Debates - Wednesday, 8th July, 2015

Printer Friendly and PDF

Wednesday, 8th July, 2015

The House met at 1430 hours

[THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON in the Chair]

NATIONAL ANTHEM

PRAYER
__________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON

The Deputy Chairperson: I wish to inform the House that the Examination Council of Zambia (ECZ) will hold a meeting with all hon. Members of Parliament tomorrow, Thursday 9th July, 2015, in the auditorium at Parliament Buildings from 0900 hours to 1300 hours. The objective of the meeting is to orient hon. Members of Parliament on the functions of the ECZ. I urge all hon. Members to attend this important meeting.

I thank you.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

__________

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

STATUS OF STAND NO. LUS/20870 ON MWATUSANGA ROAD IN WOODLANDS

The Minister of Local Government and Housing (Dr Phiri): Mr Speaker, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to present a ministerial statement, following a point of order raised by Hon. Masebo. Before I do that, allow me to give a background to the point of order.

Sir, the Order Paper of Tuesday, 23rd June, 2015, carried Question 546 by Hon. Masebo, Member of Parliament for Chongwe. She asked the hon. Minister of Local Government and Housing:

(a)    whether ministry was aware that the Lusaka City Council (LCC) had recently sold most, if not all, of its nursery and play parks to private developers;

(b)    what other properties the council had disposed of;

(c)    what rationale for disposing of such public property was; and

(d)    whether procedures, including obtaining state consent, were followed to the letter when disposing of the properties.

Mr Speaker, in response, the hon. Deputy Minister of Local Government and Housing stated that:

“The ministry is not aware that the Lusaka City Council has sold most or all of its nurseries and play parks to private individuals. Mr Speaker, the Lusaka City Council has thirty-seven play parks and none of them has been sold to private developers, though some of the play parks have just been adopted on a short-term lease by private institutions. There are some play parks such as Ntoyo Play Park in Woodlands and Northemead Car Park whose matters of ownership are currently in court. Municipal Sports Club title is being challenged by the council and the matter has been reported to the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection to have the title wrongly obtained cancelled so that it reverts back to the Lusaka City Council.

“The council has disposed of Libala Lot 20435, commonly known as looters. Mr Speaker, this is one area that had remained idle for a long time and after receiving consent from stakeholders, the council resolved to offload the 5 hectare land for infrastructure development. Mr Speaker, this was done to prevent people taking illegal possession of the said land.

“The rationale for disposing of this facility was to improve the area that had remained idle for a long time and also to stop unscrupulous individuals from encroaching on the area. To this effect, the developer, in the name of Huang Feng, will construct a shopping mall and improve the sporting facilities such as the tennis court, basketball court, netball court and construct an amusement park for children on the same premises.

“The procedure was followed and all other formalities such as engaging the Private Public Partnership Authority and the Commission of Lands were fulfilled. In addition, there was no need to seek changes of land use from the Ministry of Local Government and Housing as the area was originally designated as mixed-land use.”

Mr Speaker, among the many supplementary questions was one from Hon. Namugala who wondered whether the hon. Minister carried out investigations to be able to adequately answer part (b) of Hon. Masebo’s question, which was what other properties the council had disposed of.

Sir, Hon. Namugala continued by stating the following:

“Can the hon. Minister confidently tell us that no other properties have been sold by the Lusaka City Council.”

Mr Speaker, my answer was as follows:

“Let me repeat that when this purported land scam appeared in the public media, I directed the Permanent Secretary who, in turn, demanded a comprehensive report from the council. It is from the comprehensive report by the council that we are giving the House this feedback. It is from that report that we are giving the information that only one property, the Libala Lot 20435, commonly known as looters, has been disposed of. If we hear of any other case, we might consider undertaking a more comprehensive study.”

Sir, I added by stating the following:

“So, I would urge this august House to trust the ministry on the information it has from the Lusaka City Council. This is why I say that if there are still other issues that need to be addressed, we, as a ministry, have no problem in addressing those issues.”

Mr Speaker, the point of order I am now addressing was raised on Tuesday, 30th June, 2015. It was raised by Hon. Masebo, Chongwe Member of Parliament, who stated the following;

“Mr Speaker, two weeks ago, I raised a question as to whether Dr Phiri was aware that the Lusaka City Council had disposed of some assets and in particular, the property next to State House and he denied. He spent time talking about another property. I have with me an extract from a council report showing that the nursery and park land near State House has been surveyed, numbered, subdivided and valued in United States Dollars. I, therefore, seek your indulgence whether the hon. Minister was in order to categorically state that no property was disposed of even after Hon. Namugala further queried on the same. This issue is of public interest and there are issues of a security nature as the land is next door to State House.”

Sir, in your ruling, you directed the hon. Minister of Local Government and Housing to make a statement to clarify the matter, not later than Friday.

Mr Speaker, I am grateful to you for allowing me to proceed with the national engagement I had in Livingstone on Friday and for re-scheduling the presentation of the ministerial statement to today. It is important that you allow me to deal with preliminary issues arising from the point of order.

Sir, firstly, the question which was asked on 23rd June, 2015, was specifically asking, in part (b), whether there were other properties the council had disposed of. That question is different from that in the point of order which asked whether Hon. Dr Phiri was aware that the Lusaka City Council (LCC) had disposed of some assets and in particular, the property next to State House and he denied it.

Mr Speaker, the answer which was given to part (b) of the question remains valid. The ministry was not aware. The ministry maintains that the LCC had disposed of only one property in the name of Libala Lot 20435, which is commonly known as Looters.

Mr Speaker, secondly, as a Government Minister, there is no way I could have stated, with any measure of certainty, that a property which is cited to be near State House had been disposed of because I already knew that:

(a)    the property being referred to as being near State House is actually on Mwatusanga Road, which is off both Independence Avenue and Leopards Hill Road. It is after Brentwood Drive, which is near State House and Lusaka Water and Sewerage Company Water Works. The water works land is the one near State House. This land is largely unused because there are water pipes laid underground. I lay on the Table a document entitled Apex 2, location of the property to allow hon. Members of Parliament to study it and ascertain the proximity of this Mwatusanga Land to State House;

(b)    the Permanent Secretary (PS) in my ministry had written to the LCC on 18th June, 2015, seven days before Hon. Masebo raised a question, asking the Town Clerk to furnish the ministry with information on the Mwatusanga Property; and

(c)    I was, therefore, fully aware that the process leading to the disposal of the Mwatusanga Land had not been completed, according to the comprehensive report which the council had submitted to the ministry.

Mr Speaker, it is also important for you to allow me to lay a brief background to Stand No. Lus/20870, which is the Mwatusanga Land or Garden. Mwatusanga Land Garden is an area reserved by the council as a mixed land use, under the Lusaka Master Plan. The total land extent is about 7 hectares with one hectare built up and being utilised by the council. One of the former Forman’s offices is now the office of the area hon. Member of Parliament for Lusaka Central, let me add. The council meeting of 29th September, 2004 assessed the performance of the Mwatusanga Land and found it to be under performing. As such, recommended to offer it for development to Luwaka Enterprises. This developer was unable to proceed and as such, the offer was later revoked.

Mr Speaker, 2014 saw the city council go through a lot of financial turbulence. Among them was the lack of funds to pay retirees and at the same time meet its salary and service provision obligations. The situation inevitably prompted management and the council to find ways and means to resolve the short-term problems while finding lasting solutions to deal with the challenges in the long-term. As a long-term strategy, the LCC called for the preparation of the Main Evaluation Roll to update the outdated 2007 Main Evaluation Roll so as to increase the revenue from rates. The approval by the full council of the proposed rate is, however, still being awaited.

Mr Speaker, despite this long-term solution, the immediate and present challenges are mounting. Therefore, the council resolved, yet again, and in light of the 2004 resolution, to re-plan and demarcate part of Mwatusanga Land, retaining the area being utilised by the council.

Mr Speaker, at its 30th December, 2014 meeting, the council resolved that Plot No. Lus/20870 on Mwatusanga Road be earmarked for disposal. To this effect, the evaluation report was prepared, giving an indication of the open market value of the land parcels. The values were in Zambian Kwacha, but in line with the current disposition, the United States Dollar equivalent was done.

Mr Speaker, the council went ahead to advertise in one of the daily tabloids on 25th February, 2015, inviting applications to bid for the twenty-two plots on offer. I lay on the Table the proposed stands, three commercial and nineteen residential. A total of thirty-six applications were received and each applicant paid a prescribed K5,000 non-refundable fee. The council opted for the first-come, first-served method for two reasons. The first one being that using a committee would have entailed allocating the meager resources for sittings when the council was grappling with lack of resources. Secondly, there was always going to be a backlash from the unsuccessful applicants which would have cast doubt on the integrity of the process.

Sir, the first past the post served the council well because only those applicants who paid the purchase price were successful. It is worth noting that the land in question is zoned as mixed land us. As such, no prior approval was needed from the ministry. I must add that under restrictive land use, prior approval must be obtained from the hon. Minister.

Sir, therefore, in the case at hand, the council was in order to proceed. I must report that the council has gone further to ensure that the nursery has been preserved and K1 million has been set aside to recapitalise the nursery and make it commercially viable.

Mr Speaker, let me allay fears that there may be issues pertaining to security. The security wings were duly consulted and cleared the land. As regards allegations of fears that foreigners have taken over this land, multi-nationals can own land by virtue of registration with Patents and Companies Registration Agency (PACRA), incorporating a company within the laws of Zambia. I must also hasten to mention that where Asians names may appear on the list of successful applicants, the persons were scrutinised and proven to hold Zambian Green National Registration Cards (NRCs).

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, let me repeat what I said earlier. I could not state, with any measure of certainty, that the council disposed of this land because the process remains incomplete. As I address this august House, the council has submitted plans to the Commissioner of Lands for numbering. Once numbered, a surveyor will be engaged to place beacons on the land and prepare survey diagrams and have them approved. The council will, then, write to the Commissioner of Lands recommending the successful applicants for the issuance of State leases. The Commissioner of Lands could use his/her discretionary powers to alter, accept or reject the council’s recommendations.

Mr Speaker, when all processes are completed, I, as the Minister of Local Government and Housing, will be satisfied that the council has truly disposed of this property, according to the dictates of the law.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

The Deputy Chairperson: Hon. Members are now free to ask questions on points of clarification on the ministerial statement given by the hon. Minister of Local Government and Housing.

Mrs Masebo (Chongwe): Mr Speaker, as I stand here, I am a very sad citizen of this country called Zambia because of the statement issued by the hon. Minister of Local Government and Housing, concerning the disposal of a very important asset in the City of Lusaka.

Sir, on the onset, I want to state that the hon. Minister had, actually, deliberately decided not to answer a question which he understood. This is because in his statement, today, he proceeded by stating that the property was not disposed of although he was not able to confirm that. However, the Local Government Act is very clear and it states that:

“No council property shall be disposed of unless the State, through the Minister of Local Government and Housing, approves of the sale of any asset.”

Sir, considering that the hon. Minister elaborated at length the need for that money, I would have expected that that could have been included in the Budget …

The Deputy Chairperson: Order! Ask your question hon. Member.

Mrs Masebo: Mr Speaker, is the hon. Minister still informing this House that the council, according to the law, got approval from him for the disposal of that land? This is considering that the land or play park question is part of the land belonging to the nursery itself? It is one piece of land which was meant for the expansion of that nursery. Is the hon. Minister still insisting that authority was actually sought and that he approved it as hon. Minister? It is important that we know that the hon. Minister approved …

The Deputy Chairperson: Order! The question has been asked.

Dr Phiri: Mr Speaker, I thought I made myself very clear that land use in Zambia is guided by the Town and Country Planning Act 283 and the Housing Statutory and Improvement Areas Act, Cap. 194 of the Laws of Zambia. The Town and Country Planning Act provides the framework for spatial planning and affords the hon. Minister the power to appoint planning authorities and establish a Town and Country Planning Tribunal, direct the structure plans to control development and subdivisions of land and assess payments thereof.

Sir, it is the policy of the ministry that land use planning is determined within the context of a development plan. The hon. Minister, therefore, is in order to order provincial, city and municipal planning authorities to prepare a development plan such as a structure plan, an integrated development plan or a local area plan. To ensure orderly and sustainable development of human settlements, land use classes and zones are set out in the plans. In short, the hon. Minister is responsible, indeed, for the physical planning and may delegate some functions to planning authorities, in this case, city, provincial and municipal planning authorities. City and municipal councils may act as their own planning authorities while provincial planning authorities plan for district councils.

Mr Speaker, knowing this fully well, I also add that this land in question on Mwatusanga Road is a mixed land use zone. This means that we have a nursery on that same land, but surrounded by other land which the council deemed fit to utilise. Let me say that there is no controversy at all. I am clear in my mind that the council acted in its interest and that interest takes precedence. If there is anybody who doubts the council’s procedural issues, they can raise them. However, as far as I am concerned, it is a mixed land use zone and there was no direct need for the council to seek my approval.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Mpundu (Nchelenge): Mr Speaker, in his ministerial statement, the hon. Minister indicated that improvements to the land in Libala will include a play park. I would like to find out from him whether this play park will be owned by the council or the developer?

Dr Phiri: Mr Speaker, the issue at hand concerns Mwatusanga Land, but I will give the hon. Member of Parliament a bonus answer. The Libala land has been given to a company called Huang Feng to construct a shopping mall, but we have also given this company the mandate to improve the play parks around that land. Those play parks will still belong to the city council.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Mwiimbu (Monze Central): Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, I will quote from the Local Government Act. Section 67 (2) which states that:

“(2)    A Council shall not sell, let for a period of fourteen years or more, or otherwise dispose of, any land or building except with the approval of the Minister.”

Sir, the hon. Minister informed us that there was no need to give authority to dispose of that property because there is no law that requires him to do since it was a planning matter. However, the issue raised has nothing to do with planning, but concerns the disposal of property. May the hon. Minister indicate whether he has now decided to ignore the law that requires him to give authority to the Lusaka City Council (LCC) or any other council to sell any land or to build without his approval?

Mr Speaker, further, is he not aware that the offer letters have been issued for him to be telling us that the process is still going on? The plans have been worked on and the recommendations will be given to the hon. Minster of Lands, Natural Resources and Environment Protection so that the Commissioners of Lands issues offer letters. Is he not aware that offers for this particular land have already been given by the Minister of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection and all those to whom the land in question was allocated to have letters of offer? If he still insists, what is he going to do if, with your permission, we bring the letters of offer, which were given three months ago, tomorrow and lay them on the Table?

 Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

 Mr Speaker: Order!

 The hon. Minister of Local Government and Housing can choose which question to answer.

 Dr Phiri:  Mr Speaker, out of the three questions, I choose to answer the last one.

Laughter

Dr Phiri: Mr Speaker, I thought I made it very clear in my statement.

Mr Masebo interjected.

Dr Phiri: Mr Speaker, may you, please, protect me from the running commentaries by Hon. Masebo. She is making commentaries for whatever reason. She is so infuriated by the responses given, but I do not want to start discussing ourselves.

Sir, I said that the council subdivided the land, advertised and received applications. Temporal or conditional offers were given to twenty-two applicants who paid prescribed sale price. I, therefore, categorically stated that because this is a mixed land use zone, the council was in order to proceed with the offers, but should there be other interventions, we are willing to consider them.

 I thank you, Mr Speaker.

