Chairperson, I thank the hon Bhengu for the question. There are, indeed, technical norms and standards that have been developed to guide roads authorities on the upgrading of roads from gravel to paved. However, these norms and standards tend to be rather technical, based on the internal rate of return and also traffic counts. Apparently, the guideline is that when 200 vehicles per day use a gravel road, it can be upgraded to a tarred road.
Now, I think this is a general indicator, but technical indicators like this do not take into account a whole range of social and economic factors. We all know of examples where a gravel road is tarred in order to take vehicles to a place of interest for tourists. What happens is that it often then attracts a considerable amount of traffic, often way beyond the anticipated volumes. We have also got very large numbers of gravel roads in our country that do have more than 200 vehicles on them but which are not tarred, for the good reason that there is not enough capacity, there are not enough resources and there are all kinds of challenges.
So, in short, yes, there are norms and standards, but this matter is best left to the relevant authority - whether municipal or provincial - to link decisions around road upgrades and road maintenance to integrated development plans. There are some good examples in our country of provinces, for instance, doing this. The Eastern Cape Department of Transport, Roads and Public Works is one case. The Deputy Minister, Mr Hanekom, said I should be statesperson-like, like the Deputy President, so let me say the Western Cape Department of Transport and Public Works is also a good example. In both cases, these provinces look at the technical requirements in regard to vehicle counts, but also bring to bear social and economic factors, which are then weighted in a consultative process with various stakeholders and role-players.
In the case of Gauteng province - and I think it is important also, in response to the hon Bhengu's question - the problems of poor roads are not just rural. It is often in a rural area, but it is also often in urban areas. The standards are very unequal and many townships suffer from very poor roads. In the case of Gauteng, they have prioritised 20 townships in the 20 Priority Townships (2 OPTP) Programme, and that programme has been taken over and is now run by the Johannesburg Roads Agency. Thank you.
Through you, hon Chairperson, hon Deputy Minister, it is clear from your response that the Department of Transport shares a common view with the ANC study group on transport on the following issues. Firstly, there is the uneven level of standards of roads for urban and rural communities, which deprives rural communities of realising their social and economic development potential.
Secondly, the formula used in allocating financial resources for the upgrading of gravel roads in rural areas is currently not based on the objective of unlocking the social and economic development potential of rural communities, as it is based on the number of cars that use each road.
Could the hon Deputy Minister explain the relationship between the formula used to allocate financial resources for the upgrading of rural gravel roads and the development-orientated objective of unlocking the social and economic potential of rural communities? If we understand transport to be a critically important aspect in attracting investment to underdeveloped areas, how do we hope to attract investment to rural areas when the allocation of resources for rural road development is not determined by the investment potential of each area and the poor condition of roads in such areas? Thank you. [Time expired.]
Chairperson, yes, indeed, as I indicated in my first response, the formula for allocating resources is purely a technical formula, and we do expect it to be applied with social and economic considerations in mind as well, both at the provincial and at the municipal level.
I think a good example of our intentions in this respect is the current S'hamba Sonke roads maintenance programme, over which I know the portfolio committee has had some oversight. There the idea is not just to focus narrowly on volumes of vehicles, but to conduct road maintenance with a view to repairing critical arterial roads - to identify particular strategic roads - to do so in cost-efficient ways that are labour- absorbing, and also to encourage provinces to know their network. Very often the problem in regard to maintenance and road construction, road repair and road extension is that decisions are made in complete ignorance, at the local level very often, of the actual network that they are dealing with. With the S'hamba Sonke programme we have also identified, in particular, roads that provide access to schools and clinics, and obviously also road construction that will make roads safer, both for pedestrians and for vehicular traffic users.
So, yes, indeed, hon Bhengu, we need to look at road maintenance, road construction and road extension in a comprehensive way that critically takes into account integrated development plans, and unlocking social and economic opportunities in rural areas and, let me repeat, also in urban areas where very often the poor, the working class, suffer from many, many impediments in regard to infrastructure provision.
Chairperson, the DA celebrated when the Minister announced the formation of the dedicated Road Infrastructure Maintenance Fund, as we had been calling for it for many years in this House. It is a well-known fact that the public out there do not know who is responsible for fixing potholes or a bad road, or whether they are on national roads, provincial roads or even the rural roads that the hon Bhengu referred to. The dedicated Road Infrastructure Maintenance Fund, if it had been properly managed, could have allowed for these funds to be allocated to each province and local authority on a proportional and prioritised basis, based on, according to this document, some form of classification.
However, Deputy Minister, we have a dilemma. We are sitting with a backlog of R140 billion on our national and provincial roads alone; we have municipalities and metros that do not have sufficient funds or basic services, never mind for road maintenance; and we have a mass of toll loans that need to be settled. If this project of R23 billion had been applied properly, which we had a look at when we went and visited the sites, these monies would have gone down to the municipalities and they could then have been effectively used to fix up the rural roads which are in such a state of disrepair.
