Debates- Wednesday, 24th February, 2010

Printer Friendly and PDF


Wednesday, 24th February, 2010

The House met at 1430 hours







The Minister of Health (Mr Simbao): Madam Speaker, I am grateful to you for giving me permission to make a ministerial statement on microbicides to Parliament and the nation at large.

The Ministry of Health fully recognises the value of medical research in advancing the security of human health. Research generates data which, in turn, informs policy and the enactment of legislation for meeting the health needs of communities. 

The Ministry of Health is aware of the two microbicides studies that have been conducted in Zambia. The first one was in Lusaka by the Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia (CIDRZ) and the second one by the Microbicides Development Programme (MDP) in Mazabuka. Both of these studies were multi-country trials, meaning that there were simultaneously conducted in Zambia and other countries. The CIDRZ trail included the United States of America, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Malawi. MDP had sites in South Africa, Uganda and Tanzania.

What are Microbicides

Madam Speaker, microbicides are substances that have the potential to prevent sexually acquired HIV when applied in the vagina. Microbicides can take the form of a cream, pessary, sponge, foam or gel. The first products to be tested are gels which closely resemble the lubricants used with condoms.

Microbicides are still at a developmental stage. Although no proven effective products are currently available, there are several new agents in development that might be shown to protect women from HIV. There have been several types of microbicides that have gone for phase III trials. These are Carraguard, Cellulose sulphate, Buffer Gel and the last in this generation of microbicides is PRRO 2000 which was evaluated in the two studies carried out in Zambia.

Why Conduct Microbicide Research

The HIV epidemic continues to infect and kill millions of people each year. The majority of these people are African women. Women are more susceptible to acquiring HIV than men and this is why 16 per cent of women in Zambia are infected more than 12 per cent than men. Condoms used consistently prevent HIV but, also, prevent pregnancy. So an alternative is needed for couples that want to have children. A strategy for use by women will also complement male condoms which are mainly controlled by men.

Why do we need Clinical Trials

Madam Speaker, clinical trials are carefully mentored medical evaluations of new drugs. Essentially, every medicine currently in use in Zambia has been through clinical trials to prove its effectiveness. For instance, blood pressure medicines, antibiotics, ARVs, drugs for diabetes, contraceptives and panadol have all undergone clinical trials. For every effective drug that you find in the pharmacy, there have been many that failed before it. If we do not use clinical trials to evaluate a new medicine, then we are just guessing and people may be exposed to drugs that are not effective. New medicines must be very carefully evaluated before they are put into policy and used widely.

What is a Microbicides Trial?

A Microbicide trial is a carefully monitored medical evaluation of a new microbicide product. Microbicide trials are conducted in populations of women who do not have HIV at the beginning of the study, but who are at natural risk of acquiring it. In Zambia, since HIV is common in the community, many women are at risk of infection.

Microbicide trials follow up these populations to examine new infections but, at the same time, equip participants with the best ways of preventing themselves from acquiring HIV, including counseling and provision of condoms.

The Process of the Study Implementation

Madam Speaker, before the Phase III clinical trial, phases I and II trials were conducted to ensure safety of PRO-2000 in humans. Phase I trials were conducted in the United Kingdom (UK), United States of America (USA), South Africa and India between 1997 and 2004. Phase II trials were conducted from 2003 to 2004 in Uganda. The product was found to be safe and, therefore, could be evaluated in larger trials to now determine if it would be effective against HIV.

The MDP activities that were conducted in Mazabuka from 2003 to 2009 followed the following steps.

Protocol Registration and Approval

The University of Zambian Research Ethics Committee (UNZA REC) and the Pharmaceutical Regulatory Authority (PRA) reviewed and approved the study. The mandate of UNZA REC is to protect the rights of people participating in research and ensure that studies have a sound scientific basis. The study was also approved by international regulatory bodies.

Site Implementation

The community was prepared for the study by formation of the community advisory groups and meetings with the stakeholders and the local leadership. The trial started with a feasibility study in Mazabuka that was conducted between 2003 and 2005 and this was launched by the Ministry of Health. The aim of the feasibility study was to determine the rate of new infections when condoms were actively promoted as well as community understanding and acceptability of the study.

The next phase was a pilot study where placebo gel was used for four weeks. The aim was to determine the acceptability of the gel and trial procedures, especially the informed consent. This was followed by a full fledged safety and effectiveness trial which ran from July, 2006 to June, 2009 in Mazabuka. Potential participants were screened for eligibility and those who qualified were invited to participate after explaining the purpose of the study. Enrolment only commenced after determining that the participant understood and was willing to give signed consent voluntarily.

The trial recruited HIV negative sexually active women over the age of eighteen. Each participant, once enrolled into the trial, was followed up every month for a year. During follow up visits, each participant received HIV/STI risk reduction counselling, screening and treatment for STIs and were supplied with gel and condoms. The participants were also tested for HIV and screened for pregnancy. In addition, the study team provided VCT, STI screening and treatment services to male partners and community in general. In Mazabuka, 1,332 women were recruited. Across four participating countries, 9,385 participants were recruited. As I mentioned earlier, the other countries include South Africa, Uganda and Tanzania.

The trial was a double blind placebo controlled study involving three groups. One group was given 2 per cent PRO 2000, the second group was given 0.5 per cent PRO 2000 gel and the third group was given a placebo gel. “Double blind” means that neither the staff nor the participants knew who was in which group. This was chiefly to avoid bias, as staff would be tempted to give the active gel to women perceived to be at greatest risk, making the result hard to interpret. The placebo is an inert substance that is similar to the active product in all ways except for the fact that it does not have the active ingredient. This means it looks the same and feels the same. The placebo group was used as a comparison for both the 2 per cent and 0.5 per cent groups.

Safety monitoring was done through reporting of adverse events in participants to UNZA REC and PRA. The trial also had an Independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee (IDMC) which met several times each year to look at HIV infections and adverse events by treatment groups. If data showed that PRO 2000 was causing harm, the study would have been discontinued early. 


Overall, the trial showed that PRO 2000 was not effective against HIV, but it was not harmful. The HIV rate and adverse events, for example, vaginal itching, are similar amongst the three groups. Across all sites, the rate of new HIV infections in the trial was less than predicted based on the studies that occurred before the trial. However, in Mazabuka, there was no difference.

The earlier smaller trial conducted by several partners, including CIDRZ had shown that PRO 2000 was 30 per cent effective in preventing HIV. However, this was statistically significant. The MDP study, being a bigger trial, conclusively shows that PRO 2000 is not effective in preventing HIV infection.


The MDP (Mazabuka study) was funded by the UK Government through the Department for International Development and the Medical Research Council. Microbicide research in general has been funded by non-profit making organisations such as governments and charitable organisations. These include the US National Institutes of Health, the European Commission, Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) and the Gates Foundation.


The Government of Zambia believes that research is important because it provides data for policy making. Therefore, the Government supports research. The results of the MDP (Mazabuka trial) were disappointing, but the Government recognises that this large trial was conducted with high scientific and ethical standards. The researchers also engaged the stakeholders and community in which the trial was conducted. The results are clear that PRO 2000 did not work, period! However, women and their partners really liked the gels and we cannot stop here. Microbicides research should continue as well as research to find other means of protecting women from contracting HIV. Hopefully, next time the results will be positive.

Madam Speaker, clinical trials in medicines and, indeed, other trials carry some risk, but bring considerable benefits to the individuals participating as well as to the Zambian researchers who conduct them. We have a strong review process in place to minimise the risk through our national authorities and there are several examples of studies that have been rejected for good reasons. Zambia does not want to be left behind our African partners as they engage in HIV prevention research, especially as we continue to have high rates of HIV in spite of the widespread distribution of condoms.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Madam Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members are now free to ask questions on points of clarification on the ministerial statement made by the hon. Minister of Health.

Mr Nkombo (Mazabuka): Madam Speaker, I would like to know why the hon. Minister did not give an indication of how many women came out positive after the study of the 1,332 women. Why did he not give the exact number of those that came out positive? Why did he not give an indication of the educational levels of the participants of this programme because, I believe, it has a bearing on how they decided to participate or not?

Mr Simbao: Madam Speaker, in clarifying the hon. Member’s concern, I must state that the hon. Member of Parliament for Mazabuka has tried hard, in this research, to understand what exactly happened in Mazabuka and this has helped both the community in Mazabuka as well as the Ministry of Health. 

I wish to say that, a research is said to fail if there is no difference between the people who are taking a neutral drug per se or, in this case, a neutral gel and those who are using a gel with ingredients. That is how you compare. If there is no difference between the two, then you know that the gel with ingredients is not working. The rate of failure in both cases was 130. This was the same in the people who were using the gel with ingredients and those using the gel that was neutral. That is how it was seen that the gel with PRO 2000 does not work.

With regard to the educational levels, I would say that a protocol was designed and was interpreted in four languages, including Tonga. Therefore, the protocol designed in English was translated into Tonga. For those who could not understand English, a protocol in Tonga was read to them. Every participant signed that they had understood the protocol and were willing to take part in the trial.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Ms Kapata (Mandevu): Madam Speaker, the hon. Minister has told the House that the women who were engaged in the research of microbicides were all HIV negative but, along the way, forty-six of them tested HIV positive. I would like to find out from the hon. Minister whether the ones who tested HIV positive were on the placebo gel or the gel with the medicinal microbicide. The women were HIV negative from the time the research started and are now HIV positive. What measures has the Government put in place to compensate the women who have been exposed to HIV?

Mr Simbao: Madam Speaker, if the hon. Member was following, I said that the people who were invited to this trial were those at risk. The chances were that even without the trial, it could have happened. They were among the most at risk. I explained that the about the same number of ladies who were applying the gel with ingredients were infected as those who were applying the one without ingredients. It was for this reason that it was said the PRO 2000 gel was not effective.

Madam Speaker, if the number of women who were using the PRO 2000 gel was smaller than that of those using the natural PRO gel placebo, the PRO 2000 gel it would have been said that the gel was effective. However, it so happened that the number of infected women was the same as that of those using the other gel. That is how it was proven that the Pro 2000 gel was not effective. All the people who signed the consent knew that they were participating in a trial that was risky. That is why they were made to sign the consent after everything had been explained to them.

Madam Speaker, under the circumstances, the issue of compensation does not arise. However, more follow-up has to be made so that the women can be assisted through this condition they have acquired.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr C.K.B Banda, SC. (Chasefu): Madam Speaker, granted that the whole exercise was voluntary, could the hon. Minister tell us whether participants received any monetary benefits for taking part in the clinical trials. If they did, how much was it and was it also related to the distance which these participants had to cover from their places of abode to the centre and back?

Mr Simbao: Madam Speaker, there was no monetary benefit in this trial. Participants were only required to report to the centre so that tests could be done on them and, as such, the participants required transport money. Each participant was given K50,000 irrespective of where they came from. That was meant to enable them get to the centre where they were tested. Otherwise, most of them would not have made it.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mrs Phiri (Munali): Madam Speaker, if my memory serves me right, the hon. Member for Mandevu (Ms Kapata) asked the then hon. Minister of Health the effectiveness of microbicides and his answer was that they were safe to use. Going by this, I would like to find out from the Government how many of them are ready to take their wives for these trials notwithstanding the cloud surrounding the whole research.


Madam Deputy Speaker: Order! 

I must remind the hon. Members that you are representatives of the people and, therefore, must not discuss yourselves or ask questions that relate to you as individuals. The hon. Minister may respond accordingly without referring to his wife.


Mr Simbao: Madam Speaker, issues of health are very important and they should be treated as such. It is the only thing that no one can do without. If anyone of us here falls sick, it does not matter who he or she is because he or she is finished. I urge hon. Members to take issues of health very seriously. The study in medicine starts with what is called pre-clinical trials. This means that a test is conducted in a laboratory in test tubes and when it is proved that the particular drug is able to kill the germs or parasites in a test tube, then trials continue in animals and when it is proved that it is safe, then it is tried on human beings. The difference with human beings is that they take responsibility for how it is applied. Sometimes, they may not follow the instructions whereas in animals, people have to inject or insert the medicine. In the test tube, the scientist will apply the exact quantities required and then monitoring will start.

