Debates of 14 Nov 2006

MR. SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10 a.m.
CORRECTION OF VOTES 10 a.m.
AND PROCEEDINGS AND 10 a.m.
THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
Order! Order! Correction of Votes and Proceedings, of Friday, 10th November, 2006. Pages 1…4,
Mr. J. A. Ndebugre 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
your Committee on Lands and Forestry had a workshop at Dodowa on Friday, 10th November. Therefore, all the hon. Members were there. Unfortunately, I can see that my name was recorded as having been absent. We were to report there at 9 o'clock. In addition to praying that my name is recorded among those who were present, I also pray that at the end of it all, it would be indicated that the Committee on Lands and Forestry met at Dodowa.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
Pages 5…7?
Mr. Hackman Owusu-Agyemang 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am listed as being absent but I indeed filled the form that I was on tour to some parts of the country. So I crave your indulgence for the correction to be made that I was absent with permission.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
Pages 8…17. Hon. Members, we have the Official Reports for Wednesday, 8th November 2006 and Thursday, 9th November 2006.
MOTIONS 10 a.m.
STANDING COMMITTEES 10 a.m.
COMMITTEE 10 a.m.
SPECIAL OR AD HOC COMMITTEE 10 a.m.
COMMITTEE ON POVERTY REDUCTION STRATEGY 10 a.m.
SELECT COMMITTEES 10 a.m.
SEE RECOMPOSED 10 a.m.
LISTS OF 10 a.m.
COMMITTEES 10 a.m.
BELOW 10 a.m.
APPENDIX A 10 a.m.
STANDING COMMITTEES 10 a.m.
APPENDIX B 10 a.m.
Minority Leader (Mr. A. S. K. Bagbin) 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion and to add that there have been extensive consultations in this matter; it has taken us a whole lot of time to get these Committees composed.
Mr. Speaker, it is a very difficult job,
but at the end of the day, definitely, some hon. Members may have some concerns to express. Mr. Speaker, I think those concerns are welcome; they will help improve our work next time.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that if we finally approve this motion, the House would be properly positioned to receive the Budget Statement on Thursday and we will proceed thereafter to handle our work according to what we have agreed upon today.
Mr. Speaker, I second the motion but I reserve the right under our Standing Orders to come out with further explanations if the need arises.
Question proposed.
Mr. Joseph Yieleh Chireh (NDC - Wa West) 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to make some comments on this recomposition of committees. What concerns me most is the fact that the Standing Orders themselves which created the committees need to be looked at.
We also need to look at the functions of the various committees in view of the various changes that have been made, particularly by the President, in redesignating sectors and departments. That I believe will help us look at the committees properly, see the functions and, if need be, either have some committees recomposed based on the agenda of the Ministries; or else there will be confusion with regard to the Select Committees. I say so because, for instance, currently,
we have the Committee on Environment, Science and Technology yet the Ministry no longer exists. Now, if you have a full committee sector unless you want it to be a standing committee, its functions will be quite difficult.
Again, Mr. Speaker, sometimes, when you look at the composition, we know that every Member of Parliament ought to belong to at least one of the Standing Committees, according to the Standing Orders. But we are also supposed to reflect people's achievements and their effective contribution in these committees; not leaving out people but making sure that the House taps the experience and sometimes the knowledge and learning of people.
If you look through the composition now, some of these obvious things have not been observed and I think that we must be more serious in terms of what we do as a House, what committees are doing, and the committees' work must reflect the seriousness of the House.
Very often, when people take us to task for not coming to Parliament, we are always giving the excuse that we are at committee meetings; and I would like this House to look at this issue. If we really are doing the work at committee level, then we must make sure that we compose them to reflect experiences, knowledge and various things.
I am not by this saying that those who have no experiences indeed should not be considered. No! A balance must be struck such that every person who is in this House gets some experience, gets some knowledge or gets something to contribute. What should it be? I think that the constitution of these committees, apart from not reflecting what is generally now the Select Committee level, should as far as possible be more consultative than it is now.
Question put and motion agreed to.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 10:10 a.m.
STAGE 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 7, subclause (2), paragraph (c), item (vi), delete, since this is already provided for under subclause (8).
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 7 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10 - Grant of credit bureau licence.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, clause 10, subclause (4), delete. The reason is that this subclause is really not necessary as the issue of licence is
dealt with elsewhere, that is in clause 17.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 10 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12 - Permissible credit bureau activities.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, in
clause 12, we propose two amendments. The first one is that subclause (4), line 1, immediately after “in” insert “business”. So that the rendition becomes:
“A person who operates a credit bureau which engages in business activities not specified under this section commits an offence.”
Mr. Yieleh Chireh 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, while supporting the amendment, I want us to be consistent, so I am drawing the attention of the drafters that if you see clause 12, subclause (2) and anywhere else it appears, we are referring to the bank; and here we also have “Bank of Ghana” repeated. So we need to be a little consistent otherwise, we will be talking about two different banks. Otherwise, I support the amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
There is a further amendment, Chairman of the Committee.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we proposed an amendment that wherever
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Chairman of the
Committee, you look at “v”, there is a further amendment to clause 12. You may wish to move it.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, that
amendment is to add a new subclause that is to prescribe penalties for a breach.
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Are you moving it?
Mr. Agyei-Addo 10:20 a.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 12 add a new subclause as follows 10:20 a.m.
“A person who contravenes this clause is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding 5,000 penalty units or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or to both.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 13 to 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18 - Capital requirements for carrying on a credit bureau business.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, clause 18, subclause (1), after “minimum” insert “paid up”.
So that the new rendition becomes:
“A credit bureau should have a minimum paid up capital of five million cedis.”
Mr. Yieleh Chireh 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if you look at subclause (2), we also have minimum capital there, and it has not
been amended to include the “paid up”. Unless there is a reason, I will also move a motion that we insert “paid up” before that minimum.
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Yes, but in the meantime,
let us put this amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Yes, hon. Member for
Wa West, you may move this amendment formally.
Mr. Yieleh Chireh 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18, subclause (2), insert “paid up” after “minimum”.
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Chairman of the
Committee, what do you say to that?
Mr. Agyei-Addo 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we do
not have any problem with it.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 19 to 23 ordered to stand part
of the Bill.
Clause 24 - Submission of information to credit bureaux.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 24, subclause (1), paragraph (h) (i), line 1, immediately after “not” insert “require a borrower to”.
So the rendition now becomes:
“financial institution shall not be required, to provide information on the race, ethnic origin, political, religious or union affiliation or membership of a borrower.”
Mr. Speaker, I so move.
Mr. Bagbin 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think
I heard my hon. Chairman also use the words “be required”. He said, “shall not be required to borrow”. Unless, maybe when he was reading, he made a mistake because the proposed amendment is that immediately after not, insert “require a borrower to” so the word “be” is not in the proposed amendment but when he was reading, he added it.
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Chairman, clarify the
situation for us.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
believe it would more or less answer the same situation. What we wanted to avoid was a requirement that a borrower would provide information on those issues we thought were not proper, so we can insert “shall not require”.
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
No! He says, you look
at the proposed amendment; what do you say to that? Your proposed amendment.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the
rendition as I read was -- if you will allow me to go over it again.
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
No, that is not what is
in your proposed amendment.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 10:20 a.m.
So now I want to
then remove the “be” to agree with what we have on the Order Paper.
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
You want to insert these
words, “require a borrower to”. Is that what you are asserting?
Mr. Agyei-Addo 10:20 a.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
That a borrower shall not be required to provide such information. [Pause.] So Mr. Speaker, I will go over the amendment again. What we are proposing
is that in subclause (1), paragraph (h)(i) immediately after “not” insert “require a borrower to”. The rendition then becomes
“a financial institution shall not require a borrower to provide information on the race, ethnic origin . . .”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
There is a further amedment, please move it.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
beg to move, clause 24, subclause (1), paragraph (h)(ii), line 3, after “than” insert “2,500 penalty units or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or to both”. The amendment is proposed to complete the uncompleted sentence and also to specify the penalities.
Mr. Yieleh Chireh 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I agree that we should complete the sentence but I consider the penalty too severe, because 2,500 penalty units translates into 120,000 times that figure; and I do not agree that it corresponds with 5 years. We should also be moving away from putting people for longer periods in prison since our prisons are choked. So I really will not agree. I want to move a further amendment to this amendment, if the hon. Member agrees to 1,000 penalty units and 3 years.
In doing so, we should also realize that this is a new institution we are creating so we should not start off by just discouraging people. In any case, if we look at the offence that is to be committed, it is ridiculous to exact such penalty from this kind of thing. So I would ask for a further amendment; it should be 1,000 penalty units or in the alternative, 3 years.
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I oppose the amendment. Mr. Speaker, we have to fight crime, we have to deter people from committing crime. We have

