Download Download
MR OMACH: Mr Chairman, the Committee suggests a new schedule to read as follows: 1. In order to determine for the purposes of this Act, the professional suitability of persons proposing to establish or operate collective investment schemes, the Authority shall have regard to the following qualities in so far as they are reasonably determinable of the persons concerned:
a) his or her general probity;
b) his or her competence and soundness of judgement for the fulfilment of the responsibilities of the office in question; and
c) the diligence with which the person concerned is likely to fulfil those responsibilities.
2. For the purposes of and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of paragraph 1, the Authority may have regard to the previous conduct and activities of the person concerned in business or financial matters, and in particular to any evidence that such person:
(a) has been convicted of the offence of fraud or any other offence of which dishonesty is an element;
(b) has contravened the provision of any Act designed for the protection of members of the public against financial loss due to dishonesty or incompetence or malpractice by persons engaged in the provision of banking, insurance, investment or other financial services;
(c) has wilfully defaulted on a loan for an institution of which he or she is a director.
3. The Authority may request any person to furnish additional information as may be necessary in determining the professional suitability of such a person.
Mr Chairman, the justification for this is that there is need to be specific and clear about the fit and proper concept to avoid possible abuse of this interpretation. I beg to move.
Schedule 6, agreed to
The Title, agreed to.
MR OMACH: Mr Chairman, I would like to propose an amendment to the Memorandum of this bill, by deletion of the word introduction and including only the object of this bill is to facilitate the establishment of collective investment schemes in Uganda. And delete everything from that point up to the end.
The justification is that these are all contained in the bill. I beg to move.
THE CHAIRMAN: Honourable members, I think you have realised why he is amending it. These details must have been written for the Cabinet to understand the purpose of the bill, but I think they are here by oversight. It should actually have been as brief as that. So, I put the question.
(Question put and agreed to.)
The Memorandum, as amended, agreed to.
MOTION FOR THE HOUSE TO RESUME
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FINANCE (PLANNING) (Mr Isaac Musumba): Mr Chairman, I beg to move that the House do resume and the Committee of the whole House reports thereto.
(Question put and agreed to.)
(The House resumed, the Speaker presiding_)
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FINANCE (PLANNING) (Mr Isaac Musumba): Mr Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of the whole House has considered the bill entitled The Collective Investment Schemes Bill, 2001 and passed it with some amendments.
MOTION FOR ADOPTION OF THE REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FINANCE (PLANNING) (Mr Isaac Musumba): Mr Speaker, I beg -(Interruption)
CAPT. CHARLES BYARUHANGA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before you adjourned yesterday, the Minister promised to lay a certificate on theTable before we pass the bill. We have not seen that certificate.
MR MUSUMBA: Sir, if it may please you, I seek your permission to lay on the Table the certificate as I promised to yesterday.
THE SPEAKER: No, why not finish with the Committee work before you move another motion? We can deal with that after this.
MR MUSUMBA: Much obliged, Sir. I beg to move that the report of the whole House be adopted.
(Question put and agreed to.)
MR MUSUMBA: Mr Speaker, indeed as I promised yesterday, I have here with me a certificate of financial implications made under Section 10 of the Budget Act. It is with regard to the bill entitled The Collective Investment Schemes Bill, 2001. It is signed by the Minister of Finance, hon. Mwesigwa Rukutana. I beg to lay it on Table.
MR MWANDHA: I think it is not enough to simply lay the certificate on the Table of the House. The essence of the Act is to get assurance from the minister that actually the financial implications have already been catered for. That can only be known if the minister reads the certificate. Otherwise, simply laying it on the Table is not good enough.
THE SPEAKER: There is no problem. Can you read it so that we can know the contents?
MR MUSUMBA: Thank very much, Mr Speaker. The certificate is first of all evidence that we, the Ministry of Finance, who are sponsoring this bill, have put financial arrangements in place for it. The purpose of the certificate is to assure this House (Interruption)
THE SPEAKER: Just read it.
MR MUSUMBA: Much obliged, Sir.
Certificate of Financial Implications made under Section 10 of the Budget Act:
This is to certify that a Bill entitled The Collective Investment Schemes Bill 2001 has been examined as required under Section 10 of the Budget Act, I wish to report as follows:
(a) The Bill has the following objectives:
1. To facilitate the establishment of Collective Investment Schemes (CIS.)
2. To provide for the licensing and regulation of Collective Investment Schemes.
3. To provide for the licensing and control of other parties involved in the operation of Collective Investment Schemes.
(b)That the Bill will achieve the following outputs:
1. Create a legal and regulatory framework for the establishment of unit trusts and investment companies with variable capital, collectively known as Collective Investment Schemes.
