​: We can commence business.

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

There is a public petition by the Member for Magarini. I have been informed by the Member for Ganze that they are involved in food distribution in Kilifi County. Therefore, that Petition by the same

Member

is stood

down

to the

time

he will be present

in the Chamber. Let

us go to the next Order.

Hon. Speaker, I beg to lay the following Papers on the Table of the House: Reports of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements in respect of the following institutions for the year ending 30​th​ June 2018 and the certificates therein: (i) Higher Education Loans Board. (ii) State Department of Vocational and Technical Training. (iii) National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation. (iv) State Department for University Education. (v) Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology Enterprises Limited. (vi) Witness Protection Agency. (vii) Agri and Cooperative Training and Consultancy Services Limited. (viii) Judicial Performance Improvement Project. (ix) Small-Scale Horticulture Development Project by the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Irrigation, and (x) Subscription by Kenya Government to International Organisations. Thank you, Hon. Speaker.

​: The next Papers will be laid by the Chairperson of the Departmental Committee on Lands.

Hon. Speaker, I beg to lay the following Papers on the Table of the House: Reports of the Departmental Committee on Lands on its consideration of the Senate amendments to: (a) The Land Value Index Laws (Amendment) Bill (National Assembly Bill No.3 of 2018), and (b) The Physical Planning Bill (National Assembly Bill No.34 of 2017). Thank you, Hon. Speaker.

​Next Order.

​The first Question is by the Member for West

Mugirango,

Hon. Mogaka

Kemosi.

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

​(West Mugirango, FORD-K): Hon. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order No.42 (A) (5), I wish to ask the Cabinet Secretary

for

Interior

and Coordination of National Government the following Question: (i) ​Is the Cabinet Secretary aware of the increased cases of insecurity inWest Mugirango, particularly Bogichora Ward where six people have been killed in the last three months? (ii) What steps is the Ministry taking to enhance security in West Mugirango Constituency, and further arrest all involved in the killings? Thank you, Hon. Speaker.

​The Question is referred to the Departmental Committee on Administration and National Security. The next Question is by the Member for Central Imenti.

​(Central Imenti, JP): Hon. Speaker, I rise to ask the Cabinet Secretary for Education the following Question: (i) Is the Cabinet Secretary aware that teachers in Kiagu and Makandanu locations in Central ImentiConstituency are

not

paid hardship allowance

despite working

in an area

classified as a hardship region? (ii) Is the Cabinet Secretary further aware of the serious shortage of teachers in public primary schools in the said two locations? (iii) What measures is the

Ministry

putting in place to ensure

teachers working in the

said

locations are paid hardship allowances, and further that teachers are posted to public primary schools in Central Imenti Constituency? Thank you, Hon. Speaker.

​The Question is referred to the Departmental Committee on Education and Research. Next Question is by the Member for Tharaka Nithi, Hon. Nkatha.

​(Tharaka Nithi CWR, JP): Hon. Speaker, I rise to ask a Question to the Cabinet Secretary of Education:

(i) Is the Cabinet Secretary aware of the high student drop out from

Vocational Training

Institutes as a result of the high fees charged by these institutions?

(ii) Could the Ministry consider subsidising the fees charged; and releasing certificates for students who have completed their studies but have fees arrears? Thank you.

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

​It is referred to the Departmental Committee on Education and Research.

​(Kanduyi, FORD-K):

Hon. Speaker,

I beg

to ask

the

Cabinet

Secretary for Interior and Coordination of National Government: (i) How many persons are currently held in remand prison

in Kenya, and

how much

does

the Government of Kenya spend on each remandee in prisons annually? (ii) Is the Cabinet Secretary aware that there are some remandees who have been in custody for 10 years and more?

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

(iii) What action has the Ministry taken to ensure that the prisons are decongested and what measures have been put in place in conjunction with the Judiciary

to expedite

cases within

a reasonable timeframe? Thank you, Hon. Speaker.

​The Question is referred to the Departmental Committee on Administration and National Security to prioritise the appearance of the Cabinet Secretary to respond as appropriate. Hon. Members, before we proceed, allow me to recognise students from the following institutions in the Speaker’s Gallery: Isiolo Girls High School, Isiolo North Constituency, Isiolo County, ELCK Kongoi Secondary School, Kuresoi North Constituency, Nakuru County and St. Peter’s Sang’alo Central, Mosop Constituency, Nandi County.

In the Public Gallery, we

have

the

following schools: Lusigetti High School, Kikuyu Constituency, Kiambu County, Kisii High School, Nyaribari Chache Constituency, Kisii County and Kasasule Primary School, Kibwezi East Constituency, Makueni County. They are all welcome to observe proceedings in the National Assembly this afternoon. Hon. Members, let us proceed to the next business. Next Order.

​Hon. Members, debate on this Motion was concluded. What remained was to put the Question which I hereby do.

​(Garissa Township, JP): Hon. Speaker, I beg

to move

that

the County Governments (Amendment) (No.2) Bill, Senate Bill No.7 of 2017 be now read a Third Time. I request Hon. Kioni to second.

​(Ndaragwa, JP): Hon. Speaker, I second.

​Is it the view of the House that I put the Question?

​: Yes.

​: Having confirmed that the House has quorum, I, therefore, put the Question.

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

​: Hon. Members, the Committee of the whole House considered this Bill and what remained was for me to put the Question for agreement, which I hereby do.

Mover.

​(Suba South, ODM): Hon. Speaker, I second.

​: Member for Vihiga, you appear to have a problem

making your

way

into

the Chamber. Are you not able to reach your destination? The Member for Emuhaya suggests that you are new. I disagree with that. Hon. Members, sometimes people talk about experience, but if you are experienced in doing the wrong things, that is not the experience to have.

Next Order.

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

​: Again, Members, debate on this Motion was concluded and what remained was for the Question to be put.

Hon. Speaker, I beg to move the following Motion: THAT, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 28(4), this House resolves to alter its Calendar for the Third Session of the Assembly (2019) as adopted on 13​th​ February 2019 as follows: (i) ​by proceeding for the short recess on Friday, 5​th April 2019 and resuming its regular sittings on Tuesday, 23​rd​ April 2019,​ and (ii) ​by commencing the long recess on Friday, 10​th May 2019 instead of Friday, 3​rd​ May 2019. The purpose of this Motion is to alter the Calendar of the Assembly in order

to allow

the

House to sit the whole of next week. According to our calendar, which we are now

altering, we

were scheduled to go on a recess on Thursday this week, 28​th March 2019, at the rise of the House. However, the House Business Committee (HBC) that you chair resolved to extend the sittings by one week to cater for the crucial business that ought to be concluded before the short recess, which is the address of the President in accordance with the Constitution. The alternative to this Motion could have been that we proceed on our recess this Thursday as per the

calendar

and then

come

back for a special

sitting

for two days. We felt it was

cumbersome because many Members want

to go

to their constituencies

to deal with

the matter of bursaries. Of course, our sisters and Members from the

counties

will also have

an opportunity to deal with the matter of affirmative funds. So, instead of recalling the House for

a special sitting, we have decided to extend the sitting to next week. On Thursday 4​th​April, once we conclude the business of the Address by His Excellency the President and tabling of various documents as per the Constitution, we can go for the short recess up to 23​rd​April. At the end of April, the National Treasury is supposed to submit the Annual Estimates for the Budget 2018/2019. The other crucial business which the House must know is that of the vetting of the Inspector General of the National Police Service. It has

a set timeline

of 14 days from the

expiry

of the notification to the public. The joint committees of the two Houses are expected to table a report on consideration of the nominee by 2​nd April 2019. In this regard, the alteration of the calendar will allow the House to consider that nominee

either

for

approval

or rejection before we proceed on recess. Finally, as is the practice and pursuant to Article 132(1) (b) and (c) of the Constitution, the President shall address a special sitting of Parliament

once

every

year.

As

such,

the

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

April 2019. The House will continue with any other important business for the whole of next week if we do not conclude those items this week. The alternative could have been that we proceed on recess this week as per our calendar and then come back

for

a special sitting, but

the HBC felt otherwise. That necessitated this alteration because the House controls its calendar. Even altering it is not the

preserve

of the

​ (Suba South, ODM): Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I want to second this Procedural Motion and say the following: This Motion helps these Members to refresh their minds and appreciate that the House now has full control of its calendar. I have heard many of my colleagues say or make statements like the President should dissolve Parliament, do this and that. Through this Motion, Members are reminded that those who are still thinking like that are living in old days. This Parliament, both the National Assembly and the Senate, controls

its calendar. No

one can

dissolve

us. It is the Constitution that terminates our existence as a House

or when, as provided under the

Schedule

to the

Constitution,

we do not manage requirements of that Schedule. It is rare. I do not think it will ever happen. The reason we have decided to vary the calendar from 28​th March to 4​th April, which is basically one week, has been ably explained by the Leader of the Majority Party. One, the President is coming to address the House. Two, we have the vetting and approval of the nomination of the Inspector General of Police which we expect to be done next week. It has timelines and because of that, we will also extend our time of coming back by one week, from 5​th

to 23​rd​ of April. Again, I have a word

on the long recess

because this

one is just

a short

one,

we will come back on 23​rd April. When we come back, before 30​th April, we will be expecting the Cabinet Secretary in charge of the National Treasury to table the Budget Estimates and

then we will take time off on

10 ​th of May. This is to allow the various Committees of Parliament to desegregate the Budget, look at it and do a report to the Budget and Appropriations Committee (BAC), which will then do a report on the Budget Estimates. It will be a very busy period for us as a House. I

am sure these Members have prepared for it. I second the Motion.

​(Nominated, WDM-K):​ ​Nay!

​Hon. Seroney has been infected by some disease. That disease must be from the Member for Homa Bay Town Constituency. Because it was explained by both the Leader of the Majority Party and

the Leader of the Minority Party, it is good to observe that, essentially,

these adjustments are also, I am

told,

quite

comfortable to those Members who have school-going kids. Obviously, it may not affect Hon.

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

Jimmy Angwenyi.

It also takes

into

account

those

Members who

have children going to school at

that time. That is what the Member for Kikuyu had indicated, that he was happy with the adjustment. Let us move to the next Order.

Hon. Speaker, I beg to move the following Motion: THAT, the Senate amendments to the Physical Planning Bill (National Assembly Bill No. 34 of 2017) be now considered. Just to give a background, the Physical Planning Bill 2017, seeks to make provisions

for

the planning, use, regulation and development of land in Kenya. This Bill was passed by the National Assembly on 3​rd​ May 2019.