to make them stop defrauding the State so that this country will prosper. If the amendment is upheld, Mr. Speaker, it will deter these criminals so that national resources will be saved. So please, I would want to invite everybody to reject the hon. Member's amendment and uphold the amendments from the Committee on Finance.
Mr. A. W. G. Abayateye 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I stand to oppose the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Wa West (hon. Yieleh Chireh).
Mr. Speaker, the paid up capital for
the establishment of this is ¢5 billion; the minimum paid up capital required for the credit report is ¢5 billion. And looking at the amount involved or what commits the institution to pay this 2,500 penalty units when it fails is, “which provides information on race, ethnic origin, political, religious or union affiliation . . .”
We are trying to encourage people not to reveal secrets. Therefore, if the minimum paid up capital is ¢5 billion and you falter and you are charged 300,000,000, looking at it is - [Interruption] --- So I stand to ask that his amendment be rejected and we take the amendment that is proposed by the Chairman of the Committee.
Mr. Alfred K. Agbesi 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I rise to support the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Wa West. Mr. Speaker, if we look at the offence for which the penalty is being imposed, it looks so trivial and to say that somebody who commits that offence should be hidden in prison for years -- Mr. Speaker, like the proposer said, a new policy on sentencing is now being evoked. It is coming into operation now that the prisons are full. The proposal for 1,000 penalty units and 3 years is about what we should be looking at. The 2,500, Mr. Speaker,
is too severe; it is on the higher side and I think that if we want to take seriously what we are seeing now in our prisons, as a factor, then we need to reduce the penalty that is being proposed.
Mr. Abayateye 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I was
rising on a point or order.
Mr. Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Please, go ahead.
Mr. Abayateye 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is a financial institution and not an individual.
Mr. John Ndebugre 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
also rise to support the suggestion or the proposition made by the hon. Member for Wa West, and I disagree with the argument of the hon. P. C. Appiah-Ofori. The penalty for murder is death and that is in our Criminal Code which was enacted in 1960; and there are still cases of murder. As I am sitting here, somebody is murdering another person somewhere. So the severity of the punishment does not actually completely deter crime.
Mr. Speaker, when we are proposing or suggesting penalties, we must be a bit realistic; and I think that to say that somebody, an institution, maybe a fledgling institution should be fined ¢300,000,000 -- And I think that all the time, we must find out the equivalent units in terms of cedis, in our mind, to appreciate the gravity of the offence. 2,500 penalty units translates into ¢300,000,000 and I think it is a bit draconian. So I support the proposition made by the hon. Member for Wa West and oppose the amendment by the Chairman of the Committee; it should be voted against.
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, because he mentioned my name, it is why I have stood up again. Mr. Speaker, he said that this penalty is there but people continue to commit crimes that relate to or invite the death penalty.
Mr. Speaker, if it were not there, it
would have been worse. People will do anything they like and then we know that nothing will touch them. After all, they will go to prison and they will be fed; so they will go and kill people. So we are trying to establish an economy that will invite people to come and invest here and so if certain criminals may tell lies and do acts that will scare people from coming here, Mr. Speaker, we should take action that will deter them; so that outsiders who would want to come and invest in this country will have confidence in the economy and come here. So we should throw his away and accept the Committee's recommendations.
Mr. A. S. K. Bagbin 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
there is real problem with this proposed amendment.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about
clause 24, subclause (1), paragraph (h) (ii). Let me just read the clause as it is and see whether the proposed amendment is actually looking at the import of the clause.
Mr. Speaker, clause 24, subclause (1)
says, and with your permission I read:
“A data provider which is a financial institution shall submit to a licensed credit bureau information that relates to a person who enters into a credit agreement with the financial institution which includes:
(h) (i) a financial institution shall not provide information on the race, ethnic origin, political, religious or union affiliation or membership of the borrower,
(ii) a financial institution which provides information on race, ethnic origin, political, religious
or union affiliation commits a breach and is liable to a pecuniary penalty of not more than . . .”
and the proposal is, “2,500 penalty units or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 or to both.”

So Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a financial institution, which provides this information being liable to imprisonment. [Pause.] The financial institution is liable to imprisonment. Mr. Speaker, there is a serious problem there. If we are interpreting it to be the directors of the financial institution who are going to be liable in providing information that they have gathered on these areas, and we know our situation, the environment in which we operate - [Interruption.]
Mr. Kofi Krah Mensah 10:40 a.m.
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Minority Leader's suggestion implies that a bank cannot be imprisoned. Since a bank can execute only through its directors or agents - agents can be imprisoned either vicariously or whatever. A bank need not be imprisoned; the directors may be, and that should be allowed in the law.
Mr. Bagbin 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I never said what he is saying. I did not say that a bank cannot be imprisoned or a financial institution cannot be imprisoned. I even mentioned the directors. I am saying that if the directors are to be imprisoned because they gathered information, which they presented to the credit institution, then we would have a problem because of the environment in which we operate.
If some hon. Members, as we know, say that he is Fante - somebody provides information that he is a Fante - then we know that his “half” is from let us say Ashanti, which they keep on changing day in, day out, are you going to say that that information is wrong information the next time you see in another document that it is rather Ashanti and not Fante? If somebody provides information that he is
Mr. Bagbin 10:40 a.m.


pentecostal, that he is religious and upon investigation you see that the branch that he believes is not pentecostal but is rather charismatic, can you say that the person has given you wrong information.
Mr. Pele Abuga 10:40 a.m.
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, with all respect to my hon. Minority Leader, he is trivializing the whole issue - [Laughter.] The point is not about merely indicating accurately that the information required of you is not the one you have provided. You are providing extra information on the person on whom you are providing the information.
Mr. Speaker, this issue is all about confidence and for a credit reporting agency like that, confidence is very, very important. If they go about reporting on the persons or revealing things that are not within the law and they expose such issues to a particular institution, they will be doing a whole damage to the faith or confidence that people have in the institution. So it is not about how accurate your information is; it is about saying things that you are not even supposed to say about somebody.
Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Hon. Minority Leader, you may wish to conclude.
Mr. Bagbin 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. Colleague might not know the difficulties we face on interpretation of statutes in court. [Laughter]. Mr. Speaker, if you say, “providing information on race, ethnic origin”, these are words that are used in the clause - “ethnic origin”. If I ask my hon. Colleague his ethnic origin, he may immediately tell me what his tribe is. He
may have a problem if I want to probe further, ethnic origin. I am not talking about tribe; I am talking about ethnic origin. Mr. Speaker, these are words that we are using and the people who are going to interpret these statutes are not here with us.
We must give clear indication as to what we mean, and that is why I am drawing the attention of the House to it. If we are not able to do so and we are sanctioning people for not understanding what we are indicating in the law and making it punitive - We are not talking about reformation - trying to let people improve - but punitive; that when you err in submitting the data then you must go in for this number of years.
That is the concern that is being expressed and that is why I am tempted to agree with those who say that even though we should sanction people, the sanction should be lighter. It should be, as some would want to propose, to deter; at least, we should give room for people to reform. That is why I would go with the proposal made by the hon. Member of Parliament for Wa West (Mr. Yieleh Chireh) that we should make the sanction lighter than we are proposing and that the penalty units should be reduced to 1,000 and then the term of imprisonment should be reduced to 3 years, and not 5 years.
But Mr. Speaker, again, I have gone beyond that to raise questions about the use of language; that we should be cautious when we are passing laws of using rather too general or unclear terms which our colleagues in the Judiciary have been having some problems with, especially on some of the laws on banking and finance that we are passing in this House. So Mr. Speaker, I will support the proposal that we make it lighter and I would also call for a much clearer language in the drafting
that we have before us.
Alhaji Sumani Abukari 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, this is an issue we debated at length at the committee meeting and we sought the opinion of people in the field. Mr. Speaker, this is all about confidentiality; it is not about wrongful information.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that in this country we are making efforts to build a unified nation, a nation in which people would not be identified by their religion or by their tribe or their political affiliations. So we thought that this is not information that is required for a financial transaction of this nature. If we were to go ahead - For instance, if your child is going to school, a government school, and they want to know which part of the country he comes from, which tribe he belongs to, which religion he practises, information that might in the end affect the possibility of his being admitted into the school.
Mr. Speaker, we have all been speaking against the provision or the requirement of such information. Similarly, we are saying that this information is not necessary for this type of financial transaction; so this is information that we should not require, information that may affect the interest of the member. So to deter the officials from requesting for this information, we thought that we must put a deterrent sentence or fine on such officials or institutions so that they desist from making this a necessary requirement.

So, Mr. Speaker, honestly we debated it at length. Initially, I was of the view that 1,000 units and three years were enough but after a long discussion and the opinion we sought from the experts, we thought that we should make it stiffer if we wanted to have the confidentiality that was necessary for the success of this financial

institution. That was when the Committee agreed to the 2,500 penalty units or 5 years imprisonment. It was not just done out of the sadistic wish of locking up people for long periods in prison.

We all know the prisons are choked; we all know that. Otherwise, why do we say that we should keep armed robbers away for 10 years? We can make it 2 years; are they not human beings? So it depends on the nature of the crime and the effect it would have on the economy and society. It is not a sadistic need to keep people away for 5 years.

