Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 320458,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/320458/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 424,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "40 Tuesday, 18th September, 2012 Mr. Mungatana",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I stand to support this Bill strongly and thank the Minister. We have lost too many lives on the road and it is time that Parliament does something about the situation that is in the country. Having said that, I would like to point out that there are certain things that I would like the Minister to look at so that when we come to the Committee Stage, he may consider improving on them. On the proposed Clause 5(2), the Minister is proposing that every vehicle that is more than four years old should be subjected to inspection by the Motor Vehicle Inspection Unit (MVIU). What I recall in terms of the practice up till now that this proposal is coming is that we have always had the eight-year old rule. I am wondering why we cannot be consistent with the rule that the importers and exporters of motor vehicles know. If there is change, could the Minister confirm whether the stakeholders had an input in this? We do not want to have a problem where things are being loaded and then we have a problem in the industry as a whole. So, my proposal to the Minister would be that we should stick to what we know; the eight-year old rule. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is the proposal in Clause 8 that if a driver of a public service motor vehicle seeks to renew his licence, he should undergo a driving test every year. We are going to propose that this should be after every two years, the reason being that this would be too costly for those people who are involved in that industry. Let us also think on the side of matatu drivers, it would be punitive for them to have this renewal every 12 months. It will cost too much and, therefore, add the cost to the ordinary citizen who is used to pay a certain amount of fare for matatu. This extra cost will, obviously, be passed on to the citizen and it is unfair to increase the cost of living which is already very high. So I was proposing that this should be done every two years and not annually. There is the proposal in the New Clause 14 which creates New Clause 45(a). I want to make a general statement about the proposed penalties. If you look at the formulation that has been utilized in Clause 39, I am very happy with that formulation because it proposes that a person who contravenes or fails to comply with that section and is found guilty of that offence, for the first conviction, there is a fine and they state the amount. But for subsequent convictions, there is increased severity in the punishment in that on top of a fine, there is an imprisonment sentence. This means that on the first conviction, there is a fine and then on the subsequent conviction you have imprisonment and a fine or both of them. That consistency is lacking because you will find like in Clause 15 that directly someone is on the first conviction he is being subjected to imprisonment. I think we should have consistency. All of them should follow the way Clause 39 had been formulated where we have on the first conviction you have a fine and after that, with subsequent conviction, you have imprisonment and a fine or both. But let us not have in certain sections imprisonment even on the first conviction. I was going to propose that the Minister should consider Clause 14 which has also an imprisonment on the first conviction to be re-formulated so that we have a consistency so that throughout the traffic law, on the first conviction, we should a severe punishment as far as the fine is concerned, Kshs30,000 or more but we should not have imprisonment on first conviction at all because there could be many things and it is necessary for us to look at it that way. This goes right through the proposed Clause 16. The first conviction in Clause 49 goes right through to the proposed Clause 18. I believe that once we pass this law--- What we need is to create in the minds of Kenyans that now Parliament is saying that we must"
}