Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 334950,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/334950/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 345,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "employees who were not qualified or trained to manage the production and processing of this crop. This contributed to many mistakes that were made. The crops were not properly managed and stealing came in. Poor management and lack of training made the industry to collapse. The second mistake was the enactment of the State Corporations Act, Cap. 446 of the Laws of Kenya in 1985. This brought the governance of pyrethrum under two set of laws. Whereas the Pyrethrum Act, Cap. 340 was business friendly, the State Corporation Act, Cap.446 was oppressive in that its objective was to control rather than empower those running the parastatal to do what the pyrethrum growers and the industry wanted and demanded. The Act succeeded only in stifling business. The State Corporation Act, Cap.446, for once, allowed the Executive arm of the Government to influence the employment of many unqualified personnel in the Pyrethrum Board creating a bloated work force that ended up draining its resources. The Act also permitted the Executive to later convert the extremely vibrant industry into a cash cow thus depriving growers of their hard-earned income. The third mistake the Executive made happened in 2003 soon after there was change of administration. It removed very experienced and world renowned scientist who had done a lot not only to revive the pyrethrum industry, but also initiated programmes which had succeeded in making the Kenyan industry a lucrative concern and the envy of many pyrethrum producers the world over. The years 1995/1996 and 2002/2003 was a period of renewal and revival. The deceleration in the production of pyrethrum was successfully altered following a concerted development strategy which saw production stabilize at 11,000 metric tonnes representing about between 75 per cent and 80 per cent of the world requirement. Sales of pyrethrum brought in about Kshs1.5 billion annually of which over Kshs1billion went to the growers. Of urgent need, therefore, is to enforce the findings of a task force that was set up to look into how to improve the production and management of the crop. Areas that we need to look at are mainly the departments within the board. They lost bearing soon after this interference. We need to look at areas such as poor extension services. When the Pyrethrum Board of Kenya (PBK) was robust, its extension staff covered all the growing areas of North Rift, South Rift, Central Province, Eastern Province and Kisii District. Essential services such as establishment of growers’ nurseries, providing planting materials and technical information, and payments were done promptly. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, what we are looking at is to have a liberalized situation. The Pyrethrum Act, Cap.340 is unfriendly to the production and management of this crop. We need to look at Section 6 of the Act, particularly Section 6(1) and (2) (a), (b) and (c). These provisions of the law up to Section 6(k) have given monopolistic functions to the board which have rendered this particular crop not to progress. If we repeal these sections, we will make this industry vibrant just like the dairy industry, the cotton industry and the coffee industry. With those few remarks, I beg to support and welcome this Bill. It will assist in boosting the production of the crop and the confidence of farmers."
}