Debates of 16 Jun 2020

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 11:51 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 11:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:51 a.m.
Hon Members, correction of the Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 12th June,
2020.
Page 1…8
Dr Kwaku Afriyie 11:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, last Thursday, 11th June, 2020, I filled a form of leave of absence to be in the constituency, and it was duly endorsed by the Hon Leader himself, but I have noticed that on page 6 of the Votes and Proceedings, I have been marked absent.
Mr Speaker 11:51 a.m.
It is noted please.
Page 8…9
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am sorry to take us back. I signed the leave of absence for the Hon Afenyo-Markin, Hon Amoako-Attah, Hon Moses Anim and Prof George Gyan-Baffour and posted them to you, so I should think that they would have been identified as having been absent with permission, but on pages 6 and 7, they have been captured as being absent.
Mr Speaker 11:51 a.m.
Thank you very much.
Page 9…12
Hon Members, in the absence of any further corrections, the Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 12th June, 2020 as corrected, are hereby admitted as the true record of proceedings.
Hon Members, we have the Official Report dated Wednesday, 27th May, 2020. Any corrections please?
Mr Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa 11:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, please, in the third paragraph of column 023, I was referring to the Johns Hopkins University, so if that could be captured accurately. The first paragraph at column 024, it should read “on the Ghana Health Service website”.
Mr Speaker 11:51 a.m.
Hon Members, any further corrections?
Dr Afriyie 11:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in paragraph 3 of column 020, it is captured “At the pari passu, we should have educated our people to be on the look out for it.” I made that Statement. It should read “Public education on COVID-19 should have gone pari passu with stigmatisation.”
Mr Speaker 11:51 a.m.
In the absence of any further corrections, the Official Report of Wednesday, 27th May, 2020, as corrected, is hereby admitted as the true record of proceedings.
Item numbered 3 - Questions. Hon Minister for Roads and Highways?
I am afraid Question 707 cannot be answered today because the Hon Minister is indisposed.
Hon Member for Krachi West?
ORAL ANSWERS TO 11:51 a.m.
QUESTIONS 11:51 a.m.
MINISTRY OF ROADS AND 11:51 a.m.
HIGHWAYS 11:51 a.m.
Ms Helen Adjoa Ntoso (NDC -- Krachi West) 11:51 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister for
Roads and Highways the status of the road from Dambai to Krachi and Krachi town roads.
Minister for Roads and Highways (Mr Kwasi Amoako- Attah) 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the road from Dambai to Kete Krachi forms part of the Regional road-R026 (Apesokubi to Borae Jn trunk road) and Regional road-R202 (Borae Jn to Dambai trunk road) in the Krachi West district of the Volta Region and the newly created Oti Region.
The Kete Krachi to Dambai is 75 kms. The first 10kms was upgraded in 2012 and the remaining 65kms is on contract for upgrading and reconstruction in three phases under the Cocoa Roads programme.
There are currently three contracts ongoing on the road.
A. Upgrading of Kete Krachi - Buya Road km 10 - 30: This project commenced on 15th May, 2014 and was scheduled for completion on 15th November, 2016. The work is 100 per cent complete. The project was funded by COCOBOD.
B. Upgrading of Kete Krachi - Buya Road km (30 - 56.9): This project commenced on 14th May, 2016 and was scheduled for
Mr Speaker 12:02 p.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Minister. One supplementary question each. Consider the number of Questions to be asked and the time. So ask just one question.
Ms Ntoso 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with the Answer that the Hon Minister has read out, it is difficult to ask just one supplementary question.
Mr Speaker 12:02 p.m.
Hon Member, ask one question. Otherwise, we shall ask only three questions and the rest will not have the opportunity.
Ms Ntoso 12:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, from the Answer that the Hon Minister has given, there is no mention of the name of the contractor in this submission. May I know who this contractor is and why the contract has been re- scoped downwards? The Hon Minister also stated that the contractor is not on site but I am speaking on authority that yesterday, as I was on my way back, the contractor was on site but the Hon Minister said the contract had been terminated for poor performance. May I know from the Hon Minister if the contract is being terminated for poor performance and he is claiming the contractor is not on
site meanwhile, the contractor is on site? Who is this contractor?
Mr Amoako-Attah 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in my Answer, I spoke about three different contracts entered into with various contractors.
If we take the Kete Krachi - Buya Road, the contractor was First Sky Limited and if my Hon Colleague wishes to know about the contract sum, it cost GH¢43.2 million. The contractor has been working at different sessions of the road and all these together with the upgrading of Borae Junction road of 17kms was also covered by him. The Kete Krachi- Buya road was also done by him and the contract sums were GH¢50.7 million and GH¢82.5 million respectively.