Sorry, the Leader of the Majority Party. It should be the Senate amendments to the Land Value Index Laws (Amendment) Bill, Order No. 12.

Oh! It should be the Senate amendments to the Land Value Index Laws (Amendment) Bill. Sorry,

Hon. Speaker.

It is because both

the Land Value Index Laws (Amendment) Bill and the Physical Planning Bill 2017 follow each other. I beg that move the following Motion: THAT, the Senate amendments to the Land Value Index Laws (Amendment) Bill (National Assembly Bill No. 3 of 2018) be now considered. Just to give a background, the Land Value Index Laws (Amendment) Bill 2018 seeks to amend the Land Act, the Land Registration Act, the Prevention, Protection and Assistance to Internally Displaced Persons and Affected Communities Act, and to provide for the assessment of value index in respect of the compulsory acquisition of land. The Bill was passed by the National Assembly on 8​th August 2018. Thereafter, it was conveyed to the Senate in accordance with provisions of Article 110(4) of the Constitution.

There is loud discussion.

Hon. Members and Hon. Jimmy

Angwenyi,

I do

not

know what

you may have had for lunch. You are in a very exuberant mood today.

There is the lounge owned by the Deputy Speaker. It is empty now. They can go and discuss.

There is a very good

lounge,

but

you have to seek the permission of the Deputy Speaker, for some people. It is a Members’ club, especially nominated ones. This Bill went to the Senate. The Senate considered it and passed

it with

amendments on

14​th February 2019. The amendments were, therefore, conveyed to the Departmental Committee on Lands which is chaired by Hon. Rachael Nyamai on 21​st​ February 2019. Moving on, I had a chance to look at the Departmental

Committee on

Lands’

opinion on the Senate

amendments to Bill. I also

had the

opportunity

to get

a written view

of the Ministry on

the amendments made by the Senate. I observed that the Committee agreed with most of the

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

Senate’s amendments, save for some few. I will highlight some of the amendments over which the Committee disagreed with the Senate. First to note is the first amendment the Senate effected of changing

the title of the

Bill

to read “Land Laws Amendment Bill.” That in itself is wrong.

How do you change the

title

of a Bill

when the Bill is specifically dealing with land value, land

rates

and

all the

other

rates

like

Stamp Duty? You cannot call it Land Laws (Amendments) Bill. We had a Land Laws (Amendments) Bill earlier in this House. I agree with the Committee on Lands for rejecting this amendment. The title should remain as it is. I also agree that even though the Bill is amending various land laws, the title of the Bill should be distinct to reflect the essence of the amendment. As I said earlier, this Bill seeks to be governing laws on valuation of land and compulsory acquisition of land by the State in the interest of the people of Kenya.

So, the

title

of the Bill should be simple and straightforward for the users of the law, who are the people we represent here, in order for them to easily identify and find this law. We will support the Committee in retaining the title as “Land Index Law.”

Why

would anyone want to rename a Bill

that deals with assessment of land value index, in relation to compulsory acquisition, when you are computing land rates, Stamp Duty and acquisition of land by the Government for internally displaced people, for industries and many other purposes? I have never seen such a thing before. The Committee also rejected the Senate amendment to the reconstitution of the tribunal vested with the responsibility of hearing appeals against the decision of the National Land Commission (NLC) on compensation of land whenever disputes arise, for example, the amount that should be paid when compensating a person. If a person is not happy with the actions of NLC, he will appeal to this tribunal. I agree with the Committee that the Senate amendments limit the discretion of the Cabinet Secretary (CS) in the appointment of the membership of the tribunal. This is a serious function and, therefore, the Cabinet Secretary for Lands must have discretion in the appointment and formation of the tribunal. However, the Senate has decided to remove that. This may affect the diversity and inclusivity in the composition of the tribunal and its membership. The Cabinet Secretary will look at regional and ethnic composition of that tribunal. So, the Cabinet Secretary should be allowed to make appointments based on gender, regional balance and ethnic diversity. In this regard, I support the rejection of that Senate amendment by the Committee. The rejection of some of the Senate amendments

means that, eventually,

the

provision

of Article 113 of the Constitution on establishment of a mediation committee will be the next course of action. We will agree with the Senate where the Committee has agreed to an amendment because they represent this House and where it has rejected, we will support it in rejecting the amendment. It will be followed by the formation of a mediation committee of four Members from this House and four Members from the Senate. I beg to move and request the Chairperson of the Committee on Lands, Hon. Rachael Nyamai, to second and give the House the specific amendments that the Committee has rejected. Hon. Speaker, I want to make it clear that when we were dealing with the Roads Bill, there were certain amendments that we had no problem with and

agreed with

the Senate, but

the House, during the Committee of the whole House,

rejected all the

amendments.

So, I want

to ask

Members that today, as we reconstitute into the Committee of the whole House, we support the Committee’s recommendations. Where they have agreed

with the

Senate,

we support; and

where they have rejected a Senate amendment, we also reject so that only amendments that are offensive are referred to the mediation committee.

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

The Senate amendments on the Roads Bill

were rejected

by

this

House, and

that does

not

show goodwill from this House. Hon. Maoka Maore is saying that we have no goodwill. I am sure that Hon. T.J. Kajwang’ and Hon. Jessica Mbalu, who went with me to Germany’s

- the equivalent of our Senate - will have a story to tell when we table our Report. That is how the Senate of the Republic of Kenya should be in future; the governors rotate to become the Speakers of the Senate. They do

not

have a substantive

speaker. That is how

they do it in German.

​: Let us have the Chairperson of the Committee on Lands.

​(Kitui South, JP): Thank

you,

Hon.

Speaker. I beg to second this Motion on the Senate amendments to the Land Value Index Laws (Amendment) Bill (National Assembly Bill No.3 of 2018). From the outset, the Senate has proposed amendments to 12 clauses. The Committee recommends agreement with seven clauses. The two clauses were

rejected. Further amendments

have been suggested on three clauses. I would like the House to understand that it is not a total rejection. As it has been well explained by the able Leader of Majority Party, we would like to make this Bill better. We request the House to agree with this Motion. I will not go through the basics because they have been well put by the Leader of Majority Party. I will move to matters that were raised by the Senate. The Senate suggests that the Committee changes the title of the Bill. There is a reason why this Bill is referred to as the Land Value Index Laws. We do not agree with that proposal. We would like the title of the

Bill

to bring

out the

purpose

of the

amendments.

We are proposing amendments to provide for the assessment of land value index in relation to compulsory acquisition. We would like the land value index to feature clearly, so that we do not lose the purpose of the Bill. We agreed with the Senate on the amendments on clauses 3, 4, 13 and 13 (b). These clauses offend the provisions of the Constitution in Article

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

compensation for a very long time, such that the Government is aware that if 24

months

expire, then it will lapse and they will have to restart negotiations. So we agreed with the Senate on that. The Committee also observed that the Senate amendment to Clause 5(b) only refers to uninterrupted occupation, meaning

any person who has

occupied

land

even

for

one

year provided that it is uninterrupted, can be included in the register of the actual occupants for purposes of compensation. We felt that one year is too short and we

did

not agree with the

Senate

on this. In

this regard, without putting the duration in paragraph (b), it will be open to abuse such that somebody can come to a private property, be there for one year and seek to be put in the list of compensation. Uninterrupted period should be 12 years as already contained in the Bill in accordance with the adverse possession common law and doctrine. Further, the Committee noted that the Senate amendment to proposed new Clause 107A (8) (a) reduces the duration of what can be termed as uninterrupted occupation from

12 years to

six years. The period should be tied to the advanced possession common law which

refers to 12 years. In fact, we saw this as a contradiction. The matter of the tribunal is a matter that we discussed widely and we had wide consultations. It is an important body. However, the Committee rejected the

Senate

amendments to Clause 17. The amendment limits the discretion of the CS in appointing membership to the tribunal. This

may affect diversity and

inclusivity, where

they just forward

one

name to the CS as opposed to forwarding several names so that the CS has an opportunity to choose so that he or she can ensure that we have gender and geographical balancing. The CS should be allowed to make the appointment based on gender, regional balance and ethnic diversity. In conclusion, the Committee put in a lot of time. We looked at the Senate amendments keenly and we tried as much as possible to agree. Where we have not agreed,

we would like the

House to agree with us so that

we can be given

an opportunity to go to mediation

so that this

can be a better law for the country. With those remarks, I would like to thank the Committee for being able to work within the 14 days that you gave us on the Floor of the House. We look forward

to the House agreeing

with us. Thank you very much, Hon. Speaker. With those many remarks, I second.

​Those who are walking into the Chamber, take some

seat anywhere, any seat. You can take some seat. Even sitting next to Hon. Wamalwa is quite healthy for you.

Hon. Members, while still at this point, before debate, I think it is important that everyone appreciates what it is that the debate will revolve around. From the Chair of the Committee, out of the 12

proposed

amendments

from the

Senate,

the Committee has

agreed

with seven. I am always very attentive. They have disagreed with two while for the other three they have proposed some further amendments to the ones proposed by the Senate, so that unlike

what I saw last week when Members discussed the entire Bill which the House had

already discussed before it was sent to the Senate, in this particular case it is only fair to use time optimally by restricting ourselves to either agreeing with the Committee on the decision they have taken on

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

the seven amendments or disagreeing, in which case you will have to propose further amendments. Look at the other five, the ones on which they

have

totally

disagreed with

the Senate, two

of them, and the other three where they propose further amendments

to the

Senate

amendments. This is not the opportunity to reopen the entire Bill unless you want to give some history

which will explain something around those seven or five areas. I wanted to make that clarification so that even in the next Order, we will be accordingly guided so that we can clear the business as soon as practically possible. Thank you. I am assuming that the Members who have put in their requests desire to contribute that way. The first one is the Member for Kiminini.

Thank

you,

Hon.

Speaker. I think the critical amendments we should talk to are the two amendments that the Committee has differed with. We know very well we have a Parliament composed of the Senate and the National Assembly. The two of them are supposed to check each other for purposes of value addition. I want to start by saying that I do agree with the Report of the Committee. And I want to thank Hon. Rachael for the good work well done. Changing the title is completely upside down. The title of the Bill should give a description of what are actually the objects of the Bill. In this case, this is supposed to do with valuation of land. When you bring in the aspect of index,

it is supposed

to take

into consideration issues of appreciation. We know the Government normally conducts

compulsory

acquisition

and many land owners have been taking advantage. We have even had those who conspire. So, this Land Value Index Bill will be able to eliminate issues of exaggeration

of prices.

