Mr Chairman, let me start, if I may, with the statement of the Minister relating to contingent liabilities. In any organisation, contingent liabilities are approved by the same entity which approves the budget, whether it's the board of directors or anything else. We, in this Parliament, have no say in contingent liabilities. We are responsible for authorising R100 worth of expenditure, but we have no say over R40-billion worth of contingent liabilities.
If one looks at the history of these contingent liabilities, more often than not they are paid by the state for the very simple reason that they are raised because the balance sheet of the SOE doesn't enable it to raise the cash on a commercial basis.
We were told by Minister Pravin Gordhan and other Ministers that the tariff increase was required by Eskom in order to have a balance sheet that would enable it to borrow. Instead, we the state are borrowing and we the state are going to be paying for it. That is the very aspect.
The second aspect, Minister, through you, Mr Chairman, is: let us respect the intelligence of the people of this House and the people of South Africa. One cannot separate from the funding stream what goes to the boiler and what goes to the chimney, and what goes to Hitachi and what goes to the other companies. This is one project in which the money is spread around.
The IFP has made a call on the ANC to do the dignified thing, which is that of divesting itself of the investment at acquisition cost, because the value of those shares today already reflects the discounted value of profits to come. How did this happen and how does it affect Parliament?
We have made a call for the Portfolio Committee on Public Enterprises to have a bite at this cherry. We have had no input, no serious discussion on the Eskom funding model despite many requests. The chairman did not allow them. [Interjections.]