Wednesday, 13^th June, 2018

 

The House met at 1430 hours

 

[MR SPEAKER in the Chair]

 

NATIONAL ANTHEM

 

PRAYER

 

_______

 

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

 

UPDATE ON THE DRAFT NATIONAL LAND POLICY

 

The Minister of Lands and Natural Resources (Ms Kapata): Mr Speaker, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to make a ministerial statement to this august House on the update on the Draft National Land Policy.

 

Sir, the ministry convened a series of consultative meetings with key stakeholders since December, 2015 …

 

Mr Livune: Question!

 

Ms Kapata: … to February, 2018, on the Draft National Land Policy. This was for purposes of ensuring wide stakeholder participation in the policy development process. On Wednesday 28^th February, 2018, a national validation meeting was convened to validate the draft policy. The Draft National Land Policy was rejected by twenty-two chiefs who attended the national validation meeting. The main reasons advanced by the chiefs for rejecting the document were that:

 

1. the draft document did not adequately provide for the roles of the chiefs in land administration and management;

 

1. the document suggested that the powers of the chiefs were being taken away; and

 

1. the invitation of twenty-two chiefs to the validation meeting was not adequate considering that there are 288 chiefs in to to.

 

Therefore, the objective of validating the document with key stakeholders was not achieved.

 

Mr Speaker, despite this set back, the ministry remained committed to the process. I held a meeting with the Chairperson of the House of Chiefs on 10^thApril, 2018, to discuss and agree on a roadmap following the national validation meeting at which the chiefs rejected the document. The meeting was cordial and fruitful. It was concluded that during the May Meeting of the House of Chiefs, additional days would be allocated and dedicated to reviewing the document page by page so that the chiefs could provide their specific concerns and recommendations to the technocrats.

 

The ministry, through the Permanent Secretary, initiated and maintained contact with the Clerk of the House of Chiefs to plan for the activity. The chiefs later took a further step to organise provincial consultative meetings were they met to discuss the draft document. Following their provincial consultations, the chiefs proceeded to convene a national indaba which was held on 28^th and 29^th May, 2018, at the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) Headquarters in Lusaka. The ministry was invited to the indaba and participated as observers.

 

Sir, it is important to note that the ministry is not yet in receipt of the final recommendations that the indaba brought out. It is for this reason that we, as a ministry, await the official communication of the House of Chiefs stating the recommendations that came out of the chiefs’ indaba so that the next steps can be implemented.

 

Mr Speaker, copies of the Draft National Land Policy, which was rejected at the national validation meeting, will be availed to hon. Members of this august House for their information by Friday, 22^nd June, 2018.

 

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

 

Mr Speaker: Hon. Members are now free to ask questions on points of clarification on the statement issued by the hon. Minister of Lands and Natural Resources.

 

Mr Ng’onga (Kaputa): Mr Speaker, allow me to thank the hon. Minister …

 

Mr Livune: Question!

 

Mr Ng’onga: … for updating us on the Draft National Land Policy. Land is a very critical resource for all of us and, therefore, the people of Kaputa would like to get more information from the hon. Minister. In her statement, she indicated that some of the reasons that the chiefs advanced for rejecting the draft document during the consultative process were that it did not adequately provide for the roles of the chiefs in land administration and that the powers of the chiefs were being taken away in the administration of land. Having looked at the reasons that they advanced, may I find out from the hon. Minister whether the ministry agrees with these particular aspersions or what is the ministry doing in order to address this so that the Land National Policy can be in place because it is long overdue?

 

Ms Kapata: Mr Speaker, one of the reasons that the chiefs gave for rejecting the draft document was the issue of land administration. I am sure hon. Members are aware that the Constitution of Zambia proposes that the Government form a Land Commission, which means that land administration will go as far back as the level of a district where we will have district land officers. However, the chiefs felt that if this was executed, then, would be taking away their power. The creation of a Land Commission is not the making of the ministry, but something that is in the Constitution.

 

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

 

Mr Mung’andu (Chama South): Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister mentioned that the Ministry of Lands had engaged a consultant to help with the fine tuning of the Draft National Land Policy. Going by the rejection of the Draft National Land Policy, is the hon. Minister confirming to us that the work done by the consultant and experts in drafting the policy was not adequate?

 

Ms Kapata: Mr Speaker, the consultant that we engaged is equal to the task and did a very good job. All the issues that the traditional leaders raised were taken on board and have been included in the Draft National Land Policy. My ministry brought that to their attention, but the chiefs have continued to say that the ministry has not taken most of the issues on board. Therefore, to answer the question asked by the hon. Member, the consultant was equal to the task. We did not only engage this consultant, but also consulted other stakeholders, such as Land Alliance, which is a non-governmental organisation (NGO).

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

Dr Chanda (Bwana Mkubwa): Mr Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to thank the hon. Minister of Lands and Natural Resource for the great consultative work that she has done. I also would like to thank the Patriotic Front (PF) Government because it is the first Government since 1964 to come up with a National Land Policy. The hon. Minister has mentioned that she is waiting for the chiefs to give her the findings of the national indaba, but the country has waited since 1964 for this land policy. Therefore, my question is: How much time does she intend to give the chiefs to submit the resolutions of their indaba before she goes ahead to finalise the document?

 

Ms Kapata: Mr Speaker, chiefs are stakeholders in this issue. Considering the fact that they have already had their indaba, I do not think it would take them long to give us their final document so that we can sit down, as a ministry, to analyse what is contained therein.

 

The chiefs are, indeed, stakeholders, although I would like to stress the fact that the National Land Policy is neither about chiefs nor is it about anyone else, but the Zambians themselves. It is a Zambian document. Therefore, that document must be delivered like yesterday.

 

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

 

Mr Jamba (Mwembezhi): Mr Speaker, I am left to wonder why we should continue waiting for feedback from the chiefs. If the hon. Minister has stated that the consultant did a good job, did he consult the chiefs and it is written in the document that he did, and if he did, why should we continue waiting for their input?

 

Ms Kapata: Mr Speaker, in my ministerial statement, I mentioned that a lot of consultations were made by the ministry, even at provincial level. We expected all the chiefs to be in attendance during the consultations held in each province. Not only that, personally as a Minister, when I was transferred to the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, I availed myself before the House of Chiefs with my technocrats. I think we had a good discussion with the chiefs. Therefore, consultations were made. However, there are issues they still feel we need to correct. This is why we are waiting for the chiefs to give us the resolutions of that indaba. We will wait until they are ready and when they are, then, we will move.

 

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

 

Mr Kundoti (Luena): Mr Speaker, suppose the chiefs reject or turn down the hon. Minister’s proposals, what will her ministry do?

 

Ms Kapata: Mr Speaker, we will cross the bridge when we get there. For now, the chiefs have not rejected the document. They had their indaba and we are waiting for a report from them. Therefore, we will only cross the bridge when they submit their report, and when they do that, we, as a Government, will make a decision.

 

Thank you, Sir.

 

Prof. Lungwangwa (Nalikwanda): Mr Speaker, according to the ministerial statement the hon. Minister has given us, and the reasons for the chiefs rejecting the Draft National Land Policy indicate here that what is at stake here is power over land. What is happening in Zambia now over this particular policy direction is of great interest. How does the hon. Minister hope to address this power struggle over land beyond consultation?

 

Ms Kapata: Mr Speaker, well, I am not aware that the Draft National Land Policy is about power. All I can say is that one of the issues that the chiefs referred to was on the vestment of land in the Republican President, which they think should be struck out. As it stands, I do not think we would be moving in the right direction if we did that. Therefore, we will wait to hear what the conclusion of the indaba will be. Then, we will come back to inform the House on the way to go.

 

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

 

Mr Jere (Livingstone): Mr Speaker, there were some revelations that the Draft National Land Policy was a copy and paste from another country. I want to find out whether the hon. Minister has considered redrafting it so that it can suit the Zambian situation.

 

Ms Kapata: Mr Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. Member that the Draft National Land Policy is not a copy and paste document. I am aware that even at Parliament, we always go out to learn best practices. Therefore, as a ministry, we went to a few countries that have a smilar policy in place to learn about the good practices contained in their documents. Therefore, it is not a copy and paste document, but one that has been made by Zambians through consultations, as earlier mentioned in my statement.

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

Ms Chonya (Kafue): Mr Speaker, I wish that this ministerial statement had come after the draft document had been circulated to us. However, since the hon. Minister is the brain behind the document, is she in a position to tell us what the Draft National Land Policy is proposing on the aspect of the selling of land because at the rate our land is being sold, especially to foreigners, this seems to be a challenge?

 

Ms Kapata: Mr Speaker, the Draft National Land Policy will control the sale of land and the issuing of land to foreigners through the lease. With the new policy, a foreigner or investor will only be given up to twenty-five years which will be renewable. Again, we have received complaints from Zambians that the twenty-five years is too much. Since we are a listening Government, under the leadership of His Excellency the Republican President, Mr Edgar Chagwa Lungu, we will consider the proposal by the people of Zambia to reduce the lease of land to foreigners from twenty-five years to fifteen years. This will be renewable if the type of investments brought in is viable.

 

 I thank you, Mr Speaker.

 

 Mr Mbulakulima (Milenge): Mr Speaker, definitely, the chiefs are against the establishment of the Land Commission because it will take away powers from them. It is also common knowledge that there are some chiefs who sell land indiscriminately. I would like to find out whether the chiefs are trying to put in place some safeguards or some measures which will be sort of self-regulatory to help this country because we know that there are some chiefs who have no regard for their people and indiscriminately sell land. Are they critically looking at that to help this country?

 

Ms Kapata: Mr Speaker, I would like to agree with the hon. Member that there are some chiefs who have sold most of their land. Actually, there are no chiefdoms to write home about because most of their land has been taken or sold by the said chiefs.

 

In the new Draft National Land Policy, there will be no chiefs who will be allowed to give away land without considering the 50 per cent consent from the manduna or the sub-chiefs in the chiefdom. This is where the bone of contention lies. The chiefs do not want the Government to include the sub-chiefs in the issuance of land. It is unfortunate that we were unable to bring the document now, but I would like to assure hon. Members that my ministry will lay the paper on the Table so that they can go through it to understand what is contained therein.

 

 Mr Speaker, I thank you.

 

Mr Nanjuwa (Mumbwa): Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister mentioned that only twenty-two out of 288 chiefs attended the meeting. I would like to find out the criterion which was used to arrive at twenty-two chiefs out of the 288.

 

Mr Kapata: Sir, indeed, there are 288 chiefs in the country, but the ministry had only budgeted for twenty-two. It had written to the House of Chiefs to choose the twenty-two chiefs. This simply meant that there would be two chiefs from each province. A very good example is the 156 hon. Members of Parliament in this House, if I am not mistaken, who represent 15 million Zambians. So, what is wrong with the twenty-two chiefs representing 288 chiefs at a meeting? As a ministry, we worked within the budget and there was nothing wrong with that. We did not choose the chiefs to attend the meeting. They were chosen by the Chairperson of the House of Chiefs.

 

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

 

 Mr Kasonso (Solwezi West): Mr Speaker, I am aware that land administration in the Western Province is managed by the Barotse Royal Establishment in Western Province. Does the Draft National Land Policy take into account this matter or what is the position as regards the Western Province?

 

Ms Kapata: Mr Speaker, in fact, the only province which administers land very well is the Western Province. Therefore, we will leave it as it is, and that is what is contained in the document.

 

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

 

 Ms Kapata: Apart from that, there was representation of chiefs from the Western Province despite that their system works well for everyone in the province.

 

 I thank you, Mr Speaker.

 

Mr Speaker: I will take the last questions from hon. Members for Kabwe Central, Mwinilunga, Kasempa, Kabompo and Lukulu East constituencies.

 

 Mr Ngulube (Kabwe Central): Mr Speaker, the Constitution of Zambia and the Lands Act are very clear on who owns land in Zambia. The land in this country is owned by all of us while the Republican President holds it on our behalf. We are wondering why and where the chiefs are getting the powers to think that the Government, His Excellency the President or hon. Ministers must kneel before them in order to regulate the usage of land. Does the ministry have any plans to use the Constitution because it is clear that His Excellency the President, the hon. Minister or the Commissioner of Lands shall administer the entire land? I would like to find out from where the chiefs are getting the power to stop the Government from regulating the usage of land.

 

 Ms Kapata: Mr Speaker, we have two types of land ownership in Zambia. The first one is traditional land, which is controlled by our traditional leaders. The second one is State land. Therefore, traditional land is alienated by the chiefs except there are laws attached to it in the sense that the chief is only allowed to give up to 250 ha. Anything above that, he/she has to write for consent through the hon. Minister of Lands and Natural Resource. The hon. Minister is only entitled to give up to 1,000 ha of land. For anything beyond that, the hon. Minister also has to write to His Excellency the President to seek permission.

 

 I thank you, Mr Speaker.

 

 Mr Samakayi (Mwinilunga): Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister has stated very well that the Western Province has the best land administration. She has also said that the Government will not interfere with the province. If the ministry thinks that the administration of land in the Western Province is good, why can the Government not replicate that in other provinces? We have good lessons within such as the best practices in the Western Province. So, I wonder why the Government went out to learn.

 

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

 

Ms Kapata: Mr Speaker, we have a problem in coming up with a national land policy that will stand the test of time because of what the hon. Member has referred to. The land administration system in the Western Province is based on freelease hold. In other parts of the country, people are given land tenure of ninety-nine years, among others, depending on the use of the land. Replicating the system used in the Western Province to other provinces in the country would make the situation even worse. I do not think the chiefs in other provinces would even want to hear of such a thing. Further, we have problems with the 1958 map of chiefdoms. We have so many wrangles going on regarding demarcations of chiefdoms. Some chiefs even claim that the map has been forged. Therefore, I do not think applying the system that is practiced in the Western Province in all chiefdoms would be the solution. It would just be pando − pandemonium.

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

Laughter

 

Ms Tambatamba (Kasempa): Mr Speaker, we hear that consultations with chiefs are taking place and nothing has been settled yet. Why, then, is the programme to remove people from areas which used to be national forests taking place even when the Government has not completed the consultative process?

 

Ms Kapata: Mr Speaker, the hon. Member approached me yesterday and we discussed that matter. The issue of national forests is not under the ambit of chiefs’ because this is State land on which people have encroached. I have made a decision today, as Minister of Lands and Natural Resources, and information has been disseminated in all the provinces on how best we can carry out this very important exercise.

