Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1565581,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1565581/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 266,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Osotsi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Having said that, I also wish to agree with the position taken by the CoG. While there has been a marginal increase in shareable revenue to counties over the last five years, a closer analysis reveals a disparity. Counties have seen an aggregated increase of Kshs70.9 billion, whereas the national Government has Kshs702.6 billion. Again, this falls far below the 15 per cent constitutional threshold. There are clear disparities in this Bill. Madam Temporary Speaker, I recommend that as we proceed, we propose an increase in this allocation. The figure should either match our original proposal in the BPS of Kshs465 billion or be raised further to account for the rise in non-discretionary expenditures. These include levies, the enhanced NSSF contributions, County Aggregation and Industrial Parks (CAIPs) investments of Kshs250 million per county, funding for CHPs, the Doctors' CBA and medical equipment. Moreover, Article 229 of the Constitution, which governs audited reports, is clear. The court ruled that the Houses of Parliament, which is the National Assembly and the Senate, and county assemblies, must process the audited reports within three months of their submission by the Auditor-General. This means that the most current audited reports applicable in this case should be for the financial year 2024/2025. However, the financial year being used here is 2020/2021. This again is unconstitutional, given the court’s ruling. If the correct audited reports were applied, counties would receive a higher share of allocations. This denies counties substantial funding, as we are relying on reports that are three years behind schedule. Ideally, we should be discussing the audit report for the financial year 2023/2024. Furthermore, the proposal in this Bill on the distribution of the Equalisation Fund falls short of the provision of the Constitution. The figure proposed in this Bill on how the Fund will be shared falls far below the constitutional recommendation. While discussing the Equalisation Fund, we must address the persistent delays in transferring the funds to county governments. As we speak, a staggering Kshs2.7 billion remains in arrears. What is happening? It is unacceptable to have such a significant amount in arrears while discussions continue about further allocations to the Equalisation Fund. Madam Temporary Speaker, we must look at this Bill very critically. If we want to protect devolution in this country---"
}