Debates of 15 Dec 2005

MR. FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
PRAYERS 9:45 a.m.
CORRECTION OF VOTES 9:45 a.m.
AND PROCEEDINGS AND 9:45 a.m.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 9:45 a.m.
Correction
of Votes and Proceedings of the Third Meeting of Parliament, Wednesday, 14th December 2005. Any corrections on pages
1 . . . 21?
Dr. A. A. Osei 9:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, page 21,
motion no. 30, there is a seconder by name Dr. Osei Akoto. I do not know who he is. There is no Dr. Osei Akoto in this House. He is Dr. Akoto Osei.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 9:45 a.m.
Fair
enough, Dr. Akoto Osei. Pages 22 . . . 24?
Dr. A. A. Osei 9:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is the
same for page 24.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 9:45 a.m.
Same
correction. Pages 25 . . . 27?
Mr. J. Y. Chireh 9:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, my
friend, hon. Salia does not add “h” to his name so it should just be “a”, no “h”.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 9:45 a.m.
Pages
28 . . . 31? - [Pause.] There being no further corrections, we assume that what we have in hand is a true reflection of what took place yesterday. We come now
to Statements; hon. Majority Leader, will there be any Statements?
Majority Leader (Mr. F. K. Owusu-
Adjapong): Mr. Speaker, we can continue with the Consideration Stage while we wait for more hon. Members to come in.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 9:45 a.m.
All right.
We move on to Public Business then.
BILLS - FIRST READING 9:45 a.m.
PAPERS 9:45 a.m.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 9:45 a.m.
Hon. Members, I believe we move on now to the Minerals and Mining Bill. We were at clause 50; or is it clause 51? Were we
at 50?
BILLS - CONSIDERATION STAGE 9:45 a.m.
  • [Resumption of consideration from 14-12-05]
    • Mr. haruna Iddrisu 9:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, with respect, we have not exhausted the issue of clause 50 (2). It was proposed by our able hon. Colleague on the other side that a third clause was to be added but there was a problem about the rendition and the construction of that particular provision. Therefore, we should not be jumping to deal with 50 (3); we should exhaust that matter so that we know that we have a conclusively - [Interruption.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 9:45 a.m.
    We all
    agree that it has not yet been exhausted but we said it should be referred to the drafting office for it to be taken care of. Is that not what we agreed on?
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 9:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 9:45 a.m.
    Yes, but
    there was going to be an addition of sub- clause 3.
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 9:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, and then this one, the advertised one should read subclause 3, and it should come after subclauses (1) and (2). This is
    because subclause (3) in the Bill defines localization, so that should be the last sub- clause.
    But Mr. Speaker, the wording too is not very decent. Yesterday I made this point that “the programme to be submitted under subsection (1) shall be a part of the condition”. It should be “shall be a condition” instead of “shall be” -- I mean it is offensive to the ears and the brain. It should be “shall be a condition under which…,” then it goes. It should be “shall be a condition for the grant of a mining lease”, which then means that there cannot be other conditions.
    Mr. haruna Iddrisu 9:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    with your indulgence, I share the proposition but I think that the rendition could read as follows:
    “The programme to be submitted under subsection (1) shall be a requirement for the grant of a mining lease.”
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 9:55 a.m.
    In that
    case, it should not be a part of condition but it shall be a condition for grant of a mining lease, simpliciter. I think that is more elegant. Do we agree to that?
    Mrs. Kusi 9:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we have so
    many conditions that they have to meet so it should be one of them -- it should be one of the conditions.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 9:55 a.m.
    Yes, but we are not talking differently; what he is saying is that there shall be a condition that does not preclude other conditions. That is exactly what he is saying. Hon. Members, if you agree to that I will put the Question.
    Prof. Dominic Fobih 9:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, that is not explicitly stated - Mr. Speaker,
    Prof. Dominic Fobih 9:55 a.m.


    it shall be a condition is not explicitly stated in a way that will reflect the idea that it is one of several conditions for the issuance of a licence or the lease. It is subject to many interpretations in that context.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 9:55 a.m.
    Naturally,
    Prof. Fobih 9:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, that is what
    I am saying.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 9:55 a.m.
    So what
    would you propose?
    Prof. Fobih 9:55 a.m.
    It is one of the conditions,
    that is more explicit.
    Mr. J. Y. Chireh 9:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think
    that the rendition that has been given here is the appropriate one because even if what he is saying is the proposed amendment, we are talking about it being part of the conditions which is even making it a subsidiary to a condition.
    The rendition here is better because it
    just says that it is a condition and there are other conditions that can be required. But under this clause, it should be a condition; it does not defeat the purpose of the day; it rather isolates it and makes it a better rendition.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 9:55 a.m.
    So what
    is your position? Are you supporting it?
    Mr. Chireh 9:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, yes, I
    am supporting this and I am saying that I am objecting to the way he is saying we should make it conform to the original amendment. It should not be the
    original amendment because the original amendment is not too neat; secondly, it makes it part of a condition, but it should just be a condition.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 9:55 a.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I share the opinion expressed by the hon. Deputy Majority Leader. If you look at the Bill we have not categorized in one form the conditions that are required; they are interspersed everywhere. So if we say it is a condition it does not preclude others - [Pause.] So if we say that it is a condition, I think that it should be all right.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 9:55 a.m.
    In that case, the rendition proposed by the hon. Member for Tamale South (Mr. Haruna Iddrisu) should be the one that we should take, is that not it?
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 9:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if you
    look at clause 84, “conditions for the grant of a license”, it reads:
    “except otherwise provided in subsection 82 and 29, a licence granted by the Minister shall be in respect of the mineral specified in the licence and shall be subject to conditions specified in the licence.”
    That is why I am saying that we should have the renditions, whatever it is, “. . . shall be a condition for the grant . . .” and then it should follow, that is, shall be monitored by the Commission.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 9:55 a.m.
    Well, hon.
    Members, I will still say that in that case, let us have a proper rendition drafted by the drafting office because we are going up and down, forward and backwards over it; let us agree to a proper rendition drafted and then maybe, at the Third Reading, we will have the opportunity to look at it.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 50 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    C l a u s e 5 1 - S u s p e n s i o n o f production
    Mrs. Kusi 9:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 51, subclause (4), paragraph (a), delete “cessation” and insert “suspension”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mrs. Kusi 9:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 51, subclause (5), line 1, delete “cessation” and insert “suspension”.
    Question put and amendment agree to.
    Clause 51 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 52 to 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Osei-Prempeh 10:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, clause 61 reads: “The provisions of section 51 to 60 shall apply and be implemented notwithstanding”
    And (b) says: “any provisions in the Constitution.” Mr. Speaker, the Constitution in the supreme law of the land and by article 1 (2) of the Constitution which reads and with your permission I quote:
    “This Constitution shall be the supreme law of Ghana and any other law found to be inconsistent with any provision of this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”
    Mr. Speaker, what this is seeking to do is to set the provisions of the Constitution aside or make the Constitution subservient to this law; that is unconstitutional and therefore I think that that section should be deleted, that is the subclause (b), the first part. This law cannot set aside any provision of the Constitution. Mr.
    Speaker, I think it is wrong and I move that that portion be deleted.
    Mr. Chireh 10:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I agree
    entirely with the amendment proposed.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:05 a.m.
    Chair-
    person of the Committee, what do you say to that?
    Mrs. Kusi 10:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the (b) is talking about constitution, regulations, bye-laws and articles of association of any company; it is not talking about the Constitution of Ghana; it is not talking about the national Constitution.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:05 a.m.
    Indeed,
    it makes sense. Some do not describe their regulations as mere regulations and sometimes they describe it as constitution. So it makes sense; it is not referring to the 1992 Constitution.
    Mr. Chireh 10:05 a.m.
    Can we not avoid
    any conflict by removing the word “Constitution”?
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:05 a.m.
    No, there
    cannot be any conflict, hon. Member.
    Mr. Osei-Prempeh 10:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 10:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    believe that the concluding words “or articles of association of any company”, qualify anything ahead of it and therefore this rendition must be retained as it is.
    Question put and amendment negatived.
    Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 62 -- Radioactive minerals
    Mrs. Kusi 10:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 62, subclause (1), line 2, delete “section” and insert “sections”, just to add the “s”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mrs. Kusi 10:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 62, subclause (2), line 3, delete “surveys” and insert “survey”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:05 a.m.
    Hon.
    Members, this is very simple. The word “survey” should be used as substitute instead of “surveys” in line 3, subclause
    (3).
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr. haruna Iddrisu 10:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:05 a.m.
    Hon.
    Member, I think you are not being fair to the Chair, please. We are conducting it in accordance with the regulations here.
    Mr. haruna Iddrisu 10:05 a.m.
    If you
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:05 a.m.
    Your
    Mr. haruna Iddrisu 10:05 a.m.
    No, no. I am
    saying that I have a worry with the speed with which we are proceeding because the hon. Osei-Prempeh raised a fundamental issue - [Interruptions.] Let me state my position.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:05 a.m.
    Please,
    hold your fire. We are at clause 62. If you have the opportunity at the Third Reading and you want to raise an issue, you could do so, but let us continue. Clause 62 - Chairperson?
    Mrs. Kusi 10:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 62, subclause (3), line 3, delete “surveys” and insert “survey”
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 62 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clauses 63 and 64 ordered to stand part
    of the Bill.
    Clause 65 - Offence and penalties
    under sections 62 to 66.
    Mrs. Kusi 10:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, 65 - Head Notes, delete “66” and insert “64”.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mrs. Kusi 10:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 65, subclause (1), line 1, delete “and 63” and insert “to 64”.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:05 a.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, just to make it clearer. If she is saying that it should rather read “62 to 64” then the word “section” preceding it should read “sections” and not “section”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:05 a.m.
    So the proposed amendment should rather read thus -- subclause (1) of line 1 should read:
    “A person who contravenes sections 63 to 64 or obtains a permit by means of a false statement or representation commits an offence and shall on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding
    the cedi equivalent of US$ Fifty Thousand or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both.”
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:15 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the last line in subclause (1) is correct. I believe that it should be “. . .to a term not exceeding two years or both”, not “for a term”; “ imprisonment to a term”, not “for a term”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:15 a.m.
    What do
    you say, hon. Members? Is it “to a term” or “for a term”?
    An hon. Member: “To a term”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:15 a.m.
    Fair
    enough. In that case the word “for” should be deleted and in its place “to” is inserted.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 65 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 66 -- Powers of search and arrest
    Mrs. Kusi 10:15 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 66, paragraph (b), line 1, between “the” and “has”, delete “person” and insert “officer”.
    So it becomes “. . . who the officer has . . .”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:15 a.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I am sorry to take us just a little bit back. I proposed an amendment and upon second reading I realised that I was
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:15 a.m.
    You hold on. I will propose the Question on clause 66, after that we shall come to it. [Interruption.]
    Mr. J. Y. Chireh 10:15 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, on clause 66, if you look at the amendment we made in clause 65, where we changed the figure from 66 to 64, it is repeated here so I will urge that that too should be amended to read “64” instead of the “66” there.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:15 a.m.
    Which
    clause are you referring to?
    Mr. Chireh 10:15 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, under
    clause 65 we changed the heading from “Offence and penalties under section 62” to “64”. If you come down to clause 66 it still maintains the “66” so I propose that we amend it accordingly.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:15 a.m.
    Very well.
    I think that makes good sense. Do you agree to that, hon. Chairperson?
    Mrs. Kusi 10:15 a.m.
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:15 a.m.
    Fair
    enough. So in clause 66, for the last sentence, that is before (a), the words “sixty-two” should be “sixty-four”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 66 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:15 a.m.
    Let us go
    back in respect of which clause?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:15 a.m.
    Mr.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:15 a.m.
    So the
    rendition should change considerably. It should be “50,000 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years or to both”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 68 -- Suspension and cancellation of mineral rights
    Mrs. Kusi 10:15 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 68, subclause (1), paragraph (c), line 1, after “Minister” insert “or the Commission”.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:15 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I do not see the sense in the proposal being made by the Chairperson because if you say that we should insert “or Commission” after “Minister”, then the entire clause would read,
    “The Minister or the Commission on the recommendation of the Commission may suspend or cancel a mineral right.”
    Can she persuade and convince us on that? I do not see the relevance in that.
    Nii Amasah Namoale: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member used a word which I thought was too strong, that he does not see the sense in what the
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:15 a.m.
    I think it
    is an expression. What he wanted to say was the reasoning behind the proposed amendment. It is not that he is being insulting, so let us take it like that.
    Mr. Chireh 10:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment, where she is adding “Commission” -- The Minister is already acting on the advice of the Commission. In line 1, “the Minister on the recommendation of the Commission . . .” then it ends up with the “or Commission” again. I do not think we need that amendment.
    Mrs. Kusi 10:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the
    Committee felt that they are on the ground and sometimes they have to take certain decisions; for example, some false statements are made to the Commission which will even look at them before going to the Minister. So they can also ask the people to stop before they even take the whole thing to the Minister. That is what they made the Committee to understand.
    Prof. Fobih 10:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think we
    would maintain what is here because the proposal is inconsistent with the meaning or the intention of the clause. You would therefore, advise the hon. Chairperson to abandon the proposed amendment.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
    Is that
    your position, hon. Minister?
    Prof. Fobih 10:25 a.m.
    My position is that I
    advise the hon. Chairperson and hon. Members to stand down the amendment.
    M r. K y e i - M e n s a h - B o n s u : Mr. Speaker, having listened to the hon. Chairperson, I think the motive underpinning her own submission, the amendment is to empower the Com- mission itself to, without collaborating with the Minister, suspend on its own
    volition or cancel a mineral right. That is the principle underpinning what she is canvassing. If that is so, then we should remove the recommendation of the Commission because in that case, it should read,
    “The Minister or the Commission may suspend or cancel a mineral right.”
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
    No.
    Already the hon. Minister has suggested that the amendment should be abandoned, I think we should take that position.
    Mr. Chireh 10:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that
    the clause as it stands, should remain like that; there should not be any amendment because the subclause (c) -- where the person “makes a statement . . .” It is part of the Commission's functions. If the Commission thinks that there is some information down there that they need to dispel by issuing a statement, nobody prevents them from doing so. We do not need to put it in the law.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
    So it is
    agreed that the proposed amendment should be abandoned.
    Clauses 68 to 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 73 - Compensation for disturbance of owner's surface rights.
    Mr. Kwame Osei-Prempeh 10:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 73, delete subclause (3) and insert the following:
    “The amount of compensation payable under subsection (1) may be settled by agreement between the parties but where there is disagreement, either party may refer the matter to the Minister who in consultation with the Land Valuation Board and subject to this Act, recommend the compensation payable by the holder of the mineral

    right.”

    Mr. Speaker, the original rendition in the Bill was taken from PNDC Law 153. Mr. Speaker, what it means is that persons who want compensation cannot go to court until and unless they have gone through the Minister. I have had personal experience, acting for some farmers in my Chambers; I have some cases which dragged on for seven years without the Minister and the Land Valuation Board resolving the problem for the farmers to get compensation.

    Mr. Speaker, again that section goes against the Constitution. If I take you to article 20 (2) (b) of the Constitution, it says,

    “Compulsory acquis i t ion of property by the State shall only be made under a law which makes provision for --

    (a) the prompt payment of fair and adequate compen-sation; and

    (b) a right of access to the High Court . . .”

    So Mr. Speaker, if you put anything in the Bill which clubs the right of the citizen to go to court to seek compensation, it is unconstitutional. That is why I am saying that the rendition in the Bill which forces the citizen to go to the Land Valuation Board before he can get the right to go to the High Court is inconsistent with article 20(2)(b) of the Constitution. I believe that we have to make it liberal. So if the citizen wants, he negotiates, goes to the Land Valuation Board; if he decides that he wants to go to the High Court and fight for his right, he does that. Otherwise, that would be inconsistent with the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move and I hope hon. Members would support it.
    Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 10:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    perhaps this is the situation we need to be advised legally on because he is saying
    that it would be inconsistent with the Constitution. Once that is the position, then we can get the merit; but if that is not the position, then that is where we can move on with the debate. So if we get further clarification from him as to why it is inconsistent with the Constitution --
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
    I believe
    that is exactly what he said. He has pointed out that article 20 (2) (b) has it that you have a right to go to court and that right cannot be restricted by any law. This is definitely subsidiary to the Constitution and for that reason he is saying that we may be passing a law that will be inconsistent with the Constitution and he is proposing an amendment for your consideration.
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 10:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I do
    not accept the view that this provision is unconstitutional. I do not agree. Mr. Speaker, look at clause 27, for instance, it reads in part that:
    “where a dispute arises between the holder of a mineral right and the Republic in respect of a matter, expressly stated under this Act, as a matter which shall be referred for resolution --”
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
    You are
    reading from clause -
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 10:25 a.m.
    Clause 27.
    Throughout the Bill attempts are being made to look at solution of problems outside the courts. And Mr. Speaker, I do not consider that this is an infringement; I do not consider it so.
    Mr. Chireh 10:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I do not
    think that is against the Constitution. First and foremost, there is no administrative body that can take a final decision. And at
    anytime that - unless he is talking about his experience in terms of frustration, anybody who takes any decision at any level, the person can object to it and go to court and have the court reverse it.
    In this clause now, there is no indication that you have no right when you are not satisfied, or you have no other way to resolve the matter. Any of these people who is to listen to them and take a decision, would take the decision but the person who is not satisfied can go to court; and he is not prevented from doing so. So the clause as it stands now is not unconstitutional.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:35 a.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I tend to share the opinion expressed by hon. Osei-Prempeh in the sense that the language and tenor of that construction appear to make it restrictive and confine the person to necessarily follow a procedure. But beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I think we should also look at that construction carefully, because it says and I would want to quote -- I am referring to the original rendition -- that:
    “the amount of compensation payable under section 1, shall be determined by agreement between the parties but if the parties are unable to reach an agreement, as to the amount of compensation, the matter shall be referred by either parties to the Minister, who shall in consultation with the Land Valuation Board and subject to this Act, determine the compensation.”

    Mr. Speaker, the amendment proposed by my hon. Colleague also repeats the same thing. And in my view, that construction seeks to take away the determination of the compensation from the Land Valuation Board. It is the exclusive preserve of the Land Valuation Board and not the Minister. If we say that the Minister shall do that in consultation with the Land Valuation Board, then we are saying that the Land Valuation Board, even if they

    are consulted, share the responsibility of determining the compensation to be paid with the Minister. It is not so.