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

Mr Lufuma (Kabompo): Mr Speaker, I am interested in the nomenclature of the document that has been presented by the hon. Minister. As far as I am aware, our national Constitution provides that Zambia is a Unitary State. Being unitary basically means there is no one region which is outside this country.

 

Mr Mubika: Question!

 

Mr Lufuma: That being as it is, why is the Government propagating a National Land Policy when it is excluding one region of this country? If we have a unitary State, why do we not just absorb or take over the land policy that already exists in Zambia and propagate that to the rest of the country?

 

Ms Kapata: Mr Speaker, we do not have a national land policy in Zambia. This is the first time that we are working on one. There was no document that existed before the document we are talking about this afternoon. As regards the issue of the Barotseland, that is contained in the Constitution of Zambia. So, we will take it as it is and allow the province to use free leasehold for land administration. The Government has nothing to do with that situation and will leave things as they are.

 

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

 

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

 

Dr Kalila (Lukulu East): Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister has not given categorical answers with regard to the Western Province being the only province that is being treated as a special case in as far as land administration is concerned. Would the hon. Minister accept that by this very nature of special land administration, it, therefore, goes to say that the province deserves further special attention, such as the restoration of the Barotseland Agreement?

 

Mr Speaker: There is no question, is there?

 

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

 

_______

 

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

 

CONSTRUCTION OF A ROAD AROUND LIUWA NATIONAL PARK

 

275. Dr Musokotwane (Liuwa) asked the Minister of Tourism and Arts:

 

1. whether the Government has any plans to construct a road around the Liuwa National Park in the Western Province to encourage investment in hotels and lodges; and

 

1. if so, when the plans will be implemented.

 

The Minister of Tourism and Arts (Mr C. Banda): Mr Speaker, the Government has no immediate plans to construct a road around Liuwa National Park. However, according to the Provincial Road Development Agency (RDA) Engineer, the agency has plans to construct a bridge at Kalabo Harbour to allow easy access to Liuwa National Park and its surrounding areas.

 

The Ministry of Tourism and Arts will institute a survey in 2018 in order to provide specifications on where the access road is needed around Liuwa National Park. These specifications will, then, be submitted to the RDA for possible inclusion into the road sector annual work plan. The construction of the planned bridge at Kalabo Harbour awaits preparation of technical drawings of the bridge which is expected to be completed after about a year.

 

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

 

Dr Musokotwane: Mr Speaker, what I hear is that –

 

Ms Chonya: On a point of order, Sir.

 

Mr Speaker: A point of order is raised.

 

Ms Chonya: Mr Speaker, I wish to sincerely apologise to my good colleague from Liuwa for disturbing his submission.

 

Mr Speaker: The right address is not ‘good colleague’. It is ‘hon. Member for Liuwa’.

 

Ms Chonya: The hon. Member for Liuwa. Thank you for that guidance, Mr Speaker.

 

Laughter

 

Ms Chonya: Mr Speaker, my point of order is directed at the Minister of Information and Broadcasting, Hon. Dora Siliya, regarding the failure by the national broadcaster, the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC), to allow the free airing of the World Cup Football Tournament. A television service provider known as Kwesé TV was prepared to air these matches for free so that Zambians could enjoy their much-loved game of soccer. However, my understanding is that the national broadcaster, through its new partner, TopStar Limited, has blocked the airing of these matches. Therefore, is the hon. Minister in order to remain quiet and not update the nation on why this is the case when all the other African countries are enjoying this facility for free except Zambia and Sierra Leone?

 

Mr Speaker: My ruling is that she is in order to keep quiet because you have not filed a question for her to answer.

 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

 

Dr Musokotwane: Mr Speaker, if I understood the hon. Minister well, he said that, in 2018, plans are being made to put a bridge across the Luanginga River and to construct a road around Liuwa National Park. Can I get an assurance from the hon. Minister that both the bridge and the road will be constructed in 2019?

 

Mr C. R. Banda: Mr Speaker, my answer to the question was that a bridge will be constructed and that a survey regarding the construction of the road around Liuwa National Park will be instituted. Those are two different things. I did not say that the road and the bridge will be constructed.

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

Mr Miyutu (Kalabo Central): Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister has talked about the construction of the bridge across Luanginga River and he seems to be certain that it will be constructed. However, the former Minister of Works and Supply, Hon. Yaluma, in 2015, went to Kalabo and told the people there that a bridge would be constructed across the river. To date, that bridge has not been constructed. The hon. Minister of Tourism and Arts has told us today that the bridge will be constructed when he knows that the bridge will not be constructed. Why can he not just be fair and tell us that the bridge will be constructed when funds will be available? I know that the bridge will not be constructed. Why can the hon. Minister not be sincere with himself? 

 

Mr C. Banda: Mr Speaker, I am being very sincere with my answers. The question was whether the Government had any plans to construct a road around Liuwa National Park. I said that there are no immediate plans to construct this road. However, according to the Provincial Roads Development Agency (RDA) Engineer, the RDA has plans to construct a bridge in that area.

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

Mr Mweetwa (Choma Central): Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister indicated that the Government has no immediate plans to construct a road around Liuwa National Park. If my memory serves me well, sometime this year, His Excellency the President, Mr Lungu, visited Dundumwezi and made a political pronouncement that his Administration would embark on the construction of the Dundumwezi/Kafue National Park Road to ease transportation and encourage tourism in that area. At that time, I thought this was a holistic approach to the question of using tourism as a resource base for national development. Now, the hon. Minister has disappointed me by saying that the Government has no plans of constructing a road around Liuwa National Park when we know that if tourism is to take off around Liuwa National Park and other parks, the Government needs to work on the transportation in question. Now that the Government has no plans to construct this road, how does it hope to use tourism as a vehicle for economic transformation?

 

Mr C. Banda: Mr Speaker, it is not that the Government has no plans. It has many plans to develop tourism in this country. However, to be specific, it does not have immediate plans to construct a road around the Liuwa National Park.

 

Sir, as for the issue of Dundumwezi/Kafue National Park Road, there are hundreds of kilometres that set these two parks apart. I am happy to tell the House that works on the road from Dundumwezi to Kafue National Park have already started. Therefore, I do not see where his question is coming from.

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

Mr A. C. Mumba (Kantanshi): Mr Speaker, there are many potential tourism sites in the country. The hon. Minister mentioned that the Ministry of Tourism and Arts is relying on the Road Development Agency (RDA) to carryout surveys. So, will these surveys be extended to those potential sites?

 

Mr C. Banda: Mr Speaker, the truth is that we have drawn a master plan towards the development of tourism in this country. All the areas that have been earmarked for tourism are being looked at, and we have plans to work on them.

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

Mr Lihefu (Manyinga): Mr Speaker, does the Ministry of Tourism and Arts have plans to construct roads in all national parks?

 

Mr C. R. Banda: Mr Speaker, the ministry is working with other ministries which are responsible for infrastructure development. The ministry wants to provide infrastructure, including roads, to all areas of tourism interest so that the tourism sector can be boosted.

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

Mr Kufakwandi (Sesheke Central): Mr Speaker, I think the issue of the construction of a road around Liuwa National Park has to be put in its proper perspective. In several documents, the Government has said that tourism, as the hon. Member for Choma Central said, is an important driver of economic growth and is addressing poverty, especially in rural areas. Liuwa has a unique event that takes place every year, the migration of wildebeest from Angola to Zambia. It is the same migration that happens in Serengeti in East Africa.

 

It is surprising that the Government has been telling the people of the Western Province that tourism is an important area to develop, yet the statement has not borne any fruit because it is now saying that it does not have immediate plans to construct a road around Liuwa National Park. The same thing applies to Sioma/Ngwezi National Park. We, the people of the Western Province, want action. We have resources, such as national parks, not only sand, as has been said. We want action. The hon. Minister should tell the House exactly when the plans to develop tourism n the Western Province will happen. I have been −

 

Mr Speaker: Order!

 

Hon. Member, are you posing any question?

 

Mr Kufakwandi: Mr Speaker, when will the Ministry of Tourism and Arts start implementing the programme for tourism development in the Western Province, in particular, Liuwa and Sioma/Ngwezi national parks?

 

Mr C. Banda: Mr Speaker, like I have already said, a master plan, which is concerned with tourism in the country, has been drawn up. When we talk about Liuwa specifically, the bridge will be constructed across the Luanginga River because the plans to do so are underway. When that id done, it will open up Liuwa National Park where the migration of wildebeest takes place year in and year out.

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

Prof. Lungwangwa (Nalikwanda): Mr Speaker, the Government does not operate in a vacuum. It operates within the context of a national development plan. The Seventh National Development Plan (7^th NDP) was launched about two years ago. The country is now almost three years into it. The plan prioritises infrastructure development and tourism development. Could the hon. Minister clarify to this House and the nation as a whole, why two years into the launch of the National Development Plan, his ministry has not given thought to the development of roads in such a pristine national park as Liuwa National Park.

 

Mr C. R. Banda: Mr Speaker, that is not only a very good question, but a constructive one too. What the hon. Member has said is exactly what we are doing. The Seventh National Development Plan (7^th NDP) was launched last year, and not two years ago. We have, on the ground, different ministries which have been tasked to ensure that they do their part so that we can attain infrastructure development.

 

Sir, the construction of roads in national parks is not a sole responsibility of the Ministry of Tourism and Arts, and that is why it is working with other ministries to achieve the construction of roads. This is also why the hon. Members heard me talk about the RDA, which is not under my ministry, but another ministry that is responsible for infrastructure development. Plans concerning the construction of roads in our national parks are underway and when the money is made available, all that needs to be done will be done.

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

Mr Speaker: I will take the last four questions from the hon. Members for Mitete, Mwembezhi and Chama South, and Hon. Mumbi Phiri.

 

Mr Mutelo (Mitete): Mr Speaker, the question asked by the hon. Member for Liuwa Parliamentary Constituency is whether the Government has any plans of constructing a road around the Liuwa National Park to encourage investment in hotels and lodges. In responding to that, the hon. Minister said that the Road Development Agency (RDA) will construct a bridge. Will the construction of a bridge encourage investment in hotels and lodges in Liuwa? Nji kapa musoka buhobe bo busina busunso.

 

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Mutelo: Sir, what this means is that you are preparing buhobe (nshima) without relish. I liken this scenario to preparing nshima first before the relish because simple logic dictates that a road be constructed first and then a bridge follows.

 

Mr Speaker: Order!

 

Are you supplying an answer to your question?

 

Laughter

 

Mr C. Banda: Mr Speaker, the hon. Member for Mitete Parliamentary Constituency has made a very valid contribution to this question. A bridge will provide accessibility to Liuwa. When we are able to access the national park, then, we will interest many more people to get into the park and put up hotels and lodges. Therefore, a bridge will actually bring about a road thereafter.

 

Sir, I thank you.

 

Mr Jamba (Mwembezhi): Mr Speaker, in the spirit of learning best practices, I want to draw your attention to the fact that our neighbouring countries are using the conservancy structure in trying to generate income for the national parks and conservations. Why does the Ministry of Tourism and Arts not use the approach of conservancy so that this money remains where it is generated? If that was done, the money would go towards infrastructure development. I have seen that the job being carried out in Namibia is better than that being undertaken here.

 

Mr C. Banda: Mr Speaker, the hon. Member is speaking the same language as the Government. He has made a very valid contribution. We believe in the conservation of wildlife and our natural habitat so that we can raise and generate funds which will be ploughed back into the same areas for development.

 

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

 

Mr Mung’andu (Chama South): Mr Speaker, I have heard the hon. Minister explain the importance of infrastructure in tourism. However, this Government is not working in silos. It works under a cluster approach, as envisaged in the Seventh National Development Plan (7^th NDP). Has the hon. Minister made submissions to his counterpart, the hon. Minister of Housing and Infrastructure Development, who is just next to him, to ensure that these roads which the people of Liuwa and Chama South need are constructed? I am sure that hon. Members are aware that the North Luangwa and South Luangwa national parks converge in Chama South Parliamentary Constituency. Therefore, our ability, as a constituency, to generate income in tourism is dependent on the number of days that the tourists spend in our country. Similarly, the number of days that tourists spend in our country will be dependent on how accessible these tourist attractions are. Since the Government is working in clusters, has the Ministry of Tourism and Arts submitted a request, through the Ministry of Housing and Infrastructure Development, being one responsible for the development of roads, to ensure that all our tourist attractions in the Northern Circuit are opened up not only in Liuwa, but also in Chama South?

 

Mr    C. Banda: Mr Speaker, yes that is the case. That is why the RDA is on the ground working in Liuwa.

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

Mrs M. Phiri (Nominated): Mr Speaker, is the hon. Minister aware that Zambian poachers from Liuwa are straying into countries like Namibia and Botswana? In Botswana, the law stipulates that if caught poaching, the culprit be shot dead. About five days ago, four Zambians were shot in Botswana.

 

Sir, what is the ministry doing to educate our people on the bad practice of poaching? Is the ministry engaging the Government of Botswana to facilitate the bringing back to Zambia for burial the remains of those men who were shot dead? Apparently, the bodies are being left for the wild animals to eat.

 

Mr Speaker: This is supposed to be a supplementary question. By definition, a supplementary question should relate to the question at hand. The subject that you have raised, much as it is important, is totally independent of what was asked by the hon. Member of Parliament for Liuwa.

 

INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE ACCIDENT INVOLVING MR W. CHINGWE AT NCHANGA OPEN PIT CUT II

 

276.  Mr Chali (Nchanga) asked the Minister of Mines and Minerals Development:

 

1. whether the Mines Safety Department has completed investigations into the fatal accident of 27^th August, 2017 involving Mr Webster Chingwe at Nchanga Open Pit Cut II, in Chingola;

 

1. if so, why an inquest by the courts has not commenced;

 

1. if the investigations have not been completed, why operations at the mine have been allowed to resume;

 

1. whether the action at (c) is not a violation of the mining and explosives regulations; and

 

1. if the regulations have been violated, what action will be taken against the culprits.

 

The Minister of Mines and Minerals Development (Mr Musukwa): Mr Speaker, the Mines Safety Department completed investigations into the fatal accident of 24^th August, 2017, involving Mr Webster Chingwe at Nchanga Open Pit Cut II in Chingola. Investigations commenced on the day of the accident and were concluded within twenty-one days.

 

The Mines Safety Department submitted the investigation report to the Resident Magistrate and the police on 12^th October, 2017. The magistrate and police are responsible for calling the inquest.

