-Liability Ratio is 2.7 times.

(c) (ii) Cash reserves is R88m.

(c) (iii) Loss for the 2007-08 financial year is R1m (Audited Annual Financial Statements of SAA).

(5) No interest bearing debt burden exists. The only debt relates to short-term liabilities (operational creditors, passenger forward sales and associated airport taxes).

QUESTION 1365

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

(1) Whether he recommended the chief executive officer (CEO) of the SA Airways (name furnished) to the Cabinet; if so, what are the relevant details; if not,

(2) whether he personally considered appointing him; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) (a) how much money has the said person received since his appointment as CEO until 1 August 2008 in respect of (i)(aa) salary and (bb) salary increases, (ii) performance bonuses, (iii) retention bonuses, (iv) allowances, (v) subsidies and (vi) any other form of remuneration, (b) what are the details in respect of each of the said categories, (c)(i) how much money in any form of bonuses, including retention bonuses, was paid out to him and (ii) when was it paid out and (d)(i) how much money was paid out annually to the (aa) CEO, (bb) senior management and (cc) directors of the SAA during the period 1 April 2002 until 31 March 2008 and (ii) what are the relevant details;

(4) whether the CEO’s contract can (a) expire or (b) be cancelled by his employer; if not, (i) when was he appointed, (ii) until when is his contract valid and (iii) why not, in each case; if so, what are the relevant details;

(5) whether he is considering to replace the CEO; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details? NW2105E

Reply:

(1) The Minister recommended the full current board of Directors of SAA to Cabinet as is required. The designated CEO was part of this recommendation. The board of directors has in all cases been approved by Cabinet.

(2) At the time of the appointment of the current CEO, SAA was a Subsidiary of Transnet and as a consequence fell under the control of the Legal Succession Act (1989). A decision in respect of the appointment of the current CEO was taken by the SAA Board after consultation with the Transnet Board and the Minister of Public Enterprises.

(3) (a)(i)(aa)(bb)(ii-vi)(b)(c)(i-ii)(d)(i)(aa)The table below indicates SAA CEO’s salary and other forms of remuneration that were paid out for the respective years.

Surname and Initials	Description	2004 - 2005	2005 - 2006	2006 - 2007	2007 - 2008
Mr Ngqula K	Salary and Fund Contributions	R2,295,000.00	R5,000,000.00	R5,000,000.00	R5,000,000.00
	Retention Premium	0.00	0.00	0.00	R687,669.40
	Performance Bonus	0.00	R1,850,000.00	0.00	0.00
	TOTAL	R2,295,000.00	R6,850,000.00	R5,000,000.00	R5,687,669.40

(bb)(cc)(ii) Due to the volume of information required, the Honourable Member is requested to consult SAA’s previous Annual Reports tabled in Parliament during the years in question.

(4) (a)(b)(i-ii) The contract between the current CEO and SAA will expire at the end of its term or it could be terminated if considered necessary. The current CEO was appointed on the 15th October 2004 and the current contract is valid until October 2010

(4) At this stage no consideration is being given to replacing the CEO of SAA. The airline operates in a tough commercial environment and the current management team and CEO continue to sustain SAA’s high service standard in a difficult market environment. In addition, the current management team and CEO should be commended on the implementation of a comprehensive and challenging restructuring programme that has enabled the airline to post an operating profit of R123 million prior to restructuring costs at the end of 2007/08.

QUESTION 1366

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

(1) Whether the SA Airways has shown financial losses of R16,6 billion since 1 January 2002 up to the latest specified date for which information is available; if not, what did the losses amount to; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether the SAA received R8,9 billion from the State from 1 January 2004 up to the latest specified date for which information is available; if not, what was the amount received; if so, what were the reasons for this;

(3) whether the SAA’s balance sheet was in the red with R9 billion in 2007; if not, (a) what was the amount and (b) what were the reasons for this; if so, what are the relevant details;

(4) (a) how much cash did the SAA have in the bank on 1 August 2008, (b) how is the SAA’s expenditure currently disbursed and (c) what was the SAA’s outstanding debt on 1 August 2008;

(5) (a) why is the SAA requesting a further R2,8 billion, besides the initial R5,7 billion, from the State and (b) for what purposes will this money be utilised? NW2106E

Reply:

(1) The losses for SAA from the period 2002 to 2008 were R13,74 billion. This excludes restructuring costs of R1,345 billion and interest of R137 million paid on loans raised with financial institutions based on government guarantees during the year ended 31 March 2008.

(2) SAA received the following amounts through investments, restructuring funding

and guarantees for loans:-

Year:	Details	Cash injection (R’ billion)	Guarantees (R’ billion)
2003/04	Recapitalization following hedging losses	6,089	-
2005/06	Conversion of loan to equity (excluding shares bought back)	2,361	-
2006/07	Support to restore going concern -guarantee	-	1,300
2007/08	Labour restructuring costs	0,744	-
	Grounding of B747-400s	-	1,560
	Total	9,194	2,860

Total financial support including cash injection and guarantees since 2004 was

R12,054 billion.

(3) SAA’s ordinary shareholder’s equity was R270 million as at 31 March 2007.

(4) (a) The cash position as at 31 March 2008 was R5,4 billion.

(b) SAA’s expenditure is disbursed on a 45 day net basis (30 days from date of statement). All expenses and payments are authorized as per the SAA delegation of authority.

(5) (a-b) SAA is not requesting a further R2,8 billion and the airline has not received R5,7 billion to date.

QUESTION NO. 1367

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 23 of 2008

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 15 August 2008

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

(1) Whether his department will play any role in ensuring that a certain company (name furnished) complies with the environmental management programme when mining at Xolobeni along the Wild Coast; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether the mining will impact on any of the eco-tourism projects supported by his department in the OR Tambo district municipality; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details?

NW2107E

MR G R MORGAN (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

1367. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM ANSWERS:

(1) In terms of the applicable legislative framework, the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of mining permits and associated environmental management programmes are legislated through the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 (Act No. 28 of 2002) and administered by the Department of Minerals and Energy (DME). Apart from the general environmental enforcement provisions stemming from Chapter 7 of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), my Department (DEAT) has no jurisdiction in this regard.

However, should amendment to both the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 (Act No. 28 of 2002) (See Bill 10 of 2007) and the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) (See Bill 36 of 2007) be enacted, an approved EMPR would constitute an environmental authorization in terms of Chapter 5 of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA). All the provisions of NEMA around environmental authorizations, including monitoring of compliance and enforcement, will then apply.

(2) Can not respond to this question as no study was done. The present eco-tourism projects that are funded by the Department are not in the Xolobeni area.

QUESTION NO. 1368

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 23 of 2008

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 15 August 2008

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

(1) whether a certain company (name furnished) is in compliance with its (a) air quality and (b) waste licences; if not, what is being done to rectify the situation; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether the company has been inspected by the green scorpions, since 1 January 2007; if not, why not; if so, (a) what are the dates of the inspections and (b) the (i) name and (ii) designation of the individual that lead the inspection, in each case;

(3) whether areas of concern were raised with the management after each inspection; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

NW2108E

MR G R MORGAN (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

1368. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM ANSWERS:

(1) The findings from the inspection at Vanchem revealed that the company was not fully compliant with its Registration Certificates issued in terms of Section 12(1) of the Air Pollution Prevention Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “APPA”). Furthermore, Vanchem is currently not in possession of all the required authorisations in terms of its waste disposal practices, although it has submitted an application to my Department for the closure of the calcine dump currently being operated on site, as well as an application for the expansion of the calcine dump together with proposals regarding the implementation of alternatives to the current disposal of waste practices.