 Ms Namugala (Mafinga): Mr Speaker, I think this is not a partisan issue. Therefore, we hope that the hon. Minister will help us understand exactly what has happened with the Mwatusanga Land.

 Mr Speaker, at least, I know that this hon. Minister is innocent and he has not benefited from the sale of this land.

 Laughter

Ms Namugala: Sir, at least, I am aware of that. However, I am wondering why he is trying to defend council officials who he knows, deep down his heart, have not done the right thing by selling this piece of land.

 Mr Speaker, with your permission, the hon. Minister said that payments from the twenty-two applicants have been received by the Lusaka City council (LCC). He has also told us that it is now up to the Commissioner of Lands to decide whether to issue offer letters to these applicants.

If the money has already been paid and the Commissioner of Lands ultimately declines to issue letters of offer, what will this hon. Minister do? With your permission, Sir, if the LCC is going to sell land every time it has a financial crisis, how much land will be left for the residents for Lusaka?

Dr Phiri: Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. Member for Mafinga for exonerating me the way she has done.

 Laughter

Dr Phiri: Sir, let me say that the issue surrounding the Mwatusanga Land has been understood out of context.

Mr Speaker, I wish to inform the House that the 7 ha piece of land lay dormant for a long time. In 2004, I indicated that there was an attempt by the LCC to dispose of this land. This was re-visited in December, 2014, and the council unanimously approved considering the sale of some of the dormant asserts that it had. It is not that the council has always been selling its assets. The sale of this particular piece of land was necessitated by the urgent need to raise money so that the council could be enabled to deal with issues that were chocking the running of its operations, particularly retirees and also meeting salaries and other service obligations. As a result of this, the council passed a resolution to dispose of this land.

Sir, the House may wish to know that this land is amongst the many dormant assets which still lie in the city and are not being touched. Therefore, realising the predicament the council was in, a decision to raise money as quickly as possible was made. This was done to try to work out the outstanding salaries and retirement benefits of our people. Whether it was correctly done or not, I have tried to put it as clearly as possible what has transpired. I am confident that all the innuendoes may not be enough to explain the illegality of the sale of this land because I think the procedure was followed and it is still being followed until the letters of offer are given to the people.

Mr Speaker, on the question over whether I was privy to what the decision was, I indicated that I based my judgment on the comprehensive report that we got from the council. I was comfortable to agree that this land has not been disposed of because the council is still completing the disposal processes.

 I thank you, Mr Speaker.

 The Deputy Chairperson: Order!

 In order to accommodate as many hon. Members as possible, it may be advisable to avoid lengthy preambles and for each hon. Member to ask one question.

 Mr Mtolo (Chipata Central): Mr Speaker, first of all, let me take this opportunity to congratulate the new hon. Members who have joined this House, Hon. Mulasikwanda, Hon. Shuma and Hon. Siliya. We are very sure that these hon. members will add value to the deliberations of this House.

 Sir, facts are something which are everywhere even in villages and the biggest cities that we have in this country. I am sure that hon. Minster is aware of that. Therefore, I would like to find out what the hon. Minister referred to in his statement as regard Ntoyo Park in Woodlands, which is located along Ntoyo Road. Residents believe that the park is the property of the council.

In his statement, Sir, the hon. Minister indicated that there is a question about the ownership of Ntoyo Park.  May the country at large and I find out why there is a problem of ownership of Ntoyo Park when, for a very long time, it has been council property and is known as such. Why is there controversy over that park?

Dr Phiri: Sir, over the years, the LCC to be specific, has not been able to look after these play parks. As a result, a lot of people have forgotten about the land belonging to the council and in the process, they try to encroach. This has been a struggle over the years.

Sir, the Ntoyo Park the hon. Member is referring to is in a similar predicament as the Mwatusunga Land. Thus, the council has now resolved to reclaim its play parks in an attempt to revive them into viable play parks.

 I thank you, Mr Speaker.    

Mr Musonda (Kapiri Mposhi): Mr Speaker, with regard to the Libala Lot, considering that the Lusaka City Council (LCC) is looking for a sustainable source of revenue, would the council not consider taking a stake in the development of a shopping mall?

Dr Phiri: Mr Speaker, that is an option worth considering. However, it is dependent on the viability of the council. On the other hand, we think that that arrangement could also be looked at from that angle of the public-private partnership (PPP).

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Mufalali (Senanga): Mr Speaker, I want to find out if the precedence that has been set by the Lusaka City Council (LCC), which the hon. Minister has just confirmed, will be one that will be applied all over the country? When the councils have no sitting allowances, will they now just proceed on what the hon. Minister called the first past the post to give land to anyone who comes with enough money? Is that the precedence will be set for the nation?

Dr Phiri: Mr Speaker, if I gave that impression, then, the answer is, no. That is not the precedence we want all the councils to emulate. Let me repeat that the city and municipal councils have been given the planning authority status whilst the provincial planning authority handles the district councils. Therefore, what happens in Lusaka may not be replicated elsewhere. In this instance, we are dealing with a unique issue where the Mwatusanga Land was disposed of or is being disposed of because the council is using a mixed land use method. That is not the same as when land is designated as commercial land and the city council has to seek authority from the hon. Minister. Where it is mixed land use, the council, as a planning authority, may go ahead and dispose of that land.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Mbewe (Chadiza): Mr Speaker, I would like to find out if there are any other towns or cities which are in similar situations where play parks are being sold.

Dr Phiri: Mr Speaker, that is a difficult question to answer, but this situation could arise anywhere where there are play parks which fall within a mixed land use mode. However, if there are any, I may need time to gather that information.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Pande (Kasempa): Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister indicated that the twenty-two plots were advertised in a tabloid. I would like to find out which tabloid this was and why the advertisement was only published once.

Dr Phiri: Mr Speaker, I did indicate that the advertisement was made in The Post of 25th February, 2015. A total of thirty-six applications were received. Out of those thirty-six, twenty-two met the requirements and were given temporary offer letters.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Mucheleka (Lubansenshi): Mr Speaker, I am a very worried citizen of Zambia. At the rate we are going, it is possible that the thirty-seven play parks in Lusaka may be sold by next year. With particular reference to Mwatusanga Land, is it possible that this particular transaction can be reversed in order to see to it that this land is preserved? There is a good reason those play parks have been there for fifty-one years. If it is about commercialisation, can the councils not look for alternative land and reverse this particular transaction?
                                                                                                                               
Dr Phiri: Mr Speaker, I do not know how many times I will say this. Mwatusanga Land is not a park. It is a place where the LCC has a nursery and, over the years, this particular nursery has been overrun. However, around the nursery area, there is land. In fact, one hectare has now been reserved for the nursery because the council wants to recapitalise it. The remaining six hectares is the land which has twenty-two plots of different sizes. Three of those plots are commercial, and amongst the three, one is the nursery, itself, which the council wants to retain. The remaining nineteen have been divided and subdivided into residential areas. This is the bone of contention that we are dealing with here. I do not know whether the interests are geared towards the twenty-two plots. I hear you when you when you express concern over this land. However, since you were discussing the park instead of the nursery, I would not buy into your idea of reversing its sale.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Livune (Katombola): Mr Speaker, history likes repeating itself. The Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (MMD), which formed the Government in 1991, exposed security tunnels at State House and the Patriotic Front (PF) is selling the land around State House. From the perspective of State security, I want to understand how this Government views this decision that it has taken.

Dr Phiri: Mr Speaker, in my statement, I thought I dealt with the security concerns. This is land behind Brentwood Drive. Two closes lead to the Mwatusanga Land, where hon. Ministers have their residences. So, I want to dispel concerns based on the fact that it is near State House or near enough to State House. The proximity of this land to State House, …

Laughter

Dr Phiri: This is why I laid, on the Table, a document which the hon. Members must peruse through and decide whether that land is located near enough State House. In some other people’s minds, they are looking at the area which the Lusaka Water and Sewerage Company has its water works. That is definitely near State House.

Sir, there is no construction work taking place on that land because of the underground pipes which I referred to. So, whether you are discussing the water works land or Mwatusanga, which is far across a further down neighbour, it is your choice. However, I laid this paper for you to appreciate the geography of State House area and decide whether any security concerns can be raised. I say there are no security concerns and as such, the security wings have given us a go ahead.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Muntanga (Kalomo Central): Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister has taken a lot of trouble trying to explain. He has been shielded by Hon. Namugala. For me, I do not think I can shield you. Your answers indicate that you are involved in the sale of this land.

Interruptions

Mr Muntanga: Mr Speaker, the Act tells states that no council is allowed to sell land without express authority by the hon. Minister. The hon. Minster is aware that the matter concerning this land was deferred by the council because it could not be resolved. Therefore, a committee sat over it, hence the decision to investigate. I would, therefore, like to find out from this hon. Minister, who knows he has not given authority to sell that land, why he is taking this trouble to absorb a wrong against the Local Government Act? Why is he implying that the Local Government Act will be abrogated if councils are allowed to sell land without his express authority. Why is it so?

Dr Phiri: Mr Speaker, I am grateful for those kind words.

Laughter

Dr Phiri: I do not think I am impervious to advice when it comes. We will endeavour to look at what the hon. Member has advised. If it is legitimate, as a listening Government, we will consider it.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Mbulakulima (Chembe): Mr Speaker, I want to join Hon. Namugala in saying that, actually, even just by looking at you, Minister of Local Government and Housing, Hon. Dr John Phiri, you do not look corrupt, …

Laughter

Mr Mbulakulima: … but just the manner in which you are defending this matter …

The Deputy Chairperson: Let us avoid debating ourselves, but continue with the question with that in mind.

Mr Mbulakulima: Section 67 of the Local Government Act is very clear. Whether land is for mixed use or not, the council is supposed to obtain permission from the hon. Minister of Local Government and Housing. We were going to ask you to lay that approval on the Table, but you have defended yourself very well. The only thing we can probably do is to charge you for breach of the Constitution.

Laughter

Mr Mbulakulima: However, my question is on the thirty-two applicants on whom you changed the system to past the post …

Mr Pande: First.

Mr Mbulakulima: … first past the post that is what I am interested in. Was that condition placed in the advertisement? At what stage was it introduced? Is it not a recipe for corruption? Are you ready to show us that it was really followed from the first one to the last one and that there are no complaints from those who applied? In a transparent manner, are you going to put this in the newspaper to allow those who applied to make comments on that?

Mr Speaker, with these few words, I thank you.

Dr Phiri: Mr Speaker, here is the advertisement, as it read in The Post Newspaper of 25th February, 2015. It read as follows:

“The Council, at its sitting of 30th December, 2014, under minute No.FHR & GP & PWD & PE /15/12/14, resolved to re-plan, demarcate and sell sixteen pieces of land. The Lusaka City Council now invites interested applicants to apply for the plots on the following terms and conditions:

(a)    condition offer forms will be obtained upon payment of non-refundable fee of K5, 000 per plot;

(b)    the sales and offers will be on first-come, first-served basis with the first payer of the full purchase price to secure the land;

(c)    full payment will be strictly by cash or bank certified cheques upon which a final offer letter will be given repudiating the conditional offer …”

It went on, but I think I have covered what the hon. Member has asked about.

Mr Speaker, these gave us the understanding that it was the most transparent way of doing things. We are talking about a prime land of very limited hectares. The council’s reasoning was that if it went that way other, which is the usual way of doing things, through the committee, it would not have met the financial obligations of paying for the sitting allowances because it was already hit by a lack of finances. This is the choice the council had to make. However, let me say that if hon. Members have serious reservations over why the council conducted the whole process, you are free to visit us and see whether we can make you understand …

Mr Muntanga: Ah!

Dr Phiri: … that, maybe, it was in the interest of us all to do this.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Muntanga: We will take you to the police.

Ms Lubezhi (Namwala): Mr Speaker, it is a pity that the hon. Minister does not know that there is Section 67 (3) of the Local Government Act. Nevertheless, I would like to find out why the hon. Minister is contradicting himself. In his response, he said all the applicants underwent a security check, but when answering to Hon. Livune’s question, he said the ministry is not concerned about security.

Dr Phiri: Mr Speaker, I did not know that one can be misunderstood the way I am being portrayed to have answered. What I said was that the land went under security check. The security wings did indicate to the council that there was any security risk at all.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Namulambe (Mpongwe): Mr Speaker, I will spare the hon. Minister from giving a lengthy answer. My question is: Was the land in question given your written approval for sell, according to the Local Government Act?

Mr Pande: Simple question.

Dr Phiri: The land in question being a mixed land use …

Hon. Opposition Members: Ah!

Interruptions

Dr Phiri: … did not have to obtain the hon. Minister’s approval, but since there are insinuations that, probably, the ministry could have overlooked certain aspects of the law, it is not cast in iron. We will endeavour to correct the situation if there is need.

There are insinuations that, maybe, there is nchekelako, but there is not.

Laughter

The Deputy Chairperson: Order!

Dr Phiri: Nchekelako means give me a piece of this. Those who have said that I look as pure as anything could be right. I have no hidden agenda over this land. It is probably those who are querying who might have hidden agendas. I am not interested in this land. I will look at whether the law could have been better applied. This I can guarantee I will do.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Ntundu (Gwembe): Mr Speaker, even though my question has been partially answered, I want to put it in another way. I want to find out from the hon. Minister whether there is a standard format for councils whether in Lusaka or Gwembe, as agencies of the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, to dispose of land? Conversely, is there a leeway that a council can decide, on its own and at any given time, to change the format that has been given by the Ministry of Lands?

Dr Phiri: Mr Speaker, I have indicated that the Ministry of Local Government and Housing has given city and municipal councils authority over the planning of land. Other local councils are under the provincial planning authority and there are specific guidelines they should follow on the sale of the land under their jurisdiction.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Shakafuswa (Katuba): Mr Speaker, I think that the hon. Minister does not sit on any council, going by the answers that he is giving. A council has procedures. If there is a need to dispose of land, it has to come to a full council meeting, through the committee of Public Works Department (PWD), for the notification of the council. Through the full council meeting, the council is allowed to go ahead with the advertisements and interviews. The full PWD committee sits to interview the applicants after which this is brought before the full council’s meeting which has to approve the successful applicants.

Mr Speaker, I would like to find out from the hon. Minister whether a full council meeting sat to approve the disposal of this land. If the full council met, are is the hon. Minister able to provide us copies in our pigeon holes of the minutes of the meeting which approved the sale of this land since he feels that the ministry was not supposed to be approached for approval of the sale of this land?

Mr Speaker, the evaluation role applies to areas which are already built. It does not apply to areas …

The Deputy Chairperson: You have asked your question. Your question is loud and clear.

Laughter

Dr Phiri: Mr Speaker, I thank Hon. Shakafuswa for this elaborate explanation of procedures. These are the procedures that obtained at the LCC, leading to what we are debating here. Therefore, on the basis of the recommendation by the full council, I was under no illusions to doubt that the city council meant well.

Mr Speaker, let me say that we are dealing with this issue in a situation where trust and confidence in our local institutions has waned, and yet at the same time, are looking forward to giving more power and authority to the local councils. Here lies our predicament. I can only say that whatever we do in this House should not demean the works of the men and women who have chosen to work within the councils at no pain at all, but do a brilliant job. Let us enhance the capacities of our councils so that they can truly be ready for decentralisation.

