Debates of 5 Aug 2020

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 11:58 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of Votes and Proceedings of 3rd August, 2020.
Page 1, 2, 3 … 16 --
Mr Samuel N. George 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have been marked absent on page 7, but I attended Parliament on that day and I signed the attendance sheet. I beg to draw your attention to this.
Mr Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Thank you very much.
Page 17, 18, 19 ...
Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, on page 19, item 12, the amendment proposed by the Hon Minority Leader to clause 10 was that
a new section 42(a) be inserted. However, in the Bill, there was already an insertion of a new section 42(a) and so the proposed amendment by the Hon Minority Leader cannot be 42 (a).
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the amendment proposed by the Hon Minority Leader which was further amended was agreed to by the House. As to the proper location, we can leave that to the Table Officers and the draftspersons to situate it in the appropriate place. Mr Speaker, what is important is the fact that we have agreed to this amendment.
Mr Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yours would be to direct the Table Officers and the draftspersons to situate it appropriately since the House has agreed and approved of it and so the location is essential. Certainly, it would be under section 42 (a) as the Hon Chairman referred to.
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in respect of the amendment as captured in the Votes and Proceed- ings, the word “administration” has been left out. The amendment read:
“The Fund shall submit reports annually on its activities and administration to Parliament including activities and administration of a special purpose vehicle”.
Again, what has been captured is “… the special purpose vehicle” but it should read “… a special purpose vehicle” because there could be a number of special purpose vehicles.
So in line 3, the word “administration” was omitted and then we should delete “the” before “special” and insert “a”.
Mr Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Thank you very much. The corrections should be effected accordingly.
Page 19, 20, 21 …
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, item 20 on page 21 is the Long Title and if I recollect, the proposed amendment was to include “sound business principles”.
Mr Speaker 11:58 a.m.
So, what was done should have been reflected in this manner but not as it has been captured. Or is it a second thought?
It should have so appeared initially?
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yes.
Mr Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Thank you. It should be corrected accordingly.
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:58 a.m.
Again, on page 21, the definition of “special purpose vehicle” means “an entity created by the Fund to receive and administer minerals income allocated by the Fund under an allocation agreement”.
Mr Speaker, we have to add ‘s' to “mineral” to read “minerals”.
Mr Speaker 11:58 a.m.
If there is no objection, then it would be corrected accordingly.
Page 22 … 31 --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, on page 21, on the name of the Special Purpose Vehicle, we went back to the original rendition and just did a little insertion. We said it should read:
“‘A Special Purpose Vehicle' means an entity created by the fund to receive minerals income assigned by the Fund under an allocation agreement and into which investors may invest or for the purpose of a joint venture.”
Mr Speaker 12:08 p.m.
Was that the general understanding?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that really is what happened, but unfortunately, if you look at clause 18, they have not even given who proposed the amendment. If they got it right, they might have said it was I who made the proposal. As I said, it was accepted by all of us.
Mr Speaker 12:08 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Iddrisu 12:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, unfortunately, at that point, it was Hon Kwame Governs Agbodza who --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what the Hon Minority Leader is relating to has to do with the Long Title. We are talking about clause 18. Even the Long Title had nothing to do with Hon Agbodza. I proposed that we amend the Long Title.
However, I am saying to us that, on clause 18, if they got the proposal right, there is no indication of who proposed the amendment. If they got it right, they would have realised that I proposed that we went back. I proposed just a little amendment in line 2 of the original Bill, and I said, it was universally accepted by all of us.
Mr Speaker 12:08 p.m.
The correction to be effected accordingly.
The Votes and Proceedings as corrected is hereby adopted as the true record of proceedings.
Question time -- Item numbered
3.
Hon Members, at this time of the Meeting, it is important to say that it is difficult to admit Questions, yet Hon Members want Questions to be asked as they are entitled to. If you look at the tall order of Business that we have got, definitely, we cannot do them under normal circumstances within the time allotted. I would say we should take the main Question and one supplementary question. Otherwise, we would ask a few Questions and the others would not be admitted today.
I think it would be better for us to adopt the main Questions with one
supplementary question so as to make progress. I can see there is understanding.
The first Urgent Question to the Hon Minister for Education. Is the Hon Minister for Education in the House?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister for Education is otherwise engaged outside Accra so the Deputy Minister, Hon Dr Osei Adutwum would hold the fort for the Hon Minister.
Mr Speaker, I noticed that Hon Members who have filed the Urgent Questions are not in the Chamber, but I plead that, given the fact that we have little time available to Hon Members, if the Questions could be asked on behalf of those who are absent so that they could be responded to by the Hon Deputy Minister.
Mr Speaker 12:08 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, if you have no difficulty, Hon Dr Adutwum may take the chair.
Mr Iddrisu 12:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have no difficulty at all.
Mr Speaker 12:08 p.m.
Hon Deputy Minister, you may take the appropriate seat? The Question
Mr Rockson-Nelson E. K. Dafeamekpor 12:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have the permission of the Hon Member to seek your leave to ask the Question on her behalf.
Mr Speaker 12:08 p.m.
You may proceed.
URGENT QUESTIONS 12:08 p.m.
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION 12:08 p.m.
Mr Dafeamekpor 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I just heard the Hon Deputy Minister indicate to the House that as part of the measures, the school facilities are not available for outsiders. Now, may I find out from him whether he is aware that for instance the Electoral Commission recently used the school facilities for purposes of registration of some of the students in the ongoing voter registration exercise?
Dr Adutwum 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my reference to use of school facilities was with regard to people using the classroom space and some schools
are already registration centres and how do we disenfranchise Ghanaians? Everything was done to make sure that school facilities -- the classrooms were not used so that we do not have a situation where students would go there and then the untoward would happen.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 12:18 p.m.
Thank you very much.
Hon Member for Afram Plains, your question.
Mr Samuel N. George 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I rise to seek your permission to ask the Question on behalf of Hon Betty Nana Efua Krosbi Mensah.
Mr Speaker 12:18 p.m.
You may.
E-learning Programme of GES
Mr Samuel N. George on behalf of (Ms Betty N. E. K. Mensah)(NDC -- Afram Plains North): Mr Speaker, I beg to ask the Minister for Education what steps are being taken to ensure that students in rural communities with no electricity and internet connectivity have the full benefits of the e-learning programme of the Ghana Education Service.
Dr Adutwum 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, Government has undertaken a number of steps to support as many students as possible while they are home due to school closures. Particularly, students in rural communities who may not have access to internet have the benefit of Ghana Learning TV and Ghana Learning Radio.
Efforts have been made by the Ghana Education Service to ensure that District Directors work with local school communities in providing worksheets so that in some cases, where there is radio and TV, they can use the worksheets to follow and in cases where the connectivity is not there, they also have access to the worksheets and they would be able to actually prevent learning loss that would be occasioned by the school closures as we are anticipating today.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr George 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, specific to Afram Plains North, there are communities where there is no electricity coverage and clearly, they have no internet connectivity there. What step is the Ministry going to take through the Ghana Education Service to ensure that the children in those
Dr Adutwum 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we all know that we do not have a 100 per cent electricity coverage in this country even though we have done a fantastic job as a nation over the years.
Now, in places where there is none, as I indicated earlier, Ghana Education Service has authorised district directors to find innovative ways of making sure that there are some worksheets that can be distributed in those communities where we can use paper and pen for e-learning and therefore reduce the learning loss that would be occasioned by the closure of schools in this country.
Mr Speaker 12:18 p.m.
Question 768 in the name of Hon Member for Builsa South?
Mr Dafeamekpor 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, may I seek your leave to ask the Question on behalf of the Hon Member?
Mr Speaker 12:18 p.m.
You may.
ORAL ANSWERS TO 12:18 p.m.
QUESTIONS 12:18 p.m.
MINISTRY OF EDUCATOIN 12:18 p.m.
Dr Adutwum 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the double track system is an interim measure the Ministry employed to enrol all qualified students into senior high schools. The measure was necessitated due to the increased numbers of students from the Junior High Schools against the limited infrastructure at the secondary level as of that time.
Mr Speaker, implementation of the double track system commenced in the beginning of the 2018/2019 academic year. Currently, the system is being implemented in 381 out of the 721 public Senior High Schools across the country.
Mr Speaker, we planned to phase it out over the next 5-7 years. We have already done two years so give
us three to five years for the double track system to be phased out. It is expected that in the next academic year, the number of double track schools would be reduced accordingly.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Dafeamekpor 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, would the Hon Deputy Minister be in a position to inform the House on the number of students that the double track system is presently handling?
Dr Adutwum 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I heard my Hon Colleague asking about the number of students in double track. I do not have desegregation. I know the total number of students enrolled in the senior high schools but not the desegregation of the double track.
Mr Speaker 12:18 p.m.
Thank you very much.
Question 769?
Payment of Examination Fee to WAEC
Mr Rockson-Nelson E. K. Dafeamekpor (on behalf of) Dr Clement Appak (NDC -- Builsa South) Mr Speaker, I rise to ask the Minister for Education if Government
has paid WAEC the full cost of the examination fee for the 2019 BECE candidates, and when the payment was made.
Mr Speaker 12:18 p.m.
Hon Minister?
Dr Adutwum 12:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, Government announced in the 2018 Budget Statement to fully absorb the examination registration fees for all public Junior High School candidates in the Basic Education Certificate Examinations (BECE). This was an improvement over the previous subsidy of 70 per cent.
In May 2019, Government released in full, the provision GH¢29,083,300.00 in the 2019 Budget to the West African Examinations Council (WAEC) for the conduct of the 2019 BECE.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
Mr Speaker 12:28 p.m.
Hon Member, any supplementary question? Otherwise, we will go on to Question 770.
Mr Dafeamekpor 12:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I understand that this Question had been asked and answered; it is a repetition.
Mr Speaker 12:28 p.m.
Hon Members, Question starred 771?

Yes, Hon Dr Abdul Rashid Hassan Pelpuo?

Steps to finalise the Autonomy Status of the University of Business and Integrated

Development Studies
Dr Abdul-Rashid Hassan Pelpuo (NDC -- Wa Central) 12:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to ask the Minister for Education what steps the Ministry was taking to finalise the autonomy status of the University of Business and Integrated Development Studies and to ensure its full operation.
Mr Adutwum 12:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, Simon Diedong (S. D.) Dombo University of Business and Integrated Development Studies (UBIDS - Wa) has full legal autonomy. The University received its autonomy under Act 1001 which was assented to on the 23rd August, 2019 by the President of the Republic.
To ensure its operations optimise, an interim Council has been constituted and NCTE is playing a facilitating role until the University attains full operational capacity.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
Dr Pelpuo 12:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, may I know from the Hon Deputy Minister what the interim Council is doing if for a whole year the Act has been assented to, we have heard nothing about it, except that there is an interim Council? What are they doing and how will that facilitate the early start of the University?
Dr Adutuwm 12:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the interim Council's responsibility is to make sure that the University transits into a full-fledged university status as has already been pointed out. It is chaired by Professor Phyllis Dakora. I would want to believe that they have had a number of meetings and maybe, there are some consultations that are lacking or missing with regard to my Hon Colleague, since the school happens to be in his area.
So far as I know, the Council is in place and they are working to make sure that the University attains its full independence status.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Dr Pelpuo 12:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there seems to be a long delay. As a result, the transition between being an integrated studies university, but still attached to University of Development Studies, Tamale and the full autonomy is deteriorating it. I
would just want to find out whether the Hon Deputy Minister can take immediate steps to ensure that something is done to kick-start the University, so that we do not have confusion on campus as we have right now.
Dr Adutuwm 12:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I will definitely take the steps as recommended by my Hon Colleague and inform the Hon Minister and the Minister in charge of Tertiary to ensure that the interim Council that has been put in place do the needful and ensure that vision and mission of the President with regard to setting up this independent university is realised. And also make sure that my Hon Colleague's concerns are fully addressed.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 12:28 p.m.
Hon Members, Question 772? -- [Pause.]
Hon Deputy Minister, thank you very much for attending to the House this morning and answering our Questions. We appreciate the brevity and clarity of your Answers. You are respectfully discharged.
