Questions and Replies

Reply:

1. The Department allowed provinces to utilise up to 5% of the Public Transport Operations Grant funds reprioritised to respond to Covid-19 pandemic for the sanitisation of public transport vehicles and other public transport facilities, including the provision of personal protective equipment for public transport workers and hand sanitisers for passengers. For the 2020/21 the maximum amount provinces could utilise for the acquisition of personal protective equipment totalled R337 480 000 broken down as follows:

Eastern Cape: R13 450 000

Free State: R14 871 000

Gauteng: R129 965 000

Kwazulu Natal: R62 318 000

Limpopo: R20 102 000

Mpumalanga: R33 847 000

Northern Cape: R3 026 000

North West: R6 221 000

Western Cape: R53 680 000

2. Provinces are responsible for determining how these funds are distributed to individual operators and ensure that expenditure is within the allocated amount. The Department only receives high level consolidated monthly performance reports from provinces in line with the requirements of the grant framework. Specific details relating to names of operators/companies and precise amounts are retained by provinces.

(3) All grant related information including allocations, grant conditions and past performance are gazetted in the annual Division of Revenue Act and its Framework hence there is no need for an announcement.

Reply:

1. Matters related to vehicle licensing falls under Schedule 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and are therefore within the purview of provinces. The Department must first seek concurrence of the respective provinces on this matter and only then can a decision be taken accordingly.

2. In view of the above, the Department recently held a meeting with the Committee of Provincial Heads of Departments of Transport and the Private Charter Passenger Association (PCPA). The latter made a broad representation regarding the impact of Covid19 on the Charter and Coach operators due to lockdowns and subsequent travel restrictions. As part of their submissions, they alleged their members were unable to generate any income during lockdown level 5 and 4, since all borders were closed and tourism activities suspended. The Department sought concurrence of the respective provinces, since vehicle licensing matters are provincial in scope. Once concurrence has been received from provinces, if at all, the Department will only then proceed to issue a Direction under regulations 4(7) made under section 27(2) of the Disaster Management Act, 2002 (Act No. 57 of 2002).

Reply:

1. PRASA’s business model does not devolve the operation of train services to a district or local municipality level in terms of the municipal demarcations framework but is based on a corridor approach managed at a Regional (Provincial) level. Therefore, the assessment of damages suffered will follow a corridor based model.

Thus, the full relevant details of the damages suffered by Metrorail due to (a) theft, (b) vandalism in (i) each (Region) province, to date are listed in the tables below.

Narrative for Crimes Related Incidents – 2019/2020

Narrative for Crimes Related Incidents – 2020/2021

2. The measures which are in place to ensure the safety of all passengers at all times is:

• Insourcing of security services to replace irregular contracts that were terminated in 2020;
• Joint operations with South African Police Services within the rail operational tunnel as well as disruptive operations at second-hand dealers to arrest those that buy stolen goods;
• Commuter Policing Forum deployment in home-based (township) stations;
• Increased train patrols on identified problematic trains in effort to arrest perpetrators;
• Line-based closures / stop-and-search with South African Police Service to search for stolen property that is being transported by train; and
• Commuter Forum engagement to share intelligence information that may assist in improving commuter experience.

Reply:

South African Airways (SAA) wanted to conduct a flight and one of the regulatory provisions required to conduct this flight is the consideration to regain recency of the nominated pilots. Due to the fact that SAA’s Aviation Training Organization (ATO) has not been operational since 27 March 2020, the cessation of all SAA operations as of October 2020, and other factors the airline pilots needed to comply with the South African Civil Aviation Regulations (SACAR) in respect of training and recency before undertaking the planned flight.

SAA therefore applied for an exemption from the following provisions of the South African Civil Aviation Technical Standards as they relate to the crew training and recency:

1.1 SA CATs 121.03.2 2. (1)(a)(c) (d) and (g) - relating to approval of an external training facility.

1.2 SA CATS 121.03.1 point 3 (5) (v) to (viii) & (7) (ii) (cc) & (dd) - relating to external instructor qualification to conduct training for SAA pilots.

1.3 SA CATS 121.03.3 10.1- relating to pilots regaining recency. 

1.4. SA CATS 121.03.3 3 This pertains to recurrent training:

The exemption was granted in respect of four pilots only.

In relation to the provisions of the exemptions: The SACAA is vested with the power to monitor and oversee safety and security in civil aviation. These powers are prescribed in legislation, being the Civil Aviation Act, 2009 (Act No. 13 of 2009). This Act gives powers to the Director of Civil Aviation to consider and, where good cause is shown and after being satisfied that the safety has been properly mitigated, grant an exemption to any person or body from compliance with the provisions of the regulations and associated technical standards.

(2) In terms of Section 37 of the Civil Aviation Act, the SACAA has a duty to investigate any occurrence, which does not fall under the definition of International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 13. This is an international standard practice by all National Aviation Regulators.

The primary distinction in this provision is that there was no damage to the aircraft, property nor injury to personnel.

The South African Civil Aviation Regulations (SACAR) state that:

Functions of Civil Aviation Authority

73. (1) The Civil Aviation Authority has the function of conducting the safety and security oversight of civil aviation in the Republic by—

(2) In addition to the functions referred to in subsection (1) the Civil Aviation Authority has the following functions:

(m) to investigate aircraft accidents and aircraft incidents that the Aviation Safety Investigation Board has determined not to investigate in terms of Chapter 4 and for purposes of regulatory compliance with this Act;

A conflict of interest cannot be confirmed before the cause of the incident is determined. The SACAA investigation extends beyond the Alpha Floor incident and encompasses the lack of timely reporting of the incident to the SACAA as required by the Civil Aviation Regulations.

(3) The Minister of Transport appointed an independent investigating authority for the ZS-CAR accident. The Ethiopian Civil Aviation Accident Prevention and Investigation Bureau was duly appointed.

Reply:

(1) None of the Navigational Aids has been decommissioned as a result of the SACAA aircraft crash of 23 January 2020. Only Bhisho and Mafikeng were decommissioned by the owners of the facilities approximately 10 years back.

(2) N/A (a) N/A (b) N/A.

(3) Set out below is the bonuses paid to senior managers in the past five years.

Notes

• The 2018/19 numbers include the Performance and Retention bonuses. Retention bonuses are paid after 3 years of uninterrupted service in line with the retention policy for Executives who are on fixed term contracts.

• Performance bonuses for 2020/2021 were not paid due to the outbreak of COVID-19 and its financial impact on the SACAA.

Reply:

a) The combined total number (both public and private) of vehicle testing stations in the Republic is 540 (five hundred and forty)

b) The number of the specified vehicle testing stations are privately owned is 380 (three hundred and eighty)

c) (i) Race

The National Road Traffic Act, 93 of 1996 and Regulations does not define race as a criteria for application for a private vehicle testing station and the information available to the Department only relates to the nationality of persons.

The Following information was received manually from the provinces:

 

Province	African	Coloured	Asian	White
Eastern Cape	14	6	36	28
Free State	5	0	1	7
Gauteng	19	0	57	59
KwaZulu-Natal	3	1	36	18
Limpopo	18	0	3	11
Mpumalanga	6	0	6	13
North West	6	1	2	9
Northern Cape	0	0	1	5
Western Cape	0	27	0	24

(ii) Gender demography of all privately owned VTSs

The National Road Traffic Act, 93 of 1996 and Regulations does not define Gender as a criteria for application for a private vehicle testing station. However, as part of the registration of a business on the National Traffic Information System (NaTIS) the nature of the organisation and the proxy must be identified.

The gender dispensation for the proxies of privately-owned vehicle testing stations are as follows:

Province	Female	Male
Eastern Cape	13	59
Free State	2	17
Gauteng	37	149
KwaZulu-Natal	14	75
Limpopo	9	42
Mpumalanga	13	31
North West	8	12
Northern Cape	4	4
Western Cape	12	102

 

 

Reply:

(1) (a) (i) – The details of the Aircraft that must replace the crashed aircraft are as per the tender specifications advertised on public platforms including the SACAA website on 20 November 2020. These specifications are public knowledge and can be accessed on www.caa.co.za

(a) (ii) – The amount budgeted for the replacement of the Aircraft as well as the Calibration equipment is R164 million.

(a) (iii) – The details of the specifications for the replacement aircraft are as per the tender – copy of tender specifications are attached herewith.

(b) Due to the outbreak of COVID-19 and the impact that this has had on SACAA’s financial position, the SACAA management supported by the Board took a decision to place the acquisition of the aircraft on hold for another year until the financial position of the SACAA improves.

(2) The current service provider performing the calibration work is Tamifield (Pty) Ltd. The successful service provider was disclosed as required and published on the SACAA website.

Reply:

1. The Department of Transport has never concluded any work exchange and/or employment agreements with any entity of the Republic of Cuba from the 2010/11 financial year to 2020/21 financial year.

The Department has no intention/need to enter into agreement with Cuban Government for skills acquisition of any kind during the 2021-23 Medium-Term Expenditure Framework period.