Mr Speaker, I value all the contributions that have been made and will provide, as requested, the full council minutes.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Phiri: I think that you had a glimpse of them when Hon. Masebo was raising her point of order. She laid on the Table part of the minutes of this full council meeting. I will provide this and hope that you will give us an opportunity to comb this and do a good job on behalf of the nation.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

________

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

COMPUTER AND BUSINESS STUDIES EXAMINATIONS

596. Mr Miyutu (Kalabo Central) asked the Minister of Education, Science, Vocational Training and Early Education:

(a)    whether examinations in computer and business studies would be administered in rural schools in 2015 considering that learning and teaching aids in these subjects had not been delivered yet;

(b)    whether the Government would exempt the affected schools from sitting for the examinations in these subjects;

(c)    why the subjects were introduced without the prerequisites at (a);

(d)    what the way forward on the two subjects was.

The Deputy Minister of Education, Science, Vocational Training and Early Education (Mr Mabumba): Mr Speaker, examinations in computer and business studies shall be administered in all schools in 2015. Teaching and learning materials for business studies have been delivered to all schools offering Grades 8 and 9. However, there are still challenges in the provision of teaching and learning materials in computer studies.

Sir, it is worth noting that these important subjects were introduced in our curriculum in part due to the current global trends. However, it is also important to note that of the eight subjects, candidates will be graded only in the best six and so, the performance in computer and business studies will not affect any candidate’s overall performance. Moreover, more weighting will be given to the theory part of computer studies in the examination.

Mr Speaker, the Government will not exempt any school from sitting for these subjects as teachers are actually already teaching using local available materials.

 Sir, the provision of teaching and learning materials, not just in computer and business studies, has been a critical challenge in the ministry for some time now. The ministry had anticipated that by the time of the roll out of the new curriculum, all materials would have been procured and distributed to all schools. However, insufficient funding and long tender procedures coupled with court litigations delayed the process.

Sir, the ministry disbursed K22 million to all districts in December, 2014, for procurement of assorted teaching and learning materials, including computer and business studies.

Mr Speaker, computer and business studies shall continue to be an integral part of the new curriculum in Zambia. The Government is, therefore, committed to increasing funding towards the procurement of teaching and learning materials for the new curriculum.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Mr Miyutu: Mr Speaker, I believe that the Government is aware that setting of examinations takes a big stake in the lives of all academicians in this country. Out of the eight subjects that the pupils take in Kalabo Central, two have not been taught and the pupils have not been exposed to any resource related to the subjects. The Government is aware. Owing to the fact that the Government intends to go ahead to test our children, who have no idea what a computer looks like, is the Government acting in good faith or out of a hard rock heart?

Mr Mabumba: Mr Speaker, in answering Hon. Miyutu, I will say that I think that the Government is acting in good faith. I remember that on Friday, her Honour the Vice-President was asked a question and she talked about curriculum reform in terms of our education. The introduction of computer studies is part of our curriculum reform. Business Studies is not a new subject. It contains principles of accounts and office practice, which have been merged to be called Business Studies. These subjects were being offered before the new curriculum. Therefore, I do not expect a teacher in Kalabo to fail to teach office practice and principles of accounts. In terms of computers, yes, I would agree with what my colleague has said. However, the bigger percentage of computer studies is theory and I guess the teachers in Kalabo …

Hon. Opposition Members: Aah!

Mr Mabumba: Yes.

Mr Mabumba: I am sure that the teachers in Kalabo are able to teach our children the theoretical component of computer studies. Unfortunately of course, the students may not have been exposed to the hardware of the computer, but theoretically, they have that exposure. As you said, Mr Speaker, we are having a workshop tomorrow, and I think that the Examinations Council of Zambia (ECZ) will also be at hand to try to explain some of these issues to do with business studies as well as computer studies. Therefore, the introduction of these two subjects is in the best interest of the country’s education system.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Miyanda (Mapatizya): Mr Speaker, I think that last Friday, I rose on the same question. We were told, as a country, that examinations for computer studies will be done in a phased manner.

Mr Speaker, my concern is for the child in a rural area, who needs to score, at least, 40 per cent in the practical part of the examination. How is the child going to achieve such a mark without having seen a computer? How does the hon. Minister expect a child like that one to pass?

The Minister of Education, Science, Vocational Training and Early Education (Dr Kaingu): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. Members of Parliament for their concern. However, I want to tell them that computers are here to change our lives. Whether we have computers or not, I am afraid, we just have to introduce the computer studies subject.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank you, and the Clerk of the National Assembly, for introducing lessons in computers to the hon. Members of Parliament because computers are now part of our contemporary life. We have no choice, but to acquaint ourselves with them.

Sir, I want to tell the hon. Member of Parliament for Kalabo Central that, as a Minister, I was faced with a choice to either suspend the examinations in computer studies or to allow the students to sit for the examinations. Now, my concern was that if we suspended the examinations, then, the teachers would relax. Meanwhile, this subject is like one with chest pains, but still having to breathe. That is how computers are. They have changed our lives.

Mr Speaker, I want the hon. Members to know that we are trying our level best to get the most out of this arrangement. We are saying here that the examinations in information communication technologies (ICT) will be in theory and not the practical aspect of the subject. There will be a layout of a computer, for example, and students will be asked to identify components of the computer and state their function. There will be drawings of computers, and these are already being taught in schools. Therefore, I want hon. Members to understand that suspending the examinations will do a disservice to our learners, particularly in rural areas.  Let me add that the essence of a tool is not its physical appearance, but the outcome of how you use it. The outcome of the use of that tool is what is important.

I thank you, Sir.

Brig-Gen. Dr Chituwo (Mumbwa): Mr Speaker, this hon. Minister of Education, Science, Vocational Training and Early Education is my friend, and he was an engineer in computing. Is he …

Mr Mbewe: On a point of order, Sir.

The Deputy Chairperson: Order!

A point of order is raised.

Mr Mbewe: Mr Speaker, I apologise to the hon. Member who was on the Floor.

Mr Speaker, I always get affected by national affairs which are affecting our people. My point of order is on the hon. Minister of Education, Science, Vocational Training and Early Education.

Mr Speaker, we have been following events. The University of Zambia (UNZA) Great East Campus lecturers were on strike and Mulungushi University was affected as well. Today, the Copperbelt University has been closed indefinitely. Is the hon. Minister in order to keep quiet for this long and not update this House on what has been going wrong in these institutions of high learning? Is he in order?

Mr Speaker, I need your serious ruling.

The Deputy Chairperson: Order!

I am reliably informed that there is supposed to be a ministerial statement, tomorrow, from the ministry concerned.

Brig-Gen. Dr Chituwo: Mr Speaker, I had started by saying that this hon. Minister of Education, Science, Vocational Training and Early Education is my friend. His background is engineering in computing obtained in those old days of International Business Machines (IBM). Has he now turned around to state that he will continue to discriminate against children rural in areas, including those in Mwandi, on this very important subject? He said that only the theoretical component of computer studies will be taught in rural schools, while both the theoretical and practical components will be taught in urban schools, or those schools along the line of rail. However, both groups of children must sit for examinations. Is he stating that he wants to entrench discrimination and disadvantage the rural child, and yet he and I grew up in a rural area?

Mr Speaker, I need a very serious ruling. There are no computer studies teachers in Nalusanga Secondary School and Kalilo Secondary School. He may choose to answer, perhaps, the first question, and not the second one.

Dr Kaingu: Mr Speaker, it is true that the hon. Member of Parliament for Mumbwa is my friend, indeed, and also in need. Of course, he is right. In our time, we used to despise computer programmers and system analysts because those of us who were hardware engineers …

Laughter

Dr Kaingu: Do not exhibit your illiteracy.

Laughter

Dr Kaingu: Those of us who were hardware engineers were so proud because at the time, what we called mainframe computers or International Business Machines (IMB) computers were kept in air conditioned rooms at the basement of every building. However, now, I regret and I wish I was a programmer so that I would know how to use a computer instead of how to repair it.

Sir, I regret, as hon. Minister, that we have delayed in distributing computer materials to schools. However, like I have already said, I was faced with a paradox which was whether to allow the examination to take place in this subject or not. If I decided against having examinations in this subject, then, even those schools which had computers were going to relax and they would not teach our children the subject. Eventually, we decided to examine the students and hope these good hon. Members of Parliament, like Hon. Jack Mwiimbu, will use some of the Constituency Development Funds (CDF) to buy computers.

Interruptions

Dr Kaingu: Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Hon. Jack Mwiimbu for offering to buy computers using the CDF. I know that there are many others who are willing to join the ministry and participate in the buying of computers. We have no choice, but to learn about computers because things are changing. It is no longer a matter of buying a very expensive cellular phone just to use it for text messages. The expensive phone that you have can do a lot for you, Hon. Member of Parliament for Mafinga.

Sir, I regret that we have not distributed the materials adequately, but we have to go through with the examinations. Our children must be examined. We have already stated that students are taking eight subjects and only six will aggregate to a mark that will consider whether they proceed to Grade 10.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Lufuma (Kabompo West): Mr Speaker, sometimes I wonder why Zambia is always in a hurry to introduce things before it puts everything in order. Things are, especially, not order in the education sector in relation to basic and secondary schools. This also relates to the issue of computers.

Sir, I have been discussing with teachers in Kabompo West, which is where I come from, and they are saying that they do not have the necessary materials to teach even the theory. Are books available to these teachers because there are not there in Kabompo? Will the hon. Minister send those books so that the theory can be taught to those pupils in Kabompo?

Dr Kaingu: Mr Speaker, what we have noticed at the ministry is that people are failing to migrate from the conventional way of delivering education to our learners to using the leverage of the ICT. For example, the Government has put up very expensive infrastructure at the University of Zambia called the Zambia Research and Education Network (ZAMREN), but some of our lecturers are still using chalk and board, and yet we have infrastructure that could help them. I am not surprised that your teachers are denying the fact they have the material to teach the theoretical component of this subject because even the people that have the infrastructure here cannot utilise it. So, it may not be true that they do not have the theory.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Kazabu (Nkana): Mr Speaker, in the principles of education, I have never heard …

Mr Lufuma: On a point of order, Sir.

The Deputy Chairperson: A point of order is raised.

Mr Lufuma: Mr Speaker, I apologise to the hon. Member of Parliament for Nkana for this abrupt interruption.

Sir, we have a serious situation at Kabompo Secondary School. There is a mysterious disease that has hit this institution and three pupils passed away without any plausible medical explanation.

Mr Speaker, is the hon. Minister in order to keep quiet and not come to this House to explain what is happening to our pupils, who are being eaten up by this mysterious disease, at Kabompo Secondary School so that the parents, other pupils and Zambians as a whole know what is happening in Kabompo?

The Deputy Chairperson: File a question of an urgent nature and we will ensure that it is fast tracked.

Mr Kazabu: Mr Speaker, in the principles of education, we learn that a child can only be examined on a subject that he/she has been taught. In that context, is it logical to examine pupils or students on subjects that they have not been taught?

Dr Kaingu: Mr Speaker, I have already said that I am in a precarious situation. There are schools that already have equipment while some do not. However, if we were to say that we would not examine the subject, then, even those who have the equipment will relax. It is not a question of us being in a hurry to implement what we are not fully prepared for. Computers have come to change our way of life.

Sir, therefore, our investigation has shown that almost all our schools have taught the theory part of the ICT and, therefore, pupils will be examined based on that.

I thank you, Sir.

Prof. Lungwangwa (Nalikwanda): Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister was a year behind me at secondary school.

Laughter

Prof. Lungwangwa: Sir, firstly, it is a fact that almost all the schools in the rural areas have no computers. Secondly, most of our teachers, especially in the rural areas, are not proficient in computer theory. Thirdly, learning computers theoretically is the worst form of learning. You need to learn it practically. I am saying so because I have practical experience of that. I started learning computers in 1993 and I noticed that theory was worse than practice in as far as learning computers was concerned. Fourthly, it is a fact that supply of computers in schools is the most expensive way of supplying the material component of education. Many countries have done it. Hon. Minister, given these four facts, can we get your assurance on when you will provide computers in all our schools, especially in the rural areas, so that teaching and learning can take place more efficiently, more proficiently and more effectively on an equitable basis throughout the country in this particular subject.

Dr Kaingu: Mr Speaker, indeed, I can confirm that I was behind the Hon. Prof. Lungwangwa at Sesheke Secondary School. It is also true that I have taken over from him at the Ministry of Education, Science, Vocational Training and Early Education.

Laughter

Dr Kaingu: Mr Speaker, I also want to thank this Government for being focused. If the previous Government, in which Prof. Lungwangwa was the hon. Minister of Education, Science, Vocational Training and Early Education saw this problem, it could have started acquiring computers. His Government is the one that has let us down.

Hon. PF Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Kaingu: Mr Speaker, in this new Government, we are now the ones providing computers.

Laughter

Dr Kaingu: Where was he?

Prof. Lungwangwa: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Chairperson: A point of order is raised.

Laughter

Prof. Lungwangwa: Mr Speaker, thank you very much for generously according me a point of order on this very important topic.

Mr Speaker, is the hon. Minister who was, of course, my junior at school in order to say that we did not initiate the procurement of computers in schools when, in fact, if he cares to go through the files, he will find a programme for the acquisition of computers which was started way back in 2008? 2,000 computers were actually brought into the country and that was supposed to be an on-going programme. Is he in order to state that in the ministry at that time, there was no effort made to supply computers when a programme was put in place for that purpose and there was also an E-Learning Conference which took place here in Lusaka. This conference brought in all the Education Ministers on the African Continent to discuss ways and means of promoting the information and communication technologies (ICT) and how to circumvent the problems of materials such as computers in our schools?

Mr Speaker, I need your serious ruling on this very important matter.

The Deputy Chairperson: To the extent that the hon. Minister has forgotten to dust those papers at the ministry…

Laughter

The Deputy Chairperson: … and that he has forgotten about the E-Learning Programme, which was initiated and was in place at the time he took over at the ministry, he was out of order.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

The Deputy Chairperson: May he continue.

Dr Kaingu: Mr Speaker, indeed, I am grateful that you gave the honourable Professor, who was my senior at school, an opportunity to raise his point of order. It is also true that he debated his point of order.

Laughter

Dr Kaingu: Mr Speaker, I want to ride on his point of order by stating that it is not possible for a Government to do everything in the shortest possible time. He has demonstrated that the previous Government brought 2,000 computers into the country, but that was really nothing. As they say, it was a drop …

The Deputy Chairperson: Order!

A point of order has been ruled upon. May you proceed to the other point.

Dr Kaingu: Mr Speaker, I answered him.

I thank you, Sir.

Laughter

Ms Lubezhi (Namwala): Mr Speaker, since we are being told by the Patriotic Front (PF) Government that the computer studies are in theory, I would like the hon. Minister to theoretically tell me what letter comes after the letter ‘L’ on the keyboard.

Laughter

The Deputy Chairperson: Next question.

Laughter

STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION IN KAFUE ESTATES

597. Mr Hamusonde (Nangoma) asked the Minister of Local Government and Housing when street lights would be installed in Kafue Estates in Kafue District.

The Deputy Minister of Local Government and Housing (Mr Ching’imbu): Mr Speaker, I wish to inform this House that the ministry, through Kafue District Council, has prioritised the installation of street lights in the 2016 Annual Work Plan.

I thank you, Sir.

__________

BILLS

SECOND READING

THE URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING BILL

The Minister of Local Government and Housing (Dr Phiri): Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the Bill be now read the second time.

