Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 568307,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/568307/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 368,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "which way to go as far as retirement is concerned. Since the Constitution and other laws were not very clear other than stating – in the County GovernmentS Act – that they would join an existing scheme---. However, the term “existing scheme” did not properly state whether it was an existing scheme in the sense of it having been made or it existed before the promulgation of the new Constitution. Governors took it upon themselves to initiate a system where they joined the LAPTRUST. They went ahead to even baptize it some name. It is now called the County Pension Fund (CPF) and many workers in county governments joined the CPF. When this Bill came, it generated a lot of interest within the Committee and other people who had been invited to give their submissions to the Committee; mostly emanating out of the very active public participation that took place some time last year. Submissions from various stakeholders have many interest groups because a lot of money is involved in this case. We are talking about billions of shillings. Among the many groups with different interests were the governors, the LAPTRUST and the LAPFUND stakeholders and the Treasury which came with conflicting ideas. Some of them are very selfish in a way that you could see them only talking about how they want things to be. We called governors during the public hearing. They appeared again once before the Committee. The stand they had from the beginning is what they have now, that this Bill is not good because it is modelled along the provisions of the LAPFUND which previously existed for the low cadre levels in the local authorities. The governors wanted the other scheme. They have gone ahead to demand for that. They have expressed their own feelings and the way they want things to be done by the Treasury. The Transition Authority was also being carried along by the governors. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, the long and short of it is that the Committee ended up with diverse views on which way to go. This is because the Committee’s view – which I am a Member and I should state that – was that we need an umbrella scheme which is not oriented to the LAPFUND or the LAPTRUST or any of the prior existing schemes. It is worth noting that the pushers of the LAPFUND are governors who are themselves not beneficiaries. The real beneficiaries of the scheme are workers in the county governments. As late as last week, we, as a Committee – as the Chairman elaborated – were still meeting some stakeholders. The conclusion was that the conference which was to be held some time earlier in the year should take place now, however late it may be. It is unfortunate that the Committee got really busy with other things and the conference took a backstage. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, it is good to notify everybody in the House and Kenyans at large, that it can very easily happen. The views are so divergent that we may end up actually revising or amending this Bill. In fact, we may end up with a totally new Bill from what we are seeing. That is the reason why we had to engage Sen. Kindiki as to whether it was actually not an opportune time to, perhaps, hold on a little bit, so that we can get the outcome of the stakeholders’ conference. 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."
}