Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1375347,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1375347/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 215,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Rarieda, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr) Otiende Amollo",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "The third is in terms of counties. This Bill is very strange. It comes under the hand of Hon. Kimani Ichung’wah with the purpose that it has nothing to do with the counties. First, in the very face of the Bill, if you look at Clause 10(2)(c) and Clause 12(3)(b)(i), they both mention the county. In rendering their explanation, we have been told that they are getting land that is right now held by counties. You cannot get land from the counties and say the Bill does not concern counties by definition and by law. It means that by whatever formulation, the Bill must involve the Senate and must also be involved in a discussion with the county governments. The question of land is not clear. This Bill proceeds as if these units will be built in the air. There is no attempt to talk about land acquisition at all. In fact, more importantly, under the Constitution, whether it is land held on behalf of the counties or the national Government, it is only the National Land Commission (NLC) that is authorised to allocate that land. The Bill does not recognise the NLC. I have seen the submission by the Commission itself. It is persuading the Committee to have provisions on the process of land acquisition. Otherwise, we might end up putting public money on land that is not owned by the public. Hon. Speaker, this Bill, in a very serious manner, has several aspects that are very unclear. Firstly, it is in terms of ownership. It does not make it clear whether we are talking of affordable ownership or rental of houses. It is totally confusing. Clauses 10 and 37 of the Bill only talk about paying 10 per cent of whatever is deemed to be the worth of the unit. It does not say whether the 10 per cent represents the purchase or rental price. When you talk about administration in this Bill, it becomes very confusing. In Clause 11 of the Bill, the money is supposed to be divided in three ways. Part of it is divided to the National Housing Corporation (NHC). Another part is allocated to the Slum Upgrading Programme. The third part is allocated to the State Department for Housing, Urban Planning and Public Works. It then seeks to assume later in the Bill that it is only the State Department and the Board that is created that administer the Fund. The truth is once you allocate land to the NHC and the Slum Upgrading Fund, you have no means under the Bill of superintending it. It means that only one third of the money allocated under this Bill will be superintended by the Board that is created. In all fairness, the Bill then does something very dangerous in Clause 2(a). We all know that KRA collects taxes. However, Clause 2(a) of the Bill authorises any other person appointed by the Cabinet Secretary for the National Treasury for the purpose of collection of funds. We are enabling an entity that is not owned by the Government to collect taxes. We must be the only country that does such a thing. Besides, later on 2 per cent of the money allocated are then allowed to be retained by this actor. Who is this person whom we are giving the responsibility of collecting money that belong to Kenyans in this Bill? I wish to submit that however well intentioned, this Bill still requires a lot of proper analysis and engagement not only at the level of drafting, but also at the idea level. It is still premature and not well cooked. It is being rushed and will end up in problems. I submit, Hon. Speaker. Thank you very much."
}