Regarding human beings, a study such as the one that took place in Mazabuka will start with a very small group of twenty to forty people and then the number will be increased from 100 to 200, then 400 to 800. In all these small trials, the test results proved promising. That is why they proceeded to Phase III of the trial. This does not mean that somebody wanted to put people at risk unnecessarily. It is just that the time had come to go into full-time trials.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Before I allow another hon. Member to ask, I must remind the hon. Members that it is not allowed for hon. Members to ask questions and leave the Chamber when the hon. Minister is responding. If you solicit for answers from the Executive, you must be there to listen and get the answers. Otherwise, it becomes meaningless and is just a game. This is for all of us to take note of.

Mr Mwiimbu (Monze Central): Madam Speaker, if I got the hon. Minister clearly, he indicated that the men and women who were under this clinical trial liked the gel that was used. In order not to mislead the public, I would like to find out what he means by the people who participated in the trial liking the gel and wanting to continue using it.

Mr Simbao: Madam Speaker, this was the response given when participants were asked how they found the gel. For the hon. Member to ask me what they meant, I think that is one of the general questions that are being asked.

Mr Muyanda: Aah!

Mr Simbao: For example, how did you feel when you put the gel? Did it give a burning sensation or did it assist in anything?


Mr Simbao: People said they liked it. That is all.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker: The answer is subject to interpretation by everybody.


Mr Chanda (Kankoyo): Madam Speaker, I would like to find out from the hon. Minister whether the results were the same in all the countries where trials were carried out?

Mr Simbao: Madam Speaker, yes. That is why it has been discontinued everywhere.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Beene (Itezhi-tezhi): Madam Speaker, Africa has more than twenty or thirty countries. Why was this Government in a hurry to accept the trials which were developed in Europe where they were never conducted on people?

Mr Simbao: Madam Speaker, I do not know if the hon. Member was following the ministerial statement. These trials where conducted in the United States of America (USA), South Africa and other microbicides were tested in the UK. PRO 2000 is the only one that has been tested in this country, but I mentioned five other microbicides which have been tried. 

Madam Speaker, why Zambia? This is because of its high incidence rate. If we are not willing to participate in these trials then we are going to have a big problem of not getting the medication that we need. Mazabuka has a 29 per cent prevalence rate compared to 14 per cent in the country.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister should not be tempted to respond to heckling. Otherwise, people will think it is normal to get a response by speaking from the chair.

Dr Scott (Lusaka Central): Madam Speaker, it is clear that the scientific approach, which I commend the hon. Minister for following as opposed to the knee-jerk reaction that initially came from the ministry, has, suffice to say, raised the suspicion that was brought out in the last question that somehow Zambians have been used as guinea pigs. Will the hon. Minister assure us that in future, he will make sure that the marked country trials that are allowed to take place here, in particular, are the same as those taking place in developed countries so that the people can be assured that there is no selectivity in the people who may be put at risk?

Mr Simbao: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. Member for that concern. To start with, I think I have explained at length that these trials were not just done here in Zambia, but in many other countries. Those who really want to follow up on this issue can read about it on the internet. The information is all there. Other trials that failed earlier include the cellulose sulphate microbicide which was not tried in Zambia, but in South Africa, Benin, Uganda, India and Nigeria. PRO 2000 is the one which has been tried here and also in South Africa and USA. So it was not just tried here. Therefore, the issue of being used as guinea pigs does not arise. 

The hon. Member of Parliament knows that every drug, and not just this one, has to undergo this kind of process. He also knows very well that there are other drugs which have been discontinued because they have ended up killing people. That is why every drug has to undergo this process. There is no one who produces a drug today and starts commercialising it there and then. No one will allow him. That is why we have the Pharmaceutical Regulation Authority here so that every drug that is accepted goes through it. I read, in my statement, that the Pharmaceutical Regulation Authority was involved in the entire process. Once it accepts this drug then it will be given to the Zambian people. However, every drug that comes into this country has to undergo trials and some of the drugs are rejected.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mrs Musokotwane (Katombola): Madam Speaker, the research failed, but the women liked the gel.


Mrs Musokotwane:  What is the way forward for the Zambian woman?

Mr Simbao: Madam Speaker, for now, the Zambian woman have to stick to the other forms of prevention, namely condom application, abstinence and faithfulness. You have to be faithful to your husband or wife.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Ms Mwape (Mufulira): Madam Speaker, I wish to find out from the hon. Minister how we can be sure that despite signing those documents, the women did not actually misapply the microbicides because, in the hon. Minister’s statement, he said they were supplied with gel and condoms and then they were given technical support in terms of monitoring the testing and the like but, at the point of application, just like it is with any other medicines, once taken home, there is nobody to see that a particular drug is being taken correctly. So of the people who were infected, how can you really be sure that it was the drug that was not effective and not the people applying the microbicides correctly?

Mr Simbao: Madam Speaker, to start with, this pattern was common in all the countries where the trials were taking place. So it is not possible that in all the countries, the behaviour would have been the same. 

Madam Speaker, as regards whether the people where applying the gel correctly, the researchers just have to believe what the people tell them because they cannot be there to do it for them. The people used the gel on their own because no one can always be there to monitor the application. So the researchers can only depend on what they are told by the people. However, the results are convincing because the pattern is similar in all the countries. It just did not happen in this country.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Milupi (Luena): Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Minister for that statement on microbicides. However, his statement on the prevalence rate in Mazabuka being more than twice the national average is equally worrisome. Would the hon. Minister inform the House why this is so and, also, what measures his ministry is taking to ensure that the prevalence rate comes down to the national average or even less.

Mr Simbao: Madam Speaker, with regard to why this is so, I have no answer, but what I want to say is that all the places have different rates of prevalence. For example, in Lusaka, it is at 22 per cent and not fourteen. It is the national average which is at fourteen per cent, but the prevalence rate differs from place to place. It is difficult for me to say why this is so in Mazabuka but, maybe, when you look at the actual numbers, they are very few compared to the numbers in Lusaka. The percentage might be high because of the few numbers that are there compared to the main numbers. 

So the percentage of the population infected in an area shows us the extent of the problem and what measures to put in place and not necessarily that some places are the worst affected in the country. Conversely, the area with the most infections is likely to be Lusaka because of its high population. Therefore, it is difficult for me to say that Mazabuka’s infection rate is higher than the national average. It could just be a ratio because of the few people that are there.

As regards what is being done in the country to mitigate the situation, there are a lot of messages on HIV/AIDS prevention. A lot of much effort has been put in getting the message of prevention across but, unfortunately, people do not seem to think that it is a very serious issue and, therefore, the problem continues. I reported to this House that in Lusaka, there are new infections of about 600 people every week. It is, therefore, difficult to understand why people do not want to see the reality of the situation and take it seriously. Nonetheless, the Government will continue informing people that contraction of HIV/AIDS results in one’s life being cut short as no cure has been found yet. We will keep trying to educate people and, hopefully, they will come to the realisation that this is real.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.




Madam Deputy Speaker: We need some order in the House.


247. Mr Mwango (Kanchibiya) asked the Minister of Commerce, Trade and Industry:

(a)    what expansion measures had been put in place for the Zambia Sugar Company’s future operations;

(b)    how much money was expected to be invested by the company in its future expansions;

(c)    how many full-time jobs would be created after the completion of the company’s expansion plans; and

(d)    what the source of funding was for the expansion project of the company.

The Minister of Livestock and Fisheries Development (Mr Machila) on behalf of the Minister of Commerce, Trade and Industry (Mr Mutati): Madam Speaker, Zambia Sugar Plc is currently implementing an expansion programme running from 2007 to March, 2013. Once the plant is fully operational, the annual production is expected to increase by 69 per cent from 246,468 tonnes in 2005/2006 to 440,055 tonnes in 2012/2013. The programme includes planting an additional 10,422 hectares of land, constructing new roads and twenty-six kilometres of new canals as well as upgrading the existing plant.

Zambia Sugar Plc has, to date, invested a total of US$ 246 million (from 2007 to 2009) in its expansion project, against a pledged investment of US$185 million. The project involves expansion of the sugar plantations to increase the hectarage of sugarcane planted, acquisition of a new farm (Nanga Farms), investments in future out-grower schemes and expansion of the boiler room and sugar factory.

Madam Speaker, Zambia Sugar Plc has created 3,500 jobs from 2007 to 2009 in its expansion project that includes seasonal workers working in the sugar plantations against the pledged employment levels of 6,672 in the first two years.

Lastly, the funds for the expansion works were raised from loan financing from the Zambia National Commercial Bank Plc (ZANACO) and through a public share listing on the Lusaka Stock Exchange (LuSE).

I thank you, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker: I will, once again, urge the House to consult quietly. It is not easy to follow what is being said on the Floor when there is noise in the House.

Mr Mwango: Madam Speaker, I would like to know how much more land is needed for the expansion of the sugarcane and …

Ms Kapata: On a point of order, Madam.

Madam Deputy Speaker: A point of order is raised.

Ms Kapata: Madam Speaker, I rise on a very serious point of order. The presentation of the National Budget was changed from between January and March to between October and December. I think this was welcomed by the Executive, those of us in the Opposition and the general populace of Zambia. This means that the Budget for this year was approved last year. 

Madam Speaker, this morning I made some spot checks on clinics in Mandevu. I was informed that from last year, in November, to January this year, none of the Lusaka-based clinics has received any grants. These clinics are Chipata, Matero, Kanyama, Chawama and Kalingalinga to mention a few.

Madam Speaker, we have a cholera break at our hands. 

Hon. Members: Outbreak?

Ms Kapata: An outbreak, yes. The nurses working in these clinics are operating without any protective clothing. As a nurse, I know that before I walk into a ward, my safety is more important than that of a patient. I must first of all protect myself before I can touch an infectious patient.

Is the acting hon. Minister of Finance and National Planning in order to sit in this House and be quiet about this when the patients who are suffering from cholera are not getting any nutrition at all? There are no food supplies in the clinics in Lusaka. 

I need your serious ruling, Madam Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I would like to remind hon. Members to raise certain points of order at the appropriate time. We should ask ourselves if the hon. Minister would have answers to our questions if he or she was asked to respond by the Chair. That is why some questions should be asked under questions of an urgent nature so that answers are prepared. It is not every question that should come as a point of order. There are procedures that we should follow in this House. 

The hon. Member should be aware that there are other avenues that can be used to get her concerns across. In this regard, I would like to guide the hon. Member for Mandevu to put that under questions of an urgent nature, which do not require many days for a response, so that the Executive can prepare an answer.

The hon. Member for Kanchibiya may continue, please.

Mr Mwango: Madam Speaker, I want to know how much more land is required for the expansion of the sugarcane fields in …

Madam Deputy Speaker: Speak through the microphone.

Mr Mwango: Madam Speaker, I would like to know how much more land Zambia Sugar Company Plc has for the expansion of sugarcane fields in Mazabuka.

Mr Machila: Madam Speaker, I stated, in the response, that Zambia Sugar Company Plc had planted an additional 10,422 hectares. The source of this land comprised …


Madam Deputy Speaker: Can we, please, have some order on my left side.

Mr Machila: The source of this land comprises about 6,000 hectares from various commercial farmers in the locality, 3,000 hectares from Zambia Sugar Plc itself and about 1,000 hectares from small growers. It is expected that should there be need for further expansion, Zambia Sugar Plc may enter into additional arrangements with other commercial farmers and small growers. In addition, it may be possible that the company may access some land, if available, through the traditional leadership in the area.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr Scott (Lusaka Central): Madam Speaker, the hon. Minister’s answer confirms what we have often been told that Zambia is a very efficiently low-cost producer of sugar, no doubt, in part, because they do not have to pay for the water or clean the water which they put back in the Kafue River. Would the hon. Minister comment on the allegations that appeared recently in the press to the effect that the price of sugar to the Zambian consumer is more than double the cost of production, especially in view of the fact that on his desk, as hon. Minister of Commerce, Trade and Industry, there is a report from the Zambia Competition Commission confirming this allegation?

Mr Machila: Madam Speaker, I am not in possession of that information and, therefore, I am not in a position to answer and risk misleading the House.

I thank you, Madam.