Hon Members, it is the turn of the Hon Minister for Communications.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is another Question for the Hon Deputy Minister for Education; that is Question starred 772 -- [Interruption] --
Mr Speaker 12:28 p.m.
Hon Member, what is the difficulty? --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought I made an application just so that we do not come back to these Questions, the Question should be asked on behalf of the Hon Members who are not here. This explains why the Hon Member -- [Interruption] -- Mr Speaker, if we want to pick and choose, then people who are not here would not be given the opportunity again --
Mr Speaker 12:28 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, there is an owner to the Question --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I will ask the Question on behalf of the Hon Member -- [Laughter]
Mr Speaker 12:28 p.m.
Hon Deputy Minister, you are respectfully discharged. Yes, Hon Minister for Communications? -- Hon Majority Leader, is there any assistance for the Hon Minister for Communications to answer Questions 757 to 760?
rose
Mr Speaker 12:28 p.m.
Yes, Hon Minority Chief Whip?
Alhaji Muntaka 12:28 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I am worried about these Questions. This is the third time the Hon Minister has failed to appear before the House. You would notice that even the Answers have not been provided. I do not want to impugn wrong motives, that it is deliberate the Hon Minister is avoiding to answer these Questions.
We have responsibility as a House to get Hon Ministers to be accountable to this House. The first time, she was not here, there was no answer and the Questions were rescheduled and it happened the second time. Today, the same thing has happened without the Answers.
Mr Speaker, I hope you would give the right directives, so that the Hon Minister would come and answer these Questions necessarily without further delay.
Mr Speaker 12:28 p.m.
Hon Member, you mean I should give the appropriate directive and not the right directives? I always give the right directives -- [Laughter] -- That is my job.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, last week, clearly, the Question was programmed to be answered by the Hon Minister, but we had communication from her outfit, which explained that she was yet to receive the responses, and that when it came in, she would come and answer the Questions.
Mr Speaker, I directed that in that case, we should reschedule them to today, and I thought by today, the responses would have come to the Hon Minister. That was why I was struggling to get to the Hon Minister, unfortunately, I have not succeeded.
Mr Speaker, as of yet, I do not even know whether the Answers are in, but I will continue to do that.
If they are in and she submits them, then we can put them on the Addendum Order Paper, and as I said, she could then Answer the Questions today. But I would not say that it is a deliberate attempt on the part of the Hon Minister to avoid the House. Ministers must be accountable not just to this House, but to the generality of our citizens, and we owe that as a responsibility. The House exist to ensure this, and indeed, it is one of our oversight responsibilities.
I agree that we should pursue this matter to a legitimate conclusion, except that I am not sure that anybody can impute any notice to the Hon Minister. This is an Hon Minister who is capable of answering Questions even on the spur of the moment, so, I would plead that we wait for her. If we do not succeed today and she is not able to come in today, then certainly, tomorrow and Friday, we may get her if the responses are available to her, and she would respond to the Questions.
Mr Speaker 12:38 p.m.
I would want to cut this short. I was told that the Hon Minister had a letter delivered on Monday that she would not be able, for circumstances beyond her control, be here this morning. Nevertheless, I noticed that no Answer has been
placed on the record. To cut a long story short, I direct that the Hon Minister must answer all the relevant Questions, and make herself available on Friday to answer the relevant Questions.
Thank you very much.
Hon Members, let us make progress. We would move on to the item listed as 6 - At the Commencement of Public Business; Presentation of Papers.
Hon Chairman for the Finance Committee, you may take the item numbered 6 (a).
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Paper numbered 6 (a) stands in the name of the Minister for Finance. I have not got there yet.
Mr Speaker 12:38 p.m.
That is correct.
Could you tell us the whereabouts of your Minister? The two of you must operate in tandem.
Hon Majority Leader, can you give us a clue?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Minister is engaged whiles trying to locate the Hon Deputy Minister, who is also in a meeting -- two of the Hon Deputy Ministers for
Mr Speaker 12:38 p.m.
So, we would stand the Paper numbered 6 (a) down accordingly.
Hon Members, we would move on to the Paper numbered 6 (b).

Hon Members, we would rather take the Paper numbered 6 (a), and the Hon Majority Leader may lay the Paper on behalf of the Minister for Finance.
PAPERS 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker 12:38 p.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to the Paper numbered 6 (b), by the Chairman of the Committee on Works and Housing.
By the Chairman of the Committee --
Report of the Committee on Works and Housing on the Real Estate Authority Bill, 2020.
Mr Speaker 12:38 p.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to the Paper numbered 6 (c), by the Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee.
By the Chairman of the Committee --
(i) Report of the Finance Committee on the Request
for waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT, NHIL, GETFund Levy, EXIM Levy and Special Import Levy amounting to the Ghana cedi equivalent of nine million, and one thousand, three hundred and ninety-six euros (€9,001,396.00) on project materials and equipment to be imported for the execution of the Development of the Kumasi Airport (Phase III) by Messrs. Contracta Con- struction UK Limited.
By the Chairman of the Committee --
(ii)Report of the Finance Committee on the Request for waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT, NHIL, GETFund Levy, EXIM Levy and Special Import Levy amounting to the Ghana cedi equivalent of two million, eight hundred and forty-nine thousand, one hundred and sixty-seven euros (€2,849,167.00) on project materials and equipment to be imported for the implementation of the Rehabilitation and Auxiliary Infrastructure of the Kumasi Inner Ring Road and
Adjacent Streets Project (100kms) -- Phase 1 by Messrs. Contracta Con- struction UK Limited.
By the Chairman of the Committee --
(iii) Report of the Finance Committee on the Request for waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT, NHIL, GETFund Levy, EXIM Levy, Special Import Levy and Domestic VAT amounting to the Ghana cedi equivalent of fifteen million, five hundred and twenty-six thousand, two hundred and eleven euros twenty-three cents (€15,526,211.23 [made up of €420,943.23 on local purchases and €15,105,268.00 on imports] on project materials, equipment and vehicles to be procured for the Design, Fabrication, Supply and Installation of 50 Composite Bridges and Related Civil Works by Messrs. Knights A.S. in association with MCE Slany S.r.o. of the Czech Republic.
By the Chairman of the Committee --
Mr Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Hon Members, the item listed (vi)?
By the Chairman of the Committee —
(vi) Report of the Finance Committee on the Request for waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT, NHIL, GETFund Levy, EXIM Levy, Special Import Levy and Domestic VAT amounting to the Ghana cedi equivalent of twelve million, nine hundred and twenty-nine thousand, three hundred and twenty- nine euros forty-eight cents (€12,929,329.48 [made up of €741,890.08 on local purchases and €12,187, 439.40 on imports] on materials, equipment, works and services to be procured for the construction and equipping of twelve (12)
Polyclinics in Ashanti, Eastern, Greater Accra and the Ahafo Regions in Ghana by Messrs. VAMED Health Projects CZ s.r.o. (affiliate of VAMED Engineering).
(vi) Report of the Finance Committee on the Request for waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT, NHIL, GETFund Levy, EXIM Levy, Special Import Levy and Domestic VAT amounting to the Ghana cedi equivalent of six million, eight hundred and fourteen thousand, eight hundred and nineteen euros (€6,814,819.00 [made up of €206,104.00 on local purchases and €6,608,716.00 on imports] on materials, equipment, works and services to be procured for the execution of the Turnkey construction of a Urology and Nephrology Centre of Excellence at the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital by Messrs. VAMED Engineering GmbH of Austria.
Mr Speaker 12:48 p.m.
The item listed (b) by the Chairman of the Committee on Local Government and Rural Development?
Mr Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Thank you. Shall we carry on with the item listed 7, Motion?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we could deal with the item numbered 9.
Mr Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Hon Members, the item listed 9, Consideration Stage. Mr First Deputy Speaker would please take the Chair.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the other time we finished with the Minerals Income Investment Fund (Amendment) Bills, 2020. So we could take the Motion listed as item 8.
Mr Speaker 12:48 p.m.
The item listed 8, Minister for Finance?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Deputy Minister for Finance is here and so he could move the Motion on behalf of the Minister.
Mr Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Thank you very much.
Yes, Hon Deputy Minister for Finance?
BILLS -- THIRD READING 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe we can now deal with the item numbered 9. Before then, I think for the avoidance of doubt, it must be put on record that the Minister for Communications apparently had submitted a request to the House. It was dated 3rd August, 2020, indicating to us that she wishes to inform us that she has not received all responses from the various agencies for the Questions asked .
So she, in this regard, is requesting that the date be rescheduled to enable her attend to the House to respond accordingly. Mr Speaker, I believe that it should be on record that the Minister has failed but indeed, has submitted a request, which had not come to me promptly even though it is dated Monday, 3rd August, 2020. Mr Speaker, with that, I believe we can attend to the item listed 9.
Mr Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, we have given Friday, is there a difficulty?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would touch base with the Minister because the request from her is open-ended, but I would touch base to know the exact time that she would be ready and I would communicate same to her that we have given her up to Friday, that by Friday, she —
Mr Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Not up to Friday, we have given her by Friday. I have seen some of the owners of the Questions who are not present at the moment. I just want us to be ad-idem; we so rising; we want to let the Hon Minister impress upon the officials because the letter might give the impression that we are waiting for civil servants.
But they admit to act -- Hon Majority Leader, I hope you are with me? So, not up to Friday, it would be adjourned till Friday to give them ample time to proceed accordingly. And if they may please be in a state of hurry because this honourable House would rise, and the Question needs to be answered.
I thank you.
Mr First Deputy Speaker will take the Chair.
Hon Majority Leader, what next?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Chairman of the Committee and the Deputy Minister for Local Government and Rural Development.
Mr Speaker 12:58 p.m.
Item numbered 9, Registration of Births and Deaths Bill, 2020 at the Consideration Stage.
Hon Majority Leader?
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 12:58 p.m.
STAGE 12:58 p.m.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Vice Chairman of the Committee has been the person shepherding the Consideration Stage, so we would call on him to continue.
Mr Speaker 12:58 p.m.
Very well. Hon Vice Chairman, where do we start from?
Mr George Kwame Aboagye 12:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we have a proposed amendment for clause 9 which was flagged the last time we did the
Consideration, so I would like to take that before I proceed to clause 14.
Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, I beg to move, clause 9, delete and insert the following:
“(1) A District Assembly shall maintain a community population register and the community population register shall be used as a demographic data for the purposes of the development planning of the district.
(2) A community may assist in the registration of births and deaths for the purposes of generating a community population register.”
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 12:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Vice Chairman's amendment because on page 5 of the original Bill, the headnote is “Community population register”. Now, he has captured the sense in clause 9 (2).
“A District Assembly shall retain a community population register and the community population register shall be used as demographic data for the purposes of the development planning of that district.”
MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
Dr Anthony Akoto Osei 1:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I just need to be educated. Is the development planning of the district different from the development planning of the country? The reason I ask is that the Ghana Statistical Service (GSS) has the mandate to collect data for the planning of this country. If already, they are doing that,
is this necessary? The word used there is “shall”. If the sponsors of the Bill could illuminate me -- If the GSS has the mandate to do this, and then we say the district must do the same, that would be duplication of services. We need to clarify that because the GSS generally captures population data for the development planning of the country.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:02 p.m.
Is the one by the GSS specific to a district? This one is intended for the purposes of planning for the district and not as data for national planning.
Dr A. A. Osei 1:02 p.m.
That was why I asked. Could we clarify this? If the GSS is already doing that, then this would be a duplication. That is all I want to be clear on. Have they checked with the GSS?
Mr O. B. Amoah 1:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think probably, there should be better clarification ; if you look at clause 9 (1) of the Bill, it says:
“A community registration officer may assist in the registration of births and deaths for the purposes of generating a community population register.”
So the emphasis is on the births and deaths and not on the GSS. Hon A. A. Osei is worried that as it is couched here, it should maintain a community
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:02 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was wondering if we could further amend line 2 to read:
“A District Assembly shall maintain a community population register which shall be used as demographic data for the purposes of development planning of that district”.