 

Sir, investigations have been completed. The House may wish to know that the operations were never stopped. Only the affected section, which is the area where the accident occurred, was temporarily suspended to allow for investigations and the carrying out of remedial measures to make the place safe. Continued operations are not a violation of the mining and explosive regulations. Regulations were not violated. Therefore, the question of action against the culprit does not arise.

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

Mr Chali: Mr Speaker, the fact is that a life was lost. The rules and regulations laid down by the ministry state that whether the findings implicate someone or not, if a life is lost, the matter is supposed to be cleared by the courts of law. Why was the Zambian open pit manager fired for the accident when the ministry has clearly stated that no regulation was violated?

 

Mr Musukwa: Mr Speaker, I stated in my preamble that the unfortunate incident which occurred cost us a life and that is regrettable. Our investigations have been concluded and have since been submitted for inquest. I believe the hon. Member is aware that the Ministry of Mines and Minerals Development will be a witness to present information in the courts of law once the inquest starts.

 

Sir, Konkola Copper Mines (KCM) fired the man in charge of this operation because it places a high premium on all safety related issues. It fired its manager because this incident occurred during a KCM driven operation and he was in charge of the area. The fact that the accident happened means there were issues of non-compliance in some sections.

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

_______

 

BILLS

 

FIRST READING

 

THE CREDIT REPORTING BILL, 2018

 

The Minister of Finance (Mrs Mwanakatwe): Mr Speaker, I beg to present a Bill entitled the Credit Reporting Bill, 2018. The objects of the Bill are to provide for:

 

1. the regulation of credit reporting agencies by the Bank of Zambia;

 

1. the licensing of credit reporting agencies;

 

1. the establishment of a credit registry;

 

1. the governance and management of credit reporting agencies;

 

1. the protection of data subjects;

 

1. information sharing and reporting to enable assessment of credit worthiness of a data subject; and

 

1. matters connected with, or incidental to, the foregoing.

 

Mr Speaker: The Bill stands referred to the Committee on National Economy, Trade and Labour Matters. The Committee is required to submit its report on the Bill to the House by Thursday, 28^th June, 2018. Hon. Members who wish to make submissions on the Bill are free to do so within the programme of work of the Committee.

 

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

 

THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP (Amendment) BILL, 2018

 

Mrs Mwanakatwe: Mr Speaker, I beg to present a Bill entitled the Public-Private Partnership (Amendment) Bill, 2018. The object of the Bill is to amend the Public-Private Partnership Act, 2009.

 

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

 

Mr Speaker: The Bill stands referred to the Committee on National Economy, Trade and Labour Matters. The Committee is required to submit its report on the Bill to the House by Thursday, 28^th June, 2018. Hon. Members who wish to make submissions on the Bill are free to do so within the programme of work of the Committee.

 

_______

 

MOTIONS

 

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNANCE, HOUSING AND CHIEFS’ AFFAIRS FOR THE SECOND SESSION OF THE TWELFTH NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

 

Mr Samakayi (Mwinilunga): Mr Speaker, I beg to move that this House do adopt the Report of the Committee on Local Governance, Housing and Chiefs’ Affairs for the Second Session of the Twelfth National Assembly laid on the Table of the House on 7^th June, 2018.

 

Mr Speaker: Is the Motion seconded?

 

Mr Musonda (Kamfinsa): Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.

 

Mr Samakayi: Mr Speaker, your Committee, in line with its terms of reference, undertook a study on the progress made in the implementation of the National Decentralisation Policy in Zambia.

 

Sir, allow me to start by reminding this august House that there has been an attempt to decentralise since Independence. However, it was not until 2002 that the country adopted the National Decentralisation Policy anchored on devolution as a direct response to the submissions of Zambians to the Mwanakatwe Constitution Review Commission of 1996. The adoption of the National Decentralisation Policy precipitated the establishment of the Decentralisation Secretariat in 2003, with the task of harmonising and co-ordinating all decentralisation reforms.

 

Mr Speaker, the National Decentralisation Policy was re-launched in July 2013, after which a Decentralisation Implementation Plan was also launched to run for three years from 2015 to 2017. The Government further released Cabinet Circular No. 10 of 2014 which provided clear timelines for the implementation of selected devolved functions from the Central Government to local government. Recognising these efforts, your Committee found it imperative to undertake a detailed study so as to appreciate the progress attained in the implementation of the National Decentralisation Policy and the challenges experienced in effort to fully implement the policy.

 

Sir, in this regard, your Committee interacted with stakeholders who submitted both written and oral submissions. Your Committee also undertook tours to selected districts on the Copperbelt Province and Central Province in order to augment its findings.

 

Mr Speaker, let me now highlight a few of your Committee’s findings.

 

Sir, your Committee observes that generally, there exists capacity deficiencies among the key stakeholders in the decentralisation implementation process. This has the potential to impact negatively on the whole decentralisation programme.

 

Your Committee, therefore, strongly recommends that the Government urgently comes up with capacity development programmes to support stakeholders, such as ordinary community members, council staff, councillors, traditional leaders, hon. Members of Parliament and the sub district structures.

 

Sir, your Committee has also noted, with concern, the lack of appropriate provisions in the Constitution to address the status and role of district administration. This has led to misunderstandings between district administration structures and local authorities in many districts, and has negatively affected the implementation of the decentralisation process.

 

Mr Speaker, your Committee, therefore, recommends that the Government, as a matter of urgency, takes measures to clarify the roles and responsibilities, and span of control of key stakeholders such as Mayors or Council Chairpersons, Districts Commissioners and Town Clerks or council secretaries, in order to foster co-existence at district level and accelerate the implementation of the National Decentralisation Policy.

 

Mr Speaker, another matter of concern to your Committee is the frequent and unco-ordinated transfer of staff in local authorities by the Local Government Service Commission.

 

Mr Sing’ombe: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Samakayi: This has caused instability in respective staff establishments and loss of institutional memory. Your Committee is of the view that this has the potential to impact negatively on the implementation of the National Decentralisation Policy and staff output in general.

 

Sir, your Committee, therefore, recommends that in order to ensure stability and continuity, the Government puts measures in place to regulate staff transfers in local authorities so as to ensure the successful implementation of policies such as the National Decentralisation Policy.

 

Mr Speaker, your Committee also observes that the declaration of district councils as planning authorities is lagging behind as all district councils visited have not been given that status, posing a challenge to the accelerated implementation of the decentralisation process. It is your Committee’s hope that the Government expedites the declaration process of district councils as planning authorities.

 

Sir, with the regard to the progress made in the implementation of the National Decentralisation Policy, your Committee observes that all local authorities visited have harmonised organisational structures and in some cases, created new standing committees to accommodate devolved functions.

 

Mr Livune: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Samakayi: Sir, in local authorities visited, your Committee learnt that council management meetings were being held with the devolved staff. Further, your Committee learnt that the district Devolution Task Forces were in place in the local authorities visited.

 

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Samakayi: Mr Speaker, with regard to the legal and regulatory framework governing the decentralisation process, your Committee learnt that the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act, No 2 of 2016, the National Decentralisation Policy and various other pieces of legislation such as the Local Government Act, the Education Act, the Disaster Management Act, the National Health Services Act, the Service Commissions Act, the Rating Act and the Public Finance Act are not in harmony.

 

Sir, your Committee, therefore, strongly urges the Government to urgently revise all relevant pieces of legislation so that they are consistent with the provisions of the National Decentralisation Policy. With regard to fiscal decentralisation, your Committee observes that although an inter-governmental fiscal architecture to guide the flow of fiscal resources to support devolved functions has been approved, it has not been operationalised. This has the potential to weaken the performance of local authorities.

 

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Samakayi: In this regard, Sir, your Committee, therefore, recommends that Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Finance expedite the operationalisation of the inter-governmental fiscal architecture to strengthen the fiscal position of local authorities to enable them to discharge their service provision mandate effectively at local level.

 

Mr Speaker, let me conclude by thanking you and the Office of the Clerk of the National Assembly for the guidance and support rendered to your Committee during its deliberations. I further wish to thank all stakeholders that appeared before your Committee and all principal officers from the local authorities that were visited for their co-operation.

 

Sir, I also wish to appreciate the hon. Members of your Committee for their co-operation and dedication to the work of your Committee which made my role as chairperson easy.

 

Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

 

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Speaker: Does the seconder wish to speak now or later?

 

Mr Musonda: Now, Sir.

 

Mr Speaker, I wish to thank you for allowing me to second this Motion for the House to adopt the Report of the Committee on Local Governance, Housing and Chief’s Affairs.

 

Sir, I wish to also thank the mover of this Motion for the able manner in which he has highlighted the critical issues in your Committee’s report. In seconding the Motion, allow me to inform this august House about some of your Committee’s observations and recommendations in the implementation of the National Decentralisation Policy that the mover has not touched on.

 

Sir, your Committee observes, with concern, that the Local Government Service Commission has not developed the Local Government Service Regulations. This, if not addressed, has the potential to frustrate the decentralisation process. In this regard, your Committee strongly urges the Local Government Service Commission to develop the Local Government Service Regulations without further delay, as this is very crucial for the staff establishment and transfers in local authorities.

 

Mr Speaker, let me also comment on another important matter which was dealt with by your Committee. Your Committee is concerned that most local authorities face challenges of the lack of equipment, such as survey equipment and geographical information system (GIS), which is necessary for spatial planning.

 

Sir, your Committee, therefore, recommends that the Ministry of Local Government invests in the procurement of tools, such as the GIS, which are necessary for spatial planning in all local authorities, especially those with a poor financial base to enable them to undertake their new physical planning functions better than has been the case in the past.

 

Mr Speaker, another concern of your Committee is that the legal and regulatory framework surrounding the establishment of the sub-district structures, such as the ward development committees (WDCs), is not adequate and this is causing confusion concerning their formation.

 

In this regard, Sir, your Committee urges the Government to expeditiously enhance the legal and regulatory framework surrounding the establishment of the sub-district structures, such as the WDCs.

 

Mr Speaker, last but not the least, your Committee expresses concern that the harmonisation of salary scales for the devolved departments with those that exist in the Local Government Service Commission or vice versa, has not yet been undertaken. This is likely to create distortions in the salary structures and also demotivate the affected employees.

 

Sir, your Committee, therefore, urges the Government to expeditiously begin the salary scale harmonisation process for the devolved departments with those that exist in the Local Government Service Commission.

 

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I wish to thank you, on behalf of the members of your Committee, for giving us the opportunity to serve on the Committee. I further wish to thank the members of your Committee for giving me an opportunity to second this Motion.

 

Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

 

Mr Ng’onga (Kaputa): Mr Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to add the voice of the people of Kaputa to the debate on a very good report that has been submitted by your Committee on Local Governance, Housing and Chiefs’ Affairs. The topic of study your Committee looked at is the implementation of the National Decentralisation Policy in Zambia. I would, therefore, want to add some few comments on your Committee’s findings and recommendations on this particular subject. By so doing, I will raise some concerns from the people of Kaputa.

 

Mr Speaker, we all know that decentralisation has been embarked on by this Government and previous Governments to try to bring service delivery as close to the people as possible. This is the more reason all of us would want to see to it that the Decentralisation Policy is implemented to the letter. We know that when this is done, even resource sharing and mobilisation will be done at local level. It will also ensure that decisions at local level are made expeditiously and that they are also commensurate with the challenges that we would face and milestones that we would achieve at local level.

 

Sir, however, it is very disheartening that despite having this particular policy derived from our Constitution of Zambia, its implementation has been very slow. Yes, the report has indicated that a number of successes have been scored in terms of implementation, but we see very slow progress at ground level. Therefore, we would want to encourage, especially the Decentralisation Secretariat and Cabinet Office to ensure that this programme is implemented as quickly as possible because people have been waiting for it to take off.

 

Mr Speaker, one of the challenges at local level is the failure by officers in the ministries, which are to devolve, to report to local councils. One reason which has also been mentioned in your Committee report is fear of relinquishing what they have been benefiting or enjoying in the ministries after being transferred to the local government. We are very certain that if people were able to move and start implementing what has been outlined in most of the circulars and programmes on the Decentralisation Policy, work at local level would start moving. Decisions would be implemented expedetiously …

 

Interruptions

 

Mr Speaker: Order on the right.

 

Mr Ng’onga: … for people to start benefiting from what decentralisation will bring about. The issue of capacity deficiencies in the local government is very real. Therefore, again, your Committee has ably indicated that the Government should urgently come up with capacity development programmes at local level. This way, even in places such as Kaputa, we can have officers who will undertake all the major works other than waiting for the Central Government to do everything for us. We know that wherever there is change, there is resistance because everybody wants to maintain the status quo stating that, “We are happy with how we do things.” If we want to expect major headways in terms of development at local and district levels, we need to devolve from believing that everything can only be done by our Central Government. We must start doing these things at local level.

 

Mr Speaker, there are issues to do with ward development committees (WDCs), which are supposed to be part of the decision-making framework. In certain districts, the WDCs do not even know what they are supposed to do. Yes, people have been told to form WDCs, but there has been no follow up on what is expected of them and how they will fit into the bigger picture of decentralisation. Again, we would want to encourage those who are entrusted with this task, especially the Ministry of Local Government, to ensure that pieces of legislation that are supposed to be brought to this House, if there are any, are brought very quickly.  This will enable the organs of governance at local level to start doing their work.

 

With these few words, I wish to say that this is a very good report.

 

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

 

Mr Kamboni (Kalomo Central): Mr Speaker, I would like to make a few observations on the submissions made by the Committee on Local Governance, Housing and Chiefs’ Affairs. No doubt, decentralisation would really help the country to deliver effectively. We are moving from the centralised system and have seen that in order to govern a country that has more than 12 million people, we need to empower the people at the lower level so that they can govern themselves. However, unfortunately, what we are seeing is totally different. We are not moving towards decentralisation. It only exists on paper because what is happening on the ground is different.

 

Sir, let me talk about the Local Government Equalisation Fund (LGEF) on page 8 of your Committee’s report. We were told that the LGEF was introduced to solve the problems faced by the councils in the districts and that of the amount, 20 per cent is meant for capital projects. However, what we have seen is very different and I will give a very clear scenario of one district council in this country. Last year, there were sixty-seven workers at this council and the LGEF was sufficient to meet its salary obligations, while leaving behind 20 per cent for capital projects. However, this year, the number of workers has increased to 120. In real sense, the new members of staff are not local people and the LGEF is inadequate to meet the council’s salary obligations. As a result, the council now has to use the 20 per cent meant for capital projects, which is still not sufficient as levies that are collected also go towards salaries. Therefore, we have observed that the councils are not able to deliver because all the money that they collect as levies from the people is used for salaries even when there is the LGEF.

