HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 222982,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/222982/?format=api",
"text_counter": 257,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Wetangula",
"speaker_title": "The Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs",
"speaker": {
"id": 210,
"legal_name": "Moses Masika Wetangula",
"slug": "moses-wetangula"
},
"content": "This just muddies the waters of good law and it must be changed. Clause 50 should be amended to allow courts of law to deal with every matter that arises as a dispute under this law. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, Part 9, Clause 74, I am not quite sure whether this is not a violation of rules of privacy. Records of employees have a privity between the employer and the employee. Why do we want to open them up to anybody and everybody, unless a crime has been committed? I would want the issue of exposure of employer/employee records to remain a matter between the employer and the employee. It is a matter of privity. I may very well employ two graduates of the same level and pay them different salaries, and those records are supposed to be a privity between the employer and the employee. You cannot get those records and give them to anybody who wishes to see them, because this violates the very basic principles of privacy. I hope this will be looked into by the Minister and his team. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, Part 10; employment management. Again, this is going to make it very difficult for employers to manage their records. I know the intention could have been to have statistical data on the level of employment in the country and so on. But you cannot say that any employer is required to report to an employment officer every time there is a vacancy falling in your level of employment. On my farm where I employ 20 people, when my tractor driver siphons fuel and I sack him, I must walk to the local labour officer and report. This is not right, and it should not be, because employers must also be given the opportunity to hire and fire, and replace those people they have fired without interference from the labour officers. I have just cited a clause where the labour officer can walk to you and force you to employ a person you have sacked, without subjecting you to any tribunal. This is not good law, and then you go on to 1252 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES May 9, 2007 say that when you sack any employee, including a tea girl, you have to go to the labour officer and report. This is not right, and it is not good law. We should urge the Minister to change it. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, that also goes for Clause 78, which deals with notification when you sack. Clauses 84, 85 and 86 touch on foreign employment. These clauses, when they become law, are inapplicable. This is because, when we have such a pressure of unemployment in this country, there are many Kenyans who are going out to look for employment. There are many Kenyans who hang on persons of influence to take them out for employment. You cannot say in law that when you enter such contracts, you have to notify the labour officer. If I have access to somebody in Dubai to employ Muturi's cousin, I do not have to look for a labour officer to inform him that I am helping somebody to go and get a job out there. What we need to do is to have a database. This can be done by our foreign missions, or by the Immigration Department. If you are going out, you can fill it in to say you going to work or to visit, or tour or to invest or what else you going to do. That is enough to synthesise and put in record and say there are Kenyans working in Dubai, Egypt and so on. But you cannot say that a labour officer starts supervising things over which he or she has no control. After informing a labour officer that you are going to work in Dubai, how else can they police you when you are out of their jurisdiction? It does not work. Equally, Clause 86 provides: \"A person who employs, engages or knowingly aides in the employment or engagement of a person with the intention that when so employed or engaged that person shall proceed outside the limits of Kenya...\" Then, it goes on and creates a very unnecessary offence. This means that any one of us who can influence the employment of a Kenyan outside Kenya commits a criminal offence, if you have not notified the labour officer. This cannot be good law, because we are all dying under the weight of unemployment. We are doing everything possible. You heard us talking about Kenyans in the diaspora bringing billions of shillings back home. Nobody supervised their going out, and nobody committed an offence to assist them to go out. I think this should be looked into and again be modified in the law. In fact, I am advised that the famous Hummer was donated by Kenyans in the diaspora. You can see the benefits of Kenyans who have gone out there to work."
}