Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 803047,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/803047/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 219,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "This Bill has undergone tremendous transformation at different stages. It is true to acknowledge that it has caused a lot controversy, competition and fights, especially between the current institutions, what previously was called LAPTRUST and the LAPFUND. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, an attempt has been made in this House, led by the then Chairperson of the Committee in the last Parliament, Sen. Madzayo, to try to harmonise the legal framework that is governing pension in the county governments. However, there are historical issues that inhibit that kind of consensus being sought between the County Pension Fund (CPF) as it is now, and LAPFUND as it were, regulated by the National Treasury. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, even with this beautiful Bill at the moment, it is not a coincidence that this issue is so controversial. I am still asking myself why it is that there is so much interest and controversy around pensions. This is because we have this Bill now in the Senate, as introduced by the Chairperson of the Senate Committee on Labour and Social Welfare –Hon. Sakaja –the County Government Retirement Scheme Bill, 2018. At the same time, we have two Bills at the National Assembly; one which is similar to this one and another providing a framework for management of pension in the county executive. I am still asking myself why, but I have found that pension and its management is controversial. Even when we think of the National Social Security Fund (NSSF), you will find that there is a lot of controversy in its management. This is because there is a lot of money in pension. Questions of control of money have always been controversial since time immemorial. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, as the Leader of the Majority in this House, I have a duty and responsibility to find ways of harmonising these three legislations. We agreed in the Senate Business Committee that we shall proceed with this Bill in the Second Reading, awaiting the process that is also in the National Assembly. Seeing that we will have an opportunity in the Committee of the Whole to make amendments and there is a report of the Committee, I will still suggest that we seek for a harmonious resolution of the contentious issues that are affecting this process. I have heard and been told that, on one hand, we should have one scheme that manages all pensions in counties for county executive members, elected county assembly members and members of staff under the County Assembly Service Board. That means that we should we should collapse all previous managers of pensions – both CPF and LAPFUND– and create one entity that will oversee the management of pensions. That will require looking at the loans, liabilities and assets of each institution and to see how to offset them in a way that will ensure that the new entity that will be created will not carry liabilities from the previous entities at the expense of any part of the staff that were in different a pension scheme. Secondly, Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, there is a proposal that we maintain the same pension schemes but we create one umbrella body that will manage both of them; but the assets and liabilities are dealt with separately. There is also a proposal that says 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."
}