Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 222364,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/222364/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 207,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Muturi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 215,
        "legal_name": "Justin Bedan Njoka Muturi",
        "slug": "justin-muturi"
    },
    "content": "Yes, I know I have no time limit, but I want to be fair, because I also want to take part in the next business. As I conclude, I find no serious complaint about what is provided for in Part XI, Clause 82, that the subordinate labour court has jurisdiction in respect of any prosecution for an offence under this Act. This tallies with my argument yesterday that, actually, those labour courts, which I believe will be spread out in very many parts of the country, will need to be given specific jurisdictions. The reason I was arguing about that yesterday is because, like in this one now, it is clearly provided that those subordinate labour courts will have jurisdiction in respect of all prosecutions for offenses under this Act. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, either I read this Bill too fast, but I have not quite seen the mode of the appointment of the members of the board. But if the board is well appointed after due consultation with the relevant stakeholders, I would have no reservations about the Minister making regulations on any matter for the better carrying out of the provisions of this Act. But I only hope that this will not be a licence for the Minister to purport to hold consultations--- We have seen during the tenure of this Parliament, Ministers who have purported to even issue legal notices claiming to have consulted when they had actually consulted nobody. I only hope that we can make this consultation something that is capable of trace. I remember on this very podium, while discussing another report, I did raise the issue of a purported consultation which the members of a particular board denied it ever took place. I think we should make this consultation something definite, so that anybody who wants to know that the Minister consulted the board will find some record of such consultation. It is only to strengthen this Bill actually. It is not in any way, in my view, a proposal to weaken the provisions of this law. Finally, as I said, I do not think there is much controversy about this Bill. I think it is a direct consequence of the other one. But I wonder whether the last statement at the back on page 321 is correct, that \"the enactment of this Bill will not occasion additional expenditure of public funds\". A while ago, the Minister said that there will be certainly appointments beyond the existing establishments. Those appointments will obviously occasion additional expenditure. We have May 10, 2007 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 1283 tended, as a House, to assume that when a Bill is published by the Minister and he makes this kind of sweeping statement, it is correct. I think the enactment of this Bill will obviously occasion additional expenditure of public funds, but I believe it will be funds which will be provided for during the annual Estimates. I think that would be the better drafting method. With those remarks, I beg to support."
}