Mr Speaker, I wish to thank you for according me this opportunity to give a policy statement to support the Bill on the proposed Urban and Regional Planning Bill.

Sir, the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environment protection proposed that there be holistic planning which will ensure that all land in the country is subjected to planning. This will make it easy for the Government to provide services such as roads, water and electricity.

Mr Speaker, my Ministry has embarked on a process to review, repeal and harmonise the Town and Country Planning Act, Cap. 283 of 1962 and the Housing Statutory and Improvement Areas Act, Cap. 194 of 1974 to bring them in line with current planning and development challenges.

Sir, the Urban and Regional Planning Bill, 2015, is a product of this process and is intended to replace the current laws, which are outdated, complex and not in line with the current planning issues in Zambia whose objectives are:

(a)    to provide and encourage development in the entire country;

(b)    to decentralise the planning system to councils;

(c)    to cater for areas that previously have not benefited from planned development under the existing legislation such as unplanned settlements and customary land by bringing them into mainstream planning;

(d)    to improve the living conditions of the general citizenry, especially the urban poor, through access to land, security of tenure and provision of municipal services;

(e)    to simplify administrative procedures and planning rules;

(f)    to encourage public participation in planning; and

(g)    to plan for sustainable, orderly and affordable development.
    
Mr Speaker, in line with the Decentralisation Policy, the proposed legislation now seeks to decentralise planning functions to local authorities, which will now be planning authorities, as long as they meet set requirements. This will quicken the planning process. Currently, only city and municipal councils are planning authorities. Provincial planning authorities plan for all district councils which are currently not planning authorities. This, therefore, means that my ministry will concentrate on formulating policies, strategies, regulations and guidelines for the planning authorities.

Sir, the new legislation provides for development plans at national, regional, district, local as well as sectoral levels, namely national planning framework, regional development plans, integrated development plans, local area plans and sectoral plans. The current legislation does not provide for national planning framework to guide physical development nationally and clear planning guidelines to guide the planning process which this Bill seeks to take care of.

Mr Speaker, currently, informal settlements are mushrooming. Eventually, the Government recognises these as improvement areas for the purpose of providing services. This practice has, to some extent, encouraged illegal land invasions, knowing that the squatter settlement would eventually be recognised by the Government. The Urban and Regional Planning Bill seeks to discourage this trend by widening the coverage of the proposed legislation to areas that the Town and Country Act did not cover. Consequently, no new informal settlements will be recognised. Local area plans will be prepared for the existing ones for the purpose of facilitating the replacement of the less secure occupancy licences with the ninety-nine years certificate of title. All planning authorities are expected to be proactive to discourage mushrooming of informal settlements.

Sir, there is a need to draw up an urban development framework which will set out the vision and programmes aimed at meeting urban development challenges in the short to medium-term and to guide physical planning at district and provincial levels. As development progresses, these policies and programmes will have to be reviewed from time to time and adjusted to allow for lessons learnt and new priorities which may emerge.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I wish to state that the proposed Bill is, therefore, designed to address the prevailing planning and development challenges in Zambia which the current Town and Country Planning Act of 1962, and the Housing Statutory and Improvement Areas Act of 1974 fail to address. The legislation and subsequent regulations are expected to improve the methodologies of urban planning and development to meet the current urban development challenges which our cities face.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Mbewe (Chadiza): Mr Speaker, …

The Deputy Chairperson: Order!

Business was suspended from 1615 hours until 1630 hours.

[THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON in the Chair]

Mr Mbewe: Mr Speaker, the Urban Regional Planning Bill, was referred to the Committee by the House on 23rd April, 2015. The Bill has ten objectives which are clearly outlined in the report. Amongst others, the objects of the Bill are to:

(a)     provide for development, planning and administration principles, standards and requirements for urban and regional planning processes and systems;

(b)    provide a framework for administering and managing urban and regional planning for the Republic;

(c)     provide for a planning framework, guidelines, systems and processes for urban and regional planning for the Republic; and

(d)    repeal the Town and Country Planning Act, Cap. 283 of the Laws of Zambia and the Housing Statutory and Improvement Areas Act, Cap. 194 of the Laws of Zambia.

Sir, to facilitate its scrutiny of the Bill, your Committee requested written submissions and oral input from various stakeholders. While noting the background information and the concerns of stakeholders, your Committee observed that the Bill does not explicitly designate the Office of the Commissioner of Lands, the Technical Service Branch, under the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, and the Resettlement Unit, under the Office of the Vice-President, as planning authorities.

In this regard, Sir, your Committee recommended that the Bill designates the institutions mentioned above as planning authorities. These institutions play an important role, directly and indirectly, in the actual physical planning of land use in the country.

Mr Speaker, your Committee also observed that the Bill does not mention the involvement of members of the community during the process of consultation to enter into planning agreements. The Bill only mentions consultations with the chief. Your Committee observed that community members are more likely to be affected by the developments and, therefore, recommended that the Bill provides that the agreement will be with the chief who should have adequately consulted the people living in the chiefdom.

Sir, your Committee further observed that the Bill proposes that chiefs should be consulted before a planning agreement is entered into. Where a chief refuses to enter into a planning agreement, the hon. Minister will, after consultations with the President, sign the planning agreement, if it is in the public interest. However, the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection disagreed with the above provision of the Bill and noted that, in its current state, the Bill was weak as it gave power to the chiefs to decide whether customary land should be subjected to planning or not.

Sir, the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environment protection proposed that there be holistic planning which will ensure that all land in the country is subjected to planning. This will make it easy for the Government to provide services such as roads, water and electricity.

Mr Mucheleka: Hear, hear!

Mr Mbewe: This would further ensure that communal grazing areas are well planned and it would prevent such land from being allocated for other ventures.

Mr Speaker, additionally, your Committee was made aware of the fact that unplanned customary areas are very expensive to service. Your Committee further observed that the Bill does not explicitly repeal the Agricultural Land Act Cap. 187 of the Laws of Zambia.

Sir, your Committee recommends that the Bill should include an explicit provision repealing the Agricultural Land Act because the Bill has provided for integrated development plans which include farms covered under the Agriculture Lands Act. The inclusion of the integrated development plans has, therefore, rendered the Agricultural Lands Act redundant.

Mr Speaker, your Committee also observed that the Bill has not taken into consideration the views of the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, which is a key stakeholder in issues of physical planning.

Your Committee is of the view that the matters raised by the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection are of utmost importance. Your Committee, therefore, recommends that the Bill be withdrawn to allow for further consultations between the two ministries …

Hon. MMD Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Mbewe: … in order to iron out the areas of divergence before the Bill is presented to Parliament.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, allow me to express my gratitude to you for affording your Committee the opportunity to scrutinise the Urban and Regional Planning Bill (N.A.B No. 3), 2015. May I also thank all the stakeholders who submitted written memoranda and subsequently appeared before your Committee to give oral evidence. My appreciation also goes to the Clerk of the National Assembly and her staff for the able manner in which they rendered their service to your Committee.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

MAIDEN SPEECH

Mr Sichalwe (Chawama): Mr Speaker, as I stand to support the Bill on the Floor of the House I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to present my maiden speech to the House.

 Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Sichalwe: Mr Speaker, I would like to thank you for according me the opportunity to deliver my maiden speech on the Floor of this august House.

Mr Speaker, I stand before this august House and my fellow citizens with humility. I am greatly honoured and thankful to have been elected, on 14th April, 2015, by the people of Chawama Parliamentary Constituency to represent them in this Parliament.

Mr Speaker, I am highly indebted to the Patriotic Front (PF) Party for the confidence it had in me by adopting me as the suitable candidate out of the twenty-three aspirants to carry forward the mantle form His Excellency the President, Mr Edgar Chagwa Lungu.

 Hon. PF Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Sichalwe: Sir, I must confess that it was not an easy election campaign, especially with heavy de-campaigns targeted at my predecessor, His Excellency, Mr Edgar Chagwa Lungu, by our colleagues in the Opposition. The Opposition insinuated that he had failed to deliver development to the people of Chawama Parliamentary Constituency. However, little did they know of the massive developments that have been on-going in the constituency.

Mr Speaker, let me tabulate some of the developments that have been achieved in the constituency, this far, by my predecessor.

Sir, three police posts have been constructed using the Constituency Development Fund (CDF)

Hon. PF Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Sichalwe: … and these were commissioned by His Excellency, Mr Edgar Chagwa Lungu, after he assumed Presidency of this nation. Let me further point out that amongst these stands, one of the most modern police stations, today, befitting a central station was constructed through corporate-social responsibility. This was lobbied for by my able predecessor who went further to lobby for the construction of the Parliamentary office in the constituency so as to move it from Lusaka Central Constituency, Findeco House to be specific. May I implore the National Assembly to begin preparations for official opening sometime in August, 2015.

Mr Speaker, the constituency now has a modern market, in John Howard Ward and it is being constructed using the CDF. I must mention that Phase I, which is the construction of stalls, has already been completed and since I have taken over now, I will ensure that we continue with Phase II which is the construction of the main market shade.

Sir, I want to assure the people of Chawama Parliamentary Constituency that I will ensure that all projects already started by my predecessor are completed.

Mr Speaker, in the health sector, my predecessor ensured that a voluntary counselling and testing (VCT) clinic was constructed in Lilayi Ward 4. Furthermore, two health posts are being constructed as part of the Government’s initiative of the construction of 650 health posts across the country with support from the Indian Government.

Sir, this will assist in decongesting Chawama Clinic which currently services a lot of people, a population of over 140,000

Mr Speaker, may I add that my predecessor scored a plus in Nkoloma Ward, which is popularly known as Misisi Compound. Through his efforts, he ensured that four water kiosks were constructed and these are now operational. This shall not, however, end here. I will continue where he left off as I intend to lobby for an additional twenty kiosks to be constructed so that more people can have clean drinking water.

Sir, let me state that within the three years that His Excellency, Mr Edgar Chagwa Lungu, was an hon. Member of Parliament for Chawama Parliamentary Constituency, he scored a major milestone for the people of Misisi Compound who after fifty years of independence still drew their drinking water from shallow wells. The route I will take is that of continuing to uplift the living standards of the people of Chawama.

Mr Speaker, I am glad to mention that the road network in Chawama Constituency, which has been in a deplorable state for a long time, is being worked on. The work that is being done by this hard working Government is something I do not need to discuss in detail because it is there for everyone to see. Within the few years that the PF has been in Government, it has initiated the Pave Zambia Road Project and Chawama Parliamentary Constituency has benefited from this.

Sir, since this work has already started, I pledge to ensure that the roads that are worked on stand the test of time. To this effect, I have hit the road in addressing the perennial flooding by ensuring that the main drainage is worked on and constructed using concrete. It is my belief that once the drainages are worked on, the roads will last longer and the flooding in the constituency will be a thing of the past.

Sir, Chawama Parliamentary Constituency has a huge population and is, therefore, in need of many secondary schools. At the moment, the constituency has no secondary school. In this regard, I intend to emulate my predecessor’s ability to lobby the business community to continue playing its role of corporate-social responsibility and upgrade one primary school into a secondary school. I further wish to appeal to this hardworking Government to consider building a secondary school in the constituency. Let me add that Chawama Parliamentary Constituency is springing up, with the business communities expressing interest in investing in the area. A point in mind is the upcoming shopping mall in the area. This will inevitably create employment for the people, particularly the youth, which is what the PF promised the people of Zambia.

Mr Speaker, there are numerous developments going on in Chawama Parliamentary Constituency. I wish to urge my colleagues from the Opposition to give credit where it is due, especially that they too are beneficiaries. I wish to reiterate that the PF Government has made great developmental strides in the country in infrastructure development, which includes roads, schools and health posts, to mention a few.

Sir, my speech will be incomplete if I do not thank my campaign managers, Hon. Miles Sampa, Member of Parliament for Matero Parliamentary Constituency and Hon. Steven Kampyongo, Member of Parliament for Shiwang’andu Parliamentary Constituency for their hard work and having gone out of their way during the campaign period.

In conclusion, I wish to thank my entire family for the support rendered to me during the race to Manda Hill. I also wish to thank my predecessor, His Excellency, Mr Edgar Chagwa Lungu, the PF Party and the people of Chawama Parliamentary Constituency for their support.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Sichalwe: Mr Speaker, in supporting the Bill that is on the Floor, I wish to refer you to Page 1 of your Committee’s report, in particular, on the objects of the Urban and Regional Planning Bill, item (i) which talks of repealing the Town and Country Planning Act Cap. 283 of the Laws of Zambia and the Housing (Statutory and Improvement Areas) Act, Cap. 194 of the Laws of Zambia. I support this repeal wholeheartedly because, in my view, these two Bills contradict each other. A typical example is where the Town and Country Planning Act tells you what to do, but if you do not do as required, the Act provides for demolition while the Housing and Statutory Improvement Act will come in with a humane face and say let us regularise. This supports illegality.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Hamududu (Bweengwa): Mr Speaker, I rise to support the view given by your Committee that this Bill be withdrawn to ensure that we are conclusive in the issue surrounding this amendment. Evidence is abound around the country that this is one of the most poorly planned countries, save for the countries that went to war. It is very backward.

Mr Speaker, there is a bigger problem behind planning in this country, and we must know where the problem really lies. It is in the law, the harmonisation of the pieces of legislation and the leadership in the institutions tasked to implement this law. All those issues must be attended to.

Sir, just take a drive from Lusaka to Kabwe and you will know what I am talking about. There are shanties along the road. Sometimes, when the hon. Minister of Commerce, Trade and Industry goes to woe investors to come to Zambia and those investors eventually come, they are in disbelief. This is because the country is poorly planned. I think we made a mistake right from the beginning. Look at Lusaka, Katuba, Shantumbu, Chongwe, as you go to Silverest and Lusaka West and you will see that everything is dia marcar. Dia marcar is confusion, and as a country, we cannot proceed like that. People are building in areas with no provision for roads and other attendant infrastructure. So, because of doing things like that, we are failing to put viable drainages through which water can spill over during the rainy season. That is because people have built where water is supposed to flow. There are serious problems regarding the planning of our structures in this country.

Mr Speaker, Lusaka should have been decentralised a long time ago. It is supposed to have sub-municipalities such as Lusaka West, South, East and North and, then, we remain with the central one. Lusaka has now grown beyond the planned horizon and beyond that, people are building anyhow. By the time that becomes part of Lusaka, it becomes very costly to put up infrastructure. This state of affairs is not only unique to Lusaka, but it is cascading to the smaller towns around the country. The capital city is supposed to be an example to the smaller towns.

Sir, if you went to Namibia, Windhoek, you would see that the planning is excellent, and you will think that there are bigger buildings there, but that is not so. It is just the planning that is impressive. The houses in Windhoek are not as big as our houses here. They are just well planned and so people think they are mansions. When you add planning to all this, it changes the value and the face of the towns.

Mr Speaker, what your Committee is saying about harmonising some of these laws is so that we deal with the fundamental problem of this disorganised planning in our town. However, in dealing with this issue, we must not rush. The ministry, too, should not bulldoze. Your Committee invited many stakeholders who have raised different issues. So, this is a test to the Executive. If you push this Bill to go through even after receiving this kind of evidence from the Committee, then, you do not respect consultation. I hope that the Ministry of Local Government and Housing and the Executive will say they have heard what has been said and that they will go back to make further consultations. I hope that will be the resolution after this. Otherwise, we will be here to just accept things that are not correct. Those people in the Executive, as well as the Back Benchers, will just be saying hear, hear, simply because it is the hon. Minister talking, but ignoring the fundamental problems that we sit with.

