Debates of 19 Feb 2015

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:45 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of the Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 18th February, 2015.

Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu — rose

—
Mr Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I noticed that beginning on page 5 up to page 8, there are names of Hon Members of the Minority New Patriotic Party (NPP) group in Parliament.
Mr Speaker, I thought that having informed you about the pendency of an enterprise —[Interruption]— which was engendered by a national concern, I thought that the Hon Members who participated in the activity would be recognised as Hon Members who were “absent with permission”.
Mr Speaker, I see the Chairman of the Finance Committee talking across the aisle, which in itself, is unparliamentary.
The request is being made to the Chair -- and I thought that the proper thing to do was to recognise those Hon Members as having been “absent with permission”.
Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh 10:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I also looked at the list and I was very surprised, that on page 5, the Hon Minority Leader was marked as “absent with permission”.
Mr Speaker, I do not know whether the Hon Minority Leader filled the form. But he knows that if an Hon Member wants to absent himself or herself, he or she would apply to the Speaker to give him permission.
Instead of advising his won gbo Members of Parliament (MPs) to fill the forms — In fact, I am requesting that the correction should be done, so that he will go and join them there as their leader, where he would be “absent without permission”.
Mr Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Hon Members, I informed the House yesterday that the Hon Minority Leader was in my office, accompanied by the Hon Member for Kwadaso and indicated to me that they would not be available the following day. I did inform the House accordingly. Whether we should move to the next step to make it “absent with permission” without the filling of the forms, we can decide. It is true that he informed me that he would not be around. But I did not give him permission to go and demonstrate.
I gave him permission because he informed me that he would not be present and he informed me of where he would be — It is a very interesting point that has been raised.
Let me hear from the Hon Majority Leader —The Leader of the Minority informed me and I did convey that position to the House yesterday.
Mr Alban S. K. Bagbin 10:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, Standing Order 15 is the relevant Order to look at, and with your permission, I beg to quote:
“(1) Every Member shall attend the service of the House unless leave of absence has been given him by Mr Speaker.
(2) Leave of absence may be given by Mr Speaker to any Member who shows sufficient cause justifying his absence or who is away on official or parliamentary duties.”
Mr Speaker, looking at the Votes and Proceedings, page 5, a number of Hon Members of this House have shown sufficient reasons they should be granted permission to absent themselves from the proceedings of yesterday. They include the leaders of the Minority group, my very good Friend, the Hon Minority Leader himself, his deputy, Hon Minority Chief Whip. the Hon Deputy Minority Chief Whip. I can mention their names -- Hon Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu of Suame, Hon Dominic Bingab Aduna Nitiwul of Bimbilla, Hon Daniel Botwe of Okere, and Hon Irene Naa Torshie Addo (Mrs).
Mr Speaker, there are other Hon Members like Hon Ama Pomaa Andoh (Mrs), the Member of Parliament for Juaben. We also have Hon Boafo William Ofori Boafo of Akwapim North and Hon Elizabeth K. T. Sackey (Mrs) of Okaikoi North. These are Hon Members of the Minority group who showed sufficient cause to you why they should absent themselves and you granted them permission. So, it is captured --
Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, the point being raised by the Hon Member for Wa West is that the Hon Minority Leader came to see me on behalf --
Mr Bagbin 10:55 a.m.
Yes, I am coming to that.
Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.
All right.
Mr Bagbin 10:55 a.m.
So, clearly, some cause -- and I think there was sufficient cause, that was why you granted them the permission to absent themselves.
-- 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, thank you.
So, I guess the Hon Minority Leader was with his people who were absent or they joined him with the Hon Members who have been marked “absent with permission.” It is a very simple matter.
Hon Minority Leader, give me the list of those who joined the demonstration yesterday -- [Interruption] -- so that we have the list of those who actually took permission and took part in the demonstration. I need the list from you, so that -- [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.


Otherwise, we would not know those Hon Members we have to include .

Mr Daniel Botwe — rose --
Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Daniel Botwe 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is important that we put it on record that I did not ask to be absent yesterday.
Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.
That is not the issue; the issue here is that --
Mr Botwe 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have been marked as “absent with permission”. My name is here, and I did not ask for that permission. But if it is for all of us --
Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon Botwe, we have gone past that.
The issue now is that your Leader came to ask permission on your behalf.
Mr Botwe 10:55 a.m.
No!. There is a different issue. I did ask for permission in the observation of the Nigerian elections. Officially, that permission was asked and we are all aware those elections were postponed. So, on Friday, I was in the House and from the Votes and Proceedings for Tuesday, I realised that I was here. So, I thought that, maybe, it was because of the earlier permission that
-- 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.
We are dealing with --
Mr Botwe 10:55 a.m.
All right. That is why it is still there after the permission?
Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.
No! No!
Hon Member for Subin --
Hon Members, I have resolved this matter. I want the list from the Hon
Minority Leader and then we capture it “with permission” because he has informed me.
Hon Member for Subin, it is because I recognised you earlier. Other than that I am not taking any comment on this matter.
Mr Isaac Osei 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, when the Hon Member for Wa West was making his contribution, he referred to “won gbo MPs”. First of all, he did not even explain “won gbo”, and secondly, I do not know of any “won gbo MPs” here. So, perhaps, he should rather explain it or drop that bit.
Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon Member for Wa West, what do you mean by “won gbo” MP? [Laughter.]
Mr Chireh 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not speak Ga but what I am told is that, it means “we are dying”. So, if he does not understand and he was on the street, I am surprised about that. [Laughter.] He could have died without knowing. [Laughter.]
Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon Member for Subin, did you take part in the demonstration?
Mr Isaac Osei 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I proudly took part in the demonstration.
I am saying that he should withdraw those words. It is not right to describe Members of Parliament as such unless he wants a debate on the “won gbo” demonstration --
Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon Member for Subin, we are all men of the world; we all read in the media that that was the name given to the demonstration. Yesterday, that “won gbo” words came somewhere along the line. So, maybe, that is why he was speaking it from that angle.
Hon Member for Wa West, the Hon Member for Subin is not happy with your description.
Mr Chireh 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yesterday, I referred to the Hon Member for Dormaa Central who was the available “won gbo” Minority Leader [Laughter] So, if I say that they are “won gbo MPs” and they are not agreeing, I will withdraw that.
Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon Member, he has withdrawn that. So, that ends the matter. [Interruption.]
Hon Members, let us make progress, please.