Mr Speaker, so, this is the contractor who was awarded these road contracts in the Hon Member's Constituency. The Hon Member also said that on her way yesterday, the contractor was on site because the information I have is that the contractor's performance on the Kete Krachi town roads was bad and because of the importance of Kete Krachi as a district capital, I indicated in my answer that we are arranging to work on those town roads. We have
Mr Speaker 12:12 p.m.
Hon Member, I can see that you are anxious to intervene so you may do so.
Ms Ntoso 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister stated other roads but I was very specific in the Question I asked. In the Question I referred to Dambai to Krachi and Krachi town roads. I did not refer to Banda Junction to Buya; I know that the contractor is working there but I was very specific about Dambai to Krachi and Krachi town roads.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister stated that they decided to terminate the contract due to poor performance so I want to know when the decision to terminate the contract was taken since the contractor is still working on site.
Mr Amoako-Attah 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is the information available to me at my Ministry. If we are terminating a contract due to poor performance, it does not necessarily mean that the contractor is physically absent from the site?
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member may have seen the contractor on site with some machines, but is the
contractor performing? If the contractor was performing then there would not have been the need to even file this Question.
So far as my Ministry is concerned, a contractor may physically leave a few equipment on site but that contractor is not performing. So the mere fact of maintaining a few equipment on the site does not constitute performance. The Ministry knows that the contractor is not performing and we are taking steps to make sure that the work is done for the benefit of the people.
Mr Speaker, once the contractor is not performing, we have the right to take steps to terminate the contract, repackage it and award it to a more efficient performing contractor. I believe that it is because of the poor performance of the contractor that necessitated this Question. As far as we are concerned the contractor is technically not performing.
Mr Speaker 12:12 p.m.
Hon Members, we would take Question numbered 729.
Commencement of Work on Enchi-Elubo Road
Mr Mathias Ntow (NDC -- Aowin) Mr Speaker, I beg to ask the Hon Minister of Roads and Highways when work on the Enchi-Elubo road would commence.
MrAmoako-Attah 12:12 p.m.
Background
Mr Speaker, the Enchi - Elubo road is Route N12 of length 72kms. The road has a gravel surface in poor condition. The road connects the Aowin and Jomoro districts of the Western North and Western regions and to the nation's border with the Ivory Coast.
Thirty-seven kilometres (37kms) out of the total length of 71kms from Elubo to Asemkro was awarded in 2011. The project was terminated due to poor performance.
Current programme
The Construction of Enchi - Elubo road Km (0.00 - 71.25) to bituminous surfacing was awarded on 18th March, 2020 and is scheduled for completion on 18th September, 2023, a period of 42 calendar months. The project is financed by the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD).
Pre - commencement meeting for the project was held on 8th April, 2020. The Contractor has mobilised to site and has started with the clearing of the roadside vegetation.
Mr Ntow 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank the Hon Minister for awarding the contract although it is belated.
I want the Hon Minister to take note of a situation and assist accordingly. Indeed, the contractor is clearing the roadside vegetation but there are a lot of big potholes, popularly referred to as manholes, in the middle of the road - Enchi to Elubo. Would the Hon Minister be kind enough to instruct the contractor to fill these potholes for the road to be motorable?
Mr Speaker, during this time of the year, no vehicle can use that road, so would the Hon Minister be kind enough to do this for the people in my constituency?
Mr Amoako-Attah 12:12 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I can assure my Hon Colleague that one of the nation's top contractors is on that road, namely Top International Engineering. Every road construction starts with the clearance of vegetation and that is what the contractor has done.
Mr Speaker, however, I share my Hon Colleague's concern that something should be done about these deep-seated potholes and this is not a situation of patching them. Potholes are usually patched if we want to do resealing, but the contractor is on site to do rehabilitation and so we would accordingly instruct the contractor to level the road to make it motorable until such time that he starts developing the road to sub-base and base levels.

732.

Construction of Arterial and Collector Roads in Selected Towns in Sekondi-Takoradi

Metropolis

Mr Andrew Kofi Egyapa Mercer (NPP -- Sekondi) Mr Speaker, I beg to ask the Minister of Roads and Highways when the arterial and collector roads in Kweikuma, Adiembra, Pariscoa, Baka Ekyir Townships within Sekondi in the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis would be constructed.
Mr Amoako-Attah 12:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
Background
Kweikuma, Adiembra, Pariscoa and Baka Ekyir are communities located within Sekondi in the Sekondi- Takoradi Metropolis of the Western Region.
Unfortunately, the roads within these communities are in very deplorable state. The roads have poor surface conditions. There is therefore the urgent need to improve the roads surface conditions.
As part of its objective to improve the condition of road network in Sekondi and its environs, the Department of Urban Roads (DUR) has commenced the procurement of works on some selected arterial and collector roads within the Sekondi- Takoradi Metropolis under a project titled ‘Upgrading of Selected Arterial and Collector Roads in Sekondi (10.22 kms).
The candidate roads under this project include, Sekondi- Kokompe, Pariscoa, Baka Ekyir Pariscoa, Baka Ekyir Drug Store, Pariscoa and Baka Eyir Drug Links, Baka Ekyir Goil, Sekondi Agric Office, Educational Office EPA, Social Welfare, Pamatrans, Kwesi Budu, Sagoe Pine, Caliper, Harmony Wiseman, BNI, Bigstone, Adiembra.
Police Station and Nkontompo WAMCO roads. The rest are Spark, Rich Valley and Osam Pinanko streets.
Current Programme
The tender evaluation report for the project “Upgrading of Selected Arterial and Collector Roads in Sekondi (10.22 kms)” is being reviewed by the Western Regional Tender Review Committee for concurrent approval. This shall
subsequently be forwarded to the Department of Urban Roads (DUR) Head Office, where the procurement process will continue to the eventual award of the contract to the successful bidder by the end of June, 2020.
The scope of work includes:
1. Construction of drainage structures of various sizes,
2. Earthworks;
3. Pavement works;
4. Bituminous Surfacing; and
5. Traffic Management and Safety works.
Mr Mercer 12:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, indeed, my checks confirm that this morning, the Western Regional Tender Review Committee has granted concurrent approval for the project. So I take it that the Hon Minister's assurance that the contract would be awarded by end of June holds sway.
In the circumstances, I thank the Hon Minister and the Government of H. E. Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo- Addo on behalf of the people of Kweikuma, Adiembra, Pariscoa, Baka Ekyir for considering them in this
year of roads and granting them this 10.22 kms for effective movement within the community.
Mr Amoako-Attah 12:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank my Hon Colleague for his kind words. This is characteristics of the current Government. Anytime I stand here, I give facts; and whatever we start, we finish. I assure him that all projects commenced under this Government would see completion.
Mr Speaker 12:21 p.m.
Thank you, Hon Minister, for your assurances.
Question 733 -- Hon Member for South Tongu?
Steps to continue with the construction of the road from Akalove through Gamenu to
Hawuiie
Mr Kobena Mensah Woyome (NDC -- South Tongu) 12:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to ask the Minister for Roads and Highways what steps are being taken to continue the construction of the road from Akalove through Gamenu to Hawuiie.
Mr Amoako-Attah 12:21 p.m.
Background
Mr Speaker, the Akalove -- Gamenu - Hawuiie feeder road
Mr Woyome 12:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in reference to the Hon Minister's Answer, at a point, he said:
“The section from Lolito to Amedormekope, which is 17.20kms has gravel surface in fair condition.”
Mr Speaker, this is really not the case currently when it is raining heavily. Also, he said:
“The third section which starts from the outskirt of Akalove town through Akalove to Hawuiie is 4.0kms and has gravel surface in poor condition.”
Mr Speaker, he is right, and it is becoming very challenging using it. While we wait for the future programme, would he consider some remedial works to enable some easiness in the use of those sections of the road?
Mr Amoako-Attah 12:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in the first place. I never said the road between Lolito to Amedormekope covering a distance of 17.20 kms is in good condition. I said it is in a fair condition.
Mr Speaker, there are three conditions of road. And any road lying anywhere would satisfy one of the three. A road may technically be considered as good, fair or poor.
I am happy that the Hon Member has confirmed when I said the stretch
at the outskirt of Akalove is in poor condition.

