Debates of 28 Nov 2006

MR. FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:10 a.m.
CORRECTION OF VOTES 10:10 a.m.
AND PROCEEDINGS AND 10:10 a.m.
THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:10 a.m.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Hon. Members, we have the Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 24th November 2006. Pages 1 . . . 12. [Pause.] [No correction in the Votes and Proceedings.] Hon. Members, we do not have any Official Report here for corrections.
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Hon. Balado Manu?
Mr. Manu 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, there is a publication in today's issue of Daily Graphic -
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Daily?
Mr. Manu 10:10 a.m.
Graphic.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:10 a.m.
I thought you were going to say Daily Guide. [Laughter.]
‘DAILY GRAPHIC' REPORT
Mr. Manu 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, Daily Graphic. And at page 11 of that newspaper, there is an article purported to have been
written by one Nana Oye Lithur. The title of the article is “Domestic Violence Bill, Parliament, Alomo Gyata, et al”. If you read that article, nuances are created and with your indulgence, I will quote a section of the article that has direct bearing on me because my name is mentioned. And it goes like this:
“Hear Mr. Balado Manu, he was very unhappy with the women dressed in red sitting at the public gallery; he says they were intimidating the Parliamentarians.
There were only 100 women and men odd supporters of the bill clad in red bands or clothes observing proceedings.
He did not find domestic violence unusual since other forms of violence also existed on the streets, on the sea, et cetera. He also educated parliamentarians on the existence of Alomo Gyatas, literally, women tigers at homes.”

There was nowhere that I said I did not find domestic violence to be unusual. I recommend that day's Hansard to the author of this article, and be what that
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Hon. John Tia, are you on a point of order?
Mr. J. A. Tia 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. Member is confusing this House. He has not stated any issue to which he is now leading us - [Interrup- tion.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon. Member, please take your seat; he has not yet landed so allow him.
Mr. Manu 10:20 a.m.
What I said was that I had been seriously misrepresented. I do not know what I could have stated again. That I did not find anything unusual about domestic violence; that was not what I said that day and I want it to be corrected. Sending bad signals to the public that - [Interruption.]
Mr. E. K. D. Adjaho 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to get exactly what the hon. Member is trying to do. Is he coming under the regular provision of the Standing Orders claiming privilege? What exactly is he doing? We have to be very sure - [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon. Deputy Minority Leader, I am trying also to follow him; he has not landed as yet so please could you stop anticipating him. Please land because you are taking such a long time.
1613 28 Nov. 2006 1614
Mr. Manu 10:20 a.m.
I am landing. Mr. Speaker, I am landing on the note that I have been misrepresented in this article and I am saying it because it was agreed the other time that Leadership would take up the matter following one article that was previously written. I want to add this to whatever that they would discuss at that meeting, that I have been seriously misrepresented and I have been portrayed to the public as one who did not find anything unusual with domestic violence. [Interruption.]
On that day, I stated my point clearly and I want Leadership to take note of what I have said when they meet the person who wrote the article so that my point would be made clear at that meeting. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Very well, you have made your point. Yes, hon. Minority Leader.
Mr. A. S. K. Bagbin 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thought that if the hon. Member knew that earlier on this matter was referred to the Leadership to take action, the first point of call would have been the Leadership. If he had any complaint to make or, maybe, a breach of privilege in this matter, he should have at least contacted Leadership to see what action had been taken or what action would be taken on the matter. But now he has come to the floor, he has raised the issue and he is ending up talking about Leadership again.
I think that that is circuitous. I believe that the proper thing for him to have done was to have come to Leadership with this matter.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:20 a.m.
I honestly do not agree with you, hon. Minority Leader - [Interruption.]
Mr. Bagbin 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, well, you may disagree with me but once it is not a ruling, I can also disagree with you - [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon. Minority Leader, could you let me land.
Mr. Bagbin 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, you have not allowed me to land and you say I should allow you to land.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:20 a.m.
But you have made a mistake; let me draw your attention to the mistake you have made. The hon. Member for Ahafo Ano South, hon. Balado Manu, and a few others on the floor on that day drew the attention of the Chair to what they considered to be, maybe, some kind of breach of privilege.
Indeed, it was on the floor that a Member moved that those who were suspected or alleged to have been in breach should be brought to the Privileges Committee. A few other Members pleaded with those Members that we should refer the matter to the Leadership and indeed the Chair referred the matter to the Leadership.
There is nothing wrong if a Member again comes to this floor and feeling that there have been further breaches says that it should be carried aboard with what has been referred to Leadership. Of course, what has been referred to the Leadership, they have not yet drawn the attention of the House to it. It does not stop any Member when he finds that there have been further breaches, to draw the attention of this House to them on the floor of this House. There is nothing wrong with that.
Mr. Bagbin 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I completely disagree with you; I completely disagree with you. Then it makes nonsense of the reference to Leadership. Why then did you refer the matter to Leadership? If you referred a matter to Leadership which is pending or to a particular Committee which is pending, the matter is pending, the proper thing is to go back to Leadership. If Leadership reports on it and the Member is not satisfied, the hon. Member can insist that the right thing be
done. But if you rule, at least I cannot comment on that. But you were telling me your opinion and that is why I am still talking about it.
But Mr. Speaker, I was saying that, as you yourself know, the practice is that, in these matters — we have discussed them, with you, with Mr. Speaker — when we want to raise some of these things on the floor, we mention them in our usual early morning meetings with the Speaker that there is a publication, there is this breach of privilege and we want to raise it on the floor. We have done that a number of times. I thought that was the proper procedure to adopt.
If not, everyday, we would have Members raising issues about publications in newspapers. I think that is what we have been doing and that was what I was just drawing his attention to. If there is a breach of privilege in a publication that the Member feels is false and is not what he said on the floor, the Member is entitled to do so. But I am saying that there is a procedure one has to follow in doing that; and that procedure has not being followed. That is simply what I am saying.
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Well, it is all right. Hon. Majority Leader, let me respond. As you yourself indicated, maybe, you think that was an expression of my opinion. I am saying that definitely, there has been some convention. The convention being that sometimes the Leadership, when they find matters necessary, would draw the attention of the Speaker before we sit. In this case, it does not preclude other hon. Members of this House raising any issue which they consider necessary.
They may, if they choose, also to raise it with the Leadership. On the other hand, they can, as hon. Members of this House
raise any issue that they find disturbing on the floor. It has been happening, so there is nothing wrong with that. The hon. Member, irrespective of the merits of what he is raising, has done nothing wrong. It is appropriate; he cannot be banned from raising any issue which he considers appropriate, touching on his person, on the floor. There is nothing wrong with that. In any case, hon. Majority Leader --
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think on the procedure, I would want to suggest that we discuss this at the usual Leadership meeting with you tomorrow. As regards what is to be done, I believe that day we went one step further to direct that the Minority Chief Whip and the Majority Chief Whip, aided by the Chairperson of the Committee on Gender and Children and the Minister for Women and Children's Affairs - all of them hon. Members of Parliament - should constitute a committee to advise Leadership on the next step. So possibly, we would be getting in touch with them to see what progress they have made on that matter.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Very well, but I will also direct that while you are considering what has been given to you by the Chair, this is a new matter which has been brought this morning which according to him, he has read in the newspapers this morning. I will say that you should take it also in addition to what you are considering.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 10:20 a.m.
I think we will ask the Committee to look at that too.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Thank you very much.
ANNOUNCEMENTS 10:30 a.m.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Hon. Members, before we go on to Business as usual, let me inform you that we have some legislators from Adamawa State Legislature, Nigeria with us here. It is a very strong delegation of about sixty. I will call their names and they will be recognized. The delegation is being led by that State's Legislature's Speaker.
LIST OF DELEGATION 10:30 a.m.
MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AND 10:30 a.m.
THE SECURITY AGENCIES 10:30 a.m.
Mr. A. S. K. Bagbin 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, there is an important matter I want to bring to the attention of the House. This is not the first time it has been brought before the House; it has been done a number of times but I believe we have not been able to reach out to the bodies concerned, outside Parliament. I think we have to do that.
Mr. Speaker, this has to do with the relationship between the Members of the House and the security agencies. Mr. Speaker, there have been for some time now some attempts by some members of the security agencies, especially the police to treat with contempt this House and the Members of this House.
Mr. Speaker, there is a clear framework of how to deal with Members of Parliament in the Constitution and our Standing Orders. Members of Parliament are definitely ordinary citizens of the country, but Members of Parliament are given the rights and privileges of their constituents to represent them in this House and this House represents the interest of the country.
Mr. Speaker, there has been for some time a practice and procedure that have been developed by all democracies and I believe that we have to follow such practice and procedure. An hon. Member of Parliament is not above the law but there is a procedure in dealing with a Member of Parliament when there is an allegation about the hon. Member having infringed upon the law.
I believe what happened on Friday involving a Member of Parliament, hon. Felix Twumasi -Appiah is something that cannot go without comment. It has happened before and I think that we have to link up once again with the security agencies, especially the police, to know that in such matters, the Speaker has to be consulted, has to be informed together with the Leadership before a Member is
Mr. A. S. K. Bagbin 10:30 a.m.
1621 Announcements 28 Nov. 2006 1623 Announcements 28 Nov. 2006 1624
usually handled the way they are handling hon. Members. This is because there is a question of privilege.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, it has taken time to develop these rules. We cannot and we should not allow this to continue. I may refer them, if they want to go through books like Erskine May, to see why those rules of privileges were developed. And Mr. Speaker, let me just read what privileges mean, and I beg to do so:
“Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals.”

This is a quotation from Erskine May and this is what guides Parliaments because of the peculiar functions that Members of Parliament perform.

A Member can be arrested for infringing the law but there is a procedure that has to be followed before that is done and it is that procedure I am drawing the attention of the law enforcement agencies to. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we should insist that that procedure usually be followed, especially when the allegations have to do with civil matters and not criminal matters. I think this has been flagrantly abused by the agencies involved. And I want to let them know that in many cases, especially the police - the police is a service and not a force. We have moved

away from the Police Force to a Police Service and they are to serve the people of Ghana and not to force the people of Ghana.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity.
Mr. Felix Owusu-Adjapong 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, definitely, as a Leader in Parliament, it should be my first duty to protect and uphold the dignity of Parliament, including its Members. As I indicated at our closed meeting, we need to have more information in such matters to enable us discuss them properly.
There has been some different opinion expressed on some of these clauses, as regards when and where the arrest can take place and I believe it is high time we got the Privileges Committee to try to work on this matter so that we can use that to educate first ourselves and secondly, the entire country. This is because there was an analogy given to me the other day when I raised this issue somewhere, and the argument was that fancy a Member of Parliament was threatening to kill, should we wait and go and talk to the Speaker before an arrest was made? I said this was far-fetched but it was worth looking at it.
So I would rather suggest that we use this as an opportunity for the Privileges Committee to look at it and give some expansion as to how far we want to operate with this matter relating to our privileges, not only of ourselves but of the House. I would therefore want to plead that if we could end here and possibly ask the Speaker to refer this whole philosophy and matter to the Privileges Committee and hope they will do a speedy work on it since nobody knows when an event like this may occur again.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Very well,
hon. Members. I believe that there are
two issues here, the broader issue of broad privileges of Members of Parliament and the public attitude towards them and so on, which it is appropriate that maybe, we take a little more time to consider. It is not even a mere matter for one committee, the Privileges Committee but indeed Members themselves and how they perceive it and how they want the public itself to perceive it.
I think at the appropriate time, the Leadership and Members should consider that. But right now, what we have in hand is the issue that the hon. Minority Leader has just brought up and that has to do with a Member of Parliament.
Just as the Majority Leader himself has asked, I think this is a matter just like what we considered last week. It will be referred to you, the Leadership, for you to be in touch with the security authorities as well in this particular matter and talk it over. Later on, we will also know what position to take and then we will make it more public. But in this particular case — we agreed before we came here — I will refer it to the Leadership to handle the matter appropriately.
Mr. E. K. D. Adjaho 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am not faulting your direction, which is the direction from the Chair; I agree that there are two issues which we have identified. I think that the one that you have referred to the Leadership, I do not have any problem with. It is equally important that we get the broader picture so that hon. Members of Parliament themselves would also know the limits when it comes to conducting their own affairs, and that is what the hon. Majority Leader has suggested you should refer to the Privileges Committee. So there are two issues as you have rightly identified - [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Which one are you - [Interruption.]
Mr. Adjaho 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the other aspect of the broader guidelines -- so that it would also guide us as hon. Members of Parliament, and that is the one that would prevail upon you to refer to the Privileges Committee which you would have the privilege of being the Chairman. I would also urge you strongly, so that any Member who has any experience can appear before the Privileges Committee to assist the Committee so that we can develop guidelines in this matter.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Hon. Member, hon. Appiah-Ofori said it that it involves some broader issues to which we all need to, maybe, make some input, in the sense that we have our Standing Orders, if one wants to talk about understanding what amounts to privileges. If it is that clear cut, then of course, we would refer to the Constitution and the Standing Orders. But there are other issues than that and for that reason it is not just the privileges; we all must make a contribution and I am saying the Leadership as well.
For that matter, there would be some other appropriate time when we can handle it. In that case, the instruction would come from Mr. Speaker that the Privileges Committee should come out with some other principles by which we can relate to the public, and Members also can be guided by. That is what I have said. But right now, let us refer this matter to the Leadership to treat with urgency and advise us on it.
Hon. Members, there is also before us a communication from the President and I would want to read:
COMMUNICATION FROM THE 10:40 a.m.
PRESIDENT 10:40 a.m.
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF 10:40 a.m.
PAPERS 10:40 a.m.
Mr. F. A. Agbotse 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Report has already been distributed. I will plead with the Table Office to have it laid for discussion on Thursday.
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. Colleague, Francis Agbotse, Member of Parliament for Ho West is really trying to create confusion in this House. If he wants his item discussed, there are two ways of doing it; either he talks to his leadership or he talks to the Business Committee. Table Office has got no mandate whatsoever to determine what item comes to this floor. [Interruptions.] And we should not create
that impression, especially when we have our hon. Dignitaries with us here.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:40 a.m.
I believe what he meant was that the matter should be referred to the Business Committee for it to be scheduled for discussion.
We now move on to item 5 on the Order Paper -- Minister for Finance and Economic Planning.
MOTIONS 10:40 a.m.
Mr. David Oppon-Kusi (NPP - Ofoase/Ayirebi) 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to second the motion moved on - [Interruptions.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:40 a.m.
I think he is right, it has already been moved. The motion that was moved by [Hear! Hear!] — Hon. Members of this House were saying that you should have caught my eye first. The mistake was mine, so go ahead.
Mr. Oppon-Kusi 10:40 a.m.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for catching your eye. Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion moved by the hon. Minister for Finance and Economic Planning and Member of Parliament for Asante Akim North, hon. Kwadwo Baah-Wiredu on the 16th of November, 2006, that this honourable House approves the Government's Financial Estimates for the year 2007.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to use this opportunity to set the ball rolling on a
healthy and factual debate on this Budget, a debate that will take into account the paramount interest of the Ghanaian whilst at the same time acknowledging that we are still a developing country aiming at reaching middle-income status.
Mr. Adjaho 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the motion that the hon. Member on the floor is seconding is one of Financial Policy and not Financial Estimates. There is a difference between financial estimates and financial policy — [Interruptions] — unless he is moving his own motion. But if he is seconding the motion moved by the hon. Minister for Finance and Economic Planning, then he should say so. [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:40 a.m.
That is exactly what he is doing.
Mr. Adjaho 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, then it should be “Financial Policy” and not “Financial Estimates'”.
Mr. Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Deputy Minority Leader is misleading this House. The Minister for Finance and Economic Planning, if he wants to be factual, moves a motion on the Economic policy and not Financial policy. [Uproar.] Mr. Speaker, he is clearly confused and he must not waste the time of this House. [Interruptions.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Hon. Members, let us make some progress, please. Hon. Deputy Minority Leader, you are right, it is on the Order Paper.
Mr. Adjaho 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, that is what we have on the Order Paper and I was here when the hon. Minister moved the motion, and it was on financial policy and
not economic policy or financial estimates.
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Hon. Member, can you take your seat and let him continue.
Mr. Oppon-Kusi 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, as indicated in his introduction, the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning said the “wish list” of a hundred trillion cedis is significantly more than what our collective resources can accommodate.

Mr. Speaker, I have taken time to study this document. Mr. Speaker, whilst I was studying the document, I kept looking for evidence that a careful balance has been struck between what is desirable and what is feasible. [Uproar.] My reaction to what I found was one of elation and satisfaction. To buttress my point, Mr. Speaker, I will briefly touch on some of the facts and figures and the major philosophies underpinning the 2007 Budget.

The major focus of this year's policy initiative, according to the document we are debating, is to promote firstly, home ownership; secondly, diversify our sources of funding; thirdly, to enhance revenue; fourthly, to provide tax reliefs and incentives and to continue to improve the business environment.

