Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1550642,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1550642/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 573,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Seme, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr) James Nyikal",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Discussions about the Division of Revenue Bill are usually the same every year. The only thing left is for the Senate to disagree with the Bill. We will then form a Mediation Committee to iron out our differences. I am actually waiting for that to happen. If we have the same discussions and disagreements with the Senate every year, there is something wrong. We need to address that. The Budget Policy Statement (BPS) does not include what the counties need. It is, to a large extent, based on what the national Government needs. The BPS is very detailed and is referred to the committees. With regard to the allocations to the counties, we wait for what the Commission on Revenue Allocation (CRA) will bring us. I will suggest to the Chairperson of the Budget and Appropriations Committee that we should try to solve this problem as a country. Hon. Atandi, I suggest that we try as much as possible to assess the needs of the counties when we are making the Budget. The Commission on Revenue Allocation (CRA) and the Intergovernmental Budget and Economic Council (IBEC) should, at that point, look at and inform us before we come up with the Budget Policy Statement (BPS). They should tell us the needs of the county governments. This can be based on two things that have been discussed here. Firstly, it is the costing of the functions. We talk about it, but we have never done it. There was an attempt in 2013, but it was not done because the Transition Authority that was responsible for it did not complete it. It is still an argument. We have never costed the functions that were devolved to the counties. Secondly, this cost will change every year. If we are using something that was done in 2013 and it was not done properly, and some functions were not costed, this is where our problem is. I have a suggestion that the new Budget and Appropriations Committee can take up. Even if we need to restructure or fund CRA and IBEC, they should make an effort to cost the functions of the county governments. Once they do this, we should cost them regularly. If not, before we make the Budget every year, CRA, IBEC and the counties should tell us their needs. We may not meet them just like we do with the national Government requirements. Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) present what they need, but we cannot meet all those requests. Therefore, we have a ceiling. We should apply the same principle here. If the Budget and Appropriations Committees take this up, we will stop this argument that we have every year. There is also the issue of the Equalisation Fund. If you look at the schedule, it is information that is placed there, but it does not contribute to the calculations at all. The new Budget and Appropriations Committee, under the new Chairman, can actually help us address this. Something should be done about the Equalisation Fund. It comes with a percentage of 7.8, and then there is a rise of 2.7. If there is such a huge rise, then are we really serious about it? The parts of the country entitled to it have been complaining since it started. If it has never been used satisfactorily, we have to look at it. If you cost the functions and estimate the needs of the counties each year, we may not even need the Equalisation Fund. The counties that need it will be a clear indication that their needs are high. 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."
}