If you take the entire stretch of the road, there is a proportion in a fair condition and the rest are in poor condition. I indicated in my Answer that, we have carried out engineering studies on the entire stretch, because the vision for this road is to bring the entire stretch to bituminous level. That is being considered and we hope to go through the procurement processes before the close of the year, so that by next year, it would br captured in the 2021 Budget Statement.

So my Hon Colleague can be sure that from January, 2021, immediately after the new Government of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) is sworn in, this might be the first project that would begin the year. Remedial work is ongoing. The routine maintenance is part of the normal work that we carry on such roads. The Hon Member can be assured that it would be captured under that maintenance programme.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 12:31 p.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Minister for attending to the House and answering our Questions this morning.
Hon Members, we shall move on to item numbered 16 - Motion. The ensuing ones are not ready.
rose
Mr Speaker 12:31 p.m.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Iddrisu 12:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I wanted to indulge you that Question numbered 728, once we still have the Hon Minister for Roads and Highways -- it stands in the name of Hon Samuel Nartey George.
Mr Speaker 12:31 p.m.
The Hon Minister for Roads and Highways has been discharged.
Mr Iddrisu 12:31 p.m.
All right. Thank you.
Mr Speaker 12:31 p.m.
Hon Member, when I called the Question twice, the owner was not here, nor had the owner found it fit to make relevant arrangements for someone else to take up his Question.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader, item listed 16?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we may do item numbered
5.
Mr Speaker 12:31 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, those were not your advices.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is item numbered 5 (a). Item numbered 5 (b) is not ready, so we would do that one.
Mr Speaker 12:31 p.m.
Which should we do?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, item numbered 5 (a) on page 3 of the Order Paper.
Mr Speaker 12:31 p.m.
Hon Members, item numbered 5.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I may seek your indulgence to present the Paper on behalf of the Hon Minister for Finance.
Mr Speaker 12:31 p.m.
Hon Member, please do.
PAPERS 12:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker 12:31 p.m.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader, where do you move to?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the other items are not ready yet. The Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee is unavailable, so we would stand them down and go to the item numbered 20 on page 11 of the Order Paper.
Mr Speaker 12:31 p.m.
Hon Member, are all the other issues not ready?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, they are not ready, and the Hon Chairman of the Committee is also not available.
Mr Speaker 12:31 p.m.
Hon Members, Consideration Stage. Item listed 20 - Land Bill, 2019 at the Consideration Stage.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 12:31 p.m.
STAGE 12:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker 12:31 p.m.
Hon Members, item numbered (i), clause 12.
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Francis Manu-Adabor) 12:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we would still stand clause 12 down. We finished with clause 20 the other time, so we would continue with clause 21.
Mr Speaker 12:31 p.m.
Hon Members, clause 21?
Clause -- Restrictions regarding disposal of minerals.
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 21, headnote, delete “minerals” and insert “natural resources”.
Mr Speaker, because we have timber also considered in that clause. The new rendition would be:
“Restrictions regarding disposal of natural resources.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 21, line 1, after “stool” insert “ or skin” and in line 3, delete “minerals in land or timber or rubber” and insert “natural resources”.
Mr Speaker, the rendition would be 12:31 p.m.
“An instrument that disposes of stool or skin, clan or family land, or land owned by a group of persons, a corporate body or an individual does not have the effect of granting a right or title to or an interest in the natural resources on the land.”
Mr Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor 12:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment, except that while in line 4, we seek to delete “minerals” and insert “natural resources”. It should be “in the land” and not “on the land”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the most appropriate construction, because as somebody is indicating from behind me, we cannot have timber as a natural resource in the land. Mr Speaker, the appropriate language finds expression in article 257 (6) of the Constitution.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:41 p.m.


So, it should be “natural resources in, under or upon the land.” I think that article 257(6) of the Constitution captures it better. It reads:

