Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1398572,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1398572/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 222,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Osotsi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13588,
        "legal_name": "Osotsi Godfrey Otieno",
        "slug": "osotsi-godfrey-otieno"
    },
    "content": "Secretary, Mwangi Kiunjuri came up with a very good report. If you read through the report, a lot of things they proposed, if implemented, we would be able to address the many problems we have in the sector. However, to date that report has not been implemented. It is very disheartening that we are now discussing a private member’s Bill when we should be discussing a Government Bill that picks input from that report. That is why I want to fully agree that this Bill is work in progress because a lot of other issues have not been addressed which if addressed would be able to deal with the issues in the sugar industry conclusively. The most fundamental issue about this Bill is just bringing back the Sugar Board. You know there was an attempt to merge regulation of all the crops in one legislation in the Agricultural Food Authority (AFA). It has not worked and that is why we have this agitation to try have a legislation for each crop. We have in this House passed laws on tea, coffee and also cotton and are now discussing the Sugar Bill. That clearly means that arrangement of consolidating all the crops under one law has not worked. Sometimes, you wonder what wisdom was there to try put all the crops under one umbrella because we have so many crops. We would end up having so many directorates under AFA. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, I have also looked at the Bill and I think there are areas where I have concerns. I refer to Clause 29, talking about the Sugar Research Institute, the composition of the Board. They are talking of a number of institutions seconding people but we need to have clarity on the one person nominated by the input supply system. The Bill does not define what input supply system is; there is an ambiguity here. What is it they are referring to because already the millers and the Government are represented? Who is this inputs supply system? Is it the farmers? We need clarity there because nowhere in that Clause 29 are they making reference to the farmers. It is important that the farmers be represented on every body within the sugar industry because they are the key stakeholders in the industry. There is also a proposal to have one representation from universities. I do not think it is necessary because we already have a representation from research organizations who are basically experts. Why are we going to university looking for representation when farmers are not represented? We have some ambiguity there, which we will raise during the Committee of the Whole. On the Sugar Development Levy, there were concerns in the past on how this money is utilized, lack of transparency and equity on management of this fund. However, the Bill goes further to propose how this money will be shared. Whereas I agree that a big portion of this money should go to cane development and productivity which is the key aspect in this sugar industry. I think the sugar industry started going down in this country when we lost focus on matters to do with the cane husbandry and cane development and started focusing on other things, which were not going to generate raw materials for use by these factories. I fully agree with the proposal to enhance this allocation to 40 per cent because then there will be a lot of focus towards matters of supply and production of raw The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Director, Hansard and AudioServices, Senate."
}