Sir, our people are the ones who lose out in the end. Due to disorganised planning, houses that have been built at high costs have little value because of lack of attendant infrastructure, lack of accessibility and other issues. Today, if you go to Chalala and Mutumbi Extension, you will see that everyone is sinking a borehole. So, you have a situation where a borehole is sunk next to a septic tank and soon we shall have a catastrophe in our towns because we are sinking these boreholes and putting up sewers against the scientific dimensions. We continue doing this and you are telling us that you want to give power to the local authorities. This could be because you do not sit in the councils. These councils – someone told me − …

Mr Muntanga: Nominated.

Mr Hamududu: Not really, and it is nothing personal. However, the councils, at the moment, cannot plan. First of all, you need to deal with the management in the councils. The Constituency Development Fund (CDF) is just simple change, but we are struggling to spend it because of corruption.

Sir, K1.3 million is simple change. It is petty cash, but the councils are failing to administer it and now you want them to plan our towns. So, first things first, a serious audit and a serious stock take must be carried out to ascertain what the fundamental problem is.

Sir, one of the issues which is not being addressed in the local authorities is that of poor management. It can be done. Rwanda has fine-tuned its management. There are many methods, procedures and approaches that can be used to make these councils begin to deliver. That way, they will be able to carry out responsibilities given to them.

Mr Speaker, we have enough evidence that these councils cannot do anything sensible. Now, you want to give them the power to plan our towns. You will see the type of structures that will come up. All our towns are actually going backwards.

Mr Speaker, through the work of your Committee, one time, I visited a town. I asked where this town was. I do not want to mention names because it will not be fair for those hon. Members who come from there. I asked, “Where is the town?” I was forced to ask because, I am telling you, the whole town is like a market. I want to tell the hon. Minister that, please, go around the country. Some of these so-called towns are no longer towns. They are simple shanties.

Mr Speaker, we have a serious backlog of problems that you must address. Hon. Minister, you need to literally move with a stick and begin to whip.

Mr Muntanga: Oh!

Mr Hamududu: Even under the current law, people must adhere. You cannot democratise everything. People want to argue with even what is good. In this country, there is too much freedom. I think when we got independence we forgot about responsibility. There is no responsibility at all.

Sir, yesterday, I heard a Permanent Secretary say that he wants to clean Lusaka. It is impossible with this kind of planning. Today, you remove this heap, tomorrow, you find another. How can people throw garbage like that in town? There are heaps of garbage everywhere and this is so even in small towns. There is garbage all over apart from the surroundings of this Parliament.

Sir, when you just go out there, you will find heaps of garbage. People are piling heaps of garbage even when it is not allowed. This is happening in all our small towns. Today, when you want to look for a town in this country, you will wonder at how complicated it is to locate one. If you say let us go to this town, you wonder when you get there because it is difficult to tell a town apart from a shanty compound and you get lost. Our towns have lost shape completely. I can give an example. The hon. Member of Parliament for Sesheke is here. There is a river which divides Sesheke and Katimamulilo. The people from across the river used to come to Sesheke to see the town. People used to come to do their shopping and get their education from Sesheke. Go there today and see what planning can do.

Sir, when I refer to Namibia, I am talking about an African country with a lower capacity than us. However, in a country like Zambia, when you go to Sesheke today, it looks like a market. Where is the town there?

Mr Muntanga: It is market.

Mr Hamududu: When you cross into Namibia you realise that, within a span of ten years, Katimamulilo, across the river in the Zambezi region, has completely changed into a new town. We can learn from our colleagues from across on how they are doing it. What your colleagues do across there is that if a council fails to perform, there is a team at the ministry head office that cracks the whip by suspending everyone at that council. Let these technocrats run the council for a few months and re-employ the people with proper systems. That is what was done in Katimamulilo. For a long time, it was poorly planned and it was dirty but today, it is a new town.

Mr Speaker, when the hon. Minister goes there, he should, please, take all the officials from Sesheke to learn one or two things from their colleagues in Katimamulilo. The story they will tell within a few years will be that things have changed.

Sir, what is wrong with us? Can we be conclusive in determining what is wrong in this country.  We cannot proceed like this. Our country is going backwards. People are investing in a disorganised manner, therefore their investment does not make sense. People are building mansions in areas with no roads and piped water. Our people are the final losers because their investment is in an unplanned fashion and, therefore, has no value.

Mr Speaker, secondly, we are not attracting proper investors. Most of the investors that are coming here are people who are running away from their war-torn countries. No serious investor can come here and set up property.

Mr Ntundu: Running away from war-torn countries.

Mr Hamududu: Yes!

They have all come here to run shops and so on. They cannot go back to their countries. If there was peace where they come from, they could have gone back, but they have no choice. So, let us put the right premium on planning and bigger cities must lead the way. Lusaka must demonstrate and, then, other towns can learn from it.

Sir, I do not want to mention names of towns here because the next time I will be campaigning I will be told I talked about other people’s towns. However, these towns are not even worthy being called towns. These are village councils and you have opened new ones to add to the burden of your Treasury, and yet they are failing to raise revenue because of poor planning. People are building without authority and, therefore, those properties are not captured for payment of rates on property which is a main source of revenue for the councils. Councils are potentially viable. How come Lusaka, which has more property, does not have enough revenue collected compared to Windhoek, which is a very small city? This is simply because the properties are planned and are captured, hence everyone is paying rates, including withholding tax. Tax must be paid so that people can have good services. Why people are refusing to pay taxes in this country is because there are no attendant services that come with the payment of these taxes.

Mr Speaker, people want to see a relationship between the rates and taxes with the services provided. For me, I am for paying any form of tax, but those taxes must be justified by service provision. If our councils have not put roads, sewer systems and drainages, how will they collect rates on property? How will you collect the potential tax on houses? That is investment. Potentially, we must pay withholding tax on property. Now, people are refusing to pay these taxes because of a lack of attendant services.

Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister has a very huge task ahead him and the first demonstration is to first admit that there is a problem. We need to carry out serious stocktaking and withdraw this Bill. This will show good will on the part of the hon. Minister, as the picture that will be painted is that he wants to consult and, then, properly move forward. If the hon. Minister does not do that, then, he is an enemy of progress and planning in this country. So, the back stops at him. Demonstrate leadership, hon. Minister, by listening to the Hon. Mr Speaker’s Committee. The Committee has talked to the main stakeholders, the architects, the planners and engineers. Serious concerns have been raised over this issue. Call a stakeholders’ meeting and we will all come there and tell you what the problem is. We will put a holistic approach to addressing the number of problems around this confused development taking place, so far, in this country.

Sir, I support the suggestion by your Committee that we withdraw this Bill and consult further and come up with a proper roadmap to address the serious backlog of this confusion planted in 1964. We thought independence meant breaking things and building anyhow. Freedom must be accompanied by responsibility. We, the leaders, must show leadership. We must not only be populists.

Sir, electricity is expensive. You want people to pay electricity tariff below the cost of production? Who is going to invest in power? Today, you are crying that there is no power. Who is going to put his penny in a ditch? Politics aside, if people are poor, there are social programs in the Ministry of Community Development Mother and Child health, the Social Cash Transfer Scheme. Do not take issues of populism to every programme. No, do not pay cost-effective tariffs. Who is going to invest? No. Just build a house because you are poor. You are making the people poorer.

Finally, Mr Speaker, there will be no investor and no jobs. Those people are trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty. Let us break this confusion in this country and we can start with this.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mrs Masebo (Chongwe): Mr Speaker, I thank you for giving me an opportunity to add my voice to a very important Bill that is before this House.

Mr Speaker, from the outset, I want to state that, while supporting the work of your Committee, I do not support the call of the Committee that this Bill should be withdrawn. Rather, I would support that amendments be made on the Floor of this. I will give my reason.

Mr Speaker, this Bill has been on the drawing board for the last eight years, since 2007. From that time up to 2009, there were various consultations in the drafting of this Bill by all sector ministries that are very important, including Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection.

Mr Speaker, the previous speaker brought, on the Floor of the House, issues concerning the disorderliness of development in our towns and he is right. It is a result of using the archaic Town and Country Planning Act of 1937. With this whole new way of life, we still have a piece of legislation that is no longer relevant and all the problems that we are facing in the area of planning are as a result of being in a country where you do not have any law to talk about.

Mr Speaker, this proposed Bill is, therefore, very important and we must quickly support it and ensure that it comes into effect.

Mr Speaker, the previous speaker raised the issue about some stakeholders having complained about the Bill. However, if you read through the report, there is only one major stakeholder, the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, that has complained. If you look at the issues that it has raised, you will realise that they cannot warrant the withdrawal of this Bill from the Floor except to say that certain amendments, which are being proposed, can be amended on the Floor of the House.

Mr Speaker, I will take you back to the report of your Committee. On Page 5 are views expressed by stakeholders and a whole list of stakeholders, including the ministries of Justice, Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, Local Government and Housing and Transport, Works, Supply and Communication. Others are the Kitwe, Lusaka and Chipata city councils, the Engineering Council of Zambia, the National Council for Construction and the Zambia Land Alliance, among others.

Mr Speaker, the only issue that has been raised, on Page 5, is that the hon. Minister of Local Government and Housing has a lot of power vested in him and it must be shared with the tribunal. You saw this morning that the hon. Minister of Local Government and Housing does not even know the powers that he has such that people can sell property illegally …

Mr Kambwili: Question!

Mrs Masebo: … without him realising that he has power over the matter. It is important for the hon. Minister to have such powers because there are many issues that occur wrongly at local authorities, districts and towns.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mrs Masebo: You must always have somebody in the Minister or the President to help. This is why I was sad, this morning, to find out that where the hon. Minister is supposed to exercise power for public good, he shies away.  

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mrs Masebo: Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection brings into question Section 6(1). The report on Page 6 says, as regards the Office of the Commissioner of Lands, that Section 9 of the Lands Act, Cap. 184 of the Laws of Zambia empowers the Office of the Commissioner of Lands to forcibly remove any person who illegally settled on any land in Zambia. This is referring to State land which does not belong to a local authority or is not customary land. It is saying that the Commissioner of Lands does not have powers to forcibly remove illegal settlers because he or she is not a planning authority. It is seeking that this Act must appoint the Commissioner of Lands as a planning authority so that in the case of a nuisance, the commissioner can invoke the powers in the planning authority to allow him/her to enforce the removal.

Mr Speaker, the previous speaker complained that this Act is appointing local authorities and other people as planning authorities. However, I want to state that even the current Act has appointed city councils which have capacity to be planning authorities, but councils like Chongwe and other smaller village councils which have now been established are not planning authorities. There are provincial or regional planning authorities that plan on behalf of small districts like Chongwe. This Act has continued with these provisions except that it has now given the hon. Minister extra powers to be able to designate any other authority he thinks necessary to be made a planning authority.
Mr Speaker, you cannot demand the withdrawal of the Bill from the Floor of the House because the Commissioner of Lands wants to become a planning authority. This is point number one.

Sir, the next one talks about the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock. As you know, this ministry has some farmland in the same way as the Vice-President’s Office, which deals with resettlement. Now, this Committee is recommending that the hon. Deputy Minister in the Office of the Vice-President must be designated in this Act as a planning authority. This means that since the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock also has land, it must be given planning authority. I do not think that this is correct. A planning authority must be a local authority. If it is not a local authority, it must be a provincial or a regional authority, especially for small councils that may not have the skills and capacity to plan.

Mr Speaker, we should be very careful not to give planning authority to individual ministries. Remember that the function of physical planning is use of the land that has been alienated. The function of the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection is the alienation of land. The function of the Ministry of Local Government and Housing, through the councils, is the planning of the physical use of the land for such purposes as location of roads, water and social amenities like churches. It is a community function.

Mr Speaker, this report is suggesting that the planning function and the alienation function must be put under one ministry. How can you support this when the two functions are totally separated? It is like you have under the Ministry of Finance the financial planning aspect ...

Mr Kambwili: Tom and Jerry!

Mrs Masebo:  In a country where there is proper planning, you should have different sections which plan development of the land. The Minister of Finance must put the cost to the plan and then others must implement. The hon. Minister of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection alienates the land. How, then, can we say that the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection must now take over the functions of the Ministry of Local Government and Housing in terms of physical planning? I do not think that we are doing justice to it and have not understood the matter correctly.

Ms Lubezhi: Hear, hear!

Mrs Masebo: Mr Speaker, there is an issue of who should be a member of the regional planning authorities. These are regional planning authorities such as the Southern Province Planning Authority in the Southern Province and the Lusaka Province Planning Authority in Lusaka. Councils like Luangwa, Chongwe and Kafue fall under the Lusaka Planning Authority. The Act has stipulated who should be a member of the regional planning authority and I hope the hon. Minister of Local Government and Housing can listen to this point. This Act has specified who should be a member. It talks about chiefs and business people, but has not talked about the local authorities that are being represented in the membership of the regional planning authority.

Your Committee, Sir, was suggesting that this issue of leaving out stakeholders who were the local authorities was a serious omission and that the hon. Minister of Local Government and Housing must take this into account. I feel that this can come as an amendment on the Floor of this House.

Mr Speaker, there is another issue which was brought out by the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection. The current Act talks about ensuring that when customary land is being planned and the chief or a local authority refuses to co-operate, the hon. Minister of Local Government and Housing should have the final power to decide, after consultation with the President. In brackets is the phrase “if it is in the public interest.”

Mr Speaker, it is good to include the aspect of public interest. This is why we have a Government that has been elected. This is why we have an hon. Minister, for as long as this power is being used in the public interest and not the way he used it this morning under the Mwatusunga Land issue. No.

However, it is important that that power of the hon. Minister, or the power of the President, which is the people’s power, be exercised in order to protect the public good.

Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection submitted that that kind of negotiation with the chief is not good. Why should the hon. Minister and His Excellency the President beg a chief to agree to how land is planned? You people want to support this and say that this clause must be withdrawn. The Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection submitted to the Ministry of Local Government and Housing to have that clause removed to ensure that there should be no negotiations between the Government and the chiefs on how their land is planned. That is what this report is saying. I will just go back to the report and read it in verbatim because, maybe, I am not speaking very well for people to follow. I will just go back to read exactly what the report says:

“The stakeholders raised concern with the provision that ‘where a chief or local authority refuses to enter into a planning agreement, the Minister shall, after consultations with the President, sign the planning agreement, if it is in the public interest to do so for the purposes of this Act, and the planning agreement shall bind the chief and local authority concerned.’ … However, the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection submitted that in its current state, Section 25 of the Bill was weak, as it gave power to the chiefs to decide whether customary areas could subjected to planning. In this case, customary areas could only be planned if traditional leaders agreed with the planning authority. According to the Ministry, the Bill was, therefore, advocating for negotiation between the chiefs and the planning authority, before planning could take place in the customary areas. The Ministry was of the view that this approach to planning was counter-productive as the Bill was shying away from holistic planning which would ensure that all land in the country was subjected to planning. In its current state, the Bill was not curing the mischief that existed in the planning of land in customary areas.”