Mr. Speaker, on the eve of our Golden Jubilee, it is heart-warming to note that we have consistently recorded an increasingly positive GDP growth over the last six years, giving all of us hope that we will meet some of the Millennium Development Goals before the United Nations deadline.

GDP has grown from 3.7 per cent in 2000, before the New Patriotic Party
Mr. Oppon-Kusi 10:50 a.m.


(NPP) Government took over the affairs of this nation, as follows: 4.2 per cent in 2001; 4.5 per cent in 2002; 5.2 per cent in 2003; 5.8 per cent in 2004; another 5.8 per cent in 2005; and a projected 6.2 per cent in 2006.
Mr. F. Twumasi-Appiah 10:50 a.m.
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, if you may direct the hon. Member, he is seriously reading from his notes; he should desist from reading.
Mr. Oppon-Kusi 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am not reeling off these figures as a mathematical exercise, rather empirical evidence on world economic performance suggests that nations that have achieved middle and high income status have done so on the back of erratic GDP growth. They have done so on the back of modest but continuously increasing GDP growth over long periods. A government whose track record indicates an ability to stabilise and grow the economy on a sustained and sustainable basis, in spite of external commodity price shocks must be kept in power by popular and massive vote, come December, 2008. [Hear! Hear!]
Mr. Speaker, paragraph 194 of this
document contends that and with your permission, I quote:
“The NPP Government is committed to maintaining micro-economic stability which is key to achieving high and sustained growth.”
The proof of this unfailing commitment is unfolding for all to see.
I also note with much satisfaction that the Budget is still anchored on the three thematic areas of Private Sector Development, Human Resource Development, and Good Governance and Civic Responsibility. This is evidenced by the many new policy initiatives proposed, showing a consistency in policy direction of the ruling NPP Government.
Mr. Speaker, on Private Sector Development, the Government assures us that it will continue with the following:
Development of the rural economy through the modernisation of agriculture which is led by a vibrant and competitive private sector;
Enhance infrastructure develo- pment; and
Sustained environmental develop- ment through reforestation.
I also note that four Ministries have been resourced and charged with the task of developing our human resource base so that we would be able to face the challenges of a modern state, come 2015. The continuing expansion of our educational facilities and the improved access to basic facilities like health and water is a pointer to this commitment.
The focus on good governance is continuing with the empowerment of a lot of state entities to participate in the development process and to help promote
peace and stability. These are notable foundations for a modern state.
Mr. Speaker, I must admit that in the course of 2006, the resilience of our economy was severely tested by the unprecedented increases in world crude oil prices that went as high as $75, sending many nations running for cover but the Government of Ghana under His Excellency John Agyekum Kufuor came out with flying colours.
Mr. Speaker, all the vital indicators have remained within the safe zone -- green. I cannot but be impressed that under these very trying circumstances and conditions, the downward trend of our inflation and interest rates continued, whilst the cedi remained relatively stable. The country did not experience shortage of fuel with its attendant long queues even though we must admit that the vehicle population has increased in this country.
Mr. Speaker, in spite of all the foregoing, I will attempt to minimise the use of superlatives to help set the tone for a factual debate that will recognise that this Budget Statement is only one of a series of past and future Budgets, and it is only a step in our march forward. This Budget therefore, has not attempted to find solutions to all our numerous problems at once. What is evident however, Mr. Speaker, is that it helps us as a nation to take a huge leap ahead in our forward march.
Mr. Speaker, all the Budget Statements since this Government came into power -- this Government that I will call the Government of the people, by the people and for the people came into power -- have an aim to -
(1) Consolidate existing gains;
(2) Introduce new and pragmatic policies;
(3) Enhance the socio-economic
environment;
(4) Modernize and strengthen the legal environment, and
(5) Find solutions to our numerous problems.
In this regard, the 2007 Budget Statement has kept faith with this positive tradition, and we are certainly on the path to replace poverty with prosperity in the near future - [Hear! Hear!] A few examples, Mr. Speaker, will suffice.
Since 2001, the Government has introduced and with the support of Parliament, brought into being various legislations that have transformed the tax environment and enhanced our revenue generation. They have boosted the business and manufacturing sector, brought more transparency, probity and accountability, improved our collective security and reformed our public institutions and improved our justice delivery system.
Mr. A. K. Agbesi 10:50 a.m.
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is misleading the House; he is misinforming the House. I heard him say that the Government has brought about accountability and I think that this is misinformation of the state of affairs.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Hon. Member, you are out of order, so take your seat. Yes, hon. Member, continue.
Mr. Oppon-Kusi 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I know this is not worth replying to —
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:50 a.m.
I think, hon. Member, that you should also watch your language; continue.
Mr. Oppon-Kusi 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, many outmoded laws have been reviewed or
Mr. Oppon-Kusi 11 a.m.


repealed, especially in the financial, social and criminal sectors which will lead Ghana ultimately to a modern state operating under good governance. And this is evidenced through visionary leadership, rule of law, strong and independent public and private institutions, a vibrant and objective press, an assertive Parliament and a truly independent Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, this country is facing some crisis in energy generation and the age-old wage problem. Lasting solutions can only be addressed through our Budget and economic policies instead of relying on fire-fighting approaches. The sub- theme for this year's Budget, “Towards Fair Wages” says it all. This philosophy is a natural extension of last year's “Investing in People”. All our previous policies have aimed at enriching the quality of life of the Ghanaian. With a relatively stable economy this country now stands ready to tackle head-on our wage and energy problems.

On wages, Mr. Speaker, the 2007 Budget has proposed a decisive and long- lasting action to rationalize the public sector wage issue once and for all. I refer to paragraphs 1354 to 1368 which deal with a comprehensive public sector wage reform. The proposal for a Fair Wages Commission is very much welcome.

Mr. Speaker, there is the need for many more of such independent bodies to act as referees in areas where the interface between different interests is likely to create friction. The distortions and inequities in wages have been with us since independence, but their impact have been magnified under the current economic difficulties within and outside the country.

Mr. Speaker, various budgetary policies since 1982 have attempted to find solutions to these wage problems, but with the Government as an interested party, the solutions have been elusive. And with

your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will give a few examples.

Over twenty-four years ago, in the 1982 Budget, the Incomes Policy section made a very important observation on pages 30 to 32. It states and I quote:

“The income policy pursued over the years has created numerous d i s to r t i ons , i nequ i t i e s and contradictions. Numerous cases exist where persons with the same skills and responsibilities receive different levels of remunerations, depending solely on the source of employment and a number of varieties of unmonitored allowances that could be padded onto the basic salary scheme.”

The following year, in the 1983, edition of the same Budget, pages 5 to 7 - the Government sought

“to keep a socially acceptable relationship between the sources of the various income systems, in relation to their contribution to national welfare . . . and redress the anomalies that exist in the structure of wages.”

Again, in 1988 and many more years, the Income Policy Statement stated on page 30, and I quote again:

“the ability to pay principle should be adhered to in private, parastatal and government sector” and that “if enterprises were forced to implement levels of wages that jeopardize their profitability and investment then we must expect that these enterprises will sooner or later collapse and throw their workers out of employment.”

Mr. Speaker, this was certainly an about turn-from “we no go sit down make them

cheat us everyday” days.

Mr. Speaker, 17 years later, in the 1999 edition on page 68, the Budget noted, and again, I quote:

“the implementation of govern- ment's medium to long-term public sector salaries and wages policies have been delayed several times in the past and was mainly due to the underestimation of the technical work involved.”

With these lessons from the past we cannot as a Government afford to underestimate the work involved. Our long-suffering workers require a permanent solution - [Hear! Hear!] The idea therefore of an independent referee free from Government is very much welcome.

Mr. Speaker, addressing the problem of wage disparities should include the monetization of non-wage benefits which have been promised by this Government. For example, there are a lot of public sector workers who live in government apartments, bungalows and barracks across the country. Some pay very little or nothing for rent, electricity, water and sometimes telephone.

Mr. Speaker, there is no incentive to economise the use of these scarce resources. As a matter of fact, some of them and I would want to repeat — some of them -- make commercial use of water and electricity by selling iced blocks, iced water, iced cream and drinks to supplement their meagre incomes whilst the Government picks up the utility bills.

We need to put that money in their pockets so that they will be made responsible for their own utilities. I urge the hon. Minister for Public Sector Reforms in tandem with his other hon. Ministers to not only provide prepaid meters for public buildings but also for all domestic use of energy in all government bungalows.

In the particular case of teachers, it is Comforting to know that the proposed wage bill for the Education sector is moving from ¢4.9 trillion in 2006 to a whopping ¢7.2 trillion in 2007. Other public sector workers are similarly catered for and most of these represent a direct increment in the short-term to teachers' and other workers' salaries, whilst a long- term solution is put in place as promised in our Budget.

The wage bill alone represents 39.1 per cent of discretionary payments. So to those arguing that the Budget has not addressed the wage issue, let me quote paragraph 219 of the document, which states:

“The relatively high level of the wage bill is due to Government's decision to start the implementation of the enhanced salary levels of public sector workers, as part of the overall public sector reforms.”

There is hope therefore for every worker, but it is our collective duty to eschew non-productive practices and work
Mr. Oppon-Kusi 11 a.m.


together to increase the national cake.

Mr. Charles Hodogbey -— rose -—
Mr. First deputy Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon. Member, are you on a point of order?
Mr. Charles Hodogbey 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think Parliament is a place that the world watches and sees the security of the area - [Uproar.] It looks as if the hon. Member who is speaking has hired somebody to sit by his side - [Uproar] -- Shouting Hear! Hear; everything Hear! Hear! - [Uproar.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon. Member, take your seat; you are out of order. You are completely out of order, so take your seat. Continue, hon. Member. Hon. Member, have you finished?
Mr. Oppon-Kusi 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the fast-tracking of generating capacities includes 125 megawatts Osagyefo Barge, the 126 megawatts VRA Plant and another 80 megawatts all to be operational by 2007. The medium and long-term measures that include the 110 megawatts expansion to the Takoradi plant [Interruption.]
Mr. Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo — rose —
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon. Member, are you also on a point of order?
Mr. Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo 11:10 a.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we heard this Budget; it was read to us and we are waiting for cogent analysis to be made.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
You are also out of order.
Mr. Pelpuo 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Chairman is rather reading a second Budget to us, and I think it is boring - [Interruption.]
Mr. Oppon-Kusi 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, to continue, on other sectors —[Interruption.]
Mr. E. K. D. Adjaho 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I need your guidance. I know that every hon. Member in this House has been assigned an official seat. I want to know what hon. Asiamah is doing near the hon. Member who is on the floor? [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon. Deputy Minority Leader, you are also out of order.
Mr. Oppon-Kusi 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, on other sectors, we need to follow up on the planned interventions in the cocoa and sheanut industries, especially the planned introduction of a minimum price for sheanut and for coffee and also the commendable increase in road and educational infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, we need to objectively debate the likely impact of some of the initiatives in this document. These include the capital market development, private finance initiatives, independent investment authority, freeing up “dead capital”, not forgetting the proposed positive changes in tax policies and other administrative measures.
But before I take my seat, I want to draw the attention of the whole nation to a piece of news that is so good that some
of our hon. Friends, in disbelief, rushed to label the whole Budget “awam”. It may sound too good to be true, but the statements in paragraphs 1340 to 1345 on diversifying our sources of finance is the gospel truth.
Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence let me just quote a little portion 11:10 a.m.
“Mr. Speaker, Ghana has had a long and fruitful relationship with the IMF. The Fund has supported the economic programmes of Ghana with annual disbursements in 20 of the last 23 years. The latest PRGF Programme expired on October 31, 2006. Our disciplined management of the economy and the use of IMF resources has resulted in unprecedented economic stability and economic performance that has positioned the country for accelerated growth.
Mr. Speaker, we are happy to announce today that with the completion of the latest arrangement on October 31, 2006, Government has decided to exit the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility and the use of the Fund's financial resources while continuing to pursue our development agenda in line with our aspirations.”
Mr. Speaker, earlier on in paragraphs 184 to 199, the Finance Minister had explained in detail what our freedom from the IMF entails and the consequential adoption of the Policy Support Instrument for our dear nation.
Mr. Speaker, the real meaning of what I have just read is that on the eve of our Golden Jubilee, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Government, under the able leadership of His Excellency John Agyekum Kufuor, has finally given
Ghana a second birth of freedom which is the economic independence we have all been fighting for - [Hear! Hear!] - Mr. Speaker, this achievement alone calls for a fitting celebration of our Golden Jubilee.
Finally Mr. Speaker, the implemen- tation of our noble and well-intentioned policy objectives still remains a challenge and I would urge all hon. Members to use this debate to help address the inertia, bureaucracy and bottlenecks in the public service's delivery system so that together we can all enjoy the benefits of good policies and the prudent management of the economy.
With these, Mr. Speaker, I second the motion.
Question proposed.
Dr. Benjamin Kunbuor 11:10 a.m.
(NDC - Lawra/Nandom): Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to make my modest contribution to this debate.
Mr. Speaker, Budget Statements and statements of economic policy have, over the years, become a subject of interest to many people of many walks of life. As we formally debate this Budget in this House, let us recognize that debates would be taking place under the mango trees, in chop bars, in trotros and also in the quiet of homes.

Mr. Speaker, there is no better way to summarise what has come to be known as the economic perception gap than what was captured in the current issue of the
Dr. Benjamin Kunbuor 11:20 a.m.


Newsweek, that is November 20 issue; and would Mr. Speaker permit me just to quote what this whole perception gap is about, it says:

“PRESIDENT BUSH THOUGHT

that voters should credit him for a great economy, even if they opposed the war. Just look at the numbers: low unemployment, low inflation, record profits, taxes down, stocks up. But in exit polls, half the voters called the economy ‘not good' or ‘poor'. Only 31 per cent said they were ‘getting ahead' financially.”

Mr. Speaker, this perception gap becomes important in terms of the formal arguments and debates we raise and how the ordinary Ghanaian encounters the economy; and I think that this debate should be situated critically, within what is the official position and what the rank and file of Ghanaians experience the economy to be.

My good Friend and hon. Colleague who opened this debate has raised a number of interesting issues that one should have allowed to go, but to give some credibility to this Parliament in terms of Official Records, I would like to set the records straight. [Hear! Hear!] When I heard my hon. Colleague say that there were a lot of shocks in commodity prices in this country and despite that the economy remains resilient I thought that was being quite economical with the truth.

Mr. Speaker, we do acknowledge that over the years, the price of crude oil has actually appreciated substantially from 63.86 dollars per barrel in January to 74.02 dollars per barrel in May/July and 63.49 in September, which was quite an appreciable rise in our oil prices; and that has to be acknowledged. What is significant, Mr. Speaker, is that, correspondingly, gold

actually rose to 550.77 dollars in the same January, 675.55 dollars in May/July, and 600.49 dollars in September.

Why I say this is that you are on the one hand, consistently opening outlets to get aids and grants and on the other hand, you are drumming on top of the roof about what type of achievement your economy is having. If the donor community continues to see the contradiction between your achievements and your continued persistence in asking for aids or grants — you should see how that is contradictory. I am not sure Japan and all the developed economies who have the mark of economic success continue to ask for aids and grants, that is why I want us to be a bit modest in terms of how we trumpet the achievement.
Dr. A. A. Osei 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, my senior Colleague is grossly misleading this House. He just made a statement that we
continually ask for aids and grants. Mr. Speaker, if he had carefully read the data he would have realized that the volume of aids and grants have continually been declining - [Uproar] - Mr. Speaker, if he wants to say that Ghana relies on aids and grants that is all right, but to say that we continually - the volume has been declining so he should withdraw that statement.
Dr. Kunbuor 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is much difference between what my hon. Friend has said — If he thinks that perhaps I have used an excessive superlative, that will be withdrawn. But I can tell him as we talk now that the Minister for Energy is on board a plane to somewhere to look for financial resources - [Uproar] - if for nothing at all for the Bui Dam. [Interruption.]
Mr. Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I would sincerely plead with my hon. Colleague, the Deputy for Finance and Economic Planning Minister to allow the Ranking Member to continue with his stories. We would listen to the stories - [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Hon. Member, I am in charge. Are you reacting to it or you are raising a point of order, or are you advising the Chair?
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member said that Ghana is continually looking for aids and grants; I agree. Mr. Speaker, we are not doing so “continuously”; it is “continually” so let him proceed.
Dr. A. A. Osei 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I concede to what my hon. Chief Whip has said. However, I just want to remind my hon. Friend, Dr. Kunbuor, that the richest nation in this world borrows a lot of money from Asia; so if his Minister of Energy is on a plane, going to look for money so that he can sleep in light, he should be
commended.
Mr. A. S. K. Bagbin 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if my hon. Colleagues want us to debate the Financial Policy of the Government, I think that they need to give us that democratic space. But I want my hon. Colleague, the Deputy Minister for Finance and Economic Planning to tell us which country that he termed “richest” country that goes out looking for grants -- just one.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
I do not think you need to - [Uproar.]
Dr. A. A. Osei 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want
to tell my hon. Senior Colleague that the USA gets grants. If he does not know, I will tell him. I will show him, he should come and see me.
Dr. Kunbuor 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I guess the debate can proceed on a more serious note. Mr. Speaker, a high point of the Budget Statement has been the 6.2 per cent GDP growth rate. So much has been said about it but the point that has not been raised is that we definitely talk much about the GDP growth because we expect that will consistently send us to the 8 per cent rate which would let us become a middle income country by 2015. It is also expected that that growth is not for its own sake but that it is capable of translating into the improvement of the living conditions of people of this country.
But Mr. Speaker, a more fundamental thing that we need to look at, if we want to have a very clear and close monitoring of our economy, is what has actually triggered off this growth. This is because it is the triggers of the growth that would indicate whether the growth rate we have achieved is sustainable as we march towards the 2015 threshold.
Mr. Speaker, the Budget Statement says this growth has been triggered by industry and the service sectors. Mr. Speaker, that
Dr. Kunbuor 11:20 a.m.


is certainly not the end of the story. The industry and service sectors have a number of important sub-sectors and one needs to appreciate how those sub-sectors have actually contributed to the growth.

