Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 875150,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/875150/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 336,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Seme, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr.) James Nyikal",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 434,
        "legal_name": "James Nyikal",
        "slug": "james-nyikal"
    },
    "content": " Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to continue with the discussion on this Bill. As I indicated yesterday, this is a very important Bill but there is a very serious caution that I wanted and I still want to raise. It is a Bill that otherwise we would have liked to see through. As Members were discussing this Bill, what came out was that most of them had the impression that this Bill is actually establishing or supporting the Sports Fund. But the reality is this Bill is actually deleting the Fund in the Sports Act. Clause 5 of this Bill says that the principal Act is amended by repealing Part III. The whole of Part III is what deals with the Sports Fund, from its establishment to its membership and its operations. To that extent, when this Bill is passed, there will be no Sports Fund in the Sports Act. This Bill establishes a new fund which will be known as the Sports, Arts and Social Development Fund. It is not clear in the Bill whether that is what is going to replace what is in the Sports Act. It is indicated just as a very short statement in the memorandum that this Bill is aligning the Fund with the PFM Act through a regulation. There are two regulations that are indicated in the committee report with regard to this. One is Legal Notice 194 which was brought to this House in October last year, which the House declined to pass. There is a second one which was also brought, Legal Notice 236 of 2018. It is not clear from either the committee’s report or from the Bill itself whether that legal notice is actually in force. Even if we assume that that legal notice is in force, this Bill does not provide to the House opportunity to discuss that legal notice which will otherwise house the Fund which every Member seemed to have been supporting. So, we are in a situation where we are deleting a very major function but it is not clear in the Bill itself where that function is legally going to be housed. If you look at the committee report, you find that the committee implies that this function will now be under Legal Notice No. 194. But that cannot be because the House turned it down and therefore it seeks to amend that legal notice. We may need guidance on this because the Bill does not set before us the legal notice to be discussed. So, the Committee can only recommend. We, therefore, cannot pass a Bill which is conditional on a recommendation of a committee that the legal instrument on which that function is now going to be based will be 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."
}