Thank you very much, Acting Chairperson and the hon members. The National Treasury and the Minister of Finance would like to thank the National Council of Provinces for the thorough and expeditious manner in which it processed the 2008 Division of Revenue Bill.
As the Minister of Finance and Treasury we would also like to express our sincere gratitude to the select committee under the stewardship of Mr Ralane for meticulously guiding the consultative process and also for ensuring that the National Council of Provinces is able to get through this Bill.
Because of the Division of Revenue Bill, which is an annual piece of legislation, it is also possible for some of us to ensure that at the end of the day some of the provisions of the Constitution are met. Yet in many ways this is one piece of legislation which, if we were to fail to pass it in time, would cause the wheels of government to grind to a halt and would also cause undue difficulties for government.
Given the amount of time that the NCOP devotes to the Division of Revenue Bill there is no doubt that it appreciates its significance in the operations of all spheres of government. The Division of Revenue Bill is, and will continue to be, the embodiment of co-operative governance which is fundamentally important for the efficient functioning of our intergovernmental system. It is an outcome of extensive consultative processes which culminated in a meeting of the extended Cabinet which comprises of the national executive, the provincial Premiers and representatives from the organised local government.
The Bill represents a critical link between policy choices that political office bearers make and the programmes that get funded through national, provincial and local government budgets and thus implemented by various administrative arms of government to deliver a better life for all citizens of South Africa.
Although a substantial part of the Bill has remained unchanged over the last few years, some of the amendments introduced this year represent a profound change in financial governance. If implemented in their entirety, the changes will entrench transparency and should further deepen accountability for the management and utilisation of public resources within our own intergovernmental systems.
The introduction of systematic gazetting of three-year allocations for cost centres such as hospitals and schools will give the managers of these institutions certainty about the resources they are going to receive over the medium term. This should enable them to plan better and to implement the various programmes even much faster.
Similarly, the process that the Bill proposes with regard to forward planning for housing and the requirement that provincial departments of housing should agree on project and indicative allocations for future years should lay a sound basis for better human settlement planning in the periods ahead. This should allow municipalities to earmark land for housing development, to budget for and lay out infrastructure necessary to support well-integrated housing developments.
If this works, as it should, we should begin to break the stubborn apartheid spatial settlement patterns which beset many of our cities and towns today.
I am aware that the select committee would have preferred to retain the clauses relating to housing accreditation that were in the previous Acts but was, indeed, persuaded otherwise. [Interjections.] This again attests to the flexibility with which the NCOP approaches the debate on the Division of Revenue Bill.
Some of the changes contained in this year's Bill address specific concerns that the select committee brought to our attention. For instance, this Bill requires institutions and agencies that undertake to deliver on behalf of government departments to report funds they receive from departments and the actual spending on those resources.
The days of using government agencies to hide underspending are over. This fiscal dumping has come to an end. This deals with a matter of mutual interest between the National Treasury and also the National Council of Provinces.
As hon members will recall, this year's Bill allocates R115,6 billion in additional spending over the next three years, in comparison with our spending plans from a year earlier. Of the additional resources, national departments will receive R55,5 billion, provinces R45,7 billion and municipalities R14,4 billion. Schedule 1 of the Bill provides the summary of the allocation of funds to the three spheres of government, after taking account of the revisions of baselines.
Of the R611 billion budgeted for the 2008-09 financial year, national departments received R386,8 billion, which include debt serving cost of R51,2 billion, a contingency reserve of R6 billion and conditional grants to provinces and municipalities. Provinces received R199,4 billion, and R24,9 billion is also allocated to local government as per their equitable share.
Including conditional transfers, allocation to provinces will amount to R238 billion in the financial year 2008-09. The increase over the baseline for the next three years amounts to R46 billion to provide in particular for improvement in education, health, welfare and housing programmes.
This year's Bill adds R14,4 billion over baseline allocation to municipalities. This will see the local government sphere receiving a total of R152,7 billion, which includes R7,5 billion in allocation in kind over the next three years. The local government equitable share receives a further R6,5 billion over the baseline to sustain the momentum gathered over the years in the delivery of free water, electricity, sanitation to all poor households.
Municipal infrastructure related spending is also allocated an additional R7 billion over the next three years. This results in the total infrastructure transferred to municipalities totalling just under R57 billion over the next three years.
Host cities for the 2010 Fifa World Cup received further allocations to facilitate the provision of infrastructure and services related to this great competition. The Bill requires municipalities to confirm the budget for 2010 related infrastructure by June so as to facilitate the covering of this cost.
On Budget Day and during the subsequent debate on the Division of Revenue Bill in the National Assembly the Minister of Finance alluded to the challenge of misalignment between national priorities in relation to concurrent functions and provincial budgets which are suppose to give effect to these priorities.
I am aware that only yesterday the select committee held discussions with select provincial treasuries and departments of educations with a view to seeking clarity on why a substantial portion of the R2,7 billion earmarked for school infrastructure is not properly reflected in their budgets. While the discussion might not have been entirely conclusive, it is a very important and welcome development. It represents yet another positive development in the exercise of accountability within the context of our intergovernmental relations arrangement.
Now, more than ever before, provinces know that the NCOP does not merely pass a Bill that allocates the resources between the spheres, but it pays particular attention to very important detail. It checks whether the money ends up in the priorities and programmes that inform the divisions of revenues in the first place, and this is what I believe accountability is all about. For concurrent functions we need to see more of this in the future.
The Bill is also about to be passed and most processes relating to the allocation of resources are also about to be concluded. The next critical aspect in our accountability cycle kicks in, namely regular reporting on expenditure and service delivery. Again, we should applaud the Select Committee on Finance for the enthusiasm and the rigour with which it deliberates on the spending trends and service delivery performance every quarter after the publication of the Section 32 report. Provinces are aware that the threat of losing conditional grant allocations due to slow spending is real. This, I think, is a most important development that, at the end of the day, the issues of conditional grants and the ability to improve service has come into sharp focus by the NCOP and I believe that my colleagues at the provincial level are also aware of this great challenge of us needing to ensure that resources earmarked for specific activities reach those destinations. This is what gives real meaning to democracy.
We need to increasingly complement financial information with nonfinancial information so that we can always be sure about the correctness of our decisions and the value we get from each and every rand. To this end the 2008 Division of Revenue Bill will assist us by requiring more systematic reporting on nonfinancial information, albeit with some lag, of course.
