Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 505348,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/505348/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 217,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "all implementers. We still need to have the Board in place. If you look at the old structure, we used to have district executive committees and district steering groups. These were all forums at the district level then, and maybe now at the county level, which brings all the development actors together so that they can synchronize their activities and ensure that there is no duplication. Areas of priority can also be established. They can also benefit from each other’s knowledge. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, when it comes to the CBDs, this is basically an oversight body which allows other leaders in prioritizing development activities. This has to be in place once we are through with the court cases. However, on this particular one, I did not see any sense of changing the name from intergovernmental because basically we are trying to rope in all the actors. I repeat; the CDF part has to be brought into the picture because that is where we are losing Government funds which are not open to scrutiny by other members of the county government and other actors. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, I will make a comment on the agriculture and fisheries bit. I think the rationale is clear. If we have separated fisheries from agriculture, then it is good also if the Act is tailored that way. However, there is one amendment when it comes to the agricultural board. It talks of the chairman who will be non- executive appointed by the President. If you look at the old Act, it says that he has to be vetted by Parliament. Why reduce this? This is because that will give the President a loophole in appointing anybody while the direction we are taking is that whoever the executive appoints has to be vetted by the legislature. This one has been removed. This could be a step in the wrong direction. We would rather maintain the vetting by the legislature. I hope that the Bill, once committed to the relevant Committees, will have a better outlook. Maybe the issues that have been raised by the Members will be taken into account. That way, we will have a Bill which will be implementable. I beg to support and hope that it will go through the process as given by the Speaker."
}