Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 357530,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/357530/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 143,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "remind this House that if we get it right now, all of us will reap the benefits of the devolution that we have been yarning for. I support this Bill because the Constitution provides that in the process of sharing of resources between the two levels of government, a minimum of 15 per cent of the national revenue should go to the counties. Although the National Treasury has not agreed with Commission on Allocation of Revenue (CRA), they have adhered to the constitutional provision. The National Treasury has even allocated a little more than the minimum requirement of 15 per cent to counties. The National Treasury has also allocated 25 per cent of the national revenue to counties. Allocation to the Equalisation Fund, which should be a minimum of 0.5 per cent of national revenue, currently stands at 0.6 per cent. There is also a conditional grant of 7 per cent. The grant of 7 per cent brings what goes directly to the county to about 32 per cent instead of 15 per cent. Those of us who were in the last Parliament had been fighting for the CDF to be given above the 2.5 per cent that is required by the law. The law just talks about the minimum. It has been so difficult previously to have it above the 2.5 per cent. In some instances, it has gone slightly above the 2.5 per cent that is required, but that was after a spirited effort by this House to ensure that more devolved funds and resources go to the grassroots. My colleagues have talked about the issue of having Committees. This House, while debating this Bill, does not benefit from an in depth assessment of the Bill by the relevant Committee. If this Bill had gone through the relevant Committee, I am sure this House would have been informed by the report of that Committee. My quick assessment shows that an estimation of resources going to each county based on approved formula by this House, at least, Kshs236 billion should have been allocated to counties. When you look at this Bill, about Kshs198 billion - and I am being informed that it might have been revised to Kshs204 billion - if we had a Committee of this House going through this Bill, it would have negotiated with the National Treasury and CRA to ensure that that a maximum of Kshs236 billion goes to our counties. We would have given our counties better than what they are getting now. Hon. Deputy Speaker, I want to support this Bill. Although the Allocation of Revenue Bill is not here, it is good that when we get it. The Senate will have given its recommendation. This House is allowed by the law to add more resources to counties that may need to get more. That should not be pegged on the conditional grant that will go to the counties. They should not be part of the county government funding or share. I plead with this House that when we get that Bill, without anticipating debate, we go through it clause by clause to ensure that the right amounts go to the counties. I am more concerned with the Equalization Fund. In this Bill, it is indicated that 0.6 per cent will go to the Equalization Fund. The issue of the Equalization Fund is not meant to benefit all the counties, but it is meant to benefit those regions that have lagged behind in terms of resource allocation and development. If you look at the proposal which is there now on which counties are to benefit from the Equalization Fund, you will be surprised. Previously, we used to have the Ministry of State for Development of Northern Kenya and other Arid Lands which dealt with the ASAL areas which were seen to have been marginalized either by omission or commission in resource allocation. But when CRA listed the counties that are supposed to benefit from the Equalization Fund, counties listed"
}