As we improve the system of reporting on performance, our ability to evaluate efficiency of spending will be enhanced. We shall make more informed resource allocation decisions as required by our own mandate.
Chairperson and hon members, the allocation contained in the Bill we are debating today set a firm basis for accelerated delivery of more and better services to our people. This places our government, as a whole, provinces and municipalities in a particular position that enhances the delivery of services and improves the lives of our people. Thank you very much.
Acting Chairperson, I want to share some reflections with my colleagues.
As the Deputy Minister said, yesterday we convened a very urgent meeting. Now, in convening that meeting, we did not call the Western Cape. I want to congratulate the MEC in the Western Cape for doing the right thing. We also did not convene KwaZulu-Natal for doing the right thing. However, we did invite our colleagues in education, precisely because this is a very critical matter.
About two or three weeks ago we were told that additional funding was given to provinces, specifically for infrastructure, namely, schools, classes, etc. However, then we were also told that some of these provinces had not allocated the money. So the discussion yesterday was very, very heated. I've never seen Mr Fuzile so heated in a meeting. [Laughter.]
The meeting was very, very heated yesterday. Almost everybody was fighting. Even the members were very much heated in that meeting. It was so difficult to handle, precisely because some of the provinces denied knowing about this money. And so, for instance, when we were in Mpumalanga, the head of department in Mpumalanga denied knowing about this money. He said to us he still wanted to go and do research to find out where this money was, etc. This was discussed in his presence three or four times at the Budget Council. And, again, in that meeting in Mpumalanga - I'd never seen Mr Brown before and he is not here - he was very much heated in raising the issues in that discussion. So, we have taken a decision, therefore, that the National Treasury and the provincial treasuries must go back and trace every cent of this money.
Secondly, this money must be allocated to where it must go to, failing which it must then be withheld and be given to the Western Cape and KwaZulu- Natal for doing the right things. So, clearly there are very serious problems of hiding money somewhere in the provinces, if we are not very careful.
There is one matter we want to raise with members, because they are going to the constituencies. We were in Mpumalanga, where there is a certain municipality. I'm raising a matter that relates to section 13 of the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act, which talks about cash management and investment. Now, this municipality says to us that they need R18 million, but then they have an investment of R300 million. Yes. Now, the intention of the law is clear. The law is also clear - you invest money that you do not need immediately.
There is a general practice, therefore, in the municipalities, across the country, where, if you go through their budgets - all of them - you will find there is investment in every municipality. Now, it is not a big deal, but for us the issue is, one, that they need money now. They come before the committee and plead poverty now, yet there is money sitting in some market. The second issue is the morality of investing in the midst of massive poverty, unemployment, etc. It's a very serious matter.
As we go to the constituencies, there is a matter that we also need to check with our municipalities, in terms of the same budgets, with the focus on the capital budget versus the operational budget. In the majority of cases, operational budgets are much higher than capital budgets, but in the operational budget the biggest chunk goes to salaries. Again, in Mpumalanga, one municipality said to us that they have identified 1330 positions, and they have filled 642 positions, but the salary bill as we speak is about 45%. If the additional 700 plus positions are filled, what is it going to do to service delivery? The problem is that service delivery is going to be compromised.
The other problem that we have picked up - it's unfortunate that I'm talking about this one province - is that one municipality gave us a report but, two weeks ago, they reported something different on the same issues to the National Treasury. This is about the credibility of a budget. Members, if a budget is not credible, it poses some problems, and those problems relate to service delivery, the sustainability of the budget, and the quality of service delivery. The other thing we want to raise with you to monitor and engage on with our colleagues in the municipalities is something called a Mayor's Discretionary Fund. It's something that does not exist in the MFMA, but then our own mayors have introduced this thing in a clever manner, because it is now called "Special Projects in Mayors' Offices". The problem with this is that you are not able to do oversight on it, because it is not a particular programme. So, it is a matter that we are raising and engaging with to ensure that these tendencies do not happen.
Now, part of what we've introduced in the brand new Division of Revenue Bill is as a result of what we also saw in the last financial year. In one province - let me also name it - the Eastern Cape, the department of health has built about 60 clinics. The problem with these clinics is that there are no roads leading to them. How do you deal with those matters? It's all wasteful spending.
What we have done, therefore, in terms of the new Division of Revenue Bill, is to ensure that every project that is going to be undertaken must be in line with the Integrated Development Plans. Every project undertaken must be in line with the IDPs, so that as you do whatever projects you do, you should not parachute the projects.
We've seen this again in the Gateway to Africa. We received a report from the Eastern Cape that the department of roads is not building roads to farms. It is the department of agriculture that is doing that. When we went to Limpopo, we had the same departments under one roof. The department of roads said it was not aware that the department of agriculture was building roads. Again, it has to do with the issues of the IDP integration and proper planning.
So, I'm raising all of these things as challenges that all of us must engage with, in the context of this brand new Division of Revenue Bill, to ensure that all of this money that the Deputy Minister talks about - there is so much money that is going to municipalities and to provinces - goes to service delivery. I thank you very much. [Applause.]
Chairperson, hon members, the Eastern Cape province receives R35,9 billion in the new financial year. This provincial government receives 15% of the total transfers to all provinces. The amount of R4,6 billion which is the Eastern Cape's share constitutes conditional grants and a balance of R31,3 billion attributable to equitable share. In other words, the Eastern Cape receives 11,9% of the total conditional grant allocated to provinces.
The 2008 Division of Revenue Bill provides for increased public expenditure over the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework, focusing on programmes that reduce poverty and inequality. The budget for the Department of Education has been increased by 22,8% in the new financial year commencing in April 2008. The provincial department of education will use the additional resources to fund the following policy priorities: improvement in the conditions of service adjustment; funding for early childhood development; provision of textbooks for Grades 10, 11 and 12; infrastructure, namely school building programmes, additional funding for maintenance of schools infrastructure; and, lastly, funding for no-fee schools.
In the 2008-09 financial year, the budget of the Department of Health will increase by 20,8%. Included in this allocation are financial resources provided to continue the implementation of Project 5000, which commenced in the 2007-08 financial year. An amount has also been included in the department's allocation to boost the maintenance budget of the department.
The R294,4 million that was taken away from the provincial department in the 2007 Adjustments Estimate Budget, has also been restored and included in the additional amount provided in the department's budget. Part of the additional allocation will also fund the adjustment in the improvement of conditions of service, purchase of generators to forestall electricity disruptions in hospitals and the treatment of tuberculosis.