That

is why it is

indeed important that the title of this Bill should remain the way it is. You cannot say that the title should change to Land Laws (Amendment) Bill. It is upside down. That is why we are asking the Senate, do they reject our Bills for the sake of value

addition or is it just some

sibling rivalry? Last week when we were looking at the

issue

of KeRRA,

they rejected many of the good things that we had proposed, which has been the practice, and they proposed some amendments

which were upside down for the conflict

of their interest.

I think

it is high

time these two Houses came together for the benefit

of the

common

​ mwananchi ​. Some

of the amendments coming

from the Senate leave a lot to be desired as if it is an issue of competition. When they amend a Bill, they should be able to improve it for value addition and the common public. In terms of the rule of the thumb, when you talk of index, it can be food price index or anything. Ordinarily, there must be a base rate or a base year that we use and give a specific percentage maybe for purposes of appreciation. That is the understanding of any base rate all over the world. So, for them to come up… Unless they do not understand what we

mean

by the base rate, when you

bring

in the

issue

of index,

there

must be a base

from which

to appreciate.

In other words, the Government may decide, as per this Bill, after every financial year, a specific percentage is put in place to increase because there is time value of money. Accountants know that land is the only asset that does not depreciate; it always appreciates. I have always had problems with the National Government Constituencies Development Fund (NG-CDF) in my constituency. When you agree with a land owner on the selling price of land, but then there is delay

in the

disbursement

of funds, one

or two years down

the line, the land owner who sold you the land for public utility will double the selling price. Where do you get the money? So, this law will help us utilise money from the NG-CDF well

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

especially when it comes to acquisition of land. Those selling land to us will not

exaggerate the price. This is an important Bill and because of its motive, value and description, it should be known as “The Land Value Index Laws”. I would like to speak to the second amendment. The second rejection talked about the composition of the tribunal. We saw the National Land Commission (NLC) going around

in the

country. We have had problems with the NLC in terms of valuation and

payment. We have seen many people who own land coming to appeal to the tribunal. It is important that the Cabinet Secretary must have discretion in terms of appointing people who will be on that tribunal. We need regional balance. I have not seen Hon. Sankok today – I am sure he will demand that the marginalised groups like the disabled be represented in the tribunal. So, we

must

leave room for

the CS to exercise discretion when nominating persons to the tribunal. The CS will take into account the issues of gender, regional balancing, and the marginalised groups. I support the amendments that have

been

proposed

by

the

Committee.

I request Members to support them so that we do not waste so much time on this Bill.

We need to focus

only

on the issues that were rejected. Thank you and I support.

Well, according to my system here, the next Member to contribute is Hon. ole Sankok David. As you can see, there he is. Next is the Hon. Member for Funyula.

​ (Funyula ODM): Thank you, Hon. Speaker. First, I commend the Committee for being reasonable enough and taking its time to challenge some of the amendments proposed by the Senate that generally go against the principles and tenets envisaged in the Bill that we passed in this House. For record purposes, and just to correct my good friend, Hon. (Dr.) Chris Wamalwa, there is no logical explanation that land values only appreciate and they

do

not

depreciate. Land

value is an interaction between supply and demand and so obviously there is no economic or theoretical underpinning with regard to the statement he made. I speak from

a point

of authority

because I have three degrees in land and land-related issues. Hon. Speaker, the question of the land index, in my view, has come from the fact that there have been continuous complaints that the value of land and time of compensation for compulsory acquisition has at times been much higher than the

project

cost.

There has

also

been a complaint that the process involved in land acquisition takes unnecessarily too long to a point that it impoverishes the initial land owners who have been dispossessed of their land for purposes of public utility projects. So, the reasoning behind the land value index is to try and resolve those pertinent issues, that is, the cost of land; the timeframe involved in the process of acquisition; and, payment of full, fair and just compensation. Many a times, within the Government circles, information is leaked about land that is to be acquired in a particular area. So, an artificial market is created that unnecessarily inflates the value of land to an extent that it

is a mismatch compared to the neighbourhood. Consequently, the importance of land value index

is to prepare a system where

we have a reference point or a base point to enable determination of land value right from when there is intention to acquire land until the end of the process. It should be predictable for budgeting purposes by the acquiring authority. There is nothing so disorganising for any project-implementing body like the value of land to keep on changing or the owners of land to keep on shifting the asking prices during the implementation of the project. The title of the Bill

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

cannot be purported to change unless the Senate did not understand what it was

debating. Could be the Senate did not have Senators present who have

an understanding of land

matters

and

land values, however little. Probably, this brings to question the issue of staff complement of the entire House. The legal officer in charge of the subcommittee of the Senate should have pointed out to them the difference between a land value index and amendments to the land laws. This is very

simple and

straightforward. I am surprised and even ashamed to make a comment on such a simple and straightforward matter. This is a great indictment of our team in the Senate. Hon. Speaker, the issue of the tribunal is critical to the process of land acquisition. We know the court process can take inordinately long. For that reason, the

member

of public

who is

deprived of his land is bound to suffer for all that time. We need to have a robust tribunal that can discuss and resolve issues within the shortest time possible. As I conclude, may I take this opportunity to ask the National

Irrigation

Board,

the NLC and all agencies involved in land acquisition to be reasonable and sympathetic to those people they are acquiring land from. Before I came here, I was involved

in land

take;

there

are so many

projects we did since 2013 and up to now the process of acquisition has not been completed. Literally the life of the land owners has been put to a standstill; it is in limbo.

How can we help as a House? We now have an opportunity to re-open areas that are being considered for moderation or arbitration. What happens

after one

year? What

happens to somebody’s life, say

in two years? Does it mean the person cannot use the land for purposes of a financial facility, for example, meet school fees

needs and

medical bills? Does

it mean the

person

cannot

develop land

for those two years when the process is underway? We must rethink this matter clearly so that before an organ that intends to acquire land does so, it must have a budget line and

all the

plans

in place. It must also do initial surveys so that the process takes the shortest time possible without further delay. With those very few remarks, I support the Committee’s amendments and thank you for the opportunity.

​ Well spoken. Let us have Hon. (Dr.) Pukose, Member for Endebess.

Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I support the amendments by the Committee. I totally

agree with

the Committee. I would

also

like to thank the Chairlady, Hon. Rachael Nyamai, who I deputised in the Departmental Committee on Health

in 11​th​ Parliament. I know her for her keenness and hard work. This is very commendable. Looking at the Senate amendments to the title, surely, this beats logic of the Bill. This

is the Land Value Index Laws Bill which will revolutionise the issue of compulsory

acquisition

of land in this country. The Senate amendments are delaying this very important Bill which the country has been waiting for with bated breath. As you are aware, in this country there are many challenges in terms of compulsory acquisition of land. We have seen exaggerations of prices in the land acquired to build the Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) in the country. Also in the energy sector, the transmission lines wayleave figures were exaggerated, making it very difficult for power transmission lines to be erected. This has

been

a very big

challenge in this

country. More often, you find in a certain

area the land value was initially low. However, once a major government project comes into place, people skyrocket the prices to exaggerated

figures.

We have seen this

in the

power

transmission

lines, the SGR and road construction where land of low value rises to high value.

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

I want to agree with the Committee on the Senate amendment of the definition of the words ‘prompt,” and “full’. “Prompt” means you are able to pay a person within a year. In my constituency, there is the Kitale-Suam Road and it has taken a long time for people to be compensated. Once we put this in law, that

payment has to be prompt, within a year.

People

will

be compensated in full and this

will enable them to do other things using

this

money. Maybe, one

can plan to buy another land or deal with certain issues. This is a very important Bill. I hope we will move with speed and agree with the Committee on these very important amendments. In the areas where the Committee has disagreed with the Senate amendments as a House, we should support them. With those few remarks, I support the Committee’s position. Thank you, Hon. Speaker.

​: Member for Kitui Central

Thank you, Hon. Speaker for giving me this opportunity. I also want to join my colleagues in agreeing with the comments by the Committee. I also want to congratulate them for

the

short

time

they

have

taken

working on these amendments. At the same time, we must also appreciate that the Senate has added value, because the Committee was in agreement with most of their amendments. However, there are areas where they disagreed, and this will create room for the mediation process. I want to make

some observations

about

the

issue

of changing

the title. I agree

with Hon.

Members, that maybe they were confused when defining the word ‘index’. If you ask many Members here to tell you what an index is, I am sure they will have challenges. I want to agree that maybe the Senate faced challenges interpreting the word ‘index’.

On a point of order, Hon. Speaker. I do not want to interrupt

Hon.

Makali Mulu,

but

he has

made

a very

serious statement. He has said that

if Members are asked the

meaning

of “index”,

many

of them

will have challenges, even

the

Senate.

He is a very decent MP and I want him to withdraw that statement or paraphrase it.

​: He said that some Members would have challenges.

Hon. Speaker, I do not know what to withdraw because I said, if you asked Members…

​: Unfortunately, that is not un-parliamentary…

Yes, Members will have challenges defining the word ‘index’. I meant, it will

not

be easy

for everybody. I think the Senate faced

the same challenge. However, if anybody has been affected, I withdraw. I want to make some observations. Looking at these amendments even as we agree or disagree, I think the Committee needs to take time and think about

them.

For example,

Clause 2 defines the word ‘prompt’ to mean not more than one year. I do not know whether they lacked the correct terminology or what is happening because promptly cannot mean a whole year. The other issue which the Committee has raised and needs to be discussed concerns occupation of land for one year and being eligible for compensation. I think that is a very short time. I want to agree with the Committee that we cannot accept such an amendment, that by having one year occupation, you can be included in the list of those to be compensated. Another important amendment is Clause 6 and

I agree with

the Committee. The

Senate

is proposing that if you occupy a piece of land for an uninterrupted period of six years, you can claim ownership. I think the law is clear that it has to be a minimum

occupation of 12

years.

To

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

me this is a contradiction and so I agree with the Committee that

the Senate needs

to accept

that cannot be true. Lastly, on the issue of the two year compensation, it is important for land owners to be compensated within the shortest time possible, especially for land acquired to build roads. For example, in my county we are building the

Kitui-Kibwezi-Mwingi

Road,

and I know

people will

be compensated. Normally, it takes five to six years to be compensated. So, the proposal of two

years is good for the land owners in the country. As I conclude, concerning the tribunal, I agree. The CS must have some free hand to choose people so as to balance gender, regions and disability. With those remarks, I support the Committee’s comments.

​: Member for Central Imenti.

Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I stand to support the Motion on the Senate amendments because they

are

well

placed.

The

idea

of having a person

occupying land for one year and being compensated is bad in all angles, especially now when infrastructure is being constructed in many places. Strangers will invade other people’s land waiting for compensation because as speculators they know very well that a certain infrastructure will pass through a certain place. Since they

have

occupied

that

portion of land for one year,

they

will

expect

to be paid.