In relation to the air issues identified during the inspection, my Department issued Vanchem with a pre-directive in terms of Section 28 of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) (hereinafter referred to as “NEMA”). This pre-directive instructed Vanchem to provide reasons why a directive should not be issued requiring the facility to:

· address the excessive emissions emanating from the site by investigating, evaluating and assessing the impact of all its emissions to atmosphere;

· develop an Emission Reduction Plan for the facility; and

· provide the Department with a Remediation Plan for the contaminated plant aquifer caused by the disposal of the facility’s waste on the historical calcine dump.

A final directive in this regard will be issued shortly. Furthermore, my Department issued Vanchem with a pre-notice in terms of section 12(2) of the APPA which afforded Vanchem a period of twenty-one days to make representations as to why my Department should not issue the facility with a final notice. Vanchem was informed that the final notice would require the facility to install continuous stack monitoring equipment and to compile an Emission Reduction Plan. My Department has, however, recently decided that it would be more appropriate to address the issues listed in the notice by means of the APPA Registration Certificate review project, which has identified Vanchem as a priority polluting industry. This project will include the urgent review of Vanchem’s conditions stipulated in its registration certificate in order to expedite the implementation of mitigating measures by Vanchem.

(2) Environmental Management Inspectors, commonly referred to by the media as the “Green Scorpions” conducted an environmental compliance inspection at Vanchem from 29 to 31 August 2007 under the leadership of Mr Anben Pillay, who is currently the Deputy Director: Compliance Auditing in my Department’s Chief Directorate: Regulatory Services. At the time of the inspection, he was the acting Director: Compliance Monitoring. It is imperative to understand that the inspection to Vanchem was not only as a result of complaints received from the public, but also as part of my Department’s proactive strategic compliance and enforcement project within the ferro-alloy and iron and steel sector, which is being led my Department’s Chief Directorate: Regulatory Services in conjunction with its provincial counterparts.

(3) A detailed Inspection Report of the compliance inspection was delivered to Vanchem on 1 October 2007 and Vanchem was afforded a period of 21 days to provide my Department with a comprehensive response to the non-compliances with the facility’s registrations certificates and general concerns, including groundwater contamination, lack of continuous monitoring, dust and excessive emissions, listed in the report. A response was received from Vanchem on 22 October 2007, the Department has subsequently met with Vanchem management to discuss the issues. Following these interactions the relevant pre-notices referred to in response (1) above were issued to the facility.

RE: QUESTION 1369

1369. G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs:

(1) Whether any special conditions apply to the spraying of (a) dicarzol, (b) dichlorvos and (c) thioflo on crops; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) whether any of these pesticides pose a threat to human health if applied incorrectly; if not, how was this conclusion reached; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) whether her department has taken any action against individuals who have threatened the health of others by misusing the chemicals since 1 January 2007 up to the latest specified date for which information is available; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details? NW2109E

ANSWER TO QUESTION 1

a) The products (a) Dicarzol, (b) Dichlorvos and (c) Thioflo are currently registered in South Africa in terms of the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act (Act No 36 of 1947) hereinafter referred to as “the Act”. There are precautionary conditions (e.g. wearing of protective clothing) set-out in the label for the user of the products to minimize the health risk related to the use of these products. However, there are no special conditions for the use of these products.

Why no special conditions:

· The risk assessment done when the abovementioned products were registered indicated that the risk posed by such products when used as directed is likely to be acceptable. As such the Department of Agriculture did not deem it necessary to put special conditions relating to the use of these products. Should there be scientific evidence indicating that the risk relating to use of these products is unmanageable, the Department of Agriculture will take a regulatory decision e.g. restricting the availability of the product only to trained pesticides applicators (registered pest control operators) or banning the use of such products.

ANSWER TO QUESTION 2

The products ((a) Dicarzol, (b) Dichlorvos and (c) Thioflo have been classified as highly hazardous products. The misuse of these products therefore can pose serious health threat to humans these include:

· Hypersensitivity to stimulation, sensation of prickling, tingling or creeping on skin, headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, incoordination, tremor, mental confusion, hyperexcitable state, malaise, muscle weakness, sweating, salivation, abdominal pain, diarrhea, miosis with blurred vision, muscle twitching and slurred speech.

· In severe cases, the following may happen: convulsions, seizures, coma and respiratory depression, central nervous system depression (coma, seizures and hypotonicity), hypertension and cardio-respiratory depression, dyspnea, bronchospasms and bronchorrhea with eventual pulmonary edema

ANSWER TO QUESTION 3

(c) The Department received complaints on the alleged pesticide poisoning in Groblersdal (Limpopo Province) on the 19 September 2006. Upon receipt of the complaint, the department conducted an investigation on the matter. The investigation wanted to find out the following:

i. the types of pesticide used?

ii. how they were use?

iii. who applied them?

iv. when the pesticides were used?

Our investigation revealed that the Dicarzol, Dichlorvos and Thioflo were amongst the products that were used in the area. Part of the condition for the application of some of the products (Dichlorvos and Thioflo) is to give prior notifications to the people around the farms where these products are to be applied. According to our preliminary investigation, it was found that in most cases no such notifications were being given. In light of the fact that farms are in close proximity to the residential areas and the fact that these are highly hazardous, those notifications were supposed to have been done so that people around can take precautionary measures. Given the above the matter was referred to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and South African Police Service for further action in 26 October 2007. NPA requested further information from the Department. These include sale records from the dealers and confirmation of purchase from the farmers. The Department made several attempts to get the information from the dealers, which was in vain. The Department then requested NPA to subpoena the dealers to provide the requested information (sale records). The subpoena was served on 3 September 2008 on various dealers. The Department has now received the said documents on the 9 October 2008 and the Department is busy reviewing the received documents before forwarding it to NPA. The Department hopes to finalize the investigation by the end of November 2008 for referral to NPA for decision to prosecute.

In the meantime, due to the seriousness of the matter, the Department has embarked on an awareness campaign on the responsible use of pesticides.

QUESTION NO. 1370

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 23 of 2008

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 15 August 2008

Mr I F Julies (DA) to ask the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism:

(1) Whether his department is investigating the recent spate of unnatural crocodile deaths in the Kruger National Park; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

(2) how many crocodiles have died from unnatural causes within the Kruger National Park from 1 January 2008 up to the latest specified date for which information is available;

(3) whether any initial information is available as to why these crocodiles died; if not, when can such results be expected; if so, what are the relevant details?

NW2110E

MR I F JULIES (DA) SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT

HANSARD

PAPERS OFFICE

PRESS

1370. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM ANSWERS:

(1) The first dead crocodiles were observed towards the end of May 2008. Since then a team of scientists and veterinarians from SANParks, DWAF, North-west University, Pretoria University, Onderstepoort Veterinary faculty, IUCN Crocodile Specialist group, SAPS Forensics laboratory & Mpumalanga Conservation have been investigating this problem. More experts from all over the world are also consulted.

Post mortem results show that the crocodiles died of a disease called Pansteatitis. Clinical symptoms include a general hardening of the body fat and the fat changing color from white to orange. Inadequate Vit E levels have been associated with Pansteatitis in a number of species. Low levels of Vit E results in decreased antioxidant capacity with subsequent free radical peroxidation of lipids. Clinically this causes inflamed body fat and the inflammation results in the fat turning orange in colour and hardening and it is very painful. The hardened fat causes the crocodiles to become stiff and results in reduction in mobility and the ability to swim. This leads to starvation and even drowning of the affected animals. Affected crocodiles also become reluctant to enter the water and do not move away as normal when approached on foot.