Hon Members, Statements.

I have admitted one Statement for this morning. The Statement stands in the name of the Hon Member for Amenfi West.

Hon Member, you have the floor.
STATEMENTS 11:05 a.m.
Mr John Gyetuah (NDC -- Amenfi West) 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to make this Statement in memory of the late Nana Anyani Buadum III, Chief of Asankrangwa Divisional Area.
Nana Anyani Buadum III, Chief of Asankrangwa was born in September, 1921 at Nkwanta near Samreboi in the Western Region of Ghana into the Agona Royal Clan.
Mr Speaker, Nana was born to the late Nana Kwasi Badu and Obaahemaa Nana Ama Badu, the late Queen mother of Asankrangwa. Nana Anyani Buadum III had
his elementary school education at the Government School (L.A. School) at Asankrangwa, and continued to the St. Augustine College in Cape Coast.
Mr Speaker, Nana was installed chief of Asankrangwa on the 27th March, 1952. Armed with the truth as bequeathed to him by the elders of his family, Nana began his reign under an innovative ideal that the chieftaincy institution is the vital centre for action in advancing the lives and culture of the people.
Mr Speaker, Nana met his first wife Ama Agyiri of blessed memory of Manso Amenfi. They were blessed with two children -- Bright Kwadwo Banda and Mrs Cynthia Aidoo.
Mr Speaker, Nana, later after enstoolment, married Madam Akua Mesuwah, Yaa Amenah Akomah and gave birth to Captain Florence Akrofi Frimpong (Mrs.), Christiana Intiako Arthur (Mrs). Later, Nana married Agnes Baidoo and Joyce Kwakye. Madam Joyce Kwakye gave birth to Richmond Sekyi Ampong.
Nana, who began as a Methodist, later joined his wife Agnes Baidoo to worship at the Immaculate Conception Catholic Church, Asankrangwa, where they wedded on 29th January 1972. Agnes survives him as his widow. They were blessed with four children-- Raymond Andrew Ntiako, Andy Jojo Cooke, Lt. Col. Justice Kojo Sekyim (USA), and Rev. Dennis Ann.
Mr Speaker, as Nana Anyani Buadum III, his priority was to develop the human capital of his people and grow the town from its modest beginning as a farming community with the potential of becoming an important hub for the economic, social, educational, political and administrative development of the Wassa Amenfi Traditional Area.
Mr Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Brief comment --
Mr George Kofi Arthur (NDC -- Amenfi Central) 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I wish to add my voice to the Statement made by the Hon Member for Amenfi West.
Mr Speaker, Nana Anyani Buadum III was the same Nana Anyani Buadum II; simply because when Nana Anyani Buadum II was enstooled in 1952, there were some litigations and he was destooled in 1984. But in the same year, they found him innocent and enstooled him again in 1984. Since then, Nana had reigned as the chief of Asankrangwa till 2014 when he passed on.
Nana spent 72 years in Asankrangwa as the chief. So, we can say that Nana Anyani Buadum, if not the longest serving chief, would be one of the longest serving chiefs in Ghana.
One legacy that Nana has chalked is that, Asankrangwa was a small farming community and whenever you left Asankrangwa to places like Kumasi and Accra, you were easily identified by the dust or the red “powder” on your head.
That signified where you were coming from. During his reign, there was no electricity in Asankrangwa, no commu- nication network, no pipe-borne water and no industry. It was out of the efforts of Nana Anyani Buadum III, that African Timber and Plywood was established in Samreboi, which was the first timber company in the whole of West Africa.
Nana Anyani Buadum, knowing that his people were deprived and there was no way of engaging the youth in meaningful employment, gave lands free of charge to the youth to go into farming. During those days, it was cocoa farming that was very popular. Apart from cocoa farming, the only profession that you could go into was timber or those who were lucky to travel could go into railway business.
Nana Anyani Buadum did not end it there. He did his best to fight for the development of Asankrangwa. He never left the very leaders who were there and I know this Honourable House remembers Dr John Ebu and Mr Kofi Asante.
Asankrangwa road. But the pressure on Mr Kofi Asante on that road was as a result of the pressure from Nana Anyani Buadum
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Hon Member, please wind up.
Mr G. K. Arthur 11:15 a.m.
Dr Abu was also under pressure to bring electricity to Asankrangwa. So, Nana Anyani Buadum III passed through three paramountcies, starting from Nana Kroamanto, Nana Kwesi Nyarko Ampim and Nana Kasapreko Kwame Basanyin, who recently passed on.
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Hon Members, that brings us to the end of Statements.
May his soul rest in perfect peace.
At the Commencement of Public Business.
Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Bagbin 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we can take item number 4, which is laying of Report before we go to the Third Reading of the Customs Bill. So, item number 4.
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Item 4 or item 6? Is item 4 ready to be laid?
Mr Bagbin 11:15 a.m.
That is so, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Vey well. After that, we move to item number 6.
Thank you.
Hon Members, Presentation of Papers by the Chairman of the Committee.
PAPERS 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Item number 6. Is that correct?
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think it should be in order.
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Very well.
Hon Deputy Minister, on behalf of the Minister for Finance, item number 6.
BILLS --THIRD READING 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Bagbin 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we can now continue with the Consideration of the Intestate Succession Bill, 2013. I would want to plead with my Hon Colleagues for us to move to that, because the other items are still being looked at and I believe that by tomorrow and early next week, all would have taken shape for the consideration of the House.
So, we move to the Consideration of the Intestate Succession Bill, 2013.
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Hon Members, the Intestate Succession Bill, 2013 at the Consideration Stage. [Pause]
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 11:15 a.m.
STAGE 11:15 a.m.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we did some work on this Bill some time back and I think we ran into a hitch and so, we had to suspend the Consideration. I do not know if we are beginning afresh because of the long time lapse or we want to continue.
I would pray that we begin afresh with clause 1 and we get to clause 4. I think it is better for us if we started from clause 1.
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Yes, that is what we are going to do; we are starting from clause 1.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:15 a.m.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
This is even a new Parliament and that is why we started the process afresh with the Second Reading and all those things.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 -- Intestacy and partial intestacy --
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Clause 2, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have a little worry about the headnote of clause 2 -- Intestacy and partial intestacy.
Mr Speaker, if you look at clause 2 (2), it provides 11:15 a.m.
“A person who dies leaving a will disposing of part of the estate of that person shall be deemed to have died intestate under this Act in respect of that part of the estate which is not disposed of in the will and accordingly this Act applies to that part of the estate.”
So, Mr Speaker, it does not really recognise partial intestacy as such; it is intestacy.
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
It is a matter of law. So, when this provision is there, those who will be drafting the will will know the provisions that they will put in there. So that even if they acquire property after the will, they have a clause to put in the will to say that any property that they may have after the -- So, that one is to guide those who will be drafting the will.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:25 a.m.
Very well, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
So, now that you know, when you are writing your will, you will know how to couch it. [Laughter.]
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, who says I have or have not?
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Then let me put the Question.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Clause 3?
Clause 3 -- Devolution of household property.
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have an issue with clause 3 -- Devolution of household property:
“Where the intestate is survived by a spouse or a child or both a spouse and a child, the spouse or the child is or both of them are entitled absolutely to the household property of the intestate.”
Mr Speaker, “household property” is defined to include 11:25 a.m.
“jewellery, clothes, furniture and furnishings, cash and moneys in bank accounts, fridge, television, radio, any other electrical and electronic appliances, kitchen and laundry equipment, simple agricul- tural equipment …”,
I do not know what “simple agricultural equipment” is.
Mr Speaker, the list continues 11:25 a.m.
“… hunting equipment, books, motor vehicles, other than vehicles used wholly for commercial purposes, and household livestock;”
Mr Speaker, I guess we would even add pets to the list. But having said that there is a noteworthy exemption in even motor vehicles. It says “motor vehicles other than vehicles used wholly for commercial purposes”. That is worthy of conside- ration. But then why should we say that cash and moneys in bank accounts, all of it should go to the child, children, spouse or both? Why?
If some of that cash or bank accounts are used for the purpose of commercial transactions -- We may have a sole proprietor and you are exempting the vehicle used for it, that it cannot go to the
rose
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon Member for Sekondi?
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if a person runs a business, his accounts should reflect it. The presumption is that, if a person is a sole proprietor of a business and wants it to be a personal property, then this provision is to ensure that if the person dies intestate, all his personal household property devolves to the spouse or child or both of them. There is nothing wrong with that and it is in conformity with existing law. Unless of course, the Hon Member for Suame and the Minority Leader can indicate that this has led to a lot of mischief which ought to be remedied, thus the amendment that he intends to propose. He has indicated nothing.
I would encourage everybody to execute a will. This is because if you do not execute a will, then you want the State to distribute your property for you. So, the Hon Minority Leader should encourage his people to execute wills. If they do not execute wills, then the presumption is that any bank accounts in a person's personal name either as an individual or a sole proprietor, is part of household property.
Dr Matthew Opoku Prempeh 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, a lot of explanation has been given to me about the whole idea of devolution of household property. I do not know why we used the word “absolute”.
I went through the Interpretation and I found out that a will includes samansiw and other forms of wills recognised by customary law.
Mr Speaker, I know on authority that I may inherit a property through my father or mother, but when I am no longer living, why should it go to only my wife and my children? I would want it to be explained to me how the inheritance that I acquire should go to my siblings and me --
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon Member, read the definition of “estate”.
Dr Prempeh 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the definition of “estate” does not solve our problem. What is the meaning of “self- acquired”? Mr Speaker, the reason I am saying this is that -- [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
The question is that, that property you are referring to in the example you gave earlier, if you were alive, would you have disposed of it absolutely? If the answer is, yes, then it is your property and therefore, it would devolve to your -- But if you inherit it from your -- [Interruption.]
Dr Prempeh 11:25 a.m.
I was explaining, Mr Speaker, so that you will get my point. If I have got one million Ghana cedis because my father died and gave me one million Ghana cedis and my siblings were kids and did not know and I have multiplied that one million Ghana cedis because I got it from my father, is it self- acquired?