Instead of repeating “and the community population register shall”, we should just say : “which shall be used as demographic data for the purposes of development planning of that district”. Mr Speaker, as for its relevance, I think that it finds expression in article 245 (a) of the Constitution, that the district assemblies could do that.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:02 p.m.
So, what are you proposing that we delete?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:02 p.m.
I am proposing that we delete “and the community population register shall” in line 2. After “population register”, we should delete “and the community
population register” and insert “which”. So, it would read:
“A District Assembly shall maintain a community population register which shall be used as a demographic data for the purposes of development planning of that district”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was just asking whether for line 2, we would consider adding, “foetal deaths” after “birth”?.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:08 p.m.
Why? Are foetal deaths not deaths? Maybe, when it comes to the definition of deaths:
“A community registration officer may assist in the registration of births and deaths for the purposes of generating a community population register.”
You are asking whether we should add “foetal”, so it becomes “births, foetal deaths and deaths?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are supposed to keep three registers.
Mr Iddrisu 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just to support what the Hon Majority Leader said, we could descend it from clause 8(1), where there is “births'', “foetal deaths'' and “deaths''. Therefore, the community is expected to provide a register for all three. So, for consistency, you may even direct the draftspersons to pay attention so that wherever there is “birth and deaths'', to add “foetal deaths''.
Mr Benjamin K. Kpodo 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have two issues with clause 9 subclause (2). In every community, there are unit committees, so it should be mandatory for the members to assist in the compilation of a register of births, foetal deaths and deaths, where particularly, there are health facilities such as maternity homes. So, it should be:
“A community shall assist in the registration…''
So that the duty would be mandatory for the unit committee members in the community.
Mr Speaker, the second issue I have with clause 9 subclause (1) and 2 is the sequence. Subclause (1), should rather be subclause (2), and subclause (2) should be subclause (1) because it would go to the community register first, before it would come to the assembly to use the register. The sequence should also be changed in addition to propose it on the unit committee members to carry out these assignments.
Mr O. B. Amoah 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it would be a bit onerous to say that instead of “may'', it should be “shall'' and that every unit committee person elected should have a duty to compile births and deaths register. That should not be the situation.
The word “may'' means that they may be called upon to assist , but if we use “shall'', it would become their duty and whenever that unit committee member is not even capable of assisting in the provision of the registrar, because it is “shall'', it means that it has to be brought on board. It is not every unit committee member who could do this exercise. If we use “shall'', we would create problems for ourselves.
Mr Kpodo 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what exactly would prevent or create difficulties for unit committee members who have fought hard to be elected into this position to carry out the registration of births and deaths?
In our traditional settings, when there are births, the unit committee member is even invited to the naming ceremonies. So, the person already has the capacity and ability to get the information to compile a register. What else do they do other than to monitor these activities in their communities? In some communities, the unit committee members do not number beyond 1000.
How many times do we have birth deliveries and burials that they cannot be compelled to do --? [Interruption] Otherwise, some of them just sit idle and do not do anything. We should impose it upon them to carry out this duty as part of whatever they have been assigned to do.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, by the constructor of this Bill, there would be registration assistants who would be enumerated at the level of the communities and indeed, even the sub-communities. What the law says is that the communities may assist them. If we compel them then necessarily we must also provide the needs for them to do
that -- provide some stipends at least. So, the “may'', saves the provision and so we could make progress.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:08 p.m.
Hon Member, I would read the amendment again.
(1) “The District Assembly shall maintain the register, population…
(2) The community may assist in the registration…''
It would provide assistance. Nothing stops the assembly or unit committee member from providing assistance. We would not assume that the committee members are sufficiently trained to keep records so as to impose the responsibility on him to keep records. However, as it is, he would be able to assist in whatever way for the registration officers to do their work. It is all right the way it is.
Dr Dominic A. Ayine 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the sense I got from the Hon Member for Akuapim South, Mr O. B. Amoah's contribution is that it is the duty of the assembly to enlist the assistance of the community registration officer. If that is the sense, maybe, we should place the duty on the assembly explicitly to enlist the assistance of the community
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:08 p.m.
That has been provided for subsequently but for now, responsibility for the community to assist whoever would do, is what we are working on now.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Richard Acheampong 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have a problem with subclause (2), which says : “a community may assist''. If they do not assist, how could we hold somebody responsible? Who is the community? We want to get data for development -- somebody must act in our interest. We cannot just leave it as it is -- we pass the law and nobody could be held responsible or people may not know the exact duty they are supposed to perform. If it is a unit committee, then we know we are addressing an issue. That is my concern.
Mr O. B. Amoah 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not know whether the Hon Member has a copy of the Bill or not?
Previous clauses in the Bill talks about the role. Clause 6 talks about “registration officer'' and clause 7 talks about “registration assistant''. These persons would be employed and they have a role to play and in playing this role, the community may assist. So, it is not hanging for him to say that we would give responsibility to persons and do not know who would carry it out.
There is a births and deaths registry from the district to the region to the national level and such officers would be appointed and the community could also assist. We should not fathom the idea that the moment a person is elected a unit committee member, he or she would become an employee of the births and deaths registry. No, we cannot afford that.
Clause 9 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14 - Doubting paternity
Mr George K. Aboagye 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 14, subclause (2), line 3, delete “acknowledging himself” and insert “claiming”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr George K. Aboagye 1:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 14, subclause (3), line 1, delete “acknowledging himself” and insert “claiming” and in line 3, delete “acknowledging to be the father of the child”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15 -- Registration of names subsequent to registration of birth
Mr George K. Aboagye 1:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, subclause (1), opening phrase, line 4, at end, delete “relevant document” and insert “document evidencing the name of the child”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr George K. Aboagye 1:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, subclause (2), delete and insert the following:
“The District Registrar shall, on receipt of the baptismal certificate or any other document evidencing the name of the child
and on payment of the prescribed fee, enter in the register the name mentioned in the baptismal certificate or any other document evidencing the name of the child as given to the child without an erasure of the original entry.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:18 p.m.
Hon Chairman, hold on. Yes, Hon Minority Chief Whip?
Alhaji Muntaka 1:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank you very much. I was trying to follow but unfortunately, when the Hon Chairman moves the amendment, he does not tell us anything. He just moves, but he needs to be explaining why he is doing so, so that we would be able to follow through why the amendments are being proffered.
He is just moving the amendments and because no one says anything while we are struggling to understand the reasoning, then the Question is put. Unless where it is just grammatical, then it is easy. But where there is a whole lot of paragraph he wants it changed, he needs to tell us why he wants to do that.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would have thought that the procedure is that if an Hon Member does not understand anything that Hon Member would ask a question for the Hon Chairman to explain. Either than that, we take it that when an amendment is moved and we understand him, we proceed, and that is what had happened. The Question has been put and a vote taken, so I do not know what the Hon Minority Chief Whip wants.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:18 p.m.
Well, Hon Member, his point is that if you propose amendments often you offer a reason. That is what I have observed while I was here but it is also clear that when it is more than three lines, you do not read the whole text. That does not take away your responsibility to offer a reason.
With this one, he said we should delete and insert which may mean that you want to make it clearer.
So, I will move on to item numbered (vi).
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this is just a little amendment to the item numbered (v) even though the Question has been put. I guess it rather should read:
“The District Registrar shall, on recei pt of the bapt i smal
certificate or any other document evidencing the name of the child and on the payment of the prescribed fee, enter in the register the name mentioned in the baptismal certificate or that other document evidencing the name of the child as given to the child without an erasure of the original entry.”
Mr Speaker that is how it should read.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:18 p.m.
It is clearer.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:18 p.m.
Now, Hon Chairman of the Committee, you may move the item numbered (vi).
Mr George K. Aboagye 1:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, subclause (5), paragraph (a), line 1, delete “Gazette” and insert “Gazette, on the website of the Registry”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:18 p.m.
That is to introduce another place where it should be advertised. Am I right? [Interruption]
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr George K. Aboagye 1:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is a further amendment to clause 15. It is typographical. It is supposed to read “Gazette, or on the website of the Registry”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:18 p.m.
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16 -- Signing of birth certificate
Mr Iddrisu 1:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, even though there is no advertised amendment to clause 16, “a designated representative” and “an authorised representative”, which would serve our purposes? Must the Registrar just designate or authorise the person?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:18 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, the designation is the authority. Once you are designated, you have his or her authority.
Mr Iddrisu 1:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this is Births and Deaths Registry. The Registrar or a designated representative is responsible for
signing a birth certificate issued under this Act. It is an authorisation in my view --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:18 p.m.
Probably, instead of “a designated representative”, we should use, “a designated officer” because the representative could be outside the agency but an officer is within.
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 1:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with you. So,it should be “a designated officer” then we know that the person is acting with the mandate and authority of the Registrar. So, guided by you, I so move, but I would still insist that we use “an authorised officer” instead of “designated officer” because if we go to the USA, even in Ghana, we must take that signature very seriously.
In some instances, even where parents have made mistakes before one could correct it on the date of birth, it is difficult. We should not just take it for granted. This is the signing of birth certificate. It is such an important authentication exercise and if I had my way, I would insist that we change it to “an authorised officer of the Registrar…” I so submit with your leave and indulgence.
Dr A. A. Osei 1:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader can just educate us. If you designate me, are you not passing your authority to me, otherwise, I do not have any basis for signing on your behalf. How am I going to designate the Hon Haruna Iddrisu without my authority?
So, the designation is the same as authorised. How does one authorise? Is it by writing a letter to say that he or she is appointing another? Just as we do all the time, Hon Ministers designate to their deputies because they have the authority, or the Speaker designates to the First Deputy Speaker, it means that he has given him the authority.
He does not write a letter that says that he should sit in the Chair on his behalf; he has designated the First Deputy Speaker and it is the norm that we follow. So, if he would just give us a break so that we move on, it would be appreciated.
Dr Dominic A. Ayine 1:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think this is an enormous statutory power we are giving to the Registrar and we have to be very careful how we craft it. If the purpose of the Bill is for us to decentralise the Births and Deaths Registry, vesting the power to sign solely on the Registrar or a person designated by him -- in contrast to what the Hon
Minority Leader has said, ‘an authorised officer' may create problems.
Currently, I have a constituent who has travelled all the way from Bolgatanga to get the Death Certificate of her late father signed. We have been running around the Births and Deaths Registry for one week now. They are saying that there are only three people who can sign the death certificate and she has been here for close to two weeks and we have not been able to achieve that purpose.
Mr Speaker, so, I think that it is important because in clause 17, we are saying that the District Registrar shall be able to issue the certificate of birth but the District Registrar should, in equal measure, be able to sign the certificate of birth or death. So, if we are vesting the power in the Registrar, we have to be careful so that the amendment proposed by the Hon Minority Leader will be a better one.Authorised officers such as the District Registrar of Births and Deaths can now sign those automatically at the District level.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:28 p.m.
The only challenge I can see is that, if the Registrar designates somebody outside the organisation, we will say, a designated representative and it may
be too wide. However, if it is a designated officer, it will be the same as authorised officer.
Mr Iddrisu 1:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we can go with ‘designated officer'. I have done my further search and even though I would have wished that it was ‘an authorised officer' it all means the same thing.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the construction is; ‘The Registrar or a designated representative of the Registrar'.
If we used the word, ‘officer', would the preposition we are employing here be right? That is, ‘The Registrar or a designated officer of the Registrar'. In that case, the preposition will be wrong.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:28 p.m.
‘The Registrar or a designated officer of the Registrar'. All right. So, we would have to delete; ‘of the Registrar'. Is that right?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was just saying that if we introduce ‘officer', I am not too sure if we can then use the word ‘of'. Maybe, the preposition would be; ‘by'. So, ‘of a designated representative', and the representative
is designated by the Registrar. However, if it is a designated representative, is he a representative of the Registrar?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:28 p.m.
I get the point. So, if we remove ‘representative of the Registrar' and insert ‘officer'. So, the new rendition should read; ‘The Registrar or a designated officer is responsible for signing the birth and death issued under this Act'.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17 -- Issue of birth certificate
Mr Sanid 1:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move , line 3, delete “the High Court” and insert “a court of competent jurisdiction” , and in line 4, after “mother”, insert “or the next of kin”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, can we explain when the High Court comes in in terms of the issue of birth certificate and the High or appropriate court? Let me read it out.