2. There are no skills sets identified by the Department of Transport that can be sourced from Republic of Cuba which are not available in South Africa hence there were no steps taken in this regard.

Reply:

Of the 102 law firms reported to the Legal Practice Council (LPC) for mismanagement of their trust accounts, only 42 firms (listed below) have as yet not repaid the duplicate payments they received from Road Accident Fund (RAF).

As part of its recovery procedures the RAF withheld further payment to law firms identified as having received duplicate payments. However, a full bench of the North Guateng High Court, Pretoria, delivered judgment on 9 April 2021, in the matter of Road Accident Fund v Legal Practice Council and Others (58145/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 173, ordering the suspending of certain categories of writs of execution and warrants of attachment against the RAF, and in its judgment states that it does not believe that the RAF should withhold payments from successful claimants because of a dispute between the RAF and the law firms acting for the claimants. The court indicated that the RAF must instead approach the court on a case-by-case basis.

Consequently, the RAF has brought an Application in the North Guateng High Court, Pretoria, citing the 42 legal firms; the LPC; the Sheriff, Pretoria Central; the Sheriff, Pretoria East; the Sheriff, Centurion East the Sheriff, Johannesburg Central; the Sheriff, Johannesburg North; and, ABSA Bank Ltd. The details of the 42 law firms cited in the Application are as follows:

 

1. Phefadu AP Attorneys with its business address at Suite 407-408, Savelkouls Building, Cnr Paul Kruger & Pretorius Street.

2. CN Phukubje Attorneys with its business address at 83 Albertina Sisulu Street Corner Von Brandis Street Bradlows Building, Works @ Market 4th Floor Offices 405-407.

3. Feke-Myeko Attorneys with its business address at 380 Bosman Street Pretoria.

4. Frans Rabie Attorneys with its business address at 110A Themba Shozi Street, Balfour, Mpumalanga, 2410.

5. Gura Tlaletsi & Partners with its business address at 38 Carrington Street Mafikeng Industrial Mafikeng, North West.

6. KG Mashigo Attorneys with its business address at 58 Marshall Street Marshall Street Marshalltown Johannesburg.

7. Lekopane Khumalo Attorneys with its business address at Office 1, Grongo’s Centre, 40 Mouton Street, Hendrina, Mpumalanga.

8. Letheba Makgato & Associates with its business address at 81 Ampthill Avenue, Suite 2, @nd Floor, Central House Building, Benoni.

9. Mahlangu SV with its business address at 507 Spuy Street, Sunnyside, Pretoria, Gauteng.

10. Makhurupetzi Attorneys with its business address at Suite 106 and 107, First Floor, Olivetti House, Cnr Pretorius and Sophie De Bruyne Streets.

11. Makokga Sebei Inc with its business address at Tudor Chambers Office No 0240 229 Helen Joseph Street Pretoria.

12. Malange Attorneys with its business address at 28 Helen Joseph Street, Suite 107 Church Square Building, Pretoria.

13. Malose Matsaung Attorneys with its business address at 238 Paul Kruger Street, Standard Bank Chambers, Pretoria Central, Pretoria.

14. Maluleka Tlhasi Inc with its business address at 754 Stanza Bopape Street, Eastcliff, Pretoria.

15. Mammile A M Attorneys with its business address at Mammile Law Chambers, 130 Highveld Road, Kempton Park.

16. Matodzi Neluheni Attorneys with its business address at 70 Sutherland Street, Newcastle Central, Newcastle.

17. Mphahlele MR Attorneys with its business address at 17B Biccard Street, Polokwane Central, Polokwane, 0699.

18. Mpho Mashiloane Attorneys with its business address at 38 Marloth Street, Mbombela,1201/ Tarentaal Shopping Center, corner Ou Kaapschenhoop & N4 Nelspruit Office No TA 03

19. Muleya Attorneys with its business address at G06, 1064 Arcadia Street, Hatfield, Pretoria 0083.

20. Musa Baloyi Attorneys with its business address at Mageza Road, Giyani-E, Giyani 0826.

21. Mzamo Attorneys with its business address at Suite 2, 3rd Floor, West Wing Suites, 132 Fox Street, Johannesburg.

22. N.T Ntshele Attorneys with its business address at Suite 325, Bank Towers, 190 Thabo Sehume Street, Pretoria, 001.

23. Ndambakuwa Attorneys with its business address at 200 Pretorius Street, Pretoria Central, Pretoria.

24. Ndlovu Attorneys with its business address at 15A Park Street, Kempton Park Central, Kempton Park, 1620.

25. Nomvula Meyiwa Incorporated / Meyiwa Inc with its business address at 525 Mendelson Street, Cnr Garsfontein & Isie-Smuts Street, Constantia Park, Glenstantia, Pretoria.

26. Nxumalo and Radebe Inc with its business address at Stand Number 265 Elukwatini Crossing, Elukwatini-A, Elukwatini.

27. PM Mositsa Inc with its business address at Lapa Building,380 Bosman Street, Pretoria. 28. PP Milazi Attorneys with its business address at 212 Rahima Moosa Street, Johannesburg 2001.

29. Raleswinga Attorneys with its business address at 523 Stanza Bopape Street, Arcadia, Pretoria, 0007.

30. Ramaselela MC Attorneys with its business address at 100 Pretorius Street, Suite 106 Olivetti House, Pretoria.

31. S Twala Attorneys with its business address at 2nd floor, Mathomo House, 132 Fox Street, Cnr Kruis Street.

32. Shabangu & Beauchamp (Pretoria) with its business address at Shop 15, Bothongo Plaza West, Francis Baard Street, Pretoria Central, Pretoria,0001.

33. Simpsons Attorneys Incorporated with its business address at 77 Troon Road, Greenside, Randburg.

34. T A Matshanda Trust with its business address at Suite 1309 - 1310, 13th Floor, His Majesty Building Cnr Commissioner & Joubert Street, Johannesburg.

35. T Khumalo Attorneys with its business address at Office 6, 17th Floor, Marble Towers, 201 Rahima Moosa Street, Johannesburg.

36. Taute Bouwer & Cilliers Incorporated with its business address at 827 25th Avenue, Rietfontein, Pretoria.

37. TC Rampatla Incorporated with its business address at Absa Building, Suite 208, 250 Pretorius Street, Pretoria Central.

38. K Malao Attorneys with its business address at 3710 Amberfield Valley Capensis Avenue Rooihuiskraal North Ext 24 Centurion.

39. Mouton & Williams Attorneys with its business address at 263,297 Ontdekkers Road, Carenvale, Roodeport,1724.

40. Modibedi Sebele Phethoe Attorneys with its business address at 44 Rooihuiskraal Road, The Reeds Centurion.

41. HC Madike Attorneys with its business address at 13 Jan Kemp Street Pongola Kwazulu Natal and at 235 Helen Joseph Street Suite 303, 3rd Floor Burlington House, Pretoria.

42. Erasmus ELS Inc t/a Erasmus Scheepers with its business address at 172 Bronkhorst Street Nieuw Muckleneuk Pretoria.

The names of the 102 law firms reported to the Legal Practice Council (LPC) for mismanagement of their trust accounts, are as follows:

1. ABRAM PHUTIANE PHEFADU
2. BALOYI ATTORNEYS
3. CHUEU ATTORNEYS INC
4. CN PHUKUBJE ATTORNEYS
5. ERASMUS ELS INC T/A ERASMUS SCHEEPE
6. ERWEE ATTORNEYS (MUSINA)
7. FEKE-MYEKO ATTORNEYS
8. FRANS RABIE ATTORNEYS
9. GUMBO & CO
10. GUR TLALETSI & PARTNERS
11. HANLIE BRUWER ATTORNEYS
12. HLUNGWANI TG ATTORNEYS
13. JACOBS AND MAKWAKWA ATTORNEYS
14. JD SKHOSANA ATTORNEYS
15. K MALAO INC
16. KG MASHIGO ATTORNEYS
17. KHOROMMBI MABULI INCORPORATION
18. KOMANE ATTORNEY
19. LEKOPANE KHUMALO ATTORNEYS
20. LETHABO MOKOENA ATTORNEYS
21. LETHEBA MAKGATO & ASSOCIATES
22. LM MAILA INCORPORATED
23. M RAMOGOTSWA INC ATTORNEYS
24. MA MOTHAPO ATTORNEYS
25. MA MPHOLOANE INC
26. MADIKE HC ATTORNEYS
27. MAHLANGU SV
28. MAHOLOBELA INC ATTORNEYS
29. MAJA MATSIMELA ATTORNEYS
30. MAKAU PHEFADU & PARTNERS
31. MAKHURUPETZI ATTORNEYS
32. MAKOKGA SEBEI INC
33. MALAN M ATTORNEYS
34. MALANGE ATTORNEYS
35. MALATJI ATTORNEYS
36. MALATJI MOLOSH & POOE
37. MALOSE MATSAUNG ATTORNEYS
38. MALULEKA TLHASI INC
39. MAMMILE A M ATTORNEYS
40. MAMOKGALAKE CHUENE ATTORNEYS
41. MANTON J J S
42. MASHAPA
43. MASHEGO P PROKEREURS INC
44. MASWENENG ATTORNEYS
45. MATHEKGA ATTORNEYS
46. MATODZI NELUHENI
47. MBOWENI MALULEKE INCORPORATED ATTOR
48. MG MALI ATTORNEYS
49. MJ MOSIKARI
50. MMELA MTSWENI
51. MODIBEDI SEBELE PHETOE ATTORNEYS
52. MOGAU SETSHOANE
53. MOHULATSI ATTORNEYS INC
54. MOKGATLE LESOLE ATTORNEYS
55. MOKHABUKHI ATTORNEYS
56. MOLEPO INCORPORATED ATTORNEYS(PTY)
57. MOLOSI
58. MOUTON & WILLIAMS ATTORNEYS
59. MP MNGOMEZULU INCORPORATED
60. MPHAHLELE MR ATTORNEYS
61. MPHO MASHILOANE
62. MT MAKWELA ATTORNEYS
63. MTSHWENI INC ATTORNEYS
64. MTSWENI INC ATTORNEYS
65. MULEYA ATTORNEYS
66. MUNRO FLOWERS & VERMAAK
67. MUSA BALOYI ATTORNEYS
68. MZAMO ATTORNEYS
69. N.T NTSHELE ATTORNEYS
70. NDALA ATTORNEYS
71. NDAMBAKUWA
72. NDHLOVU BORNVENTURE ATTORNEYS
73. NDLOVU ATTORNEYS
74. NDOBELA AND LAMOLA ATTORNEYS
75. NOMVULA MEYIWA INCORPORATED
76. NTLOEDIBE ATTORNEYS
77. NTSHANGASE SS ATTORNEYS
78. NXUMALO AND RADEBE INC
79. PJ FAURIE ATTORNEYS
80. PM MOSITSA INC
81. PN HLATSWAYO ATTORNEYS
82. PP MILAZI ATTORNEYS
83. RALESWINGA ATT
84. RAMASELELA MC ATTORNEYS
85. RATSHIVHOMBELA ATTORNEYS
86. RENE FOUCHE INCORPORATED
87. ROME ANTHONY IAN
88. S TWALA ATTORNEYS
89. SANCHEZ SKOSANA INCORPORATED
90. SELAMOLELA INC
91. SELOLO TLOU INCORPORATED
92. SHABANGU & BEAUCHAMP (PRETORIA)
93. SIMPSONS ATTORNEYS INCORPORATED
94. SPRUYT INC
95. T A MATSHANDA TRUST
96. T KHUMALO ATTORNEYS
97. TAUTE BOUWER & CILLIERS INC
98. TC RAMPATLA INCORPORATED
99. THINDISA ATTORNEYS
100. TL KEKANA ATTORNEYS
101. VAN VELDEN DUFFEY
102. VAN WYK ATTORNEYS (MARSHALLTOWN)

Reply:

The process of legislative mandate review of RTMC and RTIA, has started and National Treasury has been engaged on the issue of the DLCA and we are awaiting their response on the migration of their functions to the RTMC.

This is work in Progress, particularly the Legislative mandates pertaining to RTMC and RTIA , and this will need Parliamentary process to give ratification on the proposed amalgamation.

 

Reply:

a) PRASA will request all service providers that are currently rendering services where physical contract documentation could not be traced to submit copies of the signed contract agreements with PRASA.

b) (i) PRASA has signed a Secondment Agreement with SIU to investigate all contracts that were identified in the Public Protector Derailed report and flagged also by AGSA as irregular. Such investigation would shed light on how contract documents went missing in the first place and what corrective measures should be taken against responsible individuals. The SIU report would be finalised during March 2021.

(ii) The process to pay for services where contract documentation is missing requires end-user departments to compile the necessary submissions with relevant source documents and confirmation of receipt of goods or services for approval by the GCEO and Finance prior to processing of any payment, especially for goods and services of a critical nature that PRASA cannot afford to operate without. In instances where payments have been processed without the necessary documents, based on the SIU investigation, appropriate corrective action will be taken against responsible individuals.

 

Reply:

It is correct that the National Guidelines for traffic calming have not been updated since 1998, however, it is worth noting that in the process of reviewing the guidelines through the National Road Safety Steering Committee (NRSSC), the committee found no major changes to the present 1998 guidelines. It is for that reason that the NRSSC looked at it as these guidelines will effectively remain unchanged.

 

Reply:

Mrs C Phillips (DA) to ask the Minister of Transport:

(a) Rustenburg Local Municipality (RLM) was allocated funds from the Public Transport Network Grant from the 2010/11 financial year. From 2010/11 to June 2020, a total of R 3,855 billion has been allocated to the RLM and total expenditure is standing at R3, 163 billion.

The table below summarises the allocation and expenditure per financial year.

(b) Was the original budget for the project?

The original budget was estimated at R3 billion rands. It is important to highlight that it was impractical to construct all routes and other infrastructure at once and within a short space of time as this would have caused a gridlock. The municipality therefore had to phase-in construction. There were further objections in the initial stages of construction, which halted construction of bus lanes in the CBD and resulted in construction delays.

(c) What is the expected total spend to complete the project?

The majority of construction is completed and the municipality needs depot infrastructure. From henceforth, the city will use the grant operational component to pay compensation to taxi industry incumbents and run the service, these are estimated at R1.4 billion rands including compensation for affected operators over the next 12 years.

Reply:

(1)(a) Yes

(1) (b) Yes, The Application for Employee to Perform Other Remunerative Work in terms of Section 30 of the Public Service act; is valid for the period of twelve (12) months, thereafter the employee is expected to re-apply for new approval before he or she can continue to work again.

(1) (i)

Number of applications	Year
2	2014
2	2015
3	2016
10	2017
6	2018
9	2019
6	2020
Total = 38

(1)(ii)

Job / Work Categories	Year
Middle Management (2)	2014
Senior Management (1) and Middle Management (1)	2015
Middle Management (1), lower level (2)	2016
Senior Management (1) Middle Management (5) and lower level (Clerical) (3)	2017
Senior Management (1), Middle Management (3) and lower level (2)	2018
Senior Management (1), Middle Management (6), lower level (2)	2019
Senior Management (1), Middle Management (1) and lower level (1)	2020

(2) Yes

(2) (a) DPSA Directive/Guide on Managing of Other Remunerative Work in the Public Service;

(2)(b) According to HR Delegations: The Salary Level 1- 12 is considered and approved by the Director-General and the Salary Level 13 and above is considered and approved by the Minister

(2)(c) None

(2)(d) Not applicable

Reply:

Important to note that toll income from toll roads are used to:

• Repay the debt raised to fund the capital cost of the initial road construction works and other major capital costs implemented during the life of the project (typically 30 years) to ensure that there is sufficient road capacity to cater for increasing traffic demand.
• Cover the cost of road maintenance including pavement rehabilitation and resurfacing to ensure the economic sustainability of this crucial national asset over the life of the project.
• Operation and maintenance of the toll collection system, including the toll plazas over the life of the project.
• Undertake routine maintenance including grass cutting, minor road repairs, road marking and signage over the life of the project.
• Provide route patrols including incident management, emergency response and road user assistance over the life of the project.

(a)(b) Toll revenue along the National Route 3 (N3) per month and year are derived as follow:

• SANRAL – Marrianhill toll plaza - This is state toll road driven by Government with no profit objective, and
• N3TC Concession - De Hoek Plaza, Wilge Plaza, Tugela Plaza, Mooi River Plaza and associated ramp plazas. – This is a 30-year concession with the private sector to secure off balance sheet funding and investment into infrastructure, with the associated private sector investor Return on Investment (ROI) objectives. Returns are however regulated through the concession agreement.

The monthly breakdown for 2019/20 audited financial year is provided in the Table below. The 2019/20 audited financial year is used since 2020/21 audited figures are not yet available. The 2020/21 numbers are expected to be approximately 25% lower due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

(a) Month	SANRAL	Concession	Total
Jan-19	R 20 648 213.00	R 153 991 519.00	R 174 639 732.00
Feb-19	R 19 574 170.00	R 145 981 460.00	R 165 555 630.00
Mar-19	R 23 042 389.00	R 171 846 953.00	R 194 889 342.00
Apr-19	R 22 039 547.00	R 164 367 896.00	R 186 407 443.00
May-19	R 22 988 554.00	R 171 445 459.00	R 194 434 013.00
Jun-19	R 22 941 076.00	R 171 091 378.00	R 194 032 454.00
Jul-19	R 23 778 803.00	R 177 339 031.00	R 201 117 834.00
Aug-19	R 23 931 447.00	R 178 477 429.00	R 202 408 876.00
Sep-19	R 22 814 467.00	R 170 147 146.00	R 192 961 613.00
Oct-19	R 24 179 326.00	R 180 326 076.00	R 204 505 402.00
Nov-19	R 23 469 829.00	R 175 034 742.00	R 198 504 571.00
Dec-19	R 23 059 412.00	R 171 973 911.00	R 195 033 323.00
(b) Total 2019/20 FY	R 272 467 233.00	R 2 032 023 000.00	R 2 304 490 233.00

Reply:

a) The funding requirement to sustain South Africa Road Network through pothole repairs is estimated at (a) R700 to R1500 / per square meter.

b) As an Honourable Member may be aware it is difficult to eradicate potholes on the road network as the emergence of new potholes depends entirely on the extent and nature of rainfall in that month or year. It is important to note that the road maintenance funding allocated from the National Fiscus is not sufficient to maintain the road network in the three spheres of Government as there are competing needs to all sectors.