2.Facilitate the creation of well-regulated avenues of domestic savings mobilisation for investment in productive enterprise.
3.Create pools of savings for investment in marketable assets, which will spur capital markets development in Uganda.
4.Improve on the financial sectors ability to intermediate funds from savings units into long term capital consumers.
5.Facilitate the development of critical pool of professional financial management skills in Uganda.
(c) That the expenditure plan by major components for the next two years shall be as follows for the various activities:
Staff recruitment and capacity building will require Shs 186,900,000 for the financial year 2002/2003, and in the year 2003/2004 it will require Shs 78,900,000.
Public education in the year 2002/03 will require Shs100 million, and in the year 2003/04 will require Shs 180,000,000.
Cost of preparing and passing regulations in the financial year 2002/03 will require Shs40 million. In the year 2003/04 will require nil.
Database and information management systems in the financial year 2002/03 will require Shs10.8 million, and in the financial year 2003/04 will require Shs5.4 million.
Additional administrative overheads in the financial year 2002/03 will require Shs50 million, and in the financial year 2003/04 will require Shs70 million.
The total requirement in the year 2002/2003 will be Shs383,700,000 and the requirement in the year 2003/04 will be Shs334,300,000.
(d) The funding and budgetary implications are as follows:
The Capital Markets Authority is the body charged under the Collective Investment Schemes Bill with the responsibility of regulating the Collective Investment Schemes. The Capital Markets Authority is a government agency that was set up by a statute and has been provided for under the current financial year, 2002/03.
Submitted to Parliament and signed by Mwesigwa Rukutana, Minister of State for Finance, Planning and Economic Development in charge of General Duties.
BILLS
THIRD READING
THE COLLECTIVE INVESTMENT SCHEMES BILL, 2001
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FINANCE (PLANNING) (Mr Isaac Musumba): Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the bill entitled, The Collective Investment Schemes Bill, 2002 be read a third time and do pass.
(Question put and agreed to.)
A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED THE COLLECTIVE INVESTMENT SCHEMES ACT, 2002.
THE SPEAKER: Congratulations, it has been passed!
BILLS
SECOND READING
THE NILE BASIN INITIATIVE BILL, 2002
THE MINISTER OF STATE, WATER (Mrs Mary Mutagamba): Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the bill entitled, The Nile Basin Initiative Bill, 2002 be read a second time.
THE SPEAKER: It is seconded. Justify.
MRS MUTAGAMBA: Mr Speaker, this bill was read for the first time here in this House, and the House recommended it to the Committee on Natural Resources for consideration. I am happy to report that the Committee has done its job and is ready to report, and the report is already here in the House.
THE CHAIRPERSON, COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES (Mr Ndawula Kaweesi): Mr Speaker, I beg to present the report of the Committee on Natural Resources on the Nile Basin Initiative Bill, 2002 in consonance with Article 90(3) of the Constitution of Uganda and Rule 124 of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament.
The Committee met the Minister of Water, Lands and Environment together with a technical team and discussed the bill at the Nile Basin Initiative Secretariat in Entebbe. This enabled members to tour the Secretariat and internalise its operations. The Committee proceeded to study the bill together with other documents provided.
In addition, on the 5th day of September 2002, a resolution of Parliament on the status of the Pre-independent Agreements on the Nile was presented to this House for debate by hon. Muzoora Amon. The Chair did rule that the matter be referred to the Committee on Natural Resources who were already handling the Nile Basin Initiative Bill. The Committee reviewed the matter and held discussions with the Minister of Lands, Water and Environment.
Background to the bill:
Mr Speaker, the Nile River basin is shared by ten countries namely: Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Egypt, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Sudan, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. The river serves as a home to world-class environmental assets such as Lake Victoria, vast wetlands and millions of people.
Despite the extraordinary natural endowments and rich cultural history of the Nile basin, its people face considerable challenges. The basin is characterized by poverty, instability, rapid population growth and environmental degradation.
This calls for co-operative water resources management, which can also serve as a catalyst for regional integration, both economic and political, with potential benefits possibly far exceeding those derived from the river itself.
Objectives:
The bill seeks, among other things, to confer the required legal status, immunities and privileges on the Nile Basin Initiative in Uganda.