Mr Speaker, that definition is too restrictive. Just the use of the word “self- acquired” does not explain things that a person might have got that the person

might have multiplied and that was not documented. It is not only houses -- cattle and things that a person can acquire.
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
You have moved it to a different domain altogether.
Dr Prempeh 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this definition of “estate” is not enough.
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Bagbin 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, at the Committee level, we considered the issue that was raised by the Hon Minority Leader and that is why we have clarified the definition of the term “estate” as proposed in amendment to clause 29, which is at page 8 of the Order Paper. We are clarifying -- [Interruption] -- He has raised it. So, I have to use that to explain.
We talked about the inclusion of cash. That was the issue he raised and so, if you go to page 8, you will find:
“Clause 29 -- Amendment pro- posed -- Interpretation of “household property”, line 2, delete ‘moneys in bank accounts”.
Then the next one:
“Clause 29 -- Amendment pro- posed -- Add the following new interpretation: “estate” means a self- acquired property in the nature of
…”
We amplified it and so, cash and moneys that are the estate of the intestate definitely, would be covered by the clause that we are considering and that is clause 3. So, the devolution of such
property would be to the people he is talking about. And why not so? A person's wife and children, these are not people outside that.
Should they not be entitled to a person's household property acquired by him or her? Should they be given to other people? When we go to the others, clearly, there are areas that others can benefit from a person's estate.
But those that are household, I believe the right thing -- and it is in accordance with the current law as the Hon Papa Owusu-Ankomah has stated.
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Hon Member for Bekwai?
Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in my opinion, the principle is and should be about the people entitled to use those properties at the time the deceased was living. That should regulate the self- acquired definition as we are talking about.
Mr Speaker, if at the time of my life, I owned anything, my mother would not come from behind to use it in my house. My wife and children would use it any how they choose, in the house. So, the definition of “self-acquired” as it has been well provided, are things we would be entitled to dispose of on our own, without needing anybody else's permission. It is a matter that has been adjudicated upon over and over. So, we need not to be held back by anymore litigation over what is self-acquired.
What is important is that, the persons who would be taking over in one's absence are the persons who were entitled to use it with the person -- the self- acquired property, the household chattels,
Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu 11:35 a.m.


with the person when he or she was living. So, it is not about who took care of one or who paid his school fees.

