Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1398574,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1398574/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 224,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Osotsi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13588,
        "legal_name": "Osotsi Godfrey Otieno",
        "slug": "osotsi-godfrey-otieno"
    },
    "content": "as a Director in that company. This can also have a negative effect in terms of investment. Investors will shy away from investing in the sugar industry because of this condition that a farmer whose only contribution is to deliver cane to the factory and is paid for it, has to become a shareholder or a director. I think we have a problem there. It is a contradiction to the Companies Act and it discourages investment. On Clause 33 on the Sugar Industry Inspectors, I fully agree that the role that these people have is very important, they will be providing oversight over the functions of millers or players in the industry. However, it creates a contradiction in the sense that what is the space of the Kenya Sugar Board? What is the space of the Sugar Industry Inspectors? Yes, they are appointed by the Kenya Sugar Board, but who are these people? They are not employees. They are just people who are appointed. These people have been given excessive powers that they can misuse and create more problems for the sector. I think we need more clarity as to who these people are. Are they direct employees of the Kenya Sugar Board or they are other third parties who are accredited by the Sugar Board? If you read Clause 33 further, it says that even Government agencies can be inspectors. Then why do we need Kenya Sugar Board? If we are creating another amorphous group of people called Kenya Sugar Industry Inspectors, then we have a substantive body called Kenya Sugar Board. We are creating contradiction there and I think that has to be harmonised before we pass this Bill. Although this Bill talks about matters of importation of sugar and issuance of valid licenses, it leaves out a very crucial aspect of repackaging sugar. Sugar is imported into this country, repackaged in Mumias Sugar brands or Nzoia brands and sold to the markets. The Bill is quiet on this. Even the list of regulations to be created by the Cabinet Secretary is not listed as one of them. This is a problem. Sen. (Dr.) Khalwale knows the effect of this. Even at some point when Mumias Sugar was not crushing sugar, we had sugar branded ‘Mumias’ on the shelves. Where was it coming from? This is a serious problem that this Bill has not addressed. The issue in Clause 63 is on the transition of staff. The earlier Bill that had been brought by the former Member of Parliament for Kanduyi, Hon. Wamunyinyi, had a transition clause that was not progressive. It said that the employees who were formerly with the Kenya Sugar Board will not be transitioned to the new Kenya Sugar Board. However, this particular Bill has ironed out that problem. All the staff who were formerly with the original Kenya Sugar Board and those who are with the AFA will all be transitioned to the new Kenya Sugar Board with all their benefits and pension. That is progressive and I fully support. As I said when I was starting my contribution, this is a work in progress. There are many things that need to be fixed here. There are many gaps in the sugar industry that need to be fixed. However, this is a start. Let us give it a try. I look forward to more amendments even when this Bill has been made law. With those few remarks, I support this Bill and request other Members to also support it. Those of us who have amendments will bring them, so that those ambiguities that I have referred to are dealt with. 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."
}