When you take industry, mining and quarrying, they have been very significant elements. These actually have dropped from 6.3 per cent in 2005 to 3.0 per cent in 2006; and we need to take note of this drop.
Mr. M. K. Jumah 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Member is grossly misleading this House with his presentation. Mr. Speaker, there is a book called “How to Lie with Statistics”. Mr. Speaker, he is creating the impression that there is actually a decline instead of growth. The growth rate has changed when related to the other sectors, because the growth rate in agriculture has increased significantly as compared to the other sub-sectors; that is why growth in industry has reduced. It is the growth that has reduced and not the actual growth. Mr. Speaker, because the overall GDP has grown, the economy has grown and so the relationship has changed.
Dr. Kunbuor 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, in analyzing any phenomenon - [Interruption.]
Mr. Richmond Sam Quarm 11:30 a.m.
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, if we look at page 377 of the 2006 Budget Statement, in 1979 specifically the GDP - [Interruption] -- I am just quoting something. Mr. Speaker, if my senior hon. Colleague is saying that there has been a decline in spite of a positive 6.2 per cent, then I cannot comprehend what the negative 3.2 per cent in 1979 meant.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
The hon. Member has not disputed that, I think you are wrong.
Dr. Kunbuor 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is important that we try to be at the same wavelength. I have not disputed that the industrial sector has not grown. I have not disputed that the service sector has not grown. I have not disputed that these two sectors have contributed to the 6.2 per cent growth. I am saying to my hon. Colleague that in modern analysis, if you want to distinguish between the individual trees from the forest, you go into the forest and disaggregate it and that is what I am doing. I do not just look at the forests and say they are made up of trees.
I am trying to go into this sub-sector and sub-sectors and find out whether there is a line that we need to keep a tab on and ensure that we reverse. This is because whatever achievements are there, we have them in our pockets. But whatever decline we have is outside our pockets and we must try to recover it. That is the essence of this debate, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the most curious development is that the electricity and
Dr. A. A. Osei 11:30 a.m.
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, his statement that the 23.2 per cent growth in electricity and water is what has pulled it up is incorrect. Mr. Speaker, he talked about modern serious analysis. If you are going to do that, you have to weight it, do a weighting average. The fact that that sub-sector has grown by 23 per cent cannot mean that it is what has brought it up. What is in his contribution? Without knowing the weight he cannot make that conclusion. So his statement is actually incorrect. There are other reasons but the statement he made is incorrect and he should withdraw it.
Dr. Kunbuor 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think what my hon. Colleague should have told me is the percentage growth in the water and electricity sub-sectors that contributed to the service sector improvement, and how that contributed to the overall improvement of GDP. It is in the Budget Statement that he said it was the service and industry sectors that have actually accounted for the growth - [Interruption.]
Dr. K. K. Apraku 11:30 a.m.
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. Colleague does not understand the issue at stake. He is saying that -- [Interruption] -- Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. Colleague who is also my good Friend has raised an important point and if he wants to lead that point to its logical conclusion --
He made a very good start, talking about disaggregating the sectors so that we know which part is doing well. If he is going to make such a general statement,
then he ought to also look at what my hon. Colleague is talking about — weighted average. What is the proportion of the total GDP that is constituted by water and electricity?
Once you have established that — for example, if what you have happened to be 1 per cent, even if it doubles, it will not make a significant impact. So 23 per cent increase may not necessarily be the force that is actually propelling the growth that we are seeing. So he may be very wrong. He has to give us the weighted average of its component, then he will be making a point.
Mr. Bagbin 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Hon. Members, let us allow the debate to flow. Allow him to go on. But before he does so - Professor, you are also on your feet? Is there any contribution you want to make in terms of the point of order that has been raised?
Prof. G. Y. Gyan-Baffour 11:30 a.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member had actually taken his time to look at it, what the document says is that electricity and water, their contribution to GDP is only about 3.1 per cent; and he can look at it in Table 4. It is a very minute

component of the GDP and so if it doubles or triples, it has no effect at all. Basically, its contribution to the growth in GDP is 0.7 per cent. So if it triples, it has not had much impact on the GDP growth rate. So he has to take that on board.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the issues that are being raised, I would like to refer you to page 22, paragraph 72 of the Budget Statement which clearly vindicates the position of the hon. Member for Lawra/Nandom. Page 22 paragraph 72 is on growth in GDP. Mr. Speaker, it reads as follows:
“Mr. Speaker, the economy of Ghana has remained resilient in the wake of increased world crude oil prices and looming
“energy crises after the second half of 2006. Available information indicates that provisional projection for real GDP growth rate based on actual data through September 2006 is 6.2 per cent slightly above the target of 6.0 per cent . . .”
Mr. Speaker, this is where I think that he has a supportive position. The next line reads as follows:
“. . . This is mainly driven by the significant growth experienced in industry and services sectors”
That is significant to guide them, if he makes an argument. He is relying on his own comment.
Dr. Kunbuor 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I guess that my hon. Colleagues seem to be pre- empting me in the wrong direction and that is why the points of order. This is because we agreed totally that I was going to come and raise the question of whether the electricity and water sub-sectors are the ones that have led to the growth; and if they are, whether that is sustainable in
the long run to get us farther. So I did not come there -
All that I have tried to say is that we have seen a significant improvement, particularly in 2005 and 2006 on that sub-sector. If you start from 1998 where it was minus 10 per cent and you watch the performance, something remarkable seems to be happening in relation to that sub sector and that is why I am saying that we need to look at it very closely to be sure whether it is substantial or it is a bogey. That is for me, what I was interested in drawing attention to. Otherwise, we are likely to assume that there is emerging a changed future of our economy in which we are moving away from agriculture and moving into industry and the service sector. And I say that no, that particular performance, we are not yet there in terms of whether the actual structure of our economy is moving. And this is the context in which I was making that statement.
Dr. Apraku 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, this is an outrageous statement; this is a completely outrageous statement, not backed by any theory or practice. In all the developed economies, as a nation develops it goes through structural transformation. Structural transformation — my hon. Friend, Mr. Moses Asaga has even said

Please, I have not finished. We will not allow this to go out of here. You ask any economist; he will tell you this basic fact. When the agricultural sector is declining it means the sector has become efficient in feeding the other sectors. In the United States of America the agricultural sector contributes 3.0 per cent of GDP; it has nothing to do with success, it has everything to do with improvement in the rest of the economy. That is what we want.
Dr. Kunbuor 11:40 a.m.
I have certainly not seen anything about what my hon. Colleague has said that is different. I only raised a question, whether the structure of our economy indeed is changing, and if that change is accounted for in terms of changes in manufacturing, industrial and the service sectors and moving away from agriculture. That is the question that I was interested in. Anyway, let us look at the worrying picture that we have - [Interruption.]
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon. Adu, do you have any other point of order? I wish you would allow the debate to flow.
Mr. Adu 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to draw the hon. Member's attention to Table 2, Table 4 and Table 6 - [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Which page are you referring to?
Mr. Adu 11:40 a.m.
Page 23, Table 2; then page 25, Table 4 and page 26, Table 6. Mr. Speaker, these tables are talking about relativities; they are talking about the
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon. Adu, allow - [Interruption.]
Mr. Adu 11:40 a.m.
I am making a very important point. If you take Crops and Livestock - 2005 — its contribution to GDP was 23.8 per cent and when you take 2006 it is still 23.8 per cent; it has not changed. If you take cocoa there has not been much change. Mr. Speaker -- [Interruptions.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon. Members, let us have some silence.
Mr. Adu 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am talking of the contribution of these sectors to the GDP; he is trying to suggest that we are moving from Agriculture to - [Uproar!]
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon. Deputy Minister, are you also rising a point of order against him?
Dr. Akoto Osei 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to be guided. I thought my senior hon. Colleague was trying to clarify the situation. [Interruptions] It looks like he has muddied the waters. Mr. Speaker, -- [Interruptions] - the Tables he has referred to -- Let me tell my good Friend there -- [Interruptions] What he is trying to say, which is supportive of what my good Friend here is saying, is that if you look at Agriculture, in 2004 the share is 56.6 per cent; now it has gone to 55.8 per cent. If you look at Industry, it has gone from 24.7 per cent to 25.4 per cent. If you look at Services it has gone from 29.9 to 30.1. It confirms what the Professor is saying. So I think my good Friend is misleading the House.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon. Dr. Kunbuor to continue.
Dr. Kunbuor 11:40 a.m.
Basically, Mr. Speaker, I want my hon. Colleagues to, at least bear with me and listen to me very carefully. So far I have not made a categorical statement; I have just raised issues and questions so that the hon. Minister in winding up would respond. If you listened to me I have never, never categorically stated — What I asked was basically whether the structure of our economy was changing. The Minister will tell us that; and I am asking that question based on some developments that I have seen in the sectors and sub-sectors. That is all that I am asking.
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon. Dr. Apraku, I have not called you. [Interruptions.]
Dr. Kunbuor 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen the worrying development in the agricultural sector. From a 7.6 per cent growth in 2004, which dropped to 4.1 per cent in 2005, it ha has now peaked beyond 4.7 per cent in 2006; and this is so particularly when you look at the cocoa, forestry and logging sub-sectors. Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that eventually if we must maintain the growth rate which we have now — and we intend to get to 8 per cent to become a middle-income country — It is worrying, and we must continue to keep a tab on particularly the agricultural sector because it is also from the agricultural sector that our food security issues actually come up; and that is why I think this particular decline that we are witnessing is significant. I say this because of what has happened in the cocoa sub-sector.
Mr. Speaker, the cocoa sub-sector dropped from as high per cent as 13.2 per cent in 2005 to 8.7 per cent in 2006. It is not just the drop that is worrying, but the number of financial commitments and interventions that have been made in that sub-sector.
Mr. Speaker, in the last Budget there was a commitment to spent ¢178.2 billion on bonus payment; there was a commitment to rehabilitate roads that amounted to about ¢564.9 billion; a total amount of 742,213 cocoa farms were to be sprayed; 50,765 youth were to be employed and ¢15 billion was to be put into the Farmers Scholarship Trust.
Mr. Speaker, when you take the totality of these interventions it is quite substantial and we need some explanation as to why the sub-sector still suffered a decline. Was it indeed the issue that those projections that were made in the 2006 Budget were not actualized? Or, is it the case that they were actualized but simply the sub-sector did not respond? If the sub-sector did not respond to these interventions then it also meant that we have made the wrong interventions and we need to make a change —
Mr. Opare-Hammond 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, my senior hon. Colleague is seriously misleading this House and the entire nation. He just made a statement that cocoa production saw a decline. Mr. Speaker, I refer the House to page 76, paragraph 309 - [Interruptions] -- and with your permission I quote:
“Mr. Speaker, during the 2005/2006 Crop Season, a total quantity of 740,458 metric tonnes of cocoa was declared purchased at the end of the season in September, 2006. This represents an increase of 23.0 per
cent over the 601,922 metric tonnes achieved in the 2004/2005 Crop Season and surpasses the record production of 736,629 metric tonnes in 2003/04. Thus the 2005/06 production represents the highest in the history of Ghana.”
So Mr. Speaker, my senior hon. Colleague is misleading this House by saying that there was a decline. In terms of even contribution, it represents the highest in the nation's history; and he must withdraw that statement.
Dr. Kunbuor 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I guess that we should at least be communicating. Let us listen to each other. I actually commenced this debate by showing the astronomical returns that possibly we would have had with the sale of our cocoa as a commodity. That was the first point that I raised. All I am doing now is still looking at what actually has accounted for or affected our 6.2 per cent GDP growth. I am looking at the sector and sub sector contributions to it, and I am on the cocoa sub sector.
Prof. Gyan-Baffour 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. Friend here is actually misleading everybody. If you want to talk about decline, you have to qualify the decline. You are talking about decline in growth rates. That does not mean that
there is a decline in the production of that cocoa. What he is saying here is that notwithstanding the growth — When you grow to a point, you naturally will come to the Plateau.
If we get one billion, we will not be able to grow hundred per cent at that point because we cannot jump from one billion to two billion. But then, if you are at one, you can grow hundred per cent by actually adding only one tonne. So when you are looking at statistics, you have to be very careful.You have to be precise about what you actually made with your statement. He is referring to the relative change in growth rates and that one is true, it is not growing, it has not grown faster. But then in terms of quantity it has and so you have to qualify them to make sure that everybody understands what you are saying.
Mr. A. S. K. Bagbin 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have to allow the debate to flow. The fact that you disagree with what I say does not mean that I breach a Standing Order of this House; so that you stand on a point of order. Because if we have to continuously stand on points of order because we disagree, we will never allow people to debate. You will not have the disagreements - [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Hon. Minority Leader, it is not an issue of disagreement, it was an issue of facts and figures.
Mr. Bagbin 11:50 a.m.
Facts and figures, even the facts and figures are disagreements. If I say it is a thousand and you think that it is fifty you disagree with my facts. So you note it down, and when it is your turn you draw our attention - [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Yes, can we hear you and hon. Deputy Minister?
Prof. Gyan-Baffour 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I was not disagreeing with him on whatever
Dr. Kunbuor noon
Mr. Speaker, if we go to paragraph 73 on page 23 of the Budget Statement this is what it says. Perhaps that language might be a bit more familiar and clearer.
Mr. Speaker, growth in the agricultural sector, the mainstay of the economy is projected at 5.7 per cent indicating a 0.9 per cent shortfall against the target of 6.6 per cent. The contributory sub- sectors to the under-performance are the Cocoa Production and Marketing; and the Forestry and logging sub-sectors.
This is the point that I have been trying to raise. If there had been a slip in terms of using whether it is contributory to GDP or in the growth rate that is not from me. Let me put it in the layman's language that something is not going on well on the cocoa sub-sector as far as I am concerned; that something is actually going wrong in that sub-sector. This is the point that I want to raise.
Mr. Speaker, when we come to the service sector, I will also want to register that the transport sub sector has also seen a decline from 7.9 per cent in 2005, 2.2 per cent in 2006 and the retail sector has also plummeted from 10.0 per cent in 2005 to 7.5 per cent in 2006. What is important is that when we look at the transport sub- sector and the contribution it makes and the large informal sector of our economy especially the retail sector, it becomes important that we have to begin to watch these developments as we move along in terms of moving to 2015.
I have seen the combined effect of inflation and the exchange rate stability that have been raised, and Mr. Speaker, it is indeed, gratifying that we are seeing that our inflation rate is beginning to move down and that our exchange rate stability also accounts for it.
But when you take the combined effect of inflation and the exchange rate, we should also see whether it has some effect or not on investment; particularly where we use a large chunk of domestic resources to manufacture for the export market. The simple reason is that you are getting a dollar which you are bringing back or foreign currency which you are bringing back to meet a stronger cedi. Whether you can sustain your investment in terms of this type of return will depend so much on a number of factors. All that I am saying is that it is not always the case that a strong exchange rate, particularly where it is overvalued, is a positive thing for the economy and particularly domestic investment decisions that have to be made.
Mr. Speaker, I would like us to also look at our fiscal outlook in terms of revenue because almost all the projections that have been made are on the expenditure side of the balance sheet but we will need to get a substantial amount of money to actually build the revenue element. And there have been some dramatic developments in terms of the revenue side. For instance, when you see tax revenue you will see that it actually has moved to 20.8 per cent of GDP and the non-tax element to 1.9 per cent of GDP.
When you disaggregate this and you look at direct tax, you see that the target for 6.47 per cent of GDP that was projected in the Budget was not achieved as we came down to 6.31 per cent. When you take in direct taxes, the target of 10.76 per cent was not achieved as we actually came out with an out turn of 9.48 per
cent. The implication or interpretation is that we will have to have increased dependence on grants and loans to finance our expenditure. I guess that something has to be done on the domestic revenue mobilization front if we are not to continue to be dependent on loans and grants to finance our expenditure.
Mr. Speaker, there is one cardinal thing that I wanted to see in the Budget. We have heard time and again that you cannot distribute what does not exist yet why we talk of our 6.2 per cent growth even if we get to an 8 per cent growth we are going to have a difficulty as to how that growth is translated into improved living conditions across our entire society. And we say this very clearly because when you see the development in the water sector and you just take the recent UNDP Human Development Report, the facts are very telling in terms of that particular service provision and with Mr. Speaker's permission, I would like to quote the 2006 UNDP Human Development Report. It says:
“Ghanaians pay more for water than their Untied States and United Kingdom counterparts”.
The report says: whilst Ghanaians in the capital city in Accra pay US$3.2 for a cubic meter or a thousand liters of water their counterparts in New York, United States of America (USA) pay $0.7. It also say while residents of London in the United Kingdom pay the equivalent of $1.80 per cubic metre of water —
Mr. Speaker, what this reveals basically is that no matter the astronomical improvement we have seen in the water sub-sector the suggestion here is that we still as a welfare matter pay more for water than in other countries where the incomes
are relatively better.

