Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 679480,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/679480/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 137,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Dr.) Nyikal",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 434,
        "legal_name": "James Nyikal",
        "slug": "james-nyikal"
    },
    "content": "May I also join in congratulating the Departmental Committee on Environment and Natural Resources for the work it has done on the Forest Conservation and Management Bill from the Senate. I am not a Member of the Committee, but it looks like a good work was done. I want to raise two points on this Bill. The first one is the issue that was raised by the Chairlady of the Committee when she was seconding. She seemed to imply that the procedure of moving the Senate amendments on the Floor of the House was not proper and asked whether you will give guidance on that. She implied that, perhaps, it was not the Leader of the Majority Party who should have moved, but the Chairlady. Maybe, you can give guidance on that for some of us who may not be very clear on that procedure. The point I want to make is on the amendment on the Third Schedule. It is apparent that the attempt, which was discussed at length in the House, is that some Hon. Members were taking advantage of a Bill that was coming to Parliament to get some land that was already degazetted. I know we represent constituencies and their interests. However, when we have a national issue like a Bill being discussed, it may not be appropriate to look at certain issues affecting one or two constituencies. We should bring them into effect through the Bill. That is something we should avoid. For that reason, I support the Committee’s rejection of that. That raises another issue. I have a suspicion that the same Members lobbied the Senate to see if they could pursue the same interest. It raises an issue. Again, we may need guidance on that. If a matter has been lobbied in the House and some Members felt differently on the outcome, is it really proper to go and lobby the Senate? It raises another bigger issue in my mind. I have seen it in other Bills. The Bills would have gone through public participation when they are in the National Assembly, but when they go to the Senate, we see another lengthy public participation. These are areas over which we need to seek guidance and be clear on. It can lead to a situation of going round in circles on the same Bill where it is discussed here, it goes to the Senate, it comes back and the public is involved. This is something that we need guidance on. The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}