Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1126945,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1126945/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 424,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Amos Kimunya (",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 174,
        "legal_name": "Amos Muhinga Kimunya",
        "slug": "amos-kimunya"
    },
    "content": "Kipipiri, JP): Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker. I rise to support this Bill and thank the Budget and Appropriations Committee (BAC) for having quickly considered it over the weekend. From the discussions by Members, the Bill raises a number of issues that need to be dealt with during the Committee of the whole House. It is good that we, at least, record our appreciation for the work they have done. From my reading of the Bill, it basically has a twofold function. First, it attempts to approve, in retrospect, what was done through the Division of Revenue Bill of 2021/2022 earlier in the year. We passed the Bill and allocated money to counties as conditional grants and to the national Government. I do not understand why the Senate wants to do this. The Speaker clearly alluded to it in his ruling. He stated that the Senate has no power in terms of appropriation of money. That power is resident in this House. In any case, we already appropriated that money. When I see that one of the objects of the Bill is to appropriate money for the 2021/2022 Financial Year and they even go ahead and schedule a list, I see mischief in that the Senate is trying to start the appropriations process through the back door! It means that next year, they will come up with another one for the 2022/2023 Financial Year, allocate some sums and force us to agree with them. We need to agree upfront that you do not put in law that this amount will apply for this year unless it is an Appropriations Bill. We already have the Appropriations Bill that gave effect to the 2021/2022 Budget. I want to see how the BAC will handle that, so that when we come to the Committee of the whole House, we delete all references to 2020/2021 and just leave the generic issues in terms of how they will appropriate conditional grants to counties going forward. We cannot go back in time because we already have a law that covers that. I do not see their rationale because we are not in a vacuum. This House already appropriated that money and it has already been disbursed. They are trying to schedule and put in law that these are the donors and all that. Supposing all of them change, what will we do? Will we bring back the law and amend it because the funding agency that has been scheduled in Clause 4 has changed? If any of those things happen after we pass the Bill, what would happen? The Bill currently states that conditional grants must be received from certain people. That is poor drafting. It is an overreach by the Senate. Perhaps, it is a misunderstanding. We will give them the benefit of doubt in terms of their mandate and what they were trying to do. I heard that there was a court ruling that said we should not mix division of revenue with conditional grants. That does not mean that we go back. Why 2021/2022? Why not 2020/2021? That is my first concern and I would wish that the Budget and Appropriations Committee does bring an amendment to remove any references to the particular year, or allocation for a year which we have already dealt with through the law. Be that as it may, I believe the second date to facilitate the transfer of conditional allocations made to the counties flows very well. Reference being made to the year is something that we commend them for including."
}