    So I think we should rather have it this way that it should be referred by either party to the Minister who on the advice of the Land Valuation Board and subject to this Act shall determine the compensation payable to the holder.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
    Well, that is your view.
    Mr. A. K. Agbesi 10:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that clause 73 (3), what is presently provided and what the amendment seeks to do are all on the same line. In my view they are all referring to disputes which will finally end up at the office of the Minister; thereafter, it is left to the aggrieved party where to go. There is nothing which takes the right of the aggrieved party from going anywhere like the courts or for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as the Constitution provides.
    So in my view, there is no difference except if we want to take care of construction; apart from that the purpose is for compensation and who does the final decision is the Minister in consultation with the Land Valuation Board. So in my view, the amendment is not necessary, we should maintain what it is provided for.
    Capt. N. Effah-Dartey (retd): Mr. Speaker, I am trying to appreciate the amendment proposed by my learned Colleague, hon. Osei-Prempeh. Mr. Speaker, if you look at clause 73 (3) which he is seeking to amend, his main basis for amending it is that he thinks that that procedure is laborious and that it can create a delay. Apart from that, he is trying to say that that procedure is inconsistent with the Constitution; that is what he is saying.
    Mr. Speaker, before we can appreciate what has been put here, with all respect, we must bend forward and look at clause 75. Mr. Speaker, when you look at clause 75, it has been provided there clearly that you can go to court, there is no intention to restrict your right of going to court.
    But we are saying that before you go to court, you must pass through some preliminary stages, and Mr. Speaker, I think this is very much consistent with the Constitution and I also think it is very much consistent with the attempts that we are making to promote alternative dispute resolution. So Mr. Speaker, if you think that you have a plot of land in Jinijini and that plot of land in Jinijini has some mineral right and the State is taking - [An hon. Member: Or Tuobodom] - Even if it is Toubodom, it does not matter - [Laughter.]
    Now if they have taken that parcel of land, we are saying that before you go to court, which is your ultimate right, you must take certain preliminary steps, and the aim of the preliminary step is to ensure that we minimise litigation. Of course, if you like, you can ignore it and go to court as you like. But Mr. Speaker, all of us in this Chamber are trying to promote alternative dispute resolution.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
    So hon. Effah-Dartey, to cut the matter short, what is the point?
    Capt. Effah-Dartey (retd): To cut the matter short, I am saying that I am sorry to disagree with my learned friend, and for the purposes of promoting ADR, the amendment should be dropped and what is in the Bill should stand.
    rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
    Hon. Member, will you allow the hon. Deputy
    Minister for Justice (Mr. Joe Ghartey) 10:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I was singing on the same page of his hymn book, but unfortunately, after listening for a while, I have to disagree with him.
    If you read article 20 (2) (b) and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will read - 20 (2) (b) of the Constitution:
    “Compulsory acquisition of property by the State shall only be made under a law which makes provision for --
    (a) the prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation; and
    (b) a right of access to the High Court by any person who has an interest in or a right over the property whether direct or on appeal from any other authority, for the determination of his interest or right and the amount of compensation to which he is entitled.”
    What it means is that the Constitution itself contemplates that compensation may be decided by an authority other than the court. But it says that if that compensation is determined by an authority other than the court, then the person has a right of appeal from that authority to the High Court.
    In this case, when you look at clause 73, it has given that authority - it is the Minister acting in consultation with the Lands Valuation Board. When you look at clause 75, it confirms the Constitution and it says that that authority, which is the Lands Valuation Board, if you are dissatisfied with it go to the High Court and that is consistent with article 20 (2)
    (b) of the Constitution.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
    Fair enough, that is your opinion.
    Mr. Osei-Prempeh 10:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I want to state emphatically that I disagree with all of them. Mr. Speaker, article 20 (2) (b) is a right, nobody has a right to clog that. Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that if we change the “shall” in 73 (3), it still means that the person may go to that, and if he is dissatisfied, go on appeal. But if you force me that if my crops are destroyed, I should go to a Minister for the Minister and somebody to decide before I go to court, you are clogging my right and the Constitution does not envisage that.
    Prof. Fobih 10:35 a.m.
    On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the provision in the existing law and the new Bill does not force any owner whose - [Interruption.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
    I will give you the opportunity, in that case it is not a point of order. Hold on a little bit, I will let you have the opportunity.
    Dr. A. A. Osei 10:35 a.m.
    On a point of information. Mr. Speaker, those of us who are not lawyers are confused. I thought on the Interpretation of the Constitution there is only one body that does it.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
    We are not talking about Interpretation.
    Dr. A. A. Osei 10:35 a.m.
    The argument about constitutional and unconstitutional - [Interruption.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
    I think this is not a point of order. Let him continue.
    Mr. Osei-Prempeh 10:35 a.m.
    So Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is this, we should remove the “shall” in clause 73 (3) and make it “may” so that if I choose, I go -- If it is determined in my favour, I go on appeal so that the right given by the Constitution is preserved. But to force me that if his crops are destroyed then the farmers associated with the district, who have waited for seven years now, do not get compensation because successive Ministers have not acted on it.
    The Land Valuation Board, after several years, has not done anything on it and the farmers are there. If they had the right -- The matter is still pending in Kumasi High Court. If they had the right to go to High Court they would have gone there to get redress and that is what the Constitution envisages, it does not place the power in anybody's hand to discriminate. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Constitution has shown the way; they have the right and anything to the contrary is unconstitutional. I thank you.
    Mr. Abuga Pele 10:45 a.m.
    I am not a lawyer, but by common sense I see reasoning in what he is saying. I know that when you get to court often they will ask whether you have exhausted all the procedures before coming to court for arbitration. So, if you compel the person to go through steps 1, 2, 3, then it means you are saying that
    until he has exhausted steps 1, 2 and 3 he cannot go to court.
    So I get the sense in what he is saying that we should substitute it with “may” so that you have the option. If you want to exhaust all the procedures in the Act before you go to court, you exhaust them and go to court; otherwise, you opt for court straightaway if you think so.
    Prof. Fobih 10:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, much as
    Mr. Osei-Prempeh 10:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    want the hon. Minister to clarify that. If the intention is to put the interest of the investor above that of the Ghanaian - if that is the intention behind it he should let us know.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
    Hon. Minister, continue and finish.
    Prof. Fobih 10:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the investor
    could even be the Government constructing a road to the hon. Member's town or my town; and if the Government destroys someone's cocoa crops or oil palm I do not think we are creating a situation for the owner to take Government to court immediately. So, I think for amicable resolution of any possible damage that is caused the process needs to be put in place to at least exhaust it before any court action is taken. Indeed, clause 75 takes

    care of any action that may be referred to court.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
    Let us
    have things right. Do you agree to what he is saying or are you making further amendment to what he is saying?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:45 a.m.
    Mr.
    Mr. Osei-Prempeh 10:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, he
    has proposed a further amendment.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
    Hon.
    Members, I am putting the Question on the proposed amendment.
    rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
    Yes,
    Minority Leader, do you want to say something before I do so?
    Mr. Bagbin 10:45 a.m.
    Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the position being taken by my hon. Colleague, Mr. Osei-Prempeh is not supportive of the Constitution. The proposal in the Bill is

    There is no law like that in our Constitution. The provision he is referring to talks about the right of access being taken away. But in this particular provision it is not taking away the right of access to the court. It is simply saying that if you want to take a claim against Government, you have to go through the Attorney- General's Department.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
    Without
    taking part in the debate, hon. Minority Leader, there was a time when if you wanted to make a claim against Government, you had to give notice. The Constitution has now made it clear, you do not need any notice.
    Mr. Bagbin 10:45 a.m.
    I agree with you. But I am saying that it does not take away your rights. It is simply saying that the first objective of any law is to try as much as possible to facilitate settlements of disputes. Even when you go to the court, the court itself will advise you to go and settle this matter.
    Mr. Osei-Prempeh 10:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I just
    want the hon. Minority Leader to address himself to clause 75 (3), which means that if we maintain this, a sitting of the Commission cannot invoke the original jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court can only exercise supervisory jurisdiction. Mr. Speaker, I believe that that itself is against article 20 (2) (b) - the right to invoke the original jurisdiction of the High Court. This is taking it away, that you cannot go to court, you have no right to do that, you cannot do this under this article.
    Nana Akuffo-Addo 10:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, article 20 (2) (b) talks about right of access. It does not talk about the original
    jurisdiction of the High Court. It talks about access to the High Court - plain, simple meaning is that you have the right to go to the High Court. It does not necessarily mean that you have to seize the original jurisdiction of the High Court.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, with respect, the hon. Minority Leader was on his feet; he had not finished. Somebody intervened on a point of order so - [Interruption.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
    Sorry, hon. Minority Leader?
    Mr. Bagbin 10:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe
    strongly that after these views my hon. Colleague will withdraw his position. I rather think that, yes, there is more meaning in the proposal of the Chief Whip of the Majority that “in consultation”, the way it is practised it is sometimes unclear. But when you say “on the advice of”, it is usually in writing. But “in consultation”, means I called him or I spoke to him - I consulted him. But “on the advice of” means that there should be some evidence of advice and they act on it. And the Land Valuation Board is a technical body involved in the valuations of lands in the country. So I believe that it should actually be “on the advice of the Land Valuation Board”. But my hon. Colleague's position on article 20 (2) (b), I think is erroneous.
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 10:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I have conferred with my hon. Friend. Maybe, I need some tutorials on this matter. Mr. Speaker, when we look at clause 75 (3) -- Or I may wait till we get there because I think we should have that subclause deleted.
    Question put and amendment negatived.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
    Hon.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:55 a.m.
    Mr.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
    What
    again? What amendment?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:55 a.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, clause 73. Now that this Question has been put in clause 73 (3), I propose that in line 4 we delete the words “in consultation with” and in its place insert “on the advice of”.
    Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 10:55 a.m.
    No, explain. You cannot just move it.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:55 a.m.
    I have explained adequately, dear Majority Leader, you were not in the Chamber. I have explained adequately - [Laughter.]
    Capt. Nkrabeah Effah-Dartey (retd): Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss as to the differences in terms of law or even in the ordinary man's understanding -- the difference between “in consultation with” and “on the advice of”. Because wherever you put the expression “on the advice of” it does not mean it is binding or it is compulsory for the person to take it. “In consultation with” is even more operative, it is even more serious. So Mr. Speaker, I think I would rather like it to remain as it is.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
    That is your opinion.
    Nana Akufo-Addo 10:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    think that the use of these words are ones that the courts have construed time and time again and it is now settled that when you say that something is to be done “on the advice”, it means that the advice is binding. That is the point.
    But then the real question is, is the Minister to be bound by the Land Valuation Board or is he entitled to a discretion? Because the thing that is written here is to give the Minister a certain discretion after hearing from the Land Valuation Board before he makes a determination. So what is the real issue? Should the Minister have a discretion after hearing from the Land Valuation Board, or should he be bound by what the Land Valuation Board determines?
    My view is that the purpose of this has to be facilitated by leaving the clause as it is and by leaving the Minister with the discretion after the process of consultation to make his determination. I think it facilitates issues and the matter then is not dealt with just as a purely technical matter. Because it is not just a technical issue, there are other considerations involved in the determination of the Minister.
    Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 10:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    I think the wording has got to be “in consultation with” and I want to explain, having got the clue that “in consultation” is optional and “advice” is mandatory.
    Mr. Speaker, we have lived in this country where for a long time our valuers used to do crop enumeration as a basis for valuation. In the crop enumeration theory somebody decided that we would pay you ¢2,000 for a tree; and what became clear was that if you took say a palm tree, you might have about 10 bunches on it and if the price was say ¢2,000 and you had 10 it means that for every year you were expecting to have at least ¢20,000 out of

    that tree.

    But the crop enumeration method would have been ¢5,000 per tree and that is what led to the situation where farmers had to collude with those who do the enumeration and instead of having 56 palm trees on an acre of land you will then have 200 trees and at the same time you would have pepper and others.

    Now fancy such a method has been used by the valuer and the Minister's attention has been drawn to it, you cannot expect the Minister to be bound by it. There have been a few situations where values have been challenged and therefore it has to be in consultation with -

    After all, the final decision-making, when there is trouble, when there is strike it is not the valuer who is going to be - he is only our adviser and they normally end their report, as I use to do, that in their considered opinion -- It is an opinion which is being expressed and the Minister has got to be given some position so that where he is not convinced of that advice, he can even seek a second opinion. So I do not think it is safe for this country to allow this to be handled just by professionals that way.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
    Hon.
    Members, I will put the Question on clause 73; we have really discussed this at length.
    Question put and motion agreed to.
    Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the
    Bill.
    Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 10:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    I would want us to put the Question again because it would be a dangerous precedent we are setting - [Inter-ruption.] No, I thought we had it.
    Capt. Effah-Dartey (retd): Mr.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
    He was
    persuaded to abandon it and I put the Question, let us make progress. Or do you still insist that we put the Question on your amendment?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:55 a.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, with respect, the professional and technical body charged with determining compensation in this country is the Land Valuation Board. Mr. Speaker, that is the true position. It does not lie in the mouth of the Minister, with respect, to determine it; it is the Lands Valuation Board that does it.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
    So
    you want a Question on your proposed amendment? Is that not it? [Interrup- tions.] You have abandoned it? Fair enough, let us make progress then.
    Clause 74 - Compensation principles.
    Mr. Osei-Prempeh 10:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    beg to move, clause 74, subclause (1), add a new paragraph as follows:
    “expected loss of income depending on the nature of crops on the land and their life expectancy.
    Mr. Speaker, the rationale for this amendment is that most often or at all instances when crops are destroyed, they just go and count the cocoa trees which were destroyed, put some value on them and pay that to the farmers. Mr. Speaker, so if I have a cocoa farm which is going to take me through my life for 50 years,
    it is destroyed and it is not taken into consideration how much it was going to last and the value of the crops as at now are paid to me, I will lose out.
    So the intendment of this amendment is that if they are calculating the compensation, they should take into consideration the life expectancy of the crop so that that is factored into whatever compensation -- And this will also take care of putting the farmer in the situation where he is. If it will take him five (5) years to construct another farm, that should be taken into consideration otherwise as the situation stands now and from the practical experience that I have, the farmers are always the losers -- the crops are destroyed, the trees are counted, they have been given ¢30 million and that is the end of it. It does not help the farmers.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe if this is done, the farmers whose crops are destroyed will stand to gain more.
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 11:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the amendment is well-intentioned but I believe it is not very necessary. Mr. Speaker, I say this because if you look at clause 74 (1), “Compensation principles” I believe that what my hon. Colleague is seeking to be added to the Bill is already covered by 74 (1) which reads as follows:
    “The compensation to which an owner or lawful occupier may be entitled, may include compensation for --
    (a) deprivation of the use or any particular use of the natural surface of the land or part of the land;
    (b) loss or any damage to immov-
    able properties;
    Mr. Alfred K. Agbesi 11:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment being sought for. In fact, the amendment introduced the words “life expectancy” and this is very necessary in calculating what the affected owner will suffer for years to come and particularly the effect it will have on his generation, his dependants yet unborn. I think that this is a good amendment which we have to support. I support it in totality.
    Prof. Dominic Fobih 11:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    think the amendment is well-intentioned. But looking at the reason for retaining the existing clause in the Bill, I think we need to explain why the present clause is stated and that is, in the order of things, the compensation that is paid for the loss of crops or the loss of property that the person has suffered. And if it is cocoa crop or it is an oil palm tree or citrus tree, it is just for some period, maybe, three or four year that the person is totally deprived from the earnings of his crop.
    The compensation is supposed to enable him to replant, that is to replace the lost property. It is during this short period which he really suffers loss of earnings and that is why the clause in the original Bill takes care of the loss of earnings. So I think that the question of the life expectancy of the crop issue does not arise at all in that sense.
    Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 11:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether my hon. Colleague, hon. Osei-Prempeh has looked at clause 74 (2); if he has looked at it, I think all his fears would have been removed. Because clause 74 (2) subjects this specifically to the Constitution, not even in generality but in the Constitution, article 20 (2) (a). And when you go to article 20 (2) (a), there is a known procedure for ensuring that you get value for money if you are not satisfied with the figures that are being offered to you.
    Mr. Osei-Prempeh 11:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, on a
    point of order. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the hon. Majority Leader has got it all wrong. We are talking of the principles at the basis for the claim, he is jumping to 73, that is there all right but how is it done? So I think he is out of order and he must be so ruled.
    Mr. haruna Iddrisu 11:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    I think that the proposed amendment is well-intentioned, but as rightly said by hon. Ossei Aidooh, clause 74 (1) (a) takes care of the fears of the hon. Member to the extent that if you look at (a) it reads as “deprivation of the use or any particular use of the natural surface of the land or part of the land”. Now his proposer even uses the word “expectancy”, that is the subjective concept; what about unexpected loss of income? It will be difficult to determine. I think that his
    Mr. Joe Ghartey 11:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, on a
    point of order. Mr. Speaker, I think that, as has been said by my hon. Colleagues, it is well-intentioned. But I hesitate to support it because it is strange, it is an importation of the principles of insurance into land law. This question of life expectancy, all lawyers know that it is not good when you are dealing with fatal accidents and so on. Clause 74 adequately provides for compensation and there is a buffer, there is a fall-back position.
    The Constitution says fair and adequate compensation; we cannot sit in this House and legislate every simple thing; we should give enough credence to the Land Valuation Board, to the Minister, and if it does not work, to the High Court to determine what is fair and adequate in the circumstance. I think that even though it is well-intentioned, it will be stretching it a little bit too far, so I would not support the amendment.
    Mr. Osei-Prempeh 11:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:05 a.m.
    We should read article or clause - [Interruption] -- of the Constitution?
    Mr. Osei-Prempeh 11:05 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    no, of the Bill. We should read clause 74 very critically. Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend said that it has been catered for. Mr. Speaker, if you look at 74 (1) (c) it says that in the case of land and cultivation, any loss of earnings or subsidy suffered by the owner or occupier having regard
    to the nature of their interest in land --
    Mr. Speaker, this portion is directly imported from PNDC Law 153 and it is the one which has been used. What pertains is that if your cocoa crops are destroyed they count the crops and just pay you; if it is 10,000 per tree they give that to you, it does not take into consideration whether you have to acquire new land and cultivate and so on and so forth. In fact, the land on which the cocoa is does not belong to -- compensation is paid for the land to the stool, to the owner of the land, they pay him for the crops destroyed.
    Mr. Speaker, this has always worked to the detriment of the farmer; we destroy cocoa farms which he has stayed with for 20 years, and on which he hopes to live for another 20 years, they are destroyed, trees are counted, he is paid and that is the end of it.
    What I intend to be put in the law is that the crops are looked at and compensation determined based on the duration of the crops and steps are taken to put the farmer in the position in which he was so that if the cocoa farm is going to last him for 30 years, it is taken that in the next five years he has to acquire land and put himself back to that position. But you just pay him and put him out of farming.
    Mr. Speaker, that is the position existing now and if we adopt this law as it is, we will just be repeating the injustice that PNDC Law 153 has perpetuated against our farmers for all this long . And I believe that it will be unfair to people who suffer. I believe hon. Members will see this and let us -- As hon. Joe Ghartey said, we are not talking of the life expectancy of the farmer but the life expectancy of the crops. Mr. Speaker, and I believe that it is right.
    rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:05 a.m.
    I did say that this should be the last contribution but I would allow you, maybe, a minute.
    Mr. Bagbin 11:15 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that my hon. Colleague proposing the amendment would need to look at other issues. He is being influenced by his case in court concerning cocoa farmers. We are talking about Minerals and Mining Bill for the whole country. I do not know the life expectancy of a shea nut tree or dawadawa tree or groundnuts. These are so many -- [An hon. Member: Hundred years] - Hundred years? -- [Interruptions.] Where did he get that data from? These are laws that are going to govern all the mining areas and there are mining areas in the north, all over the country. So we are going to have some difficulty in holding officials to implement a provision which is unclear.
    If you are talking about the nature of crops on the land, yes, anybody doing valuation and the rest would look at the crops on the land; whether it is cocoyam, whether it is beans, whether it is cocoa, you look at it on the land. But when you are talking about life expectancy, you are entering into a very difficult area.
    Mr. Osei-Prempeh 11:15 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, on
    a point of order. I am happy that the hon. Member mentioned cocoyam. If you are destroying my farm, a cocoa farm and a cocoyam farm, we do not treat each of them by, saying cocoyam costs 3,000, cocoa costs 10,000 and that is the end. Once it would take a year to make another cocoyam farm and once you could live on a cocoyam farm for one year and therefore you can pay for compensation for one year, you cannot pay me for a cocoa farm compensation for just one year or just give
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
    Your point
    is well made. Continue.
    Mr. Bagbin 11:15 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am saying
    that if they destroy cocoyam they would not go and pay you compensation for beans. Definitely, they would take the type of crop, the nature of the crop that has been destroyed - [Interruption] -- That is what I am saying -- [Interruptions] -- Clause 74 (1) (c), I am told, is taking care of that and I believe that the Constitution, talking about adequate compensation, covers all that area. You are just going to tie the hands of people into an area that is unclear - life expectancy. We use that actually in insurance law because we are dealing with human beings, so that if you are 90 years and then something happens to you and somebody is about 15 years, you look at that. But crops and trees, I beg to differ - [Laugther.]
    Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 11:15 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    just to add a little to what is being said by the hon. Minority Leader. The problem we have, when it comes to compensation involving farm lands, is that our people do not take advice from anybody. Let us take the palm tree, the best practice known, at least, in the area they cultivate palm trees is that there is a time when it commences yielding. There is a number of trees you can have per hectare and the life expectancy by studies, which is the useful economic life, is about 25 years.
    Now, that is different from the life expectancy we would get for another crop. But what we have as a problem in this country is that, we have never allowed this knowledge to be applied when we are doing valuation for crops.
    We have been restricting ourselves to only numeration. Perhaps, if the next time he is involved in that he should seek proper advice so that they do valuation instead of crop numeration, so he would not run into that problem. That is what is creating the problem - the technique being used. Because there was some time in this country, immediately the Budget was finished some public officers would sit at the Ministry of Finance and then they would declare a schedule in their opinion as to how much one must be paid when they fell one cocoa tree and nobody challenged it.
    That is similar to a situation some of us faced when we were at the NEPAD tribunal; leading businessmen in Ghana went to sign an agreement with one of the banks and did not take along either a lawyer or an accountant, so they ended up signing an agreement which said that immediately one signed the agreement one was to start paying interest even when the money had not been disbursed. These are not things you solve at law, it is the way the people seek advice, that is the problem and that is why I recommend that he should withdraw his amendment so that we can make progress. Otherwise, we would vote against it.
    Mr. Osei-Prempeh 11:15 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, with
    your indulgence I am happy that the hon. Leader has rather supported me by saying that our farmers always suffer because the right valuation principles are not applied. Mr. Speaker, what happens is that they are just -- If you go to Adansi, Sefwi and others, farmers are crying because these principles are not applied and if you are making a new law, you would take steps which would protect their interest. Not every farmer can go to Owusu-Adjapong and Co and say, “give me this”. But if it is part of the Bill or the law it protects the farmers.
    Mr. Speaker, I do not see why anybody
    who is minded to protect our farmers would object to that. It is harmless; it would rather help our farmers who cannot go to valuers to get their services. I leave it to the House.
    Question put and amendment negatived.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
    Hon.
    Mr. Osei-Prempeh 11:15 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it is
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
    Hon.
    Osei-Prempeh, do you intend to move your other amendment?
    Mr. Osei-Prempeh 11:15 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    have other amendments.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah Bonsu 11:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that we should have a look at the entire construction of clause 74 (1). I think the Committee overlooked it and it is my candid consideration that we should break clause 74 (1) into two so we shall have (1) (a) and then - [Interruption.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    There is already (1) (a).
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if you may have a little patience with me. If you look at clause 74 (1) (c), after (c) we have another clause, part of it that does not relate to (a), (b) and (c).
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    I see your point.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:25 a.m.
    So I am suggesting that we have clause 74 (1) (a) and then what is captured as (a) there becomes (i), then (b) becomes (ii), and (c) becomes (iii) and then the following, from

