HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 814967,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/814967/?format=api",
"text_counter": 112,
"type": "other",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the history of the Bill on the Floor of this House is fresh to all of us. Last year, when this Bill was brought to the Floor of the Senate, it was defeated during Division. I remember, at the time, we were told by the leadership of the hon. Senators seated on the right side of your Chair, that this Bill will be taken to the Lower House and it will be passed. Sure enough, this Bill found its way to the Lower House and it has come back to the Floor of the Senate, word for word. Last week or two weeks ago, I mentioned that I am a linguist by training. To a linguist, we call that a slap in the face because a Bill that was rejected by this honourable House has come back for debate by the same Members. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I know the importance of food security in this country. That importance has always been there, only that it has been given impetus by the President’s Big Four Agenda. I am calling it the President’s Big Four Agenda on food security deliberately, because there is no clarity on whether there is consensus on this agenda. From the outset, I state categorically that I oppose this Bill, and for good reasons. Article 96 of the Constitution gives us, as Members of the Senate, a very important role of protecting counties and their governments. In its Schedules, the Constitution has devolved functions to county governments, and agriculture is a fully devolved function. Whichever way anyone looks at irrigation, it is an agricultural function. This Bill, as currently constituted in spirit and letter, is not good for counties; and I say that for good reasons. If you look at Clause 9 of this Bill, the membership to the proposed board of the NIA is almost entirely a national membership. Where there is suggestion for inclusion of counties, the qualifications for members are clearly stipulated. However, for the Principal Secretaries (PSs), it is just supposed to be an automatic membership. Just like Senators who have spoken before me have asked, somebody is left wondering what expertise these principal secretaries will bring to this board. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill is bad for the counties. Let this be the one Bill that the Senate will stamp its authority properly on the real devolution of functions to counties. I am not sure what irrigation takes place in the capital city of Kenya. There is no justification whatsoever to set up an irrigation authority and then go ahead to state that its headquarters will be based in Nairobi. At what point will the 47 counties, excluding Nairobi County, begin to enjoy the real fruits of devolution by hosting and housing some of these authorities, especially where irrigation takes place? Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I know that there have been arguments to the effect that county governments have no capacity to undertake irrigation schemes because they are expensive. I want to remind whoever will be harbouring those kinds of arguments that devolution is not just for the sake of it. The law is very clear that funds must follow functions. Therefore, if agriculture is a devolved function, it does not make any sense to concentrate funds in the headquarters in Nairobi; yet farming is taking place outside the capital city. Therefore, on the basis of that argument, if counties have no capacity to undertake irrigation schemes because they are expensive, let us then devolve more funds for counties to undertake irrigation. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the only good thing that this Bill does is to give an opportunity to the Senate, through the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Livestock and 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."
}