“Every mineral in its natural state in, under or upon any land in Ghana…”
Mr Speaker 12:41 p.m.
I think that brings it to a full completion. I would put the Question.
Mr Iddrisu 12:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.
Clause 21 deals with the restrictions that regard the disposal of minerals. We just passed the Minerals Investment Fund Bill, 2018 and it is more of a policy matter for the Hon Minister to take note. Once we are doing this, it would be important for the Hon Minister or his Deputy to be here to observe the proceedings.
Mr Speaker, while I have no problem with you putting the Question on the entire clause 21, there is a policy issue. When we have restrictions that regard the disposal of minerals, what happens to the provisions of the Mineral Investment Fund Act? This is because in it, we have given a mandate to them to do some things that regard minerals as generally defined, not
minerals as in land but minerals as the Hon Majority Leader quoted; it has to do with minerals as envisaged within the meaning of article 257(6) of the Constitution, and this is just so that the policy people would be guided.
Mr Speaker 12:41 p.m.
The appropriate guidance accordingly then.
Mr Iddrisu 12:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if the Hon Chairman has no objection, then we could change the word “mineral” in the headnote to “land”. This is because I have read clause 21 well. It says:
“An instrument that disposes of stool, clan or family land or land owned by a group of persons, a corporate body or an individual does not have the effect of granting a right or title to or an interest in minerals in land or timber or rubber.” -- [Laughter] --
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22 -- Restrictions on mining, timber and farming rights
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, headnote, delete “and insert “Restrictions on exploitation of natural resources and farming rights.”
Mr Dafeamekpor 12:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have issues with the term “farming rights”. If we read the body of the entire clause, for instance, we would want to limit the grant of farming to not more than ten years, and that for me, runs counter to the Government's own policy on agriculture. So I think that we should flag this provision and reconsider it. This is because to say that we cannot grant farming rights for more than ten years but would want to capture this in a mother Statute is problematic.
Mr Speaker, this is because in certain types of farming, like plantation farming, the cash crop do not bear fruit. Sometimes, it does so only after ten years, and that is farming. The body of the provisions must be derived from the headnote. So in all sincerity and in all humility, I think that we should have a second look at this, vis-a-vis the nation's policy on agriculture and on farming in general.
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I only proposed an amendment to the headnote. We have considered the ten years that he talks of, and it is a further amendment that would soon follow. I therefore think that he should
wait for us to finish with the amendment before he comes out with that proposal.
Mr Speaker 12:41 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Iddrisu 12:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, mine would not be specifically on the Hon Chairman's proposed amendment. I support him, but if we read clause 22(1) well, we have the phrase: “Despite anything to the contrary”.
Mr Speaker, with your indulgence and leave, I would like to ask for the deletion of that phrase. What does “anything to the contrary” mean? If we would want to say “despite the provisions of an enactment”, then that is permissible.
Mr Speaker 12:41 p.m.
Hon Members, just a moment. The Hon Second Deputy Speaker would take the Chair. [Pause]
12.48 --
MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:41 p.m.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Iddrisu 12:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was on my feet on clause 22(1) of the Land Bill, 2019, and I was particularly
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:41 p.m.
Hon Members, I do not know whether the Question on the headnote was put? [Interruption] - It was not put; however, to make the assurance doubl e sure, I woul d put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:41 p.m.
Now, the Hon Minority Leader proposed an amendment to clause 22(1), line 1. He had a problem with the phrase: “Despite anything to the contrary.”
Hon Chairman, what is your reaction to that?
Mr Manu-Adabor 12:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that I would wait for your directive.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:51 p.m.
Well, I am inclined to accept the position of the Hon Minority Leader. This is because, as he said, the phrase is so open. It says: “Despite anything to the contrary”. What does that mean? I do not usually come across that kind of legal phraseology. We may direct that the draftspersons look at it.
This is because usually, we use the word “notwithstanding”, but with the use of the phrase: “Despite anything to the contrary” -- [Laughter] --

It means that even if we legislate in future, it would still not be bound because “despite anything to the contrary” is a complete ouster clause.

Yes, Hon Majority Leader, I want to direct the draftsperson to re-look at it.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that, it is in order because the Hon Minority Leader's concern is about the open-endedness of that construction, but what he is proffering, I was just telling him that the value is the same. If we said that “despite any other enactment, the grant of farming on stool, clan or family land shall not exceed”, the value indeed is the same. So, I agree with you that we could leave it to the draftspersons; we shall have further consultations with that.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:51 p.m.
Hon Members, I direct that the draftspersons should have a second look at it.
Mr Iddrisu 12:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, even there, as I listened to the Hon Majority Leader, though I refute that -- [Interruption] -- the value is not the same. “Anything to the contrary”, Mr Speaker, I insist; this is not just a matter for -- you can direct the draftspersons after you have put the Question. The draftspersons cannot draft it as we want, but let us be guided by what we say; we cannot have a legislation where we say “anything to
the contrary”. It is not an acceptable construction.
Mr Speaker, then, as I listened to the Hon Majority Leader, I noticed that when he, himself came to clause 22(1), the second line, he punctuated himself when he got to “farming”. Between “farming” and “stool” in the second line, there is something wrong there; I think a comma should come. When we say, “farming on stool, clan or family land” -- that is why I agree with Mr Speaker that then he could direct the draftspersons to take care of those matters but the words, “anything to the contrary”, I would insist that they be deleted if I have your indulgence.
Mr Speaker, I thank you.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:51 p.m.
Well, I wanted to listen to the Hon Members on that clause before I put the Question. So we are not saying that we are leaving it to the draftspersons but let us listen to Hon Members and see how we could re- phrase it before we move on.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader is right when he said I paused on line 2. I was trying to see the better construct, but really, I think the word missing there is right; the headnote is on restrictions on mining, timber and
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:51 p.m.
Well, the headnote had been amended earlier to now read: “Restrictions on exploitation of natural resources and farming rights”. So we would have to capture that in the main body as we go along. But let me listen to the Hon Dafeamekpor.
Mr Dafeamekpor 12:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I need your guidance; I do not see any - apart from the amendments in respect of the clauses under 22, I have struggled to interpret the meaning of farming rights. I have checked the Interpretation Clause as it is and we have not defined “rights” nor “farming”. And my worry is this, this is -- [Interruption] -- the farming right is embedded in the opening statement so it appears that we want to classify it as a type of interest in land, but we need to define that because we seek to disaggregate the types of farming in terms of the crops that one can cultivate.
For instance, we say that where one's farming is in cash crops or permanent crops -- now, when one seeks to farm not in permanent crops but in cereals for instance, and this law
says that where one acquires a piece of land for purposes of that agrarian activity, the grant cannot exceed ten years --
Mr Speaker, I am saying that because of the rationale behind the thinking, I think that we should pause and consider the whole provision because government upon government have been rolling out policies in agriculture. There is a policy running on Planting for Food and Jobs, when somebody is benefiting under this policy after ten years, if the land owner decides that he would not extend the grant, does the farmer have to pack and go back because of this new law? Mr Speaker, it is a problem for me.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:51 p.m.
Well, I thought we will finish clause 22(1) before we go to clause 22(1)(a) so; we were on clause 22(1).
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:51 p.m.
Well, since you insist; yes, Hon Member?
Mr Bedzrah 12:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with my Hon Colleague Member of Parliament (MP) for South Dayi. If we look at the headnote, it has to do with farming rights, and per his explanation, we
need to sit back and look at it critically, especially, in clause 22(1)(a). So, if Mr Speaker wants us to look at subclause (1) before coming to subclause (1)(a), I think we should all sit back and look at it.
Mr Speaker, in my small village, as my people decide to give me a land to cultivate under Planting for Food and Jobs, and after ten years, it ceases to be -- [Interruption] -- so please, let us sit back, look at it critically, if we have to amend the farming rights, and unless we want look at it from a commercial perspective that it is commercial farming rights and not peasant farming.
I thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Adabor 12:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, when we go to the item numbered (xiv) -- - that is why I said they should wait for us to go systematically. The term they are talking about is 25 years as proposed. It is no more ten years; it is 25 years that we are proposing. So if we could come to (xiv), that it is the proposed amendment, the term is not 10 years anymore, we are proposing 25 years.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:51 p.m.
Hon Members, but I insist that we finish with clause 22(1) before we go to clause (22)(1) (a) and (b); there is something in clause 22(1).
Mr Dafeamekpor 12:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if I may —
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:51 p.m.
Well, Hon Dafeamekpor, I have not recognised you. Please, let me hear Hon Ahiafor.
Mr Ahiafor 1:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity. The problem is even emanating from the headnote because it is talking about restriction on farming rights. Mr Speaker, why should there be restriction on farming rights having regard to clause 5 of the Bill?
So that is where the problem is emanating from. They should tell us the rationale behind restricting farming rights? Look at the way the usufructuary title is defined in the Bill -- clause 5 --