Mr Chireh 1:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this level of court intervention, we thought that the High Court is not widespread and so, it will be better if we say; ‘a court of competent jurisdiction' which can allow either a District or Magistrate Court to decide a thing like that.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the issue of death certificate in my view would follow after the registration of birth. So, if, as it says in clause 17:
‘The District Registrar, shall on registration of the name, issue a birth certificate free of charge to father, mother, a person authorised by the High Court or a person authorised in writing by the father or mother of the child'.
Mr Speaker, I believe it is a bit incongruous, if we situate it within the context of clause 13(5), -- We are bringing in persons other than the
father or mother in the case of death or incapacity of the father or mother. So, those of them listed in clause 13(5) should be listed.
They will provide particulars for registration and so, when the child has been registered in the absence of the father or mother then those listed in clause 13(5) in that order should be the persons that the certificate will be issued to and not just the next-of-kin. Unless, the father or mother is incapacitated or does not have the capacity, it cannot be by writing from the father and mother.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:28 p.m.
So, Hon Deputy Minister, what is your response to this?
Mr O. B. Amoah 1:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought on Monday, we agreed that when we consider the structure in terms of mother, father and the next- of-kin, we then brought next-of-kin under clause 13.
So I am sure that is what the Hon Majority Leader is talking about now, that it is not just a person identified by a court of competent jurisdiction but somebody very close to the child. We agreed on a certain list; father, mother, next of kin and somebody who lives within the premises. Probably, we can follow that arrangement.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:28 p.m.
Very well.
I was confused about the High Court but now that it has been cleared, we will direct the draftspersons to insert all the persons entitled as under clause 13.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as I said, it cannot be the authorisation in writing by the father or mother of the child when they suffer incapacity themselves. That is why I am saying that it should just reflect how clause 13(5) is captured, but I agree with you that we can leave that to the draftspersons to capture it properly.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
Yes. I would put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
The draftspersons are directed to insert in clause 17 all the persons eligible under clause 13 and 14 to the issue of birth certificate in clause 17.
Clause 18 -- Registration of assisted reproductive births
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
Item numbered (viii).
Mr G. K. Aboagye 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 18 subclause (1), delete and insert the following:
“An intended parent may engage the services of a person to give the intended parent a child through surrogacy”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
Item numbered (ix).
Mr G. K. Aboagye 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 18 subclause (2), opening phrase, line 1, delete “An” and insert “The” and also delete “three months” and insert “twelve weeks” and further in the closing phrase, line 2, delete “six months” and insert “twenty-eight weeks”.
The new rendition would read:
“The intended parent may within twelve weeks after introducing an embryo or gamete into the surrogate mother apply to the High Court for a pre-birth parental order to allow --
Mr Bright Wireko-Brobby 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, elsewhere we used “court of competent jurisdiction” but we are stating “High Court” now. So, if we could be consistent?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
Hon Members, what do you think?
Mr Chireh 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the reason we are using the “High Court” is that the registration of assisted reproductive births is a very complex issue and so it requires a High Court with a certain level of expertise. It is not an issue that we can easily hand over to the lower courts. It is a new technology with complicated Problems, and in fact, the legislation in this country in that regard is not adequate in itself so we should not leave it to any other court apart from the High Court.
Mr Wireko-Brobby 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are doing this law to stand the test of time so with the explanation my senior Hon Colleague has offered, probably in these current times, people can be born but they cannot be traced and so on. However, with this law, it is expected that right from the first day, births would be registered.
So, the issue of a birth not being registered and going to the High Court would not even surface because it would be decentralised to the extent that people in the villages and so on would be registered. If we deny people from accessing the magistrate courts --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
Hon Member, I think you are confused.
The discussion here is on surrogacy; a surrogate mother applying for a registration. I think that it is more complex than ordinary births.
Mr Ahiafor 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in addition, the marginal note reads “registration of assisted reproductive birth” and it refers to surrogacy. Today, adoption is an exclusive preserve of the High Court and issues that relate to having a child of an intended parent is even more serious than adoption. Therefore, making it
an exclusive preserve of the High Court is proper. Specifically, the matter should be dealt with by no other court than the High Court.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
Also, this is not an everyday occurrence that every district court would be inundated, so I think that the High Court is appropriate.
I would put the Question?
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
Item numbered (x).
Mr G. K. Aboagye 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 18 subclause (5), paragraph (b), subparagraph (i), delete “he” and insert “the”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
Item numbered (xi).
Mr G. K. Aboagye 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 18 subclause (7), paragraph (b), line 1, delete “birth” and insert “births”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19 -- Notification of birth
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
Item numbered (xii).
Mr G. K. Aboagye 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 19 subclause (1), line 1, delete “The” and insert “A”, and after “practitioner”, insert “or health practitioner” and in line 2, before “notify”, insert “within seven days of the occurrence of the death”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
Item numbered (xiii).
Mr G. K. Aboagye 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 19 subclause (2), opening phrase, line 2, after “practitioner”, insert “or health practitioner”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
Hon Member for Asante Akim Central?
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, may I know from the Hon Chairman whether the “health practitioner” is not covered by the “medical practitioner”?.

the advice from the medical officers was that if a health facility is manned by a doctor or medical assistant, then we could rightly use the term “medical practitioner” but not when the person falls below that level. “Health practitioner” is general but the “medical practitioner” is normally preserved for the medical doctors and medical assistants.

So we are bringing in “or health practitioners” so that we can accommodate those facilities which are manned by officers lower in grade.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
The only thing is that you have to provide the definition of health practitioner. I have checked from the interpretation clause to avoid confusion between the use of health and medical practitioner in the Bill. I have checked, the definition is not there.
Mr Ahiafor 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in addition to the explanation of the Hon Chairman of the Committee, all medical practitioners are health practitioners, but it is not all health practitioners who are medical practitioners. So there is a distinction between a health practitioner and a medical practitioner.
Mr Wireko-Brobby 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in addition, “medical practitioner”, in this case, is preferred. But in its absence the “health practitioner” which is there could suffice.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
No, in practice, there are a number of health facilities manned by persons other than medical practitioners. Those persons would perform functions. If we restrict it to medical practitioners, we would disable those persons from providing this information. We only have to define who we mean by a health practitioner as against a medical practitioner.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr G. K. Aboagye 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, subclause (2), paragraph (a), line 1, after first occurrence of “and”, insert “where possible”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am struggling to see where the first occurrence is. Rather, what the Hon Chairman seeks to do is to insert “where possible” in paragraph (a) after the first “and”. So it would be:
“… record the death and, where possible, the immediate and underlying cause of the death.”
I am not seeing the first occurrence in this. But if they have proposed an amendment which read “first occurrence” and what was meant to be done was to abandon that one and reinsert “where possible” --
So it should read:”
“… record the death and, where possible, the immediate and underlying cause of the death.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
I think this is the appropriate location.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr G. K. Aboagye 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, subclause (2), paragraph (b), before “transmit”, insert “within seven days of the arrival of the deceased person”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20 -- Registration of foetal death.
Mr G. K. Aboagye 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 20, subclause (2) line 2, delete “an Urban, Zonal,
Town and Area Council” and insert “the sub-districts within a district”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
Hon A. A. Osei?
Dr A. A. Osei 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, could you guide me a bit? You have put the Question on clause 19 to be part of the Bill, but there is a problem there that you may want to look at. It reads: “Based on the arrival of the deceased person …” It presumes that the deceased is arriving. How can a deceased person arrive?
It is in clause 19. It reads “based on the arrival of the deceased person”. It is like the deceased person is coming. [Laughter.] This is very dangerous.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
Within seven days of the occurrence of the death -- The deceased person can arrive --
Yes, Hon Member for Keta?
Mr Richard M. Quashigah 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am struggling to locate where “the arrival” as mentioned by my senior colleague -- [Interruption]
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as you just said, it should read:
“Within seven days after the body of the deceased person is brought, transmit the information to the District Registrar”.
Mr Quashigah 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think I heard the Hon Majority Leader right. He said “of the deceased person”.
The person becomes unnecessary. The “deceased” captures the entire essence when he is brought. This is because, when somebody passes on, we refer to the person as the deceased. And so adding “person” would make it superfluous.
So the way it was captured originally is apt. I do not think we should add or change any thing.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, unfortunately, I do not have the original Bill before me. What is here is what I am reading from and following your cue. But I believe that
we could just say that “after the body of the deceased is brought”. I do not have the original Bill with me. What I have is perhaps the consolidated one.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
Hon Members, let me read what is here and what the proposed amendment is.
“Notification of death
Where a death occurs outside a health facility and the deceased is brought to that health facility, the medical practitioner in charge of that facility shall:
(b)Transmit the information to the District Registrar”.
Then it is proposed to insert “within seven days of the arrival of the deceased person, transmit the information to the District Registrar” Probably, we could just say “Within seven days of the arrival of the corpse”.
Yes, Hon Member for Wa West?
Mr Chireh 1:48 p.m.
I think there is nothing wrong with the arrival of the deceased person. It is not the deceased person that is arriving. It must be carried. It is the corpse that is carried to the
facility. It is only after the deceased body arrives there, and within seven days after the arrival that a person is to comply with this.
However, when we change the meaning to think that the dead person is arriving, of course, it would be ridiculous.
Dr A. A. Osei 1:58 p.m.
The dead body cannot arrive. Somebody must bring the dead body. So “when the deceased is brought” -- it is proper. We cannot say, “when the deceased is arriving”. It means that the deceased is coming himself. We cannot do that. This is “Achimotan English”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
Hon Minister, the Achimotan has arrived but the Tepa Secondary School people are leading the discussion. So you should have room for the Tepa and the Juaben and Aburi people in the language. [Interruption] -- And Prempeh College.
Mr O. B. Amoah 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I understand the Hon Minister's point but in medicine, they write, “dead on arrival”. So it means that a dead body can arrive.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
Hon Members, having regard to the state of the business of the House, I direct that the House Sits outside the regular Sitting hours.
Mr Wireko-Brobby 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we can say “arrival of the body of the deceased person”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
We can just substitute that with “corpse”. Is it not the same thing?
Mr Sanid 1:58 p.m.
It would cure the challenge he has.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we read clause 19(2), it just says:
“Where death occurs outside a health facility and the deceased is brought to that health facility, the medical practitioner in charge of that facility shall
(a) record the death and the immediate and underlying cause of the death; and
(b) within seven days after the deceased is brought, transmit the information to the Registrar.”
Mr Sanid 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 21, opening phrase, line1, delete “who would have been”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we delete “would have been” and insert “is” so that it would read:
“where a foetal death occurs, the person who is responsible for the registration of the death under subsection (5)”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22 -- Burial permit for foetal death
Mr Sanid 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, line 4, before “disposition”, insert “forms of”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23 -- Registration of death
Mr Sanid 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 23, subclause (1), line 1, before “death” insert “a” and in line 2, delete “fourteen” and insert “ten”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Sanid 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 23, subclause (2), delete and insert the following:
“Despite subsection (1), the District Registrar shall only register a death that is reported more than ten days after the
death occurred if the prescribed fee for late registration has been paid.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
So with this amendment, if the prescribed fee is not paid, the record of the death is not registered.
Mr Sanid 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are bringing in the payment of fees as a measure or as a punishment for not observing the period that has been prescribed for the registration.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
I agree. So if the person fails, what happens? You do not record the fact of the death? You are keeping a register. Somebody is late and you want him to pay. He is not asking for a certificate. In this case, he wants just recording. If a person is asking for a certificate, you may ask for a late fee; but if he just wants to give you information and he fails to pay the fee, what happen?. Will the information not be recorded?
Hon Deputy Minister, I think you should reconsider this.