    “but no claim” becomes (1) (b). Then I propose that we have a reconstruction of that sentence.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    It becomes subclause (1) (b) and then (i), becomes (i) (1), (i) (2)?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu. Yes, so that (d) becomes (i) under (b) and (e) becomes (ii) and (f) becomes (iii). But then the (b) there would be structured this way:
    “Notwithstanding (1) (a) above, there shal l be no claim for compensation whether under this Act or otherwise”
    in consideration of so and so.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    I see the
    reasoning behind yours, but I believe this amendment, as you have proposed, needs to be done by the drafting office.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:25 a.m.
    I think so
    too, Mr. Speaker, to make it neater.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    So do
    it that way so that when we come to the Third Reading it could be introduced.
    Mr. Osei-Prempeh 11:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    beg to move, clause 74, paragraph (f), delete.
    Mr. Speaker, paragraph (f) reads 11:25 a.m.
    “For any loss or damage for which compensation cannot be assessed according to legal principles in monetary terms.”
    Mr. Speaker, my contention is that there is no damage or injury which should go uncompensated. What they are saying is that monetary calculations cannot be placed on some sorts of injuries that people may suffer, and if that happens the people will go without compensation.
    Mr. Speaker, nuisance is a tort. If you
    create nuisance, nobody can measure it but I can claim damages. That is why our courts also award general damages. If they are for specific reasons it is inferior damages, but if there is general damage, the court determines the compensation. So to put something in there that for certain cases of injury or damage you cannot get compensation because monetary terms cannot be put on it, I am at a loss about that.
    Otherwise, I would want it to be shown what kind of damage or injury that monetary terms cannot be put on it. That is why I am suggesting that clause 74 (f) as in the Bill is going to work to the detriment of people who would suffer damage. They would say, “As for this one, we cannot put monetary consideration and therefore, suffer the damage without any compensation”, and I believe that it must be deleted.
    Nana Akufo-Addo 11:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the
    Chairman of our Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs is making a big contribution to our proceeding but the latest one is really quite dangerous because what is being said is that if the assessment cannot be done according to legal principle -- When it talks about the thought of nuisance being compensated by damages, there are legal principles for establishing what constitutes nuisance and therefore, how you even evaluate the monetary compensation.
    But we are being told that we can go into an area where neither the courts nor any legal principle are behind the concept of damage and yet nevertheless some compensation should be awarded. That would be an extremely dangerous step for this House to take and I think it would be a good idea, Mr. Speaker, if this particular amendment was withdrawn.
    Mr. haruna Iddrisu 11:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    I think I support the erudite submission of the hon. Foreign Affairs Minister on the subject. The fact is that whether the clause is deleted or not the courts will be guided by legal monetary values in any assessments that they make. Therefore, this is not an amendment that we should encourage.
    I think that this amendment should fail. I stand vehemently opposed to it and support the position of the former Attorney-General. There is nothing -- Whether in thought or in damages, the assessment is always done with established legal monetary value. If you are talking about collateral damages or whatever, it is a monetary value and therefore I oppose the proposed amendment.
    Mr. Chireh 11:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I also
    think that apart from making it a dangerous precedent to delete this, we are not encouraging investment then. If an investor comes and there are no legal principles to determine the value of damage caused to anything, how is he going to be comfortable with our law? This Bill is supposed to make sure that we -- So I think that we should not accept the amendment; we should reject it.
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 11:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    will support the amendment if our hon. Colleague can give us examples of the kind of claims he has in mind and how he wants the damage to be assessed without legal principles and monetary terms -- if he can help us. Maybe, he has examples.
    Mr. Osei-Prempeh 11:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    thank all hon. Members who contributed, but my view is that they all support my -- If you go to court, if whatever you claim has no legal basis, how can you claim it? So there is no reason for that clause whatsoever. That is why I wanted them to tell me what kind of damage that you would suffer on which monetary value cannot be put.
    So there is no reason whatsoever for that clause and I am asking that it should be deleted so that if damage occurs, you go to court and you prove it. Instead of putting that in a law that -- It is general knowledge that if you cannot prove your case, if there is no principle for that, you cannot go to court. So what is the need for that? It is redundant; it has no reason being there, and I believe that it should be deleted. That would make the law cleaner and neater.
    Question put and amendment negatived.
    Clasue 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 75 -- Access to the Court in respect of compensation.
    Mr. Osei-Prempeh 11:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I proposed the amendment in clause 75 as consequential to clause 73, but clause 73 has fallen and therefore this one automatically falls. Therefore, I withdraw it.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Very well.
    Amendment by leave withdrawn.
    Mrs. Kusi 11:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 75, delete subclause (3).
    The reason is that the amendment is to ensure that the original jurisdiction of the High Court in all matters as enshrined in article 141 of the 1992 Constitution is not tampered with.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    What do
    you mean by “is not tampered with”? It means you think that subclause is intended to tamper with the jurisdiction of the High Court, is that what you are saying?
    Nana Akufo-Addo 11:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the
    provision of the Constitution in article 20 (2) (b) talks of a right of access to the High
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 11:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    with all respect to my hon. Colleague, I support the amendment. The effect of the subclause in my view is not to restrict access to the court; it is to limit the remedies available to the claimant. If you look at the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction, it is limited, it is not like its total jurisdiction and insofar as this subclause limits the remedies available to a litigant, and allows only the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction, I think that it is an infringement on the constitutional rights of the litigant and therefore I urge the House to support the amendment that we delete subclause (3) of clause (75).
    Nana Akufo-Addo 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, with your permission, the argument does not answer the terms of the Constitution. The Constitution talks of either direct or on appeal; it does not say unrestricted right of access. That is what it says - whether direct or on appeal and what the office or the law has done is to bring us under the ambit of “of an appeal”. That is not a restriction; that is fulfilment of the Constitution.
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the House is minded, in my view, by this amendment to grant both direct and appellate access to the courts and that is not constitutional. The Constitution says we may grant either of them. The House is minded by this amendment to grant both access to the courts to the litigant and I do not see anything wrong with that.
    Mr. haruna Iddrisu 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    I think that it is prudent to oppose this amendment and to let clause 75 (3) stand as in the proposed Bill. Because if you read clause 71(2) in particular -- We are talking about a review of whose mandate? The law vests some authority in the Minister; therefore, the supervisory jurisdiction is to review a decision which in the view of the Minister may be wrong because one cannot revoke the original jurisdiction at once. A Minister, through Lands Valuation Board, may have to do an assessment so that if a particular person was dissatisfied with that, then he or she could be invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
    Mr. Agbesi 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that
    I support the amendment. The decision taken by the Minister or whoever is not, strictly speaking, judicial for which an appeal lies to the High Court. The High Court has always had original and appellate jurisdiction, but the decision of the Minister regarding somebody's right which have been affected, strictly speaking, is purely administrative and the person affected has his first right to go to court for adjudication or whatever he wants. So the deletion of the amendment that is being sought -- Mr. Speaker, I support it in toto.
    Mr. K. T. hammond 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    I support my very good old senior, now the hon. Minister for Foreign Affairs. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the basis for that amendment. I am yet to read the clause in question. In the proceedings
    Nana Akufo-Addo 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, and
    on top of that, if it was the contemplation of the Constitution that the original jurisdiction of the High Court should be available to settle disputes like this, article 20 (2) (b) would not have been written in terms of alternatives. It would have been written, “either direct or on appeal”.
    The Constitution binds this House. If the hon. Deputy Majority Leader says we can fill a gap; there is no gap, the Constitution is very clear -- “either on a direct or on appeal”. And we have taken a decision to do it on appeal, of course, which includes the power to review a determination. There can be no contradiction on this matter and it is totally proper.
    Mr. Yieleh Chireh 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    think that it should be rejected because if you look at the particular subclause it refers to the earlier one which is talking
    about review of a decision. Now, nowhere in the clause is the ouster of the original jurisdiction of the High Court -- in that the clause we want to delete -- actually it is not necessary to delete it. It should remain part of this Bill.
    Mr. Joe Ghartey 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, let
    me say from the beginning that I do not support the amendment. But Mr. Speaker, in any event the argument has been made that the amendment seeks to, in the words of hon. Deputy Majority Leader, limit the jurisdiction; it does not allow the whole of the jurisdiction of the High Court, in his words. Mr. Speaker, in any event, article 22 of the Constitution is part of Chapter Five of the Constitution. Chapter Five of the Constitution is on the Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms. When you look at article 33 of the Constitution it says, regardless of any other law, and Mr. Speaker, with your permission I quote:
    “Where a person alleges that a provision of this Constitution on the fundamental human rights and freedoms has been, or is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to him, then, without prejudice to any other action that is lawfully available, that person may apply to the High Court for redress.”
    Mr. Speaker, this means that the process of the law is that, you go and see your lawyer; he decides whether to come under the Minerals and Mining Law or under article 33 of the Constitution. So the fact that this provision is within the proposed Minerals and Mining Law does not mean that you cannot exercise or you cannot seek the original jurisdiction of the court. You can come under article 32 of the Constitution and seek the original jurisdiction of the High Court. So I say that this amendment should be defeated.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Hon.
    Members, I think we should end it now -
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 11:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, just
    two short points. What my hon. Colleague just said, if it is right, then supports the argument that we should delete that sub- clause. But Mr. Speaker, more importantly, if you look at article 20 (2), there is the use of the words, “ . . . right of access to the High Court by any person who has an interest or right over the property whether direct or on appeal . . .” Mr. Speaker, the word, “whether” here does not mean “either”. In my view, the words used here, which are “whether direct or on appeal” do not mean - the word “whether” does not mean “either”. I would still insist that the use of the word “either” suggests that you can grant the litigants both ways of access. The word “whether” used here is no substitute for “either”.

    Question put and the amendment negatived.

    Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the

    Bill.

    Clauses 76 to 86 ordered to stand part

    of the Bill.

    Clause 87 -- Revocation of licence
    Mrs. Kusi 11:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 87, paragraph (a), line 2, after “term” delete “and” and insert “or”
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:45 a.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, with respect if the Chairman of the Committee could justify the amendment because I do not seem to understand why the deletion of the word “and”.
    Mrs. Kusi 11:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the amend-
    ment is to ensure that revocation is applicable if the holder contravenes either the terms or the conditions of his or her licence.
    Mr. Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon. Majority Chief
    Whip, are you satisfied?
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 87 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clauses 88 and 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 90 -- Establishment of District office of the Commission.
    Mrs. Kusi 11:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 90, Head Notes, delete “Officers” and insert “Offices”. It is just a typographical error.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mrs. Kusi 11:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,
    that clause 90, subclause (2), line 2, delete “Comiission” and insert “Commission”. It has been spelt wrongly.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mrs. Kusi 11:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 90, subclause (3), add paragraph (2) (e) as follows: “(e) facilitate the formation of Small Scale Miners Associations”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon.
    Chairperson, do you have any reason for that?
    Mrs. Kusi 11:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we would want the Small Scale Miners Associations
    Mr. Kyei- Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, with respect, what the hon. Chairperson said, I think the intention is all right but then the new proposals that she formulated that small should begin with capital “S”, scale should begin with capital “S”, miners with capital “M” and association with capital “A” means that there is a body called Small Scale Miners Association; there is no such body; we are encouraging the formation of small scale miners associations in which case they should all be small letters and not capital letters.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Is that agreeable? Fair enough. This means that “small scale miners association” should be in small letters.
    Mr. Joe Ghartey 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, there is a strong feeling amongst us the back- benchers, headed by the Chairman of the Committee, that it should be “asso- ciations” instead of “association”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Fair enough. I have already put the Question on clause 90 and so let us make progress.
    Clauses 91 to 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 95 -- Use of explosives
    prohibited.
    Mrs. Kusi 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 95, Head Notes, delete “prohibited”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 95 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 96 - ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 97 - Sale of minerals.
    Mrs. Kusi 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 97, subclause (1), line 2, delete “by the Minister”.
    Mr. Speaker, it should read as follows 11:55 a.m.
    “Rules and regulations as prescribed . . .” and so we should insert “as” before the “prescribed” and then we delete “by the Minister”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, with respect, if in clause 97 (1) they are saying we should delete “by the Minister”, perhaps because it is superfluous, then the same should apply to clause 97 (3) because the prescription of regulations is done by the Minister. I suppose that is why - [Interruption.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    You have a point there.
    Mr. Yieleh Chireh 11:55 a.m.
    I will further suggest that we should say “as prescribed by law” instead of - “by the Minister”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    No, the first one should not be, the first one is all right; it is only the second one - “as prescribed by law”. We are talking about clause 97 (3), that shipment of all diamond to and from the country shall be subject to rules and regulations as prescribed. But “the rules and regulations” are there and so we should forget about “rules and regulations”.
    Mrs. Kusi 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, in the interpretation column, “prescribe” means “prescribe by regulations”, that is why we did that.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Then what do you say to the proposed amendment by hon. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I said that to be consistent - [Interruption.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    When you add the words “as prescribed” it is all right, but when you say “as prescribed by law” -
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think “as prescribed” should be all right.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 97 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 98 - Sale of jewellery.
    Mrs. Kusi 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 98 delete the whole clause and insert the following:
    “(1) Nothing precludes a person from disposing of his or her jewellery to authorized dealers or another person.
    (2) A person shall dispose of gold artifact or gold coin to only authorized dealers.”
    Dr. A. A. Osei 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I want an explanation on the second part, at least, because I am not too sure why if I have a gold artifact you would want me to sell it to only an authorized dealer, if it is my personal property. Is there a rationale for this?
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Yes, hon. Minister, can you explain? If I have a jewellery and I want to sell it to my brother, because he is not a dealer I should not sell it to him?
    rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Yes, hon. Member for Tamale South, do you want to hold brief for the Minister?
    Mr. haruna Iddrisu 11:55 a.m.
    Yes, Mr. Speaker,
    I want to hold brief and then assure the hon. Deputy Minister for Finance and Economic Planning that it is in his own interest that he should deal with authorized dealers because in the event of a “419” which is mostly associated with jewels -- most people use fake jewels to sell to other people -- your right of claiming it back is better guaranteed if you dealt with an authorized dealer. That is the essence of the proposed amendment.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Yes, I
    think your question is still not answered.
    Mr. Joe Ghartey 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, what
    my hon. Friend opposite said, I am sure he is aware of the principle of caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. And so if I decide to sell something to my brother or somebody else and I am duped, that is my business.
    But the question that he asked was that -- and I agree with the question and I think
    that this part of the amendment should not be allowed -- why should we deal only with authorized dealers? If I want to sell it to my brother or a friend, do I have to sell it first to an authorized dealer who will then bring it to my brother? In the process I will lose value, commission will be taken, I will lose money, time will be taken and so I think that it is a little restrictive, our laws are clear, they protect people and the principle of caveat emptor applies.
    Mrs. Kusi 12:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we want as many people as possible to bring ideas here because that was what we agreed upon at the Committee.
    Alhaji A. B. Sorogho 12:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether we are only referring to (2), because the fear that is being expressed by my hon. Colleague, Dr. Akoto Osei has been taken care of under (1). Because if you look at (1), the amendment that we are proposing, it says that nothing precludes a person from disposing of his or her jewellery to authorised dealers or another person.
    Then we go down - [Interruption] -- Yes, just a moment, why is he jumping? I think Mr. Speaker has not given him - [Interruption] -- And if you go to (2), it talks of artifacts. We at the committee level discussed it and realised that it was necessary in the interest of those who possess them to deal directly with authorised dealers rather than persons.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    It makes eminent sense, hon. Members, that when you are dealing with artifacts in all countries, you deal directly with those who are authorised to do so. Indeed, it saves your own country's artifacts and so forth, gold coins particularly; so it makes sense.
    Mr. Yieleh Chireh 12:05 p.m.
    My contribution is that as lawmakers we should be encouraging people we can easily identify and tax and also provide employment. So in my view, if you encourage people to sell to authorised dealers, then you have a way of finding out. Again, if you look at the issue of artifacts, they are things that we are talking about which are valued things, which have something to do with our culture. And therefore we should not just encourage these things to be disposed of to anybody at anytime but to authorised dealers whom we can at any point have a hold on for what is going on. For the purposes, I think that we should retain it.
    Mr. P. C. Appiah-Ofori 12:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister or the Committee derives that authority from section 3 of the Exchange Control Act, 1961 - it says such items should be disposed of to only authorised dealers. So it looks as if they were trying to replicate this in the law; I have it here.
    Dr. A. A. Osei 12:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, my senior colleague, hon. P. C. Appiah-Ofori may be finding a way to save the Committee, but I just want to be advised. If I have my personal artifact and he is my brother and you are barring me from selling it to him, I do not see how you can do that. It is not right. A national artifact, maybe; but a personal one and you are barring me? - [Interruptions.] The Committee must do better than this. There may be a reason but so far they have not - [Interruptions.]
    Mr. Kenneth Dzirasah 12:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, there are various means of disposing of property. You can dispose of property by way of gift; why should I, if I intend giving out my gold coin to somebody as a gift, pass through an authorised dealer? I think it is overloaded.
    Ms. Christine Churcher 12:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the amendment is an unnecessary one
    Mr. Albert Kan-Dapaah 12:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think it obviously was a mistake on somebody's part. Somebody might have interpreted “dispose” to mean only selling and that is why I think this confusion came about. But “dispose” does not only mean selling; I can dispose of my property to my son. And do I have to go through an agent before I dispose of it to my son? So I think the amendment is not properly put at this point in time.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    I believe the Committee has not been given the opportunity to explain itself. Indeed, there is a very good reason for proposing that amendment.
    Mrs. Kusi 12:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    You withdraw it? - [Pause.] I am disappointed.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, my worry is that artifacts are not only in gold - [Interruption.] But Mr. Speaker, I am reliably informed - [Interruption.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon. Member, what are you talking about? Because she has wi thdrawn the amendment.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it is something different. Mr. Speaker, I am reliably informed that gold
    coins are manufactured by the State and they belong to the State. Mr. Speaker, so I thought that perhaps the intendment of this law was to disallow people who find it in their custody from disposing of them as they wish. If that is true then perhaps we have to look at it again. But as I said, I do not think that artifacts are only in gold. But if that one is true, then we may have to find a way to capture that sense in the Bill.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Indeed, it is not only gold - even all artifacts, when you are exporting them they will not allow you unless you have some cover from the museums. Indeed, it is not just that you dispose of it; I believe that is why they want to introduce it but it is not very elegant; they should give reasons.
    Mr. Osafo-Maafo 12:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, gold coins and these coins of commemoration are made by Central Banks and they are bought. They are to commemorate occasions and they become your property when you buy them. Therefore, once they become your property, you must have the right to dispose of them whether as gifts or whatever. So gold coin is not a private matter; the state issues them out to commemorate an occasion but they are meant for sale; so I think it is all right.
    Mr. First Deputy speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Finally, hon. Minister for Environment and Science?
    Ms. Churcher 12:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I wanted to know from hon. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu whether if I have gold coins and I decide to give them to my daughter, Ewurasi and I go to a gold dealer - [Interruption.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    We have passed that stage now. Hon. Members, I will put the Question on - which amendment? The amendment is in two parts and I believe that it is only the part
    2 that is withdrawn. Hon. Chairperson, your amendment is in two parts, are you withdrawing the two?
    Mrs. Kusi 12:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the original clause in the Bill takes care of the (1), so we would withdraw both and then go to the original.
    Question put and motion agreed to.
    Clause 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 99 to 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 102 - Functions of the Inspectorate Division.
    Mrs. Kusi 12:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 102, subclause (2), line 1, delete “of Mines” and insert “Division”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mrs. Kusi 12:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 102, subclause (2), line 2, delete “department” and insert “division”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 102 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 103 to 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 110 - Regulation.
    Mrs. Kusi 12:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 110, subclause (1), line 2, delete “better carrying into effect of this Act” and insert “purpose of giving effect
    Mrs. Kusi 12:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 110, subclause (2), paragraph (h), line 3, after “for” delete “the taking” and insert “sampling”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mrs. Kusi 12:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 110, add a new paragraph (w) as follows:
    “a holder of a mining right, in consultation with the Minister responsible for Mines, shall provide a percentage of its earnings as may be prescribed by Regulation under this Act for community develop- ment.”
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 12:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker - [Interruption.]
    Mrs. Kusi 12:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, that amendment was proposed by the Vice- Chairman of the Committee. It has been repeated, this one is wrong. The Committee did not propose that.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    What are you saying? That it is not your amendment?
    Mrs. Kusi 12:15 p.m.
    Yes, Mr. Speaker. It has been erroneously produced here. But it was not the Committee that suggested this amendment so it is -[Interruption.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Who proposed the amendment, the Vice- Chairman?
    Mrs. Kusi 12:15 p.m.
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Edward M. Ennin 12:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw and substitute it with
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    You mean you are no more pushing for this and you are proposing a new one?
    Mr. Ennin 12:15 p.m.
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    You must give us notice because it is a very lengthy proposal.
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 12:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, he is talking about the same amendment but the wording here does not fit. Look at clause 110 and you cannot fit this wording there. What he has done is to restructure the wording to make it fit under regulations. So it is the same thing. It is only the wording that has been recast.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    So, what I am saying is that his proposed amendment may be very reasonable but he is reading it and it is a little lengthy; I wish he could have made all of us have the benefit of what he is reading unless you have it. But that is not exactly what we have on the Order Paper - [Interruptions.] Are you with me? You want to push that amendment. Fair enough. What amendment is it? First of all read it and let us hear.
    Mr. Ennin 12:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that a new clause be added to clause 110 of the Bill as follows:
    “A holder of a mining right shall in consultation with the Minister responsible for Mines provide a percentage of its earnings as may be prescribed by regulations under this Act for community development.”

