HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 814421,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/814421/?format=api",
"text_counter": 28,
"type": "other",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "recommendation of the relevant Committee of the Assembly after taking into account the views of the Cabinet Secretary responsible for finance.” However, you must read subsection 3, which is important. It says- “In this Constitution, “a money Bill” means a Bill other than a Bill specified in Article 218, that contains provisions dealing with- (a) taxes;” Mr. Speaker, Sir, if a Bill deals with taxes, even if it has provisions of taxes but deals with other issues that concerns counties, that Bill cannot be called a money Bill. If it deals with taxes, it must be taxes only. It goes further to state- “(b) the imposition of charge on a public fund or the variation or repeal of those charges;” If it is dealing with charges, it must be charges only. If it is dealing with charges in some section inside there, after it has dealt with so many other issues that concerns counties, that is not a money Bill. “(c) the appropriation, receipt, custody, investment or issue of public money; (d) the raising or guaranteeing of any loan or its repayments; or (e) matters incidental to any of those matters. (4) In Clause (3), “tax”, “public money,” and “loan” do not include any tax, public money or loan raised by a county.” Again, if a Bill deals with taxes only, but those taxes are being raised by counties governments, it is not a money Bill, for purposes of the definition, under Article 114 of what a “money Bill” is. This is important because of the argument that has been happening in the National Assembly. We work on many Bills in this House, for example, the Irrigation Bill. Some clauses of the Bill say that there shall be irrigation boards that can levy charges as they perform their functions. That clause is always being misused to argue that this is a money Bill and, therefore, it should not have come from the Senate. Article 114 of the Constitution is so clear that anything that deals with taxes, charges or money can only go as a money Bill and should only deal with that matter. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the challenge lies with the different interpretation between the two Houses as to the Bills that constitute “money Bills.” In our understanding, in accordance with Article 114 (1), a money Bill is one that does not and cannot deal with any other matter other than the matters set out in Article 114 (3). Examples of such Bills would include a Finance Bill, a Tax Bill and a Value Added Tax Bill. But even then, only where such Bills remain true to Article 114 (1) in that they do not deal with any other matter other than money matters, as I have already said. It cannot, therefore, be that a Bill that concerns counties and provides in extenso for matters that concern and affect counties would be said to be a money Bill by virtue only of the fact that, in addition to these provisions, it makes some incidental financial provisions. This has been the argument of the National Assembly. Whereas the Assembly has concurred that various Bills concerns counties, it has argued that even then, the Bills cannot originate or be processed through the Senate as, in their view, they are money Bills. 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."
}