Therefore,

this amendment will encourage anarchy in Kenya. In common law, we only have positions whereby if one occupies a portion of land for a period of 12 years, they are considered as having interest in that portion of land because they have stayed there for a reasonable period without interruption. When this period is reduced to one year, according to the Senate amendments, it means, they are lacking foresight. For that, I support the Motion as it is because that amendment is bad in law. Hon. Speaker, I support.

​: Next in the list is Member for Homa Bay Town, Hon. Kaluma.

Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I rise to support the proposals made by the Committee. I think that

between the

two

Houses,

a number of very useful

improvements are being made. Even though there maybe some areas

of differences

in semantics and so on,

I think

the

Senate’s

perception

of land laws is broader, whereas the

land

index

value

is much more specific. Maybe we should remain with the specific nature. Unfortunately, Hon. (Dr.) Oundo of Funyula has left. I would have liked to indirectly share and exchange on these issues, but he is not here. What worries me is the risk of generality in arriving at an index. A good index should be based on the land potential in terms of earning potential or some other value to that land. As it happens, when you get assessments based on right of way, there is a tendency to generalise very broadly in areas with completely differing values. If you are

dealing

with

an area-based

type

of assessment,

or if you

get

a chance of having more consistent yield or value potential of that land,

developing

indices makes it relatively easy.

Anytime an index

is developed,

it is simplification

and

anytime you

have

simplification,

it means

that you will get an array of differences, some of who will be underpaid and others overpaid because you are trying to simplify some middle ground. The middle ground simplification helps us to get some idea about what the cost should be. Instead of having recommendations or proposals that compensation be made, let us say, within a year – whether that is prompt

or not

– we should go to the

old

consideration that

used to be in the

80s

and 90s.

It was

there because

of the difficulty of organising

beneficiary

groups

after

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

projects had started. These matters must be settled prior to commencement of project activity. They should be done in advance totally prior to commencement. The first line expenditures of budget are on these kinds of compensation, resettlement, action plans and

how that

will be done.

Those should precede the kind of works

that

are proposed because the

moment

the

projects

start, the project persons and entities are better organised, they have access to the law and they can easily intimidate individual land owners who are objecting. If you get to the

courts,

it will take a

long time and there are high transaction costs when you are dealing with courts. That is one amendment that would have been clear. It would have helped the weak. The weak are these individual owners of land in various places. Secondly, I do not see sufficient clarity on land ownership. You can own land by virtue of certain legal or quasi legal rights, either through inheritance or purchase or some other recognition that lies in the law. Under the current thinking on issues of compensation, there are people who simply need compensation on the basis of rights. You have put your kiosk there, a line comes up and your kiosk is being removed. Probably, you had rented the land informally. The right type of ownership also needs to be clarified.

I did

not find

that clarity.

Whereas the

​ Next is the Member for Seme.

Thank you, Hon. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity. I also start by commending the Committee for

the

good

work

they have done. Also,

I think we should commend the

Senate

because if out of the

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

improvements of the land. There may be an attempt to say we are compensating for the land taking into consideration improvement.

Sometimes,

improvements

may be seen

as temporary but they may be earning a livelihood for the

people

that have

put

them up.

I also

support the issue of full compensation. I also agree with the Committee in rejecting Clause 5 on short period of occupation. If you make it one year

in this country

where

there is high

speculation and

people have

information on what the Government is planning to do here and there… Just look at the Lamu issue. I remember just before the Lamu issue, there was just a rumour and people moved in and started buying land or moved in to stay. So, if we take such a short period to give ownership and, therefore, seek compensation during acquisition, then you will find that in any projects in any place where the Government is planning to put up projects, people will move there one year before and then it will be impossible

or they will be extremely

expensive.

You know

that moving

people, once they have been at a place, is extremely difficult. I agree with the Committee on that. On the issue of the tribunal, nothing better can be done in resolving disputes. Going to court is expensive. Many people whose land is acquired are not able to go to court. It is expensive for them. They are

not

used to court

processes

and,

therefore, many have just given

up

and thrown their hands. I think having a tribunal and giving it ministerial authority to appoint members will serve this country well. With that, I support the recommendations of this Committee. Thank you.

​ Member for Mwea, what is your intervention? Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I rise under Standing Order No.95. Following this debate, Members seem to be in agreement

with what the

Committee

has proposed, the recommendations they have put forward and the areas in which they are not in agreement with the Senate. Therefore, I would like to propose that the Mover be called upon to reply.

​That seems to be the mood of the House. Can I find out through a Question?

​(Garissa Township, JP): Hon. Speaker, I beg to reply.

​Very well. Hon. Members, that suffices. Having looked round, we may not proceed to the next procedure. I would

like

to inform

the

House

that Order

No.14,

which was

the Committee of the whole House on the two Senate Bills,

is deferred

to tomorrow

to allow

the

proposed amendments by the Committee to be on the Order Paper. This is so that when we do the Committee of the whole House, Members will be in a position to follow what it is that the Committee will be saying with regard to those two Bills, namely; the one we have just finished and the next one, which is Order No.13. Order

No.14

is deferred to tomorrow afternoon

to allow

the Committee’s amendments to be put on

the

Order

Paper.

It will

be excellent if you pass Order

No.13 because the two Bills can then proceed to committee tomorrow. We earlier on passed the Motion on alteration of the House Calendar. I hope the Leader of the Majority Party and Leader of Minority Party will have all the necessary mediation committees in place in respect of the various Bills before the House proceeds on recess from 5​th

April next week. As you know, under Article 113 of the

Constitution,

the

mediation

committees

have a maximum of 30

days

within

which

to hammer

out

a consensus

or throw out the

baby

with

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

the bathwater. I am sure this is not jargon. If they cannot hammer out a consensus, it means

that

the Bills are lost. We want a situation whereby the leadership both from the majority and minority parties are ready with regard to the two Bills as well as the others, namely; the Irrigation Bill and the Roads Repair Bill. The membership

should go

into

mediation

to assist but not to fight. They should build a consensus on all of the Bills that can be acceptable to both Houses. Failure to get a consensus would mean that the Bills are lost and that would not be beneficial to anybody. Order No.14 is deferred. When we finish the next Order, we will then move to Order No.15. Let us move to the next Order.

​(Garissa Township, JP): Hon. Speaker, I beg to move the following Motion: THAT, ​the Senate amendments to the Physical Planning Bill (National Assembly Bill No.34 of 2017) be now considered. Just to give a background, the Physical Planning Bill, 2017 seeks to make provisions

for

the planning, use, regulation and development of land in Kenya. The Bill was passed by the National Assembly on 3​rd May 2018. It is coming back to the House nearly one year later. Thereafter, it was considered by the Senate in accordance with the provisions of Article 110(4) of the Constitution. Subsequently, the Senate considered the

Bill

and passed

it with

amendments on 14​th February 2019. A Message was conveyed to the National Assembly regarding the passage of the Bill on

Thursday,

21​st February 2019. The amendments were, thereafter, conveyed to the Departmental Committee on Lands chaired by Hon. Rachael Nyamai on 21​st February 2019. That is the timeline within which these Senate amendments landed in the House.

Just like the Land Value Index Laws Bill, 2018 which we have just completed and looking at the dates and timelines within which the Senate got back in terms of conveying that decision, this has taken a long time. The Physical Planning Bill, 2017 was meant to implement Article 66 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. We are behind schedule. This was part of the implementation matrix that both Houses had to deal with. I will not say anything more on the inordinate delay by the Senate but it is doing a disservice to the people of this great nation who

look up to them in terms of executing their legislative role. They need to pull

up

their

socks and

deal with timelines. I mean the socks we wear with our shoes. I can be misquoted on other things. You only pull the socks which are on your feet.

​(Hon. Christopher Omulele): Leader of the Majority Party, which other kind of socks did you have in mind?

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

​(Garissa Township, JP): Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, I do not want to go on record describing other types of socks. I am only referring

to the

ones

we

wear

on our feet.

​(Hon. Christopher Omulele): You are referring to the ones that are ordinarily worn on the feet.

​(Garissa Township, JP): Yes, those are the ones I am talking about. I do not want somebody to say that I imputed improper motive on the Senate. Thank you for the change of guard. I had

a chance

to look at the

Senate

amendments to the Bill. I noted

that

there were

nearly 45 pages of amendments, which invited me to seriously examine them with a view of making

a determination on what could have informed the

Senate

to substantially

alter a Bill

that originated

from this House yet it was carefully and extensively

considered by

the

Departmental

Committee on Lands. After going through the 45-page amendment, I noted that they were largely

related

to the amendments to the Land Value Index Laws Bill of 2018.

The

Senate

changed the

title

of the Bill. In their honest opinion, they said that it should not be called the

“Physical

Planning Bill of

2017” but the “Land Use Planning Bill”. There is a difference between land use and physical planning. If he is in the House, I agree with the Member for Kitui Central. There is something wrong with the staff in the Senate. They have a problem even with basic English. The Physical Planning Bill deals with specifics which are not about land use. That is how business is conducted there. I was advised by the drafters that whenever you change a title, you must make conforming amendments to every clause of a Bill which has referred to “Physical Planning”

and substitute with “Land Use Planning”. That is basic. I do not know whether the legal

team

in the Senate which is the drafter of the Bills understands this. If you change the title from “Physical Planning” to “Land

Use Planning”

then you have to change

in the

whole

Bill anywhere

“Physical

Planning” appears and you substitute it with “Land Use Planning”. This explains why we have 45 pages of Senate amendments.

If we disagree with

them on

the

title,

then our work will

be very easy. The other amendments are not very important. I agree with the Departmental Committee on Lands of the National Assembly which rejected the amendments to change the title of the

Bill

and consequential

amendments

as the title of the Bill does not offend the provisions of Article 66 of the Constitution which we are implementing. This is a constitutional provision which we must implement. There was no need for the change of the title. I agree

with the

Committee.

We forget about the use of the title “Land

Use Planning”. The title of the Bill does not in any way limit the application to matters

of land

use.

The

Bill can still be called “Physical Planning” and that does not limit you on matters of land use. Hence, it does not warrant the changing of the title and the content of the Bill to refer to it as “Land Use Planning Bill”. In a nutshell, I note that the Committee did not just rely on the legal advice in rejecting the Senate amendments but they also considered expert advice on the meaning of the two terms: “Physical Planning” and “Land

Use Planning”.