So Mr. Speaker, I think that the amendment proposed by the Committee, as espoused by the Chairman, should be made to stand.
rose
Mr. Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Hon. Members, we have
to put the Question. We have exhausted discussions on this matter. The first one is in respect of what is contained on the Order Paper, that is 2,500 penalty units or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or to both. The other one is by the hon. Member for Wa West, that is 1,000 penalty units and a term of 3 years. We are going to vote on the first amendment.
Quest ion put and amendment negatived.
Mr. Speaker 10:50 a.m.
I will now put the
Question on the amendment on the Order Paper.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26 - Financial institution to provide information with consent of
Mr. Agyei-Addo 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, clause 26, subclause (6), line 3, delete “First”.
This is because there is only one schedule attached to the Bill and to maintain the words “first schedule” would give the impression that there are other schedules; but there are not. Mr. Speaker, I so move.
Mr. Okerchiri 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry for taking us a bit back but even if we remove the word “first” the entire rendition does not make much sense because after all there is even no schedule; I have not even seen any schedule there.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we have proposed a schedule. It is on today's Order Paper, page 6.
Mr. Chireh 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why we should retain clause 27 after we have passed the other amendment that was proposed. Do we really need clause 27?
Mr. Agyei-Addo 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I believe we need to retain clause 27 because clause 27 talks about a person, not necessarily a company. So it could be a person working for a company who commits the offence that we are prescribing that penalty for.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 27 to 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30 -- Retention period of credit information database.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30, subclause (2), paragraph (b), delete “an unlimited period” and substitute “a period of ten years”.
Mr. Speaker, this is to bring the clause in conformity with our 1992 Constitution.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31 - Management of database security.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, clause 31, subclause (1), line 1, after “adopt” insert “adequate”.
This is to clarify the fact that security measures to be adopted by credit bureaus must be adequate.
Mr. Chireh 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the word “adequate”. How are we going to determine that? Because if we are talking about “. . . credit bureaus shall adopt adequate security . . .” this is a qualification that is difficult to determine and I think that we should reject it.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, to
delete it will rather make the situation worse. And I believe that in these matters, when it goes before the court, the court will decide what is adequate and what is not.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33 - Payment for the provision of credit information and credit report services.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 33 delete and substitute the following:
“(i) A credit bureau may charge such fees for its services as it shall agree with a credit information recipient or for other services as authorized under this Act.
(ii) Such fees charged as prescribed in subclause (1) shall be published in a medium with nationwide coverage.”
Mr. Speaker, we believe that the regime of price control is over. And we believe that in terms of current developments, the bank should negotiate with the credit providers for the fixation of the charge or the fee.
Mr. Chireh 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want further clarification on the amendment. This is because if the hon. Chairman is saying that “they may charge” and that we are in a free market economy, is it that they can decide their own rate or what? Somebody has to regulate them, and indeed, I think that in this Bill we are talking about regulations to be made, or aiding the bank to issue regulations. They must come clear about whether they have a free range to charge any fees or they may be regulated in the charging of the fees.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I did
not quite follow what the hon. Member for Wa Central said, if he could please repeat it?
Mr. Chireh 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, in moving
the amendment, he said that now we are in free, liberal range of determining prices
and therefore, they decide how much they will charge. Meanwhile, it was the Bank of Ghana or the Bank that was to determine the charges. Is he saying that they have given them free range to charge any fees at all and publish them, and once they are published, we are to be paying those fees; or the Bank should have a role in regulating how much they charge? We cannot just allow people to be charging what they want.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I now see where the hon. Member is coming from. It is not the Bank of Ghana that is going to charge the fees; the credit bureaus will negotiate with those who require the services of the bureaus. That is exactly what I meant to say.
Mr. Okerchiri 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, there is
another concern which I share with the hon. Member for Wa Central. What role has the Bank got? Has it got any role ultimately as far as fixing the charges are concerned? This is because it cannot just be left like that for them to say that it is a free market and therefore, they could charge anything and impose it on the people.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I need your indulgence to seek a further amendment. I think the original clause, as it stands in the proposed Bill, makes sense against the proposition coming from the hon. Member for Wa Central; that we are regulating them and under the laws of Ghana, the Bank has a role to play. We cannot just leave it to credit bureaus to determine what fees to charge. So I think that I will urge the hon. Chairman to withdraw his proposed amendment and let us maintain the original proposition in the Bill.
Dr. Paa Kwesi Nduom 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
nowhere in the world do we have banks
Mr. Pele Abuga 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, even
the amendment further says that the credit information recipients should be negotiated with, in coming out with the final charges or fees that they are supposed to be charged. So I think that the amendment is proper, in the sense that it allows the private credit information bureaus to negotiate with those who are supposed to benefit from the information they are providing. And when they come out with their charges, I do not see why the Bank of Ghana should interfere in the matter.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 34 to 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42 - Credit bureau to have claims and inquiry unit.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 42, headnotes, delete and substitute “inquiry service unit”
This is because the credit bureaus, as they are going to be established, will not have any claims units as such.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 42, subclause (1), delete “A Claims and” and substitute “An”.
Mr. Speaker, it is following from the first one and it is for the same reason.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 42, subclause (2), delete “A Claims and” and substitute “An”.
Mr. Speaker, the last amendment for clause 42 is for the same reason.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 43 to 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47 - Inspection by Bank of Ghana.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 47, subclause (1), line 2, insert “and other records”. This is to take care of any other records which have not been specified in this clause.
Mr. Okerchiri 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think
I heard “any other”. Is it “and other records” or “any other records”?
Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
“And other records”.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 47 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clauses 48 to 52 ordered to stand part
of the Bill.
Clause 53 - Right to sue for failure to
perform certain Acts.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want
your direction in this matter. I want to find out if clauses 53 to 58, have no relevance to the Bill. The amendment is that they should all be deleted and I was wondering if I could do all at the same time. Clauses 53 to 58, they all do not relate to the Bill; they have been inappropriately brought here.
Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Let us do it, one after
the other.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:10 a.m.
Very well. Mr.
Speaker, clause 53 has no relevance to the Bill and I move that it be deleted.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 53 as amended deleted from
the Bill.
Clause 54 - Notice.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, clause
54 has no relevance to the Bill and I move that it be deleted.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 54 as amended deleted from
the Bill.
Clause 55 - Inability to pay debts.
Mr. Kwadwo Agyei-Addo 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that we delete clause 55 since it has no relevance here.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 55 as amended deleted from the Bill.
Clause 56 - Sale of assets.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, that we delete clause 56 since it has been inappropriately brought into this Bill.
Mr. Okerchiri 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thought
that the Chairman would educate us a bit. When he says they are not relevant here, I do not understand that it is not relevant that one is not entitled to secure an asset here by public auction or private contract. Mr. Speaker, what I suspect is that maybe by either some civil law or law, that action is available to you and therefore we do not necessarily need to put it here. If that is what he is saying then I am all right, but to say it is not relevant to this Bill, I do not understand. Maybe, he can educate me.
Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Chairman, what you
are saying is that this ought to be deleted. You do not have to add any other words. You open yourself to all these -- Do you want to delete clause 56?
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we
want to delete those clauses.
Dr. Ben Kunbuor 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
whether the amendment is a deletion or not we need some reasons for the records so that we are at least guided why it was proposed in the first place and subsequently the need for a deletion. If the Chairman could enlighten us a bit on that.
Mr. Chireh 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister who signed the Bill, on page (v) of the Memorandum to the Bill, the fifth paragraph says, and with your permission I beg to quote:
“The seventh group of clauses, clauses 53 to 59, deals with the enforcement of security by the banks and financial institutions. It introduces provisions that empower banks and other financial institutions to realize the assets used by loan defaulters to secure credit

facilities. Where the borrower fails to discharge his liability within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a recovery notice from the creditor, the creditor can take possession of the secured assets and sell them by public auction or private contract.”

If there was no need for this in this Bill why did the Minister put it in such forceful language in this paragraph? He needs to go further and explain why we should delete these things.
Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Chairman, what do you
say to this?
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill is to do with credit reporting and not the grant of any loan or other facility. Basically, if somebody wants to take a facility from a bank, the bank would want that Credit Bill to provide information on the potential borrower. So we do not really see where the provision of an asset as security comes into this Bill. Of course, Mr. Speaker, at the committee level we had the consultant who did this Bill and she told us what we thought was the right thing; it was inappropriately brought into this Bill.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 56 as amended deleted from the Bill.
Clause 57 - Prior consent of creditor
necessary for transfer.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, clause 57, delete. It follows the earlier reason that I gave.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 57 as amended deleted from
the Bill.
Clause 58 as amended deleted from the Bill.
Clauses 59 -- 62 ordered to stand part
of the Bill.
Clause 63 -- Accounts and audit.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 63, subclause (1), line 2 delete “Auditor-General” and substitute “Bank”.
This is because it is the Bank of Ghana
which has the power to prescribe forms for the credit bills and not the Auditor- General.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would need further clarification and explanation from the Chairman why he wants the office of the Auditor-General deleted and replaced. We need to be convinced about that.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, with
your indulgence, I want the hon. Member for Tamale South to come again. I did not quite follow what he said.
Mr. Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Hon. Member for
Tamale South, please repeat your question.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, he said that we should delete “Auditor-General” and substitute the “Bank”, because of the supervisory role that the Bank plays. And I am saying that we need to be convinced as to why the Auditor-General should not look into the accounts.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we
are dealing with private companies and not public companies. I do not think there is any requirement that private companies should submit to the Auditor-General.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, clause 63, subclause (3), delete.
Mr. Speaker, we propose that subclause
(3) be deleted because the reference to the Internal Audit Agency Act, 2003 is, for us, inappropriate in this circumstance.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 63 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 64 - Bank of Ghana to submit annual reports.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 64, subclause (2), delete. Mr. Speaker, we propose that we delete and the reason is that these credit bills would be private entities and would therefore not be audited by the Auditor- General.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if he is suggesting an entire deletion I certainly will have a problem based on the consequential effect of his earlier proposal. He asked us to substitute “Auditor-General” for “Bank”. So it means that the Bank will have a report and that report must still be made available to the Minister. So I thought that he would have just said that, line (2), the last words, substitute “Bank” for “Auditor-General” instead of asking for an entire deletion of that clause.
Mr. Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Chairman of the
Committee, what do you say to that?
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if I
understood the hon. Member well, he is saying the rendition would be “annual
report shall include the report of the Bank of Ghana”; is that it?
Mr. Speaker 11:20 a.m.
The point is about who
should receive the annual report, that is the question he posed.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do
not think he was talking about who should receive the report.
Mr. Speaker 11:20 a.m.
He said, substitute
“Auditor-General” for “Bank of Ghana”, that is the point he was making.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:20 a.m.
Rightly so, Mr.
Speaker, you understood me properly. I am saying that instead of asking for the deletion of the entire clause we just substitute “Auditor-General” for “Bank”, consistent with his own earlier proposition that “Auditor-General” be replaced with the “Bank”, so that the report coming must contain a report of the Bank and not that of the Auditor-General.
Mr. Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Chairman of the
Committee, do you have an answer to this?
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do
not see any problem with that if there should be a report from the Bank on what has been presented to it.
Mr. Bagbin 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think
there is a problem with that. The clause was put there because the Auditor-General was mandated under clause 63 to audit the credit bureaus, and therefore under 64(1) the Bank was to report to the Minister; and that report of the Auditor-General was to be part of the Bank's report to the Minister. But now there would be no Auditor-General's Report because the Auditor-General will not be auditing the credit bureaus. They will now be under the Bank and the Bank is reporting to the Minister. So the Bank cannot report to the
Mr. Bagbin 11:20 a.m.


Minister and attach its report again.

Mr. Speaker, so 64(1) covers both the intendment of 64(1)(2), because there would now not be Auditor-General's Report. So if you put it in, it is like this -- “The Bank shall submit to the Minister an Annual Report covering the activities and operations of licensed credit bureaus within six months after the end of the financial year”. Then, two; “the Annual Report shall include the Report of the Bank”. That will not make sense.

Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 64 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66 - Regulations.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, clause 66, paragraph (b), delete. Mr. Speaker, we propose that the Bank of Ghana should not prescribe fees for the credit bureaus. They will only provide for standards and not fees.
Mr. Speaker 11:20 a.m.
We have on the Order Paper, delete. Are you amending that?
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, in fact,
there are three amendments proposed. The first one is to delete paragraph (b) and the reason is that they should not prescribe the fees; so it should be deleted.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, clause 66, paragraph (c), line 1, delete “and fees”. Mr. Speaker, the reason is that the Bank of Ghana will provide regulations for standards and not fees.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 66, add a new paragraph as follows:
“Prescribe appropriate control and security measures to be taken by credit bureaus to secure their operations”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 66 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Chireh 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we need your guidance in this matter. It appears that we are not voting on the various clauses. When you put the Question nobody responds. Is it that it has lapsed, or it means the motion has lapsed so we have not approved anything?
Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
You have made a valid point. Let us continue.
Clause 67 - Interpretation
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 67, “Data provider”, line 2, delete “designed” and substitute “designated”.
Mr. Speaker, the reason is that we do not design people but we designate people and organizations.
Question put and amendment agreed to
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 67, add the following:
‘“Contingent Liabilities' means
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:30 a.m.


liabilities that are contingent upon the occurrence of an event and includes without limitation, guarantees and other credit enhancing instruments issued by a person in favour of another party.”

