Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 858855,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/858855/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 97,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Gilgil, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Ms.) Martha Wangari",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13123,
        "legal_name": "Martha Wangari",
        "slug": "martha-wangari"
    },
    "content": " Thank you, Hon. Deputy Speaker. From the outset, I support the Bill. A Private Member’s Bill is never an easy thing to do. I know Hon. Njagagua has worked thoroughly on this Bill. How it comes to the Floor of the House is another thing. Now that it is here, it is not a new issue to me. We dealt with it in the Senate in the 11th Parliament. I was the Vice-Chair of the Labour Committee and we went through the motions that actually had approved the Bill for publication then. It was tabled in the House and, of course, died with the life of Parliament before it came to the National Assembly. Pension for county government workers is very important. In fact, this Bill is long overdue and delayed. It has caused so much anxiety to county government employees in the executive and in the assemblies. As it is, I would like to refer Members to Section 132 of the County Governments Act. Before the promulgation of the current Constitution, it was anticipated that there will be transition of pension from the defunct county councils and municipal councils to what is now the county government. Section 132 says clearly that subject to the transitional provisions, all members, officers and staff of a county government shall subscribe to an existing pension scheme for officers and staff of local government. The Urban Areas and Cities Act of 2011 states clearly that officers of a board shall on commencement of this Act subscribe to an existing pension scheme approved by the Retirement Benefits Authority. That means a lot of effort and resources will go towards establishing a retirement benefits scheme. A lot has been put to the Local Authorities Pensions Trust (LAPTRUST) now referred to as the County Pensions Fund and had been put in the Local Authorities Pensions Fund (LAPFUND). In 2010, the National Treasury issued a circular to put this into perspective. Circular No.18 of 2010 was intended to reinforce the requirements of Section 132 of the County Governments Act and Section 49 of the Cities and Urban Areas of 2011. Unless there is a compelling reason for us to do a totally new scheme that will take time, it is very easy for us to transit the existing pension fund. A technical committee was formed led by the Retirement Benefits Authority and encompassed the National Treasury, actuarial scientists who are authorities in these matters, and the Senate at that time. It also had representation of the workers unions which sat for almost seven months. They came up with a directive and what was supposed to be done. Merging the schemes will almost be impossible because every scheme, be it LAPTRUST or LAPFUND, has its own assets and liabilities. What is important is to ensure 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."
}