My father is dead, but he was not entitled to come into my house and go and lie in my bedroom, unless I permitted him to, and that should be the principle that should govern the definition we give to this matter.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
I think that, listening to the Hon Majority Leader and the Hon Ranking Member on the Committee, we should let it go. If you have any problem, then we could look at the definition column. If you think we should do some work along that area, we can do it. But I think that in terms of the law and in this provision, once it is a self-acquired property, there are several legal authorities on this matter, so, it would not create so much problem. When we get there, and we think that we would need to do some work on the definition to make it clearer with regard to the definition of those areas, we could take it.
Yes, Hon Member for Old Tafo?
Dr A. A. Osei 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am trying to follow the argument. In clause 3, there is no self-acquired estate. In clause 3, the issue is on household property. So, I do not know where the debate on “self- acquired” is coming from. This is because in the household property, there is no self-estate there. So, I do not know why we are at this point debating the definition of “estate”.
It does not appear here. So, I would want to be educated on why we are debating the definitions of “estate” and “self-acquired”. It is not in clause 3, and
we are only at clause 3. Unless somebody is anticipating some other clause, they will leave some of us who have little minds. Could we focus on clause 3, and follow properly?
In my opinion, the answer the Hon Majority Leader gave addresses the Hon Minority Leader's issue. So, we could move on.
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Those definitions we have referred to are very important to the discussion. They are relevant because we are talking about the estate of the deceased.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader said that he did not understand the issue I raised. The issue that I raised is that, it was provided in clause 3 where the intestate is survived by a spouse, or a child, or both, the spouse or the child is, or both of them are entitled absolutely to the household property of the intestate.

Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 -- Spouse, Child or both entitled to one house.
Mr Bagbin 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4 - subclause (1), delete and insert the following:
“(1) Subject to sections 8 and 9, where the estate includes only one house, the surviving spouse is entitled to fifty per cent interest in the estate.”
Mr Speaker, the issue of contribution being made by the surviving spouse, which according to the proposal by the Bill, would entitle the person to inherit half of the estate as his or hers, and more on the other part would lead to problems of implementation. When it comes to the practical issue of contribution, what is “financial contribution”? What does that mean?
Secondly, we realised that, on the calculation of the contribution that would be done, one of the challenges with the implementation of the current Intestate Succession Law is because of the fractions and the difficulties arising, thereby in the implementation.
Mr Speaker, to clarify it, we started with this initial proposal, that where the estate includes, one house, which is in accord with case law, this is the position taken by the courts. The surviving spouse is entitled to 50 per cent.
11. 45 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, but we are legislating. We are making statutory inroads into the practice. So, we could even make a law that disagrees with the judgement of the court.
Mr Bagbin 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am not saying we are bound by that. I am just trying to make that point and to say that there is no good reason for us to differ from that position. Here is a man and wife who through their collective labour, have acquired property --
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, this was one clause which created a problem in the last Parliament. If you have ten children from different women and you have one house, does this clause address that situation? If a man has one house and ten children from different women, then this clause, with the headnote: “Spouse, child or both …” how does it address the situation?
Mr Bagbin 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we definitely looked at the customary situation, where if one is a king, by tradition, he is entitled to unlimited number of wives and so, in some tradition, we have the --
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
The ladies have no objection to that one; when you said that, they were all smiling.
Yes, it is because one of the ladies is now called “Komlana”, which means , the latest wife who is in charge of the water, either in the night or-- then the senior wife will determine whose turn it is. [Laughter.]`
Mr Bagbin 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we know that. But we are only looking at one side. There is a customary position that a woman does not marry more than one husband and so, we are talking about spouse, nothing more than spouse. And “spouse” here includes spouses. So, if you look at clauses 8 and 9, 8 deals with the issues of matrimonial home and then 8(2) deals with contribution.
Mr Bagbin 11:35 a.m.


We looked at the position where the man and the wife would together acquire a property and then during the pendency of the marriage, the man enters into a second marriage. That second spouse did not participate in the acquisition of the property by the first marriage. And so, we have to look at them, so that when we are talking about the spouses here, we look at the property that has been jointly acquired by the man with whichever number of wives.
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
That is clauses 8 and 9 or so.
Mr Bagbin 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that is why we are saying “subject to…”
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Yes, you subject it but if you look at clause (6), “Intestate survived by more than one spouse”, it talks about the residue of the estate.
Mr Bagbin 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, even in clause 6, we have proposed amendments which are at page 4. We have proposed a number of amendments to clause 6 and so, we have to look at them one after the other.
We actually took time to locate these together with the African Women Lawyers Association (AWLA), the Democracy Association, representation from the Office of the Chief Imam, the Attorney- General's Department, civil societies and other groups which actively participated in the discussions of this issue.
In fact, we took a lot of time and these issues were really looked at and debated. There were some disagreement and when we get to those areas, we will draw the attention of the House to assist us to take a decision. --
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, I will call the Hon Ranking Member.
If you have one house, how does this address the issue?
Mr Bagbin 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if at the time of the acquisition of the one house, it was one man and five women, who all contributed to acquire the house, it is owned by the one man and five women.
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Very good. You have answered my question now but it is not clear on the face of the wording.
Hon Ranking Member?
Mr Osei-Owusu 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, he has taken a position on some ancient tradition and I do not want to --
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
He has been infected by the Hon Minority Leader. [Laughter.]
Mr Osei-Owusu 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe the issue here is the position of the spouse on the property vis a vis the position of the children. The spouse stands in the same position as the deceased person. You, Mr Speaker and your wife --
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
I do not have a problem with that point you are making -- [Laughter]. But that is not the question I posed.
Mr Osei-Owusu 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, your question was that if there were various children from various wives -- At the time my father died, there were 16 of us surviving from five different women --
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Do you know why I posed the question? Let me make it clearer. The Hon Majority Leader made a point that “spouse” by definition includes spouses; that is why I drew his attention to clause 6. Then why do we have “more than one spouse”? Then let us use the word “spouse” throughout; then we will know that “spouse” includes spouses.
Mr Osei-Owusu 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with you. When we get there, we will make the appropriate amendment. We are on clause 4 now and the position has been made clear.
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Yes, if the “spouse” includes spouses, why do we go to clause 6 and have “more than one spouse” as the headnote and make specific provisions to situations where we have more than one spouse?
Mr Osei-Owusu 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, you are talking about the residue and when you have -
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
I like the way the outgoing Hon Chairman and the Hon Ranking Member are ad idem on this matter. [Laughter].
Mr Osei-Owusu 11:35 a.m.
On this matter, we worked as a team. We are both fathers and future polygamists --
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
It is becoming clearer now. [Laughter.]
Hon Member for Old Tafo?
Dr A. A. Osei 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, you are leaving some of us out. You are going to clause 6 when we are on clause 4.
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
No! We are on clause 4.
Dr A. A. Osei 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, but when you keep mentioning clause 6 --
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
No! It is for clarification.
Dr A. A. Osei 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my difficulty is the headnote: “Spouse, child or both entitled to one house”. What does it mean?
It says here, “where the estate includes only one house”.
They are not giving them entitlement to one house. So, the headnote is deceptive. It looks as if the Hon Chairman and the Hon Ranking Member --
Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
The explanation they have offered is that, if there is one house, then it means that it goes to both the wife and the children. If there are a hundred spouses, a hundred children, that one house goes to all of them.
Dr A. A.Osei 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, but here, the spouse would be entitled to 50 per cent. It cannot be 100 per cent. So, 50 per cent of one house is not 100 per cent.
Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
But if you add the children, you will get the 100 per cent. Do you see?
Yes, Hon Member for Dome- Kwabenya? Is that correct?
Ms Sarah Adwoa Safo 11:55 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Just to address the issue that was raised by Hon Akoto Osei.
If we look at subsection 2 of section 4, that is where the issue of children comes in. So, the headnote is covering sub- section 1, that deals with the spouse, where Hon Members have raised issues. So, the necessary amendments will be done. But when we come to 4(2), it addresses the issue of children. So, the headnote takes into consideration that of the spouse and that of the children. So, it is well captured.
Subsection 2 says,
“(2) Subject to section 8, where the estate includes more than one house, the surviving spouse is entitled to one house and the children are entitled to another”.
Ms Sarah Adwoa Safo 11:55 a.m.