It’s worth noting that most of our Provincial road network has reached its design life (25 years) and were never designed for the current increased traffic volumes and traffic configuration.

With that said, my Department ensures that roads are properly maintained through the Provincial Road Maintenance Grant (PRMG). The PRMG is ringfenced for the maintenance of the Provincial Strategic Road Network including rehabilitation, strengthening of paved roads, re-gravelling, gravel road blading and blacktop patching (potholes with an amount of just over R12 billion per annum to all provinces.

 

Reply:

The road in question between Matatiele and Mount Frere is T15 and a portion of it was upgraded to surface standard. There is approximately 60km of this road that is gravel and is being maintained in its current form i.e. gravel. It is important to note that the Eastern Cape Department of Transport appointed a contractor in November 2020 for re-gravel the first 30km and the contractor is still on site. Furthermore, there are long term plans to upgrade the remaining 30km as phase 2 of this project however, the actual implementation date of the project depends on budget availability.

Reply:

The Provincial Authorities does not derive any revenue in respect of the license fees pertaining to Aviation license fees and private chartered flights.

As it relates to Chartered bus services, the permit fees are receivables for provinces. In this regard provinces shall be approached to provide the requisite information.

Reply:

(1) Since the move to alert level 3 public transport operators operating shorter trips were allowed to carry 100% of the loading capacity of their vehicles whereas for longer trips the permissible loading capacity remained at 70%. These relaxations were coupled with other mitigating factors such as the mandatory wearing of masks and allowing for ventilation. To this end there has been no indication that public transport has been the main contributor in the spread of the virus. This, therefore, implies that measures put in place when the carrying capacity restrictions were relaxed yielded positive results.

(2) The fact that public transport has thus far not been detected as the main contributor to the spread of the virus, is to a large extent proof that operators are generally complying with specified regulations.

 

Reply:

1 (a) (i) SANRAL was not involved in selecting the site.

1 (a) (ii) SANRAL appointed service provider VEA Roads was responsible for selecting this site and entered into the lease agreement.

1 (b) Minimum lease period is 36 months with monthly lease of R20,000 per month.

2 (a) No operations conducted by SANRAL from 266 Harley Rd Blackheath, Johannesburg.

2 (b) No operations conducted by entities reporting to SANRAL from 266 Harley Rd Blackheath, Johannesburg.

SANRAL has no position in terms of operations form 266 Harley Rd Blackheath.

3 (a) According to SANRAL records the registered owner of the property is not employed by SANRAL and/or entities/Department of Transport

3 (b) (c)(d) Falls way

Reply:

1. The Minister of Transport has been informed about the bad condition of roads within the town of Standerton in Mpumalanga Province. The Minister has also discovered that the mentioned roads fall within the jurisdiction of the local sphere of Government and they needed to be rehabilitated through the MIG funding made available by COGTA.

2. The Department is constantly engaging with all 44 Municipalities on road data collection so that municipalities can be able to prioritise the maintenance and rehabilitation of their road network using their MIG allocations from COGTA. The Department is of the view that the Standerton local Municipality has made plans as per assessment data they have received thus far.

Municipalities are also encouraged to enter into MOA with SANRAL to augment their technical skills where that is a challenge for their execution of road maintenance activities.

Furthermore, SANRAL through its routine maintenance contracts do daily route patrols of all national roads under SANRAL’s jurisdiction and identify, for example potholes that must be repaired within 48 hours.

We are made to understand that, the Mpumalanga Department of Public Works, Roads and Transport (PWRT) is aware of the poor condition of the Municipal roads in Standerton and was requested by the Local Municipality in question for certain municipal roads to be taken over by the Province. This transfer is encouraged.

Reply:

The department does not exercise any oversight over municipal speed calming policies that ensure that both the guidelines entailed in the specified policies, as well as the actual implementation of the guidelines by municipalities, conform to the national guidelines.

It is important to note that the local sphere of Government has by-laws that among other things guide the design and the implementation of the calming measures within the area of its jurisdiction.

Furthermore, The National Road Safety Steering Committee (NRSSC) technical committees have updated National Guideline for Traffic Calming measures, including clearer designs for speed humps, as a priority. This updated guideline will be incorporated to Road Safety Authorities guideline manuals for implementation.

We believe that Municipalities will benefit from these guidelines if they make use of them.

Reply:

Public Transport

In terms of the Public Transport Directions published on the 22 July 2020 (Gazette No: 43538) loading capacity for long distance public transport travel is restricted to 70% whereas for any trip regarded as short distance a 100% capacity is allowed. Medical experts and professionals advised that the longer you are exposed to an infectious person the more likely you are to be exposed to the virus. This implies that encounters with an infectious person for a short time have a lesser risk of spreading the virus. It is for this reason that allowing closer contact of passengers (100% capacity) on shorter trips/period, coupled with other mitigating measures such as wearing of masks and sufficient ventilation, would not necessarily pose a higher risk of infection to passengers. It should also be emphasised that the wearing of masks is currently compulsory.

South African Civil Aviation Authority

The Minister of Transport has permitted aircraft to be filled to capacity except the two rows in the front or back of the cabin which must be kept open in case a suspected case is identified during flight.  This decision was taken following a risk assessment exercise and the implementation of a multi-layered approach to the prevention of the spread of the virus which includes amongst others:

1. Mandatory wearing of masks throughout the flights by both crew and passengers except children under 5 years and those with documented medical exclusions.
2. Screening at domestic & international airports upon entering the terminal building that include thermal scanners, questionnaires and visual inspections.
3. Social Distancing throughout the journey.
4. Contactless check-in and boarding procedures.
5. Issuance of Directions and detailed guidelines on procedures to be followed by each operator customised to their individual operations.
6. Disinfection of the aircraft before it enters service and in between trips.
7. Training of Crew in the management of communicable diseases.
8. Universal Precaution Kits on board.
9. Mandatory PCR Testing & Antigen Testing of International Passengers.
10. Management of medical waste in the cabin.
11. Contact tracing mechanisms.
12. Airlines/Charter Operators & Airports are required to submit procedures for approval by the SA Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) in compliance to the Minister’s Directions and guidelines. The SACAA is responsible to monitor compliance.
13. Public Education through media campaigns.
14. Embarkation & Disembarkation procedures are implemented at airports during boarding and upon arrival.

In terms of the Aircraft itself, the following is applicable to modern aircraft and this is based on IATA, Airbus, Boeing & Embraer research.

Cabin Air Quality: The research conducted indicated the following findings:

1. The risk of transmission in the modern cabin environment is low for a number of reasons: passengers face the same direction, seatbacks act as barriers, air flow is from the top to bottom, and the air is also very clean.
2. There is a higher rate of air renewal than in other indoor facilities.
3. The air in the aircraft cabin comprises of around 50% fresh air from outside the aircraft and 50% of HEPA filtered air. The air in the cabin is renewed 20-30 times an hour, once every 2-3 minutes and about 10 times more than most office buildings. Research has shown that the airflow in an aircraft (from ceiling to floor) is effective to prevent the droplet spread in the cabin.
4. Modern jet aircraft are equipped with High-Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters. These filters have similar performance to those used in hospital operating theatres and industrial clean rooms and these HEPA filters are 99.9+% effective at removing viruses, bacteria and fungi.
5. The bacteria/virus removal efficiency rate of the HEPA filters onboard includes viruses such as SARS, which is similar to COVID-19.
6. The guidelines issued by the Minister requires that airlines maintain appropriate ventilation during all phases of travel, including while the plane is on the ground.

Aircraft by their nature are confined spaces and for decades operators have relied on sophisticated air conditioning systems to filter out viruses that could be carried by passengers and these systems have proven to be effective in filtering out viruses and bacteria that could be exchanged on board an aircraft. Studies conducted by aircraft manufacturers and operators prove the effectiveness of these systems. Same have been recognised by international bodies regulating civil aviation world-wide.

Reply:

Whether with reference to his replies to questions 547 on 11 November 2020 and 687 on 3 April 2019, his department has withheld transfers?

Yes, indeed the Department has withheld Ekurhuleni’s 2nd tranche transfer.

a) What amount has been withheld?

R200 million,

b) From what date were transfers withheld?

From 23 October 2020 to 25 November 2020.

c) What are the relevant details?

A tranche / quarterly transfer is conditional upon the progress or achievement of previously funded milestones. The Department as the Transferring Officer had to reschedule Ekurhuleni’s 2nd tranche transfer due to non-compliance with grant framework and allow enough time to the Ekurhuleni municipality to conduct applicable assessments in order to comply with the grant framework. The transfer deferred was rescheduled and paid on the 26th of November 2020, following the required compliance.