Mr Nkombo (Mazabuka Central): Madam Speaker, such an expansion as per description by the hon. Acting Minister of Commerce, Trade and Industry, in my view, must bring benefit to the general well-being of the people of the district of Mazabuka. I want to know something, considering that the hon. Acting Minister was in the company of the His Excellency the President, a few weeks ago, when he visited Mazabuka. The Mazabuka District Business Association complained bitterly and deleged that there was no economic benefit the Zambia Sugar Plc serves to the business houses after the expansion owing to the fact that the business is being chaired by one or two tycoons …

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order!

The issue has already been put across. In points of clarification, you are not supposed to give a background. You are supposed to follow up and that is why we call them follow-up questions. The hon. Member may ask a direct follow-up question.

Mr Nkombo: It is just that, Madam, I think, …

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order!

Mr Nkombo: … in Tonga, sometimes …

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order! 

There should be no Tonga thinking here, hon. Member, but parliamentary thinking.

Mr Nkombo: What is the benefit that the local business community got from the expansion of Zambia Sugar which a common eye cannot see?

Mr Machila: Madam Speaker, we missed the presence of the area hon. Member of Parliament when we visited Mazabuka with His Excellency the President. 

Madam Speaker, there are some issues that were raised by the business community in Mazabuka relating to Zambia Sugar Plc and those matters are still subject to various interactions and discussions. I think it will be inappropriate for me, at this stage, to make any further comment.

I thank you, Madam.


248. Mr Malama (Mfuwe) asked the Minister of Education when the construction of Katibunga High School would commence.

The Deputy Minister of Education (Mr Sinyinda): Madam Speaker, there are no immediate plans to construct a high school at Katibunga in Mfuwe Parliamentary Constituency. However, the Government may consider doing so when funds are made available in the near future.

I thank you, Madam.


249. Mr Kambwili (Roan) asked the Minister of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources what the population of the following types of animals in the Game Management Areas and National Parks of Zambia was:

(i)    elephants;
(ii)    lions; and
(iii)    leopards.

The Deputy Minister of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources (Mr Mwangala): Madam Speaker, the estimated number of elephants is 26,382 based on the 2008 National Survey. The distribution of elephant population is as follows:

Ecological System                Population Estimate

Luangwa Valley                     18,666
Kafue        3,348
Lower Zambezi    1,299
Others    3,069
Total                             26,382

Madam Speaker, the actual number of lions in Zambia is not known, as there has been no national survey due to financial constraints. However, the current estimates derived from small samples show that the population of lions ranges from 2,501 to 4,649.

Madam Speaker, the actual number of leopards in Zambia is not known, as there has been no national survey due to financial constraints. Therefore, the leopard population is described qualitatively, basing on postulation such as hunting statistics and observations made by wildlife law enforcement officers, tour operators and tourists.

Madam Speaker, leopards in Zambia is described as follows:

(i)    Lower Zambezi - abundant;
(ii)    Luangwa Valley and Kafue areas – common; and 
(iii)    Nsumbu and North-Western  - rare.

I thank you, Madam.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr L. J. Mulenga (Kwacha): Madam Speaker, having informed the House that the total population of elephants in the national parks is 26,382, I would like the hon. Deputy Minister to tell the nation  the economic benefits derived from these animals.

Mr Mwangala: Madam Speaker, I have said, in my response, that financial constraint has been a problem.

I thank you, Madam.


Madam Deputy Speaker: Order! 

Financial benefit ...


Madam Deputy Speaker: Order!

Hon. Opposition Member: Financial benefit.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order!

The Minister of Home Affairs (Mr Mangani): Madam Speaker, there are several benefits. One of the benefits we derive from these animals is that licences to kill these animals are issued and the Government generates some revenue from this.

Hon. Opposition Member: How much?

Hon. Government Members: Aah!

Mr Mangani: I cannot give the figures, but there is a lot of revenue generated by the Government.  Furthermore, we also have a lot of tourists coming into the country. 

Thank you, Madam.

Mr Kambwili: Madam Speaker, I would like to find out from the hon. Minister ...

Mr Lubinda: On a point of order, Madam.

Madam Deputy Speaker: A point of order is raised.

Mr Lubinda: Madam Speaker, I am indebted to you for allowing me to raise this point of order. I am cognisant of the ruling you made when my hon. Colleague moved her point of order. From the outset, let me say that my point of order does not solicit an answer from the Government but, instead, solicits a ruling from the Chair. 

Madam, the efficacy of the laws that are passed in this House will be tested by how they are enforced. If the laws that this House passes are not enforced, we demean this House. Only yesterday, we were told about how one law is being breached with impunity and, as though that were not enough, yesterday, this country was subjected to very sad reading with regard to the enforcement of laws.

Madam Speaker, this House, in 2008, passed the Mines and Minerals Development Act No. 7 of 2008. In this Act, at Section 15, it provides at (1)(d) that:

“The Director of Geological Survey shall, in considering an application made under Section 14, take into account that the proposed prospecting area is not the same as nor does it overlap an existing prospecting area, mining area or permit area.” 

Now, I wonder, Madam Speaker, whether, indeed, this Government is in order to proceed with a letter dated 14th December, 2009, signed by the Director of Mines at the Mines Development Department which says, and I quote:

    “To Whom It May Concern

“This is to confirm that Zhonghui Mining Group hold prospecting licences in most parts of Mwinilunga District of the Northern-Western Province. 

“Allow the Bearer(s) of this note access to their tenement areas so as to set a foundation for prospecting activities which are due to commence. 

“The Zambia Police Service should assist the licence holder to remove all illegal miners in the areas held by Zhonghui Mining Group as indicated on the tenement map. All miners who believe that they own some licences within the areas held by Zhonghui Mining Group should report to my office for verification.

Thank you in anticipation.”

Madam Speaker, is the Government in order to be issuing letters such as this one when the law is very clear that no prospecting licence will be offered on any piece of land which is already subject of a prospecting permit, prospecting licence or mining licence and, especially, where there is evidence that there are some companies such as the Alliance Resources Limited, formerly Zamsort Limited, that hold licence to prospect on that same piece of land? I seek your very serious ruling as to whether this Government is in order to fraudulently breach the provisions of the law. 

I wish, Madam Speaker, to lay on the Table, the letter offered by the Ministry of Mines and Minerals Development and The Post Edition of Tuesday, 23rd February, 2010, which quotes the name of the company that holds a licence to prospect on the same area that this Government has given to another company without following the provisions of the law.

I thank you, Madam.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Lubinda laid the paper on the Table.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order! 

The ruling of the Chair on this important matter is that it is not mandatory to make a ruling on every issue.  Rulings of the Chair come in different ways and that includes guiding hon. Members on how and where to go if they have to raise certain issues.

Coming to the main issue that the hon. Member has raised, the Chair did get from the introduction of the matter that there is an issue of enforcement of the laws that are made in this House. The concern of the hon. Member is that there is contravention of the law by the Executive. Therefore, the guidance that I will give, at the moment, is that hon. Members must remember that there are three arms of the Government. One is ourselves, here as legislators or the legislation. Then we have the Executive and the Judiciary. The role you have as legislators is to put the law in place.


Madam Deputy Speaker: Order!

 Any breach or contravention goes to the Judiciary. This House is not there to adjudicate over matters of contravention of the law. This is the guidance that I can give at the moment.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kambwili: Madam Speaker, the co-business of tourism is, actually, the assets which are animals. I would like to know how this Government intends to put tourism at the centre of its economic development if it cannot account for the number of animals in the national parks? Further, what is the effective method of counting animals in the national parks?

Mr Mangani: Madam Speaker, I do not think that it is only by counting animals that we can necessarily see the economic benefits. Of course, we have indicated the number of elephants, but we have also highlighted the problems that we are facing in terms of counting lions and leopards. The answer has indicated that if we had enough resources, we could have counted the animals because you cannot imagine going into the wild to count animals as there is the likelihood of meeting up with lions. That is the reason we would like to use some aeroplanes to make sure that we see these animals from a higher altitude as some of these animals hide, thereby this takes quite some time. We have an interest in ensuring that we know the number of animals in our parks, but we have had challenges as indicated by the hon. Deputy Minister in the answer.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr Katema (Chingola): Madam Speaker, I would like to find out from the hon. Minister why the Government allows safari hunting of leopards when it is not sure of the total number of these animals.

Mr Mangani: Madam Speaker, the answer has given some estimated figures and we give licenses in areas where we have these figures.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Mwansa (Chifunabuli): Madam Speaker, I am wondering how some conservation measures are being undertaken by the Government when it is not sure what the number of lions and leopards is.

Mr Mangani: Madam Speaker, in my answer, I stated that we have estimates, but we do not have the actual figures like we have on the elephants. I would like to emphasise that we have estimates of numbers of these animals in all these game management areas. 

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Member: Hear, hear!{mospagebreak}


250. Mr D. Mwila (Chipili) asked the Minister of Mines and Minerals Development:

(a)    what the total hectarage of land given to foreign investors for mineral exploration in Luapula Province was as at 30th September, 2009; and 

(b)    what the total hectarage of the remaining land in Luapula was.

The Deputy Minister of Mines and Minerals Development (Mr Nkhata): Madam Speaker, the total hectarage of land given to foreign investors for minerals in Luapula Province as at 30th September, 2009, is 14,420.2 square kilometres distributed in appendix 1.

Madam Speaker, the total hectarage of the remaining land in Luapula Province for mining is 122,291 square kilometres.

I thank you, Madam 

Mr D. Mwila: Madam Speaker, most of the investors who were given licences for mineral exploration have not …

Mr Muyanda: On a point of order, Madam.

Madam Deputy Speaker: A point of order is raised.

Mr Muyanda: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank you and my colleague for understanding that I have to raise this very serious point of order.

Madam, it is in national interest that I have to raise this point of order. The Board Chairperson of Finance Bank resigned under an extremely suspicious manner. The nation, knowing that Finance Bank is the second biggest bank in the country, has been shaken by this. It is, therefore, expedient for the Ministry of Finance and National Development to inform the nation under what circumstances Mr Rajan Mathani resigned from such a big bank without the ministry informing the nation what precipitated his departure. 

Furthermore, the financial stability in the market has been shaken.


Mr Matongo: It is at stake.

Mr Muyanda: It is seriously at stake.


Mr Muyanda: Madam Speaker, we are also aware …


Madam Deputy Speaker: Order!

Mr Muyanda: … that Meridian Bank …

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order! 

Can we, please, listen to the hon. Member on the Floor. 

Continue, hon. Member.

Mr Muyanda: Madam Speaker, the financial status of the country has been shaken because of what is happening at Finance Bank. What happened with Meridian Bank, which went under, started precisely the same way that Finance Bank is going. In the end, it was the members of the general public who suffered because their deposits disappeared in thin air and small-scale businesses suffered bankruptcy. 

Madam Speaker, I think, it is my duty, as an hon. Member of Parliament executing the duty of oversight over the Government, …

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Muyanda: … to solicit an assurance on what is precisely happening to the second biggest bank in the country. 

Is the Government in order to remain silent instead of informing the nation and this august House over the eminent and dangerous situation the people of Zambia are likely to face by another big bank going under without a genuine explanation?

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order! 

The point of order raised seems to be directed to the Ministry of Finance and National Planning to come up with a statement on the status of the bank and the Chairman of the board who has resigned …


Madam Deputy Speaker: Order! 

You cannot coach me from there. 


Madam Deputy Speaker: The Chair will reserve any guidance on this issue because the Chair must find out, exactly, whether this is a private entity or public limited company because the two are treated differently. The Chair may not have the information readily available. The Chair must be sure of what has necessitated the resignation. Therefore, the Chair will reserve comments for a later time.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Hon. Member may continue, please.

Mr D. Mwila: Madam Speaker, I was saying that most of the investors who have been given licences for mineral exploration have not developed the areas. 


Madam Deputy Speaker: Order! 

Hon. Members, let us listen to each other.

Mr D. Mwila: Madam, what does the Government intend to do about investors who have failed to develop the areas?

