QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN REPLY: IQP 21 OF 2010

Premier:

181. Mr R S Stevenson to ask the Premier:

Whether all (a) Heads of Department (HODs) and (b) members of the Senior Management Service had signed performance management agreements as at the latest specified date for which information is available; if not, (i) why not and (ii) which specified (aa) HODs and (bb) SMS members, per department, have not signed these agreements?

MECs:


182. Mr R S Stevenson to ask the MEC responsible for Health:

(1) Whether his Department owed Telkom an amount of approximately R33 million as at the latest specified date for which information is available; if so, (a) for how long has this account been outstanding and (b) why has it not been paid;

(2) whether any steps have been or are to be taken with a view to being able to deal with telephone calls should the Telkom service be terminated; if not, why not; if so, what steps;

(3) whether this account will be paid within 30 days; if not, (a) why not and (b) when will it be paid?

183. Mr R S Stevenson to ask the MEC responsible for Education:

(1) Whether – with reference to the reply to Question 11 on IQP 2 of 29 January 2010 and the judgment delivered in this case in March 2010 – all companies that were awarded tenders for stationery learner support material (LSM) in the province complied with all the specified tender requirements; if not, (a) why not and (b) what are the further relevant details;

(2) (a) why were certain companies awarded tenders despite their failing to submit certain documentation required by his Department, (b) what are the names of these companies and (c) what were the tender amounts in each case;

(3) whether his Department has previously experienced any problems with the standard of service provided by any of the companies that were awarded tenders; if so, (a) what are the names of the companies concerned and (b) why were they given another chance;

(4) whether the companies that were unsuccessful in tendering for this contract are permitted to receive their scorecard details; if not, why not;

(5) whether his Department has been informed that some of the companies that were awarded tenders are owned by the same person; if so, (a) why were tenders awarded to different companies that are owned by the same person and (b) what are the further relevant details;

(6) whether his Department had received any objections in relation to the awarding of the tenders for the supply of stationery as at the latest specified date for which information is available; if so,

(7) whether any investigations have been or are to be undertaken into this matter; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

184. Mr D B Haddon to ask the MEC responsible for Provincial Safety, Liaison and Transport:

(1) Whether the province possessed any portable weighbridges as at the latest specified date for which information is available; if so, how many; if not,

(2) whether it is the intention to procure such weighbridges; if not, why not; if so, (a) how many and (b) by when;

(3) what amount in revenue was collected through the use of these portable weighbridges for offending overloaded vehicles during the 2009/2010 financial year;

(4) (a) how many vehicles in the province were weighed by these weighbridges during the 2009/2010 financial year and (b) what percentage of the vehicles weighed exceeded the stipulated weight limits?

185. Mr D B Haddon to ask the MEC responsible for Provincial Safety, Liaison and Transport:

(1) Whether her Department has any unit investigating fraud and corruption in the driver’s licence and vehicle testing stations in the province; if so, how many staff assigned to this unit are (a) doing functional work and (b) on training;

(2) whether it is the intention to expand this unit; if so, what are the relevant details;

(3) (a) who is in charge of this unit, (b) what is their designation and (c) to whom does this unit report?

186. Mr D B Haddon to ask the MEC responsible for Human Settlements:

(1) When will a beneficiary, whose name and particulars have been forwarded to the Department for purposes of the reply, be refunded her subsidy that was used by an unscrupulous contractor;

(2) what amount will be awarded to this beneficiary given the significant increase in building costs since 2000, when the subsidy was awarded;

(3) whether the Department will refund this beneficiary’s son for his costs towards trying to further the building with his own monies when the contractor failed to build the house; if not, why not;

(4) what is the cause of the delay in resolving this matter?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.