Editor,I read with keen interest your exclusive interview with the Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies, Rose Mukantabana, which was published in The New Times of December 24 (My job is challenging but it’s worth it – Speaker Mukantabana).The Speaker addressed a couple of issues, including her experience as the first female leader of the Lower Chamber of Parliament, the House’s role in building the country, the basis for the commissioning of a parliamentary probe into the controversial allegations that Rwanda backs a rebellion in eastern DRC, and the thorny issue of maternity leave, which was halved in the new labour code.The Speaker explained that the rationale behind the decision to slash the maternity leave from 12 weeks to six weeks was to help eliminate discrimination against women on the labour market, because employers would either fire them once they go on maternity leave, citing long absence, or deny them a chance to assume senior positions.Indeed, employers have grumbled that they are forced to hire another person to stand in for someone who’s on maternity leave for three months, thus paying two people for the same position. As a result, some women have either lost jobs or restricted to trivial responsibilities.According to the Speaker, these employers are justified to complain, which is why MPs decided to cut the length of maternity leave, to one and a half months, and once the mother in question chooses to take the remaining half, the employer will pay her only 20 per cent of her salary for that extra period, while the remaining 80 per cent would come from the proposed Maternity Insurance Fund, to which the general public would contribute.For me that makes business and moral sense.  It is indeed not fair to force employers, particularly in the private sector, to shoulder the burden of a lengthy maternity leave; it’s only fair that the responsibility to take care of newborns and their mothers is shared by society.However, the biggest question is whether the provision on maternity leave in the new labour code should be implemented before the creation of the proposed Maternity Insurance Fund, since the original idea was to draw funds from this facility to cover for the 80 per cent deficit once the employer starts to pay the mother a paltry 20 per cent of their salary.Otherwise, the Speaker was articulate enough in this issue.Jane Mbabazi, Kicukiro