Observations:
In considering hon. Muzooras motion, the Committee observed that the motion raises legitimate and pertinent issues. These are, however, a sub-set of wider issues to be considered by the Nile Basin Initiative. It is recommended that the issues be handled by the Nile Basin Initiative and the relevant ministry at an appropriate time.
The Committee observed that the Nile holds significant opportunities for development that could enhance food production, energy availability, transportation, industrial development, environmental conservation and other related development activities in the region.
The Committee recommends that the bill be passed into law to enable the initiative source funds from individual member states and donors.
Mr Speaker and honourable members, Uganda is the host to the Nile Basin Initiative Secretariat, located at Entebbe, and needs to set an example to other member states by enacting this bill into law.
After thorough scrutiny by the Committee, no amendments were found necessary. I beg to move that the bill be passed into law in its present form. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
DR FRANK NABWISO: Mr Speaker, I am just seeking clarification. There have been several reports in the press recently saying that Lake Victoria has been privatised. Since the Nile, according to the reports I have read, starts from Lake Victoria, can we get assurance about this matter? Has the lake been privatised? If so, by who, to who, when, and for how much? And how will this affect the bill that we are trying to put in place? Thank you, Mr Speaker.
MR LUKYAMUZI: Mr Speaker, mine also takes the form of a clarification. I am a member of the Committee, but I was not here when the Committee was considering the motion by hon. Muzoora in regard to the queries he raised. Therefore, in light of that, I am seeking some clarification.
The points raised by hon. Muzoora do not seem to have received the attention they deserved by the Committee of Natural Resources. (Interruption)
MR MUTULUUZA: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I am raising a point of order. The honourable member holding the Floor is a member of this committee and he would have contributed during the discussion on this bill. Is he in order, Mr Speaker? Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Well, honourable members, I have a copy of the report and I note that hon. Lukyamuzi signed it. The question of asking whether they considered this will be going into details, which we would not like to go into now. Your signature is here; there is no contrary decision.
In the circumstances, hon. Lukyamuzi, you say this matter was not followed up properly, but what I know is that the Chair referred the matter to the Committee. The Committee has reported and you see we have a report here.
Since the Committee will be sitting again, I think this matter can be revisited. Therefore, put your points to your committee rather than coming when you have signed the report to say that we did not consider this. I think that will be handled.
MR LUKYAMUZI: Mr Speaker, I was not in this country when the report was finalised. This signature of mine was appended much before the Committee considered hon. Muzoora -(Laughter)
THE SPEAKER: Honourable members, I do not think we should go into details; they will be sorted out in the Committee. Let us accept that this is a properly signed report, with your signature. But if you have a complaint as to the method of operation in your committee, that you signed before you had concluded the report, then this can be rectified later. Let us leave it at that.
MR BAGALANA: Mr Speaker, I seek clarification on the same. I want to register my disagreement over the signing. We did not see the report. They passed papers in which we could not have read the content of the report. So, as a person, I want to withdraw my signature for constitutional reasons.
THE SPEAKER: Honourable members, let us not portray ourselves as people who sign things in this way. It is not a good image you are creating. Can we move to hon. Katirima please.
LT COL PHENHAS KATIRIMA (Army Representative): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I move to support the motion, and I thank the Committee for a job well done and for the precise report they have written.
I only have reservations in one area. I would like the chairman of the Committee to clearly explain to the House with regard to hon. Muzooras motion, which was already property of this House. It was forwarded to them for proper scrutiny and analysis, and then they were to comprehensively report to us.
In the Committee report, they observed that the motion raises legitimate and pertinent issues. I would be happy to know what these issues are. They go ahead and say that these issues are a subset of wider issues to be considered by the Nile Basin Initiative. I want to insist that we need to know these issues, which are a subset of the wider issues to be considered under the Nile Basin Initiative.
They recommend that these issues be handled by the Nile Basin Initiative and the relevant ministries at an appropriate time in future. I want to know why Parliament cannot handle them, since the motion was already Parliaments property. Why should we abdicate this responsibility to the Nile Basin Initiative and the other relevant ministries?
I would also like to know why it should be at an appropriate time in future. Why cant Parliament handle it now? This should have come out in the report of the Committee for further debate and settlement of this issue. I thank you, Mr Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: I think you have to know the purpose of the bill before us. From what I read in the bill, it is to create a legal entity to deal with all matters affecting the basin. The motion of hon. Muzoora was dealing with an argument, which should rather be obligatory or something like that.