Mr Nkhata: Madam Speaker, investors who are carrying out exploration works in most of these areas are given a period in which to do this. If anything, the hon. Member may observe that we cannot stop them from doing their job until the stipulated time for carrying out exploration works comes to an end. If the investors are still in the area, it is because they are still within their time limit. When the time is over, each company is supposed to declare that area vacant.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Dr Machungwa (Luapula): Madam Speaker, in responding to the question, the hon. Deputy Minister of Mines and Minerals Development talked about investors carrying out exploration works in Luapula, Chienge, Liyengi, Mansa and other districts. Does he mean that they are carrying out exploration works in Luapula Constituency also? I am saying so because he referred to Luapula as a different entity from the other districts. Can he please clarify if they are also exploring in the wetlands. 


Mr Nkhata: Madam Speaker, I meant the province because some of the companies are carrying out their exploration works even in the Northern Province.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Lumba (Solwezi Central): Madam Speaker, what measures has the Government put in place to ensure that the prospectors are restricted to carrying out prospecting works and not any other activities of economic benefit in the area?

Mr Nkhata: Madam Speaker, the licences that they get are for exploring. Sometimes, when exploring, certain samples are extracted for testing to see if the minerals they are looking for are in those areas. If they are mining, I think that is a wrong thing to do. 

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Chongo (Mwense): Madam Speaker, the Mines and Minerals Act of 2008 is very clear about the number of years in which prospecting licences are valid.  Can the hon. Minister explain why a lot of the companies in Luapula have their licences renewed more than two times even when they have not started operating? I am saying so because we have a lot of serious prospectors who would like to come on board.

Mr Nkhata: Madam Speaker, a prospecting company is usually given a period of seven years. If the licence is renewed, about two more years are given for the company to wind up its work. In that vein, someone may look at it as if it is a long period. Seven years is such a long period that, sometimes, it may seem to people that the prospectors are still within their time limit.

I thank you, Madam Speaker. 

Mr Shakafuswa (Katuba): Madam Speaker, taking into account that most of the companies that are exploring are new and have not started operations yet, what is the relationship between new exploration and windfall tax? The hon. Minister said that if we introduce windfall tax, there will be no new exploration. Windfall tax is of an operative nature and exploration is before someone even starts making money. Therefore, how are these two related?

Mr Nkhata: Madam Speaker, when one is answering questions, it is better to be very attentive. I have not referred to any windfall tax in my answer. 

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!


251. Mr Mushili (Ndola Central) asked the Minister of Health:

(a)    when the Chipulukusu Clinic building in Ndola Parliamentary Constituency, which was condemned in 2003, would be rehabilitated; and

(b)    when Chipulukusu Clinic would be provided with an ambulance for referrals to Ndola Central Hospital.

The Deputy Minister of Health (Dr Musonda): Madam Speaker, Chipulukusu Clinic was constructed in 2000 by the community using the Zambia Social Investment Fund (ZAMSIF). The community contributed blocks of different sizes and quality. The building was condemned in 2004, as opposed to 2003 in the question, by the Environmental Department of the District Health Management Team (DHMT) after cracks were noticed in the building and it was recommended that repair works be undertaken. 

Madam, in 2006, the DHMT, with the support from some co-operating partners, the Zambia Prevention Care Treatment (ZPCT), repaired the laboratory, toilet, shower, kitchen, immunisation rooms and three other rooms such as the Voluntary Counseling and Testing (VCT), which are currently in operation, were repaired. Another co-operating partner, Zambia AIDS Related TB (Zambart), has also worked on the laboratory which is operational. 

Madam, at the moment, the remaining part is the maternity wing which the Provincial Building Engineer has recommended for reinforcement and mending of cracks. The bill of quantities has been obtained and works have been included in the 2010 infrastructure operational plan. 

 Madam Speaker, the policy of the Ministry of Health is that ambulances are provided for districts to serve the clinics within the given district and should be stationed at the district health office. At the moment, the Ndola DHMT has two ambulances which are servicing nine clinics. Therefore, the ministry has no immediate plans to provide an ambulance specifically for Chipulukusu Clinic.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Mushili: Madam Speaker, is the hon. Minister of Health aware that Chipulukusu Clinic is in an area where there is a big dam and this was not taken into consideration when the clinic was constructed? Consequently, even the rehabilitation works that have taken place will not last because the clinic is most likely to collapse.

Dr Musonda: Madam Speaker, the dam was taken care of when the district health office engineers and officers from the buildings engineer assessed the nature of works which needed to be done to ensure that the remedial works on the cracks could be done. It has been found that the clinic still had a life and by simply underpinning and re-enforcing the slab, it could actually be made stronger. 

I thank you, Madam.

Mr L. J. Mulenga: Madam Speaker, it is very painful when public funds are spent on a project that does not succeed. I would like to find out from the hon. Minister of Health if the culprits have been brought to book. 

Dr Musonda: Madam Speaker, it is quite difficult to appreciate the hon. Member’s question. Structural problems within the engineering circles are normal. If they can be rectified, works must continue. I do not see why we need to penalise people for structural defects. 

I thank you, Madam.




 The Minister of Livestock and Fisheries Development (Mr Machila): Madam Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill entitled the Zambia Development Agency (Amendment) Bill, 2010.

The object of this Bill is to amend the Zambia Development Agency Act 2006, so as to-:

(a)    revise the licensing provisions;

(b)    provide immunity from execution of judgments against the assets of the Agency; and

(c)    provide for matters connected with, or incidental to, the forgoing.

Madam Speaker, I thank you. 

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Bill stands referred to the Committee on Estimates. The Committee is required to submit its report on the Bill to the House by Thursday, 11th March, 2010. Hon. Members who wish to make submissions or amendments to the Bill are free to do so within the programme of work of the Committee. 

Thank you. 


The Minister of Communications and Transport (Professor Lungwangwa): Madam Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill entitled the Engineering Institution of Zambia Bill, 2010. The objects of the Bill are to-: 

(a)    continue the existence of the Engineering Institution of Zambia;

(b)    provide for the registration of engineering professionals, engineering units and engineering organisations and regulate their professional conduct;

(c)    repeal the Engineering Institution of Zambia Act, 1992; and

(d)    provide for matters connected with, or incidental to, the foregoing.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Bill stands referred to the Committee on Communications, Transport, Works and Supply. The Committee is required to submit its report on the Bill to the House by Thursday, 11th March 2010. Hon. Members who wish to make submissions or amendments to the Bill are free to do so within the programme of work of the Committee. 

Thank you. 


Professor Lungwangwa: Madam Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill entitled the Information and Communication Technologies (Amendment) Bill, 2010. The object of this Bill is to amend the Information and Communication Technologies Act, 2009 so as to: 

(a)    revise the provisions relating to the negotiations of access agreements by providers of electronic communications services;

(b)    revise the provisions relating to the setting of tariffs in relation to electronic communications services;

(c)    provide for matters connected with, or incidental to, the forgoing.

I thank you, Madam.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Bill stands referred to the Committee on Communications, Transport, Works and Supply. The Committee is required to submit its report on the Bill to the House by Thursday, 11th March 2010. Hon. Members who wish to make submissions or amendments to the Bill are free to do so within the programme of work of the Committee. 

I thank you. 


The Minister of Home Affairs (Mr Mangani): Madam Speaker, Madam Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill entitled the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Bill, 2010. The objects of this Bill are to:

(a)    provide for the confiscation of the proceeds of crime;

(b)    provide for the deprivation of any person of any proceed, benefit or property derived from the commission of any serious offence;

(c)    facilitate tracing of any proceed, benefit and property derived from the commission of any serious offence;

(d)    provide for a domestication of the United Nations Convention against Corruption; and

(e)    provide for matters connected with, or incidental to, the forgoing.

Madam Speaker, I thank you. 

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Bill stands referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs, Governance, Human Rights and Gender Matters. The Committee is required to submit its report on the Bill to the House by Friday 19th March, 2010. Hon. Members who wish to make submissions or amendments to the Bill are free to do so within the programme of work of the Committee. 

I thank you. 


Mr Mangani: Madam Speaker, I beg to present a Bill entitled the National Constitutional Conference (Amendment) Bill, 2010. The object of this Bill is to amend the National Constitutional Conference Act so as to:

(a)    revise the period for the dissemination and adoption of the initial report and draft Constitution; and

(b)    provide for matters connected with, or incidental to, the foregoing.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Bill stands referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs, Governance, Human Rights and Gender Matters. The Committee is required to submit its report on the Bill to the House by Friday, 19th March, 2010.

 Hon. Members who wish to make submissions or amendments to the Bill are free to do so within the programme of work of the Committee.

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Amendment) Bill, 2010

Mr Mangani: Madam Speaker, I beg to present a Bill entitled the Local Government (amendment) Bill, 2010. The object of this Bill is to amend the Local Government Act so as to:

(a)    establish the Local Government Service Commission and provide for its functions and powers;

(b)    vest the power to appoint, transfer, second, promote discipline or discharge the staff of councils in the Commission;

(c)    increase the tenure of office of the mayor, deputy mayor, chairperson and vice-chairperson of a council from one year to two and a half years; and

(d)    provide for matters connected with, or incidental to, the foregoing.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Bill stands referred to the Committee on Local Governance, Housing and Chiefs Affairs. The Committee is required to submit its report on the Bill to the House by Wednesday, 10th March, 2010.

Hon. Members who wish to make submissions or amendments to the Bill are free to do so within the programme of work of the Committee.



The Chief Whip (Mr Mwaanga): Madam Speaker, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to present the Second Reading Speech for the Disaster Management Bill, 2009. 

Business was suspended from 1615 hours to 1630 hours.


Madam Deputy Speaker: When business was suspended, the House was considering the Disaster Management Bill and the hon. Chief Whip was just about to start giving the principles of the Bill. 

May the hon. Chief Whip, please continue.

Mr Mwaanga: Madam Speaker, at the outset, let me thank your Committee for their informative report. They did a wonderful job and I take note of their observations and recommendations. I congratulate the Chairperson of the Committee, the members and all the witnesses who appeared before the Committee.

By way of background to the Bill, let me refresh the memory of hon. Members that the Disaster Management and Mitigation Unit (DMMU) was established in 1994 through a Cabinet decision with the aim of co-ordinating efforts to the eminent floods and drought disasters at the time. Although the department was backed by a policy framework, the disaster management structure has operated on an adhoc basis without any legal framework. This, in itself, has posed some administrative challenges that this Bill before the House now seeks to redress.

The Disaster Management Bill which is before this House, today, has gone through a very wide consultative process.

Madam Speaker, the objectives of the Disaster Management Bill are to:

(a)    establish and provide for the maintenance and operation of a system for the anticipation, preparedness, prevention, co-ordination, mitigation and management of disaster situations and the organisation of relief and recovery from disaster;

(b)    establish the National Disaster Management and Mitigation Unit and provide for its powers and functions;

(c)    provide for the declaration of disasters;

(d)    establish the National Disaster Relief Trust Fund;

(e)    provide for the responsibilities and involvement of members of the public in disaster management; and

(f)    provide for matters connected with, or incidental to, the foregoing.

Madam Speaker, from past experience, the House will appreciate that the enactment of the Disaster Management Bill is, indeed, long overdue and cannot be overemphasised. It is, therefore, necessary to have an Act of Parliament on Disaster Management in order to resolve the following issues:

(i)    set conditions under which disaster or an emergency can be declared, including who declares and at what level. This is critical, but currently non-existent;

(ii)    put legal authority on the National Disaster Management regime to mobilise the necessary resource in order to effectively and efficiently deal with emergency situations. This is critical, but currently absent;

(iv)    set conditions under which an evacuation can be ordered and managed. This is critical, but currently absent;

(v)    create specific functions and powers at different levels of the disaster management command and control structure. This is also critical, but currently absent; and

(vi)    set legal provisions necessary for putting in place disaster preparedness plans by various institutions depending on the nature of their operations. This is critical, but currently absent.

Madam Speaker, the proposed Bill further defines the functions of the stakeholders at different levels and holds them accountable for their functions. It will also strengthen the co-ordination role of the DMMU. 

