HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1496940,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1496940/?format=api",
"text_counter": 162,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Sen. Wakili Sigei",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "We have various kinds of Harambees. We have fundraisings that are desired to support those who have medical bills, those who do not have insurance, or are unable to get insurance. Secondly, there are fundraisings for schools, churches and for purposes of public development in some public projects. We cannot say we do not need to regulate because a regulatory mechanism will help us determine how to do it, who to do it with and include the aspect of participation by public officers. This Bill still talks about the issuance of licenses and permits for purposes of this particular fundraising. I will come to that in a short while when I make specific references to the relevant clauses that speak to that. However, the objective that the Bill seeks to enhance transparency and accountability is important in terms of how we conduct fundraisings and how to utilise the resources or the funds we collect during a public appeal in Harambee. Lastly, it regulates the conduct of public or state officers in planning and conducting a public appeal. Those objectives are critical. They are important and good because they help streamline fundraising. However, the provisions of the Bill, as they are put, particularly under Part Two on the regulation of fundraising appeals, where the Cabinet Secretary and the County Executive Committee Member (CECM) in charge of planning and social services in our respective counties are given the mandate under Clause 4(1)(c), to receive, vet, process applications and issue permits. When you run through all the provisions of that particular clause, it will not serve the purpose of being a regulatory mechanism. Why? The other day, we had issues with the absence of the Cabinet Secretaries who were unable to attend the House to respond to critical national issues. This cannot be one of those things that we would wish to burden a Cabinet Secretary or a CECM to be the person to vet applications for purposes of fundraising. We are representatives of the people from where we come from. Every other weekend, when we get home, you get not less than 50 cards asking us to support fundraisings, whether it is for school, medical or burials. It is because of the inadequacy and capacity of many of the people whom we represent, who are unable to pay school fees and the other types of fundraising that they are appealing. If we then say that we will be expecting a CECM or a Cabinet Secretary to grant a permit, we will never at any given time be able to do the mainstream work of a Cabinet Secretary. The basic thing that they will be doing every morning is to look at the applications before their desk and approve or reject them. The provisions under Part Two, in terms of having the Cabinet Secretary be the person involved in receiving, vetting, processing, and approving these permits, are supposed to be deleted. In fact, I would propose that we get permits, which I do not think is necessary for regulation. This must be decentralised to the lowest level in the administration of the national Government, which is the chief. In my county, for example, in my ward, Nyangores ward in itself, in every village, I can confirm to you that every day, we have fundraising in every town. You can imagine an entire country where we ask the Cabinet Secretary to approve the fundraising. That entire provision, I propose, should be deleted not because of the number of applications. When you look at the provisions of Clause 5 of the Bill state that – 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."
}