Debates of 10 Jun 2005

MR. SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:05 a.m.
ANNOUNCEMENTS 10:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker 10:05 a.m.
Order! Order! Hon. Members, I have a communication from the President and I read:
“June 6,
2005
Absence from Ghana
In accordance with Article 59 of the Constitution, I John Agyekum Kufuor, President of the Republic of Ghana wish to notify you and Parliament that I shall be travelling to Washington, USA at the invitation of President George W. Bush to attend a One Day Meeting with Four other Heads of State. The meeting is scheduled to take place from the 13th of June 2005.
I shall depart from Ghana on Saturday the 11 th of June 2005 and return on Thursday the 16th of June 2005.
Pursuant to Article 60(8) of the Constitution, the Vice President shall act in my absence.
Sgd. JOHN AGYEKUM KUFUOR
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA 10:05 a.m.
OFFICE OF PARLIAMENT 10:05 a.m.
PARLIAMENT HOUSE 10:05 a.m.
OFFICE OF THE 10:05 a.m.
PRESIDENT STATE HOUSE 10:05 a.m.
CORRECTION OF VOTES 10:05 a.m.
AND PROCEEDINGS AND 10:05 a.m.
THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker 10:05 a.m.
Hon. Members, item 2, Correction of Votes and Proceedings for Thursday, 9th June, 2005. Page 1...Page 17.
If there are any corrections, kindly bring them to the notice of the Clerk to Parliament.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 10:05 a.m.
Mr. David Tetteh Assumeng (Shai Osudoku) 10:15 a.m.
To ask the Minister for Health when the Dodowa District Hospital will commence operation.
Questions --
Minister for Health -- 11, 12, 27
& 28.
Motion --
Adoption of the Report of the Committee of the Whole on the Proposed Formula for Sharing the District Assemblies Common Fund for the year 2005.
Closed Sitting of the House to discuss provision of services to hon. Members.
Committee Sittings

Questions --

Minister for Energy - 47, 48, 49

& 50.

Committee Sittings

Questions --

Minister for Road Transport - 19,

20, 21, 22 & 23.

Committee Sittings
Mr. Speaker 10:15 a.m.
Hon. Members, we
defer item 4 - Questions -- and also item 5 - Statements. At the Commencement of Public Business, item 6 - Motion, Minister for Energy. [Pause.] Hon. Member for Jomoro -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Lee Ocran 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, water
is not flowing in the House and our continued stay here would suffer from insanitary conditions. Moreover, we do not form a quorum in the House. [Pause.] Yes, we do not form a quorum so I wish to move that this House -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker 10:15 a.m.
Hon. Member for
Jomoro, you leave this matter to the Leadership of the House. This matter you are raising, why do you not leave it to the Leadership of the House?
Mr. Ocran 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, Order 48 (2) states that if at anytime of Sitting, a Member takes notice or objection that there are present in the House, besides the person presiding, less than one-third of the number of all Members of Parliament, and after an interval of ten minutes a quorum is not present, the person presiding shall adjourn the House without Question put until the next Sitting date.
Mr. Speaker 10:15 a.m.
Hon. Member, which Standing Order, are you quoting?
Mr. Ocran 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, Order 48 (2).
Mr. Speaker 10:15 a.m.
And what is the point you are making?
Mr. Ocran 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, that we do not form a quorum. We do not have 76 hon. Members present.
Mr. Speaker 10:15 a.m.
What is the membership
now?
Mr. Ocran 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we do not have 76 hon. Members present.
Mr. Speaker 10:15 a.m.
Go further and explain.
Mr. Ocran 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we are 230 hon. Members and we do not have 76 hon. Members present.
Mr. Speaker 10:15 a.m.
I would invite the Clerk

Hon. Member for Jomoro, I thank you

for raising it but we have to wait for ten minutes.

Standing Order 48(2):

“If at the time of sitting a Member takes notice or objection that there are present in the House, besides the person presiding, less than one-third of the number of all the Members of Parliament, and after an interval of ten minutes a quorum is not present, the person presiding shall adjourn the House without Question put until the next sitting day.” [Pause.] Order! Order!
Mr. Ocran 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we still do not form a quorum. It has passed ten minutes since the interval and we still do not form a quorum. [Interruptions.]
Mr. Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Order! Clerk, the attendance; how many of us are present? [Pause.] Hon. Members, there is clear indication from the Attendance Book that proves that 90 of you marked present.
Mr. John A. Tia 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the issue of quorum in this case is the Members present and doing business on the floor of the House and not just coming to write your name and then leaving this place. The issue of quorum - [Interruptions.]
Mr. Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Order!
Mr. Tia 10:25 a.m.
This issue of quorum that is being raised is according to our Standing Orders -- Members present and doing business on the floor of the House at the time of Sitting. We do not use the register to show attendance on the floor of the House; that is why it is not official. Your
predecessor ruled in this House that the register was not for the purpose of doing business on the floor of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. Member is right in all ways for drawing our attention to this crucial Order of our processes in the House.
rose
Mr. Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Majority Leader?
Majority Leader (Mr. F. K. Owusu- Adjapong) 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised my Colleague the Minority Chief Whip, who is part of the Leadership is talking that way. Mr. Speaker, we are not bound by decisions of a previous Speaker. That is an accepted rule. Therefore, for him to even cite that as basis of his argument is neither here nor there. If you are convinced that in point of fact, there are 90 plus hon. Members here, and it is the decision of the Minority to organize that their people go out so that we do not get the 90, they should be bold to say it.

Three days ago, we sat here and we agreed with them as to what we were going to do, for which reason we have used the nation's money for double Sitting, the cost of which the people of Ghana would pay. If they think that they have some other funeral to attend - they know this in advance.

Mr. Speaker, in the light of the fact that
Mr. Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Deputy Minority Leader, may I ask one question? When this matter was raised by the hon. Member for Jomoro, there were more Members on this other side than now. What is the reason, what accounts for this?
Mr. E. K. D. Adjaho 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have not taken note of this because after meeting you in your lobby I came here quickly to go and bring in my files. But Mr. Speaker, I think that when Members make reference to Standing Orders and raise an issue, we do not expect the Majority Leader to respond the way he has just done. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we need one another or each other in this House to transact business. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Order!
Mr. Adjaho 10:25 a.m.
Nobody has taken the decision that we are not going to co- operate and you can see - Yesterday, when we debated the National Petroleum Authority Bill (NPAB), the Majority side commended us. Indeed, if we had wanted to sabotage it, we know what we would have done. Not only that; I myself have filed a lot of amendments to this Bill to strengthen it and they are there. So is that order consistent with a side that wants to sabotage a Bill? If there is no quorum, there is no quorum and any Member of this House, whether from the Minority side or from the Majority side has the right to raise the issue.
This is the Standing Order of Parliament of Ghana which we have enacted upon
ourselves and we cannot use people who have signed the register as basis for ruling. We are talking about transacting business on the floor of this honourable House and the rule is very clear, the Standing Orders are clear. I do believe that if anything at all, the Majority Leader should speak in a certain way for us to arrive at a certain understanding. But that is not the way he is going about it; and that approach should not be encouraged at all. We are not going to countenance that approach on the floor of the House. We would not allow anybody to intimidate us.
Indeed, if they know themselves, if they the Majority, the Government side, know that this is a Government Bill and that this Bill is important to them, they should have filled their Benches; they should have been here at the beginning of proceedings. So between our side and their side, who is more serious to transact business on the floor of the House today?
Mr. Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Deputy Minority Leader, I asked a question that when this matter was brought to my notice, there were more Members on this other side than now. What accounts for that?
Mr. Adjaho 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I was not here when this issue was raised. So my Colleague the Minority Chief Whip is here; I was not here when the issue of quorum was raised.
Mr. Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Minority Chief Whip, are you in a position to deal with this question?
Mr. John Tia 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that yesterday at this Business Committee meeting - [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Excuse me. I have asked a question and -[Interruption.]
Mr. Tia 10:25 a.m.
Yes, I am coming to it. I am laying a basis, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday at the Business Committee meeting, we observed and rightly so captured in today's Business Statement, that various committees have arranged businesses in this House without the notice of the Leadership and therefore have dwindled the numbers in the House. So if in the process of a Sitting, some Members leave the Chamber to go to attend to their committee programmes and so on which have been programmed without our consent, it does not lie within my powers to stop anybody from doing so.
So I want to let the Majority Leader understand that in this House, though we have rules and regulations of our caucuses and so on, Members are independent; they take independent decisions and actions of their own. Nobody suppresses them and the rules of the House indicate that you cannot hold anybody. So it does not lie in his power to say that we have organized a boycott or we have organized something because of a funeral. We did make a Statement on the floor of the House and paid tribute to our late brother yesterday and we know what we are about.
As my Deputy Minority Leader said, we have indicated that we are all for this Bill and so on. But what is happening is, we do not have to set aside rules of this House and just do something to please any side. We are not sabotaging this nation; we are all for this nation and we have indicated that. I think yesterday there were about four people who spoke from our side, spoke strongly in favour of this Bill. So wherein lies an attempt to - [Interruption.] He should withdraw it for the purpose of consensus-building and doing business in this House.
Mr. Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Hon. Members, I am asking the Leadership to put their heads
together and then resolve this matter so that we can go on. I would want the Leadership to put their heads together so that we can go on.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, with respect, an issue about quorum has been raised. As we speak now, we have more than the quorum number here to transact business.
Mr. Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Chief Whip, I have asked that you put your heads together before you - [Interruption.]
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, with respect, I understand that. The issue now before us is the matter of quorum; we have more than the quorum number to transact business. In any event, Mr. Speaker, as we speak now, there are over twenty Members from the other side drinking tea outside. If this is not sabotage, what else is it? They are standing outside drinking tea.
Mr. Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Chief Whip, whatever be the merits of your argument, I have directed that you put your heads together and then come out.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, with respect, we have more than the quorum number. If that is their worry, we have more than the quorum number here - [Interruptions.]
Mr. Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Majority Leader, put your heads together.
Mr. Adjaho 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we bow to your order that we should put our heads together. We shall do that. Mr. Speaker, we will do the necessary consultation.
But Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, we have objection to the use of the word “sabotage”. I was at Christ the King Parish but I had to leave there together with the Second Deputy Chief Whip, and the hon. Member for Jomoro and I told them -- I whipped every Member in that

church that we should come because of this Bill and we left and we came here.

So Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are taking a strong objection to the use of the word “sabotage”. If they do not withdraw it, we are not ready to do any consultation with them.
rose
Mr. Speaker 10:35 a.m.
I have not called you. [Interruptions] - [Long pause.] Deputy Minority Leader, would you report to the House the outcome of your meeting.
Mr. Adjaho 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Majority Leader has agreed to withdraw the word “sabotage” and once he withdraws it, then we can proceed.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, since the Minority has given all assurances that they have no intention of sabotaging anything, I withdraw for them to go ahead.
Mr. Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Hon. Members, I am happy to know that peace has finally prevailed and we will go on.
Hon. Members, we now move on to item 6 on the Order Paper.
MOTIONS 10:45 a.m.
Minister for Energy (Prof. A. Mike Oquaye) 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, That notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 128 (1) which requires that when a Bill has been read a Second time it shall pass through the Consideration Stage in the House which shall not be taken until at least forty-eight hours have elapsed, the Consideration Stage of the
National Petroleum Authority Bill may be taken today.
Mrs. Gifty Eugenia Kusi 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
BILLS - CONSIDERATION 10:45 a.m.
STAGE 10:45 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee (Mrs. Gifty Eugenia Kusi) 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, subclause (1), line 2, between “downstream” and “Industry” delete “oil”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mrs. Kusi 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, subclause (2), paragraph (h), line 3, between “downstream” and “Industry” delete “oil”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mrs. Kusi 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, subclause (2), paragraph (k) (i), between “international” and “Petroleum” insert “and domestic”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mrs. Kusi 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, subclause (2), paragraph (p), line 1, between “oversee and open

insert “temporarily”.
Mr. Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Deputy Minister and Deputy Attorney-General?
Mr. E. A. Owusu-Ansah 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Chairperson of the Committee appears to have jumped one proposed amendment, at page 2 of the Order Paper. It has reference to subclause (2), paragraph (h), line 3.
Mr. Abraham Ossei Aidooh 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if you insert the word “temporarily” as proposed, you do not get the sense. I think the word should be the opening word. It should be “temporarily oversee open and transparent” whatever. But if you put the word “temporarily” between “oversee” and “open”, Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the meaning. So the word “temporarily” should be the opening word of the subclause.
Mr. Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee, there is this amendment, which our attention has just been drawn to.
Mrs. Kusi 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee is of the view that the activities of the NPA can only be temporary since the ultimate aim of the Bill is to free the market. That is why we would want to add “temporarily” before the “oversee”. So as proposed by hon. Deputy Majority Leader, the “temporarily” should come before the “oversee”.
Mr. Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the proposal as captured on the Order Paper has now been jettisoned. In place of that, we have the new proposal by the Deputy Majority Leader, which it says at the commencement of that sentence, so that we have “temporarily oversee open and transparent international competitive bidding”.
Mr. Joseph Yieleh Chireh 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if you look at the amendment that was proposed and clause 2, subclause (1), where they said petroleum downstream oil and “oil” was deleted. I think that a consequential - [Interruption.]
Mr. Adjaho 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think your ruling is that we should finish with the amendment moved with regard to “temporarily” first before we come to the one which was referred to earlier by hon. Emmanuel Owusu-Ansah.
Mr. Speaker 10:45 a.m.
We are now dealing with subclause (2), paragraph (p), line 1, between “oversee” and “open”. You say we bring the word “temporarily” before --
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, in the justification as provided by the Chairperson, when hon. Yieleh Chireh got up, I thought he was going to draw attention to the use of the word “oversee” in clause 2 (1), because at that place we are informed that the object of the Authority is to oversee but now we are saying that it should be “temporarily”. [Interruption.] No, no, I understand what he was driving at. I was only drawing attention to that construction, that we should reconcile that with the justification. So I do not even see the need for the word “temporarily”. That is what I am saying.
Mr. Adjaho 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the essence of this whole amendment is to - because we are deregulating, so why do you allow a governmental body like the National Petroleum Authority (NPA) we are creating to still be involved in the tender process? It was explained in the course of our deliberation that it is transitional.
Once we get to the level of full scale deregulation, the tender process will go
Mr. J. H. Mensah 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, from the explanation given, it seems that it is best to drop the amendment because the job of the National Petroleum Authority includes not making sure that the process is open and transparent temporarily, but from beginning to end. That is, the whole process of bidding for petroleum products must be open and transparent and it is the job of the regulatory authority to make sure that this openness and transparency is observed.
As to the actual bidding process, I think my hon. Friend is quite right that the Tender Board shall do the actual examination and awarding of the tenders. But this overseeing is the job of the regulatory authority to ensure that the processes are open and transparent. The operative section is “open and transparent international competitive bidding”. That is the essence of the subclause.
Dr. Kwame Ampofo 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, at the committee level we were made to understand that when the process is full blown, there would be no tendering; so the tendering process is only a transitional thing. That is what is happening now until such time that the NPA takes full control of the industry. And when the industry is that fully deregulated, we were made to understand that the tendering process would cease.
So some of the stakeholders said that if it is put the way it is, then it would imply that tendering would continue. If it is only going to be a temporary measure, then it is important to send that message to the
private sector so that they know that when the NPA is in place, there would be no tendering and that they are free to import and export as they wish.
Mr. J. H. Mensah 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the oil industry is notorious for various practices of internal pricing and so on and so forth, and we need a protective institution. And the National Petroleum Authority is the protector of our interest in the whole process of the industry. So that if one company goes and writes a huhudious agreement with its subsidiary in Ghana, to assure them that the National Petroleum Authority after a certain period would not be interested in such problem practices is to send the wrong message.
The message we should send is that this regulatory body would always be interested in making sure that contracts within the industry are all right and in the best interest of the consumer. It is not temporary; on the contrary, it is a permanent function.
Mr. Adjaho 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would have wished the Ministry of Energy spoke on this matter. But the point been made here is that people are bringing their own resources and all those things so why the bidding process again? People are bringing their own resources. I would want to listen again on this matter from the Minister for Energy so that we are very clear on this one because it was a consensus amendment. The Ministry that represented Government when we were deliberating on this Bill agreed to this amendment. So the Senior Minister, even though I know he is the Chairman of a Special Committee on this Bill, I am a bit surprised he is kicking against the amendment.
Deputy Minister for Energy (Mr. K. T. Hammond): Mr. Speaker, there is
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Deputy Minister captures right the thoughts at the committee level, that indeed, the intention was that until such time - But I think the major defect in the Bill which has occasioned the necessity of adding either “temporarily” or “until such time” is the fact that deregulation as a concept is not properly defined in the Bill. We do not even know when we would have had a fully deregulated environment within the downstream petroleum sector.
But at the committee level, I am surprised because the Ministry of Energy officials in attendance in addition to other stakeholders said that this particular role could only be transitional, transitional, meaning that it only can be temporary. You are looking at a situation where if Mobil or Shell at any point in a deregularised environment decides to bring in petrol,
Dr. A. A. Osei 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, it seems there is some confusion about the nature of the bidding process.
Mr. Speaker, as long as the nation is going to require crude oil, somebody must seek to demand how much crude oil we would need at any point in time. So there is always going to be a bidding process to ensure that nobody is gorging the Government. The House may decide that at this point in time, the NPA would be the temporary overseer for this, and that I do not have a problem with.
But to say that at some point in time, the bidding process would go away is totally erroneous, otherwise you would not have anybody protecting the Government from ensuring that our national security requirements are maintained. As long as we demand crude oil - [Interruption.] That is not the practice. There is a tender committee and there is always going to be a tender committee of some form. This amendment, in my opinion, gives it temporarily to the NPA. The House may change its mind at some point in time, but there has to be always a tender process.
Alhaji Sumani Abukari 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think I agree with the Majority Chief Whip when he says that that word ‘temporarily' is not necessary. How ‘temporarily' is ‘temporarily'? That is the question we should ask ourselves. How long is temporarily? So I think we should delete it and amend that provision as and when it becomes necessary. That is all. I do not think we need the word ‘temporarily' there at all.
Mr. J. H. Mensah 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, as
we have confused ourselves thoroughly, I would like to get back to the basics. The basics are these: Supposing GOIL which does not have any external connection is a Ghanaian company, makes a contract to bring in crude oil from Equatorial Guinea, there has to be within the mandate of the statutory oversight body the power to make sure that that contract does not contain some fraudulent, some criminal overpricing between GOIL and that foreign supplier. There always has to be a body overseeing that process so that ultimately, the consumer is not cheated.
Mr. Adjaho 11:05 a.m.
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. Senior Minister has a point there but he is totally misleading the House. I cannot see how they can be over-burdening the consumer. The NPA has to set a ceiling, and so one cannot sell beyond that ceiling; you can sell below it.
So when we are talking about the final consumer, there is no way under this Bill, and in fact, under clause 2 of this Bill, by which any of these service providers can sell below the prescribed pricing formula or the price set by the NPA. If he has another reason to give then he should give it, but the reason that he is giving is not true. It is not correct because if the ceiling is ‘b'; you cannot sell beyond ‘b',you can always sell below ‘b' but you cannot go to ‘d'.
Mr. J. H. Mensah 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the price is set taking into account the reported prices of crude oil, that is, the
NPA itself will get information about the prices of crude oil from the importers and in setting the price they have to take into account the reported prices of crude oil. Therefore, if the reported prices of crude oil are fraudulent and overpriced, then it must have the power to check those prices.
Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of that they have set the ceiling at the final consumer level. They are setting that ceiling at the final consumer level in the light of reported crude oil prices among other factors. And therefore it must have power to look into those contracts and make sure that they are all right.
Mr. Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Hon. Members, this is only the third amendment.
Question put and amendment negatived.
rose
Mr. Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Hon. Deputy Attorney- General, that is your concern, we are going back to it.
Mr. Owusu-Ansah 11:05 a.m.
That is so, Mr. Speaker. But Mr. Speaker, coming back to subclause (2) (p), if even we insert ‘temporarily', I still think that there should be -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker 11:05 a.m.
You are out of order, it has been defeated.
Mr. Owusu-Ansah 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, I am introducing another amendment, I am not talking about ‘temporarily' at all.
Mr. Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Do you have your amendment in writing?
Mr. Owusu-Ansah 11:05 a.m.
No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Please, clause 2.
Mrs. Kusi 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
Mr. Adjaho 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2 -- add a new subclause as follows:
“Publish in the Gazette user fees for all monopoly infrastructures”.
Mr. Speaker, even though we are talking about deregulation, it is not going to happen in a day and therefore we would have to start with certain monopoly infrastructures. It is important for all service providers to have access to those monopoly infrastructures. As at now we have only one refinery; as at now we are building the facility to connect to TOR.
In order to make it very transparent, and to avoid unnecessary discrimination in the industry as a result of the passage of this Bill, the user fees for those monopoly infrastructures ought to be published so that everybody knows that when you send your imported crude oil to TOR to refine, this is the amount that they will charge you and the process becomes very transparent; that is the reason why this amendment is being proposed. It is an innocuous one and I urge hon. Members to support this amendment.
Mrs. Kusi 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is already captured somewhere in the -- [Pause.]
Mr. K. T. Hammond 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the import of what he wants to achieve is already in the Bill and that is clauses 24 to 28, particularly 27 (b) where you have the Board approving the charges for services to be rendered by what he describes as monopoly infrastructures.
Dr. Ampofo 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to
support the amendment that we insert this new subclause.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, from what we heard from the hon. Deputy Minister, it looks like there should be no opposition to this amendment because he says it is captured elsewhere except that it is not clear. And if it is not clear, then we make it -- The publication is not clear, and on that basis let us move ahead, go with it and put the Question.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that as it has been canvassed, it is all right except that I believe the word ‘infrastructures' should be ‘infrastructure' -- monopoly infrastructure.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 -- Governing body of the Authority.
Mrs. Kusi 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, subclause (1), paragraph (d), delete and insert a new paragraph (d) as follows:
“ ( d ) o n e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of petroleum workers union”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mrs. Kusi 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, subclause (1), paragraph (e) (i), delete all the words after “Commerce” and insert “and”.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment is to ensure that we know the exact body that

we are referring to.

Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mrs. Kusi 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, subclause (1), paragraph (e) (ii), delete and insert “Chamber of Mines, and”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Speaker 11:15 a.m.
I will now put the Question on the entire clause -- [Interruption.]
Mrs. Angelina Baiden-Amissah 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I got up at clause 3(1)(d) where we were talking about the membership of governing body, but I could not catch your eye. If I could please chip it in, talking about the membership of the governing Authority, the insertion of “Trades Union Congress” is -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, you have put the Question. What my hon. Colleague is trying to do is to arrest the result. I believe that the result has to be put first and thereafter she could raise her concern. I even believe that we have gone beyond that stage.
Mrs. Baiden-Amissah 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I could not catch your eye, but there is something I want to explain so that -- [Interruptions.]
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:15 a.m.
The result would have to be declared first, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Hon. Deputy Minister, let us make progress, we are going on.
Clause 3 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 -- Independence of the
Authority.
Mrs. Kusi 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, line 3, delete “directions in the Public Interest” and insert “Policy”.
Mr. A. O. Aidooh 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think what the Chairperson, in fact, meant was that we should insert “policy” before “directions in the public interest”. [Interruptions.] Yes, the Minister may give policy directions in the public interest and not to just insert policy, no.
Mr. Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee, what then is the amendment now?
Mrs. Kusi 11:15 a.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree to his proposal.
Mr. Speaker 11:15 a.m.
So what is the amendment now?
Mrs. Kusi 11:15 a.m.
The amendment should be -- between “give” and “directions”, we insert “policy”.
Dr. Kwame Ampofo 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do agree to the new changes except that instead of “directions”, a better rendition would be “directives”, “policy directives”.
Mrs. Kusi 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I agree; what he said is all right.
Mr. Speaker 11:15 a.m.
So it should be “policy directives”?
Mr. Adjaho 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, “policy directions”, the first rendition is better.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 -- Tenure of office of
Mr. Adjaho 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, subclause (5), line 2, add “for just cause” after “member”.

Some hon Members -- rose --
Mr. Adjaho 11:15 a.m.
Do you support -- Mr. Speaker, I have got tremendous support from the other side so I do not need to belabour the point.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I was just going to say that he is just making sure that democracy and good governance prevails, so we should support him. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 6 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10 -- Establishment of
Committees of the Board.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have a concern to raise with respect to clause 10(1). I want to crave your indulgence that because this Bill is being rushed through as an urgent Bill, we could not serve notice as required because of setting aside the 48 hours requirement. I thought that the word ‘Despite' should be substituted for ‘notwithstanding' and wherever it appears.
Mr. Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon. Member for Tamale South, we had a circular from the Minister for Justice and Attorney- General that the modern -- we are now using the word ‘despite' instead of ‘notwithstanding', and so we move on now.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I am aware of that letter but then the final ownership of this document is Parliament; and if at the committee stage they were not too happy with it then, at least, in this Bill wherever there is the word ‘despite' we should use our own word ‘notwithstanding' and then at the appropriate time we may ask a committee of Parliament to meet the Attorney-General for him to convince us of this modernity so that we do not have problems.
Mr. Speaker 11:25 a.m.
All right.
Mr. Adjaho 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we do not
know the content of the communication from the Attorney-General's Department. I do not know whether it is based on a certain judgment upon which they are trying to bring the drafting in conformity with that judgment, we do not know. But even then, I must say that the Committee agreed that the word should be ‘notwithstanding'. But if that is the new policy and it is grounded in a judgment of a court and we want to move in that direction then I think that we can maintain the word ‘despite', but we do not know the content of that document that is being referred to and so we will have to continue with the word ‘notwithstanding' until such a time that we are properly seized with that document.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
what we are therefore concluding is that we need not move any amendment at any of those places, that we shall take it as a
Mr. Adjaho 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 11, subclause (2), after “Kerosene” insert “lube oil, grease, brake fluid”.
Mr. Speaker, the cure I want to suggest to the defect in clause 11 of the Bill is to bring on board other petroleum products as far as downstream activities are concerned. This is because I have not seen brake fluid and other things there and I am wondering how they are going to be regulated and which board is going to regulate them. If I get assurance from the Ministry and indeed the Government that it has been taken care of -- because I raised this matter at the committee level and no response was given as to whether they have been taken on board. If they are there, I do not have a problem, I will withdraw it.
But I want to know whether we have catered for those other petroleum products like the brake fluid and the rest because they have to be regulated by the National Petroleum Authority (NPA). Originally, it used to be the responsibility of the Energy Commission but now that we have taken those functions from them we have to properly locate it with the NPA. So if they are there, let somebody draw my attention to them and then I will withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
originally, I was going to support the amendment but at the same time I want
to draw my hon. Colleague's attention to the wording there -- other designated products. Immediately you begin to say that you are putting everything here, you are blocking yourself from new ideas and so on and so if we can rely on the wording ‘other designated products' so that whenever we think that we have to add more we use that approach.
Mr. Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon. Majority Leader,
I thought they have withdrawn this amendment.
Mr. Adjaho 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we are
saying the same thing. I have looked at the definition of the wording ‘designated products' in the Bill and that is why I am asking them whether we have taken care of these items I have put here. I have looked at the definition of the wording ‘designated products' -- Some are quite technical and that is why I am saying that if it is there, then I withdraw it. Because if they have not defined the wording ‘designated products' then I know that the wording ‘designated products' will then be taken care of subsequently. But we have defined “designated products” that the hon. Majority Leader is referring to. We have defined it in the interpretation column and so they should tell us whether it is there. If it is there, then, we have no problem; I will withdraw it.
Mr. Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon. Deputy Minority
Leader, are you withdrawing this amendment?
Mr. Adjaho 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if we do not
clarify the position we will be passing a law and then have problems, because as at now, those items that I am referring to are treated or handled separately by giving permits to those who are importing them and all those things -- It is a downstream activity. This Bill is to oversee and monitor downstream activities in the petroleum industry.
So if we are leaving certain items which
Mr. K.T. Hammond 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
told him so many times at the committee stage that this matter has been catered for. It talks about ‘to be designated by the Minister'; I did tell him at the committee stage that as it is now, for things like lubricants and other things there is a specific licence to be obtained before one imports them; and indeed at the point of delivery you still have to come to the Ministry for certain papers to be able to take delivery of them.
So if one reads page 32 of the Bill that talks about “designated products”, as he has rightly read, it says that this would now be designated by the hon. Minister to be published in the Gazette; and that would be done. What is it that hon. Adjaho wants me to tell him which I have not told him?
Mr. Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon. Deputy Minority Leader, what do you say to that?
Mr. Adjaho 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, for instance,
if we pass this Bill today, how are we going to handle those items? Let us be sure, there should be certainty in the law that we are passing in this House.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 11:25 a.m.
I believe that
all that we need to have is an assurance from the hon. Minister that he will in fact publish it in the Gazette and that these concerns will be taken care of and then we can move forward. So if we can get the hon. Minister to confirm that we can make it available to the Government Assurances Committee.
11. 35 a.m.
Minister for Energy (Prof. Mike
Oquaye): Mr. Speaker, we confirm exactly that.
Mr. Adjaho 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if you add
the words of the hon. Majority Leader and the hon. Minister for Energy together it is some assurance so I am withdrawing my amendment.
Mr. Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon. Members, the
amendment is withdrawn.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 12 -- Qualification for licence
Mr. Adjaho 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 12, paragraph (b), line 2, delete all the words after “179”.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment is trying to cure the defects by removing the words “or under any other law”. Mr. Speaker, if we are saying “under any other law” with regard to the body corporate, there is only one law in Ghana that governs the body corporate and that is the Companies Code. So what we are now saying, “under any other law”, what law are we talking about? Are we talking about foreign company laws? So in order to avoid confusion in the Bill that we are passing we should delete that provision so we know what we are talking about; that we are talking about the Companies Code so that we do not create confusion and any uncertainty in the Act.
Mrs. Kusi 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I support the
amendment, for the avoidance of doubt.
Mr. Mahama Ayariga 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I am wondering whether the argument that this part should be deleted is tenable because from time to time, we pass laws amending the Companies Code and under those amendments new issues are brought
Mr. Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon. Member, he is not
pursuing his argument so resume your seat, please.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr. Adjaho 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 12, add a new subclause as follows:
“A foreign company must have 20 per cent minimum equity participation of local Ghanaian Companies or Ghanaians.”
Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment to support Ghanaians and local companies in Ghana in that industry. Mr. Speaker, now that we are deregulating we do not want the foreign companies alone to control the industry. Mr. Speaker, already the multinational corporations in the industry are strong and now that we are deregulating and giving licence to local Ghanaian companies, we have to do something to strengthen them.
Mr. Speaker, we have to find a way of doing it and if this amendment does not capture what I want to do, it is in the interest of this country for us to strengthen and give some support to the local -- I can see those who are not in support of the local companies shaking their heads.
Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to say is, we may run into some difficulties somewhere along the line. I want us to debate this amendment on purely bipartisan basis and see how we can strengthen the Ghanaian companies that we are going to license so that they can effectively compete with the full- blown multinational companies that have dominated the oil industry before independence, after independence and up to now. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Minister for the Interior (Papa
Owusu-Ankomah): Mr. Speaker, I believe that the apprehensions of the hon. Deputy Minority Leader is misplaced. A foreign company is a foreign company so how can he say that before a foreign company participates in this, Ghanaians must own twenty per cent? How? -- [Interruptions.] No, no, because if you look at clause 12 (d) it says:
“a foreign individual or foreign company in a registered joint venture relationship.”
So if a foreign company is not in a registered joint ventureship, it will not apply -- [Interruptions.] Yes, that is so. So if the hon. Deputy Minority Leader will closely look at the Bill -- It says, “a foreign individual or foreign company in a registered joint venture”. So it is not a foreign company simpliciter but a foreign company in a registered joint venture relationship with a citizen of Ghana; so it is taken care of. That is why I am saying that he should read it closely. He should please withdraw it.
Mr. Freddie Blay 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. The hon. Deputy Minority Leader had moved an amendment and nobody had seconded it so please --
Mr. Adjaho 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, at the Consideration Stage there is no need for secondment; let me give him some small teaching. He should not contribute again -- [Laughter.]
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I believe my hon. Colleague is gradually agreeing that we do away with it for a lot of good reasons. If you even look at the style of drafting, it does not fit properly and I had wished that with his long experience in drafting these things he would have looked at it from that angle, that is from drafting point of view.
The second one is this, if you begin
to put in these types of clauses, which should be in a different law dealing with

investment arrangements in the country, you would tend to have problems. So let us have our law here and if at any point in time we believe that looking at the situation our interest would be properly served, that will be a type of law relating to investment.

Occasionally, when we are passing laws like this and you try to bring in laws which should be treated under a different heading, like bringing taxation aspect into such a law, then we would end up with a problem. So I want to suggest that the wording is good enough in the sense that it indicates that the (d) means that there would be some Ghanaian involvement except that we have at the moment not committed ourselves to any percentage. I believe when we are all convinced that there is the need for it, even a Legislative Instrument (L.I.) may be able to solve such a problem. So I thought my hon. Colleague was going to do what he knows we do very well and maybe stop the matter and let us go on with the Question.
Mr. Adjaho 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the good
news on the floor today is that I have got support from the other side. Some people want to support me so let us listen to them and if still they do not make the point then I would withdraw it; because I have not taken an entrenched position on this matter. I think we should find a way of giving some support to the local companies because allowing some competition with these companies, I do not see how the competition -- That is no competition at all so we have to find a way of supporting the local Ghanaian companies. That is the idea I am having by filing this amendment.
Mr. Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon. Deputy Minority Leader, you know I did not call you before you started speaking.
Mr. Adjaho 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am very
sorry, I apologise.
Alhaji A. B. Sorogho 11:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think at the committee level we talked about this. If you take (d) in isolation you will not understand the point that is being raised; if you take clause 12 and the others clause by clause, you will then understand the import of what we are doing. Because (a) captured the citizen of Ghana; (b) talks about a body corporate listed under the Companies Act; (c) -- a partnership registered under the Incorporated Private Partnership Act and then under (d) we are saying that a foreign individual or a foreign company in a registered joint venture relationship with a citizen of Ghana or a Ghanaian company -- And we are saying that if a foreign company comes and says it is into a joint venture, in which the Ghanaian company owns 10 per cent and the foreign company owns 90 per cent, at the end of the day it satisfies this particular clause.
But we are saying that it would not be in the interest of the Ghanaian company. So we are saying that, yes, they can come but a certain percentage must be given to them so that they do not just come and use that money to bulldoze us. That is the essence of the proposed amendment.
Dr. Paa Kwesi Nduom 11:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I am rising to speak against the proposed amendment. Perhaps it might help the hon. Member to know the situation because if you are going to help to solve something, you perhaps might have assumed that there was a problem. And indeed, today if you take the oil marketing companies as an example, the one that is in the leading position is not a foreign company; it is GOIL, a Ghanaian company that has been given advantages and support to become
Mr. K. A. Okerchiri 11:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I think this industry is not one of such critical industries that if we do not seek foreign participation, the industry will not move on. Mr. Speaker, I myself think that this is one of the non-tariff ways that is permissible and under which we can help prop up local industries. Therefore, when I hear other hon. Members say that this move is dangerous, I cannot see in what way it is dangerous. It is permissible for us to do that. It is a non-tariff area and all what we are saying is that if a foreign company is coming, let it try as much as possible and get this local participation and by so doing, we will be building capacity for our local industries.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot open the economy unbridled like this and this is one of the few ways - [Interruptions] - Well, if it is allowed I have a company
which can also come in. Mr. Speaker, I am saying that this is not dangerous at all. It is very helpful to the Ghanaian local industry and therefore we must not frown upon it at all. It must pass.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 11:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, at the committee level, I remember the principle was well articulated that we needed to protect our own local companies and to ensure that they were given fair opportunities to participate in the oil industry. But I have a difficulty reconciling the proposed amendment with the current drafting language where you are talking about a foreign individual, foreign company, joint ventureship and then a foreign company must have 20 per cent minimum equity participation of local Ghanaian companies. Maybe, we have to re-alter his proposed amendment to fit the language of the draftsperson. I am sure he was referring to 20 per cent of Ghanaian share equity - Ghanaians having equity and not the foreign company. Mr. Speaker, thank you.
Mr. S. Asamoah-Boateng 11:45 a.m.
Mr.
Speaker, whilst we understand the expressions made by our Colleagues over there, I think the amendment proposed is not necessary in that if you stipulate a minimum requirement, that is 20 per cent for Ghanaian participation, Mr. Speaker, any company that may not be able to find that minimum will not be able to enter the market. I will suggest that we leave it open and encourage the Ghanaian counterparts to negotiate. It may well be even more than 20 per cent or 30 per cent of Ghanaian participation.
Let us promote the ingenuity and the entrepreneurship of the Ghanaian businessman or his capacity to negotiate and that would make him learn more. If we give them a minimum and say whatever it is, somebody must find that
Alhaji Sumani Abukari 11:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
the amendment is in good taste, but I have a problem with it. “A foreign company or individual in a registered joint venture relationship” -- Mr. Speaker, before they get into that relationship, I think the foreign company or the parties should have satisfied the Investment Code. And I think that the Investment Code prescribes 10 per cent participation by the local investor. Therefore, if they are already in a relationship, the local investor must have produced 10 per cent equity.

If that is so, we cannot now raise it to 20 per cent. It would mean that we are also amending the Investment Code. So if the hon. Deputy Minority Leader agrees to 10 per cent, maybe it would satisfy the clause as it stands so that we do not need to raise it to 20 per cent. Mr. Speaker, my fear is that if we raise it to 20 per cent, we would be stifling young entrepreneurs who are coming up who cannot raise 20 per cent equity shares. We would stifle their initiative. So I think that we should satisfy the Investment Code. If this very relationship already satisfies the Investment Code, then we should leave it at 10 per cent which satisfies the 12 artisans.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if indeed as it is being espoused by hon. Abukari there is a 10 per cent provision in the Investment Code, is it necessary to repeat same here? Absolutely unnecessary.
Mr. Speaker, and then the issue also is this 11:55 a.m.
the (d) talks not only about a
foreign company, it talks about a foreign individual. So if it is an individual, are you going to say that we should have 20 per cent or even 10 per cent equity from Ghanaians? It is ridiculous. So Mr. Speaker, if as it is being espoused by hon. Abukari in the Investment Code we have a 10 per cent provision, let that one stand; and we do not need to repeat it here.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have, with respect, heard so many ideas and various positions have been canvassed and that you may now put the Question. Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is not necessary and we should keep to the provisions in the document.
Mr. K. O. Agyapong 11:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
thank you for giving me this opportunity. I think I support the amendment in the sense that we are here saying that we need development and therefore foreigners should come in and we do not protect our own people -- I will give you a typical example of the fishing industry.
Last two years I was on the Agriculture Committee and of the vessels that were licensed, the Ghanaian partners -- we are talking about the Investment Code and what it says, I do not want to mention names but the Ghanaian partners were given 5 per cent shares; so they catch the fish here, come to the port, give the Ghanaian partner $2000 and take the fish away, thousands of dollars, millions of dollars.
One company -- I would not even mention names -- at the fishing harbour was making $47 million a year sale when we called them to the Agriculture Committee to explain. So if we leave it open and say that foreign partners -- they would come and give them 1 per cent, 10 per cent as we are saying and a ten per cent shareholder in a business, you have no say, you are the minority.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 11:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
the statement made by the hon. Member who spoke last in fact should lead us to reject this amendment. He said even though we have 10 per cent as the existing law, they are not even able to fight for it, they end up being given 5 per cent. It means that if you increase it to 20 per cent or 40 per cent it will only be a paper tiger and we have to be honest in our system. Why do we have this situation? We have this situation because we have not used our investment laws to help get the people the capital. That is why I suggested that, look, if you want to solve the problem, it is not within this law. It is a question of going to the investment law and getting the proper data and then fixing it. But when you are given 20 per cent share- holding, it means you must bring the 20 per cent equivalent and because we have not been able to organize ourselves to get that, it ends up there.
Why do we have to pass a law knowing very well that even if we said 30 per cent, the person would just write on paper 30 per cent knowing very well that he has no share in it. So do not let us, with due apology, act as ostriches. Let us be realistic. More importantly, let us recognize that we are not passing an Investment Bill.
For that reason, I see that the Committee somewhere along the line was also saying that we should not bring taxation or charges in this Bill. Let us make it a neat Bill relating to petroleum actors.
If next time around, we are given a Bill relating to investment and we give it to the appropriate committee to look at and they come with the advice that looking at the circumstances we should increase Ghanaian participation in certain types of companies or oil companies, we would be sufficiently briefed.
We should not -- [Interruption.] That is why I am pleading with my Colleague the Deputy Minority Leader that if he has an investment interest, yes, we shall always continue to support them but not through what may look like a backdoor.
Mr. Lee Ocran 11:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment is in the right order. It is a good amendment because the oil industry is a very lucrative business and it involves a lot of foreign exchange. Twenty per cent of the profits made by a foreign is a lot of foreign exchange. We must make sure that part of that profit stays with us here in Ghana. The idea that people pay because in the Investment Code when people are given 5 per cent -- When you have a law and you do not enforce the law, that is not the investor's business; so let us put there at least 20 per cent and let us make sure that part of the profit stays here with us.
Mr. J. H. Mensah 11:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
it would run only against the trend of our economic management policy to put such a restriction on the registration of foreign companies to participate in the oil industry. Mr. Speaker, we have already some anomalies created by such restrictive legislation. It does happen that in a particular industry where we require foreign companies to take on Ghanaian partners, the Ghanaian partners have not been able to raise the capital; they have been registered as bogus partners and they have been given some kind of a pittance just to fulfill the formality.
Mr. Adjaho 12:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, since we are treating this Bill under special consideration, I will come back under the Second Consideration Stage of the Bill.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
Mr.
Mr. Speaker 12:05 p.m.
The noes have it. I said
so.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13 -- Application for licence.
Mrs. Kusi 12:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,
clause 13, subclause (3), line 2, delete “Registrar to enter” and insert “entry of”.
We are moving this amendment because as we go along, we would delete clauses 49 and 50 that is on page 19 of the Bill. So we have to delete this one consequentially.
Mr. Adjaho 12:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, in actual
fact, you will find that this amendment, is consequential. We have deleted the office of the Registrar, which the Bill originally anticipates, and therefore, there is no need for us to have “Registrar” there. So, I support the amendment. So you may put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15 -- Issue and renewal of
licence.
Mrs. Kusi 12:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,
clause 15, subclause (4), line 2, delete “within” and insert “not later than”.
Mr. Speaker, the intention of this clause is to give the Board ample time to consider applications for renewal. But the way it is rendered defeats that purpose.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16 -- Display of licence.
Mrs. Kusi 12:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,
clause 16, line 1, delete “written and” so that the sentence will be “conspicuously be exhibited by the licensee”. The Committee is of the view that the licensee cannot rewrite his licence but could display it conspicuously.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18 -- Revocation, suspension
and refusal to renew licence.
Mrs. Kusi 12:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 18, paragraph (e), between “offence” and “in” insert “under this Act”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mrs. Kusi 12:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, clause 18,
paragraph (f), delete.
Mr. Adjaho 12:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am not
sure whether the hon. Chairperson of the Committee is right because Mr. Speaker, we have what we refer to as “misconduct” somewhere in the Bill and we decided subsequently to restore it. So when it is being deleted, I do not know; I need better explanation from the Chairperson before you put the Question; so that we know we are doing the proper thing.
Mr. A. O. Aidooh 12:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
the problem with paragraph (f) is this, “substantive allegations of”, that is “A licence may be revoked or suspended where substantive allegations of misconduct have been made against the licensee”. Mr. Speaker, as in the Bill, “misconduct” is
an offence. So I believe that subclause (e) takes care of the situation envisaged by subclause (f). Therefore, I would propose that (f) be deleted because “misconduct” is an offence under the Bill. So I support the preposition to delete subclause (f).
Mr. Adjaho 12:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, you may put
the Question on the earlier amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19 -- Notice of revocation, suspension or refusal to license.
Mrs. Kusi 12:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19 (1), delete “or refusal to” and insert “of”.
The subject-matter does not deal with the issuance of licence, so this is out of place in the sub-heading.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20 -- Register.
Mrs. Kusi 12:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 20, subclause (2), delete “Registrar” and insert “Board”.
Mr. F. A. Agbotse 12:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, who
enters the details in the Register? It is the Registrar and not the Board. So I do not think the amendment is necessary.
Dr. Anthony Akoto Osei 12:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
just a point of information on clause 19. The amendment was on the heading but

