Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1050320,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1050320/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 212,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. (Dr.) Zani",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13119,
        "legal_name": "Agnes Zani",
        "slug": "agnes-zani"
    },
    "content": "dispute. The first clause where there were differences in how we were looking at things was Clause 27. Clause 27 looks at the issue of whether a public institution can be converted into a private one. The Senate took the position that once a public institution has been put into place, it should not be converted into a private one. The National Assembly also took the same position, but they added that the County Education Board must make an approval for the same. The Senate wanted a situation where nobody else can ever turn a private institution into a public one. We debated at length because we wanted the Senate position to be very clear. If an ECDE centre is a public institution, let it remain public. If it is private one, let it remain private. Let us not have that specific change. We went through the discussion, but the provision for such a change is in the Basic Education Act. The Act suggests that there should not be any change without consultation with the County Education Board. Seeing that, that provision is already in the Basic Education Act of 2013, the difference was not big enough for us to maintain. Madam Deputy Speaker, both of us agreed that it should not change, only that we needed approval to have it done by the County Education Board. Therefore, the amendment by the National Assembly held on the basis of that technicality. That is how it is formed in the Act. Madam Deputy Speaker, again we had difference in Clause 28. This is one of the clauses we needed to refer to later on because it gave powers to the owner of an ECDE centre to also have a say in spiritual support. The Senate felt like this might have implications. For example, if I am the owner of an ECDE centre, and because of this I indicate that I want someone to perform a particular ritual, that can be dangerous. The Senate said no; we did not want spirituality mentioned there. The contention was on Clause 28 that says that notwithstanding the role of the sponsor, should offer financial, infrastructural and spiritual support. We fought very hard as the Senate and objected to this. With the advice that we had from our Directorate of Legal Services, we realized that in the main Act, the sponsor is already defined with very specific roles. The actual wording is that the sponsor has a say in the infrastructural, spiritual and educational development of an ECDE centre. Unless we went back to the Basic Education Act to change the definition of the sponsor, we could not leave out the word “spiritual,” because it would mean that we are now contravening the Basic Education Act. Madam Deputy Speaker, these are the issues that the Committee on Education could think about when we came to the regulations and implementation, so that we could not have the particular aspect of a sponsor having excessive power. The argument was to and fro because some people said that it is important to have a spiritual input on the child. This was debated, we went with what we had in the Act. Madam Deputy Speaker, Clause 33 was another one we had issues with. The National Assembly said that the Parents Teachers Association (PTA) should not be a critical part of the process. They said that we should just stick with the board of management. We said no. Since these institutions have been well entrenched, and the The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}