“5(1) The usufruct is an interest in land, which is

(a) acquired in the exercise of an inherent right by a subject or a member of a stool, skin, family, clan or group which holds the allodial title through the development of unappropriated portion of the land…”
Mr Sayibu 1:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that I get the argument that is pushed forward by Hon Dafeamekpor to mean that he does not think there should be any restrictions at all on farming rights. So even if the amendment that the Hon Chairman spoke of is incorporated, it still does not deal with the headnote of clause 22 that is to limit restrictions on farming rights.
Mr Speaker, I am of the opinion that because the farming right is part of the usufruct interest that people would have on land, it is also important for people with allodial ownership of that land to be able to determine if there is a plan to use the land for any other purpose within a certain given period. For example, if you know you have the rights for 25 years, which is renewable, and the allodial owners intend to use the land for any other purpose after the 25 years, they should have that negotiation with you and it should be known to whoever is using it to farm.
Mr Speaker, this could even avoid situations where when developments have to take place by the allodial
owners, you would have farmlands being destroyed after cultivation for such developments to take place.
However, if you know that you have the rights for 25 years and do not have the permission to cultivate after 25 years, you would not put up anything there that would have to be destroyed for any development that is not related to farming to be carried out. That for me is a good reason. There should be some restriction and 25 years is what I consider reasonable. I share in the proposed amendment to make it 25 years.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:01 p.m.
Hon Members, I think there is vast difference between clause 5 and clause 22. Clause 5 deals with the usufruct title of the original occupants by whatever means. Now, if the original occupants are now to grant farming rights, do they also make it in perpetuity? That is what the clause is addressing and it says no, you have to give it for a term of years.
As for the 10 years, we can look at it as the Hon Chairman has proposed. However, I do not also think that it is also just a freehold in perpetuity. No, it should not be that.
I see one gallant general, so let me listen to him.
Mr Ayariga 1:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this clause is indeed one of the most important clauses that this Parliament should pay attention to. In recent times, there is a phenomenon of land grabbing spreading over Africa where Western, North American and Eastern investors, in view of the vast expanse of land still available in Africa, are going around grabbing large tracts of land at very cheap cost and tying the hands of the land owners with long tenures.
Later, they make some minimal investments, improve the value of the land and forget the original owners. These original owners pass by, see their land being developed and cannot participate in the new wealth that this land is creating. So there has been a movement to minimise the opportunities for land grabbing in Africa.
This clause is clearly dealing with the issues that Mr Speaker drew our attention to and not the rights of the original, allodial or usufruct owners to use the land for farming and any other agricultural activity. It is the extent to which they can divest themselves of interest in that farmland and for what period of time. This would enable us restrict them to reasonable periods, and if after that, the buyer comes for renegotiation for the extension of their rights to farm, then they have an
opportunity at that stage to make a killing.
They could say, well, you have invested in the land, you have worked for 10 years and have earned something. So now, if you want to extend it for another 10 years, then if you were paying GH¢1,000 per acre, now pay GH¢4,000 and the owners of the land would also benefit. So this clause is very important in view of recent developments in land grabbing and this House should pay attention and maintain the 10 years instead of extending it.
I know some farmers in this Chamber who are protesting because they are afraid that their interests would be restricted. [Laughter] However, we need to protect the original owners. Ten years is a reasonable time to make some earnings and subsequently, renegotiate the terms.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:01 p.m.
Hon Member, you know, the number of years restricts the investment you can put in. So you also have to take that on board.
Hon Minority Leader, you were up; I do not know now whether you have abandoned that so I can -- Yes, please?
Mr Iddrisu 1:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, first, on clause 22, I am uncomfortable that we do not have the Minister who is driving the policy here. I can appreciate the Hon Chairman doing it on his behalf but on many of these issues, there are policy questions that we need answering.
Mr Speaker, you have referred to that notorious ruling on the rule against perpetuity which is respected in our courts. Even in this House, take Sinohydro for instance, we used bauxite as collateral. It is a commodity. Bauxite is a mineral and in that agreement, it probably may take that Chinese investor more than 25 years to recoup his investment. Therefore we need to be careful when we are defining these limits. I have just referred to Sinohydro and I can give many --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:01 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, but this one is dealing with farming rights. The next one would deal with mineral rights, which is clause 22(2) --
Mr Iddrisu 1:01 p.m.
Yes, I am speaking in general terms. I have seen it.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:01 p.m.
But you were still using the term of years in trying to explain the issue of mining rights. That is why I was drawing your attention. You can go on.
Mr Iddrisu 1:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we should not be in a rush to put the Question on some of these matters. I am saying that apart from Sinohydro, I can bring many other examples. So we can clear some of these issues. When we even go further, such as the right to cultivate rubber - I used to be Minister for Trade at some point in history.
Ghana had a standing problem with La Côte d' Ivoire over some rubber plantation in the Western Region. Now, if we want to limit it, much of it may have to do with famil ies or the same stool or clan. The words used in clause 22(1) are “ stool , clan or family land”. I think that when we were doing the Second Reading, this had important implications on our ease of doing business and our abi l i ty as a country to attract the needed foreign direct investments.
So I note that I am for an expanded period. I agree with him that it should not be 10 or 50 years but i t should not also be to perpetuity as the courts have ruled against that principle.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:11 p.m.
Our hands are tied as there is a constitutional provision which deals with the term of years that could be
granted to a non-Ghanaian, which is not more than 50 years. We cannot go beyond that but work within and careful about commercial farming, even whether we deal with crops or whatever because we need to invest a lot in it.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as you rightly noted, this involves the grant of rights to farming from the original owners -- the allodial title holders. They would grant the right to a person to cultivate the unappropriated sections of the stool or family land, so it cannot be in perpetuity; it must be time bound. So what time is reasonable under the circumstance? If we talk about the cultivation of cereals alone, 10 years continuous cultivation would have exhausted the land but it does not even have to deal with cereals alone - it talks about poultry farming too. We cannot limit the use of land by poultry farmers to just 10 years, which is why the period has been extended to 25 years.
Mr Speaker, if a person cultivates cereals like corn or maize and wants to introduce legumes to further enrich the soil before returning to the cultivation of maize and so on - I believe 25 years represents a generation and a generation that comes up should also have interest in
the land. So to me, this amendment is good. Even in the regard of the tree crops, they said it should be extended to 50 years, so by that time, it should be reverted to the original owners. If they intend to renew it, that is their beef but to say that it should be granted in perpetuity, it cannot be so. But 10 years is also too short a time to attract any useful investment. The 25 years that has been proposed is good enough.
Alhaji Muntaka 1:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Majority Leader because constitutionally, it cannot be handed over in perpetuity. However, even the 25 years is not adequate. My view is that paragraphs (a) and (b), should stand together. If a person acquires a stretch of land with the intention to cultivate cocoa, for example, but when the soil test is done it indicates that some stretch of the land cannot be used for cocoa but for maize cultivation or for ranging, if the farm land is separated per cereal, per crop tree, the investor would be put in a kind of difficulty. I am a living example of this. The investment that goes into farming is not like the five or 10 acres of backyard farming that people do. For a person to cultivate even cereal properly, there should be a farm house, warehouse and a place for driers.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:11 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, you have a task to perform. We would need the proposers of the Bill because this is an issue of policy. We are aware of the challenges with investors in Ghana as a result of the state of the law, particularly, the land law. We do not know the position the Government has taken with regard to some of these issues. They are policy issues and as the Hon Majority Leader has brought to our attention, I do not see the Hon Minister for Lands and Natural Resources and the Hon Deputy Ministers. The Hon Chairman has done very well but he is not part of the Ministry.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister is in a meeting with the Chief of Staff in a lead up to a Cabinet meeting, which is supposed to start now. The Hon Deputy Minister, who was in the House last week, is also facing a battle in his own backyard, so he had to go back to his constituency.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:11 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, if you could assure us that you are on top of the policy matters -- being the one in charge of Government Business, we could proceed.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I know what is at stake. We were together at the winnowing meeting.
The Hon Member for Bawku Central, Mr Ayariga, related to land grabbing by foreigners but land grabbing could also be done by indigenes and citizens of Ghana. Imagine moving from here - and I did that.
I moved from here on one occasion to the northern part of Ghana to take a parcel of land to grow rice and those days we took it for 10 years but today, by this law we want to say it could be extended to 25 years for the cultivation of cereals; and people say that it should be extended to 50 years? People would see that as amounting to land grabbing [Interruption]. Yes, no allodial title holder of any land in Ghana would allow a person to take the land for the cultivating of food crops for more than 25 years. [Interruption] -- He is a squatter himself -- [Laughter] -- that is land grabbing by the back door.

