HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1373787,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1373787/?format=api",
"text_counter": 294,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Seme, ODM",
"speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr) James Nyikal",
"speaker": null,
"content": "guarantee that they will get them. One is also expected to pay a 10 per cent deposit, get the house, and repay the loan. That is standard practice. What is so different with this? If you look at the definition in this Bill, affordable housing will not be more than 30 per cent of a person's monthly income. Putting this into figures, how will they ensure it is not more than 30 per cent? Clause 2 states that affordable houses are of three types: social housing units for people whose income is below Ksh20,000, affordable housing units for people whose income is between Ksh20,000 and Ksh149,000, and affordable market housing units for people whose income is over Ksh149,000. If you put it like this and ask for 30 per cent of the income, you have already stated the rent for that house. In the market, is it really possible to have a law that dictates the amount of money people will pay for rent? I do not see how that will work out. You have a set percentage and income, which gives you the cost of the house. Can the cost of the house be fixed? This has been a big problem for us for the last ten years when we set a two- thirds gender rule. It is a fixed number, and we are trying to achieve it politically. This is the same thing we are doing with this Bill. This is not going to work. On the Levy, they said this tax would only apply to salaried people. The court did not like this aspect, and it brought it back to us. We are saying that the Levy will apply even to people with other incomes. However, Clause 4(2)(a) talks of an employee's gross salary, which is okay and practical; it can be done. However, Clause 4(2)(b) talks of the gross income of a person received or accrued, which is not subject to the Levy under Paragraph (a). It has two meanings. It may mean that this applies to a person who is not salaried, or it may also mean that even if you are salaried and you still have another income, that income will still be subject to the Levy. Is that exactly what we mean in this Bill? I have a problem with this. Clause 11 provides for how the allocations of the Levy shall be done. It states that 30 per cent will go to the National Housing Corporation and 30 per cent to slum upgrading, maintenance and rehabilitation. Now, you have a Board for this Fund but have also distributed it to other institutions. In Clause 12, how will the Board manage funds in other institutions with their own boards? That is defective. You cannot set up a Board, establish its mandate and functions, and then distribute the money to other institutions that have their boards. Technically, that is defective. On the eligibility criteria, the Bill states that one should be a Kenyan over the age of 18 years and should have proof of availability of deposit, which is 10 per cent of the house's value. After that, one will apply to the agencies that will make the selection. We are talking of affordable housing, yet you are asking mama mbogas and hustlers to pay a deposit of 10 per cent. The Leader of the Majority Party said that when they went out, people were very keen to voluntarily accept contributing to the Levy. These people think they will get a house if they pay the Levy. I do not think these people realise they can pay the Levy for years and might never get a house. It is even more problematic because they are expected to pay an initial 10 per cent deposit while still contributing to the Levy, and are expected to pay back the remaining balance. In Clause 38, an eligible person who may not raise the 10 per cent deposit will be deemed illegible."
}