Going by the discussions taking place among us informally, at least some consensus is developing.
That consensus, the way I understand it, is that no senator wishes to see any county lose money.
But we still do not have sufficient agreement on the other conditions that will fully constitute the basis upon which revenue will be allocated.
Normally debate about resources is very divisive. I am cautioning the House that the trajectory which this issue is taking may be with us for generations to come.
I would think that we'd have the integrity and authority of the Senate protected and safeguarded if we do not rush to a decision when there is an opportunity to close the loopholes where consensus has not been found.
On the issue of division of revenue among counties, the first fight on this matter was in the National Assembly before the Senate was elected.
The National Assembly had the powers of the Senate at that time because there was no Senate. It took quite a long time, holding numerous meetings, on this single issue—to sit together, to reason together and come up with a solution that was acceptable to most of the members.
In the second resolution that was made, I think we went to Naivasha and took nearly four days discussing this issue.
When we left Naivasha, there was no Orengo motion, there was no Murkomen (Kipchumba, Elgeyo Marakwet Senator) motion, it was a decision that was reached together as a Senate.
We are making the same mistake that was committed during the colonial period. We are making the same mistake when the Sessional Paper Number 10 was passed by the National Assembly.
That Sessional Paper was neither African nor Socialist. The paper was saying that resources should go to where there is already development.
We don't want to repeat that. Together we can continue talking until we have a position that is acceptable to most senators.
The Siaya senator made the plea when he moved an adjournment motion