Reply:

1 (a) (i) SANRAL is conducting no operations from the property at 265 Pasteur Road.

1 (a) (ii) A service provider VEA Roads appointed by SANRAL for the Routine Road Maintenance Contract (NRA X.002-128-2019/1) of National Route N1 Section 19, N1 Section 20, N1 Section 21, N3 Section 12, N12 Section 18 & N17 Section 1 (Johannesburg Freeway RRM) is conducting its operations from 265 Pasteur Road and using it as site office for the Routine Road Maintenance contract. According to SANRAL Service Provider this property is registered as a business, as confirmed with the owner.

1 (b) No employees of SANRAL work at the property. For the SANRAL appointed service providers the following employees work at the property:

• 6 x representing the Consulting Engineers of Ndodana/Oarona JV;
• 3 x Employees from the Main Contractor (Vea Roads);
• Security on-site

1 (c) The SANRAL appointed service provider indicated that they selected the property because it is:

• Registered as a business.
• Fully furnished as an office with network points, fibre installation etc.
• Central locality of the property in relation to the project been administered from this property and easy access to the Gauteng Freeways.

1 (d) The SANRAL appointed service provider indicated that they contacted the property agent known as RAWSON, put down their requirements and this property was identified by RAWSON and a lease then entered into by service provider.

 

2 (a) SANRAL or any of its entities has not been informed that activities at the property are in violation of the property zoning.

2 (b) SANRAL or any of its entities has not been informed that buildings on the property are without plans and therefore illegal.

SANRAL has requested the service provider that is leasing the property to obtain written confirmation from the lessee with regard to relevant approvals regarding zoning and plans. Should there be any non-compliances, SANRAL will insist that the service provider ensures that they are rectified.

 

Reply:

a) Challenges experienced with the operationalisation of additional buses and services.

The City of Ekurhuleni reported that there were unforeseen delays with the issuing of new operating licences for buses at the Provincial Regulatory Entity (PRE). Without the operating licences the additional busses could not be introduced into the system.

This delay was further exacerbated by the closing of PRE offices during the COVID-19 lockdown period. Only applications for operating licence renewals were processed during the lockdown period.  The City had to intervene and request for a special dispensation for the processing of the BRT operator’s application for operating licences. 

It must also be noted that Ekurhuleni’s application for a rollover of over R100 million for the 2018/19 year was not approved by National Treasury even though the city appealed in January 2020. This led to a shortage of operational funding for the 19/20 financial year.

 

b) The Department of Transport supported the Ekurhuleni’s appeal regarding its 18/19 rollover. However, with this appeal being unsuccessful and with the challenge of COVID 19 from March 2020 and its impact on the Tembisa to OR Tambo International Airport route, the Department has accepted a delay and has instructed Ekurhuleni to fully ramp up the 40 bus service in the first half of 2021.

Failure to comply with this will see Ekurhuleni as a potential candidate for being suspended from the Public Transport Network Grant in the 2022 MTEF period.

Similar cautionary warnings have been given to several other cities as well.

c) The City of Ekurhuleni report that it is not spending any funds per month relating to the leasing of busses stated above. Initially some of the 40 buses were leased from early 2019 by Harambee operator KTVR Vehilce Operating Company (VOC) in order to augment the pilot service launch in late 2017.

By October 2019, the Harambee operator KTVR VOC had secured short term financing for the remainder of the 40 bus fleet that was not already procured

Reply:

The statistics on the persons allegedly murdered flowing from the torching of trucks are kept by the South African Police Service (SAPS). That being said, I humbly request that this question be re-directed to the Departments of Employment and Labour and the SAPS for a reason that the President established an Inter Ministerial Committee (IMC) under the leadership of the Department of Employment and Labour. It is worth noting that SAPS chairs the National JOINTS where security information is shared including such criminality that is taking place within the freight industry. It must also be noted that the Department of Transport initially led the Task Team prior to the establishment of the IMC. The then Minister of Transport, Dr B Nzimande officially handed over a report on this matter to then Minister of Labour on 15 April 2019.

The Minister of Employment and Labour, Hon. Nxesi is now leading this portfolio.

 

Reply:

The Department has the speed hump design manual published in 1998 and it needs updating to be in line with new developments within the built environments.

The Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC), as the lead agency on road safety, is responsible for chairing the National Road Safety Steering Committee (NRSSC) to look into among other priorities the updating of procedure manuals, including Road Safety manuals and design manuals. These manuals and guidelines are ratified at COTO before they get incorporated to Provincial Authorities Implementation guidelines.

The Department has since instructed the RTMC to prioritise the updating of National Guidelines for traffic calming for inclusion into Provincial Road Safety Authorities implementation guidelines.

Furthermore, the Provinces through their traffic engineering sections, do carry out design traffic calming measures eg. rumble strips, speed humps, delineators etc. to mitigate road fatal crashes and protect pedestrian traffic.

Reply:

Civil Aviation

The airport does not have an ILS (Instrument Landing System) as the terrain around the airport could cause problems with signals. The airport had an ILS test done by an independent Company that installs ILS and it was found not to be a site where an ILS can be installed. The airport has a GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) which is in use to aid aircraft to land at Mthatha Airport.

The airport does have a VOR (Very High Frequency Omni Range) but when the new runway was added to the airport by the National Department of Transport (DOT), DOT did not move this VOR as it was installed for use on the old runway as a let-down aid. In building the new runway the VOR was too far off centre line to be used as a let-down procedure. A new DVOR is planned for Mthatha Airport and it will be installed by Air Traffic Navigation Service (ATNS) when ATNS upgrades other VORs in South Africa. COVID-19 has delayed the procurement of such VORs but this will take place in the new financial year.

Mthatha Airport has one of the most modern runway lighting systems in the world and this includes approach lights, PAPI (Precision Approach Path Indicator) Approach lights, taxiway lights and edge lighting including marker boards for taxiways.

There is no fuelling at the airport for civilian use currently as the demand for such fuel is minimal. The airline that serves the airport does not require fuel and there are very few private flights to this airport. The South African Police Service (SAPS) have their own fuelling arrangements at the airport at the air wing site helipad. The Department of Defence has a similar arrangement where they fuel their own helicopters.

In 2018 the Eastern Cape Department of Transport advertised an Expression of Interest and received two responses. However, the responses were not up to the standard due to the fact that the aviation fuelling requirements are strictly regulated and not any one can operate such a facility. The Department is attempting to have a sole service provider appointed, who operates at the East London airport and has been operating for many years.

 

Reply:

The Design and Implementation of Speed Humps: Supplement to the National Guidelines for Traffic Calming has not been updated since it was last published in 1997.

The National Guidelines for Traffic Calming 1998 together with the supplementary documents the ‘Design and Implementation of Speed Humps’ and the ‘Design Guidelines for Mini-roundabouts’ have remained the de facto main national reference documents for traffic calming. Given the holistic approach described in the document, some local authorities had adopted the National Guidelines for Traffic Calming as formal municipal policy as a whole, without any amendment whereas other municipalities opted to develop their own policies and standards for traffic calming.

The National Road Safety Steering Committee (NRSSC) technical committees have updated National Guideline for Traffic Calming measures, including clearer designs for speed humps, as a priority. This updated guideline will be incorporated to Road Safety Authorities guideline manuals for implementation.

Reply:

The 1998 version of the National Guidelines for Traffic Calming have not been updated since they were published.

The National Guidelines for Traffic Calming together with the supplementary documents on the ‘Design and Implementation of Speed Humps’ and the ‘Design Guidelines for Mini-roundabouts’ have however remained the de facto main national reference documents for traffic calming. Given the holistic approach described in the document, some local authorities had adopted the National Guidelines for Traffic Calming as formal municipal policy as a whole, without any amendment whereas other municipalities opted to develop their own policies and standards for traffic calming.

The National Road Safety Steering Committee (NRSSC) technical committees have updated National Guideline for Traffic Calming measures, including clearer designs for speed humps, as a priority. This updated guideline will be incorporated to Road Safety Authorities guideline manuals for implementation.

Reply:

The Road Accident Fund (RAF) was approached by the South African Police Services (SAPS) for information relating to its investigation into the alleged theft of trust funds by the legal firm (name furnished). The SAPS did not inform the RAF of a complaint, nor is the RAF aware of a complaint, relating to the early settlement by the RAF of claims lodged by the legal firm. In respect of the claim concerned, the claim was lodged with the RAF in 2013 and settled in 2018, which is certainly not indicative of early settlement. However, anyone with information in relation to the alleged early settlement of claims lodged by the legal firm is invited to contact the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation on 012 846 4590, or the RAF’s Forensic Investigation Department on 0800 005919. In the interim the RAF’s Forensic Investigation Department is investigating all matters lodged by the legal firm.

NW3662E

 

Reply:

The Supply Chain Management Policy, February 2009, Clause 11.3 Bidding Methods, was subsequently changed twice to align to 217 of the constitution and all legislative prescripts. These were effected as the Supply Chain Management Policy, November 2018, driven by the Board of Control, and further enhanced through the current PRASA Supply Chain Management 2020 policy. This has embedded controls and standardized on how the organization executes its procurement activities across the business.