We should be solemn. Twenty-five years represents a generation and if I go up north -- [Interruption] -- It is almost a generation.

Mr Speaker, if I go up north to take a parcel to cultivate rice, he is saying that I could take it for 50 years. The 25 years is subject to renewal. If they renew it, it should be all right.

Mr Speaker, the cultivation of cereals does not involve any permanent fixtures on the land but if it is tree crops like mango and even with these seasonal crops like cassava and pineapple, when one would perhaps want to do some processing, 25 years should be good enough a time to have one's investment back. After all, how long do these state corporations last?

Mr Speaker, to take a land for 50 years to cultivate cereals to me is too much. The example that was given by the Hon Majority Chief Whip --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:21 p.m.
Well, Hon Majority Leader, I do not think any Hon Member would insist that we should grant that to cereal farming. Fifty years would be on a high side.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is what the Hon Minority Chief Whip is saying.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:21 p.m.
I was trying to let us take the first clause and then move on to the issue of years because I think the proposals made by the Committee are quite generous.
Mr Dafeamekpor 1:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree. In all humility, I raised the issue because it appears we are confusing land use and purpose with interests and that is the problem. My problem is that the law is well settled.
Mr Speaker, I have in my hand Land Law, Practice and Conveyancing in Ghana by Justice Dennis Dominic Adjei and I have the authorities quoted in Ohimen v Adjei and all those chain of cases underpinning the principles of interests in land in this country.
Mr Speaker, if we confuse farming rights with the purpose, we would run ourselves into danger. I have heard arguments that if we take the land for purposes farming and, tomorrow, investors come, the land owners may want to push the farmers out and give it to investors. That is not the principle here. Purpose and land use are different. In this one, we speak of interests and my interest in the land for which I want a parcel to farm on is farming. We are saying that we would statutorily prevent anybody
from holding an interest in land for purposes of farming for not more than 10 years. That is where I have the problem.
Mr Speaker, it is not about housing rights. I speak of farming rights and, with all due respect, may I quote the authority in Ohimen v Adjei as far back as 1957. In that case, the court held as follows:
“It will be repugnant to natural justice and good conscience, if while the stool can insist upon the services and customary rights due to it from the subjects, it could arbitrarily deprive its subjects of the enjoyment of the portions of the stool land in their possession. On the other hand, the only title in land which a subject can claim against a stool
…”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, he read something which I would want him to go back to. He talked about rights due to --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:21 p.m.
No, he was drawing our attention to the differences between land use and land rights.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, I would want him to go over what he read. There is something
even materially wrong with what he is reading. So let him go over -- [Interruption] -- The judgment could be wrong.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:21 p.m.
Well, it is a 1957 case, so you could even see the language is akin to master-servant colonial relations. So please, we have gone beyond that.
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 1:21 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just to indulge you that at the Consideration Stage, we are guided by Standing Order 129. As you were guiding us, I saw that we all drifted away.
Mr Speaker, if we go to clause 22(1), let us exhaust it as our Standing Orders provide and then we can make progress as you gave a cue that we should wait, when we come to the years then we can do those insertions, additions or subtractions so that we would know methodically what it is that we are doing to improve clause
22.
Mr Speaker, but having listened to the Hon Majority Leader, I am now even against the 25 years. They should maintain what is in the original Bill -- 10 years -- [Laughter] --
Mr Speaker, I would use Dagbon and my own cultural relationship and

No! Poultry farming and cultivation of cereals. The words here are cereals; groundnut is cereal. There is no commerciality here. I am minded not to support 25 years.

