Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 954499,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/954499/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 191,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "resolution of the House on the matter would sound a death knell to the proposals in the Banking (Amendment) Bill, 2019 moved by himself and currently under consideration by the House and which address the “ambiguity” issues of the capping of interest rates provision. The assertion by the Member for Kiambu Constituency was based on Standing Order 49(1), which provides that no Motion may be moved which is the same in substance as any question which has been resolved either in the affirmative or in the negative, during the preceding six months in the same session. From the Members’ contributions, there are four questions which arose that require determination by the Speaker: (i) What is the scope of a Finance Bill? Is the Finance Bill another form of a Statute Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, and can the Bill be used to introduce proposals which are not incidental to taxation or revenue-raising measures? (ii) Do Clauses 50 and 51 of the Finance Bill, 2019 offend the Constitution? (iii) Do Clauses 50 and 51 of the Finance Bill, 2019 comply with the standard of disclosure set out in the Constitution? (iv) How does the inclusion and subsequent consideration by the House of provisions proposing to amend the Banking Act under Clause 43 of the Finance Bill, 2019 affect the Banking (Amendment) Bill, 2019 currently before the House? You will also recall that following the issues raised, I provided preliminary guidance to the House by allowing debate on the Bill at Second Reading to proceed and undertook to make a considered ruling on the matter today."
}