there is a statement in 19 (1) -- “or refuse to issue” which would be inconsistent with the new title. I believe --
Mr. Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Hon. Deputy Minister,
we have finished with clause 19; we are dealing with clause 20.
Dr. Kwame Ampofo 12:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
at the committee level, we agreed on “Board” because we were trying to reduce the bureaucracy. This is not like a huge Registry. A register is just a book to enter this information and that ought to be done by the Board using its administrative structures. But we do not have a position called “Registrar”. That is why we took it out.
Mr. Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Deputy Attorney-
General, have your resumed your seat, anyway?
Mr. Adjaho 12:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I support
the amendment. Mr. Speaker, we have the Chief Executive of the organization appointed by the President; then we are also talking about a Registrar appointed by the President within the same organizational structure. Meanwhile, we are making the Chief Executive in charge of the day- to-day running of the organization. If you do that, you create a problem in that organization -- both appointed by the President.
What we are trying to say is that if you look at the function of the Registrar, it can be performed by anybody designated by the Board. And it was on that basis that we thought that it would bring unnecessary conflict between the Registrar and the Chief Executive, both appointees of the President. It can be done by a person designated by the Board. Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment and the Question can be put.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mrs. Kusi 12:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,
consequentially, clause 20, subclause (3), line 1, delete “Registrar” and insert “Board”.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
Mr.
Speaker, while not upholding the proposal by the chairperson, I believe we may have to look at that construction again, because if we substitute the word “Board” for “Registrar” then for that construction we shall have -- “The Board shall publish the names and particulars of licensees periodically in the Gazette as determined by the Board”. So we may have to look at that construction again.
Mrs. Kusi 12:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we can
render it in another way. Maybe, we could add “determined” and then leave it to the draftsperson to make the necessary correction.
Mr. Speaker 12:15 p.m.
What is then the
amendment to clause 20 (3)?
Mrs. Kusi 12:15 p.m.
Clause 20 (3), we insert
“Board for Registrar”. So the whole sentence will have “Board” at the end of it. So we have to delete the second Board to make the sentence meaningful. We will leave it for the draftsperson to do that.
Mr. Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Chairperson, what is the
amendment to put to Members?
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
Mr.
Speaker, since the Committee agrees with me, we will leave it with the Board. The principle is understood, so we leave it with the draftsperson to tidy it for us.
Mr. Speaker 12:15 p.m.
We should not put the
Question at all, is that it?
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
The
Mrs. Kusi 12:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 21, subclause (1), delete “Registrar” and insert “Board”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mrs. Kusi 12:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 21, subclause (2), delete “Registrar” and insert “Board”.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 21 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clauses 22 and 23 ordered to stand part
of the Bill.
Clause 24 -- Refinery licence.
Mrs. Kusi 12:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,
clause 24, subclause (1), line 3, delete “oriented export” and insert “export- oriented”.
Mr. J. H. Mensah 12:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
would ask your permission to move an amendment regarding this very “export oriented” without written notice. May I have your permission to move an amendment?
Mr. Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Of course.
Mr. J. H. Mensah 12:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
clause 24 seeks to grant facilities to oil refineries except export-oriented oil refineries. And among the facilities that an export-oriented refinery may not enjoy are bulk customers' petroleum products. But under the Export Zone Law, usually, the companies registered there are expected to sell one-third of their produce to the local market. Therefore, the very exclusion of export-oriented refineries from these facilities would violate the intentions of the Export Zone Law, as it exists at present.
Mr. Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Hon. Senior Minister,
how do you phrase your amendment?
Mr. J. H. Mensah 12:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, for
this purpose, I would propose that we remove “export-oriented” altogether, and also at the end of clause 24.
Mr. Adjaho 12:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have
not got the import of the hon. Senior Minister's amendment. I want him to explain it for us what exactly we are doing by his amendment.
Mr. J. H. Mensah 12:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, what
that would mean is that every oil refinery would be entitled to sell in Ghana to bulk customers, all the other things that any oil refinery does, except that under the law governing export-oriented companies in the free zones, they are only entitled to sell one-third of their produce internally. So it is that law which will put a restriction on their sales within Ghana. Otherwise, they are free to sell in Ghana, subject to that law which is the Export Zone Law.
Mr. Adjaho 12:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking
for this clarification because somewhere along the line, we will find that we have
Mr. J. H. Mensah 12:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, as a consequence of that, if a refinery is established in a free zone and it is governed by the Free Zones Law, then that law governing it entitles it to sell one-third of its produce within Ghana. And therefore to say that the licence to sell within Ghana is limited to non-export- oriented industries is a contradiction.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. K. T. Hammond 12:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
with respect, there is some slight difficulty here. Mr. Speaker, what the Chairman of the Committee proposed is a different thing from what the hon. Senior Minister sought your leave, without written notice, to do -- to put clause 24 in a proper perspective. So Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if we are dealing with clause 24 as sought to be amended by the hon. Senior Minister or as the Chairperson dealt with. Mr. Speaker, I propose that we should go back to what the Senior Minister with your permission sought to do and when we finish with that we move on.
Mr. Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Hon. Member, the problem with the amendment proposed by the Senior Minister is that it is not framed. I do not know how I can put the Question on it. What is it?
Mr. J. H. Mensah 12:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I said, delete “export-oriented”.
Mr. K. T. Hammond 12:25 p.m.
So Mr. Speaker,
the rendition will be this: “Where the Board grants a licence to an African to operate a refinery for the supply of petroleum products, it shall authorize the licensee …” And then you go to (a) straightaway.
Mrs. Kusi 12:25 p.m.
So we delete “except
where . . .”
Mr. K. T. Hammond 12:25 p.m.
Yes.
Mr. J. H. Mensah 12:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, sorry.
All the words must go, starting from “except”. Starting from “except”, all the words to be deleted.
Mr. Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Subclause (1), “except
where the licensee is an export-oriented refinery….”
Mr. J. H. Mensah 12:25 p.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
To delete.
Mr. Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Hon. Members, there is
this amendment. The amendment is that we delete all the words after “except”.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr. A. O. Aidooh 12:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, as a
consequence, we have to also delete clause 24, subclause (2).
Mr. Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Chairman of the
Committee, do you agree that we should delete clause 24, subclause (2)?
Mrs. Kusi 12:25 p.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker. But
before then, we should delete clause 24,

subclause (1) (b) first -- [Interruptions] -- No. I have not done that.
Mr. Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Clause 24, subclause (1), paragraph (b), has been deleted. Then there is a further amendment that clause 24, subclause (2), be deleted as well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Adjaho 12:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, after we have deleted clause 21 (1) (b), and not to put the matter in any doubt at all, I intend proposing a new clause there --
“That the person licensed to operate a refinery shall not use his premises for a strategic storage or operate a strategic storage.”
Mr. Speaker, the next clause would clarify my amendment. Earlier on in the original Bill we did not draw a distinction between strategic storage and operational storage. Now that we are making the issue of strategic storage completely a matter for Government and we are taking it from the ambit of the Board under this Bill, it is important to state that the management of strategic storage or matters concerned is not for any refinery that has been licensed to carry on the business of refinery.
Mr. Speaker, it is to put it beyond all reasonable doubts that the amendment is being proposed. The issue of strategic storage, its operation and management is now for BOST; and you would see it in the subsequent amendment. We wanted to clarify that position beyond all reasonable doubt.
Mr. Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Hon. Deputy Minority Leader, you have a further amendment on clause 24; you have not taken it.
Mr. Adjaho 12:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that a person licensed --[Interruption.] I
have moved the amendment.
Mr. Speaker 12:35 p.m.
We have not come to that amendment yet. We are dealing with the amendment by the Chairman of the Committee at this stage. There is another amendment by the hon. Senior Minister; we will come to yours.
Mr. Adjaho 12:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I learnt they have removed that one. (1) (b) has been removed.
Mr. Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Yes, we have deleted (1) (b).
Mr. Adjaho 12:35 p.m.
Yes, and the hon. Senior Minister has moved an amendment. Clause 24 (2) has also been amended so there is nothing left there again in clause 24. That is why -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker 12:35 p.m.
I see the problem.
Mr. Adjaho 12:35 p.m.
That is why I am moving my amendment as a new clause. So it is only to put the matter beyond all doubts and nothing else.
Mr. J. H. Mensah 12:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, one of the methods of keeping strategic petroleum stocks is for the Government to ask various operators in the industry to make sure that at any one time they have “X” thousand gallons of petrol on their premises. This is one way of the Government not itself building the storages, as we have done before, but to designate private operators to keep at all times a certain amount of petroleum stocks.
Some of the best storage facilities tend to be owned by refineries and therefore, this amendment would preclude the Government from asking refineries to use their storage facilities to help the Government in performing this function of keeping strategic stocks. Therefore, it is not prudent to introduce such an amendment

limiting the capacity of Government to designate those operators in the industry who may help the Government in keeping strategic stocks.
Mr. Asaga 12:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, this was an amendment moved and I thought that it should be seconded -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Hon. Member for Nabdam, we have dealt with that. The only problem which the hon. Deputy Minority Leader is raising is a further amendment he wants to move. That is the problem we are dealing with.
Mr. Adjaho 12:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think there is some confusion somewhere. If what the hon. Senior Minister is saying is the true position then I withdraw my amendment. But the Ministry told us that as far as strategic storage is concerned, they are not going to involve the private sector at all. [Interruption.] Please, the hon. Deputy Minister is here. They are not going to involve the private sector at all in it.
This is because it was one area that we tried to say that in order to reduce even the financial burden it was important to involve the private sector in that area; and they said that as far as this was concerned they were not -- Now, if the hon. Senior Minister is telling us this, then there is some confusion somewhere. If that were the position, then I would not have filed this amendment at all.
So we have to put something in the Bill to make it very clear and to put it beyond doubt that the private sector can be involved. Then this amendment would not be necessary; otherwise, we would have problems somewhere along the line with this Bill.
Prof. Oquaye 12:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, “strategic”, as the name obviously implies, remains the preserve of Government. In the meantime Government, in its wisdom, may want
BOST to handle this strategic matter; but the hands of Government cannot be tied in such a way that if it should decide at any particular time for any reason, to use any person, body or authority, private or otherwise, it cannot do so. That should be the prerogative of Government. So, Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary to say that any particular body shall not use its premises for strategic storage. It is odious, and remote. The decision belongs to Government.
Mr. Asaga 12:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, from the Minister's rendition, it means that we are even defeating the purpose of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is not to regulate again. So why would Government now have control on a private person's storage? Because, the private sector can decide what to do with its storage. So if he can decide -- and the hon. Minister is saying that in times of crises he should determine -- he may decide to deplete his stock below the six (6) weeks. [Interruption.] That is what the hon. Minister is saying. Strategic storage should not be in the hands of the private sector; it should be with Government.
Prof. Oquaye 12:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend on the other side is misleading the House. What we are saying is that Government, at any given time, has the absolute discretion as to how that which is strategic reserve stock is managed or held. And it may be necessary, maybe, in a particular part of the country where a private operator has facilities, for Government, in the national interest, to say that a strategic reserve must be held there. Therefore, it is not necessary to say that a person licensed to operate a refinery shall not use his premises for the purpose of a strategic reserve stock holding. This is our position.
Mr. Adjaho 12:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am a little
bit surprised at the turn of events but I am not perturbed. This is because people in the private sector had appeared before the Committee and made this claim that we are hearing the hon. Senior Minister and the Minister for Energy making now, and they told us that they were not going to take that position. They referred to several countries where that is the practice and they said they were not going to take that position. It is based on that that I filed this amendment; but if they are now telling us -- [Interruption.] This is because what they are saying makes a lot of sense.
Yesterday, during the Second Reading, I did say that if the $90 million which we are aiming at and which is for the six (6) weeks is going to be the sole responsibility of Government, then the Bill, in a way, is defeating itself because we want to free resources for other developmental activities. So if the private sector, is involved in that process in a way then that burden --
In fact, I have been informed that there has been an earlier proposal by a previous Government that even private sector should keep a certain percentage of their stock as strategic so that part of that financial responsibility is taken by those companies and therefore, Government alone would not be saddled with the $90 million six (6) weeks strategic storage that we are aiming at, as a country.

If that is the position, then there is something that we need to put in this clause to put that thing beyond doubt because we do not go to committee to state a particular position. In fact, on one occasion the hon. Majority Leader was at the meeting. So if we cannot go there and we will reject a proposal, then when an amendment is put there to try to rationalise the position and then you come -- Then
Mr. J. H. Mensah 12:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Member. Indeed, when we talk about the burden of keeping strategic stocks, it is mostly the interest to cost of keeping idle amounts of petroleum standing and that cost, as the Government is the authority to decide that we will keep ‘‘x'' million gallons, must be borne by Government. And therefore it is for the Government to negotiate with the private sector operator or refinery. If you keep so much stocks at the refinery and it costs you so much per cent per year to keep that idle stock, it is a part of the cost of keeping the strategic stocks and therefore it will be that cost to be refunded by Government to the private operator.
So all we are trying to do is to say, do not tie the hands of Government in choosing its agents for the maintenance of the strategic stocks. But if at any point there is a need to expressly state that the Government shall choose its agents for the management and maintenance of those strategic stocks, we can by all means say it. But that decision is for Government to take and the cost of that decision is for Government to bear.
Mr. Adjaho 12:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if that is the position now of Government, which
runs counter to the understanding that we reached at the committee level, and they want us to believe, then it is important to have some clause in the Bill to capture that. Because there are other amendments standing in my name which are based on a similar line. And I can then withdraw some of those amendments so that we can then cater for the position of the hon. Senior Minister which, to me, makes a lot of sense so that the burden is not borne by Government alone, but only the cost, and they can then decide where it is kept.
There is need to put some clause there to put the matter beyond doubt because it is one of the contentious areas. That is why we deleted clause 24 (b) from the Bill. So if we delete 24 (b) from the Bill, but now they are bringing it, let us be very clear as to exactly the law that we are enacting. Then I will withdraw those amendments in those areas so that we can move forward.
Prof . Oquaye 12:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, definitely strategic reserve is a matter for Government. With regard to even the cumulative expense that is being talked of from the other side, strategic stock is released in such a way that, in fact, it is a revolving stock. So it is not as if monies will be overheld at any given time. But Mr. Speaker, above all, we may as well even look at the next amendment numbered 27, which is under clause 25. And Mr. Speaker, if I may just move ahead on that so that we get the picture clear, 25 (1) -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker 12:45 p.m.
We shall come to that, but we have to deal with this amendment before we go to clause 25.
Prof. Oquaye 12:45 p.m.
I am using that to explain that the Government shall designate a network of strategic storage depots for petroleum products to be managed by BOST and in fact on behalf of Government. Mr. Speaker, it is being even
Dr. Ampofo 12:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think there is a little bit of confusion here. At the committee level, in fact, we were made to understand, and in fact, I myself was of the position that strategic depots -- when we say “strategic” then we are talking about security matters and therefore those must be the preserve of Government and that the private sector must not be allowed to participate in the sense that there could be a situation where the private sector could give problems to Government when the need arises for Government to tap into the strategic reserve.
Then the issue arose that Government's target for holding strategic stock is six (6) weeks but Government is able to hold stock for only two (2) weeks, which does not augur well for our security. Therefore, there is the need for some arrangement that allows the private sector to assist in the holding of that stock.
So it makes sense to me that for security -- Again, I am standing on the issue of security and if we are to be secure and yet we are not able to reach that level of stock where we will have that security, then an arrangement must be made where the private sector can participate in it. So what is being said now or the argument being made is that it must be explicitly put in the law that the private sector can participate in this and the conditions under which they can participate made clear, then the private sector will willingly come in and assist.
But now, as to how the hon. Minister spoke, I am at a loss as to what we are doing. Right now I also support that
the private sector must be allowed to participate in holding stock on behalf of Government but it is the Government that must control that stock, if I understand clearly.
The second point is that, if that is so, then hon. Doe Adjaho's amendment ought to come under clause 25 and not under clause 24.
Mr. K. T. Hammond 12:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think what is causing the confusion here is people thinking that certain private individuals or companies can designate themselves, think that whatever project they have in their storage, bought by themselves, could be used as strategic reserve or not. Mr. Speaker, that is not the point we are making over here.
The Government has Tema Oil Refinery, for example, so the Government decides that we have bought our six weeks whatever, we do not have the facility immediately at some other place, Tema Oil Refinery, hold this one for us. The amendment proposed by the hon. Member suggests that that cannot be done by the Government. So we have the product on our hands and we do not have storage facility for that.
Mr. Speaker, we would invite you to put the Question, because the argument has been flogged enough.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 12:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the position of the hon. Senior Minister on this matter is the most prudent. At the committee level we needed an assurance that private sector participants can participate in holding the strategic reserve, and subsequently - I do not want to deal with clause 25 because we are not there, but I am agreeing with the hon. Senior Minister that we need a provision; and I will propose, with the indulgence of Mr. Speaker, that we add clause 3 to read as follows:
“The Minister may consider private sector participants for the purpose of
Mr. Speaker 12:55 p.m.
Hon. Member, do not be distracted; go ahead.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if we do not make a provision that protects them to amortise their loan, you may get a new entrant tomorrow and the huge investment they had made, they would not be able to recoup it. So I think that I go with the suggestion of the hon. Senior Minister. Indeed, whether the provision is made or not, the prerogative is that of the Minister; that he may consider a private sector participant for the purpose of strategic reserve. It is still his prerogative so why is he worried that it cannot be inserted?
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we have listened to many sides of the argument and I believe the time has come for us to take the vote on clause 24. Mr. Speaker, beyond everything, we believe that the amendment even properly belongs to clause 25 and not clause 24. Let us close the chapter on clause 24 and then move forward.
rose
Mr. Speaker 12:55 p.m.
Hon. Deputy Minority Leader?
Mr. Adjaho 12:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I hold a strong view. I am prepared to withdraw my amendment but I am telling them that if they do not make provision for the kind
Mr. Speaker 12:55 p.m.
You are withdrawing it? All right, it is withdrawn.
Mr. Adjaho 12:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have been advised to step it down. These days, we are using “step aside” and “step down”, so I am stepping it down. [Laughter.]
Clause 24 as variously amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Speaker 2:55 p.m.
Hon. Members, it is 1 o'clock. We shall now suspend Sitting and we would come back at 2.30 p.m. - 3.00 p.m. Is that convenient?
The Sitting was suspended at 1.00 p.m.