 

Mr Speaker, local government entails that locals be a part of the governance. However, what we have seen between last year and this year is that people to work in the local government are brought from elsewhere to work at the district councils. At one district council in my constituency, there were ten workers and none of them recognised me. They were all new and had no knowledge of the local community. When we talk about local government, we are talking about a situation where locals see themselves as a part of it. However, what we have seen is that the idea of decentralisation has been hijacked to employ our friends and relatives, hence the local people are not part of their councils at all. As a result, the capacity of the councils to deliver has now declined.

 

Sir, your Committee observed that the creation of jobs had also impacted on the capacity of the local government system to deliver. These had often been created without corresponding budgetary allocations. The way the Government is implementing policies has resulted in the decline of the councils’ ability to deliver. Let me remind all of us who are involved in the decentralisation process to take this issue very seriously. You cannot have sixty-seven workers in a given year and bring in more workers the following year simply to create employment for friends and relatives without even looking at the capacity of the councils to deliver. What is being done is not sustainable. The councils are not able to deliver and the public is complaining. Therefore, since we are talking about decentralisation, those who are charged with the responsibility to implement it should take it very seriously and ensure that it is done according to plan.

 

Mr Speaker, we have ward development committees (WDC) in the councils, but they have no work to do. From the time they were formed, nothing has happened. Therefore, what development are we talking about? Decentralisation means the transfer of authority from the Central Government to the lower level which, in this case, is the district. However, how do you transfer authority when everything else is still being done by the Central Government? Workers are still employed by the Central Government. As such, you cannot call this decentralisation. Since Independence, and for so many years now, we have been talking about decentralisation, but we have not achieved anything. I would like the current Government to show seriousness because decentralisation can really solve problems. The idea of employing workers from all over and calling it decentralisation should stop. The locals should instead be employed in their local councils and not people who do not have the capacity to deliver, and this is the problem we are faced with currently.

 

Sir, on page 11 of the report, your Committee observed that the Government tended to use the creation of districts both as a reward for its supporters and as a condition for support in areas where it had historically not enjoyed popular support. This point must be taken very seriously. This was a valid observation. The way districts are being created in this country leaves much to be desired. They are not created to deliver. People just create them at random. This has brought a lot of problems and over expenditure. The responsibility of creating districts should be taken away from politicians and placed with specialists who will really see the need to form districts unlike the way it is being done. This has been a bad element in the decentralisation process.

 

Mr Speaker, with this contribution, I would like to say that we should take decentralisation very seriously.

 

Thank you, Sir.

 

Prof. Lungwangwa (Nalikwanda): Mr Speaker, this is a very important topic for our national development and it has been debated on for a very long time. If my memory saves me right, the talk about decentralisation goes back to the 1980s. I remember very well that my colleague, then, at the University of Zambia (UNZA), the late Professor Gatiam Lungu, may his soul rest in peace, was appointed Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Local Government to superintend over the decentralisation process in our country. There has been a lot of thinking and debate around decentralisation since then.

 

 However, Sir, as the report indicates, we are still faced with problems of effectively decentralising our administrative system in our country. Your report points out very correctly some of the hindrances that are in the way of the decentralisation process. For example, poor legal framework of all the different pieces of legislation around decentralisation, the problems of harmonisation of the decentralisation process, the lack of capacity, especially in the local governance structures, the co-ordination of the structures themselves and, of course, the lack of equipment, among others.

 

Mr Speaker, after reading through the report of your Committee, which identified all these various constraints, I went down memory lane and read my colleague, the late Gatiam Lungu’s paper written in 1998 entitled “Administrative Decentralisation in the Zambian Bureaucracy: The Analysis of Environmental Constraints”  where the constraints were identified as far back as the 1990s.

 

Sir, I think the question we should ask ourselves as a country is: Why is the decentralisation process eluding us? Where does the problem lie? Basically, I think the problem starts from the ideological standpoint. According to the history of the decentralisation process in other countries, especially those countries that have decentralised effectively, we learn that they had started from an ideological point of view, namely the type of democratic society they wanted to establish. Did they want a democratic society that would be rooted in democratic centralism or did they want a democratic society that would be rooted in democratic localism? That is where …

 

Interruptions

 

Mr Speaker: Order!

 

Let us have order in the House. Those who feel they are compelled to conduct conversations, the doors are open. I would like to follow this debate in silence and that is why we are here.

 

May the hon. Member continue, please?

 

Prof. Lungwangwa: … the debate starts from. It is an ideological debate in terms of knowing the kind of democratic society we want to establish.

 

However, Mr Speaker, going by the history of our decentralisation debate in this country, I do not think we have given due attention to that ideological debate. As a country, we have not done that. Therefore, we should do it. It is very important for us to define for ourselves the type of democratic society we want to establish.

 

Sir, those countries that have emphasised, for example, the importance of democratic localism have gone as far as establishing federal states. Meaning that, in order for the local communities to participate more effectively in the governance system in decision-making, holding leaders accountable and ensuring that there is transparency in the governance system, establishing federal governance system is the best for them. That is one route other countries have taken. It is an ideological route.

 

Similarly, other countries have said that in order to empower the local communities to participate in the decision-making process, they have to ensure that the district or local councils are empowered and strengthened. This means giving them more authority, resources, devolving power at local levels and building capacity at that local level. This, again, is an ideological position that has to be deliberately decided upon.

 

Mr Speaker, for example, if we talk about the empowerment of local councils, especially at the district level in this country, we should even pay close attention to the kind of human resource that will be given the authority, power and resources to plan the development of services for the local communities or population. It means that at district level, we are actually giving the districts the best human resource that can work. However, even when we are embarking on the process of establishing districts, we are doing so from the context of promoting or developing that democratic localism of enhancing democracy at local level and subsequently, enhancing development at local level.

 

Sir, these are the issues that we have to first and foremost address, as a country, so that even when districts are being created, it is not being done from the point of view of what is called gerrymandering. I am sure we all know …

 

Mr Kampyongo: What is that?

 

Prof. Lungwangwa: … what gerrymanderism is. For example, it is the creation of constituencies or other ways as a means of strengthening political power or consolidation of political power or appeasement. That is what gerrymanderism is.

 

There is a need to establish whether districts will be created as part and parcel of our country’s democratic localism vision and that they will not be for appeasement’s sake.

 

Mr Speaker, we, as a country, must start from that ideological premise. Once we do that, then, these other aspects which are constraining our decentralisation process will actually be addressed.

 

Sir, I think it is a shame for us, as a country, that more than thirty years on, we are still debating the basic elements of decentralisation. That is not right. We can do it rightly and correctly for the sake of the country. For a start, I think this is where we should focus our minds and direct our energies so that we all agree, and we can agree. I do not think that there is any problem or difficulty over the importance of decentralising the administrative structures. There is no disagreement over that.

 

Mr Speaker, we should be able to question even the provincial structures that we have in place. Do we still need the provincial administration? Probably, we may not need it. It is important that we place more emphasis at the point of delivery, which is the district. How do we do that? What kind of personnel do we put in place?

 

Sir, we could even go to the extent of asking ourselves whether the District Commissioners we have, at the moment, are the type of human personnel that ought to manage our decentralisation process. Probably, we may agree to get rid of such kind of personnel and put in place that which has the capacity, requisite qualifications and experience to actually manage the affairs of the State at district level.

 

Mr Speaker, in short, what I am saying is that we must go back to the drawing board as far as the decentralisation process is concerned. The drawing board has to be the ideological basis of decentralising, which we all ought to agree on. Thereafter, other things will fall in place.

 

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

 

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Mwila (Chimwemwe): Mr Speaker, to start with, allow me to extend my condolences to the late Hon. Kalima’s family for the untimely passing on of the hon. Member of Parliament.

 

Sir, let me also congratulate the Ruling Patriotic Front (PF) Party on winning the Chilanga Parliamentary seat with a convincing margin. Further, permit me to thank the Opposition United Party for National Development (UPND) for conceding defeat in the Chilanga By-election.

 

Laughter

 

Mr Mwila: Mr Speaker, my contribution to the debate on this Motion is in reference to the information on page 15 of your Committee’s report. Your Committee made an observation that the Local Government Service Commission has been undertaking unplanned and unco-ordinated transfers of staff in the local authorities countrywide. This is a very serious observation. On behalf of the people of Chimwemwe Constituency, I would like to urge the relevant arm of the Government to investigate this matter because it touches on competence. If, indeed, it is true that the commission is undertaking unplanned and unco-ordinated transfers, then, it means it is putting its competence at stake. Therefore, it has to be followed up.

 

Sir, having been a councillor from 2011 to 2016, I understand that most local authority workers oppose transfers citing the issue of being custodians of institutional memory, which should be protected. There should be no such thing.

 

Sir, what I know is that Chimwemwe Constituency is a host of a number of local government workers, who have obtained loans from banks. They have since built houses and are comfortably living there. So, immediately they are transferred to Lusaka, for instance, they would not be expected to take up that move without opposition because they already know that when they come to Lusaka, there will be issues of expensive accommodation, looking for new schools and paying taxi fares for their school-going children.

 

Mr Speaker, citing being a custodian of institutional memory is just a way of trying to remain in places in which they operate. In any case, even the presidency is an institution. What happens is that whenever the sitting President loses elections, there is nothing like retaining the Special Assistant for Press and Public Relations to the former President or the Vice-President for the preservation of institutional memory. So, immediately a sitting President loses, one has to move out. In 2011 when the PF took over the Government, all those who were linked to the former President, then, had to go and they did not cry that one or two remain at State House for the sake of institutional memory.

 

Sir, the second and last comment I would like to make is on your Committee’s observation on page 11. Your Committee has singled out the politicisation of decentralisation as one of the challenges being faced by our country in the implementation of the National Decentralisation Policy. Your Committee was informed that the purpose of creating new districts was to ensure effective administration and to bring services closer to the people. Further, on pager 12, your Committee dismissed the grounds advanced by the witnesses who said that the Government tended to use the creation of districts as a reward for its supporters and as a condition for supporting areas where it had not enjoyed support historically.

 

Mr Speaker, whoever made this observation − I am sure it was from among the witnesses  − should understand that if this is politics, then, taking services closer to the people is good politics and should, therefore, be encouraged. In any case, when the PF party took over the Government, one of the key promises was to take services closer to the people.

 

Sir, for instance, before the recent creation of Chifunabuli District, in Lubwe in particular, parents had to travel to the nearest district, which is Samfya, to just obtain National Registration Cards(NRCs) for their children. The parent and the child whose NRC was to be obtained had to pay K100 each to and from the place of issuance of the NRC. So, they would spend K400 to just get one NRC. With the newly created district in Chifunabuli Constituency, parents in Chief Mwansakombe and Chief Mwewa will just walk to the new district offices at Kakasa and will not spend K400 to get one NRC for one child. Therefore, if this is bad politics, then, the people of Chimwemwe are saying no. In fact, this should be encouraged and more districts should also be created countrywide.

 

 I thank you, Mr Speaker.

 

Ms Katuta (Chienge): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank you.

 

Ms Katuta stood in silence.

 

Ms Speaker: You are on the Floor.

 

Ms Katuta: Mr Speaker, I would like to thank you for allowing me to also add the voice of the people of Chienge to the debate on the wonderful report tabled by your Committee.

 

Sir, considering the progress of decentralisation at local government level and from what I have read and observed from the councils, I would like to propose that in order for the programme to be successful, the issue of politicisation of the newly created districts and the administration offices be discouraged.

 

Mr Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention and that of the House that the Decentralisation Policy cannot be successful because many transfers are taking place on the basis of some officers being perceived to work with the Opposition. So, how could the problem be solved because the authority keep on transferring officers who may have just stayed in their positions for a year before being moved to another council? It will be very difficult for them to deliver to their full capacity because they are disturbed. In the first place, when they are transferred, they are not even paid settling in allowances or any other allowances which are due to them. So, how do we expect them to carry out what the Government expects of them? It will be of no use to have a decentralisation programme when there is inadequate funding.

 

Sir, the Government came up with this brilliant idea and it is important that the local government starts to run local affairs. Currently, however, the problem that has arisen is that the Government does not consider funding the councils. As a result, the programme just exists on paper. Therefore, it may take quite some time for the Decentralisation Policy to be successfully implemented. I would, therefore, like to urge the Government to look into this issue seriously because, at the moment, this programme is just like something on paper that does not seem to be taking us anywhere. As long as the funding is inadequate, we are not going anywhere.

 

Mr Speaker, let me also give another example. In your Committee’s report, it is stated that the local authorities will raise funds from rates, levies, fees, rental income and permits. In rural areas, for example, in Chienge, the revenue collection cannot even match the needs of running the affairs of the local government. The Government should review the decentralisation programme. I would prefer that the decentralisation exercise first starts as a pilot project with the city councils and, then, that it be rolled over to areas like Chienge.

 

Sir, with those few words, I would like to thank you for allowing me to add a voice to the debate on this good report.

 

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

 

Mr Bwalya (Lupososhi): Mr Speaker, I thank you for giving me an opportunity to represent the wonderful people of Lupososhi Constituency. The report of your Committee on Local Governance, Housing and Chiefs’ Affairs has brought out quite a number of pertinent issues and on which I wish to comment on behalf of the wonderful people of Lupososhi.

 

Mr Speaker, on page 14 of your Committee’s report, there are a number of issues that have been raised. Before I comment on them, let me first of all talk about the history that was referred to by the hon. Member for Nalikwanda. This history has been longstanding and I want to state, here and now, that we need to commend the Patriotic Front (PF) Government for taking a bold decision to start implementing the Decentralisation Policy because most Governments that were there before were unable to take the bold step of implementing this particular policy.

 

Sir, it should be noted that there are still faced with the challenges that decntralisation presented in the past. We need to soldier on the path of perfecting this particular policy because it is only through decentralisation that the resources will actually trickle down to the vulnerable people out there in the community, especially in rural areas.