The budget of the Department of Social Development will increase by 56,9% in the next financial year. This will bring the department's allocation for the financial year 2008-09 to R1,4 billion. Among the expenditure items that the additional R502,3 million will fund are the following: 1,5% improvement in conditions of service adjustment; funding for occupational service dispensation; expansion of Early Childhood Development; developing of monitoring and evaluation systems; expansion of home and community based care; and provision of services to children in conflict with the law.
In addition, the R72 million that was taken away from the department in the 2007 Adjustments Estimate Budget, has been restored and included in the additional R502,3 million allocated to the department.
The budget of the Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs will increase by 15,1% in the 2008-09 financial year. The sharp increase of the department's 2008-09 allocation is attributable to the allocation of R100 million for the Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa-related projects that will be implemented in the coming financial year.
Also included in the additional allocation is an amount of R37,4 million carry-through cost for the Ugie/Maclear projects which fall under the Mhlaba District Municipality in the north eastern Cape; and R5 million to fund the planning of the provincial industrial strategy and economy-related projects, which are basically timber.
With effect from the 1 April 2008 financial year, Housing will become a fully fledged department with its own programmes and budget structures. This follows from the separation of Housing functions from Local Government and Traditional Affairs functions in the current financial year. For the 2008-09 financial year the Department of Housing will receive R1,4 billion, made up predominantly of the housing and human settlement and development. The setting-up cost and the carry-through cost of the department will be R21,6 million. The staff from Local Government and Traditional Affairs are expected to cross over with effect from 1 April 2008. The Eastern Cape provincial government declares its support for the 2008 Division of Revenue Bill without amendments. I thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, Deputy Minister, MECs in the House, my colleagues, the debate on dealing with revenue that we are having today, cannot just be regarded as an ordinary piece of legislation, because it embraces intergovernmental fiscal relations and it is one Bill that cannot be postponed or delayed.
The Constitution entitles provinces to a share of nationally raised revenue. It is divided among provinces on the basis of a provincial equitable share formula. The equitable share formula is reviewed and updated every year for the new data, taking into account the recommendations of the Financial and Fiscal Commission. For this year's budget, the structure of the formula was not changed but only updated with the data from the previous 2007 Community Survey, the 2007 Education Snap Survey, and the 2006 General Households Surveys.
The two main funding channels from the National Revenue Fund to provinces and local government are equitable shares and conditional grants. The equitable share is a block grant. Although equitable shares have no conditions attached the spending thereof is governed by national priorities. The conditional grants' aim is to enhance the delivery of specific services according to prescribed national norms.
The equitable shares are intended to strengthen provincial social services programmes that have a high impact on human development and the quality of life. The focus continues to be on public schooling, health and programmes contributing to social development. In education the focus is on scaling up Grade R, training more practitioners and the procurement of textbooks for Grades 10, 11 and 12 learners.
The provincial health budget is geared towards the reinforcement of the public health system and to ensure that it meets the needs of those who depend on it. Health allocations are set aside to mitigate TB and Aids, redesign existing facilities and to build new hospitals.
Now, with reference to the conditional grants to provinces, two changes are introduced in this 2008 Division of Revenue Bill. The changes are as follows: Firstly, the Further Education and Training College Capitalisation Grant will be phased into the provincial equitable share from 1 April this year. The programmes funded through this conditional grant will continue to receive funding, but as part of provincial departments of education's normal responsibilities. Secondly, a new transitional grant is introduced, namely, Devolution of Property Rate Fund Grant, in order to ensure that provinces take over the responsibility of paying the property rates and the municipality charges of properties that were administered by national government on their behalf.
Conditional grants remain an important part of the intergovernmental transfer system, to supplement programmes, also funded by provinces, such as infrastructure and central hospitals and also support for transition and capacity building.
On aggregate, provinces failed to spend R4,4 billion in the financial year ending 2006, and have as well failed to spend R2,4 billion during the 2007 financial year. The figures for the current financial year ending in March 2008 will soon be released.
The concerns outlined do not reveal difficulties in the intergovernmental relations. In fact, if anything at all, the marked improvement in provincial financial management and the first ever release of the three- year budget by the municipalities from 1 July 2003, are excellent demonstrations of our continually evolving intergovernmental fiscal relations. The provinces, moreover, have increased their year-on-year spending when compared with the previous financial year.
So, at this level there is no need for prophets of doom when we are confronted with new dilemmas. What is required is a consistent application of vision of our movement which is spelt out in the manifesto, so as to produce the desired outcome. The ANC, having succeeded before, has no reason why it cannot succeed now and in the future. The ANC must continue to probe national and provincial departments, thereby consolidating our national framework for social change and transformation. Some of the plausible explanations advanced for this underspending are as follows: Provinces experienced natural disasters such as floods. These unanticipated events, required that plans originally drafted before the new financial year commenced, be changed and re-crafted at short notice in the financial year - in some instances, the late approval of business plans and tenders, or the late approval of tenders and lack of a foolproof process in awarding tenders to successful bidders. The ANC supports this Bill without amendments. Thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, I really thank you very much for this opportunity to come and say what Limpopo thinks about this Division of Revenue Bill.
The main two funding channels from the National Revenue Fund to provinces and local governments are equitable shares and conditional grants. Those are the two that we usually get as provinces. The equitable shares are block grants. Although equitable shares have no conditions attached to them, the spending thereof is governed by national priorities. The conditional grant aims to enhance the delivery of specific services according to prescribed national norms.
The only thing that I'm worried about is that even if these monies are given to the provinces ...
... rena, re le ba lefapha, ga re di ?omi?e ka mokgwa wo di swanet?ego go ?omi?wa ka gona. Se se nkwi?ago bohloko ke gore ... [... we, as the department, are not utilising them the way they are supposed to be utilised. What hurts me is that ...]
... as a parent I cannot tell my child to go to the shop and buy bread, and the child comes with a cake. It's not what I said he should buy.
Maybe, as legislatures, our duties should be to ensure that we monitor this immediately as the money is despatched, whether to the municipalities or to the departments.
The thing is that we just put the money there and leave it. We wait for the Auditor-General to say that money has not been used. Immediately the Auditor-General says that this money has not been used, we stand up and start accusing the department, "Why didn't you do one, two and three?"
If quarterly reports could really be written and we are told how much has been spent and we know that if we say they should use 25%, then that 25% should really be used, not 40% and not 15% but 25%.
