Madam Chair, the Minister of Public Enterprises has today announced the downscaling or the effective closure of this controversial money-guzzling enterprise, which, after 10 years, has not yielded any significant breakthrough and for all intents and purposes was an exercise in futility. To say the least, this can be regarded as fruitless and wasteful expenditure.
The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, PBMR, was established in 1999, and Parliament was told that for an investment of R2 billion, the PBMR had the intention to develop, market and build a high-temperature reactor that would produce 400mW of power. We were also told that about four reactors would be needed to generate the equivalent of the power that Koeberg generates.
This plan was changed, and we were then told that it would now only produce 165mW, and we would need 10 reactors to generate the same power as Koeberg, at a cost of about R30 billion each. You can do the math it would be R300 billion for all 10 reactors. Compare this to a coal-fired power station that can generate 4 600mW and costs R125 billion a fraction of the cost.
For many years, the DA has been calling for its closure. The R10 billion it has cost the taxpayer would have been better spent on building 200 000 much- needed RDP houses, which would have gone a long way in addressing the housing shortage that currently exists.
The Minister tells us that the intellectual property is secured for South Africa and the future. This is not altogether true, as the knowledge that has been developed is worth little, if anything, if the critical mass of scientists to interpret it does not exist.
I am told that the critical mass of informed scientists working for the PBMR company has already resigned and opted for more lucrative positions overseas. Nothing stops them from applying there what they have learned here for the benefit of whomever is their new employer.
The investment of Westinghouse, a US-based company, must be recognised. The questions that will arise is: What will this mean in terms of the intellectual property rights? Is government going to buy their share, as they would surely have as much claim to the intellectual property that they co-funded?
Dit is dus met 'n hartseer gevoel dat ek hier staan en moet vra: Was die kool die sous werd of is dit net goed en nog 'n voorbeeld van hoe die staat geld mors en dan maar net weer verwag van die belastingbetaler om sy gordel stywer te trek en meer belasting vir sy gemors te betaal?
Dit is waarom die gewone man in die straat wat vir 'n salaris werk en belasting betaal, glo dat die regering baie geld het en dat die koevert nog lank nie leeg is nie. Daar is nie tekens van te min geld as dit by die leiers van ons land kom nie en as Ministers glo dat hulle net met duur motors die arm mense kan bedien.
Selfs die werkers in die Parlement is in opstand aangesien hulle eerstehands sien hoe daar deur die leiers met die geld gemors word. Die DA is van mening dat openbare ondernemings wat nie hul mandaat vervul nie, uitgefaseer moet word om die las op die belastingbetaler te verlig. Ek dank u. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[It is thus with a feeling of sadness that I have to ask: Was the game worth the candle, or is it just stuff and another example of how government is wasting money and then simply expecting the taxpayer to once again tighten the belt and pay more tax for its mess?
This is why the man in the street, who works for a salary and pays tax, believes that government has a lot of money and the envelope is far from empty. There are no signs of a shortage of money when it comes to the leaders of our country and when Ministers believe that they can only serve the poor when they drive expensive cars.
Even the workers in Parliament are in rebellion as they have first-hand experience of how money is wasted by the leaders. The DA is of the opinion that public enterprises that are not fulfilling their mandates should be phased out in order to relieve the burden on the taxpayer. Thank you. [Applause.]]
Chairperson, members of the executive and hon members of the fourth democratic Parliament, when Cope first came into this House, we took a conscious decision to say that we shall be a patriotic opposition, and I promise to be exactly that.
Hon Minister, ngesiXhosa undiqhokr' amadolwana. [... in isiXhosa one would say you've taken the words out of my mouth.] You have actually been able to read what I wanted to say, and you have responded to some of the issues that Cope wanted to raise. Thank you very much.
Colleagues, can I say that as Cope, we welcome the announcement by the Minister that the curtain has finally fallen on the PBMR and that the show is over. In this House, I have on numerous occasions heard members calling for alternative energy, and reference has been made to nuclear in this regard. The decision to terminate the nuclear weapons programme in the early 1990s, was met with much applause by the rest of the world, and now the PBMR leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.
