Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 509326,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/509326/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 67,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Prof.) Nyikal",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 434,
        "legal_name": "James Nyikal",
        "slug": "james-nyikal"
    },
    "content": "barely above the Kshs1.2 trillion ceiling. Why then are we going to a ceiling of Kshs 2.5 trillion, double what we require? The Report itself indicates that normally we do this by about 50 per cent. This one we are going by 100 per cent. The Sessional Paper indicates that this is merely for planning. Honestly, anybody who has done any planning will realise that you cannot plan by more than double of what you need, and you have calculated. So, why are we going for Kshs2.5 trillion? Anybody who has cared to read this Report, the Report’s observations actually indicate that this is excessive borrowing all through. If I may read a few points on the Report itself starting with observation No. 1, it indicates clearly that the only excess we need in the worst case scenario is only Kshs8 billion. The Report further indicates in observation No. 2 that we normally do this by about 50 per cent. However, we are now going for 100 per cent. Observation No.3 indicates clearly that the Constitution obligates us to look at the level of borrowing so that it is within reasonable limits. As you read the observations, you can see that the Committee is not satisfied with the level of the borrowing ceiling that is being indicated. In observation No. 4, the Committee notes and takes into account the current stock of domestic borrowing and fully appreciates the extent of Kenya’s public debt. The Committee is worried again in observation. No. 6 where it says: “Despite the rebased GDP under current variable debt ratios, the Committee cautioned against excessive borrowing on account of the proposed debt ceiling.” All through, the Committee’s Report indicates that this is excessive borrowing. Then suddenly, out of the blues, the recommendation is that we should borrow Kshs.2.5 trillion. My colleagues, let us put politics aside and be guided by the content of the Report, and not just the final recommendation. It is clear to me that the Committee is acting on other information and forces, but not what they have noted themselves in the Report. My colleagues, particularly the ones in Jubilee, I know many times it is politics, but in this particular case, we must start cautioning Committees. I have seen that Committees make very good observations and they have very good facts, but when they come with a recommendation, it is not concurrent with what they have said. What is happening to our Committees sometimes? Hon. Speaker, let us be guided by the facts in this document. I appeal to my colleagues that we reject this Report. I oppose this Report not because we do not want the country to borrow to spur development; we need it. But how much do we need to borrow? I would, therefore, recommend that we reject this Report and take it back. Let them come back with a recommendation of somewhere between Kshs.1.5 trillion to a maximum of Kshs. 2 trillion. That will make sense. We are talking of billions. My colleagues, do you know what a billion is? If you spend a million per month, you will spend it for 83 years. That is what you will averagely earn from a billion for 83 years. We do not just consider these as simple points. Hon. Speaker, I oppose this Motion and recommend that this Report goes back and is brought to us with reasonable figures based on facts and not whims that I do not know where the Committee got them from. Thank you, hon. Speaker."
}