Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 890593,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/890593/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 395,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Farhiya",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13179,
        "legal_name": "Farhiya Ali Haji",
        "slug": "farhiya-ali-haji"
    },
    "content": "become like a livelihood issue or an existence issue for those people who live purely on livestock which is now under threat. It also talks about international market value. So at any given time, people are on top of things in terms of what is the value. Let us say, our coffee or tea, it is said that it is one of the best. However, the way the auction is done, Kenya loses a lot of money from it. It is good that this Bill identifies that as an issue. The other thing I like about this Bill is Clause 8 (3) which talks about 40 per cent of revenue assigned to county government. Under Clause 8 (1)(b), it says eight per cent of revenue shall be subject to--- it is a bit confusing because one is talking about the other while the other is referring to the other. There is need to look at those two clauses and identify what is the real issue because I am not able to tell. It further says 40 per cent of that, then it says 60 per cent shall be utilised for the benefit for the entire county. It also says 40 per cent to the county government. So, the entire county and the county government, I do not see that. What is there for the community? That needs to come out clearly in this computation. There is a bit of confusion on Clause 8(4) talks about intra-counties in terms of negotiation and then it says the Commission on Revenue Allocation (CRA) to determine. These are some of the things that are a bit more contentious. In my view, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process should set in somewhere in that process and not leaving it to CRA alone. What happens if we do not agree with what CRA is proposing? That needs to come out clearly. In the benefits sharing agreement, there is a clear agreement that spells out what is in it for me and everybody. It is very clearly stated out in Clause 9 of this Bill. I am very happy about that. Like I said before, it is not that I am not happy about the other clauses. However, these are the ones that stick out in terms of issues that are dear to me. There is also another issue about diversity. As you are aware, there was a Committee that was looking up on an issue – a public participation on a specific issue; I am not going to name it because if I do people will know which one it is. There were almost seven institutions who nominated one person from each of those institutions and all of them happened to be from one ethnic group. Our question was: Was that representative of Kenya’s diversity? I am glad that diversity is addressed from the onset in this Bill. Clause 5 says the Cabinet Secretaries (CS) shall make regulations for conduct of affairs of the county benefits sharing committee. If you leave it to the CS, those regulations will not come. I am proposing that we include a clause which creates a timeframe within which the CS will bring those regulations. He or she can bring them earlier, but he or she cannot bring later than a certain date that all of us know. He or she must comply with that. Clause 12(2) talks about depositing of those documents. We know in this country when something happens, documents disappear mysteriously. It is good that there is an extra level where documents are taken care of so that they do not disappear mysteriously the way they do. Clause 13(6) talks about allowances. It clearly clarifies what kind of allowance it is. In many Bills, people talk about an allowance without specifying what kind of allowance it is. This one clearly identifies."
}