Pansteatitis are usually associated with the consuming of rotten and rancid fish. In this incidence no fish mortalities were observed in the Olifants River. The deliberate poisoning of crocodiles by Mozambican fisherman also seems to be unlikely. The pathology observed is not consistent with deliberate poisoning.

The Olifants gorge & lower Letaba rivers are surveyed weekly with a Bantam ultra-light aircraft and all dead crocodiles noted. A full crocodile and hippo helicopter census was also conducted in the Olifants & Letaba rivers including the Massingir Dam in Mozambique on 27 July 2008. The following crocodile numbers were observed:

River / area	No of crocs counted
Olifants River (total within KNP)	543
Olifants River gorge only	255
Letaba River (total in KNP)	508
Massingir Dam	50

Extensive water sample testing has been conducted:

· DWAF analysed water samples from the Olifants River - they did find a number of Pesticides, Phthalates, PCB’s & PAH’s but the concentrations were very low. DWAF says it is below the level where it is dangerous to humans & animals.

· DWAF also tested the drinking water in Olifants camp & Skukuza. The quality is also very good with no health hazards to people.

Sediment samples have been taken from all the KNP major rivers as it is expected that organic compounds & PCB’s will concentrate in the fine sediments. The sediment samples have been sent to Norway to analyse for organic pollutants. The outcome of these tests is still awaited.

Crocodile fat samples were sent to Sweden for tests to pick up the suspected organic compounds which are fat soluble. Results from Sweden suggest that there are very low concentrations of certain compounds (DDT, DDD & DDE and one unidentified one). Experts however think that the concentrations are too low to have caused the croc mortalities.

A major excersize was undertaken to capture some live crocodiles at night in the Olifants gorge area to collect blood & fat samples from them. This is to get an idea of what percentage of the population is affected and to model the impact on the population. Over 3 nights in early August ’08 a total of 11 crocodiles were captured. Ten of these crocs were marked with color-coded plastic markers in order to recognize them in future.

Of the 11 captured crocs, seven were clearly affected. During the surveys after the capture four of the marked crocodiles have already turned up dead. It is thus quite clear that a substantial number of crocodiles are still going to die in the Olifants gorge.

Thus far no mortalities in other species such as fish eating birds, reptiles or even lions & hyenas scavenging crocodile carcasses were observed.

(2) Up until to August 2008 about 150 dead crocodiles were seen, but the actual number is probably higher. As this is a very remote area and the crocodile carcasses disappear quite quickly, it is quite possible that a number were missed with the weekly aerial surveys.

(3) At this stage it is not yet clear what was the initial cause or trigger that set off the crocodile mortalities. It is however thought that that the raising of the Massingir dam wall downstream in Mozambique played a role. The dam started pushing back into the Kruger Park when it filled up in January and February 2008. This resulted in the deposit of tonnes of silt in the Olifants gorge.

It is thought that the Pansteatitis disease in the Olifants Gorge could have started after a fish incident (fishermen dumping fish or intra-abdominal organs over period of weeks – close to the border or crocs getting access to rotten fish) that triggered the reaction in number of crocodiles.

With the large number of crocodiles concentrated in the Gorge, it became self-sustainable. The rationale as proposed is that through Intra-species cannibalism, i.e. unaffected crocodiles eating dying pansteatitis crocodiles would most probably also trigger the same reaction in the healthy crocodiles. The large volume of oxidized fat in a sick crocodile (especially the intra-abdominal fat that is easy to consume in large quantities) is most probably enough to trigger the reaction in several other crocodiles feeding on the pansteatitis case. This is a possible explanation for the ongoing crocodile mortality in the Olifants Gorge, and the Letaba and Olifants Rivers.

If this hypothesis is a real possibility then it might help to pull every dead crocodile out of the water and burn the carcass to break this possible cycle. SANParks have embarked on such an exercise using a helicopter and have so far pulled 15 dead crocs out & burnt the carcasses. This excersise will continue for the foreseeable future.

Attempts are made through the GLTP structures to get the Mozambican counterparts to investigate the situation on their side. Focus should be on the fishing communities around Massingir Dam to get certain answers on questions relating to fishing methods and practices, and possible changes that took place or were observed in the Massingir Dam last 6 - 12 months.

The SANParks team will continue with the crocodile surveys as well as with the live capture and marking of crocodiles and the collection of fish and tissue samples. The results from the sediment analyses from Norway are expected within the next 2 weeks. The University of Pretoria will be screening crocodile tissue for bacteriological and viral infections and the SAPS Forensics laboratory will be screening croc tissue for a wider range of toxins, but this might take a while longer to show results.

QUESTION 1371

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER [NO 23-2008]

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 15 AUGUST 2008

1371. Mr A H Nel (DA) to ask the Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs:

(1) What is the status of a claim on certain farms (details furnished) in the Great Kei Municipality;

(2) whether the land owners of these farms are willing sellers; if so, what are the reasons for the settling of this claim being delayed;

(3) whether Section 13 of the Restitution of Land Rights Act, Act 22 of 1994, was implemented; if not, why not; if so, (a) when and (b) what are the further relevant details? NW2112E

THE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS:

(1) According to the records of the Regional Land Claims Commissioner: Eastern Cape (RLCC:EC), no claim has been lodged by the Nkula family in respect of Farms 476 and 456. However, the claim for restoration of land rights lodged by Mr Mxolisi Gerald Nkula on behalf of the Nkula family, is in respect of the land known as Farms 466 and 479 in the Great Kei Local Municipality. According to the land claim form, the land is historically known as Farm 1 Lot 1 in the Cintsa area in East London. The research revealed that the farm was divided into two sections and the current descriptions are Farms 479 measuring 42,1885 hectares, and 466 which is further divided into two portions.

The claim was investigated and found to meet the restitution criteria as stipulated in section 2 of the Restitution of Land Rights Act, 1994. The claim was therefore gazetted in terms of section 11(1) of the said Act.

The RLCC:EC appointed an independent and professional service provider (TC Appraisal) to conduct valuations on the claimed properties. The valuer concluded that the current market value of both properties is R926,204.00. The valuation report was presented to the current owner and his legal representatives, and they rejected the values as too low.

Subsequently, the current owner decided to conduct his own valuation and his valuer came up with an amount of R2,300,000.00 for Farm 466 and R4,000,000.00 for Farm 479. These amounts are higher than the valuation conducted by the valuer appointed by the RLCC:EC.

The RLCC:EC then decided to appoint another independent valuer (Mr Rademan) to adjudicate on the two reports. The adjudication report was presented recently, and very critical issues were raised in the report. The RLCC:EC requested the adjudicator to give a clear opinion on what the actual value of the property should be and is still awaiting the final opinion and recommendations of the adjudicator.

(2) Yes. The RLCC:EC negotiated with the current landowner as a willing seller. However, the settlement and finalisation of this claim has been delayed by the disagreements on the value of the claimed properties. As indicated in the response to part (1) above, there is a huge difference between the valuation conducted by the valuer appointed by the RLCC:EC and the one conducted by the current landowner. Thus far no agreement has been reached between the parties on the value of the claimed properties, based on the different valuations received.

(3) No. The provisions of section 13 of the Restitution of Land Rights Act, 1994, have not been implemented as yet. The RLCC:EC is convinced that the matter can still be resolved through negotiations, as the point of disagreement is only on the market value of the properties and not on the validity of the claim. As stated earlier, the RLCC:EC is awaiting a third opinion from the adjudicator on the current market value of the properties, so as to make another offer to the current landowner.