    Mr. Speaker, the reason for this

    proposed amendment is that, as we are all aware, the natural resources are located in specific areas of the country and the lands in which these resources are located belong to the communities, and as such, such communities should benefit from such resources. Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that some of the mining companies do support the communities by providing housing, schools and clinics, but some do not because they think they should do it voluntarily.

    Mr. Speaker, in Nigeria communities where crude oil is drilled have some special percentage of the proceeds from oil exported from the country but this is not so in Ghana. Mr. Speaker, the communities from which minerals are mined endure the accompanying environmental hazards but they do not enjoy any special benefits as compensation. Mr. Speaker, if the proposed amendment is approved, the communities which suffer for the whole nation would see themselves as having been compensated.

    It will also eliminate the constant conflicts between the mining companies and the communities. Mr. Speaker, the mining companies will also benefit from the co-operation of the affected communities while large sums of money spent by Government to keep peace and restore normalcy when conflicts erupt will be saved for other development projects. Mr. Speaker, I will therefore urge my hon. Colleagues to support this proposed amendment.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Yes, hon. Members, that is a very interesting amendment proposed by the Vice- Chairperson to the Committee and it is for your consideration.
    Dr. A. A. Osei 12:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think the sentiments expressed by my dear friend and hon. Colleague - the intention

    is very good but we are threading unto very dangerous grounds. Suddenly, I am earning some money and we want to give the Minister or Lands, Forestry and Mines the right to tax my earnings. Mr. Speaker, we have a taxing agency called the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) whose job is to deal with taxation. Now we want to give the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Mines the power for me to declare my earnings for him to tax me.

    Mr. Speaker, we may want to develop a community, I have no problem with that but we have to be careful how we go about that. So Mr. Speaker, on that note, I ask that my hon. Colleague withdraws this amendment at this particular moment and find a better way when the regulations come up for us to deal with it. IRS is charged with this responsibility; I do not want us to now tell people to go to the Ministry of Lands, Forestry and Mines, declare their earnings and they will decide how much is going to be taken from them. That is incorrect.
    Mr. Lee Ocran 12:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, while this amendment may sound interesting to the ear, it can lead to all sorts of problems in future because if I produced more cocoa I will also be demanding that much of the proceeds from the cocoa also stay in my place. It can lead to all sorts of confusion; I produce yams, therefore, when we sell the yams, more of the proceeds should stay in my place.
    We should not start confusing ourselves; royalties are paid; let people keep the royalties and we could appeal to the conscience of whatever, mining companies, industrial establishments and so on to establish such funds but do not let us pass it into law. It can create confusion.
    Mr. Kofi Osei-Ameyaw 12:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it would also create an administrative
    nightmare for the Ministry, especially the Ministry of Lands, Forestry and Mines. If the Ministry of Lands, Forestry and Mines or the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Mines is required to assess people's income or people are to declare their income to him, he would have to create an outfit where they would have to determine whether the income declared is the true income or not the true income and I think it is cumbersome, unfair and unreasonable. Although the intent is good, I think we should try and assist the communities in development. I do not think this is the way to do it and it should be withdrawn.
    Mr. K. T. hammond 12:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I totally and 100 per cent support this amendment. Mr. Speaker, we should read it carefully, it is not saying that you should declare all your profits; it is saying that the holder in consultation with - The two of them should sit down and it says you should give out small - small of the earning for the development of the area.
    Ms. Josephine h. Addoh 12:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment. I come from a mining area; problems being faced are always related to community deve- lopment. We understand that these people pay some royalties and so on and so forth. We are not saying that the royalties must be cut down; if that is the procedure, fine. But the point is we need to develop such communities. When I went to Bibiani, we did not even have electricity there. Ashanti Goldfields Company Limited (AGC) took electricity there but some mining companies do not do that and the communities suffer. I think we must all vote for this amendment; we must support him and it is a good move.
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 12:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I have nothing for or against the amendment. But if you look at the wording of the amendment, I think there is a problem.
    Mr. Speaker, if I may read 12:25 p.m.
    “A holder of a mining right shall in consultation with the Minister responsible for mines provide a percentage of its earnings as may be prescribed by the regulations under this Act for community development.”
    Mr. Speaker, are we saying that in each case of a mining right the Minister will have to make a regulation describing how much the holder must pay?
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon. Aidooh, we are even dealing with the principle, whether it would be accepted - you are making a provision that we should make regulations now for the fund that he is proposing to be set aside. We have not even reached there.
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 12:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, with respect, the amendment talks about percentage of earning being set aside for development by regulations and so I am saying that -[Interruption.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Your argument is that we should go further,
    assuming we accept it, but we have not accepted it so let us debate it and see what we have to do. Indeed, it may be relevant immediately after it has been accepted.
    Alhaji Sorogho 12:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the amendment may seem very good, no doubt about that - the intention. But Mr. Speaker, if you watch, I think the main reason why we are rushing and trying to pass this Minerals and Mining Bill is because we want investment in the country. Just yesterday attempts were made here to raise the royalties from the minimum 3 to 4 per cent.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    What is your point? You are against it, are you not?
    Alhaji Sorogho 12:25 p.m.
    My point is that if anything at all we should be talking of having a fund like what pertains with the Minerals Commission where a special fund is created not only for the mining communities but for any that are in need so that they can tap that fund, but not specifically. Because immediately you talk about that you relate it to only mines but other areas may also arise where certain commodities may also come in - [Interruption.]
    Ms. Josephine Addoh 12:25 p.m.
    On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is relating the whole thing to some
    percentage; he talked about yesterday, 4 per cent. The amendment does not specify any percentage; it says “some”. So it can be 00.5 per cent - or anything. The point we want to raise here is that the mining companies should please contribute something towards the development of the communities in which they operate.
    Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 12:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, this amendment seeks to give taxation right to the Minister for Mines and it is not right. We cannot accept it because the Minister has no power to collect taxes, unless our Friends are advocating that a special fund should be created; then let that fund be created but we cannot bring it under this amendment. I am afraid that is not right.
    Mr. haruna Iddrisu 12:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe that the proposed amendment is well-intentioned because there has been a defect in how effectively we disburse the royalties. I know for sure that based on the 1987 Law, not less than 3 per cent and not more than 12 per cent royalties were payable to the Internal Revenue Service in the name of the Republic. It was to be disbursed in accordance with a formula where 20 per cent went somewhere, you have 10 per cent for the community and another 10 per cent for a special project. But the truth, Mr. Speaker, is that, the mining communities have not benefited from this 10 per cent allocation as provided for all other royalties.
    I believe that is what has informed the decision of the hon. Member to seek the establishment of a fund. But if we can get an assurance from the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning or from the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Mines that he will diligently do what is required by existing legislation that when we get
    the royalty, this percentage must go for community development and that must go for a special project, and they get it, this amendment will not pose a problem.
    But Mr. Speaker, I even have a difficulty with us pushing this amendment under clause 110 even though it is under regulations. If you will permit me to go back to clause 26 where we are discussing issues of royalty - There is already a clear provision under clause 25 where a certain percentage must be paid as royalties to the Republic. We cannot go further again in making a provision under regulation to deal with it.
    I think that this can be dealt with administratively and not by legislation, that the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Mines, Minister for Energy, Minister for Finance and Economic Planning must give assurance to the hon. Member that the existing administrative formula for the distribution of royalties will be religiously adhered to. I am sure if he gets that assurance he may withdraw this amendment and we will make progress.
    But remember that, Mr. Speaker, when I initially proposed that we should increase percentage royalty by just 1 per cent, hon. Members vehemently opposed it. Now if somewhere at the end of the legislation we import another percentage in the name of royalty, it will be a serious contradiction in terms.
    Ms. Addoh 12:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we have a problem; the problem is we want the communities to be helped. We do not want to bring in some percentages as he claims. If the Minister, as was suggested by the hon. Member, can do something about the royalties and make sure that a certain percentage is used for the development of such communities, I think it would be fine. We are saying the same thing that we want the communities to be developed and we
    Ms. Addoh 12:35 p.m.


    want that to be on paper so that it is done.
    Mr. Agbesi 12:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that we are looking at the principle involved here. Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of the Committee, neither do I have minerals in my constituency. But the point is that socially, anybody who goes to a place and by working hard makes some progress, the community in which he makes that progress looks upon him to give a little of his progress to the community. If those who are given mining concessions go to places and by their actions they make some profit, it is expected that they look back at the communities in which they operate and say thank you for receiving us as your visitors.
    rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon. Member, are you on a point of order?
    Mr. Adjaho 12:35 p.m.
    On a point of information.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon. Member, are you yielding the floor to him? He says he wants to give some information.
    Mr. Agbesi 12:35 p.m.
    No, Mr. Speaker, I think I will go on; I do not want to yield to him. Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that it is very necessary; whether you are mining, whether you are in agriculture or whatever you are doing in an environment, you must provide for it. My only problem is to substitute “in consultation with the Minister” with “in consultation with the traditional authority in the area” because they must be involved in whatever you want to give to the community.
    Mr. Speaker, with these few words, I will support the amendment; it must be carried through and then the companies must be asked to provide for the community in which they operate.
    Mr. E. K. D. Adjaho 12:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I have looked critically at the amendment and I think that this amendment must not go through. Mr. Speaker, if we want to increase the royalty, let us say so; but that we should not leave the royalty at a certain percentage and then come back and try to increase it through the back door; that is what this amendment is seeking to achieve. Mr. Speaker, it is well-intentioned in terms of developing the communities but I also believe that if the royalties are used judiciously, it would go a long way to help the communities.
    I think that we must be very clear so that if an investor is coming, he is very clear in mind. Tomorrow when we pass this Bill and the law or even the regulations come out, the investor in the mining sector would be very clear in his mind that these are his obligations; then he would be very clear in his mind. Now even before the regulations come into existence, he would be wondering what percentage would be put in the regulations and all those things and it creates problems for the investor.
    There should be certainty in the law so that they can make the calculation and the necessary output and input and then
    make their forecast and take the decision to invest in our country. If we want some other things to be done, let us go back and look at one or a few other areas where we want money to be paid and do the necessary adjustment.
    With this, even though it is well- intentioned, I oppose the amendment.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    I will take two more contributions.
    Dr. A. A. Osei 12:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that, as I said earlier, the intention is good. It is my conviction that there is a current mechanism that exists but which is not working well, and we should find a way to make it work well. I think the law as it is allows some money to be set aside for community development.
    My experience in working with the Ministry of Lands, Forestry and Mines is that, somehow, there is a constraint in how this money is getting to the communities. And I think we should sit down together, look at it properly and make it work; it is a matter of enforcement but there is a provision in the books - [Some hon. Members: Where?] You can ask the hon. Minister. I think there is a provision but the mechanism is just not efficient enough.
    Mr. Kan-Dapaah 12:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, now, the argument seems to be shifting. Earlier, it used to be that this amount is not the responsibility of the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Mines to impose taxes. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing about tax here. All that this amendment is saying is that if it becomes necessary the Minister may in consultation with the mining company demand that a certain amount be set aside for the development of the community. Mr. Speaker, this is outside of the taxation system - [Interruption.]
    Mr. Osei-Ameyaw 12:45 p.m.
    On a point of
    order. Mr. Speaker, any imposition of money is tax; here there is an imposition and so to say that it is not a tax is wrong. Also, it talks about earnings. Are we talking about the profit or the gross earnings of the company? What earnings are we talking about?
    rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Are you also rising on a point of order?
    Mr. hammond 12:45 p.m.
    On a point of order on his point of order - [Laughter.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    You are out of order.
    Ms. Churcher 12:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if you look at the devastating effect of mining activities on the environment - [Interruptions.] If you look at the degradation of the communities, Mr. Speaker, you would support this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I support it because I do not find this amendment anything new. I have looked at the Timber Bill and I believe the hon. Minister might tell us more. There is something very close to this in the Timber Bill.
    rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Are you rising on a point of order?
    Mr. Ocran 12:45 p.m.
    On a point of information. Mr. Speaker, Goldfields, as it is operating at Tarkwa, has set up an endowment fund. They pay into the fund one dollar
    Mr. Ocran 12:45 p.m.


    on each ounce of gold sold. It is not by law; voluntarily they sat down with the community and felt that they should help the community. I think when things are done voluntarily it is good. But if you pass it into law, the law would conflict with other laws and other communities too would be demanding their pound of flesh for whatever is taken from their communities. I think this is not of serious importance.
    Ms. Churcher 12:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, for once I disagree with hon. Lee Ocran. When anything is voluntary then it means that the person may or may not do it. We are saying that we do not want people to decide whether they should help the community or not. We are saying that the question should not be that of voluntary contribution; it should be a question of binding them to give something to the community.
    Mr. Speaker, let me give an example. For instance, the Cape Coast Castle, everybody talks about it, so much is earned, but how much of it goes to Cape Coast? My people have been complaining -- these castles are there but not much is seen in the community.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    That is the Cape Coast Castle?
    Ms. Churcher 12:45 p.m.
    Yes, and I mean to come to this floor to cry for Cape Coast to get something from the castles - [Hear! Hear!] Mr. Speaker, go to Nsuta. I was born in Tarkwa, I was bred in Nsuta and when you go to Nsuta you would see the kind of damage that has been done to the environment. Mr. Speaker, from January, the environmentalists started speaking because we would not allow the environment to be sacrificed on the alter of -
    Mr. Speaker, my point this morning is that the communities need to know that those who are digging are giving
    Mr. J. K. Gidisu 12:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the amendment is only re-enforcing a situation which undermines whatever might have been the intention behind the earlier laws that affect the payment of royalties. Those royalties have an intention, and Mr. Speaker, one cannot overlook the fact that those mines, in a way, have some positive impact on those communities. They generate employment of some kind and in addition they support the communities, like what others have talked about, voluntarily.
    I think if we would be legally binding all these things into the law, at the end of the day they may not have that operational will to take onboard other demands which may not necessarily come from the same environment. So Mr. Speaker, the amendment, though it may be focusing on the needs of the communities, I do not think it would be in the spirit of giving that freedom which might equally be extended to other areas outside the mining setups.
    rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    The amendment was not moved by the hon. Minister - [Interruptions.] All right, hon. Minister, go ahead and make any contribution, if you want.
    Prof. Fobih 12:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think the intention behind this clause is good but the mode in which it is presented here makes all the difference.
    Secondly, it is not another form of taxation, but it is what is known as a social responsibility agreement or contribution that normally - Almost all the mining
    companies voluntarily do it in their various mining communities. Some are using the money to build schools, clinics and so on. And what we want to do is rather to formalize it, but perhaps not in this form as is being put in the law. What we are trying to do is that we have the Mineral Development Fund, which is the extra 10 per cent that was mentioned by my hon. Colleague, put into the development of the mining industry.
    And then we have, of course, the 10 per cent which is shared between the District Assembly, the traditional authorities and then the chiefs. Now, this money really goes to the District Assemblies in certain proportions as defined by the Constitution and they are paid regularly into these communities and Assemblies.
    But perhaps what is happening is that the Assemblies do not distinguish money coming from the various sources and then use them for that purpose. They are kept in a pool and used for the development of the entire district. So what we are trying to do now is to look into the Mineral Development Fund which also has as one of its objectives, to cater for the development of the area where mining operations are taking place. And we intend to set up a fund in the mining districts; and the District Assemblies should make a contribution.
    We have talked to many of the mining companies and they have all agreed that they would channel some of these social responsibilities or obligations they are doing into that fund and a committee would be set up to manage it properly for the effective development of the various mining communities. So I believe that this clause, as it is stated here, can be rejected; but then we would take care of it in the Regulations that we would put in place to formalize it, somehow. So it is not a new
    thing; it is something they are doing, but we just want to formalize it. But we will do it per the Regulations.
    Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 12:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Minister ended by saying that he would be comfortable if it were sent to the Regulations. This is a situation for the hon. Member who moved the amendment - I thought we could ask him to step it down. Because if fancy we vote and it is not against it, we would directly then be saying that we do not agree with what the hon. Minister is saying.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Definitely, he has not said anything else. All that he said, we have been debating that for this past few minutes, maybe an hour.
    Mr. Ennin 12:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, from what the hon. Minister has said I want to step it down.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    You are withdrawing the amendment?
    Mr. Ennin 12:45 p.m.
    No. I want it to go to the Regulations, please - [Interruptions.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    As a matter of fact, the House is seized with it and we have debated it; let me put the Question - [Interruption.] Or is he withdrawing?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, what the hon. Minister said, the effect of it was that, yes, in principle he agrees, but it should be relocated to the Regulations. When we come to prescribing the Regulations it would find space there. That would indeed be in consonance with what we did when we came to passing the Timber Resources
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Very well. Hon. Members, that is the position.
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 12:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if we want it to go into the Regulations then we must empower the hon. Minister to be able to make Regulations covering this matter. Without a clause of this nature in the Bill the hon. Minister cannot make the Regulation. Because, looking at clause 110, there is a long list of items over which the hon. Minister can make Regulations. Therefore, either we have a line in the Regulations for this matter or revise the clause again, authorising the hon. Minister to make a Regulation for this matter, otherwise, he cannot.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    So hon. Members, I am here in the Chair, I am only listening to the debate and at the end of the day put the Question. So where are we, hon. Chairperson?
    Mrs. Kusi 12:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, in that case, clause 110 should have a (w) which will include the next Regulations for this, as the hon. Minister is saying, so that he can make the Regulations for it as the hon. Member said. So clause 110 should have a subclause (w).
    Dr. A. A. Osei 12:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. Deputy Majority Leader, clause 110 (2) says,
    “Without limiting the generality of
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 12:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, just a short response. In many instances in the Bill, in many other instances, specific powers have been granted the hon. Minister to regulate on a certain matter. And I am still saying that if we do not empower the hon. Minister, this cannot - It is more or less like a matter of taxation. The hon. Minister cannot impose any levy on anybody without our authority; that is what we must know.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon. Member, I think we are not disagreeing. Maybe, we cannot even make any law giving the Minister power to impose any taxes or so on any company in this country.
    If he has withdrawn his amendment, let us continue. I will put the Question.
    Question put and motion agreed to.
    Clause 110 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 111 -- Interpretation.
    Mrs. Kusi 12:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 111, page 49, subclause (1), “radio-active mineral”, line 3, delete “chemicals” and insert “elements”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 111 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 112 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon. Chairperson, I understand there are a couple of clauses that you stood down and you wanted to work on them. Which clauses? Clause 13?
    Mrs. Kusi 12:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, clause 13.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Have you dealt with clause 3?
    Mrs. Kusi 12:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we have done clause 3 already.
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 12:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the position is this: Yesterday we went beyond clauses 3 and 13. We stood down, I think, clauses 30 and 39. Those were amendments brought by hon. Appiah-Ofori. As regards clauses 3 and 13, we passed them through the Consideration Stage and so if there are new amendments they should go through the Second Consideration Stage. They were not stood down. So we would now have to go to clauses 30 and 39 and then when we have concluded the Bill, before the Third Reading or at the Third Reading Stage, we go for Second Consideration as regards clauses 3 and 13.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    So we do not have any problems now with clause 13. We have to go to clause 30 instead.
    Clause 30 -- Transferability of capital.
    Mr. P. C. Appiah-Ofori 1:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, when I moved this amendment to clause 30 there was consensus but the quarrel that other hon. Members had was the 40 per cent and so we did some consultation and it was agreed that it should be 50 per cent. But as many hon. Members were not here when I advanced my arguments, I would like to restate what I said so that they can make informed decisions.

