Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1275770,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1275770/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 294,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Cheruiyot",
    "speaker_title": "The Senate Majority Leader",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13165,
        "legal_name": "Aaron Kipkirui Cheruiyot",
        "slug": "aaron-cheruiyot"
    },
    "content": "Last but not least, is the conversation about anchoring the public debt as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in present value terms. This will ensure the consistency we have been looking for and promote sustainability in public debt. On two occasions when I have had the opportunity to vote on public debt, I voted against the decision to place it on a static figure. I followed through this conversation and I appreciate that those of us who held the view that having our debt measured as a percentage of our GDP in net present value is a better and consistent measure than putting a static figure of, for example, Kshs5 trillion, Kshs10 trillion or Kshs9 trillion as has been the case. I am glad that finally we have been listened to and that is the proposal coming. Why do we argue so? If you look at many countries that measure their debts using this particular model that we want to adopt, you will realise that they appreciate that economies fluctuate because they are not static due to certain reasons. Today you could be doing so well as an economy, like many global economic power houses were before 2020. However, when something like COVID-19 comes up, do you rush to Parliament to make adjustments or do all these proposals? I do not think there is a difference in how you should run public debt and personal finances. If you know that you are doing well economically, you can walk to a financial institution, give the justification and borrow against your own expectations. Basically that is what we are saying, other than tying a figure around your head knowing that at any given time you cannot borrow beyond, let us say, Kshs1 million or Kshs2 million. Therefore, I appreciate the wisdom of the committee in agreeing with that proposal. I have explained that the committee has proposed an amendment in terms of the reporting mechanisms. Even if they did not, Article 211(2) already states so. It speaks to the Houses of Parliament and not any House. Whatever games were being played on that particular part of the Bill, even without our committee pointing out, our powers are safely secured. We shall continue to demand that reports are brought to this House. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, I appreciate and hope that as a House, we will conclude on this particular Bill, so that we await the regulations where we shall answer many questions. If you read through the report and the presentations, it has been promised that in subsequent regulations--- I agree with the need to anchor some of these provisions by having regulations rather than through legislation because while it is difficult to make many amendments, you can always argue this or that way with regulations and amend them with more ease without having to hold our economy at ransom. Therefore, with those many remarks, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time and ask Sen. Ali Roba, the Chairperson of our Committee on Finance and Budget, to second."
}