HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 862300,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/862300/?format=api",
"text_counter": 330,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Sen. Sakaja",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 13131,
"legal_name": "Johnson Arthur Sakaja",
"slug": "johnson-arthur-sakaja"
},
"content": "Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the national Government has this habit of sending Bills to the National Assembly as opposed to the Senate, even if it is a Bill whose title is ‘County Government Retirement Scheme Bill.’ In the memorandum of the Bill, it says that it is not a money Bill, it concerns counties and, therefore, it should have come directly to the Senate. They did that knowing fully well that the Senate had already published and, at that point, we were debating the exact same Bill. If there is anything else that can be better proof of disdain to this House, I do not know what that would be. This House needs to take its rightful place but because of our pragmatic nature, we decided to hold our Bill which is like this and has already passed through Second Reading. In fact, it is exactly the same in terms of content. We did a serious process of public participation and listened to everybody. Despite the tensions in the last Parliament between the conflicting interests, they were able to get to a middle ground. That middle ground is still part of the record of this House because it has the signature of everybody. I would like the Senate Majority Leader and the Whip to hear me. The Council of Governors(CoG), the National Treasury, the County Pension Fund (CPF), the Local Authorities Pensions Trust (LAPTRUST) and the Local Authorities Provident Fund(LAPFUND), who seemed to have conflicting interest, signed a memorandum saying that: “we agree”. This was after spending about a week in Naivasha and this is the version of the Bill that they all signed back then. Things might have changed and no one is prevented from changing their mind but on the fundamental issues, this is the most representative Bill. Secondly, I want to respond to what the Senate Majority Leader has said. This Committee engaged more than 15 different institutions and members of the public on the same Bill in these premises. In the interest of public participation we again advertised asking for a memorandum on this Bill because that is the tradition of the Senate. The Senate is known for public participation and we listen to the members of the public. The institutions sent their memorandum. We repeatedly invited the CoG who did not appear the first time and sent a junior officer the second time with a one page document. More recently, they said they did not agree with the Bill. In the interest of public participation, we have now gone a step further to invite every stakeholder on Monday in this very premises as from 9.00a.m. We will sit here up to whatever time it takes. We will sit in this House this coming Monday. They sent written memorandum but we have now requested for a face to face discussion because some of the things that they are asking for have already been provided for. Therefore, just to make sure that there is understanding and that there is no misinformation out there, we have invited the County Public Service Boards (CPSBs), the Council of Governors (CoG), the County Government Workers Unions (CGWUs), the State Corporation Advisory Committee (SCAC), the Public Service Commission (PSC), the National Social Security Fund(NSSF), the Retirement Benefits Authority (RBA), the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, the Ministry of Devolution and Arid and Semi-Arid Lands, the National Treasury and the general public to come for us to have this discussion. The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. Acertified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}