    Mr. Speaker, in the PNDC Law 153, section 29 (2) it is stated that the hon. Minister for Finance and Economic Planning in consultation with the Minister for Mines and on the advice of the Minerals Commission permit holders of mining lease to retain not less than twenty- five per cent of their net export earnings in external accounts to enable them finance certain purchases and so forth.

    Mr. Speaker, because of the phrase “not less than twenty-five per cent” undue advantage was taken and the nation rather incurred losses. Because it was not less than twenty-five per cent some of the mining companies could take as much as hundred per cent; and that could also be not less than twenty-five per cent. According to the Auditor-General's report on receipts and payments of Bank of Ghana from the time this law came into being during the period of the NDC and during our period, Mr. Speaker, the mining companies have been taking almost eighty per cent on the average.

    It is all because if they take eighty per cent, it is not less than twenty-five per cent; if they took seventy it was not less than twenty-five per cent. So I am saying that there should be a ceiling so that people do not go beyond it and the substantial part of the money that goes out of the country comes into the country for us to use it to develop our country. Indeed, the minerals are depleting assets. One day they would get exhausted and so if we sit down unconcerned for people, foreigners to come and take these away and leave us in abject poverty, then we have failed the nation.

    Mr. Speaker, look at what happened according to the Auditor-General's report. From 1997 to the year 2002, a total of twelve million ounces of gold were exported. Mr. Speaker, these fetched 4.081
    Dr. A. A. Osei 1:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, when my senior hon. Colleague was speaking, I think I heard him say that he has had consultations. Mr. Speaker, neither the hon. Minister nor any one of us, since we are talking about the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, was part of it. At least, we were asked to talk to the Bank of Ghana and they also gave their opinion. I was just having a discussion with the hon. Minister. Mr. Speaker, at the time when we had a serious constraint on foreign exchange in the country the propensity to want to, as it were, stick it to them was all right.
    Mr. Speaker, through our own people we have been able to accumulate over four billion dollars worth. If you go to the banks now and you have foreign currency and you want to give it to them, they do not want it. [An hon. Member: They want cedis.] Mr. Speaker, a ceiling of sticking to foreign exchange and we want to be a haven of investors? It is a contradiction. We want to promote Ghana for investors to come here; we have stabilized our economy where people are bringing their money - [Interruption.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    That may not be a point of order so hon. Member, continue.
    Dr. A. A. Osei 1:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my senior hon. Colleague, it is not a point of order. I am surprised he is using the word “unfortunate”, that Ministers speak that way. I have allowed him to make his argument without criticizing him. Mr. Speaker, I want him to know that he is my senior hon. Colleague and I respect him for his penchant for very vociferous arguments; I grant him that. But I am just appealing to my hon. Colleagues that in spite of our feelings, let us look at the realities of the situation where we are getting two billion dollars not because we made the law to force people to keep their moneys here.
    In this era of trying to entice people, including our own people, the knowledge of or the propensity to want to force is inconsistent with the philosophy we are espousing as a liberal nation. So in that sense we do not have a constraint on foreign exchange; and as I said, empirically today, if you took your newly acquired car and you put all the foreign exchange in it and you went to any bank, they would reject it. There is no foreign exchange scarcity. The Bank of Ghana, which is going to come to us with a new law, agrees that as it is, it is all right. It does not constrain the nation at all.
    So Mr. Speaker, I would want to appeal to my senior hon. Colleague that, in spite of his feelings, if he can kindly withdraw his amendment so that Ghana can be perceived as an investor-friendly nation.
    Mr. Adjaho 1:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, hon. Appiah- Ofori's amendment is well-intentioned but I just want some information so that we can take a decision in the interest of the country. We know that the mining companies also have the right to repatriate their profits and all those things; we have to balance that against the national interest and against international best practice. So it is important for - Fortunately, I see the Minerals Commission officials around, the hon. Minister is here, hon. Appiah-Ofori himself is there - What is the international best practice with regard to retention of earnings outside this country?
    Because at the end of the day, investment is a competitive activity and people will go to a place where they know that it is better to invest. He has given very good reasons, but if he can be guided -- I have not done any research on this matter. If he can be guided to give the international best practice -- What is the average in terms of retention of earnings outside the country, especially with countries that are likely to compete with us in terms of investment in the mining sector? If he has that idea, then we can take a decision that will be in the interest of the country. If we are too emotional about it that we want not more than forty per cent and others are making it twenty-five per cent and so on, then they will go to other countries where it is twenty-five per cent. So we want to have an idea upon which we can take a decision in the national interest.
    Mr. Owsu-Adjapong 1:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I have had opportunity to discuss this matter with my colleague, the hon. Member for Asikuma/Odoben/Brakwa (Mr. P. C. Appiah-Ofori). I have also had subsequent discussion with the hon. Minority Leader and if I can be permitted to explain the
    problem we are facing, then maybe we can make up our minds.
    Mr. Speaker, the present wording which is what is in the Bill has got its own internal problem and possibly that is what was persuading hon. P. C. Appiah-Ofori to propose his amendment. The present wording says that the miner, the operator can take at least 35 per cent. By strict interpretation it means that if that person took 40 per cent, 60 per cent, 80 per cent or 100 per cent, he is within the law. And it is out of that that hon. P. C. Appiah-Ofori felt we should have a cap so that we then know that one cannot take more than 40 per cent or 50 per cent.
    Mr. Speaker, ordinarily I would have supported him, but as we speak now, we are almost ready with a law that is coming to work on the Exchange Control Act, which is going to liberalize to the extent that people can do whatever they please with their foreign earnings. So if we are having that law in mind and we are now going to say that we are putting a cap here, then we are going to virtually defeat the coming law.
    Again, Mr. Speaker, let us fancy a situation where when the investor comes and after operating for three to four years he wants to revamp his equipment, recapitalize, like Tarkwa Gold Mine did quite recently. Then we say that he can take not more than 50 per cent, when he has a programme that requires 90 per cent. Is he then supposed to leave his money and go and search for another money and borrow to recapitalize? That also will not be right.
    So Mr. Speaker, these types of law would have been very good if we were still within the area where there are exchange control problems, because even when it is retained here, it is his own money.
    Mr. J. h. Mensah 1:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, it was being claimed that the decline in Ghana's mining industry was due to a shortage of new investment and that shortage of new investment was
    Mr. Lee Ocran 1:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I was really going to support hon. P. C. Appiah- Ofori but the hon. Senior Minister (Mr. J. H. Mensah) had come in, and before that the hon. Majority Leader, claiming that there is going to be a new law on foreign exchange. Minerals are non-renewable resources; cocoa is a renewable resource, we can plant cocoa every season. And if cocoa farmers are not allowed to sell their cocoa abroad and keep the money there, whatever they like, but are forced by law to repatriate whatever they sell to Ghana, I do not see why a foreigner comes into this country, digs our gold and he is allowed by law to keep as much as he likes outside.
    Mr. Speaker, we are saying that we have abundant foreign reserve; we do not have any abundant foreign reserve --[Laughter.] We cannot in this country depend on Western Union Money Transfers to form our reserve. Our natural resources are what we depend on mostly; and therefore I would also wait for this new law on the foreign exchange to come. But before that comes, really, I think hon. P. C. Appiah-Ofori is on the right path. So much has been taken out; we should really err on the side of caution and we should
    not jubilate. It is too early to jubilate.
    Mr. John D. Mahama 1:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is a matter of the hon. Member for Asikuma/Odoben/Brakwa (Mr. Appiah-Ofori) standing down his amendment or anything. I think that whole clause must be expunged from the Bill.
    The history of retention accounts came up at the time when we had scarcity of foreign exchange and we had certain restrictive exchange control regulations. In the period of liberalization, there is no need to have a retention account. Companies can freely establish letters of credit through the existing banks to pay for spare parts, capital equipment and everything.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 1:25 p.m.
    On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, it appears my very good friend has misconstrued the whole thing. The Bank of Ghana needs foreign exchange to finance state imports. So a portion of the earnings should be sold to the Bank of Ghana. If you look at the Auditor-General's Report on Bank of Ghana - [Interruptions.]
    Mr. Yaw Osafo-Maafo 1:25 p.m.
    On a point of order.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon. Appiah-Ofori is on a point of order so allow him.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 1:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if you
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon. Appiah-Ofori, I thought you were rising on a point of order but it appears you are making a fresh contributing or replying what the hon. Member said. This is a Consideration Stage; I could give you time to do so but allow him to continue his submission.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 1:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member was making a point which I really - In fact, three days ago he canvassed this point. He is saying that the whole clause should be removed completely, meaning that whatever the miners earn, they should feel free to keep the whole lot - [Interruption.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    The point the hon. Colleague is making is that indeed the above 25 per cent retention does not help anybody because we are saying that they could keep not less than 25 per cent, and so we might as well forget it. That is the point he is making.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 1:25 p.m.
    I am saying that we should put a cap - [Interruption.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Yes, your
    Mr. Mahama 1:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the point I am canvassing is that in this day and age, there is no need for retention accounts. I would have thought that probably the purpose for putting in any such clause would be to help improve the financial standing of our banks. So if we said that mining companies must retain a certain percentage of their accounts in foreign reserve for certain purposes and indicated that those monies should be held in banks locally, then we would be helping our economy in some way.
    But to say that they can retain not less than 25 per cent of their foreign exchange holding in foreign accounts abroad, I do not think that we need to make provisions for that. I think we should scrap this whole clause. If we want to put in some regulations for exchange control, we can insert that in the Exchange Control Act when it comes to this Parliament. But in my opinion, I do not think this clause is the best and so we should take it out and then make appropriate regulations when we reconsider the Exchange Control Act.
    Mr. Osafo-Maafo 1:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the hon. Member who just spoke. Times have changed; in fact, it is anachronistic for anybody to talk about retention. What is retention? Now people have foreign exchange accounts in all the banks. Some companies decide to take loans in Ghana in dollars and because of interest rates they are allowed to; and people are taking them. This whole retention was at a time when foreign exchange was a major constraint; today it is not.
    In fact, all of us here in one way or the other are abusing the foreign exchange law; one is not allowed to hold dollars, one is not allowed to take rent in dollars without passing through the Bank of
    Ghana through the Foreign Exchange Control Act. There is a major amendment standing about three years ago, the final draft is about ready; all these laws are anachronistic, there should be free flow of all currencies through the system. People are now allowed to hold accounts in dollars and even in Euros and in any currency of choice.
    The flow of money into our banking system depends on the way we run our economy. If our currency is stable, we may find a lot of currency coming in to the extent that we may not even want it. So please, let us scrap that particular clause because the new Foreign Exchange Law which is coming in can take care of any such problems. At the moment it is absolutely unnecessary.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon. Members, let us now make a little more progress. There are two questions on the floor now, that is the amendment as proposed by hon. Appiah-Ofori and then the few contributions from individual hon. Members from the floor saying that indeed the original law itself, that is, as contained in the Bill that above 25 per cent retention is unnecessary. Let me first put - [Interruption.]
    Mr. Mahama 1:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, there is also the suggestion that the whole of clause 30 be removed from the Bill.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    That is what I am saying. Let us first put hon. Appiah-Ofori's proposal. And his proposal is that in clause 30 we should delete “not less than 25 per cent” and insert “not more than 40 per cent” - that is subclause 2, line 4 - [Interruption.]
    Question put and amendment negatived.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    We go back to the same clause. Some are proposing that indeed the words, “the Minister for Finance in consultation with the Minister acting on the advice of the Committee may, where the net earnings of the whole lot of a mining lease from the holder's mining operations earn foreign exchange, permit the holder of the lease to open and retain an account an amount not less than 25 per cent of the foreign exchange -” The proposal is that that whole subclause 2 be deleted.
    Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 1:25 p.m.
    I was just trying to agree with hon. John Mahama that much as the ultimate decision would be to eliminate it, perhaps it would be too revolutionary for us to just - But if we remove the “25 per cent” from it now, then it could mean that it could be from 1 per cent to 100 per cent. And then when the new amendment to the Exchange Control Act comes, it would perfect it so that we do not seem to be doing too much.
    We have only been able to contact the Bank of Ghana as to the present level. But if we are going to remove it completely, there should be some consultation with them. If we remove the “25 per cent”, it would then mean that if the person needs 80 per cent, he agrees with the two Ministers and then he has it. So it means that there would be some administrative mechanisms to work on it. That is what I suggest we do.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon. Members, the suggestion is that -- Yes, hon. Majority Chief Whip, do you want to make any suggestion?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I agree essentially with what the

    hon. Majority Leader has said but I also think that we should have a second look at the proposal from hon. John Mahama. Indeed, if we look at clause 30 (4), we are saying that “subject to this Act the holder of mining shall be guaranteed free transferability of convertible currency through the Bank of Ghana” or in the case of a net foreign exchange holder, through the account opened under subsection 2. So we seem to be saying that, yes, he can even retain everything.

    In that case, Mr. Speaker, I would want to suggest that we retain only (1) and delete from (2) to (4); we retain 30 (1) and delete the rest.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    You have made the confusion more confounded. Please, what are you saying? Hon. Members, why do we not consider that, just as the hon. Majority Leader has intimated and indeed what hon. J. H. Mensah said -
    Indeed, we should say that the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning in consultation with the Minister acting on the advice of the Commission may, where the net earnings of a holder of a mining lease from the holder's mining operations are in foreign exchange, permit the holder of the lease to open and retain an account in foreign exchange for acquiring this - Do you not think that, that is better? So we do not talk about percentages, we do not talk about anything else? Do you not think so? [Pause.] It is a little bit more elegant that way.
    Hon. Members, what do you say so that we could go ahead?
    Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 1:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that is good for the purpose. Now it gives free hand to both parties to do business.
    An hon. Member: That is right.
    Mr. Mahama 1:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if we are to make progress maybe that might be a compromise. I was for expunging the whole of clause 30, but maybe for now, let us keep that rendition and then when the Exchange Control Act comes and we would need to do an amendment here, we will work on it.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon. Members, in that case clause 30 should be amended by the deletion of “an amount not less than 25 per cent” from subclause (2), line 5.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 30 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Yes, where do we end? Is there any other clause that we have not considered? I think we have finished with all the advertised amendments. Now we move on to the Long Title.
    The Long Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon. Members, we now move to item 16 on page 13 of the Order Paper.
    Mr. F. K. Owusu-Adjapong 1:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister has just gone outside so with your permission if I can move.
    Suspension of Standing Order 131 (1)
    Mr. F. K. Owusu-Adjapong (on behalf of the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Mines) 1:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move; that notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 131(1) which require that when a Bill has passed through the Consideration Stage, the Third Reading thereof shall not be taken until at least twenty-four hours have elapsed, the motion for the Third
    Reading of the Minerals and Mining Bill may be moved today.
    Mrs. Kusi 1:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I rise to second the motion.
    Question put and motion agreed to.
    Resolved accordingly.
    Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 1:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we agreed that there will be Second Consideration on some issues; I think he has one, and the Chairperson also has some, and I want to know whether we should take those up or I should move before he comes in.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Well, if he is moving at this stage, then maybe it is the appropriate time to take the Second Consideration - [Interruption.]
    BILLS - SECOND 1:35 p.m.
    CONSIDERATION STAGE 1:35 p.m.
    Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 1:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that the Minerals and Mining Bill be taken through a Second Consideration Stage. I so move.
    Mr. haruna Iddrisu 1:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
    Question put and motion agreed to.
    Resolved accordingly.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    You are moving for the Second Consideration Stage in respect of which clauses?
    Mr. haruna Iddrissu 1:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, in respect of clause 61; hon. Osei-Prempeh raised an issue which was germane and I think that -- [Interruptions.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Indeed, hon. Majority Leader, you should have
    allowed he himself to move.
    Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 1:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, what is happening is that I was expecting, in fact, the Chairperson of the Committee to lead this. Because, as you may be aware, we have had some consultations with the Third World Network and the consortium and there were some suggestions they made which Leadership has been discussing with them; and we have the Chairperson of the Committee, so she should be able to tell us the areas which we think are worth considering. So if she can announce those areas then he will add his clause also to them.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    I had thought that an hon. Member from the floor - I believe it is hon. Osei-Prempeh who had - [Interruption.] - Yes, hon. Doe Adjaho?
    Mr. Adjaho 1:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, proce- durally, the person who moved for the Second Consideration Stage is the person who normally moves the clauses that are affected. Since it was the hon. Majority Leader who moved that the Bill passes through a Second Consideration Stage, we are waiting for him now to start with the clauses before we come in.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Very well, let hon. Osei-Prempeh come to the aid of the hon. Majority Leader. Hon. Osei-Prempeh, I remember very well that when we were discussing, that is when we were considering clause 61, you came up with the idea that the Constitution - We are talking about clause 61, paragraph (b); you said that any provision in the Constitution, regulation, bye-laws or articles of association of any company - talking about - and then he raised an issue that it was an affront to the Constitution, in the sense that the word “Constitution” had been used and so forth. So please, if you could canvass it and let us make a determination.
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 1:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, so that we can go at least serially, we have amendments at this stage for clauses 3 and 13 before we go to 61.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    It does not matter; we can go and come back to those. It is Consideration Stage - specifically talk about it - come back and canvass your position, the point that you want to talk about.
    Mr. h. Iddrisu 1:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it is my view that the issue which was raised by hon. Osei-Prempeh about clause 61(b), it is important that we restructure the rendition there in order not to create absurdity in that particular provision.

    Mr. Speaker, if you say - For instance, clause 61 (b) says “any provisions in the Constitution” - In my view he is right because it offends the opening chapters of our Constitution and I think that it should read as follows:

    “Any provisions in the regulations, bye-laws or articles of association or constitution of any company …”