Sitting resumed.
Mr. Speaker 2:55 p.m.
Hon. Members, clause
25.
Clause 25 - Storage depots for petroleum products.
Chairman of the Committee 2:55 p.m.
(Mrs. Eugenia Kusi): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 25, delete and insert a new clause as follows:
“25. (1) The Government shall designate a network of strategic storage depots for petroleum products to be managed by BOST
on behalf of Government.”
Prof. Oquaye 2:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, in order to amplify this operation, it is proposed further that soon after BOST we add the words “or any other authority” so as to give flexibility in a manner earlier discussed in the previous amendments. The strategic reserve matters will remain fully within the parameters of Government and apply to any institution or organization as the Government deems fit.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 2:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I agreed with my hon. Colleague to move the amendment but I want to further suggest another amendment because of the definition. The word ‘authority' can have limited definition and so instead of the word ‘authority' we can substitute the word ‘body' - “or any other body” - so that we do not end up with a situation where when we want to talk about ‘authority', it would tend to be more of state organizations. It is restrictive so I think we should say “any other body”, And if my hon. Colleagues will agree, then Mr. Speaker, unless somebody else wants to make a contribution, you can put the Question.
Prof. Oquaye 2:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we respectfully agree.
Mrs. Kusi 2:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, before you put the Question, I want to say that there was a mistake in the amendment captured on the paper. The amendment proposed in clause 25(1) as it appears on the Order Paper should be clause 25(2) but that is not captured on the Order Paper. Mr. Speaker, what I mean is that under clause 25 we are supposed to have two subclauses; the first amendment was only on clause 25. What I proposed was subclause (1) and then the subclause (2) would read as follows:
“The Authority shall by publication in the Gazette designate storage depots for the petroleum products.”
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 2:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the best procedure is to finish with this one and then after that if she thinks she wants a second one, she can then make a proposal. So Mr. Speaker, if you can get the Question put on the first one, then she can make a case for the second one.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 2:55 p.m.
Mr. Spaker, I woild like to crave your indulgence to refer hon. Members to Standing Order 48 (1) which requires that one-third of hon. Members should be present to constitute a quorum for this House to conduct its business. And Mr. Speaker, it was said in this House that this was a very important and urgent Bill. I am surprised at the attitude of hon. Members and I doubt if we, in fact, have a quorum to proceed with business. I am therefore urging you to do a headcount and if we do not meet the one-third requirement, this House would have to be suspended in accordance with Standing Order 48 (1).
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 2:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, this is a continuing Sitting and I believe that a lot of our hon. Colleagues who eat slowly or who are doing other things are downstairs. And I thought that in such situations we do some consultation and then try to find out whether in fact they are not within our precincts; I thought that should be the best position. And so we can continue whilst we take steps to verify. I have just had a quick discussion with my hon. Colleague, the Deputy Minority Leader in the usual form and therefore if we can continue whilst I find out why the others are not here.
rose
Mr. Speaker 2:55 p.m.
Hon. Member for Abokobi-Madina, do you have other points to raise?
Alhaji Sorogho 2:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, exactly so. It is very good that the hon. Majority Leader has assured us that he wants to make efforts to trace the Leadership of this House. We all consider this Bill to be very, very important and I think in the morning, the kind of contributions that were coming from this side of the House all go to enrich the Bill. Much as I agree that business should move forward, I have told him that there is the need to at least follow laid-down procedures. If we have to suspend Sitting for five minutes for the hon. Majority Leader to try as much as possible as he has already indicated, to get the people around, I think it will be better. But to continue with this number, I do not think it is in our interest.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 2:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that those who have been here for a very long time are not here. In such situations you do not suspend Sitting and that is why I said we can continue. I say so because whatever it is, we have what we call the Second Consideration Stage and so we can continue whilst I check on my hon. Colleagues. In fact, I just left my room with the hon. Deputy Minority Leader and therefore we can go on whilst we look at it.
Mr. Speaker 3:05 p.m.
Hon. Chairperson, in this amendment, clause 25(1) you mentioned the Government; did you intend to mention the Minister?
Mrs. Kusi 3:05 p.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we want to change it to “the Minister”.
Question put and amendment agreed
Mrs. Kusi 3:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, there was an omission in the printing; there is clause 25 ((2) which captured what is contained in the Bill but in this form - “the Authority shall by publication in the Gazette designate operational storage depots for petroleum products which the Authority shall determine.
Mr. Speaker 3:05 p.m.
Hon. Chairperson, this is not clear. In the Bill you have clause 25 and do we now have a new 25 (1)?
Mr. Kusi 3:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is 25 (2) because the first one spoke about strategic storage and now the second one is about operational storage depots.
Mr. K. T. Hammond 3:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if I may just help my Chairperson. What was decided at the committee stage was that the redition at 25, where we have only one clause, was not appropriate and that we should have two. So the whole of clause 25 should now go and be replaced with a new clause 25, which should have two subclauses. But only one was captured in the document; the other one is in the Report so what she has read is from the Report.
Mr. Speaker 3:05 p.m.
So hon. Chairperson, how do I put the Question?
Mrs. Kusi 3:05 p.m.
When you take the Bill, clause 25 (2) is what I proposed to read as follows:
“The Authority shall by publication in the Gazette designate operational storage depots for petroleum products which the Authority shall determine.”
That now becomes (2).
Alhaji Amadu Sorogho 3:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I think there is the need to do a little bit of clarification based on the amendment which was proposed by the hon. Senior Minister and which we adopted. Because, the reason why at the subcommittee level we agreed on this was that it was considered that the strategic storage was for security reasons and for that matter we should be able to separate the two; and that we were not going to allow private people to enter into the other one - [Interruptions.] Let me make myself clear. So now that there is an amendment that private people can enter the - [Interruption.]
Prof. Oquaye 3:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, what is being proposed captures strategic reserves as in (1), and (2) - operational. The two are complementary yet different.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 3:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if you look at the amendment that the hon. Chairperson is moving, in particular clause 25 (2), and then view it against the parent Bill, first of all we have a worry about giving the Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) the authority to deal with the two streams. Strategic depots, yes, that can be with the Minister and the Government. But why do we want to regulate operational stock?
If a particular person brings in petroleum products. Mr. Speaker, let me read clause 25 in the original Bill - “The Authority shall by publication in the Gazette designated …” There, we are proposing operational depots for the petroleum products. Even if we are to accept that the sentence must end there, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, because we cannot say “which the Authority shall determine”. Mr. Speaker, so without notice if we would allow that amendment, that from “petroleum products” the rest of the words from “which” will have to be deleted.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 3:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
my understanding is that the Authority will determine which depots must be operational depots and then designate them by publication in the Gazette. So if you delete “which the Authority shall determine”, it does not convey the same meaning that the original clause seeks to convey. It is not only that the Authority will designate operational depots; it will determine which depots shall be operational depots and so designate them by publication in the Gazette. That is the meaning of this particular clause.
Mr. Lee Ocran 3:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think this amendment runs counter to the spirit behind the whole Bill, because you have a private enterprise and you are to determine where they should have their operational depots. Why? It is a commercial thing and somebody else should tell them where they should have them? If it is strategic, no problem, because that has security implications; but when it is commercial or operational, you do not need to have somebody determining where you should have your operational depot.
Prof. Oquaye 3:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I wish we could simply bring this to rest. The fact that a person would be allowed to have an operational storage does not mean, for example, that he can go and pitch it near a military barracks; it does not mean he can go and put it on Korle Bu Hospital compound or any place that Government considers unsafe, or whatever. Mr. Speaker, for good reasons Government should be able to determine this kind of location, et cetera.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 26 - 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30 - Construction of petrol and gas depots.
Mrs. Kusi 3:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we propose that the subheading “Construction of petrol and gas” -- “Petrol and gas” should be and substituted with “petroleum products”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Speaker 3:15 p.m.
There is a second amendment, Chairman of the Committee.
Mrs. Kusi 3:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, clause 30 (b), after “depot” delete and insert “and pipelines”.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr. Speaker 3:15 p.m.
There is a third amendment, Chairman of the Committee.
Mrs. Kusi 3:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, paragraph (d) delete and insert a new paragraph as follows: “an oil refinery”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Speaker 3:15 p.m.
I will now put the Question on the entire clauses -
rose
Mr. Speaker 3:15 p.m.
Yes, Chief Whip?
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, there ought to have been an amendment to the opening sentence. It has not been captured - that is the
Mr. Emmanuel A. Owusu-Ansah 3:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, I beg to disagree with the hon. Majority Chief Whip. Mr. Speaker, if you look at clause 2 (1) and (h) where we deleted the “oil”, “petroleum” precedes “downstream” before the “oil”. So it is “petroleum downstream oil industry”. There appears to be some tautology in that regard because “petroleum” is there and the “oil” too is there. That is why we have omitted the “oil”.
But Mr. Speaker, clause 30, there is no “petroleum” preceding the “downstream oil”. It is, “A person shall not construct or operate in the downstream oil industry” simpliciter. If you omit the “oil”, then you do not know the industry you are talking about. So Mr. Speaker, I think that we should maintain the “oil”.
Mr. Speaker 3:15 p.m.
Hon. Majority Chief Whip, let us go on with this work.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:25 p.m.
I referred
the attention of the House to clause 2 (2) (j). As he said, in the morning we handled only two provisions. And I am saying that we should have said that that should have a consequential effect and that would have meant that clause 2 (2) (j) would have been covered as well as some others that I probably have glossed over. But then clause 11 (1) and (2) have the same problem and I am saying that we should, for consistency sake, take those ones out and it will be very consistent.
Mr. Speaker, regarding the issue that he just raised, the whole Bill is about petroleum downstream industry. So he is saying that for clause 30 we should let the word “oil” stand - Well, just because we have not written “petroleum” in clause 30 we may be making some sense but for consistency we only have to write “petroleum”, insert “petroleum” before “downstream” and omit the “oil” and it would be very consistent. That is all I am saying. But Mr. Speaker, it is not clear for me.
Mr. Speaker 3:25 p.m.
Hon. Majority
Chief Whip, we have carried those two amendments already.
Mr. J. B. Aidoo 3:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the new
heading renders subclause (c) redundant, so I proposed that subclause (b) should be deleted. Mr. Speaker, I am referring to 30 (c) -- [Interruption.] It is now superfluous. Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that the new heading, which will read “petroleum products”, captures liquefied petroleum gas and other products. And then when you take (b), “a petroleum products storage depot”, that one actually captures what (c) intends to do so it means (c) is not necessary any more.
Mr. Speaker 3:25 p.m.
Thank you for your
contribution but let us go on.
Alhaji Abukari 3:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
am not clear as to the question you are going to put because the hon. Alhaji and my loyal friend, the Deputy Chief Whip have suggested something and we are not very sure whether we have agreed to that amendment. What he suggested was that clause 30 should now read,
“A person shall not construct or operate in the petroleum downstream industry. . .”
So that we delete “oil” to make it consistent with the other clauses. I think that was what he was suggesting. We do not know whether this is what you are going to put the Question on.
Prof. Oquaye 3:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we are
agreeable.
Mr. Speaker 3:25 p.m.
Chairperson, let us have
the amendment then.
Mrs. Kusi 3:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, it would
read,
“A person shall not construct or operate in the petroleum down- stream industry . . .”
So “oil” is deleted and then we insert “pe t ro leum” be tween “ the” and “downstream”. The amendment is that we insert “petroleum” between “the” and “downstream” and then delete “oil” in that line.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 30 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 31 and 32 ordered to stand part
of the Bill.
Clause 33 - Regulation and monitoring of stock of petroleum products at strategic storage depots.
Mrs. Kusi 3:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 33, subheading, delete “Regulation and”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mrs. Kusi 3:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 33, delete “Board” and insert “Ministry”.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 3:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, once her first proposed amendment to the subheading -- If “Regulation and” is deleted then it shall have consequential effect on 33 - [Pause.]
Mr. Speaker 3:25 p.m.
Complete your argument,
or you have withdrawn it?
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Alhaji Abukari 3:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thought that the hon. Member for Tamale South raised a very relevant issue that the amendment of the subheading will affect 33(a) - [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker 3:25 p.m.
He abandoned it.
Alhaji Abukari 3:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, he did
not abandon it; he had jumped the gun; we had not gotten there yet and he was asked to wait until we get there. If we remove “Regulating and” as the subheading, it should affect automatically 33(a) which also reads “regulate and monitor” so “regulate and” should also be deleted.
Mr. Speaker 3:25 p.m.
Which clause is that?
Alhaji Abukari 3:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, clause
33(a). The subheading has now been
amended to read,
“monitoring of stock of petroleum products at strategic storage depot”; then “The Ministry shall (a) regulate and monitor.”
So we are suggesting that “regulate and” should also be deleted to make it consistent with the subheading so that it would be left with “monitor the release and storage of . . .”
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:25 p.m.
Mr.
Speaker, I share the sentiments expressed by my hon. Colleague. For the (a) we should delete “regulate and” and maintain only “monitor” so that it would be consistent with the subheading. But Mr. Speaker, even beyond that what does regulation entail? It entails ensuring that there is a minimum stock and that is captured in (b), so there is no need to retain “regulate and” in (a).
Mrs. Kusi 3:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I agree to
the amendment.
Alhaji Sorogho 3:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, there is

All right, if it is implied, no problem. But I want to say that the reason was that now it was the “Ministry”. It was the Ministry, it was strategic and it involves security so we should rather use “the Ministry” that should regulate and monitor. So if you are saying that by implication it is captured in the second
Mr. Speaker 3:35 p.m.
I now put the Question on the entire clause 33.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 3:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence I want us to relook at clause 33 where there was a proposed amendment to substitute “Board” for “Ministry”. And Mr. Speaker, without notice I am further seeking an amendment that “the Ministry shall in consultation with the Board or the Authority …” But to leave it to the Ministry alone - The objective of this Bill is to have the National Petroleum Authority oversee every activity of downstream - [Interruptions.]
Mr. Speaker 3:35 p.m.
Hon. Member, yes, finish your argument, please.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 3:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am not talking only in respect of (a). In determining (b), “ensure that minimum stock is retained as reserve stock” - If the Ministry is not working with the Authority, how do you determine that?
Mr. Speaker 3:35 p.m.
Hon. Member, have you finished with it? But it seems as if you are going forward and backwards. So please, hon. Members, if there are any serious amendments, let us wait and maybe raise them later.
Clause 33 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 34 to 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37 -- Submission of reports to Board.
Mrs. Kusi 3:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 37, subclause (1), paragraph (c), between “sales” and “consumption” insert “and”.
Mrs. Kusi 3:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 37, subclause (1), paragraph (d), between “oil” and “products” insert “and”.
Clause 37 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38 - Disclosure of information by Board and submission of reports.
Mrs. Kusi 3:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 38, subclause (1), line 1, between “of” and “any” insert “this Act and”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mrs. Kusi 3:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 38, subclause (1), lines 1 and 2, delete “when it considers it necessary”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40 - Imposition of charges.
Mrs. Kusi 3:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,

Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 40 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 41 and 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43 - Incentives for free zone developers and enterprises.
Mrs. Kusi 3:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 43, deleted. We think that the petroleum industry is self-motivating and investors wishing to take advantage of our free zone should do so through the Free Zone Board - [Interruptions.] [An hon. Member: It is not all.] Mr. Speaker, we delete subclause (2) and subclause (3).
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 44 to 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 49 - Registrar.
Mrs. Kusi 3:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 49, delete. Because we feel it is unnecessary and it will duplicate the authority of the Chief Executive.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 49 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 50 - Functions of the Registrar.
Mrs. Kusi 3:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,
clause 50, deleted, This is consequential to clause 49.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 50 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52 -- Appointment of other staff.
Mr. Adjaho 3:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (1), line 1, after “195” add (1) and (2).

Mr. Speaker, I believe you are with me, you do see the import of my amendment.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing really against it except I thought that if she was moving that amendment as a matter of specifying which portion of article 195 applies them perhaps she should have started from clause 50, (1). But basically I have nothing against it.
Mr. Adjaho 3:45 p.m.
It makes no difference, you can add it.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:45 p.m.
In that case, Mr. Speaker, we should start from clause 51 (1). So we should specify that it shall be in consonance with -- after 195 (1) and (2) of the Constitution so that it has that consequential effect in clause 52 (1).
Mr. Speaker 3:45 p.m.
So you are agreeable to
this amendment?
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:45 p.m.
I am agreeable to it except that I am saying that if we go on that line then we should start from clause 51; it relates to the same thing.
Mr. Adjaho 3:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, what will happen is that we will leave it to the draftsperson, that is more or less consequential. But what he is saying is right. It should be subsections (1) and (2)
of article 195. So he is right. It can be taken up by the draftsperson. So you can put the Question on clause 52.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54 - Accounts and audit.
Mr. Adjaho 3:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 54, subclause (3), line 1, before “shall” insert “or an auditor appointed by him”.
Mr. Speaker, under article 187 of the Constitution, the Auditor-General has the power to appoint people to audit where he has realized that he has not got the necessary number of staff to support him. But where we limit it to only him then it creates problems. So the amendment is to bring it in conformity to article 187 of our national Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, while agreeing with the motive underpinning the amendment suggested by my hon. Colleague, I personally believe that it is superfluous because the Auditor- General has that authority to delegate his own responsibility to any other person. So it is really an overkill if we should do that. Except, of course, if it is not going to derogate from what my hon. Colleague is saying, we may well carry it. But really, I believe it is superfluous.
Mr. Adjaho 3:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am
surprised my hon. Colleagues opposite are making this type of argument. Even within the Constitution, if they are saying that he can appoint somebody to do it on his behalf - They put it there in the Constitution. Why are they saying that it is superfluous? We are just making it to be consistent with the provisions of the Constitution for the avoidance of doubt. So what is his worry? What does it spoil? What is the damage to the Bill?
Prof. Oquaye 3:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if only it is for the abundance of caution we have no objection.
Mr. Speaker 3:55 p.m.
That is all right. That is it.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 55 and 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57 - Expenses of Authority.
Mr. James K. Avedzi 3:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
beg to move, clause 57, subclause (1), line 2, after “53” delete all the words.
Mr. Speaker, if you look at clause 53 (b) --
“… any fee or charge determined by the Board in consultation with Minister and Minister for Finance
…”
That is the internally generated fund for the Authority. So adding it to clause 57 is just a duplication of the same sentence. I therefore propose that amendment, that it should be deleted.
Mr. Adjaho 3:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment. I think that it is very clear because clause 53 itself tells us the kind
Mr. Adjaho 3:55 p.m.


of fund that they are talking about, which includes internally generated funds, the fees that the Board will charge. So when we go back again to clause 57 and then add “internally generated funds”, it creates the impression as if the funds at clause 53 do not include internally generated funds. But the fees to be charged by the Board are actually internally generated funds. So there is no need again to add “internally generated funds” in clause 57. I support the amendment.
Prof. Oquaye 3:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, this is all right with us.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 57 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59 -- Inspectorate.
Mrs. Kusi 3:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 59, subclause (6), delete.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 59 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 60 to 62 ordered to stand part
of the Bill.
Clause 63 - Obstruction or interference
with officers and employees of the Authority.
Mrs. Kusi 3:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 63, line (1), after “who” insert “unlawfully”.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 63 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clauses 64 and 65 ordered to stand part
of the Bill.
Clause 66 -- Objects of the Fund.
Mrs. Kusi 3:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 66, paragraph (b), line 2, delete “as near as possible” and insert “the estimated”.
Mr. Speaker, we are of the view that “as
near as possible” is vague and the price should be based on an estimated cost.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mrs. Kusi 4:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 66 paragraph (b), line 2, delete “as near as possible” and insert “the estimated”.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Dr. Ampofo 4:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, in the same subclause (c), I wish to move a slight amendment that between “petroleum” and “distribution” there should be the word “products”; so it should be “achieve a petroleum products distribution” -- it is the products that we are distributing.
Mr. Speaker 4:05 p.m.
Clause 66 (c)?
Dr. Ampofo 4:05 p.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, between
the words “petroleum” and “distribution” should be the word “products”. So it will now read,
“. . . achieve a petroleum products distribution system which is administratively efficient.”
Mr. K. T. Hammond 4:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I think my hon. Colleague was dealing with the (c) but before he does that

can we look at the (b) since you have not put the Question, please. When he said “estimated” -- We also have “actual” there; you cannot have “estimated actual”, you can only have estimated, so the “actual” should be deleted - [Interruption.] So the (b) should read:

“. . . ensure that prices of petroleum products include an element that represents an estimated cost.”

So “as near as possible” there should also go, Mr. Speaker, for it to read as I have just indicated and then we continue with the cost of distribution, that is the (b) and then (c).
Mr. Speaker 4:05 p.m.
Are you agreeable to
the amendment to (b)?
Dr. Ampofo 4:05 p.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think
it is in order.
Mr. Speaker 4:05 p.m.
It is in order? Hon. First
Deputy Speaker, are you also agreeable to the amendment?
Mr. F. W. A. Blay 4:05 p.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am in agreement. I thought that he also had an amendment that he would propose for (c), but the amendment to the (b) that the hon. Deputy Minister has proposed, I think it is appropriate.
Mr. Hammond 4:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
Mr. Speaker 4:05 p.m.
No, the (c) that
was amended -- the amendment he is proposing for (c).
Mr. Hammond 4:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we have
to look at it at the same time - [Pause.] Mr. Speaker, I think the (b) has not been put yet, so maybe we have to finish with the (b) and then we go to the (c).
Mr. Speaker 4:05 p.m.
Anyway, I will take (b) first.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Speaker 4:05 p.m.
Let us have your amendment to (c).
Dr. Ampofo 4:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am moving that between the words “petroleum” and “distribution” there should be the word “products” so that subsection (c) will now read,
“. . . achieve a petroleum products distribution system which is administratively efficient.”
Mr. Speaker 4:05 p.m.
The further amendment to (c) is to be in-between “petroleum” and “distribution”, that is, “petroleum products distribution”. If there is any problem - [Pause.]
Mr. Blay 4:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is all right to say “petroleum and petroleum products distribution system”; it is better than to just make it simpliciter, “petroleum products distribution system”. Because, there is a difference between “petroleum” and “petroleum products” . They are not the same; there is a difference. But the second limb of - [Interruption.]
Dr. Ampofo 4:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the problem here is that, “petroleum” is a generic term. It consists of the crude which is not obtainable at least on our market; it is imported for refining so what would go into the distribution market would be the products.
Mr. Speaker 4:05 p.m.
So are you sticking to your amendment?
Dr. Ampofo 4:05 p.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker 4:05 p.m.
“Petroleum products distribution”?
Mr. Hammond 4:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
“. . . achieve petroleum products distribution system which is efficient to operate.”
Mr. Speaker 4:05 p.m.
The word he is introducing, that is what I am saying.
Mr. Hammond 4:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, he introduced “petroleum products”; that we accept. But originally, Mr. Speaker, as proposed on the Order Paper, “to operate” was also deleted; “to operate” was reinstated -- [Interruption] -- Yes, it was deleted, so we are reintroducing that in addition to the “products”. So Mr. Speaker, “products” is inserted and then at the end, “efficient to operate”, we leave that there.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 66 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 67 -- Sources of money for the Fund.
Mrs. Kusi 4:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 67, paragraph (a), delete “that total the monetary value of” and insert “which is”. It reads,
“moneys paid by oil marketing companies which is the difference between the UPPF margin . . .”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 67 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69 - Board of Trustees for the
Fund.
Mrs. Kusi 4:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 69, subheading, delete “Board of Trustees for the Fund”and insert “UPPF Management Committee”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mrs. Kusi 4:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 69, subclause (1), line 1, delete “Board of Trustees for the Fund” and insert “UPPF Management Committee”.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mrs. Kusi 4:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 69, paragraphs (a) to (g), delete and insert the following:
“(a) the chairperson, who is the Chief Executive of NPA
(b) Industry Co-ordinator of oil marketing companies”.
Mr. Freddie Blay 4:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee has proposed the amendment simpliciter. The amendment they are proposing is quite extensive and they have not given any reason for it. If they can convince the House - [Interruption.] But it says from (a) to (g); that is the impression I have.
Mrs. Kusi 4:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think there was a mistake when they were typing this. In my Report it reads (a), (b), (c) (d) and (f); we are proposing five people to form the management committee. I read from my Report, if it is allowed.
Mr. Speaker 4:05 p.m.
It is (a), (b, (c), (d)?
Mrs. Kusi 4:05 p.m.
And (e).
Mr. Speaker 4:05 p.m.
What about the (f)?
Mrs. Kusi 4:05 p.m.
So i t includes a

