HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 814943,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/814943/?format=api",
"text_counter": 88,
"type": "other",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "from “a” to “f.” Every one of them is about irrigation schemes, committees at scheme level, schemes including those that traverse and straddle more than one county, supervision of schemes, schemes in consultation--- Perhaps, if this was brought to this House as the Irrigation Schemes Bill, we may be able to discuss it. To call it the Irrigation Bill and just talk about very narrow definitions of that nature does not really augur well for this House, whose mandate, as has been mentioned by my colleagues, is to protect the lower levels or county governments and the people who live in those counties. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, with regard to counties, again, I have many problems with this Bill. It is very condescending and gives all powers to the Cabinet Secretary (CS) at the national level and only talks about counties in terms of “the Cabinet Secretary may in consultation”. This Bill, in its form and substance, as it stands, does not support counties. For instance, Clause 14 says- “Each county government may, within its area of jurisdiction, establish a county irrigation development unit for the better carrying out of an irrigation function delegated by the Cabinet Secretary as may be prescribed in the Regulations.” I come from the school of thought that county governments and the national Government are not necessarily in a hierarchical relationship; they are branches. When the Bill starts talking about the CS delegating to county governments, then I have a problem with this kind of law that is assigned to the county government. In respect of land, other than public land in the National Public Irrigation Scheme, the CS shall, in accordance with the law of the time being, relating to the compulsory acquisition---Again, land issues in this country are very emotive and a time bomb. We have seen what is happening with land issues. This Bill gives so much power to the CS at the national level with regards to land issues, where compulsory acquisitions are given to the national level and the CS. We have seen what is happening with compulsory acquisition. So far, they have been done very badly and, in fact, bordered on abuse of rights of the people with regards to both our Constitution and international humanitarian law. We have seen what is happening in Mau Forest. While we, of course, support the conservation of our water towers, which must be absolutely conserved, the manner in which the acquisition, evictions and the compulsory acquisition of land have been conducted in this country, borders on abuses of the rights of the people, both under international law, international humanitarian standards and our own Constitution. Under the guise of irrigation, this Bill is actually giving a lot of leeway for compulsory acquisition of land under the pretext of irrigation land. In case of community land forming part of a national or public irrigation scheme, again, the Cabinet Secretary on behalf of the department may take the land on lease and on terms to be agreed between the Cabinet Secretary and the county government. Where does that leave the communities, yet it says here “community land?” Therefore, this Bill is disenfranchising not just through not taking care of irrigation that is informal and in the hands of communities, but also in terms of the land and land use by communities. It will take away not just from county governments, but especially from communities in counties that we 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."
}