The proposed Bill further seeks to establish for the maintenance and operations of the disaster management system for anticipation, co-ordination, command and control of disaster situations as well as organisation and management of relief and development efforts in the country which currently lacks a legal framework. Once the Bill is approved and becomes an Act of Parliament, the benefits that will accrue will include the following:

(i)    the impact of disasters on communities and individuals will be minimised, as citizens will be compelled to take actions that will avoid or minimise the impact of a disaster on them;

(ii)    organisations and individuals who are required to carry out disaster management responsibilities will feel protected. This will, in turn, encourage them to do more in this area;

(iii)    citizens will be better protected against disasters, as the law will oblige the Government to protect its citizens from the effects of a disaster;

(iv)    disaster relief resources will be better accounted for as the law will provide punitive measures aimed at protecting disaster relief resources from misapplications;

(v)    donated disaster relief materials will be more responsive to a given disaster situation, as the law will provide conditionalities for bringing in and receiving external relief assistance;

(vi)    disaster situations will be smoothly handled, as the law will provide conditions under which a disaster or an emergency can be declared, including who declares and at what level and how to deal with evacuation issues; and

(vii)    the country, communities and individuals will be safer from disasters as the law will provide for the requirement of institutional disaster preparedness plans. This will compel individual institutions to invest in the area of safety among others.

Madam Speaker, managing disasters has become a major challenge for governments and communities all over the world. Hardly a day passes by without hearing of floods, drought, earthquake, landslides and other natural calamities and this state of affairs demands that we be better prepared as governments and communities to deal with them.

I have taken note of the valuable suggestions which your Committee has made in its report on such issues as:

(a)    the language used and the need to reconcile some of it with the International Hyogo Framework for Action covering the period 2005/2015;

(b)    the question of who appoints the national co-ordinator;

(c)    the composition of the National Disaster Management Council;

(d)    the long title of the Bill;

(e)    the need to involve district councils in the management and co-ordination of disaster management in order to make it consistent with the Decentralisation Policy which was approved by Cabinet;

(f)    the appointment of Provincial and District Management Co-ordinators as well as the involvement of Members of Parliament in District Disaster Management Committees to mention but a few. The Government is cognisant of these observations and recommendations which your Committee have made, Madam Speaker, which are intended to improve this proposed piece of legislation. We shall consider some of these recommendations at the appropriate stage of this legislation process.

Madam Speaker, as may be seen from these many benefits and based upon past experience, I would like to urge this House to support this important Bill, as it is non- controversial and is intended for the orderly management of disasters in our country.

With these remarks, Madam Speaker, I beg to move.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Magande (Chilanga): Madam Speaker, I wish to sincerely thank you for giving me the opportunity to brief this august House on some of the issues in the Bill which is on the Floor of the House. Your Committee considered the Disaster Management Bill (2009) which is intended to provide a comprehensive legal framework that defines the parameters within which the DMMU should operate.

Madam, your Committee consulted widely in order to enrich the consultative process on this very important Bill. The Committee invited various stakeholders to make both written and oral submissions before them.

Madam Speaker, all the witnesses who appeared before your Committee registered support for the Bill. In doing so, however, they brought a number of concerns to the attention of your Committee. The concerns are recorded in your Committee’s report for the consideration of the hon. Members of this House as they debate the Bill.

I have heard the debate of the Chief Whip who is representing the Executive, who are presenting this Bill, that they have, indeed, read our report and are aware of many of these recommendations. However, I just wish to take a little of your time in order to highlight some of the issues that were brought up by the stakeholders.

Madam Speaker, it was indicated by the stakeholders that disaster management in Zambia normally involved international players as well. They were, therefore, of the opinion that some of the jargon and definitions in the Bill were not in conformity with what has been already internationally accepted by the Zambian Government. For example, they pointed out that there was a need for the Bill to adopt the language used in the internationally recognised Hyogo Framework for Action 2005/2015 which was adopted as a strategic and systematic approach to reducing vulnerabilities and risks to hazards and disasters all over the world.

The stakeholders were also of the opinion that the Co-ordinator of the unit, who is at the Permanent Secretary level, should, indeed, be appointed by the President as is the current practice instead of being appointed by somebody else lower than the Head of State.

Madam Speaker, a concern was raised to the effect that the Ministry of Lands had not been given a seat on the National Disaster Management Council provided for in Clause 8 (2). Stakeholders observed that most of the serious issues of disasters would inevitably require resettlement or relocation of the affected persons and that will require the Ministry of Lands to quickly come to the aid of whichever institution might want these people to be relocated.

Madam, allow me, at this juncture, to point out that your Committee, indeed, are also in full support of this piece of legislation. You Committee realises how prone the country has become to disasters which are, mainly, due to the effects of climate change. This legislation, therefore, could not have come at a better time.

Madam Speaker, in supporting this Bill, your Committee have made the following specific observations and recommendations.

Your Committee are of the view that the component relating to mitigation has been left out from the title of the Bill and it is recommended, therefore, that the Bill be titled “Disaster Management and Mitigation Bill” so that the aspect of mitigation is also taken into account with risk reduction plans and proposals being put in place long before any disaster occurs.

Madam Speaker, your Committee are cognisant of the fact that under the Decentralisation Policy, the whole public sector is supposed to revolve around councils and, therefore, in that policy, there is already a provision for the management of disasters. It is the view of the stakeholders and your Committee that the policy must be taken into account so that we do not have duplication of institutions at the local level.

Your Committee also noted that the Bill sought to grant authority to the Vice-President to appoint some of the officers in the whole structure. It was the view of your Committee that a politician should not have the authority to appoint public servants. This should be left to the system which currently exists. Therefore, we urge that all the officers who will operate at the provincial and district management levels should be appointed by the Public Service Commission.

Madam Speaker, your Committee also noted the aspects that provide for the involvement of hon. Members of Parliament at the district level. We are dismayed to note that the law is trying to formalise committees of Members of Parliament at the district who would then sit and select only two members of their kind to sit on the committees. Clearly, this is not acceptable because the problems of disaster in one constituency will be different from those in another constituency. The hon. Member for Kanyama cannot be expected to go and be one of the two representatives and then be able to speak on behalf of the hon. Member for Mandevu when, in fact, the disaster there is of a different nature. We, therefore, would like to call upon the Government or the hon. Minister, when making amendments, to include all hon. Members of Parliament as members of these committees. This means that if a disaster does not concern their constituency, they will send apologies but, if need be, they should be able to attend so that they give each other the support that is required to move the district officials to deal with these disasters.

Madam Speaker, your Committee welcome the establishment of the National Disaster Relief Fund. However, we wish to strongly caution that monies going into the trust fund - much of which might be from donors - should not be used for administrative purposes. Instead, they should go to specific programmes that will alleviate the difficulties that our people may encounter as they have these disasters. Administrative funds should be clearly indicated and separated from the monies that go into this fund so that there is no question of not knowing which money was supposed to be used for what.

In view of the foregoing, your Committee would like to urge the House to consider the contents of their report as they proceed with the Bill, taking into account what the Chief Whip, who seems to have exhaustively read the details of the report, has already said.

In conclusion, your Committee wish to express their appreciation to you for affording them an opportunity to consider this very important Bill. They are, indeed, indebted to the witnesses who made submissions before them. I wish to commend hon. Members of your Committee and the office of the Clerk for their dedication to duty during the consideration of the Disaster Management Bill, No. 32, 2009.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.{mospagebreak}

Mrs Masebo (Chongwe): Madam Speaker, I stand to support this Bill which is, indeed, long overdue, but timely, considering the disasters that are taking place in the country. I have three observations to make. The first one is that there is an attempt in the Bill to sideline the councils which have an indirect mandate to prevent disasters and also mitigate against disasters within their jurisdiction.

Madam Speaker, I am happy that the mover of the Bill, who is the Chief Whip, has said that the Government will look at some of these issues, but I thought I should still make some observations on this matter so that as they look at the Bill, they will take them into account. 

In the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) region, you will find that issues of disaster management and mitigation are under local authorities. The functions have been devolved or decentralised to the local councils because they are the units that have been established by the Government to implement policies. I observe that there seems to be an attempt in our country, today, to turn the Office of the District Commissioner into a council and I would like to advise that by so doing, it is costing the Government a lot of resources because you are duplicating offices when there is no money.

This way, if some committees are going to be paid, it means they will become more expensive because the money for allowances is not there. If you do not pay allowances to these people, they will be ineffective. You already have bodies created, namely the councils, being paid allowances to sit. It is important that the councils are brought on board for the functions which are under the Office of the Vice-President and these should be decentralised at the unit which is the district council. In any case, it is in line with the policy of the Government which has already been adopted and is being implemented.

Madam Speaker, the other issue is that of the composition and that is why we are running into problems as a country. Hon. Members want to be sitting on the administrative committees of the Government. This is not right because politicians should not be sitting on Government committees. These functions should be undertaken by councils in which there are already hon. Members of Parliament and so the issue of appointing two hon. Members in a district should not arise. 

Madam Speaker, I will give an example of what recently happened in Chongwe Constituency, in the Katoba area, where we experienced a disaster when over 100 families had their crops and houses destroyed by a heavy storm. The matter was reported to the national office and, as I speak, today, I am not even sure whether there has been any response because I was assured that come Monday the following week, something would have been done, but over three weeks have passed. When we had a full council meeting, there was no mention of the disaster because the District Commissioner’s Office was the one handling the disaster problem in conjunction with the Office of the Vice-President. The council, which has representation of the people, did not have any idea of what was happening and if they had, there was nothing they were doing and it appeared as though it was not their job, but that of the District Commissioner and the Office of the Vice-President.

Madam Speaker, we have these problems, and yet we are not being effective. This is the same thing I talked about when I complained about the creation of the Road Development Agency (RDA). We shall sit here, talk and accuse one another, but the roads in the country will not be worked on. Why? This is because the body that is supposed to help the Central Government in implementing road management is somehow underpaid or sidelined. You have an agency here in Lusaka that has money and, obviously, they are doing their best, but they cannot be everywhere. So all I am saying is that let us use the institutions that we, ourselves, created. All these councils are our councils. There is nothing like councils for the Opposition or those for the Ruling Party.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mrs Masebo: Madam Speaker, councils belong to the Government of the day. Whichever Government wins elections is the owner of the councils.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mrs Masebo: So whether you have a few elected members or the whole council has members who belong to the Opposition, the fact is that the Ruling Party is responsible for the local governments or councils because they are used by the Government to implement their policies and programmes.

Mr Lubinda: Muuze Chiluba amvere.

Mrs Masebo: Madam Speaker, I think there is some kind of confusion in the way certain things are being done and, by doing that, we are just undermining ourselves. Therefore, I would like to say that let us respect and trust the structures that we, ourselves, made, especially when there is a policy that we are supposed to implement. This is because if you have a policy to be implemented, we adopt it, talk about it and that means we are moving a step towards implementing it. However, we are doing something else. That way, we will just create more confusion in the way things are being done and, at the end of the day, things are not seen to be moving, and yet we are working hard and pumping in more money. 

Madam Speaker, this Bill is timely and I would like to support it, but I just want to say that when it comes to reviewing it or when there are amendments, we should take into account that the council shall be, according to the Government documents, the unit for development because, indeed, they are the ones that have the facilities. The office of the District Commissioner is meant to co-ordinate various Government departments in the districts, including local authorities, but not to be implementers. Now, since they do not have facilities, we shall start spending more money to buy cars, computers, office equipment and look for some more offices. That is why you find that we have no resources. 

Madam Speaker, this is the same story when we the Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ) has inadequate resources. There shall never be time when we are going to have enough resources. Let us trust our own institutions, let us use them efficiently and give them resources when we give them a function so that we can see them work. Let us not confuse ourselves by getting the Legislature into the Judiciary or the Judiciary into the Executive and so on and so forth. 

Madam Speaker, although I am not a lawyer, I can also see, in the Bill, that we are establishing something by law and we are saying it will be a sub-committee of the District Development Co-ordinating Committee (DDCC). Now, I have always known that the DDCC is an administrative structure that has been established by the Government to help it and that was done because there was a vacuum in that the Decentralisation Policy was not implemented. Now, we are creating a law and we are saying that this body shall be a sub-committee of the DDCC. 

Madam Speaker, you may recall that even when we had established, what structure was this, Hon. Magande, which was under your ministry?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order!


Madam Deputy Speaker: Come prepared. There should be no loud consultation.

Mrs Masebo: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr Mabenga: She has been divorced, Madam Speaker.

