Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1012241,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1012241/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 380,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Orengo",
    "speaker_title": "The Senate Minority Leader",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 129,
        "legal_name": "Aggrey James Orengo",
        "slug": "james-orengo"
    },
    "content": "Senate in trying to determine matters that relate to the Equalization Fund, which is very important. During the debate on the formula, I remember that many of the people said that we can pass the formula as it was and wait for the passing of this Equalization Fund. This meant that this Equalization Fund was going to address some of the issues in relation to areas that were marginalized, and so on, and so forth. Therefore, it is still my belief that the board must have the approval of both the National Assembly and the Senate. If not the two Houses of Parliament, then at least the Senate should approve. The other suggestion that was made by the Committee that I beg to differ with is that the chairperson of the Commission on Revenue Allocation (CRA), or a representative designate invited by the chair should be a member of that board. The commission has a constitutional role which is clearly spelt in the Constitution. They are the ones who sit down and make recommendations to the board. The same independent constitutional body is going to sit in that committee and have a voice in whether to accept or reject the recommendations of the CRA. I thought that was like making the prosecutor sit in the judgement throne. We have seen the problems that we had with the CRA. I support the fact that we should have an independent constitutional body, but we had issues when it came to their reports. We were able to do that because we are sitting in judgement over their recommendations. If they are going to be part and parcel of determining whether the recommendations of the CRA is accepted by the board, I think that this will result in the committee being driven by the CRA, rather than having an independent committee which would look at the recommendations of the CRA. I hope that the Committee would agree with me on that question. If you look at the role of the CRA under the provisions of Article 204 of the Constitution, they are not ordinary responsibilities. There are responsibilities that require them to do certain things. Even on matters of appropriation in relation to this Fund, the recommendations of the CRA must have some import in the decisions of Parliament. This issue was contested in the High Court, and the decisions of the National Assembly were not accepted by the court on the basis that they were required to follow the recommendations of the CRA. That is a matter that I hope we will have some kind of consensus on when we go to the Committee stage. The Controller of Budget also made some recommendations, which I think the Committee has generally accepted. We are creating too many bodies, which will consume public funds. This Equalization Fund is supposed to have a structure starting from the ward up to the national level, which is a replication of what is there in regards to the National Government-Constituencies Development Fund (NG-CDF), to the structure of the county governments, and the structures of provincial administration. These structures can be very costly to the taxpayer. I hope that the recommendations of the Committee will find favour with the Senate when we come to making a decision on this particular Bill. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are going through a very trying period in this country. You can see how much we fight when it comes to resources. You can see that The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}