Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1520178,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1520178/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 169,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Nandi County, UDA",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Cynthia Muge",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Again, I appreciate the Bill because it has extended the sunset clause that was capped at 20 years ending in a few years. Why do we support that it continues? The aspect of the monitoring and evaluation has been missing as much as the Equalisation Fund has been here. Therefore, we have not been able to equally bring on board all sub-locations and locations that are still marginalised. They need a boost in development. I also have a problem with the identification of the projects. You will find that if there is a road that cuts through three constituencies, one constituency is listed as a beneficiary of the Equalisation Fund. When budgeting, they should consider allocation for a road starting from point A through to points B, C, D, E and F. Do they do this? You find that a road ends where the constituency boundary ends. Due to this, we are unable to end marginalisation in that community because we have not constructed the road to the desired point F. We need to have a better understanding of what the Equalisation Fund is supposed to achieve in the long run. Lastly, I always have a problem with a statement written in every document regarding money that says, “You have to use the recent audited accounts.” If we perused these documents to see the last audited accounts, we would be surprised to see the year they were officially audited. This means we are denying marginalised areas an opportunity to get more money. We can avoid a situation where a marginalised constituency is getting Ksh20 million whereas money can still be channelled to that kitty for a good project. The Equalisation Fund should sort out pertinent issues and not minor ones. Devolution was supposed to sort out both minor and major problems in the counties. The Equalisation Fund should be critically scrutinised by the beneficiaries so that we can prioritise one or two major projects. If we allocate money to a project, we should not talk about that problem again. I am looking forward to the Committee of the whole House on the Bill because I have some reservations. I feel that we can improve the clauses in the Bill, so that it can effectively and efficiently serve the purpose it was meant to serve from the word go. I appreciate the work of the Committee and the Bill."
}