Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1175137,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1175137/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 116,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "scheduled to adjourn sine die today, in view of the forthcoming General elections, I note that if the Committee had taken time to address some of these issues when they were first raised during Second Reading, we would be facing a different situation today. Hon. Members, it is also notable that the issues raised by the Hon. Members touch on three main clauses, these being clauses 13 and 14 on the powers of the Cabinet Secretary in respect to the public universities and Clause 18 of the Bill with regard to the Universities Fund Board. These clauses form the crux, the flesh, the pith and substance of the Bill. Indeed, one may want to argue that the easy way to cure questions of constitutionality is to expunge the unconstitutional clauses in a Bill. However, should I order the expunging of the three clauses from the Bill, this will also require me to order the expunging of other clauses and consequential amendments to the severance of the three clauses. From a perusal of the Bill, if you were to expunge clause 18 of the Bill, you may also need to expunge clauses 16, 17, 19 and 20, among other related clauses. This would leave a shell of a Bill with no clause to deliberate on. Suffice it to say, that severance of clause 18 of the Bill would also be an abdication of the watchdog and oversight role of this House of ensuring accountability on the utilisation of public funds. In light of the foregoing I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that it is prudent and advisable for the Bill to be re-published in order to align it with the Constitution, and take into account the concerns raised by Members on the issues of constitutionality, public audit, public participation, and the nature and extent of the discrimination in the policy that seeks to commit a student eligible to attend a cheaper public university to a private university with a higher fee requirement. Hon. Members, as your Speaker, I have previously ruled that I cannot close my eyes even when faced with competing unpleasant scenarios. In the present case, the question as to whether I should let the House commit a constitutional requirement to a vote or to stand down a Bill that has attracted serious questions by Members of the House, I would prefer standing the Bill down to allow its regularisation. Any other decision would, in my view, be reckless and would establish a defective precedent. In light of the foregoing, the Bill cannot, in its present state and form, proceed for consideration in the Committee of the whole House."
}