Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 844723,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/844723/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 130,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Uashin Gishu CWR, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Ms.) Gladys Boss Shollei",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13278,
        "legal_name": "Gladys Jepkosgei-boss Shollei",
        "slug": "gladys-jepkosgei-boss-shollei"
    },
    "content": "This particular Order or regulation seeks to introduce the Tourism Promotion Fund as an additional beneficiary of the Air Passenger Service Charge collected under the Air Passenger Service Charge Act. Section 3(1) also provides that the proposed Fund receives 20 per cent of the resources collected under this Act. The effect of these regulations is to introduce a third beneficiary. This is where the Committee had a problem with. The fact is that the law is very clear. It only identifies two beneficiaries which are the KAA and the KCAA. Therefore, introducing a third beneficiary is in contravention of the parent statute. Section 16 of the Statutory Instruments Act allows the Committee on Delegated Legislation to consult with the regulation-making authority, in this case, the National Treasury. In fact, the Act says that the Committee shall confirm with the regulation-making authority for which the statutory instrument has been brought or made under. This happened between 17th and 19th August 2018. The delegation from the National Treasury was led by the Chief Administrative Secretary (CAS), Hon. Nelson Gaichuhie. Once this was brought before the Committee, the Committee then, in its considerations, made the following recommendations. Firstly, as I already said, the Order is inconsistent with the parent Act. The creation of a third beneficiary is not envisaged or provided for by the Air Passenger Service Act at all and, therefore, it not only contravenes the parent statute, but it also contravenes Section 22(2) of the Statutory Instruments Act, which says: “A statutory instrument shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of the enabling legislation or any Act of Parliament and the statutory instrument shall be void to the extent of the inconsistency.”"
}