Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 664368,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/664368/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 157,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Wamunyinyi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 291,
        "legal_name": "Athanas Misiko Wafula Wamunyinyi",
        "slug": "athanas-wamunyinyi"
    },
    "content": "Thank you very much, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to reply. First, I want to thank Members for the support they have given to this Bill. It has received overwhelming support except for a few instances where Members want to clarify something. I quickly looked at one of the cases of zero-rating. In economics, zero- rating to supply reverse to items that are taxable, but the rate of tax is nil on their input supplies. The term is applied to items that would normally be taxed under valued added systems such as goods and services. In this amendment that we are seeking Parliament to approve, it is clear. If Members had looked at the amendment Bill and the Act, they would have seen that we are seeking to include transport of sugarcane under Part II. If you look at the VAT Act, 2013, Part II of the First Schedule, that is where we are seeking to insert an additional item which should be exempted from the VAT. Secondly, it is to ensure that this benefit goes to the farmer. I have looked at the statement from one of the sugar companies. This statement clearly provides the value of sugarcane from the farmer and makes deductions by the sugar company. For example, this is a farmer from Namwacha Sub-Location called Godfrey Barasa. He has deductions listed here: Seed Cane, Urea, DAP and Transport Survey Charge. Even before they plough the farm, it is surveyed and that charge goes to the farmer and many others enumerated here which include transport, VAT, levies, cess of 1 per cent to the county government and union fee of 1 per cent for the farm organisation. Therefore, it would not be difficulty in ensuring that the farmer benefits from this because it is the company, either Government-owned or privately owned, which has a contract with the farmer that will undertake this deduction. Therefore, the benefit will obviously go to the farmer The other thing which I wish to clarify is that it is important for Members to note that VAT is just one item. I looked at one case here where the companies in Kenya generally pay an average of Kshs3,000 per tonne of raw sugarcane to the farmer, then they charge this farmer Kshs216 for harvesting. The furthest farmer at the outgrower is charged Kshs1,200 per tonne for transport plus VAT. The farmer is also charged for the seed cane that was provided by the company and ploughing if the company ploughed for him. There are also other charges which include planting, feeding of the cane with fertiliser and other maintenance costs involved including security. So, there is so much. If you put together all these costs and compare with the Kshs3,000 paid per tonne, the farmer gets just about Kshs400 per tonne. I have been warned. I want to conclude by saying that this Bill is very important. The other Members of the community who ought to benefit from this are the sugarcane cutters. They play an important role. They are paid Kshs216 per tonne. They are temporary workers employed by the companies. With those few remarks, I wish to thank you. I beg to move."
}