Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 554655,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/554655/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 267,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Prof.) Nyikal",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 434,
        "legal_name": "James Nyikal",
        "slug": "james-nyikal"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Speaker, all of us have said that Article 95(4) provides very clearly what should be done as far as the National Assembly is concerned in the division of revenue. Article 96(3) states clearly what should be done with the county revenue. As you had indicated, Article 218 then brings those two together. Therefore, we have to find a way of going round it. As indicated in the Budget and Appropriations Committee where we sit, we have noticed that the real issue is the process. The Public Finance Management (PFM) Act in sections 187, 189 and 190 seeks to correct this. It creates the Intergovernmental Budget and Economic Council (IBEC) but the membership has people from the county. The governors and the county executives are there. It is also clear in section 190 on the process that should be followed in the PFM Act sections 187, 189 and 190. Under section 190, it says that whatever comes from those where the governor has been represented will go to the National Assembly and will also go to the Senate. From then it is not clear what the Senate will do with that document until the division of revenue is done whereas for the National Assembly, it is clear what needs to be done. In my mind, this is the point we should pay attention to. Therefore, before the Budget Policy Statement (BPS) comes, it is my view that we should put in a better process that brings information from the counties as far as their needs are concerned. This way Senators can get an idea and it goes back to the National Treasury. When it comes to the National Assembly for the division of revenue which is preceded by the BPS, then we have a very good idea, the Senate may have put an input at the beginning of what the counties need. As it is now, the BPS gives a pretty good idea of what the national Government needs but gives nothing to this Parliament as to what the county needs are except going by the Commission of Revenue Allocation (CRA) criteria and also the provision of the Article of not less than 15 per cent. In other words, the division of revenue is done by us in darkness as far as the county needs are concerned. Therefore, we are looking at a way of bringing that so that by the time we have the BPS we also have some information from the counties as regards their needs. That is something we must do. For me, that is the key. If we get that into place, then we do not need---I know we are all looking at what we can do if there is a stalemate. Again that is not provided. I can see we are looking for amendment in that area but I think prevention is going through the suggestion as made. As far as the source of funding for the extra money we need is concerned, I will go by the principle that everybody has said that choices have consequences. Thank you."
}