Mr Speaker, therefore, my view is that this Bill is advocating for negotiations, but it has still given the Minister and the President power to sign for that planning under special cases where there is public interest  However, the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection is rejecting this clause stating that it is weak. It is suggesting that that power be taken away from the chiefs. The Government must just bulldoze its way. I want to submit that what this Bill is advocating is good, and it is going to help the planning function in this country. Therefore, I would like to urge my colleagues, both on the right and the left, to support this Bill and make proposals for any amendments so that this Bill can advance because we are behind time, and we have no law to deal with all these illegalities in this country today. That is why you are seeing that the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection is allocating the land from Lusaka. The ministry does not recognise the local authorities in the districts and the local people do not even know what the Government of the day is doing. Therefore, if you want to give the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection the function of physical planning, then, I do not know what you are talking about.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr L. J. Ngoma (Sinda): Mr Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to contribute to the debate on the Floor. Let me begin by saying that planning in any society or nation is the hallmark of development. Today, even when we look at the political or economic level of our nation, our nation is under dire economic and social straits as a result of lack of proper plans.

Mr Speaker, your Committee has suggested that this Bill be withdrawn for further consultation. Under our own parliamentary system, a Bill comes to the Floor of this House for the First Reading and then it goes to the Committee. Then, that Committee invites various important stakeholders or witnesses to give their submissions. I will wonder if we, in this House, will say that the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection is not a very important stakeholder. The ministry has been dealing with the issues of land and it is probably more of an expert in that area than other stakeholders. The ministry knows the problems that have come in as a result of a lack of planning in this country.

Mr Speaker, Section 25 of the Bill is so weak because it says that any land may, you know what the term “may” entails, … . The questions that we should ask ourselves, as hon. Members of Parliament are: Do we want planning of land in this country? Do we want planning to be the order of the day? If the answer is yes, then, we should be able to say that as far as planning is concerned, it is non-negotiable.

Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection submitted that the provision under Section 25 is very weak. Hence, the ministry was requested to sit with its counterparts from the Ministry of Local Government and Housing so that they can find ways and means of strengthening that provision so that at the end of the day, all land in this country should be planned for. I have not heard the hon. Minister indicate that the ministry will bring amendments to the House. They are not interested. We know, through practice, that when the ministry is told that there are some contentious issues, the hon. Minister will come on the Floor of the House and indicate that he will take into account the views of the Committee and at the appropriate time, he will bring some amendments. However, what we are seeing, right now, is that the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources, and Environmental Protection would like to bulldoze its way. Suppose the amendments which my colleague, the hon. Member of Parliament for Chongwe has indicated, do not come through, what will happen next?

Mr Speaker, cadres in this country have gone on rampage.

Interruptions

Mr L. J. Ngoma: Cadres can be from the Patriotic Front (PF) or any other political party. Cadres, especially from the Ruling Party, have continued to allocate land. I remember that under the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (MMD), cadres used to allocate land, and that scenario has continued. In fact, it is worse under the PF.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Mr L.J. Ngoma: Mr Speaker, one former hon. Member of Parliament in this House was killed in Kitwe because cadres are able to take the law into their own hands. Why? It is because the provisions of the law, as far as land administration is concerned, are very weak in this country.

Mr Speaker, Section 71 of the proposed Bill is very weak. It just provides that when a person does something contrary to this Act, he/she shall be jailed for two years or probably pay a fine of 2,000 penalty units.

Mr Speaker, the members of your Committee are of the view that such punishment is not adequate to deter what is happening in this country. It is no wonder that we submitted that it is important that the Ministry of Local Government and Housing and the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection sit down to iron out the grey areas of this Bill.

Sir, the issue of placing planning at the digression of chiefs is very dangerous. We know that customary land in this country is not being administered correctly. Like the hon. Member of Parliament for Bweengwa has submitted, this is what you will see if you go to Katuba area. When the Surveyor-General came to present information before your Committee, we saw that some of the land in Katuba is rectangular in shape while some other pieces of land are circular in shape. There are no roads. It is terrible.

Mr Speaker, I would like to submit that is not what we want and for that reason, we are supporting the Chairperson of your Committee because there is a need that the important stakeholders sit down, harmonise those grey areas and bring the Bill to the House. We need to be sure that those amendments, which we are talking about …

The Deputy Chairperson: Is the hon. Member for Sinda a Member of that Committee?

Mr L. J. Ngoma: Yes, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Chairperson: Therefore, you do not need to be that lengthy in your contribution because you must give an opportunity to those who are not members of the Committee to debate.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr L. J. Ngoma: Mr Speaker, thank you for your guidance. I saw that only a few hon. Members indicated to debate and I thought I could be of value, in terms of providing information.

Sir, it is very important that the issues which your Committee has brought before the House, in terms of the withdrawal of this Bill for consultation be taken into account.

With these few words, I wish to submit.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

The Deputy Chairperson: I hope we will have a new dimension in the debate. We will have the hon. Member for Kalomo Central and after that, I will move to the hon. Minister of Local Government and Housing.

Mr Muntanga (Kalomo Central): Mr Speaker, I have read the recommendations by your Committee. What makes me sad is that the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection has a tendency to always exclude itself when it is discussing others. It may not just be the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, but all other ministries. I do not know why the ministries want to compete. When one ministry is handling an issue, the other ministry claims not to have been consulted.

Sir, we have been discussing the Urban and Country Planning Bill for a long time. We have had lengthy discussions and consultations that have not been followed up. The hon. Minister of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection had the land use planning of the country under which this entire country is planned. However, the hon. Minister has forgotten about the national beacons which are being uprooted. Nothing is being done about it.

Mr Speaker, in Chilanga, we have an important beacon on an aunt hill opposite the road going to Chilanga, but you have allowed someone to build there. I asked the commissioner what they were doing to this country by allowing people to remove beacons. At least, what we are talking about in this Bill is that there must be orderliness in towns. By orderliness, I mean that everyone who is involved must be consulted. Why should we always withdraw when we reach a hitch when we can amend the Bill instead? We can put guidelines in effect.

Sir, we have problems in our own councils. There is no progress in Kalomo because only the Provincial Planning Unit is authorised to do the planning. However, the Provincial Planning Unit is saying that it is busy and so, Kalomo cannot develop. Merely numbering plots is a problem. At the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, you have to wait for days just to have a plot numbered.

Hon. Opposition Members: Yes!

Mr Muntanga: How do you want to be included when you are already included?

Mr Speaker, Zambia needs serious and action-oriented people. We look at other countries and admire them for doing very well. However, it takes more than planning. It also has to do with the money you allocate. In Botswana, when they plan and earmark an area for development, they put roads and even fences before they build houses. The problem is that we plan, but we do not follow our plans up with funds to implement the developments.

Sir, I have been to Ndola. The old plan for the place which is near Pamodzi, where there was Self-Help, had sewer systems already built and when building a house there, all you had to do was to connect to the main sewer system. However, they have not built a proper sewer system in the area where they are planning. So, people are digging their own septic tanks. This is because the people who did the planning did not put into effect what was planned. You should have space for sewer systems and water systems and a place where electricity poles are going to pass. That is the job of the local authority, through the local government. Once this is done, people will develop. Why do we always envy others instead of doing the right things here?

Mr Speaker, there is a place in Kalomo called Mawaya which was a well-planned area that was far from being a shanty compound. However, now, it no longer looks like a planned place. People have built in the roads. Everywhere one would think there would a road someone has built a small house. How can you survive like that? You do not even have enough space to move or to put refuse. This is becoming junk. The towns are becoming something that I cannot explain.

Sir, if you fly over Lusaka, you will see some planned developments with properly constructed roads. However, what you will see in other places …

Mr Sing’ombe: It is like mushrooms.

Mr Muntanga: … is worse than mushrooms. I even wonder how people identify their own houses.

Laughter  

Mr Muntanga: It is so closed up. People will kill you if you tell them that you want to put up a road after they have built. We do not need to reach that level. We do not need to beg. This is the starting point. Let us allow a situation where there will be planning followed by correct investment.

Mr Speaker, it is because of lack of planning that people are putting up buildings on top of sewer pipes. On the western side of Manda Hill, there are buildings on top of pipes. The Zambia Electricity Supply Corporation (ZESCO) lines are being put on top of houses, but they say that the ZESCO line is supposed to be free. Are you going to destroy your house which you built a long time ago? All that this Bill is trying to do is to ensure that there is order.

Sir, there is an issue of people who are not trained. Let us put a law and tell everybody that we only want people who are trained. You will not train anyone if you do not pass this Bill. There must be a restriction that stops people from being planning officers unless they are qualified. It is only after this is done that proper people will be put in proper places. All councils will ensure that they have a proper planning officer.

At least, we have sent a Planning Officer in Kalomo. He told someone that there was a water pipe under the house he had built. He further asked this person who allowed him to build a house there and he said it was the council. The council allowed this person to build a house without looking at any plan.

Mr Speaker, this problem was not caused by the Patriotic Front (PF) or the Movement for Multi-party Democracy (MMD). This problem started a long time ago during the time of the United National Independence Party (UNIP). Councilors used to give away land anyhow. They used to move around with papers asking people if they wanted land. That is the reason land is becoming scarce and people are fighting over it. When there was plenty of land, the councils could allocate land to anybody and anywhere. Nobody would talk about it. That trend should come to an end and it can only be so if there is orderliness.

Hon. Minister, you have been given powers to look at this issue, but if you are going to ignore it, following what Hon. Masebo said, it will be wrong. If these people do not seek authority from you, simply tell them to cancel whatever they are doing because they did not consult. That way, people will know that you are in charge. That is when you will see that most of the things were not approved by the full council. You will also find out that this and that was not done. I know that you will be persuaded to approve because the interest groups are many and you will not know who will be coming to you. You should follow the law. This law is in place to protect us from having any more shanty compounds in Zambia. I agree, Hon. Speaker, that we need this piece of legislation. We need it and we can amend it any time. I am afraid that if we defer the Bill, it will never come back to this House. This means that we shall go back to a situation where there will be no planning at all. This is where the fittest will get what they want.

Mr Speaker, I thank you, Sir.

The Minister of Information and Broadcasting (Mr Kambwili): Mr Speaker, I thank you for according me this opportunity to add my word on the report of your Committee. I will be extremely brief. I just want to make emphasis on certain points that I feel are important to note.

Mr Speaker, I think the recommendation by your Committee to withdraw the Bill is misplaced in that the issues that it has raised can be handled with a mere amendment at Committee Stage. I do not think, like Hon. Masebo said, we should open a Pandora’s Box to include everybody to be planning authorities. I do know that when the Office of the Vice-President is doing a resettlement, there is a Committee that is put in place comprising of people from the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection and the local authority to do the layouts and number the plots. That is being involved in planning. What more does the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection want to do with planning?

Mr Speaker, this country is so behind in terms of planning because of these issues that we do not want to face head on. Look at Solwezi, for instance. Surely, can you say we have planners in Zambia when you look at the state of Solwezi? In this country, one can just wake up and start extending his House without going to the council for approval. What kind of people are we? Now, we want to give the planning powers to the people who are in Lusaka at the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection. This situation of lack of planning will even be worse. The local authority is failing to check on the extension of houses and there are so many things that are going wrong.

Sir, for us who grew up in the mining townships, we feel sorry when we look at the way the townships look today. The plans of buildings and roads in these mining townships were laid out properly.  Today, because our councils have an “I do not care type of attitude”, people have extended those houses in a manner that you cannot think they are houses, shops or garages. I think it is important that we take our responsibility as the Local Authority. Somebody can easily alter the entrance to the House. For the Local Authority to do the planning of where one should enter his yard, there are so many things that should be taken into consideration. You will find someone closes the gate that they use and open another one somewhere else. He will even end up breaking the pavement.

Hon. Phiri, we have to be very strict with these planners otherwise, this country will be a laughing stock. You can even see the difference between the mining townships and places such Lusaka because those were planned by the mining investors. If you look at places such as Luanshya, Chingola and Mufurila, the houses are laid out nicely. You can easily see where house number one or number two is. Here in Lusaka, you will find that number one is here and number two will be found after seventeen houses.

Laughter

Mr Kambwili: Mr Speaker, even a person who delivers mail gets confused. Surely, there is no time for us to withdraw this Bill. Let us be reasonable. Those who have amendments will be free to bring them to this august House at Committee Stage. If they are reasonable amendments, we will support you, but not where you want the Office of the Vice-President and the Commissioner of Lands to be planning authorities. I think that will bring confusion because what you are going to see in your towns will be something else. You will just find that whilst the Town Clerks and the councils are in the offices, people will be demarcating land and when they are asked where they are from, they will say they are planning authorities from the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection. What kind of a country are we going to run?

Mr Speaker, this amendment to include the Commissioner of Lands, the Office of the Vice-President and the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock in the planning should not be tolerated. Let us move forward and make sure that this country is well-planned. I think if we are to be serious, let us find a new area to build Solwezi Town and leave that ramshackle the way it is.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Kambwili: Mr Speaker, we are a laughing stock. Solwezi is becoming the new Copperbelt but, at the moment, there is no orderliness in the way people build their houses. You will find that there is a house, a shop, a toilet and a farm in one area.

Mr Speaker, with these few words, I support the report, but not the recommendation to make that amendment to include other people as planning authorities.

I thank you, Sir.

Dr Phiri: Mr Speaker, I think we are all unanimous on this issue, …

Interruptions

Dr Phiri: … including those who appear to be speaking against it. There are very few other considerations we can get. I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for the presentation. I also thank Hon. Hamududu and Hon. L. J. Ngoma for their contributions. Even though they were all parallel, I think we have agreed that the need for planning must be now. We cannot lose any more space or time. I also thank Hon. Masebo for her contribution even though she indicated that she was a bit sad. I guess I owe her.

Mrs Masebo indicated ascent.

Dr Phiri: Hon. Muntanga, I am pleased with the unanimous support you have rendered. Yes, we cannot lose any more time. Hon. Kambwili, right on, we are behind. That is the message I have heard. We must, therefore, move on quickly. The people we trained in Namibia and other surrounding countries are far ahead of us. We should not perpetuate backwardness. That is the message I am getting. We have been with this Bill from 2008 and we decided to wait a bit more.  Let me state that I am very grateful that there were no serious divergent views.

Mr Speaker, after the first reading, the Bill was subjected to serious consultations. After interacting with your Committee, my ministry undertook very serious consultations with the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection and other significant stakeholders to iron out some divergent views raised by the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection and other stakeholders on some of the provisions in the Bill. The consultations have been held and the matters raised have been resolved. We all agree with the proposed amendments now. We cannot continue going in circles. Let us move on. I urge this august House to allow serious amendments to be made to the Bill. These can be made on the Floor of this House.

Mr Speaker, I tried to be persuasive, but I could not go further than what I have stated because I know we are unanimous. However, time is running out for Zambia so, let us have something on paper that we can rely upon to develop in an orderly manner.

I thank you, Sir.

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

Committed to a committee of the Whole House.

Committee on Wednesday, 15th July, 2015.

THE REFERENDUM (Amendment) BILL, 2015

The Minister of Justice (Dr Simbyakula): Sir, I beg to move that the Referendum Amendment Bill be read a second time.

Mr Speaker, the Referendum Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Referendum Act, Cap. 14 of the Laws of Zambia in order to bring its provisions on eligibility to vote at a referendum into conformity with the eligibility criterion provided for in the Constitution of Zambia, Cap. 1 of the Laws of Zambia. The Bill further seeks to transfer the responsibility of conducting all referenda to the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ).

