Mr. Speaker, the point I was making was that, as a result of these debt reliefs given to Ghana we were able to benefit to the tune of $42 million during the period. This is a good achievement which must be praised.
The other point I want to make is
that, as relates to part two of the Report, paragraphs 18 and 19, you may notice that the Foreign Exchange Act of 1961, Act 71 is very notorious for its breach rather than for its observance. It is therefore time to review the Act in the light of the economic circumstances of the country.
The other point I want to make, Mr.
Speaker, is that the Bank of Ghana should, as a matter of urgency, redesign the Ghana export form to facilitate accurate reporting for export dealers. I fully endorse the Report of the Committee in that aspect.
Finally, I want to also recommend that
it is not enough for the Bank of Ghana to more than introduce robust measures; it should take serious penal actions and sanctions against defaulting institutions so that they will respect the law.
On Act 3, which is the management issue, I will make a few comments as follows: In view of the serious breaches I have noticed in the Report, is it too much to ask the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning or the hon. Minister for Food and Agriculture or the Agricultural Development Bank (ADB)
to provide further and better particulars about the accounts? I think that would be in order because quite too often the amounts involved are too alarming and we should be too happy to see some results in this area.
Without prejudice, I will say that it is
likely that some malfeasance may have been committed and therefore the Auditor- General should take, as a matter of quick action, deliberate and diligent steps to investigate the matter thoroughly.
The other point is that, there are other
outstanding matters which should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible and the Bank of Ghana and the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning should take steps accordingly, because since the Report was dealt with in 2001 nothing has been done. The Bank of Ghana, it is noted by article 55, has no effective mechanism for determining actual volumes and values of diamond exports. That is very worrying indeed, Mr. Speaker. I think they should take immediate steps to regularize this because it is not enough to export; we should be getting benefits from these exports so that the country will stand to gain.
On recommendation 53, I noticed that an amount of 2.5 million pounds was given without any proper procedure or narration about this and that 1.5 million pounds was subsequently released; and then they came again to say that there were no records on these and that there was no reason assigned and therefore the money should not be paid. The matter, Mr. Speaker, I submit, should be thoroughly studied again and proper answers found for that.
As regards the Japanese aid, I consider the figure of 20 per cent very excessive; that is outstanding beneficiaries who refused to pay what they had borrowed as money. When we were young boys in school we used to have a book called Who Are They? I believe that these
people should know them. Who are these beneficiaries? Are they too big to refuse to pay?
Finally, Mr. Speaker, while I agree
that recommendations in paragraph 55 should be immediately looked into; the Bank of Ghana, the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning should enforce the recovery of all the overdue loans and if need be, penal sanctions be applied.
Thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker, and for allowing me to make a contribution.
Mr. J. K. Avedzi (NDC -- Ketu
North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to make comments on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee.
First of all I would like to commend the Committee for doing this thorough work. But Mr. Speaker, I have a few observations. If you look at the Report which is for 2002, and we are looking at it in 2006, it will tell you that the relevance of the Report is lost. If we are in 2006 and we are looking at 2002 Report, what action are we going to take now?
What I want to say in this respect, Mr. Speaker, is that the Report of the Auditor- General in coming to the House is always delayed; and when a Report is delayed, what are the causes? Sometimes resources for the Auditor-General's Department are most of the time not adequate for them to carry on with the work. If the department is resourced well, where they are financially independent, they will bring reports that are very current to the House for this House to look at. So I think it is time for us to start considering how we can resource the Auditor-General's Department for them to bring current reports to the House.
Then, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the time that the Report was submitted to this
House, March 2005, and the Report of the Public Accounts Committee is being discussed in June 2006, it has taken one good year for this Report to come from the Public Accounts Committee to the House. This tells us that the Public Accounts Committee is also not well resourced.
In the first place, we do not even have Committee rooms where we can sit to look at Reports. Therefore, the issue of the relevance of the Report again comes into play; we have to look at that situation very well. Excuse me to say, even the attitude of we hon. Members of Parliament - When this Report was being read by the hon. Chairman, some hon. Members were leaving the Chamber, which means hon. Members do not care whether that Report is passed or not.
So I think that we hon. Members of Parliament who are supposed to play oversight role over the Executive must take keen interest in the work of the Public Accounts Committee. When we take issues that are raised in the Report seriously, then we would be doing the work the way it should be.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the Public Accounts Committee, which is to look at the Report of the Auditor- General's Department, must do thorough work and take action. What I mean by that is, after the Report is submitted by the Public Accounts Committee and we discuss it on the floor here, what happens next? If you look at the Report, the hon. Chairman mentioned that some of the issues were raised in the previous Report and they are raised in this Report as well which means that after the previous Report was issued no action was taken.
Who is supposed to take action on issues or recommendations by the Public Accounts Committee to the House?
We need to have a body that whatever Report or recommendation is issued by the Public Accounts Committee, that body takes it up and makes sure that the institutions that are involved comply with the recom-mendations. If we do not do that it becomes a ritual; every year we come, the Public Accounts Committee submits a report, we debate it and that is the end.
So I think that, it is time that we started looking at issues about the Public Accounts Committee seriously. In other countries like Australia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Public Accounts Committee is a very powerful Committee of Parliament. In fact, they go and even initiate independent investigations; this is time that we have to start looking at something like that. In fact, very soon I am coming out with a Statement on how we should empower the Public Accounts Committee to take some initiatives so that the people of this country, the Executive can take the work of Parliament seriously.
Mr. Speaker, with these few words,
I support the motion and urge hon. Members of this august House to approve the Report.