Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1291340,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1291340/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 250,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Cheruiyot",
    "speaker_title": "The Senate Majority Leader",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13165,
        "legal_name": "Aaron Kipkirui Cheruiyot",
        "slug": "aaron-cheruiyot"
    },
    "content": "Take a look at the fertilizer subsidy programme and the coordination and agreement in the schedules. I hear many people argue that they see resources remain at the Ministry of Agriculture. If we continue the way this Bill is structured, soon such conversations will be of the past. Much as you want to centralise certain things on policy, despite the fact that many people, especially our colleagues from the minority side may not like to see any coin remain with the national Government for obvious reasons. Would it make sense for each county to be left on their own to import their own fertilizer? Or you would rather centralise it, have standards and determination of what is due. If you read through the schedule, based on the 2019 censors, each farming household unit per county is listed and there is a weight to it. This weight is the factor which informs the bags of fertilizer due to a particular county and the resources follows the same. If it was left to be procured, it will be costly for the simple reason of the economies of scale. It makes more sense to place a more significant order. This is a no brainer. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, I like the spirit of cooperation between national and county governments in the Bill where it makes it more affordable. It actually gives better advantage to the people we represent. Sometimes we tend to blur the lines and forget that there is only one taxpayer who does not have two pockets from which he pays one to the county and another to the national Government. When they pay taxes they expect that ‘we’ that serve in Parliament, will have the financial discipline to determine for them what is the best and prudent ways to get services closer to them. I like the proposals in the Bill of including the reporting mechanisms put in place. This is a new model of drafting our Bills which I want Members to take note and be cognizant of, especially Members that serve in Committees. Many times we consider Bills and we give huge responsibilities to Cabinet Secretaries without demanding that they come back to this House with a reporting mechanism on how they are executing those responsibilities that we have given unto them. I like the fact that this Bill proposes that in the 15th of each month this House will be furnished with reports of how much resources under this Bill have been sent to our counties. This is an important tenet. There is a good culture that is long lost in this House and I have drafted a letter to the Controller of Budget on this. I feel as Senators, we are not making the best use of that office. Previously, when you went to the Senators lounge you would find a huge pile of books on expenditure and Exchequer releases to our counties. This culture has since disappeared. Hardly do you ever find those books. Many colleagues would struggle to tell you the last disbursement that went to their counties. Yet these are figures and statistics that will help you appreciate whether your governor is being prudent with the resources that you fight so hard to ensure they go to our counties. We should interact and invite the Controller of Budget (CoB) to this House, so that we take her to task on various issues happening in our counties. You can control financial propriety in our counties, including who gets paid, for what services at what time, using the office of the CoB. Then we are not just reduced to morticians of waiting"
}