Mr. Speaker, there are two essential issues that I would want to draw attention to while my hon. Colleagues would take up the more specific thing. This has to do with the budget interventions on the energy sector and the public wage sector crisis. Mr. Speaker, as an economy that has to grow in which every member of our society must make his modest contribution, we must also be very clear that we are laying the particular political and social infrastructure and we are committed to a long term arrangements to ensure that these two problems that confront us now could have been handled earlier.

I have come across for the first time, the Price Waterhouse Report. When you take a close look at this report, it actually provides in detail most of the answers to the public sector wage problem that we are encountering today. The question that I have asked that five and half years down the line, has anybody ever taken a look at this document for which public money was spent in procuring. Mr. Speaker, what is particularly revealing is that when you take the very theme that is embodied in this particular report and you take the forward of the President in the Budget, you will find very interesting parallel. Mr. Speaker, the report says the central theme of incomes policy is equity and this means equal pay for work of equal worth.

These were the exact words that the President actually used as a basis for the intervention. The question that we ask at the end of the day is that; where was this report? What are the deficiencies in this report even in terms of description of job content and salary relativities that we now wake up five and a half years to give the impression that there is no blue print
Dr. A. A. Osei noon
Mr. Speaker, it appears my hon. Senior Colleague is trying to give the impression that this report has only being out for five years. If he has really read it he should know that it came long before five years so he should not give the House the impression that it is only being around for five years.
Dr. Kunbuor 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, in fact,
I was about drawing attention to the fact that this report was actually submitted in 1997. Preparations already had taken place at least in relation to some public sector in which they were beginning to approximate implementation in relation to this. The question I am asking is that; what happened? Because we know that outside, this framework that was there. Second line distortions were created when some demands were made by specific public sector wage groups and then the increase in salary took place so the distortions that are taking place notwithstanding the prevalence of this document is what is worrying.
As to when it started between 1997 which is 3 years so to say to 2000. And between 2001 and as we stand today, five and half years if you even want to apportion the inability to implement this you will see that there was a longer time framework. The question that I am raising is whether this report does not address the wage policy in this country. If it does,
what has prevented us from putting it into place because one of the arguments I have heard is that; there is no legal framework to actually implement. How long does it take to put in place a legal framework? Mr. Speaker, I am drawing attention to this because let us not always come out with economic policies as if we are leaving in an economic vacuum and that nothing has happened up until 2001. And I have seen this particular trend because when there is a negative development, it is taken back to 1982 to 2000. When there is a positive development in the economy, it commences only in 200. [Hear! Hear!] -- And I say that is not a sustainable way of running an economy and building and shepherding it actually towards becoming a middle-income country in 2015. It is a process that we will keep building on every year and with every Budget.
Mr. Speaker, when we come to the issue of the energy that has also being categorized as a crisis. I have tried to find out whether between 2001 and as this Budget Statement comes whether a single kilowatt of power has been generated to the existing capacity? [Some hon. Members: No. ]. And if you have had documents that exist to show that there is a cycle in which the Akosombo Dam actually drops and that triggers off shortages in hydroelectric power, you will not have to wait for five and five years to say a problem has come and that is why the immediate and medium term policies that are being put in place - none of them is a new initiative.
The Osagyefo Barge was there; the Aboadze Thermal Plant was there, the Bui Dam was there - [Hear! Hear!] The question I am asking is between 2001 and now what is the single initiative of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) on power - [Uproar] -- Mr. Speaker, I will just touch briefly on the social sector and then I would wind up. Mr. Speaker, let us also be very
clear in terms of palliative interventions that we make on our social sector. I have heard time and again and read in the media about how capitation grant is performing miracles. I have also read time and again in which selected schools that have been designated feeding centers are increasing what we call enrollment. Mr. Speaker, the core business of every educational institution is about teaching and learning. If there is a matter that concerns another sector, which is food and you are making an intervention, do not substitute that type of intervention for a long-term policy.
Mr. Speaker, educational institutions are not feeding centers. And in the long run, what one expects is that we must make sure that our agriculture sector actually ensures food security and every child in every school can have a decent meal and go to school and I think that is a longer term vision that we should be looking at in terms of the feeding programme.
When we take the issue of the capitation grant, yes, it does pluck a hole but have we actually bothered to find the actuals of how much it costs a parent to actually send a child to school before we actually fix a rate of 30,000 cedis as the basis per pupil. So let us be very clear in our mind that we are only addressing a very tiny aspect of what sends people to school and what retains them in school. The long-term vision of any economy on education is not only the upstream. You can use capitation grant and feeding to enroll 1000 per cent but I can assure that in three, five, ten, twenty years the fruits are going to stare you in the face.
Those people who are enjoying the feeding grant and capitation grant would not stay in primary school. They will move to the senior secondary school, some will move to the tertiary educational level and they will eventually come out into
the labour market. What is the long-term vision of how we are anticipating this increased enrolment? And that is what one talks about in terms of the long-term vision despite the medium and immediate responses to some of the difficulties that we actually have. Mr. Speaker, lastly, I have heard of a flagship arrangement of a district industrialization projects and that whether any district is suited to industry or not a flagship project will be located in each of the 138 districts. I am not sure whether we have thought through this and done a clear appraisal of the economies of our 138 districts to make sure that the particularly relevant industries are sited and that we do not go to site industries in places that do not work.
I am asking this because of the experiences of the cassava ini- tiative - [Laughter]-- nobody is telling us whether this initiative has achieved its intended objec- tive that we stated in the 2001 Budget. And this becomes quite important when we are getting into rural initiatives of this nature. It becomes clear for us to be sure that when we are committing a number of resources into an initiative, the initiative is thought through and that that initiative will be sustainable.
I will be interested in seeing a close cost-benefit analysis of the Presidential Initiative on Cassava and what we have actually benefited as a nation from it over the period.

Mr. Speaker, we are also committed
Mr. P. C. Appiah-Ofori (NPP - Asikuma/Odoben/Brakwa) 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, sometimes people who live in glasses take delight in throwing stones -- [Hear! Hear!] -- Mr. Speaker, this budget has been described as an awam Budget. I do not think so. Mr. Speaker, let us look at article 36 (1) and let us see what the Constitution says. Mr. Speaker, it says:
“The State shall take all the necessary action to ensure that the national economy is managed in such a manner so as to maximize the rate of economic development, and to secure the maximum welfare, freedom and happiness of every person in Ghana and to provide adequate means of livelihood and suitable employment and public assistance to the needy.”
So Mr. Speaker, if we are evaluating this Budget, this is what we have to bear

Mr. Speaker, I would like us to look at the performance of the NPP Government for 6 years in relation to the NDC Government's in 6 years - [Interruptions] - and for us to draw a conclusion as to whether this Budget should be branded in the way it has been branded.
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Yes, hon. Gidisu, are you on a point of order?
Mr. Gidisu 12:10 p.m.
Surely Mr. Speaker.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
What is it that has attracted the point of order?
Mr. Gidisu 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. Colleague is carrying two faces under one hat. When he is outside the House he portrays a different face; on the floor of the House now, he is portraying another face - [Interruptions] -
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Hon. Gidisu, you are out of order - [interruption] - Hon. Boniface, is there anything you want to say yourself too?
Mr. Boniface 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. Colleague there was talking about two faces under one hat; I want to know. He is wearing some different face which I do not know because he is the same P. C. I am seeing.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Well, allow the hon. Member to continue.
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, he is
my younger brother and, I do not want to antagonize him, so I have forgiven him.
Mr. Speaker, i t i s universal ly acknowledged that the standard of living of the people in any country depends upon the size of the National Income or the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth. So if a country is growing, if the people in a country are enjoying improved quality of life, it must be evidenced in the size of the national income or the GDP.
Mr. Twumasi-Appiah 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, will the hon. Member be kind enough to indicate the source of his figures, because I am disturbed.
Mr. Speaker 12:10 p.m.
In the first place, you have not disputed, you have not said you disagree - [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Which one are you disputing?
Mr. Twumasi-Appiah 12:10 p.m.
The figure he is quoting now, the four point something he is quoting, so he should be kind enough to tell this House the source of his figures, Mr. Speaker. I will be grateful.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Well, just as you - [Interruption.]
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, let us go ahead, they are small boys - [Hear! Hear!] - Mr. Speaker, in 1997 the GDP declined from 5.2 per cent to 5.1 per cent. In 1998 it declined further to 4.7 per cent; in 1999 it went down to 4.4 per cent and
in the year 2000 it took a nosedive, it went down to 3.7 per cent, meaning therefore that Mr. Speaker, in a period of 6 years, the national economy every passing day and the standard of living of the people was declining everyday.
NPP came in; NPP took over and at the end of the first year in office the decline was arrested - [Hear! Hear!] - And the Government recorded growth of 4.2 per cent.
Mr. E. K. Salia 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend is also misleading this House. The hon. Deputy Minister for Finance explained that when the growth rate of an economy declines, it does not mean the economy is declining; it is the growth rate and that is what is important. So he is misleading this House by saying that that economy was declining. It is the rate of growth of the economy that was declining in some years and not that the economy was declining.
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, when I started, I said the size of the national income; if you have more - if the growth is high the people in the country enjoy the true quality of life, that is what I am saying. The higher the national income, all things equal, the people in the country enjoy improved quality of life. [Interruption.] So let me finish with my case and you too will come on board.
Mr. Lee Ocran 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the hon. P. C. Appiah-Ofori is confusing the House. Mr. Speaker, growth in the economy does not amount to equitable distribution of the growth in the life of everybody. There can be growth that is limited to only 10 per
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon. Lee
Ocran, this is a question of opinion, allow him to continue.
Mr. Ocran 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, in any case, the fact that the economy is not growing does not mean that theastanda4rd of living of the people is declining. In the 1960s in this country there was development without growth. That was the first time the country ever experienced - [Interruption.]
Alhaji Collins sDauda 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Hon. P. C. Appiah- Ofori is misleading this House when he says that during the NDC regime, the GDP growth kept declining day by day.
Mr. Speaker, I would want to refer my hon. Colleague to page 77 of the 2006 Budget. Mr. Speaker, the NDC Government took over in 1993 and the GDP growth - [Interruption.] NDC took over the administration of this country in 1993 and the GDP growth in its Budget that was presented by NDC Government was 5.0 per cent. Mr. Speaker, in 1994 it came down to 3.8 per cent, then in 1998 it was 4.5 per cent. It went to 5.2 per cent in 1996 and in 1997 it moved up to 5.1 per cent. Mr. Speaker, so if hon. P. C. Appiah-Ofori, the grey-haired gentleman says that during the NDC regime, growth continuously fell for five years, he has misled this country and mut withdraw.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon. Minister for Finance and Economic Planning, do you also want to say something.
Mr. Kwadwo Baah-Wiredu 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, just a little bit. In 1993, the planned GDP was 5 per cent, page 4 of that year's Budget Statement, and the actual was 5 per cent, page 3 of the 1994 Budget. In
1994, their planned target was 5 per cent, page 15 of their document, but the actual was 3.8 [Uproar] - That is son page 2 of their 1995 Budget Statement. In 1995, the target was 5 per cent, that is on page 10 of that year's Budget Statement and the actual was 4.5. So they were going down. In 1996- [Interruption.]
rose
Mr. Baah-Wiredu 12:20 p.m.
Hon. Member, sit down, when I finish you would see everything. In 1996, page 8 of that document - In 1996, the target was 5 per cent, at page 10, and it went to 5.2 for the year 1997, at page 7 of your document. In 1998, they planned 5.6 and they had 4.6 - [Uproar] - That is page 2 of the 1999 Budget Statement. In 1999, they planned 5.5 but their actual was 4.4 at page 8 of 2000 Budget. And then in the year 2000 their plan was for 5 per cent and they had 3.7 per cent at page 7 of 2001 - [Uproar] — So they were coming down.
Alhaji Dauda 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thought that the hon. Minister for Finance and Economic Planning is a person who is an authority on figures, but I am surprised when he said that in one year, we made 3.8 and the following year we made 4.8 yet he said that it was declining; I do not understand him.
Mr. Baah-Wiredu 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I just want my hon. Friend to know that from the figures and I have given him, the trend shows that there was a decline. I think that if he takes his time to go through, he would see that there is no dispute about the figures and the things that I have indicated. There was a decline and he must accept it so that we can make some progress. Mr. Speaker, it is true, as he said that in 1996 they had 5.2, it came to 4.2, it came to 4.6, to 4.4 and then to 3.7 per cent. So that was the decline [interruptions.]
Mr. Moses Asaga 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I think that these figures that we are using and counter using are really not going to move this nation forward. If the hon. Minister for Finance and Economic Planning is quoting and using a trend in GDP growtsh of the periods he was mentioning to defend a position. I am saying that defending that position using trends not enough. This is because for the same period that he was reading, if you look at inflation rate under the NPP Government, in their own rate, inflation rate was 21.3 per cent in 2001 inflation rate came down 15.2 per cent inn 2002, inn 2003 inflation rate went up to 23 per cent, in 2005 the inflation again went up.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon. Asaga, I think your turn would come.
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much, I stand vindicated that what I said was not fabrication or lies, that I really was quoting the correct figures. Mr. Speaker, when we assumed office, the GDP shot up to 4.2, in 2002 we recorded 4.5 per cent; in 2003 we r3corded 5.2 per cent, in 2004, we 4ecorded 5.8 per cent which is unheard of in the political history of Ghana. [Hear! Hear!] In 2005, we repeated 5.2 and Mr. Speaker, in 2006, we got - [interruption.]
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon. Asaga, I am not calling you yet, let him continue.
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, so in 2006, we hve recorded a growth rate of 6.2 per cent - [interruption.]
Mr. Speaker, in 2006, we recorded growths of 6.2 per cent. So you can see that during the last six years of the NDC administration, the economy was declining waa waa waa [Uproar] -- And then during the first six years of the NPP administration, the economy is going up gbla gbla (Upriar.] So Mr. Speaskr, if anybody says that our Budget is awam - [Inaterruption.]
Mr. Asaga 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, we are debating a very important document, therefore when people are making reference to history, they should make accurate references. I respect hon. Appiah-Ofori when it comes to - [Interruption.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon. Asaga, would you go to the point. What is your point?
Mr. Asaga 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, my point is that he deceived this House by saying that the 5.8 we got in 2004 was the highest GDP growth rate. I have even got here where we had a GDP growth of 15.3 per cent in 1973. So he should go back and check his history very well.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Please, let the debate flow. Hon. Members, I will appeal to you that we should allow the debate to flow, other than that, the finest of it will not count.
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we recorded this growth and in the recent political history of this country, no government has ever recorded this growth consistently, and therefore this Government deserves commendation. [Interruptions.]
Alhaji Sumani Abukari 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that for the first time in a long time - [Interruption.]
First Deputy Speaker: Are you raising a point of order? What is your point of order?
Alhaji Abukari 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Asikuma/Odoben/Brakwa, who is my very good Friend is seriously misleading this House.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
What is he saying that is misleading this House?
Alhaji Abukari 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, he said we kept going down, down, down and that the 5.8 per cent was the best in the history of this country. Mr. Speaker, he said it was unprecedented. We say, we had 253 per cent in 1973. So, Mr. Speaker, I would have expected my very honest friend - [Interruptions.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon. Member for Tamale North, wait till you have your turn.
Alhaji Abukari 12:30 p.m.
No, Mr. Speaker, I want him to withdraw that one. If he wants our friendship to go on, he should withdraw that one.
Mr. Fist Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon. Member, I am here. He did mention a growth of fifteen per cent in 1973. Now, hon. Member for Asikuma-Odoben- Brakwa is saying that consistently, there has been a growth and he thinks this is the best in our history. That is what he is saying.
Alhaji Abukari 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, he said the 5.8 per cent was unprecedented in the history of this country [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker; Hon. Member for Asikuma-Odoben-Brakwa -
[Some hon. Members: He should withdraw.] It is not a question of withdrawal. We are correcting him. He has not insulted this House. So, hon. Member for Asikuma-Odoben-Brakwa, you are being corrected. Indeed, the hon. Member for Nabdam has just pointed out to you that, in the history of this country, indeed in 1973, there was a growth of fifteen per cent and for that reason what you mentioned was not unprecedented.
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, when I started, I said I was going to compare the first six years of the NDC Government with our own six years. So I was referring to their six years - [Hear! Hear!]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Anyway, hon. Member for Asikuma-Odoben- Brakwa, you have been corrected that it is not unprecedented. There has been a growth in the DGP in this country which was fifteen - [Interruption.] Fair enough, so continue.
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, when the NDC - [Interruption.]
Mr. Ndebugre 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the matter about the 15.3 per cent growth in 1973 is so important that we must put it in proper context. I did not consult the hon. Member for Asikuma-Odoben-Brakwa so I am not speaking for him. But I understood him to be comparing democratic regimes; he said in the political history - [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker; Hon. Member for Zebilla, you are out of order. Let him continue.
Mr. Doe Adjaho 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we need your guidance. The hon. Member on the floor is a backbencher, having been removed as the Chairman of Poverty
Alleviation Committee and Chairman of the Committee on Government Assurances; and specific time has been allocated to backbenchers like the hon. Member for Asikuma-Odoben-Brakwa. Mr. Speaker, I have timed him. He has done over twenty minutes on the floor. Even though, I agree that there should be a certain level of flexibility in this matter, what he has taken is more than double the time allocated.,
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon. Deputy Minority Leader, I am in charge here. I have my watch and I am going by my watch. So please, sit down and let him continue.
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of 1995, the cedi was exchanged at one thousand, four hundred and forty cedis to the dollar. After six years, at the end of 2000, when the NDC got out of the scene, the cedis was exchanged at seven thousand and fifty cedis to the dollar.
Some hon. Members: “Oh! Oh!”
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, it means therefore that during the period the cedi depreciated by five thousand, six hundred and six cedis on the average, and this represented a depreciation of 388.23 per cent depreciation of the cedi. Mr. Speaker, when the NPP took over, the exchange rate was seven thousand and fifty cedis to the dollar and as at the end of yesterday, the exchange rate was nine thousand, two hundred and eighty cedis — [Hear! Hear!] - This means that during the six years that the NPP has been in office — [interruption.]
Mr. Lee Ocran 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speakers, the hon. Member for Asikuma-Odoben-Brakwa has been misleading this House. Yes, the exchange rate of the cedi to the dollar in year 2000 was seven thousand; the exchange rate of the cedi to the pound was nine thousand. What is the exchange rate of the pound now? The dollar has
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon. Member for Jomoro, you are out of order.
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, during the six-year period of NPP's administration, the cedi has depreciated by two thousand, two hundred and thirty cedis. And this represents a depreciation of 31.63 per cent - [Hear! Hear! Mr. Speaker, Ghana is an import dependent country. When therefore our cedi depreciates, imports become expensive, cost of production of goods and services rises,s athe purchasisng power of the cedi falls and the people become poorer and poorer. So if in the last six years off NDC's administration the cedi depreciated by 388.23 per cent and during the first six years of NPP's administration, the cedi has depreciated by 31.63 per cent, Mr. Speaker - [Interruption.]
Dr. Kunbour 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I guess that my good Friend, the hon. Member for Asikuma-Odoben-Brakwa, is not assisting us in this House and for that matter people to understand what we are debating here. Every Budget has a base year, and if one is under an M-term arrangement in which they are dealing with a three-year rolling budget, we want to see the performance of 2005, 2006 and the projection in 2007.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Yes, hon. Member for Lawra/Nandom, you might have a point, but this is a debate; he is expressing his opinion on this floor, so allow him. But hon. Appiah-Ofori, you have two minutes to end your contribution.
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:40 p.m.
All right, Mr.
Speaker, have you taken into consideration that -- [Interruptions.] Mr. Speaker, in the Budget the Government recognises

