Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1394938,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1394938/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 172,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Seme, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr) James Nyikal",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": " I rise to support this Bill in principle. This Bill is key to devolution. This Bill will support the whole area of devolution. Schedule 4 decides what counties do. If you look at it, the concept behind it is co-operation and not an adversarial arrangement. That is the only way it can work. The role of the national Government is to make policies and standards; and that of county governments is implementation. In reality, you cannot split the two. Even if you take what is almost completely devolved, like health; the policies and standards are still at the national level. Whatever counties are doing must relate to what is happening at the national level in terms of public policy and keeping standards. There is no way we can say that Schedule 4 clearly delimitates what each level of government will do. It is not practical. Therefore, this always calls upon the two Houses to co-operate because the standards and policies will eventually pass through this House. That is why when you look at Committees, they often find themselves almost clashing. There is a Health Committee in the Senate. There is a Departmental Committee on Health in the National Assembly. You wonder why because, when it comes to standards and policies, the Departmental Committee on Health in the National Assembly Committee must look at what is happening. When it comes to implementation, which is on the ground, to a large extent Level 5 hospitals downwards, the Senate is responsible. Sometimes, it is not that there is competition, but that what we do not have is a clear delimitation. It is not possible unless we agree and put it down. We will look at those details in this Bill. In my thinking, the issue of an Upper House and Lower House has been an adversarial point for no reason. The bicameral arrangement in Kenya is different from bicameral arrangements in other jurisdictions. The concept of an Upper House and a Lower House does not exist in our jurisdiction. What purely exists are roles. It was stated that the Senate takes care of the interests of the counties. The one area that has come out very well is the impeachment of governors. They have done a good job in this regard because they have stuck with that role and protected the counties to that extent. That is their role. Maybe, the only area where issues of an Upper House and Lower House may come in is the impeachment of a President. In that one, the National Assembly can initiate the impeachment of a President but it must pass through the Senate. That may bring about the relational aspect of Upper House and Lower House between the two Houses of Parliament. Otherwise, it does not exist. The courts have taken advantage of our adversarial relationship. They find it easy when we do not agree in advance on Bills that land in their chambers. As a Member has said, the Parliamentary Service Commission that belongs to both Houses pays. It is a bit ridiculous. The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor"
}