Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 659261,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/659261/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 173,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Ms.) Abdalla",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 382,
        "legal_name": "Amina Ali Abdalla",
        "slug": "amina-abdalla"
    },
    "content": "However, we disagree with the Senate on Clause 75. Their amendment makes it mandatory for every county to establish one water service provider. This is creating a monopoly, and should not be entertained. Hon. Deputy Speaker, on Clause 102, we further disagree with the Senate in wanting to replace a “licensee” with a “water user”. You can only deal with a formal entity. A water user is anybody, including domestic users. We think the Senate is giving us a word which is too broad and cannot be monitored. We agree with the Senate on Clause 109, where they are adding the word “geo- referencing”. That makes national monitoring to be cross-referenced. We congratulate the Senate for being a bit more “digital”, despite the fact that it is a House of the elderly. We reject Senate Amendments on the inclusion of community schemes. That is because the term “community schemes” is not defined. As such, we would not be able to know who will be responsible for the issue of grants being received by the Water Trust Fund (WTF). I am very passionate in rejecting the amendment of the Senate to clause 115. This House had agreed to give the WTF monies from the Equalisation Fund and the county governments so that the Fund will be able to attract donor funding for marching up activities. The move by the Senate to reject the same is making the county governments less responsible for a function that is devolved. It is also denying members of the community who are eligible for the Equalisation Fund from using those funds as marching funds to get activities and water projects that serve the under-served and for water projects that are economically not viable. I urge the House to reject this Senate Amendment because it is making the already irresponsible counties not to join in funding activities for under-privileged and deserving areas. We agree with the Senate on the amendment to Clause 117. It merely deletes unnecessary words. We further agree with the Senate on Clauses 130, 139, 140, and 154. I beg to move that this House do agree with my Committee’s consideration of the Senate Amendments. We urge this House to approve the Senate Amendments to Clauses 19, 24, 25, 63, 72, 73, 74, 109, 117, 130, 138, 140 and 154. I urge the House to reject the Senate Amendments to Clauses 2, 8, 8(b), 30, 64, 75, 102, 114 and 115. I ask Hon. Chachu Ganya to second."
}