Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 1057700,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1057700/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 42,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Suba North, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Ms.) Odhiambo-Mabona",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 376,
        "legal_name": "Millie Grace Akoth Odhiambo Mabona",
        "slug": "millie-odhiambo-mabona"
    },
    "content": "national level, we have such a law, thanks to Hon. Amina Abdalla. It has guided the way the national Government works, especially in issues of delegated legislation. In my constituency, the lack of such frameworks has affected fishing, especially on fish caging because sometimes you have the officers operating without a regulatory framework and sometimes discretion gets to be abused when there is no regulatory framework. So, when you have this, it will at least ensure that there is a way the counties will be able to deal with the fishing sector. The other issue that I have noticed that is of concern is that we now have a regulatory framework for the counties and at the national level. But, there are times when we have conflicting roles where we have concurrent mandates between the counties and national Government. In such a situation, it actually impacts negatively on the people that the regulations seek to help. Again, I will give an example of the fishing sector where we have a back and forth especially on issues of fish caging where we do not know which body or person has the mandate of what or who has the mandate of allowing fishermen to do caging or who can stop them and all that. So, it will be very good when we have this law. I do not have much to say in relation to this Bill. It is done well. But, I would just wish that we make certain amendments. I know that Members always wonder why I insist on gender when it is already provided constitutionally. But, as I was telling Hon. Kaluma last week, only the wearer of the shoe knows where it pinches. Even though issues of gender are provided constitutionally, in practice, people just turn a blind eye when you do not provide it by law. They do not comply. But, there is compliance when it is in the law and re-emphasised in the law. Because of that, I would wish, for instance on Clause 7(1) on regulatory impact assessment, we would include gender as a condition. In Clause 22, where the principles to be considered whether the instrument is good that we would actually consider the effects either directly or in effect on groups such as for women, persons with disability and marginalised communities because if we do not do that, sometimes, even a good instrument can have a negative impact. Like if you do a regulatory instrument that focuses say on doing work or something on Saturday and you come to my constituency, you will not get the women because most women are the ones who attend church. Men are averse to attending church. So, you probably will get the men. So, we must actually always look at those kinds of issues. That, again, appears in Clause 22(2)(d). I think those are the only concerns I have. Sorry, I was also just concerned and I hope the Mover can speak to Clause 20 (3) where we are talking retrospectively of the instrument. I do not understand why it should apply in certain instances. I want to ask the Mover to clarify in respect to that."
}