One is satisfied with this Division of Revenue Bill but the only thing that I'm looking at, hon Deputy Minister, is Limpopo. We are still worried about it. You are giving us too little money.
Look at the people who are coming across our borders, especially since we are seen as a gateway to Africa. Those Africans, when they come down here, end up in our province first and then they stay there for many years before going to the rest of the country.
So, while you are dishing out money, please make sure that you give us more than the other provinces, more than Gauteng and the Western Cape. [Applause.] The amount of R3,2 billion, which is Limpopo's share, constitutes conditional grants and the balance of R25,9 billion is attributable to the equitable share, in other words, Limpopo receives 8,19% of the total conditional grants allocated to the provinces. As I have already said, this is really too little. If we were given maybe 45% of that, it would have been alright.
With reference to the conditional advance to provinces, two changes are introduced in the 2008 Division of Revenue Bill. The changes are as follows: The FET College Recapitalisation Grant will be phased into the provincial equitable share from 1 April 2009; and the programmes funded through this conditional grant will continue to receive funding as part of provincial departments of education's normal responsibilities.
A new transitional grant is introduced, namely, the Devolution of Property Rates Fund Grant, in order to make sure provinces take over responsibilities of paying the properties rates and municipalities changes of properties that were administered by the national government on their behalf.
Conditional grants remain an important part of the intergovernmental transfer system. Conditional grants provide supplementary programmes that are also funded by provinces, for example, infrastructure, central hospitals and clinics.
I was listening to the chairperson saying that in one province 60 clinics were built and there are no roads to go to those clinics. How do we use such clinics if we don't have roads? If ambulances are to go and pick up people from such clinics, how do they get there? Do we carry the people to the main road and wait for the ambulance to come there two hours later? People will just die while they are waiting for that.
While the Division of Revenue Bill strengthens an arrangement of programmes in social development, incrementally achieving the socio-economic rise affirmed in our Constitution, the mere allocation of financial resources to this project is not the only precondition for the elimination of poverty. It requires, among others, vigilant oversight by public representatives in order to ensure the possibility of accepted outcomes.
As I was saying, let's ensure that whenever we dish out money, we go and see what people have done with that money. What is it that they did with the money? They will have to send you a report to tell you what they have used the money for. Did they spend it on toilet paper that costs a R100 per roll? Is it on the pencils that they have bought for R15 or R20? And we still say nothing. We are satisfied because they bought that. It's there on paper but when you go to their offices and ask to see what they have bought, they are never able to show you.
This oversight responsibility calls for an examination of performance against measurable objectives and, more importantly, against performance of the financial allocations in the past financial year.
Reports submitted by departments and municipalities must not leave information to the imagination of the reader. I mean, I cannot just imagine that they have bought something and believe that what they tell me is true.
Chairperson, raising questions and tabling of discussions on matters of importance in the NCOP and the legislatures are effective mechanisms for enhancing parliamentary democracy and for exercising oversight responsibilities.
Parliamentary questions are important instruments for monitoring the performance of national and provincial Ministries and municipalities and for providing an essential check on the activities of the various spheres of government.
The convening of public hearings is a crucial exercise in monitoring the spending patterns of provinces through public hearings. It's either through the NCOP or the legislatures and the use of questions and replies in the NCOP or legislatures that members will ensure that regular inspection of budgets and expenditures occur. This active monitoring of budgets and expenditure at regular intervals would timeously assist in detecting expenditure that is at variance with approved plans of national and provincial departments and municipalities.
The regular inspection of expenditure against an approved budget is essential to detect, for example, whether expenditure exceeded any approved limits. This will show us that these people were given R100 but they said that they have used R300. Where did they get the R200 from?
What the chairperson is saying is that a municipality needs R18 million a go but they've got R300 million stashed somewhere. Why don't they apply for that and use the R18 million instead of asking money from the National Treasury?
Chairperson, the Limpopo legislature found that the Division of Revenue Bill complies with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. The Division of the Revenue Bill is very clear on the allocations made to the province and local spheres of government and what the municipalities in the province will be receiving in terms of the schedules of the Bill. Those are the people that we really should go to and check on to establish what is it that they are doing with the monies that are given to them. They can collect those rates and taxes, but they are not being used as they are supposed to.
There is underspending of the equitable share and the conditional grants by most of the departments. The Bill also introduces a new transitional grant, namely, the Devolution of Property Rate Funds Grant.
In conclusion, the Limpopo province would recommend and support this Bill. Thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]
Acting Chairperson, Deputy Minister and members, the Division of Revenue Bill for 2008 was tabled in a very different climate to that in which these Bills have been tabled previously.
South Africa, in 2008, has an environment of high inflation, high interest rates, slipping consumer and business confidence and increased market volatility. Given that particular landscape, we believe the Minister has responded well to the challenges before us, by announcing a Budget with a cautionary tone that we should all heed, but a Budget that, nonetheless, increases equitable shares quite significantly, as well as considerable increases in conditional grants to both provincial and local governments.
As members of this House are well aware, the DA has long championed the belief that services are best delivered when they are closer to the people. That is why we defended strong provinces during the constitutional negotiations and why we continue to do so today. It is therefore pleasing to see that the 2008 division of revenue sees a significant redirection of funds away from national government to the local and provincial spheres. Over the medium term, local government's share of total national revenue will rise to 8,3%, up from this year's figure of 7,6%. The rise is even more marked at provincial level. We were also pleased to see 15,3% and 20,3% increases in the equitable share for provinces and local government respectively.
It is also encouraging to see that government is taking the need to invest in infrastructure seriously and recognising its importance in the growth of our economy. Infrastructure is the backbone of our economy and investments such as the additional R2,7 billion for school infrastructure are most welcome.
However, there are some important points of concern on which we need to focus. Firstly, we need to raise serious concern about the chronic underspending of many provincial departments. Although third quarter expenditure was slightly improved this year, departments are still persistently failing to meet their expenditure targets. This means that services are not being delivered to the poor, those most needy of reliable delivery, whether it be in the provision of water, nutrition for their children, clinics or roads, which are vital for the success of businesses and, of course, schooling.