Expert opinion

on

the

definition of those two terms was sought by the Departmental Committee on Lands. The legal advice was also considered. I am duly advised that physical planning is concerned with the general patterns of land use; the standards and development control aspects such as the character and location of public buildings and structures; the design of streets; the location of transit and transportation systems

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

and all other physical facilities which are necessary and desirable to promote economic betterment, comfort, convenience and general welfare. Land use planning refers only to the process of zoning specific parcels of land to indicate their best usage or future use with the

aim

of regulating the use and development of that land. The definition of “land

use planning” is very narrow. However, the definition of “physical planning” encompasses land use planning. In this regard, “physical planning” is a broader term while “land use planning” is limited in scope and content. By the Senate failing to answer the question of the title of the Bill correctly,

it means all other consequential amendments that are related to the changing of the title stand null and void.

That is why we will deal with a very little matter because those are the 45 amendments which they have proposed. It therefore goes without saying that

the next course of action

will

be in line

with provisions of Article 113 of the Constitution on the establishment of a mediation committee. We have no choice. The moment we disagree with them on the changing of the

title

of the Bill, we have no choice but to go through Article

​ (Hon. Christopher Omulele): Hon. Nyamai.

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker. I rise to second this Motion on the Senate amendments to the Physical Planning Bill, National Assembly Bill No. 34 of 2017. This Bill was passed by the National Assembly on 14​th May 2018. The Senate stayed with this Bill for nine months. I would like to put nine months into perspective. A child can be conceived and delivered in nine months’ time. This shows

lack of seriousness

on a matter

that is

serious for this House and country. As the Leader of the Majority Party has said, the

Senate

has proposed amendments to 89 clauses and four schedules in the Bill. The Committee was very keen. We read the amendments from the Senate very keenly. We wanted to see how far we can agree and areas that we could not disagree. We are in full agreement with amendments to 12 clauses that we feel would make the Bill better. We are in partial agreement with 25 clauses. This shows goodwill. We are not out to disagree with what the Senate wants this House to do, but we reject amendments to 52 clauses. As the Leader of the Majority Party has said, these 52 clauses arise from changing the title of the Bill from “Physical Planning” to “Land Use Planning”. They are not serious amendments that will affect the Bill. To show the seriousness of this Bill, it was supposed to be passed in 2017 because it is one of the constitutional Bills meant to actualise the Constitution, 2010. It had

a deadline

of five years which was extended by one year. I wanted to put this to perspective,

so that

Members can

see that it is an extremely important Bill. Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, please give me a minute to put the documents properly.

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

​ (Hon. Christopher Omulele): It is granted.

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, for that. The amendments that the Committee is rejecting, which were passed by the Senate, were consequential on the change of the title from

“Physical Planning

Bill”

as passed

by

this House to “Land Use Planning Bill.” The Leader of the Majority Party has tried to put into perspective the difference between the two terms. The Senate amendments to the title of the Bill were rejected by the Committee because the Bill

relates to matters

of physical

planning. The

title

of the Bill does

not

offend the

provisions

of Article 66 of the Constitution which refers to land use planning. So, by calling it physical planning, we do not offend the use of the phrase “land use”. We reject it. I would like to talk about what physical planning is. The Committee sought expert opinion in order to avoid making a difference that

would change the

purpose

of the

Bill.

Physical planning is concerned with the general pattern

of land use.

Land

use is part

of physical

planning. It entails the general patterns of land use; standards and development control aspects; the character and location of public buildings; the structures and design of streets; the location of transit and transportation systems; and, other physical facilities which are necessary and desirable to promote economic betterment, comfort, convenience and general welfare. The physical planning function entails provision of spatial framework for arrangement and organisation of socio-economic activities and space at the national, inter-county, county and local levels to achieve optimal use and suitable development for the wellbeing of the society. What is land use planning? It refers to the process of zoning of specified parcels of land to indicate the best present and future uses with the aim of regulating its use and development. Land use planning allocates available space among competing user groups and activities. From the definition of “land use”

and “physical

planning”,

it is evident

that

physical planning

is a form

of land use planning. As proposed by the Senate under the proposed revision of Clause 2(e), “physical planning” is a form of land use planning which attempts to achieve an optimal

spatial co-ordination of different human activities for the enhancement of quality of life. Looking at the two definitions, I want to emphasise the fact that there is no need to change the title of the

Bill.

The matter has

been

explained

very well

by

the

Mover

of the

Motion,

Hon. Duale. We also looked at other jurisdictions. Legislation of planning for

a majority, especially

in

the Commonwealth nations, has tended to stick to physical

planning as opposed

to land use. We would also like to go with the other jurisdictions on how they handle this matter. We also made reference to Sessional Paper No.1 of 2017 on the National Land Use Policy that is in sync with the title, “Physical Planning”. The Policy provides guidelines on improvement of physical planning practice. Chapter Four of the implementation framework of the policy provides for the following: 1. Establishment of the Department of Physical Planning; 2. Establishment of the Office of the National Director of Physical Planning; 3. An increase in budgetary allocations for the national Department of Physical Planning; and, 4. Restructuring and revision of organisational structure of the national department to give it adequate institutional capacity. We are trying to show that the phrase “physical planning” is the best title. We do not know why the Senate wants to change it to “land use.” Physical planning is broader while land

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

use is limited. For that reason, we ask the House to agree with the Committee. You

realise that, as Hon. Duale has said, it will deal with 52 consequential amendments to it. The other part we agree with the Senate on is the proposed amendment that seeks to restore the membership of the National Planning Consultative Forum. The Senate has

suggested

that we reduce the number

of the

members.

It has

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

not have an opportunity to get redress from a higher level. So, we feel it is not a good amendment. Regarding planning authorities, the Committee noted that Clause 2 of the Bill defines “planning authorities” to include both the Cabinet Secretary and the County Executive Committee Member. Since the Bill deals

with

physical planning

in both

levels of Government

as stipulated in the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution, it is important to retain the word “planning

authorities” in the Bill to refer to the relevant authority. Deletion of the words “planning authority” and substituting therefore with the words “county executive committee member” in clause 63

of the

Senate

is not in order, according

to the Committee. As I conclude, although the amendments are many, 52 of them focus on the words “physical planning”. There are amendments that we have accepted; others that we

have

rejected

fully and others that have been agreed to partially. You can see that the Committee did a very good job and we tried to work within the stipulated timeliness. With those many remarks, I thank Members of the Departmental Committee on Lands because they also did justice in looking at this

Bill within

the

I will give the first opportunity to Hon. Angwenyi, Member for Kitutu Chache North.

(Kitutu Chache North,

​ (Hon. Christopher Omulele): Hon. (Dr.) Oundo.

Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, thank you for this opportunity. I would not want to make so many comments in view of the ruling by the substantive

Speaker that the

specific

amendments

will be attached

together

with

the Committee’s amendments. At that particular point, we can interrogate those

issues critically

and

thoroughly for the benefit

of this

House. I am

a bit surprised and taken aback that

anybody at this

level of legislation cannot understand the difference between the terms “physical planning” and “land use planning”. I cannot just understand how somebody cannot understand it at this level. Nevertheless, over time the terms “physical planning” and “land use planning” have grown and

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

metamorphosed. At the point of Independence, based on the Commonwealth definition, we talked about town and county planning. After that, in order to give it the thrust of the law and practice, we moved

to physical planning

as a process

of ensuring

there is orderly

use

of spaces

or land and there is orderly development of those spaces. Ultimately, the target of any physical planning framework is to achieve the best use of any piece of land or site, be it in the rural or urban area. When you talk about physical planning, it is all encompassing. We are talking about things like zoning where we state that this particular site will be devoted for agricultural use, commercial use, industrial use or residential use. Even if it is residential, is it high density, medium density or low density? If it is industrial, we are talking about offensive, inoffensive, harmful or related terminologies. That is basically zoning. At times, it can seem to relate

to land

use planning which concept the Senate seems to have had such a narrow understanding of. I am persuaded to believe, and this is with due respect to the legal fraternity, some technical legislation ought to be left

to the

technical

people who

understand the technical aspects.

The Senate is basically dominated by senior advocates in some sections who believe that

things must be done

in a certain manner.

Essentially, this

was a purely technical land

related

legislation. If they had sought the advice of land and development experts, they would not have got themselves into such an embarrassing situation to confuse “land use planning” with “physical planning”. When talking about physical planning in entirety, we are concerned about public health and public safety. How do we order our development to ensure

we maintain public health

and ensure safety of the occupants of the houses in terms of construction? That is why we

have

building bylaws that go hand in hand with planning regulations and planning systems. There are issues of plot ratios, site coverage and height restrictions. All those factors

are

considered under the Physical Planning Act. The new theory that has developed in this line is that when you talk about land use planning, we are more or less concerned with rural land use planning, and land use planning for purposes of rehabilitating derelict parcels of land. Essentially, I completely agree with the Committee and the Leader of the Majority Party that anything related to this particular change of term should be rejected ​ in toto ​. We need to have a session with the Senate to explain to them some of these technical aspects. We can volunteer before they go for mediation to offer lessons as part of public service. I support the Committee. Thank you.

Music to my ears,

Hon. (Dr.) Oundo. It is true that the term “physical” in the title in this particular piece of legislation has acquired technical significance over time. It means it has a long period of usage and it cuts across a lot of pieces of legislation. So to just change it overnight

will be doing

a disservice

to a

lot of other road users. Hon. Sankok.

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker for giving me this opportunity. In the Senate amendments, there is a change of term that will eventually affect the intentions of this particular Bill. I appreciate Hon. Oundo who has spoken because he seems to be intelligent in that

field and he has done

a lot

of research.

I advise the Senate to get some free

advice

from

Hon. Oundo.

I know he will give them freely because he is a very good man. When you talk of land use and physical planning, they are different words. In physical planning, we want to know entirely

how we

will

use

the

land

of this

country. Some places

will be

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

set aside for agriculture. As you may know, our population is increasing and soon each individual will probably own a quarter hectare of land if it is divided equally. If you have a quarter hectare with a house, cattle ​ boma and pit latrine on it, you will not have space for agriculture. So, physical planning is bigger than just land

use.

When

you

do

physical

planning of

towns, you set aside some land for settlement. As Hon. Oundo said, there will be low population density or high population density, depending on whether an area

is inhabited. There

will be middle

class

and upper

class. There

will also be a place for industries. This is important when it comes to physical planning, so that we know which industry is offensive and which one is not. When we talk of offensive, we are talking in terms of how much noise and waste

products an industry emits,

and how

harmful they

are to the general population. These are set up in areas where settlement

is low. In their physical

planning, most urban authorities set up such industries in areas they cannot drain their waste products into rivers. Some industries that manufacture biscuits or bread can be set up in any area. I support the Report of the Committee on Lands. Through you, I request the Committee to sit with the Senate Committee on Lands and educate them. These terms did not come accidentally; they were well thought by exerts like Hon. Oundo. Thank you.

