Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 499697,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/499697/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 245,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "“Okay, these are functions under Part I of the Fourth Schedule and these are functions under Part II.” But what has even worried me about this ignorance is that even where it is in black and white that a function is concurrent, I am informed that sometimes it has been difficult to concur that the matter has to do with counties and county governments. I will give an example. The Bill that has triggered this Motion and the unprecedented step by the Senate in terms of at least the comprehensiveness of the questions that we intend to ask is The Mining Bill, 2014. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I came in a few minutes late, because as I was leaving the office, I saw the proceedings in the National Assembly and the Speaker was communicating from the Chair on the Mining Bill. I got interested to find out what it is that our brothers and sisters were saying in the National Assembly. The Communication was very short. I heard the Speaker of the National Assembly saying that the Senate is jumping the gun and the Bill has gone nowhere. In other words, he was trying to create an impression, in my understanding, that this Bill could as well come to the Senate. I found that a bit irregular because I have a record in front of me and I am ready to table it before this House. It is a letter from the National Assembly headed “concurrence on whether a Bill concerns counties.” There are many Bills written there. On page three of that letter dated 27th March, 2014 and addressed to the Speaker of the Senate, No.8 talks about The Mining Bill, 2014. Under it, it says:- “This Bill is not a Bill concerning county governments, within the definition of Article 110 (1) of the Constitution, as it only contains matters that fall within the functions of the national Government and to the exclusion of the county governments as set out in the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution.” That is a simplistic judgement. As I said earlier, the moment the Speaker of the National Assembly takes that position, a dispute automatically arises. Therefore, the next thing that we would have expected is a mediation committee. So, we want to know why there has not been a mediation committee up to this stage. Since there are no timelines, perhaps, that should be one of the options. Even if we are going to take other actions, we should be able to resolve not only the Mining Bill, but a raft of other Bills which have been processed in a similar cavalier and illegal manner. Mr. Speaker, Sir, first and foremost, on this matter, because it is current affairs, it says that the Bill does not concern counties, but the functions of the national Government. I want to refer to the Fourth Schedule which talks about functions in the national Government. I know that mining falls within the national Government generally. But because of time, I want to look at just the part on the functions of the county governments. Number 10 says:- “Implementation of specific national Government policies on natural resources and environmental conservation, including— ( a ) soil and water conservation; and ( b ) forestry” The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}