 

Mr Speaker, on page 14 of its report, your Committee has brought out issues regarding the disharmony which exists among certain pieces of legislation in this country and one of them is the Local Government Act. Your Committee has also mentioned the Education Act, Disaster Management Act and National Health Services Act, just to mention a few. Your Committee has gone further to state, in no uncertain terms, on page 15 of the report that these Acts are not in line with the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Zambia Act No. 2 of 2016. This should be a matter of very serious concern for all of us, as hon. Members of Parliament and as a nation. We must agree to ensure that we harmonise and bring these subsidiary laws in line with the primary law that dictates everything.

 

Mr Speaker, I would like to implore the hon. Minister of Justice to give this concern the seriousness it deserves in our refining of the Constitution. We, as representatives of the people in this country, need to harmonise these Acts so that the Constitution is able to take precedence. All the subsidiary laws should be aligned to what the Constitution states. I would want a situation where the Constitution is brought to the House as quickly as possible so that a number of these lacunas can be dealt with to ensure that decentralisation takes a serious implementation route.

 

Mr Speaker, on page 16 of the report, your Committee makes certain observations as regards the need for the Government and the Local Government Service Commission to ensure the development of local government service regulations. If these service regulations are a requirement of the law, it is only right that we urge the particular relevant wing of the Government, which is the Ministry of Local Government, to see how best it can expedite this particular process of developing the rules and regulations that are supposed to be used in the implementation of the decentralisation process. Without these regulations, it means the local authorities will not be able to operate. So, this observation calls for a lot of attention and it is my prayer and hope that we see these regulations in place.

 

Mr Speaker, another aspect which I want to make a comment on is the issue of physical decentralisation versus fiscal decentralisation. We have seen the movement of human resources in certain ministries and departments as a means of decentralisation. However, the aspect of monetary authority has not moved. This is hampering the smooth flow of decision-making. So, my appeal is that we need to move these components at the same time. When personnel is decentralised, the flow of funds should also be decentralised to ensure effective decision-making. That way, we will be able to see that the decentralisation exercise is bearing fruit.

 

Sir, in the same vein, there should have been an inter-governmental fiscal architecture to state and stipulate how the funds will flow from one ministry or Government department to another. This particular architecture or structure also requires quick and urgent attention so that the monies can move to where they are supposed to be used in the delivery of goods and services to the vulnerable people.

 

Mr Speaker, I agree with the hon. Member who spoke earlier that we need more districts to be created because that is the only way we will be able to deliver services to people as quickly as possible. The distances that people cover in certain districts are quite long. So, if we can narrow the gap between public facilities and where people live, we will be able to bring goods and services closer to the people through the creation of districts. The current arrangement is very good and we need to maintain this particular arrangement where the powers to create new districts are vested in His Excellency the President of the Republic of Zambia. On behalf of the wonderful people of Lupososhi, I support this report and urge this House to adopt it.

 

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

 

Mr Jamba (Mwembeshi): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to add a few words on the debate of your Committee’s report on behalf of the people of Mwembeshi. First and foremost, I want to say that decentralisation is very important. For people’s lives to improve in this country, we really need to expedite the decentralisation process. What puzzles me is that the implementation of the Decentralisation Policy started in 2013 but, to date, we are still analysing how to implement this process, as stated in your Committee’s report. In the process of analysing, people become paralysed because they get tired of analysing issues which are not being implemented.

 

Mr Speaker, you will note that before 2013, the people who were drafting the Decentralisation Policy spent a lot of money in having workshops trying to find ways and means of how to develop a good policy. After so much of taxpayers’ money was spent on developing the Decentralisation Policy and looking at all angles, I wonder why we are still analysing how to implement this policy in 2018.

 

Mr Speaker: Order!

 

Business was suspended from 1640 hours until 1700 hours.

 

[MR SPEAKER in the Chair]

 

Mr Jamba: Mr Speaker, before business was suspended, I was saying that decentralisation is important. However, according to this report, its implementation has been hampered by people who think that when it is implemented, they will lose a lot of their power. A lot of money was spent on ensuring that the decentralisation policy got implemented, and there was a time frame in which this was supposed to be done. However, up to now, it has not been implemented. Some people are saying that the Constitution and some statutory frameworks are not in tandem with the Decentralisation Policy. How can the Constitution not be in tandem with a policy which was drafted in 2013? What did the people who were given the mandate to draft the Decentralisation Policy do? It seems that in this country, we specialise in spending tax payers’ money for nothing. If the so-called technocrats drafted this policy, but later saw that it had loopholes, why did they leave them unattended? 

 

Mr Speaker, decentralisation can help us a lot. In its absence, someone may bring something to Mwembezhi which the people there may not even want. Someone in a Government office somewhere can say that the people in Mwembezhi want hammer mills when, in fact, they want a road. The Decentralisation Policy was developed five years ago, but it has not yet been implemented. That leaves much to be desired.

 

Mr Speaker, I have also noted –

 

Mr Speaker: Order!

 

Order on the right!

 

You may continue, hon. Member.

 

Mr Jamba: Mr Speaker, I have noted a problem with people who handle surveying and geographic information system (GIS) equipment. When decentralisation is not handled properly, it can bring about problems even if spatial data is available. Let me give an example. In Mwembezhi, some officers from the local government had the spatial data quite alright. However, the people in Mwembezhi are farmers so large tracts of land are unoccupied by houses and so, when those officers saw this, they started giving away plots in people’s fields. According to them, they had decentralised and were now developing a township there.

 

Sir, when implementing the Decentralisation Policy, everyone must be brought on board. The report says that the people on the ground are not involved in the development of the Decentralisation Policy. As the framework is being developed, let us go on the ground and sensitise the people on the importance of decentralisation and its effects. For example, in Mwembezhi, we have mines. The money from those mines goes to the Central Government. When the people of Mwembezhi say that they want a road there, the Government says that money has gone towards constructing roads where they matter and that a road is not a priority in Mwembezhi. The people do not understand that. We have to explain to the people that when decentralisation is implemented, whatever they want will be implemented in their areas, and that the money generated in their areas will be spent there. 

 

Mr Speaker, the problem we have is that the people who are supposed to implement the Decentralisation Policy are the ones who are against it because they know that if it worked, they would lose power. People are sitting in their offices holding on to power, and giving wrong advice to politicians that this policy will not work. In fact, I have to congratulate the hon. Minister of Justice on saying that some people misled him on a certain issue. There are many technocrats who are misleading politicians by giving false information such that things are not moving. How can we explain the lack of implementation of the Decentralisation Policy in five years when it would have been implemented in two years? This is 2018, yet nothing has happened.

 

Mr Speaker, the Government needs to up its game. If there are technocrats who are hindering progress, they should be removed from their offices. We, the people of Mwembezhi, cannot continue to have a situation where roads are being developed in other areas when our area is being left out even when we are contributing to the national cake. I can see from this report that the problem is the technocrats. They tell politicians things which are incorrect.

 

Mr Speaker, with these few words, I support this report.

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

Dr Musokotwane (Liuwa): Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to make comments on behalf of the people of Liuwa on the Report of the Committee on Local Governance, Housing and Chiefs’ Affairs.

 

Sir, there is no doubt about the fact that decentralisation is very important. To put it simply, decentralisation is about allowing people in local councils to hire their own staff, of course, within the regulations that have been provided by the Central Government. For example, when the council in Kalabo is allowed to hire its own staff, it will not go to Kitwe to hire members of staff who cannot speak Lozi to deal with people in Kalabo. When this function is given to the local councils, they will hire the right people. So, I like it.

 

Mr Speaker, decentralisation is good because it empowers the local people to hire their own teachers. If you gave the people in Kalabo the power to hire teachers, they would not go to Mufulira to employ teachers to teach in Liuwa. The teachers in Mufulira are used to having tea and bread for breakfast, but when they go to Liuwa, they must eat pumpkins and cassava for breakfast. Therefore, they will not agree to relocate. When you give us the power, in the form of decentralisation, we will do the correct thing.

 

Sir, decentralisation is good because rather than the Ministry of Finance giving money to the Ministry of Housing and Infrastructure Development to deal with rural roads, the money will be given to the local councils who will, then, determine which of the community roads to be prioritised. So, the roads will be funded as per requirement.

 

Mr Speaker, decentralisation is also about the Ministry of Finance giving money to Kalabo District Council and the Western Province in general, for example, and saying, “Here is your pot of money that must be used for tourism.” Then, the people of the Western Province, and Kalabo in particular, will build roads since they already understand that it is important to have roads constructed around Liuwa National Park. However, if you give the money to the Ministry of Tourism and Arts, it may not consider Liuwa as important. Therefore, for us, decentralisation is very important and I think that the Ministry of Tourism and Arts agrees with me. The hon. Minister would have ensured that the road is worked on except he does not have the money.

 

Sir, in short, under a decentralised system, ministerial headquarters just become policy and administration centres. Otherwise, all the action must take place in the various local authorities in the country. This is what we are talking about. At the moment, the opposite is what is transpiring. Ministries are responsible for policy formulation, but they also want to implement projects in Mongu, Kasempa and Katete, which is impossible.

 

Mr Speaker, I just want to briefly comment on my colleague’s statement urging us to thank the Patriotic Front (PF) Government for implementing the Decentralisation Policy. I beg to differ because if anything, the PF has not done much in terms of decentralisation. Why do I say so? The first point is the one that was raised by Hon. Jamba. These policies that we are talking about now were formulated a long time ago. When the PF came into office, the policies were already in place. Therefore, the PF had a starting advantage. It could have just come into office, taken a quick look at the policies and started implementing them. However, it has not done that. This is 2018, yet the Decentralisation Policy was put in place five years ago. Like Hon. Prof. Lungwangwa said, decentralisation started a long time ago. So, how can we thank the PF Government for delaying the process of decentralisation? For me, the answer is we cannot do that.

 

Mr Speaker, furthermore, the aspects of decentralisation that are being talked about today are superficial. They are not deeply rooted. This report points to the fact that the Ministry of General Education is among the ministries in which decentralisation is being implemented. However, we know that the ministry is struggling. As I said earlier, one of the key expectations of decentralisation is for people in respective places to recruit teachers from within the local areas. For instance, the people in Liuwa must hire teachers from Liuwa and those from Kasempa must also hire teachers from within Kasempa. Similarly, the people in Chilubi must hire their own teachers as opposed to the Ministry of General Education in Lusaka hiring on their behalf.

 

Sir, in policy statements, we are being told today that all the districts are free to hire their own teachers. I belong to a committee which went round asking the people if they were free to hire their own teachers. The answers were all in the negative. They told us that they prepare a list indicating the people they want to work in the district from Senanga, Kazungula and Kalabo. As soon as they finish drawing up that list, there is another list which comes from Lusaka stating who should be hired. That list from Lusaka contains names of teachers from Ndola going to schools in some of the remotest places in Kazungula where, as I said, breakfast comprises wild fruits. It is, therefore, not surprising that these teachers do not last in those places. When we talk about decentralisation in the context of teacher recruitment, for example, there is a need for the Government to let go in truthfulness. It should let the people responsible hire the teachers. The Government should not just say the local people are free to hire teachers, yet send different lists of names of people from Lusaka to be hired as teachers in other places. How, then, can I congratulate the PF when it is not implementing the Decentralisation Policy?

 

Mr Speaker, I want to talk about an important aspect of decentralisation, which is fiscal decentralisation. It is not enough to give districts and councils responsibilities, yet not give them money to enable them to perform the functions for which they are being decentralised. I consider the Constituency Development Funds (CDF) an aspect of decentralisation because money is taken from the centre to the councils. When given this money, the councils repair teachers’ houses, build teachers’ houses and clinics. That is fiscal decentralisation although it is not yet formalised.

 

Sir, the disappointing part about this is that we are still struggling with the aspect of fiscal decentralisation. In short, I am saying that we are still struggling to receive the CDF. As you may be aware, last year, we only got half of what was budgeted for. This House budgeted for K1.4 million per constituency. That is fiscal decentralisation. The question is: Did we receive the money? We only saw half of it.

 

Mr Speaker, in the meantime, when we tell hon. Ministers that we need teachers’ houses or houses for clinical staff, we are told to use the CDF because of the Decentralisation Policy. Where will we get the money from?

 

Mr Speaker, I see the hon. Minister of Local Government taking down notes. He is a man that I respect.

 

Sir, unless the CDF is released consistently, I am afraid even the decentralisation that we are talking about will not work. I look forward to the fulfilment of the promise to expedite the 2018 CDF, which was made by the hon. Minister of Finance. I think it is a non-partisan issue. We also look forward to the fulfilment of the promise that she made regarding looking into the possibility of giving us the money which we did not receive in 2017. The availability of that money will be more meaningful to decentralisation because instead of just assigning responsibilities, the Government would be providing money to ensure that the responsibilities assigned are performed.

 

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I accept and welcome this report. However, I urge the Government and the hon. Minister of Local Government to take the matters that have been raised on why decentralisation is not moving as fast as we would like it to move very seriously.

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

Mr Speaker: I will take questions from the hon. Members for Livingstone, Nkeyema, Lunte and Roan.

 

Mr Jere (Livingstone): Mr Speaker, I thank your Committee on Local Governance, Housing and Chiefs’ Affairs for the report before the House.

 

Sir, local authorities in this country were established to provide services to residents within their jurisdictions. These services include construction and maintenance of roads, garbage collection, provision of health services and education, and the completion of incomplete structures in Livingstone, such as the Inter-city Bus Terminus and the City Market. However, since their establishment, the extent to which they have been able to perform these functions remains unnoticed and unknown to many Zambians.

 

The second schedule of the Local Government Act Cap 281 states that there are many functions that councils have to perform in addition to the ones I mentioned earlier. If this country desires to develop, decentralisation is the way to go.

 

Sir, hon. Members who have spoken before me have outlined many of the challenges we have faced in trying to actualise what the people have been waiting for. For example, there was an Act No. 6 of 2010 which brought about the Local Government Service Commission. As if that was not enough, the Local Government Service Commission was enshrined in our Constitution in 2016. We are talking about devolving functions and powers from the centre to the local government, which is the Government at local level. However, between 2010 and 2016, we saw the worst kind of dununa reverse.

 

Mr Mwale: Meaning? 

 

Mr Jere: Instead of us moving forward –

 

Mr Speaker: What are you referring to?

 

Mr Mwale: What is dununa reverse?

 

Laughter

 

Mr Jere: I am referring to us moving backwards, Mr Speaker.

 

Mr Speaker: Why do you not use the English language then?

 

Mr Jere: We were going backwards instead of forward by enshrining the Local Government Service Commission in our Constitution.

