{"id":356911,"url":"http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/356911/?format=json","text_counter":333,"type":"speech","speaker_name":"Hon. Kajwang’","speaker_title":"","speaker":{"id":2712,"legal_name":"Tom Joseph Kajwang'","slug":"kajwang-tom-joseph-francis"},"content":"On a point of order, hon. Chairlady. Today, it seems to be my bad day that I am rising a lot. May I bring the attention of the House to the amendment that was brought by hon. Aden Duale in which there was a schedule and in that schedule hon. Duale amended what was originally before the House. What was before the House, if you look at page 4 of the Revenue Bill, was unconditional allocations. By the amendment that was proposed by hon. Duale, that provision disappeared. When my learned friend attempts to define “unconditional allocations’ is it in order that this is a term which is now worth a definition in view of the fact that by the amendment of hon. Duale, that definition has actually disappeared from the Bill before the House? I am looking at the amendment that is sought on “unconditional allocations”. By virtue of the amendment that hon. Duale brought, that word disappeared from the schedule and so to try to define it would be a redundancy or something which does not appear in the face of the Bill now considered. In the original version of the Revenue Bill on the schedule, the first table contained “unconditional allocations”. In the amendments that hon. Duale moved on the first table, that now disappeared. What we now have is “conditional allocations to counties”, we do not have “unconditional allocations”. My good friend seeks to define “unconditional allocation”. Would it not be redundant or an attempt to explain something which the law does not speak about?"}