They have advised you that this can be properly handled, not by Parliament but by the legal entity, which the bill has handled together with other issues that it will handle. You will have to appreciate that the purpose of the bill is to create a legal body that will be in charge of all matters dealing with this issue. I hope that satisfies you so that we can proceed.
MR WAMBUZI GAGAWALA: Mr Speaker, mine is a simple request, to amend the title of this bill to say, The Nile Basin Authority Bill .
THE SPEAKER: We are coming to the Committee stage; you will bring your amendment then.
MR WAMBUZI GAGAWALA: I was trying to speak ahead so that I sell it to the public (Laughter)- but as you have ruled, I am forced to sit down and wait.
MR MWANDHA: I am not very sure in my mind that this is the way the House should dispose of a motion moved by an honourable member. Much as we are creating an Authority, and much as the Committee would like that Authority to deal with the motion, it is not clear in my mind whether we can simply pass the motion of this House in the manner in which the Committee is proposing.
As you read this, Mr Speaker, they say, In considering hon. Muzooras motion, the Committee observed that the motion raises legitimate and pertinent issues , and indeed it does! But then they go on to say, these are however a subset of wider issues to be considered by the Nile Basin Initiative.
I think the Committee should have been fair to this House and indicated these other wider issues, to which the motion, which is the property of this House, are part, so that we appreciate that indeed we should wait for this organisation to deal with these wider issues. But to simply say it has wider issues without mentioning what these issues are is not fair to this House.
THE SPEAKER: Honourable member, what was the thrust of the motion? What was the policy of the motion? What was it intending to achieve? Because you have to know what it was intending to achieve and then we may be able to decide.
MR MWANDHA: Mr Speaker, it will not be fair to ask me to tell the House what the essence of the motion was. This motion belongs to the House, but in the wisdom of the House the motion was passed over to the Committee.
In my view, this is not a report on a motion of the nature that was read out. It appears that the Committee is brushing over issues, and as far as I am concerned, however touchy the issues are, the issues must be mentioned. So, to me -(Interruption)
THE SPEAKER: But honourable member, the problem I have is that I was not here, but I think a competent authority decided that this issue be examined by an appropriate committee. The Committee examined the motion and in its wisdom said this is not a proper matter that will be handled by the House. They said it should be handled by the legal body that is being set up by the initiative.
It is a question maybe of attacking its wisdom. But it has made that decision, and it was mandated by the Chair or by the House to deal with it and that is how they resolved it.
THE MINISTER OF STATE (LANDS) (Mr Baguma Isoke): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Two weeks ago in this House, a motion was brought having the effect of Uganda abrogating the Pre-Independence Agreements concluded with the Republic of Egypt and Sudan on the Nile. It was also having the effect of levying a tariff on the waters of the Nile that flow at Nimule to the two republics downstream. The motion was referred to the Committee of Natural Resources.
When my ministry interacted with the Committee, we considered this matter and other issues related to the waters of the Nile. May I now explain that one reason we did not want to discuss that motion here in the House was that Sir, the reasons are given in the memorandum to this bill.
The ten countries, including Kenya, which does not seem to be connected directly to the Nile is a party to this matter because of Lake Victoria, which is a sub-basin of the Nile Basin.
In the first paragraph, the memorandum is saying that the ten countries have no regional or international treaty or agreement for managing and utilising the waters of the Nile. This statement has the same effect as hon. Muzooras motion.
And because the ten countries recognise that fact, they agreed in Dar-es-Salaam in 1999 to establish an institution called the Nile Basin Initiative to create a legal framework, a negotiating machinery to create regional and international treaties. This really means that there is no subsisting agreement as of now. This is the Muzoora motion.
Further, the Nile Basin Initiative has got its home in Uganda at Entebbe. We are the host, and we have hosted this institution now for four years. The negotiations are on going, having the same effect as hon. Muzooras motion, and in addition the following -(Interjection)- Let me finish this statement, Mr Speaker, then I will give way:
·
Ensuring that the waters of the Nile Basin are not polluted.
·
Ensuring that the fisheries resources are exploited taking into consideration breeding and the interests of all the lakerian states.
·
Ensuring that the farming practices are not hazardous to the water quality and water quantity, including irrigation, development of hydro electric plants on the lake or across the river; and
·
Ensuring that the drawing of the water from the Nile Basin does not leave the basin at a deficit.
·
Ensuring that this water should not be drawn into another drainage system away from the common basin.