In hearings, expenditure failures are often attributed to the now-clichd lack of capacity. It was therefore most heartening to hear an MEC from the Northern Province yesterday quite candidly declare that lack of capacity is a euphemistic excuse for rank incompetence. Consequently, worthy programmes such as the school nutrition programme cannot be extended until provinces show that they can deliver on their present allocations. Provincial departments must stop hiding behind these kinds of excuses and begin to accept full accountability for missed targets. Stricter and more rigorous monitoring must also be enforced. We need to be able to identify problem areas with departments and intervene before the reporting date, not after the event. What we need to do is prevent underspending by intervening proactively instead of punishing retroactively.
Secondly, we have noticed for several years now that the ability of civil society, of political parties and of Parliament and indeed of citizens to engage with the Budget process is limited at best. The Treasury employs huge amounts of resources in developing and marketing the Budget, resources which those other stakeholders cannot match. Participation in the Budget process therefore tends to take government's position on certain key budgetary debates for granted. The budgetary process is sometimes rushed to fit in with Parliament's programme, to the extent that there is not enough public participation or opportunity to really influence the Budget. This, to a certain extent, limits debate and the accountability role of Parliament and of our citizens.
Statistics South Africa is busy determining our national definition of poverty, ...
Hon member, there is a point of order. Is there any point of order?
Is she prepared to take a question?
No, I am not.
Take your seat, hon member. She said she can't take a question.
... a definition which will have a massive material impact on the way the Budget is prepared and divided, and yet, even respected civil society groups such as the Black Sash, who work in poor communities across South Africa, have not adequately been consulted. We renew our call for the Budget to be demystified. The Treasury cannot reply to the comments of the committee or the provincial delegations with simple one-line responses, which tend to state things as a matter of fact, not as a matter of deeper debate.
Finally, although not directly related to the division of revenue, we note the support given by the National Treasury to the process of housing accreditation to competent municipalities. The multiparty government in the Cape Town Metro has proven that they are amply capable of delivering high- quality housing in quantity, yet their application for accreditation has not been responded to by the provincial department. Again, it is the poor who suffer when the government drags its feet.
I agree with hon Sogoni that clause 39(3) of the Bill is not adequate, as the Treasury argues, in ensuring that those municipalities which have demonstrated the ability to deliver housing are able to do so. We therefore support the Treasury's call for the Department of Housing to provide us with a detailed timeline of when competent municipalities will be accredited.
In conclusion, it was Thomas Jefferson who once wrote ... The DA supports the Division of Revenue Bill. [Applause.]
Chairperson, Deputy Minister and members of the House, when addressing the nation on the occasion of the opening of Parliament on 8 February 2008, our President Thabo Mbeki called on the nation to rally together and unite in the spirit of ``Business Unusual''. He said, and I quote:
More than at any other time, the situation that confronts our nation and country, and the tasks we have set ourselves, demand that we inspire and organise all our people to act together as one, to do all the things that have to be done, understanding that in a very real sense, all of us, together, hold our own future in our own hands!
It gives me great pleasure today to respond and make an input to the Budget Speech of the hon Minister of Finance, Mr Trevor Manuel, which he delivered in the recent past.
In crafting the Budget that he was to deliver before Parliament, the hon Minister must have been ruminating on the words of the President, and therefore decided to deliver a Budget that will show that we have our own future in our own hands.
The hon Minister has mentioned that our key economic policies are anchored in solid mooring for our economic progress. He has also said that we follow a prudent fiscal stance which may enable us to withstand the turbulence that he foresees in the future. With those words, the Minister delivered a very optimistic but cautious Budget to the nation which is very poor- friendly. In his own words, the hon Minister said, and I quote:
Our sound footing will enable us to grow at a faster pace, and generate the resources to broaden participation and improve the lives of all South Africans progressively and sustainably.
The Budget that has been presented by the hon Minister fully encapsulates the aspirations and ideas of the President of the country, and indeed the wishes of the people of the country. It is precisely the type of economic growth that the hon Minister foresees that will enable the government to achieve its goal of empowering all of our people to rise from the ashes of poverty and unemployment.
When we met as the ANC in Polokwane at the end of 2007, we reaffirmed to ourselves that the noble aim of the NDR, namely fighting poverty, defeating mass unemployment and creating a more equal society, will be achieved through the correct management of the finances of the country, Deputy Minister. Our belief has not been in vain because the hon Minister has improved on the following: There is a significant increase in social expenditure, especially health and education. There are increased allocations in social security, increased support in basic services, and more allocations in support of public works programmes.
But, amid all the euphoria of a Budget that is poor-friendly and amid all the excitement of a Budget that is meeting our expectations as a nation, the hon Minister has warned of turbulent times ahead. He has said so by saying that ``The course ahead will be somewhat tougher.'' It will be during those times that we will need each other for support. Therefore all of us, the employed and the unemployed, the public and the private sector, would need to heed the words of the hon Minister when he says:
During periods of uncertainty, it is important that we keep focused on the things required to raise long-term growth. The circumstances call to each one of us to do more, to act with greater determination and to act together ... Our investments in physical infrastructure, education and skills, research and development, fighting crime and contributing to regional peace are aimed at improving our growth prospects and broadening opportunity, so that when the storm abates, we will grow even faster, with more equitable outcomes.
Our unemployment figures are too high, Deputy Minister. For as long as we do not create jobs, our people will be poor. Poverty is the handmaiden of many ills that can occur in our society. It will therefore undo the many good things that we can achieve with the Budget that the Minister has passed. It is for that reason that at the Polokwane Conference, at the end of 2007, we resolved that answering the challenges of unemployment, poverty and inequality means that we must simultaneously accelerate economic growth and transform the quality of that growth.
Our most effective weapon in the campaign against poverty is the creation of decent work, and creating work requires faster economic growth. Moreover, the challenges of poverty and inequality require that accelerated growth take place in the context of an effective strategy of redistribution that builds a new and more equitable growth path. On the matter of grants - as Mpumalanga, we are also culprits, because we have discovered that a number of our departments are not using the grants accordingly - as the committee and as the chair of that committee, we are going to make sure that we continue to monitor the departments.
We learnt, when the select committee visited us, that there are a lot of problems even as far as the municipalities are concerned, but their visit assisted us very much, because we now know that those who they have called in have a lot of problems. It shows us that others that have not been called by the select committee have also got a number of problems. That is why I am saying that we are going to make sure, as the committee in Mpumalanga, that we address the problems that are there. We will also make sure that the discretionary funds that are there are accounted for.