Mr Speaker, with what the Hon Mahama Ayariga cautioned, we should be careful that there are investors who would enter our country to take advantage of lands. The example I could have used is emotive. In our area, one of the institutions that has easy access to land is the church. When they enter, they go in with church, then, they expand the land over a period to the disadvantage of the allodial owners. But in the name of religion, our chiefs and people give in and grant it. So I am not for 25 years again. I have repented; 10 years.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:31 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, actually, the greatest threat to the rights of land owners is not churches or faith-based organisations or Ghanaians; it is the State. Government is the greatest threat and we need to look at this carefully because the issue of 10 years is also on the low side. I think the Committee did a good job by looking at it because if we talk about peasant farming, as the Hon Minority Leader referred to, you would think that 10 years is all right but with commercial farming, it is definitely on the low side. [Interruption]
Well, Hon Member, I did not allow you to finish because you were taking us back to the court room and doing advocacy but those principles are quite laid out and we are guided by them.

We are legislating and we are at liberty to change the law. And so, we can even legislate against the position that the court has taken earlier because that was the state of the law. We are engineering the law so we are not bound to follow the rulings of the court in legislation.

It is not the same. Hon Members, “…anything to the contrary” does not talk about provisions; it talks about anything, not just law. I said “… anything contrary in any other enactment…”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker that is why I said that the value is the same. We can leave that construction to the draftsperson, while we appreciate the principle.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:31 p.m.
If we have to leave that, it means that I
cannot put the question on clause 22, but we can take the amendment in clause 22(1)(a) and (b), and then, leave that to the draftsperson and later on, we would put the question. So, let us do the amendment in clause 22(1)(a).
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman is the substitution of “ten years” for “twenty five years”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:31 p.m.
He has not moved that amendment. Let him move it. Hon Chairman, clause 22(1) (a)?
Mr Manu-Adabor 1:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, sub-clause (1), paragraph (a), line 2, delete “ten” and insert “twenty-five”.
Dr Prempeh 1:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman, in moving the amendment has not convinced this House on why he moved it. Listening to the Hon Majority Leader and the Hon Minority Leader, we support the 10 and not the 25 years. We support what is originally in the Bill. [Interruption]
I speak on behalf of all my Hon Colleagues who are busy in their constituencies campaigning and those
who understand the issues. Mr Speaker, we will vote against the insertion of “twenty-five years”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:31 p.m.
Hon Chairman, at page 14, have you moved the amendment captured in item 20(xiii)?
Mr Manu-Adabor 1:31 p.m.
No.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:31 p.m.
All right. Should we flag that one too?
Mr Manu-Adabor 1:31 p.m.
Yes, I jumped to the amendment captured as 20(xiv) because you wanted us to amend paragraph (a), but we can consider all the others.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:31 p.m.
It says “Sub-clause (1), at end add a new paragraph as follows: (c) in the case of timber, a term of fifty years”. Do you want us to take the amendment captured in item 20(xiv) first?
Mr Manu-Adabor 1:31 p.m.
Yes.
Mr Bedzrah 1:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, coming from the built environment, I have noticed that even farmlands, when granted, of late, people build on them. So I believe that the 10 years will suffice if we allow it instead of the 25 years. Somebody may be granted permission to farm for a period of 10
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 22(a) talks about the use of land for poultry farming and the cultivation of cereals. If we grant rights to a poultry farmer and we say 10 years, we are not being reasonable. For how long will the person organise himself and maybe, construct these facilities on the land? Certainly, 10 years is not adequate.

Mr Speaker, Hon Matthew Opoku Prempeh is a pretender traditionalist.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:31 p.m.
I have not heard anything. Proceed. [Laughter]
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:31 p.m.
Your Hon Leader is on his feet. Is he out of order?
Dr Prempeh 1:31 p.m.
Yes, he mentioned my name. [Laughter]
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:31 p.m.
Mr Speaker, seriously, the 25 years is sufficient.
Dr Prempeh 1:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, unfortunately, most of the landowners on our side of this world - when you are going to be granted the right to go and farm and it is for only farming, they even add the fact that if they want back their land, the farmer would clear all your crops especially because they do harvest and you give back the land.
Mr Speaker, it has been a system that has been tried and tested all these years and it has not caused any problems around the country. If by law, we say that if somebody is going to get a land -- [Interruption] My grandmother told me that the reason she never gave her land for a poultry
farm is that the farmers erect semi- permanent buildings, and then, when the owner wants his land back, he cannot get it. We used poultry farm, because in poultry farming, a building is erected. And so, the granting of that title should be slightly different from the pure cultivation of farmlands. [Interruption] Yes, we erect semi- permanent structures.

Mr Speaker, what is the minimum? It should not go beyond 10 years. Already, the understanding in those farming communities is that if you farm and get your produce and for some reason, the owners need their land back, the farmer has to get his produce, harvest everything and move away.

Mr Speaker, it has been tried and tested and it is for both indigenes and

settlers. It protects everybody. If we want to go in this direction of 25 years minimum -- [Interruption] - Mr Speaker, unfortunately, Hon Muntaka is not the best farmer in this House. He is a squatter and he wants to use this law to usurp the right of allodial landowners. Let us be cautious. I am not sure on this part, if we go to the chiefs who are the rightful owners of these lands, they would never agree to what we are doing in this Chamber.

