Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 505302,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/505302/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 171,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "extent that we are asking them to unbundle those functions? This is again inconsistent with the resolution of this Senate in so far as that function is concerned. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, the other reason why this Bill should have been subjected to the Committee – I want to bring it to the attention of this House – is with regard to page 19 of the proposed amendment. Whilst the amendments on page 3 proposes to amend Section 23 by adding Clause 5 (a) and (b) and Section 24 (1). On page 19 of this Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, you can see that one of the Bills – this must be a typographical error – it is suggested that this Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill in the Memorandum and Reasons, is proposing to amend Section 37 of the Transition to Devolved Governments Act which proposes to, in fact, delete Section 37 which is the section that gives the authority to TA. Therefore, this is one of those clauses that should be deleted from this Bill. On the County Governments Act, in so far as it seeks to amend sections 4 and 5, I have no objection. The Bill proposes – I think there is a mistake here – to amend Section 26 (2) of the County Governments Act. This amendment has been overtaken by events because the first General Election under this Constitution was conducted in 2013. As far as I am concerned, this amendment is superfluous or has been overtaken by events and should be removed from the Bill. The amendment to Section 54 is very controversial. The purpose of Section 54 of the County Governments Act was to provide structures of decentralization and to provide county intergovernmental forums. The amendment proposed in sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 will most likely, if passed by this Senate, remove the purpose for which these sections were put in and is a very mischievous amendment. We should not allow it by any extent. One reason is because as stated by Sen. Billow, there is no reason why the governor of any county should be the one chairing the proposed forum in Section 54 (2). We have passed an amendment to Section 111 of the County Governments Act seeking to come up with what we have called as this Senate, a forum to coordinate development. This would seem either to have been overtaken by events by the signing of the amendment by His Excellency the President or superfluous or mischievous. Therefore, I will propose that we reject the amendment to Section 54 as proposed in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.2) Bill, (National Assembly Bill No.33 of 2013). Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, on page 6, with regard to the proposed New Clause 139, my contribution to this is that this is an attempt to run away from the provisions of Article 209 which gives a specific charge that should be made by the county governments. It is on record that counties are charging members of the public, levies that are not contemplated by the Constitution under Article 209 (3). For the avoidance of doubt, I would like to read it:- “A county may impose property taxes, entertainment taxes and any other tax that is authorized to be imposed by an Act of Parliament”. That is the law and, therefore, the amendment to Section 139, if allowed, will cause more confusion than is necessary under the Constitution. If county governments want to extend any charges that are not proposed under Article 209 (3), they are at liberty to propose an amendment to the law or alternatively a Bill that is proposed under Article 209 (3) so that 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."
}