‘“Credit bureau activities' means the activities specified in clause 12.”

‘“Credit reporting system' means the collection of credit data by a credit bureau, the storage, management and processing of such data, and the dissemination of credit information by a credit bureau under this Act.”

Question put and amendment agreed

to.

Clause 67 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 68 - Application of other legislation.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 68, line 3, after “electronic crime” “insert “economic crime”.
Mr. Speaker, this is to provide for applicability of any other law on the economic crime, in addition to other legislations listed in the clause.
Question put and amendment agreed to
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, just a little typo. The last word “provision” , we have to add (s) - “provisions of the law”. Clause 68, fourth line, “provision”; add (s) to the word “provision”.
Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee, what do you say?
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:30 a.m.
It is in place, it is in order.
Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
It should be “provi- sions”. The draftsperson would take account of that.
Clause 68 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69 - Conflicts.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 69, delete.
The reason is that the Credit Reporting Bill is intended to be an addition to other laws specified in clause 68 and not to repeal or amend them.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, even though we have expressed or implied repeal, I would need further explanation from the hon. Chairman of the Committee; whether it is the language there that is making him suggest a deletion or it was not captured properly. I am assuming that we said where there is a conflict between the provisions of this enactment and any other law, will that have made sense or he just wants us to delete it entirely? Because the construction itself was misleading; it did not refer to any other existing enactment.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the reason is quite simple. This Bill is supposed to be in addition.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I was saying that assuming I can understand it as it stands here, I ordinarily would support you for a deletion because it does not make any sense; but if the construction, the

language was right, where it read, “where there is a conflict between the provisions of this Act and any other enactment,” would that have made sense to him?
Mr. Okerchiri 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the import of what the hon. Member for Tamale South (Mr. Haruna Iddrisu) is saying is to amend. So if he wants to amend, let him table an amendment. What he is doing is confusing the hon. Chairman all the more.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 69 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule -
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, Schedule, add the following:
“I………………being a customer of .............. Limited, do hereby consent to and authorise .............. Limited to submit information on my credit transactions with the said .............. Limited to one or more credit bureaus licensed under the Credit Reporting Act, 2006, and further consent to and authorize ………….. Limited to obtain credit reports on me from one or more credit bureaus licensed under the Act for the purpose of credit management.”
Mr. Speaker, it is to provide a format for how anyone wanting to take advantage of the Bill we are passing could proceed.
Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Maybe, it is not a question of adding, because if you are talking of adding --
rose
Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Hon. Minority Leader, do you want to raise this point?
Mr. Bagbin 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have a problem with the use of the word Schedule, because what they are asking us to add is an appendix; it is not a Schedule. The intention of the Bill, maybe, was to put in a Schedule which involves a number of items that are outlined. But if he is just providing something like an oath, it should be in the form of an appendix not a Schedule. It should be an appendix, where there is, “I, …… being a customer of …….”. It is not in the Schedule where you have tables and this thing inserted. That is my understanding of the two - the Schedule and an Appendix.
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Minority Leader, you would recall that we dealt with this matter, clause 26. We deleted the word ‘first', leaving the word ‘schedule' there. For the point that you have raised, if we do agree to add, I think we would leave it to the draftsmen to do it appropriately, whether it is to be ‘Schedule' or ‘Appendix'.
Mr. Bagbin 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, in fact, when we did that amendment, I was compelled to ask for a dictionary to go through the differences between a ‘Schedule' and an ‘Appendix' and I saw that ‘Appendix' was preferable. But in view of the earlier amendment, we could instruct the draftsmen to look at it and get the correct rendition.
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
That is in order.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Long Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
MR. FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon. Members, the National Lotto Bill - Consideration Stage. I understand the Chairman is being sought for to come to the Chamber. I believe we can start even before he comes.
BILLS - CONSIDERATION STAGE 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we would crave your indulgence. Many hon. Members do not even have their copies of this Bill with them now and so if you could allow for five minutes for us to do some consultation. We even believe that there may be some other amendments that can precede this. We had some preliminary objections that we raised as to whether it is going to be an authority or a service; and if we agree on it we would be able to run it through the entire Bill.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Honestly, I am at a loss as to exactly what you want because you are going from clause to clause. Are you saying that there had been an earlier objection in respect of a clause or the whole Bill itself?
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, line 2, delete “Director- General” and substitute “Board”. This is because we believe that the Board will be working in consultation with the Minister and they should determine how dates and places of meetings are to be decided upon.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the
amendment as proposed by the hon. Member will not harm the Bill. It is all right with us.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
You do not have any objection to that?
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, none whatsoever.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
We go back to clause 2.
Clause 2 - Objects of National Lotto.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, subclause (2), line 1, substitute “Service” for “Authority” wherever it appears.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to seek leave to amend clause 1 to reflect the establishment of a National Lotto Authority.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Let us move from one clause to the other. If you want to propose some other amendment, we will come to that; but now, we are dealing with clause 2 (2).
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry there is no notice of this proposed amendment, but rightly so, because we just got many of the amendments today. I would
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Yes, hon. Adjei-Darko, are you going to make any contribution to that or you are against the proposed amendment?
Mr. Adjei-Darko 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think the amendment is necessary.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Why?
Mr. Adjei-Darko 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if you look at the Bill before us, we have two parts. Part I is talking about the national lotto and then if you look at Part II at page 11, that is where we are setting up the National Lottery Service which may be considered as the Authority. So this is not just setting up of the Authority but everything affecting national lottery, including even winnings, commissions and everything affecting it. So it is not just the setting up of the Authority. Therefore, to render the whole title “National Lottery Authority”, I do not think it is appropriate at this point.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Hon. Member for Tamale South, are you mindful of what he is saying? Do you agree with him?
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:50 a.m.
Rightly so, Mr. Speaker. But Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Minister had recourse to the Committee's Report, he would appreciate the amendment that I am proposing. We were of the view when we went through the Second Reading that because of the Committee's own
Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:50 a.m.


recommendation, the object of this Bill is now misleading because originally, it was not thought-through that there will be a National Lotto Authority. But when the Committee subjected this Bill to scrutiny, they thought that it was proper to have one umbrella body which will be a National Lotto Authority under which will be the Department of National Lotteries and all other private lotto operators.

I remember, I personally raised an objection and disagreements even to an attempt to nationalise private lotto operators. But I was convinced by the hon. Deputy Minister for Finance and Economic Planning, somewhat to the extent that it was only wholesaling and producing of coupons that the Government sought to nationalize. So if we are going to go by the recom-mendations of the Committee, then I think that wherever we have “Service” we have to substitute it with “Authority”; and it means that even the Long Title will have to be changed along the line when we get to that.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Well, I am not too sure that hon. Adjei-Darko will agree with what you are saying.
Mr. Adjei-Darko 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with what he is saying. Mr. Speaker, the Bill is not only for the establishment of the Authority or the Service. But the Bill has gone further for the Part I to talk about the whole operationalisation of the lotto game including winnings, commissions and so on which will be paid. But if it is only Part II which talks about the establishment of the Authority and therefore, to give the Long Title for the whole Bill as “Establishment of National Lotto Authority”, I do not think it is right. We are talking about national lotto as the - [Interruption.]
Mr. Simon Osei-Mensah 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment is not necessary in the sense that the whole Bill is about the operation of national lotto. But when you come to the “Authority”, it is talking about the governing body only which forms part of the whole Bill. So I think it should still remain as National Lotto and not National Lotto Authority and the Long Title should also stand as it is.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Hon. Member for Tamale South, it appears it makes some eminent sense.
Mr. A. S. K. Bagbin 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate, we have to think through this issue again. If you look at the Long Title, “An Act to provide for the operation of National Lotto”; it is not an Act to establish national lotto. National lotto is in place; we have it already, it is established. We want to review the operations of the national lotteries and that is the import of this Bill - to review the operations. And in that review, we want a sort of an authority or board to be part of the review, the management and operations of national lotteries. If that is the intention of the Bill, it will not be right for us to be talking about establishing national lotto again. And that is why we need to look at it.
The intention, initially, was not the creation of an Authority, but once the Committee together with the stakeholders deliberated and thought that there was the need to revolutionalise the whole thing, as stated in the Committee's Report, because they said in paragraph 5.8 of the Report and Mr. Speaker, with your permission I beg to quote:
“After extensive and intensive work, spread over three months, the Committee is of the view that instead of a National Lotto Service”-
because to establish a National Lotto, you are talking about establishing the Service -
“ . . . to solely operate lotto in the country, there should be a National Lotto Authority.”
Now, the intention is to get a body in place and then give the operation of this service to that body and this body will now regulate, produce and give the marketing to the agencies. Because it is a management or administrative problem. If we do not structure it well, over there, implementation will create a lot of problems.
Mr. Speaker, so please, the hon. Chairman will have to lead the House properly so that we get the concepts clear in our minds because it will affect the rendition of almost all the clauses that follow after that. So Mr. Speaker, if they cannot, then we may have to, once again, call for further discussion of this matter.
Mr. Okerchiri noon
Mr. Speaker, if we look at page 18 of the Bill, clause 64 dealing with Repeals and Savings, with your permission, if I may read:
“The National Weekly Lotto Act, 1961 ( Act 94) as amended by the National Weekly Lotto (Amendment) Law, 1989 (PNDCL 223) and section 15 of the Ghana Legion Decree, 1974 (NRCD 285) are hereby repealed.