Reply:

The development and associated investment in Small Harbours is the mandate of the Department of Public Works. The Department of Transport as mandated by the Comprehensive Maritime Transport Policy shall develop Regulatory Framework on the operating model, safety, security and marine environment protection.

 

Reply:

a) The Gautrain is a Public Private Partnership between the Gauteng Provincial Government and a private sector consortium by the name of the Bombela Concession Company. In terms of this contract, the Gauteng Provincial Government does not make a financial profit from the project. Instead the Provincial Government maximizes the social and economic returns from having a well-run and efficient public transport system linking key economic nodes in Gauteng.

b) The operating and maintenance costs for the financial year ending March 2020 were R1,333 billion. During this period the revenue received from fare paying passengers and other sources such as advertising income totaled R971 million. There was an estimated R32 million loss of revenue in the month of March 2020 due to the reduced number of passengers travelling because of the Covid-19 pandemic. The shortfall was covered by the Patronage Guarantee paid by the Province of Gauteng as part of its ongoing contractual commitments in terms of the PPP agreement.

c) At this stage, the feasibility study for Phase 2 of the Gautrain is with the National Treasury and the estimated project costs can only be finalized once the input of Treasury is received and incorporated in the financial model.

Reply:

(1)(a) The Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA), submitted the Moloto Rail Corridor, Public Private Partnership (PPP), Treasury Approval 1 application to National Treasury for consideration, on 30 October 2014. On 3 December 2015, the Director General of National Treasury responded to the CEO of PRASA informing him that the Treasury Approval 1 application was not granted.

(2)(a) Membership of the Political Oversight Committee (POC) consisted of political representatives at the level of Minister/Member of the Executive Council/Executive Mayor and representatives from Departments, as follows:

• Department of Economic Development;
• Department of Finance or National Treasury;
• Department of Trade and Industry;
• Department of Water and Environmental Affairs;
• Department of Rural Development & Land Reform
• Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport;
• Limpopo Department of Roads and Transport;
• Mpumalanga Department of Public Works, Roads and Transport;
• Nkangala District Municipality;
• Sekhukhune District Municipality;
• City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality;
• Thembisile Hani Local Municipality
• Dr JS Moroka Local Municipality
• Presidential Infrastructure Coordinating Committee (PICC) – Strategic Infrastructure Project 1 (SIP1) Coordinator

(2)(b) The Chairperson of the Political Oversight Committee was the Minister of Transport.

Reply:

South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA)

The process for the approval of any aerodrome, inclusive of a heliport, is as follows:

a) The applicant applies to the SACAA by submitting an application form.

b) A preliminary/initial inspection is conducted by Inspectors from the SACAA, in this case comprising of an Infrastructure Inspector and a Flight Operations Inspector to assess the suitability of the proposed site for helicopter operations and a preliminary inspection report with recommendations is generated and forwarded to the applicant.

c) The application is published in Government Gazette (in this case Gazette #41871 of 12 September 2018) for public comment.

d) As soon as the recommendations have been implemented, the applicant forwards a request to the SACAA for a final inspection to be conducted.

e) The initial issue of the approval and restrictions thereof is subject to the applicant complying with the SACAA regulations as well as consideration of any public comments received through the publication process. (In this case there was no comments in relation to any environmental matter).

f) Licenses/approvals are issued for a period of up to 5 years, as provided for under the Civil Aviation Act, Act No 13 of 2009, and, during the interleading periods, compliance is monitored through surveillance inspections, as per international standard.

1. The specified process was followed with the Ultimate Heli application.

2. Third party information can only be released with the consent of the approval holder. The reports contain 3rd party proprietary and commercially sensitive information, is confidential in nature and may contain personal information, which was provided in confidence, and the SACAA does not have consent from the operator to release such.

Reply:

I have taken note of the question from the Honourable Dr S SThembekwayo, and wish to confirm that the road in question is not part of the asset register of the national road network. As you may be aware that the planning, construction, maintenance and operations of all national roads are being managed by the South African National Roads Agency SOC Limited (SANRAL).

My department has made enquires and were informed by the City of Tshwane that the construction of road k54 between k22 (old Bronkhorstspruit road) and k69 (Hans Strijdom, approximately 6.8km) as well as a section of road d2561 from k54 to Tsamaya road in Mamelodi (approximately 2.2km), CONTRACT NO: DRT 91/06/2016. King Civils were appointed as a main contractor. Project commenced on 22 January 2018. The Contractor is responsible for the area in which the reported potholes are concentrated and are responsible for day to day maintenance until they complete the doubling of the stretch of road as per their contractual obligations.

The contractual completion date is 4 November 2020

This will be met, due to legal matters that must be resolved to address the illegal invasion of the road reserve.

Reply:

SANRAL jurisdiction is limited to the declared national road network of South Africa. In terms of vicinity of Phokwane in the Northern Cape, National Route N18 Section 1 from Warrenton to the NC/NW Border with a total length of 54,6 km, falls under SANRAL.

The following two major development and improvement projects for this portion of N18/1 has been approved in SANRAL MTEF budget:

1. N18 Section 1: Warrenton - Vaal-Harts (27,0 km in length) – Magareng Local Municipality
2. N18 Section 1: Vaal-Harts - NC/NW Border (27.6 km in length) - Phokwane Local Municipality.

For both projects the procurement of Engineering Services will commence during the 2021/22 financial year. The design period is scheduled for 2 years, with construction commencing during the second half of 2023. The scope of works for both projects entail the reconstruction of road pavement layers, the widening of the road width to at least 13,4 metres, construction of passing lanes, the upgrade of all major intersections and the provision of non-motorised transport infrastructure such as formalised footpaths/cycleways and public transport drop off and pick up facilities. As with all SANRAL projects, each of these projects will also incorporate a community development project that focus on priorities identified based on inputs from the community.

The estimate costs of the projects are approximately R920 million (R460 million each), with minimum of 30% of work going to sub-contractors. It is anticipated that these projects will bring much needed economic opportunities and improved road safety to the Local Municipalities and surrounds.

Reply:

(a) The total number of road accident claims that have been lodged against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) and have been awaiting settlement, as at 9 October 2020, for more than (i) 10 years is 6 933 and (ii) five years is 39 214,

(b) the date on which the outstanding claims will finally be settled is unknown at this time due to the multitude of variables that are inherent in the adversarial, common-law, claims dispensation administered by the RAF, which variables include but are not limited to, delays attributable to claimants’ attorneys, amongst others, failing to locate the claimant in order to take instructions, failing to accept the RAF’s tender, failing to set the matter down for trial, failing to pursue the quantum aspect of the claim after a judgment has been obtained in respect of the merits (the liability aspect of the claim), failing to submit financial records or other substantiating evidence in support of a claim, and failing to submit actuarial reports in support of a claim; the non-availability of medical experts to assess claimants, compile reports and, or, testify in court; the failure by expert witnesses to agree on important aspects of the claim; the long lead time to obtain a trial date; and, the investigation by the RAF into potential fraudulent aspects of the claim; and

(c) although the aggregated total amount claimed in respect of the claims referred to in paragraphs (a)(i) and (ii) above is R49 985 029 061, the total amount it would take to settle (pay) all of the aforementioned claims is unknown at this time due to the multitude of variables that are inherent in the adversarial, common-law, claims dispensation administered by the RAF, which variables include but are not limited to, the claimant succeeding in proving the merits of the claim (where the claim was repudiated by the RAF); the apportionment of fault as determined by the court (where the percentage contributory negligence was in dispute, or where a third party was joined on the basis of his, her or its alleged contributory negligence); amendment by the claimant of the claimed amount based on, inter alia, fresh medico-legal or other expert reports, or new medico-legal or other expert reports, or new case law, or amendments to legislation; receipt by the claimant of a collateral benefit, which may qualify for deduction from the claimed amount; receipt by the claimant of an accelerated benefit, which may qualify for deduction from the claimed amount; determination by the Compensation Commissioner of the workman’s claim, which may qualify for deduction from the claimed amount; a change in the employment status of the claimant, which may have a bearing on the basis of calculation of the claimed amount; a change in the rehabilitation outcome of the claimant, which may have a bearing on the basis of calculation of the claimed amount; the death of the claimant, prior to settlement or the court order; as regards a claim for non-pecuniary loss, the timing of the death of the claimant, prior to, or after, close of pleadings, which may have a bearing on the right to, and calculation, of amount claimed in respect of non-pecuniary loss; settlement reached between the RAF and the claimant and, or, the sum awarded by the court; the outcome of appeals and reviews, in respect of orders by the lower courts; the application of the statutory limit on the quantum of claims for loss of support or loss of income; adjustments to the amount claimed to provide for inflation; the issuing by the RAF of an undertaking, instead of making payment of a lump-sum in respect of the costs of future medical expenses; and, where agreed, the payment of loss of income or loss of support in instalments.