    In that respect the mischief that he is worried about would have been dealt with. But if we say “provisions of the Constitution” where we do not have an interpretation which tells us as to which Constitution, it may be doubtful. I think that the rendition must be corrected. We might have to say “articles of Associa- tion” or “constitution of any company” and then we will all know that we are talking about a company and not the Constitution of 1992.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Very well, hon. Members.
    Mr. A. O. Aidooh 1:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    think we argued this matter a shortwhile ago and I am still opposed to that kind of amendment. Mr. Speaker, in my view - I am not in a position to change my view yet - the rendition here is all right. The words constitutions, regulations, by-laws, or articles are covered by the Association and by no interpretation will they refer to the national Constitution, and therefore I do not see any need for its amendment.
    Mr. Speaker, associations can have constitutions; companies have regu- lations, and so on. Associations can have constitutions. Mr. Speaker, in this Bill we talked about small-scale mining institutions. The Bill envisages the provision of small-scale mining associations and such associations can have constitutions. This clause can never refer to the Constitution of the country.
    rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon. Aidooh, are you yielding the floor to hon. Chireh?
    Mr. Chireh 1:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think we are not changing anything in what we are doing. We are rearranging the words such that the qualifier is closer, to avoid any ambiguity. Because, if we say “the Constitution” in the beginning anybody can stop there and say - [Interrup-tion]-- Yes, but when we bring “the Constitution” before any - [Interrup-tion.]
    rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon. Adjaho, are you rising on a point of order?
    Mr. Adjaho 1:45 p.m.
    Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think the rendition here is very clear - that we are talking about constitutions of companies. It is quite clear here. If it was not qualified at the end then we will have - I therefore agree with the hon. Deputy
    Majority Leader that it should remain here. We are not talking about the 1992 Constitution; it is very clear and it has been qualified at the end.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 3 --
    Mrs. Kusi 1:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 3, paragraph (b), line 1, after “or” and before “other” insert “any”.
    Mr. Speaker, if I may read clause 3 - “. . . expressly reserved by or under this Act or any . . .” Mr. Speaker, it is “any” that we are inserting -- any other enactment from becoming the subject of a mineral right.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Is that all, hon. Chairman?
    Mrs. Kusi 1:45 p.m.
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon. Members, it is a very minor amendment and that is for clause 3 (b). It reads “. . . expressly reserved by or under this Act or . . .” The word being sought to be inserted is “any”, between “or” and “other”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Clause 3 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 13 --
    Mrs. Kusi 1:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 13, insert new subclauses “(2)” and “(3)” as follows:
    “(2) The Minister shall not less than 45 days prior to making a decision under subsection (1), give a notice in writing of a pending application for the grant
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    So the numbering, subsequently, will change.
    Mrs. Kusi 1:45 p.m.
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    I think it is a little bit more detailed and complicated.
    Mr. Asamoah Ofosu 1:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think there should be a comma after the “shall” -- The Minister “shall”, not less than 45 days prior to the making of the - [Interruption.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    So you want to add the comma? Fair enough.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 13 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 110 --
    Mrs. Kusi 1:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 110, as was agreed, add a new
    paragraph (w) in subclause (2) to read as follows:
    “The establishment of a fund to which the holder of the mineral right should contribute a percentage of his earnings for community development.”
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Are you satisfied, hon. Vice-Chairman?
    rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon.
    Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu, what do you want?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that since you are proposing the vote I would allow the vote to be taken, but I thought that we had not finished with clause 13.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    We have finished with clause 13.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:55 p.m.
    We really have not finished, there were some outstanding matters.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    If you want us to go back, we will go back.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, when we finish with this.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Yes, hon. Chairperson, can you go over the rendition again? [Interruptions.] Hon. Members, can you listen to what the Chairperson is saying because that has been a controversial point; we debated it at length.
    Mrs. Kusi 1:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 110, add a new paragraph (2) to read:
    “The establishment of a fund to which the holder of the mineral right shall contribute a percentage of his earnings for community deve- lopment.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the amendment that was moved by the hon. Chairperson related to a new clause 13. (2). The original subclause (2) then becomes (3). [Interruption.] The original becomes (4) and the days stipulated, we changed that from the 60 days that obtains here to 30 days. That was the agreement that we had.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    You are talking of the original subclause (2) which is now going to be (4). You are talking of the change from “within 60 days” to “30 days”. Was it what was agreed upon?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:55 p.m.
    That is so, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, you will recollect that we started with 60 days, came to 45 days, and so now the next step is 30 days. It cannot be 60 days.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon. Chairperson, is that so?
    Mrs. Kusi 1:55 p.m.
    That is so, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Therefore the 13 (2), the proposed amendment should be amended by the deletion of the word “sixty” and the insertion of the word “thirty”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon. Members, that is the end of the Second Consideration Stage of the Bill.
    Mr. J. h. Mensah 1:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, before we conclude the Second Consideration Stage I would ask your indulgence to ask the House to look again at clause 74 of the Bill. Mr. Speaker, the issue that I want to bring to the attention of my hon. Colleagues is this: At present the practice
    of the mining companies is to go with surveyors, count trees and crops and then pay for crops on the ground.
    Mr. Chireh 1:55 p.m.
    On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Senior Minister was not here when we finished with the - The amendment he will be looking at was not accepted so -- [Pause.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    What the hon. Member is saying is that we have already carefully considered that. But of course, this is the Second Consideration Stage and therefore he is seeking to canvass a point for us to reconsider, so let him go ahead.
    Mr. J. h. Mensah 1:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, what I was saying was that the actual practice of the mining companies - We recently had a major mine opened in the Brong Ahafo Region and I am describing what has happened in practice, on the ground, and to see whether our learned Friends can help us to bring into the law practice that conforms with the actual economics of the situation on the ground.
    In other words, that piece of land, which is fallow and for which the company, in practice today, is not obliged to pay compensation, is where the man will be feeding on next year or the year after; and therefore that piece of land cannot be said to have zero value.
    The surface price cannot be said to be zero, and yet in practice the mining companies today are not obliged to
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon. Members, I nearly forgot but we have almost struck 2 o'clock by my watch and I am informing the House that the Sitting is extended.
    Mr. J. h. Mensah 1:55 p.m.
    So Mr. Speaker, between you and your other learned friends, consider how we can amend clause 74 to make people entitled to the reasonably probable use of the land in the near future, which apparently is acceptable under the legal principles that we apply in this country. Because, it seems unfair to tell a man that you are depriving him forever of the use of that land just because he does not have any crops on it today.
    But this is the land on which he would be feeding tomorrow and if we can get into the law some practice that entitles people to benefit from the potential use - I think that clause 74 (a) says this but I do not know why the practice is not, as we might guess from clause 74 (a), that they will measure the potential use of the land in the probable near future.
    That is the problem I am faced with, by my constituents, when they have gone through the practice of the mining company in assessing compensation - [Interruptions.] That is why I said you learned friends - [Laughter.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon. J. H. Mensah, it appears we had a long drawn debate on the matter. Indeed, a point was earlier on canvassed by hon. Osei-Prempeh and the counter-argument was that it is taken care of under clause 74(a), but I do not know what other hon. Members would say.
    Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 1:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    I believe the hon. Senior Minister himself says he is looking at the practice. The law is all right as it is now except that the practice -- The practice is how you get people to advise - Because if you look at clause 74 (a) all the concerns he is expressing are under clause 74 (a). But what tends to happen is that when it is time, people do not go to the people who can interpret 74 (a), and that is where the problem is; so if we can have the Third Reading.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Hon. Members, that is the end of the Second Consideration Stage. We move on now to item number 17.
    Mrs. Kusi 2:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we have not finished. [Interruptions.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Hon. Chairperson, if you have not finished, continue.
    Clause 13 --
    Mrs. Kusi 2:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 13, subclause (11), line two, after dispose, delete “off” and insert “of”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 13 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 16 --
    Mrs. Kusi 2:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 16, subclause (1), line 1, delete “holder of mining right” and insert “company holding a mining lease”. Mr. Speaker, it will read as follows: subclause (1): “A company holding a mining lease shall at all times appoint a manager.” We delete “holder of mining right”. And then the last one - [Interruption.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Please hold on. Read the whole paragraph; let
    us hear the whole subclause.
    Mrs. Kusi 2:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, clause 16, subclause (1) delete “the holder of mining right” and insert “ a company holding a mining lease”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Is that the first line?
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    But subsequently, are you not doing anything about that holder of mining right operations?
    Mrs. Kusi 2:05 p.m.
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    What are you saying to that?
    Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 2:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this amendment but then I am worried. Is she saying that it is only a company that can have a mining lease? [Interruption.] Therefore, what is the basis of this new rendition we are being given? Mr. Speaker, I think we have to be careful how - We have overused this Second Consideration. Because, immediately we begin to do that the heading itself has got to be changed before we can go into it. And I do not think any gain would be made by this new rendition.
    Because the holder of a mining lease can be a company, it can be any other thing that has been authorized; it can be an individual. So if we can go to the Third Reading. Mr. Speaker, we are doing this because we need to also look at the main thing that brought us here today, which is the Tamale and the other one; I think we must be sincere. It is the Kumasi and the Tamale that have brought us here. Ordinarily, we had agreed that we were not going to take this Bill.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    I will go
    ahead. Hon. Members, we move on to motion number 17 appearing on the Order Paper at page 14.
    BILLS - ThIRD READING
    The Minerals and Mining Bill - read the Third time and passed - [Minister for Lands, Forestry and Mines].
    Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 2:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if we can take item 6.
    MOTIONS 2:05 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee (Mrs. Grace Coleman) 2:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 80 (1) which require that no motion shall be debated until at least forty-eight hours have elapsed between the date on which notice of the motion is given and the date on which the motion is moved, the motion for the adoption of the Report of the Joint Committee on Finance and Works and Housing on the Loan Agreement between the Republic of Ghana and the FMO/ORET and Fortis Bank NV of The Netherlands for an amount of €27,000,000.00 to finance the proposed Kumasi (Barekese) Water Supply Rehabilitation and Expansion Project may be moved today.
    Mr. Kwame Osei-Prempeh 2:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
    Question put and motion agreed to.
    Resolved accordingly.
    Loan Agreement between Republic of Ghana and the FMO/ORET and
    Fortis Bank of The Netherlands
    Chairperson of the Committee (Mrs. Grace Coleman) 2:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that this honourable House adopts the Report of the Joint Committee on Finance and Works and Housing on the
    Chairperson of the Committee (Mrs. Grace Coleman) 2:05 p.m.
    1.0 Introduction
    Mr. Speaker, the above loan agreement was laid in the House on Tuesday, 13th December 2005 and referred to the Joint Committee on Finance and Works and Housing for consideration and report in accordance with article 181 of the Constitution and the Standing Orders of the House.
    To consider the loan agreement the Committee met with the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning, hon. Kwadwo Baah-Wiredu, Minister for Works and Housing, hon. Hackman Owusu-Agyemang, two Deputy Ministers for Finance and Economic Planning, Prof. G. Y. Gyan-Baffour and Dr. A. A. Osei and officials from the two Ministries and reports as follows:
    2.0 Background
    Kumasi, which is the capital of Ashanti Region and the second largest urban centre in Ghana has a current population of approximately 0.8 million. The water system serve a population of about 1.1 million, living in over 30 towns and villages covering a large area. The water source of Kumasi is the Barekese Reservoir on River Offin, and the Owabi River Reservoir on the Owabi River.
    The proposed Kumasi (Barekese) Water Supply Rehabilitation and Expansion Project is to be undertaken by Messrs Taylor Woodrow B.V. of The Netherlands. The source works and treatment works at Barekese were designed with incremental expansion in mind up to a limit of 220,000m3/day.
    3.0 Scope of Works
    The scope of works, supply and services among others include:
    Design and engineering
    M a i n t e n a n c e d r e d g i n g o f 1,000,000m3 silt from Barekese Dam
    Rehabilitation of existing water treatment plants at Owabi and Barekese New Water Transmission Pipeline Modification and expansion of high lift pumping station
    New booster station with 2,500m3 reservoir
    Installation of zonal meters
    Small booster stations for high elevation areas.
    4.0 Terms and Conditions
    The terms and conditions of the loan are as follows:
    Contract Price -- EUR 27.00 million

    A. Grant Component -- E U R 1 3 . 5 0 million (reps. 50 per cent of contract price)

    B. Loan Amount -- E U R 1 3 . 5 0 million

    Repayment Period -- 10 years

    Grace Period -- 2 years

    Variable Interest Rate -- 6 M Euribor plus 0.5 per cent

    Management Fees -- 0.5 per cent (flat)

    Commitment Fees -- 0.25 per cent per annum

    Grant Element (B) -- 15.14 per cent

    Total Grant Element (a+b) -- 65.14 per cent (50 per cent + 15.14. per cent)

    5.0 Observations

    The Committee observed that this grant and loan facility would support the rehabilitation and expansion of the existing capacity, including extension of transmission and distribution of network, as well as construction of a new water treatment plant at Barekese, in order to improve water supply to Kumasi and surrounding communities.

    The Committee further observed that the project, when completed, would increase the level of service coverage and ensure a safe and constant supply of treated water which will improve the health and socio-economic conditions and reduce the high level of non-revenue water.

    The Committee was informed that the design capacity of the water source at Owabi, which is approximately 10 km to the north west of Kumasi is 13,600m3/day which covers the whole of the metropolis and outlying towns and villages.

    The Committee observed that the present installed capacity system is about 95,600m3/day and needs to be expanded
    Mr. E. K. Salia (NDC - Jirapa) 2:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I rise to second this motion but I think there is the need for some clarification, because from the memorandum the contract is E27 million for the works, out of which there is a grant component of E13.5 million. It means therefore, that the loan is E13.50 million and not E27 million. The E27 million is the cost of the entire project as far as the memorandum is concerned; that is what I have here.
    The memorandum from the hon. Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing, at page 5, the terms and conditions of the credit, the sheet shows that the total loan amount is E27 million of which E13.5 million is a grant. So we are here approving that a loan of E13.5 million be taken. So it should be so read, not as if the loan is E27 million; the loan is E13.5 million.
    Mr. Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Hon. Chairperson, do you have any comment on that?
    Mrs. Coleman 2:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it has been the tradition that we approve of the loan and the grant. We approve of both of them and then we know which part of it is a grant and which part of it is a loan. So this is exactly what we are doing here.
    Mr. Salia 2:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, yesterday we did a similar loan approval for the Mankessim Water Project and there was this distinction between the grant and the loan proper. I would urge hon. Members to look back and see whether that was not what we did yesterday. I believe that this
    House - As the motion states, the loan that we are taking is not the entire cost of the project but just the component that has all these terms.
    Mr. Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Hon. Member for Jirapa, are you seconding the motion or not?
    Mr. Salia 2:15 p.m.
    Subject to the amendment that the loan component is E13.5 million.
    Question proposed.
    Alhaji Sumani Abukari (NDC - Tamale North) 2:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of this motion. I happen to come from an area that has an endemic water problem, so I know what it means when people lack water. And Mr. Speaker, I also happen to be somebody who has been a resident of Kumasi for four years. I know Magazine very well and I know that there is serious shortage of water in many areas of Kumasi. Therefore, I think that this expansion has been long overdue and we should all support it overwhelmingly to alleviate the suffering of the masses of Kumasi.
    Minister for Parliamentary Affairs/ Majority Leader (Mr. Felix K. Owusu- Adjapong) 2:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, this is similar to a loan we considered yesterday in terms of the source, the use and the terms and I believe that in the light of the overwhelming support we gave to the other one yesterday we can put the Question and make progress.
    Question put and motion agreed to:
    That this Honourable House adopts the Report of the Joint Committee on Finance and Works and Housing on the Loan Agreement between the Republic of Ghana and the FMO/ORET and Fortis Bank NV of The Netherlands for an amount of E27,000,000.00 to finance the proposed Kumasi (Barekese)
    Minister for Parliamentary Affairs/ Majority Leader (Mr. Felix K. Owusu- Adjapong) 2:15 p.m.


    Water Supply Rehabilitation and Expansion Project.

    RESOLuTIONS

    Loan Agreement between the Republic of Ghana and the FMO/ ORET and Fortis Bank NV of The

    Netherlands
    Minister for Finance and Economic Planning (Mr. Kwadwo Baah-Wiredu) 2:15 p.m.
    WHEREAS by the provisions of article 181 of the Constitution and section 7 of the Loans Act, 1970 (Act 335), the terms and conditions of any loan raised by the Government of Ghana on behalf of itself or any public institution or authority shall not come into operation unless the said terms and conditions have been laid before Parliament and approved by Parliament by a Resolution supported by the votes of a majority of all Members of Parliament;
    PURSUANT to the provisions of the said article 181 of the Constitution and section 7 of the Loans Act, 1970 (Act 335) and at the request of the Government of Ghana acting through the Minister responsible for Finance, there has been laid before Parliament the terms and conditions of the credit agreement between the Republic of Ghana and the FMO/ORET and Fortis Bank NV of The Netherlands for an amount of €27,000,000.00 to finance the Kumasi (Barekese) Water Supply Rehabilitation and Expansion Project.
    THIS HONOURABLE HOUSE 2:15 p.m.
    H E R E B Y R E S O LV E S A S 2:15 p.m.
    Mrs. Coleman 2:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
    Question put and motion agreed to.
    Resolved accordingly.
    Suspension of Standing Order 80 (1)
    Chairperson of the Committee (Mrs. Grace Coleman) 2:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 80 (1) which require that no motion shall be debated until at least forty-eight hours have elapsed between the date on which notice of the motion is given and the date on which the motion is moved, the motion for the adoption of the Report of the Joint Committee on Finance and Works and Housing on the Credit Agreement between the Republic of Ghana and the FMO/ORET and ING Bank N.V. of The Netherlands for an amount of E45.0 million to finance the Tamale Water Supply Rehabilitation and Expansion Project may be moved today.
    Mr. Salia 2:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
    Question put and motion agreed to.
    Resolved accordingly.
    Credit Agreement between the Republic of Ghana and the FMO/ ORET and ING Bank NV of The
    Netherlands Chairperson of the Committee (Mrs.
    Grace Coleman): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that this honourable House adopts the Report of the Joint Committee on Finance and Works and Housing on the Credit Agreement between the Republic of Ghana and the FMO/ORET and ING Bank NV of The Netherlands for an amount of E45.0 million to finance the Tamale Water Supply Rehabilitation and Expansion Project.
    Mr. Speaker, having moved the motion I now present the Report of the Joint Committee on Finance and Works and Housing.
    1.0 Introduction The above credit agreement was laid
    in the House on Tuesday, 13th December 2005 and referred to the Joint Committee on Finance and Works and Housing for consideration and report in accordance with article 181 of the Constitution and the Standing Orders of the House.
    To consider the loan agreement the Committee met with the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning, hon. Kwadwo Baah-Wiredu, Minister for Works and Housing, hon. Hackman Owusu-Agyemang, two Deputy Ministers for Finance and Economic Planning, Prof. G. Y. Gyan-Baffour and Dr. A. Akoto Osei and officials from the two Ministries and reports as follows:
    2.0 Background
    The water supply for Tamale and surrounding areas was established in 1972 by a construction of an intake on the White Volta which is 37 kilometres north-west of Tamale. Since its construction, the number of inhabitants has grown from 120,000 to about 500,000 people.
    In 1994, the Ghana Water and Sewerage Corporation, under World Bank financing, initiated the Tamale Water Supply Expansion study. The study aims at expanding in two stages, the raw water intake capacity, the treatment plant capacity, and the water distribution network.
    Attempts have been made to supply
    water to these areas but due to funding problems, these attempts have not been executed. Ghana Water Company Limited is currently rationing water to equitably distribute the water available. There is the supply demand gap which actually necessitates the need for capacity expansion of the water system. Presently, the pumps are being rehabilitated as a stopgap measure, whilst awaiting the intended rehabilitation and expansion of the system.
    As a result of this, the Ministry of Water Resources, Works and Housing and the Ghana Water Company Limited (GWCL) Board of Directors agreed that the offer should be awarded to another contractor. Messrs BIWATER subsequently expressed interest in the project and submitted revised proposals at an estimated cost of E45 million to Ghana Water Company Limited for consideration.
    The Netherlands Government also
    expressed support for the project which is to be financed on concessionary terms by FMO/ORET of The Netherlands.
    Terms and Conditions
    The terms and conditions of the loan are as follows:
    (A+B) Total Contract Price -- E45.0 million
    A. ORET Grant -- E22.5 million
    B. Fortis Bank Buyer Credit -- E22.5 million
    Interest Rate -- 6MEuribor + 0.65 per cent
    Mr. Salia 2:15 p.m.


    Grace Period -- 3 years

    Repayment Period -- 10 years

    Grant Element -- 69.3 per cent

    4.0 Observations

    The Committee observed that the credit will support the efforts of the Government, to significantly increase the water supply coverage in Tamale, and its environs. It will also improve health and socio-economic conditions, as well as poverty reduction.

    The Committee observed that the extensive rehabilitation works which was undertaken relating to the replacement of electro-mechanical equipment under the Water Supply Rehabilitation Project (WSRP) was completed in 1999. The capacity of the Dalun treatment plant was also increased from 11.250m3/day (2.5 million gallons per day) to 19,350m3/ day (4.3 million gallons per day).

    The Committee also observed that the population of Tamale has increased and all the villages along the main transmission area fetch water from the main line, as a result the water supply in Tamale become inadequate.

    The Committee was informed that in

    January 1997, a contract was signed with Messrs West Africa Water Limited for the expansion of the Tamale Water Supply System to a capacity of 37,800m3/day (8.4 million gallons per day) on a turnkey basis, designed by COW Consult from Denmark with funding from OECF of Japan with the original contract sum of £47.3 million. Due to financial problems the contract was not executed.

    The technical team informed the Committee that presently the pumps are being rehabilitated as a stopgap measure, whilst awaiting the intended rehabilitation and expansion of the water system.

    The Committee further observed that the project which has a three-year duration has been confirmed by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MOFEP), and that it satisfies all Government of Ghana's conditions for concessionary financing. Cabinet has also considered and approved the credit agreement.

    Members expressed concern about the inability of the Ministry of Works and Housing to make available the finalized
    Mr. Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Hon. Chairperson, are you correcting the figure on the Order Paper?
    Mrs. Coleman 2:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the
    figure on the Order Paper is 45.0 million euros and in the report, it is 22.5 million euros. There is a similar problem in the sense that the loans are such that half of them are grants and the other half are the real loans. So the loan can be thought of as 45.0 million euros, if we are considering the whole; but if we are looking at the grant and the loan then it is 22.5 million euros.
    Mr. Speaker, we have always approved
    Mr. Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Are you making a report? Let us get that right. Hon. Chairperson, what is the right figure?
    Mrs. Coleman 2:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the total
    amount is 45.0 million euros; the grant element is 22.5 million euros and the loan is 22.5 million euros.
    Mr. Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Are you therefore
    correcting the figure on your report?
    Mrs. Coleman 2:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the loan
    that is being approved is 45.0 million euros.
    Mr. Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Any seconder to the
    motion?
    Mr. Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe that the people of Tamale have been suffering for a rather long time in respect of the shortages of water. It is on record from the report that about 1997 there was an effort to provide water for Tamale, but as you might know, Tamale is one of the fastest growing urban areas in Ghana, in fact, in the whole of West Africa. As a result, the demand for water quickly outstrips the supply. It is therefore useful that this particular loan will be applied for the provision of water to the Tamale municipality. I would therefore want to urge all my hon. Colleagues to support this motion and vote massively for it.
    Before sitting down I will like to add that Tamale would now be a bit lucky to have water and I can imagine the happiness of the people when in the next couple of months the water finally comes. But in the interim there are reports of water shortage and I think that there is the need for some intervention before this particular project comes into operation.
    Beyond that, I also wish to draw attention to the situation of the Upper West regional capital, Wa, which is the only city or regional capital in this country where water supply is from boreholes. The aquifers are drying up, the water table is falling and as a result there is the need to look for surface water from, probably, the Black Volta, which is a short distance away from the regional capital, so that the perennial water shortage that occurs in the Upper West regional capital could also be brought to an end.