the importance of the cocoa farmer, and therefore adequate provisions have been made. It is stated that, Mr. Speaker, ¢5 billion has been set aside to award scholarships for the children of cocoa farmers. Mr. Speaker, it is also recorded that $50 million, equivalent to ¢444 billion, has also been earmarked for the tarring of the roads leading to cocoa growing areas so that the farmers in those areas will enjoy good life.
Alhaji Collins Dauda 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
the records of this House are very, very important.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Are you
rising on a point of order?
Alhaji Dauda 12:40 p.m.
Yes, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
You are not reminding us of the purpose of this debate.
Alhaji Dauda 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, hon. Appiah-Offori is misleading this House.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Yes,
how?
Alhaji Dauda 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, he has
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
So what
is your point, hon. Alhaji Collins Dauda? Yes, we are listening to you.
Alhaji Dauda 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, my point
is that the exchange rate at the time was not ¢7,000.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
You
are out of order. Let him continue. Hon. Appiah-Ofori continue.
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I did
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Hon. Appiah-Ofori, you have less than a minute now.
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:40 p.m.
Two minutes.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
No, I told
you two minutes over a minute ago.
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:40 p.m.
All right, Mr. Speaker, there is a little observation I want to make. The total budgeted expenditure is ¢54 trillion - [Interruption.]
Mr. J. K. Avedzi 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, on
a point of order. The hon. Member is misleading the House. He quoted the end of year exchange rate as at 2000 but I was referring to page 377 of the 2006 Budget. The exchange rate as at 2000 was ¢6,889.3. So if he is quoting ¢7,000, it is misleading this House and therefore he should withdraw that statement and correct himself.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Continue,
hon. Appiah-Ofori. You have 30 seconds more.
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:40 p.m.
No, two minutes,
please. Mr. Speaker, I want to make an observation. The total budgeted expenditure for the year - [Interruptions.] -- Listen and sit down! Let me finish. The total expenditure for the year is ¢54 trillion against revenue of ¢37 trillion from taxes. Mr. Speaker, this gives a shortfall of ¢17 trillion. If the Government is unable to access this fund, the implementation of the Budget will run into problems. But I want to put it on record that we can generate revenue locally here without even going to borrow money from anywhere. We can do that.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Yes, you should be landing by now.
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:40 p.m.
Yes, I will wind up.
The nation lost ¢80 trillion which could finance our Budget without borrowing anything. So my proposal to the two Ministers is for them to convey to their bosses that they should do everything possible to plug loopholes in the system. We lose a lot of money in the private sector and we lose a lot of money in the public sector. Mr. Speaker, if you plug these holes the moneys lost to the nation will come to the Government and instead of having this deficit or big gap we will be able to balance our Budget without going to borrow money.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Hon.
Asaga, I thought you were going to make a contribution? Your name has been submitted. Yes, hon. Abuga Pele.
Mr. Pele Abuga (NDC 12:40 p.m.
None

Paga): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to make my contribution on the Financial Policy of the Government for the year 2007. Mr. Speaker, before I do that I would like to place on record that hon. P. C. Appiah-Ofori has consistently been trying very hard to mislead this House.

Mr. Speaker, in 1983 the then PNDC Government recorded 9 per cent growth. Ignoring that aspect - In fact, it is very interesting that as hon. Dr. Ben Kunbuor said earlier, when there is a negative aspect of this economy then we lump it with the previous regime, but when it is a positive thing then we lump it with the current regime.
Mr. John Agyabeng 12:40 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
I have
given him the floor. Hon. Abuga Pele, allow him for a minute.

Mr. Speaker, if I heard my senior Colleague well, he was saying that in 1983, the then PNDC recorded 9 per cent growth; I do not know where he is quoting from. But if he is quoting from the 2006 Budget Statement, it was 0.7 per cent, if I am reading well. So he should withdraw that statement and clarify --
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
It
Mr. Moses Asaga 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon.
Member, allow him to react.
Mr. Abuga 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thought I
was yielding to him to allow him to give that explanation.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon.
Member, what are you yielding to? Is he giving information or he is reacting to what you have said?
Mr. Asaga 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that my hon. Colleague really did not do the absolute calculations because it was at negative 7 per cent and went to 0.7 per cent. So if you draw a graph and you start from negative - in absolute terms it is 8 to 9 per cent - [Uproar.] So that was the mistake he made. He did not take into consideration that it was a negative figure. He did not know.
Mr. Abuga 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. Member for enlightening him. Mr.
Speaker, I will now proceed to my Budget analysis.
Mr. Speaker, I will start by quoting an opening statement made by the Hon. Minister for Finance and Economic Planning when he presented the Financial Policy of Government. He said at page 7, paragraph 2: “The NPP is proud to usher this nation into this memorable era of the 50th Anniversary, pursuing the implementation of policies that have given birth to the economic renaissance of Ghana thus restoring the nation to its status at independence as a shining star of Africa”.
Mr. Speaker, these were very significant
words and constitute the whole foundation of this Budget. But Mr. Speaker, a number of questions have to be asked in relation to that. Was Ghana a shining star at the time prior to the overthrow of Osegyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah? What constitutes the so-called economic renaissance? Is the status of Ghana today comparable to what was in vogue at independence? Is it true that Ghana today is a shining star of Africa?
Mr. Speaker, answers to these
questions will put the Budget the financial performance of the whole administration of the NPP Government in a proper perspective.
Mr. Speaker, I am in total and complete agreement with the hon. Minister in the assertion that as at independence Ghana was a shining star of Africa. I say this because we operated an economy that was articulated in clearly stated development plans. Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah had a clear vision and carried the nation and even the whole of Africa along with him. Ghana was very self-reliant and assisted many countries financially and even politically. Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah left behind clear legacies for everybody to see, evidence of these can
be found in Akosombo Dam, VALCO, Motorway, Tema and in fact a whole lot of them; I cannot mention all. The leader was well respected worldwide and was voted recently the “Man of the Millennium”.
Mr. Speaker, let us draw a contrast with the present day Ghana under the present NPP Government and President Agyekum Kufour. Clearly, what comes to mind immediately is the clear absence of development plans; best semblance of planning, as we can see, is the GPRS II - no clear vision whether in the mind of the President or in the Government. Ghana is now completely dependent; 40 per cent of our Budget is dependent on donors. Even our Budget Statement is normally driven from outside.
Mr. Speaker, on page 5, paragraph 5,
the President says: “Ghana was praised for being the fastest reforming nation on the continent”.
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at that
Dr. Akoto Osei 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am
very surprised at the statement being made by a very senior member of the Finance Committee who has been around Parliament for a long time. To make a categorical statement that 40 per cent of our Budget comes from outside - He is a senior member of the Finance Committee and if such information eludes his mind, I wonder what the entire Committee is doing.
Mr. Speaker, he should check the facts and withdraw that statement. For a senior Member like him, I do not expect him to commit that kind of error. Hon. P.C. Appiah-Ofori just told him what it was; he was not listening to him. If he does not
know he should read.
Mr. Speaker, that is why we gave him
the book, but to lie to this House and to this Nation, is unacceptable, he should withdraw.
Mr. Speaker, he is a very senior Member;
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon.
Dr. Akoto Osei 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, it
is here. It is all here. [Uproar.] Mr. Speaker, I think it is a deliberate attempt to mislead this House and that is what I find objectionable. And that was why I have given the reference to the facts - [Uproar.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon. Member, I might agree with you if only you can inform this House what the facts are.
Dr. A. A. Osei 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time I am going to [Uproar] Mr. Speaker, I will have my chance to debate but we cannot allow senior Members to mislead the public. He should withdraw.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon.
Member, you can sit down.
Mr. Agyabeng 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, let us
look at page 322 of the Budget Statement. Page 322, Medium-Term Expenditure Framework, total payments, you look under 2007, and then we are talking of ¢54 trillion as total expenditure in 2007. But when you come to discretionary payments, under that we have foreign finance investment, item 4, put into bracket. It means if you come to investment we have
Mr. Agyabeng 12:50 p.m.


Ghana Government, (GOG) component and foreign finance. And under 2007, we are talking of ¢8.2 trillion, so I am at a loss; he has to educate me as to how he is coming up with the 40 per cent of ¢54 trillion. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much; he is misleading the House and he should withdraw.

Mr. Felix Twumasi-Appiah -- rose
-- 12:50 p.m.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon. Member, I am not calling you. Hon. Sallas-Mensah, do you want to make a point?
Mr. Samuel Sallas-Mensah 12:50 p.m.
Mr.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon.
Member, you are out of order - [Laughter] Hon. Abuga Pele, continue.
Mr. Abuga 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I will ignore
the insulting part of his intervention. Mr. Speaker, even he is unable to provide an answer and yet he went to town with me, saying all kinds of things about me --
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon. Member, continue.
Mr. Abuga 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I agree I am
a senior Member and I think I have read the Budget and this is my opinion.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, on page
Mr. Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if an information exists in official publication, and you asked for the sources, the hon. Deputy Minister tells you that it is official information - [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon. Majority Chief Whip, please could take your seat and let us - [Interruption.]
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
Mr.
Speaker - [Interruption] Mr. Speaker- [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon. Member, I have ruled you out of order. You are out of order. That matter has already been settled, so let him continue.
Mr. Abuga 12:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we all know
in this country what it means to be the best reforming nation. Mr. Speaker, it is rather unfortunate that Ghana has degenerated from being a country that assists other countries to being a major recipient of loans. We even borrow from our respected neightbours, Nigeria.
Mr. Abuga 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, as at 2005, the external debt was $6.4 billion dollars. I refer to page 35, the last paragraph of the Budget Statement. At page 57, paragraph 203, the total resource envelope was ¢54.4 trillion; Domestic revenue was ¢37 trillion; and foreign sources are expected to cater for the ¢17 trillion that is outstanding. Mr. Speaker, what legacies can they bequeath to this nation when they exit as an NPP Government? The NPP Administration met the local government system, put in place by the Rawlings Government. The following were also already in place - GETFund, extension of 37 Military Hospital, extension of Tema Harbour, funds for the Tetteh Quarshie Interchange, Road Fund - [Interruption.]
Mr. Asamoah-Boateng 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
my hon. Colleague over there is misleading the House. The local government system was not bequeathed to us solely by the National Democratic Congress (NDC)
Government. The local government system has been in place even in the colonial days and [Interruption] - And during the Second Republic, there was a serious effort at rural development by the Busia regime. Then under Acheampong's regime an Supreme Military Council (SMC) law was passed to establish local administration. So yes, the terms of the 1993 law - [Interruption.] Yes, it was during NDC but it is not solely the 1993 Act 462 which established local government administration in the country.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Hon.
Pele Abuga that is for your information. Continue.
Mr. Abuga 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the respected
hon. Minister for Local Government and Rural Development should admit and give credit where it is due. The Local Government system, as we know it today, was in place and to emphasise - I said it was in place when the NPP Government came to power - he does not dispute this - and bequeathed to us by the Rawlings Administration.
Dr. Osei 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. Senior
Colleague is again misleading the House. Taxes are not collected for Government's use. Taxes are for the people of Ghana - including his salary. So he should not be making a statement that the VAT was in place for the NPP Government. It is for the people of Ghana -- including paying his salary. So he should correct that - [Interruption] But the correction is that
it is not for the NPP Government; it is for the use of the people of Ghana - including his salary.
Mr. Abuga 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the
Dr. Osei 1 p.m.
-- rose -
Some hon. Members: He has not
called you.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Indeed,
I bowed to him -- I was about to call - [Interruption] - It is true, hon. Members.
Dr. Osei 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my hon. Friend of a statement made by one of his hon. Colleagues about HIPC, that it is one of the most disastrous decisions that any Government has taken. Mr. Speaker, this Member of Parliament, hon. Abuga Pele, last year got ¢200 million from HIPC for his constituency - the same policy his people called disastrous. So this notion about “you opposed it” is neither here nor there.
Mr. Abuga 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon.
Deputy Minister, without knowing it, is rather validating what I am saying. The fact that you oppose a good policy does not mean that the policy is not good, and it does not mean that you do not benefit from that policy. Mr. Speaker, I am saying that they opposed the VAT Bill in this House but then they are the current beneficiaries of that VAT system.
Mr. Abuga 1 p.m.


