Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 526445,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/526445/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 277,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "I was in my county yesterday and was looking into the running of the Ward Development Fund. We have created Ward Development Committees and a Division of Revenue formula so that all the money for development goes to a Ward Development Committee. Why were we creating devolution? Is there need for the Ministries at the county level? Basically, they are asking for the money so that they create a parallel system of administration. They also want to run it as the CDF and to continue paying salaries. I fear that if we create a parallel council system that goes to the local level, you will be denying the counties the functions that they are supposed to do. You will be creating duplication and running the risk of increasing overheads. Already, counties are struggling to have enough money for development. You will be pushing them again to have more overheads. Is it possible for Eng. Muriuki and the Committee on Agriculture and Livestock to find a middle ground where you have the Council to look into standardization, issues of regulations and so forth but leave this as a small narrow body at the national level which is not cascaded with too many offices? The other issue is what the Senate Minority Leader talked about; marrying functions of the Council if it must be there with the one of the entity under the Agriculture Act which amalgamates all bodies that deal with agriculture issues. You should ask yourself if you will not be running the risk of every crop having its own Council and at the same time creating too many entities. One of the struggles we are dealing with in this country is too many parastatals, increasing overheads at the expense of using money for development. I am giving a critique to the Committee and to my friend, Eng. Muriuki so that they look at it. Section 11 says that the Council may, in consultation with the Cabinet Secretary impose levies as part of measures to raise funds to enable it carry out its functions. Counties under Article 209 (3) of the Constitution have been given the responsibility to collect certain fees and levies. Are we denying them a source of revenue in the imposition of those levies so that we take them again to the Council at the centre and deny the county a possibility of getting levy from potatoe transporters? We need to think through that so that we do not run the risk of finding ourselves in constitutional challenges. Section 19 says that there shall be established in each county - in the First and Second Schedules - a Committee to be known as the County Potatoe Council. Why can we not use the existing structures within the counties that deal with agriculture, potatoes included so that we do not end up micro-managing? I was reliably informed by Sen. Ndiema that some of my concerns have already been addressed. My main concern, initially, when I read the Bill was the fact that it was listing certain counties that would sit in the Council and benefit from the resources because they are the leading potato producers. I am glad that the Committee has already worked on that. I could be the leading potatoe producer and even Nairobi could be the leader because urban agriculture is a major thing in the world. Potatoes could be produced in Nairobi so that a county which is not leading today could be the leader in 10 to 20 years time. I am happy that the Committee has already worked on that. If you must create an entity at national level, you will each have a certain number of representatives but avoid a situation where you are going to classify specifically which 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."
}