 

Mr Speaker, the Local Government Service Commission has brought about some challenges. For example, many workers have been transferred to local councils contrary to what was proposed between 2004 and 2005. Due to the fact that councils were unable to look after the huge workforce, many workers went on voluntary separation. However, we are now seeing over employment in the councils. Instead of our taking the much-needed service delivery to the people, we are now dealing with salaries and settling-in allowances, which the councils are now unable to pay. Day in and day out, councils are receiving new officers and have to pay settling-in allowances.

 

Mr Speaker, we need to look at how councils used to operate before we introduced the Local Government Service Commission. The council used to employ staff up to the principle officers on performance-based contracts. For example, if you gave a Town Clerk a three-year contract, you would observe whether he/she performed well enough within that term to deserve another contract. However, what we see now is that allegiance and loyalty is to the people at the commission in Lusaka, the Local Government Service Commission. As a result, there is a problem with service delivery at the local level.

 

Sir, the office of the Mayor, as proposed in the Draft Constitution, was supposed to have Executive powers with the Town Clerks being the secretaries. However, the function of this position is still the same. Apart from chairing meetings and kissing babies on Christmas Day, there is nothing else that the Mayors can do. They cannot call for a meeting of all heads of Government departments in the district because there is a challenge between the Office of the Mayor and that of the District Commissioner (DC). What we needed to do was create harmony by giving authority to this office.

 

Mr Speaker, recently, we lost the Mayor of Lusaka, may his soul rest in peace. This country is yet to hold a by-election to replace him and half of the population of voters will vote. This means that a lot of money will be spent on replacing a Mayor, yet the functions of Mayors are not different from the ones they performed when they were voted for on plain paper. These are the issues we are referring to when we say that we should spend money where it matters most.

 

Mr Speaker, the needs of Livingstone are different from those of Chavuma and Lundazi. If the Central Government released funds and allowed the people to plan for themselves, we would be able to see the desired results.

 

Mr Speaker, if you looked at the Local Government Service Commission in the Act, you would see it very clearly that it was meant to look at matters involving principal officers. However, what are we seeing now is that even a fireman, who was employed here in Lusaka, is transferred to some other place. We are yet to see those who sweep the streets employed centrally, here in Lusaka, being transferred to local authorities, which will be a cost. We saw how Lusaka failed to fight cholera and soldiers had to come in because of the lack of capacity of local authorities. We bought fire tenders instead of more refuse trucks or empowering local people to buy recycling machines so as to keep our city and surroundings clean. We spent US$42 million on fire tenders. As I speak, probably, only a few of those fire tenders are still on the road.

 

Mr Mwale: Aah!

 

Mr Jere: This is tax payers’ money that we are wasting.

 

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Mwale: That is malicious.

 

Mr Jere: If we had requested each council to give a proposal on how it would have wanted to spend that US$1 million, we would have been smiling by now because even newly created districts would have seen their infrastructure completed.

 

Mr Lubinda: Kampyongo will visit you.

 

Mr Jere: Mr Speaker, I am not against the idea of creating new districts. However, the issue is how it was done. Bembas always say, ‘Amenshi balinganya nobunga’.

 

Ms Katuta: Eyae!

 

Mr Jere: When you want to prepare nshima, you have to look at the amount of mealie meal you have.

 

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Jere: We had seventy-two districts in this country. We now have over a hundred districts.

 

Princess Kucheka: 116.

 

Mr Jere: 116.

 

Ms Kucheka: 116!

 

Mr Jere: We have 116.

 

Mr Speaker, let us look at the rate at which we have created these districts. We had seventy-two districts in 2014, if my memory saves right, to 116 districts today. What we have seen as an added cost to the operations in these districts is that office bearers have been appointed. The Patriotic Front (PF) Government has appointed District Commissioners (DC) in places where the districts do not exist.

 

Hon. Government Members: Where?

 

Mr Jere: These DCs still reside in other towns.

 

Mr Lubinda: Where?

 

Mr Jere: For example, the DCs for some of the districts in the Western Province …

 

Hon. Government Members: Which one?

 

Mr Jere: … are still residing −

 

Hon. Government Members: Which one?

 

Mr Jere: I can give you so many examples.

 

Hon. Government Members: Which one?

 

Mr Jere: When you look at Mwandi, for example −

 

Mr Lubinda: There is no district there.

 

Mr Jere: There is a district in Mwandi.

 

Laughter

 

Mr Speaker: Hon. Members on the right, please −

 

Mr Jere: Let me give you a practical example −

 

Mr Speaker: Hon. Member, give me a chance.

 

Cabinet Ministers, I do not expect that from you.

 

Interruptions

 

Mr Speaker: May the hon. Member on the Floor, please, continue.

 

Mr Jere: Mr Speaker, thank you for that protection. I was trying to give him a practical example of Mwandi District, which is 30 km or so away from where the current DC resides. If hon. Members wish to verify this fact, the hon. Minister of Local Government is here and can attest to what I am saying.

 

Sir, in creating these districts, the Government should have looked at the number of districts in which it would have managed to put up infrastructure, such as housing units, office blocks, post offices, roads and water reticulation systems, and also in which it would have provided amenities like electricity. However, quickly rushed to appoint office bearers. For example, recently, the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) announced that there would be elections of chairpersons in the newly created districts in the Eastern Province and other provinces. Was that necessary? For me, it was not because a time frame within which infrastructure was to be put up in newly created districts should have been stated. For example, the time frame could have included having infrastructure in place by 2021 such that as we go for the general elections, office bearers are voted in at the same time as the President, Members of Parliament, council chairpersons and councillors for newly created districts.

 

Hon. Opposition Members: Hammer!

 

Mr Jere: However, Sir, what we have seen is that we will now spend money. Some of these districts do not have council chambers from where to conduct their business unlike Zimba District, which was created out of Kalomo, which already had infrastructure in place. It was very easy for Zimba District to start conducting business in a dignified manner unlike some of these districts that will be holding their meetings under trees because they do not have offices.

 

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

 

Ms Katuta: Ngabwe!

 

Mr Jere: Somebody is mentioning Ngabwe District.

 

Mr Speaker, when you talk about councils not having capacity, it is true. When you look at, for example, the Constituency Development Fund (CDF), it has a committee that will do its work within a short period of time, but when it comes to awarding of contracts, issues of threshold come in and delays occur. As a result, to date, we have been given only half of the CDF.

 

Mr Speaker, in most of these councils, contracts have not been awarded on account that when people are about to settle, they are transferred to another place and new people take over the process. So, these are the challenges that we are facing in terms of planning. We cannot do it very well.

 

Mr Speaker, the deficiencies are many.

 

Mr Lubinda: Aah!

 

Mr Jere: Mr Speaker, on page 10 of the report, your Committee has talked about deficiencies. Yes, we are looking at the way councils are operating at the moment. The Local Government Equalisation Fund (LGEF) was meant for those councils whose budget is below expectation. We are aware that, in this country, some councils get more money, for example, from the mines and in rates from big companies. However, some councils do not have even a single structure from which to get money and that is how the LGEF comes in to play a role. Its role is to assist such councils deliver the much-needed services to the people. How we wish the disbursement of this fund could consider the revenue of particular councils. Soon rather than later, councils will be unveiling their budgets for 2019. If you looked at the budget for, let us say Solwezi, which has got mines, you would discover that it is more than that for some of the cities like Chipata, which does not have an industry or factories. Councils like Mongu are the ones that we are supposed to focus on when it comes to the LGEF so that they are able to perform their functions.

 

Mr Speaker, with these few words, I would like to thank you.

 

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Mbangweta (Nkeyema): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank you for giving me an opportunity to say a few words.

 

Sir, the report captures the spirit of what is on the ground and I must commend your Committee for doing a good job. First of all, upon reading page 12 of the report, it is quite clear that there is no political will to see through the decentralisation process from our colleagues. They are just paying lip service to decentralisation without commitment. If decentralisation was working well, we would expect the full participation of local people at those institutions because the affairs over which they would preside would affect them. If decentralisation was working well, we would see no corruption because it is very easy to monitor and evaluate what happens at local level.

 

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Mbangweta: If decentralisation was working well, local people in areas where councils are domiciled would be the ones employing except for a few at the top.

 

Sir, if decentralisation was working well, we would see the private sector working with the councils because it is the local businessmen and women who pay levies to the councils. However, what we are seeing is the Local Government Service Commission sending even cleaners, drivers and clerks from one area to another in this country. That is unacceptable. The Local Government Service Commission has been over employing. Its decisions are being imposed on the councils, hence their failure to perform. 

 

Mr Speaker, the hon. Minister of Finance has been saying that there must be fiscal discipline because the economy is stressed. To the contrary, the other arm of the Government is busy transferring people all over the place, including sending people to small councils, such as the one in Nkeyema. We cannot have more than five officers transferred at the same time. If this happened countrywide, the amount of money which would be spent would be tantamount to a lack fiscal discipline. In effect, the wishes of the hon. Minister of Finance, who is working so hard to put resources together, are being undermined by the same people who are supposed to support her.

 

Sir, what do we expect to see in our areas? If I walked into my district council, I would expect to see a clerk from Nkeyema and not from any other place because we have many people in Nkeyema who are qualified, but not working. How will the local people relate to a council when they do not find anybody they know when they go there? That should not be encouraged.

 

Mr Speaker, the typical failure of the decentralisation process in this country was the procurement of fire tenders at US$1 million each, in 2017/2018. I have brought up this issue because councils like mine which do not have fire stations received fire tenders. Also, councils which did not request for fire tenders, such as Mongu District Council, have fire tenders packed under a mango tree and the council is now being forced to pay K230,000 for insurance from the Local Government Equalisation Fund (LGEF).

 

Sir, if Mongu District Council, for example, was asked on how to apply the US$1 million, definitely, it would not have gone for a fire tender that cost that much. How is it that the person who made the decision to buy fire tenders at US$1 million each is now telling the council to pay K230,000 insurance through the LGEF? There is a contradiction because the LGEF is supposed to be used on capital projects and not insurance. This is why we are saying that there is no commitment to Decentralisation. We have been in this House for almost twenty-one months now. When we started, we had said that the District Commissioners (DCs) were to be given job descriptions by Cabinet Office. We were given the timeframe within which that it would be done.

 

Sir, your Committee on Local Governance, Housing and Chief’s Affairs travelled a few weeks ago and reported that the failure to address the status of the local district administration in the Constitution had led to a misunderstanding between the district administration and local authorities, thereby negatively affecting the progress of the reforms. It is not only the reforms that have been negatively affected, but also service delivery. The DCs are spending most of their time doing things which do not add value to service delivery. They are upsetting even the private sector by not appreciating that it contributes to the revenue of local authorities. The DCs are also hindering service delivery, in a sense, because there is a hidden hand which is pushing them on, hence preventing some of the officers who are supposed to report to them from doing so. At the end of the day, who is the loser? It is all of us who are paying tax.

 

Sir, why is the Executive failing to carry out a simple task, such as coming up with a job description? The sitting arrangement now is a problem because the Cabinet Office issued instructions, but the DCs have difficulties implementing them. Why should we waste time over useless things like that?

 

Laughter

 

Mr Mbangweta: Mr Speaker, I am very happy with this report and I am hoping that action will be taken so that all of us stand to gain and not lose. This idea of transferring people from other areas at the expense of employing the local people must stop.

 

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

 

Hon. UPND Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Kafwaya (Lunte): Mr Speaker, I thank you most sincerely for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Report of the Committee on Local Governance, Housing and Chiefs’ Affairs.

 

Mr Speaker, your Committee has done a good job and I want to commend it for that. Discourse around decentralisation is very important to the people of Lunte to whom it means taking services to them efficiently, timely and effectively. We understand that decentralisation in Lunte means development. Development means investment and the Government must invest. 

 

Mr Speaker, investing means committing resources to current undertakings in order to achieve future cash flows or gains. Therefore, the Government must invest in the process of decentralisation by building structures, systems and resources to ensure that these are able to function in order to deliver services. To achieve all these things requires a national purse that is able to finance all these requirements. This national purse must be generated from among the Zambian people. While I support development, I would also support the expansion of domestic resource mobilisation. I would not want to be hypocritical and say that the Government should implement 100 per cent decentralisation in Lunte when I am saying that Zambians must not pay taxes. I do not want to be hypocritical by ignoring the challenges that the Government faces in mobilising resources.

 

Mr Speaker, investment requires resources. It also requires capacitation of facilities and human resource. All these have cost implications which must be financed. Analysing national priorities in view of their impact and urgency on the Zambian people requires honesty. It requires people looking at these issues as agents of change. Decentralisation in our country, which is at 60 per cent centralisation, is change, and that is very big change.

 

Sir, it is not a minute change like changing the head of a political party, and we know how much emotional resistance can be exerted in that process. We are talking about change which requires commitment of resources. This change takes a long time to come about. I am made to understand that a country which has 3,000 years of a system of Civil Service is still developing, and by this I mean China. Therefore, a process which began a few years ago, here in Zambia, cannot be seen as a failure just because in 2018, the Government has not achieved 100 per cent decentralisation.

 

Hon. PF Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Kafwaya: Mr Speaker, this process began just an administration ago. We have heard on the Floor of the House where it has been clearly put that the creation of districts is so rapid under the Patriotic Front (PF) Administrative. I enjoy that …

 

Mr Mung’andu: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Kafwaya: … and will give the reason. During the United National Independence Party (UNIP) and Movement for Multi-party Democracy (MMD) eras, the creation of districts was done at a slow pace because even the population growth was slow. The hon. Minister of National Development and Planning can give us statistics. The country’s population has grown and we are now between 17 million to 20 million. Do we expect the seventy-two districts which existed then to render services to all the Zambian people? It is impossible. This is why I am saying that a change of mindset is required to understand a comprehensive process such as decentralisation.

 

Ms Mulenga: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Kafwaya: Mr Speaker, new structures, technology and resources require mobilisation of funds and commitment. It is my view that we need to support decentralisation and recognise the Government’s effort, as stated by the Chairperson of the Committee on Local Governance, Housing and Chiefs’ Affairs that steps have been taken to decentralise. These steps have been clearly outlined in the report and they must be built upon in line with the recommendations of your Committee which has done a tremendous job.

 

Sir, in conclusion, I would like to be equivocal by supporting your Committee’s report and the efforts of the Government. Every well-meaning Zambian must support the decentralisation process because all Zambians, including those in Lunte, will benefit from it.