Mr. Speaker, I want to continue. So

Mr. Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu -- rose
- 1 p.m.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Hon.
Majority Chief Whip, is there any problem?
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
Yes, Mr.
Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this matter had been raised in this House about NPP opposing VAT in this House. Mr. Speaker, it was not done by the NPP officially in this House. If he says an individual did so, fine; but as a policy we did not - In any event at the onset when it was first introduced we were not even in this House. Mr. Speaker, I am surprised but I am not too surprised because my hon. Colleague, hon. Abuga Pele who is making this point, I do not even see his constitution here. He is in a dinner jacket when we are not getting ready for a dinner - [Laughter.]. Mr. Speaker, I believe that is affecting the quality of his debate.
Mr. Abuga 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would
normally have ignored this, but when you arrogate to yourself the feeling that you know better and when your actions indicate otherwise, then humanity suffers. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. Member would hit me below the belt this way but I would ignore him and go ahead.
Mr. Speaker, also in place clearly were
Mr. Kofi Frimpong 1 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I stand on a point of order. The hon. Gentleman there has persistently misled the House since he started his contribution. Mr. Speaker, when people were opposing the VAT at that time, it was not the VAT per se they were opposing. They were opposing the rate: They said 17 per cent and the people were saying it was too much; but people did not oppose it because they were bringing VAT. So he must correct himself.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it is very wrong for people to say and allude to the fact that when a policy is brought it benefits only the sitting government and not the people of Ghana. Mr. Speaker, all governments come, they make national policies and the policies are meant for Ghanaians and not for the governments. So Mr. Speaker, it is wrong for somebody to say that they brought the VAT and it is NPP Government that is enjoying, as if the benefits of the VAT are going into the pockets of the NPP Government. Mr. Speaker, he must correct himself and go ahead; he is a good Friend of mine and I do not want him to lose his seat.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
You do not
want him to do what?
Mr. Frimpong 1 p.m.
I want his people to
know that he is doing the right thing here so that they would vote him again and we would meet here next time. As the hon. Chief Whip said - I know my Chief Whip - he should change the dinner suit and wear the right coat.
Mr. Abuga 1:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, one thing they must learn and learn very fast is that there is no way I can ever be ruffled; I will continue to say what I want to say, and I will say it strongly.
Mr. Speaker, in all it is clear that today's Ghana is a pale shadow of what it was as at independence.
Mr. Kwadwo Opare-Hammond 1:10 p.m.
On
a point of order. Mr. Speaker, my hon. Colleague over there has been misleading this House, and he continues to do that. Specifically, he made a statement that the economy of Ghana as at now is a pale shadow of itself. Mr. Speaker, this is factually incorrect.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
That is his opinion. You are out of order.
Mr. Abuga 1:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that we make self serving statements and higher declarations of performance or achievement does not mean that they are real; so the hon. Member should note that.
Mr. Speaker, before the New Patriotic
Dr. Osei 1:10 p.m.
On a point of order. Mr.
Speaker, I want to be advised by my hon. senior Colleague on the statement about the economy, that it is a pale shadow of itself. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask him
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon.
Deputy Minister, you are out of order. Unless you want to --
Dr. Osei 1:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, he is misleading
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
This is
not Question time. You are out of order.
Mr. Abuga 1:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am
surprised that the hon. Deputy Minister can say this. But it does not surprise me; to quote what he said; “it does not surprise me”. Let us take stock of his possessions today and all of them and compare -[Laughter] Mr. Speaker, I have tolerated them for a very long time. It is time for me to let them know that they have to be civil in the way they talk. I want to impress upon them that we should take stock of their possessions individually since they came into Government and let us find out in comparative terms whether I am alone in the fact that I am wearing a suit - [Interruptions.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon.
Member, do not get yourself distracted, focus on the debate. If you want to be personal you would mess up your point. Ignore what everybody is saying about whatever you are wearing.
Mr. Abuga 1:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is not
what one, as a Member of Parliament, benefits from; it is not what I wear to this Parliament; it is what we do as a Parliament for the people of this country that is important. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that in relative terms they will not bear examination, so they should be very careful about what they say.
Dr. Osei 1:10 p.m.
On a point of order. Mr.
Speaker, I want to crave your indulgence that when we are debating, in order for all of us to follow the pattern, at least we should be guided by one document so that we do not argue about numbers. When
hon. Members start making statements that are incorrect one wonders whether - The issue about the single digit inflation in the NDC period is not true. Mr. Speaker, at least, we all have these facts and it would help all of us if we follow this one document; then there would not be any arguments about numbers; otherwise, we are forced to correct them. Mr. Speaker, the facts are at page 367 (7) of the 2006 Budget which we all have -- otherwise we are forced to intervene to ask them to withdraw.
Mr. E. K. D. Adjaho 1:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I heard the hon. Deputy Minister for Finance and Economic Planning saying that we should refer to only one document in this debate. How can we refer to only one document when we are debating? He is totally wrong. If he can bring a document on any information that proves that even things that are contained in that document are false he is at liberty to do so in any debate; so he cannot say that we should refer to only one document. If somebody makes a point and he is not sure, he should ask for the source.
Dr. Osei 1:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon.
Deputy Minority Leader is not saying that the Budget which he helped pass contains false statements. This is the Budget Statement for last year which he helped pass.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon.
Deputy Minister, the point he is making is that there are lots of sources of information and unless of course you are saying that the information he is churning out, giving to this Parliament is false - If it is false and you want to challenge him on the source, you can ask; but you should not say that everybody has to refer to only one document.
Dr. A. A. Osei 1:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thought
that since this august House passed this
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
So what
they are saying is that if one has some other source what you have got to do is to challenge him.
Dr. Osei 1:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, my point is that,
something that we helped passed without making any adjustment, we would think that at least this august House had the basis of doing the right thing, so if we go by our own decisions the public would be happy that at least we are consistent.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon. Pele,
you did mention a single digit which is an issue that hon. Members have raised points of order to. Are you sure about it?
Mr. Abuga 1:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, in April
1998 Ghana recorded inflation figure of 9 per cent; if he wants the source he should see me later and I will provide him with the source. Mr. Speaker, he should also be aware that it is not everybody who is in agreement with the figures they have displayed in the Budget. I will cite one example.
Mr. Speaker, as part of my point, I just want to quote a leading economist 1:20 p.m.
“We are inflating the numbers both figuratively and nominally. Some of the statistics are contaminated by improper calculations.”
This was made by Nii Noi Thompson, a leading economist in this country.
Mr. Speaker, in the six years of the
New Patriotic Party (NPP) Government, if your pick all the years from 2001 to
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Hon.
Member for Ketu North, are you on a point of order?
Mr. Avedzi 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon.
Deputy Minister for -
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
You are
out of order. Take your seat - [Laughter.] Yes, hon. Member for Chiana-Paga continue.
Mr. Abuga 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to even say that -
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Hon.
Member for Sene, are you on a point of order?
Mr. Twumasi-Appiah 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
the hon. Member on his feet is misleading this House.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Who is
misleading this House?
Mr. Twumasi-Appiah 1:20 p.m.
The hon.
Member for Chiana-Paga is misleading this House.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Why?
Mr. Twumasi-Appiah 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
heard him say that in terms of performance, both governments did almost the same. It is not true. Considering the fact that the
Mr. Abuga 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, just for his
information, I am not saying that their efforts were the same. I am simply saying that in the last five years of NDC rule, they made an average growth of four per cent. From 2001 to date, the average growth has been 5.1 per cent. So there is not really much difference between the average growth then and now. It is just a difference of 1.1 per cent. Mr. Speaker, significant as it is, it is not much of a difference, in the sense that somebody who is jumping from the pit to the surface and somebody who is jumping from the surface to a higher position, it is much easier to jump from a surface than to jump from a pit.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Hon. Deputy Minister for Finance and Economic Planning, do you have a point of order?
Prof. Gyan-Baffour 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
think we have to be very clear about the difference between levels and growth rates. If one goes from a level of minus twenty-seven per cent, what it means is that one is moving from a lower point to a higher one. When one moves by one per cent the following year then one is moving a further step up. One has still not gotten to the top.
So the rates are actually on the levels and not in addition to wherever one is coming from. So if one came from a minus twenty-seven per cent, it means that one has moved from that level of minus twenty-seven per cent to a level a little bit above, and not just that one has moved to the twenty-seven per cent level and above. So one has to understand the relationship between the growth rates and
then the levels. That is where actually the confusion is. And I think he is using that to mislead everybody in this House.
Mr. Abuga 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am very
clear in my mind, what I am saying. I am saying that for somebody who is moving from negative growth to positive; it is much more difficult to move from a negative growth to four per cent growth rate then to move from four per cent to 6.2 per cent. That is what I am saying. Now, it is easier. The foundation was laid for the NPP Government so they can easily jump from there. But in the case of the NDC, we inherited a negative growth. In other words, we were growing negatively. Mr. Speaker - [Interruptions.] - I think that it is a deliberate attempt to prevent me from making my contribution.
Dr. A. A. Osei 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, this
is why I am saying we have to be very careful because we are forced to intervene. He talked about the NDC Government moving from a negative growth. Mr. Speaker, if he has his copy of the 2006 Budget Statement -- or let me read. Even if I go back to the PNDC era, 1984, 2.6 per cent; 1985, 5.1 per cent; 1987, 4.8 per cent; 1998, 6.2 per cent -- Mr. Speaker, all the way back to 1992 it is 3.9 per cent - so where is the negative growth? 1993, 5 per cent; 1990, 3.3 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, so why is he talking about negative growth in the NDC or PNDC governments that they inherited? He is grossly misleading the House. Even in the PNDC era they had positive growth. So they should give themselves some credit rather than lie to this House by saying that they came from negative growth.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Hon.
Member for Navrongo Central, that is for your information.
Mr. Abuga 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speake r --
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Hon.
Member for Chiana-Paga, have you finished? You have one more minute. Hon. Member for Sene, I have not recognized you. Hon. Member for Navrongo, if you want to yield to an hon. Member, I will call on somebody else to contribute.
Mr. Abuga 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I was reacting
to the hon. Deputy Minister for Finance and Economic Planning's intervention.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
I do not know of his intervention. You are not in charge.
Mr. Abuga 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I meant
Rawlings's Government. I did not mean the NDC Government per se. Mr. Speaker, when it suits then, they describe the NDC as NDC/PDNC. But when it does not suit them, they want to separate the two. So I agree. He is right. If it is the NDC, of course, they did not start from a negative growth rate; but I was talking about the
PNDC/NDC.
Mr. Speaker, to continue with my
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Hon.
Member for Navrongo Central, you have just a minute to conclude.
Mr. Abuga 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am just
about to wind up, provided they will not intervene unnecessarily.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
I will not
allow them to worry you.
Mr. Abuga 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon.
Ranking Member for Finance has
adequately analyzed what is embodied in this 6.2 per cent growth. He has touched on the agricultural sector, the sub-sectors, and has analyzed what is involved. Mr. Speaker, it is very important for us to emphasize that for any economy to grow and in order to prevent the people being on one side of the divide as against their leaders, in declaring that there is progress or there is development or there is growth, there is the need for us to be improving in industry, manufacturing and agriculture. So where we see a decline in all these sub-sectors, then there is a problem. I am not surprised that we have 6.2 per cent growth, yet the people are still complaining that there is mass poverty in this country.
Mr. Speaker, to wind up, I just want
to indicate that between 2001 and 2006, the NPP Government has received nearly $1.8 billion as foreign injection of capital into this country. Yet, let us look at what is available to show for the $1.8 billion within the six years that they have been in power; they cannot show one single big infrastructure that this Government has done to show for the $1.8 billion. Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting.
Mr. Twumasi-Appiah 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I heard the hon. Deputy Minister for Finance and Economic Planning say the hon. Member for Chiana-Paga was telling lies on the floor of the House. Mr. Speaker, I think it is not parliamentary and he must be made to withdraw that.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Hon.
Member for Chiana-Paga, continue. I did not hear that. - [Laughter.] Honestly, I did not hear that.
Mr. Abuga 1:20 p.m.
So Mr. Speaker, when you
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Hon.
Deputy Minister for Finance and Economic Planning, did you say that?
Dr. Osei 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I vehemently object to the statement my hon. Colleague is making. We are here to debate and if he wants to quote me he should quote me well. Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious House. I said he was misleading this House -- [Interruptions.]
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Hon.
Member, will you take your seat? I have not called you. You do not need to bring a controversy that we definitely does not have anything to do with what we do here. That was why I was asking the hon. Member for Chiana-Paga to continue.
Abuga: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion,
we have no excuse in this country to be facing the wage crisis that we are facing today. We have no excuse to see our people continue to be so poor. There is no excuse whatsoever when you consider the amount of donor funding that has come into this country. Within just a period of six years, nearly $1.8 billion, and yet the country has not changed to any appreciable extent. Mr. Speaker, I think that this is very dangerous and it is very criminal.
Thank you, for allowing me.
Mr. J. B. Aidoo (NPP Amenfi West) 1:30 p.m.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
I wish you
could speak through the microphone for all of us to hear.
Mr. Aidoo 1:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, what I am
saying is that the essence of the debate is to look at the Budget and the performance of the economy over the past one year and then to look at the way forward, that is, for the year 2007.
Mr. Speaker, overall if you take the general economy, it has really performed. As has been indicated, GDP growth rate has increased to 2.2 per cent and when you take the various sectors and you relate their share to the GDP, you would realize that all the sectors actually performed except agriculture, where there was a slight decline.
Mr. Speaker, agriculture has been contributing around 36 per cent to GDP and it was only in 2006 that agriculture came done to 35.8 per cent. When you look at the sub-sectors of agriculture, crops and livestock as has been recorded on page 24, Table 2, Mr. Speaker, crops and livestock contributed 23.8 per cent and this growth rate is not different from what was recorded last year. When you take cocoa, cocoa even upgraded itself from 4.6 per cent of GDP to 4.7 per cent, meaning that there was a growth in relative terms in cocoa production. The only sectors that suffered were forestry and fishing. Here Mr. Speaker, I would urge my Colleagues in the Ministry to look at these two sectors very well, that is forestry and fishing; we have not performed well in those areas.
Mr. Speaker, if you take industry,
industry contributes about a quarter of GDP growth rate and of course, industry
had a very positive performance this year, except for manufacturing which declined by 0.1 per cent. But in the other sectors like mining and quarrying too, there was a slight decline. When you take electricity and water, there was a significant progress - 3.1 per cent. Construction also saw a significant increase. Mr. Speaker, the same thing goes for services where we recorded improvement, and if you look at the figures, you would realize that we did very well in the finance and industry sectors, meaning that the financial sector is actually growing. Mr. Speaker, whilst taking note of these positive performances of the economy, I want to draw the attention of the Ministry to a very important sector, that is the agricultural sector.
Mr. Speaker, if you look at page 324, that is appendix (v) 1:40 p.m.
Discretionary Expenditures for Government, 2007, Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs), Mr. Speaker, you would realize that the total allocation that is to be expended comes to ¢38.69 trillion; and Mr. Speaker, agriculture together with fisheries represents just about ¢1.2 trillion; that is the allocation to be given to those two sectors, and this is just about 3.2 per cent. Mr. Speaker, this is not enough if really we want our agricultural sector which is contributing as much as 35/36 per cent of GDP to move fact.
In fact, the essence of the whole Budget is that we have attained growth; we have realized a stable economy and we now want to accelerate. Agriculture is the biggest sector and so if we want to realize these aspirations, then there should be rigorous injection of resources into the agricultural sector. If agriculture is getting just 3.2 per cent, then that is not enough.
Mr. Speaker, I would refer you to page 45, Table 9. If you look at the analysis of credit to private sectors of the economy, again you would realize that out of a total disbursement of about ¢22.5 billion,

agriculture had just 6 per cent. Mr. Speaker, again this is not enough, if we really want to accelerate growth.

Mr. Speaker, another area that I want to touch on is Energy. At page 94, paragraph 405 of the Budget Statement, Mr. Speaker, provision has been made to the effect that there is going to be an energy law and a legal framework for accelerating the development of renewable energy in the country. This is indeed very good news. Mr. Speaker, the presence of a legal framework for the energy sector is long overdue. We are looking to the day when private individuals and even communities can generate their own power and sell to the national pool and through that make money to pay for their own energies.

Mr. Speaker, this has not been done because for a very long time, there had not been any legal framework. But immediately this legal framework comes into play, 10 or 15 communities can come together, source funding and, Mr. Speaker, I am very optimistic that they can get this funding; and with that they can even develop mini hydro-electric stations, generate enough power for their use and then sell the excess to the National Energy Commission. Mr. Speaker, so the coming into play of this legal framework is in the right direction and I would urge the Ministry to carry it to its logical conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, another area which I want to touch on is taxation. We have been told that there is going to be a broadening of the base in the collection of income tax. Mr. Speaker, this is very important because we have so many people in the informal sector who are not paying anything. My only concern is that the policy measure is restricted to the registration of vehicles; this is not enough. It could be broadened to cover other areas. For example, if you are sending your child or ward to the

high school or tertiary institution, I think there should be demand of income tax certificate. Where you have such a policy, just as when you are going for a visa you are asked to produce your income tax certificate, this should apply, not only with vehicle registration, but it should also go to cover areas like admission of wards and children into schools.

