Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 956145,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/956145/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 394,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Dagoretti South, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. John Kiarie",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13322,
        "legal_name": "John Kiarie Waweru",
        "slug": "john-kiarie-waweru"
    },
    "content": "Going into the details of the Bill, I realise the provisions given by the Hon. Member in Clause 29A (1)(a) and she is suggesting that: “(a) the employee shall be entitled to three consecutive months pre-adoption leave with full pay from the date of the placement of the child”. The Bill tells us that the placement of the child is legal. However, in 29(1)(b) it continues to say: “(b) in the case of a female employee who is married, the employee shall be entitled to three consecutive months pre-adoption leave with full pay from the date of the placement of the child”. This sits very well with me. “(c) in the case of a male employee who is married, the employee shall be entitled to two weeks pre-adoption leave with full pay”. For me this discrepancy sounds an alarm bell. I am proposing she should amend this clause so that there is parity between what is being accorded to a female and male employee. When you think about it, this child is being adopted into a family which he or she was not been born into. The duties that shall be undertaken by either a male parent who is adopting the child or a female parent who is adopting the child are equal. When you think about it, we are not asking for the women to take leave so that they can breastfeed the child because this is not a child who has been born to them naturally. This is actually a child they found already born and they are adopting into the family. I feel that there should be parity between the genders in this Bill in a way that whatever is being accorded to a female employee who is adopting the child, should be accorded to the male employee who is adopting the child. I still feel that this little Bill is good and it should be something that we embrace as Parliament and see its full fruition. I believe that there are processes that need to be undertaken when you are adopting a child. These processes are at times very tiresome. Some of them are actually very prolonged and gruelling administratively. When you think about it, I believe, whether this individual will be married or single, they will go through processes that can be very tiresome. As such, they require what is being provided for by the Bill with the addition that I am adding, of parity between the two genders. I believe this Bill is timely, coming hot in the heels of a Cabinet decision that requires that we stop adoption of children by foreigners that is putting us Kenyans on the spot. We realise that most of the adoptions that have been done in this country were being done by foreigners. 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."
}