Mr O. B. Amoah 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think if we want to encourage the registration of death, we should not say that beyond ten days, if the prescribed fee is not paid then the Registrar would not register the death. Probably, we should find a way out of this -- I see that in subsection (3), after 12 months, death would be registered except the written authority of the Registrar. So saying that if the fee is not paid, it would not be registered after 10 days may have to be looked at again.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
I think you should rethink the entire clause 23 for the purposes of record keeping. If it is for application for a certificate, I would understand that but for the purposes of keeping the record, I think introducing a fee in refusing to register the fact if the fee is not paid would distort your register.
Mr Chireh 2:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think even reducing the 14 days to 10 days, again, that is a problem. People are very reluctant to report deaths. If we put a time limit within which it is free, we should still encourage the 14 days, so that people can go and register the deaths. But if we reduce it to 10 days,
Mr Sanid 2:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in view of the issues that we have raised, we would step this amendment down and further engage on that.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:08 p.m.
Hon Member, I think so.
Mr Quashigah 2:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not know whether Hon Colleagues who were at the winnowing took into cognisance customs and traditions?.
In this country, there are situations where chiefs die -- [Interruption] -- has it been stood down? [Pause] -- I am sorry.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:08 p.m.
Very well, let us continue. So, should I stand the entire clause 23 down and proceed to clause 24?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the concern here is what to do in the event of default. That is what has occasioned the standing down of that provision. I think we could handle the others, for instance, what we have in clause 23 (4) and (5). The major one is what we have related to; what to do in the event of default.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:08 p.m.
Very well, in that case, I will skip item numbered (xxi) and go to item numbered (xxii).
Mr Sanid 2:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 23, subclause (3), lines 3 to 5, delete “specified fee for late registration determined in accordance with the Fees and Charges (Miscellaneous Provision) Act, 2018 (Act 983)” and insert “prescribed fee for late registration.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:08 p.m.
Hon Member, I have stood that one down. So go to item numbered (xxii).
Mr Sanid 2:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 23, subclause (4), delete and insert the following:
“The District Registrar shall, upon receipt of a note of the written authority of the Registrar, enter the note in the register.”
Question put and amendment agree to.
Mr Sanid 2:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 23, subclause (5), line 3, delete “was” and insert “is” and also delete “ninety” and insert “thirty”.
Question put and amendment agree to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:08 p.m.
Hon Members, I will defer the Question on the entire clause 23 in view of the deferred clauses.
Clause 24 -- Persons to furnish information as to death
Mr Sanid 2:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 24, head note, delete “as to” and insert “of”.
Question put and amendment agree to.
Mr Sanid 2:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 24, paragraph (c), at end, add “if the occupier has knowledge of the death”.
Question put and amendment agree to.
Mr Sanid 2:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 24, paragraph (e), line 2, delete “regarding” and insert “in respect of the dead”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think what the Hon Chairman seeks to do is the deletion of “regarding” and inserting “in respect of”. So, “the death” should still be so and not “dead”. “… or held an inquiry in respect of the death” not “dead”.
Mr Sanid 2:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Majority Leader. That is what we have here.
Question put and amendment agree to.
Clause 24 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25 -- Certificate of medical practitioner
Mr Sanid 2:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 25, add the following new subclause:
“Where a health practitioner was in attendance during the illness of the deceased, the health practitioner shall notify the
Mr Sanid 2:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 25, subclause (2), line 1, delete “The recipient of” and insert “A person who receives” and also delete “deliver” and insert “submit”.
Mr Speaker, I would want to make a further amendment to clause 25. We would maintain “the recipient of”.
So the new rendition would be:
“25(2) the recipient of the medical certificate shall submit the certificate to the District Registrar who shall register the particulars with the deceased in the register of deaths.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26 -- Duty of coroner after holding inquiry
Mr Sanid 2:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, subclause (2), line 1, delete “deliver” and insert “submit.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Sanid 2:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, subclause (3), opening phrase, line 3, delete “died” and insert “suffered.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Sanid 2:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, subclause (3), paragraph (c), line 1, at beginning, insert “death.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:18 p.m.
In subclause (3) (c), you said we should insert “death” at the beginning. However, when we read from subclause (3) it says:
“Where a coroner is informed that a dead body has been found, or that a person died in the district, and the coroner has reasonable cause to suspect that that person has died;
(c) death while detained…”
Mr Sanid 2:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to take the rendition again. The new rendition on clause 26 (3) would read:
“Where a coroner is informed that a dead body has been found, or that a person died in the district, and the coroner has reasonable cause to suspect that that person has suffered;
(c) death while detained in a prison, psychiatric hospital or public institution other than a hospital, or…”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:18 p.m.
All right. I have not changed “died” in my copy.
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Sanid 2:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, subclause (3), paragraph (d), line 1, at beginning, insert “death.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Sanid 2:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, subclause (4), line 2, delete “a” and insert “the” and in line 3, before “orders”, insert “in writing.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27 -- Death certificate
Mr Sanid 2:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 27, subclause (1), paragraph (b), lines 2 and 3, delete “specified fee determined in accordance with the Fees and Charges (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2018 (Act 983)” and insert “prescribed fee.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Sanid 2:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 27, subclause (2), paragraph (a), line 1, delete “into the country from another country” and insert “from another country into the country.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Sanid 2:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 27, subclause (2),
Mr Sanid 2:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 28, subclause (2), line 1, delete “cremation” and insert “any other form of disposition.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Sanid 2:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 28 subclause (5), paragraph (b), line 1, delete “cremation” and insert “form of disposition other than burial.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29 -- Registration of morgues, funeral homes, burial grounds and crematoriums
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this is just to draw the attention of the Hon Chairman. Having made this distinction between burial and the other forms of disposition of the deceased, I think that we need to interpret “burial permit” to include the permits issued for the disposition of bodies, otherwise, it may create some problems.
This is because we have made distinction between burial for which we issued a burial permit, and then these other forms of disposition of bodies of the deceased. So, when we go to the interpretation, we may have to define “burial permit” to include the permits issued for the disposition of bodies.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
Indeed, the last amendment we did, I am reading it again and I am confused. The amendment reads: “Subclause (5), paragraph (b)”, but there is no paragraph (b) to subclause (5) of clause 28. There is only subclause (5) of clause 28, where we are asked to delete the word “cremation” in line 1.
However, there is another “cremation” in line 2. [Interruption] -- No, we deleted only the
“cremation” in line 1. In subclause (5), there are two “cremations”, but we have deleted only one of them. The last one has not been deleted, so, we have to delete that one too. The last sentence reads: “…before proceeding with the cremation…”

So, we have to delete that one before proceeding with the disposition -- Hon Chairman, let us go through the rendition again.
Mr Sanid 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause
28(5):
“A person who conducts a form of disposition rather than burial, shall inspect the death certificate before proceeding with the form of disposition”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the Hon Chairman is right; “A person who conducts a form of disposition other than burial, shall inspect the death certificate before proceeding with the form of disposition”. If we like we could say “…that form of disposition”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29 -- Registration of morgues, funeral homes, burial grounds and crematoriums
Mr Sanid 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 29, Headnote, delete “grounds and crematoriums” and insert “grounds, crematoriums and other disposition facilities”.
Mr Quashigah 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that even if the “crematorium” is taken out it will still not change the intention and essence of the headnote because subsequently, we would find a morgue, funeral homes, burial grounds and crematoriums to cut out too many words. Grounds and other —
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
In fact, all we did was to add other disposition facilities; they did not take it out completely, they removed the “and”, and added “and other forms of disposition facilities”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Sanid 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 29, subclause (1), line 2, delete “ground or crematorium”

and insert “ground, crematorium or any other disposition facility”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:28 p.m.
I am not really at cross-purpose with what the Hon Chairman is doing except, I just noticed that if we have to maintain the crematorium in the headnote and also, let it run through the body in the clause 29, then, I believe that we should have to go back to clause 28 and allow the “cremation” to stand and then, add “any other form of disposition”.
Other than that, we may have to delete the “crematorium” and just say burial grounds and other disposition facilities. That is also the other way so that in the body as well, then, we delete the “crematorium”.
Mr Ahiafor 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, “crematorium” is also other disposition facility apart from burial. So in line with clause 28, I think we should delete “crematorium” and it would be “burial grounds and other disposition facilities”. That is the second leg being proposed by the Hon Majority Leader.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
Yes, Chairman, what do you say to the proposed amendments to your amendment?
Mr Sanid 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would go along with that; once “burial grounds and other disposition facilities” covers cremation - we are even told that people even propose that when they die, they should be immersed in acid and all that so those are some facilities we are contemplating on so, once we say “other disposition facilities, it covers the new ones that are emerging.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
Very well.
Mr Quashigah 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I keep hearing the Hon Chairman say burial grounds, is it grounds or ground, because I see ground in the document? He keeps making reference to grounds; is he asking that we amend “ground” to “grounds”?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
Very well, in legislation, ground and grounds are the same.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think he introduces something else, and as you do know, we have been legislating in singular forms so; we can just say registration of morgue, funeral home, burial ground and other disposition facilities. Mr Speaker, we singularise it and it would run through.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
Hon Chairman, you may proceed with clause 29.
Mr Sanid 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 29, subclause (1), line 2, delete “ground or crematorium” and insert “ground or any other disposition facility”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
Now, do we not want the “crematorium” again?
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Sanid 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 29, subclause (1), add the following new paragraph:
“(e) a disposition facility.”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think in line with what we have done, we should delete the “crematorium”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
So that it will be:
“The District Assembly shall register a morgue, a funeral home, a burial ground or other disposition facility.” Is that right?
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 as amended, ordered to stand part —
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we have not finished. We have to go to clause 29 (3) to delete --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:38 p.m.
Is it an item in the Order Paper? It has not been advertised?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:38 p.m.
It has not been advertised. I am just saying that consequentially, we have to delete the “crematorium” in line 1 and also in line 2. It appears on two occasions. So, we have to delete “crematorium” from wherever it occurs.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:38 p.m.
I would just direct the draftspersons to redraft clause 29 (3) in line with the amendment proposed earlier.
Mr O. B. Amoah 2:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that once we have a specified morgue, funeral home, burial ground or crematorium, we should maintain it and then find --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:38 p.m.
We have made changes from --
Mr O. B. Amoah 2:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we may even have to look at those changes.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:38 p.m.
‘Morgue‘ applies to all deceased persons, a funeral home would apply to all deceased persons but the burial grounds, crematoriums and others would differ. That is why we accept the generally overwhelming majority one and defend all others, so that we do not have to repeat all or we may overlook some. However, the burial ground or any other disposal facility covers all others.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:38 p.m.
The draftspersons are directed to look critically at clause 29 (3) and make amendments or corrections in line with the amendment made in clauses 28 and 29.
Mr G. K. Aboagye 2:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30, headnote, delete “Burial” and insert “Disposition”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, “burial” is the commonly -- known one and that is why we have maintained it throughout. So, rather, he should maintain “burial” and insert “disposition”. So, it would read, “burial or disposition without permit”.
Mr Quashigah 2:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that what the Hon Chairman proposed holds sway because “burial” is a subset of disposition and as long as “burial” is a subset of disposition, we need not mention it in the headnote. So, I think that “disposition without permit” as the Hon Chairman proposed is apt. So, we should rather go with that amendment and have internal consistence.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:38 p.m.
You are not supposed to respond to it.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought what Hon Dafeamekpor said should have affected what Hon Quashigah said
because we have been talking about “burial” all through and “other dispositions”. So the internal consistency he spoke about should have affected his own submission, yet he drafted it for himself.
He thought that it was made for him. Just so that we follow what we have been doing, “burial” is part of “disposition”, yes, but because of what we have been doing, let us follow through.
Mr Quashigah 2:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that looking at clause 28 , it talks about burial and other dispositions. Then again, looking at it critically, I think that the proposition by the Hon Chairman is something that we need to consider and if necessary, go back and make the necessary amendments in line with the proposed amendment being made.
If we say “burial and other dispositions”, “disposition” is general and covers the entirety of the various forms. So why would we want to single that out and bother ourselves with wordiness when we could use a word which captures the entire essence?. Of course, yes, maybe the internal consistence as the Hon Member mentioned because they were at the winnowing and it probably works in his favour.
