. The Committee noted the training of councillors as one of National Treasury's major achievements. . The Committee wanted to know if there was follow-up training, and whether it was sufficient, and if there was an assessment tool. . The Committee noted that National Treasury targeted 100 partnership development grant programmes, but had met only 95, and wanted to know what happened to the other five programmes. . The Committee wanted to know the progress of National Treasury's intervention in the provinces, and when National Treasury intended to withdraw. . The Committee wanted to know how far had National Treasury progressed in its focus on value for money and shifting of resources from construction to infrastructure. . A question was raised to ascertain whether the procurement office was now established. . The Committee noted that the debt service costs of 2.6 per cent of the GDP was a worry, and wanted to know how much of this 2.6 per cent was used to service the 'borrowed loan'. . With reference to the establishment of the Government Technical Advisory Centre, the Committee wanted to know how this centre was different from the technical and management support and development finance that was already in place within National Treasury. . The Committee raised concern with reference to the deviations and virements on the payment for capital assets of R21 million under Programme 8, and wanted to know why the virements were made to the capital assets. . The Committee noted that South Africa was declining faster than the rest of the world, especially as to the sustainability of the state finances as reflected by the credit ratings downgrade, and wanted to know National Treasury's approach to the credit ratings. . The Committee wanted to know what bail-out mechanisms existed for South Africa, if any. . The Committee noted that South Africa was growing at only 2 per cent and wanted to know what measures were in place to accelerate this growth. . The Committee noted hold-up of the youth wage subsidy at NEDLAC, and wanted to know why this particular proposal need consensus, as other proposals emerged from NEDLAC without consensus. . The Committee noted the detail given on the under spending on the jobs fund, and noted the cost per job was slightly higher, but it was still relatively good value. Of concern, however, was that National Treasury underspent by R2.5 billion on this item. . The Committee noted, in terms of the framework for managing programme performance, 42 per cent of targets were not time-bound, and expressed concern as it came from a department like National Treasury. . In terms of the R15 billion guarantee for the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA), the Committee wanted to know how long this guarantee was in place. The Committee also wanted to know what the risk was if the R15 billion guarantee might be called upon from National Treasury. . The Committee wanted to know, as to the Alexkor contingent liability of R1.19 million, would National Treasury give guarantees to private mining companies that competed with Alexkor. . The Committee noted the R60 billion loan to Eskom, of which R20 billion was added last year, and wanted to know if this amount was recoverable. . In terms of investment by government and public corporations in infrastructure, the Committee requested whether National Treasury could provide detailed figures in this regard. . The Committee asked for more information in terms of the R2.4 billion under spending. . The Committee noted that there had been interventions in terms of Section 216(2) of the Constitution, whereby the funds of municipalities could be withheld in terms of the Division of Revenue Act (DoRA) allocation, and commented that it would be strengthened even further by the establishment of the procurement office. . The Committee noted that there was a draft construction procurement standard for use by provincial treasuries to improve compliance by implementing departments, and wanted to know what time frames there were for implementation. . The Committee noted that within human capital, there was a need to account for youth employment in the percentages, as well as the number of women and the number of blacks employed. . The Committee noted that the inability to meet the target of 2 per cent of people with disabilities, and wanted to know why it was so difficult to employ people with disabilities.