HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 250079,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/250079/?format=api",
"text_counter": 254,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Okemo",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 198,
"legal_name": "Chrysanthus Barnabas Okemo",
"slug": "chrysanthus-okemo"
},
"content": "Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think the exercise that we are engaged in today is basically a logical consequence of what we did when we debated the Supplementary Estimates. Therefore, what the Minister ought to do is to take serious account of the comments raised by the hon. Members. This is in relation to future Supplementary Estimates and Budgets. This thing called \"other expenses\" should be more detailed, so that hon. Members will know what it is. I stand here to support this Supplementary Appropriation Bill. I wish to say that there are two main reasons why we have Supplementary Estimates. I think they are relevant in this particular case. The first reason arises because of unforeseen circumstances. In our case, we are talking about the drought and the emergency food that is required by our people. Secondly, the Minister mentioned, in his comments, that the expected donor funding did not materialise. So, these two things happened, and we had to have Supplementary Estimates. To legalise the Supplementary Estimates that we approved, we should pass this Supplementary Appropriation Bill. That is obvious because the real meat is what we discussed during the debate on the Estimates. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think, in future, directionally, as a nation, we must make an effort to try and move away from this huge split of about 80 to 85 per cent Recurrent Expenditure and 15 to 20 per cent Development Expenditure. There is no other way our economy is going to grow if we continue in that fashion. I recognise the fact that the Government appears to do something about the reduction in the workforce. That is the biggest single item in the Recurrent Expenditure. It has its political consequences. The immediate political consequences may not be very good, but the long term, from the national point of view, I think it is in everybody's interest and benefit that we devote more money to development so that future generations and the economy can grow. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, sometime in the past, the Minister for Finance said that he had not factored money from our development partners and that our Budget was going to be funded 100 per cent by our internal resources. Obviously, that was untrue. Part of the reason why we are having these Supplementary Estimates is because donor funding had been factored into the Estimates and that donor funding has not materialised. We should be transparent and tell Kenyans the truth. It is May 4, 2006 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 959 nice to say that we do not get money from the donors and it looks like we are being independent. However, on the other hand, quietly, we are sneaking in figures which later on, when they do not materialise, we have to know the truth on the Floor of the House. I, therefore, believe that if donor funding is factored in, let it be so said explicitly and let us know about it. If it is not, then let us say so also. I support the Supplementary Appropriation Bill and I hope that the Minister for Finance is going to be more realistic in his coming Budget by taking into account the actual external funding that will be necessary to fulfil or fill up the financing gap because there will be one. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not want to put a relationship between the Budget and the Constituencies Development Fund (CDF). However, I think it is important as a matter of clarity - and I say this with a very strong passion - that it does not matter whether 20 or 30 per cent of the total Budget goes to the CDF and 70 per cent goes to the Government provided there is harmonisation between the use of the CDF funds and the Government's budgetary implementation, so that we end up knowing what the left hand and the right hand are doing. At the moment, the reason why the Government is screaming is because it is very difficult to know whether you should emphasise on health in a particular area because you have put in your main Budget. Then you say there will not be enough money to take care of that. However, if there is some form of harmonisation, I believe that the two arms of expenditure; the CDF and the central budgeting, should be complementary. We must stop pulling in the wrong direction. Therefore, the question of whether it will be 5 per cent or 7.5 per cent is not really a reason the Government should give for saying one way \"yes\" or \"no\" on the other way."
}