Please, let me go over, if it is confusing.
Mr. Speaker 4:05 p.m.
If we turn to page 15 it
is (a) to (g); it includes (f).
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 4:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I would rather ask the Chairperson to confirm whether what she wants us to do is what was contained in the Report, page 15. Page 15 of the Report was suggesting that we insert the following -- “The Chairperson, who is the Chief Executive of MPA, Industry Co-ordinator of Oil Marketing Companies, a Representative of the Association of Tanker Owners' Union, a Representative of BOST, and then we have the (f), the Fund Co-ordinator appointed by the Board”. If this is what she wants to be done, then she need not read it; she should only tell us that the correction can be found in the Report which is also an official document.
Mr. Adjaho 4:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I agree
with the hon. Majority Leader, but the amendment should be moved in terms of the Committee's Report and then we will be clear as to what we are moving. That solves the problem.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 4:05 p.m.
So since the
Chairperson agrees that this is what she is trying to do, then she should just move as indicated in the Committee's Report and let us move on without reading the list.
Mrs. Kusi 4:05 p.m.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I move as contained in the Committee's Report - pages 15 and 16 of the Committee's Report.
Mr. Speaker 4:05 p.m.
Yes, in respect of clause
69, that is it.
Alhaji Sumani Abukari 4:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
there is a very slight amendment. Here it reads (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f), from the Report; it should be (e) instead of (f).
Mrs. Kusi 4:05 p.m.
Yes, the (f) should be (e).
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 69 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause 70 - Functions of the Board of Trustees.
Mrs. Kusi 4:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 70, subheading, delete “Board of Trustees” and insert “UPPF Management Committee”.
Mr. Speaker, this is a consequential amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mrs. Kusi 4:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 70, subclause (1), line 1, delete “Board of Trustees” and insert “UPPF Management Committee”.
Mr. Speaker, this is also consequential.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:05 p.m.
Mr.
Speaker, there are some other consequential amendments in respect of clause 70, because 70 (1) (f) talks about trustees, and there are no trustees any longer - [Interruptions.] So it shall be of the management committee.
Mr. Adjaho 4:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I agree
with what the hon. Majority Chief
Whip is saying, but he should move that amendment and let me support him.
Mr. Speaker 4:25 p.m.
Hon. Chairperson, have you resolved the problem?
Mrs. Kusi 4:25 p.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I want to move the amendment on clause 70 (1) (f).
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 70, subclause (1), line 1, delete “Board of Trustees” and insert “UPPF Management Committee”.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, in the opening line of clause 70 (1), we have the UPPF and so when we come to (f), we need not repeat the UPPF; it is just “Management Committee”.
Mr. Adjaho 4:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have to delete the whole of subclause (1) (f). And this is because when you are talking about trustees, it goes with certain responsibilities, obligations and duties. So when we put the clause there, then there is the relationship between - The trustee issue, with its obligations and “duties” does not come up at all. So we do not have to bring in subclause (1) (f) at all; we have to delete the whole clause because we are talking about trusteeship, but it is no longer existing there because we have deleted the whole concept of “Board of Trustees” and we are substituting it with “Management Committee”. Therefore, the duties and responsibilities of trustees do not come in at all. We have to delete the whole of subclause (1) (f) of clause 70.
Mr. Speaker 4:25 p.m.
Hon. Chairperson, do you understand? When you talk about trustees, then you are talking about obligations and liabilities of trustees. So what is the wish of the Chairperson?
Mr. A. O. Aidooh 4:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the

fact that we have deleted the “Board of Trustees” does not mean we cannot impose the duty of a trustee on the Management Committee. The fact that we did not say “The Board of Trustees” does not mean that we cannot impose the duty of a trustee on any other body we are creating. So Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the amendment being made. We can have any other body of persons who are not trustees, but we can say we are imposing the duty of a trustee on that body.
Mr. Blay 4:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment proposed by the hon. Deputy Minority Leader. Indeed, the duties of a trustee may be very different from that of a Management Committee. Trusteeship has its own obligations, duties and so on and so forth, which are very peculiar to trusteeship, and therefore the duties of trusteeship cannot be transferred to the Management Committee.
Mr. A. O. Aidooh 4:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is because ordinarily the duties of that committee would be different from those of trustees that we should impose on them. It is because that committee would not have those obligations, that is why it is important to have a clause or a subclause that imposes that kind of duty on them. So we can say that the committee, whether it is a management committee, whatever committee, will in its dealings, exercise and have in respect of the Fund, the powers, duties, obligations and whatever of trustees. It is as simple as that. And so I am opposed to the amendment and I urge all hon. Members to support me.
Dr. Ampofo 4:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I speak in support of the amendment, because hitherto, the word “Trustees” is not known to this Act. It has not appeared anywhere in the Act; it has been taken out so he cannot all of a sudden impose, say, the functions of a Trustee as if “Trustees” has already been mentioned and their roles defined in
the Bill; it has not. Therefore, it has no place at all here.
Mr. Speaker 4:25 p.m.
Hon. Deputy Minority Leader, what is your wish?
Mr. Adjaho 4:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, my attention has even been drawn to subclause 70 (1) (e). It is not the trustees that we are even now approving; it is now the Board. It is not even the Management Committee that we are establishing; we are now vesting the approval process, the whole management of the Fund in the Board. So it is the Board now that has the responsibility. So we should not put any obligation now on the Management Committee. [Interruption.]
In fact, my attention has been drawn to subclause (e), that it must also go. So Mr. Speaker, we have to delete subclauses (e) and (f) of clause 70 (1) because they are no longer approving it; it is now the responsibility of the Board and that is why if you look at the composition of the Management Committee, we have now brought the Chairperson of the Board as the Chairperson of the Management Committee.
Mr. Kwamena Bartels 4:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thought we would ask the Chair to guide us at this point in time, whether one would necessarily have to be a trustee to be in a position of trust. [Pause.] Mr. Speaker, I do not think you need to be a trustee necessarily before you are in that position. I believe you can have that responsibility given to you with the clear understanding that you are in that fiduciary relationship with the person imposing that responsibility on you. But I thought we would seek your guidance in this respect.
Mr. Speaker 4:25 p.m.
I want to listen more to you, because as you know, “trustee” is a legal concept.
Mr. Bartels 4:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, may I just add this point; the Board members are in

the position of trust.
Mr. Speaker 4:25 p.m.
Hon. Chairperson, let me hear you on that so that we can go on.
Mrs. Kusi 4:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, what I think is that we should all understand that by changing what we have in subclause (1) to Management Committee, we are going to have problems because the Management Committee consists of only five people and they are accountable to the Board. So we have to give some of these functions - not all, but some of these functions could be taken by the Board. That is what I think.
If the Management Committee, for example, is going to perform the function in subclause (c), they are going to account for the money in the Fund and then they are going to approve and pay. We understand that that Fund sometimes even is in the negative; they have to pay, subtract and then add. There are some subtractions that they have to do because people come for refund from the Fund. So if the Management Committee is going to perform all these functions, I think we should take some to the Board - [Interruption.] For example, in subclause (d), they are not supposed to invest - [Interruptions.]
Mr. Speaker 4:25 p.m.
Hon. Chairperson, are you suggesting that we delete subclauses (e) and (f)?
Mrs. Kusi 4:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think I will yield my position to the hon. Minister.
Mr. Adjaho 4:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that what the hon. Chairperson is saying is true because at the committee level we thought that by just transferring all the functions of the Board of Trustees to the Management Committee, we would be doing the proper thing without looking at the specific provisions in the subclause, and that has created the current confusion we are
facing now. I entirely agree with her that some of the functions there are functions of the Board and some are functions of the Management Committee, and I think that we have to look at it clearly and do as she is saying.
Mr. K. T. Hammond 4:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is a collective responsibility of all of us who attended the committee meetings because we took the view that we simply had to take off that heading and let all the functions remain. Now, we are in a bit of a fix. Mr. Speaker, I thought that the concern was only with the (f). If it was with the (f) and it was the Management Committee which was handling it, there is nothing wrong with them being in the trustee position, vis-à-vis the Board. So that did not serve really - [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker 4:35 p.m.
Hon. Deputy Minister, are you suggesting that we should delete (f)?
Mr. Hammond 4:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if we delete the (f) and the rest can stand, I have no difficulty with that; the (f) does not add much to it. Mr. Speaker, may I suggest, with respect, that we flag this and move on whilst we think about it; when we are ready we will come back to it.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 4:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that is a weaker form of argument. Whatever the position, let us take it now; if by the time we reach the Third Reading we think that there must be a change then we will have a Second Consideration. So if we are convinced that what the Chairperson and the hon. Deputy Minority Leader are saying is the current popular view, let us take it. [Interruptions.] So I take it that you agree that we should step that one, (f) down and - [Interruption.]
Mr. John Tia 4:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I support
Mr. Speaker 4:35 p.m.
Hon. Members, I think that the problem is with the (f). If we want to take the Question on (f), let us take it. Somebody must perform a certain function under (e), that is why it is even easy to take it away.
Mr. Tia 4:35 p.m.
But Mr. Speaker, what would the Management be doing in respect of approval of programmes - [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker 4:35 p.m.
Hon. Minority Chief Whip, I have not called you yet. Is it the wish of the House that we put this Question in respect of (f) and go ahead?
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 4:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, it looks like, from what I am hearing from both sides, it may be better if we allow a small group to work on this area whilst we move on with the rest. Then by the time we finish with the next three or four clauses, we might have got the best and then come back to it; so with your permission, if we can step it down.
Mr. Speaker 4:35 p.m.
This is deferred for some few minutes. Let us go on.
Clause 71 - Meetings, tenure of office, disclosure, and allowances.
Mrs. Kusi 4:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, there was an amendment that we omitted. “The Board
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 4:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, these are what we may refer to as consequential amendments and so if we can accept that where we originally used the term “Board of Trustees”, now that we have changed it to Management Committee, we allow the Clerk's Office to do these consequential amendments because the motion has been accepted that each time we have “the Board of Trustees”, it will be “Management Committee”.
Mr. Speaker 4:35 p.m.
Is it the wish of all Members that this be a consequential thing?
Some hon. Members: Yes.
Minority Leader (Mr. A. S. K. Bagbin) 4:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the right person is the draftsperson and not the clerks.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 4:35 p.m.
I agree with him.
Mr. Bagbin 4:35 p.m.
And Mr. Speaker, I also think that there is a problem when the membership of the Board and the membership of Management Committee are both appointed by the President in accordance with clause 70; I think there is a problem there. The Board should be the one that should be appointing the members of the Management Committee so that the Board can have some control over the Management Committee members.
The President rightly can appoint the members of the Board but the President should not be given the powers to also appoint the members of the Management Committee who are working under the Board. If they do that there would be conflict, because the Board would be taking authority from the President and
the Management Committee would also be taking authority from the President and some authority from the Board. There would be some conflict so we should allow the Board to appoint the members of the Management Committee and that means that clause 69 (3) would have to be looked at.
Mr. Hammond 4:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, he is very right because we have already suggested to the Clerk that we made a mistake. So both (3) and (4) would have to go; he is absolutely right.
Mr. Speaker 4:35 p.m.
Hon. Deputy Minister, did I call you? Anyway, hon. Deputy Minority Leader?
Mr. Adjaho 4:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, that is what we decided at the committee level but the amendment has not appeared on the Order Paper. That is what we have arrived at so I think we have to look at it and move the appropriate amendment.
Mr. Speaker 4:35 p.m.
Do you intend moving an amendment to clause 71 which does not appear on the Order Paper?
Mrs. Kusi 4:35 p.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we said we should substitute “Management Committee” in line 2 for “Board of Trustees” and wherever it appears consequentially, we substitute it.
Mr. Speaker 4:35 p.m.
That was the point that was raised by the hon. Majority Leader, that this would be done automatically.
Mrs. Kusi 4:35 p.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. Minority Leader was talking about clause 69 (3) and (4). So Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, can we go back to clause 69?
Mr. Speaker 4:35 p.m.
I do not think we can go back, please. We have been moving back and forward since - [Interruption.]
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 4:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
procedurally, we would have a Second Consideration Stage. Now that we have all agreed, before we do the Third Reading we would have a Second Consideration Stage to look at that portion. After all, we have also stood the other one down so when we are working on it, we would come back to it. So let us make progress with the rest.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 71 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 72 - Disbursement from the Fund.
Mrs. Kusi 4:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 72, subclause (3), at end, add “any two of the following persons”.
Question put and amendment agreed to
Mrs. Kusi 4:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 72, subclause (3), paragraph (b), delete and insert “Industry Co-ordinator”.
Mr. Adjaho 4:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment. But concerning the one she moved before this one, there is a problem so I just want to draw the House's attention to it so that we have a second look at it.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mrs. Kusi 4:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 72, subclause (3), add a new paragraph (c), as follows:
“(c) Fund co-ordinator”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 72 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Mr. Freddie Blay 4:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
had wanted to catch your eye before
you put the Question on clause 72. The first amendment appears not to be very elegant because they just said that “any of the two”; and it was left hanging like that. I had thought that if we could streamline the rendition properly, that is - [Interruptions] - So that one should come before “any of the following” comes or it should come at the end of the sentence.
Clause 73 - Operation of the Fund.
Mrs. Kusi 4:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 73, subclause (1), line 1, delete “Board of Trustees” and insert “UPPF Management Committee”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mrs. Kusi 4:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 73, subclause (4), line 2, delete “74” and insert “75”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 73 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 75 - Administrative expenses of the Fund.
Mr. J. A. Tia 4:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, clause 75(1) seeks to give responsibility for approval of moneys to be paid out of the Fund to the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning.
Mr. Speaker, I think that this takes away the oversight responsibilities of the Authority. This is because if the Authority is there to manage the whole thing and there is a fund under the Authority and they cannot determine or exercise control over the fund but they have to go back to the hon. Minister for Energy and the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning, I do not think it is proper. Clause
Mr. J. A. Tia 4:45 p.m.


75 (1) - [Interruption] - What is always like that? There is an Authority, which has a Board, and then we are saying that they should go and liaise with the Minister for Energy to determine what should be given out of the Fund. For what?
Mr. Speaker 4:45 p.m.
Hon. Minority Chief Whip, what are you suggesting?
Mr. Tia 4:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting that we take out “in consultation with the Minister for Finance”. The two Ministers should not interfere in the running of the Fund because they will be taking over the authority of the management Board. You have a Board which is running this thing and you are saying that they cannot authorize - [Interruption] - I have made my point; if you have anything, you should also get up and speak against it.
But I think that it will not be proper; we are speaking against the functions of somebody. So we should delete “subject to the approval of the Minister acting in consultation with the Minister for Finance” and then say that “the administration or other responsibilities of the Fund shall be taken out of the moneys for the Fund subject to the approval of the Management Board”.
Dr. A. A. Osei 4:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I just want some clarification. There has been an amendment to change the “Board of Trustees” to “Management Committee”. So I am not sure of what he is talking about again. It is now a management committee, so,which board is he referring to? I know there is a Board for the NPA but this section deals with the management section of the Fund. He is talking about the board of the Fund, but there is no board for the Fund -- [Interruptions] - Please,
look at the amendment.
Mr. Bagbin 4:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, at least, we have some experiences in this country to guard against a certain act of conflicting authority. At least, the recent happenings in the Energy Commission is something to guide us.
Mr. Speaker, we know that in this
line we have the President, we have the Minister, we have the governing body, then we have the management committee; and therefore we have a flow of authority in that line. So what he is proposing is that the Management Committee should be doing that in consultation with the Board, not the Minister. He is talking about administrative expenses and therefore it is the Governing Board that should be the one that should oversee the functions of the Management Committee.
But they cannot just bypass the
Governing Board and go straight to the Minister, that is why he is proposing that, as it is presently couched; it is talking about the Management Committee going straight to the Minister for the sector, consulting the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning and ignoring the Governing Body. That is why he is saying that it should rather be with the Governing Body. The Management Committee should perform that function with the supervision of the Governing Body. If you look at clause 3, there is a Governing Body of the Authority; that is what he is referring to.
Dr. A. A. Osei 4:55 p.m.
He referred to a board of the Fund. That is the point I was making. So it is the Board of the NPA - [Interruption.] Then he has to clarify it.
Mr. Blay 4:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the amendment. I entirely agree with what the hon. Minority Leader said that we have a practice in this House and that there
should not be any conflict areas created by the Bill. But in this case, he is talking about expenses. Indeed, this Authority that we are setting up will definitely make a little money from its own internally-generated funds but invariably it is going to take money from the Consolidated Fund.
That being the case, we cannot create any authority or make any body have money from the Consolidated Fund without the authority of the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning and the Ministry concerned. Whatever it is, I will agree that it should be the Board, in consultation with the Ministry to determine the administrative fund; but it should not be that the Minister for Finance is completely taken out. I think that is completely inappropriate.
Mr. Tia 4:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised because if you look at moneys which are allocated to the MDAs from the Consolidated Fund, you do not expect the Chief Director and others to go and liaise with the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning for expenses, and so on. If there should be anything, it is the Chief Director and the Minister for the sector responsible who should determine. So we are saying that there is an Authority and there is a management committee appointed by the Authority.
Now, if it comes to payment and other administrative expenses from the Consolidated Fund, why should the management committee leave the Board and then go to the Minister for the sector and the Minister for Finance and so on? So we are saying that this thing should be centralized.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 4:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I have done some consultation and I am told that we do not need to argue further. We will take the suggestions made by hon. Tia. So we move on. The Question can be put. The rest will be the work of the draftsperson. And of course, I am told the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning has no problem with it.
Mr. Speaker 4:55 p.m.
On clause 75 (1), which words are we cancelling?
Mr. Bagbin 4:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we are just
proposing that we amend clause 75 (1) to read as follows:
“The administrative and other expenses of the Fund shall, subject to the approval of the Governing Body of the Board be paid out of moneys for the Fund.”
That is all.
Question put and amendment agreed to
Mrs. Kusi 4:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, clause 76 --[Pause.]
Mr. Speaker 4:55 p.m.
Let us go on. Clause 76,
hon. Chairperson?
Mrs. Kusi 4:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, thank you, but in clause 75 (2) “the trustees” will go and then “with the approval of the Board in consultation with the Minister”.
Mr. Speaker 4:55 p.m.
You should frame it.
Mrs. Kusi 4:55 p.m.
It is consequential.
rose
Mr. Speaker 4:55 p.m.
Hon. Majority Chief Whip, I have not yet called you. I want her to finish. Are you moving a further amendment to subclause 2?
Mrs. Kusi 4:55 p.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker 4:55 p.m.
Please, go ahead.
Mrs. Kusi 4:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think it
should read,
“The management committee may after defraying expenses of the Fund and with the approval of the Board, in consultation with the Minister, direct in writing that a part of any excess money located in the bank account of the Fund be utilized in the execution of the designated project related to the petroleum industry”.
“Oil” should be deleted, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker 4:55 p.m.
The Question is that we are deleting “the Board of Trustees” first and putting in place “the management committee”; and you are saying that “in consultation with the Board”.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 4:55 p.m.
Mr. speaker, it is “approval of the Board in consultation with the Minister”.
rose
Mr. Speaker 4:55 p.m.
Yes, hon. Minority Leader, go ahead.
Mr. Adjaho 4:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have any problem with the amendment but I just want to remind the House of article 176, which deals with retention of internally generated funds. The law is clear that there is a certain percentage that must be determined by Parliament that they should use for that purpose. So if they give them that then there is no problem. If the law says that it should be 100 per cent, it is 100 per cent for them; and if the law says that it is 80 per cent, it is 80 per cent, for them. So I do not see how this ties in effectively with article 176 of the Constitution. There is a problem there.
Mr. Speaker 4:55 p.m.
Hon. Minority Leader, when we come to the problem we will resolve it but not at this stage.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 75 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 76 - Coordinator and functions.
Mrs. Kusi 5:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 76, subheading, before “Coordinator” insert “Fund”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mrs. Kusi 5:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 76, subclause (1), delete and insert the following:
“(1) The Board shall appoint a person with managerial experience in the petroleum downstream as the Fund coordinator”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 76 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 78 - Accounts and audit for the Fund.
Mrs. Kusi 5:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 78, subclause (1) delete “Board of Trustees” and insert “UPPF Management Committee”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mrs. Kusi 5:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 78, subclause (2) delete “Board of Trustees” and insert “UPPF Management Committee”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 78 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 80 -- Penalties for misconduct.
Mrs. Kusi 5:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 80, subclause (1), line 2, between “the” and “co-ordinator” insert “Fund”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mrs. Kusi 5:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 80, subclause (2), paragraph (b), at end, add “within three months”.
Mr. Speaker, the way it was put here is wrong. We should delete “at least” and insert “within”.
Mr. Speaker 5:05 p.m.
What amendment are you seeking?
Mrs. Kusi 5:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, subclause (2), paragraph (b), line 3, we delete “at least” and insert “within”.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 5:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, it seems the enthusiasm with which hon. Members are following this important amendment is not encouraging, but nevertheless I want us to go back to clause 79 - [Interruptions.] I am coming on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker 5:05 p.m.
Order! Order! Hon. Majority Leader, are you raising an objection?
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 5:05 p.m.
I just want to draw his attention that the normal process is that he notes it down and when we come to the Second Consideration Stage - because we have passed that area - he can raise it. So it is not a question that it is being blocked completely except that the process we have here is that when we have passed that area, you keep it and then before we reach the Third Reading we come back; so if you can let him go by that process.
Mr. J. D. Mahama 5:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment that was just being suggested
Mrs. Kusi 5:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee thinks that for at least three months they could delay it. The “at least” means three months and over.
Mr. Adjaho 5:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think she is right except that what we agreed on at the committee was that it should not be more than three months. If you say “at least for three months” it can be one year, it can be two years, it can be ten years; so it should not be more than three months.
Mr. Speaker 5:05 p.m.
What was agreed upon?
Mr. Adjaho 5:05 p.m.
Not more than three months.
Mr. Speaker 5:05 p.m.
Hon. Chairperson, so the amendment should be “not more than three months” instead of “within three months”.
Mr. J. D. Mahama 5:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think we need a little more explanation on the purpose of that particular clause. If we say “. . . payment out of the Fund to that person for services rendered in respect of the sales shall be delayed”, it looks like we deliberately want to delay it for a purpose.
Mr. S. N. Attoh 5:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the best wording for that paragraph, if we are going by the intent of the paragraph, should have been --
“. . . payment out of the Fund to that person for services rendered in respect of the sales shall not be delayed for more than three months.”
Mr. Speaker 5:15 p.m.
Hon. Chairperson, that is it. Which words do you want to replace “… within three months”?
Mrs. Kusi 5:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we propose

