Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 655521,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/655521/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 517,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, when I look at the content of this Bill, I realize that there is not much that we can do because once we have approved the revenue sharing formula, then that is applied on the equitable share that has already been determined by the Division of Revenue Bill. We are setting aside Kshs301 billion which is 32 per cent of 2013/2014 audited revenues. I have previously argued that we should not peg the equitable share on the approved audits because we are getting kshs301 billion from 2013/2014 audits, yet according to the law, the 2014/2015 audited reports should have been adopted by the National Assembly. If we were to use that, then counties would obviously get more than Kshs301 billion. We must speak out against the delays by the Auditor-General to conclude audits and present them to the National Assembly. The National Assembly and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) should not delay in concluding these audits and have them adopted by the House. If the Auditor-General released his reports by 31st December and the PAC did its job dutifully, then we would not be basing this revenue on the accounts of 2013/2014 but 2014/2015. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, we passed an amendment when we were discussing the Division of Revenue Bill in this House to base the revenue growth factor for purposes of allocation to counties on 15 per cent, which was the average revenue growth. There was an amendment that was brought by Sen. (Dr.) Khalwale, which we passed as a House, but I do not know at what point it disappeared. We have now gone to the 7.9 per cent that was proposed by the National Treasury. I want to urge my colleagues that the new Constitution places a prime role on the National Assembly and the Senate, in matters to do with budgeting and allocation of revenue to counties. It is not enough for us to accept a position simply because the National Treasury has held that particular position. In fact, we fail if we uphold the position of the National Treasury against the position for the Commission on Revenue Allocation (CRA). Appendix (1) of the Bill only has two views; the view for the CRA and the view of the National Treasury. You rarely find some input by the Committee on Finance, Commerce and Budget to say that CRA recommended 15 per cent, the National Treasury recommended 7.9 per cent and Senate recommended 10 per cent. We must take our role more seriously. On conditional grants, if counties are getting an equal allocation, how is it possible that the managed equipment for some counties is working and operational while in other counties the equipment is just lying somewhere? Could the difference be an issue of competence? If everyone has been given talent in equal measure in the form of managed equipment, why is the equipment working in some counties and not working in others? In some counties, the equipment is still covered up in polythene. I propose that in future, we must look at the level of utilization of this equipment. I know that it is a lease and we will have to pay for it whether we use it or not. I now see some of the reservations that the Council of Governors (CoGs) had. Since it is a lease, if you do not use it in the first and the second year, you will still pay. This is a cost to the taxpayers. We must revisit The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. Acertified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}