Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 441565,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/441565/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 277,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Kangata",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1826,
        "legal_name": "Irungu Kang'ata",
        "slug": "irungu-kangata"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Speaker, with your kind permission, another area in respect of which I would also like to draw the attention of hon. Members is on Clause 44(d), which seeks to give the Speaker circumstances under which a request may be rejected. They start from Clause (a) to Clause (i). Well, I agree because at times we do ask for Statements through Committees. I also agree that sometimes we ask about issues which are very particular to a constituency. This is what I would call “drawback clauses”. They should not have been very many. Otherwise, we may have a situation where we have very few requests for Statements which are able to go through because of the stringent rules that have been provided here. For instance, Sub-clause (i) refers to a matter that is not before a Committee. It is true that some of us may make a request without being aware that a matter is pending before another Committee. Therefore, it cannot come through this system. I would pray that if a request is rejected on the basis that it is pending before another Committee, maybe, the person rejecting should inform the requesting hon. Member that the matter is before a certain Committee, so that if the hon. Member wishes to further interrogate the issue, he may attend the sittings of that particular Committee. Otherwise, if a request is rejected without the hon. Member being informed as to which Committee the matter is being considered, the hon. Member may fail to get very important information from the relevant Cabinet Secretary. Hon. Speaker, another issue has to do with Sub-clause (e), which provides “does not suggest its own answer”. Some of us may not be good in drafting. I would pray that our staff will be able to guide us to come up with something that does not, for instance, get barred because of the way it has been drafted. In my opinion, this is a draft issue. Be it as it may, on the rest of the aspects, it is a very good way of interrogating the Executive. I also pray that when they come to this House, we shall get adequate time to interrogate them further on issues contained in the Reports. From my experience, I have noted that when you make a request for a Statement, they take it to the Ministry. The Ministry prepares a response. The response comes back to the Committee and then the Committee just comes to this House and reads the Statement. I would imagine that with the new system, we shall have an opportunity to cross- examine the Cabinet Secretaries because some of the issues may escape the written aspect of it. It may need further clarification through some form of oral cross- examination on the issues. To that extent, I am happy. I look forward to the enactment of these Rules, subject to those few areas in respect of which I would pray that we become more liberal in terms of allowing Members of Parliament to request for Statements on various issues without restricting them further. Thank you."
}