We appreciate that the monies allocated to the province will also be able to assist us because, as Mpumalanga, we are focusing on five major projects for the following years: the Maputo Developmemt Corridor, the Moloto Development Corridor, the Water for All Programme, and the Greening Mpumalanga and Tourism initiatives. The rest of the money that is being allocated to us is going to assist us in making sure that we take these projects forward.
We believe that we are also going to be able to address issues raised by our people during our public hearings because people - like those from Limpopo - have complained about the inequitable allocation of grants that we are getting, because we were able to understand, as Mpumalanga, why we are getting fewer grants, which is because we don't have the other specialising hospitals. However, we still have to report that people are feeling that the money is too little, Deputy Minister.
They are also feeling that the slow process of land restitution is impacting greatly on a number of people in a number of districts in our province, because the white people are now starting to do whatever they want about our people. So we are saying, if the process can be fast-tracked so that our people can get the better life that we are talking about, it would be very much appreciated.
We also appreciate the allocation for 2010 because we have started, in my province, with the fan parks. We are getting people ready for 2010. We take them now and then to the stadiums to make sure that they support the teams that are there.
Awu, komasipala bakithi, sithembisile-ke ukuthi sizokwenza isiqiniseko sokuthi kuyalunga. [Municipalities are not doing well, but we have promised to ensure that things get better.]
Chairperson, let me thank you for the time that you have given me. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Chairperson, the Bill before the Council today divides national revenue between the three levels of government. In total, the Bill provides for R199 billion to be transferred to the provinces and R24 billion to be transferred to the local authorities. The IFP welcomes the increased allocations to these two levels of government, and we really thank the Minister and the Deputy Minister of Finance for being so helpful.
Much as the Budget may be good, it is a reality, however, that service delivery does not reach the poorest of the poor in the rural areas. We need more interventions from the relevant authorities, including us, to ensure that spending is stepped up and we need closer monitoring to ensure that allocations are in fact translated into basic services, improved infrastructure and other improvements in people's daily lives.
The Northern Cape and North West are commended for including amakhosi and traditional areas in the IDPs, which are the lowest structures to cater for villages. In this way, people's needs in rural areas will be accommodated and provincial treasuries will be able to capture that.
Let all villages in South Africa be listed and accommodated in the Budget so that poor people, who have the greatest need, benefit from it. A good example is the uThungulu District Municipality which requires R3 billion for water development and delivery because of its topography. It has mountains and hills and all that. So, quite a lot of money is needed.
South Africa cannot be a truly developmental state if it is not able to address shortages of electricity. Budget provision of R60 billion is crucial to rescue Eskom, but ordinary South Africans should not be further punished for failures of government or for a lack of vision. To expect South Africans to bear the brunt of an almost 60% increase in electricity tariffs will not assist in the war against poverty.
The generation of energy from other sources has to be fast-tracked so that Eskom can concentrate on industries.
Likewise electricity remains a priority in rural areas. Presently, every household has a cellular phone that needs to be charged. In some areas, it means travelling 50 km to town just to recharge a cellular phone. Other means of energy for cooking and lighting, e.g. gas and solar system, may be available. But then I discovered that the cellular phone issue is rather baffling. Those cellular phones are the means of communicating with clinics and hospitals, requesting ambulances and the police for crime situations. So, cellular phone charging has become a big issue in poor rural communities.
The Department for Agriculture and Land Affairs could help to reduce the poverty situation through the proper use of land. Thus the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme grant has to be pro-poor and properly spent. And we are grateful that there has been an increase also in that grant.
Farmers' associations or clubs need to be assisted by agricultural extension officers on the ground in order to speed up small door-sized gardens in households and community gardens. Service delivery should not wait for MECs when extension officers are there to perform such menial jobs.
Co-operatives are ready to move towards commercial farming, but for now that has proved to be a disaster. This House proudly visited the Phezukomkhono Co-operative Farm in KwaZulu-Natal in 2006. The farm appeared to be progressing well, but today there is no sign that there was ever any agricultural activity. The KwaZulu-Natal department for agriculture is currently investigating the whole saga. Thank you. [Time expired.]
Hon Chairperson, hon Minister, hon members, the Constitution requires that nationally raised revenue must be evenly shared between national, provincial and local government and that this must be in line with their respective functions and fiscal competence. As we already know, these allocations, together with conditional grants to provinces and municipalities, are set out in the Division of Revenue Bill.
The ACDP would like to applaud the revenue authorities for collecting R15 billion more than the projected budget and target, with revenue estimated up to R580 billion for 2007-08.
Apart from the debt service costs and the contingency reserve, the allocated expenditure that is to be shared between the three spheres over each of the MTEF years are R552,9 billion, R618,5 billion and R673,5 billion.
The ACDP welcomes the increased allocations for provinces as there is a huge need for the improvement of education, public health care, welfare and housing programmes, as well as investment in roads, economic projects and tourism, agriculture and job creation under the Expanded Public Works Programme.
The ACDP shares the concerns of government regarding the capacity constraints. There is a vast lack of qualified employees in this country, especially engineers. We need to train, equip and educate more engineers and, in the short-term, bring back retired engineers or other skilled persons who can fill the gap.
The ACDP hopes that the public sector wage agreement and the occupation- specific dispensations for educators, social workers and nurses will attract and retain personnel in those sectors.
Additionally, the ACDP notes that there has been an increase in health personnel of 39 600 over the past four years and that a further 25 000 posts will be filled by 2010, which we are very happy with.
Provinces will also spend R18 billion over three years on school infrastructure and equipment - and we pray that this will go a long way to eliminating unsafe schools.
The ACDP trusts that these added allocations will allow municipalities to improve and speed up service delivery and to position host cities to meet obligations of the 2010 FIFA World Cup.
Finally, the ACDP shares the sentiment of the hon Minister that we are in this together and that we have a responsibility to ensure that the allocated funds attain the stated goals. The ACDP supports this Bill. [Applause.]
Chairperson, the Western Cape supports the Division of Revenue Bill, 2008. Two issues were dealt with in the report to the NCOP, but seemingly it was misunderstood and I will address it here and now. Both these issues have since been discussed with the National Treasury and were more or less resolved.
Firstly, the Bill does not provide provinces with the powers to withhold provincial transfers to municipalities if a municipality does not comply with the conditions of the transfer, similar to what is provided for at a national level in clause 25 of the Bill.
Provinces could thus not stop allocations to municipalities in the event of a major breach of the conditions of a transfer, or when a municipality does not spend the money. In the absence of a legislative framework there were no measures enabling provinces to withhold and possibly reallocate these funds. Underspending, which constitutes nondelivery of services, could thus not adequately be addressed.
