Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 681919,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/681919/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 113,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Ochieng",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2955,
        "legal_name": "David Ouma Ochieng'",
        "slug": "david-ouma-ochieng"
    },
    "content": "Thank you very much, Hon. Speaker. I agree with the proposed amendments by the Senate. I agree with the fact that in these Bills, the input of the Senate is important because they are supposed to take care of the interests of what they call “local community”. They are also supposed to look at the interest of the counties. I agree with them when they say that we should expand the definition of “local community” from wards to sub- counties. There are some sub-counties that are homogenous and there could be only one energy resource in the whole area. Expanding that into a ward allows a bigger population to benefit from the energy resources that may be situated in their area. I agree with the Senate on that matter. We have not heard from the Committee but I would largely agree with the fact that we needed to further define Clause 57. Previously, the Bill we passed talked about four other persons not from the public sector. We needed to go further because the energy sector is definite. We needed to go further and delineate who would represent these four non-public officials. The appointment authority may decide to appoint people from areas that do not have relevance to the energy sector. It is important that even if the Committee disagrees with the Senate to set aside board positions for those who represent that sector in the private sector--- I do not even know how we passed Clause 249. Nowadays, Kshs100,000 is such a small amount in this country. Probably, we just missed it. That clause provides that if you default then the magistrate has no choice but to fine you less than Kshs100,000. The Kshs100,000 especially in the energy sector in this country is a small amount. That is why I agree with them although it is not what we do when drafting legal instruments. They propose that we say “not less than” instead of saying “not exceeding”. I agree with them absolutely because Kshs100,000 as fine is too small. We should take that up and pass what they have proposed. It would be interesting to know, like you have said, what the Committee will recommend under Clause 57. So that we do not push this further, I request the Committee not to be so inflexible in considering Clause 57 so that we close this matter. We do not have to go back to the Senate and create another committee for mediation on a matter that we can agree on. I do not see anything materially wrong with what the Senate proposes under Clause 57."
}