 

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

 

Hon. PF Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Speaker: Although I had indicated that I would give an opportunity to the hon. Member for Roan, I have just been informed that he is actually a member of the Committee on Local Governance, Housing and Chiefs' Affairs and, therefore, according to our practice, deemed to be part of the report.

 

Could the hon. Member for Mwinilunga wind up debate.

 

Hon. PF Members: He is not here.

 

The Minister of Local Government (Mr Mwale): Mr Speaker, let me start by thanking the hon. Members of Parliament who supported the report of the Committee on Local Governance, Housing and Chiefs’ Affairs which supports decentralisation because they are speaking the language of the Government. We, as a Government, are pushing for decentralisation and want to see more accountability and transparency in the way we provide development to our people and ensure that there is more involvement of people in the grassroots in decision-making of what we do on their behalf.

 

Sir, we have made a lot of strides. In fact, we did our best to embed decentralisation in the Constitution so that it is actually recognised in the supreme law of this country. Therefore, the Government is pushing hard for decentralisation and is actually very practical about it. At the moment, it has functions of health and community development and education services devolved to local authorities and the people on the ground in the districts actually reporting to councils and ensuring that the local authorities oversee some of the activities that are happening. This is happening at a time the Patriotic Front (PF) Government is in power. For a long time, the Government has worked towards putting policies in place, but it is now getting very practical about ensuring that decentralisation works.

 

Mr Speaker, Hon. Lubinda will talk about the issue of the Constitution and the need to first ensure that it is cleaned up because it has some aspects that need to be fine-tuned before being harmonised with the various Acts of Parliament, such as the Local Government Act. However, the Ministry of Local Government is committed to facilitating appropriate policies to ensure the devolution of functions to local authorities and this can be attested by its effort to ensure the approval of an inter-governmental fiscal architecture to guide the flow of fiscal resources. It is working with the Decentralisation Secretariat in partnership with civil society organisations to sensitise citizens in order to sustain the buy in on decentralisation and enhance citizens’ acceptance of the decentralisation process. This is very critical and why we do not have to run at a supersonic speed. We have to ensure that the citizens buy in and this is what we are trying to achieve with the civil society.

 

Sir, the Ministry of Local Government will continue to closely monitor all the councils to ensure that the new organisation structures adopted by all of them are effected. This responds to an issue which was raised in the report as well as by hon. Members.

 

Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Local Government will continue to ensure the establishment of ward development committees (WDCs) except that their existence has to wait for the provision of a legal framework. I said that we first have to fine-tune the Constitution and then get down to the Local Government Act that will establish the WDCs, District Development Co-ordinating Committees (DDCCs), Provincial Development Co-ordinating Committees (PDCCs) and the National Development Co-ordinating Committees (NDCCs). At the moment, they only exist by way of a circular that was generated by the Decentralisation Secretariat. We must ensure that these establishments are actually law before being rolled out to all parts of the country. These establishments once existed, but were dissolved because their existence had no legal backing. Therefore, we are waiting for the Constitution to be fine-tuned and to have the Local Government Act in place so that they can be harmonised with other laws and, then, we can proceed to formulate the WDCs.

 

Sir, the Government will continue to build capacities in local authorities through the employment of appropriate staff and continuous staff development in local authorities. The ministry, with the support of the Government of Germany, which has given it €8 million, is improving infrastructure at Chalimbana Local Government Training Institute. This institute will train all employees who will be deployed to local authorities. All councillors throughout the country will have to go through the training at this college. This will deal with issue of building capacity that everyone has talked about.

 

Sir, the Ministry of Local Government has embarked on the preparation of integrated development plans in line with the provisions of the Urban Regional Planning Act No. 3 of 2015, which are medium-term strategies that will provide the link in policy planning and budgeting in the Medium-Term Framework (MTEF).

 

Mr Speaker, the Government has come up with guidelines on the creation of new districts. I recall that this point was raised by a number of hon. Members of Parliament who said that the creation of districts is politically motivated because what informs the Government in the creation of districts are the politics happening on the ground.  However, hon. Members will recall that I came to this House to inform it about the guidelines that we, as the Ministry of Local Government, had come up with. We came up with criteria that guide us on which area can be turned into a district.

 

Sir, one of the qualifications is that a constituency that attains a population of 100,000 people can be turned into a district. This means that the 100,000 people will need amenities like roads, district hospitals and additional secondary schools. People do not have to travel long distances, for example, to get their National Registration Cards (NRCs). These services have to be taken closer to them. Therefore, the first and automatic qualification for the creation of a district is a constituency that attains a population of 100,000 people.

 

In fact, Sir, although most hon. Members said that most of the newly created districts are in the Eastern Province, it is because they actually met the criterion of having a population of 100,000 people and above.

 

Mr Speaker, the rest of the constituencies are already districts. For example, Kapiri Mposhi has many people and it is a district. The only other way would be to divide the district into many constituencies and then assess if they would qualify to become individual districts by meeting the criterion of having a population of more than 100,000 people. However, this has to wait for the delimitation of constituencies.

 

Sir, we are encouraging hon. Members to prove to us that their constituencies have a population of over 100,000 people and have not been declared districts. We will definitely recommend it to His Excellency the President for declaration as a district. So, on the issue of creating new districts, there is a criterion we are following. We are not just doing it for politics’ sake.

 

Mr Speaker, it is not only the creation of districts that we are using to take services closer to our people, but also other means. For example, just this morning, I was attending a ground-breaking ceremony for the construction of seven civic centres in Lusaka. Therefore, the construction of Kanyama Civic Centre has started today. Kabwata, Matero, Chawama and all the seven constituencies will have their own civic centres.

 

Sir, this implies that these constituencies will be able to deal with their own municipal services, such as ensuring that they clear drainages within the area, ensure that planning, monitoring and supervision is well done, and conduct the inspection of bars and restaurants. Hence, this will attract competition within Lusaka. For instance, we will see Matero Municipal Council competing with, maybe, Kabwata Municipal Council just as well as other municipal councils.

 

Ms Kapata: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Mwale: This will bring out the best of the councils to the benefit of the people. The existing civic centre will, then, provide the oversight role, and we will see improved services being provided. This is practical and it is what the PF Government is doing to ensure that the decentralisation process is actualised.

 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear! Hammer! Hammer!

 

Mr Mwale: Yes, in the past, it has been at policy level and we have been striving to get things done, but we are talking about things that are happening right now. Therefore, these are not just words or documents, but practical things.

 

Mr Speaker, the Local Government Act is being reviewed and, as I said, Hon. Lubinda will be able to deal with this matter. It will give information on everything else that has to do with decentralisation.

 

Sir, the Ministry of Local Government, through the Department of Physical Planning, with support from partners, such as the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ), is training councillors in geographical information system. To this effect, a national training programme for planners is being undertaken. Councils are encouraged to buy the Geographic Information System (GIS) and survey equipment using local resources or the Local Government Equalisation Fund (LGEF). This will improve the spatial planning. This talks to the issue that my brother talked about and that has been raised in the report.

 

Mr Speaker, as I wind up, there are some issues that have been raised by my colleagues concerning over employment and transfers in the councils. I want to assure them that we, in the ministry, have heard and noted their concerns. This is why we started the discussion with the Local Government Service Commission to ensure that those councils that are over loaded and are unable to pay their workers offload some of them onto the newly created districts, that is, the five districts that we have talked about and the one in the pipeline to be created, Lupososhi. Lupososhi will be turned into a district because it has a population of more than 100,000 people …

 

Mr Bwalya: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Mwale: … in the area. It will be able to provide relief to those councils that are overloaded. Indeed, we share that view with our colleagues and this is a matter that we will be able to deal with. Similarly, the issue of the transfers will be dealt with accordingly.

 

Mr Speaker, just last week, the Road Transport and Safety Agency (RTSA) wrote to us and requested to partner with the local authorities in ensuring that they provide centres for motor vehicle registration and licensing. They requested for a list of councils that are ready to partner. So, we have given them a list.

 

Like I earlier said, Sir, Lusaka will have civic centres all over. This means that people in Matero will be able to register their vehicles and pay for their licences and road tax without having to come to town. The same will be happening in Kabwata, Munali and all the other constituencies. This is the kind of decentralisation we are talking about and it is real. We submitted to the RTSA the number of councils that are ready to undertake this on a pilot basis.

 

Therefore, we are not just − I think it is unparliamentary, but for lack of a better term − bluffing about decentralisation. We are a very serious Government and this is confirmed by His Excellency the President’s statement to this House that hon. Ministers who think they will hold on to functions that must go to the councils will not be able to do that whilst he sits in the chair as President. His Excellency the President committed himself and you cannot get better commitment than that.

 

Sir, we will devolve functions to many people and there will be transparency, accountability and involvement of citizens. This country will see a lot of benefits. Countries that have devolved functions to local authorities have seen greater benefits and Zambia is destined for that.

 

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

 

Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Kampyongo: Wapya, mwaiche. Wapya!

 

The Minister of Justice (Mr Lubinda): Mr Speaker, let me commend the hon. Minister of Local Government for that eloquent explanation on the journey to decentralisation. I wish all the people who contributed to this debate were here to listen to that very eloquent debate because it was extremely informative. I just hope that they will take time to read the Hansard because the hon. Minister of Local Government has really explained this process very well.

 

Sir, I would like to be the first to agree that decentralisation has been long coming in Zambia. Unlike what we heard earlier that it started in 1984, the process actually started much earlier. It started in 1964 and this process has been extremely painful.

 

Mr Speaker, listening to the hon. Minister of Local Government, had this Government been that of 1991, I think the debate today would have been totally different because what this Government has done in such a short time, is what other many Governments failed to do in many years.

 

Mr Kampyongo: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Lubinda: Sir, there are a number of people who spoke about the Local Government Service Commission and how it was brought about in 2010. By the way, it was actually brought about in 2006 or 2007. The law was simply amended in 2010. When it was brought in 2006, we had to ask ourselves the intention of the Government then. We had to ask ourselves who the movers of the Motion to enact the formulation of the Local Government Service Commission were? It was none of the people sitting on this side. The actual architect of the Local Government Service Commission Act is a person who belongs to the party that the hon. Member of Parliament for Livingstone belongs to. Today, they are still the people championing this provision …

 

Mr Speaker: Order!

 

Business was suspended from 1810 hours until 1830 hours.

 

[MR SPEAKER in the Chair]

 

Mr Lubinda: Mr Speaker, before business was suspended, I was reminding the House that the LGSC, which has been roundly criticised, especially by hon. Members on your left, was actually established in 2006/2007.

 

 Interruptions

 

Mr Speaker: Order!

                                    

Mr Lubinda: Those who made reference to it as having been established in 2010 may have been referring to the Amendment Act of 2010. The people who established the Local Government Service Commission are not on this side of the House. They actually belong to the political party which has the majority number of hon. Members on the other side of the House.

 

 Mr Lubinda: Sir, yes, the Local Government Service Commission may have its challenges, and that is exactly why we are gathered here to look at institutions of governance that seem to create problems and to reform them, if need be. This is the reason I requested to make a submission on this matter just to talk about the legal aspects. However, before I do that, let me clarify one misrepresentation that the delimitation of districts is gerrymandering. It cannot be gerrymandering.

 

Mr Speaker, it is also hypocritical for a person to say, “decentralise” on one hand, but say, “do not delimitate huge districts into smaller units” on the other hand. In essence, what is decentralisation? It is taking power as close as possible to the people. What the hon. Minister of Local Government said about establishing township councils in big districts, such as Lusaka, is the exact essence of decentralisation.

 

Sir, if you looked at large districts, such as Mpika used to be before it was delimited, you would realise that reaching out to people becomes very difficult. Kazungula is another case in point. How can we possibly deliver to the people in such a vast area? This is the reason the PF considers the establishment of districts a process of decentralising. The issue of having infrastructure before decentralisation is like that of chicken and egg. Should infrastructure such as a civic centre be put up in areas where no people exist and only then declare those areas? Things do not work that way. For instance, after Shiwang’andu and Chikankata were declared districts, there has been massive infrastructure development taking place. Some of it is sponsored by the Government, but quite a lot is also sponsored by the private sector. This is the reason it is the intention of this Government to ensure that it establishes as many districts as possible.

 

 Hon. Government Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Lubinda: Sir, Kazungula is the next target. We would like to delimitate Kazungula to ensure −

 

Mr Livune: You are delaying!

 

Mr Lubinda: Sir, you can hear the hon. Member of Parliament for Katombola saying that the Government is delaying. I would like to request him to convince his colleagues so that the next time they debate, they support His Excellency the President, Mr Edgar Chagwa Lungu, in his desire to decentralise and establish districts in many places of the country.

 

Mr Speaker, we, as the Ministry of Justice, recognise the lack of harmonisation of laws. I would, therefore, like to inform my colleagues that it is work in progress.

 

Sir, it is recorded in the report that seven ministries have completed working on their devolution plans. When the devolution plans are completed and tested, only then, do they inform the reform of laws. We cannot possibly reform laws before the ministerial devolution plans are put in place. As these devolutions plans are being implemented and approved, they will inform the reformulation of various pieces of legislation. So, that is work in progress and I would like to encourage all hon. Members to take keen interest in this process.

 

 Mr Speaker, I had said earlier that had the PF formed Government in 1991, the discussion on decentralisation would have been totally different because it is this Government that actually came up with the noble idea of providing the Local Government Equalisation Fund (LGEF), which is meant to support the devolution of powers or functions from the centre. I have heard my colleagues on your left talk so much about the LGEF because it has a significant role to play, just like the hon. Minister of Local Government mentioned.

 

Sir, the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) is another issue. I am sure my colleagues, such as the hon. Member for Chirundu, remember very well that the previous Government almost abolished the CDF. We had to struggle to bring it back.  I am now delighted to belong to a Government that is upholding the requirement of the CDF. We may have short-comings in releasing it, …

 

 Hon. Opposition Members: Question!

 

Mr Lubinda: … but the intention is clear, as it is in the Yellow Book. The hon. Minister of Finance is committed to providing the CDF to all constituencies.

 

Sir, some people spoke about the Constitution. I would like to agree that there is a need for us to refine it and this Government has recognised this issue. The Government made a clarion call as far back as March, 2017, for people to make submissions to the Government on the provisions of the Constitution that require refinement.

 

Mr Speaker, the hon. Member of Parliament for Livingstone spoke about reverting the positions of Mayors to what they used to be, but at the same time, argued that positions of Mayors be enshrined in the Constitution. That is a contradiction of purpose.

