Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1251061,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1251061/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 381,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Veronica Maina",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "(a) moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purpose of the service. (b) Such monies or assets may accrue to or vest in the service in the course of the exercise of its powers or the performance of its functions under this Act. Is there an objective put down specifically for the support of farmers? I see that is lacking under this Clause. In our nation, what is not provided for in law is not given. If it is not provided for in this Bill, then it will give gaps that will be questioned. Somebody reading these provisions may as well interpret and say that the fund envisaged under Clause 27 is an administrative fund for the running of the services themselves without having to think of other products. The Bill would maybe be more enriched. I propose an amendment to enrich it. It should be bold and talk of subsidies, if at all, the intention of improving production tends to be taken into consideration any subsidies that may be needed by farmers. I am talking about subsidies because I know that in most of developed economies, governments are very careful about how farmers do their crop farming. In fact, they either have insurance that covers crop failure. The government also moves in fast for the big farmers to ensure that any investment done towards farming or agriculture, becomes supported in the event something goes against nature and causes the crop to fail or the produce not to be as anticipated. I challenge Sen. Tabitha Mutinda to consider the propositions that have been. Also, amend and enrich some of those provisions so that we can be very clear on what the Government is supposed to be doing. Finally, I want to comment on the licenses. There is a proposal that county governments would deal with licensing. One of the purposes of licensing anywhere in the world and in any Government, is to raise fees and regulate a sector. Licensing is provided for in this Bill under Clause 26(2)(b). Sen. (Dr.) Oburu has insinuated to the kind of fees that we are looking at? If we are talking of licenses, it then presupposes that the county government will raise revenue using the licensing fees. Do we need then to introduce a principal that states that the license should be accessible, affordable and should not exceed a certain limit? Farmers we are dealing with are not largescale famers we see in other nations. They are mostly small-scale peasant farmers who are beginning at a low level and farming small pieces of land. If the Bill is introducing a licensing principal and giving powers to the county governments to license, we may as well amend to provide for the principal under which they shall be done. Finally, the licenses that are anticipated in this Bill are not clear. What kind of licences are we talking about? Are they in crop management, marketing or production? What is the licensing that the Bill intends to impose? If we are not clear on the licensing and what needs to be licensed, then we might find a rouge county government coming up with one which states that if you want to grow a certain crop you must be licensed. Do we want to control the produce, the kind of production or the quality of a certain crop? It is important it specifies the nature of licenses."
}