Mr. Speaker, there should also be insistence on evidence of tax certificate before anybody would be allowed to actually do any business in this country. If people have operated for one year or more and they do not have any certificate yet there is nothing forcing them to show such certificate, Mr. Speaker, the country will eventually be the biggest loser.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said over and over again that even though the Government is doing a lot to improve the road from here to Kumasi, you drive through without coming across any road toll booth, and I believe that this country is losing a lot. If we can have road toll booths at all the points where the road has been improved, say, from here to Kumasi and also from Accra to Takoradi from Accra to Takoradi, you have only one bridge toll booth the Government can generate a lot of money from these areas.

Mr. Speaker, if you take Tema to Tetteh-Quarshie Roundabout, it is just a distance of about 20 kilometres and if you look at the amount of revenue Government is generating from this 20 kilometre stretch it tells you that we have a lot to do in terms of improving our sources of revenue generation. Mr. Speaker, I believe that if this cold be done, it will go a long way to assist the Government.

Mr. Speaker, one other area which I

would touch on is value added tax (VAT). VAT is a consumer tax and, Mr. Speaker, we are all paying this tax. But the question is whether Government is realizing the monies we are paying into its coffers. Mr. Speaker, I will urge the Ministry to look at this area critically because what Government is getting is just the tip of the iceberg. From my own observation, I believe Government is getting just about a quarter of this potential contribution of VAT to the country's receipts, yet strategies are there to improve the VAT sector. It has been mentioned here before that the VAT raffle is one area where Government can look at - the Ministry. So I would urge the Ministry to seriously re-visit the VAT Raffle method in trying to expand its sources of revenue generation.

Mr. Speaker, on the whole, generally, as I said, this is a very comprehensive Budget and if you take the past one year, it is beyond doubt that the economy has performed in all the sectors. It was only agriculture that had a slight decline and even with agriculture you do not have to put everything in, in that holistic manner. You may take fishing and forestry. But if you take crops, cocoa, livestock the performance has been positive and the trend is till up; and it is very consistent. And that is the essence of a good economy and a good Budget. Therefore, I am using this opportunity again to commend the captains of the economy, I mean hon. Baah-Wiredu and his Colleagues as well as the Governor of the Bank of Ghana for ensuring that we have a stale economy and preparing the grounds for us to take off.

What is required is that they do not have to be too cautious. If we want change then change will have to come with vigour and rigour. We do not have to be very cautious about the means of bringing about a change. It was therefore gratifying to hear over the week end that the Central Bank has announced that next year, we

are going to have a re-denomination of the cedi. This is a very rigorous decision. It is a very bold decision, and these are the sort of things we are expecting the Ministry to inject into this Budget Statement.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Thank you very much, hon. Aidoo. I will now give the floor to hon. Haruna Iddrisu, the hon. Member for Tamale South.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu (NDC - Tamale South) 1:50 p.m.
Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to the motion that this House approves the Financial Policy of the Government for the fiscal year ending 31st December 2007.
Mr. Speaker, in doing so, I would like to refer you to paragraph 90 of the Budget Statement which reads as follows:
“Mr. Speaker, for the first time nine months of the fiscal year, the overall Budget balance showed a deficit of ¢5,059.5 billion (4.4 per cent of GDP) compared with a deficit of ¢3,643.0 billion . . .”
Mr. Speaker, it suggests that we suffered a serious budgetary deficit greater than what was anticipated or what was actualized in the year 2005.
Mr. Speaker, we are told that this Budget which is titled “Jubilee Budget” seeks to deal with two main thematic areas or crisis area. One is the reform of public sector wages, and the other one is to deal with the energy crisis resulting in blackouts or light outs which are affecting not just the individual citizens of Ghana but even the performance of industry.
Mr. Speaker, I doubt our sincerity
as a country, per the provisions of this Budget, to deal head-on with the energy crisis that we have. Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer you to the “Parliamentary Debates, Official Report,” of Friday, 18th February,2000 and to refer to some significant comments that hon. Baah- Wiredu, now Minister for Finance and Economic Planning made which would be very important for today's discussion. On 18th February, 2000 in contributing to the National Democratic Congress (NDC) Financial Policy Statement he had this to say and with your permission I quote:
“Mr. Speaker, it is high time we looked at our Budget proposals and ensure that they reduce our dependency on foreign resources”.
He went further, but Mr. Speaker, if you look at the Budget that he has had the privilege to present himself having grown from an opposition critic into a ruling administration, one would wonder whether there has been any significant shift in terms of our dependence on foreign sources, in order to fund our Budget. And with your permission, I would like to refer to the budgetary allocation for the Ministry of Food and Agriculture which by my computation; 57.1 per cent of it is expected to be funded from donor sources.
For the Ministry of Lands, Forestry and Mines 38.8 per cent of their requirement is expected from donor sources. Mr. Speaker, for the Ministry of Water Resources, Works and Housing only 0.9 per cent is expected to come as commitment from the Government of Ghana; 82 per cent of their budgetary requirement is expected to be funded by donors. Mr. Speaker, the same can be said for Ministry of Trade, Industry and President's Special Initiatives where GOG funding will only be 15.5 per cent as against a door component of 51.8 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, same is said of the
Mr. Opare-Hammond 1:50 p.m.
On a point
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Hon.
Member, you are out of order.
Mr. Opare-Hammond 1:50 p.m.
Mr.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Hon. Member, I am saying I will not allow you, so take your seat. Hon. Member for Tamale South, continue.
Mr. Iddrisu 1:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, even if you go further in the Budget there is a good attempt by Government to wean us from the IMF or World Bank with the termination of the Poverty Reduction Strategy. But the question is; are we running away from the strict monitoring mechanisms of the IMF or it is because we are now capable of funding our own budgetary projects? Mr. Speaker, if they want to appreciate why I raised the donor dependence, I would like to refer you to page 95 of the Budget Statement in order to make some comments on the energy sector.
Mr. Speaker, our country has a current energy crisis and we know that is affecting the performance of industry, and that in fact would ultimately affect contribution to gross domestic product. Mr. Speaker, look at the last paragraph, paragraph 408.
“An amount of 956,690 million has been allocated to the Ministry . . .” (referring to the Ministry of Energy.) “. . .out of this GOG only ¢51.824 million donor, ¢524,665 million. . .”
Now you are saying that this Budget intends to cure a major defect, which defect is the crisis in the energy sector. I do not see a commitment from the Government of Ghana wanting to deal with this problem. It means that we may succeed, or we may not succeed. Our success in any major interventions in the energy sector is at donor generosity and donor benevolence. Therefore, if they fail us, it means that we are likely to continue to be in darkness for sometime, and that is the issue that I thought that I could raise - [Hear! Hear!] -- because we are dependent hugely - [Interruption.]
Prof. Gyan-Baffour 1:50 p.m.
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. Friend on the other side of the House is just confused with the figures, and he is confusing everybody here. Mr. Speaker,
when you look at the 2005 Budget, the total expenditure was about 34 trillion cedis. Out of that 34 trillion, 5 trillion came from grants and then 4 trillion from loans, which means 10 trillion came from donor sources. That gives us about 34 per cent of the total Budget. Look at 2007 and you will see that the grants were about ¢8.9 trillion and the loans ¢5.9 trillion, which gives us about 14.9 trillion, which is actually 27 per cent of the total expenditure. So we are moving from 34 per cent donor dependency to 27 per cent, which is an achievement in trying to reduce our dependency on donor resources.
Secondly, if you read through the Budget, clearly you will notice that most of the resources that we are going to use to finance the generation of electricity are from the MDRI and that one it is not something that we are now going to look for the loan to bring to actually bring these in. So Mr. Speaker, I think he is misleading the people; and actually he has to look at the figures very, very closely.
Mr. Iddrisu 1:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Professor
knows that I have enormous respect for him. I thought that he would dispute page 95 and paragraph 408 of the Budget Statement, which I quoted to support the allocation meant for the energy sector. Mr. Speaker, I want to proceed further.
Mr. Speaker, we are told in the same Budget Statement of an economic renaissance. I am just pointing out that we are not there yet. Even if you come to GDP growth rate, the economists are divided themselves, whether that is a good measure of an improvement in the standard of living or not. Even GDP per capita. There has been consistent growth rate but the multi-million dollar question is; does it reflect in an improvement in the standard of living? Are Ghanaians able to
access social goods, are Ghanaians able to access the kind of goods and services that will lead to an improvement of their lifestyles. That is important.
Mr. Speaker, conspicuously lost in this Budget Statement is any indication of the incidence of poverty. Yet, whether it is GPRS 1, GPRS II, Budget for 2006, or 2007, the ultimate object is the amelioration of poverty. To what extent have we come as a country? I thought that the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning would have provided for this in this Budget by telling us how far the incidence of poverty has gone.
Mr. R. S. Quarm 1:50 p.m.
On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. Colleague opposite is seriously misleading himself, the House and the entire nation. Mr. Speaker, we can turn to page 305, paragraph 1346, specifically, on energy. What he quoted on page 408 is in terms of Ghanaian cedis. Mr. Speaker, the last but two lines there, paragraph 1346 states:
“Consequently, an amount of US $470m will be invested over the next 3 years to improve the energy capacity of the country”.
Mr. Speaker, if he should convert US$ 470m into cedis, he would know the sort of trillions he will be mentioning.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Hon. Member, so what is your point?
Mr. Quarm 1:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the figure he quoted is not the only -- He was saying that he was not seeing the serious commitment of the NPP Government in terms of - [Interrup-tion.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
I think the
Mr. Quarm 1:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, he is saying that it is meagre but I am saying that is just part of it. In addition, you have - [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
I do not think I disagree with you. I agree with your point. You are making a point that it is only a portion, but that you are not disputing what he was saying.
Mr. Iddrisu 1:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I was making a point that we do not seem to have any direction as to the incidence of poverty, and my view is that it does not afford this House an opportunity to know what the impact of the injections of huge sums of money has been. If we were told that the incidence of poverty had dropped from 39 to 32 per cent or from 32 to 29 per cent nationally, then we would know that GPRS 1, GPRS II and cumulatively with the investment that we have had, are making an impact. There is no mention in this Budget Statement of any indications as to the poverty profile of our country and I thought that was very, very significant for this Budget Statement.
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
You have given the floor to him without my having asked -- [Laughter.]
Mr. Iddrisu 1:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you so much for ignoring the hon. Minister - [Laughter.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
If you have done that then I would allow him. Yes, hon. Deputy Minister.
Dr. Osei 1:50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that sometimes in our haste to criticize, we are not very careful. I want to refer my hon. Colleague to pages 277 to 284 of the Budget Statement. And also I want to remind my hon. Colleague that the Ghana Statistical Service does not measure sums of statistics every year, but if he reads that page about the MDGs and so forth some of his questions will be adequately answered.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 2 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. Minister rose to provide the statistics on the incidence of poverty in Ghana; he has not.
Mr. Speaker, even an important issue has just emerged. We are told that in implementing our budgets, one of the major commitments is to measure the extent to which the Millennium Development Goals are being pursued. There are enormous references to it even in the Budget Statement. But Mr. Speaker, if you want to measure poverty, one of the major indicators to which we have committed ourselves is infant and maternal mortality - we are told they are on the increase. Therefore, we cannot say that we are doing well poverty-wise when people and maternal mothers cannot access heal.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
Hon. Iddrisu, let me intervene for a brief moment. Hon. Members, I believe you have all been informed already. It is about a couple of minutes to 2.00 p.m. and I have to inform you that we are having an extend Sitting. Continue, hon. Member.
Mr. Iddrisu 2 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we are being assured of access to potable drinking water but I do know that even in an urban community such as Tamale, half of the population cannot access quality drinking water, not to talk about those in the rural communities in that area. Yet, heavy
investments have been made.
Mr. Speaker, I again would like to refer you to column 1919 of the Official Report of 18th February 2000, on the Budget Statement. The Minister for Finance and Economic Planning now, then in opposition, hon. Baah-Wiredu, had this to say and Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I quote:
“Mr. Speaker, by increasing the road levy and the price of fuel by 53 per cent, they are already increasing the price of fuel and that is going to increase the burden of the people of Ghana.”
Mr. Speaker, I want to paraphrase the Minister as saying that in the last few years, we have witnessed an unprecedented increase in the price of petroleum products -- Over 600 per cent. The hon. Minister for Finance and Economic Planning was right yesterday and he can only be right today in acknowledging that, that is further burdening the people of Ghana.
Mr. Speaker, one of the advantages of this regime has been that enormous resources have come in because of the favourable prices of some of our products - whether it is cocoa, gold or diamond. I am told somewhere in 1999 and 2000 an ounce of gold sold at around US $250; today it is around US $600 or more. If you look at cocoa, it was between US $700 and US $900; today it has exceeded that. Therefore, we are justified in expecting the Government to do more with the inflow of resources coming from them.
Mr. Speaker, I would have made reference to another hon. Member but I am told that he passed away a few years ago and for that matter I will not mention his name. He made a very significant comment when he was contributing to the
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, my Colleague whilst not disagreeing with the principles that he is espousing is misleading the House in one breath. Mr. Speaker, he says that fuel prices have increased by about 600 per cent. I have not done the calculation but he knows that at a point in time, in the year 2000, the price of crude oil was about $14 per barrel and today it has gone up to almost $76. He knows that. Mr. Speaker, what is the percentage increase? And that is what we are - [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
Hon. Chief Whip, I believe he is only churning out the figures. As to the meaning and effect and so forth, it is up to you to also make your own interpretation and analysis of the whole thing.
Mr. Iddrisu 2 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the able Chief Whip acknowledges that indeed fuel witnessed an unprecedented increase by 600 per cent and that that has worsened the standard of living of Ghanaians; and that can explain why there is agitation on the labour front in Ghana -- people want legitimate adjustment of their wages and salaries to reflect current cost of living.
Mr. R. S. Quarm 2 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, in determining growth just by 6.2 per cent, he is talking of an unprecedented rise in the price of crude oil from about 42 dollars per barrel to 72 dollars per barrel, thus affecting the economy and increasing the fuel bill by 36.8 per cent. Not just that; we have the energy crisis - no water in
Mr. Iddrisu 2 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I was making a point on GPRS II. There are very laudable economic objectives in it, no doubt. But I have my doubts as to whether we can get to our dreamland - the dreamland being that we will attain middle-income status by 2015 or 2012, whatever date we want to tie to it. Mr. Speaker, we are told in the same Budget Statement that it is only when we grow at a GDP of 8.5 per cent that we may be able to get there, yet we are assured in the Budget that we are on course; that Ghana will attain middle income status by 2015.
Dr. Osei 2 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, sometimes I wonder whether we want to debate for the sake of debate. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. He made a statement about significant declines in the industrial sector's growth. Even his own Ranking Member has talked about increases in the
industrial sector's growth. His Ranking Member today talked about it. Then he gets up and talks about significant decline. Mr. Speaker, he has a copy of the Budget Statement so either he is deliberately trying to mislead this august House or he is blind. And I know he is not blind so he must withdraw his statement.
Mr. Iddrisu 2 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I will take it on board. When my Ranking Member was speaking, I listened with rapt attention. When he was dealing with the components of industry, the attention of Dr. Osei was somewhere else. You do not look at industry per se; you look at what generates the contribution to industrial growth. Mining and quarrying are on the decline; manufacturing is on the decline. He should read page 24 of his own Budget Statement and it supports my argument that they have witnessed significant decline.
He was looking somewhere else, Mr. Speaker -
Dr. A. A. Osei 2 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, this talking, trying to escape these things will not work. Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with facts and the hon. young man should look at the facts carefully. He cannot mislead this House.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
Hon. Haruna Iddrisu to continue.
Mr. Iddrisu 2:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we are also told that we should hail it because the Government is abolishing the National Reconstruction Levy. Mr. Speaker, we are told again by the experts that 25 per cent of what is generated as a result of the National Reconstruction Levy goes into the Venture Capital Fund. So I want the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning to tell us how they intend to sustain the Venture Capital Fund now that they are closing one of the doors or windows to where it sources funds. I think that it will be very important for
him to explain.
In any case, he gave us a roll-down period, how he was going to manage the reductions and subsequent abolition. So there cannot be any praises about that position.

Mr. Speaker, if you read the Budget Statement, again, they tell us that they expect ¢0.7 trillion from divestiture. Why? Mr. Speaker, when we set targets, we must set realistic and attainable targets, depending upon what would be roped in to fund those targets. For divestiture in the year 2006, they were expecting ¢673.4 billion, but they roped only six billion cedis - over thousand per cent difference; and they still expect that we should anticipate that divestiture will perform miracles and bring in the money. They know it is not attainable; it is not realistic. We will need to work at it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment on the telecommunication sector and then end with a brief comment on education.

Mr. Speaker, on the telecom-munication

sector, yes, we have witnessed some improvement in tele-density; and they quote a population of 20.1. Even if we were to do an assessment using Members of Parliament, one would know that the tele-density is not reliable. For purposes of generality, when one is a Member of Parliament and holds three mobile phones, it will go and reflect as if three Ghanaians have mobile phones, and therefore, one can arrive at a misleading figure of 20.6 for tele-density. It is not reflective. I think that we need to do more in terms of expanding access. There is no doubt that there has been an improvement in tele-density, but

I doubt the figure 20.6, knowing that many people possess more than one mobile phone and that can be used for purposes to mislead us.

