Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 798407,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/798407/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 289,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "In any event, we also need to take into account the political culture that underpins our assemblies. Governors have a lot of powers. If you think that you will tinker with the governor’s budget, you will be in problems. You will be blacklisted. It will be very hard to obtain consensus amongst your MCAs to be able to change the budget. We also know instances where county governments have operated without a budget when MCAs exercise their power and refuse to pass a budget. However, the county government still continues to operate. We are aware of several instances. Sometimes MCAs are helpless. Even the reverse is also true. We need to flip that argument because if you allow MCAs to tinker with the budget, they can hold the governor at ransom. If you allow them to use the budget as a tool to achieve what this law is aiming at, they will frustrate governors. That will be very unfair. They may even torpedo development and argue that 90 per cent of the entire money goes directly to wards. Therefore, this Bill assists both of them. On one side, it assists governors by ensuring that they have their 8 per cent that is in the law and still the governor has the liberty to do whatever he wants to do with the balance. On the other side, it assists MCAs to ensure their wards are not discriminated. This Bill is a win-win situation for everyone within the circumstances of the political culture that underpins our assemblies. Madam Temporary Speaker, another argument is about the 8 per cent and if it is sufficient. I also recall the Commission on Revenue Allocation (CRA) submissions before the Senate Committee on Finance and Budget that was dealing with this issue. The CRA said that if you said a certain per cent of the entire monies that have been devolved, you will find some counties struggling with a huge wage bill. So, if you say 8 per cent, it will be like you are taking the entire developmental budget from them. You, therefore, need to do simulations. I do not have a problem with that if CRA was to come and show us simulations. We either vary it downwards or upwards. To me, that is something that we can think of and change at the Third Reading stage. My final area is the remedies; how we can improve this Bill? Upon publishing, I have listened to various ideas and they are within their areas for improvement. After listening to what Senators will say, we will consider areas that we can improve on this Bill. One is the issue of the percentage. Having looked at these documents; having also read the Public Finance Management (County Governments) Regulations, I have realised that the law provides that 35 per cent of the total revenue is what should go to wages. Looking at how much counties are harnessing locally, Section 29 of that law also gives CRA some powers over this issue. We need to change that and set a certain percentage. For example, we could set aside 20 per cent of the development budget, but not of the total revenue. The county assembly will also make an effort to ensure it checks the executive and reduces the wage bill so that they have more money going to the development vote. It will give an incentive to MCAs. They will also check on the executive and ensure the development budget is higher. The higher the development budget will be, the higher the percentage that will be going to the wards. 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."
}