“for more than three months.”
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 5:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I agree with my hon. Colleague when he asks the Committee chairperson what really we want to achieve. Because, you have to read the whole (2) and then choose whatever phrase you want to use. We are saying at (2) that
“Where a person fails to submit
( a ) t h e m o n t h l y r e p o r t o f analys is o f h i s sa les a t different locations, and
(b) delivery notes in respect of the sales
to the co-ordinator later than the tenth day of the month following the month to which the report relates, payment out of the Fund to that person who has delayed for services rendered in respect of the sales shall be delayed for at least three months.”
So the idea is that you failed to comply with things and therefore if they do not pay you in time, you have no claim. Now, if you want to achieve something else, then you need to explain this further as to why you now want to change something on it.
Mr. Adjaho 5:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the reason behind the amendment is that if you leave it as it is in the Bill - “for at least three months” - it means that it can even be ten years, it can even be one year. And those of us on the Committee believe that that punishment or that penalty is too excessive. So we are saying that you can delay it but do not delay it for more than three months. You can delay it; the punishment is there or the penalty is there - if you delay it. But do not delay it for more than three months.
Mr. Speaker, you know what it means to delay a businessman's money for three months. The interest and money he is taking from the banks and its implications

and all those things can be unbearable at times. And at times we are talking of millions of dollars -- [Interruptions.] But you have put “dollars” in the Bill, that is why I am also using dollars. [Laughter.]
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 5:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, in the light of the explanation, then it means the word “delay” is deliberate; it is for people to know that you are being punished. So if you say “shall be delayed” and we say that rather we do not also want to give the bureaucrats opportunity to make it four, five, six, seven, eight months, then it means that all we need is “. . . shall be delayed for not more than three months”. In which case, we are saying that he can delay your payments but he cannot punish you for more than three months. This is what they are trying to say, but then I leave it to you.
Mr. Bagbin 5:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I agree to the rationale behind the amendment and I accept the explanations given. But I do not agree with the rendition because the English is incorrect. Now, we want to make sure that the penalty is captured; that it must be delayed. At the same time, we want to give some limit for which it should be delayed. So you have to insert the words “but for not more than”, You must put it there. That is how you capture the totality of the sense of the clause.
Mr. Speaker 5:15 p.m.
Hon. Members, this is
a small matter, let us resolve it and go forward.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is not for nothing that the original construction indicates that it should be “for not less than three months”. Mr. Speaker - [Interruptions.] Yes, it is the same thing. And this “three months” is “for not less than three months” - [Interruptions.] I attended St. Peters Secondary School, not any other school.
But Mr. Speaker, the point is this that currently, regarding haulage, payment normally is after three months. So if you say that it should be done within three
months, you are not punishing the person. That is one. And then the other thing I want to draw attention to is in respect of that construction - (a) and (b). Are we saying that not until the person is involved in the two together, no offence is committed? Because, it says where a person fails to submit “(a) and (b)”; it means that he may do (a) and not (b) and will not be liable. It means that necessarily it must be both, and I do not think that it is right. So we could say instead of the “and” it should be “or”-- [Interruptions.] That is a different thing.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 5:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
the second one is a different item and I believe we will ask the hon. Minister to see whether he will be happy with that position. But the argument that people are inefficient and we should make a law to encourage inefficiency, I do not subscribe to it. If we want to develop as a country, then we should avoid the habit of delaying payment of money due to people. A lot of Ghanaian contractors have failed because their certificates are not honoured in time.
So if we are saying that the current practice is that “I submit my bill and you deliberately say that currently we take four months to pay”, so we should recognize that and increase the penalty, I think we will be supporting what is wrong. I do not see why, if all my papers are right, after submitting my bill to you, you should spend four months to pay. We should not allow that bad habit to continue.
It is for that reason that quite a lot of people doing business in Ghana do fail. Let us assume that normally if I submit my bill and things are right, I should be paid within a month. And if that is what we are talking about, then we are saying that where the person has committed an offence and you are punishing him, then he should not be punished beyond three months; that is all right. We must be investor friendly. And when we are trying to encourage Ghanaians to be groomed
into these things, we should be careful how we give latitude to bureaucrats who may later on use that as a weapon to punish our nationals. I suggest that the one he suggested and which was improved upon by the hon. Minority Leader should be it; that is, “but for not more than three months”.
Dr. Ben Kunbuor 5:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Majority Leader's concern is appreciated but he has extended it beyond the normal understanding of the principles of regulation. You do not normally regulate good practice; good practice is self-regulatory. It is because there are some defects in the regulatory process that you bring in a regulatory framework.
So if he is saying that just because we do not want to be seen encouraging a particular trend of affairs we should not come up with a regulation, then we do not really have the basis at all to even be talking about this Bill. So my concern is that we should be seen targeting the bad practice area, as a basis of regulation and not to assume that there is always good practice. If practice were always good, we would not even need a regulatory framework.
Mr. Speaker 5:25 p.m.
Let us come back to these words, how do we resolve these words?
Mr. John Mahama 5:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I even suggest that we reduce the three months to two months. Mr. Speaker, three months is quarter of a year. To delay payment for a quarter of a year, I think, is expensive. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it should be,
“… payment out of the Fund to that person for services rendered in respect of the sale shall be delayed but for not more than two months”.
Mr. Speaker 5:25 p.m.
That is wrong; it seems as if you are going off.
Mr. K. T. Hammond 5:25 p.m.
Thank you very
much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we want it to be very clear. We want to impose the punishment. We want it for three months; so we say that it shall be delayed for three months. What is the problem with that? And then Mr. Speaker, with the (a), I think that he is right. When we say “and”, it creates a problem. So it should be either of the two, which one you commit an offence in respect of. So that should be changed to “or”. So we have “or” and the other one, “for three months”.
Mr. Bagbin 5:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Deputy Minister has been confused by the Chief Whip of the Majority because already at clause 74 we have approved that the two should go together. When you look at clause 74 it says that,
“Each marketing company shall submit to the Co-ordinator,
(a) a detailed report on monthly sales analysis based on location; and
(b) delivery notes in respect of the sales mentioned in the report not later than the tenth day of the month following the month to which a report relates.”
So we have put them together; they are to always submit the two.
Now, when you come to the penalty they want us to de-segregate them. Mr. Speaker, that is incorrect. When we come to penalty, what we are simply saying -- Because it is a penalty, he was trying to reduce the penalty, but I think the intention is three months. I disagree with my hon. Colleague because we want compliance and that is why we have to give a penalty that can extract compliance. So Mr. Speaker, the rendition should be as follows:
Mr. Speaker 5:25 p.m.
Hon. Members, this is the amendment proposed, “but not more than three months”.
Mr. Balado Manu 5:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, from what has gone on now I think that if we want to punish the person then the rendition that we are given will not serve the purpose. What about if the person is paid one week after? Would we have punished him? Or one day after? It will still be within the three months. Would we have punished him? So if we want to punish him for a maximum of three months, let us say “shall be delayed for three months”, and then we will know that he will not get the money until three months have elapsed; so if he delays he has three months to wait before he takes his money.
Mr. Speaker 5:25 p.m.
I think we are getting somewhere. So please let me ask the hon. Deputy Minister if he can say something.
rose
Mr. Speaker 5:25 p.m.
Are you going to refer to two months again?
Mr. Mahama 5:25 p.m.
No, Mr. Speaker, I have abandoned the “two months crusade”. Mr. Speaker, I see the problem. The problem is to impose punishment and the intent is that three months of a delayed payment is punishment enough. But Mr. Speaker, our fear is that if we leave it wide open it could be one year, it could be two years. But if we say for “at least three months” - [Interruption.] Specific? Fine.
Mr. Speaker 5:25 p.m.
Is it the wish that we take “for three months”?
Mr. Bagbin 5:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, somebody could delay for one day, somebody could delay for two weeks; somebody could delay for a month. So we cannot just impose three months on somebody who delays for one day, or for one month. That is unfair. That is why, Mr. Speaker -- [Interruptions.]
That is why, Mr. Speaker, the period of three months is given so that each case is looked at, on its merit. The person looks at it and if it is a day's delay he can use one week and pay; if it is a month's delay he can use three months just to get the person to comply. Sometimes delays could be as a result of some other problems that they encounter -- transportation or anything. So if you delay for one day, why should you be punished like somebody who has delayed for one month or one year?
Mr. Speaker 5:25 p.m.
Hon. Members, it is quite clear that we have the idea. The only problem is how to put it. That is the only problem.
Mr. Mahama 5:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the rendition the hon. Minority Leader wants to give, is too much - [Interrup- tion.]
Mr. Speaker 5:25 p.m.
Hon. Member, have I called you yet? [Pause.] All right, go ahead.
Mr. Mahama 5:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the rendition the hon. Minority Leader wants to give gives too much discretion to the Co-ordinator and it could be a source of corruption. Mr. Speaker, if you tell him that payment should be delayed but for not more than three months, it leaves it to his discretion to decide when within the three months to pay a person. Mr. Speaker, that discretion will lead to corruption. So “for three months”, if that is what we want; and so everybody will know that the penalty for bringing it even one day
late will mean that your payment will be delayed for that long.
Mr. Speaker 5:25 p.m.
Hon. Deputy Minister
for Energy, you come out with the appropriate clause and let us go on.
Mr. Hammond 5:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we said that the rendition should be this -- I am leaving the (b) out and to go to the next sentence. “. . . to the Co-ordinator later than the tenth day of the month”. I am skipping all of that to “in respect of the sales shall be delayed for three months”.
Mr. Speaker 5:25 p.m.
All right, this is the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mrs. Kusi 5:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 80, subclause (2), line 4, after “the” and before “Co-ordinator” insert “Fund”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 80 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 5:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, before the Chairman of the Committee moves her amendment - [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker 5:35 p.m.
Order! Go ahead, hon.
Minister.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 5:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
it is in respect of clause 80, subclause (1) and it has to do with the imposition of the fine and the value expressed in dollars. Mr. Speaker, this is contrary to our law. We are now enjoined by the Fines, Penalty Units Act to express fines in penalty units. So I beg to move, that instead of ten thousand dollars, we leave the expression of the penalty units to the
Mr. Adjaho 5:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I entirely
agree with the hon. Minister for the Interior. Indeed, this matter came up at the committee level and we did make reference to the legislation that he has just made reference to. But again, the Ministry of Energy and the draftsperson from the Attorney-General's Department told us that this is big business and that we are talking about millions of dollars and that it will be difficult to express them in penalty units to get the exact problem that we are trying to solve.
So I entirely agree with him because otherwise the purpose for which the Fines Penalty Units Act has been passed will be defeated. So I entirely agree with the position of the Minister for the Interior.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 5:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I think that from what he has said it means that we can leave the calculation of the penalty units to the draftpersons and then move ahead.
Mr. Speaker 5:35 p.m.
Yes, we will move to
clause 81.
Clause 81 - Offences related to transportation of petroleum products.
Mrs. Kusi 5:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 81, subclause (2), paragraph (b), line 1, delete vehicle and insert “bulk road vehicle”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Adjaho 5:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, add a new subclause as follows:
“The Minister shall make regulations for the effective operation of strategic storage including the involvement of private sector financing.”
Mr. Speaker, if you look at the amendments that we have done so far, we are now giving strategic storage to the Government and therefore the “Regulations” that would be made under this Bill would be under the hand of the Chairman of the Board. Therefore, if you make regulations for strategic storage, the Board now cannot make regulations affecting strategic storage depots. It cannot because the regulations now are limited to the other operational depots and all those things.
But the strategic depot that is being controlled now by the Government, we can only regulate it through the Ministry. And therefore, if we do not make such provisions for the Minister to make regulations, when there is the need for certain regulations to be made affecting strategic storage, there will not be anybody to make regulations in this country affecting strategic storage. Indeed, what I would want to achieve is that it will make it possible for the Minister to make regulations affecting strategic storage.
Prof. Oquaye 5:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if we refer to clause 25 (1) and the amendment that we also made accordingly and I quote:
“The Minister shall designate a network of strategic storage depots for petroleum products to be managed by BOST or any other body on behalf of Government.”
That any other body shall be as Government thinks fit -- This is not to bring in private sector financing or any other. It means that it will be stealing back into the law this idea of having private sector operators necessarily as part of this process. The Government shall consider what to do as and when. So Mr. Speaker, having provided for that under clause 25 (1), this amendment is therefore most unnecessary.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 5:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
when I read the hon. Member for Avenor's amendment, originally, I had in mind to suggest to him that we delete certain portions and go on. That is to delete areas and allow the Minister also to make regulations. But when I came back to look at the purpose of this Bill, which is deregulation and part of it is to ensure that we do not involve Government beyond reasonable limits within this industry, I felt that by giving power to the Minister to make regulations, we may end up getting an unnecessary ministerial interference.
It is only for this that I find it a little bit difficult to endorse his amendment. He should let us agree to put our fate in the Governing Board of the NPA which may make regulations. I am told that some private people petitioned the Committee on this issue but I also feel that when we try and bring Government more into it, we may end up politicizing some of the activities there. That is why I would want to suggest to my hon. Colleague that whatever it is, he should let us allow the Authority to be the master in this particular exercise. That is what I am suggesting and therefore if he could consider withdrawing the amendment, or maybe, we vote against.
Mr. Adjaho 5:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the aspect of the hon. Majority Leader's proposal that I agree with is that we can change the rendition. But if you look at the amendments to this Bill that we have passed, as far as issues of strategic storage are concerned, they have been taken from the NPA that we are creating. In fact, under the current Bill and what we have passed so far, the NPA cannot make regulations affecting strategic storage; they cannot. We have taken it from them. So who is going to make regulations? If the private financing and all those things should be taken, I have no problem. So who is going to make regulations concerning strategic storage?
Mr. Speaker, if you look at clause 82 it says, “The Authority may by Legislative Instrument make regulations.” It is not the Minister who is to make regulations. Meanwhile, we have limited the Authority to all other operations save strategic operations. So there is need now for us to make regulations affecting strategic storage. But who is going to make the regulations? That is the vacuum. If it is private financing which should be withdrawn, I do not have a problem; but who is going to make regulations now affecting the strategic storage that we have now put under the Government?
Mr. J. H. Mensah 5:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, there is some confusion between the power to regulate how the industry is conducted and the proposed contractual relationship between Government and any other entities to render a service for Government.
As far as regulating how petroleum products shall be handled, kept, moved, et cetera, the purpose of the Act is to give that job to the National Petroleum

Authority exclusively and not involve the Government in making regulations. This is the problem with my hon. Colleague's amendment; he is involving the Government in making regulations. Regulations are to regulate how the business is conducted, but in the case of strategic stocks there shall be a contractual relationship between Government, which wants strategic stocks maintained, and those who will render that service.

Therefore, the conditions governing that transaction shall be of a contractual nature, not of a regulatory nature. And therefore, if my hon. Friend would just allow the rendition as given by the

Minister; it said: “By BOST or any other authority”. In other words, they have moved the amendment to say that that function may, by contract, be performed for Government either by BOST or by any other authority, which means that any other person who is licensed to move, store, deal in, protect, et cetera, petroleum products.

Then the issue of private sector financing shall also not arise because the contractual relationship shall determine how Government shall recompense that agent for the service it would render to Government for the maintenance of strategic stocks.
Dr. Kunbuor 5:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the difficulty we have with the hon. Senior Minister's understanding of this issue is that it is a mile apart from the essence of what we are doing here. Why do you decide to describe a particular stock as strategic, and at the same time you want to leave it to the terms of a contract? This is because the very strategic reasons might require that you do not allow free interplay on what the parties would decide. So I think that we need to be very careful about leaving what we consider to be strategic, that we are keeping as a reserve,
Mr. J. H. Mensah 5:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, with your permission, you do not designate any particular stocks as strategic. There are stocks of petroleum products all over the country. The Government decides not to designate a certain stock as strategic but to keep a certain volume of petroleum products in store against contingencies of all sorts. Therefore, it is not a question of designating any stocks as strategic; it is a question of arranging to have certain quantities of petroleum products kept on a standby basis for national contingencies.
Mr. Speaker, when you decide that and you say it is ‘X' million gallons of premium petrol, somebody must pay constantly for holding ‘X' million gallons of premium petrol as our safety supply. But that supply has to be kept somewhere and it is in the “somewhere” that Government has to use storage capacity, and either build the storage capacity itself, ask BOST to build storage capacity which it would lease for the purpose, or use the storage capacities of private sector operators for the same purpose. It is not just designating certain stocks as strategic, but having certain stocks of petroleum maintained and paid for to be the reserve for the nation.
Mr. C. S. Hodogbey 5:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do not support the proposed amendment, because the moment we begin to give Ministers power to make regulations, a Minister with sinister intentions can make rules which would affect the country. He can probably make rules concerning strategic storage just to make himself popular and indirectly making the Government unpopular, or also -- [Interruptions.]
What I am saying is that a Minister with a sinister intention, regardless of the fact that he is from the Government side, can
Prof. Oquaye 5:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if the purported amendment is to bring in ministerial participation, that is already taken care of by clause 33 - “The Ministry shall monitor, release the storage of -” That is already taken care of. And if it is to bring in private sector participation, then we do not want that because that is the preserve of Government in terms of what is strategic reserve stock. So it is either superfluous or unnecessary.
Mr. Speaker 5:45 p.m.
Hon. Members, we may have to put the Question.
Mr. Adjaho 5:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment is informed by information g iven to u s by the Min i s t ry - [Interruptions.]
Mr. Speaker 5:45 p.m.
Hon. Deputy Minority Leader, do not be distracted.
Mr. Adjaho 5:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, my point is that we were told at the last meeting of the Committee - and the Chairperson or any member of the Committee can confirm or deny it - that the matter of strategic storage is now a matter for Government -- [Interruptions.] So it is not going to be under the operation of the National Petroleum Authority Bill. So I was wondering, if that is the case; and there is need to come with any regulation concerning that strategic storage, what mechanism do we use? Or, do we have to come back to Parliament with a Bill or something of the sort? Why do we not come with a regulation?

Indeed, all the things that the hon.

Senior Minister is saying and all those things, I believe they are absolutely correct except that if you look at the amendment, at clause 25, page 6, it is keeping the management of strategic storage limited only to BOST and no other person. And the term there talks about - [Interruption] - No, no, “the private sector”, I will delete it. Yes, I will delete that aspect.

But again the designation is used in that amendment which the Ministry brought and he is talking about private sector participation - [Interruption] -- All that I am saying is that I am proposing an amendment and then you will put the Question; and if they vote against it, it will be on record, and when the time comes we will see who will be wrong or who will be right.

