Mliswa calls for amendment of Zimbabwe Constitution to stop recalling of MPs

When a Government Bill is published, it could then be allocated for scrutiny to the appropriate sub-committee for the particular Select Committee. Scrutiny is still there and this is what the Scottish Parliament does. Where the substance of the Government Bill stretch beyond the remit of any one sub-committee, a new sub- committee could be established by the Select Committee for the purposes of this particular Bill which combined Members with the relevant expertise from two or more Committees.

They talk about expertise. Amongst us everybody has got a different gift that they have. We have not at all utilised the resources the Members of Parliament have in this Parliament by allowing them to use their expertise. By being here, they are leaders already. Each one of them is gifted to do so much but also give them an opportunity to lead. Those sub-committees assist and also sub- committees are now done by somebody who is an expert in that field, which means whatever you are producing is good for the country. At the end of the day, it would have gone through a process which should be recognised.

Bills which combined Members with relevant expertise from two or more sub- committees; while the Bill was of high importance, it could be scrutinised by the Select Committee as a whole. There are certain Bills which you can have sub-committees but there are certain Bills depending on their importance are brought to the Select Committee to be able to deal with them.  There are several advantages to be drawn from this format as the Scottish example shows; members would be chosen from those democratically elected by the whole House so that the Executive would no longer wield undue influence over who should exercise scrutiny over its own Bills.

This is critical. When the House has elected members then you know that the Executive will be on its toes and it is important for us Mr. Speaker Sir, to also follow.  Benchmarking is one of the key issues of this Parliament but unfortunately, even with our remuneration they      have gone for benchmarking a lot.  Hon. Mpariwa, when she was Chairperson of the Public Accounts came up with a report from Kenya Benchmarking but we seem not to also follow that.  So it was a waste of money going to Kenya to benchmark because at the end of the day, the benchmarking is not done.  The remuneration of Members of Parliament in Kenya compared to us is a laughing stock.  So what did they go and benchmark if it is not implemented?  The same issues that Hon. Dr. Khupe said there are too many documents and no implementation, even this Parliament is falling prey to that.  What has happened to the benchmarking, which trips were made to improve the remuneration and welfare of Members of Parliament?  Nothing has come out of that.

Moreover the sub-committee members who were properly elected in the  first instance, as having particular knowledge in this policy area would rapidly deepen that expertise as they continued to concentrate in their specialist areas.  The capabilities of back bench members with interest and commitment to particular policy areas would be much more valuable in terms of deployment.  This model would also enable the scrutiny process to be undertaken in a more open and transparent manner.  The sub-committee could co-opt experts in their policy area as regular advisers where expertise is warranted.  These are some of the issues but some of these committees and some of the issues that come before us, we do not know them.  Why are we not bringing in expertise?  Where is the academia?

Continued next page

(312 VIEWS)