The import of that is what did establish the lotto has been repealed, and therefore, there is the need to establish it first before the structures to operate it are established. Therefore, I do not agree with him that that is already in existence and therefore we cannot any longer re-establish it. So, I honestly agree with the hon. Member for Sunyani West (Mr. K. Adjei-Darko), what he said, that the amendment is in relation to the second part, the administration as pertaining in Part II -- National Lottery Service. It is when we come to that part that we may want to substitute the Service with the Authority, that is where
Mr. Okerchiri noon


his amendment for me would become germane and more relevant.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon. Member for Nkawkaw, I do not think you disagree with the hon. Minority Leader. He is saying that we need further direction because it is a bit delicate. He is talking about the rendition as we have it now, being a bit confusing as to exactly what the Bill is intended to do. Someone has said that there are two parts; definitely there are two parts, but we are not quite sure exactly what we want to do. So you are not disagreeing with him; he has not made any proposal, he is only cautioning the House that we need further directions from the Chairman, and I believe that is in order. Can you tell us a bit more?
Mr. Agyei-Addo noon
Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Member for Nkawkaw (Mr. K. A. Okerchiri) was making his presentation, I saw the hon. Minority Leader look mesmerized. But after the presentation, I saw that he had changed his facial expression as if he was buying what the hon. Member for Nkawkaw was selling.
Mr. Speaker, the Bill is in two parts noon
Part I and Part II, the two come together to form the National Lotto Bill. Part II deals with the Authority that is to regulate the industry. So there is no way we can use the Authority to stand for the whole Bill; I do not think that is right. At the committee level, this issue came up and was discussed thoroughly, and the understanding was that it should be left as it is -- National Lotto Act.
Mr. Bagbin noon
Mr. Speaker, I have cause to doubt the sight of my hon. Colleague. How could he from that distance see me mesmerized? I was not at all. National Lotto, I do not think it is the same as national lottery; it is not. So when we say “to establish by this Act, National Lotto”, I
have a problem and that is why the thing is confusing. If you talk about lottery which is the noun for the game -- lottery, with that I will understand. But when you say National Lotto, it does not go with the correct rendition.
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon. Member for Jomoro, are you rising on a point of order?
Mr. Lee Ocran noon
Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the hon. Minority Leader is confusing me a little bit. I think lotto is for - [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker noon
He might be confusing you but he is not -- Maybe you are not following what he is saying, but that does not mean that he has infringed upon the Standing Orders. So maybe if you take your time, you would understand him.
Mr. Ocran noon
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minority Leader is saying that lottery is the umbrella for the game lotto and the rest, which ones are the rest? In my mind, lotto is for the speculators and lottery is for gamblers. [Uproar.]
Mr. Bagbin noon
Mr. Speaker, I was trying to get the meaning from my dictionary, which is here, and I will just read it to clarify his mind. It is here in the Chambers 21st Century Dictionary - [Interruption.]
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon. Member, are you standing on a point of order?
Mr. Kof i Jumah noon
Yes , Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think that the words “lotto” and the “lottery”, there is a misunderstanding here, and my understanding -- [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker noon
No, please hold on. Is it a point of order?
Mr. Jumah noon
Mr. Speaker, it is a point of order.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker noon
Then what is your point?
Mr. Jumah noon
Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. Minority Leader is misleading us. The lotto is the product and lottery is the operations of lotto, and I think it is explained in the Long Title. The Long Title says:
“An Act to provide for the operation of the National Lotto . . .”
The operation of the National Lotto is lottery; so lotto is the product and lottery is the operations of lotto.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon. Minority Leader, could you give us the final word so that we move on?
Mr. Bagbin noon
Mr. Speaker, I think that my hon. Colleagues are not listening to what I am saying. What he just said is supportive of what I am saying that the lottery is the noun, so you are establishing something - a national lottery. And when you look at the definition it is here; Lottery “- noun, a system for raising money which involves randomly drawing numbered tickets from . . .” and they cite a number of examples, a drum, et cetera, giving prizes to those who hold the tickets. So we talk about lottery and that is what I am
saying is the noun. So we are establishing something and we are establishing a noun. The lotto is part of it, like bingo, lotto, they are rough words that we use.
So I am saying that since we are bringing an Act into being, we should establish the noun first which is the “lottery”, which is the operation of a system, that is all that I am asking for.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker noon
Be as it may, hon. Members, I think we must make progress. I have already put the Question on the clause 1 already; we would have the opportunity at the Second or Third Reading stages if you are very sure of what is going on to bring the matter up again. Let us now make a little progress. So we move on to clause 4.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 - Licensing of Lotto receivers.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, Headnotes, delete “receivers” and substitute “Lotto Marketing Companies” and wherever it appears.
I so move.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, clause 5, subclause (2), delete.
Mr. Speaker, clause 5, (1) already
empowers the Board to license receivers. It is therefore superfluous to have clause 5 (2) which reads and with your permission I quote:
“The licence of a receiver shall be
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:10 p.m.


for a period that the Board considers appropriate”.

In any case, the Board is already going to determine and issue the licence; and they will define the condition of the licence as they wish. So I think that clause 5 (2) should be deleted.

I beg to move, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Adjei-Darko 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
oppose that amendment. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of doubt we should not create the impression that once you get the licence it is forever. The Board should have the mandate through appropriate regulations to determine the validity of a licence and even have the power to revoke a licence when they consider that the marketing company is not operating according to the Act; because we are dealing with money and we cannot have a marketing company holding a licence in perpetuity.
Mr. Chireh 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that
he does not understand the point we are making. You are applying for a licence and you are already indicating you have not granted it. Going below, you will see that you are now granting the licence. It is when you are granting the licence that you give the conditions. So where it is, is misplaced and should be removed.
Mr. Adjei-Darko 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if it is there and it is harmless and you think that it is in the regulation that the period of the licence should be stated, what is wrong if it is in the law? So that the Board at least derives its authority from the law. Therefore let it be there if it does not conflict anything.
Question put and amendment
negatived.
Clause 5 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 - Application for receiver's licence.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
beg to move, clause 6, line 2, at end delete “Director-General” and substitute “Regulations”. Because we are being told that regulations should be developed and any person applying must do so in line with the Regulations and not with the Director-General.
I beg to move.
Mr. John Agyabeng 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
rise to support the amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 6 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8 - Qualification of receivers.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, Headnotes, delete and substitute “Requirements of Lotto Marketing Companies”. It will reflect the intention of the clause.
Mr. Ndebugre 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think if this amendment is allowed it introduces some confusion. What is meant by “Requirements of Lotto Marketing Companies”? I may interpret it to mean what lotto marketing companies require at large. But what you are trying to say is that lotto marketing companies must have certain qualification. They must meet certain requirements. There must be a way of putting it. If we render it as we put it right now it can lead to problems.
I beg to propose to the Chairman of
the Committee to instead replace “of” with “for”.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Are you
all right, hon. Chairman of the Committee since the rendition is not very elegant and things could be misinterpreted or is open to other interpretations and for that reason you need to have it changed?
Mr. Agyei-Addo 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, what
we are seeking to do is what they need to have to qualify for registration.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
That is
not disputed.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 12:10 p.m.
So I believe that the
language is an issue for the Draftsman. The essence is what they need to satisfy before they qualify for registration.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Very well,
we leave it. Hon. Yieleh Chireh, do you have any other comments?
Mr. Chireh 12:10 p.m.
Yes, I think that it is
in line with what hon. John Ndebugre is saying. We should not put it the way it is now. It should be something like conditions for receiving the licence or getting the licence; conditions and not requirements because these are conditions that you must meet.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Well, I believe the Table Office will note that and then draw the attention of those drafting it; and they will put it in an appropriate language. But meanwhile let us agree that we have decided to change the heading of that clause.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 8 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9 - Duties of a receiver.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, clause 9, paragraph (a), delete “obtain” and substitute “buy on prepaid basis” and in paragraph (c), delete all the words after “unsold”.
The idea is that they are going to buy
the tickets in advance and pay for them. So if they had paid for them then what is the need for them to come and account for what is sold and what is not sold?
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr. Ndebugre 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the amendment but I have just realized that for “receiver”, we are substituting “Lotto Marketing Companies”. But I thought the Chairman of the Committee would have amended the headnotes because it still says the duties of a receiver - [Interruption.] Very well, then I support the amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12 -- Renewal of licence.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, clause 12, subclause 2, delete.
It has become easier and I am sure I would have hon. Members support this amendment because we have just approved clause 7, subclause (2). Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to refresh the memories of hon. Members --
“The licence fee shall be determined by the Board and shall be published
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:20 p.m.


in the Gazette.”