Mr Speaker, let us maintain 10 years, and it should be good enough.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:41 p.m.
Hon Members, with regards to the laws, I know the challenge the country is faced with on land issues and we will try to rationalise it. This Bill has been on the drawing board for many years and it is now before us.
In fact, that is why I agreed with the Hon Minority Leader that there was the need for us to have the drivers of the Bill particularly so, as key Government Ministers who would have gone to Cabinet meeting to discuss the draft Bill are now disagreeing on the Floor. The Hon Minister for Education is disagreeing with the Leader of Government Business and Minister for Parliament Affairs. So, I am a bit worried about
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, please, let me correct something that the Hon Minister for Education is not part of the governance committee that works with this one. So he is speaking for himself.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:41 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, the governance committee is a sub-committee of Cabinet for deliberation and Cabinet approved it.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with respect, the governance committee is not a sub-committee, it is a committee of Cabinet and the Hon Minister for Education is not a member of it.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:41 p.m.
You mean, the governance committee is not a sub-committee of Cabinet?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, no, it is rather a committee of Cabinet.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:41 p.m.
All right.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the day that Cabinet was
perusing this document, he was not even in Cabinet. [Laughter] --
Alhaji Muntaka 1:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like us to be dispassionate with this discussion because even in the case of food security, this is false especially when it has to do with cereals and so on. The days of farming that relies heavily on rainfall, is almost over and people are investing in getting dams to use for irrigation. So the idea that as for cereals we do not need any physical structures, I want to address the minds of my Hon Colleagues to identify one commercial cereal farmer who is doing proper commercial farming without physical structures?
The commercial farmer would need a warehouse and so if we cannot have the 50 but can have the 25, it is better. This is because it will become a disincentive and people will take their moneys and invest in treasury bills and be idle.
Mr Speaker, just as in the case of this timber issue that we are advocating for 50 years, some are proposing 10 years, they should show me which timber crop matures in 10 years; in terms of the preparation of the land, planting, harvesting?
With all these, we are proposing 10 years, nobody will invest in it and we would have to be importing timber and cereals into the country. We have to have that at the back of our minds
and that is why in many developed countries, when it comes to cereal production, Government subsidises the production; in the case of tea crops, it is very profitable but the cereals are not as profitable. Let us ask ourselves, how much 1,000 bags of maize costs in this country? Even now that it is expensive, it is GH¢150 per bag multiplied by 1000 bags.
With the 1000 bags, what is required to cultivate it is not child's play and so, if we disincentivise it, everybody will just be idle and we will find it very hard to feed our families, the poultry farmers and the citizenry.
Mr Speaker, so I think that 25 years is a middle ground and that is good though I thought that we could have 50 years for all of them, but 25 years is also reasonable.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:41 p.m.
Hon Members, let us focus. I seem to get the suggestion that there is a need for us to separate poultry farming from the cultivation of cereals. The two are quite different when you come to issues of farming; poultry farming and cereal farming put under one clause -- [Interruption] -- Hon Majority Leader, I said that is what I am getting from the Floor. It is not the sense of the House but there is the need for us to look at it whether we
should separate them or leave them in the same clause.
Well, poultry farming actually involves more investment than cereal farming because of the structures, housing and so on. There is now an issue of standard and quality as there are a lot of regulations particularly, coming from the countries that you would want to export to, that one should have a number of things in place in the farm. They come to inspect them including residential premises of some quality and not what we used to construct, for them to agree that these are things that are of quality for their consumption.
This, I believe we need to look at it but since you have taken the leadership in this matter, we would rely on your guidance as to Government policy. Even though we are not bound by Government policy, we are here to improve what Government has proposed. So let us know what the position of Government is in this matter.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, increasingly these days, poultry farmers, to the extent that they may have access to land, would want to do some cultivation on cereals especially maize close to where the poultry farm is, just so that they are able to feed their poultry. Mr
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:41 p.m.
In that case, we are talking about mixed farming and it goes beyond poultry and cereal farming. One can even have an animal ranch with so many things there and that is why we need to look at that one as well. We do not just acquire a piece of land only for poultry farming but we are now encouraging mixed farming.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you are dealing with (a) and introducing ‘ranching' and ‘ranching' is in (b). That is even for a longer period - 50 years.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:41 p.m.
Yes, I am drawing your attention to the fact that we do not need to have them separately. If we are doing mixed farming, we can have all together on a piece of land. That is what I am drawing your attention to; what do you say about that?
Mr Kyei-Mensa-Bonsu 1:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, when one is doing ‘mixed farming', usually, we will not include tree crops.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:41 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, on a mango plantation, one can have one side as a cattle ranch, poultry, farm cereal, piggery and all that on the same piece of land.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you know that I have some mango farms in Wa.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:41 p.m.
Yes, I know and I have mango farms too.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, so I speak to what I know.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:41 p.m.
I have mango farms in Welembele and so, I am drawing your attention to it.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:41 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe it is getting too conversational and I would want to propose that we take an adjournment, go and think through further and come and continue tomorrow, in which case, I want to move, that this House be adjourned until tomorrow 10 o'clock in the forenoon.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:51 p.m.
Well, before we consider your Motion to adjourn, I would want to insist that at least, we get the
promoters of the Bill around the next time so that they are able to state Government's position, and because they have consulted the landowners, farmers and so on, they will draw our attention to some of these issues and, maybe, lead us to pass a better law than we are doing now. We were not involved in the whole process and so we need them to share their experiences with us on the floor of the House. This brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage for the Land Bill, 2019, for today.
The Motion for adjournment of the House has also been moved by the Hon Majority Leader.
Mr Chireh 1:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I wish to second the Motion and in doing so, I want to re-emphasise something that you said. This is a very important Bill and so the people who are promoting this Bill must be sitting at the back row in the Chamber so that we would be able to easily consult with them.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:51 p.m.
Why are you insisting that they should sit at the back and not the front?
Mr Chireh 1:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in fact, they got some experts to help draft this Bill.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:51 p.m.
The experts are not the proposers. It is the Ministry that is the proposer.
Mr Chireh 1:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in that case, I beg to second the Motion for adjournment.

Question put and Motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT 1:51 p.m.