That is why the headnote reads “spouse, child or both entitled to”.

I think it is in the right direction.
Dr A. A.Osei 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it does not address the problem.
Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Let me hear the Hon Member for Sekondi, then I will take Hon Akoto Osei.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you --
Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Hon Members, in the last Parliament, this was one clause that stalled the Bill, and that is why I am devoting much time to it.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:55 a.m.
The Hon Majority Leader moved an amendment, and reading this entire clause, I do not know whether the amendment is the right rendition.
Mr Speaker, 4(1) says that the surviving spouse is entitled to 50 per cent interest in the estate. So, we are not talking about a house; we are talking about the entire estate. If we are talking about the house, then why do we not say so?
It says --
“4(1) Subject to sections 8 and 9…”
Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Yes, where the estate includes one house -- so, we have one house there.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:55 a.m.
Yes,the surviving spouse is entitled to 50 per cent interest in the entire estate. Is that what we intend? [Interruption.]
Yes, but that is not what the amendment conveys. I am saying that subject to sections 8 and 9, where the estate, that is the entire property --
Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Yes, you have a point. The Hon Member for Sekondi has a point there.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:55 a.m.
Where the estate includes only one house, the surviving spouse is entitled to 50 per cent interest in the entire estate, because it is the house and other things. It could be ten cars.
So, I do not know whether that was the intention of the draftspersons. I just want a clarification.
Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Let me hear from the Hon Chairman, then I will call the Hon Ranking Member.
Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Bagbin 11:55 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
First Deputy Speaker to take the Chair.
Mr Bagbin 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that is the intention of the amendment.
Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
The 50 per cent in the estate?
Mr Bagbin 11:55 a.m.
In the estate.
Mr Bagbin 11:55 a.m.
My attention is drawn to the fact that we are talking about --
Mr Bagbin 11:55 a.m.
I concede -- [Laughter.]
I concede that it is talking about the house, yes.
Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Hon Members, we are now making progress. So, amend it accordingly.
Mr Bagbin 11:55 a.m.
And I thank Hon Papa Owusu-Ankomah very much, for drawing my attention to it.
Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Bagbin 11:55 a.m.
Where the estate comprises only one house, the surviving spouse is entitled to 50 per cent interest in the house.
Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Hon Members, do we defer this clause? This was what stalled this Bill in the last Parliament and that is why I would like us to devote sufficient time to it. If we are not sure, we can defer this clause in line with the rules of the House, and we can make progress and come back to it.
Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we have run into the same hitch. It is difficult to make progress without scaling over this hurdle.
Mr Speaker, the other leg is that, that is 4(1). It is in respect of one house, and we are saying that 50 per cent should go to the surviving spouse. What of the children? If it is only one house, the children are not catered for anywhere.
Could it be that the remaining 50 per cent should go to the children or child? We have not covered that anywhere in the law. So, we should look at that.
Mr Speaker, this is a big hurdle, and we have to take our time to further consider it. I would suggest to the Hon Majority Leader that not until we are able to clear this hurdle, we cannot make further progress.
Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Hon Member for Keta?
Then Hon Member for Manhyia South.
Mr Richard Mawuli Quashigah 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in relation to clause 4, I would like to seek some clarification, because I believe strongly that we make laws to ensure social engineering and also to create fairness.
In a situation where for instance, a man's wife dies after having seven children, and then he marries another woman, in three months, the man passes on --
Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Hon Member for Keta, those were the challenges that confronted the Fifth Parliament of the Fourth Republic of Ghana, and that stalled the whole Bill.
I will want us now to take it, address it and then pass it. But there are legitimate questions. When we come to clause 4, there are legitimate questions, and we need to address them. The question that you posed was a legitimate question, but we need to confront it and address it, and pass it.
The First Deputy Speaker takes the Chair.
MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:01 p.m.
Do you still have the floor?
Mr Quashigah 12:01 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
As I mentioned, in a situation where a man's wife dies after having seven children with him and subsequently, the man decides to re-marry. Three months after re-marrying, the man passes on. Will it be fair to say that the new wife who just came into the marriage three months ago inherits 50 per cent of the estate?
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there have been situations and I have faced such a situation before. This was where a nephew got married; when he was getting married, he was not well. He never fully recovered. He died a month thereafter. There is nothing you can do about it; that is the law. Whether it is fair, one cannot really anticipate exceptions.