So I am deleting “Minister shall make regulations for the effective regulation of strategic storage”. I delete all the other words and that is what I am doing, if they should now vote against it, I am all right; we will see who will be right and who will be wrong in the future.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 5:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I was just going to draw his attention. He quoted clause 25 and I thought he was using a version which is not the final version; we have amended that area. At that time, I know he was not in and that is why I thought that what he said that the hon. Senior Minister, in fact, was right when he said it was contractual -- And that is why I thought it was just right for him to withdraw. But if he is still not withdrawing, I do not think that I can say anything but just to say you can put the Question.
Mr. Speaker 5:55 p.m.
I think we have talked about this matter for far too long except you have something very special.
Mr. Bagbin 5:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we will need to make sure that we are
Mr. Speaker 5:55 p.m.
Please, you go ahead.
Mr. Bagbin 5:55 p.m.
It has been amended again?
Some hon. Member: Yes.
Mr. Adjaho 5:55 p.m.
What is the new amendment? [Interruption.]
Mr. Bagbin 5:55 p.m.
I am not yet there. Mr. Speaker, I am raising that because when clause 33 is also read, it talks about the Board - now the Ministry.
Some hon. Members: Yes; so the Question, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Adjaho 5:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have deleted the private sector aspect.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Speaker 5:55 p.m.
Clause 82?
Mr. Adjaho 5:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am withdrawing that amendment in view of the discussion we had today and what the Senior Minister said that the competitive bidding is going to be a permanent feature. And the use of the word “transparent” and all those things are there, so I am withdrawing that amendment, because the understanding at the committee level was that it was going to be temporary.
Mr. Speaker 5:55 p.m.
The proposed amend- ment to clause 82 is accordingly withdrawn.
rose
Mr. Speaker 5:55 p.m.
Hon. Member for Tamale South, it has been withdrawn.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 5:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have some proposed amendments, with your indulgence, to clause 82 -- then just a typographical correction on clause 82, if you will permit me. Mr. Speaker, clause 82 (2), with your permission - “regulations issued under subsection (1) shall be signified”. The word “signified” must be corrected to read “signed”. I thought that at the committee level that was the consensus to substitute the word “signified” for “signed”.
Mr. Speaker, clause 82 (h) and (p), I am wondering whether we should not delete 82 (h) which mandates the Authority to prescribe standards of performance for the provision of petroleum services.
Mr. Speaker, the statutory duty of prescribing and measuring standards is done by the Ghana Standards Board and I think that we should not create a conflict between the Standards Board undertaking this activity and the NPA; and it is the same for (p) - “. . . regulate the handling of petroleum products in the fuelling of aircraft”. My proposal is that it also should be deleted since it is competently done by the Ghana Civil Aviation Authority. And therefore, Mr. Speaker, I propose that (h) and (p) be deleted -- regulate the handling of petroleum products in the fuelling of aircraft.
Mr. Speaker, my argument is that in
making this there must be a mischief.
We have not been told whether there is a problem with the handling of aircraft fuel; we have never had a crisis or a problem in this country about that; and it is a special area which is being handled by the Ghana Civil Aviation Authority. So why will we empower the NPA to regulate by a legislative instrument and control what happens at the Airport? We should leave that to the Ghana Civil Aviation Authority. Therefore, I propose that we delete that and then delete the aspect dealing with prescribing standards. Mr. Speaker, these are my proposed amendments.
Prof. Oquaye 5:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is deliberate to put all matters relating to the petroleum sector under the National Petroleum Authority; and all relevant amendments are appropriately captured. And Mr. Speaker, this is to make the law clear, the Authority's parameters clear, and for us to know exactly what we are doing.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to aviation
and futuristic matters, in fact, the law must be visionary; we do not have to wait until we get the problem with regard to aviation issues, saying that has not happened before. We are looking ahead.
Mr. Speaker, we are therefore saying that the law must stand as it is with regard to these areas so that matters relating to this sector will be well managed, captured by the National Petroleum Authority.
Mr. Speaker 5:55 p.m.
Hon. Minister, what about this objection, the word “signified”, He said it should be “signed”; what is it?
Prof. Oquaye 6:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we agree to that amendment.
Mr. Speaker 6:05 p.m.
So the Question is that
for clause 82 (2), the word “signified” should be changed to “signed”.
Mr. Adjaho 6:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the amendment by the hon. Member for Tamale South regarding the Ghana Standards Board, I think we may have to look at that closely. Because at the committee meeting it became apparent that the NPA itself did not have the capacity, in terms of equipment and all those things, and they may have to do some at the Standards Board. They may have to do some even outside the country where the Standards Board has not got those facilities, and all those things. But when you look at the Schedule, where we are saying that now Standards Board -
In fact, if you look at the Schedule at page 37 of the Bill, “Repeals and Consequential Amendments”, we are now saying that as far as petroleum products are concerned, Standards Board has not got a hand at all in it; and the NPA has not got the laboratory, it has not got the facilities -- [Interruption] - Yes, they have not got anything; it is a new organisation. They are running into -[Interruption] -- Yes, it can be done outside but if the Standards Board has it here, why do we have to send it outside?
So I think that we may have to look closely at that aspect. And I thought we agreed, based upon consultation with the Standards Board - [Interruption.] I think that at the committee level, we agreed in
consultation with the Standards Board -- So in that case where there is the need for the Standards Board to be involved, then Standards Board would be involved; if there is no need for Standards Board to be involved, then Standards Board would not be involved - something to that effect. I just want to draw the attention of the House to it so that at the end of the day we do not create a problem for ourselves. I stand to be corrected.
Prof. Oquaye 6:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker there is no problem at all. What you have the legal authority to do, you can delegate or farm out if necessary. And in any case, it is also to be presumed that this capacity would be built up; it is part of the process of the National Petroleum Authority and they can hire, farm out, or delegate as they think fit.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 6:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would want to suggest that we read those subclauses, the two in contention. Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about petroleum standards; my attention was just drawn to it. We are talking about standard of performance, which is different from talking about quality, and I thought that, we may have to allow this to remain. But when you come to regulating the handling of the petroleum products, I believe in that area, we may have to listen to what he is saying -- that is, handling by the Ghana Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA).
But I am not too sure that we can create a situation where we have the GCAA at the airport, then we say that when we are handling fuel from the system into, say, the aircraft, then NPA must be there, I am not sure. So let us look at the two things that are being said, whilst I would plead with him not to call for change in the area of standards because it is not quality but performance, which is their area. In the case of the Civil Aviation, I think there
too, we may have to - You will then be compelled to have some Civil Aviation officers parading at the tarmac area, and I think it is ambiguous. So if we can come to this compromise, we may make progress, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker 6:05 p.m.
I thought we were going on. Hon. Member for Tamale South, I want to hear you on that.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 6:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I very much welcome the proposal of the hon. Majority Leader and, as a consequence, I drop my proposal for the amendment of clause 82 (h). But I propose that we delete clause 82 (p) - “regulate the handling of petroleum products . . .”; we should leave that to GCAA. So my proposed amendment is that we delete clause 82 (p).
Mr. Speaker 6:05 p.m.
Which one?
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 6:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we delete clause 82 (p) - “regulate the handling of petroleum products in the fuelling of aircraft”.
Alhaji Sumani Abukari 6:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I humbly want to add my voice to what the hon. Member for Tamale South has said and appeal to the House to listen to the hon. Majority Leader. He was an experienced Minister for Commu- nications who had handled these areas effectively and he knows what he is talking about. We do not want conflicts at the Airport. We should leave the Airport for the Ghana Civil Aviation; the Authority has no business at the Airport.
Prof. Oquaye 6:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, clause 82 (p) only speaks about regulations; it does not say we are going to handle. But to regulate the handling and matters with regard to the handling may require such
regulations as the NPA will lay down; then you act accordingly. So the handling must be separated from the regulation. The regulatory provision is that which is left to the NPA.
Dr. Ampofo 6:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the
compromise reached must be accepted because at the committee level I, in fact, raised this issue that the GCAA is the specialised agency that takes care of fuelling of aircraft. Otherwise, one would expect that the NPA would also regulate the fuelling of cars, the fuelling of ships, the fuelling of all manner of vehicles; but that is not the situation.
Once you regulate, it goes also with monitoring; that means that you must have personnel from the NPA to go and check periodically to see that the regulations put in place are being adhered to; and this is where the conflict might come. But as we are saying, GCAA itself is a specialised agency for handling the fuelling of aircraft; therefore, I also support the amendment that subclause 82 (p) be struck out.
Mr. Bagbin 6:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that hon. Members are not understanding the purpose of the regulation. What we are simply doing is giving authority to another body to prescribe regulations which would come to this House, as to how they are going to handle this part. So these regulations we are talking about which would come in the form of an instrument, will be before this House and which would be referred to the Subsidiary Legislation Committee; and in that document the Committee would be looking at the prescriptions.
It is another instrument that is coming before us. How do we intend to handle standard of performance? That would be stated in the instrument which will come before this House. How do we intend to regulate the handling of petroleum at the Civil Aviation or Airport in fuelling?
Mr. Speaker 6:15 p.m.
Hon. Member for Tamale South, do you go with the hon. Minority Leader?
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 6:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. Minority Leader but I still insist that we should -- [Interruptions.] In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to wonder why this one has generated a lot of interest. My view is that it should be deleted because it is a specialized area and it can be done by the Ghana Civil Aviation Authority.
Mr. Speaker 6:15 p.m.
Hon. Member, I just wanted your view on that, that is all.
Question put and amendment negatived.
Clause 83 - Interpretation.
Mrs. Kusi 6:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 83, interpretation of “BOST margin” delete.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mrs. Kusi 6:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 83, interpretation, add the following:
‘“Committee' means any committee established under this Act.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mrs. Kusi 6:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 83, interpretation of “equalization point” line 1, after predetermined, delete “point” and insert “distance”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mrs. Kusi 6:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 83, interpretation of “equalization point”, line 3, delete “BOST” and insert “storage”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mrs. Kusi 6:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 83, add the following:
‘“Operation storage depot' means a depot designed to hold stock of petroleum product for sale to licensees and bulk customers.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mrs. Kusi 6:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 83, interpretation of “Strategic Storage Depot”, line 4, after “requirement” insert “and is being held by BOST or any other company contracted by BOST”.
Mr. John D. Mahama 6:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that it should stand as it is. I do not know why the hon. Member wants to add a complication of BOST. The amendment
reads as follows:
“Strategic storage depot means a depot designed to hold stocks of petroleum products, and is an integral part of a network of storage depots with a total capacity to meet a minimum of three weeks' national petroleum products requirements.”
I think that is good enough.
Prof. Oquaye 6:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to strategic storage depot which has just been referred to, we propose that we leave out “a minimum of three weeks”. In actual fact, we are at present aiming at a minimum of six weeks national strategic stock and this itself may change with time, depending upon national requirements. So it will read: “. . . with a total capacity to meet national petroleum products requirements”, simpliciter.
Mr. Speaker 6:25 p.m.
So what amendment are you seeking?
Prof. Oquaye 6:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, “. . . to meet minimum national petroleum products requirement”, leaving out “for three weeks”.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 6:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, somewhere in this Bill we have indicated how we will get the strategic depot into being, so it is clear that it is either through BOST or any other authorized body. So to add this new amendment, to me, is superfluous. Again, if you say that you are going to put in minimum - Or you are saying that it may vary, then that is the more reason why you do not put in a period, and therefore the important thing is that it should be designated. You just do not get up and say that you have put up a storage facility for six months and therefore you are part of it; you must be
Mr. Adjaho 6:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, again, I am a little bit surprised. This is an amendment that came virtually from the Ministry. With regard to a certain minimum, I do not have any objection because once we have agreed to regulations and all those things, that can be taken care of. As the hon. Minister indicated, it could vary. So the regulation that he may make, we can vary it; if it is from six weeks to eight weeks or to seven weeks and he makes, that appear in the regulation for strategic storage, we can change it. Therefore, as I said earlier on, we may need the regulation one day and this is an area where the new regulations that he may make, we may want to vary or change it.
Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to include BOST in that definition, for very good reasons. BOST came before your Committee and made a very strong case as to why it should be so. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that they gave was that with the approval of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning and the hon. Minister responsible for Energy, they have gone to contract a private loan of over fifty million dollars. Therefore, if they are not mentioned in the Bill that they would be involved in the holding of strategic storage, how do they amortise that loan? They can decide to designate other people to hold the stock and therefore they might not be able to liquidate the loan.
Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. Senior Minister's submission that they can give BOST or any other person - It is in tune with the vision of the hon. Senior Minister. So Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment moved by the hon. Chairperson.
Prof. Oquaye 6:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if we may
therefore say “BOST or any other body”. as previously stated, and then we capture that. This is consequential to clause 25.
Mr. Speaker 6:25 p.m.
Hon. Minister, should we put this Question which is contained on the Order Paper? Is that the Question we should put?
Mrs. Kusi 6:25 p.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, it should be put as we have suggested.
Mr. Speaker 6:25 p.m.
What is it?
Mrs. Kusi 6:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, it reads:
“. . . and is being held by BOST or any other body”.
It is consequential to clause 25 (1). We have amended clause 25 by inserting a new clause so - “or any other body”, was added there.
Mr. J. D. Mahama 6:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, it looks like the hon. Chairperson is getting tired; she is moving away from - Mr. Speaker, if we say that BOST is relevant and BOST is still involved in holding strategic stock then I think that if it is any other body contracted by BOST to hold those strategic stocks it should be in order. My only beef is with “being”. Why should we put “being” there? It is superfluous; it says “. . . and is held by BOST or any other company contracted by BOST”.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the sense, as given by the hon. Minister, be taken -- maybe we would leave the final drafting to the draftsperson once we have agreed in principle; it is sequel to the amendment that was done to clause 25 (1). However, Mr. Speaker, I would want the hon. Minister to look at the interpretation. I believe we are talking about depots that are designated to hold stocks and not depots that are peculiarly or specifically designed. They are depots that are designated.
Prof. Oquaye 6:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if I may respectfully suggest a new rendition as follows: “. . . and is being held by BOST or any other body authorized by the Minister in line with clause 25 (1).” Mr. Speaker, in that light there is no difficulty at all - “and is being held by BOST or any other body authorized by the Minister in consonance with clause 25 (1).” That is my suggestion.
Mr. Adjaho 6:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have any problem with the Government or the Minister so far it is a strategic storage; I do not. But I also do not want the situation where BOST would be there; it would have the capacity to store, it is a hundred per cent state-owned institution, and then we ignore it. Whilst they have the capacity we completely ignore them and then go in for some other person for a fee. There should be some clause that will involve BOST in the process. That is all that we are talking about. Nothing prevents us from going back to have a look at that thing. The fact that clause 25 (1) was done does not make it correct. We can go back at the Second Consideration Stage and look at clause 25 (1) and do the proper thing.
Mr. Speaker 6:25 p.m.
Hon. Chairperson, let me have the amendment so I can put the Question.
Prof. Oquaye 6:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, insert “. . . and is being held by BOST or any other body authorized by the Minister in line with clause 25 (1).” And respectfully, Mr. Speaker, you cannot imagine a Minister undermining BOST against the national interest.
Mr. Speaker 6:25 p.m.
Hon. Minister, I just want to put the Question; I just want to know the Question and put it. That is all.
Mr. Bagbin 6:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the clarity of thought seems not to be coming from the hon. Minister because he ended up
talking about sabotaging the national interest. BOST is for the nation; a fully- owned company by Government and that is why they are given the strategic stock; and because of that they got BOST to go in for that loan. So BOST will now have to function to amortise the loan that it took as a government agency.
Now, if it is BOST that is giving out part of its function to another company, that is BOST; and BOST will be benefiting from it. If all is given to BOST too, that is a better alternative. But if there are fears that the capacity might not be there and they would need another company to assist, BOST should be involved in giving that out, but it should not be straight from the Ministry again.
Mr. Speaker 6:25 p.m.
My only problem is the Question. What is the amendment you want to put? That is all that I want at this stage -- Yes, the amendment?
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 6:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we moved an amendment at clause 25 where we agreed that we were not going to limit the management of the strategic storage depots only to BOST because we looked at other investment potentials in the area. So having done clause 25, that is why I suggested that we do not need -- and when I finish I will read clause 25 - to bring in more words.
Because, to become a depot we have already set the procedure for designating a strategic depot and what one needs is either BOST or any other body designated by the Minister. So all we needed to do there was to end up. That is why I said that we did not need all those things we are bringing. We do not need to mention BOST or any other body because before you become a strategic depot, you should have been created there.
Prof. Oquaye 6:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, may
Mr. J. H. Mensah 6:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is not about BOST; it is about regulating the petroleum industry. BOST is a company which, for convenience, the Government has established as a limited liability company to do some storage of petroleum products for the benefit of Government. Government is the sole shareholder. This legislation has nothing to do with the interest of BOST.
We as owners of the company are entitled to do what we like with the company, but we have established the company to hold stocks for us and therefore that is all that the involvement of BOST is in this legislation. So Mr. Speaker, let us take the amendment as we proposed, that we will store our strategic stocks where we want to. That is all.
Mr. Speaker 6:35 p.m.
Yes, the amendment?
Prof. Oquaye 6:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if we will please have the amendment as follows: “. . . a depot designated by the Minister in line with 25 (1)” - [Interruptions.]
Dr. Kunbuor 6:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am getting a little bit confused about what we are doing with this interpretation section because my understanding is that the interpretation section is supposed to clarify the meaning of words but it is now creating a lot of cross-references that make the meaning lost. If it were any other section of the Bill with cross- references one would understand, but it is clumsy legal drafting to try and do cross- references with an interpretation that is a clarifying section of the legislation. Let us try and find a better way of rendering and making it more explicit than these cross-references that we are making
- [Interruption] - The hon. Minister is normally paid to do that; I am not paid for it - [Laughter.]
Mr. Speaker 6:35 p.m.
The Minister for Energy is reading out the amendment to us.
Prof. Oquaye 6:35 p.m.
“A depot designated by the Minister”.
Mr. Speaker 6:35 p.m.
Those in favour of this amendment - [Interruption.]
Mr. Adjaho 6:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, before we vote for or against a proposal we have to get the meaning or the terms of the rendition. We have to get it, otherwise we do not know exactly what we are voting for. And Mr. Speaker, we are saying this because the amendment moved by the Chairperson of the committee is an amendment from the Ministry. In fact, they drafted it and gave it to us and we welcomed it. Now, on the floor of the House something else is being done. They are subverting what they brought to us.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 6:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, at clause 25 we gave an idea as to who can designate a depot as a strategic depot and therefore if we now come to define what a strategic storage depot is, I believe we can have a rendition like this: “Strategic storage depot means a depot designed to hold stocks of petroleum products and is an integral part of the network of storage depots designated by the Government” [Interruptions.] We have already said so at clause 25, please; I want to be consistent. And if you want to add its total capacity then it will be “. . .with the total capacity to meet . . .” Because as I said, I know that it will be by ratio whereby you may decide that this time it should be 6 months. If he is prepared to believe that then I want to suggest that the new definition should be,
“Strategic storage depot means a depot designed to hold stocks of petroleum products and is an integral part of the network of storage depots designated by the Government”. That is all.
Dr. Kunbuor 6:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask for your guidance because I am being introduced to some rules of procedure in this House that I have not come across. My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that when a motion is moved for an amendment or a substantive issue, what you do normally is to either vote for the motion or go against it, or come with a counter motion. But what we are having currently is multiple amendments and in the end we do not know whether they are motions or counter motions.
At least, for purposes of the records - Because except we are just doing drafting work here let us be very clear here whether the hon. Minister is moving a motion for us to listen to and debate at this stage, or he is not moving a motion. Or let us know whether the hon. Majority Leader is moving a counter motion or he is also supporting the motion of the hon. Minister so that we get it a little bit more tidy as a deliberative institution, please.
Mr. Speaker 6:35 p.m.
Hon. Member, you do not need any ruling on this matter. You have expressed, in fact, important views; no doubt about it. I would want to put the Question but I must know the amendment. That is all what I am asking for.
Mr. Bagbin 6:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, this is Consideration Stage, so the rules are usually relaxed and that is why the Mace is tilted. Mr. Speaker, the Question is the term “strategic storage depot” be defined to read as follows: “Strategic storage depot means a depot designated by Government to hold stocks of petroleum products and is an integral part of a network of storage depots.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 83 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 84 - Modification of existing enactments.
Mr. Bagbin 6:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, before we go to clause 84 I want to refer this to the draftperson. There is some kind of confusion in the definition. We are using acronyms, like LPG means Liquefied Petroleum Gas, but when you look at the body of the legislation itself, that is not how it is captured; it is captured as “Liquefied Petroleum Gas”.
Now, it is not right to start putting LPG in the body because you would always give the full meaning and so you cannot come back to the interpretation section and be using “LPG”, “BOST” and the rest. So the draftsperson should clarify that area and delete them. We have not said anything about it so they cannot capture it. That is why I am drawing the attention of the House to that area so that the drafts- people can clarify that.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 84 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause 85 - Dissolution of existing
administrative bodies.
Mr. Adjaho 6:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 85, delete.
Mr. Speaker, if you create a body administratively, you do not need an Act of Parliament to dissolve that body, because it was not created by law. If the body is created by law then you would need law to dissolve it or to amend it. But when the body is an administrative body, why do you need a law to dissolve it? It is administrative so you use the same method to dissolve it. If they think that there is
Mr. Adjaho 6:45 p.m.


a particular administrative body that they think they have created administratively and it cannot be dissolved administratively except by an Act of Parliament, they should let us know.

Mr. Speaker, other than that I do not understand. You create a body administratively and you want us to dissolve it by an Act of Parliament? It is never done anywhere. I do not know why we are dissolving -- You use the same mechanism, the mechanism that you used to create, to dissolve; and therefore I do not see why we are using this Act. Mr. Speaker, that is why if you look at the Schedule to the Bill, at page 37, certain areas that are affected by this Bill, have been amended by that Schedule. If you look at the Ghana Standards Board and areas that would affect them, we say we have amended them.