These are the other issues being discussed, including the tariff and the old agreements. It was because of this that we prayed to the House not to proceed with discussing that motion but rather give it wide consideration in the Committee.
What happened in the Committee? The Committee considered all these things and was convinced that the institution which is being legalised now, is going to handle the Muzoora concerns and other issues that I have talked about here and others I have not been able to remember.
Therefore, the Committee gave due consideration to the motion and their statement is very clear. They observed that the motion raises legitimate and pertinent issues on the pre-independent agreement and utilisation of the Nile water. These are, however, a subset; they are part of wider issues to be considered. What is not stated here is that consideration of these issues is on going. Two weeks ago, here in the House, Sir (Interruption)
THE SPEAKER: I think the explanation has been given, honourable minister. This is a matter which should have come from the chairperson. It was a small explanation which has been given.
You see there are two things; this report is dealing with a bill and also with a matter that was referred to it. Currently, the business before us is the bill. We should not really mix up these two issues. (Interruptions). Let one person speak, please.
MR MWANDHA: Mr Speaker, can we therefore, resolve this matter this way. Let us separate the bill from the motion and we look at the report of the Committee from the point of view of the bill. We should then expect another report on the motion from the Committee at an appropriate time.
THE SPEAKER: We can deal with the report in respect of the bill, and then afterwards we deal with the motion that was referred to it.
PROF. KABWEGYERE: Mr Speaker, I would like to plead with you and the House that it is not just a question of separating. It is a question of whether a committee of this House will competently handle this issue without the involvement of other organs of the state.
What the honourable Minister in charge of Lands has been saying is that the motion was a subset, and that the subset is in fact a very small section of the whole issue of the waters of the Nile. I would not expect that the Committee of this House, sitting with its available resources, can handle this question within the timeframe hon. Mwandha is proposing. In which case, it would be next week or the week after that we have the motion debated here.
The issue of the Nile waters is a commentary on the issue of fresh waters in the world. The whole continent of Africa is the focus of those who are looking for fresh water. The big lakes in the United States died a long time ago. You have Lake Victoria here, you have these fresh water lakes and other people do not have fresh water. Now you want to talk about this without calculating the magnitude of the issue you are talking about.
Mr Speaker, let the House give the ministry a bit of time. Let there be more thought, because we can sit here and declare war without knowing what we are talking about.
THE SPEAKER: Honourable members, according to the Order Paper, the business before us is the bill. We will go to the Committee Stage, finish it, adopt the report from the Committee, and our next stage will be the third reading of this bill, which is not connected with hon. Muzooras motion.
Of course, there are grievances about the way the Committee handled the matter that was referred to it. But I think the Committee handled this matter because it was mandated to do so. You had a motion here and then you resolved or the Chair resolved and referred this matter to the Committee. So, they handled it with a mandate that was given to them by a decision made here. So, why dont we proceed with the business before us namely, the bill, and then see how to go about it.
MR MWANDHA: Sir, what we need is assurance whether the Committee will give a report to this House on the motion.
THE SPEAKER: But I cannot handle it now when I am dealing with the bill. If you think the report on the matter is not satisfactory, you can demand for it. But why dont we finish the bill.
MR BAGALANA: Mr Speaker, as we consider this bill on the Nile Basin Initiative, by import, I get to see that the Nile Basin Initiative is not an arm of government or department of government; it is a regional matter. The Constitution provides that natural resources are in the custody of Government. I do not see the constitutional legality we have in dealing with this matter. Natural resources are a custody of Government.
THE SPEAKER: Honourable member, we must appreciate that this matter of the Nile Basin does not only belong to Uganda. Other countries are interested in this Nile Basin. As a result, you have heard the minister say that there have been a series of meetings in Dar-es-Salaam and maybe in Cairo, which dealt with this matter and agreed to create a legal entity to control the Nile Basin.
Here, we are making the municipal law, as far as Uganda is concerned, to deal with that issue. We imagine Sudan and Tanzania will do the same in fulfilment of the commitment that was made. So, honourable members, I am going to deal with the bill; the motion is a different matter. Let me deal with the bill so that we see how we proceed.
CAPT. CHARLES BYARUHANGA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have read the report and the Committee is mentioning nothing about the financial implications of this bill. The chairman of the Committee is a member of the Budget Committee. We have just asked the Minister of Finance to present a certificate here. I had expected the Minister in charge of Water to lay a certificate of the financial implications of this bill on the Table before we debate it.
