Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 858857,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/858857/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 99,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Gilgil, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Ms.) Martha Wangari",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13123,
        "legal_name": "Martha Wangari",
        "slug": "martha-wangari"
    },
    "content": "The first entity to be consulted is the Council of Governors (CoG) because they are the ones who are supposed to be benefiting from this pension scheme. Indeed, the CoG submitted a memorandum in support of the Bill that time, as it is right now. They issued a circular dated 19th September 2014 which we scrutinised. If you look at the Bill right now, at Schedule 3, you will see the sponsoring agencies. That time, county governments were about 43. Right now, I can see that almost every county government agrees and is a sponsor of this Bill. The associated organisations are clearly enumerated in the Bill namely, the workers unions, the County Government Workers Union and the water companies that are localised in the counties. This has taken a lot of consultation. It is not something that has sprung up from nowhere. I can tell you that because I was involved in the process. Initially, the defunct county councils were covered by LAPTRUST and LAPFUND. With LAPTRUST, as a proposed county pension fund now, the contribution then was 12 per cent by employee’s contributions and 15 per cent per employer’s contributions. What is before the Senate proposes to reduce it to 7.5 per cent. We should be encouraging workers to improve their savings in terms of pension. If you do not have it, it encourages poverty, dependency and uncertainty in terms of the future of the workers. There are more than 45,000 workers who are members of this Fund. My proposal, in joining with what is in the Senate right now, is that, maybe, just as the national Government works, we should have two separate schemes, one for the executive as it is in the Pensions Act. Every other civil servant in the national Government is under the Pensions Act, but we have a specific pension arrangement for the National Assembly. What is in the Senate can be transitioned to accommodate all the workers at county assemblies. This Bill will cover governors and the executives with their teams so that they are separate and this will reduce the collision and friction that is there. I congratulate Hon. Njajagua because this Bill will deal will all transition issues. The board that has been put in place is clearly enumerated on how it will be appointed. The only amendment I would want to suggest at the Committee stage is on the representatives. When we say a representative of county governments to be appointed by the Cabinet Secretary, that would bring an issue of conflict. Let the CoG send their own representative independently. Let the Public Service Commission send their representation through the Cabinet Secretary, but not appointed by the Cabinet Secretary. Let the county assembly boards send their representatives through the Cabinet Secretary, but not appointed by the Cabinet Secretary. That would mean that we would protect the integrity of every institution as has been given in their own specific clause and we will give them autonomy to choose the person they think fits very well because what is required has already been put in law and has been well enumerated. This Bill also has an issue on sharia compliance. I remember we debated it then. I still think it is a good idea. It was brought by the specific practitioners of the Muslim faith. They felt 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."
}