The third valuer (adjudicator) is still analysing the two valuation reports and will present his final recommendations on 30 August 2008. Thereafter the RLCC:EC will present an offer to the current landowner. If the negotiations on the value of the properties fail, the RLCC:EC will invoke the provisions of section 13 of the Restitution of Land Rights Act, 1994, and appoint a mediator to assist in resolving the matter.

(a) and (b) Fall away.

QUESTION NO. 1372

(Internal Question Paper No 23 - 2008)

Mr M. M Swathe to ask the Minister of Provincial and Local Government:

For (i) each of the last three years and (ii) as at 1 August 2008; what was the amount (a) budgeted, (b) allocated to and (c) spent by (aa) metropolitan municipalities, (bb) district municipalities and (cc) local municipalities of the municipal infrastructure grant allocated by all countries?

ANSWER

As at 1 August 2008, the amount budgeted, allocated and spent for each of the last three years by metropolitan. district and local municipalities is described in the table below:

Table 1

FINANCIAL
YEAR

(aa)
METROPOLITAN
MUNICIPALITIES

(bb)
DISTRICT MUNICIPALITIES

(cc)
LOCAL
MUNICIPALITIES

TOTAL

2005/2006

(a)Budget

1.151.383

1.147.944

2.496.548

2.388.671

1.788.230

1.675.133

5.436.161

5.211.748

(b)Allocated

(c)Expenditure

20062007

(a)Budget

1.311.948

1.300.021

1.818.070

1.668.690

2.621.817

2.568.466

5.751.834

5.537.177

(b)Allocated

©Expenditure

(ii)2007/2008

a)Budget

1.530.424

1.120.153

2.493.802

2.262.618

4.237.563

4237.563

4.289.983

8.261.788

7.672.754

(b)Allocated

(c)Expenditure

Source: DoRA Reports as at end June 2006, 2007 and 2008

(aa) Metropolitan municipalities

As at end June 2006, the metropolitan municipalities received a municipal

infrastructure grant allocation of R1, 151 billion and R1, 147 billion was spent.

As at end June 2007, metropolitan municipalities received a municipal infrastructure

grant allocation of R 1. 311 billion and R1, 300 billion was spent.

As at end .June 2008, metropolitan municipalities received a municipal infrastructure

grant allocation of R1, 530 billion and R1, 091 billion was spent.

(bb) District municipalities

As at end of June 2006, district municipalities received a municipal infrastructure grant

allocation of R2, 496 billion and R2, 388 was spent

As at end of June 2007, district municipalities received a municipal infrastructure grant

allocation of R1. 818 billion and R1, 668 billion was spent.

As at end of June 2008. district municipalities received a municipal infrastructure grant

allocation of R2, 493 billion and R2. 262 billion was spent.

(cc) Local Municipalities

As at end of June 2006, local municipalities received a municipal infrastructure grant

allocation of R1. 788 billion and R1, 675 billion was spent.

As at end of June 2007. local municipalities .received a municipal infrastructure grant

allocation of R2. 621 billion and R2, 568 billion was spent.

As at end June 2008, local municipalities received a municipal infrastructure grant

allocation of R4, 237 billion and R4, 289 billion was spent.

QUESTION NO. 1374

(Internal Question Paper No 23 – 2008)

Mr W P Doman (DA) to ask the Minister for Provincial and Local Government:

(a) How many service delivery facilitators (SDFs) were deployed to each municipality identified in Project Consolidate in each of the past three years up to and including the latest specified date for which information is available and (b) what is the financial status of all the municipalities that were assisted with SDFs in terms of (i) adverse opinion, (ii) emphasis of matter, (iii) clean reports and (iv) qualification (aa) prior to the deployment of SDFs and (bb) after the appointment of SDFs up to 1 August 2008?

ANSWER

(a) A total of 1124 Service Delivery Facilitators (SDFs) were deployed in 268 of the 283 municipalities during the period 2005-2008 (as at July 2008).

(b) The table appearing below summarises the audit opinions relating to municipalities to which SDFs have been deployed over the last three years. Annexure A sets out a detailed overview of the municipal audit opinions.

It should be noted that SDFs deployed to work with municipalities across the country, and tasked specifically with issues relating to financial management and the compilation of financial statements, are expected to work with, and in support of, municipal officials. It should also be made clear that some of the SDFs were not assigned to deal with financial management and accounting issues. They have mandates focusing on other areas of work.

TABLE

Summary of Audit Opinions of Municipalities where SDFs have been deployed (2005-2007)

Audit Opinion	Number of Municipalities (2004/05-2006/07)
	2004/05 (prior to deployment)	2005/06 (initial deployment)	2006/07 (during deployment)
Unqualified	60	46	51
Qualified	72	60	68
Disclaimer	104	120	97
Adverse	16	22	22

