Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 997184,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/997184/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 134,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Hon. Members, let me now address the final question of whether there is a lacuna or misapplication of the Standing Orders with respect to nomination to or discharge of Members from committees and what would be an appropriate remedy. As I have observed, it is incorrect to assume that the Constitution or Standing Orders envisaged that committees are a preserve of parliamentary parties, to the exclusion of the independent Members and Members belonging to small parties. In this regard, the primary formula of allocation of Members to serve in committees ought to have embraced a criterion where a proportion of total membership to committees would be allocated to parliamentary parties based on their relative majorities but at the same time also reserve a proportion of seats for independent Members and Members who belong to parties that are not parliamentary parties. To guarantee fairness, the criterion ought to look at the totality of slots available, isolate the slots that are to be shared by parliamentary parties and share out to the existing parliamentary parties in accordance with their numerical strength in the House as required under Standing Order No.174(1) (a). When it comes to Members who belong to parties other than parliamentary parties and the independents, the criterion ought to ensure that such Members serve in at least one committee, as required under Standing Order No.174 (2). This will correct the misapplication of the Standing Orders and the erroneous impression that such Members must first affiliate with parliamentary parties to serve in committees."
}