Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 240454,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/240454/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 215,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Ochilo-Ayacko",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 347,
        "legal_name": "Ochilo George Mbogo Ayacko",
        "slug": "ochilo-ayacko"
    },
    "content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to second the amendment. I want to say that the Report that the PIC has presented to the House is by and large good, especially Part One. In fact, Part One has been thoroughly done. As a person who grows sugar-cane and represents sugar-cane producers and millers, I am quite pleased with Part One of the Report, in so far as it is useful in helping the farmers get their merchandise to the market and promotes the welfare of the industry. I want to commend the Chairman of PIC for doing that. Since 2002, the problem of sugar importation in this country has been a thing of the past. What sugar importation in this country was doing to the farmer was to occasion glut in the market. The importers were bringing a lot of sugar and, therefore, local sugar could not be sold. Our sugar industry has problems. Muhoroni, Chemelil, Nzoia, SONY--- We all have problems. But it is not that we cannot sell our sugar. We have problems because we are making losses arising from other activities. This Kenya GazetteNotice has not occasioned any problem in the sugar sub-sector. This is because if the Kenya Gazette Notice had occasioned problems, we would have Mumias Sugar Company, which is represented by hon. Osundwa, unable to sell its sugar. South Nyanza Sugar Factory (SONY) would also be unable to sell its sugar. However, being a representative of growers and millers, I can confirm that sugar is being sold. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am supporting the proposed amendment because, first, the contentious section which is Section 33 of the Sugar Act 2003, talks about: \"The Minister July 27, 2006 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 2453 may in consultation---\" Now, you can look at what Parliament did. Parliament made the Minister important. It is: \"The Minister may in consultation\". So, if we buy the proposition by the Chair of the Public Investments Committee (PIC), then we are letting in a situation where the tail will wag the dog. I think the dog, in this circumstance, is the Minister and we cannot allow the Board to be supreme because, if assuming for one reason or the other the Board was proposing rules that were injurious to the industry, who will we hold accountable? Is it the Minister or the Board? I think when we passed this law we had the Minister in mind and we thought that time and again, he would be able to consult with the Board, but it is not the Board's final authority to decide how the sugar process in this country is done."
}