But I was making reference to the earlier issue that came up. I however think that if that is what they did at the winnowing, then they have to be more diligent.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:38 p.m.
Hon Members, I think that if you talk about “disposal”, about 95 per cent or more disposals in this country are by burial. So, burial is more identifiable with Ghana. The other forms which we cannot even quantify in real terms would be any other forms. I think this proposed amendment by the Hon Majority Leader is appropriate.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:38 p.m.
Item numbered 9 (xliii)?
Mr G. K. Aboagye 2:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30, subclause (1), line 1, delete “burial ground” and insert “morgue, funeral home, burial ground or any other disposition facility” and in line 2, delete “the burial ground” and insert “that facility”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 30 is on “burial or any other form of disposition” without permit. It says :
“The owner or manager of a burial ground or any other
Mr Dafeamekpor 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am in support of the Hon Majority Leader's rendition, just that I am wondering whether it is necessary for us to repeat “burial ground”. So, it would read: “shall not permit the burial or disposition of a dead body, unless a burial permit in respect of” because we are repeating “the owner or manager of a burial ground”. Then your amendment came: “shall not permit the burial of a dead body in the burial ground”.Mr Speaker, my point is that we do not need “the burial ground” again.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
Well, let us be clear. The manager can only manage his or her burial ground but if it says “shall not permit the burial” he has no control if they decide to take it to another burial ground. So, I think the burial ground is specific. In that case, the proposed amendment to clause 30 is withdrawn. Is that right?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am proffering a new amendment to read:
“The owner or manager of a burial ground or any other disposition facility shall not permit the burial or disposition of a dead body in the burial
ground or disposition facility unless a burial permit in respect of the dead body has been delivered to the manager or owner of the burial ground or disposition facility.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 30, subclause (2) would certainly not be affected because whoever is cremated or dissolved in acid cannot be reburied or exhumed but I think it would affect subclasses (3) and (4) so we need to look at it. Consequentially subclasses (3) and (4) would be affected.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
Yes, so, I would direct the draftspersons to insert “or any other disposition facility” as appropriate after “burial grounds” in all the subclasses.
Mr Quashigah 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I calmly would want to crave your indulgence to seek some clarification in respect of clause 30. We have talked about burial grounds which is very clear but when we were at clause
29, we talked about registration of morgues, funeral homes, et cetera. Now, is it then the case that I can operate a morgue without a permit and there can be no punishment or issues to that effect?
Mr Speaker, we have created a situation for just burial grounds but what about morgues? Does it mean that somebody can operate an unregistered morgue? I have scanned through the clauses and I have not seen anything.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
Hon Member, please, read clause 29. Every morgue, funeral home, burial ground or other disposal facility would be registered. But if you are going to bury, then, the person must inspect your burial permit before.
That is all there is to it. So, if there is an accident immediately and the dead persons are carried to a morgue nearby, it cannot produce a burial or even a death certificate. It must be kept before one goes for the information, so, I think that is a difference between the two.
Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32 -- Cancellation of registration and certificate
Mr George K. Aboagye 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32, subclause (3), opening phrase, line 1, delete “is satisfied” and insert “establishes”.
Mr Quaittoo 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you look at the headnote of clause 31 --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
All right, you want us to go back to clause
31?.
Mr Quaittoo 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes. “Births and deaths on the high seas and airspace” but when you come to clause 31, it talks about “foetal death”. In this Bill, we have distinctly separated “foetal death” from “death”. So, if the Headnote talks about only “death” why are we bringing in “foetal death” into the main clause? If that is the case, I think that “foetal death” should also be captured in the Headnote.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
What is the title of the Bill? Registration of Births and Deaths Bill, 2020. Even though it has “foetal death” in the body. “Foetal death” is also death, so, I do not think it is inappropriate.
Mr Banda 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, on the same clause 31, I believe that line 3 to 4, instead of saying “where the Registrar is satisfied with respect to the veracity…” we can simply say
“where the Registrar is satisfied with the veracity and sufficiency of the particular receipts”. It makes it too verbose.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
Now, the proposed amendment to clause 32 as contained in item numbered (xliv) has been moved. Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee, kindly move the proposed amendment again.
Mr G. K. Aboagye 2:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32, subclause (3), paragraphs (a) and (b) delete and insert the following -- [Interruption]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:58 p.m.
Hon Members, I am advised that for our guide, we should use the Order Paper Addendum for the proposed amendments from clause 32 so that we can now put aside the original Order Paper. So, Chairman of the Committee, you may move item numbered 4(i) again.
Mr G. K. Aboagye 2:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32, subclause (1), closing phrase, after “attend”, delete “the” and insert “a”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Item numbered (ii)?
Mr Sanid 2:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move line 1, delete “holding a”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:58 p.m.
Item numbered (iii)?
Mr Sanid 2:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move subclause (3), opening phrase, line 1, delete “is satisfied” and insert “establishes”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:58 p.m.
Item numbered (iv)?
Mr Sanid 2:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move subclause (3) paragraphs (a) and (b), delete and insert the following: (a) “make a note in the Register or (b) order the person concerned to deliver the certificate for cancellation”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:58 p.m.
Item numbered (v)?
Mr Sanid 2:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move subclause (5), line 1, before “Registrar”, insert “District”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the item numbered (iv), subclause (b), I think that it should rather read; “whether the person concerned is to submit or surrender the certificate for cancellation”.
If it is not “surrender” then maybe, “submit” but not “to deliver”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:58 p.m.
Yes, Hon Chairman, I think that “surrender” will be better.
Mr Ahiafor 2:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, one should submit a certificate issued to him or her to the Registrar for cancellation. We submit for cancellation.
Mr Banda 2:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that “surrender” is stronger because it is dealing with the commission of an offence for which reason the certificate is being demanded for cancellation. So, once it is dealing with cancellation, surrendering of the certificate is more appropriate and stronger than “to deliver or submit”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:58 p.m.
Is it by law that one has to submit it? If so, then he or she will surrender. However, if we use the word; “submit”, there is some element of “discretion” but when one has no discretion then surrender is the appropriate term.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I also have two other issues. First, I thought we would deal with the sectional notes -- Fraudulent Registration and Certificates. They are relating to fraudulent use of certificates or maybe, improper use of certificates. It is not just fraudulent registration and certificates and so, we should qualify it. It should be - Fraudulent Registration and Improper Use of Certificates. That is what this Body is about.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:58 p.m.
What is “improper use”? Here, we are talking about --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this is because when we go back to clause 32 (1); “the registration is falsely or fraudulently obtained, or certificate obtained is used for fraudulent or improper purpose …”
So, it is either “fraudulent registration or fraudulent use of certificates”. I think that should be the caption there.
Secondly, the sub-paragraph (a) that we just dealt with, in (iv), I think that we should complete what we have done in (a) “make a note in the Register”.
Mr Speaker, “to make a note in the Register” to that effect.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:58 p.m.
I am wondering why I should surrender a certificate genuinely obtained but used for fraudulent purposes?. Now, if I used fraudulent means to obtain it and it is found out, I can be asked to surrender it for cancellation. However, if I obtained it genuinely but used it for criminal activities, should that lead me to forfeit what I genuinely obtained?
I think that is a different scenario and so, probably, even this whole thing about ‘is used for a fraudulent or improper purpose', we should
look at it again. It has been genuinely obtained but it is being used for a purpose other than - it should be the subject of criminal investigation and the punishment should be in a criminal court and not administrative as required here.
Mr Ahiafor 2:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this morning, we had an argument on whether or not “improper use” should be in the rendition. This is because once one genuinely and legally obtained the certificate, it is only when one uses fraudulent means of obtaining it that the fraud can vitiate the certificate that one has.
However, if the certificate, lawfully obtained is subsequently used for a fraudulent purpose then that tantamounts to a fraud being committed and the Criminal Offences Act will deal with that. So, to say improper use of the certificate should amount to a ground of surrendering the certificate, it is a bit of a problem. This is because one's punishment will be for a crime committed to wit, fraud under the Criminal Offences Act.
Mr Francis K. Ato Codjoe 2:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, sorry, I was not here when this Bill started and to also admit that I am not very conversant with the laws and so on.
With what I read from clause 29 through to 32, I had a little problem that which had to do with the fact that all that person needs to do is to register at the District. I do not know whether the person is required to have licence from Environmental Protection Act (EPA) because this burial homes and so on should be licenced so that if they are being used wrongfully, their licence can be cancelled. Like we are all saying, some legal punishments should be meted out.
So, I do not know if there is a provision in the EPA Act for these burial homes to be licensed because if we say that they should just be registered at the District level and they begin to operate, who is checking all the other things they are supposed to do and when issues of such nature happen, what is the penalty?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:08 p.m.
I think you are introducing a totally new -- let us deal with whether it is a certificate --
Mr Codjoe 3:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is my concern. All these means that we need to relook at that portion. An Hon Member mentioned it but I think we told him that we have gone past clause 29. Mr Speaker, we have to look at all that again because it can address the concern of whether the
Mr Banda 3:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that the whole of clause 32 is focusing on two issues. The first issue has to do with the fraudulent use or improper use of the certificate and the second issue is looking at fraudulent registration or fraudulent acquisition of the certificate. These two acts are not the same, however, in subcluase (3), the punishment for these two acts appear to be the same and that is cancellation.
There is nothing wrong with this because the provision is dealing with administrative cancellation of the certificate because of fraudulent registration or improper use of the certificate. Mr Speaker, this can be done administratively if it is administratively established that the certificate was fraudulently procured, that registration was done fraudulently or the certificate is being used for an improper purpose.
Mr Speaker, this is without prejudice to the person who has perpetrated this act and is to be hauled before a court for prosecution of a fraudulent registration or fraudulent procurement of the certificate.
Mr Speaker, these two acts can sit side by side with each other but my only problem with subclause 3 --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:08 p.m.
Hon Member, hold on. We would continue with the consideration for another hour but excuse me for five minutes. The House is suspended for five minutes.
3.11 p.m. -- Sitting suspended.
3.15 p.m. -- Sitting resumed.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:08 p.m.
Hon Members, order!
Hon Chairman for the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, please continue.
Mr Banda 3:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was looking at clause 32(3) and I realised that the punishment regime for fraudulent registration or procurement of certificate and the improper use of the certificate is the same. However, I thought that the gravity or seriousness of the two acts are not the same.
If a person registers fraudulently or fraudulently procures the certificate, I would want to propose that the punishment regime should be different from when the person legitimately procures the certificates but uses it for improper purposes.
The first one should attract cancellation and maybe the second one should attract a suspension or a punishment lesser than the cancellation. Mr Speaker, this is my proposal.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:08 p.m.
What kind of certificate are we talking about? If I obtain a death certificate and use it to defraud someone then you cancel the death certificate though, in fact, the person is dead then what is the use? Or if I obtain a birth certificate and after that I use the birth certificate to defraud someone then why would you cancel the birth certificate because it is the fact of my birth which has been recorded. I think that we should look at this differently.
Mr Ahiafor 3:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we need to know why we want the record of birth and death. If a person is born and a birth certificate has been issued but we are saying that the wrongful use of the birth certificate should lead to the cancellation of that birth certificate, then would that mean to say that the person has not been born?.
If someone is dead and a certificate has been issued regarding the death, but the certificate has been wrongly used. Does the wrongful use of the
certificate which led to the cancellation of the certificate amount to the person not being dead?
Mr Speaker, for me, the certificate can be cancelled if it was obtained fraudulently but its fraudulent usage should not attract the cancellation of the certificate. However, it should attract a sanction under the Criminal Offences Act because the death has been recorded. If it is cancelled then the record is being destroyed because the death or birth has occurred. So, the fraudulent usage of that certificate must be punished but it should not lead to cancellation.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:08 p.m.
Let me listen to the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Mr G. K. Aboagye 3:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am inclined to go along with Hon Ahiafor and add that a note should be made in the register as we indicated to the effect that the person in question actually uses it for a wrongful or fraudulent purpose, then it goes to his record with the Registry. The punishment must be taken care of by the Criminal Offences Act. I think we need to relook at this particular clause and see how best we can structure it to accommodate this position.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:18 p.m.
Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parlia- mentary Affairs?
Mr Banda 3:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, prosecution for having committed an offence under our criminal statute is
different, and administrative punish- ment is also different. The two could coexist.
The fact is that the birth or death, having been entered into the note, does not still affect the cancellation or otherwise of the certification. This is because, if a person has a birth or death certificate, that person could use it for some purposes. For instance, if it is a death certificate, that person could even use it to apply for a probate or letters of administration.
Mr Speaker, the long and short of my submission is that, somebody must suffer for having fraudulently procured a registration or certificate.
Quite apart from that, the person could still be punished under any court of competent jurisdiction for having committed this.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:18 p.m.
Hon Member who is my senior at the Bar, this is double jeopardy. If a person commits one offence, he is either prosecuted or there is an administrative penalty.
Now, this one is recording a fact. The whole Bill is about registration of births and deaths. If I obtained the birth certificate of my deceased father and used the certificate to defraud
somebody, and I am found out, I would be charged under the Criminal Offences Act. But why should the certificate which is only registering the death of my father be withdrawn or cancelled and why should my birth be cancelled on the basis that I used my birth certificate to defraud somebody? I would be punished elsewhere, but the fact of my birth, its date and particulars should remain with the evidence being the certificate.
However, for example, if my father was not dead, and I told a lie with an affidavit to obtain a declaration -- [Interruption] I have seen this happen before. Somebody was not dead but people actually deposed to an affidavit and took letters of administration with a will annexed for his will. This is fraudulent. That certificate is not deserving because truly my father was not dead. And that could be cancelled.
Or, if I was born on 7th January and I lied and said I was born on 20th December and as a result obtained a certificate as being born on 20th December, that certificate was obtained by fraud. It is not deserving and so should be cancelled. Otherwise, I do not see why a certificate genuinely obtained for
recording a fact should be withdrawn simply because I subsequently used that certificate to commit another crime. I think this is the question we should consider.
Mr Codjoe 3:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think you have even put it clearer. Why should somebody still keep that certificate? If I was born on 31st July and I have a certificate that says I was born on 24th January, why should I still keep holding the certificate and keep on defrauding people?. Your example even convinces me that my certificate must be withdrawn from the system and maybe a new one issued to the person.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:18 p.m.
Wait, Hon Member. You are confusing me. Whose certificate are we withdrawing?
Mr Codjoe 3:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, for instance, a person is born with the name “Ato Codjoe“ on 31st July, 1971 but is parading around with a certificate that says he was born on 24th January, 1978.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:18 p.m.
In that case, that certificate was obtained by fraud. It is different from saying that that person actually holds a certificate genuinely and obtained it with all information being correct, but
Mr Codjoe 3:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, earlier, when we had time to interact, I was suggesting that if it is possible, we could divide the issue into two; one that deals with fraudulently obtained --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:18 p.m.
Hon Member, you have not read the Bill. It is there. Paragraph (a) talks about a certificate that is falsely or fraudulently obtained and paragraph (b) is about using the certificate for improper purpose. It is the one envisaged under paragraph (b) that we are complaining about that it ought not to cost a person a certificate genuinely obtained.
Mr Ebenezer O. Terlabi 3:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, under what circumstance would a genuinely acquired certificate be used fraudulently?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:18 p.m.
I just gave you an example. I obtained a certificate that my father is deceased. It could be genuine that he is deceased, or he might not be deceased but I go and tell a lie to obtain a certificate. The second
instance is fraud and so I am not entitled to the certificate. However, with the first one, after obtaining the certificate of my father's death, I probably go and use it for a purpose other than for which it is issued. We are saying that I should be punished for that purpose and not for the certificate. This is the argument.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe all you have to do in clause 42(3) is to separate the offences. One is in respect of where the Registrar is satisfied that the registration under this Act has been falsely or fraudulently obtained.
So in that case, it could be cancelled. The other leg is where the certificate obtained is being used for fraudulent or improper purposes. So we would separate the two and once we do that, I think it would be tidy.
Mr Ahiafor 3:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we can better achieve our aim if we delete 31(b) and then we go further to delete 33 in line 2 “or certificate obtained under this Act is being used for a fraudulent or improper purpose.”
So the clause 32(1) would read:
“A District Registrar may on receipt of a petition in writing that a registration under this Act has been falsely or fraudulently obtained under the person concerned to attain a hearing of the petition.”
Mr Speaker, that would be one. The reason is that once a fraudulent use of a document lawfully obtained is a crime against the Republic, the Registrar of Births and Deaths should not concern himself about the fraudulent use of the document that is lawfully obtained. That is a matter between the Republic acting through the Attorney-General and then the accused person. Then if we come to 32(3), the rendition would be:
“A District Registrar who establishes that a registration under this Act has been falsely or fraudulently obtained shall order a note to be made in the register to that effect or order a certificate issued in respect of that registration to be surrendered for cancellation.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:28 p.m.
I think it should be “and” not “or”. It should note and then -- So they are two.
Mr Ahiafor 3:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker that would resolve the problem for us.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33 -- Alteration in register
Mr Sanid 3:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 33 subclause (3), and lines 2 and 3, delete “specified fee determined in accordance with the Fees and Charges (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2018 (Act 983)” and insert “prescribed fee”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34 -- Error in the certificate of a coroner
Mr Sanid 3:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (1) and (2) delete and insert the following:
“(1) Where an error of fact or substance, other than one relating to the cause of death, occurs in the information given in the certificate of a coroner, the person
Mr O. B. Amoah 3:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think there is an omission - “Where an error of fact or substance, other than one relating to the cause …”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:28 p.m.
I think it should be “an error relating to the cause of death…”
Hon Chairman, do you agree?
Mr Sanid 3:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Sanid 3:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (3), line 3, delete “births, foetal deaths or”.
Mr Ahiafor 3:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support this amendment in the sense
that the marginal note is dealing with error in the certificate of a coroner. A coroner has nothing to do with birth. He has nothing to do with foetal death. A coroner concerns himself with inquest for death. So the deletion of “births” and “foetal death” is proper in the rendition.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Sanid 3:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (4), line 1, delete “births, foetal deaths or”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:28 p.m.
A coroner does not investigate foetal death.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Banda 3:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, sorry. Please grant me leave to take the House back to clause 33(4), line 1. Instead of saying, “the request is to be supported” I would want to propose that “the request shall be supported”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35 -- Search of records
Mr Sanid 3:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (2), lines 2 and 3, delete “specified fee determined in accordance with the Fees and Charges (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2018 (Act 983)” and insert “prescribed fee”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, I think what we have done earlier should affect these things that we are doing even though there is no amendment proposed for clause 35. I realised that clause 35(1) (b) may have to suffer consequential amendments.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:28 p.m.
Sorry, which one are you referring to?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, by what we have done with respect to burial, we have added those other forms of disposition. So I am saying that in this case, it cannot just be a burial record.

In this case, it cannot just be a burial record, but the record of those other forms of disposition in clause 35 (1) (b).

When we come to subclause (3), again, the consequential amendment, it will follow the same order.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:38 p.m.
Very well, I direct the draftspersons to bring clause 35(1) in consonance with the amendment proposed to burial and forms of disposition.
Mr Banda 3:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in clause 35 (1), application for the search is admitted to the Registrar or District Registrar, but in subclauses (3) and (4), the Registrar is absent, it is just the District Registrar who is mentioned. Would there be any reason? If there is no reason, then I believe that we should insert “the Registrar” and subclause (4) should consequentially be the same. The request is to either the Registrar or the District Registrar.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36 -- Certified copy of entry in the register of births
Mr Sanid 3:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 36, subclause (2), lines 2 and 3. It is a consequential amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Sanid 3:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 36, subclause (3), opening phrase, line 1, delete “High” and also delete “High” in line 4.
Mr Ahiafor 3:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment because the “High Court” has been used in clause 36 (1), therefore, if you come to clause 36 (3), lines 1 and 4, if we say “the Court”, we are only referring to the High Court. So there is no need repeating “High Court”. We can use the definite article “the Court” subsequently, which means the High Court.
Question put and amendment agree to.
Mr Sanid 3:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 36, subclause (4), lines 1 and 2, delete “a court order” and insert “the order of the court”.
Question put and amendment agree to.
Clause 36 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37 -- Certified copy of entry in the register of foetal deaths
Mr Sanid 3:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 37, headnote, at end, add “or deaths”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Sanid 3:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 37, subclause (1), line 4, after “deaths”, insert “or deaths”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:38 p.m.
Hon Member, I want to follow you. Why are we moving back into drafting in the plural?
Mr Ahiafor 3:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Chairman's amendment, because if you read further, clause 38 is being deleted in its entirety. Originally, clause 37 was dealing with only foetal death and clause 38 was dealing with deaths, but all the consequential clauses are the same.
Therefore if we introduce foetal deaths or death as how we are legislating, then probably speaking, clause 38 can be deleted in its entirety. Hence, the introduction of “foetal deaths or deaths” in the rendition.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, all through the Bill, the two have been treated separately. When we take it from clause 19 and come to clause 20, which is registration of foetal death; clause 21, person responsible for the registration of foetal death; clause 22, burial permit for foetal death and clause 23, registration of death.
Mr Speaker, the two deaths have all through been treated differently, so let us maintain that consistency. Otherwise, juggling it up would create a problem. I admit that it may amount to just a mere repetition, but it is important that the two are kept different. Otherwise, we would have to go back and put the two together in much the same way.
Mr Ahiafor 3:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clauses 37 and 38 talks about certified copy of entry in the register of deaths. It is the same for foetal death and the same for death. So, if we say certified copy of entry in the register of foetal deaths or deaths, if we read clause 37 (1) and clause 38 (1), it is the same words.
Clauses 27 (2) and 38 (2) have the same words. Clause 37 (3) and clause 38 (3) also have the same words. The only difference is that one talks about foetal deaths and the other talks about deaths. Therefore if we introduce “foetal deaths” or “deaths” into clause
37, the intention is well captured and on the principles of brevity, this is the way we should go in drafting.
Mr Sanid 3:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, further to Hon Ahiafor's submission, even the cross-referencing that we have adduced in clauses 37 and 38 is clause 24. So, I think that merging the two will save us.
Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 3:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that we need to support this amendment. The only difference is “foetal deaths”; all the provisions are the same. So it means that the provisions in clause 37 can apply to clause 38?.
Mr Banda 3:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I will defer in the sense that, right from the outset, we have drawn a distinction between foetal death and death. If you come to the intersections, “death” has been defined excluding foetal death.
So, “foetal death” has also been defined separately from “death”.
Mr Speaker, the provisions in clauses 37 and 38 are the same, but all along, we have been maintaining that internal consistency. If we were to merge clause 37 and clause 38 together as though the two are the
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:48 p.m.
Hon Member, you have not shown us how it would lead to confusion. How would that be? This is about issuing a certified copy of entry of a foetal death or death. How will that generate confusion?
Mr Banda 3:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we do not draw that line of distinction and we put the two together, it would appear as though we are talking about the same thing, and that is where the confusion would come in. It would appear as though we are talking about the same thing, but we are not talking about the same thing. We are talking about two different things --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:48 p.m.
That is why the heading is “foetal deaths or deaths”. Even though they have been provided for separately, in the issue of certificates for them, the same certificate would be issued. So, if you say “foetal deaths or deaths” they have been provided for earlier.
Foetal death and its circumstances have been explained, but in the issue of the certificate, it is one certificate
which may be headed “foetal death or death” that would be given. That is what is provided for so far.
Hon Member on your feet, I am just generating debate unless -- [Interruption] -- alright, you would want to cede to the Hon Majority Leader.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the reason I am relating to this is that there are three different registers. There is not a register of foetal deaths or deaths. So, if in that case we would want to bring it here; underneath clause 38, then for the purposes of clarity, we do not have to say “the register of foetal deaths or deaths”. In that case, we would have to say “the register of foetal death or the register of deaths”. If we do so, then it would become clearer. That is the better way to do it, other than that --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:48 p.m.
Let us offer those amendments to make it clearer.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, precisely! If you agree, then that should be the proper and the much more appropriate rendition.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:48 p.m.