They want us to continue demanding for it when it is in the Budget Act, which they have in their offices! May I know from the chairman whether this bill has no financial implications, because nothing is mentioned, and whether the minister has the certificate so that it is laid on Table and we proceed.
MR NDAWULA KAWEESI: Mr Speaker, this particular bill is not actually setting up, but it is legalising the Nile Basin Initiative Secretariat. The Government of Uganda has been paying US$35,000 to this initiative. But this bill is not giving the Government of Uganda any financial implication over and above the US$35,000, which Government has been paying, and the receipts are available with the ministry.
THE SPEAKER: Let us not mix-up issues. Let us dispose of one issue and then we go to the other. I think we have agreed here that we deal with the bill, and the other matter shall also be followed up. I think that is the theme of the consensus.
As we are proceeding after that sort of agreement, the honourable member has said because of the Budget Act, every bill should have a certificate of financial implication. The question is, was there a certificate of the financial implication?
THE MINISTER OF STATE (WATER) (Mrs Maria Mutagamba): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The bill, as it states, is trying to legalise an already existing institution, which has been running for the last four years. The commitment is an annual subscription, which we have been paying as a country under an international obligation. We have written to the Ministry of Finance and it has given a no objection although we were not able to produce that no objection here.
The Ministry of Finance has assured us; in fact, they should have been here to state that. So, the only obligation is that annual contribution. There is no current or development budget on it, and we have been running for the last four years.
MR MWANDHA: Mr Speaker, a law is a law. The Budget Act is a law of this country. It requires a certificate; it does not require a statement from a minister. We need a certificate. Even if the certificate says nil implications , we need it.
THE SPEAKER: For purposes of our records - because I may have to make a decision in as far as this bill is concerned - the bill was read for a second time. The Committee presented its report and the House adopted the report of the Committee. We are now in the general debate of the report which was given by the Committee.
The point has now arisen that we do not have a certificate of the financial implication. I suggest that maybe we proceed with the debate and before we move to another stage, we shall require the certificate of financial implication. If we decide now, it means we have to adjourn. Why dont we continue with the general debate and then before we take another step, we see how we proceed?
MR AWORI: Mr Speaker, again I am seeking your guidance on this matter. You are saying we can proceed with the debate subject to production of a certificate. I assume that is the position?
THE SPEAKER: Yes.
MR AWORI: So, which means now we are dealing with the equivalent, not the real certificate?
THE SPEAKER: Well, I have said the certificate will be produced. If it is not produced, then we shall act in accordance with the law. If you have any further debate on the report, then we can have it.
MR AWORI: Mr Speaker, sorry to take more of your time. The question raised by my hon. Mwandha is valid. The law says, No certificate, no bill .
THE SPEAKER: I have said if the certificate is not produced, we shall act in accordance with the law. I have to oblige to the provisions of the law.
MR AWORI: I appreciate that. Thank you.
MR LUKYAMUZI: Mr Speaker, just to clear my part, I would like to support the view raised by hon. Mwandha namely, let us separate the two issues. Hon. Muzooras motion raises pertinent issues, which cannot be ignored. At an appropriate time, I am sure we will reconsider those issues. Thank you very much (Laughter).
MR SITENDA SEBALU: From the way things are moving and unfolding, I suggest that we adjourn.
THE SPEAKER: Honourable members, since I do not see other people interested in making general contributions, I invite the chairperson, if he has any comment to raise, and the minister. We shall then see where to stop.
MR NDAWULA KAWEESI: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the members who have contributed to the debate on the report. Specifically, the issue that was attacked mostly was on hon. Muzooras motion.
The Nile Basin Initiative is in essence a co-operation among ten countries and what that co-operation is going to address. When you look at the minutes in the schedule of the bill you have, in the Agreed Min. No.7, the corporate objective of this co-operation will be to achieve sustainable social-economic development through equitable utilisation of and benefit from the common Nile Basin water resources.
It is against that corporate objective of the Nile Basin Initiative that we saw that the merits in hon. Muzooras motion, about the tariff of water, the re-negotiation of the pre-independent agreements, are all geared towards the equitable utilisation of water.
In our wisdom, the Committee found it realistic to say, since these are ten countries co-operating over the Nile Basin water resources, and the genesis of the matter in hon. Muzooras motion is on the utilisation and benefit of the Nile water resources in the co-operation, this can be taken care of over and above the other issues this co-operation is going to address.
Honourable members, there was a comment that the issues should be separated. Yes, but this minute was agreed on by the Council of Ministers of the ten countries. In fact, there is so much diplomatic implication in this agreed minute, to the extent that we cannot add or remove a letter from it.
