Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 742983,
    "url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/742983/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 86,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "levels, must be presented before the two Houses of Parliament. One of those Bills is The Division of Revenue Bill. Article 218 (2) of the Constitution says that the division of revenue between the two levels of Government – the national and county governments - must take into account a number of factors. These include the national interest, the public debt and other national obligations, as well as the needs of the disadvantaged groups and areas. Therefore, this Bill has satisfied itself with the requirements of Article 218 (2), with regard to the criteria. The second point is in connection with the history of this Bill this year. Broadly speaking, we have had a bit of tumult and a lot of turbulence on this matter. When you have a Bill as important as this one, it is expected that there would be push and pull, especially between the two levels of Government; the centre, of course, trying to hold as much as it can and the units which are the counties trying also to get as much resources as possible so that they can perform their respective functions. Mr. Speaker, Sir, there is nothing unusual about this. The first year, of course, we had to go to court and get an advisory opinion by the Supreme Court. That advisory opinion helped to clear so many things. We are grateful to the Supreme Court. On that occasion, they came to the defence of the law and the Constitution. This Senate owes a lot of gratitude to the bench that gave that very clear advisory opinion. The successive years were less acrimonious but this year’s Division of Revenue Bill has been uniquely protracted. Briefly put; there have been three figures at play. The first one says that the 47 counties of Kenya should share Kshs291 billion. That proposal emanated from the National Assembly. The second proposal that has been floated in the push and pull around the Bill this year is Kshs299 billion. This figure was a proposal from the National Treasury of the Republic of Kenya. The third and final figure has been Kshs314 billion, which is the figure pushed through after careful consideration by the Senate and concurrently supported by the Commission on Revenue Allocation (CRA) which is the expert body that advises Parliament, including Senate, on matters of revenue allocation. Mr. Speaker, Sir, those are the three figures that have been at play. Therefore, the fact that the two Houses disagreed is normal and that is why the Constitution envisages mediation. What is surprising and a bit inappropriate – I use that word “inappropriate” deliberately because it is not in order once a mediation process has gone through whatever the outcome, for a republishing of the Division of Revenue Bill using the exact figures that were rejected by the mediation of the two Houses. I find that extremely contemptuous and an abuse of the parliamentary process because at the very least, I would have expected that the new Bill that is published will have alternative figures perhaps slightly higher in the spirit of trying to bring consensus and arriving at a finalisation of this important national duty. Mr. Speaker, Sir, that notwithstanding, we have before us this Bill which proposes the same figure of Kshs291 billion as the lump sum figure for all the counties. The way forward for us in this House is to do what our friends in the National Assembly did not do; which is to move this debate forward by looking at the three figures that have been"
}