Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 357471,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/357471/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 84,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "The Bill is trying to let Parliament be an arbiter between the CRA and the Treasury. I think this is something that we need to resolve. A closer reading of the Bill indicates that definitely there was a formula that was arrived at by the Tenth Parliament. If that is the case, then the Treasury ought not to have come up with a different suggestion in terms of how we are supposed to do the division. If at all that is what the Tenth Parliament did, and we have to go by it, then it means that some contributions to the Bill might not be very necessary. These are the items that have been introduced including areas where the Treasury says we need to cross-check with what Parliament had passed last year. There are some breakdowns that I feel are very necessary. Some of these breakdowns, particularly when we are talking about allocations to hold counties harmless--- While many Members have a problem with the definitions, what this thing basically implies is that there are certain programmes running currently that we do not injure when we allocate monies for the next financial year. What the Bill needed to have done is to give us a list or indicate to us what these projects are in whatever counties so that we have clear indications in terms of figures. For sure, the idea is fine but we also need to ask ourselves whether or not this is something the CRA did not foresee. We only hope it is not something that is not going to be open to Parliament. There are quite a bit of inconsistencies in the Bill. There are also repetitions. There are inconsistencies, for example, where it has been indicated that all the functions have been transferred and yet on the other hand the Bill is giving exemptions in terms of things that are not yet transferred. In Table 4, there are repetitions. Look at B(8) we have “Other Constitutional Commissions” and in C we have “Pensions, constitutional salaries and other”. In my view these are things that we could streamline so that we avoid the duplication and inconsistencies. Finally, if we went ahead and came up with the development portfolio for the Kshs154 billion for the counties, we would be doing much more good. If you look at the Estimates there are two Ministries, one dealing with national co-ordination and the other one on devolution. These two take close to Kshs190 billion. They are getting more than the total allocation we are giving to 47 counties. If you look at those two Ministries critically, you will realize that they have functions that are transferable to the counties and if that is done we would have more money going to the counties than what is allocated in this Bill."
}