Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1458154,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1458154/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 347,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Seme, UDA",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr) James Nyikal",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "example, a house burning, toilets sinking, or some other emergency for schools, they quickly respond. It is important that the definition of an emergency be broad so that the Fund and the committees are not restrained. As it is, when people are in need, they cannot use the Fund. If I may give an example, we had a Government school that had been constructed on land that had not been properly purchased. We had put money aside to fence the school only to realise that the land owners had gone to court and were threatening to repossess the land with the buildings. We utilised the emergency fund and later that was questioned. It was said that that was not an emergency. However, in my view, that was an emergency. So, the definition of “emergency” should be broad because this is a Fund for the people and they should have access to it. It should not be strictly controlled to an extent of preventing its quick use. There is a recommendation on partial completion of projects. It is important that when a project is funded, it is completed. What usually happens is that, sometimes the NG-CDF Board allocates money that is not enough compared to what was in the proposal and it then says that it will allocate more. As much as that is good, it actually delays projects. That is why we are going to have partial completion. This will work, particularly in urban areas where schools need to be enlarged with double-storied buildings that cannot be done at one go. So, we should ensure financing of such projects is done appropriately and adequate money is given, at least, within two financial years for the project to be done. There is also a recommendation on a policy framework of costing projects. I agree with them on that one. However, there is implementation that is going on within the NG-CDF Board that we should look at very carefully because it may give us problems. They are setting up an office for architects and quantity surveyors that will look at the proposals that have been done. I foresee a problem – maybe it is too early to have the office – if all the 290 constituencies will be making their proposals and Bills of Quantities (BQs) then they are scrutinised and approved by one office. That will be a big bottleneck. The office may respond by opening many offices of quantity surveyors and architects but that will be duplication. In all counties, there are offices of quantity surveyors and architects. We should just improve our relationship with those offices in the counties so that they help us. The problem is that they tend to charge very high fees, which in turn increases the overheads. However, that is something that can be addressed at the national level. I am against this recommendation of having a single office that will scrutinise all the proposals. It will be a bottleneck. That is something we should look at very carefully. It has been recommended that there should be better coordination between the Office of the Auditor-General…"
}