HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 248412,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/248412/?format=api",
"text_counter": 325,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Muturi",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 215,
"legal_name": "Justin Bedan Njoka Muturi",
"slug": "justin-muturi"
},
"content": "Clause 6 of the Bill seeks to introduce a new Section 25 (b) on the qualification for registration as a scheme administrator. That is, one will not qualify unless that person applying in \"a\", is a limited liability company and \"b\", has such minimum paid-up share capital as may from time to time be prescribed. I would like to propose to the Minister that just like he has done with the trust corporation, he should consider introducing some minimum. I do appreciate that it is possible for the Minister for Finance as he does regularly during Budget speeches, to keep adjusting this. People will know from the outset that unless they have a certain minimum share capital, they may not necessarily even apply. I think it would be important for the law to state the minimum as we have done in the case of the trust corporations; not less than Kshs10 million. I think we could do the same in this. It is equally important. Whether it is the administrator or custodian, he is also deemed to be applying to perform a job of trust. He needs to administer. So, it is very important that he knows that one must have a minimum share capital of the company. That should be clear so that we are not told that the share capital is limited by guarantee and so on. I think we need to be more definite. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I also wish to laud the Minister for having come up with Clause 21 of this Bill which similarly proposes to introduce a new Section 53 (a). We have said that a person or company that deducts an employee's contribution for onward transmission to a particular scheme commits an offence when he does not within 15 days remit it. But then we have said the employee will again give a notice of seven days that he intends to take out proceedings in court. Since we have seen, in practice, a situation where deductions do not reach the intended destination, which in this case is the scheme, I propose to the Minister to possibly introduce a provision that, indeed, introduces a penalty for anybody who fails within those 15 days to remit deductions. We should not just leave it to the contributor or employee to take action. Is it not possible that the Retirement Benefits Authority (RBA) can be given powers to actually, on its own, prosecute a person who fails within those 15 days to remit the deductions to a particular scheme, instead of leaving it only to employee? Many times some of these employees really do not have the capacity to institute legal proceedings against their own employers. We are giving them almost a licence to be sacked. Indeed, I want to agree with what I can hear from the Government side of the House; that generally we know that it is not easy to prosecute cases in court. It is never for free. They would be asked to pay court fees and such like things when, indeed, it is the employer who has failed to remit. I would propose that the RBA actually be the one to prosecute any person or employer who fails within the stipulated time to make the remittance, so that we remove the burden of having to take this action from the employee. I am just wondering when such deductions are not noticed to have not been remitted many 1144 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES June 6, 2006 years after the facts. We are giving this one 15 days. Indeed, we have seen this particularly in the case of the National Social Security Fund (NSSF), where an employee after retiring three or five years later goes to make his claim and he is told to bring all records showing how he has been contributing to the Fund, when, indeed, he was deducted money. The payslips would show that he all along was being deducted, yet, he is being told to bring proof of it. I think we put the retired employees into a lot of difficulties. I wonder whether the Minister could consider, within the RBA set-up, a mechanism by which the RBA itself becomes self-propelling in discovering which employers are not remitting the money. If they are not remitting the money within the stipulated time, the RBA should issue those notices. In fact, I think this clause should be re-worded so that the RBA is the one to issue the notice to the employer that he or she has not remitted deductions of employees \"a\", \"b\", \"c\" and \"d\" within 15 days and, therefore, he should take notice that within seven days it intends to institute proceedings against him for failure to do so. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to commend the Minister on the composition of the quorum in the Tribunal to hear such disputes. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, with those few remarks, I beg to support."
}