Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 992673,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/992673/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 650,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Kang’ata",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1826,
        "legal_name": "Irungu Kang'ata",
        "slug": "irungu-kangata"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, for giving me this opportunity to contribute to this Bill. Let me first congratulate the Committee, they have done a good job. They are ably chaired by my brother, Sen. Sakaja, and my sister, Sen. Kasanga. Thank you for the good work that you have done to generate a Bill within that short time. That was good and to also note that the Bill is quite important in this fight. The biggest strength of this Bill is the fact that it does not only address the problem that we are having, but all other future potential pandemics; that is good. Also, it raises good points on how to cushion Kenyans in a more sustainable manner in terms of the economic problems that they will face out of this pandemic and the social issues that will come up. On that score, I want to say, congratulations. In my view, however, there are areas of the Bill that can be improved on, such as Part VI on Miscellaneous Provisions. There is also the proposed clauses 35 and 36 concerning penalty for obstruction; the idea that one should allow public health officers to access one’s home. Well, the reason why the Committee should reconsider those sections is because they are provided for in some separate laws, in particular, the Public Health Act. Therefore, I do not know whether this is a form of making so many laws on an issue that is already handled by the Public Health Act. The other issue is the proposed clauses 29 and 30. Proposed Clause 29 is about Tenancy Agreements and proposed Clause 30 is about the Labor Relations. The issue concerning Clause 30, if you allow me, I can just read not only for those who are here, but also those watching us at home. Proposed Clause 30 states- “Where a pandemic adversely affects the ability of an employer to pay salaries and wages- (a) notwithstanding the provisions of the Employment Act, an employer shall not terminate a contact of service or dismiss an employee; and (b) an employer shall not coerce an employee to take a salary cut.” Also, it proceeds to say at Clause 30(2) that- “Despite subsection (1), where an employer is unable to meet his obligations to pay salaries or wages, the employer shall permit an employee to take leave of absence without pay for the duration of the pandemic.” Various problems arise out of this section the way it is crafted. The so-called unpaid leave; the word used here is about permit, meaning, to be initiated by the employee. If the employee does not initiate that then it means there is no leave. On one hand, you have told an employer that you cannot terminate or dismiss an employee. The employer has to await the employee to initiate the process of taking what we call an unpaid leave. 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."
}