Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 655906,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/655906/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 207,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Nyamweya",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 391,
        "legal_name": "Manson Oyongo Nyamweya",
        "slug": "manson-nyamweya"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, for giving me a chance. First and foremost, I support this Bill even though it needs a serious amendment so that we can achieve two agenda. The first agenda we have as a nation is to grow our industries. If we have to grow our industries, there is no way we can impose export levies at the same rate with somebody who is exporting raw skin. We need to amend this. If we do not amend it, local industries will not develop and investors will not come to the country. If somebody is going to invest money internally in tanning skins and hides to make leather products, he needs to be protected by ensuring that the raw materials required for production of leather products are available. This cannot happen if tariffs on raw and tanned hides and skins are going to be the same. This needs to be looked at and amended. On administration, the Commissioner is given the authority, but in equal manner, that authority is taken from him and given to the CS. Under Clause 3(i), the last sentence says “subject to the direction and control of the CS.” Basically, the Commissioner has no authority as provided for by the Act. This small section contradicts the authority given to the Commissioner of Customs. A Commissioner is supposed to work without the direction of the CS. This clause has made it clear. The CS will have authority to direct how the Commissioner will charge this levy. My concern is that, at the moment, we are not paying taxes, but tariffs. It is not the first time we are going to pay. We are paying the IDF and the Railway Development Levy. My problem is that we are not conscious of the cost of living of Kenyans. The Government is imposing these levies without considering the end products. We have raw materials which are imported and we need pharmaceuticals and drugs, which are critical. Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, when you put the Import Declaration Fee (IDF) at 2 per cent, the levy at 1.5 per cent and add it to the duty, the import duty will go up for the end product. I do not know why it is coming up now because the rate has already reached there. It is good to put levy because we need this money but it has to be very specific. A particular account where this money goes must be opened so that we are aware of a specific purpose, for instance, to develop railway. There is a clause in the Bill which says that later on, the commissioner can form an authority. This is not conditional. It is not the first point that an authority must be formed before this money is collected. The Bill only provides that the authority will be formed later. Given the levels of corruption in this country, this money can be easily diverted to other activities. In general, I support this Bill because we need money to develop but we must be aware that as we do so, we should have a small and young industry which must be protected. We need hides and skins in our country. We should allow export to take place and the levy should be prohibitive so that it discourages people from exporting skins but rather process them. You can have processed skins so as to create employment and reduce poverty. We should look at the Bill properly and sections which contradict the current given position by the Commissioner for Customs should be removed. With those few remarks, I support."
}