HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1441029,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1441029/?format=api",
"text_counter": 105,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Kikuyu, UDA",
"speaker_title": "Hon. Kimani Ichung’wah",
"speaker": null,
"content": "those issues. Principally, the last point that I added was that this being a money Bill, we must get the concurrence of the National Treasury. There is reason as to why the drafters of our Constitution, Article 114, put that particular provision of concurrence with the National Treasury. If you read that letter, it points to provisions of the law as it is. Prof. Ndung’u, who signed this letter, is not referring to anything that is outside the law and the provisions of our Constitution. He refers to Section 39(4)(c) of the Public Finance Management Act, which requires that any increase in expenditure in a proposed appropriation is balanced by a reduction in expenditure in another proposed appropriation. He goes on to quote Section 45 of the Public Finance Management Act and other sections of the Act which provide that if we are to reduce the proposed Revenue Estimates, then, concurrently, something must give in. I said that on Tuesday. If we reduce taxes that are proposed to be the revenue raising measures to finance the Budget that we have adopted, then we must find a way of reducing the expenditure side. If you do not do so, you will increase the fiscal deficit. I was hoping that Prof. Njuguna Ndung’u would point out that we passed a debt ceiling in this House. We cannot go beyond what we have passed in this House. The National Treasury cannot borrow beyond a ceiling that we have set by law in this House. Therefore, if you are asking that we reduce the revenues but we do not touch the expenditure side, then you are simply telling the National Treasury to increase the fiscal deficit against the law. We cannot act against the law. We are the lawmakers but we are not allowed by the Constitution to act ultra vires the Constitution. Therefore, I want to agree with Hon. Opiyo that the Cabinet Secretary could be pre-empting debate but the CS, Njuguna Ndung’u, is not engaging in debate. This is an advisory opinion to us. He is reminding us that we need to abide by the Constitution and by our own laws. Hon. Speaker, the Leader of Minority Party spoke to the need, and he has asserted so emphatically that you would want to believe him; that, the right thing is to do a supplementary budget. That is wrong because you cannot begin from a mistake. You cannot break the law at a particular stage and then fix it with a supplementary budget. A supplementary budget should only come in once we have, in the first instance, abided by what is provided for in the law. We have not burst our fiscal deficit as stipulated under our Public Finance Management Act. If in the course of implementation of this budget, there are additional expenditures that would lead to bursting of that fiscal deficit, then we can call for a supplementary budget. At this point, we cannot be talking of a supplementary budget. What shall we be supplementing if we are even yet to pass the Appropriation Bill? We need to pass the Appropriation Bill and the Finance Bill so that we complete the budget-making cycle. Once you complete the budget-making cycle, you can do a supplementary budget. However, we cannot complete a budget-making cycle against the law, and that is what Hon. Opiyo is telling us to do. Hon. Speaker, it is my humble submission that this letter is in good standing. This is the way it is. On Tuesday, when this report was being tabled, I said that someone once quipped that choices have consequences and in law-making, the same is true. If we choose to cut on our revenue raising measures, as the Departmental Committee on Finance and National Planning is proposing, then there will, definitely, be consequences. I am fortunate to have been in this House in the last Parliament. Hon. Wandayi, who raised this issue, and Hon. Junet were in this House in 2018. You will all remember the contentious Uhuru second Finance Bill. It was equally contentious. You will recall the debate about fuel then, and specifically the proposal to increase Value Added Tax from 16 per cent to 8 per cent. When we did the revenue raising measures Bill in the form of a Finance Bill, we had to consequently adjust the expenditure side. Therefore, it is not the first time that this is happening, and it will not be the last time. 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."
}