Mr Speaker, I do not know whether the Hon Chairman has agreed to defer the consideration of clause 4.
Mr Bagbin 12:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I tried to cleanup the proposed amendment and I thought that would be accepted for us to move on to the other issues that they are raising, so that they can see what we have proposed in the Bill and the Committee to deal with them.
Mr Speaker, I conceded to the point that was raised by Hon Papa Owusu- Ankomah and decided to give a new rendition to clause 4 (1), to read:
“Subject to sections 8 and 9, where the estate is one house, the surviving spouse is entitled to 50 per cent”.
An Hon Member 12:01 p.m.
How? It is too much.
Mr Bagbin 12:01 p.m.
Oh! This is half of your body. We are talking about half of your body -- [Interruption.]Your wife --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:01 p.m.
Hon Members, can you stop harassing the Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Bagbin 12:01 p.m.
And the two shall be one.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:01 p.m.
Allow him to address the Chair.
Mr Bagbin 12:01 p.m.
And the two shall be one. Now, one half is gone and it is left with the other half and we are to make adequate provision for that half. Now, when that body grew into the other half is not an issue that we can easily address. This is because we are talking about one woman; it may be more than one.
One could come in for three months, another could come in for one month, one week or even the same day. We cannot legislate to address this. When this occurs, the court will look at the evidence. That is why the court is there.
So, Mr Speaker, I am proposing that we take and I beg to read again:
“Subject to sections 8 and 9, where the estate is only one house, the surviving spouse is entitled…”
Only one house -- [Interruption.] -- I will come to household.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:01 p.m.
Can we hear from the Hon Member for Old Tafo? You have been up for quite some time now. What is it?
Dr A. A. Osei 12:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that the intention of the Hon Majority Leader is good. My only difficulty is that, a household property is a subset of the estate. Am I right?
So, if he says, “when the estate is one house”, we have a difficulty. This is because there is a fridge there. So, the estate can never be one house, especially if the household property is part of the estate; they will have clothes.
The intention is good. That is the problem I have. One can never have an estate which is one house, if the household property is a subset of the estate. That is my difficulty. So, it can never be one House, and I do not know -- But the intention is good. Maybe, it includes -- [Interruption.] Yes, I suspect so.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:01 p.m.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Bagbin 12:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to read:
“Subject to sections 8 and 9, where the estate includes one house, the surviving spouse is entitled to 50 per cent of the House”.
An Hon Member 12:01 p.m.
50 per cent is too much. It should be 25 per cent.
Mr Bagbin 12:01 p.m.
Oh! What do you mean?
An Hon Member 12:01 p.m.
25 or 20 per cent.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:01 p.m.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker -- [Interruptions]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:01 p.m.
Yes, I am listening.
Order! Order!
Yes, let us hear you.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are talking about where the estate includes only one house and the spouse or spouses are entitled to 50 per cent. The child or children are not provided for anywhere where it is only one house. So, we should then further amend it to say that:
“…and the surviving child is entitled to the remaining 50 per cent”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:01 p.m.
Hon Members, I think we all appreciate the fact that we cannot always legislate to take care of every kind of situation; it is not possible; that is why the courts are there. As and when cases come up, which are not apparently taken care of by legislature, then the court is visited for them to give us some --
Yes?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we go further down, subclause 2 provides and I beg to read:
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:01 p.m.
Hon Members, I will want to come up with a suggestion. I think that the consideration clause needs to be deferred for winnowing to take place for all these concerns to be raised.
For example, there is one issue, that properly, we have glossed over. A man lives with his wife or wives and children; at a point in time, the man's mother comes to live with them in the house. While he is alive, there is no problem; but she is a dependant though. When the man dies, there is no provision for this parent who is a dependant. So, there are quite a number of issues that we will have to look at.
So, I will suggest that we defer this for winnowing and then come back later to look at it.
Yes, Hon Naa Torshie Addo?
Mrs Irene Naa Torshie Addo 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in relation to what you talked about, if you look at section 12, it says that;
“Before the estate of the intestate is distributed, provision shall be made for the needs of a dependant child of the intestate.”
That is where what you just mentioned comes in. What about a dependant parent? What kind of provision do we have? Even apart from that parent living with you, if that parent was not living with you, but you were the sole person taking care of that parent -- We are talking about where there is one house and household chattels -- It devolves to the wife and children.
There are cars that are more expensive than houses. [Interruption.] Are you telling me a Bentley is not more expensive than some houses? Yes! So, where they have a child and have ten cars, there is so much in there.
But this is a mother that cannot even afford hospital bills or anything at all. Yet there is no provision for such a mother or father, who may not even live too long. She loses her child, meanwhile, she does not have an option of re-marrying or re- getting another child, but there is nobody to help with hospital bills or how she lives.
That is a provision, that we need to look at this time.
Thank you.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Thank you, Hon Member.
I think as I said, there are a number of issues, which have to be brought on board, at least, to give the thing some semblance of a solution to very many problems.
So, Majority Leader, what do you say? Do we defer this one for some further winnowing to take place and then we come back?
Mr Bagbin 12:15 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, we as a sub-committee of the whole House, would definitely be bound by the directives of the House. But Mr Speaker, I just want to draw attention to the fact that this Bill has been with us since 2013.
A lot of concerns have been expressed by our citizens, the delay in passing the Bill. They have taken keen interest in it and they have made copious contributions to the process.
Mr Speaker, I think if we really take our time to go through the other provisions, we will see that clause 5 talks about intestate survived by a spouse and child. What happens?
Clause 4, is also talking about an intestate survived by a spouse, child, or both entitled to one house Now, “spouse” includes spouses, and “child” includes children. So, I think that we should agree that we will go back and look at it again.
We will have to break it down, to address the issues that they are raising.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Thank you, very much.
Having heard from the Majority Leader, I believe this should bring this particular Consideration Stage to a close, so that we can have a look at other aspects of the Bill.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Yes, Hon Ursula Ekuful and Hon Dr A. A. Osei.
Dr A. A. Osei 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, having heard the Majority Leader, I think as we look at it, in clause 5, the headnote reads; “Intestate survived by spouse and child.” But then, it talks about residue and that complicates the matter.
If clause 4 was talking about intestate survived by spouse, that would have been alright. In clause 5, the residue should go. At least, take that on board.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Yes, Hon Ursula Ekuful?
Mrs Ursula G. Ekuful 12:15 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I believe that almost every clause in this Bill, will generate some kind of contention. So, if we are deferring this clause because of the sentiments of the House, then we might as well defer the whole Bill, which would not be in the interest of the people of this country and surviving spouses.