With hindsight, I cannot help but to think about the scientists and experts in the various fields of nuclear who have been lost in the past and will continue to be lost going forward.
The fact that no other country has successfully used the technology should have made us pause rather than leap in as we did. In trying to be at the forefront of nuclear technology, we now have to put ourselves at the back.
China, of course, is in a different financial league to us, but the Chinese are attempting to create a prototype called HTR-10. For these reasons, the PBMR team should interact with the Tsinghua University in Beijing so that some of the scientists can continue to interrogate this technology for future use. I thank you. [Time expired.]
Chairperson, I am pleased that the Minister has taken into account the human capital invested in this programme and the amount of unemployment that will be created by the project's sudden termination. At its inception, it was projected that 57 000 people would be employed.
The Ministry of Energy, the state and the country, for that matter, can ill afford such turnarounds in policy decisions, especially when we are already so far down the road. Besides the unemployment that is going to be created by this decision, the loss of money - taxpayers' money - is going to be enormous.
As recently as October 2007, the then Minister of Finance, hon Trevor Manuel, brought before this House a special Adjustments Appropriation Bill, which was approved, wherein an additional amount of R1,8 billion was transferred to the PBMR project for operational expenses, bringing the total transfer that was being spent on this project by government since 1999 to R8,8 billion.
Notwithstanding these calamities, we are further burdened by the prospect of having no direction now in terms of our future energy sources.
We urge the Minister and her department to be absolutely certain before they commit to the next energy route that this country is going to follow. I thank you. [Time expired.]
All I can say today is vindication, vindication, and vindication! For six years in this House, I have been objecting every year to the absurd amounts of money that the government has seen fit to throw away on the PBMR.
An amount of R9 billion of taxpayers' money has been thrown at this project, even though it was clear from the international panel of economists way back in 1999 that this project would never be economically viable.
I was ridiculed for my stance from that side of the House, but today it is clear that this was a momentous waste of government's resources. That money could have been far better used to position South Africa as a leader in solar energy.
The ID therefore calls for a complete and independent forensic audit so that we can know the full extent of wastage that occurred on this misguided project. I thank you. [Applause.]
House Chairperson, the confirmation that the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, PMBR, will be downsized and its operations will be reduced to a level that allows for the active preservation of its intellectual property and assets was expected, in view of reports that 75% of the project staff had already been dismissed.
We are sad to hear that no measures are in place to ensure the skills of those who are retrenched are not lost to our economy.
The ACDP would not like to see a further R30 billion spent on this failed project, but a staggering R10 billion has been spent with nothing substantial to show for it - a waste. Much still needs to be explained: things like conflicts of interests; accounting for taxpayers' money spent; and the rehabilitation of PBMR staff. We hope this will not be swept under the carpet in the downsizing of this project.
Hon Minister, where to after 2013? What is the plan? A lot of money has been and continues to be spent. What do the people have to show for it? Are you attempting in this instance to justify the original decision for the excessive spending or are we about to investigate why the decision was taken in the first place? Thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Chairperson, the ANC supports the decision by government to downsize the PBMR. [Interjections.]
Order, please!
We acknowledge the fact that this was by no means an easy decision to make; yet we should equally recognise that a decision to the contrary would have been worse for the entity, its employees and the country as a whole.
It's a fact that large investments have been injected into this project but with the good intentions that it would secure additional investments and a customer for the product. Even though it has not yielded any of the two, we must acknowledge the fact that because of this initiative, South Africa was noticed in the world of the nuclear fraternity. The ANC understands how painful it is to shed jobs, especially in the current economic climate. We find ourselves in that climate and we are not happy that workers should be losing jobs. We are confident, however, that government has considered all available options and has settled on the best possible outcome.
We believe that it is good for government to continue pioneering innovative and technologically sound projects, with due diligence as a precursor. In areas where an audit is required, be it financial or technical, we think that government should provide the necessary guidance too.
As the ANC we want to acknowledge the fact that parties have welcomed the decision by the Minister. One would realise that other opposition parties would oppose for the sake of opposition, but we want to thank those who play their opposition role as parties that are part of governance. The ANC supports government's decision, once again, to rationalise or downsize this PBMR. I thank you. [Applause.]