​ (Hon. Christopher Omulele): Hon. Oduol Adhiambo.

​(Nominated, ODM): Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker. From the outset, I support the Report of the ​Committee. I commend the Chairperson of the Committee on Lands, Hon. Rachael Nyamai. The Report clearly helps us to look at the amendments to this important Bill. What was raised by the Leader of Majority Party and the Chairperson of the Committee, which is of great concern and makes me support this Bill, is the manner in which the Senate displays lack of seriousness in recognition of what the Bill is intended to do. When you look at the term “physical planning” and what we are dealing with, you will see

that we

are

referring

to orderly arrangements of land use or a systematic way by which there will be a framework, a policy and approach that will inform the way land will be used. Land use will be the actual activities that will be undertaken. If you, therefore, have a Bill that is titled

“Physical Planning”

in the context and background of our nation, not only at the national level

but

also at the

county

level, it is an opportunity to ensure that there will be no conflict. Without planning, there will be conflict in terms of land use, pollution by industries that will be located in residential areas and, as I have begun to see in Siaya County and other counties, loss of valuable land that had been zoned for agricultural production.

This land

will

be used to construct buildings and all other kinds of utilities which may not be relevant. Such scenario will not help to create harmony as we look for what is of interest. Therefore, having looked at the amendments that have been proposed by the Committee as well as the recommendations, I support them. I commend the Senate for flagging out certain areas with the aim of reducing

wastage of funds and

avoiding creation

of overlaps and conflict.

It is, however, unfortunate that the manner in which they seek to change the title of the Bill takes away a lot of serious contributions. My appeal to the Senate is that as they scrutinise Bills, it is important for them to see how the provisions in those

Bills will resonate with

what is happening

in the country. A key challenge we are facing right now is land being used without recourse to proper planning and failure to recognise that land use and physical planning are not synonyms.

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

Let us undertake orderly planning to clearly

show what we

intend to use

land

for,

what

the needs are and how we would like them addressed. Thank you.

Hon. Wachira Kabinga,

Member for Mwea.

​(Mwea, JP): Thank you,

Hon.

Temporary Deputy Speaker.

I rise

to support the Report of the Departmental Committee on Lands. I want to commend them for taking time to go through the Senate proposed amendments. Going through the 89 clauses that were proposed for amendments by the Senate was not an easy task for the Committee but they did it. It is worrying that the Senate can

take

nine months. This

is not the

only

Bill that

has taken time in the Senate, I am

aware

of other

Bills

that

are still pending

at the

Senate.

Something needs

to be done.

Member for Murang’a County, you have blocked the view of the Speaker on the Member for Mwea as he makes his contribution. Member for Mwea, proceed.

​(Mwea, JP): Thank you,

Hon.

Temporary Deputy Speaker.

I had

not noticed because I was serious with what I was saying. I wanted to highlight the fact that we are getting worried, as Members of Parliament, about the handling of Bills that originate in this House. When the Senate takes nine months to consider them, a lot of resources go to waste. Bills referred to the Senate are

subjected

to public participation and consultations. This is duplication of effort that is costing this country a lot of resources. I want to commend the Committee for carefully looking at the amendments that were proposed by the Senate and rejecting some of them while accepting others. In particular, I am impressed by the reduction of the membership of the

national

consultative forum to include only three governors, and the rejection of the proposal to have extra county consultative forums that would cost this country extra resources for no reason. I think it is high time that the leadership of the two

Houses sat

down and

came up with a

way of handling Bills originating from

either of the Houses without necessarily causing Wanjiku to lose much more resources and spending time, nine months. This Bill would have been in place. Some of the things that are proposed would now be in place

or would

be implemented by now. Having lost the period that we had in this House discussing this Bill and the nine months when the Bill was in the Senate and another period that we are going to spend to have a mediation committee before they agree for this Bill to come again, we are

denying

Kenyans

out

there a lot from some of these Bills. I am particularly worried that some Bills, like the Irrigation Bill which was discussed alongside this Bill, came from the Senate the other day and they made so many amendments to it. When you

look

at the amendments, quite

honestly, as it has been mentioned by

my

colleagues, changing of titles does not make

sense, more so when

you

change

a technical

title, a title that

has been thought by experts. You want to change it, you want to bring 89 amendments in almost 45

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

pages to prove and justify why you have taken that long; to prove and justify that there is need for these Bills to go to the Senate

and take

time there. It is high time

that

the leadership relooked at the way we handle Bills, especially when they are well discussed and thought of in this House. I support the Committee and their recommendations. Thank you.

Hon. Wanyonyi Kevin, Member for Kwanza.

​(Kwanza, FORD-K): Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, I get embarrassed when I look at this; very embarrassed indeed. Even the Oxford Dictionary would have given you the

answer

to this amendment.

So,

I do not understand

why

we have taken such a long time. I think our colleagues should even have had the courtesy of just checking the meaning to come up with amendments. Imagine, from what the Chairlady has mentioned, 89 clauses. In fact, I thought it was something else. The Order Paper is full of those amendments. To my surprise and that of my neighbour here who is an expert in this area because he is a physical planner, he has told me there is nothing they have done. Even those amendments that have been accepted by the Committee, we may relook at them and reduce further. This is not very good for colleagues in the next House. As far as I am concerned from my little English, in which I got Distinction 2, it tells me that what

they are doing is not

very good.

It is just a narrow way of looking

at things.

They want to be relevant.

I remember this

Bill was

here a year

ago.

It is

just undermining this House or trying to be relevant. To me, they view these amendments very narrowly. I think they just want to be relevant. In physical planning, you are talking about structures. Basically, that is what it is. You come up with a plan and come up with a structure which is physical: buildings, roads, landscaping. Those are what we are talking about. I think we are wasting so much time on this and it is costing the public. They have done this and we may now have to go for mediation, another two or three months down the line. And this is a constitutional Bill. Without wasting time, I will invoke Standing Order 95 to close this debate because there is nothing we are debating. It is just a waste of time. We will then want the Committee…

Hon. Kevin Wanyonyi, it cannot be possible that your contributions in this House can be a waste of time. Your contributions are very valuable. Every Member makes a valuable contribution.

​(Kwanza, FORD-K): Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, with all due respect, I have looked at the amendments proposed to the

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

I will give this opportunity to Hon. Hulufo Oda, Member for Isiolo North.

​(Isiolo North, KPP): Thank you, Hon. Temporary

Deputy

Speaker, for the opportunity. I would also like to thank

Members

of the Lands Committee

for a very

good job. It is unfortunate that the Senate has taken nine months to look at the Bill which was forwarded to them. It is even unfortunate that 52 of the proposed amendments relate to the proposed change of title from “physical planning” to “land use planning”. I fully agree with

the other Members who have spoken before me that the two terms, “physical planning” and “land use planning”, are different and one is actually a subset of the other. Land use planning could

be seen as a subset of the broader physical planning. I would like to know whether the staff who

are assigned to us as parliamentarians

give us adequate technical support

when

we

are

looking

at some

of these legislative issues.

This may

call

for broadening the disciplines from which we recruit staff so that when we are looking at some of these issues which are technical in nature, we are guided appropriately so that we avoid a situation where we make simple mistakes like the ones we are seeing here. Of course, by proposing those amendments, Senators have done their part. The only issue we have with what they have proposed is that they are inappropriate. Therefore, I fully agree with

the Committee of

this House in their rejection

of the

change

of title and

all other

changes

that

have come along

as a

result of the proposed change of title. There are a few areas where the proposed amendments by the Senate are good. For example, the suggestion that the membership of the National Consultative Forum should be reduced by having two representatives of CoG as opposed to having 47 CECs from all the 47 counties is something which is very good because in such forums, the lesser people the

better

it

is in terms of decision-making and the quality of discussions. It is also going to help us reduce cost. If we agree with that particular amendment then I will be comfortable with the one that proposes that we have a similar forum at the county level. The only

point I feel I need

not

agree with our Committee is that in as long as we reduce the number of CECs

in charge of land

in the National Consultative Forum, we should have a similar forum at county level. With those few remarks I support the recommendations of our Committee.

​ (Hon. Christopher Omulele): Hon. Nyikal.

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker. May I also commend the Committee. For it to go through

98 amendments over

a period

of time,

that is a commendable job. This is largely a technical Bill, but it was not handled technically. I say that because in the more than 40 amendments which were not actually technical, you find that there was general agreement in many of them. This means that were it not for the technical issues we would have had very

few amendments to look at.

So,

to that

extent, I would agree with

the pervious speaker who said we must look at the composition of the clerks in our committees. In legal terms, in terms of legislation and law the committees are very well constituted and have appropriate capacity.

However,

when

issues

come up

that

are technical outside

the

legal

domain you see these things happening. So, we may have to think that in some committees we get people who have a technical background to help those committees. The Senate is new and you cannot compare it with the National Assembly that has been in existence for many years. Maybe, they

need

more

of our

assistance

than blame so long as they will be willing to accept that support. The issue here is the difference between physical planning and

land use planning. It is so clear. Even if they just used

​ Google

it would have been so clear

that

in physical

planning, we

are

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

looking at proper human settlement arrangement. Here we are dealing with organised transport and proper infrastructure of buildings, roads, railways, social amenities,

including

estates.

It is so that there is harmony in existence. Physical planning has to do with promotion of health and safety. That

seems to be the

main

focus. It is a situation where they

decide

in advance what to do, where to do it and

when to do

it, with

what. It could be on

the

surface

of the

land,

under

or inside the land. Some structures can be situated underground. With regard to land use, it is the regulating of land use in a larger concept in the socio-economic environment to have an outcome…

Hon. Member for Tigania! Is that the Member for Tigania who has just crossed the Floor? The Member who is standing in the gangway, you cannot do that. You have to go right back and do the honourable thing. This is a House of order. Proceed, Hon. Nyikal.

So, it is the process of regulating land use to promote a desirable socio-economic environment and in a large scale. Here we are talking of where towns and cities are placed. We are talking of placement of dams and farms. What is farming land? What

is grazing land?

What is forestry? What

is wildlife? What

is tourism? All

the questions are asked when considering land us. It is about an economist’s

aspect and

I do not see

how they missed this point. However, I must say that they really lacked technical advice.

When

it comes to the mediation process, caution should be taken that there is proper technical advice. Otherwise, this mediation may be stuck on the

ground

of egos

and

feeling of power whereas this

is simply a technical issue. I thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker.

