HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 233620,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/233620/?format=api",
"text_counter": 169,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Muturi",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 215,
"legal_name": "Justin Bedan Njoka Muturi",
"slug": "justin-muturi"
},
"content": "Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, Sir. I believe that the Minister will take up the advice you have given him. Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is important that we mention some of the issues that the Minister made reference to, one of which is the fact that the Treasury is developing what he called the \"comprehensive Budget law\". As a House, we would welcome that initiative but, of course, we would want a situation where these, again, are not just statements of platitude. We want what the Minister says on the Floor of the House to be something that can be actualised, so that we can be able to follow it up, as representatives of the people. The Minister did admit, while initiating debate on this Bill, that he was concerned that we were only, as a House, able to scrutinise, through the Committee of Supply, seven to eight Ministries' Votes. That is a matter of grave concern. The principle of no taxation without representation would be lost when the House is not able to scrutinise the Votes of as many Ministries and Government Departments as possible. We welcome the Minister's announcement that he is looking into the matter by way of developing a comprehensive law that will involve this House prior to presentation of the Budget so that, indeed, we will not have to take so much time debating the Budgetary proposals given that we 3884 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES November 22, 2006 will have had occasion to give our input. Of course, we must live by the law as it is. I quite agree with you. Guillotine is one of the procedures that are within the law and our Standing Orders but, of course, we are entitled to our view, which would be to state that it is, in this day and age, an archaic way of dealing with Budgetary issues. Indeed, as the Minister himself admits, he would want the House to give as much input as possible to the Budget process, and yet, we still have the Guillotine procedure. Mr. Speaker, Sir, there is an issue that has arisen. We are making appropriations today but when the Budget was, first read here in June, the Ministries, the Ministers and the Assistant Ministers were not as they are today. So, as we do this appropriation, it means that there will be some money which will have to be spent on the extra Ministers and Assistant Ministers, who were not there. We must keep asking ourselves: Are we adding value to the process of governance by having such a bloated Executive? Is it worth it? Is this merely for the Government's political survival in the House? If this is, indeed, meant to beef up the numbers for the Government in the House, should the Minister not be concerned that, even as we debate this Bill, the Front Bench on the Government side is almost half empty, notwithstanding the recent new inclusions in the Government? One must be asking why we have kept increasing the number of Assistant Ministers to the extent that it is now becoming very difficult for the Committees of the House to function because, literally, almost everybody on the Government side of this House is now either a Cabinet Minister or an Assistant Minister. Mr. Speaker, Sir, it is within the Treasury's mandate to advise the President that we need to tone down the number of Ministers. We would want a situation in which the House is vibrant without necessarily being negative. I want to support the proposal by the Minister for Water and Irrigation. We do not necessarily have to oppose every proposal that comes from the Government because, not all proposals that come from the Government are bad. In all Commonwealth Parliaments, the Government side is known to have its numbers but the practice today is that if, for one reason or another, certain Members of the Government are not present in the House, the Government Chief Whip and the Opposition Chief Whip do something called \"pairing\" to ensure that those in the Government continue to govern. So, I want to go on record as saying that it is not always the practice that we will oppose that which comes from the Government. There are occasions when the Government comes up with very good ideas. The creation of the Relief Fund, for instance, was a good idea but, as you can see, it is now being fumbled through non-implementation. Mr. Speaker, Sir, an issue did come up recently. Transparency International did indicate in its last publication, that the Kenya Government lost close to Kshs85 billion in the last financial year, through procurement. That must be a matter of concern. It is a matter of concern to me because this very House debated exhaustively the Public Procurement and Disposal Bill, and to the best of my knowledge, it received Presidential Assent. But for close to one year now, it has not been operationalized. In it, it is the Minister for Finance who is supposed to give the commencement date of that law. When we debated that law, we thought that we were creating a law that was going to make it slightly more difficult for those involved in public procurement to pilfer public resources. When we hear these kinds of reports and the law is still not in operation, we get concerned. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Sir, as a consequence, I want to appeal to the Minister to move with speed to do what he is supposed to do in order to make that law operational. It is through public procurement that most of the mega scandals that we have read about have happened. If, indeed, we are serious about curbing corruption in this country, then the Minister for Finance must take it upon himself to ensure that the Public Procurement and Disposal Act, 2005, commences to operate. Indeed, the Minister had given a directive that so many Government vehicles which were November 22, 2006 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 3885 being used by various functionaries, \"junior\" Ministers and other fellows be surrendered back to some pool. How are those vehicles going to be disposed of? If there is going to be any disposal, we would want it to be carried out under the provisions of that new law. If, on the other hand, they are not going to be disposed of, we have certain Government services that are in dire need of transport. This includes, but is not limited to, particularly, the Ministry of Health, the police and security mechanism in this country. Indeed, I will be proposing to the Minister that, even before he thinks about the disposal of those excess vehicles, he should consider those particular Government services; those dealing with security and health. Day in, day out, in this House, we keep asking Questions about ambulances and this kind of transport for certain health institutions in the country and there are no ready answers for these Questions. If, indeed, the Minister's directive has been obeyed, then I think we should be seeing some method for redistribution as opposed to disposal. With those few remarks, I beg to support."
}