Very well, kindly propose the amendments to that, so that we proceed.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, so beginning from clause 37, it would read “the register of foetal deaths or register of deaths”, which would be the caption. Then when we come to clause 37 (1), consequentially, we would do the same amendments.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:48 p.m.
Hon Members, we would now move on to the item numbered (xvi).
Mr Sanid 3:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 37 subclause (2), lines 2 and 3, delete “specified fee determined in accordance with the Fees and Charges (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2018 (Act 983)” and insert “prescribed fee.”
Mr Speaker, it is actually a consequential amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Sanid 3:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 37 subclause (3), opening phrase, line 1, delete “High” and in line 4, after “deaths”, insert “or deaths” and also delete “High.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:48 p.m.
“Register of deaths or register of foetal deaths.” That is the amendment
that we have already carried, so it is consequential.
Very well, it is the same thing with the amendment numbered (xvii) right? Those consequential amendments apply.
Mr Sanid 3:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (4), lines 1 and 2, delete “a court order” and insert “the order of the court.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38 -- Certified copy of entry in the register of deaths
Mr Sanid 3:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, delete the entire clause.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 is ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 3:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Deputy Minister for Local Government and Rural Development is an astute Lawyer. What is the position of the law on clause 39? Every certificate, whether it is a death certificate, a university
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:48 p.m.
I think that we do not lose anything because in this country, people lie in giving out information, and that is why they use prima facie. So does it mean that the evidence --
Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 3:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, even though there would be university certificates, they are prima facie; they are rebuttable. [Laughter]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:48 p.m.
Particularly in the case of birth and death certificates, I think that it is relevant that we put this one here.
Clause 40 -- Information sharing
Mr Sanid 3:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 40 subclause (3), line 2, after “effective”, insert “and efficient.”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, before then, I guess that we should amend clause 40 (1), which would read: “A birth certificate, death certificate or foetal death certificate…”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:48 p.m.
It is captured as “a foetal death certificate”. Is that right? Yes!
Mr Ahiafor 3:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment is in order. It is actually a proposed amendment from the Winnowing Committee which was omitted from the Order Paper.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:48 p.m.
Actually, I am being advised that there is no such thing as “foetal death certificate”. They do not issue certificates on that. It is only for records. However, which other certificates have we provided for in the Bill, such that we would put it there? Which other certificates do we issue?
Mr Sanid 3:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is “any other document”, so, I think that that should be satisfactory.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:58 p.m.
Very well, it should rather be any other document, not certificate.
Very well, I am advised that foetal death is certified by the medical practitioners, not the Registry.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you just informed us that there is no foetal death certificate; is that what you said?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:58 p.m.
Yes, it is issued by the medical practitioners and not the Registry. That is what I was just shown; a copy of a Legislative Instrument.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:58 p.m.
I saw that in clause 21 and I was wondering if it is issued by the Registry. So, it is not issued by the Registry but by the medical practitioner.
Clause 40 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 41 -- Security protocols
Mr Sanid 3:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 41, subclause (3), line 1, delete “registry” and insert “registrar”.
Mr Speaker, the reason for this amendment is to place an obligation on the duty bearer. The Hon Majority Leader wants to just leave it at the registry but perhaps, a point of contact when it comes to the responsibility.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 3:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I did not get the explanation because here, the intendment was to use “registry”. That is why the possessive in line 2 is “its”. So I would want to understand the rationale for substituting “registry”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:58 p.m.
He says that if we use the “registry”, it is difficult to find one person to hold responsible.
Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 3:58 p.m.
Does it have to do with responsibility?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:58 p.m.
Yes, so, if we give it to the registrar, then, he takes responsibility but that means that in the subsequent one; line 2, we should amend the pronoun.
Mr Banda 3:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought when my Ranking Member got up, after dealing with the substantive issue, he was going to talk about the use of the possessive there.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:58 p.m.
Hon Members, I am proposing something: The Registrar shall employ the security -- [Pause] -- the proposed amendment is clause 41(3):
“The Registrar shall allow only authorised persons to access the data sources of the registry”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:58 p.m.
We now go to clause 41(3):
“The Registrar shall allow only authorised persons to access data sources of the registry”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:58 p.m.
And clause 41(4):
“A person who is not authorised by the Registrar shall not use the data which belongs to the registry”.
Mr Agbodza 3:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am sorry to have taken you back; even in subclause (3), why are we using “data sources” instead of database? We just made a change to subclause (4), for instance, we said:
“A person who is not authorised by the Registrar shall not use the data which belongs to the registry”.
Mr Speaker, the registry themselves may publish data for a reason. Are we saying that if that data is available in public, the way it is written, it is as if no one can use it, but we are talking about people who should not have access to the stored data, which is not in public. That was what we are preventing ordinary people from accessing and that is why we said “authorised person”. So, I thought we could say:
“A person who is not authorised by the registrar shall not have access to the database of the registry”.
In fact, data is data. I thought the term is database rather than data sources. Database is everything we have in terms of data.
Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 3:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member is right to the extent that if the data is all collated in one place, that becomes a database, but, where we have different documents containing different data, they are data sources.
So, we have data on the Computer; it is a data source; we have data of the registry in the registers and that is data source. Data source? Where do we get the data? From the register of births and deaths. They are different but if all the data were contained in the register, then, that is a database.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:58 p.m.
And there are different registers at different places - those are the sources.
Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 3:58 p.m.
They are sources.
Mr Agbodza 3:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the database of Parliament is not all necessarily on one computer. The
database of staff of Parliament -- [Interruption]-- you are talking of sources.
I am saying that all the various segments of data are still database. The sources may be different but that is the database. The database of Parliament would include Members and Staff among others. That is the aggregation of whatever data there is on Parliament. It would include vehicles; salary structure among others are database.
Yes, there are different segments that can be called sources, so the Accounts Department can have a data source which is based on remuneration and others but it forms part of the database.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe for the avoidance of doubt, we can do the two -- database and data source -- because at the centre we would have a database but the regions from the districts are the sources of the data and all of that needs to be protected. So, we need to put the two together.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:08 p.m.
Very well, so it would read:
“(3) The Registrar shall allow only authorised persons to
Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:08 p.m.


access the data sources and the database of the Registry”.

Is that right? That is subclause (3); however, subclause (1) is all data, so it combines the two.
Mr Codjoe 4:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have just given an example that if somebody is coming from China, this is data from somebody. Do I need the Registrar's approval? So, it is the source. Before you can extract any data from the source, it needs to be approved. If we say any data, it would be very difficult.
Mr Quaittoo 4:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that “source” is better in the sense that many of the documents may have been published or given to others and they are using them outside. However, a time may come when somebody or workers in the Registry may want to use some data and that would have to be authorised.
So, whatever source that you want to get any data from, you would have to be authorised before you can go to that source to pick any particular data. So, it is “data source” and not “data” or “database”.
Mr Agbodza 4:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the source of data on foetal death would exist at a health facility and that is a
source. That information is already available to somebody who is not controlled by the Registry. We are now saying that that person cannot have access to it.
Once the data is at the Registry of Births and Deaths database, you are not allowed to have access unless you have been granted permission to do so. Practically, that makes sense, so if you say “data source”, we are talking about the source of the data. I am saying that the Registry would not have control over the sources. If the traditional birth attendants in the villages have access, that is a source.
Mr O. B. Amoah 4:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not know why we are spending so much time on this. In actual fact, we can also say “data” without adding “source” or “base” because it is data. For instance, if you look at the Statistical Service Act, 2019, (Act 1003) they have used “data” all through the Act. We worked on it here and passed it, yet we are spending so much time on “source” or “base”. We should just say “data”. It would read:
“The Registrar shall allow only authorised persons to access the data of the Registry”.
That is all.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:08 p.m.
In fact, I think subclause (1) uses “data” throughout and subclause (2) uses “state-of-the art data protection features”. It is subclause (3) that introduces “data sources”, so we can delete “data sources”. So, it would read:
“The Registrar shall allow only authorised persons to access the data of the Registry”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 41 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:08 p.m.
Now, I would do clause 42 and bring proceedings to a close for today. It is quarter past 4.00 p.m. I thought we could finish but the rest are many.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we could do clause 42?.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:08 p.m.
Yes, that is what I am saying, I would do clause 42.
Clause 42 -- Appeals
Mr Sanid 4:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to withdraw the proposed amendment.
Mr Banda 4:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 42, line 2, delete “has been” and insert “is”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I noticed that clause 43 is the same refrain. They are talking about the deletion of the fine and imprisonment in all the amendments in clause 43. Could we deal with that so that we would end at “Offences and penalties”?.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:08 p.m.
Kindly let me finish clause 42, then you make your application. I did not finish declaring clause 42 as amended as part of the Bill.
Clause 42 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:08 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, what were you saying about clause 43?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was just saying that all the amendments proposed to clause 43 are about the same thing; we just want
Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:08 p.m.
Very well. Clause 43?
Clause 43 -- Offences and penalties
Mr Sanid 4:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 43, subclause (2), line 5, delete “the fine and imprisonment”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Sanid 4:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 43, subclause (3), line 5, delete “the fine and imprisonment”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was not at the Winnowing Committee meeting, so going through it again, I think we can give this to the draftspersons because we have not been consistent in this ourselves. Sometimes, we say “to both the fine and imprisonment” and other times we leave it at both. So, let us leave it to the draftspersons.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:18 p.m.
Very well.
So, I will put the Question on clause
43?.
Mr Banda 4:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, going through clause 43 (5), I am of the opinion that the use of the phrase, “either by lawful or unlawful means” is not necessary because once -- [Interruption]
Clause 43 (5), it states and I read with your permission:
“A person who obtains either by lawful or unlawful means…”
Mr Speaker, it does not matter whether it is obtained lawfully or otherwise, if it is used for an unlawful purpose that makes it an offence. So, I am proposing its deletion.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:18 p.m.
So, delete “either by lawful or unlawful means”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:18 p.m.
I further direct that the draftspersons review the punishment regime and
bring it in line with the legislations already enacted.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader, you were saying something?.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was pointing to the Hon Member for Offinso North who wants to draw our attention to something that appears to be missing.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:18 p.m.
Yes, can we discuss that?.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we could listen to him because I think he made a very useful point.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:18 p.m.
Yes?
Mr Banda 4:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker knows that under the Evidence Act, if somebody is missing for a period of seven years and the person is not found, it is presumed that the person is dead. That scenario or provision is not captured in the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:18 p.m.
That is only a presumption. At best, you apply to the High Court. I think I have done that before.
You apply to the High Court that this person has been here for seven
years and no one has any -- so the Court should accept and confirm that the person is dead. His father had left a property to him but nobody had seen or heard of him for about eight years.
So, we went for a declaration that the property should go to that person's daughter and the Court affirmed that. I wonder whether we can issue a certificate because there would be no evidence. It is only a presumption.
Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 4:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just recently as a week ago, somebody who was missing for 20 years reappeared. So, it is a presumption but for the purposes of dealing with the estate of that person the law presumes that person legally dead; but anytime that person comes back --
In fact, in the case I am just referring to, the problem then was how to restore his citizenship because he was a British, he travelled to Yugoslavia and got lost. Twenty years later he was found. How do you restore his citizenship because he was presumed dead? That was a problem.
Mr Speaker, so, it is not an exercise for the Registrar of Births and Deaths. It is an exercise for the courts because
Mr Banda 4:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the point that the Hon Ranking Member just made appears to me to be contradictory in the sense that he is saying that if the person is declared dead or presumed dead, you can go ahead and distribute his estate and the beneficiaries would then take delivery
and possession of the estate. What about if the person returns? How does the person claim back the estate?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:18 p.m.
If the person returns, any part of the estate that is still legally available would be restored to him. That is why it is only a presumption but if it has been disposed of, it is gone. That death is by operation of law and not a fact.
I think I can bring consideration on the Registration of Births and Deaths Bill, 2020 to a close for today.
ADJOURNMENT 4:18 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 4.27 p.m. till Thursday, 6th August, 2020 at 10.00 a.m.