Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 676966,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/676966/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 210,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Tonui",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1242,
        "legal_name": "Ronald Kiprotich Tonui",
        "slug": "ronald-kiprotich-tonui"
    },
    "content": "responsible than the Executive. That is because they are elected. This clause is not in the best interest of the provisions of the Constitution. I oppose it. There is an issue on Clause 9 which intends to remove the issue of the independence of the Office of the Auditor-General. It is saying that the National Treasury will be specifying the accounting procedures to be used by the Auditor-General. The National Treasury is actually subject to audit by the Auditor-General. This is not going to be a positive issue. It will be important to be relooked into. It is introducing changes to a previous Bill we approved. We were trying to make the Office of the Auditor-General very independent. Now, we are introducing the clause that the National Treasury will control the Auditor-General. If we want to deal with issues of corruption, then the Office of the Auditor-General needs to be truly independent. What is in Clause 9 is not friendly. Clause 5 of this Bill is a friendly one. It says the Budget Office needs to provide capacity on the budget-making process to county assemblies. The National Assembly is rich in experience because it has been there for a longer time. It is important we have this capacity-building programmes being undertaken by the Budget Office of Parliament to assist county assemblies budget issues. We may need to bring an amendment to ensure the sequence of implementation of projects is followed when counties are paying their pending Bills. It should not be based on the friendship of those in the Executive and the contractors. There should be clear procedure so that bills that come early are paid before subsequent ones. The idea of prioritisation of payment of pending bills must be inbuilt in this Bill so that it is fair. I have also noted that this Bill is mainly targeting county governments and omitting the national Government. The national Government does not consist of angels. If there are problems in the counties, there are similar challenges in the national Government. I do not believe that it is fair when we say we will need to insert the word “county” under Clause 32 so that we leave out the national Government. We should simply talk about all the institutions, those under the national Government and the county governments so that there is fairness when we are dealing with resources. This is because when we do not use the resources very well either at the county level or at the national level, it will not be fair to our people. We must use the resources we have in the best interests of our citizens. I also welcome the idea that the National Treasury will be disbursing money to the counties on a monthly basis rather than on a quarterly basis. This is friendly because taxes are collected on a daily basis. At least, they can be harmonised within one month and the counties can now receive their share of the national revenue. This is going to be friendly. It will ensure that the services in the counties are offered regularly in a much organised way. I support that. I have not been able to digest this Bill well because I believe it is being rushed. I do not know the interests. The issue of external borrowing should be well clarified. We can use all the funds we are borrowing externally for capital development. I welcome that. If we do that, the debts can easily be repaid but it is not going to be orderly if we use it in other activities that are not generating income. So, this is in order. It is a very good part of this Bill. There is one provision I was expecting to see which I am yet to see. I am still perusing through this Bill because it is an ambush. The President promised the tea farmers of this country that all the levies in the tea sector will be removed. I was expecting to see it somewhere in this Finance Bill that the tea levies which are currently oppressing our tea farmers will be removed, noting that it is only the tea sub-sector which has not been subsidised by this Government. We normally hear that the sugar sub-sector has been allocated Kshs1 billion or Khs5 billion. The The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}