ANNEXURE A

MUNICIPAL AUDIT OUTCOMES

2006/2007

2005/2006

2004/2005

MUNICIPALITY SUPPORTED BY SDFs

UNQUA

QUAL

DISCL

ADVE

UNQUA

QUAL

DISCL

ADVE

UNQUA

QUAL

DISCL

ADVE

EASTERN CAPE

King Sabata Dalindyebo Municipality















Nelson Mandela Bay















Mnquma Local Municipality











Amathole District Municipality















Buffalo City Local Municipality















Chris Hani District Municipality















Emalahleni Local Municipality















Ukhahlamba District Municipality









Elundini Local Municipality















Senqu Local Municipality















Malethswai Local Municipality















Gariep Local Municipality















O. R. Tambo District Municipality











Nyandeni Local Municipality















Mhlontlo Local Municipality















Alfred Nzo District Municipality















Ngqushwa Local Municipality















Camdeboo Local Municipality















Blue Crane Route Local Municipality















Ikwezi Local Municipality















Makana Local Municipality















Ndlambe Local Municipality















Sunday's River Valley















Kou-Kamma Local Municipality











Cacadu District Municipality













Mbhashe Local Municipality











Nkonkobe Local Municipality















Nxuba Local Municipality















Inxuba Yethemba Local Municipality













Inkwanca Local Municipality















Lukhanji Local Municipality















Intsika Yethu Local Municipality











Engcobo Local Municipality















Mbizana Local Municipality











Ntabankulu Local Municipality















Qaukeni Local Municipality















Port St Johns Local Municipality











Umzimvubu Local Municipality















Matatiele Local Municipality















Great Kei Local Municipality















Amahlathi Local Municipality















Tsolwana Local Municipalty















Sakhisizwe Local Municipality















Kouga Local Municipalty















TOTAL

FREE STATE

Dihlabeng Local Municipality











Kopanong Local Municipality















Mantsopa Local Municipality















Maluti-a-Phofung Local Municipality







Phumelela Local Municipality



Mangaung Local Municipality















Motheo District Municipality















Fezile Dabi District Municipaliity















Thabo Mofutsanyane District Municipality















Lejweleputswa District Municipality















Letsemeng Local Municipality







Mafube Local Municipality



Masilonyana Local Municipality















Metsimaholo Local Municipality















Naledi Local Municipality















Xhariep District Municipality



Tokologo Local Municipality











Tswelopele Local Municipality













Matjhabeng Local Municipality













Setsoto Local Municipality















Nketoana Local Municipality















Moqhaka Local Municipality















Ngwathe Local Municipality















Mohokare Local Municipality















Nala Local Municipality













TOTAL

GAUTENG

Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality













Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality















Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality















Metsweding District Municipality













Sedibeng District Municipality













Emfuleni Local Municipality















Lesedi Local Municipality













West Rand District Municipality













Midvaal Local Municipality













Nokeng tsa Taemane Local Municipality















Kungwini Local Municipality















Westonaria Local Municipality















Mogale Local Municipality















Randfontein Local Municipality















TOTAL

KWAZULU-NATAL

Amajuba District Municipality















Emadlangeni Local Municipality















Umkhanyakude District Municipality















Umtshezi Local Municipality















Zululand District Municipality













Umzumbe Local Municipality















Ezinqolweni Local Municipality















Ugu District Municipality













Umgeni Loacal Municipality













Richmond Local Municipality













Emnambithi-Ladysmith Local Municipality













Imbabazane Local Municipality















Nquthu Local Municipality















Umvoti Local Municipality













Dannhauser Local Municipality















Uphongolo Local Municipality













Abaqulusi Local Municipality















Ulundi Local Municipality















Umhlabuyalinga Local Municipality















The Big Five False Bay















Mbonambi Local Municipality







Ntambanana Local Municipality















Nkandla Local Municipality















Uthungulu District Municipality













Kwadukuza Local Municipality













Maphumulo Local Municipality















Ingwe Local Municipality















KwaSani Local Municipality















Umzimkhulu Local Municipality











Mpofana Local Municipality















Okhahlamba Local Municipality















Uthukela District Municipality















Msinga Local Municipality















Jozini Local Municipality













Ndwedwe Local Municipality













Ilembe District Municipality















Vulamehlo Local Municipality













Umdoni Local Municipality













Hibuscus Coast Local Municipality















Umgungundlovu District Municipality















Msunduzi Local Municipality













Mkhambathini Municipality













Indaka Local Municipality















Umzinyathi District Municipality















Endumeni Local Municipality















Newcastle Local Municipality















Mtubatuba Local Municipality















Hlabisa / Impala Local Municipality















Mthonjaneni Local Municipality













uMhlathuze Local Municipality













Umlalazi Local Municipality













Endondakusuka Local Municipality















Sisonke District Municipality















Ubuhlebezwe Local Municipality















Greater Kokstad Local Municipality















TOTAL

LIMPOPO

Greater Giyani Local Municipality



Greater Sekhukhune District Municipality







Elias Motsoaledi Local Municipality













Maruleng Local Municipality







Mopani District Municipality







Musina Local Municipality













Vhembe District Municipality







Waterberg District Municipality













Makhuduthamaga Local Municipality















Fetakgomo Local Municipality













Greater Letaba Local Municipality





Greater Tzaneen Local Municipality







Greater Marble Hall Local Municipality















Greater Tubatse Local Municipality















Capricorn District Municipality







Blouberg Local Municipality







Polokwane Local Municipality







Thabazimbi Local Municipality







Mookgophong Local Municipality















Mogalakwena Local Municipality













Mutale Local Municipality







Thulamela Local Municipality













Makhado Local Municipality















Aganang Local Municipality











Molemole Local Municipality















Lepelle-Nkumpi Local Municipality







Lephalale Local Municipality















Modimolle Local Municipality















Ba-Phalaborwa Local Municipality



Bela-Bela Local Municipality















TOTAL

MPUMALANGA

Mkhondo Local Municipality













Lekwa Local Municipality















Gert Sibande District Municipality













Dr J S Moroka Local Municipality













Nkangala District Municipality













Bushbuckridge Local Municipality













Thaba Chweu Local Municipality















Thembisile Local Municipality













Albert Luthuli Local Municipality















Msukalingwa Local Municipality













Dipaleseng Local Municipality















Govan Mbeki Local Municipality













Emalahleni Local Municipality













Emakhazeni Local Municipality













Mbombela Local Municipality















Umjindi Local Municipality













Nkomazi Local Municipality















Enhlanzeni District Municipaltiy















Delmas Local Municipality













TOTAL

NORTH WEST

Greater Taung Local Municipality















Bojanala Platinum District Municipality













Rustenburg Local Municipality















Mafikeng Local Municipality















Ditsibotla Local Municipality















Bophirima District Municipality













Tlokwe Municipality















Kagisano Local Municipality











Maquassi Hills Local Municipality











Moretele Local Municipality















Naledi Local Municipality















Ratlou Local Municipality















Madibeng Local Municipality















Kgetleng Rivier Local Municipality















Moses Kotane Local Municipality













Tswaing Local Municipality















Lekwa Teemane Local Municipality















Ventersdorp Local Municipality



Merafong City Local Municipality















Southern District Municipality















Mamusa Local Municipality











TOTAL

NORTHERN CAPE

Kgalagadi District Municipality















Ga-Segonyana Local Municipality















Gamagara Local Municipality











Moshaweng Local Municipality











Namakwa District Municipality















Richtersveld Local Municipality













Nama Khoi Local Municipality















Kamiesberg Local Municipality











Hantam Local Municipality















Karoo Hoogland Local Municipality















Khai-Ma Local Municipality















Prixley ka Seme District Municipality















Ubuntu Local Municipality















Emthanjeni Local Municipality















Renosterberg Local Municipality













Siyathemba Local Municipality















Siyancuma Local Municipality













Mier Local Municipality















! Khai ! Garib Local Municipality











! Kheis Local Municipality















Tsantsabane Local Municipality















Kgatelopele Local Municipality















Siyanda District Municipality











Sol Plaatjie Local Municipality















Frances Baard District Municipality













Dikgatlong Local Municipality















Magareng Local Municipality















Phokwane Local Municipality















Umsobomvu Local Municipality













Thembelihle Local Municipality















TOTAL

WESTERN CAPE

Cape Winelands District Municipality













Bergrivier Local Municipality















Bitou Local Municipality















City of Cape Town Metropolitan Municipality













Eden District Municipality















Hessequa Local Municipality















Matzikama Local Municipality















Mossel Bay Local Municvipality















Saldanha Bay Local Municipality















Stellenbosch Local Municipality















Swartland Local Municipality













Theewaterskloof Local Municipality















West Coast District Municipality













Witzernberg Local Municipality















Overberg District Municipality















Cederberg Local Municipality















Breede Valley Local Municipality















Breede River Winelands Local Municipality













Overstrand Local Municipality











Cape Agulhas Local Municipality













Swellendam Local Municipality















Kannaland Local Municipality















George Local Municipality















Oudtshoorn Local Municipality















Knysna Local Municipality















Laingsburg Local Municipality













Prince Albert Local Municipality













Beaufort West Local Municipality













Central Karoo District Municipality













Drakenstein Local Municipality













TOTAL

NATIONAL TOTAL

120

104

QUESTION NO. 1375

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 15 AUGUST 2008

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 23)

Mrs S V Kalyan (DA) to ask the Minister of Health:

Whether any positions on the S A National Aids Council are currently vacant; if so, (a) which positions and (b) for each position, (i) when did it become vacant, (ii) when was it advertised, (iii) how many responses to the adverts were received and (iv) when is it anticipated that the position will be filled?

NW2119E

REPLY:

(a) Positions currently vacant are:

(i) Cluster Manager: Partnerships and SANAC Secretariat

(ii) Senior Secretary x 2

(iii) Senior Administration Officer

(iv) Deputy Director: Strategic Information

(v) Director: Sectoral Support

(vi) Deputy Director: Donor Coordination

(vii) Deputy Director: Resource Management Committee Support

(viii) Deputy Director: Sectoral Support x 4

(ix) Deputy Director: Committee Services

(x) Demographer

(xi) Statistician

(xii) Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist

(xiii) Epidemiologist

(xiv) Researcher

(xv) Assistant Director: Administration x 7

(xvi) Assistant Director: Sectoral Support x 1

(xvii) Assistant Director: Monitoring and Evaluation x 3

(xviii) Assistant Director: Coordination and Donor Funding x 2

(b) (i) All the above-mentioned positions have never existed, they are new. The positions have been created after the restructuring of SANAC.

