Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 488795,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/488795/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 377,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Langat",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 384,
        "legal_name": "Benjamin Kipkirui Langat",
        "slug": "benjamin-langat"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, I have understood what Hon. (Dr.) Simiyu meant. Under clause 5(2), what the amendment seeks to do is that currently low income employees have a benefit of food. They are not taxed but only when it is provided within the premises of the employer. What happens is that there are many employers with many employees, but they may not maintain a cafeteria system. It is discriminatory to say that those who are able to provide in house facility to do so. Since priority is to employees, then we can say even the same for employees who can get food from a neighbouring--- They can also benefit and not be disadvantaged because their employer cannot provide an in-house facility as it is at Parliament and big companies. We have employers who are not able to provide in-house service, but can afford for their employees to eat at an arranged place. The figure we are putting there is Kshs48,000 per year per employee. This means a maximum of Kshs4,000 per month and about Kshs200 per day. This will ensure that the employees eat and not be taxed. That is the import of Clause 5(1). I hope hon. Members have understood Clause 5(2)."
}