T Manuel: Finance Budget Vote, NCOP

14 June 2006

On 28 March this year, the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) adopted the
2006 Division of Revenue Bill in Kuruman during its initiative of “taking
Parliament to the People”. We refer to that occasion because the Division of
Revenue Bill is not only a concrete expression of cooperative relations between
our three spheres of government but it also establishes an important link
between the national Appropriation Bill we are debating today and the
provincial budgets.

The House will recall that schedule one of the Division of Revenue Act sets
out the share of each sphere of nationally raised revenue. It is not a mistake
that the schedule shows conditional grants to provinces as part of the national
share. Strictly speaking, conditional grants are national money. The same
conditional grants get appropriated on national and provincial votes of the
relevant departments.

In the 2006 Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) R85 billion is
allocated to provinces in the form of conditional grants. Of this amount:

* R32 billion is allocated to health for a range of programmes including the
training of various health professionals and general spending on tertiary
health services
* R23 billion is for low cost housing
* R15 billion, which is allocated via the Treasury Vote, is for stepping up
general infrastructure programmes in education, health, roads and
agriculture
* R7 billion is for transport infrastructure: the Gautrain
* R5,8 billion is for education: the school nutrition programme and the
recapitalisation of Further Education and Training Colleges
* R1,3 billion is for agricultural programmes such as farmer support for
emerging farmers under the umbrella of the Comprehensive Agricultural Support
Programme (CASP).

The programmes that we are funding through earmarked national allocations
(conditional grants) are undoubtedly some of the priority programmes in our
government’s Programmes of Action. These are programmes that are at the heart
of the progressive realisation of a better life for all. That is why we elected
to fund them the way we do. That is why we have chosen to have joint
responsibility for their oversight. This House, working closely with provinces,
has a duty to ensure that the outputs and outcomes of these programmes are
realised. Failure in this regard is not an option.

Honourable Members, it is important that when we challenge each other to do
better, we never lose sight of commending ourselves when we do well. The
hearings of the Select Committee on Finance on the section 32 quarterly reports
are commendable. They are a good example of what Parliament can do within the
legal framework and the information generated within our system of governance
to exercise its legitimate oversight role. The Honourable Ralane would agree
that this process has come a long way to become what it is today. In the
initial stages we used to debate about the accuracy or otherwise of the data
contained in the reports. Some departments would even attempt to use the forum
to ask for more money or “to plead poverty” to quote Honourable Ralane. But in
recent times all participants have come to accept that the hearings are about
accounting for the use of resources and performance. Honourable Ralane and
other Members of the Select Committee keep up the good work.

Honourable Members, I have taken time to explain why it is important for the
appropriation Bill to be debated in this House because I think it is important
for us in the executives of national and provincial governments to accept that
we must be held accountable for the resources that Parliament allocates in the
Division of Revenue Act and further appropriates in this Bill.

Thank you.

Issued by: Ministry of Finance
14 June 2006