(ii) The position of Cluster Manager: Partnerships and SANAC Secretariat: Reference 34023/1 was first advertised on the 18 May 2008 with closing date of 09 June 2008. The second advertisement was on 26 August 2008 with closing date of 26 September 2008. The other positions have not yet been advertised.

(iii) The position of Cluster Manager: Partnerships and SANAC Secretariat for the first advertisement of 18 May 2008, 68 responses to the advert were received. For the second advertisement of 26 August 2008, 43 responses to the advert were received.

(iv) It is anticipated that the position of the Cluster Manager: Partnerships and SANAC Secretariat the will be filled as soon as a suitable candidate has been identified. After the appointment of the Cluster Manager: Partnerships and SANAC Secretariat he/she will then appoint the rest of the staff members.

QUESTION NO. 1376

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 15 AUGUST 2008

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 23)

Mrs S V Kalyan (DA) to ask the Minister of Health:

Whether the Medicines Control Council has conducted any investigation into or taken any action against any products sold as alternative medicines containing the product Bitter Orange; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details of (a) such investigations and/or (b) action?

NW2120E

REPLY:

Bitter Orange, also known by its scientific name – Citrus aurantiumth contains the substance Synephedrine, which brings about stimulation similar to Ephedra. The Minister of Health, on recommendation of the Medicines Control Council (MCC) has resolved, by publication in the Government Gazette No. 491 of 25 April 2008 that all Ephedra alkaloids (natural or synthetic) intended for oral use (except when indicated for treatment of colds and flu containing not more than 30 milligrams of Ephedra alkaloids per dose and in a maximum pack size of 720 milligrams) be listed as a Schedule 6 substance. This implies that these medicines may only be sold in a pharmacy on a prescription from a Medical Practitioner.

Ephedra is a permitted food constituent which allows Alternative Medicine Distributors/Manufacturers to sell the product as a herb containing supplement. Currently complementary/alternative medicines are not regulated, however, the Minister of Health has published complementary medicines comprehensive regulations in the Government Gazette No 31334 of 22 August 2008 which will endeavour to regulate the different disciplines of complementary medicines including herbal medicines.

In the interim, the MCC has embarked on an awareness campaign advising the public on the use of Ephedra containing medication and its rescheduling, particularly as a slimming agent. The Department of Health is following up with the Complementary Medicine industry on the rescheduling of Ephedra-containing products.

QUESTION NO. 1377

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 15 AUGUST 2008

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 23)

Mrs S V Kalyan (DA) to ask the Minister of Health:

Whether any regulations have been gazetted in accordance with the National Health Act, Act 61 of 2003; if not, (a) which regulations have not yet been gazetted, (b) what process has been followed and (c) when is it expected that these regulations will be gazetted; if so, (i) which regulations and (ii) in terms of which provisions?

NW2121E

REPLY:

Yes

(i) The following Table reflects the situation in this regard.

REGULATIONS GAZETTED IN TERMS OF THE NATIONAL HEALTH ACT 61 OF 2003
PUBLISHED IN 2006
Reg Number	Date of publication	Subject	ito Section	Draft / Final
Gazette: 29443	12 January 2006	Regulations relating to the obtaining of information and processes of determination and publication of reference price lists	Section 90(1)(u) and (v)	Draft
PUBLISHED IN 2007
Reg Number	Date of publication	Subject	ito Section	Draft / Final
Gazette 29527	05 January 2007	Regulations regarding artificial fertilisation and related matters	Section 90(1)	Draft
Gazette: 29526	01 January 2007	Regulations regarding the use of DNA, RNA, cultured cells, stem cells, blastomeres, polar bodies embryos, embryonic tissue and small tissue biopsies for diagnostic testing, health research and therapeutics	Section 90(1) read with section 68(1)	Draft
Gazette: 29637	23 February 2007	Regulations relating to the National Health Research Committee	Section 90	Draft
Gazette: 29637	23 February 2007	Regulations relating to research on human subjects	Section 90	Draft
Gazette: 29637	23 February 2007	Regulations relating to the National Health Research Ethics Council	Section 90	Draft
Gazette: 29840	04 May 2007	Regulations relating to human stem cells	Section 68	Draft
Gazette:30075	20 July 2007	Regulations regarding the rendering of forensic pathology service	Section 90(1)(i)	Final
Gazette: 30110	23 July 2007	Regulations relating to the obtainment of information and the process of determination and publication of reference price lists	Section 90(1)(u) and (v)	Final
PUBLISHED IN 2008
Reg Number	Date of publication	Subject	ito Section	Draft / Final
Gazette: 30681	25 January 2008	Regulations regarding communicable diseases	Sect 90	Draft
Gazette: 30727	04 February 2008	Regulations relating to the obtainment of information and the process of determination and publication of reference price lists	Section 90(1)(u) and (v)	Draft
Gazette: 30828	07 March 2008	Regulations regarding the general control of human bodies, tissue and organs for tranplantation	Section 68(1)	Draft

QUESTION NO 1379

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 15 AUGUST 2008

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 23/2008)

Date reply submitted: 21 October 2008

Ms D Kohler-Barnard (DA) to ask the Minister of Safety and Security:

(a) What are the relevant details with regard to the suppliers of bulletproof vests to the SA Police Service, (b) what is the weight of the (i) small, (ii) medium, (iii) large and (iv) extra large vests and (c) to what degree does (i) weight, (ii) cost and (iii) durability of vests count in the selection of suppliers of bulletproof vests?

NW2123E

REPLY:

(a) Bid 19/1/9/1/49TT for the manufacture, supply and delivery of Bullet Resistant Vests to the South African Police Service for a period of three years closed on 2008-08-12. The offers received are currently in an evaluation process. Thereafter, a recommendation will be forwarded to the Departmental Bid Adjudication Committee for consideration and approval.

The suppliers’ details cannot be made public at this stage.

(b) The weight of a SAPS Bullet Resistant Vest complete with ceramic tiles for the following sizes are:

(i) Small: ±6.30kg

(ii) Medium: ±6.58kg

(iii) Large: ±6.75kg

(iv) X-large: ±7.22kg

(c) The South African Police Service bullet resistant vests are procured according to a product specification. Only offers that comply with the specification, which include specifications with regard to weight and durability, are accepted and only then will cost become a relevant factor in the awarding of a contract to a supplier.

QUESTION NO 1380

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 15 AUGUST 2008

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 23/2008)

Date reply submitted: 21 October 2008

Ms D Kohler-Barnard (DA) to ask the Minister of Safety and Security:

(1) (a) How many people have appealed against a finding (i) not to renew an existing licence or (ii) to issue a new gun licence since the implementation of the Firearms Control Act, Act 60 of 2000, (b) how many of those appeals have been finalised and (c) what was the outcome for (i) licence renewals and (ii) applications for new licences and (d)(i) how many staff members are allocated to the Firearm Licence Appeal Board by (aa) occupation and (bb) province, (ii) what are the qualifications and experience of the judges who sit in the Appeals Board and (iii) how many designated firearm officers are there (aa) nationally and (bb) per province;

(2) (a) how many people have applied for compensation for firearms handed in, in terms of the Act per year, (b) how many of the applications for compensation have been (i) approved, (ii) rejected or (iii) appealed and (c) what is the amount that has been paid out in compensation annually for firearms that were handed in by members of the public?

NW2124E

REPLY:

(1)(a)(i) The South African Police Service received approximately 543 appeals in respect of applicants whose applications for the renewal of their existing firearm licences had been refused.

(1)(a)(ii) The South African Police Service received approximately 2 637 appeals in respect of applicants whose applications for new firearm licences had been refused.