It has already been catered for under clause 7 of the same Bill. Now repeating it under clause 12 is not only repetitive but it is now saying that on the advice of the hon. Minister -- which Minister? At clause 7, we said “on the advice of the Board”; we do not need any addition to this; it has already been taken care of under clause 7 of the Bill, which has been approved by this House. I so move.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Chairman
of the Committee, what is your reaction to that?
Mr. Agyei-Addo 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, as
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
But that
is not all. He is also saying that there is a role for the Minister which he says has already been expunged from the earlier clauses and therefore you have to react to that as well.
Mr. Chireh 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think
that we should just delete the entire thing. When fees are being fixed for licence, we must also fix the one for renewal; and we cannot be doing that any time we feel like it. So once we have determined it in clause 7, we do not need it in clause 12. Clause 12 is redundant and useless, let us leave it.
Question put and amendment negatived.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon.
Members, there was a part of it which says that “to be determined by the Minister on the advice by the Board”; is that all right? Is that what it is supposed to be?
Mr. Agyei-Addo Yes, Mr. Speaker.
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Well, you
want to speak to that subclause again but it has been moved and agreed to. We will not go back to that but I will give you the chance. This is consideration; go ahead and say what you want to say.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:20 p.m.
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker. I believe if the amendment is to stand as it has been voted for, then we would have to recoin the rendition there to read -- “the fee for the renewal of licence shall be determined by the Board”. We cannot on one breath say “for licence give the powers to a Board,” and in another breath say the “Board on the advice of the Minister”.
Mr. Speaker, it must be “by the Board”.
So I will support what they have voted for, even though I disagree, and further seek amendment that we delete “Minister” and let the renewal fee be determined by the “Board”.
Mr. Adjei-Darko 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, upon reflection some of us think that clause 7, which has already been passed, should go through Second consideration when it comes to the Third Reading.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
But
please, you are out of order.
Mr. Adjei-Darko 12:20 p.m.
No, his argument
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Well, we
are not revisiting that. He is proposing
that instead of saying “the Board will advise the Minister to determine the price”, the Board itself should determine the fee for licence. That is the different amendment that he is proposing; and it is for the consideration of the House. If you disagree, fair enough; but it makes quite good sense.
Mr. Ndebugre 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I support
the amendment because the fee for issuing the licence itself, according to clause 7(2) which has already passed, is to be determined by the Board. So I cannot understand why, just to renew it has to be determined by the Minister upon the advice of the Board. It is putting the whole thing upside down. So I agree with hon. Haruna Iddrisu's amendment and I urge hon. Members to vote for it for uniformity so that it will make more sense.
Mr. Chireh 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I support
the dropping of the “Minister” in this particular case because, this is supposed to be an authority that we have created. How many authorities will have to be going to the Minister all the time to be asking for simple, simple things like this? Please, the Ministers are already too busy as a result of which they bring us a Bill which is very difficult to deal with. So I would plead that we remove the “Minister” in this particular case.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15 - Payment of security deposit.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, clause 15, delete. The reason being that since these Lotto Marketing Companies are going to buy the coupons and pay for them in advance there is no need for this security deposit.
Mr. Chireh 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this amendment. The reason for opposing it is simple. These are people who would have bought lotto receipts and they are doing business, and we say that they should not have any security about their businesses? If there is a dispute between them and somebody who has just bought a ticket or a coupon from them, how do you determine that? They must pay some deposit.
Mr. Maxwell Kofi Jumah 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think what the hon. Member is missing is that in the new arrangement, there will not be any credit sales and that supervising and regulating the industry would be done by an Authority. So if you are going to ask for monetary security, it does not apply, in the sense that there are no credit sales. You go and purchase; if you do not sell them it is up to you. You do not owe the authority any money. So the need for monetary security is neither here nor there. I believe that the Regulations should be able to control the industry and protect the stakeholders without any monetary security. In determining the monetary security, what kind of monetary security are they determining? How are they going to do that?
Mr. Chireh 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, in fact, they need the monetary security because these are people who are going to sell coupons. If they sell coupons, somebody wins and there is a dispute and the National Lotto Authority says no, I will not pay because there is conflict, that person should be in
Mr. Adjei-Addo 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, from the way hon. Yieleh Chireh is making his presentation it looks as if he has not completely read and understood the Bill that we are discussing. Under this new arrangement, payment is going to be made by the Authority, so there is no question of a small operator running away with somebody's money. So the issue he is talking about is neither here nor there.
Mr. Chireh 12:30 p.m.
It is there! [Laughter.]
Mr. Simon Osei-Mensah 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the security aspect was meant to mitigate a risk. But, in fact, if you consider the Bill in its current form, there is no risk on the part of the Authority so far as the lotto marketing company or the sale of these coupons are concerned because the payment is going to be done by the Authority. The licensed lotto marketing companies will buy the coupons or the tickets upfront. So I do not see the risk here which calls for the need to take monetary security; there is no risk here to mitigate. So the use of ‘security' here, I think, is no longer necessary and it should be deleted.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 as amended deleted from the Bill.
Clause 16 - Investment of security deposit.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 16, delete.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Agyei-addo 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 17, delete.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 17 as amended, deleted from the Bill.
Clause 18 - Issue of coupons.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18, line 2, after “number”, insert “and types”.
Mr. David Oppon-Kusi 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am in support of the first amendment but I do believe that a further amendment is required here. This is a marketing company that requires a certain number and types of coupons. I do not think it should be the Board which should determine the number and types of coupons. I propose an amendment towards this end. Instead of “Board determines”, replace with “as requested by the marketing company”. One comes in to buy the coupon so he will determine if he wants this type and this number. So I am proposing an amendment to that.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon. Member, what you are therefore saying is that you are opposed to the proposed amendment as it exists and the words that are being sought -- [Interruption .]
Mr. Oppon-Kusi 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, but the proposed amendment would read --
“The Service shall be the only body
to issue coupons for National Lotto and shall issue the number and types of coupons in the denominations that the Lotto Marketing Company requires.”
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Your opposition or to your rejection of the proposed amendment is on the basis that - [Interruption.]
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that I would advise my hon. Colleague to withdraw his amendment which is seeking to confuse this clause that he easily could have -[Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Are you advising the Chairman or your hon. Colleague?
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. Colleague, not the Chairman -- that his further amendment is needless. We can maintain it as it is with the Chairman's amendment and carry it through but not with his new confusing proposition.
Mr. Chireh 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Member should be introducing confusion here. First and foremost - [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
The hon. Member (Mr. Oppon-Kusi) is not introducing - he is contributing towards the debate of the House.
Mr. Chireh 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am trying
to clarify his confusion. The point I am making is that the Authority makes coupons to sell to Lotto Marketing Companies. If they print one type and they do not get people to buy, who will tell them not to print again? So it should not lie in the hands and in the mouth of the marketing companies to decide what coupons and types they should issue, no.
The Authority must have that right and when it is not being sold, nobody would tell them to change it and make a smaller or a bigger denomination.
Mr. Ndebugre 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we need to persuade the hon. Colleague here to accept to withdraw the proposed amendment instead of describing him as a confusionist and so on. I think their misunderstanding arises from the second “issue”. They have the impression that the coupons that are to be issued in number and type are at the request of the marketing company. That is not so. That word, “issue” is the same in kind as the first “issue”.
In other words the Authority has the sole authority to issue coupons and that same Authority has the authority to issue the type and number of coupons for sale. It is not a question of a marketing company making a request for a certain type and number. I think that is where his confusion has been. So I would advise him to withdraw.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20 - Sale of coupons.
Mr. Adjei-Addo 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 20, delete. The reason is that we need to allow competition and market forces to come into this whole issue of where to sell the coupons.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 as amended, deleted.
Mr. Adjei-Addo 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 22, subclause (1), line 2, at end add the following: “or is an agent of a licensed Lotto Marketing Company”.
This is to allow marketing companies to engage agents as and when they feel like.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I ordinarily should not rise than to support him, but maybe, I should allow you to put 22 (1) then I can raise objection under (2).
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
What are
you saying? We are considering the clause and you are allowing it to flow?
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Committee takes this House for. If you read clause 22 (2), it says:
“Except as provided under sections 25 and 26 of the Gaming Act, . . . (Act 200 . . .)”
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Hon. Iddrisu, you may have a point but you are jumping the gun now. We are considering subclause (1) at the moment.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Now we come to your point, I believe you have a strong point there.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:40 p.m.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this House is moving on to clause 22 (2) and I find it intriguing that the Committee does not see anything wrong with the construction there, especially in lines 1 and 2.
Mr. Ndebugre 12:40 p.m.
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, my point is that this Bill was laid or proposed by, as indicated at the end of the Memorandum, hon. Kwadwo Baah-Wiredu, the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning, so it is not the Committee. This Bill was brought here by the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning, not by the Committee, so his criticism of the Committee is totally misplaced. [Hear! Hear!]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Maybe, he is saying that the Committee should have drawn the attention of the House so that -
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, that is why the Minister's Bill is subjected to parliamentary scrutiny at the committee level. And I am saying that members of this Committee ought to scrutinize what is brought before it. I am surprised that this House is considering a legislation to speculate something in the future. Gaming Act . . ., Mr. Speaker, for whom to fill?
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Yes, Chairman of the Committee, what is your answer to that?
Mr. Agyei-Addo 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member had taken time to read our report in its entirety, he would have noticed that it took us about four months to do this. At that time, the new Gaming Act was in place, so we could not have, at
that time, gotten the right description and that was the reason why we left it as it is - to be filled in as at now.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Are you, hon. Chairman, proposing that the Bill itself was proposed or tabled by you? I do not think you did it; it is from the Minister, just as the hon. Member for Zebilla said.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 12:40 p.m.
I was only reacting to the fact that he said the Committee did not do a thorough work.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Fair enough.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 12:40 p.m.
I mean this is one particular Bill that took a very long time and we did quite an extensive and intensive work.
Clause 22 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Anyway, let us make progress. Yes, hon. Members, we move on now to clause 23.
Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24 - Participation in National Lotto and purchase of coupons.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 24, delete “A person” and substitute “Only persons”. The idea is that we want to clarify that “only persons” of or above the age of 18 can legally participate in lotto in this country. I so move.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26 - Acceptance of a stake.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, line 2, delete “may be” and substitute “are”.
Mr. Ndebugre 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to propose a further amendment to his amendment, that instead of “are”, we put there “to be”. In other words, it will read “The acceptance of a stake in National Lotto shall be subject to conditions to be determined”, not “that shall be determined” but “to be determined” -- “The acceptance of a stake in National Lotto shall be subject to conditions to be determined by the Board.”
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Hon. Haruna, would you accept that the rendition appears to be a bit neater, would you agree to that?
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if they say we substitute that “may” with “to” to read “to be determined by the Board and published in the Gazette”, to that extent, I will agree with him.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 26 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause 27 - Draw of National Lotto.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, clause 27, paragraph (c), after “conditions” insert “and method”.
This is to enable the Board to have the
right to determine the method by which lotto numbers are drawn.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 27 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause 28 - Method of draw,
Mr. Agyei-Addo 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, clause 28, delete. Mr. Speaker, this is already catered for
in clause 27.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 as amended deleted from
the Bill.
Clauses 29 and 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31 - Prizes.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, clause 31, subclause (2), line 2, delete “Director-General” and substitute “Board”.
This is to vest the power in the Board
which is the apex decision-making body of the Authority.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Yes,
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Do you
have any other proposal or new idea? Are you against it?
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, even
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Are you
talking about subclause (1)?
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, yes, I am
talking about clause 31 (1).
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Please wait till we get to clause 31 (2). Let us finish with this and when we come to that I will give you the opportunity.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Now,
subclause (1) of clause 31, hon. Member for Tamale South?
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, we delete the “Minister” and substitute “Board” in clause 31 (1).
Mr. Speaker, why should the Minister be determining prize money for lotto when, in fact, we seek to establish a Board and we have clothed the Board with some powers to monitor in general the activities of the national lotto business? I think that we must be strengthening the hands of the Board and not be referring every petty matter to a Minister. Mr. Speaker, so my view is that winners of National Lotto shall be paid prize money determined by the Board and not the Minister.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon.
Member for Tamale South, come out with the rendition because “on the advice of the Board” is in the subclause; what would you have had in its place?
Mr. H. Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I propose that “winners of National Lotto shall be paid prize moneys determined by the
Board” and consequentially subclause (a) will be deleted entirely.
Mr. Ndebugre 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am
sorry, I do not agree with this amendment. We are talking about the person or the Authority to determine the prize money and I think that it is serious enough for the Minister to do. I think that the rendition as it stands now ought to stay - [Interruptions.] - No, I think there is a misunderstanding. It is not the payment of individual winning; it is the fixing of the prizes. For example, if you buy a coupon for ten thousand cedis, how much you will win and when you win, how much you will get. That is a policy decision; it is not a flimsy thing to do. So I think that the responsibility ought to remain with the Minister.