Sir, the Referendum Act currently restricts the category of persons eligible to vote at a referendum on any issue to only those persons who, at the time of a referendum, are registered as voters to vote at elections to the National Assembly. However, whenever it is considered necessary to alter any of the entrenched Clauses in the Constitution, Article 79 has raised the bar by providing for a referendum with a higher threshold that requires not less than 50 per cent of persons entitled to be registered as voters, as opposed to registered voters only. It is, therefore, necessary to amend the Referendum Act so as to include the eligibility criteria, with respect to alternation of the entrenched Clauses that is, Part III of the Constitution and the Double Entrenchment Clause itself, as provided for in Article 79. The amendment is necessary because the Constitution is the supreme law, a grundnorm of the land and all laws must be consistent with it.

Secondly, Mr Speaker, bearing in mind that a referendum is an election, it is only logical and prudent that the body that conducts elections in Zambia be given the responsibility of conducting all future referenda in Zambia rather than appointing ad hoc referendum commissions each time a need arises to conduct a referendum.

Mr Speaker, this Bill is not controversial, but progressive. I, therefore, urge all hon. Members of this august House to support the Bill.

I beg to move.

Mr Mwiimbu (Monze Central): Mr Speaker, as I rise to give and submit my report, I would like to seek your guidance pertaining to what the hon. Minister of Justice has indicated. This is because the matter that was before you did not refer to those amendments that the hon. Minister referred to and it was only one section that needed to be amended. So, I am finding it difficult to present my report. I need your serious guidance.

Interruptions

The Deputy Chairperson: My understanding is that these issues which have been raised were discussed in the Committee report. You may, therefore, proceed to present your report, honorable, and the hon. Minister will make an appropriate response.

Mr Mwiimbu: Mr Speaker, with your guidance, I now proceed to submit the report of your Committee.

Sir, after introduction of the Referendum Bill, No. 5 of 2015, in the House at first reading, the Bill was referred to your Committee on Legal Affairs, Governance, Human Rights, Gender Matters and Child Affairs for scrutiny. Your Committee’s recommendations and observations on the Bill are detailed in its report. Allow me to briefly highlight the same.

Firstly, Mr Speaker, your Committee is of the view that the process of reviewing or amending the Referendum Act, Cap. 14 of the Laws of Zambia is very important, especially taking into consideration that this country may soon adopt a new Constitution, through a process which may require the alignment of several pieces of legislation to the Constitution. Your Committee notes, however, that the manner in which this particular amendment has been proposed is suggestive of a piece-meal approach to the review process. This was clearly echoed during your Committee’s deliberations with various stakeholders who pointed out several other amendments in other pieces of legislation. These are incidental to the current amendment to the Referendum Act. Your Committee, therefore, recommends for a wholesale review of the relevant legal framework so that the exercise is done once and for all.

Mr Speaker, secondly, the Bill seeks to amend Section 3 of the Referendum Act so as to bring it into conformity with the Constitution of Zambia, particularly Article 79. In this regard, the Bill introduces a new Sub-section 3(2) which provides that any question or questions put to a referendum, which is or are required to be put to a referendum by the Constitution, shall be voted on by not less than 50 per cent of persons entitled to be registered as voters for the purpose of Presidential and Parliamentary Elections.

Mr Speaker, the proposed new section purports to be consistent with article 79(3) of the Constitution which states as follows:

“A Bill for the alteration of Part III of this Constitution or of this article shall not be passed unless before the First Reading of the Bill in the National Assembly it has been put to a referendum with or without amendment by not less than 50 per cent of persons entitled to be registered as voters for the purpose of Presidential and Parliamentary Elections.”

Mr Speaker, Section 3 of the Referendum Act, which the Bill seeks to amend, provides for a threshold for a referenda other than the referendum envisaged by Article 79. In other words, Article 79(3) of the Constitution provides for a referendum for the amendment of the Bill of Rights, while Section 3 of the Referendum Act provides for referenda other than a referendum for the amendment of the Bill of Rights. Section 3 of the Referendum Act is, therefore, not consistent with the Republican Constitution as its provision has nothing to do with the referendum to amend the Bill and the Bill of Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution. Your Committee is, therefore, of the opinion that this section should not be tempered with.

Mr Speaker, further, your Committee has made an observation that the proposed amendment, which proposes that same threshold as that in Article 79, required to hold a referendum, has effect of subjecting all future referenda, including any referendum, for the amendment of the Constitution to such a criteria.

Sir, this is worrisome because such an amendment will make this holding of any referendum in future, almost impossible. This is given the high threshold being proposed vis-à-vis the poor voter turn-outs that characterise this country’s general elections.

In light of these observations, Sir, it is your Committee’s recommendation that the proposed amendment specifically speaks to Article 79 of the Constitution so that in the final analysis, it shall be clear that there is a provision in the Constitution of a referendum to amend the Bill of Rights and Article 79 itself, which requires a 50 per cent threshold as well as general referenda, as envisaged by Section III of the Referendum Act requiring a lower threshold.

 Mr Speaker, with those few words, I would like to thank you for according us this opportunity to debate although we did not debate other amendments, as indicated.

 I thank you, Sir.

 Mrs Masebo: Mr Speaker, actually, I am rising on a point of procedure. I have found it very difficult to make a contribution because I am not very sure on how to debate this Motion.

Sir, the hon. Minister of Justice rose and articulated what he is seeking us to achieve out of this Bill. In his submission, what he is asking us to do and what the Chairperson of the Committee to which this Bill was committed has stated are two different things. So, I would like to seek your serious indulgence in this matter or, maybe, the hon. Minister of Justice can, again, stand up to tell us exactly what he wants from this Bill.

I thank you, Sir.  

The Deputy Chairperson: Order!

If we look on Page 3 (ii) of the report, the hon. Minister of Justice, in his submission, made specific reference to that as follows:

“The need to amend the Referendum Act to provide that the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) shall be the Referendum Commission for the purpose of conducting a referendum, so as to address operational challenges in the event that the Referendum Commission was appointed outside the Electoral Commission.”

 Further, under paragraph it said:

“There was need to have current national registration date on all citizens that would reflect with certainty, the number of people that are eligible to participate in a referendum;”

I think that those two issues were mentioned in the submission by the hon. Minister. So, I do not see the problem yet because the Chairperson of the Committee has articulated that in his submission. In fact, he said that here is a referendum under Article 79 which affects any amendment to Article 79 and another form of referenda. Therefore, there are two sets of referenda. That, I think, has been adequately articulated by the Chairperson of the Committee. It is not one and the same thing. There is a referendum under Article 79 of the Constitution which comes into play whenever you want to amend Part III of the Constitution. Part III of the Constitution deals with the Bill of Rights. Therefore, this has come out very clearly in the submission by the Chairperson of the Committee.

 Hon. Members, the point I am making is that there are two sets of referenda and we must not confuse ourselves.

Thank you.

Mr Mwiimbu: Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, I would like to respectively request that we adjourn debating this particular item, maybe, to tomorrow because there are certain issues which we need to harmonise

Sir, if you recall, the hon. Minister is talking about the object of the Bill, which is different from the object which is in the Bill as it is. This is the reason I am saying that, I think, there is something which we need to harmonise.

 I thank you, Sir.

Dr Simbyakula: Mr Speaker, the object of this Bill is to amend the Referendum Act of 1967 so as to ensure its consistency with the Constitution of Zambia.

 I thank you, Sir.

The Deputy Chairperson: Order!

This is why I mentioned that there are two sets of referenda here. There is a referendum that comes into play when you are attempting to amend Part III of the Constitution which deals with the Bill of Rights. Now, if you look at the object of this particular Bill, it reads:

“This is a Bill to amend the Referendum Act, 1967 so as to ensure consistency with the Constitution.”

That is the object of the Bill. What I see is that the hon. Minister went further to talk about things which the Government intends to amend. However, the position is that the object of the Bill is to amend the Referendum Act, 1967, to make it consistent with the Constitutional provision. Basically, that is the object of the Bill, and I hope we are on the same page now.

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

The Deputy Chairperson: I hope we are on the same page.

Mrs Masebo: Sir, just on a point of clarification on what you have just explained so that we understand.

The Deputy Chairperson: I think the clarification that needed to be made has been made. All of us have copies of the Bill and the report. Read the report. If you have read the report, relate it to the object of the Bill and the purpose will come out very clearly. What I was trying to say is that, in his submission, the hon. Minister went further to explain amendments intended to be made, instead of confining himself to the object of the Bill, which is a point well taken.

Mrs Masebo: Mr Speaker, I rise to support your Committee’s report and the recommendations on the Bill, assuming that I have understood your guidance to mean that the Government is seeking to amend the Referendum Act to bring it in conformity with the Act which requires us to achieve a certain threshold when we are dealing with the Bill of Rights.

The Deputy Chairperson: Perhaps, to guide you, hon. Member for Chongwe, all you have to do is read the Bill. The object of the Bill is clearly stated there, under the Memorandum. The object of this Bill is to amend the Referendum Act, 1967, so as to ensure its consistency with the Constitution of Zambia. So, the object is very clear. There is no need to assume anything other than what is here. I hope that is clear. With that clarification, relate your argument to what is in the report as well as the object of the Bill.

 You may proceed.

Mrs Masebo: Mr Speaker, thank you very much for your guidance. I will be very brief. I want to support your Committee’s observations, as stated on Page 5 of its report. Your Committee, …

Rev. Lt-Gen. Shikapwasha: On a point of order, Sir.

Laughter

Mrs Masebo: I am being disturbed.

Laughter

The Deputy Chairperson: Order!

If you attempt to catch my sight and I do not call upon you, be patient.

Proceed, hon. Member.

Mrs Masebo: Mr Speaker, I want to support your Committee on its observations and final position on this particular matter. We know that for the Bill of Rights, as it stands today, to change, we need to go for a referendum. We all know the history concerning the Bill of Rights and what has caused Zambia not to progress in amending that, …

Rev. Lt-Gen. Shikapwasha: On a point of order, Sir.

The Deputy Chairperson: A point of order is raised. I hope you will not be debating through points of order.

Rev. Lt-Gen. Shikapwasha: No, Sir. The point of order I am raising is that you have clearly said that the hon. Minister went further to explain more than what is contained in the Bill. So, would you be able to remove the further explanation so that we can debate the Bill?

The Deputy Chairperson: That was clarified earlier.

Hon. Member, you may proceed.

Mrs Masebo: Mr Speaker, I do not support the proposal by the hon. Minister of Justice in that his proposal will make future changes on constitutional issues more expensive and difficult. As you will appreciate, many successive Governments have tried to amend the Bill of Rights for the good of the public. However, due to the requirement in the current Constitution, which stipulates that for that to be done, there is a need to go to a referendum, which is very costly, we have failed to amend Part III of the Constitution. Now, the hon. Minister of Justice is coming to tell us that he wants to harmonise a particular clause to bring it in conformity with this clause by enshrining in the Constitution, a rule that will make it even more difficult for us to make any amendments to the Constitution in future. So, why would we be coming up with such an amendment when we know that, in the past, we have tried to do certain things such as amend Part III of the Constitution, but it has all been in vain on account of it being expensive? When you look at the voter turn up in Zambia, you will see that it is always below 50 per cent.

So, Sir, why do we want to entrench something in the Constitution that will just be costly for the Government and the people of Zambia? Why are we making things difficult for ourselves? Clearly, if you look at Page 5 of your Committee’s report, your Committee is saying there is no inconsistency that the hon. Minister of Justice is talking about. So, I want to say that the hon. Minister must reconsider his position.

Sir, I support the Committee’s recommendation.

Mr Muntanga: Mr Speaker, I have read your Committee’s report on the Referendum (Amendment) Bill. The hon. Minister has indicated that he wants to make an amendment, and I take it that he wants to amend Part III of the Constitution. That is pulling a fast one on us. He wants to include something that he has not specified in this Bill. This Bill does not say that in his amendment, he wants to have the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) included as a member of the referendum. He is not saying so. This is only talking about Section 3, which your Committee looked at. So, we are following what your Committee is saying, which is that there is no need to amend Section 3.

However, Sir, it appears that because there is conformity, which the hon. Minister wants and forgot to include it in the proposed amendment, he has pulled one fast one on us. He is not telling us that he wants to make further amendments than what he has already told us. This Bill is only asking for specific amendments and your Committee has made the necessary recommendations, which I believe in. I, therefore, support the submission of your Committee, leaving out the extras that the hon. Minister has mentioned because the issue of bringing in the ECZ is not part of the proposed amendments.

Business was suspended from 1815 hours until 1830 hours.

[THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES in the Chair]

Mr Muntanga: Mr Speaker, as I said, there was only one specific amendment indicated on the Bill which we have before us. I do not dispute the fact that, in your committee’s deliberations, it mentioned things that the hon. Minister has talked about. I think the chairperson of your Committee said, please, withdraw the Bill, so that we normalise everything. I do agree with that. The hon. Minister could have said that, for today, he will note down the specific amendments to be made to the Referendum Act rather than telling us to agree to amend Section 3 but, then, add on things which are not specified here behind our backs. I find it difficult to agree with that.

Sir, sometimes, it is easy to say that we have the numbers, but when we make laws, let us be systematic and do things orderly. Please, just show us what you want to amend and not just one thing while you are talking about other things because we believe that when the amendment comes, we will see things that we have not agreed to.

Sir, I submit that the Chairperson has submitted and recommended that they go on to include what the hon. Minister has stated, as the actual amendments here. Otherwise, for me, I would agree with the Chairperson because I see only one thing. No other thing is contained in this Bill.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Kambwili: Mr Speaker, I tend to think that we are making a storm out of a cup. What the hon. Minister has done, in my view, is to pre-empt what he wants to amend together with the principle of this Bill. I feel the hon. Members must be grateful because they will have an opportunity to …

Mr Belemu: Aah!

Mr Kambwili: … think through his future amendments. Therefore, I do not think that it will be reasonable for us to withdraw the Bill. It is like going on a journey to Kasama and telling your friend that you are going to see your sick mother. Then, the following day, you tell him I am going to see my sick mother and also marry. That should not stop anybody from going to Kasama.

Laughter

Mr Kambwili: What the hon. Minister has done here …

Interruptions

The Deputy Chairperson: Order!

Mr Kambwili: … is to only inform the hon. Members that he intends to move an amendment to include the issues of the Referendum Committee vis-à-vis the Electoral Commission of Zambia. I think we should proceed.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Laughter

The Deputy Chairperson: Before I call upon the hon. Minister, let me allow the hon. Member for Mumbwa to debate.

Brig-Gen. Dr Chituwo (Mumbwa): Mr Speaker, I am most grateful. I am also grateful for that analogy of a journey to Kasama.

Laughter

Mr Chipungu: It is a song.

Brig-Gen. Dr Chituwo: Mr Speaker, this is an orderly House. Even on this journey to Kasama, if you have not planned for fuel, you may not be able to arrive in Kasama if you detour.

Laughter

Brig-Gen. Dr Chituwo: Mr Speaker, we have no problem, from my point of view and many of my colleagues, on what the hon. Minister suggests to include. However, for now, we are only dealing with what he has presented.

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

Brig-Gen. Dr Chituwo: That should be the issue of debate. If those issues are going to come then, we shall take them into account but, for now, the matter is what has been presented before us. So, the question of pre-emptying has not been a very good one, hon. Minister.