Mrs Masebo: When we were implementing Zambia Social Investment Fund (ZAMSIF) projects, you will recall that the projects used to get resources from the Ministry of Finance and National Planning. They were doing all the construction in collaboration with the local authorities, but for every project that was being implemented by ZAMSIF, there was a decision by the council. Although ZAMSIF had a lot of resources, they understood that the law was clear that when it comes to development, the body that was legitimate, by, law was the local authority. That is why even with the Constituency Development Fund (CDF), although the rules say it must go to the DDCC, it is just for co-ordination so that there is no duplication. The decision has to be made by the council, not DDCC. However, at the moment, we seem to be respecting DDCC and Provincial Development Co-ordinating Committee (PDCC). Now, if you come to any PDCC which does not even meet - anyway it has never met although it is supposed to meet - you will find that there is no connection. If we are sidelining the structures that were built by ourselves, it will not help us. There is a saying that a successful Government will be seen through the work of its councils. So when the councils are not working, it means the ministry or Government has failed. It cannot be Chongwe District Council failing, but the ministry or Government succeeding, no. If Chongwe District Council succeeds as a district, it means the Government of the day has succeeded.

 So Madam Speaker, I am happy that the Government has taken note of these issues. I hope that when the necessary amendments come, they will be taken into account. Frankly speaking, the issue of two or three members is never a rule there. I think that if we put things in their right perspective, there will be no debate here about how many Members of Parliament should be there because all the Members of Parliament will indirectly have the information and we will indirectly participate.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear1

Mr Hamududu (Bweengwa): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving me this chance to debate this Bill. I will be very brief in contributing to the debate on the Floor. I want to indicate that the problem of our disasters has not necessarily been due to the inadequacies in our laws. It has more to do with our lack of determination to do what is right. However, I welcome the amendments that have come to enhance our resolve to address the disasters that are basically perennial. Most of the disasters we have in this country are perennial. In addition to what the law is going to bring to the table, what we need more, at the moment, is to end the blame game and all of us, as Zambians, should put our heads together. For example, we have to deal with the perennial floods that have really settled in Lusaka. This problem has become an annual event and, every year, we are losing lives and we are reacting to the situation as opposed to being proactive. I hope this Bill will help us, as a country, to become proactive to these issues which we already know. This is not an earthquake like in Haiti. Most of the disasters we have in this country are known. They are perennial. They come every year. Therefore, as leaders, we must become proactive and work together as Zambians. 

Madam Speaker, the problem we have in this country is that we lack national consensus and we just argue and argue. No wonder people are losing faith in politicians. It is because there is too much argument and there are no issues that address their problems. The people in Lusaka, here, are really wondering what type of politicians they have put in office across political parties. The blame game must stop and all of us must agree to deal with the situation of floods. It is very embarrassing and is as if this country is as at war. What we need now is a very ambitious design to open up Lusaka and the water must flow out. Create dams around Lusaka in the outskirts. Put up proper canals and the water will be flowing and it will be available, as some people have suggested, for irrigation. This is a simple issue and this House has the power to decide and put in money once and for all. Find a design for canals in all the kombonis like in Kanyama, John Laing, Misisi and everywhere. 

Mrs Phiri: Hear, hear!

Mr Hamududu: Once we agree, not only as opposition political parties or Ruling party, but as Zambians, we must sit down, agree and finance those designs and, thereafter, put in money to put up these canals and this disaster will come to an end.
At the moment, we are wasting money because we are reactionaries. Every year, a lot of money is being spent on reacting to floods and cholera outbreaks, which, eventually, becomes costly. Even if it will cost us K1 trillion, we should spend it so as to have a permanent solution. We should not spend money repeatedly on the same problems.

In concluding my debate, I would like to declare that I am a Zambian nationalist. Until we all agree to do the right thing, we will become irrelevant as politicians.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kakoma (Zambezi West): Madam Speaker, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Disaster Management Bill. In contributing to this Bill, which has been strangely and irregularly introduced at second reading stage by the Chief Whip, I want to say the following.

Madam, disaster management, in this country, should not be politicised by appointing officers for this task through the Office of the Vice-President. As the Committee has observed, the national, provincial and district co-ordinators are supposed to be civil servants. It will be strange for these co-ordinators, who are  supposed to be civil servants, to be appointed by the Vice-President instead of the Public Service Commission. If we allowed a situation where the Vice-President started appointing civil servants to positions in the Civil Service, we would be politicising disaster management and the Civil Service.

Madam Speaker, in the same vein, I wish to disagree with one of the recommendations of the Committee that the national co-ordinator should be appointed by the President instead of the Public Service Commission. If, indeed, we are saying that the Vice-President should not appoint the provincial and district co-ordinators because he is a politician, the same argument should follow for the position of national co-ordinator. All these appointments must be made by the Public Service Commission.

Madam Speaker, I would like to agree with the observation of the hon. Member for Bweengwa that the problem of failing to manage disasters in Zambia is not as a result of not having a legal framework, but of the failure by this Government to be committed towards solving the problem of disasters in Zambia.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr D. Mwila: Bwekeshapo mudala.

Mr Kakoma: The disasters we experience in this country are well known, as they are perennial, but the response by this Government has been slow or there ahs been none at all.  

Madam Speaker, I will give you an example. In Zambezi we have disasters, every year, related to floods, but this Government either does not respond or does so very slowly. This year, people’s houses have been collapsing in Zambezi West Constituency and I have brought this to the attention of the Government, but its insensitive response has been very casual as it claims that there is no disaster in Zambezi West. As a result of that announcement by the Government, the people of Zambezi West are very annoyed. Imagine that somebody’s house has collapsed and the Government says that is not a disaster. What constitutes a disaster if houses collapse and the Government sees nothing wrong with that?

Madam Speaker, this Government is not serious about disaster management in this country. Last week, I was in my constituency and in Senior Chief Ndungu’s area alone, I counted more than thirty-five houses that had collapsed. In responding to that disaster, this Government has only sent seven tents.


Mr Kakoma: That shows that this Government is not serious.

Madam Speaker, DMMU is a disaster itself just as this Government is also a disaster in managing this county.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kakoma: Even when people are in serious need of help, this Government has always said that there are no resources to respond to disasters. For example, at the moment, people’s maize and cassava fields in Zambezi are submerged in water, but the hon. Deputy Minister in the Office of the Vice-President, Hon. Guston Sichilima, confronted me and said that he was just from there and has not seen that disaster that I am talking about. I have captured that on camera so that the nation can decide who is right and who is wrong.

Madam Speaker, even when people complain of the effects of disasters such as hunger because crop fields have been submerged in water and they have no food, …

Mr Sichilima: On a point of order, Madam.

Hon. Opposition Members: Iwe!

Mr Kakoma: … this Government does not provide the necessary relief food to the affected victims.

Madam Deputy Speaker: A point of order is raised.


Mr Sichilima hesitated to stand up.

 Madam Deputy Speaker: I thought you were raising a point of order.


Mr Sichilima: Madam Speaker, as you are aware, I rarely rise on serious points of order, …


Mr Sichilima: …. especially when this matter is being discussed. Is the hon. Member of Parliament for Zambezi West, who does not go to his constituency, in order …

Mr D. Mwila: Aah!

Mr Sichilima: … to mislead this House and the nation that there is a disaster in Zambezi and he has captured pictures of this without laying them on the Table? In fact, he said people have died. I need your serious ruling so that we can see the pictures of people who have died in Zambezi to prove that disaster. 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!


Madam Deputy Speaker: Order! 

According to my understanding, the point of order is that the hon. Member on the Floor has misled the nation in that he made a statement, I do not know where, but not here definitely, that some people …


Madam Deputy Speaker: Order!  

… have died in Zambezi West and that this is has been captured on camera. If that statement has been made publicly by the hon. Member, the Chair is not aware. Therefore, if that is the truth, the Chair would need that information to be clarified as the hon. Member may be said to have misled the nation.

However, in this debate, the hon. Member has referred to thirty-five houses having collapsed. Therefore, if the hon. Minister wants any evidence, it can only be about the thirty-five collapsed houses that the hon. Member has referred to.

The hon. Member may continue, please.

Hon. UPND Members: Long live the Chair!

Mr Kakoma: Madam Speaker, I thank you for your wise guidance. I was talking about the Government’s slow response to disasters and the claim that it does not have resources to manage them. I also said that the management of disasters by DMMU is a disaster itself just like the hon. Deputy Minister in the Office of the Vice-President.


Madam Deputy Speaker: Order!

The hon. Member may withdraw that phrase. The hon. Minister is definitely not a disaster.

Mr Kakoma: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the reference to the hon. Deputy Minister in the Office of the Vice-President being a disaster. 

However, I want to bring to your attention the disaster that I am talking about, which is the flooding of the main arena of where the Likumbi Lyamize Traditional Ceremony is held, for those of you who have been to Zambezi West for this particular ceremony. You need a canoe to pass through the arena and you cannot drive from the Boma to Mize Capital, in Senior Chief Ndungu’s area, because of the floods. This is a situation where not only houses are collapsing, but also people’s crops such as maize and cassava fields are under water. Everything has been destroyed and bridges have been washed away. Therefore, if all that is not a disaster, then what constitutes a disaster? However, this is not a new phenomenon; bridges have been washed away in many parts of this country for a long time, for instance, in the North-Western Province and Zambezi District in particular. DMMU has done nothing apart from making assessments. Sometimes, they fly all the way from Lusaka to the affected areas and make some assessments in the air. Apart from these assessments and producing reports, no action has been taken to repair the bridges. 

Madam Speaker, in my view, the long lasting solution to some of these disasters is to put in place permanent infrastructure such as bridges because if we do not have this infrastructure in place, it is going to be very difficult to manage some of these disasters. Therefore, we do not need to put in place a piece of legislation to build a bridge following a disaster. It just requires commitment and the Government must provide resources to build the bridges.

Madam Speaker, as has been stated by some hon. Member regarding the Lusaka floods, all we need is commitment by this Government to find resources and work on the drainage system in Lusaka. We do not require any piece of legislation.

However, in order to assist this Government manage disasters in this country, I will still support this piece of legislation so that it does not have any excuse for failing to manage them. We have several issues relating to disaster management, for instance, the global warming issues and to manage climate change, we should have been planting trees already. You do not have to wait for a piece of legislation in order to manage climate change. 

Madam Speaker, two weeks ago, I was surprised when the Office of the President commanded its officers to find a helicopter to fly all over Lusaka to access the flood situation. Surely, do you access floods in Lusaka by flying in the air? You just need to drive to Kanyama and you will find floods.

Madam Speaker, with those few remarks, I would like to support the Bill.

Mr Nkombo (Mazabuka Central): Madam Speaker, I want to say that …

Lieutenant-Colonel Shikapwasha: His Excellency!

Mr Nkombo: Madam Speaker, could you kindly ask Hon. Shikapwasha to behave himself.

In supporting this Bill …


Mr Nkombo: … I am not a president of any …

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order!

I think that we had better reduce on running commentaries. Otherwise, it becomes difficult to control how people react to certain things. Hon. Member, you have the Chair for your protection. As much as possible, trust the Chair to protect, you rather than react because you may over react and seem to be the one at fault.

Mr Nkombo: Fine, Madam, I take that back and apologise to Hon. Shikapwasha, but Hon. Sichilima must behave.


Madam Deputy Speaker: Order!

The Minister of Community Development and Social Services (Mr Kaingu): I thank you Madam for giving me this occasion to contribute to this Bill. As an hon. Minister in charge of vulnerable people, I thought I should say one or two things and thank the Chief Whip for bringing this Bill to the House.

Madam Speaker, the effects of climate change require us, as a country, to prepare ourselves for any eventuality. However, I would like to bring to the attention of the people living in areas which are prone to perennial disasters, including the hon. Member for Zambezi West, that as people living in those areas, we should prepare ourselves. We should try to relocate on our own rather waiting for the Government to do this for us every year. It is high time we, the people living near rivers, left the plains and relocated on our own. Therefore, I would advise them, through the hon. Member for Zambezi West, to emulate us Lozis, who, without involving the Government, move from the plains to the higher land.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kaingu: Madam Speaker, I have always wondered when it came to councils …

Mr Hachipuka: On a point of order, Madam.

Madam Deputy Speaker: A point of order is raised.

