Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 808640,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/808640/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 227,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Kirinyaga Central, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. John Wambugu",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13382,
        "legal_name": "John Munene Wambugu",
        "slug": "john-munene-wambugu"
    },
    "content": " Thank you very much, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker for giving me this chance to second this Motion. At the outset, I must say that the Committee on the Delegated Legislation agonised over these regulations before the Committee’s decision to annul them. As the Chair pointed out, this is the Committee that was made up of quite a number of good lawyers. The Chair forgot to say that I was their student. When you look at these regulations, the enabling provision was Section 205 of the PFM Act of 2012. Clearly, that section gives the mandate only to the Cabinet Secretary. These regulations were made by the Parliamentary Service Commissions which clearly did not have the powers to do those regulations. All is not lost. As it has been said by the Chair, the PSC can always request the Cabinet Secretary to do the right thing and republish these regulations after also considering the shortcomings which we have found in the Regulations. I remember there was a heated debate in the room because of that regulation. We had to take time out because there was a lot of pressure especially from the Senate but we could not save these Regulations, much as we wanted. We have nothing against the Senate; they are our brothers and sisters. We want them to be enabled and to get the money to at least monitor what is happening in the county. But of course we must follow the law. As if that was not enough, we noted that when these Regulations were being made, there was no adequate public participation. We all know that without adequate public participation which is mandatory under Article 10 and Article 111 of the Constitution, regulations or any Act of Parliament cannot go far. We noted from the memorandum that only three institutions were consulted. That is the National Treasury, Parliamentary Budget Office and the Senators. Members of the National Assembly were not consulted. We believe that before these Regulations were published, Members of the National Assembly need to be consulted and their views taken. Last but not least, we noted that these regulations are discriminatory in nature in view of the fact that they are only providing for the Senate when the law is very clear that Parliament consists of both the National Assembly and the Senate. By providing money for monitoring and evaluation to the Senate alone, we felt that it was discriminatory. Considering that Members of the National Assembly oversee 85 per cent of the Budget when the Members of the Senate only oversee 15 per cent, we felt that there was discrimination. There is a false belief that the 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."
}