Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1157838,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1157838/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 218,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Seme, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr.) James Nyikal",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 434,
        "legal_name": "James Nyikal",
        "slug": "james-nyikal"
    },
    "content": " Thank you, Hon. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this Motion. I rise to support the report on the mediated version of the County Governments Additional Allocation Bill. I support it because basically, it increases the flow of funds to county governments. That is something we always support in all forms and ways. Sometimes we disagree politically, but we are in agreement that the funds should be sent to the counties. This Bill gives room for additional funding to projects that we think should be supported by funds from the national Government like in the health sector, although some of the funds have not been used well. For example, some of funds in the Managed Equipment Services (MES) have been used for education services. Therefore, giving additional conditional grants is useful. Secondly, this Bill makes provision for county governments to receive grants and loans that come from our development partners that do not go directly in the Division of Revenue Bill. That is important because support from development partners should be seen to support counties. In fact, that is where most of these funds should be channelled to. That is a good thing. Moreover, this Bill has been expanded to provide that there can be agreements between counties and development partners, although such agreements have to pass through Parliament. That is an important thing. It is also important that this is not a one-off Bill, so that then from time to time, we will consider a Bill of this nature. As indicated in the Bill, this will be an annual Bill that will be introduced together with the Division of Revenue Bill. It, therefore, means that every year, during or after passing the Division of Revenue Bill, we will look at areas that need support either from the national government or from development partners, and allocate more funds. That way we will not have delays in the disbursement of the funds. The Bill also provides for equity. If you look at it carefully, we can see the amounts of money counties will receive on top of what they have been allocated through the Division of Revenue Bill. It also belies a very important point; that when we consider the Division of Revenue Bill after approving the Budget Policy Statement (BPS), it means that somehow we do not have enough information on what the counties need. That is the only way we would quickly find out that there are areas not catered for, so that we cater for them. That is a good thing. In my view, and I have said this before, it speaks to the functionality of the Intergovernmental Budget and Economic Council (IBEC). It is at that point where discussions between the national and county governments, and the Commission on Revenue Allocation (CRA) take place. That is the point at which it should be clear which areas need to be supported, way in advance before we consider the BPS and the Division of Revenue Bill. In the long run, if we get that right, we may not need this Bill. Such areas will be taken care of in the Division of Revenue Bill. As we progress, devolution is work in progress. We learn more and more. If we have this Bill annually, it will show us direction on the additional support that counties need. With those remarks, I support the report."
}