Hon. Nyikal, if you recall, the substantive Speaker gave a direction that when it comes to the mediation process under Article 113, he will be requiring that Members who will be going for that mediation should go there with an open mind to agree to give and take. They should not go there with a mind that they want to fight and show the other side that they are greater than them. All of us have a duty to this country. I think that the Senate has done its part. Part of the process of learning and teaching each other on what is correct and what is not is part of what we

are

doing

today. They have done theirs; we are looking at it and picking up from the weaknesses and strengths. That should be the way to go. It is not a contest between the National Assembly and the Senate; rather it is a joint effort to do what is right for the nation. I will give this opportunity to Hon. Kositany Caleb.

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker for according me this opportunity. Just for the record, I am a Member of the Lands Committee and

we went through this very thorough process of having this Bill passed. I want to commend the experts that we involved. I remember we invited the Institute of Quantity Surveyors of Kenya and the

physical

planners. We sat with

them in Mombasa and

went through every bit. Even the issue of the change of name came up. I do not want to go through what Dr. Nyikal has said but they gave a very similar explanation. What worries me is that it took our brothers and sisters in the Senate nine months to state that

the biggest recommendation

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

they would have on this Bill is the

change

of the title of the

Bill.

I would not want

to blame

them

but I think it is a wakeup

call so that

we determine whether they have the capacity to handle

such complex issues. This is, indeed, a very serious matter. As you have said, when we go for the mediation, we will definitely go with an open mind. We will welcome their views. We urge them, as we wait for the dates of the mediation, to do their research so that we

can

have

an easy engagement and dispense with this matter. When we sit in these Houses, we need to bear in mind that we are serving Kenyans. As MPs we need to be seen to be taking things seriously so that we do not take nine months to do such a simple thing. You can see not everybody likes MPs. You saw an article about us and so we should be seen to be taking our work seriously. We support this Bill and I thank my fellow colleagues in the Committee and the

experts

that we invited for their contribution that enabled us to come this far. Thank you.

Let us have Hon. Bunyasi, the Member for Nambale.

Thank you,

Hon.

Temporary Deputy Speaker.

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

If you visit villages

in parts of Northern

India, you will find they

have

set

aside divisional quarters with free Wi-Fi, where you

can

download

information. There

are halls where people

can meet with many radio stations. You can

get

around

like you

are

in New Delhi.

They

taught

about it in the physical and socio-economic sense. This is because land use planning and physical planning are sort of subtle partners. One derives from the other but for an experienced

hand

like Prof. Oundo, he knows that you can analytically separate them. However, in practice, they must be thought of conjointly. It is rare that you can close your mind entirely on one rather than the other. I think that

overall, the contributions of our Committee and

the effort of the Senate, in my view, have been largely complementary. I support the Committee’s Report.

Hon. Members, seeing no further interest in speaking to this, I will call upon the Mover to reply, Hon. Nyamai.

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker. On behalf of the Leader of the Majority Party, who has stepped out for some business also related to this Bill, I would like to thank the Hon. Members for the time they have taken looking at the Senate amendments and comparing them with what the Committee agreed and disagreed on. I would like to thank the Members for participating. This is an extremely important Bill.

When I was seconding the Motion, I said it is one of the constitutional Bills that needed to be passed within five years and it was given an extension of one year. I would like to thank each and every Member who has taken time to debate. I look forward to the Committee

of the whole House, hopefully tomorrow, so that we can go through the specific amendments raised and together as a House we will pass this law. I am

also

looking forward to the

mediation.

I would

like

to tell

the

Senate

that this

is not a

competition. We will look at all the amendments together

and

get expertise opinion. I am sure we will come with a Bill which is useful for this country. With those many remarks, I beg to reply.

Very

well

done

Chair of the Departmental Committee on Lands. I think the Report has been well received by the Members of the House. That

speaks for itself and

it is commendable. Hon.

Members, for

obvious

reasons, I will defer the necessary action on this particular business to such other time when it will be set down for consideration by the House. I, therefore, direct that we move to the next business, which is Order No.15.

​ (Hon. Christopher Omulele): Chair.

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity. I beg to move the following Motion: THAT, this House adopts the Report of the Committee on Regional Integration on Inspection Visit of the Namanga One Stop Border Post, Kajiado

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

County held from 7​th to 10​th April 2018, laid on the Table of the House on Tuesday, 13​th​ November 2018. The Committee visited a number of the one stop border posts across the country. It is important to note that most of them are facing similar challenges. Most importantly, the main reason why countries across East Africa came up with them

was to reduce transportation

time by saving up to a third of the time which was taken before.

We

have

made

great progress.

We went there and saw

how quickly

it takes truck drives dealing

with

export issues to cross from

Kenya to

Tanzania. This saves a lot of time and we saw how

seamless it was in both sides.

This

is something that is quite commendable for us as a country and region. While we were there, we met the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) officers who are the people who run the day to day activities.

We also met the community living along the Namanga border post and they raised various concerns. We know that before the one stop border points were created, people moved freely from one country to another doing their business. However, one of the challenges they raised is that

it has curtailed free movement of local

people who have small businesses which once thrived. Consequently, when we came back we met KRA officials from the headquarters so as to iron out some of the issues raised by local communities. One major issue was non-employment of community members at the

border

posts and failure to be awarded small tenders. When we met KRA officials, they pledged support for the local economy by ensuring that they will look at the issues of employment of the local communities for them to also be able to do businesses so that they can thrive. There were various observations that the Committee noted and they are of great importance for us even as a country as we continue to work and partner with our neighbouring country – Tanzania. Some of the observations that we noted is that there is need for better enforcement of various laws and conventions. There is improved understanding of different Government agencies’ mandates and the value of uniform application of procedures at different

borders. The communities and traders who crossed over to do business on the Kenyan side said that the treatment they were given is not the

same

kind

of treatment that

Kenyans received when

they crossed to Tanzania. The Committee then observed that there was need for the laws to be improved to ensure that both countries have a uniform application of the procedures on both sides. We also noted that integrating Kenyan and Tanzanian communities requires harmonisation of integration laws, especially considering the punitive action taken against the Kenyan people on

free

movement.

It was

realised that this

happens even

to ​ boda boda riders. We

are not saying that the Kenyan people should not abide

by the laws of our neighbouring country.

They said that the measures

taken

once they are arrested on

the

Tanzanian

side

are very punitive.

There is general lack of harmonised charges and fees on import permits

by various Government

agencies, for example, veterinary and Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS) and non-tariff barriers such as levies and

fees imposed

on

small-scale

traders’

exports

from Tanzania.

This is all about ensuring that we harmonise so that traders from both sides of the country can actually have the same treatment. We also noted that authorities need to anchor the joint border coordinating committee meetings under

the EAC framework to ensure

structured engagement

by

the

two

countries.

When we visited the Namanga One Stop Border Post, it was at the time when our neighbours, Tanzanians, had confiscated cows and chickens from Kajiado County. The communities did not

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

feel that it was the right thing to do.

They

also

felt that

there was

no cordial relationship between

Kenya and our neighbours, Tanzania. So, they said that the EAC spirit is not fully embraced by

the neighbouring partner states. The Committee also observed that the border community’s livestock issues were not handled in a very good way and that

the action taken had

created a rift between the two communities. We realised that it is important that whatever each of our countries does, it should ensure integration and not create a rift between the two countries. The small-scale women traders who sold beads at the border were restricted to certain areas of the Namanga One Stop Border Post and cannot access potential customers. So, even

as

we construct this very huge, beautiful and big One Stop Border Post, it should not affect the

and

the people who

actually used to freely

trade at the

border

post. It is something

which we have to protect as a country. We need to take care of our small-scale traders even as we look at the bigger picture of the country and how we generate revenue

and things

like those.

It is very important that we also focus on our small-scale traders who reside at the border posts. As I conclude,

there

are recommendations that

the Committee came

up

with.

One of them is that the Committee urges the Ministry of East African Community (EAC) to initiate and coordinate harmonisation of laws. We also said as a Committee that we will look at these laws and policies to be followed by the Government agencies to allow for mutual trade and harmonised charges and fees on import permits. The second recommendation is that the Ministry of EAC, in collaboration with relevant stakeholders, should urgently facilitate

standardisation of rules,

laws and operationalisation

of all border point procedures so that what is happening in Kiunga should happen in Namanga and Busia. We want the same thing to happen in all our border points and not that one area has different procedures from the others. The law on free movement of locals should be relooked into in order to allow the communities living within a radius of 15 kilometres to move freely without being subjected to rigorous exercises of producing movement permits. The Committee recommends affirmative action on employment of all locals on

the

basis

of the Constitution of Kenya. That is one of the issues that the communities that reside in Namanga actually said. We saw that it is fit that the local communities are also considered on youth employment and also be allowed to carry out small businesses such as putting up cyber cafes, cleaning or even running a canteen. It is important that it creates employment for the people of Namanga. The KRA should extend support in form of educational scholarships or support local tournaments as part of corporate social responsibility. We discussed that matter with KRA and they said they will look at those issues. The last one was allocate women traders some space inside the One Stop Border Post facility to enhance their trade. They should not feel that the Post came to destroy their businesses. Those were some of the issues that

we found when we visited, some

of the responses that

we got from KRA and the recommendations the Committee came up with. We will definitely work to ensure

and follow

up to see

that the

recommendations

made by

the

Committee

have been actualised and are followed up by the Ministry of EAC

and

KRA, who are

running

the One Stop Border Post. Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker. I now call upon the Vice Chair, Hon. Ruweida, to second.

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

Let us have Hon. Ruweida to second.

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker. There is need for better enforcement of various laws and conventions due to improvement of understanding of different Government agencies’ mandates and the value of uniform application of procedures in different borders with Tanzania. We also noted that, although the Chair has already given some of the

information

I am giving, there is need

for

more

funds to cater for sustainable maintenance and repairs of the One Stop Border Post. We noted that the East African spirit was not fully embraced. The small-scale women traders, as the Chair said, needed to sell their beads. We talked to the KRA and they agreed to give the women of Namanga a chance. I do not have much to say. I beg to second.

​(Hon. Christopher Omulele): Let us have Hon. Dennitah Ghati.

