Deputy Speaker, I would like to appreciate and welcome the generally supportive comments on the Infrastructure Development Bill from all the speakers. I think it points to the importance of infrastructure to the nation and all the political parties. The portfolio committee will clearly have an opportunity to address some of the more detailed concerns that have been raised. But I think it is worth recalling the process followed when drafting this Bill.

The Cabinet took the decision to set up a PICC. It worked as a team of Cabinet members together with provinces and local government to fast-track the existing infrastructure programme and to develop a longer-term plan. Out of this, we have learnt some enormously valuable lessons. You could say we did a test drive of how to co-ordinate best, and many of those lessons - where some of the things were done wrongly, yes, and others correctly - we have been able to still capture in the Bill. Therefore, both the processes and the structures set out what we have learnt in fast-tracking the infrastructure process over the past few years.

The hon Coleman raised the issue of skills development. It is clear to us that as we tool up for infrastructure, we also have to ensure that we have the skills base to do so. But importantly, infrastructure is not only a consumer of skills, a user of engineers and artisans. It is a very important training space; a programme that produces the nation's next generation of welders, mechanical engineers, civil engineers and project managers. We therefore see this infrastructure not just as living a legacy of ports and rail lines, but as a legacy of skills and industrialisation.

I am sure that some of the other detailed comments are to be considered in the committee. But I would like to point out to the comment made by the hon Mulder. I think that he correctly pointed to the challenge of silos - that the central crux of the Bill is integration, bringing things together by creating machinery for unified and co-ordinated decision-making.

The hon Dudley has raised the issue of risks, and I note that the Infrastructure Bill is one of a number of steps that the government has taken which, together, in our view constitutes a detailed response to the risks that we have identified. We were therefore very open about the risks some of which are covered by the Bill and others of which are covered by policies and actions in government. For example, this Bill will not deal with the risk of collusion by the private sector because the Competition Act would be the tool that we will use to address that risk. There is no clear consonance between the list of risks and the Bill, because the Bill can only deal with one part of it.

The hon Van der Westhuizen pointed out the need to ensure that we do not take away power from any sphere of government. I think we are making a point that it is not power that is being taken away but it is power that is exercised in combination; it is cutting the red tape in the public sector to ensure that we actually deliver.

The hon Ngonyama would be pleased, when he looks at section 13, to see a very detailed response to the issues of ethical governance, corruption, stiff penalties and very clear and transparent rules that would apply.

I would like to thank all the speakers for the comments that they have made, and we are looking forward to the debate continuing at the portfolio committee. Thank you. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.