So I urge my hon. Colleagues to reject the hon. Member for Tamale South's proposed amendment.
Mr. Dan Abodakpi 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should go with the hon. Member for Tamale South's suggestion. Policy decisions of Boards are better determined by the Boards and not by Ministers. So it is better vested in the Boards who should take responsibility at the end of the day. It cannot be the Minister.
Mr. Joe Danquah 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I just
want to add my voice. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with my learned uncle and my hon. Friend. This is because the prizes are determinant of our revenue, and as we all know, the reason for lottery is to raise revenue. The fixing of the odds is such a very important component of raising revenue and therefore, if the winning percentage or the winning component of the tickets are solely determined without the Minister's input, I think it might have an adverse effect on the main reason of having a lottery.
Therefore, I would ask my hon. Friends
to really accept that the Minister has an input in the determination of the prizes as stated in the Bill.
Mr. Chireh 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that
as a Parliament we have to be consistent. I want to find out, is it the Minister for Communications who decides how much the National Communications Authority fixes? These are the things that they are bringing politics into, which is not correct. I do not think that we should bring a Minister into this matter of the determination of prizes. Prizes are commercial things that people do and the Authority that we seek to create here must be clothed with enough power so that they can take decisions at the Board level rather than Ministers. Is it the Minister for Communications who decides the fees that they charge for whatever licences that they issue? No. I think that, as much as possible, as I said before, Ministers are too busy for many of these things that we want to introduce for them to be doing.
Mr. Kojo Opare-Hammond 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to oppose the amendment. The objective of this Lotto Bill is to help raise revenue for Government and for the development of our country. In presenting a budget to the nation, usually the Minister would want to look at how much money we can make as a country from lottery to support the various developmental programmes.
It is therefore necessary and important that at least the Minister is consulted, and his advice sought in fixing prizes or determining how much should be paid for those who would win lotto. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask that we should let, at least, the board consult with the Minister when it comes to determining the prizes.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, unless
of course in subjecting the Bill to scrutiny we are just narrowing ourselves to specific provisions, the hon. Colleague who just spoke made a very important comment which supports my position. He said that the object of the Bill is to maximize revenue. Mr. Speaker, I would urge him to read clause 42 - “Functions of the Board”. He should show me anywhere in the proposed Bill where there are functions for the Minister. We have given that important function, to maximize revenue, as part of the functions of the Board. So it is just consistent that we give the Board the powers to help them maximize and perform the function.
Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence I beg to quote clause 42 (d) 1 p.m.
“. . . devise methods to help maximize the revenue generated by the Service for the State.”
Mr. J. H. Mensah 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, sorry
to interrupt the proceedings. I thought we might find a compromise on this. I think the Minister has the power to give general directions to the Board and if we want, say 15 per cent of the total takings to accrue to the Consolidated Fund, we can give such a general direction to the board and
then leave the board to determine how the balance is actually distributed amongst stakeholders.
But at that level of splitting money amongst stakeholders, it would be a bit too much to get Ministers involved, and so on. So maybe, if there is a general power to give directions to the board, if that is sufficient, that should do.
Question put and amendment agreed
to. Clause 31 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clauses 32 to 38 ordered to stand part
of the Bill.
Clause 39 - Establishment of National
Lottery Service.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, clause 39, add a new subclause as follows:
“The National Lotto Authority (NLA) shall not engage in direct retail of lotto coupons.”
Mr. Speaker, the idea is that we want to stop a situation from arising where the Authority itself becomes a player and a referee at the same time.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
second his proposition. But before then, once again, with your indulgence, I beg to move that the Short Title Part (2) - National Lottery Service, delete “Service and substitute “Authority”. Mr. Speaker, it must now read: “National Lottery Authority”. And I further move, that consequentially, wherever there is “Service” substitute “Authority”.
Mr. Opare-Hammond 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
That I believe you are wrong. [Laughter.]
Mr. Opare-Hammond 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I am saying this because he just made a statement which is factually incorrect. Mr. Speaker, in an earlier amendment, I think in clause 2, we said that we are substituting for “Service”, “Authority”; that is in any place where we find “Service”; and this goes for the whole Bill. So his proposal is totally unwarranted and superfluous.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. Colleague, when he is confused, he plays what suits him. When we were talking about National Lotto they were the same people who advised us that we should wait until we get to the National Lotto Service. Mr. Speaker, this was repeated in your ears.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Hon.
Member, we need not split hairs over it. It is agreed that wherever the word “Service” is sighted in the Bill, we will replace it with the word “Authority”. So let us make a move. Now, we are at clause 39 - [Pause.] Chairman of the Committee, where are we now?
Mr. Agyei-Addo 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we
have just finished clause 38 and we are waiting for you to put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 39 - as amended ordered to
stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 41 - Governing body of the
Service.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 1:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 41, subclause (1) (c) (ii), delete “Gaming Board” and substitute “Ministry of the Interior”.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
On the Order Paper, it is written as subclause (1) (c) (ii) but there is nothing like subclause (c) (i); and you are proposing that we delete the words after “the Ministry of Finance”, is that where it should stop?
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
I have
made a mistake. Clause 41 -- there are two amendments; we have not considered subclause (1) (c) (ii).
Mr. Agyei-Addo 1:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, clause 41, subclause 1 (c) (ii), delete “Gaming Board” and substitute “Ministry of the Interior”. The reason is that the Gaming Board itself is managed by the Ministry of the Interior and we thought the Ministry of the Interior should rather be given that option.
Mr. Okerchiri 1:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, except
that I would want to amend “Ministry of the Interior” to read “the Ministry for the Interior”.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
That is
a new aspect of it; do you agree to the “Ministry for the Interior” instead of “Ministry of the Interior”?
Mr. Agyei-Addo 1:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, clause 43, subclause (1), between “Board” and “Shall” insert “except the Director-General”.
Mr. Speaker, since the Director-General
is an ex officio Member, he should serve on the Board for as long as he remains in office.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
So that
is what you are proposing -- “except the Director-General”. I understand.
Mr. Ndebugre 1:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, not to
oppose the amendment but to propose a little further amendment, I move that insert “except the Director-General”, so that the Director-General will be in parenthesis. There is already a comma there which did not make sense; that comma will now make sense, but there should be a second comma after the “Director-General”.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Well, I
have looked at it properly. How do you put it, “except the Director-General”? In that case, what about “eligible for re-appointment by a member shall not be appointed for more than two terms”? What about “ in respective of the Director- General” in this part of it? Can you put it -- It is still not very elegant. You are proposing that all, except the Director-General shall be eligible for re-election only for two terms -- except the Director- General -- as you said. But then it is saying that a member shall not be appointed for two terms. What does
that refer to?
Mr. H. Iddrisu 1:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, maybe,
if we had the opportunity to deal with my proposed amendment under this same clause, that would be a useful guide for the Chairman of the Committee.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
I will
allow you; what do you propose?
Mr. H. Iddrisu 1:10 p.m.
I beg to move,
clause 43, subclause (1), second line, after “re-appointment” delete. So that we delete from, “but a member shall not be appointed for more than two terms”. We should delete it entirely and just say that “a member of the Board shall hold office for a period not exceeding three years and is eligible for re-appointment.” So that the President can decide at any time to renew the appointment of any Board member, including that of the Director-General. I so move.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Of
course, what you are seeking to do is that you will not be eligible for two more; that is more than two terms.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 1:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if
you would allow me I would advance arguments why we should allow that. We are beginning to build the capacity of our own human resource base. What is wrong if somebody is at the Lotto Board and he is performing and the President thinks that he deems it necessary to maintain that person? Should we let him put the person there? We should not restrict the capacity of people to have opportunity to serve the country in various respects. I am right most of the time -- not always.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Chairman
of Committee, do you agree to the proposed amendment?
Mr. Agyei-Addo 1:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, as
hon. Members are all willing to accept it, I believe I should not be the odd one out.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Will you go over your rendition, hon. Haruna Iddrisu?
Mr. H. Iddrisu 1:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, my
rendition will read:
“A member of the Board shall hold office for a period not exceeding three years and is eligible for reappointment”; delete the rest of the words there in clause 1.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 43 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 44 - Meetings of the Board.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 44, subclause (3), delete “six” and substitute “five”. The reason is that the total membership is seven and we believe five instead of six should be the quorum.
Mr. Okerchiri 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thought that I understood the amendment not to be dealing with only figures; but we are deleting the paragraph and substituting it with same, are we not?
Mr. Agyei-Addo 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, what we wanted to achieve was to delete subclause (6) and substitute subclause (5), and not delete the entire clause.
Mr. Okerchiri 1:20 p.m.
But what has been advertised is - Amendment proposed - clause 44, subclause (3) delete and substitute: “A quorum at the meeting of the Board shall be five (5) members.” That is what has been advertised.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 1:20 p.m.
No; that one was
proposed by hon. Haruna Iddrisu, not the Committee.
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Well, are you contributing to that? We have not come to yours yet, but if you want to make any contribution, go ahead.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment proposed by the Chairman but that is consistent with my proposition. I think that the entire rendition must end at the “Board”. Because, if you say the “Board is a seven . . .” and then you continue with “or… a greater number determined by the Board” Already you have said that the minimum for a meeting, which is the quorum, is (5).
So that must be it for the Board. So it must read, “the quorum at a meeting of the Board is five members of the Board.” All the words there must be deleted; the rest of the words there must all be deleted. Because if we say, “a greater number” -- Beyond (5), what greater number? It means we are asking that the entire Board as a quorum must meet. So I believe that he will support mine and that will render the earlier one redundant and we can make progress.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Chairman, do you agree to that?
Mr. Agyei-Addo 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 45 and 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47 - Allowances.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg
Mr. Agyei-Addo 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 48, delete. Mr. Speaker, we believe the resourcing of the Department of National Lotteries (DNL) must be done administratively.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 as amended deleted from the Bill.
Clauses 49 to 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52 - Directors.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 52, subclause (2), delete. Mr. Speaker, since this is a constitutional provision it need not be restated.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I failed to catch your eye, but if I had the opportunity before you put the Question on clause 53, I thought that the second line, the word “for” must be substituted for “to”. Those
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
I think you are entirely right; that should be amended.
Mr. Ndebugre 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, there is a problem there. I urge my hon. Friend to read it carefully again — “The President shall in accordance with article 195 of the Constitution appoint a Secretary for the Board”; that is correct. We cannot say “a secretary to the Board”. Then if we want to use “to” we must say that “the President shall, in accordance with article 195 of the Constitution, appoint the Secretary to the Board; and this is from Navrongo Secondary School (Navasco) not Achimota — [Laughter.]
Mr. H. Iddrisu 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, he knows that I am also an old Navascan and I had the privilege to go to Navasco, not Achimota. It is “to”; “to” must be substituted for “for”, from whatever angle you look at it.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Anyway, we should leave that one to the draftsmen and move on.
Clause 54 - Internal auditor.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 54, subclause (1), delete and substitute “The Board shall appoint a chief internal auditor for the Service”. Mr. Speaker, this is to empower the Board itself to appoint a chief internal auditor and not the President.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55 - Appointment of other staff.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
beg to move, clause 55, subclause (1), before “appoint” delete all the words and substitute “The Board shall”. Mr. Speaker, the Committee is of the opinion that transfers and secondment should not engage the attention of the President, but the Authority itself should be in a position to do this.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Yes, hon. Iddrisu, we have already put the Question but do you want to make any contribution?
Mr. Iddrisu 1:20 p.m.
If you would permit me, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
You are permitted, go ahead.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have a little difficulty with line (2) of clause 55 (1) and would want us to relook at it before you put the Question.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
But that is after we have put the Question on the other subclause. Fair enough, we have deleted subclause (2) but we will go back to subclause (1). Go ahead.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 1:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid if you look at line 2, it says, and with your permission I quote:
“The President shall in accordance with article 195 of the Constitution appoint for the Service officers and other members of staff ….”
Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure whether under article 195 all members of staff of the Service will have to be appointed by the President. I am not too sure; I just needed a clarification there; and we may have to do a reconstruction there. Members of staff — we cannot be reducing that to the Office of the President. I have a little
difficulty there.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Chairman of the Committee, the President can do that but as to whether he would do that or you want him to do that —
Mr. Agyei-Addo 1:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we were referring to article 195 of the Constitution which states that the President can -- and that is exactly what we are referring to. Maybe, for practical purposes it might not be; he might delegate.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Hon. Iddrisu, what is your problem?
Mr. H. Iddrisu 1:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is not too harmful; we can let it go.
Clause 55 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57 - Accounts and audit.
Mr. Iddrisu 1:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 57, subclause (3), line 2, delete all the words after “forward” and substitute “the report to Parliament”.
Mr. Speaker, I am doing so because the Auditor-General, even by provisions of the Constitution, is not answerable to the Minister. He reports only to this august House, that is Parliament. So Mr. Speaker, we should substitute “Minister” with “Parliament”; a copy of the audit report should be given to Parliament. The Auditor-General is only answerable to Parliament.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 1:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I believe maintaining it does not detract anything from the Bill. What the Bill is saying is that a copy must be given to the Minister. It does not preclude the report

