Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1398616,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1398616/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 266,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Tabitha Mutinda",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "taken their time and narrowed into the agricultural field, have an opportunity and fit into this particular board membership. Out of their knowledge, experience and skills, they will add much more input, putting in mind where we are coming from, and where we are as far as the sugar issue is concerned. I have noted that Clause 9A imposes a levy or levies upon growers and millers to give effect to the provisions of this Act. This issue of the levy is of course quite sensitive, but as far as I have looked at this Bill, the levies will take care of different issues as far as the development of infrastructure and research institutes are concerned. Administration funds are also needed, but it would be my advice to the committee to consider a single- digit levy as we have done with the housing levy when it comes to mortgage funds. It is a single digit. It would be wise for the Chairperson, Sen. (Dr.) Murango, to consider a single digit as far as the levies are concerned so that it does not put pressure on the farmers as this board is put in place. The other issue is on Clause 20 licensing and registration. A person shall not operate unless the board upon recommendation by relevant county governments for that purpose. It should be much more specific to the County Executive Committee Member (CECM) Agriculture at the county level. Further to that, for this license to be issued, the Bill should be able to guide in terms of the timelines that are needed to issue this license. It should be issued by the CECM within a stipulated timeline. There is no timeline in this. In some cases, farmers or millers will complain because they have done applications and the timelines are not specified. If people have some hidden agenda they might just delay approving or issuing licenses because there are no timelines. That affects many things. Clause 28(k) talks about breed and promote sugarcane varieties. It is very key so that these institutes can offer the highest quality of seedlings as far as the cane is concerned. Lastly is on the sugarcane development levy. Clause 38 (6)(d) states that 15 percent shall be applied for infrastructural development and maintenance and shall be managed by Kenya Rural Roads Authority (KeRRA). We know very well that Kenya National Highways Authority (KeNHA) takes care of the highways, Kenya Urban Roads Authority (KURA) takes care of the urban roads and KeRRA the rural roads. The catchment areas shall be managed by KeRRA. I tend to disagree that these infrastructures should be developed by KERRA. KERRA is a national level body. At this point you realize that these levies are collected at the county level. Why do we want to collect monies at the county level and remit them to the national level? We will not then be supporting devolution. The amendment that the Committee should look at is to mention that these monies collected for development of the catchment areas--- Remember these are catchment areas that go where the farmers are. It would be prudent to say through the Committee of Finance and Budget that this should come as a conditional grant. Monies should be added to the counties, so that the counties are able to develop the infrastructure for the benefit of the farmers within different counties. However, if we give this money back to KeRRA, then we will not be adhering to what the Constitution allows us. With those many remarks, I support and congratulate the Committee for really taking it with the weight it deserves. 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."
}