Hon members, we don't want to take away the autonomy of local municipalities - that is not the idea. But, we are going to do what the hon chairperson of the committee says we must do, align our spending so that we don't build a clinic and then not fix the road, we should not work in silos in terms of our departments, and in terms of local municipalities and the provinces. We would have the tools to actually hold municipalities accountable in the same way that National Treasury holds the provinces accountable and every department holds us accountable. This is public finance: It does not belong to any party or any individual but to the people that we want to serve - that is what we are trying to do.
We are trying to negate the possibility of nondelivery of services. The Western Cape has included the authority to withhold provincial transfers to municipalities in our Western Cape Appropriation Bill 2008, similar to the clauses in the Division of Revenue Bill. National Treasury has subsequently indicated that they are in agreement with this inclusion in the Appropriation Act of the province.
Our second recommendation is related to clause 28, and that was the unspent conditional allocations. Given the fact that the unspent cash pertaining to these allocations are normally available within the provincial revenue funds, and in order to streamline the roll-over approval and subsequent timely spending processes within provinces, it was recommended that clause 28 be amended to enable provincial treasuries to approve such roll-overs.
A further proposal was made that the uncommitted, unspent, conditional allocations be surrendered to the National Revenue Fund by 31 August each year, one month after the Auditor-General has completed its audit.
It is noted that the timeframes for processing the Bill is perhaps too advanced to consider such amendments and thus the Western Cape proposes to address the unspent conditional allocations clause at a technical level through the Technical Committee on Finance with regard to the implementation of this particular clause.
The national Minister of Finance, Mr Manuel always asks the question: What does this Budget buy? The Western Cape has had R24 billion to spend during this financial year. We've managed to spend R1,4 and R1,5 billion respectively, in addition, on health and education. We managed to increase the housing budget to R1,2 billion.
I can go on and tell you that we have managed to ensure that R275 million will be spent on early childhood development. I can tell you that the budget has shifted from 74% for health, social service and education and to 26% on all the other sectors. But that is not the point - it is not what this budget buys but it is the quality of spending.
We really have to collectively think about the quality of the spending we have within our communities, whether it is the quality spending on housing or education. We are spending a large sum of money - we spent R9 billion in our province on education. The province does have a relatively good education plan and good outcomes in terms of education. But, is that for all the students and peoples of the Western Cape? Are ordinary black, girl- children and rural children getting the same kind of education that we get in the leafy suburbs? And for me that is a big question. How do we spend that money equitably? What are the resources that we use to make sure that we monitor and evaluate how we spend that money?
So, it is not about the fact that we increased the housing budget but how we are spending that budget. What is the relationship between the largest municipality in the Western Cape and the provincial government to making sure that we spend collectively and that not everything becomes a political issue?
I wanted to come here today and say that I support the hon member Robinson. You see, hon members, the difficulty for me is the issue of capacity. It does not just rest with the provinces, it also rests with the municipalities. In fact, we had a situation on 28 February this year, where 21% was spent on capital budget to buy in the city and 43% or 44% was spent on the operating budget. [Interjections.]
We may easily politicise this thing but I think the big issue is, how do we make sure that we strengthen the levels and the spheres of government so that we are able to impact on our people's lives efficiently and effectively as it should be a quality delivery.
So, it is evident that our concerns have been addressed in the one instance and can be addressed at a technical level in the other. For this reason, the Western Cape supports the Division of Revenue Bill.
From our side in the Western Cape, I want to express our absolute thanks to the Minister and the Deputy Minister for the Treasury staff at a national level - just for being able to hold hands and trying to make it better for every one in our provinces.
The chairperson of the select committee cannot believe how terrified we are of him in the provinces. [Laughter.] I like it. When we have to come to the select committee, we scatter; the departments talk to me and phone me late at night, before they have to come here. The point I am making is that unless our institutions are as effective as that we will never do the things that we are expected to do, that is, to provide a better quality of life for our people. Thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, Deputy Ministers, MEC, comrades and friends, in my previous life I used to recruit others. I myself was never really recruited. I appreciate being recruited sometimes. But I do not want people to distort what I say in meetings.
I really liked the hon Robertson's input, except for one issue - which was about accreditation. I think the hon Robertson will know that the previous Division of Revenue Bill used that clause of accreditation. However, we need to ask ourselves whether that clause of accreditation has really assisted us in terms of what we wanted to achieve there, whether it has delivered or not. That is, if we are suggesting that it must come back. I just want to refer the hon member to some of the clauses that take care of this. Clause 10(6) of the Division of Revenue Bill says the National Transferring Officer must evaluate the performance of programmes funded or partially funded by allocation and submit such evaluations to National Treasury - that is in respect of the province four months after the end of the financial year, and in respect of the municipalities. It also says in clause 11(3) that the receiving officer in a province must submit, as part of the report required in terms of section 44(4)(c) of the Public Finance Management Act, reports to the relevant provincial treasury on spending and performance against programmes.
Clause 12(2) says a report by a province in terms of subsection 1(a) must set out for that month and for that financial year up to the end of that month the amount received by the province, the amount of funds stopped or withheld from the province and the actual expenditure by the province in respect of a Schedule 5 allocation.
Let us consider clause 39, which is about the planning. It says from October the receiving officer of an infrastructure grant to provinces must, by 30 June 2008, submit detailed infrastructural plans in a format determined by National Treasury to the provincial treasury. There is no need for us to panic about the fact that the particular clause is in there. There are checks and balances. This one will say if a municipality or an entity has to receive these funds it must produce proof that it can spend and that it has expended those funds. In this case, that clause did not really assist us. That is why, for us, it is not really an issue.
Hon Mrs Mchunu is saying that in the rural areas there is a great need for cellular phones. Well, I think it is a good thing that people should have cellular phones. I think we do applaud her. However, we are not looking at the other side. We have the cellular phones and there are no Telkom landlines in those rural areas which do not have access to computer and other things. In other words, we are encouraging continued deprivation of the rural communities of access to computers. I am not sure if that is what we want to support here, but surely the ANC will not support the continued deprivation of our communities in the rural areas.
The MEC says the people in the rural areas must have the same access to resources as those people in the urban areas who have access to both cellular phones and landlines. I think that is the problem which some of us do not look at in its broader context.
