HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 437052,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/437052/?format=api",
"text_counter": 286,
"type": "other",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, one of the reasons I find it very difficult to support this Bill as it is, when you look at the schedule to the Bill which is not amended, because we amend what is in the Bill, you will find that the total shareable revenue according to the schedule is Kshs1.026.03 trillion. That is the figure that we have in the Bill. There is nothing about the latest audited statements that are here in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. That figure for 2009/2010 audited revenues approved by the National Assembly serves only one purpose. It gives the National Assembly and the Senate a condition, which is a minimum 15 per cent threshold. It is therefore, upon this House realistically to look at the conditions in the country as they obtain now, not as they obtained in the year 2009/2010. The national Government is asking us for taxation measures and budgetary reallocations based on the current economic conditions. That is why I am talking about the instruments which are supposed to be placed before the House. Why is it that when it comes to the counties, we want to use the pre-existing conditions which were prevailing during the Financial Year 2009/2010? Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Senate should come out loudly on this. This is a function that you have; that when you see that the counties are not being given their fair share of the national revenue which is collected, then the Senate should say so. So, just as the Chairperson of the Committee on Finance, Commerce and Budget will move amendments to this Bill, I am afraid to say that similarly, even some of us will be forced to make amendments at the Committee Stage in order to make sure that the allocation of revenue raised nationally between the national Government and county governments are based on some parameters which will make sure that there is fair distribution of these revenues. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, if we go by the revenue which was collected in 2009/2010 on the basis of sharable revenue, we will starve counties. I know, for one, that in the counties that were marginalized and in conditions where the Equalization Fund is not forthcoming, if you use the figures of 2009/2010, we would be starving the counties of the money and revenue they need for purposes of making sure that there is development in the counties as required, not only by the objectives of the county governments themselves, but also for the good of the entire country. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, in considering this also, I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the counties only have this Senate to rely on because the National Assembly deals with budget making, but without the focus on the counties. So, we can make sure that a true reflection of the share of revenue granted to the counties and to the national Government. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, if you look at the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution and the functions which have already been devolved – from agriculture, health and even lotteries, which, probably, do not consume revenue – we are trying to give the county governments a very bad deal, if I can use that word. The Senate should stand up to be counted to make sure that counties get a fair share of the national revenue. The worst case scenario would be on the basis of revenue which was collected last year. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, historically, if you look at the year 1963 onwards, it is this kind of behaviour on the part of the national Government in relation to the counties that led to the collapse of the former devolved system of government that was known as The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}