(1) Whether the Eskom Board acknowledged full compliance with the Public Finance Management Act, Act 1 of 1999, between 2000 and 2008; if so (a) how can this be reconciled with Eskom not exercising its duty of utmost care to ensure reasonable protection of its assets, in accordance with section 50(1)(a) of the Act, when it reduced its expenditure on maintenance of its assets in favour of low cost electricity, (b) on which legal basis did Eskom rely to make such a decision, (c) was any political pressure exerted on Eskom to keep the cost of electricity low and (d) what is meant by enhanced maintenance management in the 2006 report of Eskom on page 88 in respect of Risk-mitigation matters; (2) whether the Board acknowledged full compliance with the Public Finance Management Act, Act 1 of 1999, between 2008 and 2014; if so, (a) how can this be justified in view of Eskom reducing its expenditure on maintenance of Eskom assets in order to keep the lights on contrary to the requirement of section 50(1)(a) of the Act and (b) on which other legal basis could the Board rely to make such an acknowledgement; (3) did certain persons (names and details furnished) between 2008 to 2010/11 and 2014 advise the Board of the risks to award a lower priority to maintenance than to keep the lights on; if so, (a) why was Friday, 29 May 2015 684 INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: NATIONAL ASSEMBLY NO 17 - 2015 this advice not accepted or (b) was political pressure exerted on Eskom to keep the lights on during this period rather than to maintain its assets; (4) how did the Board comply with the provisions of section 50(1)(a) of the Act when (a) Eskom spent less than 36% of the scheduled 2012 to 2021 Transmission Ten Year plan between 2012 and 2014, (b) Eskom planned to further reduce expenditure on the transmission system over the next five years to R6 billion (details furnished); (5) did a certain person (name and details furnished) advise the Board about the risks of not executing the specified person’s department’s 10- year plans; if so, why did the Board not accept the recommendations of the specified person?