    With these few words, I wish to urge every hon. Member in this House to vote massively for the approval of this particular facility for the provision of water in the Tamale municipality.

    Question proposed.
    Minister for Environment and Science (Ms. Christine Churcher) 2:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I wish to support this motion. I am excited that although the water problem of Tamale dates back to many years, positive change means positive response to the needs of people - [Hear! Hear!]
    Mr. Speaker, it means that there is a
    Government which is sensitive to the plight of people. I am happy that in seconding the motion it was stated clearly that at this time the problem of Tamale and the water crisis would see a positive change.
    I am also very excited because I know
    Mr. Salia 2:25 p.m.
    On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend, maybe, is paraphrasing me but I did not say the water situation would see a positive change, I did not - [Interruptions.]
    Mr. Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Hon. Member, you may
    continue.
    Ms. Churcher 2:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, when I
    say positive change I am talking about a response to a need, which is constructive. I am talking about a change which is not negative but positive. What I am saying is that before this time there was no way that we could have seen how the water problem in Tamale would be solved. Today we are approving of a loan which is going to address that situation. Mr.
    Mr. Bagbin 2:25 p.m.
    On a point of order. Mr.
    Speaker, my hon. Colleague on the floor is completely misleading the House. I recognised her absence in the House for some time and therefore she wants to announce her presence. But it is clear from those who are in the water sector, the progressive efforts that were made towards improving the water situation in Tamale; efforts were made and the water situation improved. But as was stated, it is one of the fastest expanding cities in West Africa and therefore there is the need to put up more efforts to catch up. That does not mean that there were no efforts to solve the water problem.
    Mr. Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Hon. Member, let her
    continue.
    Ms. Churcher 2:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, for the
    hon. Minority Leader to say that I have been away and I want to announce my presence is to give the impression that I am a mute Member of Parliament. I want to let the hon. Minority Leader know that whether Tamale is a fast growing city or not, the issue is that it has been growing since some years ago. There is a government which has seen that because it is growing a certain need has to be addressed. The New Patriotic Party (NPP) Government has addressed it, and I am saying that I am excited because I also know Tamale and I know that Tamale is a fast growing area.
    I also know the gravity of the water shortage situation there. Coming from Cape Coast and knowing how Cape Coast was suffering from water shortage, I know what the people of Tamale have been suffering and I am excited that there is a government today which does not
    Alhaji Sumani Abukari 2:25 p.m.
    On a point
    of order. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister for Environment and Science is clearly misleading this House.

    Mr. Speaker, recognition of this

    problem did not start now and the efforts that are being put in are just to build on the foundation that was laid by the last government. We appreciate that water is being sent to Tamale but the facts should not be distorted, please.
    Mr. Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Hon. Minister for
    Environment and Science, are you over? Have you wound up?
    Ms. Churcher 2:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I spoke this way because I listened to the press conference on the water crisis in Tamale. Mr. Speaker, they talked about the water shortage even in the hospital and I am saying that we are here sitting today because we want to approve a loan that will address the situation. Mr. Speaker, so far as I am concerned, the Government which has addressed it in my time is the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Government; history will forever say it.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to the motion on the floor.
    Mr. Osei-Prempeh 2:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    our hon. Friend is trying to persist in the misleading press conference he held. Mr. Speaker, I want him to tell the whole nation whether this loan agreement was arranged after he had held his press conference as he said on radio and everywhere and he is saying the same thing.
    Mr. Speaker, he should tell us whether it was after his press conference that Government ran and had this for credit agreement for Tamale water. Otherwise, he should check his statement and apologize appropriately.
    Mr. haruna Iddrisu 2:35 p.m.
    Rt. Hon. Speaker, thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, but for want of time, it is unusual for this House to be proceeding to approve a loan agreement when the agreement pertaining to it has not been discussed even at the committee level -- [Interruptions.] That is so, it has not been finalized. Indeed, the Finance Committee members are here - [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    You address the Chair. Hon. Deputy Minister for Finance and Economic Planning, if you have any point of order raise it properly.
    Mr. haruna Iddrisu 2:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I would urge hon. Members to support this motion. [Laughter.]
    Minister for Foreign Affairs (Nana Akufo-Addo) 2:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, this is a good day in the life of this House, that a

    That our decisions as to how resources in this country should be raised and spent has nothing to do with political consideration. [Hear! Hear!] The areas of this country that are even strong in their rejection of our appeal still benefit fully from the consideration of this Government. I think it is an exceptionally important lesson that we are all learning that governments can indeed be even- handed and live up to the requirements of the Constitution that it develops all parts of our country. On our side of the fence, whether or not the people of Tamale vote for us in 2008 - because some of them are going to do that - [Hear! Hear!] - perhaps many more than people think are going to do that - we will continue to administer this country on a fair, and equitable even- handedness - [Inter-ruption.]
    rose
    Mr. Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Hon. Member for Wa West, do you have point of order to raise?
    Mr. Chireh 2:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I have a point
    of order. I know that the hon. Minister for Foreign Affairs is an “aspirant” but he should remember that although the contract for the Wa - Bole - Bamboi road was awarded fully, it was discontinued soon after the NPP came to power, reawarded and it is snail-pacing when indeed we should have been using that road.
    Mr. Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Hon. Minister for
    Foreign Affairs, you may continue.
    Nana Akufo-Addo 2:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we
    Mr. Francis A. Agbotse (NDC -- ho West) 2:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I stand to support the motion on the floor and to remind the hon. Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing that some women are threatening to demonstrate on Saturday because of the water situation in Tamale
    Mr. Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Hon. Minister for
    Water Resources, Works and Housing, do you have a point of order to raise?
    Mr. Owusu-Agyemang 2:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    my good friend does not even have the facts. Dalon has three pumps and not four pumps. [Laughter.] So what is his problem?
    Mr. Agbotse 2:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I got my
    Mr. Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Hon. Member for Ho West, please continue.
    Mr. Agbotse 2:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, all I am saying is that some immediate remedial works should be done whilst we are waiting for this loan to mature. In addition, I would want to remind the hon. Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing that several petitions have been sent to his office from the Ho Water Works, that this water work is seriously being affected. And because of that the second phase of Kpeve-Ho Water Project cannot be carried out. I would want the hon. Minister to start thinking about Ho Water Works in the next loans that will come to his office.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
    Alhaji Malik Al-hassan Yakubu
    (NPP - Yendi): Mr. Speaker, I would also like to strongly support this motion. Tamale, where I was born, has for a very long time suffered from water shortages. In fact, on the day that taps in Tamale
    will be flowing, it will look like a dream come true for the people of Tamale. And I think that this effort that is being made is very commendable. The amount of forty-five million euros is the biggest amount of money that is being pumped into the Tamale Water Rehabilitation and Expansion Project, which is very commendable.
    I think that the people of Tamale deserve what is happening because of the size of the city. I think that water is life and the effort that is being made by this Government to provide the people of Ghana with water should be continued and more of these loans should be found to address water problem in all parts of the country.
    I think that this is an example; what
    is happening now is an example to show that as representatives of the people, when we want to address the problems of our people, no matter which side of the House we come from, we should seek to link up with the Sector Ministers and Ministries to know what is happening before we come out and talk about them; otherwise, we would find ourselves in embarrassing situations. Because here we are, only a few days after a press conference to lament the water problem of Tamale, we are considering a loan, which has been thought of long ago, and now it is in fruition.
    So I think we should make use of our Ministers and our Ministries to get information about our areas so that we will make appropriate interventions when we need to do that. I would like to urge all hon. Members to support this motion and hope that many more of such motions will come to address acute water shortage in other parts of the country.
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    Prof. A. Wayo Seini (NDC --
    Tamale Central): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this motion.
    Mr. Speaker, as others have always
    stressed, the Tamale water problem did not start today. It has been with us for quite a long time and in fact for some of us, from childhood. But the fact that it has persisted underlines the observation that Tamale is one of the fastest growing cities in West Africa, that is why the water problem continues to be with us for a very long time.
    But Mr. Speaker, I would like to add
    that water is a big problem, not only in Tamale but also throughout the big cities in Ghana. In Tamale in particular it has reached some proportions that are unbearable. The Regional Minister will testify that he is probably in temporary refuge in Accra because of the very bad situation in Tamale right now.
    Mr. Speaker, we have heard of so many
    agreements in the past to solve the Tamale water problem, not only Tamale but also other places like Koforidua and others; but they are never operationalized. So we do hope that this time around, this particular agreement will be opera-tionalized.
    But Mr. Speaker, we also have to be
    aware that this loan is being approved without us actually seeing the actual agreement because we worked on the loan under the indicative terms of the bank and the country that is providing us with the loan.
    But Mr. Speaker, apart from that,
    the fast growth of Tamale also calls for alternative sources of water. For example, we could tap water from Yapei and other places on the White Volta to supplement what is coming from Dalon. Because if we watch, most of the other big cities like Kumasi and Accra they have other alternative sources of water supply. Water
    from Yapei or Daboya, for example, could serve the southern part of Tamale whilst Dalon continues to serve the northern part of Tamale.
    So Mr. Speaker, while we approve
    this loan -- and I hope it is going to be operationalized and it works within a very short time -- we should also in addition be looking for alternative sources of water and for resources to tap for the use of the fast-growing city of Tamale.
    Mr. Speaker, the problem is so serious that recently there was a cholera outbreak in Tamale. My fear is that there may be one coming again, because as we speak now, there is just no water in Tamale and people are sourcing for water from anywhere. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Tamale area has very low water tables, so one cannot even go in for underground water or for boreholes. So it is a very serious problem and I hope that this loan when it is approved, will be operationalized quickly and that very soon the expansion works will be done so that the Tamale problem will be solved.
    With these words, Mr. Speaker, I urge
    my hon. Colleagues on both sides to support this motion.
    Mr. Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Hon. Minister for the
    North?
    Northern Regional Minister (Mr.
    rose
    Mr. Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Hon. Member for Bawku
    Central, do you have any point of order to raise?
    Mr. Ayariga 2:45 p.m.
    Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr.
    Mr. Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Anyway, hon. Minister,
    please continue.
    Mr. Boniface 2:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I would

    Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a

    welcoming news to the whole of Northern Region and Tamale in particular. Because we have had perennial water shortage and various arrangements have been made to secure loans but that had become impossible. Today we are getting a loan with the support of our Government that will bring to an end the sufferings of the people.

    Securing this loan and getting water for the people will in actual fact help to bring a lot of investments to the North, Tamale in particular. Because a lot of investment proposals have come to Tamale and disappear because of water problems.

    Even today, anybody hearing of the approval of this loan will believe that his life-span will be extended for the fact that he is going to get water.

    The hon. Member for Tamale South (Mr. Haruna Iddrisu) should be the most excited man today and I know his lifespan has been extended by some 50 years ahead -- [Laughter.] And of course, getting potable water in Tamale will extend and reduce poverty in northern Ghana and Tamale in particular and will put a stop to our women, people and schools from going to hunt for water. Of course, hon. Moses Asaga will be the most happiest
    Mr. Boniface 2:55 p.m.


    man today because he has part of his family in Tamale and so getting potable water should make him one of the happiest men today.

    Looking at the terms of the loan that we are going to benefit from, it looks more concessionary and one of the best. Hon. Sallas-Mensah can confirm this; a 69 per cent concessionary loan is one of the best we can think of; it is just a gift like what we had yesterday, the ¢60 million concessionary facility. It is more or less a gift and so all of us should look at it and support it.

    So my hon. Colleagues are very happy, yesterday we all deliberated over this issue, it was like celebrating the hon. Member for Tamale South's (Mr. Haruna Iddrisu) birthday, it was very nice. So on this issue, I want to stand on behalf of the whole of Tamale and its environs to thank the Ggovernment for being a listening Government and ensuring that we are going to get this facility to reduce the problems that we are facing in Tamale.

    Minister for Finance and Economic

    Planning (Mr. Baah-Wiredu): Mr. Speaker, I think now we are coming to the end of these three loans which obviously give us about €98.8 million, between them. We have the loans and the grants which have been made clear to all of us. I think we are getting these facilities because of the support The Netherlands
    Mr. Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    I will take only one more
    contribution because we have come to the end of it. If the hon. Minority Leader would want to --
    Mr. A. S. K. Bagbin 2:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the Ranking Member of the Committee (Alhaji Seidu Amadu) wants to say a few words.
    Alhaji Seidu Amadu (NDC - Yapei/
    Kusawgu): Mr. Speaker, as much as I support this motion I have seen a very big and serious omission. The Joint Committee's Report does not indicate the scope of works that are going to be done with this loan -- [Interruptions.] Mr. Speaker, water supply systems are capital intensive and they are very expensive but we have not even seen the technical approval report that tells us for how many years Tamale is going to have a reliable supply of safe water.
    The same applied to Baifikrom- Barekese when we were doing. I am saying this because only in 1996 Princess Ann was in this country to commission the Barekese Water Rehabilitation Project and in less than ten years we are going in for another loan to improve water supply
    system for the people of Kumasi.
    So I am saying that water supply
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:55 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, the hon. Member who took just the floor is creating an impression about the Barekese Water Works expansion, which seems to be inaccurate. The hon. Colleague knows that when the facility was first being talked about, the quantum was far larger than what was approved of. In fact, it was scaled down at the time because they could not source the funding at that time which occasioned what is being done today.
    Some hon. Members: That is what he is saying.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah Bonsu 2:55 p.m.
    So it is not good to say that we are having to look at it again within that short term, because when they started, it was a good endeavour but then it was only because they could not source the correct quantum of money and they had to scale it down that is why we have had to revisit it.
    Alhaji Amadu 2:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think
    we are all talking on the same wavelength, I am just cautioning that in future when we are contracting such loans, because of their capital intensive nature we need value-for-money. Therefore take loans that would enable the beneficiary communities to have reliable water supply for probably 15 years. This is why I would not be surprised if in the next five years this
    House is called upon to approve another loan just to improve upon the water supply system.
    Mr. Speaker, I was also on the issue of
    the previous arrangement that was made to rehabilitate the Tamale water system. Under that agreement by West African Water G. C. communities within 15-20 kilometre radius of Tamale were all to be connected. Today, if you look at the Committee's report, paragraph 4, it is only talking about Tamale and its environs; “Tamale and its environs” is not clearly defined.
    If we are able to keep to the original programme, it would mean that some communities in central Gonja, some communities in eastern Gonja will definitely benefit including Tolon- Kumbungu District Assembly and the Savelugu Nanton District Assembly. All these communites which depend on the Tamale water system are supposed to benefit. So I just want to crave the indulgence of the hon. Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing to look in the area of the extension of the project to the original design level of 20 kilometres radius of Tamale so that many more communities could benefit from this macro investment of capital. Forty-five million euros is a lot of money that the Government is contracting and therefore we must be made to benefit from that particular facility.
    With these, I support the motion.
    Minority Leader (Mr. A. S. K.
    Bagbin): Mr. Speaker, definitely, we all support this motion; it is a gallant effort and as a country we have to encourage such efforts. Mr. Speaker, the worry of some of us is that we do not want to learn from our history and we try to behave as if when things were happening in this country we were in a deep slumber.
    Mr. Speaker, it is only a child who

    is ungrateful who when he grows up starts condemning the mother who toiled throughout to take care of him while the errant father ran away and now that the errant father is able to buy suit for him, he starts praising the father and condemning the mother. That is only an ungrateful son.
    Dr. A. A. Osei 3:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of what my senior brother and friend is reading. We are trying to approve a €45 million credit facility not €22.5 million.
    Mr. Bagbin 3:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I have just
    Mr. Boniface 3:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, 1997 that
    he is talking about, I believe at that time I was in the Ministry of Finance. But now when we are talking of €45 million, it means our negotiation skills have been good and value-for-money checks have been carried out and that could have brought it down. I think that is what it means. But to say that at that, £47 million should be higher now is neither here nor there.
    Mr. Boniface 3:05 p.m.
    On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I would want to know the quantity of water that would have been supplied in 1997 and the quantity that would be supplied now.
    Mr. Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    Hon. Minority Leader, you may continue.
    Mr. Bagbin 3:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, in 1997, as captured even by the report of the Committee, there was extensive rehabilitation works of the water system in Tamale. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Owusu-Agyemang 3:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, in order that we may not lose so much time, I have just gone to make assurance doubly sure. I have checked with the technical person for Ghana Water and he assures me that the hon. Minister for Northern Region is right; that it is the same scope of works which was going to cost £47 million and now it is €45 million. We can check later and compare but we do not have the documents here so let us make progress. The Director for Projects is there and he has confirmed that indeed
    the price came down from that level to €45 million. So it is very good, we did very good management.
    rose
    Mr. Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    This was a point of order which was raised and I want him to continue - unless you have another point of order to raise.
    Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 3:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, perhaps at certain times we need to plead that certain figures that tend to bring controversy, we should try to avoid them. I just checked up, for instance, the figure that was given for the Ashaiman Bridge in those days was supposed to be about €40 million; but the current expenditure including the other additions is now €21 million. Now some of these things when you do value-for-money analysis the figures can change so if we can make progress on this matter; otherwise, we may tend to bring in more debate and that is where people then begin to read meanings into it.
    Mr. Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    The hon. Minority Leader is continuing.
    Mr. Bagbin 3:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, let me put it clearly here that if hon. Members do not have data, and if they do not have theirs facts, especially the hon. Majority Leader, they should stop misleading the House. When we approved the loan for the Tema/Ashaiman Interchange, it was 20.3 million, not 40 million. It was approved by this House in 1999. I still have the document and I have the report of the Committee; we had the debates here, they are captured in the Hansar. Please, it is important that we do not mislead this country - very, very important. We have
    all the documents here, we can prove.
    Dr. R. W. Anane 3:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, just to put some records straight. Mr. Speaker, it is true that the loan which was contracted was $20.3 million. But Mr. Speaker, it is also true that the procurement was for $45 million. This contract had to be cancelled, a re-bid was done and indeed the contractor who eve
    However, we asked for some changes to be made to the original project. Instead of a bridge over Ashaiman, we wanted it to be an interchange and because of that, it ended up at €21 million. So Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Majority Leader is saying that in those days it was €40 something million, that was what had been procured but that was cancelled.
    Mr. Bagbin 3:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, by the Minister's own submissions he is talking about a different scope of work -- by his own submissions now he is talking about different scope of work. Mr. Speaker, I still have in my hand a report of the Committee and the areas that the monies were contracted to be done -- it is here. So what he is talking of is a different scope of work with a different cost and analogy.
    Mr. Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    Which motion are we dealing with at the moment? I am lost. What are we dealing with?
    Mr. Bagbin 3:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, they are raising points of order and introducing other matters and that is why I am reacting to it. They are raising points of order and introducing other matters.
    Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the report of the Committee. I am saying that even as far back as 1999, there was extensive rehabilitation works undertaken on the water system in Tamale and that
    Mr. Bagbin 3:05 p.m.


    increased the capacity from 2.5 million gallons per day to 4.3 million gallons per day.

    Mr. Speaker, the next paragraph clearly stated why we still needed to expand the system. It says and I quote, Mr. Speaker:

    “The Committee also observed that the population of Tamale has increased and all the villages along the main transmission area fetched water from the main line; as a result the water system in Tamale became inadequate.”
    Dr. A. A. Osei 3:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my senior brother, I think the issue that brought this so-called debate was the matter of the scope of works. He was trying to assert that the price was £47.3 million and the hon. Minister got the technical information to tell us for the same scope of works, it was €45 million.
    So he was trying to make a technical argument and that was why we came to that argument. So it is not a government to government issue.