Mr Hachipuka: Madam Speaker, is the hon. Minister of Community Development and Social Services in order to brag about the Lozi people moving from the lower grounds to the higher grounds when, in fact, in his case, he moved out of the province completely? Is he in order to mislead this country?


Madam Deputy Speaker: The Chair believes that the hon. Minister of Community Development and Social Services has heard the point of order which has just been raised. However, he is a representative of the people. Though he may have run away, the Lozi people still perform the Kuomboka Ceremony. 

The hon. Minister may continue and remember to take that issue into consideration.

Mr Kaingu: Madam Speaker, this is what we call adaptability; that is to move away from disaster on your own.

Let me talk about councils. I have always wondered how councils operate. There are many people in Lusaka, for instance, who pay rates, but I do not know how the council, in turn, helps them. I also do not understand why there are disasters in Lusaka, and yet businessmen and women contribute a lot to the councils. Most of the disasters that are experienced happen in big councils and, so, I do not agree with Hon. Masebo who said that the councils are ours whether they belong to the Opposition or Government. That is not true because council budgets have nothing to do with the Government. The Government has no say, whatsoever, in the budgets for councils. I know that the councils collect huge sums of money. I was told by the late hon. Minister of Local Government and Housing, Mr Tetamashimba, May His Soul Rest in Peace, that ...

Mr Kambwili: On a point of order, Madam.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order! 

The hon. Member will have an opportunity to debate, unless you want to correct a statement of fact not an allegation to your understanding.

Mr Kambwili:  A fact.

Madam Deputy Speaker: A point of order is raised.

Mr Kambwili: Madam Speaker, I rise on a very serious point of order. Is the hon. Minister on the Floor in order to say that the Government has nothing to do with budgets for councils when they are approved by the hon. Minister of Local Government and Housing. Without the hon. Minister approving the budget, councils cannot be effective? Is he in order to mislead the House and nation that the Government has nothing to do with budgets of councils? I need your serious ruling, Madam.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Chair would like to guide the House by asking the hon. Minister to clarify exactly what he meant. The Chair understood that each council prepares a budget.  However, the hon. Minister may clarify ...


Madam Deputy Speaker: Order! 

Hon. Member, I am still speaking. The hon. Minister may guide on how the resources of the council can be used and make further clarification on what he means because the hon. Member said that the budgets of the councils are approved by the hon. Minister. Therefore, the hon. Minister or Central Government has something to do with the budgets of the councils.

The hon. Minister may continue, please.

Mr Kaingu: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Hon. Kambwili for raising that point of order because he has reminded me that this Government gives councils a lot of money to attend ...

Hon. Opposition Members: Aah!

Mr Kaingu: ... to some of these problems we are talking about. I want to thank the hon. Member for raising that point of order.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Clarify your own point.

You may continue, please.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order!{mospagebreak}

Mr Kaingu: Thank you very much, Madam. I know, also, that a full council sits to approve the budget and so it is from that point that I am deriving what I have just said. 

It is very important, Madam, for councils to help the Government put to good use the money that they are collecting every year because we are not supposed, in Lusaka for example, to have disasters everyday. As Minister in charge of vulnerable people, I am really in trouble because what is happening in Kanyama, Mtendere and Chawama affects my ministry, and yet all of us know, including Hon. Matongo, ...


Mr Kaingu: ... that councils are supposed to be in charge of drainages and the road network. I do not know why, as hon. Members, we should put our heads in our armpits when we know actually who the culprit is. 

Hon. Opposition Members: Aah!

Mr Kaingu: I also want the people of Zambia to know, today, that what is happening in Lusaka has nothing, really, to do with the Government, but the council. 

I am also aware that budgets for disasters ...

Mr Nkombo: On a point of order, Madam.

Madam Deputy Speaker: A point of order is raised.

Mr Nkombo: Madam, I would like to know whether it is procedural for the hon. Minister to continue ignoring your ruling that he must clarify the point that he made that Central Government has nothing to do with budgets for councils when we all know that it is actually the hon. Minister of Local Government and Housing who gives the final approval to any budget. Further, even the officers of the councils are on the Government payroll. Can he, please, clarify this?


Madam Deputy Speaker: Order! 

I think if we listen to each other in the House, from the words that we expressly use and, indeed, imply, we can get these explanations. The Chair understood the explanation made by the hon. Minister on that issue.

The hon. Minister may continue, please.

Mr Kaingu: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would also like to thank the incoming President of UPND ...


Mr Kaingu: ... for that observation.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order! 

Honestly speaking, hon. Minister, I think that we have a Bill that we are supposed to be looking at. It is not good for us to start digging things that the Chair is not aware of so that the Chair has to continuously try to bring the House back to what is on the Floor. The issue of who is a president here does not arise. You are all hon. Members of Parliament and your status of presidency is outside this Chamber. Therefore, let us leave those issues outside. For now, the business of the House is about the Disaster Management Bill. 

Hon. Members, if you have not read the report, do not just talk about disasters in general. It is disaster in relation to the issues that have been ably highlighted by the Chairperson of the Committee. The Government ably responded even before the Chairperson put the issues across. I was here and I listened just like all of you. Actually, the Government stated, in its response, how it intends to respond to the concerns of the observations of the Committee. If hon. Members have read the report, the Chair expects new points to be raised that the two did not refer to rather than draw the House into all sorts of debate. The purpose of this debate is to raise issues on floods. What would you like to be included in this Bill or not? That is the issue for today.

Please, can we come back to the issue on the Floor of the House. If we have not read the report, let us trust the hon. Chief Whip and Chairperson so that we can move on.

The hon. Minister may continue, please.

Hon. Members: His time is over.

Madam Deputy Speaker: He still has time, he can wind up.


Mr Kaingu: Madam Speaker, I am most obliged. As I conclude, …

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kaingu: … I would like to put it on record that the councils, particularly those that are manned by the Opposition, have failed.


Madam Deputy Speaker: Order!

Mr Kaingu: They have failed this Government and I also want to put it on record …

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order!

Mr Kaingu: … that …

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. Minister!

You are recording what is not supposed to be recorded. You should put on record what is contained in this report …


Madam Deputy Speaker: Order!

… and not other issues that are on your mind. Please, hon. Members, prepare yourselves adequately for the work of the House. It is not good …

Mr Matongo interjected.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order! 

I am talking and Hon. Matongo is also talking.


Madam Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. Minister has concluded.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Kalumba (Chienge): Madam Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Bill.

Madam Speaker, disaster management policies, such as we are seeing enshrined in the proposed Bill, suggest the need for rapid responses to national calamities. There are a number of interesting policy instruments that have been suggested in this particular Bill, but I will come to that later. I just want to acknowledge that we, as hon. Members of Parliament, are aware that over a long period of time, our country has been visited, particularly with floods and, sometimes, droughts. This has raised concerns amongst the general public for a need to find sustainable responses institutionalised in such a way that people can predict what national response is going to these natural disasters.

Periodically, we experience droughts and somehow it is possible to predict the frequency, pattern or timeframe that usually takes place before we have another drought. Where people have accumulated enough data, it is also possible to predict how often we are likely to get floods. For many years, this has been left to spontaneous reactions because it is part of our thinking that these things are acts of God. Therefore, we cannot do anything about them. In fact, God has given us the capacity to assess the risks we have for particular forms of disasters and be able to formulate responses for them. 

Madam Speaker, risk assessment is an important instrument in disaster management. I have seen that in this particular Bill, adequate attention has been paid to developing information systems which will allow for the intelligent planning of disaster management. That is one policy aspect that I find very useful as a Member of Parliament because, this particular law, will put in place mechanisms for collecting data. I hope that, over a period of time, we will develop the skills to use that data to be able to predict particular disasters. 

Secondly, I have noted that the policy has put in place an institutional framework that will allow for a rapid response from the grassroots to the national level and back and forth. I think that is what made this debate perhaps get a little triangular.

Disasters require rapid response. The existing structure of governance in Zambia, with respect to our local government, may not necessary be tailored to these forms of rapid responses. Therefore, I am happy that the Government is thinking ahead and perhaps, in the long-term, they may respond to the hon. Member for Chongwe’s concern of integrating an institutional framework for rapid response into the existing somewhat bureaucratic structures of the councils.

At the moment, the councils are too slow to respond to disasters. An immediate requirement may be that we begin to build capacity in the councils for them to respond rapidly. At the moment, they are not able to do so. I think this is understood nationwide for those who have experienced disasters in their areas.

In my own constituency, I remember the first incidence of floods I witnessed in 1998. We had floods in Chienge. We had a very slow response from the council. In fact, the council did not think that it was their business. At the national level, without the linkage that is being established now by this law, we only had anecdotal information bits and pieces that did not allow for an intelligent response to the disaster. We had helicopters flying which counted a few fallen houses, but the disaster was more than just a few collapsed houses because it meant the displacement of people, hunger and children moving from one village to another which was a distance away from their schools. There were all kinds of complications and, of course, later, cholera broke out. 

Therefore, it needed a quick multifaceted organised institutionalised response to be able to alleviate the suffering of our people. I recall that I complained very bitterly at that time and progressively, I lost my job as hon. Minister of Health because my former Minister of Health went and conspired with someone else to get me out of the Ministry of Health without response.


Dr Kalumba: I understand that and it is besides the point.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Kalumba: The point is that we need to have a rapid response institutional framework that allows national resources to meet with local level capacity. If that local level capacity can be developed at the council level over the long haul, I think it will be desirable. It will be useful and important. At the moment, maybe, we need to transition through carefully orchestrated steps that allow structures to be established and steps that are co-ordinated at the district, province and national levels. We all know that hon. Members of Parliament can sit on these boards. In my view, I think it is debatable. If you suggest two hon. Members of Parliament in a district where there is only one hon. Member of Parliament, what happens? These are points that need to be studied carefully. What is more important is that the function of managing and mitigating disasters is now being institutionalised. I do not think we need to have too complicated debates about this in this House. This is a much-needed response by the Government and the State. Therefore, through organising institutional framework, response to disasters can be done in an intelligent manner.

I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Scott (Lusaka Central): Madam Speaker, I just have a brief contribution. I am glad the hon. Member for Chienge put up the question of information and the systematic collection of information.

Madam Speaker, I think we should try and remember things from our experience rather than from text books. In 1992, the biggest problem that we encountered, as a Government, when we decided to respond to the unprecedented drought, the first task was to accurately assess the situation on the ground. We know that everybody has an agenda in emergency. There is free maize and medicine going round. These things are equivalent to money. Naturally, people start getting on the act and begin to exaggerate the extent of the need or the suffering. They even go to the point of inventing deaths or using the word ‘death’ in an ambiguous fashion so that you may not actually be dead, but may be dying for a meal and they deliberately distort things.

Madam, in 1992, we had a situation where, obviously, with due respect to the House, every hon. Member of Parliament had it in his or her interest to show that they were a good hunter for relief food and that they could invent numbers and extents of disaster. This would, at least, give their district or a constituency a chance of getting a fair share or even more than that. The same problem has persisted since then with, for example, the District Commissioners (DCs) thinking almost of their vote buying. I remember a DC complaining to me, “Dr Scott, I only have enough food for 80 per cent of the population of this district. Can you get me the food for the other 20 per cent?” In other words, he wanted to give free food to a 100 per cent of the population, despite the fact that much of their population was employed, earning a salary, was able to buy food or had been successful farmers, but got rid of their crop in order to qualify for relief food. 

Madam, I remember we had a young man from Keembe, who came and told us,

 “You people are in the stone age. We will show you what you can do with a computer.” 

Madam, he sent out special forms and all these forms came back where he asked if we had: 

(a)     too much maize; 

(b)     enough maize; 

(c)     not enough maize; or 

(d)     no maize?”

His computer concluded, from his forms, that there was no maize anywhere in Zambia. Naturally, anyone who asks that question in Zambia or anyone who says, “How much maize do you need?” The answer is, “As much as you have.” So his computer actually created a disaster at the end of the month in which we had distributed 40,000 tonnes of maize to villages in Zambia. The information issue, at the end of the day, was solved. In fact, the hon. Member for Chienge may even remember this. It was solved by a partnership between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, at that time. Those two ministries had the network required to establish what the situation was on the ground. 