What I would like to add is that municipalities are at the coalface of service delivery. The community survey released by Statistics South Africa in October 2007 indicated that 89% of households had access to water from the end of February 2007 as compared to only 62% in 1994. Another 89% today have access to sanitation, that was from the end of February 2007, as compared to only 50% in 1994, whereas at the end of February 2007 we were speaking of 87% which had access. Again, 80% also have access to electricity today as compared to 51% in 1999.
Chairperson, before you tell me that my time has expired, it is important to indicate that the ANC supports this Bill, and would like to urge this House to support it in order to ensure that our people in the rural areas also have access to quality service delivery. I thank you.
Chairperson, one of the things that we learnt from the Eastern philosophers is, basically, doing more with less. That is the ingenuity of people. The second aspect of it is winning wars without fighting. I think the Ministers of Finance, globally, have been striving throughout the ages to basically understand this genius of doing more with less. That is one of the things you will see in every budget, because there is never ever enough for everything.
In fact, those of us who have read the Bible, who are of Christian faith, would understand that it is through the miracle of the seven loaves and two pieces of fish that the multitudes were fed. Hence it is called a miracle. Those are some of the things that we should understand. How do we ensure that departments and government entities at different spheres are able to do more with less? Hence there is this issue around value for money.
A number of hon members have raised the whole issue of whether we are spending properly. My colleague from the Western Cape, MEC Brown, basically raised this issue that if we allocate resources to administer or provide services, are we really able to monitor and ensure that the policies of this government are fulfilled through that spending? This is one of the biggest tasks confronting Parliament in general, but specifically the NCOP. As you said earlier on, the NCOP has acquitted itself very well in ensuring that the issue is value for money.
I also want to talk a little bit about the issues around conditional grants. I had the honour and the rare opportunity to serve on two sides of the spectrum. I was MEC of Finance and Economic Affairs in Gauteng for 10 years and now I have the honour of being the Deputy Minister of Finance. The issue of conditional grants has always been an issue that is characterised by a whole range of debates and tension, tension from the provinces that ask why it is that we prescribe around the whole issue of the detail, in terms of administration of spending and also of administering these conditional grants. Because I have had the opportunity of being on the other side of the spectrum, I understand that one of the instruments, as the members of the NCOP have indicated, of ensuring that there is targeted spending is to deal with specific priorities of government at any given period. This is one such instrument to ensure that we are able to earmark certain resources for specific activities and for specific service delivery functions. That is one of the key things of these conditional grants, but the debate and the discussions around the best way of administering these conditional grants is indeed an ongoing matter.
I was quite taken aback by the example mentioned by hon Mchunu around the rural areas. One of the things from her input that clearly indicates that times are changing and that the digital age is upon us, is the whole issue around the importance of connectivity. We should not undermine that. It means people are able to reach family and friends wherever they are, because they move around with this connectivity in their pockets. Hence it becomes a priority to charge that connectivity.
It is one of the challenges that the hon Sogoni also indicated, that the key thing is that there is this competition between fixed lines and wireless connections. It is a big competition that Telkom is confronting. At the end of the day, even with my computer, I no longer need a fixed line to access the Internet. This is a big competition. In fact, in the rural areas you will find that the wireless connections are much more cost- effective than fixed lines. That is one of the things I think our key parastatals are looking at.
I have no quarrel with the issues raised by the hon Ms Robinson. You did, however, raise the important issue of increasing public participation in the Budget process. It is indeed important, but I just want to remind everyone what it is that we do in the National Treasury to increase this public participation: Firstly, there is Tips for Trevor, to ensure that more and more ordinary citizens are able to write to the Minister of Finance about their ideas. We all know that the Minister of Finance draws inspiration and also takes some of these written submissions quite seriously. In all his Budget Speeches he makes specific reference to Tips for Trevor.
Secondly, one of the most important engagements is engaging with the representatives of the people. Those are found in the NA and in the NCOP. Our democracy assumes that Members of Parliament basically represent beyond just themselves. They represent the inspirations, the fears and dreams of our people. Hence, when the Budget is debated in the NA or in the NCOP, it is an important engagement with our people, not just with a few members who sit around on benches. Broadly, they also represent a specific constituency out there. That is an important mechanism.
Thirdly, there is our engagement with Nedlac. Nedlac is a forum where labour and government meet. That is where we engage with a whole range of stakeholders and with the community to deal with Budget matters. Therefore, I would like to ask a question, because it is also in the interests, of government to increase this public participation: What else do we need to do, given the time limitations that we have? That is one of the things that are important to do, so that when we make a recommendation it is also important to come up with possible solutions. We are always open to deal with the issues that are raised. It is through "Siyimbumba". [We are one.]
My colleague from Mpumalanga raised an issue around the fact that too few farms are allocated. That is why I am saying it is an issue of seven loaves. One of the things we should also be raising around the resources is to a large extent an ability to prioritise and also to ensure that the little resources that we have, have the biggest of impacts and also understanding our own specific circumstances. Hence it is our view that, at the provincial level, that is, when we talk about the provincial needs, the provincial sphere is quite important in dealing with some of these very important areas around service delivery.
I would like to thank all the members that have participated for their contributions in this debate. Without any exceptions, the Division of Revenue Bill was supported. Everybody has also supported its provisions, but also important is that that has also been informed by the deliberations in this very House. People did not just come together because they like Treasury or they like the Minister of Finance and therefore we support whatever he says and what he provides. It is because this House has interacted with the different spheres of government and developed an in- depth understanding, through its own oversight, in terms of what needs to be done and what it is in this Division of Revenue Bill that seeks to address the most important question: improving the lives of our people. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
That concludes the debate. I shall now put the question. The question is that the Bill be agreed to. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces' votes.
In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces an opportunity to make their declarations of vote if they so wish. We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they are voting in favour or against, or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?
Eastern Cape supports.
Free State?
Supports.
Gauteng?
Siyaxhasa. [We support.]
KwaZulu-Natal?
In favour.
Limpopo?
Ondersteun. [We support.]
Mpumalanga?
Mpumalanga supports.
Northern Cape?
Supports.
North West?
Ke ya rona. [We support.]
Western Cape?
Ondersteun. [We support.]
All provinces have voted in favour. I therefore declare the Bill agreed to in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.
Thank you, Deputy Minister, but we are still proceeding with the business of the day. You may sit and observe our proceedings, as we appreciate you presence, but if you are forced by circumstances, you are free to leave. Thank you very much.