from being sent to Parliament; and I think it is even a constitutional requirement that the Auditor-General does that. So maintaining this here does not really say anything. It is only a copy that we are requesting to be sent to the Minister.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 1:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if you read clause 57(3) well it says, and with your permission I quote:
“The Auditor-General shall, not later than three months after the receipt of the accounts, audit the accounts and forward …”
So all audited accounts -- the Auditor- General answers to Parliament not to the Minister. Why? - [Interruption] - whether it is a copy or not, what comes here — Why should he give it to the Minister? Mr. Speaker, how are we going to fund the activities of the National Lotto Service? It is going to be from the Consolidated Fund; and we are saying that let them answer to the people's elected representatives and not the Minister.
Mr. Speaker, if you would permit me, let me support my argument with a constitutional provision. Article 187(5) says and with your permission I quote:
“The Auditor-General shall, within six months after the end of the immediately preceding financial year to which each of the accounts mentioned in clause (2) of this article relates, submit his report to Parliament …”
It says “Parliament”; it does not say “Minister”. The Auditor-General is not answerable to any person other than this House.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
In some cases it could be; in some cases he is not answerable to him but he is saying that in
respect of auditing that goes to — That is the Service is being asked that a copy should be given to the Minister.
Mr. Dan Abodakpi 1:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, in this respect I want to disagree with my hon. Colleague. The issue here is that the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning who holds administrative responsibility for the Service and who ultimately would come before this House to answer queries should be seized with a copy of the findings, whilst the report itself goes the way the Constitution so directs. I think that is the purpose behind it.
Question put and amendment negatived.
Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58 - Annual Report.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 1:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 58, subclause (1), line 2, delete “eight” and substitute “six”.
Mr. Speaker, in our view the importance or the value of any report is its timeliness. If we would have to wait for eight months the harm, if done, would have created a lot more problem for the country. So we want the period to be six months and not eight months.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60 - Inspectors, power of entry and seizure.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 1:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 60, subclause (5), after
“officer” delete “not below the rank of Assistant Superintendent”.
Mr. Speaker, every police officer should have the power to act, to enforce the law and to stop any breaches that come to his notice.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 60 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 61 and 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 63 - Interpretation.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 1:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 63, add “conduct”, includes promote, organize and operate a game of lotto”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 63 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 64 - Repeals and savings.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 1:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 64, subclause (4), delete.
This is to allow the Authority to recruit the staff it deems necessary for the performance of its functions.
Mr. Ndebugre 1:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, what about clause 64 (3) if we are deleting 64
(4)?
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 64 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 65 - Transitional provisons.
Mr. Agyei-Addo 1:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, there was one subclause we thought we should propose to be amended, that is clause 64
(3) -
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
I wish we could first handle clause 65, then we come to that. Could you speak to clause 65?
Mr. Agyei-Addo 1:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 65, subclause (4), line 4, after “determined” delete all words and substitute the following: “through negotiations between the Board and the owners”.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee proposes that on the private machines owned and equipment which are to be taken over by the Authority, there should be negotiation between the Authority and the owners of those equipment.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 1:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I stand to oppose the proposed amendment and to further seek that the entire clause 64 (4) be deleted. It should not be part of this Bill.
Mr. Speaker, earlier on during the Second Reading, some of us raised very serious reservations and objections that this Bill, subsequently when it becomes law, we will be swallowing up the private lotto operators. They would have to operate under a new regime where you would have to produce and sell coupons to them. Mr. Speaker, a private man bought his machine for his purpose. If by legislation, he ought not to practise as lotto, let him determine where he would take the machine to, to recoup his money. Why should it be done with you
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Hon. Member, it does appear to me that what this proposed amendment is seeking to do is to help them out so that the machines that they have are subject to negotiation; they are not obliged. If they like, of course they would give the machines to the new authorities. So this one is a way of helping them.
Mr. Kwadjo Opare-Hammond 1:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised. I am overwhelmed and flabbergasted by the submission of my hon. Friend because since morning, we have been sitting here going through these amendments and what we have been saying is that the amendment is seeking to establish an authority that will regulate the lotto business in this
country.
Mr. Speaker, in doing so, when the Bill becomes an Act and a law, then all other lotto operators are going to cease operating as they have been operating now. What is going to happen is that these lotto companies already have their machines and they have products and they have been drawing all kinds of numbers. Some of them twice, three times in a day. With the passage of this Bill, the understanding is that all those products are going to cease; that is number one.
Number two, it means that they are no longer going to draw lotto. If they are no longer going to draw lotto then what happens to their machines? The Bill is saying that the National Lotto Authority would want to take over their products and their machines. Mr. Speaker, what this clause is seeking to do is to cause them to sit down with the National Lotto Authority and negotiate so that the machines and their products can be taken over and run by the National Lotto Authority.
Mr. Speaker, this does not amount to taking over somebody's business. This does not amount to tying the hands of private lotto operators. Mr. Speaker, it is therefore incorrect for my hon. Colleague to state this on the floor of the House. He is totally misleading this House. He is totally misleading the entire country. That is not the intention of the Government.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Do you want to react to that?
Mr. H. Iddrisu 1:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would not necessarily react to his submission. I was of the strong view that the aspiring Minister for Road Transport would have advised him.
Mr. Speaker, I have been associated with this law in the discharge of my
duties as a Member of Parliament; I do not share it and I stated it here. I am against the nationalization of the lotto business and Mr. Speaker, I am repeating it. This Government consistently believes in nationalization. They did it for Ghana Telecom. They did it for WESTEL. They say that they believe in private sector participation, yet Mr. Speaker, today, they are tying the hands of private people.
Mr. Joe Danquah 1:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. Colleague is misleading the House. We are not nationalizing lotto; we are restoring the monopoly of the State.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 1:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy he has said he is restoring the monopoly of the State. That is the strongest belief and value of the political tradition that he belongs to - [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Do not draw me into a debate. - [Laughter.]
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
There is a point of order against you.
Mr. Asiamah 1:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. Colleague is misleading this House. Regulation does not mean controlling. You can liken it to the National Media Commission: is it controlling the media landscape in Ghana today? It is regulating the media landscape, but it does not mean it is controlling it. We are not in the control regime. Everything should be regulated by law and that is exactly what we are doing here. It is not controlling.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 1:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I maintain that the entire clause 4 be deleted. This Bill, eventually as we see it through this stage, will become law.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Hon. Member for Tamale South, I think you have made your point - [Interruption.]
Hon. Members, the implication is that instead of a negotiation between the Authority and the owners of the machines and the equipment, by the proposed amendment, which is going to let it be through negotiation, what we have here is that, it should be determined by the Director-General. So you better consider what it is, the voting that you are making.
If indeed, you get up and say you are speaking to help them do whatever they want, then the proposed amendment appears to favour that a little; not entirely going the way you would have wished, but it appears to favour that a little. So you better look at it, unless of course, you are only voting as a “spoiler”. If you are not, it is better for your position.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 1:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, our position is a deletion of the entire subclause (4).
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
So do I put the Question on your proposed amendment first?
Mr. H. Iddrisu 1:50 p.m.
I think so.
Mr. Okerchiri 1:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I honestly think that there is some element of confusion in this discussion. We need to really reflect. So if you could stand this one down. [Interruptions.] If this particular one could be stood down - [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
No, I will not stand it down. As a matter of fact, we are going away. At the Second Consideration Stage, you can call for it. But let me put the Question.
Question put and amendment negatived.
Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Long Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Hon. Members, I believe that brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage of the Bill. Thank you very much those of you who have taken part in this Consideration Stage that we have gone through, these long hours. If there are some i' s to be dotted and t's to be crossed and taken care of, when it comes to the Second Consideration Stage, you could look at them.
Yes, I want to be advised; it is not two o clock yet.
Mr. Okerchiri 1:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we have done sufficient work for the day and there are other committee sittings. Therefore, I would want to move that this House adjourns till tomorrow at ten o'clock in the forenoon.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 1:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion. I agree with him that committees are meeting. But Mr. Speaker, I want to seek your leave to insist that we should not allow people to encourage the overthrow of the Standing Orders of the House, especially when it comes to voting.
Question put and motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT 1:50 p.m.