Madam Speaker, the Ministry of Health has a network of hospitals within their catchment areas covering the whole of Zambia. These hospitals are either mission hospitals or Government hospitals. If you want to know how much starvation, suffering and malnutrition there is in a particular area, ask the hospital in that area and they will give you a very accurate picture, especially since they have no axe to grind and no reason to exaggerate or to hide the situation. The other people who, when asked, for example, if there are floods in Chienge or there is a drought in Choma, will give accurate information are those in the Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives because the Agricultural Department is in touch with the farmers and they know what a drought crop of maize and a healthy crop of maize looks like. They can give accurate and fairly objective information.

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed to see that these two ministries that, together, showed the world how it should be done and actually taught Cambridge University how to conduct a survey, have been sidelined, not centralised and not given leading roles in this disaster management business. They are the ministries that are in touch. Even when it comes to agriculture and food, they are the ministries that are in touch with the condition, suffering and disaster of the people. They cannot be substituted by things like it is now called, the Vulnerability Assessment Committee, which, again, goes with a form and asks, “Have you got any maize?” “No, Sir.” Ok, we will include you on the form and you will receive maize.” They thought they were clever and they would start looking in the granaries at the back of the houses, but the farmers were even cleverer. They sold the maize for money, pocketed the money and started saying, “Njala and Nsala.” 


Dr Scott: Madam Speaker, I think we should remember what we learnt before and bear it in mind. We cannot make these things computerised. Even in Chienge, you cannot computerise the assessment of hunger even with a traditional computer. In fact, a traditional computer would be better because there are ways of getting out the truth, if you are not available, to a western computer.

Dr Scott: Madam Speaker, I think…

Dr Machungwa: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: A point of order is raised.

Dr Machungwa: Madam Speaker, is the hon. Member of Parliament for Lusaka Central, who is debating trying to explain about information gathering, in order to talk of a traditional computer without defining and explaining what it is so that we can understand how it works and what it actually is, in order to continue debating in that manner?


Madam Deputy Speaker: Order! 

The Chair must have missed the term, “traditional computer.” The debater referred to a computer in Chienge. Whether that is a traditional computer, the Chair is not aware. 

Hon. Members, let me also take this opportunity to guide that it is very important to remember the process through which a Bill goes. Every time the Chair stands after Presentation of the Bill and says that the Bill is referred to a committee for hon. Members to make submissions. This is either to make amendments, additions or subtractions. Therefore, when we come here, we restrict ourselves to the report because we will have made submissions. This is not submission time. You should speak to the report, depending on whether you agree with it or not so that there is no submission here. Otherwise, all of you will stand and give your opinions. It is neither time for opinions nor general submission. The hon. Members should limit themselves to the report. This is the way it should go. On this fact, it will be easier for all of us to follow and understand the debate rather than giving a lot of historical background. 

The hon. Member may continue, please.

Dr Scott: Madam Speaker, I am sorry that the issue of traditional computer has been troubling some people. It is a standing joke in this House. Perhaps, the hon. Member making that intervention was not present when it became a standing joke. 

Dr Kalumba laughed.

Dr Scott: I see the hon. Member for Chienge is even laughing. So …


Dr Scott: … he knows what I am talking about. 


Dr Scott: Madam Speaker, I do adopt as my own, the debate of the hon. Member for Chongwe. 

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear! 

Dr Scott: As a former Minister of Local Government and Housing, she knows that the failure of the local government, is the failure of the Central Government. I am not saying that the local government, itself, does not fail, but failure of governance, is a failure of governance collectively. This is because the local government cannot be separated from the Central Government. 

Madam Speaker, to suggest that there are little states within a State, which are somehow independent, is to simply refuse to see the obvious truth. If a director at the Lusaka City Council (LCC) is given one instruction by the hon. Minister of Local Government and Housing and one by the council which is contradictory, you can be very sure that the instruction that will be obeyed is the one that has come from the hon. Minister. 

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Scott: Madam Speaker, when K2 billion from council funds in Lusaka was used to pay allowances to the police to run around chasing vendors, who have since come back, it was done on the instruction of the Central Government. There was no consultation with any council or any member of LCC. 

The total budget for LCC, last year, was K83 billion, which was the actual amount raised whereas K86 billion was the target. If you divided this amount by the population of Lusaka, it comes to K1,000 a week per head. I am talking about K1,000 per person for public health, garbage collection, road maintenance and sixty-three other functions …

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order! 

Please, come back to the issue of disaster management. Do not talk about garbage collection. 

Dr Scott: Madam Speaker, with all due respect, garbage collection has something to do with disaster. 


Madam Deputy Speaker: Order! 

The guidance given is that garbage collection is a daily thing and not disaster. We are not looking at the functions of the council per se, but the council in relation to disaster management.

Dr Scott: Very well, Madam Speaker. 

I sincerely hope that I have underlined my point sufficiently from the hon. Minister’s point. The local government should be used as a means to carry out functions of the Central Government. This is what it is there for because it is interfaced with the people. I agree with Hon. Masebo over the recommendations of the Committee in this report that the Decentralisation Policy is made harmonious with the provisions of this Act, which I thoroughly endorse. 

Incidentally, Madam Speaker, I recall that for nine years, the councils were not audited. The person who, for nine years, failed to audit these councils is now saying that they should be audited. They are already being audited and it is all thanks to the endeavours of the former hon. Minister.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order! 

Dr Scott: I thank you, Madam.     

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order!     

Which part of the Bill is that?


Madam Deputy Speaker: Do not bring up issues just like that, hon. Members. 

Mr Mangani: Madam Speaker, I would like to support the Bill introduced by the Chief Whip because it contains most of the important components of what we face almost everyday. The Bill is talking about the anticipation of possible disasters, preparedness, which we need to take into account, prevention, co-ordination and mitigation and all these are important factors. 

Madam Speaker, I would also like to thank the Committee for the work they did. More importantly, for making the observations that disasters involve international organisations. This is a very important observation. 

The issue of appointment is important and I agree with the observations made by the Committee, contrary to what our brother, the hon. Member of Parliament for Zambezi West, said. The Committee is recommending that the co-ordinator be appointed by the President. This is a very good observation because the President would have to consult several other people before the appointment is made. More importantly, is the issue of the inclusion of the Ministry of Lands for possible resettlement of the people. This is a very important observation made by the Committee. 

Out the whole debate, I want to totally agree with the observations made by the hon. Member of Parliament for Bweengwa who stated very categorically that the issue of disasters is critical and we need to avoid a blame game because what is creating all this is the culture of blaming one another. I think the hon. Member made a very important observation. 

Madam Speaker, as we were discussing the issue of disaster, councils, somehow, came in. Councils are important institutions and the Government would like to support the policy of decentralisation. Two issues have been raised. The first is the capacity of our councils. Do we have the capacity at that level to quickly respond to disaster? These are issues that we need to look at before we involve the councils in some of these assignments. 

Madam Speaker, commitment is very important. If LCC has a budget of K83 billion, what commitment do we show that we are anticipating disasters in Lusaka? Can we not even assign K2 billion or K3 billion towards this problem that is occurring every year? We are members of these councils. Unfortunately, they are not reflected anywhere in our budget. This, therefore, shows that we need to agree and see how best we can deal with the problem of disasters. 

Madam Speaker, the Government is trying to put up an institutional framework on which it can operate and administer these disasters. I, therefore, totally support the Bill because it is non controversial. 

Madam Speaker, I thank you. 

Hon. Government members: Hear, hear!

The Minister for Southern Province (Mr Munkombwe): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you for affording me this opportunity to support this Bill. 

Madam Speaker, one attains maturity at the  individual level. An individual by the name of Hon. Hamududu, the Member for Bweengwa, has exhibited this maturity here, today. Just like production, maturity is individual even though the product benefits the community. 

Madam Speaker, Zambians must be grateful to this Government for bringing up this Bill. I suppose that, in the past, it was a person who exaggerated the most who got particular attention paid to his or her area. Now the Government will bring this to an end because there will be researchers in different areas to see which ones are prone to disaster.

Madam Speaker, when people, for instance, in the Opposition, worry about the President appointing certain people to certain positions, I do not suppose that they hope that, one day, they will produce a president who will have these same powers. I suppose they do not. 


Mr Munkombwe: If they hope that, one day, they will have a president who will have the same regulated and consultative powers before appointing someone, they are fighting a losing battle. 

Madam Speaker, a district commissioner is the overall co-ordinator of all Government projects in a given area. Therefore, he or she cannot be disassociated from disaster management. We want councils to be involved, but rapid response, as has been mentioned by hon. Member for Chienge, is a necessity because disasters do not knock at one’s door and say, “Tomorrow or next week, I am coming to your area.” Disasters are just as good as accidents. Therefore, we want a quick response to them. 

In his contribution, the hon. Member for Bweengwa said we should set politics aside. When there is a disaster in Katombola, all of us, including hon. Member of Parliament for Katombola, will join hands to support the efforts of the Government. 

Therefore, let us not raise trivial issues such as this and that happened in Zambezi. 


Mr Munkombwe: Let us not lower the level of debate. All of us are debating because we are faced with serious situations when we have these disasters. There are areas where families, property and animals are wiped out. Therefore, all of us need to put our heads together regardless of party affiliation. We are all Zambian nationals, and that is cardinal. Therefore, when we make contributions, we should know that the unifying factor is that we are Zambians.

 I thank you, Madam Speaker.

 Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mwaanga: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to wind up debate on this Bill.

First of all, I would like to thank the Chairperson of the Committee, Hon Magande, for the very dignified manner in which he presented the Committee’s report and for highlighting the issues which the Committee and the witnesses before the Committee raised.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank, in particular, Hon. Masebo, Hon. Hamududu, Hon. Kakoma, Hon.  Katete Kalumba, Hon. Guy Scott and Hon. Munkombwe for the comments they have made. I particularly want to record my gratitude to the Acting Leader of Government Business for the supportive remarks he has made. 

Madam Speaker, all I wish to say is that this Bill seeks to address the very issues which hon. Members have raised. Therefore, I am grateful for the support they have given. I can assure hon. Members that this is only the beginning. If, at some future date, it is discovered that there are certain provisions in this Bill that are not workable or are not achieving the desired results, the Government will revisit the provisions with the view to improving the operational capacity of the Bill. 

I, therefore, want to thank all hon. Members of the House for the unanimous support they have given to this Bill and I urge this House to adopt the Bill.

 Madam Speaker, I thank you.

 Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Question put and agreed to and the Bill read a second time.

Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Committee on Wednesday, 3rd March, 2010.




The Minister of Home Affairs (Mr Mangani): Madam Speaker, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

Question put and agreed to.


The House adjourned at 1810 hours until 1430 hours on Thursday, 25th February, 2010.

Licence    Licence    Majority    Resources    Granted    Expires    Area-     Location
No.    Holder    shareholder                Km2        

11555-    PGM    Chinese    copper, iron    3/12/08    2/12/10    10002.521    Luapula, 
HQ-LPL    Investment        cobalt, silver                
    Limited        tin, coal, zinc                            platinum

11886-    Hua Yan    Chinese    copper, cobalt    10/9/09    9/9/11    676.8524 
HQ-LPL    Mining        gold                Nchelenge

11915-    Tycoon     Chinese    manganese    12/8/09    11/8/11    973.7676    Luapula, Mansa, Milenge,
HQ-LPL    Mining Ltd                        Northern, Luwingu, 

12049-    Lukulu    Chinese    copper cobalt    3/11/08    2/11/10    22.3248    Luapula, Nchelenge
HQ-LPL    Miners
    (Z) Ltd

12794-    Wang    Chinese    manganese    15/1/09    14/11/11    1011.4781    Luapula, Milenge, 
HQ-LPL    Wang        copper, cobalt                Samfya
    Holding        gold, nickel
    (Z) Ltd

13129    Precision    Chinese    manganese    26/6/09    25/6/11    954.0441    Luapula, Mansa
HQ-LPL    Mining (Z)        copper, 
            cobalt, Silver

LPL 205    Anvil     Australian    copper,    26/10/05    25/10/09    779.3021    Luapula, Chiengi, 
    Mining         cobalt,                Northern, Kaputa
            Gold                Nchelenge

Covered                        14,420.2901