HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 56285,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/56285/?format=api",
"text_counter": 253,
"type": "other",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the issues that are supply-related, it was the contention of the marketers that they were being forced or there was compulsion from NOCK even though they may not have been competitive. Secondly, they also felt that NOCK could not give any guarantee that they could obtain lower prices than those in the OTS. The Ministry of Energy replied to the allegations made by the oil marketers and said the following:- âThe regulations are not undue and are informed by public interest objectives of cushioning consumers against predatory fuel prices and secure supply of petroleum.â Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, much of the arguments provided by the Ministry of Energy were policy-related and will be expounded by the Chair of the Departmental Committee on Energy, Communication and Information. What was most informative in this process was that the Ministry of Energy had all along had these powers to protect the members of the public and had not exercised the said powers even with examples from countries such as India, Malaysia and Korea, where the national oil corporations of those countries were importing even 100 per cent of the national requirements. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, the following are the observations of the Committee:- One, that, there were sufficient policy and public interest justifications for the enactment of the said regulations. Specifically, on the legal issues, it was the view of the Committee that the regulations were not contrary to Section 116 of the Energy Act because whereas it speaks of undue preference or disadvantage, it was the view of the Committee that, given the public interest requirements of the regulations, there was no undue preference because there was room provided by the parent Act for the Minister to give advantage if was not undue. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Committee further notes that whereas NOCK had purchased their fuel at US$782.23 per metric tonne and OTS purchased theirs at a cheaper price of US$755, in the end, the NOCK fuel prices at the pump stations were still lower than those of the OTS provided at a lower prices. So, we did not see the justification for that. Then, there was the argument as to whether the Energy Act allowed the Minister to allocate quotas. In this regard, the Committee found out that the regulations were made under Section 102(b) of the Energy Act which authorizes the Minister to make regulations providing for the importation of petroleum, conditions of licensing to import and any other matter incidental thereto. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Committee further noted that the provisions of the sub-section are open-ended and, as such, it cannot be argued that Parliament only intended the Minister to make regulations for importation of petroleum through the OTS. The third question was with regard to whether the regulations were consistent with the provisions of the Energy Act. Act No.12. Having found out that the Minister had the powers to use sub-section 102(b), then it was also found that he was acting within the Act. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, thirdly, on the issue of whether the regulations were contrary to the statute in relation to the Public Procurement and Disposal Act, the Committee noted the strong submissions made by the oil marketing companies but noted that the mandate of the Committee on delegated legislation is limited by Standing Order No.197(2) to only deal with the instruments to make sure that they were consistent with the parent Act. In this case, the parent Act was the Energy Act and not the Public Procurement and Disposal Act. Although the policy related issues were later able to justify that the Ministry of Energy had not flouted procurement laws because the regulations, by their very nature, were an instrument facilitating procurement - which was then done by NOCK- would then have to follow the Public Procurement and Disposal Act. As I have said before, the last justification was in relation to policy considerations which will be elaborated by Eng. Rege. But the most important element to note is that we observed that the regulations were necessary for purposes of better prices for the consumer. Finally, we established that the regulations were published in draft form and none of the oil marketers had the courtesy to comment on the draft before the final regulations were published. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Committee, therefore, concludes that the Legal Notice No.96 of 2010, the Energy Importation of Petroleum Products (Quota allocation) Regulations are not discriminatory and, therefore, not contrary to Section 116 of the Energy Act. Two, that the regulations were enacted pursuant to the provisions of Section 102(b) of the Energy Act. Three, that the Committee had no mandate to scrutinize Legal Notice No.96 in relation to the provisions of the Public Procurement and Disposal Act. Nevertheless, the Committee acknowledges that NOCK, being a public entity, needs to be transparent in its procurement. Four, the enactment of the Legal Notice No.96 of 2010 was founded upon sound Government policy considerations geared at achieving public interest objectives of cushioning consumers against increased fuel prices. The Committee, therefore, recommends:- One, that the Energy Importation of Petroleum Products (Quota Allocation) Regulations 2010 are not contrary to the Energy Act, No12 of 2006. Two, that in light of the 30 per cent quota given to NOCK by the Energy Importation of Petroleum (Quota Allocation) Regulations of 2010, there be established by the Ministry of Energy a transparent real time public scrutiny tool to monitor the pricing mechanism and public benefits of the quota allocations. With those many remarks, I beg to move."
}