Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 494891,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/494891/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 110,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Eng.) Gumbo",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 24,
        "legal_name": "Nicholas Gumbo",
        "slug": "nicholas-gumbo"
    },
    "content": "the “ts”. When you look at this Bill, there are too many typographical and grammatical errors and it will give a very bad account of Parliament if we debated it as it is. As for the arrangement of the sections of the Bill, we are used to talking about clauses in a Bill but if you read this Bill, almost every page talks of section and the way they are divided. What I am most concerned about is some obvious cases of serious grammatical mistakes which clearly tend to give--- I understand that this is a very big Bill even for those who drafted it. In fact, I was just talking to hon. Chepkong’a as we were walking and we said that whoever drafted this Bill should, of necessity, have taken more time to recognize the fact that it is abnormal in its size. Maybe they should have spent more time in looking at cases of grammar where there are basic grammatical mistakes like where you are supposed to use past present tense and you are using perfect tense. Another point that hon. Chepkong’a has not highlighted is that this Bill requires a lot of effort for somebody to go through it from page to page. I have gone through it. I have taken a lot of time but maybe not many hon. Members would do that. It would be useful that even before we started debating it in detail to help hon. Members - those who may not wish to go through it page by page, word by word, coma or full stop - to have the report of the Committee to help them to have an abridged version of the Bill so that they can debate it with information. So, I agree entirely. I have no problem debating it as it is but if we do that, we will be giving a bad account of Parliament because the Bill is in very poor quality, the For instance, if you go through this Bill, it talks of the Companies Act, 2013, whereas we know that the Companies Bill is before this House. Those are the concerns that we need to look at because I think we have been blamed that as a House we do not take too much time looking at matters, particularly with regard to legislation that comes before us. I think it is an opportunity for us to pull back a little so that we can have a quality Bill that as many hon. Members as possible can go through. I know it will still be voluminous and even if we start to go back to the beginning, it will still be within the framework of the debate of allowing the time that I have asked for. I have talked to some hon. Members who feel that for them to exhaustively debate this Bill, they need more than an hour. So that will still stand but let us have a quality Bill that can reasonably address the areas that are intended; the areas that have been targeted in this Bill. Thank you."
}