HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 19202,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/19202/?format=api",
"text_counter": 278,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Mungatana",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 185,
"legal_name": "Danson Buya Mungatana",
"slug": "danson-mungatana"
},
"content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to also make my small contribution to this Bill. I also want to join my colleagues who have congratulated the Minister for making the effort to bring this Bill before this House so that we can have better regulation for the practice of engineering in Kenya. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am very happy when the Ministers take it upon themselves to repeal archaic laws. Surely, the 1969 Engineers’ Law could not be useful at this time in this period we are living in. I also wanted to join Dr. Otichilo in pointing out a few things that the Minister might wish to consider in terms of improving the Bill. First of all, there is continuous reference to the term “Minister”. I do not know whether it is deliberate or not, but it is something that needs to be corrected so that we do not have to bring this law again, immediately it is passed, for amendment so that it can be effected. Even appointments in some places are by a Minister. We are saying that we are in a new dispensation and we ought to go back to the Cabinet Secretary under the new Constitution. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, Clause 7 that talks about the functions of the Board. One of the functions under (r) says:- “The function of the Board is to determine the fees that are to be charged by professional engineers and firms for professional services rendered from time to time”. This effectively means that the Board will be determining if an engineer is involved in a certain project, then this kind of project should be charged this way. I wanted the Minister to consider putting a clause or provision that will allow for negotiations. Surely, the economy is not going to be fixed and to get things changing even through a Board might take a long time. The reality of the fact is that Engineer X and Engineer Y may not have the same competences. If it is competences that are the same, they may not have the same commitment or capacities to complete works within certain periods of time. This could be the basis for negotiations in terms of the fees that should be charged. What I know is that if they fix certain fees and do not allow for negotiation, then it will be professional misconduct for any engineer to charge higher or lower than what the Board prescribes. This is not good for purposes of developing engineering as a competitive discipline where people can negotiate and those who are offering good services can also get good value for the services they have agreed to offer. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am very happy about the fact that in this particular law, there is a very clear delegation of the Board’s duties to a committee. We have passed some laws here or have seen some laws which have been giving so much duty to the Boards, and then the Boards themselves are comprised of people like Permanent Secretaries and such, who may not even have time to sit on those boards. For example, what I have in mind is that the Board here will have powers to go into premises and inspect, and to find out whether professional standards are being maintained. If the Board is supposed to do that like is in some laws we have seen drafted here - there is no Committee doing that - then it will be overwhelmed. How many projects are in this country? I am very happy about that clause. However, going again back to a more critical issue in Clause 22. It talks about the restrictions in the registration of foreign engineers in this country. I want the Minister to think about this provision more clearly. I want his officers to be more creative about what we are going to do to protect our local engineers. Clearly, these provisions here are not good enough, in my opinion, to protect the local talent that we have. The only prohibition that has been put there in the case of a natural person is that that person is a professional engineer in the country where he normally practices before entering Kenya. That is the only qualification and restriction of a natural person. The second one is that he has a valid working permit. Truly, it cost this Government a lot of money to train engineers. Also, it is very true that in some instances, we must have some protection of sorts so that we can make the engineers that we have in Kenya earn something serious. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, what I have in mind is that there are huge infrastructural constructions that are going on particularly from the Chinese who have basically invaded the economy of this country. I must say, even in the profession of engineer, they come, win the tender and get involved in huge transactions, huge projects and earn millions of shillings. When they finish, it is Government to Government! They walk away! Our own engineers could benefit here if we make it compulsory that they are the ones who must do the projects unless there is no professional competence on our part. I am saying that we must create restrictions. I am happy about part “b” which says that if it is a firm which is incorporated in Kenya and it is a foreign firm, then that firm must be 51 per cent owned by locals. In the case of a firm, ownership must be 51 per cent by Kenyan citizens. However, in the case of an individual who walks in and says he is a professional engineer, he only needs to pay a few shillings to the Ministry of State for Immigration and Registration of Persons to get a work permit. He then comes and collects so much money when we have engineers in Kenya, who could as well do the same job. Let us make it difficult for people of the engineering profession from other countries coming here. You can imagine all these infrastructure projects that have been done by the Chinese. If we had made it a requirement that Kenyan engineers must be the ones to carry out the designs, how many Kenyan millionaires would we have created? That is what we want in this country. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have now created a lot of Chinese professional engineer millionaires and we have left out our own local engineers, who could have designed those projects. In fact, these people could have been forced, if the law was in place, to work under the Kenyan engineers because they must get the signature of the professional Kenyan engineer for that work to be considered. So, I would like to ask the Minister that we think together as to how we are going to make engineering a good and profitable profession. The only exception is maybe when we need to merge with the East African Protocols, because we also need to export that talent to other countries. However, for other people who come into this country, we must have proper restrictions. We need to look at what the Law Society of Kenya is doing. We need to borrow. As a professional lawyer, I know that someone cannot come from another country and just walk in here and do work and walk away. There are certain prohibitions in place. There is no harm in importing those prohibitions here, so that we can protect our budding engineering profession. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, the second point I wanted to make is in relation to Clause 30. I am very happy that in this law. The Minister has proposed that the Registrar must publish not later than 31st March every year, particulars of all registered and validly licensed persons or firms and their categories of registration. We can improve this by making the requirement that the Registrar must also put the same information in two or three newspapers with nationwide circulation, so that Kenyans can also know. This is because not many Kenyans access the Kenya Gazette. So, let us make it a requirement that the Registrar will also be required to publish those names in newspapers with nationwide circulation, so that even governments in the counties, which may not have very quick access to some of the facilities, may know if these people are qualified for the kind of work they will be looking for. I want to agree with Dr. Otichilo on what he said about Clause 43, which talks about the offences and the penalties relating to impersonation arising from fraudulent representation and declaration. The proposed penalty of Kshs500,000 is not enough. For example, if someone commits a crime by doing a project which then collapses, the kind of collateral damage that will be caused is far above the penalty of Kshs1 million that is proposed under this clause. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I was going to propose that there should be percentages attached to the punishment, so that if you decide that you are going to cheat on a big project, then you will be prepared to pay big. That way, people can be discouraged from going into this kind of practice. In Kenya, we have seen a problem lately. Even the complaints and disciplinary process proposed in this Bill is wanting. I am talking about Clause 51(8). You find that a conviction attracts a fine of Kshs50,000 or Kshs100,000. This should be looked again, so that we can have proper deterrent punishments. What has bothered me, in relation to revocation of licences as provided for under Clause 51(11), is that the law seems to be protecting people who may misconduct themselves in the profession. It says that despite any other provisions in this Act, the Board shall not remove the name of a person from the register or cancel a licence issued to that person unless at least two thirds of the members of the Board so decide. If someone misconducts himself so badly that his case required that he must be removed from the register of engineers, there is no need of the Board again passing a resolution to that effect, supported by two-thirds of its members. This is too protective. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, even for us in the LSK, if you are de- registered, there is a process through which you can be rehabilitated. There is a process through which someone can apply for a review of his case. He can show, maybe, after two or five years that he has changed and that he is able to practice properly. You cannot say that two-thirds of the membership of the Board must be in agreement to remove this person from the register. If this person is wrong, he has caused deaths of people or he has messed up in one way or another, he should be deregistered. We cannot protect people to that extent. So, I would like the Minister to look at this and, maybe, borrow from other professional bodies. Let him be punished but let there be a process for him to rehabilitate himself, so that he can subsequently show the Board that he is capable of being a good professional. With those few remarks, I really thank the Minister for coming up with this Bill. I hope that we will bring the necessary amendments to make a better law and pass it with one heart. Thank you."
}