Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 810688,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/810688/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 236,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Alego-Usonga, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Samuel Atandi",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13290,
        "legal_name": "Samuel Onunga Atandi",
        "slug": "samuel-onunga-atandi"
    },
    "content": "Another important aspect is the administration of the scheme. We have a fund manager who has been provided for to act as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). He will take care of the funds and assets of the scheme. Then, there is a custodian to receive contributions from members and ensure they are invested properly. Importantly, this Bill is capturing the contributions aspect. The members are going to contribute 7.5 per cent of their total emoluments and their sponsors will contribute15 per cent. In the private sector, employees contribute less and the sponsors contribute more. However, in the banking sector where I was, we had our sponsors contributing between 10-12 per cent. Here we are providing a contribution of 15 per cent and I think in the final analysis our retiring county staff with get good pension amounts. My Chairman has already made a presentation. The truth of the matter is that as a Committee we made a decision on this Bill because our previous Bill was a Private Members’ Bill. Therefore, as a Committee we decided based on the consensus from the stakeholders that this is the right Bill this House should look at. This is because we have factored the issues which were trying to bring disagreements between the stakeholders. One of which was the cost of administration of the fund. The Private Members’ Bill was proposing that the cost of administration be pegged at 3 per cent of the total fund value. That is a humongous amount which we thought would eat into the members funds. Therefore, we proposed that the cost of administration should be capped at not more than 1.5 per cent of the total fund value. This is one of the areas where we got a reprieve. The Council of Governors had their opinion about the cost of administration. They supported a higher amount which we felt would not auger well and would eat into the fund. In a nutshell, lack of consensus on this Bill is one of the reasons why five years down the line, and since the promulgation of the new Constitution, this House has not yet established a retirement scheme for employees of county governments. It is not appropriate to have employees who are not sure of how they will manage their retirement life. I want to plead with this House to adopt this Bill without amendments because as far as I am concerned we have done extensive consultations. If we bring amendments we will bring further confusion. We will end up not having a pension’s scheme established to take care of the interests and welfare of employees of county assemblies. The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposes only. Acertified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}