How then, Deputy Minister, with all these aspects, are you now going to fund this departmental backlog and the needs in the rural communities for the medium and long term and how do you intend monitoring these funds to ensure that the programme is applied by the book? [Time expired.]
I thank the hon Farrow. The S'hamba Sonke programme to which he is referring is a very new programme. It came into operation in February this year, with this financial year. There are teething problems with it and I think that the portfolio committee produced an excellent report on some of their oversight work. This has helped us, as a department, to understand the successes - because there are successes - but also some of the challenges, which one would expect in a relatively new programme of this order.
One of the shortcomings, and I agree with what the hon Farrow is suggesting, is that it is allocated to provinces through the Division of Revenue Act, and the requirement is that it should be spent only on provincial roads. However, it does allow for memoranda of understanding to be concluded between provinces and municipalities, and this has happened in Limpopo, KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape. So, there are some municipal roads benefiting from the S'hamba Sonke programme. However, I think we do need to look at ensuring that there is a much better allocation of resources, to the municipal sphere as well.
Let me leave my response at that. I think this is a programme that certainly needs to be supported. However, it also needs lots of supervision and oversight, not only from the parliamentary side, but also from the Department of Transport.
Chair, the Deputy Minister spoke about the S'hamba Sonke programme, which we are all supporting. However, what it really is is an amalgamation of all the equitable share that has been put into a basket, a share that had belonged to the various provinces. We were led to believe that, in fact, these were additional funds, only to find that this is not the case.
In addition to what is already there and was there anyway, do the Deputy Minister and his department intend to top it up so that the backlog can be reduced dramatically and a lot faster? Does he intend to top up this fund? If so, can he give us an indication of when and how much we are talking about? If not, why not? Thank you.
I rather think that that is a question that should be addressed to my colleague, the Minister of Finance! Obviously, we would certainly like to see an increase in allocation to roads in general.
Let me explain what has happened with the S'hamba Sonke programme. The member is quite right to say that this is not new money. It is basically a slice of the money that was in any case dedicated to provinces for road maintenance. The problem there was that very often in provinces money that was in the equitable share and was notionally for road maintenance, road repair and road extension, for instance, did not hit the tar, literally. It ended up in salaries and in all kinds of other things. What we have done this time round is that we have at least ring-fenced the allocation. Even then, there is some suggestion in one or two provinces that even that has not quite worked. However, the idea is to absolutely ensure that the money that is allocated for road maintenance goes into road maintenance, and that we spend it effectively also in terms of our job creation priorities, namely on labour-intensive methods.
Just this month the department entered into an agreement with provinces to ensure that as a department we increase our oversight capacity. Although it is money that is allocated to provinces in terms of the Division of Revenue Act, it is important that there is some assistance to provinces using the Department of Transport. What we are exploring in particular is using the SA National Roads Agency Ltd, Sanral, to maybe move them a little bit away from building too many toll roads and to focus them on using their project management capacity, their tendering capacity and their technical skills - these are often lacking in the municipal sphere and in some provinces - and deploying these to really addressing the areas where the roads issue is perhaps at its most dire, which is typically at the provincial and municipal level.
I had to press this button because the hon member behind me, Mr Kganare's button is not working. Can you please just give him the opportunity? [Laughter.]
Chair, I wish to say this to the hon Deputy Minister. There is a particular coincidence which has occurred, and I ask you whether you will make it possible for these coincidences not to continue to take place. R32 million's worth of tarred road was constructed - coincidentally - at the hon Sicelo Shiceka's residence ... [Interjections.] ... and the same coincidence happened in KwaZulu-Natal, involving the hon President's homestead. Is the message you are sending out that you must either have a Minister or a President from your village in order for your village to get a tarred road? [Time expired.] [Laughter.] [Interjections.]
It is a different question, but let me at least respond to it in general terms. The Department of Transport's policy is obviously to apply a strategic approach and to encourage provinces and municipalities to integrate their road maintenance, road building and road construction clearly with their integrated development plans and their integrated transport plans, and to prioritise - obviously - the key priorities of this government, which would be poverty relief, job creation and basically creating social and economic opportunities.
I cannot comment specifically on these cases. I think that those are the kinds of questions that should be directed to the relevant road authorities that were responsible for these particular decisions.
Particulars regarding monitoring of health impact on populations surrounding radioactive sites
280. Mrs C Dudley (ACDP) asked the Minister of Energy:
Whether any monitoring of the long-term health impact on populations surrounding specified radioactive sites, including Pelindaba, has been undertaken; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details in each case? NO4204E
Chairperson, the reply to question 280 is that it is a condition of the nuclear installation licence issued by the National Nuclear Regulator for operators to monitor the environment around any nuclear installation.
Currently the National Nuclear Regulator monitors public exposure around nuclear installations and no exposures above regulatory limits have been found. Should the need arise, it is expected that the National Nuclear Regulator will work with the health professionals best able to handle epidemiological studies.