​(Nominated, ODM): Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker for giving me an opportunity to support the Report on the inspection visit of the Namanga Border Post. The Namanga Border Post is one of the border posts in Kenya. I am glad to be talking and supporting this Motion because I come from a border post town. I come from the Isebania-Sirare-Tarime Border Point in Migori County

and I can

attest that

these border posts

are in the spirit of the East African cooperation that we enjoy as a country. It is high time we commended the President for commissioning the Namanga, Isebania and Busia border points, among other border stations, that ease trade among the EAC countries. I commend the Chair of the Committee on Regional Integration for this extensive Report and especially the recommendations that we need to apply to ensure that this cooperation really works. There are communities that live within the one-stop border posts. At

the

Isebania

Border Point, there is the Kuria community that borders Sirare and Tarime of Tanzania. That is why I support the Chair’s point that there

is a lot

that

is needed to sensitise the community. Most

of the communities that live around the border posts of Isebania, Busia or Namanga are yet to fully understand the concept of those

border points

so that

they can benefit. At the border points, there are communities of women who are usually small traders hawking little things that do not add value. They always see those buildings. In Isebania, for example, they do not even move very close. They trade in very minute products. How can we, as a country, ensure that these women and the young people who live by the border points that earn this country revenue are capacitated, awareness is created to go into the offices and jobs are created for the members of those communities? I support the idea that we need to sensitise and engage the KRA. The KRA is making a lot of money and earning this country a lot of revenue through the border points. How can the KRA be mandated to make sure that a portion

of their revenue - even

if it is a small

percentage - goes to corporate social responsibility and support women, young people and communities that live within the Isebania, Namanga

and Busia

border areas,

so that they

can

benefit

and

know that

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

this is a project that is embraced within their community and does not belong to the national Government? We need to also ensure that the people who live within the borders are given a leeway. The Chair talked about a certain perimeter. We have a radius. If, for example, I come from Isebania, I must be given some radius

of distance where I can

operate

without

being

subjected

to

a lot of torture around the borders. We need to sensitise the Customs officials. We have seen situations whereby trucks of oil stay at the border points for almost three or five days without proper paperwork to ensure that the trucks carrying fuel from Mombasa going to Tarime, Tanzania, quickly transition and pass by the borders so that

they continue doing their

businesses. The border points are in the best interests of trade in this country. It is good we are talking about Tanzania. You are aware that Tanzanians are a little bit sceptical when it comes to their engagement in business with Kenyans. They always think that Kenyans are extremely capitalistic, rough and want

everything for themselves. How then can we ensure that even within our own Customs and the East African countries, we bring in opportunities to sensitise our people so that they are able…

​(Hon. Christopher Omulele): Hon. Dennitah, I am sure your intentions are noble. The Republic of Tanzania is friendly to the Republic of Kenya. We shall maintain cordial discussions as far as it concerns the Republic of Tanzania. I request you to withdraw the comment that they do not consider Kenya as very

friendly to their business

enterprises.

​(Nominated, ODM): Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, allow me to withdraw. I border

Tanzania. I come from

the Isebania Border

and they

always

think that we are a bit too strong. Let me use that word. We are too aggressive and strong when it comes to looking for business opportunities. That is why I suggested that it is high time we created that atmosphere so that our brothers from the other side can feel that we are in a mutual relationship. That is the intention of the EAC. From my experience and what the Chair of Committee on Regional Integration mentioned, the one stop border posts should be strengthened. These border points generate a lot of revenue for this country. The Isebania-Tarime Border Post collects over Kshs200 million for this country. That is a lot of money. It is high time we invested heavily in our borders. As a country, we do not give a lot of emphasis and attention to borders yet that

is where goods come in and people come in to engage in business. We do not pay attention to the border points. Around Isebania, for example, we need to see

a lot

of activities

going on.

Those

are the counties, constituencies and borders where people are supposed to be rich. There is no point of people being poor yet a lot of money is collected within the borders of this country. As you are aware, the World Bank recently granted Migori County Kshs500 million to upgrade their areas into municipalities. I was extremely disappointed to see that a post like Isebania which generates over Kshs200 million for this country was not given a municipality status. The World Bank had released that money. Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, it is a shame because that is where we bring business to this country. I support the Report that seeks to reduce

the hurdles that

are there at the

borders,

so that we can

move

together.

We

need

to create awareness

among the officials and communities

on the benefits of the border posts like Isebania and Busia. We need to create opportunities for our young people to get employment within the border posts. There is no point of the young people roaming the streets when we have big structures that generate a lot of money in this

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

country and in our borders. Our youths do not benefit from that. It is a source of income. It is high time the Committee on Regional Integration seeks for ways to strengthen income

level

and

employment for our youths. We need to get ways to strengthen investment opportunities at the borders through the EAC. I support the Report.

Very well. Hon. Wanyonyi Kevin, Member for Kwanza.

Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute.

I am not a Member of the Committee, but

I want to take this opportunity to thank them for what they have presented to us. There are things to stress. One is their recommendation which is the mutual trade between Kenya and Tanzania, which I support. There is also the decentralisation of the border posts. There is a long border line in Moshi all the way to the border in the north. It is good to have a standard way of manning our borders. I was in Namanga and I was impressed by the movement of people from

both sides.

It is good to have

a standard way of looking at each other.

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

friendly, so that we can do business with Tanzania. It was the second country to Uganda which was doing business with us. I understand that trade has been going down of late, but we should

adjust that with this joint border committee. I support the Report.

(Hon.

Christopher Omulele): Very

well.

Leader

of the

Majority Party.

Thank you, Hon. Temporary

Deputy

Speaker for giving me

this

opportunity to contribute. I have

been

waiting

for an opportunity

when we will have a report to discuss matters concerning the EAC. I really want to commend the Committee because this Report is only on the inspection visit to the Namanga One Stop Border Post in Kajiado County, which was opened by our President and the President of Tanzania. It was opened to facilitate easy movement of goods and people between the two nations. It is manned by Customs and Immigration officials from both Kenya and Tanzania. It is supposed

to enhance

the economic, social and political integration of the EAC, which I fully support. It is also commendable that the Single Custom Territory Programme has been rolled out under this programme. It is a full attainment of the Customs Union, which is achieved by the removal of duties and other restrictive regulations or minimisation of internal border Custom controls when it comes to goods and services. They move from partner states with ultimate realisation of free circulation of goods. Is that the true position? It is not.

I want to go on record that the

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

the Committee on Regional Integration to go on a fact-finding

mission to Isebania and

Busia. All

animal feeds in Kenya come from Uganda. There is maize in the country from Uganda. President Museveni is coming to Kenya tomorrow, I am told. At one time he said that Uganda is the biggest trading partner of Kenya. If you look at the Kenyan market,

the

small

and medium traders are being fought in the country by the multiagency team on account of counterfeit goods and now our partner states have blocked Kenyan companies

from

selling their

products in Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi. It is more in Tanzania

where

standards are

altered arbitrarily and taxes raised by the Tanzanian Government which also denies Kenyans work permits. There is no goodwill from Tanzania. We must call a spade

a spade.

We are not in

the East African Community marriage to be a flower girl. We want to be in the East African Community so that our businesspeople and professionals access that market. If that is not the case, then I ask the Committee and Government that any goods from Tanzania, be they

oranges

or anything

else, must first

be certified

by

the

Kenya

Bureau of Standards. The

Government

must stop it. If Tanzanians are saying that goods from Kenya must be certified by the Tanzanian standards body, we must tell Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS) officers based in Namanga, Isebania and all the other border points to stand up and insist that before

oranges

or other goods get here, they must get a certificate from the KEBS. Secondly, if Tanzania can raise taxes arbitrarily, outside the framework of the three common markets revenue tariffs agreed by the revenue authorities and the ministers of finance, then Kenya must impose stiff tax rates on goods coming from Tanzania. It must be an eye for eye. Kenyans who get jobs in Tanzania are not given work permits. You remember our cows crossed to Tanzania and were auctioned while our chickens were burnt. We are not inferior to Tanzania. That is a Government that burnt our chicken! That is a Government that auctioned poor farmers’ hard-earned

livestock

from

Kajiado County!

The earlier, the

better.

We

want

to tell

the Tanzania Government that we are not in this House to do the business of selling ​ mitumba ​. We are here to represent our people. I ask the Chair of the Committee to do a fact-finding mission. Let her go to Namanga

and see,

on the Tanzanian side, trucks

in a five-kilometre queue. She will also see no truck on the Kenyan side. She will only see empty Tanzania trucks going back to their country. We must protect our people and our economy. We are

in the East African Community Common Market in good faith. If they want to play games with us in the East African Community, just like the Britons are struggling to exit the European Union,

we

can

call

for a referendum to determine whether we

should

be in the

Community

or not.

In fact, we

do

not

need a referendum in Kenya. We are a big economy. The

budget

of Tanzania,

Rwanda,

Burundi and Uganda… At times, I must speak as a Member for Garissa Township. This is a Report from a Committee and this is the story that is out there. If you

talk

to the

Kenya

Private Sector

Alliance

and the Kenya Association of Manufacturers, you will be told that ordinary people who do thriving business in Isebania and Namanga are now experiencing bad business.

Their businesses

are dying because of unfair practices. Every day, I have been looking at the Order Paper to see where I will get an entry. Today, the House looked empty. So, I was worried that when you propose the Question maybe there will be nobody else to speak. So, I had to rush here. The Chair is a lady I have a lot of respect for. There are those who used to say that pastoralists are conservative. They can now see what pastoralists have brought to the House; Hon. Lesuuda, Hon. Sophia and Hon. Sara. We want Hon. Lesuuda to take lead and save the business community in our country. Let us support our President so that

when he goes

to the East

​ :The electronic version of the ​ Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A

African Community Heads of State meeting, he can say that he cannot leave because his Parliament has issues with member states. The Committee can go to Farmer’s

Choice. They

can

go to Safaricom and talk

to a corporate lady, Ms. Mulinge, who won

a job

to work

for Vodafone, Tanzania. The moment she reported in Tanzania to work for Vodafone as the Chief Executive Officer - she was not going to Tanzania to work for the Tanzanian Government - she was told there was no work permit. Finally, I will file a Question. We must be told what we are gaining from the EAC. Kenya joined the EAC because it was a very big economy, but our partner states have played monkey business. Our people have been blocked from accessing markets in Tanzania because the taxes have been raised. They cannot access jobs because they are denied work permits. Tanzanians are everywhere. It is very easy to tell Tanzanian businesspeople in Kenya. I beg to support, but I challenge the Chair that this thing… In fact, somebody should bring a Motion to

discuss our status, our

position,

our

role,

our

gains

and our

failures

in being

a partner state

within the EAC. I rest my case. I support.

Leader of the Majority Party, you have spoken with a lot of panic as it were

in this

particular subject. I am

sure

you

must

be alive to the ethos and the

spirit

of the

East

African

Community

cooperation

and I am

sure

you

must be alive - and the Chair too - to the underlying principle of non-preferential, technical barriers and

non-tariff barriers