Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 918042,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/918042/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 526,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Kipipiri, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Amos Kimunya",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 174,
        "legal_name": "Amos Muhinga Kimunya",
        "slug": "amos-kimunya"
    },
    "content": " Thank you, Chair. Perhaps I may not have got exactly what the Chair said, but if I look at the Bill, the existing Clause 10 is about the functions of the accreditation committee. It is not about the schemes. We just created an Accreditation Advisory Committee, which requires its functions to be defined. I actually expected the Chair to be now amending Clause 10 to read “Accreditation Advisory Committee’s Functions”. By deleting the functions of the committee and then bringing in a scheme, it means we have created an Accreditation Advisory Committee, but have deleted its functions. The functions are in Clause 10, but we are deleting the clause. I would want the Chair to clarify whether that is exactly the situation we are in. Clause 9 establishes the Accreditation Advisory Committee. Clause 10 currently covers the functions of the accreditation committee. By deleting that clause, it means we have a committee that does not have its functions defined in law. If we are deleting that clause, then we are basically creating a committee and not giving it functions in law. We are deleting and substituting by creating another body. If that is the case, then perhaps, we need to revisit this area. Chair, could you confirm?"
}