Reply:

(1)(a)&(b) On 30 October 2014, the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA), submitted the Moloto Rail Corridor, Public Private Partnership (PPP), Treasury Approval 1 application to National Treasury for consideration. On 3 December 2015, the DirectorGeneral of National Treasury responded to the CEO of PRASA informing him that the Treasury Approval 1 application was not granted.

On 31 October 2017, the Department motivated funding through the National Treasury’s Budget Facility on Infrastructure (BFI) for the development of the Moloto Rail Corridor. On 5 April 2018, the Department received the outcome of the application indicating that the request for funding was not supported and that no funding will be made available to further develop a rapid rail solution because the exploration of non-transport solutions should be investigated in addition to transport solutions to comprehensively respond to corridor challenges.

(2) Please refer to response in (1)

(3) Seven (7) public engagements in the form of Imbizoshave been conducted with the Siyabuswa, KwaMhlanga, Moloto and surrounding communities. These were conducted as part of providing progress on the planned Moloto Rail Project, Road expansion project and the overall exposure of the service delivery by Government and the Department of Transport’s public entities. The last public engagement conducted with a purpose of providing information on the status of both the road and rail initiatives status was held on 5 June 2017.

With regard to the Moloto Road Project, SANRAL concluded 12 stakeholder engagements sessions prior to Covid-19 Lockdown, details listed in the table below. With the easing the COVID19 lockdown restrictions, SANRAL will be resuming the stakeholder engagements as planned or necessitated by events on the ground in project sites.

SANRAL Moloto Road Corridor Stakeholder Engagements

TYPE OF ENGAGEMENT	ROAD SECTION / TARGET AREA (COMMUNITY)	DATE
Stakeholder engagement: Taking SANRAL to Moloto	R573 Section 1 & 2 - Moloto	2 March 2018
Mpumalanga Youth Dialogue - Engagement	R573 Section 2 - KwaMhlanga	5 December 2018
Stakeholder Engagement - Taking SANRAL to Elias Motsoaledi Local Municipality	R573 Section 3- Elias Motsoaledi Local Municipality	30 May 2019
Access Agreement meeting	R573 Section 3 – Slovo/ Moteti B	29 August 2019
Access Agreement meeting	R573 Section 3 – Slovo/ Moteti B &Oorlog Villages	11 October 2019
Ministerial Event: Signing of MOU – Transfer of R573 Sec 1 to SANRAL	R573 Section 1 & 2 - Moloto	15 November 2019
Pre- Community Resolution meeting/ Information session	R573 Section 2 - Kwaggafontein A & B	4 February 2020
Pre- Community Resolution meeting/ Information session	R573 Section 2 - Mandlethu (Vlaklaagte No.1) &Mobhoko Village	5 February 2020
Pre- Community Resolution meeting/ Information session	R573 Section 2 - Mzimkhulu	6 February 2020
Pre- Community Resolution meeting/ Information session	R573 Section 2 - Tweefontein E &Buhlebesiswe (Vlaklaagte No.2)	18 February 2020
Pre- Community Resolution meeting/ Information session	R573 Section 3 – Slovo, Moteti B &Oorlog Villages	10 March 2020
Pre- Community Resolution meeting/ Information session	R573 Section 3 – Stompo/Waalkraal B, Waalkraal A and Waalkraal Ext Villages	11 March 2020

Reply:

1.a) Please see column 1 (a) in Table 1 below for planning and design status.

(b) The Environmental Impact Assessment process commenced in 2016 for Moloto Road Corridor and the Environmental Authorization was issued on 12/05/2017 (DEA Ref 14/12/16/3/1/162).

(c) Please see column 1 (c) in Table 1 below for status of contractor appointments.

(d) (i) Please see column 1 (d) (i) in Table 1 below for projected costs.

(d) (ii) Please see column 1 (d) (ii) in Table 1 below for projected timelines.

(2) (a) There has not been any progress on the proposed rail link project due to funding availability. The application for funding the Moloto Rail Project submitted to National Treasury in October 2014, in the form of a Treasury Approval (TA 1) was not approved. The subsequent request for funding submitted to National Treasury in 2017 under the Budget Facility for Infrastructure (BFI), was also not granted.

(b) Refer to (2) (a)

(c) Refer to (2) (a)

(3) (a) Please see Table 2 below for the SANRAL Moloto Road expenditure to date.

(b) No budget has been spent on the proposed Rail Project since the last feasibility study was completed in 2014.

(4)

Table 1: SANRAL R573 Road Projects

SANRAL Project (Project Numbers)	SECTION & PROVINCE	1 (a) Planning and Design update	1 (c) Appointment of contractors	1(d)(i) projected cost (Incl. VAT)	1(d)(ii) Timelines	Comments
R.573-010-2021/1	Stormvoel (km 0,0) to Baviaanspoort road (km 2,4)(Moepel road)	Design 95 % Completed	No	R423 million	December 2021 to May 2023	Gauteng Section of R573 only gazetted as National Road on 5th June 2020, enabling SANRAL to now proceed with finalisation of designs and issuing of construction tenders.
R.573-010-2023/1	Km 2,4 to km 4,0 (Interchange)	Design 90 % Completed	No	R488 million	April 2022 to September 2024	Gauteng Section of R573 only gazetted as National Road on 5th June 2020, enabling SANRAL to now proceed with finalisation of designs and issuing of construction tenders.
R.573-010-2022/1	Km 4,0 to km 8,4 and PWV 2	Design 90 % Completed	No	R1 300 million	April 2022 to March 2025	Gauteng Section of R573 only gazetted as National Road on 5th June 2020, enabling SANRAL to now proceed with finalisation of designs and issuing of construction tenders.
R.573-010-2024/1	Km 8,4 to km 18,4	Design 70 % Completed	No	R700 million	Start April 2024	Gauteng Section of R573 only gazetted as National Road on 5th June 2020, enabling SANRAL to now proceed with finalisation of designs and issuing of construction tenders.
R.573-010-2023/2	Km 18,4 to km 28,4	Design 70 % Completed	No	R700 million	Start April 2023	Gauteng Section of R573 only gazetted as National Road on 5th June 2020, enabling SANRAL to now proceed with finalisation of designs and issuing of construction tenders.
R.573-010-2024/2	Km 28,4 to km 37,4	Design 70 % Completed	No	R700 million	Start April 2024	Gauteng Section of R573 only gazetted as National Road on 5th June 2020, enabling SANRAL to now proceed with finalisation of designs and issuing of construction tenders.
R.573-010-2022/1	Km 37,4 to km 48,568	Design 80 % Completed	No	R600 million	December 2022 to November 2024	Gauteng Section of R573 only gazetted as National Road on 5th June 2020, enabling SANRAL to now proceed with finalisation of designs and issuing of construction tenders.
R.573-020-2016/1	Section 2 - Mpumalanga	Completed	Yes	R105 million	Completed	4 intersections upgraded
R.573-020-2019/4	Section 2 - Mpumalanga	Completed	No	R560 million	April 2021 to Sept 2023	Tender adjudication process for the appointment of a contractor underway.
R573-020-2019/1	Section 2 - Mpumalanga	Design 90 % Completed	No	R346 million	April 2022 to October 2023	Finalising bridge designs.
R573-020-2019/2	Section 2 - Mpumalanga	Design 65 % Completed	No	R197 million	June 2022 to June 2023	Covid19 delayed Resolution of the Kwamhlanga business node due to encroachment within the road reserve.
R573-020-2019/3	Section 2 - Mpumalanga	Completed	No	R413 million	November 2021 to February 2023	Planning Pre-community resolution meeting and Community resolution meeting as part of land acquisition process.
R573-020-2019/5	Section 2 - Mpumalanga	Design 65 % Completed	No	R406 million	March 2022 to June 2024	Resolution of the Kwaggafontein business node due to encroachment within the road reserve.
R.573-030-2016/1	Section 3 - Limpopo	Completed	Yes	R244 million	January 2017 to October 2021	The Contractor has since re-established the site after experiencing cashflow problems.
R.573-030-2019/1	Section 3 - Limpopo	Completed	No	R362 million	April 2021 to Sept 2023	Tender adjudication process for the appointment of a contractor underway.
R.573-023-2019/1	Section 3 - Limpopo	Completed	No	R405 million	January 2022 to June 2024	Covid19 delayed the Community Resolution meetings required to finalise the land acquisition process.
R.573-030-2019/2	Section 3 – Mpumalanga	Design 90 % Completed	No	R450 million	April 2022 to September 2024	Finalising the bridge designs.

Table 2: SANRAL R73 Moloto Expenditure to Date

Table 2: SANRAL R73 Moloto Expenditure to Date

Reply:

South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA)

1. (a) The SA Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) does follow up with routine inspections as part of its mandate andan inspection on Ultimate Heli was conducted on 20 March 2019. A meeting was held with the operator on27 June 2019 regarding environmental complaintsfrom the Buccleuch residents.The last physical inspection was conducted on 23 October 2019 for compliance monitoring. In addition, a meeting was held with the operator on 24 January 2020,relating to continued operational compliance. Further interaction occurredvirtually during the lockdown period, in relation to compliance, as it was not possible to conduct physical oversight during lockdown. Physical inspections are now resumed during level 1 lockdown with a routine compliance inspection scheduled for Ultimate Heli for 28 October 2020.