Laughter

Brig-Gen. Dr Chituwo: Mr Speaker, I meant and intended to be very brief in my submission that this is a very clear matter, as has been our practice to deal with matters that the hon. Minister has presented for debate.

I thank you, Sir.

Mr Hamududu: Mr Speaker, I would just like to add one point. You know we are beginning the constitutional journey. One key word is ‘consensus’. If this is a precursor of what we are going to do, in future, then, it is a problem. We must have consensus in the Committees. The ministry made its submissions before your Committee and things ought to have been agreed upon outside the House. People will now further lose confidence in the ability of the House to make amendments. Therefore, this process, from the very the beginning, must have proper consensus.

Ms Lubezhi: There is no consensus

Mr Hamududu: The failure to reach a consensus is a danger because this is the beginning and we must start properly.

The manner in which the amendment to the Bill has been done is very untidy and people will begin to question whether this Parliament has the ability to unite and reach a consensus on the amendments it makes. These things must ordinarily be agreed upon outside Parliament. The ministry and other stakeholders came before your Committee, therefore, to begin to argue on a very sensitive process here is a very bad starting point. The people of Zambia, as you all know, have lost confidence in the ability of Parliament to amend the Constitution and it is this kind of arguments on the Floor of the House and the subsequent voting that have corroded the confidence of the people. Ordinarily, we must agree outside there. I am just giving counsel. It is as a result of such arguments on the Floor that people are saying let everything be done through the Referendum and Parliament must just endorse because they think that, here, we will be arguing back and forth even on things that are straightforward. So, I am just trying to give counsel to all of us that this has not been done so neatly and it can, therefore, spillover into a very important stage. Consensus is the key word.

I thank you, Sir.

Dr Simbyakula: Mr Speaker, firstly, I would like to commend and applaud your Committee for a thorough job in scrutinisng the Bill and all the hon. Members who have debated and, indeed, all the stakeholders out there who have contributed to this debate.

Mr Speaker, essentially, there is no controversy with this Bill. We just need to align it with the provisions of the Constitution. Nonetheless, I have taken note of all the concerns that have been raised by the hon. Members and all the stakeholders and I will move an amendment at an appropriate time to take care of all those concerns.

I thank you, Sir.

Hon. Government 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, 15th July, 2015

THE FORESTS BILL, 2015.

(Debate resumed)

Mr Muntanga: Mr Speaker, the last time before we adjourned I was saying that there is a need, therefore, to expressly provide for appeal from the hon. Minister’s decision to the High Court.

Mr Speaker, one of the main issues discussed by your Committee is the repeal of the non-operationalised Forests Act of 1999. One of the objects of the Bill is to repeal the 1999 Forests Act.

Mr Speaker, as you may be aware, the 1999 Forests Act, which was duly passed by the House and assented to by the President, has never been operationalised. Your Committee was informed that the non-operationalisation was due to the financial implications of the Act, particularly the creation of the Forest Commission. Consequently, the law that has been governing the forests sector is the 1973 Forests Act, Cap. 199 of the Laws of Zambia.

Sir, in order for the Bill to repeal the 1999 Forests Act, there is a need for the relevant Statutory Instrument (SI) operationalising the 1999 Act to first be issued. This will, by necessary implication, repeal the 1973 Forests Act which Act was repealed by the 1999 Forest Act. In this regard, the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection committed and undertook to issue the relevant SI before the passing of this Bill into law by the House.

Sir, your Committee pays tribute to all stakeholders who appeared before it and tendered both oral and written submissions. Gratitude goes to you, Mr Speaker, for affording your Committee an opportunity to study the Bill. Your Committee also appreciates the services rendered by the Clerk of the National Assembly and her staff during its deliberations.

Mr Speaker, I thank you, finally.

Laughter

Mrs Masebo: Mr Speaker, …

Interruptions

Mrs Masebo: Mr Speaker, could I be protected because we are here to debate Bills. I want to support the Bill on the Floor of the House. However, I have one issue that I want to raise, taking into account the fact that we came up with a Bill which was never effected. The reasons for the non-implementation of the Bill were mainly the many issues that some of the stakeholders raised. Some of those issues were also raised even on the Floor of this House, but the Government, at the time, did not heed the advice. As a result, we find ourselves taking so long to come up with a Bill on a very important subject, considering that this country has had most of its forest destroyed. You can imagine that you have a natural resource which is important to your development, as a country, but somehow, for so many years, you do not have a piece of legislation that is in tune with the times, but use an old Act. After so long, we are here, today, to come up with another Bill.

Mr Speaker, I want to raise a point of particular importance to the Ministries of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection and Tourism and Arts. There are issues that even the current Bill has not addressed. You will recall that in the olden days, the people who looked after the forests and the people that looked after wild life were under the same ministry. As a result, it was easy for the Ministry of Tourism and Natural Resources at that time to manage the administration of the forests and at the same time manage the administration of wild life in the forests. However, these two functions were separated whereby you have the Forestry Department under the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection and wild animals under the Ministry of Tourism and Arts.

Mr Speaker, you have a situation where the two ministries are not collaborating in a cost- effective manner to an extent that when you are in the forest, those that look after wild animals are not bothered about the trees anymore and those that look after trees are not worried about the animals because they feel that they are under different ministries.

Mr Speaker, as a result, the Government is being forced to spend a lot of money on one section when that money can be spent in a much more effective way by ensuring that those that are in the forest are seen to be working together and supporting each other without each one requiring money for functions that could be effected at the same time. The point I am making is that a forest ranger or a ZAWA officer in the bush can look after animals and stop people cutting trees. However, this is not happening because of the mere fact that these two functions were separated.

Mr Speaker, I want to submit to the two hon. Ministers that they should try to find a way of ensuring that they collaborate and support each other. Otherwise, they will find that the meager resources that the Government has will not ensure that the functions of this department are effected. The Department of Forestry and ZAWA are very separate and even when there is an issue which makes sense in the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection those at the Ministry of Tourism and Arts do not want to oblige because it is a different ministry.

Sir, I thought that I should raise this issue with the two hon. Ministers and urge them to find a way of helping their officers to ensure that they collaborate so that the Government spends less money.

Mr Speaker, at the moment, you have a situation on the ground which is not conducive for protecting our trees because of the mere fact that somehow, one department feels that it is a bamba zonke arrangement.

Mr Speaker, I promised that I was not going to say much. I just hope that the two hon. Ministers have heard what I have said. There a number of issues …

The Deputy Chairperson: Tell us the meaning of bamba zonke before you wind up.

Mrs Masebo: What is the meaning in English?

Laughter

Mrs Masebo: Hold on to everything.

Laughter

Mrs Masebo: Mr Speaker, the serious point that I am making is that the function of the protection of animals and forests is one and the same. Unless the hon. Ministers of Tourism and Arts and Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection collaborate, they will not move.  You will end up with animals that have no trees or forests that have no animals. Unfortunately for you, you will find that normally it is the officers that do not want to collaborate effectively. Unless you work together effectively as ministers, you will not have enough resources to perform the functions of the Forests Department.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Ms Namugala (Mafinga): Mr Speaker, I will also be very brief. I rise to support your Committee’s report on the proposed Forests Bill. This Bill is long overdue. I commend the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection for bringing this Bill to the House. It cannot be over emphasised just how important forests are to us socially and economically.

Mr Speaker, we are operating under a very old piece of legislation, the 1974 Forests Act. The reason is because we failed to operationalise the 1999 Act, as the Chairperson of the Committee on Environment, Tourism and Lands has said.

I do hope that, as the hon. Minister comes to respond, she will shed some light on which Act we are repealing. Is it the 1974 Act, or the 1999 Act? Has the Government had the time to operationalise the 1999 Act? The financial implications attached to the creation of the Forest Commission are what made it very difficult for the Government, since 1999, to have this 1999 Act operationalised.

Mr Speaker, I have gone through the proposed Bill, and I have one or two issues, especially with the proposed Community Forest Management on Section 29. Yes, it has been the cry of the community to get involved in the management of the forests because many of our communities depend on the forest products, and for a long time, they have not had a chance to participate in the management of the forests. However, remember that forests are on land, and there has been politicisation of land acquisition in the country. The hon. Minister is proposing that there will be a community forest management group, and this will be comprised of members of the village in or near a forest. Therefore, if members of a village in, maybe, Mulekatembo, my village, decide to apply to the hon. Minister to form a community forest management group, the hon. Minister may allow them to do so. According to the provisions here, the community forest management groups shall be guided by the following principles; persons living in close proximity to, or deriving their livelihood from or having strong traditional ties to the forest shall be given an opportunity to join a community. Now, people living around a forest will not necessarily be patriotic enough and provide the necessary management of a forest. I am even worried that you will find that the ruling party members will feel that they have a right to belong to this community forest management group, more than any other person in that particular locality. If that happens, where you have a community forest management group comprising of members of a political party in power at that particular time, it may not be the Patriotic Front (PF), which is there now, it can be any other party after the PF, those members of that political party managing a community forest, are going to take it upon themselves to abuse the authority that would have been bestowed on them by the hon. Minister. We have seen how land is being managed by our political cadres, even just here in Lusaka.  They will, without regard to the law, demarcate pieces of land. This will happen, hon. Minister. I do hope that you are listening to me.  This is the danger that is inherent in this provision. While the intention is good, that we involve the communities in the protection of our forests, what will happen is that our communities are going to take it upon themselves and give land in forest reserves. When that happens, we will have no forests left. All the land on which our trees and other biodiversity rest, will be given away. Many people, some of foreign background, will go out to the remote areas and acquire huge tracks of land using this provision. Hon. Minister, I hope that you will take time to just find a way of amending these provisions. In your Bill, you are saying that the community forest management group with the approval of the Director, can enter into partnerships with other persons, for the purposes of ensuring the efficient and sustainable conservation and management of the community. Therefore, beyond the community forest management group, you are allowing the group to enter into partnerships with other people who were not part of the group initially. Therefore, if I go to a rural area, and I find a community forest management group, and I speak the language which people are used to now, which is the language of money, and I tell them to give me or cede their right to manage this community forest, I can now take over that forest. You as hon. Minister will believe that they have done the right thing and you will not have the time to go through that transaction. However, I can tell you that this is not going to work. We are going to lose even more that what we have lost. I hope that the Government is listening. Although we mean well with this provision, it is not likely to work.

Mr Speaker, there is also need to amend the Lands Act. Having been an hon. Minister in charge of forests, I am aware that the Commissioner of Land has been issuing title deeds in forest reserves …

Hon. Opposition Members: Yes!

Ms Namugala: … and this is wrong. We have seen that some of these forest reserves have been encroached on, and the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection has regularised that encroachment by issuing title deeds. A case which many of us are familiar with is that were 15,000 hectares of land in a forest reserve were given to a foreign national because the Lands Act as of now, allows the Commissioner of Land to give title deeds. This is wrong. Until the Lands Act is amended so that the Commissioner’s powers are restricted when it comes to giving title deeds in protected areas such as forest reserves, this provision is not going to work.

Mr Speaker, this brings me to another point. The merging of the two ministries, that is, the Ministry of Lands, and the environment function, which was then under the Ministry of Tourism. It is wrong and it must be revisited by the Government. I say so because I am aware that, currently, the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection is under immense pressure from people who want to access land. The private sector, individuals, and everybody else wants land. They run to the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection to try to access land. Now, the hon. Minister of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection is also the hon. Minister of this protected asset called forests. I can see a situation where the hon. Minister of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection will be allocating land in forests because of the pressure to allocate land to people who are queuing at her office for land. The two functions must be separated.

The hon. Minister, who is in charge of lands, cannot also be responsible for environmental protection because the tendency is for the ministry to want to please people that go there to ask for land. This is something that is very important and I hope that the Government is listening. The Government should not allow a situation where on one hand, the hon. Minister has the power to degazette forests and on the hand, she has the power to give land to continue. Inevitably, the forests will suffer because the degazetting of forests is in the hands of the same person who has a queue of the so-called investors wanting land and all they have to do is sign a Statutory Instrument and ask the President to degazette land.

With these comments, I support the Committee’s Report and indicate that this piece of legislation is long overdue.

Thank you, Sir.

The Minister of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection (Ms Ngimbu): Mr Speaker, I wish to thank all the hon. Members of this House for their positive contributions towards the Forests Bill. I further wish to thank your Committee for adequately analysing and for their guidance on specific areas of the Bill. My ministry has taken note of the Committee’s suggestions. Furthermore, I greatly appreciate the concerns raised regarding the state of our forests in the country.

Sir, the issues raised in this House show how much hon. Members of this House value the importance of our natural resources, particularly forests. The Government recognises the important role the forests and trees, in particular indigenous trees, play in the lives of people. The Government is also aware of the socio-economic value of forests and trees, especially in supporting the livelihoods of our rural population by being a source of energy and food, hence, contributing to poverty reduction.

Mr Speaker, it is for these reasons, and other reasons, that the Patriotic Front (PF) Government, through my ministry, has decided to pay attention to the protection of these trees, as they contribute to poverty reduction as well as job and wealth creation. In order to achieve this, there is need to provide appropriate policy and legal framework that takes into account the new and emerging issues affecting forest management.

Sir, I wish to take you back to the genesis of the administration of the forests in Zambia. The first comprehensive forest legislation, in the then Northern Rhodesia, was the Forest Ordinance of 1942. After Independence, the Forest Policy of 1965 was developed and later, in 1973, the Forests Ordinance was amended to the Forests Act, Chapter 199 of the Laws of Zambia.

Mr Speaker, this early forest legislation focused mainly on gazetting forest reserves as the only protected area system with emphasis on preservation and protection only. There was no provision for participatory forest management. The law did not take a holistic approach for increasing tree cover and conservation of natural forests and biodiversity. As a result, communities felt alienated from ownership and benefits accruing from the protected forest areas.

Mr Speaker, in 1994, the Government formulated the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) which indentified deforestation as one of the major environmental challenges the country was experiencing. As a result, in 1998, a National Forest Policy was developed. The policy emphasised participatory forest management and the promotion of the private sector. The 1998 policy led to the enactment of the Forest Act, No. 7 of 1999, which was to usher in a Forestry Commission to spearhead the management of forest resources in Zambia. The 1999 Forest Act could not be effected due to huge financial implications associated with the establishment of the Zambia Forestry Commission. The Government subsequently resolved to reorganise the Forestry Department and revise the Forests Act.

Mr Speaker, it is important to first highlight the challenges the Forestry Sector …

The Deputy Chairperson: Order! I thought you were winding up debate, hon. Minister instead of giving us a history.

Laughter

The Deputy Chairperson: Wind up the debate.

Interruptions

Ms Ngimbu: Sir, it is important to first highlight the challenges the Forestry Sector currently faces.

The Deputy Chairperson: Order! You are now winding up. So, it is not necessary to highlight what you ought to have highlighted earlier.

You may continue.

Ms Ngimbu: Mr Speaker, I thank all the hon. Members who have supported this Bill. We will take note of all the concerns that have been raised on the Floor and amendments will be considered in the Committee Stage.

I thank you, Sir.

Laughter

Question put and agreed to and the Bill read a second time.
 
Committed to a committee of the Whole House.

Committee on Wednesday, 15th July, 2015.

_______

MOTION

ADJOURNMENT

The Vice-President (Mrs Wina): Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

Question put and agreed to.

________

The House adjourned at 1908 hours until 1430 on Thursday, 9th July, 2015.