(1)(b)(i) A total of approximately 377 appeals about applications for the renewal of licences for firearms have been finalized by the Appeals Board and a total of approximately 2 347 new appeals about applications for licences for firearms have been finalized by the Appeals Board.

(1)(c)(i) The Appeals Board upheld approximately 167 and declined 210 appeals about applications for the renewal of licences for firearms.

(1)(c)(ii) The Appeals Board upheld approximately 1 515 and declined 832 appeals about applications for new licences for firearms.

(1)(d)(i)(aa) The staff establishment of the secretariat of the Appeals Board according to occupation, is as follows:

Senior Superintendent (1)

Superintendent (1)

Captain (1)

Chief Administration Clerk (1)

Senior Administration Clerk (4)

Administration Clerk (2)

Principal Typist (1)

Senior Typist (1)

Typist (2)

(1)(d)(i)(bb) The Appeals Board is not segregated to address appeals of the various provinces separately. All appeals are received at a central point at the Appeals Board, irrespective of the province and are processed for consideration by the respective Board. No personnel has been allocated to specific provinces to address the processing of appeals as there is no need for such allocation.

(1)(d)(ii) The following members serve on the Appeals Board and their qualifications and experience are as follows:

Board Member

Qualification

Experience

Judge JAM Khumalo

(Chairperson)

Public Service Law Certificate,

B Juris, LLB, LLM

Judge Khumalo was appointed as a Magistrate in the Republic of South Africa in the year 1968. In 1975 he was appointed as a Judge in Swaziland. Since 1984, Judge Khumalo has been appointed as an acting Judge at the High Court of Bophuthatswana. He was permanently appointed in 1986 as a High Court Judge in Bophuthatswana and High Court Judge under the Interim Constitution and later the 1996 Constitution.

Director SD Majokweni

(Board member)

BA LLB

Director Majokweni has been admitted as an advocate since 1977 and has been in the field of law ever since.

Director ZN Nhlayisi

(Board member)

B Proc

Director Nhlayisi has been admitted as an attorney since 1989 and has practised as a private attorney until her appointment as an Appeals Board member.

Director PA Mongwe

(Board member)

BIUR (Law)

Director Mongwe was appointed as a State Prosecutor in 1992 and as a Magistrate in 1997.

(1)(d)(iii)(aa) A total of approximately 70 Designated Firearms Officers are appointed nationally.

(1)(d)(iii)(bb) The number of Designated Firearms Officers in the various provinces are as follows:

PROVINCE

NUMBER OF DESIGNATED FIREARMS OFFICERS

Gauteng

365

KwaZulu-Natal

Western Cape

238

North West

102

Free State

Limpopo

122

Mpumalanga

116

Northern Cape

107

Eastern Cape

208

The above excludes the support personnel as well as ad-hoc members as provided to the respective Firearm Registration Centres/police stations.

(2)(a) The following number of compensation applications have been received and were registered:

YEAR

NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

(2)(b)(i) No applications have been approved.

(2)(b)(ii) A total of approximately four compensation applications have been refused. None of the other applications could be finalised as the applications were not duly completed, which resulted in further correspondence with the applicants.

(2)(b)(iii) The Appeals Board has received two appeals in respect of the refusal to grant compensation to applicants for firearms surrendered to the South African Police Service for destruction.

(2)(c) No payment was effected to any applicant.

QUESTION NO 1381

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 15 AUGUST 2008

(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 23/2008)

Date reply submitted: 21 October 2008

Ms D Kohler-Barnard (DA) to ask the Minister of Safety and Security:

How many detectives have completed formal training at the Detective Academy in each of the past five years up to the latest specified date for which information is available?

NW2125E

REPLY:

The following is a summary of detectives who have received formal training at the Detective Academies - the SAPS Training Institutions in Hammanskraal and the Boland. These statistics come from the official SAPS training database of 15 August 2008. This information excludes detective training provided in the provinces and intelligence-related training courses.

FINANCIAL YEAR

HAMMANSKRAAL

BOLAND

TOTAL

2003/2004

696

175

871

2004/2005

727

135

862

2005/2006

1 403

169

1 572

2006/2007

1 277

224

1 501

2007/2008

1 506

247

1 753

2008/2009 - statistics to date

660

150

810

TOTAL

6269

1100

7369

Question 1387

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

What was the basis on which the macro-economic policy unit rejected manufacturing business plans that were developed by four of the world’s largest manufacturers and that were based on the recommendations of the Centre for International Development?NW2131E

Response:

the dti does not have a macro-economic policy unit. This question should be directed to National Treasury’s Economic Policy and International Financial Relations unit.

QUESTION 1390

FOR WRITTEN REPLY

Date of publication on internal question paper: 15 August 2008

Internal question paper no:

Mr E W Trent (DA) to ask the Minister of Social Development:

(1) (a) What was the total cost to the State of consultants* used by his department and reporting entities in the (i) 2005-06, (ii) 2006-07 and (iii) 2007-08 financial year, (b) what are the names of the consultants used, (c) for what purpose were they used and (d) what was the reason for preferring to use consultants instead of hiring persons with the necessary skills;

(2) whether any former employees of her department have been employed as consultants during any of the abovementioned periods; if so, (a) why was each person rehired as consultant and (b) why did each leave her department if his/her skills were necessary to the department? NW2134E

* Consultants include advisors employed.

REPLY:

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

(1a) The total costs for consultants used in the (i) 2005/2006 financial year amounts to R77 294 024.45, (ii) 2006/2007 financial year amounts to R17 671 935.27 and (iii) 2007/2008 financial year amounts to R44 720 944.02 respectively.

(1b) Click here to view spreadsheet which indicates all consultants used, their names as well as the reasons for usage.

(2) Yes, one former employee was appointed as Special Advisor to the Minister.

(2a) The former employee was hired as the Special Advisor to the Minister based on his vast experience and national recognition as an expert in the Social Development field. In terms of Section 12 A of the Public Service Act, 1994, as amended, each Minister may appoint two full-time Special Advisors to:

- Advise the Executive Authority on the exercise or performance of the Executing Authority’s powers and duties;

- Advise on the development of policy that will promote the relevant department’s objectives; or

- Perform such other tasks as may be appropriate in respect of the exercise or performance of the Executing Authority’s powers and duties.

(2b) The former employee left the service of the Department of Social Development due to the acceptance of a post in the private sector

QUESTION 1391

DATE OF PUBLICATION: Friday, 15 August 2008

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 23 of 2008

Mr K J Minnie (DA) to ask the Minister of Home Affairs:

(1) Whether, with reference to her reply to Question 86 on 18 March 2008, she or her department has taken any action against those who failed to conduct the performance assessments; if not, why not; if so, (a) what action and (b) against whom;

(2) whether she or her department has taken any steps to ensure that senior managers are assessed in future; if not, why not; if so, what steps?

NW2135E

REPLY

(1) Yes. The following action has been taken against senior officials who failed to conduct the Performance Assessments:

(a) (i) Members of Senior Management Services (SMS) who did not enter into Performance Agreements were afforded an opportunity to indicate to the Department why disciplinary action should not be instituted against them.

(ii) The Department also applied Cabinet’s decision regarding non-compliance by SMS members to enter into performance agreements. Since there is no basis for their assessment, they will forfeit their possible performance incentive, including pay progressions, as determined by this resolution.

Additional to the performance management cycle, the department is also in the process of migrating all senior managers to the newly approved organisational structure of the department. This involves a process of direct matching for officials to determine their suitability in positions they occupy in terms of the job evaluation process.

(b) The action referred to above was taken against all members who did not comply. The total number of such SMS members is 10.

