Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 814932,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/814932/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 77,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. M. Kajwang’",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13162,
        "legal_name": "Moses Otieno Kajwang'",
        "slug": "moses-otieno-kajwang"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Sir. I rise to lend my voice to this Bill that is before us today. I wish to put forth some arguments that will determine the position I am taking on this particular Bill. My position is that we cannot support and enact this Bill as it is. I start with the definition of the word “Irrigation” If you look at the Bill, the drafters attempt to define irrigation as means or any process, other than by natural precipitation, which supplies water to crops or any other cultivated plants or livestock or aquaculture and desired forest trees. The drafters of the Bill have chosen a complicated definition of irrigation. If you look at the Oxford Dictionary, it says that irrigation is the supply of water to land or crops to help growth. The reason why I linger on the definition of irrigation is to be able to ask ourselves: Why do we need to undertake irrigation? In my mind, we undertake irrigation for purposes of food production. If you look at the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution, the duties of the national Government and county governments have been laid out clearly. There is no doubt that Agriculture is a function of county governments. The national Government has got the duty of coming up with the agricultural policy. Mr. Speaker, Sir, we do not do irrigation so that we can set up dams where children can swim or set up ponds where we can do funny things and plant grass. We do irrigation so that we can enhance food production and, consequently, food security. Therefore, any action or responsibility on irrigation must lie with the level of government that has been allocated the role of agriculture in the Constitution. That must be county governments. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Sir, it says here that the purpose of this Bill is to repeal Cap. 347, which establishes the National Irrigation Board (NIB). However, it does more than that because it takes the NIB and rebrands it to become the National Irrigation Authority (NIA). What it does further is to provide great power to the Cabinet Secretary (CS) responsible for matters to do with irrigation. In fact, sometimes you get the impression that this Bill has been crafted to bring or to provide a job description for someone who has been appointed to the Cabinet and has no idea of what he or she is supposed to be doing. That job description is coming from this particular Bill. I will not support a Bill or a piece of legislation that attempts to take away powers or duties – that should be rightfully exercised by county governments – back to the centre. Mr. Speaker, Sir, past irrigation ventures have had mixed success and Sen. Wetangula has talked about the Galana-Kulalu Irrigation Project where we were promised that one million acres would be put under irrigation. However, at the end of the day and after millions or billions of shillings had been spent, only 5,000 acres had been put under irrigation and only 118,000 bags of maize coming out of this Project. It is the duty of this Parliament to investigate the amount of money and what went into the Galana-Kulalu Irrigation Project. This is because if you go to its website right now, you 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."
}