The discussion so far, has appeared to be -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Order! Order!
Hon Members, allow her.
Mrs Ekuful 12:15 p.m.
So, those who are opposing these clauses, may well be the beneficiaries of the law, once we work through it and pass it.
Mr Speaker, I think we should take our time and look at it. If we read the Bill in totality, we would realise that many of the concerns have been addressed in the later sections of the Bill.
Talking about surviving parents, there is a provision for the surviving parent in the Bill. Clause 3, talks about fifteen per cent going to the surviving parent. So, let us take our time and look at it. Exactly, what mischief does this clause intend to cure? Maybe, if we looked at it that way, it would remove the emotions from the discussion.
It says that -- clause 8 (2)
“Where the surviving spouse made a financial contribution the acquisition of the matrimonial home…”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Hon Member, it is for this reason that we are directing that we hold on, defer the matter, get further contributions or discussions by way of winnowing, and come back.
This is because while you are making this submission, somebody else has a counter. Mrs Irene Naa Torshie Addo has a contrary view. So, why do we not defer it, have further discussions and then come back?
By that time, I am sure we would have --
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mrs Addo 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just to correct the records, so that my Hon Colleague there, would understand.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Thank you very much.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
I think we have exhausted this thing.
Dr Prempeh 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if your directive is to defer it, then we will go there and do the winnowing. This is because there are a lot of issues.
Mr Speaker, one house has not even been defined in this Bill. So, I am taking a house to mean just a house. They said estate with only one house -- But that house has money, jewellery, fridges and so on.

Mr Speaker, maybe, we need a better counsel. So, we should defer it. This is because even the use of the word, “house”; I do not find it in the interpretation. We all know that when we talk about houses, the words “household properties” are there, with a lot of things that can be in one house.

Mr Speaker, we have to look at all that at a better stage, then we can --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Sekondi and then the Majority Chief Whip.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I just wish to note that even though we do not have any formal filibustering in this Parliament, we must be careful that we do not have some backdoor filibustering in respect of this Bill.
It seems to me if we are not careful, we are going to have some backdoor filibustering in respect of this Bill. This is because, it seems some Hon Members wish, desire and pray that this Bill is never enacted into law.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Yes, Hon Majority Chief Whip?
Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarak Muntaka 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker -- [Interruptions]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Hon Members, Order! Order!
Alhaji Muntaka 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in line with the suggestion that you made, I wish to apply to you, to end the Consideration Stage, to go back and look at it as you suggested and then come back to continue. So, we can continue with other Business.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with respect to my Colleague, Hon Papa Owusu-Ankomah, I think the statement that he made -- Mr Speaker, he is imputing