I need to indicate that the Director-General, DG, of Health is the responsible official to report exposures to the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, in compliance with the guidelines of the agency's assessments. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. Hon Minister, will this be looking at whether the effects on health of groundwater systems, food chains and the air that we breathe are included in the monitoring for possible contamination? Also, has special attention been paid to monitoring women, who are 52% more likely to develop cancer from any radioactive contamination?
Chairperson, the response is yes, and it is important that I repeat the point related to the DG of the Department of Health. The DG is the official responsible for reporting exposures, as well as dealing with any matter that has been proved to be involved. So, I believe that that deals with the issues raised by the hon member.
In regard to the issues related to groundwater systems, the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, together with the Department of Mineral Resources, is part of the Interministerial Committee, IMC, on Acid Mine Drainage. The Department of Energy is a support department in relation to making sure that that water, equally, is tested for any potential radiation. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairperson. Minister, thank you very much for making the point that the monitoring has to be done, and we know that it is being done.
I would like to draw your attention specifically to the issue of Pelindaba and make the point that a study was done on the integrity of some of the radioactive contamination monitors employed at some of our facilities, and these were found wanting. They trigger at levels much higher than where they should, and we believe that this has subsequently led to the controversy and dispute that is now afflicting the SA Nuclear Energy Corporation, Necsa, and some of its ex-employees. They say that they got ill at work for several reasons.
Firstly, they were overexposed to radiation. Secondly, they were not allowed to go and see their own doctors after they had been seen by Necsa doctors. Thirdly, the Necsa doctors refused to give them their documentation to take to their own doctors.
And then, most importantly, they claim that there are dangerous areas on the premises at Pelindaba, where radioactive material has been dumped near Gates 1, 2 and 3, and the picnic area. I have been to these places, so I know what they look like. What steps are being taken to make sure that the integrity of the machines is maintained? Thank you. [Time expired.]
Chairperson, I thank the hon Motau for that question. I want to indicate that I have on several occasions interacted with these former employees of Necsa.
I need also to indicate, in regard to the report that you are talking about, that if it is the same report that I know of, these workers were subjected to several examinations by the Department of Health as the responsible authority in this particular matter, but I don't think there is anybody in South Africa who can prevent any individual from seeing the doctor of their choice.
The unfortunate situation is that the reports of those doctors have to be subject to guidelines that are in compliance with what the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, indicates are the requisite levels of exposure.
There are organisations in this country that have been mobilising this community in particular against the South African government and the South African nuclear policy. They are using that as a basis for what they are doing, without necessarily looking into when the events are supposed to have happened.
I need to indicate that I personally had a public meeting with these people at the Atteridgeville open arena and I believe that whatever they raised has been addressed. We also agreed on that day that if they had additional queries, they should come and engage with us.
They would come to these meetings wearing T-shirts that displayed nuclear exposure images and messages about Fukushima. I don't know whether the accident at Fukushima happened in 1980, as they indicated in regard to their own level of exposure.
So, I need to indicate that we have dealt with the matter, but also that Necsa at Pelindaba has been subject to assessment by the National Nuclear Regulator, NNR, as well as the International Atomic Energy Agencies' own assessment mechanism.
Hon Motau, you will remember that this is one area that is always visited by the director-general of the agency himself when he visits South Africa. I believe that had it not been for the challenges of Fukushima, he would have been here in April, and he is still going to come. However, we had the honour of being visited by the assessment team. They also visited Koeberg and you will remember also, because of our seriousness about safety regarding exposure of South Africans, that without any pressure we called on the agency to subject Koeberg itself to a stress test. Thank you.
Chairperson, I thank the hon Minister for a very informative response in this regard. The question is whether the NNR has been collaborating with municipalities, as well as the Department of Health, on communities next to such radioactive sites. Furthermore, to what extent is the Minister satisfied with such? Thank you.
Chairperson, I thank the hon Selau for the question. Yes, the NNR has been engaging with the local authorities, as well as the Department of Health. This relationship has been formalised by the co-operative agreement concluded, as provided for by section 6 of the National Nuclear Regulator Act, to give effect to the principles of co- operative governance.
We are satisfied that the NNR co-operates with other entities of state in order to ensure effective monitoring and control of nuclear hazards, while avoiding any duplication, because it is important that we understand what each arm is doing.
In relation to a specific municipal area, the NNR engaged with Mogale City Local Municipality on the need for the relocation of people residing in contaminated areas of Tudor Shaft. I should indicate here that it is the responsibility of the municipality to engage with the affected residents on the need for them to relocate. When we are expected to give a motivation as to why that community must be relocated, we as the Department of Energy will provide the necessary support, together with the NNR and other entities like Science and Technology, to make sure that we can convince the people to move away from those particular areas for their own safety.
Order! Question No 328, to the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, will stand over.
Measures to be taken against missing houses that default in complying with Mining Charter
282. Mr C L Gololo (ANC) asked the Minister of Mineral Resources:
(1) What measures or remedial action does she intend to take against mining houses that default in complying with the Mining Charter by 2014;
(2) whether she intends to revoke the mining rights of such mining houses; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?