 

Sir, all I can say is that the Government has called upon all hon. Members to review the Constitution. Those who have brilliant ideas on how we can refine it to make it responsive to the needs and aspirations of our society, please, let them not shy away. They should participate in the process. It is of no use to call for the refinement of the Constitution and shy away when you are invited to take part in the process.

 

Mr Speaker, let me end by assuring all those who are listening, both inside and outside the House, that His Excellency the President, Mr Chagwa Lungu, is extremely determined to decentralise power from the centre, State House and Government ministries, to the local level. This can be demonstrated by the establishment of township councils that the hon. Minister of Local Government spoke about. I hope that this is something that hon. Members in this House will support not only in Lusaka, but also that it starts with all cities in Zambia and later on extends to major districts.

 

 Sir, I support the report and would like to encourage everyone to support the efforts of the Government in the decentralisation process.

 

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

 

 Hon. Government Member: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Samakayi: Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to wind up debate on this report. First and foremost, I want to reiterate that the implementation of the National Decentralisation Policy –

 

Mr Speaker: Order!

 

Hon. Member for Mwinilunga, resume your seat. This is not an occasion to reply. It is supposed to be a case statement on your part, just to close this debate. It is a formality and not time for a substantive debate.

 

Proceed, please.

 

Mr Samakayi: Mr Speaker, thank you very much for your guidance. I want to thank the hon. Members and hon. Ministers who have positively debated on your Committee’s report. I also want to say that many reports end up in action-taken-reports for several years. So, it is my wish that this report be acted upon because the subject matter of the National Decentralisation Policy is very important for our country. Decentralisation is the only tool that promotes equity in development and service delivery. So, it is good for all of us. Therefore, my wish is for the Executive to act upon this report with the urgency that it demands.

 

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

 

Question put and agreed to.

 

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT, WORKS AND SUPPLY

 

Mr Syakalima: Mr Speaker, I beg to move that this House do adopt the Report of the Committee on Transport, Works and Supply for the Second Session of the Twelfth National Assembly, laid on the Table of the House on 7^th June, 2018.

 

Mr Speaker: Is the Motion seconded?

 

Ms Kasanda (Chisamba): Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.

 

Mr Syakalima: Mr Speaker, in performing its duties, your Committee was guided by its terms of reference, as set out in the Standing Orders. During the year under review, your Committee undertook a study of the development of infrastructure in the newly created districts. Further, it considered the Action-Taken Report on your Committee’s report for 2017. Your Committee also undertook a local tour to Luapula Province, Central Province and Lusaka Province in order to augment its findings.

 

Mr Speaker, as the House is aware, the creation of new districts is one of the major policy measures that the Government has put in place in a quest to attain the country’s full decentralisation and equitable distribution of national resources. The rationale for creating new districts is to ensure that people have easy and full access to basic services, such as health, education and agriculture extension services as well as create jobs for local people during the construction phase and permanent jobs in the post-construction phase. Construction of infrastructure in the new districts is, therefore cardinal, because the lack of or poorly constructed infrastructure denies members of the public access to required basic services.

 

Sir, the Seventh National Development Plan (7^th NDP) further emphasises the development of the construction industry in Zambia in order to contribute to the improvement of the state of infrastructure in the country, absorb youths into gainful employment and reduce poverty. The plan states that the focus in the construction industry should be on projects that are labour-intensive and create jobs upon completion. In this regard, the Government has laid out plans to ensure full execution of the construction of office blocks and housing units in the newly created districts.

 

Mr Speaker, in light of the above, your Committee resolved to carry out a study to clearly understand and ascertain the development of infrastructure in the newly created districts. Allow me to highlight a few of the recommendations contained in the report.  The first is on the absence of a comprehensive integrated infrastructure development policy to ensure successful development of infrastructure in the new districts. Your Committee, therefore, strongly recommends that the Government puts in place policies that will encompass all relevant Government agencies and facilitate proper planning, prioritisation of infrastructure development projects and adequate financial resource allocation to these projects, both at institutional and national level.

 

Mr Speaker, another matter of concern to your Committee was the National Land Policy. Your Committee is concerned that the National Land Policy has not yet been finalised, thereby hampering efficient and effective utilisation of land in the country. Your Committee, therefore, urges the Government to expedite the finalisation of the National Land Policy so as to promote the optimal utilisation of land in the country.

 

Mr Speaker, your Committee also observed that inadequate funding is a major challenge to the development of infrastructure in the newly created districts. Your Committee observed, with concern, that although massive infrastructure development projects have been initiated in most of the newly created districts, most of them have stalled due to non-payment of contractors, which is unacceptable. Your Committee strongly urges the Government to consider establishing public-private partnerships (PPPs) so as to enhance funding for infrastructure development in newly created districts. Further, the Government should seriously appraise projects and ensure that adequate funding is provided for their completion before entering into contracts for them. Your Committee further urges the Government to urgently put measures in place to support local industries, such as block-making and hardware supply enterprises, in close proximity to the project areas. This will help to reduce costs and promote empowerment initiatives for locals.

 

Mr Speaker, another concern of your Committee is with regard to the weak co-ordination between the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Housing and Infrastructure Development, which is hampering infrastructure development in the newly created districts. Your Committee recommends that the Government puts measures in place to ensure greater collaboration between the two ministries and for the Ministry of Finance to fully advise the Government on the availability of funding before the inception of new projects.

 

Sir, another issue concerned the manner in which contracts are crafted without consideration of the prevailing local environment in the country. We are all aware that the country is undergoing economic challenges which have negatively affected the Government’s ability to pay contractors on time. As a result, most contractors are failing to meet the deadlines set in the contracts. Your Committee, therefore, urges the Ministry of Housing and Infrastructure Development to consider reviewing the contents of the contracts so as to ensure that the local environment such as capacity of both the Government and contractors to fulfil contractual obligations are taken into consideration.

 

Mr Speaker, let me end by commenting on the Government’s intention to prioritise funding only to projects that are 80 per cent and above complete. While this intention is well-meaning and aimed at avoiding the spread out of limited resources, mainly without any tangible benefits, it has ended up disadvantaging some contractors who have invested their resources into projects in order to reach the level of 70 per cent.

 

Sir, your Committee recommends that the intention be reviewed so that decisions can be made on a case by case basis so as to help contractors who may have used their own resources on these projects. In conclusion, let me take this opportunity to thank all the stakeholders for their co-operation during your Committee’s deliberations and its local tours. Finally, your Committee further thanks your office and that of the Clerk of the National Assembly of Zambia for the advice rendered to it during the session.

 

With these remarks, I beg to move.

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Speaker: Does the seconder wish to speak now or later?

 

Ms Kasanda: Now, Sir.

 

Mr Speaker, allow me to add a voice to the many that have spoken to convey my heartfelt condolences to the Kalima family on the demise of Hon. Victoria Kalima.

 

Mr Speaker, in seconding the Motion, I would like to firstly congratulate the mover for the able manner in which he has presented it. In its study of the development of infrastructure in the newly created districts, your Committee had the privilege of undertaking a benchmarking local tour to five newly created districts in three provinces. The main objective of the tour was for your Committee to carry out an on-the-spot check of the infrastructure development projects.

 

Mr Speaker, your Committee learnt of the several challenges faced in the development of infrastructure. These have been ably outlined by both the mover of the Motion and also by your Committee’s report. However, permit me to cite a few challenges.

 

Sir, your Committee observes that most infrastructure development projects in the newly created districts are in isolated areas with no proper access road networks. It was disheartening for your Committee to travel in a coppice before arriving at a project in some cases. Your Committee members had to leave their cars and walk long distances because there was no access road to the projects.

 

Sir, your Committee also observed that there is no infrastructure for supporting facilities, such as health and education.

 

Mr Speaker, your Committee urges the Government to ensure that roads that lead to projects and infrastructure for supporting facilities are developed at the same time so as to have holistic development of the districts.

 

Sir, your Committee was sad to see the decrepit state of the recently built Chisamba Ranch Health Post. The facility was completed and ready for use. However, it could not be handed over to the community due to an error in the placement of the toilets near the borehole. As a result, the facility was not being used and as heavily vandalised. Your Committee observed that non-utilisation of the completed structure was a drain on Government resources and denied people this much-needed service.

 

Mr Speaker, your Committee recommends that completed structures, such as the Chisamba Ranch Health Post, be handed over to the community for use and, in turn, be protected from vandalism. The problems identified, such as wrong placement of the toilets, should be quickly dealt with to prevent further destruction and accumulation of more expenditure.

 

Sir, let me close by thanking my fellow members of your Committee for their hard work and dedication to duty.

 

With these few words, I beg to second.

 

I thank you, Sir.

 

Ms Mwashingwele (Katuba): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to add my voice to the debate on the Report of the Committee on Transport, Works and Supply.

 

Sir, I would like to appreciate the fact that the points that have been revealed have been enlightening. I will focus on Chipili District, which was turned into a district in 2012.

 

Sir, if you looked at page 14 of the report, you would see that none of the infrastructure budgeted for in Chipili between 2012 and 2018 has been completed. A lot of money has been put into the project, but in piecemeal. We always argue that it is important to cut your coat according to your cloth. I wonder how the Patriotic Front (PF) Government could embark on five to six projects at a go because none of them have been completed. It would have been prudent for the Government to only choose three projects in Chipili District which it could have completed. 

 

Sir, as if that was not bad enough, you will find that contracts are terminated after contractors have been paid money. There are no repercussions on the contractors even though the contracts have been terminated. Is it because the people given these contracts are not conversant with the works they are doing or that these contracts have been given to political cadres?

 

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

 

Hon. Government Members: Question!

 

Ms Mwashingwele: Could it be that corruption is at play? For example, a contract was given for the construction of a civic centre, two high cost houses and associated internal works at K6.4 million in February of 2014 but, today, we are being told that the contract has been terminated. These are taxpayers’ monies. Are we sure that the people in Chipili are being serviced properly?

 

Sir, as we listened to the mover and seconder of the Motion, one realises that there is no road network. The places are not serviced. Is it worth having 116 districts? You will find that even with the addition from seventy-two to 116 districts, there is still incomplete infrastructure. We appreciate this report because it tells the Government that we need to understand where we will start from and what should be done first. Is it prudent to have seven districts created when the ones that were created in 2012 have incomplete infrastructure? Is it worth creating new ones? As much as it has been argued by the hon. Minister of Local Government that we need districts, sure enough, we do need new districts, but do we have the resources and capacity to do the needful?

 

Sir, I will give another example, like the construction of ten medium cost houses and associated external works. The amounts that are being put into the district keep on increasing every year and have been given a deadline of December, 2018. If something was started in 2014 and has not been completed up to this time, are we sure that a building which is at 48 per cent is it likely to be completed by December, 2018? The deadlines we are talking about are actually not practical.

 

Mr Speaker, every time there is a statement on the Floor of the House, hon. Ministers say, “when funds are available.” We are now in June, 2018. Listening to the hon. Minister of Housing and Infrastructure Development yesterday, he said that there is so much infrastructure development that is being undertaken across the country and people are very happy. I do not think people in Chipili are very happy with this type of development. We have heard that education and health facilities are not available. The road network is not in place. Are we really doing what we are supposed to do or it is just paper work? Are we just theorising? Do we want to just create an impression that we are actually doing the work when nothing is being done?

 

Mr Speaker, a lot of resources are going to waste because of the lack of proper planning.

 

Mr Speaker, with those sentiments, I would like to thank your Committee for this report. It is a job well done and has brought out a lot of salient points.

 

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

 

Hon. Opposition Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Sing’ombe (Dundumwezi): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to add a few concerns on your report.

 

Mr Speaker, it is so disheartening to learn that your Committee, in some instances, had to leave its vehicles and walk some distances to access the so-called new districts. I just want to inform the House that Kalomo was the first capital of Northern Rhodesia. We are still grappling with the issue of infrastructure. I think we should be worried about the speed at which our colleagues in the Patriotic Front (PF) are addressing most of these challenges. How do they state that they will only continue funding projects that are about 80 per cent and above completed? In the report, the Chairperson has indicated that there are some situations where some of the contractors used their personal efforts to kick-start the projects to reach 70 per cent at which point the Government has said it will not fund such a project. In short, the PF Government is injecting poverty in most of our contractors. Most of the contractors whose projects are below 80 per cent complete are local contractors. The PF should find a way of helping those contractors who used their personal resources to kick-start projects to complete the projects.

 

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

 

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

 

Mr Lubinda: Are there any contractors like that?

 

Mr Lufuma (Kabompo): Mr Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to give a comment or two on the Report of the Committee on Local Governance, Housing and Chiefs’ Affairs. I would like to commend your Committee on the work well done because it has brought out many issues that most of us have been talking about privately. On page 12 of your Committee’s report, I read about the challenges faced in the development of infrastructure in the newly created districts. It makes sad reading. From what I have seen, hardly any infrastructure that is required to enable a district to provide necessary services has been completed.

 

Sir, we create these districts to enhance the availability of service delivery. What has been happening is that we have so many projects, yet none of them have reached a stage where they can deliver adequately. In other words, we are spending money, but not getting the necessary benefits. So, what are we doing? Why do we continue with the creation of new districts? I am not against the creation of new districts. However, we have to look at the resources that we have. It seems that the eyes of the Patriotic Front (PF) Government are bigger than its stomach.

 

Laughter

 

Mr Lufuma: Mr Speaker, it wants to chew what it cannot manage to eat. It wants a big lump of nshima when it only has a small stomach. Why am I saying that? Overall, the economy, at the moment, is in dire straits. The morphology of our Budget is in such a state that any reasonable government would not continue to create new districts because the creation of new districts means more expenditure. This Government is not able to even mobilise enough resources to ensure that the districts which have been created are developed. So, why is it doing what it cannot afford?

 

Sir, currently, in our Budget, we have 50 per cent, for instance, just going to salaries. These are facts. We have 30 per cent of our Budget going to service debt. If we add up those two, we are talking about 80 per cent. We have 10 per cent of the Budget going to Government operations. That gives us a total of 90 per cent and we are left with 10 per cent. With that 10 per cent, are we able to finance the massive infrastructure projects that the PF Government is putting on the table? Why is the PF Government undertaking so many projects which it cannot complete? Why is it doing that?

 

Mr Speaker: Order! As the time is 1910 hours, I interrupt the proceedings and the debate lapses.

 

_______

 

 MOTION

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

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

 

Question put and agreed to.

 

__________

 

The House adjourned at 1910 hours until 1430 hours on Thursday, 14^th June, 2018.

 

____________