This is the minute agreed on by ten countries, and considering the merit of that motion, it would amount to Uganda unilaterally getting out of this co-operation, yet it was agreed on 22 February 1999 that the co-operation among ten countries would continue. It was also agreed that the institutional framework will be put in place; there will be technical committees; there will be advisory committees and all governments will be represented.
So, we thought that the Ugandan team that will be in the negotiations on this co-operation will take on the issues raised by hon. Muzoora, considering that this is a co-operation of many countries; not just one country.
Mr Speaker and honourable members, that was the genesis of the matter. We thought we were not leaving out this motion, and for sure you cannot separate it. We are talking about the Nile basin and the motion was talking about pre-independence agreements on the Nile waters, not the entire basin.
So, this is a subset of what is now being considered. If there is wisdom, then there is no way the attributes of hon. Muzooras motion can be left out. Some few honourable members have been talking about it, and I still believe it can be taken care of under the bigger co-operation other than the Government of Uganda unilaterally doing it.
There was an issue from hon. Nabwiso about the privatisation of the lake. Really, we had a meeting with the Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment to find out the truth in these allegations. We were told that even the dream of getting this lake privatised is in itself not conceivable. We got that from the Minister of Water, Lands and Environment. However (Interruption)
THE SPEAKER: Let the Minister answer this question since he is here.
THE MINISTER OF STATE (ENVIRONMENT) (Dr Kezimbira Miyingo): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to confirm what the chairman of the Committee has just said. There is no truth at all in what is being spread around that the Government intends to privatise Lake Victoria. It is a misinterpretation that was given out by one person of the press in the beginning. I can tell you the story, and it has two prongs.
One, the press and some people have misunderstood the co-operation that is occurring between Uganda and our partners in the East African Co-operation to bring in money to develop the lake basin in relation to the people that live around the lake.
We have co-operation with the Swedish Government, where they have the Baltic Sea, which they have worked on to purify the waters so that these waters are of good quality. In fact, it is not only the Swedish Government but many other states will invest with us or give money to us so that we can better the quality of life around the Lake Victoria basin.
How is this to be done? We already have, within the Ministry, the Lake Victoria Environment Management Project. It is also supported by the World Bank to give money to handle the catchment area of Lake Victoria in terms of afforestation. This is to make sure that shores are not washed back into the lake, to cause what is referred to as death of any lake if it is over silted.
It is also handling issues of examining chemical contamination of the lake, and we have a component of this going on.
It is also handling fishermen who can be able to write up small projects, and these are sponsored by this project funding.
This, together with other initiatives, have landed into the ears of people who want to make political issues over nothing. They say the lake is being sold because money is coming here to better the lake. So, this is one side of it; our developing partners are concerned about poverty within the area. They would like to raise the standard of living of our people, and we are working together with the three East African countries to alleviate poverty.
Of course, the quality of water that our people drink, the water that the three East African countries are consuming, comes from the lake. Therefore, looking after the catchment betters the position of the waters that our people consume.
There is also this issue that was raised by one local journalist during the time when we were briefing the press when we were going to Johannesburg for the World Summit on Sustainable Development. One Journalist raised an issue with me after the main press briefing was over. He asked me whether I knew if it is possible to grow fish in waters of a river or a lake without disturbing the nature of the lake and the fish that is growing in the lake.
I told this journalist - I think from Bukedde newspaper - that this would be an issue that he could have raised with the Ministry of Agriculture, which deals with fisheries. But he went further and said, no, you were once a minister in charge of fisheries and now in-charge of bio-diversity, you must have an answer .
So, I said yes, there is something they call cage fish farming, and it is something that is practised all over the world. Cage fish farming means coming up with a cage that has been constructed in such a manner that it can be placed in water. You then bring young fish fingerings - the small ones are called fingerings - a number that you have determined can grow in that particular space, and these are introduced into the cage.
The cage is sub-merged into the water so that instead of digging up a fishpond, you are using the natural water to grow that number that you have put into the cage in that particular space. After a period of time, with feeding of course, these are taken out and marketed. Or you could put reproductive fish into that cage, and fish reproduces, and you take out numbers bigger than what you put into the cage. So, this is a common practice and if it were carried out on Lake Victoria, we would have several advantages since the lake is depleted.
