(1) With reference to his reply to question 1147 on 6 July 2010, what is the (a) name and (b) position of the person who authorised and requested that an alternative fog spray to the product that was initially approved should be applied to the runway surfaces at George Airport; (2) whether the decision to utilise the alternative fog spray was taken after (a) consultation with and (b) the approval of the consulting and engineering groups (details furnished); if not, why not in each case, if so, what are the relevant details in each case; (3) whether it has been established that the fog spray originally created unsafe runways and conditions in wet weather; if not, what caused the unsafe runways and conditions thereon; if so, what are the relevant details of the investigation; (4) why was the tender awarded to a third party after a certain company (name furnished) put in the lowest tender to resurface the runways; (5) with reference to a second company (name furnished) resurfacing the runways in recent months at a cost of R12 166 294,37, (a) what is the name of the company responsible for resurfacing the runways prior to the last resurfacing, (b) what was the total cost of the service rendered by the said company and (c) who will be liable to pay the surfacing company (name furnished) for the last resurfacing?