(2) Yes. A Management Plan on Performance Management has been drafted and issued to all employees in the Department in order to ensure compliance to the regulatory framework pertaining to Performance Management. The Management Plan indicates, inter alia, the following requirements which must be complied with by SMS members.

· The due date on which the SMS members must submit their Performance Agreements for filing with the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) and the Office of the Public Service Commission (OPSC).

· The period in which the supervisors of the members of SMS must conduct their quarterly and annual assessments.

In addition, all newly appointed SMS members are made aware of the need to familiarise themselves with the provisions of the SMS handbook, in which Performance Management is clearly discussed in Chapter 4. The Department is also arranging a performance management dialogue for senior managers in order to capacitate them on the management of performance and also to stress the importance of the management of performance in achieving strategic Departmental goals and objectives

QUESTION NO 1392

DATE REPLY SUBMITTED: FRIDAY, 29 AUGUST 2008

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: FRIDAY, 15 AUGUST 2008 (INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 23 – 2008)

Mr K J Minnie (DA) asked the Minister of Transport:

(1) Whether, with reference to his reply on 18 February 2008 to Question 97 (details furnished), the fact that performance assessments were still outstanding from the 2005-06 financial year undermined the performance management system implemented by his department; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so,

(2) whether his department has taken any steps to ensure that all outstanding performance assessments are completed; if not, why not; if so, what steps;

(3) what plans does his department have in place to ensure that (a) the 2007- 08 performance assessments are completed despite the backlogs that exist and (b) underperforming senior managers are dealt with?

NW2136E

REPLY:

1.1

The Minister of Transport:

(1) No. The moderation of outstanding performance assessments for members of the Senior Management Service (SMS) for the periods 2005-06 and 2006-07 has been finalised.

(2) Falls away.

(3) (a)

The Department of Transport is currently following up on outstanding 2007-08 annual performance assessment reports and thereafter the Moderating Committee will be convened to consider the ratings of the members of the SMS.

(b)

To deal with underperforming members of the SMS, the Human Resource Management, Labour Relations and Employee Wellness components are working together to put together an action plan. The plan and actions to be taken will take into consideration each employee’s Personal Development Plan, disciplinary record, the Moderating Committee’s minutes and any other performance related issues.

QUESTION NO.: 1394

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 15 AUGUST 2008

Mr L K Joubert (DA) to ask the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development:

What was the total amount that has been budgeted by Government to cover the legal costs of a certain person (name furnished) and (b) from which budget has this amount been allocated?

NW2138E

REPLY

My Department does not have the information requested and it is proposed that the Honourable Member approach the Presidency for it.

QUESTION NO. 1396

(Internal Question Paper No 23 - 2008)

Mr M M Swathe (DA) to ask the Minister for Provincial and Local Government:

(1) (a) How many and (b) which of the 136 municipalities under Project Consolidate had less than 60% of their households with access to water in each of the past three years up to the latest specified date for which information is available;

(2) whether he or his department has taken any steps to increase access to water at these municipalities; if not, why not; if so, (a) what steps, (b) what are the reasons for the high percentage of the households still not having access to water at these municipalities and (c) how long will it take for this backlog to be eradIcated at each of these municipalities?

ANSWER

(a) Out of 136 Project Consolidate municipalities, 36 in 2005/06, 2 in 2006/07 and 18 in

2007/08 had less than 60 percent of their households with access to water.

(b) The Project Consolidate municipalities that had less than 60% of their households with

access to water are listed in the table below.

The tables are here: http://www.pmg.org.za/docs/2008/questions/Q1396table.pdf

(a) The Steps taken includes;

(i) Funding for municipalities has been sourced from National Treasury to address bulk

infrastructure challenges.

(ii) The dplg together with the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) are

engaging with all Water Service Authorities to unblock challenges faced by the

municipalities to eradicate the backlogs.

(iii) The two departments together with the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) are providing hands-on support through Siyenza Manje programme which is aimed at fast tracking service delivery; engineers are being deployed to municipalities which need technical support. Further technical assistance has been extended through donor support including United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

(iv) The dplg in collaboration with sector departments and provinces is assisting municipalities to develop and compile Comprehensive Infrastructure Plans (CIPs). The development of CIPs at municipal level will serve as a clear business model providing strategically focused actions for sustainable infrastructure delivery over the full life cycle of infrastructure assets and Informing the Integrated Development Plans (IDP) accordingly.

(b) The reasons for the high percentage of households still not having access to water at

these municipalities include;

· . Insufficient funding;

· . Dilapidated Infrastructure due to lack of operations and maintenance;

· . Lack of bulk water and connector infrastructure; and

· . Poor infrastructure programme and project planning.

(c) The Comprehensive Infrastructure Planning is seen as a clear business model and road map In achieving the universal access to basic services, including water, by 2014.

QUESTION NO. 1397

(Internal Question Paper No 23 - 2008)

Mr M M Swathe (DA) to ask the Minister for Provincial and Local Government:

(1) (a) How many and (b) which of the 136 municipalities under Project Consolidate had more than 50% of their households being considered as indigent in each of the past three years up to the latest specified date for which information is available;

(2) whether he or his department has taken any steps to improve this situation at these municipalities; if not, why not; if so, (a) what steps and (b) what are the reasons for the high percentage of households still being considered indigent?

ANSWER

(1) (a) For each of the past three financial years (until the end of March 2008), a total of 95 of the 136 project consolidate municipalities had more than 50% of their households being considered indigent.

The list of the 95 Municipalities that had more than 50% of their households being considered indigent is attached.See Table http://www.pmg.org.za/docs/2008/questions/1397-table.pdf

(2) (a) The steps taken by dplg include:

(i) The Indigent Policy Framework (September 2005) and the Implementation Guidelines

(June 2006) were published to assist municipalities with appropriately identifying indigent households and accurately updating indigent registers. During the 2007/8 financial year, the dplg held workshops on these guidelines in all provinces.

In the current financial year, further support is being provided to municipalities in 05 (five) identified provinces to ensure the development of credible indigent policies and indigent registers.The identified municipalities are in: Mpumalanga, Eastern Cape, Limpopo, North West and Kwazulu Natal.

(i) Dplg published the National framework and toolkit for local economic development in August 2006. This was accompanied by coordination of capacity building and funding support to municipalities.

(ii) In addition to the above the dplg manages the implementation of 5 Year Local Govemment Strategic Agenda aimed at mobilising a government-wide effort to reduce poverty in municipalities.

(b) Unemployment is one of the major challenges in most of the municipalities situated in deep rural areas. Majority of these households depend on social grants for their survival.

Question 1400

Mr M J Ellis (DA) to ask the Minister of Trade and Industry:

(1) Whether the National Lotteries Board (NLB) received an application in any of the past five financial years up to 31 July 2008 from the Novalis House in Gauteng; if so, in which financial years did they apply for funding;

(3) Whether there are any outstanding amounts owed to the organisation by the NLB; if so, how much?NW2053E

Response:

(1) The National Lotteries Board (NLB) received two applications from the Novalis House in Gauteng in 2005.

(2) a. The amounts requested were both for R1.5million.

d. The amounts awarded were R218 000 and R377 000.

c. Payment was made to the organisation in July 2006 and April 2008.

(3) There are no outstanding amounts owed to the organisation.

Question & Replies No 1351 to 1400

c. Payment was made to the organisation in June and December 2005.

QUESTION NO. 1367

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 23 of 2008

QUESTION NO. 1368

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 23 of 2008

QUESTION NO. 1370

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 23 of 2008

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO 23 of 2008

QUESTION NO.: 1394

More like this