Honourable members, many of you probably pass around the markets where they sell fish. We used to have Nile Perch of 50 or 100 kilograms, today when you pass around you cannot find this big fish. This is because we have fished the lake to a level where even the growth of the fish is not reaching the maximum weights that could be attained.
If there was an additional source of fish, say from the cages while the other pressure is taken off the natural breeding of the fish, this would revamp the amount of fish in the lake. This would be useful to the country, because there would be more supply of fish because of the regeneration.
I told this journalist that this is the method where diversity can be preserved. The alternative, which you find in many countries, is where you put a ban on fishing and say the lake is inactive for two years until the fish again multiplies to a level that allows fishing. This would not be acceptable in our case.
The following day, it was put in the papers that Lake Victoria is going to be sold out to the rich. This is really a misinterpretation of what was stated. This was deliberate, and some people have continued to propagate these rumours. This is the explanation I would like to give, Mr Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: I think you need to give that information in different languages so that the people know exactly what is happening.
MS RUTH KAVUMA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My friends are already telling me that I am going to be sold, and that is a fact I got from the people in Kalangala. The issue is that when we get into the cage fish farming, the local people are left out. This is a situation we have seen on all the different issues that have been privatised. The rich come from nowhere and actually take over from the fishermen.
In this particular case, how are they going to benefit? You are going to say that the local fishermen in Kalangala cannot afford the cages, so what do we do? The people there told me last week that I have no constituency at all; they are going to be sold off and they are not going to be doing any work (Interruption)
THE SPEAKER: Honourable member for Kalangala, I think the minister was explaining a question put to him on leasing some parts of the lake. He was telling us that in certain jurisdictions this could be done. He has not said that this policy has been passed.
CAPT. BYARUHANGA: Mr Speaker, one evening I was watching a programme on a television and the Minister in charge of Lands was being interviewed. He talked about leasing some parts of the lake, and that is what is causing the problem. The fishermen in Kalangala cannot differentiate between leasing and selling the lake. So can he clarify on that?
DR KEZIMBIRA: Mr Speaker, I can see why the problem is in the countryside. Honourable Members of Parliament, whom I have just explained the concepts to, are still saying it is a reality! I have only explained what exists in the world. I have not said that cage fish farming is a policy of the Uganda Government. I have said it is possible to do cage fish farming on a lake if there is a policy in place. So the question of leasing Lake Victoria does not arise. I am just explaining a concept. That is all.
THE SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have personally heard him. He was answering a question which was put to him by one of the journalists, whether it is possible to lease some part of the lake. Why dont we really proceed?
MR AWORI: Mr Speaker, just a small clarification on the use of the lake as a common property for East African countries. It was reported in the East African newspaper of last week that indeed the process is taking place in Tanzania. And very close to the border with Uganda, three islands have been sold plus water around them.
What constitutes a lake? Is it just water without islands or islands are part of the lake? This matter is now before the Tanzanian High Court because somebody got a concession through irregular means. We are just wondering as East Africans (Interruption)
MR BADDA: Mr Speaker, may I inform my honourable colleague that when we talk of an island in any part of the world, it is owned under the legal ownership of the land of this country, either by mailo land, public land or otherwise. It can be sold off to any person by use of a title or anything. So when you talk about selling an island because some of us own islands - (Laughter).
I would like to use the same opportunity to give you a message of caution from my people of Bujjumba Constituency in Kalangala. They are very happy about whatever is being done to develop the lake. But they caution Government that whatever they do, if it is in relation with harvesting fish, this should be left entirely to the local community. These other investors can get involved in the fisheries industry. Thank you very much.
PROF. KAGONYERA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to give a bit of information to honourable members. The policy of the Government is to promote fisheries by allowing small-scale Ugandan fishermen to do the fishing.
At least I know, when I was the minister in charge, there were moves for commercial fishing enterprise on the lake. We said no, this one is preserved for the ordinary Ugandans. Up to now, such a policy has not been changed and I do not think this Government has any intentions to change that policy. I thank you, Sir.
THE SPEAKER: Well, the minister is advised by the House to make a statement to the public, not in English alone but in various languages, so that this issue is understood.
Honourable members, there was an issue of a certificate. I said we continue with the debate until such a time when a certificate is obtained as is required under the law. The minister, hon. Mutagamba, made a statement here, but you said we want something on paper to tell us the position of the ministry.
I have one, through the Office of Clerk because this was addressed to Parliament, and I have to read it to you. I think it will solve the problem.
This is from the Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development. It is dated 18 September 2002. It is addressed to the Clerk to Parliament:
Download for Printing