Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 527489,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/527489/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 161,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "I remember a time in the 1960s and 1970s, when you could go to AFC, borrow money, at very affordable interest rates, go and invest in your farm, perform, return that money and AFC did very well. AFC only broke down when the big fish started to get money from AFC and not pay back. When the big fish got the guaranteed minimum returns and never performed. In fact, the guaranteed minimum returns were actually for sometime got by the big fish when they were not farming at all. They just got the money, supposedly, for some wheat that has failed somewhere in Narok or somewhere like that. We really never went down and found out if that man had those ten, twenty or fifteen hectares of wheat. It was not there, it was all corruption. I see a possibility unless we deal with corruption effectively in parastatals where we shall establish this board and before we clean up parastatals effectively or supposed that this exercise is going on, we shall be creating yet another source of primitive accumulation in this nation. I am very worried about this because, in as much as I agree with the goal of making sure that we get fertilizers to farmers, through State help, at a price they can afford and make sure that, that fertilizer is available when it is necessary, it will be appropriate that it will go to the right sector. I have a fear that creating a bureaucracy like this one, when the ones existing were ruined and when we are still trying to re-tool them and we have not seen the result of that re-tooling, I would be rather hesitant. In fact, I would think that if this Fertilizer Board already exists. We are just amending the law. Rather than amend this law piece meal when the exercise of rationalization is going on, I would rather see in this Senate, a report of that rationalization that is going on before we take further action. I am quite worried about that exercise itself. How far it is affecting privatization? Why do I link privatization with this issue of fertilizer? We know that in the 1960s too, we had this initiative of establishing the Ken-Ren Fertilizer Plant (KFP) which went hay wire. We are still paying money for loans we borrowed to establish that Ken-Ren Fertilizer Plant, no explanation has been given and we are again setting up another parastatal to deal with fertilisers when money has gone down the drain for the same exercise. We should be taken seriously. Let us, first of all, get an explanation why Ken- Ren Fertiliser Plant failed, who was responsible and has the money been paid back. Is it really fair to ask the Kenyan taxpayer to continue paying this money for some other people to benefit from it? As I speak today, the importation of fertilisers in this country is one of the biggest sources of scandals in our economy. Fertilisers are expensive to farmers and sometimes not available because of the manipulation of the fertiliser market by the big fish. I do not think that the creation or the amendment of the existing Bill of fertiliser board will change much unless the whole regime of importing and selling fertiliser is changed. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, we have what it takes to have a domestic fertiliser production plant. First, we do import petroleum products, some of which can be used for making fertilisers. We have a big sugar cane industry which can also be used for making fertiliser. There is a substance that comes out of processing sugar which is usually dumped in sugar cane processing industries. It is a kind of mud that can be a very good source of fertiliser. If that is used as the base of processing fertiliser in the sugar industry, The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate"
}