    He said that we needed more money so forty-five million euros was not enough. And the Minister says the technical people are saying it is for the same scope of work. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, we are not technicians, we seek advice from technical people to define the work for us. This is not partisan. The technical definition is strictly non- partisan. The hon. Member was bringing the information up so that we would all know what we are talking about. Other matters are different; but Mr. Speaker, on this matter I beg to differ.
    Mr. Bagbin 3:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, all these submissions would have been unnecessary if we had those technical people at the committee level. Mr. Speaker, it is not just for somebody to sit down and say that from his mind - I am telling him that whether he is a technical director or not it is important because we are talking about the specifics. And I am telling him - [Interruptions.] Please, when he was talking I was quiet.
    Mr. Owusu-Agyemang 3:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    Mr. Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    Order! Order!
    Mr. Moses Asaga 3:15 p.m.
    We all have some places to go. [Interruptions.] We do not have any place to go?
    Mr. Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    Order! Order! Hon. Member for Nabdam, please - [Interruption.]
    Mr. Asaga 3:15 p.m.
    How could he say that? We all have places to go. It is because of his motion that we are here. What is that nonsense?
    Mr. Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    Hon. Member for
    Nabdam, that is certainly unacceptable.
    rose
    Mr. Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    It is highly unacceptable. You only speak when you are called upon.
    Mr. Asaga 3:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, you did not call me before I spoke so I apologize for that.
    Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 3:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think there is a particular word that was used by my hon. Colleague which definitely has got to be withdrawn; that is “nonsense”. That cannot be allowed in this House.
    Mr. Asaga 3:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word “nonsense” but the Minister for Water Resources and Works and Housing should withdraw saying that they have places to go and we are wasting their time. [Interruptions.] Yes, he said that.
    Mr. Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    Hon. Member for Nabdam, please calm down. Hon. Minister -
    Mr. Owusu-Agyemang 3:15 p.m.
    Rt. Hon. Speaker, I did say that we have places to go. I have withdrawn that with the utmost of respect. I apologize for it. I withdraw it. I do not think that this young man should really insult me. But I withdraw that. Let us make progress - [Hear! Hear!]
    Mr. Bagbin 3:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, let me just try to wind up. Mr. Speaker, my hon. Colleague, Mr. Owusu-Agyemang is aware that by this time I should have been in my constituency for a very important engagement. But because yesterday, they on that side of the House consulted and discussed national issues with me and I found it prudent in the overall interest of the nation to agree with them and to talk to my hon. Colleagues to let us come today to do this work. So for him to get up and say
    Mr. Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    Hon. Minority Leader, are you winding up?
    Mr. Bagbin 3:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it is clear that when we were considering the Kumasi (Barekese) Water Supply Rehabilitation and Expansion Project - [Interruption.]
    Dr. A. A. Osei 3:15 p.m.
    On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, my senior hon. Colleague was wearing a white shirt this morning; he was very brilliant and he is still brilliant. But I wonder why the red cap is making him so angry - [Interruptions.] So, please, he should go and bring the white shirt back -- [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    Hon. Deputy Minister, you have no point of order. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Bagbin 3:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, from the report of the Committee on the Kumasi- Barekese Water Supply Rehabilitation and Expansion Project the scope of works are clearly stated there.
    Now, if you look at the one on the Tamale Water Rehabilitation and Expansion Project, there is no scope of work. We are saying that it is important we just do not take what people say off the cuff as the whole gospel. And I am saying that, yes, I was also in the water sector for many years and I know the progress we made in the sector - how we created the Water Commission; how we de-linked the rural water from the urban water project; and how we went in for loans to rehabilitate and improve water systems in the country. We did not do all, but that does not mean that the previous regime did not perform; it is very important.
    Mr. Speaker, this is a loan that we all support and this is a loan that will improve the water system in Tamale, but I am saying that there is still the need for us to go for more of such loans because within a short time the population will outgrow the water system. We have seen that in
    Accra, we have seen that in Kumasi and in most of the cities. And in fact, as we sit here, in Parliament House itself we are faced with serious water problems. That does not mean that previous regimes did not do well on the water system.

    Mr. Speaker, finally I think we need to encourage the Ministry of Water Resources, Works and Housing to come out finally with the way forward for the reforms in the water sector. Because I know the problems in the water sector are huge, the way forward is sometimes not very clear. And I believe strongly that we need an infusion of over two billion dollars into the water sector to make sure that potable water is available to about ninety or more per cent of the population of this country. That is not easy to access but it is important that we encourage and support each other so that we can go faster than we are doing now.
    Mr. Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    Hon. Minister, I hope you will be winding up.
    Mr. Owusu-Agyemang 3:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    let me thank all hon. Members who have contributed for the support that they have given to this endeavour and to say that projection-wise, the new capacity would
    take us to the year 2025. What happens in these instances, Mr. Speaker, is that as population grows, capacity must also change. The Barekese one for example were done in lots and we just have to add another lot. If we go to Weija to do the interconnection, we just have to add another lot to it. So they come in sequences and this is what we normally do because investment is too high.
    Mr. Speaker, as to immediate term measures, we did issue out a press release last night to the effect that the water system in Tamale will come to near normalcy, although not adequately, to its status quo, its old level by next week. Fortunately -- because people were in a hurry to criticize -- Last night we started the testing of the second pump which had broken down and my information by telephone from Tamale is that it is still working as I speak to you now, and God willing, by the end of the week everything would be back to its old situation.
    Again, the two tankers that we have procured on an emergency basis are there. As regards the first, perhaps the controversial statement made by hon. Salia, who is no longer here, I would like to assure the House that on the 6th of December, 2005 we almost completed the negotiation of a loan of €35 million for the Wa water system, that is -- 2005 -- and as of yesterday we got the final documents on the terms as the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning has stipulated as well as the credit agreement this time round. So Wa is not being left out in any instance.
    This is the genesis of the whole argument that came. Wa will be taken care of latest by January next year and I think every effort is being made to equitably distribute the resources. I am hoping that
    rose
    Mr. Owusu-Agyemang 3:25 p.m.
    And including Ningo and everywhere else. On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the contributors and assure them that we shall execute the project with dispatch once all the necessary legal and administrative measures have been completed.
    Question put and motion agreed to:
    That this honourable House adopts the Report of the Joint Committee on Finance and Works and Housing on the Credit Agreement between the Republic of Ghana and the FMO/ORET and ING Bank N.V. of the Netherlands for an amount of €45.0 million to finance the Tamale Water Supply Rehabilitation and Expansion Project.
    RESOLuTIONS
    Credit Agreement between GOG and FMO/ORET and ING Bank N.V. on Tamale Water Supply Rehabilitation
    Deputy Minister for Finance and Economic Planning (Dr. A. A. Osei): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that
    WHEREAS by the provisions of article 181 of the Constitution and section 7 of the Loans Act, 1970 (Act 335), the terms and conditions of any loan raised by the Government of Ghana on behalf of itself or any public institution or authority shall not come into operation unless the said terms and conditions have been laid before Parliament and approved by Parliament by a Resolution supported by the votes of a majority of all Members of Parliament;

    PURSUANT to the provisions of the said article 181 of the Constitution and section 7 of the Loans Act, 1970 (Act 335) and at the request of the Government of Ghana acting through the Minister responsible for Finance, there has been laid before Parliament the terms and conditions of the Credit Agreement between the Republic of Ghana and the FMO/ORET and ING Bank N.V. of The Netherlands for an amount of €45.0 million to finance the Tamale Water Supply Rehabilitation and Expansion Project.
    THIS HONOURABLE HOUSE 3:25 p.m.
    H E R E B Y R E S O LV E S A S 3:25 p.m.
    Mr. Owusu-Agyemang 3:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
    Question put and motion agreed to.
    Resolved accordingly.
    Suspension of Standing Order 80 (1)
    Chairman of the Committee (Mrs. Grace Coleman) 3:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 80 (1) which require that no motion shall be debated until at least forty-eights hours have elapsed between
    the date on which notice of the motion is given and the date on which the motion is moved, the motion for the adoption of the Report of the Joint Committee on Finance and Works and Housing on the Request by the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning for the prior approval of Parliament to the exercise by him of his power under the Laws and Regulations to waive such taxes and duties on specified machines, equipment, plant and ancillary items amounting to US$477,500.00 in respect of the Immediate and Medium Term Measures on the Elmina Benya Lagoon Restoration Project may be moved today.
    Dr. A. A. Osei 3:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
    Question put and motion agreed to.
    Resolved accordingly.
    Mr. Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    Item 13 - Chairman of the Committee?
    Request for Tax and Duty Exemptions on Specified Machines
    for the Elmina Benya Lagoon Restoration Project
    Mrs. Coleman 3:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that this honourable House adopts the Report of the Joint Committee on Finance and Works and Housing on the Request by the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning for the prior approval of Parliament to the exercise by him of his power under the Laws and Regulations to waive such taxes and duties on specified machines, equipment, plant and ancillary items amounting to US$477,500.00 in respect of the Immediate and Medium Term Measures on the Elmina Benya Lagoon Restoration Project.
    Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the report of the Joint Committee on Finance and Works and Housing on the Request
    for tax and duty exemptions totalling
    US$477,500.00.
    1.0 Introduction
    Mr. Speaker, the request for tax and duty exemption was laid in the House on 13th December 2005 and referred to the Joint Committee on Finance and Works and Housing for consideration and report in accordance with article 181 of the Constitution and the Standing Orders of the House.
    To consider the exemption, the Committee met with the Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing, hon. Hackman Owusu-Agyemang, Minister for Finance and Economic Planning, hon. Kwadwo Baah-Wiredu and the two Deputy Ministers for Finance and Economic Planning, hon. A. Akoto Osei and hon. George Y. Gyan-Baffour and officials from the Ministry of Water Resources, Works and Housing and Finance and Economic Planning and reports as follows:
    2.0 Background
    The House approved a credit facility for the immediate and medium-term measures on the Elmina Benya Lagoon Restoration Project to rectify the worsening situation of the lagoon, which has impacted negatively on the fishing industry, the environment and social development of the area. At present, almost all the bigger canoes move offshore for want of better facilities on shore, while smaller canoes are only able to enter the lagoon and move at higher tides.
    Currently the lagoon is heavily silted up and the dry dock quay wall has deteriorated due to the aging phenomena. Additionally the protecting breakwater at the entrance of the lagoon is heavily
    damaged by the ocean waves and its present degraded condition constitutes a hazard for the local fishing community, including safe passage of visiting fishing vessels into the Benya Lagoon.
    The Edina Traditional Council made a request to the Government of Ghana for assistance to dredge the Benya Lagoon as a matter of urgency. Due to this the Ministry of Water Resources, Works and Housing requested Consultants to visit the Elmina Benya Lagoon in mid-2003 to assess the situation and advise appropriately remedial measures.
    As part of the solution the contractors and the consultants recommended a three-stage action plan. This included the immediate and medium-term measures on the Elmina Benya Lagoon.
    Article 5 of the credit facility which sought to fund the project indicates that the project be exempted from taxes and duties of any kind, related to the importation of specified machines, equipment, plant and ancillary items for the project.
    3.0 Project Cost
    The cost of financing the immediate and medium-term measures is in the amount of €12,138,185.00. The amount is to be provided by the Govenrment of the Kingdom of Belgium and KBC Bank N.V. The project is being undertaken in collaboration with the Belgian contractors engaged in the dredging of the Benya Lagoon.
    The estimate cost of equipment, machinery and material for the project is US$14,110,000 (€11,988,105). Estimates provided by CEPS indicate that the total duties and other taxes on equipment, plant machinery and materials for the project is
    €477,500.00.
    4.0 Observations
    Mrs. Coleman 3:25 p.m.


    The Committee observed that the dredging of the lagoon would improve the safety of the fishing community at Elmina thereby improving the economic activities and lifestyle of the people.

    The Committee was informed that the immediate and medium-term activities are expected to be completed in six (6) months after commencement of work.

    The Committee noted that article 5 of the Loan Agreement requires that the project is exempted from the payment of import duties or taxes of any kind, related to the importation of specified machines, equipment, plant and ancillary items for the project. These exemptions includes: Company tax, Corporate tax, Withholding tax, Remittance tax, VAT/NHIL on imported materials, equipment, et cetera. and any other tax, duties, levies, et cetera.

    The Committee was informed that the tax revenue lost as a result of the exemption should be considered as part of GOG's financial contribution to the project. Estimates provided by the CEPS indicate that a total tax and duties on equipment, plant, and materials for the project is $477,500.00.

    The Committee recommends that the project be exempted from all taxes and duties in line with article 5 of the Loan document to enable the implementation of the project.

    5.0 Conclusion

    Having satisfied itself with the benefits to be derived from the project and the terms of the loan, the Committee respectfully recommends to the House to approve the request for tax and duty exemption, or any kind, on vehicles and equipment for the project in an amount of $477,500.00 in accordance with article 174 (2) of the Constitution.
    APPENDIX 3:25 p.m.
    T H E 3:25 p.m.
    COMMISSIONER 3:25 p.m.
    AND HOUSING 3:25 p.m.
    ACCRA 3:25 p.m.
    FOR 3:25 p.m.
    RESTORATION PROJECT 3:25 p.m.
    Dr. A. A. Osei 3:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
    Question put and motion agreed to:
    That this honourable House adopts the Report of the Joint Committee on Finance and Works and Housing on the request by the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning for the prior approval of Parliament to the exercise by him of his power under the Laws and Regulations to waive such taxes and duties on specified machines, equipment, plant and ancillary items amounting to US$477,500.00 in respect of the immediate and Medium Term Measures on the Elmina Benya Lagoon Restoration Project.
    RESOLuTION
    Tax and Duty Exemptions on Specified Machines for the Elmina Benya Lagoon Restoration Project
    Deputy Minister for Finance and Economic Planning (Dr. A. A. Osei): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that
    WHEREAS by the provisions of article 174 (2) of the Constitution Parliament is empowered to confer power on any person or authority to waive or vary a tax imposed by an Act of Parliament:
    THE EXERCISE of any power conferred on any person or authority to waive or vary a tax in favour of any person or authority is by the said provisions made subject to the prior approval of Parliament by resolution;
    Dr. A. A. Osei 3:25 p.m.
    Page 229

    BY THE combined operation of the provisions of section 26 (2) of the Customs, Excise and Preventive Service (Management) Law, 1993 (PNDCL 330), the Export and Import Act, 1995 (Act 503) the Export Development and Investment Fund Act, 2000 (Act 582), the Value Added Tax Act, 1998 (Act 546), the Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2000 (Act 579) and other existing Laws and Regulations applicable to the collection of customs duties and other taxes on the importation of goods into Ghana, the Minister for Finance may exempt any statutory corporation, institution or individual from the payment of duties and taxes otherwise payable under the said Laws and Regulations or waive or vary the requirement of such statutory corporation, institution or individual to pay such duties and taxes;

    IN ACCORDANCE with the provisions of the Contitution and at the request of the Government of Ghana acting through the Minister responsible for Finance, there has been laid before Parliament a request by the Minister for Finance for the prior approval of Parliament to the exercise by him of his power under the Laws and Regulations relating to the importation of specified machines, equipment, plant and ancillary items amounting to US$477,500.00 in respect of the Immediate and Medium Term Measures on the Elmina Benya Lagoon Restoration Project.

    N O W T H E R E F O R E , t h i s h o n o u r a b l e H o u s e h e r e b y approves the exercise by the

    Minister responsible for Finance of the power granted to him by the Parliament by Statute to waive such taxes and duties or to exempt the payment of such taxes and duties on specified machines, equipment, plant and ancillary items amounting to US$477,500.00 in respect of the Immediate and Medium Term Measures on the Elmina Benya Lagoon Restoration Project.
    Mr. Owusu-Agyemang 3:25 p.m.
    Mr. Spealer, I beg to second the motion.
    Question put and motion agreed to.
    Resolved accordingly.
    Mr. Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    Leadership, I am sure we have exhausted the Order Paper.
    Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 3:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think we have brought the Public Business to an end and perhaps the hon. Minority Leader will make his closing remarks.
    CLOSING REMARKS 3:25 p.m.
    Minority Leader (Mr. A. S. K. Bagbin) 3:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we have once again come to the end of another Meeting and another Session and I think it is appropriate we thank the Almighty God for seeing us through all these days. I think as a House we have done pretty well. We have performed our duties and roles effectively. My hon. Colleague, the Majority Leader might give a fuller report of the productivity of the House in terms of the passage of Bills, Instruments, Loans and the approval of the Budget Statement and Economic Policy of the Government for the year 2006.

    Mr. Speaker, the only thing I want to
    R 3:35 p.m.
    Mr. Bagbin 3:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, anybody

    Mr. Speaker, I am raising these things

    Mr. Speaker, may I without much ado, express my sincere appreciation to the staff of the Parliamentary Service. They have performed very well not only at committees but in the organization of our programmes and activities and I think that they deserve an acclamation and a loud Hear Hear from my hon. Colleagues in this House. [Hear! Hear!] I hope they will continue to support us and facilitate our activities so that at the end of the day, the glory will not only be ours but it will also be extended to them.

    I think it is important once again for

    us to recognize the role of our colleagues in the media. Democratic governance relies heavily on the availability and accessibility of information to both the people and the Government; and this, we believe, cannot be achieved without the support of the media.

    Our friends, brothers and sisters, especially in the Parliamentary Press Corps and the editors who keep on coming here have done a yeoman's job. They have distinguished themselves in Africa. In fact, at many conferences,
    Mr. Bagbin 3:45 p.m.
    our Colleagues who have passed through Ghana have expressed their amazement at the performance of the media in Ghana and the fact that our legal framework has completely broken down the shackles of media oppression and in fact given an extensive playing-field to the media in Ghana.

    My only plea to our brothers and sisters in the media is to still strive to ensure that nothing but facts and truth are published. I know it is difficult and I know the trying conditions they are working under because they lack a lot of facilities; the conditions are not all that encouraging. But it is important that misinformation -- Especially outright lies are very dangerous to the growth of democracy in any society. It erodes the confidence of the people in the system, undermines institutions, and at the end of the day, turns the people against the system; and we all become the losers. And that is why as a critical arm of government - and I insist “arm of government” - the media must be hesitant in coming out with information that they have not crosschecked.

    Mr. Speaker, I think that we still have a lot of confidence and trust in the media and I believe that if they chartered this path that would be further enhanced and we would all benefit from that. It is with this that I wish on behalf of the Minority and my goodself to pray that we have a very peaceful, joyous Christmas and New Year with our constituents. I bless the Almighty for what He has done for us so far and I thank all of you for your support and encouragement throughout this year. Thank you much, Mr. Speaker.
    Majority Leader/Minister for Parliamentary Affairs (Mr. F. K. Owusu-Adjapong) 3:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we have once again come to the end of yet another Meeting, a Meeting that marks
    the end of the First Session of the Fourth Parliament in the Year 2005.
    This relatively short Meeting has been both smooth and peaceful. The working relationship between the two sides have been cordial, as many of the decisions of the House have been reached by consensus.
    Transaction of business on the floor of the House has, indeed, been characterized by hon. Members' commitment to ensuring a sustainable parliamentary democracy and good governance in Ghana.
    Mr. Speaker, the Meeting has been fruitful because the House as usual made history by fulfilling, for the first time, a constitutional requirement of great importance, that is, passage of the Appropriation Bill for the Financial Year Ending 31st December 2006 before the end of the current financial year, in compliance with article 179 (1).
    Mr. Speaker, I think hon. Members of this House need to congratulate each other, His Excellency the President, and the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning for fulfilling this important constitutional requirement.
    It is hoped, Mr. Speaker, that the passage of the Appropriation Bill at this time of the year will address the usual financial difficulties that public institutions go through during the first half of the year, particularly with regard to timely release of funds for execution of approved projects.
    Mr. Speaker, Leadership of the House has observed some problems associated with the management of Parliament's budget.
    May I plead with all hon. Members, and Management of the Parliamentary Service to assist Mr. Speaker and Leadership,
    PARLIAMENTARY WEEK 3:45 p.m.
    PROPOSED PARLIAMENTARY 3:45 p.m.
    WEEKS 3:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker 3:55 p.m.
    I have a few words in writing. Hon. Members, today's Sitting

    Ending Friday, 15th December 2006 EIGHT WEEKS

    Recess

    Beginning Tuesday, 19th December, 2006

    Ending Friday, 12th January, 2007 FOUR WEEKS APPRECIATION FOR SuPPORT

    AT ThE FuNERAL OF MY LATE MOThER, MADAM YAA FOSuAA

    Mr. Speaker, permit me to express my heartfelt gratitude and appreciation to all the sympathizers who came from far and near, particularly hon. Members and staff of this House as well as the press, to show concern in deed and in words at the funeral of my late mother, Madam Yaa Fosuaa.

    Mr. Speaker, an English Poet, William Wordsworth, said years ago in his book, The Prelude:

    “There are in our existence Spots of time that With distinct pre-eminence Retain a renovating virtue”.

    marks the end of the Third Meeting and also that of the First Session of the Fourth Parliament of the Fourth Republic.

    We are breaking today for Christmas recess to enable us take some rest from this Meeting which has been very hectic.

    At the beginning of the Meeting, I had reservation as to whether we would be able to finish executing Business of the House which was made taller by the introduction of the 2006 Budget.

    I must put on record my admiration for how the Committees of the House promptly reported on the Budget Estimates.

    As I speak, the House has been able to dispose of almost all its Business, thanks to the zeal and commitment shown by hon. Members. I congratulate the House Leadership, Chairpersons and Members
    Mr. Speaker 3:55 p.m.
    of the Committees for this achievement.
    I hope this dedication would be carried over to subsequent Meetings. Let me however entreat Committees which have unfinished business before them to do well and find time during the recess to complete such business before the House reconvenes in January, 2006.
    Hon. Members, I have not glossed over the efforts of those who in diverse ways have worked quietly behind the scenes. I reckon and convey appreciation to the Clerk and officials of the Parliamentary Service who have assisted us to carry out our legislative activities to a successful conclusion.
    The members of the Parliamentary Press Corps also need a pat for consistently linking us to the larger public.
    Hon. Members, in the next 10 days we shall celebrate Christmas. And as we bring deliberations of the House to a close, may I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Prosperous New Year in advance.
    May the Almighty God be with us all.

    ADJOuRNMENT

    The house was adjourned sine die.