Dr. James Nyikal

All parliamentary appearances

Entries 1741 to 1750 of 3161.

• 21 Feb 2017 in National Assembly: Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker. I rise to support this Bill. It has a noble objective to provide for establishment of deposit taking SACCOs, to regulate the same and to involve them in the regulatory framework, at least, of credit information sharing. This is a great move forward in the SACCO movement. The SACCOs are the first institutions that brought majority of Kenyans into the money economy. For many years, SACCOs have been the only institutions where a majority of low income and middle income earners could save and borrow from. Many of us actually managed to get through, ... view
• 21 Feb 2017 in National Assembly: The guidelines further indicate that these institutions will be subject to a credit information sharing framework just like the one used by commercial banks and micro-finance institutions. Once these institutions are subjected to the CRBs, we can be sure that this is a safe way to go. We are starting with the cooperative societies. The microfinance institutions have already been brought on board. So many women have gone into table banking. We should bring on board even the deposit taking SACCOS. It is a gradual, acceptable and easy movement into a hard money economy. With that, I support the Bill. view
• 16 Feb 2017 in National Assembly: Hon. Speaker, Members are saying that they smell a rat, but I think there is more than one rat here. The first time this Bill was brought to the House, there was a lot of opposition and matters were raised. It was actually sent back to allow more consultations and was to be brought later. That is over two months ago now. It is now here and we are still saying that we need more time for consultation. I do not understand that. Hon. Speaker, you have at times ruled that as much as it is important to get Committee’s ... view
• 15 Feb 2017 in National Assembly: Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairlady, I also want to support because what we see in this is the same as in Clauses13 and 14, which are attempts to bypass the processes put to check the use of money. We have offices and check systems and if we amend to bypass them, it will not be proper. view
• 15 Feb 2017 in National Assembly: I support. view
• 14 Feb 2017 in National Assembly: Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairlady, I would like to seek some clarification on (c). The Vice-Chair of the Departmental Committee said that sub clause (5) is the same as sub clause (1). Sub-clause (1) talks about the day we produce the curriculum, but sub- clause (5) goes ahead to say that there will be other people involved. There is a slight distinction between the two provisions. I do not know whether that is what he sought to remove. view
• 14 Feb 2017 in National Assembly: Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairlady. I want to support the same. This amendment tends to improve what was in the original Bill. I do not think it goes far enough. It allows some people at some level to charge fees. The Mover would have done better to declare that a teacher who imposes a charge, and leaves out all those within and without, shall be liable to a conviction. That would have made this provision of the law clear. We know that when you allow people to levy a charge, they have a tendency to increase the charges. The ... view
• 14 Feb 2017 in National Assembly: Let me express my fear. This is how it starts. You say there is no charge unless there is consultation with the County Executive Board and the respective PTAs as expressed under this proposed amendment. It, therefore, means that PTAs will sit and agree on some fee which they deem necessary. Then this will be approved by the County Education Board (CEB). This is how secondary schools which perform well literally become private schools. If a secondary school does well today, the PTA sits down and adds levies which are approved by the CEB and the fees goes higher. Let ... view
• 14 Feb 2017 in National Assembly: In fact, if you look further at Clause 48(2A)(b), it says that the education centre shall not refrain a child from attending the centre for the reason that the charges imposed have not been paid. This is another confusion we have in this country. We usually say that we have free primary and day secondary education. Head teachers still charge some levies which we are fighting and say they will not send the children away, but they send them away. They say they cannot retain their certificates and we know certificates are being retained. view
• 14 Feb 2017 in National Assembly: I would delete Clause 48(a) and amend it as follows: “(2A) A head teacher of a public education centre who— (a) imposes a charge shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both.” Now, it will be closed and that is what I will appeal to the Vice-Chair to amend. view