Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 824998,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/824998/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 202,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Kajiado South, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Katoo ole Metito",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13239,
        "legal_name": "Janet Marania Teyiaa",
        "slug": "janet-marania-teyiaa"
    },
    "content": "that time that even the Member asking the question would have more information on Government programmes in that constituency and the minister would be able to interact and give more information. Therefore, even in this proposed amendment, the inclusion of supplementary questions, in accordance to the proposed Standing Order 42C(4), would be a good time for the Government to explain the policies and programmes they have for the electorates. I am happy with the proposed Standing Order 42C(5), where when a Member is not present to ask his question it is dropped. Previously, even if your question was dropped, Members would find ways of talking to the Speaker and explaining why they were not in the House and the Speaker would have sympathy and the question would be reinstated the following day. If this proposed amendment goes through, it will ensure punctuality. There is no room for the Speaker to bring back a question. Even with the sympathy of the Speaker, once a question is dropped, it will not be brought again during that session. Therefore, Members will find it very difficult to get it back. Still on the proposed Standing Order 42C(6), the issue of who answers a question, recently, you made a communication that some of us thought would make CSs not to appear before committees. I fully agree with the Mover of this Motion; that, it should be the PS and anyone else above the rank of the PS. I think that is the way to go. It is only the CS and the PS and, if need be, if the position of Chief Administrative Secretary is in between the two positions, then we should not leave it open to any Government official to answer questions or even appear before committees. We need officials who are in positions of authority – in positions to make decisions – so that whatever they say is with finality. That will give the Committee on Implementation a chance to follow up matters for implementation. With regard to the proposal on written replies to questions, under proposed Standing Order 42D, I remember that when we used to have Question Time in this House, questions were in two categories. There were ordinary questions which would take a long time in the queue and there were Private Members’ Questions which were supposed to be answered within the next 24 hours. We should also have a way to prioritise this. My concern is about the time taken in these proposed amendments for the Cabinet Secretary to answer questions. Once a question is referred to the Committee according to this proposal, it is the Hon. Speaker to decide its urgency. Hon. Speaker in Clause 42E (i) states thus:"
}