If you look at the Energy Commission, areas that would be affected by this Bill, we have indicated it there. If you look at the Public Utilities Regulatory Committee (PURC), aspects that have been affected by this Bill, we have amended them accordingly. So when we are talking about administrative bodies which have been created administratively, we use the same administrative mechanism to dissolve them. But if there is any particular body that they have created administratively and they want an Act of Parliament to dissolve it, they should let us know and we would respond appropriately. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that the whole of clause - I have changed the whole amendment in order not to waste time -- 85 should be deleted from the Bill.
Prof. Oquaye 6:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, this is very elegant drafting. Mr. Speaker, there is always a saving clause in such circumstances. It is to ensure that there is no conflict of interest, no lapses and allied gaps that may create problems and it is
therefore very, very worthy of being kept.
Mr. Speaker, as we are talking, we know that even under their very auspices deregulation had started and we have a National Petroleum Tender Board and other authorities, whatsoever, whether by law or by administrative action or whichever Act; they may be performing at any given time. This, for example, allows that it shall not affect an agreement, and also that there would be continuity of action. Mr. Speaker, it is a saving clause which is very, very necessary under such circumstances and it is very, well known and recommended in the law of drafting.
Dr. Kunbuor 6:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am
rather surprised about the defence that the hon. Minister has put up to save this particular provision. The argument that my hon. Colleague raised was that you cannot use a legal framework to dissolve an administrative arrangement. That is the argument that is being raised. And the effect, if you actually dispose of this entire section -- When this Act comes into operation, anything that is not provided for under the Act is of no effect.
He is confusing this with transitional provisions in which he claims that some acts were undertaken by an administrative body and you would want to continue even under the legislation. That is precisely what this Act is being fixed to do; that you now want to expressly provide for how actions can be undertaken in relation to this sector; and so to try and smuggle in activities that are otherwise contrary to the tenor of this legislation becomes very problematic. Whichever activities could have been taken administratively, good or bad, let them lie where they fall when this Act comes into operation.
I am surprised that he is saying that it is proper. This is not a continuity or
transition clause; it is actually a clause that seeks to dissolve. And what is it dissolving? What is the legal basis for what it is dissolving? If it existed in law the proper place to put this will be in the repeal section, but because it simply does not exist in law you are bringing it into the interpretation section and you refer to it as the dissolution. After the interpretation section you now open with another clause and you refer to it as dissolution of an administrative body.
Please, let us be very careful about what we are doing because this legislation is very strange as far as I am concerned; we have never had such legislation in the drafting history of this country; and that is why I want to see what the Minister is saying, that this is proper drafting sense. I am sure the draftsmen would advise us that immediately your interpretation section is finished and you repeal and savings are done, you cannot have any other provision that is not in the schedule.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 6:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity of talking to the draftsperson available and we seem to come to conclusion that the principle being brought by hon. Doe Adjaho and supported by the hon. Member, “the English consultant” is right, except that we may need to, somewhere along the line, grant some savings. There might have been some agreements signed admini- stratively with some bodies but we do not need this Act to dissolve any admini- strative body.
So we will try and go down somewhere and make a savings clause that any agreement previously undertaken by Government relating to this matter is saved; and where the benefits, obligations and rights are supposed to be saved they
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 6:55 p.m.


can be transferred to NPA. So Mr. Speaker, we delete clause 85 with that proviso, that we will look at it and see how we would save previous agreements.
Mr. Speaker 6:55 p.m.
I will formally put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 85 deleted.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 6:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, having saved that and if hon. Colleagues would agree, we have got the principle right. So if we can get the draftsperson to present the clause to save agreements that have been executed between the Government - Whatever machinery they used is immaterial, whatever admini- strative body they used is immaterial; any agreements at clause 87 - [Pause.]
Mr. Speaker 6:55 p.m.
Clause 85; further amendment - Chairman of the Committee.
Mrs. Kusi 6:55 p.m.
thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker - [Interruption.]
rose
Mr. Speaker 6:55 p.m.
We have put the Question
already.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 6:55 p.m.
The whole of clause 85 is deleted and what she is going to say would be taken care of when we reach clause 87. So whatever amendment she intends making, she should liaise quickly with the draftsperson and bring it under clause 87.
Mr. Speaker 6:55 p.m.
I take it that the whole of clause 85 - goes. Alright, then clause 86.
Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 87 - Saving and transitional provisions.
Mrs. Kusi 6:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 87, subclause (1) delete “may” and insert “shall” -- [Pause.]
Mr. Speaker 6:55 p.m.
Hon. Members, I am reliably informed that the parliamentary draftsman is coming and so we may have to step clause 87 down as well. He is coming with other proposals. We may have to take the Schedule now.
Mr. Adjaho 6:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to clause 87.
Mr. Speaker 6:55 p.m.
Which clause is that?
Mr. Adjaho 6:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, subclause (3) of clause 87.
Mr. Speaker 6:55 p.m.
Clause 87? May we await the - [Interruption.]
Mr. Adjaho 6:55 p.m.
In fact, it has nothing to do with the - [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker 6:55 p.m.
I understand the draftsman is coming with a proposal which may take into account clause 87 as well.
Mr. Adjaho 6:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thought I should move it so that if the draftsperson is looking at clause 87, she can look at it in totality because it really has nothing to do with what she is going to do.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 87, subclause (3), line 2, delete all the words after “licence”.
Mr. Speaker, it is my considered opinion that when somebody has a licence already, I do not think that - I agree that it should be verified; I agree that it should be certified; but why do you go and approve it again? Because, you have the licence and once it is not genuine, what ought to
Mr. Adjaho 6:55 p.m.


happen is also there. So there is no need to say that we should approve a valid licence that somebody is holding. [Laughter.] Mr. Speaker, I move accordingly.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 6:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we have had the opportunity of telling him that what he is saying is the best under the circumstances and therefore we do not encourage further debate on this. We shall vote on his proposed amendment.
Mr. Speaker 6:55 p.m.
Hon. Members, on the Order Paper, page 15, at the top, just after clause 87, there is a new clause “Amendment proposed - add a new clause.” Yes, hon. Chairman?
Mrs. Kusi 6:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, new clause, add a new clause as follows:
“Submission of Report by UPPF Management Committee
74. (1) The fund Management Committee shall submit a quarterly report to the NPA Board.
(2) The Board shall within fourteen days after receipt of the report submit the report to the Minister for Energy.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mrs. Kusi 6:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is (2) and
(3).
Mr. Speaker 6:55 p.m.
I did not hear what you said.
Mrs. Kusi 6:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we are lifting clause 85 (2) and (3) to be clause 87 (a) and (b).
Mr. Speaker 6:55 p.m.
Hon. Chairperson, I do not seem to understand what is happening.
Mr. Adjaho 7:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, clause 85 has just been deleted and we were informed by the hon. Majority Leader
that they will try and capture it and make certain provisions at clause 87. But we have to look at the provisions that have been made at clause 87. It is only fair to look at those provisions to see whether they are the same as clause 85 that some of us are kicking against, which has been smuggled in now under clause 87 -- [Interruptions.] Oh! sorry, which is being put under clause 87. I withdraw the “smuggle” - [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker, this 85, I think that they should get this thing properly typed and distributed to us. We have done a lot of work at this stage so I think that the hon. Majority Leader should do the proper thing so that we can go and rest.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 7:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we agreed that we were going to look at clause 85, having removed it as it is, but with the understanding that the (2) and (3) will be reworded. But the one that we were being told about, I do not think we have done the rewording. And that is why I suggested that we should continue clause 87, as he said.
Therefore, I was expecting the Question to be put on his and then having finished that, we would have gone also to the one we stood down, of which I am told the wording is ready and by which time we would have finished with how to reword the 85 (2) and (3) to become part of the same. But to carry it and say “the body” -- but we do not have any body. So if we can go with the Question on his and then gradually come back to this one.
Mr. Speaker 7:05 p.m.
Hon. Minister for Energy, this clause 87 (3), the second part - [Pause.] This was the amendment proposed by the hon. Deputy Minority Leader. That is at the bottom of page 14.
Mr. Adjaho 7:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have

moved it and I think you put the Question.
Mr. Speaker 7:05 p.m.
Yes -- [Interruption.]
No, I have not yet put the Question.
Mr. Adjaho 7:05 p.m.
Very well.
Mr. Speaker 7:05 p.m.
When you moved it, I
wanted a reaction from the Minister for Energy.
Prof. Oquaye 7:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we have
no objection.
Mr. Speaker 7:05 p.m.
Then I want to put it
formally.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Speaker 7:05 p.m.
Hon. Members, we
stood clause 70 down.
Mr. K. A. Okerchiri 7:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
intend to propose an amendment to clause 87 (1) (b). Mr. Speaker, as it stands, it does seem to be incomplete and it does not make much sense. So Mr. Speaker, what I intend to do is to propose that we add before “other” the words “in relation to”, so that it will read --
“The Authority may for purposes of this Act issue guidelines in relation to other transitional measures related to the implemen-tation of this Act.”
Mr. Speaker, I so move.
Mr. Bagbin 7:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, there is a
problem with the rendition there but the way my hon. Colleague opposite is trying to solve it is incorrect. I think that the (b) should come under (a). So we are not going to have (a) (i) and (ii) but the (b)
will come as (iii) because the (b) is flowing from the “and”. So it is going to read like this: “The Authority may for purposes of this Act issue guidelines (a) in accordance --”. There would not be the need for (a), Mr. Speaker --
“. . . Guidelines in accordance with the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663) for determination of (1) inconclusive tender processes carried out by an administrative body responsible for that tender p rocess ca r r i ed ou t by o i l marketing companies and other transitional measures related to the implementation of this Act.”
That is how it should flow. Then you come to clause 87 (2); but the way it is numbered is what is creating the problem. It should not be (b); it should be boxed into the other one. There is a continuation and so it should not be (b). There should not be (a); there should not be (b); it should flow through.
Mr. Speaker 7:05 p.m.
Then there should be (i), (ii) and (iii)instead of (b).
Mr. Bagbin 7:05 p.m.
“T.T”, listen.
Mr. Speaker 7:05 p.m.
Minority Leader, I did not hear what you said.
Mr. Bagbin 7:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I was trying
Mr. Speaker 7:05 p.m.
Hon. Members, this
is a point which has been made that we re-number clause 87 and instead of (b) we have (iii).
rose
Mr. Speaker 7:05 p.m.
Do you have anything
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, it looks to me again that the suggestion from the hon. Minority Leader is wrong. Mr. Speaker, the 1 (a) (i) is talking about inconclusive tender processes carried out by an administrative body responsible for that purpose. And (ii) is talking about a different thing -- “Tender processes carried out by oil marketing companies”.

So they are two different things; it is not one and the same. And so -- [Interruptions] -- Is that what they are saying, that we should have three? All right. I thought we were duplicating (iii). In that case, I agree with him.
Mr. Hammond 7:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, there
is a difficulty with the (b) even though we may want to remove it. But I think it is not this Act. We are dealing with the Public Procurement Act of 2003. It is the traditional measures dealt under which seem to me to be what we are dealing with. So it cannot be under this Act.
Mr. Speaker 7:15 p.m.
The Question I shall put
is that instead of (b) we should have (iii).
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
rose
Mr. Speaker 7:15 p.m.
Yes, are you going back
to clause 70?
Mr. Hammond 7:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the
same clause 87.
Mr. Speaker 7:15 p.m.
Clause 87?
Mr. Hammond 7:15 p.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we have indicated that we are going to take away (2) and 3 of clause 85, redefine them and properly put them under clause 87 where they belong. I am going to try a rendition. We looked out

for the draftperson this morning but he was not available. So Mr. Speaker, we shall try and see. I said that clause 87 (7) (a) should now read -- and I am taking quite a lot of it from clause 85 (2) -

“The validity of any agreement made in respect of a competitive tender process for petroleum products made before the coming into force of this Act shall not be affected.”

That is one.

Then the next will also be:

“The Committee in existence immediately before the coming into force of this Act and with the oversight responsibility for administering the payment or disburse-ment of moneys to oil marketing companies in accordance with section 73 (1) shall continue in force until the management committee is duly constituted and fully operational.”

This is the way I propose the two to be subsumed under clause 87.
Mr. Speaker 7:15 p.m.
Hon. Deputy Minister,
the problem is that if it is not properly formulated, there cannot be any proper debate on it.
Mr. Hammond 7:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we take
it again.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 7:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
suggest that we take it one after the other. So if he can start with the first one.
Mr. Hammond 7:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the first
one, clause 87 (7) (a) --
“The validity of any agreement made in respect of a competitive tender process for petroleum products made before the coming into force of this Act shall not be affected by this Act.”
If it affects it positively, there is nothing wrong with that. So it shall not be affected.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 7:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think I have some drafts from behind and if perhaps the hon. Deputy Minister will listen and then see if he would agree.
“Any agreement made in respect of a competitive tender process for petroleum products before the coming into force of this Act shall continue in existence under this Act”.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 7:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
while we wait for the draftsperson, I think that we can have clause 87(7). Then on what the hon. Minister attempted proposing, I propose that an amendment to the deleted clause 82 (2) can now read as follows:
“Any agreement made in respect of a competitive tender process for petroleum products made before the coming into force of this Act remains valid.”
Just leave it at that level and then that is captured as clause 87 (7), as the first item.
Mr. Speaker 7:15 p.m.
All right.
Mr. Adjaho 7:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have a problem with all the amendments either from that side or from the hon. Member for Tamale South.
Mr. Speaker, we should not just be giving validity to everything; we should not. The reason is that as we have seen in clause 87 (1) where they made reference to the Public Procurement Act, 2003, if those processes are not in conformity with the law in existence, then we cannot give validity to something that is illegal. If it were in conformity with the Public Procurement Act, then I would support it. So it should not be a blanket validity or legality that we are conferring on any Act that has been done.
Indeed, that is why I was very comfortable when I saw the rendition in clause 87, where they tried to link it with the Public Procurement Act, 2003. When they link it like that they are giving legal
validity to it; then you know that, yes, it was done in conformity with the existing law.
But when you just go and give validity to it without even knowing what you are giving validity to and you do not know whether it is even in conformity with the existing law, I have a problem in supporting such an amendment. That is why I am suggesting that let us get a rendition properly typed and then we discuss it and we approve it. I do not think there is going to be a big deal in that direction.
Mr. A. O. Aidooh 7:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
to touch on the point that he has just made, I think that the answer lies in the formulation by the hon. Majority Leader. It reads in clause 87(7):
“An agreement made in respect of a competitive tender process for petroleum products before the coming into force of this Act shall continue in existence under this Act,”
which means that its validity or otherwise would be measured by this Act. So that does not give it blanket validity. It means that that contract would be measured by this Act. That is what it means.
Therefore I would propose, Mr. Speaker, that hon. Members should accept this rendition, because it means that all agreements shall be measured by the tenets of this Act; and I suggest that the Question should be put on this formulation.
Mrs. Kusi 7:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, at the committee level, we discussed this at length so, maybe, we could add -- “Any Agreements before the coming into force of this Act shall be reviewed and validated by the Authority”. That is what we agreed on.
Mr. Speaker 7:25 p.m.
It is a problem.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 7:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I still urge hon. Members, that there is a very strong presumption that, indeed, before the coming into force of this Act, as it will subsequently be approved by this House, some contractual agreements had gone on. Even by the competitive bidding process we are aware that some local Ghanaian entities have won contracts to supply petroleum products. The coming into force of this Act should not necessarily affect those valid contractual agreements.
Therefore, as a safe clause, I am proposing that clause 87 (7) should read as originally proposed, that “Any agreement made in respect of a competitive tender process for petroleum products made before the coming into force of this Act remains valid.” Mr. Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 7:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to believe that we are saying the same thing. We can take his and I am sure the rest would be a matter of the draftsperson. We all get it that we intend saving all valid contracts, so I will withdraw mine and support his; and if hon. Doe Adjaho would allow the Question to be put, it would have been very comfortable for all of us.
Mr. Adjaho 7:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I agree in
principle that there should be a saving clause for agreements that were signed before this Act. But you know, in the wisdom of the drafters of this Bill, the inconclusive process was linked to the Procurement Act. If they are bidding processes that came into existence after the Procurement Act was passed by this House, then we must link it with the Procurement Act.
But if they are those which were done when the Procurement Act was not in existence, then we know that there was no law in existence regulating them; and I would have no problem with that. I do
not understand why they are not linking it with the Procurement Act. I am sure they had executed those before 2003, that is two years ago. So why?
Mr. Speaker 7:25 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader,
what are you suggesting?
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 7:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the answer before you put the Question, with due apology, is that there is always a presumption that all things that are done would be done according to the existing law. So it means if a contract was signed last year which should have been governed by the Procurement Act and it was not followed, it cannot be an agreement. It cannot by law be an agreement because it was not done in conformity with law. So if the NPA decides to say that, “Look, we do not recognise this agreement”, there would be nothing. That is why we have to give some presumption period and that is why I agree with what my hon. colleague Member of Parliament for Tamale South is saying.
This is because when you come and we show you an agreement, it is not an ordinary paper. You come there, the Member of Parliament would say, “Yes, what is this paper?” But have you forgotten that this is a type of document that should have followed this or that process and therefore it is not a valid agreement? So we do not have to try and think that people would have done what is wrong. We expect that people bringing in the agreement would have done it.
Again, his wording supports the other argument he gave that it is possible that some agreements were signed before the Procurement Act. So it is a question of the presumption we want to rely on, and that is why I want to plead that hon. Colleagues do support the -- I thought that the hon. Minority Leader would not get up. I thought that my hon. Colleagues would support what has been brought by the hon. Member for Tamale South.
Mr. Bagbin 7:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, yes, I do
not have any problem with the principle and the ideas initiated so far by the hon. Member and supported by the hon. Majority Leader. I have a problem with the rendition. It has not been legally put and I am just trying to proffer, in my view, a better rendition along the same lines.
Mr. Speaker, I am proposing that we rather substitute for clause 85 a saving clause in clause 87, in the following words:
“Any agreement entered into, in conformity with the existing law, shall remain in force and shall not be affected by the coming into force of this Act.”
Mr. Adjaho 7:25 p.m.
Yes, correct.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 7:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if I can speak for my hon. Colleague Member for Tamale South, I believe that it is an improvement and we can accept it and get the Question put.
Mr. Adjaho 7:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I support the new rendition.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 87 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Speaker 7:25 p.m.
Hon. Majority Leader,
what is now left?
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 7:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
thought we would complete the Schedules and put the Question.
Mr. Speaker 7:25 p.m.
All right.
The Schedule --
Mrs. Kusi 7:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, the Schedule, item 4, delete.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mrs. Kusi 7:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, the Schedule, under “extent of repeal and amendment” item 5, delete “(b)” and insert “(d)”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
The Schedule as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Long Title --
Mrs. Kusi 7:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, the Long Title, line 2, delete “oil”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
The Long Title as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 7:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if we have finished with the Schedules, then we can go to clause 70 -- [Pause.] We have to finish with clause 70 before we can go to the Second Consideration Stage. We stood clause 70 down and I want us to complete it before anybody can talk about any Second Consideration.
Mr. Speaker 7:35 p.m.
It is all right, let us go ahead.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 7:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the concern of most hon. Members was that we would not want to create a situation where the person approving is the same authority paying, and therefore the idea is to amend clause 70 (e) by deleting “approve and”, so that the functions of the Management Committee will be a question of payment - and to transfer the power of approval to the functions of the
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 7:35 p.m.


Governing Board.

This is what I discussed with my hon. Colleagues who raised this thing and they have accepted it; so if we can accept it that way. It is a straightforward thing that we delete “approve and” so that this will become “pay approved expenditure charged on the Fund under this Act”. It means they are not doing the approval themselves. So if we can put the Question then we would have finished and then we will look at the consequential amendment that will be relating to the functions.
Mr. John Tia 7:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is in line with what I said in the morning, that the Management Committee is under the Board and therefore it cannot be managing and approving its own budget and just paying out. So the Board should approve for the Management to pay. That is why we are saying that we should delete “approve” in (e) and leave it at “pay expenditure charged under the Fund under this Act”, because they are being authorised to pay.
Mr. Speaker 7:35 p.m.
So let us have it properly framed and we shall put the Question.
Mr. Tia 7:35 p.m.
Clause 70 (e), delete “approve and”. And it will read -
“(e) pay approved expenditure charged on the Fund under this Act”.
Mr. Speaker 7:35 p.m.
Are you deleting any other?
Mr. Tia 7:35 p.m.
No, (f) was deleted.
Mr. Speaker 7:35 p.m.
If you would want to delete that let us put the Question now.
Mr. Tia 7:35 p.m.
The (f) should be entirely deleted.
Mr. Speaker 7:35 p.m.
And then (e) too.
Mr. Tia 7:35 p.m.
We are saying that in (e), we delete the words “approve and” and then we rather insert after “pay”, “approved expenditure charged on the Fund”.
Mr. Speaker 7:35 p.m.
All right.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Hammond 7:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the (d), the investment bit of it, instead of the “Minister” it was suggested that it should be the “Board” - with the approval of the Board. That is the (d).
Mr. Speaker 7:35 p.m.
No, we are dealing with (e) at the moment - clause 70 (e). What is the amendment on (e), for the benefit of everybody.
Mr. Tia 7:35 p.m.
Clause 70 (e), delete the words “approve and” and then insert after “pay”, “approved”. So it will read - “pay approved expenditure charged on the Fund under this Act”.
Mr. Speaker 7:35 p.m.
Yes, that is it. Then in respect of clause 70 (e), it is amended by deleting the words “approved and” and inserting “approve” after “pay”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Speaker 7:35 p.m.
Leadership, what is yet to be tackled?
Mr. Hammond 7:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the (d) of clause 70 (1), instead of Minister - [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker 7:35 p.m.
Which clause, please?
Mr. Hammond 7:35 p.m.
Clause 70 (1) (d), Mr. Speaker. The “Minister” should be - [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker 7:35 p.m.
Is it “invest with the
approval of the Minister”?
Mr. Hammond 7:35 p.m.
Of the Board.
Mr. Speaker 7:35 p.m.
Hon. Members, 70 (1) (d), “approval of the Board by the Minister” should be deleted and then insert “Board”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 7:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, we will then need to have a consequential amendment to “Object and Functions of the Governing Board”; and I believe that it is not difficult. If we come to page 6, clause 2 (2) (q) after that, before we have the monitoring area, we can introduce a new clause that says - “Approve expenditure charged on the Fund under this Act”. So that becomes the function of the Governing Board. So after the first “approve”, we introduce a new subclause which will read: “Approve expenditure charged on the Fund under this Act.” So we are splitting the functions - approval for the Governing Board and the payment by the Management Committee. It is not harmful and I have agreed with my hon. Colleagues on the other side, so if you can put the Question.
Mr. Speaker 7:35 p.m.
Let met get it right; is it page 6 of the Bill?
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 7:35 p.m.
Sorry, that is page 6 of - which is the clause after 2 (2) (q) before (r); the (q) says “approve charges” and this one will say “approve expenditure charged on the Fund under this Act”.
Mr. Speaker 7:35 p.m.
That is the Question?
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 7:35 p.m.
Yes, that is the Question we want put.
Mr. Speaker 7:35 p.m.
It is 2 (2) (q)? Let us have the amendment, please.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 7:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment is that after clause 2 (2) (q) and before (r), we are introducing a new subclause that would read: “approve expenditure charged on the Fund under this Act”. We are only lifting what is in clause 70 (e) minus the payment. So it will be: “approve expenditure charged on the Fund under this Act”.
rose
Mr. Speaker 7:45 p.m.
Hon. Member for
Alhaji Abukari 7:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think
there is a little bit of confusion here. Under clause 2 (q) or the whole of clause 2, it is the Authority that is the approving body, but what we seek to do under clause 70 is to deny the Authority the ability to approve and pay expenditure. So what we are saying is that the approval should be done by the Board and not the Authority. Clause 2 (2) (q) is being done by the Authority not the Board, but under clause 70 (e), we are saying that it is the Board that is the approving Authority.
Mr. Speaker 7:45 p.m.
Hon. Member, we are dealing with (q) at the moment and not clause 70.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr. Speaker 7:45 p.m.
Are there any
outstanding matters to deal with?
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 7:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
clause 69 is a Second Consideration item. Mr. Speaker, I believe hon. Colleagues have worked hard enough, even though we know that what is left may be taken as a formality -- Third Reading. Leadership is of the view that the importance we have

attached to this Bill should be allowed to continue. There are about two or so requests for Second Consideration. For this reason, Leadership would not want to move motion for the Third Reading today, but on Tuesday. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker 7:45 p.m.
But before then, I must
announce the end of the Consideration Stage of the National Petroleum Authority Bill.
ADJOURNMENT 7:45 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 7.50 p.m. till 14th June, 2005 at 10.00 a.m.