ill-motives to some Hon Members in the House. Mr Speaker, that is most un- parliamentary. I believe Hon Papa Owusu- Ankomah never intended what he has just said. May you please, direct him to withdraw it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Sekondi?
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it was never my intention to impute any ill- motive on the part of any Member. That is why I said, “it may appear as if”. But if the Hon Minority Leader and other Hon Members feel offended, I will withdraw it. Because, then, I have been seriously misunderstood. But I know that the Hon Minority Leader appreciates the fact that, it was not addressed to him neither the Hon Member for Manhyia South.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Thank you very much.
Yes, Hon Ranking Member?
Mr Osei-Owusu 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think what is confusing the discussion here is people trying to substitute their ideologies for the ideology contained behind this Bill.
Mr Speaker, what we are doing now is, adding or subtracting from the Bill. If anybody has any proposal to suggest anything contrary to what has been proposed, they are at liberty to file. In the meantime, Mr Speaker, I think that we should proceed with the work we have done.
Indeed, Hon Papa Owusu-Ankomah, Member for Sekondi has proposed a very useful amendment, which if carried through, will lead us to what we would want to achieve.
The others, whether when a spouse is married into a house, is married one day before the other spouse dies, whether he should have full benefit or otherwise, are ideologies. That one will continue to differ.
The ideology behind this Bill is that, there should be 50 per cent shares to a surviving spouse, irrespective of when or how that spouse came into marriage or for what length of period. That should be what we should be considering and we should be making amendments to achieve that.
If we would want that to come “three years after”, or whether we should draw a line that, one can benefit only after one has been married for 20 years -- that should be -- Maybe, in the future, we get the opportunity to propose that amendment. Or now, we can propose that amendment. But in the meantime, without any such amendment, I think we should proceed with the work.
I disagree with the Hon Majority Chief Whip that we should take this back. We should continue and finish because the work done is meticulous and we should --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Bagbin 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree we should do the winnowing because I have realised that, we have not comprehen- sively addressed even the title. Now, we have to talk about “the one house with a surviving spouse”. Then we have to talk about “one house with a surviving child”. Then we have to talk about the “one house with a surviving spouse and child”. That is what the title is talking about.
After that, the other issues will come in and then we address them systema- tically. So, I agree that we have to go and break down clause 4 (1) into these components, so that it becomes simpler and it can address all the issues that are being raised. So, I would want to plead with my Colleagues, for us to go and do that and put that to the --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Well, I believe that once we are at it, we will want to assure everybody that, once we have started, we will work on it to its conclusion, but we will need to do a thorough job. That is why there is the need to defer this matter.
On that note, I will direct that we bring the Consideration Stage to a close for today.
Hon Majority Leader, we are in your hands.
Mr Bagbin 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we have just one outstanding matter to look at today, which is the Report of the Committee on Poverty Reduction Strategy. Item 7 was moved and during the course of the debate, a few issues were raised . So, I would want us to continue with the debate on item 7.
The Chairman and members are available and I am told that the Ranking Member for the Finance Committee raised an issue. We will look at it, so that we conclude the debate on item 7.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Thank you very much.
Hon Members, item 7 on the Order Paper.
The Motion has been moved and seconded.
In the course of the debate, it became necessary to have it deferred for further consideration by the Committee and to come back to the floor of the House, having taken care of certain concerns raised by the Hon Ranking Member for the Finance Committee with regard to the discrepancies concerning the various issues.
Chairman of the Committee, let us hear from you. Have you had the opportunity
to look at the issues raised and if so, how far did you go?
MOTIONS 12:25 p.m.
  • [Resumption of debate from 13/2/ 2015]
    • Chairman of the Committee (Mr George K. Arthur) 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we can continue with the debate. We have addressed all the issues.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    So let us go through the issues one after the other and see how they have been addressed. If you can assist, or if any member of the Committee can assist us, it will make the work easier. If we know exactly what issues have been raised and how they have been addressed, then we move forward.
    Hon Member for Old Tafo, you raised the issues? The Chairman is informing us that the issues have been addressed and I will want to be sure that, really those issues, one after the other, have been addressed, then it gives us room to move forward.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:25 p.m.
    He said the issues had been addressed. May I know in what way, Chairman? He said they had been addressed. So, it would be useful to know how they have been addressed, so that we will see our way forward --
    Mr G. K. Arthur 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the first issue was about the figures raised in the Ghana Shared Growth Development Agency (GSGDA) Report. The Clerk informed me that there was a meeting they had with National Development Planning Commission (NDPC) and they explained the issues to them.
    Secondly, it was explained that this Report must be presented within the two years and once it is within the two years, I think it does not make any difference if we present it now. The figures which came in the GSGDA Report -- They said there would be no problem if they brought different figures in the budget. They can still carry on with the Motion. That was how it was explained to me. So, if they have any different view on that issue --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Old Tafo?
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, first of all, it is not true that we have had a meeting with NDPC. Whoever is giving out that information -- He said he was informed that we met with NDPC and they addressed it. That is not true.
    Secondly, I think he would have to understand the issues that I was raising, to say that they have been addressed properly. In the Report, it follows that, the GSGDA II is supposed to be carved out of the co-ordinated plan. If that is the case, then the numbers in the co-ordinated plan must be the same numbers in the GSGDA Report because you carved it out of it -- you cannot replace --
    When you come to the budget, the Report indicated to us that the budget was taken out of GSGDA II. So, when the budget gives you a growth rate of 4.6 per cent and the GSGDA gives you a growth rate of 8 per cent, something is wrong, either somebody missed the number or something happened.
    An attempt was made to say that because of the plan guide in the budget, we should take the number of the plan. That is completely illogical. What I was suggesting was that, if you would want us to adopt the Report, there should have been some caveat, that, given that there have been changes, we would be expecting the appropriate amendments to
    be made in the future. That means, we have taken cognisance of the fact that, there are issues, but the Report did not say that.
    So, all I was asking is that, let us not adopt the Report without making that type of amendment, that in spite of the relations in the empirical data, we are hoping that the NDPC will make the necessary changes in the future. Then, it means that, we know that there are problems and we are asking them to address them.
    But if we do not mention it at all, then adopting both is as if we are doing the wrong thing. It is as if we know that there is an error, yet we are closing our eyes -- then we would be protected. That is all I was hoping that --But those reasons that they are giving, do not address it.
    12. 35 p.m.
    Mr G. K. Arthur 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, exactly, that is how they addressed it to me, that we do further works but we can still move the Motion on them and later, we do further works on the GSGDA Report. That is exactly what we are saying.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Yes, Majority Leader?
    Mr Bagbin 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my attention was drawn to this issue and the explanation just given by the Hon Ranking Member, was exactly what I told them. But I took the position that we, in debating the Report, could amend the Report accordingly on the floor of the House, to include the explanation he has given.
    This is because we all know that the reality is that, things have changed. So, knowing that it is not possible to meet that growth rate, they stated what they projected would be the new growth rate, taking into consideration the challenges that we are meeting in the economy and that should stay in the budget.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    I think that is fair. So, Chairman of the Committee, you take this as an amendment to your Report. Are you in agreement?
    Mr G. K.Arthur 12:25 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Very well. I think that settles it.
    In that case, I will put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Resolved:
    That this Honourable House adopts the Report of the Committee on Poverty Reduction Strategy on the 2011 Annual Progress Report on the Implementation of the Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda
    (GSGDA), 2010 - 2013.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Alban S. K. Bagbin 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the next Report, I am told is not ready -- item 9 --[Pause.]
    Mr Speaker, I think the other issues left on the Order Paper are yet to be finalised. Item 5, I am told, Hon Members have not yet been given the comprehensive Report.
    There are a lot of amendments to the Right to Information Bill, 2013 and that is what is being captured to be added to the Report for Hon Members to look at; we can take that next week. Item 8 is yet to be finalised and then the Report for item 9 taken but a few issues have been raised, which are being looked at by the Committee.

    Mr Speaker, I think this is the right time for us to adjourn the House. So, I beg to move, that the House do adjourn till 10.00 o'clock in the forenoon tomorrow when we would reconvene to continue with Business.
    Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion for adjournment.
    I notice that there are some committees meeting and my interest is in the Committee on Mines and Energy. They intend to hold discussions with the Hon Minister for Power.
    We know where we are and I would want to believe that in the meeting with the Hon Minister for Power, the Committee should come out with something, or at least, invite the Hon Minister to make a statement in this House about the state of affairs in this country relating to power. He has spoken outside this House, yet he belongs to this House. So, let him come here.
    Another one on Foreign Affairs. I hope that they would relate to what happened recently to Ghanaians in Equatorial Guinea when we had the Cup of African Nations (CAN) Tournament. These are two critical matters. So, let our committees come and report to this House about them having engaged the relevant Ministers and perhaps, the Ministers themselves may have to come to this House.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Thank you very much.
    Hon Members, it has been moved and seconded, that this House stands adjourned to tomorrow at 10.00 o'clock in the forenoon.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    ADJOURNMENT 12:25 p.m.
  • The House was accordingly adjourned at 12.43 p. m. till Friday, 20th February, 2015 at 10.00 a.m.