(b)The facility was found to be compliant with requirements. Third party information can only be released with the consent of the approval holder. The reports contain 3rd party proprietary and commercially sensitive information, is confidential in nature and may contain personal information, which was provided in confidence, and the SACAA does not have consent from the operator to release such.

(c) The SACAA Inspectors were from the areas of Aviation Infrastructure and Flight Operations.

2. Ultimate Heli has been operating in accordance with the SACAA regulations and there is no evidence of the company not operating in compliance with regulations.

Reply:

South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA)

a)  There is no provision in the Regulations for the establishment of a “central executive committee” in relation to this operator.

During the approval process for Ultimate Heli, the following stakeholders were consulted:

1. Johannesburg Metro,whose responsibility is the proper zoning and use of land in accordance with their restrictions, as mandated by the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (SPLUMA), Act 16 of 2013, as well as enforcement of environmental requirements in their areas of jurisdiction. No restrictions were imposed by the Metro.
2. Grand Central Airport.
3. The National Airspace Committee (NASCOM), comprising of industry stakeholders and associations including Airports Company of South Africa, Department of Transport, Department of Environmental Affairs Forestry and Fishing (DEFF), SA Airforce (SAAF), Air Traffic and Navigation Services Company (ATNS), etc.
4. Waterfall property management.
5. SA National Roads Agency (SANRAL).
6. Johannesburg Roads Agency (JRA).

b) All Civil Aviation Regulations have been followed in certifying Ultimate Heli as an operator. Records are kept by the SACAA for all oversight activityon all operators.

Reply:

a) Profit – Internationally well performing mass public transport systems cover between 30% and 60% of operational costs. Only a few systems in dense Asian cities can cover a higher amount of direct operating costs. Given that Ekurhuleni is still in an unfinished pilot phase, which has witnessed delays in ramping up to envisaged 200 buses, the current fare box coverage of direct operating costs is disproportionally low.

Currently the city is yet to negotiate the final contract with the Bus Operating Company which they plan to conclude by July 2021. This final contract will include a market related profit margin for the Bus Operating Company.

b) Loss - From 2017/18 to 2019/20 financial years, the total operational deficit was approximately R290 million to June 2020, due to the fact as highlighted in (a) above that the pilot ramp up has been delayed, thus limiting the amount of fare revenue collected. Currently the city is covering the operational deficit.

Reply:

Department of Transport does not have SA commuter Transit Project within their portfolio.

Therefore (a)(b) (c) (d) falls away.

Reply:

No, the National Department of Transport will not be funding the proposed North West Public Transport Intervention Team. The National Department does not provide funding to the Provincial Department as a consequence of Section 100(1)(b) intervention.

Reply:

The Minister was informed by the MEC about the proposed North West Public Transport Intervention Team, as supported by the Provincial Executive Council and consent given by the Section 100 Inter-Ministerial Task Team (IMTT), as provided for in the Section 100 MOU signed by the Province and the IMTT. No approval was sought from the Minister. As indicated in the question, the process has since been reversed.

Reply:

The composition of the Board of control of PRASA is provided in Section 24 of the Legal Succession to the South African Transport Services Act, 1989 (Act No. 9 of 1989). Section 24(1) empowers the Minister to appointment a Board of Control of eleven (11) Members.

The criteria for appointing the Board of Control is as follows:

a) Publication of an advert in the Media calling for nomination of persons to serve as Members of the Board of Control of PRASA.

b) Shortlisting of nominated persons.

c) Recommendation for appointment of suitable candidates.

d) Request Cabinet approval for appointment of recommended candidates.

e) Once Cabinet approves/supports the recommendations, the Minister will appoint the approved candidates.

f) The candidates will be given appointment letters and will be inducted and resume their duties.

Reply:

1. (a) The reasons that the Road Accident Fund (RAF) ignored the court order by Judge Wendy Hughes on 1 June 2020 to retain the lawyers for six more months was that the RAF launched an appeal against the order, which appeal has the legal effect of suspending the operation of the order. However, the Applicants then brought an application in terms of section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act, 2013 for the order to be implemented pending the outcome of the petition to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which application was granted by the Judge, but was subsequently set aside by a full bench of the Court,following an appeal by the RAF in terms of section 18(4) of the Act; and (b) the RAF has put plans in place, as required by section 4(1)(b)of the RAF Act, to assist with clients’ claims by investigating and settling the matters returned by its former panel of attorneys and inviting plaintiff attorneys to block settlement meetings, where the RAF purposefully pursues the settlement of matters that are capable of settlement, and by referring disputes for voluntary mediation through a pilot project. Majority of these matters were litigated unnecessary as they are capable of settlement. This approach is beneficial to the claimants as they no longer need to wait for future trial dates in order to have their claims settled but rather settled earlier;

2. (a) the RAF intends to source more state attorneysthrough its usual recruitment processes and this will be informed by the volume of work (number of litigated matters where there are triable disputes) versus the reasonable number of attorneys required to attend to such matter efficiently; (b) with a timeline for the initial targeted number set for the end of the current financial year and (c) the RAF has chosen the specified route to move away from the previous approach because the Road Accident Fund Act, 1996 (the Act) provides that the RAF must pay compensation to road accident victims in accordance with the Act, which allows the RAF a period of 120 days from the date on which the claim is lodged to investigate its liability and to settle the claim. It is only in exceptional cases that litigation is contemplated, and it is not anticipated that the RAF would outsource its investigation of claims to an external panel of attorneys, as has been done. It is important to mention that a study conducted by Professor Hennie Klopper on the RAF matters set down on the court roll in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria revealed that 99.56 % of the matters are settled at the doorstep of court and less than 1% (0.45%) proceed to trial. This study was done in the Pretoria High Court which has the highest number of litigated matters countrywide. Although the research focused on Pretoria, the RAFs observation is that this is reflective of the general trend in all the courts in South Africa. RAF matters get settled by both parties and the settlement agreements are then made orders of court. Moreover, the panel of attorneys and the RAF are regularly criticized for the manner in which they manage these outsourced claims. In a recent Judgment in Mpumalanga High Court in the matter of Mncube v RAF, Legodi JP said the following

“More than 90% of matters on our trial roll are the Road Accident Fund which is funded through public purse. One would have thought the parties and or legal practitioners in dealing with these matters, will be more expedient and professional. However, the contrary appears to be the case. This is despite continuous financial woes the Fund finds itself in.”

In the unreported judgment of Daniels and Others v Road Accident Fund and Others, Binns-Ward J, after reviewing 17 cases where the RAF was rebuked by various judges for their handling of claims and litigation, said the following:

“A depressing feature of all of the aforementioned judgments is that they instance examples of cases in which the Fund must have incurred substantial legal expenses in taking to trial, or on appeal, claims which it had no basis to responsibly contest. In the context of the evidence before us that legal expenses constitute a very significant component of the Fund's overall expenditure, this is an aspect of the Fund's conduct which is demanding of conscientious attention by the responsible authorities…”.

Currently, the RAF owes claimants many billions of Rand in settled claims. It is however unable to pay these claimants and yet spends R10.6 billion on legal costs annually. By getting rid of the current operating model, with unaffordable panel of attorneys, and by adopting the new operating model the RAF could save substantial amounts in legal fees. The RAF 2020-2025 Strategic Plan targets a 75% saving on legal costs over the five-year period, which will assist the RAF to pay claimants promptly from the anticipated saving. In addition, this new operating model will lead to very few RAF matters coming before courts, which will lessen the workload of the overworked judges;

(3) it is foreseen that the change will be substantially more cost-effective for the RAF (a) by reverting to an operating model which gives effect to section 4(1)(b) of the RAF Act, where the RAF capacitates its Operations (claims) Department for Claim Handlers to investigate and settle claims, as opposed to outsourcing claims to a costlypanel of attorneys, and by pursuing voluntary mediation, as opposed to expensive and protracted litigation, through which significant savings in legal cost can be achieved and (b) where litigation cannot be avoided, referral of the matter to a salaried state attorney, as opposed to a private attorney, will achieve further savings. In terms of the previous model, any attendance by an attorney on a particular litigated matter resulted in a charge of approximately R 292,50 per quarter of an hour and with RAF litigation being handled by the office of the State Attorneys, such attendances will no longer attract any fees;

(4) the service level agreements concluded between the RAF and its former panel of attorneys expired due to effluxion of time on 31 May 2020 following amendments which were made to the Service Level Agreement which was due to expire in November 2019. Of significance with the amendment is that a provision which allowed for making copies on handover of files was amended. The provision of copying costs was going to result in legal costs of R 1, 3 Billion at any time when the RAF changes the panel of attorneys. The total cost to the RAF to have the panel of attorneys disbanded is unknown, as it is a function of the difference between the R 3.6 billion approximately spent by the RAF annually on its former panel of attorneys, and the cost of the implementation of the new operating model, which is expected to achieve substantial savings on legal cost, as alluded to in the earlier response to the prior question.