Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 788376,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/788376/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 178,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Osotsi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13172,
        "legal_name": "Godfrey Osotsi",
        "slug": "godfrey-osotsi"
    },
    "content": "The Bill also talks about nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is the way to go because it is safe, sustainable and has less carbon emission. Hydro energy may not be sustainable in the long run. So, we should start seriously thinking about how the country can invest in nuclear energy because nuclear energy will provide enough energy for this country. We need enough energy for us to run this economy. I have serious concerns about some sections of this Bill. My concerns are hugely on the ERC. The ERC is a key regulator that should be fully independent. Under this Bill, especially in Section 9(3), it gives an impression that the ERC is not fully independent. If you read through the Bill, you will see some sections which contradict the mandate of the ERC. For example, the Bill talks about the Energy and Petroleum Tribunal that is supposed to handle all disputes and complaints in the energy sector. At the same time, it gives the ERC the mandate under Section 11(i) to investigate and determine complaints and disputes between parties over any matter related to licenses and licensing condition. That will create contradiction because we will have two organs which will handle disputes on the same issue of licenses and licensing condition. At the Committee of the whole House, we will need to harmonise this so that if we are giving the tribunal the mandate to handle all disputes, then let the tribunal handle all disputes. Let us not have some disputes handled by the ERC and other disputes handled by the Tribunal because that will cause confusion. The other thing is that Section 79(1) seems to contradict the mandate of the ERC in terms of licensing geothermal resources. It seems to give the CS powers to grant licenses, but if you look again under the mandate of the ERC, the ERC has the mandate to issue or manage licenses. You can see that the roles of the CS and the ERC are conflicting. That kind of contradiction is not good for a piece of legislation that seeks to manage a serious sector like the energy sector. Another very important point is that Part II of this Bill proposes that the CS shall prepare and publish a report on the implementation of the national energy policy and also the mechanism for implementation of the integrated energy plan. That is a good thing. In fact, for the first time, I can now see a Bill that has a self-implementation mechanism. What the Bill has failed to say is what happens to the report after the CS has prepared and published it. There must be a mechanism where another organ must be able to oversee that report. I would recommend that the committee –and the Chair who is here – finds out what happens to the report produced by the CS after he has prepared the report it. Does the report go to the relevant parliamentary committee for oversight or where does it go? Just preparing the report and publishing it is not enough. The other very important thing is on the qualification of the Director General (DG) of the ERC. If you look at the qualifications of the board members of the Tribunal, they have insisted that these members must have knowledge and experience in the energy sector, but for the DG, The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. Acertified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}