Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 814999,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/814999/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 144,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "If we go by the functions that are well spelt out in Article 96 of the Constitution on the role of the Senate, particularly Article 96(b), it is the function of this House to participate fully in the law-making functions by considering, debating and approving Bills concerning counties as provided in Articles 109 to 113 of the Constitution. When we are called to debate, consider and approve or disapprove Bills, which of necessity are not financial Bills, we do so as men of high intellectual calibre. In other words, we interrogate them before we approve them. We are supposed to look at the content, the context and the philosophical foundation of that Bill before we approve them. I submit that this Bill in the form it has been reintroduced this year has nothing of substance. The contentions that were used last year that made the Bill not to see the light of day are still intact. So, we need to reiterate them and reject it as it is. I vehemently oppose it for the following reasons: One, the NIDA is improperly constituted and it is monolithically skewed towards the National Assembly. Indeed, if you look at the managerial composition or its structures, whereas it is supposed to be horizontal, it is vertical. Why is it vertical? It means that it has included many stakeholders like Cabinet Secretaries and Permanent Secretaries without taking cognizance of the county governments’ representation. To me, this is by design and not by default. It is put that way so that the national Government, which most of the time acts as an economic financial vampire to the national cake draining the funds that are supposed to be devolved directly to the county governments. This is a denial of the spirit of devolution. It has been said and there is no gainsay about it that agriculture, pursuant to Article 186 of the Constitution, is a devolved function. The Fourth Schedule gives clear demarcations of the agriculture functions; thereunder lies the irrigation function. So, if at all the Bill as reintroduced is meant to cure food insecurity in the country, then it is lopsided. This is because it attempts to take away a well designated county function back to the national Government without attaching financial benefits to the same. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, Clause 7 of this Bill stipulates the city where the headquarters is supposed to be. It was mentioned earlier that it has to be in Nairobi City. However, when the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 was promulgated, the objective of devolution was salient. That power was to be decentralized from Nairobi to the rural areas. Therefore, these functions should be devolved to the county headquarters where management will be done. It will be a disservice as the Senator for Machakos County, if I do not mention some of the intended irrigation schemes. We have the Yatta Canal which was supposed to be expanded. I know the Government did a good job by cementing the canal with the objective of avoiding percolation of water. The canal was supposed to be expanded to greater parts of Yatta, Masinga and some parts of Kitui, so that a lot of water that flows directly to Masinga Dam via Thika River can be captured. Therefore, there is a lot to be done by the national Government in that regard. If that function has been devolved to the counties, then I am sure that if the County Government of Machakos is well funded, it will be in a position to give water to many deserving people for irrigation. 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."
}