But Mr. Speaker, institutions such as Ghana Telecom and Westel are now wholly government-owned. Ghana Telecom is being nationalized, yet they profess that they are people who believe in private sector development. When we say that they should bring a strategic investor to invest in Ghana Telecom, they are interested in signing management contracts. Only a few days ago, we were told that a new management contract was being signed. Here we are being promised that they are going to open it up to privatization. Ghana Telecom is currently in liquidity crisis, and I think it is about time that we saved it.

Westel has also been nationalized; even lotto has been nationalized with the passage of the new Lotto Bill. Why? They say that they are people who believe in private sector development, yet they are not encouraging competition. That is incongruous with the values of people who belong to a liberal party and its values. It is incongruous - [Hear! Hear!] - I fail to appreciate with it.
Mr. Quarm 2:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, my hon.
Colleague is seriously misleading the House and Ghanaians - [Uproar.] - Mr. Speaker, lotto has not been nationalized. I am not a lawyer. My hon. Friend, I do not know how he read the Bill. Mr. Speaker, we have the National Petroleum Authority regulating that industry; National Communication Authority regulating that industry; so the National Lotto Authority is going to regulate the lottery business; and private operators are going to sell the coupons. They are now lotto marketing companies. That is not nationalization. So he should withdraw it.
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Hon. Member for Lawra/Nandom, the hon. Member rose on a point of order. I am not too sure you want to raise a point of order against his point of order. If that is the case, hold your breath for a while.
Dr. Kunbuor 2:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, that is the problem. When somebody rises on a point of order and all the person is doing is giving a different perspective, of an opinion, I think it is an abuse of the process of this House.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
I entirely agree with you, but I do not think that what he did was to raise a different kind of opinion. The hon. Member for Tamale South had said that there has been a monopoly of the lotto business, and the Government is nationalizing this and that, and he has come out to say that, that is not so. Indeed, he is disputing the fact as was being presented by the hon. Member for Tamale South. So I do not think that it was a different opinion.
Dr. Kunbuor 2:10 p.m.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When you give a platform on a point of order and the person misleads the House -- because the comparison has no bearing. Can he tell me that it is the national authority that regulates those who are in the retail sector? So it does not mean that when we have a regulatory body - [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
This is not Question Time so I would not ask him to react to it. Can you continue, hon. Member for Tamale South?
Mr. Iddrisu 2:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that the wholesale job is for the National Lotto Authority. But Mr. Speaker, I was making a comment on education.
Mr. Speaker, recently, the Government issued a White Paper on educational
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Hold on a minute. Yes, hon. Deputy Minister for Finance and Economic Planning.
Dr. Osei 2:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we are all Ghanaians and we are debating the economy of our country; we have to be very careful. Mr. Speaker, I say that because when we begin to make misleading statements about our institutions which the Government intends to privatize, we send the wrong market signals. And I want to plead with my hon. Colleague that a statement like, “the Government has nationalized Telecom Malaysia”, is not true.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Hon. Deputy Minister for Finance and Economic Planning, it has been corrected. I think the hon. Member rose and did the correction.
Dr. A. A. Osei 2:10 p.m.
No, he was on lotto. I am talking about - [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
I think the other hon. Member rose and did the correction. He spoke about the lotto; and he spoke about the telecom industry and the National Communication Authority being the regulatory body. He mentioned a couple of them. So I think it has been corrected.
Dr. A. A., Osei 2:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect his statements can be very damaging to the prospects of - [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Well, be it as it may, this is Parliament. So allow him to continue.
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Yes, hon. Member, do you have something else to say?
Mr. Opare-Ansah 2:10 p.m.
That is so, Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of order. My hon. Colleague on the other side is misleading the House. He mentioned the fact that hon. Members here hold three mobile phones and other individuals hold a number of mobile phones, which does not give a good picture of the tele-density that is reported. But that is not so. Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, when you go to the advanced democracies and economies - [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
You are also out of order. Let him continue.
Mr. Iddrisu 2:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat my comments. Mr. Speaker, indeed, I am calling even for a forensic audit into the operations of Ghana Telecom. We need to know because I am aware that they have liquidity crisis. There was a recent evaluation of their work which was done by some commission, and I am saying that Westel In any case, if he is disputing it, is Ghana Telecom wholly government-owned or not? Is Westel wholly government-owned or not? He has no answer other than to arrive at the conclusion that they have been nationalized. It means - [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Hon. Member, you have to be mindful of what others say. There has been a correction that indeed there is no monopoly creation or there is no - [Interruption.]
Mr. Iddrisu 2:10 p.m.
There is.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
They have corrected you that the National Communication Authority is a regulatory
body. There are other players in that industry, unless you do not want to recognize that.
Mr. Iddrisu 2:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the corporate entity known as Ghana Telecom. I am saying that it is today wholly government-owned. Westel is also wholly government owned and nothing more. Mr. Speaker, the regulator, very soon we will review [Interruption.]
Dr. A. A. Osei 2:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I say these entities that we are trying to buy back, I think they have a sensitive nature. But if he wants us to go back to the genesis of why the Government had to buy it back, I want to remind him - [Interruptions.] - Mr. Speaker, without knowing why the Government had to buy back the shares, he would be misleading the House.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Hon. Deputy Minister for Finance and Economic Planning, do not get provoked. - [Laughter.] - Let him continue.
Dr. A. A. Osei 2:10 p.m.
No, I am not provoked. I just want to remind him that it was his own Government that brought the Malaysians to put that company in a mess; and Ghanaians are trying to salvage it. And to do that, we have to acquire the shares at a very enormous price, if he does not know that. It was a mistake that his Government had made and this Government is trying to correct it. Mr. Speaker, importantly, all around the world what companies are being put on divestiture? We have to be careful of statements we make about them.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
You have made that point. Hon. Deputy Minister; you have earlier made that point. This is Parliament; if he decides to ignore what you are saying - your advice - what else can anybody do? So please let him continue.
Hon. Member for Tamale South,

continue with your point.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 2:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to be the Ranking Member for the Committee on Communications and I know what I am talking about; whether the regulator is performing or there is competition, they are entities that are wholly Government-owned; and yet the intention was that we would allow private-sector participation in those entities.
Mr. Speaker, I was on Education -
Government issued a beautiful White Paper on Educational Reforms and we were promised in it that 2007/2008 shall be the year of its implementation; and a number of things were supposed to be done in preparation for its implementation. One would have thought that the 2007 Budget Statement would make room to allow the Ministry of Education, Science and Sports to proceed with the implementation.
Mr. Speaker, but there is a major policy problem that I would like to draw attention to. We are told that the junior secondary school (JSS) would now become the junior high school, and the senior secondary school (SSS) would now become the senior high school: We now have three years, and we would have four-year SSS education.
Mr. Speaker, whilst Government is saying that SSS would be four years, the same Government has committed itself to West African Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination (WASSCE) which is three years. So how are our Ghanaian children, having completed SSS, going to partake in writing the West African Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination? We need answers to that because we cannot assure our children that it is going to be four years, then three years
down the line they must be preparing for examination or they would not be part of the West African Senior Secondary School Certificate Examinations.
Mr. Opare-Hammond 2:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. on. niversal how to assure ghanaian Basic Education/ation Grant of hool Certificate Examinations. The line you must Mr. Speaker, I heard my hon. Colleague on the floor make a certain statement which I do not understand. Mr. Speaker, the senior high school is going to be four years; they will still write the West African Senior Secondary Certificate Examinations.
Mr. Speaker, the West African Secondary School Certificate Examinations will be conducted every year, so whether it is three years or four years or even ten years, the students at the time they have to write would write that year's papers. So he must not try to throw dust into our eyes over here, he must correct himself so that the whole nation would know that what he said was not right.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
Hon. Haruna Iddrisu, unless of course you are consulting hon. Alex Tetteh-Enyo --
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 2:20 p.m.
Rightly so, Mr. Speaker. He is a more senior authority on education. Mr. Speaker, I was just saying that it does not appear that we have prepared for the take off of the Reform Programme as per this White Paper. [Interruption.]
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
Hon. Deputy Minister, do you want to make a contribution or what? Are you rising on a point of order?
Mr. Baiden-Amissah 2:20 p.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member on the floor talks about the senior high school, the junior high school - whatever -- and that there have not been any preparations whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, when we are speaking on this floor, we must be sure of what we are saying, we should not only speak because of party affiliation --[Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
No, please, speak strictly to the point.
Mrs. Baiden-Amissah 2:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we have started a lot of things; we are building schools - [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
So the point you want to make is that you have prepared for it?
Mrs. Baiden-Amissah 2:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that we have prepared for it and so my hon. Colleague should not mislead this House by saying things that are not true. Mr. Speaker, even if they would be writing WASSCE, they would be writing it at year four; and there are a lot of preparatory activities towards it. The reason why we made it so is that
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
Hon. Deputy Minister, you wait for your turn and you will contribute [Interruption.] I will give you the opportunity later on to make a contribution. Hon. Haruna Iddrisu, you have one more minute to land.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 2:20 p.m.
All right, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the hon. Deputy Minister would have appreciated the fact that even some of the promises that were made in the 2006 Budget, in order to reduce the administration of some of these institutions to the District Assemblies, have not been done. But that was something in the 2006 Budget and not even in the 2007 Budget as part of the preparation.
Mrs. Baiden-Amissah 2:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member on the floor is talking about something that I do not understand, so if he could explain or educate me so that I can - [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
What is he talking about?
Mrs. Baiden-Amissah 2:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is talking about our commitment to District Assemblies and others and I want to understand it so that I can explain - [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
Maybe, you may see him after this debate.
Mrs. Baiden-Amissah 2:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, what my hon. Colleague is saying is not true, he is only trying to throw dust into people's eyes. We are on course and we are really working - [Interruptions.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
Hon. Deputy Minister, hold on! He is on his feet contributing to the debate. He might have made a few statements that you disagree with, but except for facts and maybe figures that he would have quoted wrongly, and on which you want to correct him, that is another matter. But if you want to say something different from what he is saying -- If he says you are not prepared, you are not on course and so on and so forth, that is another matter. So please -- [Interruption.]
Mrs. Baiden-Amissah 2:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that what he is saying is not true.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 2:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, finally, I was saying that there is an initiative by Government to direct security agencies, schools and others to buy locally-produced rice and poultry. That is a worthy policy initiative but we hope that this Government will be sincere in implementing it, because the same Government came to this House to lower tariffs on rice and poultry imports, which was an attempt to destroy our own infant industry involved in those sectors. Today, we import not less than $300 million of rice, and over $100 million of sugar; that is why we have serious deficit on our balance of payment.
Mr. Speaker, I think that there are
huge arrears; some contractors have not been paid, yet we want to say that the economy is doing well. Because we are reducing money supply, we do not want to pay people who are due for payment.
Many contracts that have been executed; payments have not been made.
With these comments, Mr. Speaker, I
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
Hon. Members, I think we will continue the debate tomorrow; but we have the Insurance Bill still to consider. So I would entreat you, hon. Members, that we spend about twenty to thirty minutes on it because it is an outstanding Bill which we have not fully considered. So hon. Members, do not leave the Chamber, stay and let us continue to work a little on that Bill. So do not pack your things and leave.
BILLS - CONSIDERATION STAGE 2:20 p.m.
  • [Resumption of consideration from 24/11/06]
    • Mr. Haruna Iddrisu (on behalf of Mr. Joseph Yieleh Chireh) 2:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that clause 163, subclause (2), line 1 after “strike” insert “out”.
    Chairman of the Committee (Nii A. D. Mante) 2:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I have no objection.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 163 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 164 - Restriction on the use of the words “insurance”, “assurance” and “underwrite”.
    Mr. Haruna Iddrisu (on behalf of Mr. Chireh) 2:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 164 subclause (2), at the end add “and is liable, on conviction, to the penalty stated in the First Schedule”.
    Mr. Speaker, this is consequential, so I would want you to put the Question up to 169 so that it reflects - And it would read: “. . .and is liable on conviction to the penalty stated in the First Schedule”. The same would be repeated for clause 166, subclause (4), clause 166, subclause (5), and clause 167, subclause (4).
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Hon. Chairman, do you agree to that?
    Mr. Mante 2:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, that is so.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    But we
    will go from one clause to the other.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 164 as amended is ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 165 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 166 -- Duties of Directories, officers and managers -
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    I will
    put the Question. The Question is that the clause should be amended just as has been advertised on page 4 (ix).
    Question put and agreed to.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Clause
    166 again, the proposed amendment is that the clause should be further amended as sub clause (5) and the words “and is liable, on conviction, to the penalty stated in the First Schedule” be inserted.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 166 as variously amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 167 - Report on Inspection.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Hon.
    Members, the Question is that sub clause (4) if clause 167 also be amended by the addition of the words “and is liable, on conviction, to the penalty stated in the First Schedule”.
    Question put and agreed to. Clause 167 as amended ordered to
    stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 168 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 169 - Privileged documents and information.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Hon.
    Members, the Question is that sub clause (2), paragraph (a), line 1, after “by” first occurrence, insert “a client”.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Hon.
    Members, in clause 169 again, in sub clause (2), paragraph (b), line 1, after “by” first occurrence insert “a person”.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Nii Adu Mante: Mr. Speaker, I object
    to that.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Which
    one? 169?
    Nii Adu Mante: 169 (2) (b).
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Why do
    you say so?
    Nii Adu Mante: Mr. Speaker, rather
    it should read as follows: “By a person seeking legal advice”. So the words after “by”, the first “by” which reads as this: “Or by the representative of”, these words must be deleted so that the real rendition will be as this: “By a person seeking legal advice from the lawyer”. That should be the proper rendition.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    What about the next word that follows, “or”?
    Nii Adu Mante: Yes “or” is also be
    there.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    It should
    be there? So what you are saying is that “by or by the representative”-
    N i i A d u M a n t e : “ O r b y t h e
    representative of”
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    “Or by the representative of a person..”
    Nii Adu Mante: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that rather the words after the first “by” which reads “or by the representative of” be deleted.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    So it should be “by the representative of a person seeking legal advice from the lawyer”.
    Nii Adu Mante: So that it reads as follows: “By a person seeking legal advice from the lawyer or”. This should be it.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    So the
    words “all by representative of” should go?
    Nii Adu Mante: Should go.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Very
    well. Hon. Members that is the proposed amendment.
    Mr. Fuseni 2:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that
    the amendment suggested by Hon. Yieleh Chireh is only in tandem with the earlier rendition in sub clause (2) (a). And then it is intended to show that where a person by himself appears before for the purposes of this section, information comes to a lawyer in privilege circumstances if it is communicated or given to the lawyer by according to the amendment “by a person”, that is by himself “Or his representative”.
    Nii Adu Mante: (Not audible.)
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Speaker through the microphone.
    Nii Adu Mante: The following page; that is paragraph (c), then he will actually see the import of what I am saying and which reads as follows : “By a person in contemplation of”; so that the word “representative” here is out of place.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Hon. Chairman, there have been two early amendments. What he is saying is that he wants it to be consistent. The first one had been “by or by representative”. Now the second one, you are now seeking that “by the person or his representative”.
    Nii Adu Mante: Mr. Speaker, when
    you are reading a statute it should read it together not in isolation.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Fair enough.
    Nii Adu Mante: I am saying that sub paragraph (a) is seeking to add a client and by using the words “by a representative of a client”. The second, that is (b), you cannot insert the word “person” to read as
    follows: “A person or by representative of a person”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    I think you are absolutely right.
    Nii Adu Mante: That is not the intent. You will capture the intent when you read (c) which reads: “By a person in contemplation of or in connection with legal proceedings”. So what I am saying is -
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    That is quite different.
    Nii Adu Mante: So here, (b) should read as follows: “By a person seeking legal advice from the lawyer or by a person in contemplation”. These should be the rendition.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Now what do you say to that?
    Mr. Fuseni 2:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, in fact, it is true that when you are interpreting a statute you must look at the statute as a whole. Clause 169 (2) (a) talks of a “client”, “a client or his representative seeking legal advice…” 169 (2) (b) talks of “A person or his representative seeking legal advice..”. (c) talks of “A person in contemplation of or in connection with legalproceedings”.
    The two obviously, you are looking at different scenarios. But Mr. Speaker, the amendment is just seeking to say that where “a person by himself appears before Counsel or a lawyer” or where “a person has given authority to somebody to appear before Counsel for him”. Information that comes to the lawyer by the person himself appearing in person or by his representative on authority of that person is protected. That is what the Bill seeks to say.
    Nii Adu Mante: Mr. Speaker, you see how he was sweating to give meaning to this. Mr. Speaker, you cannot say “by a person or by the representative of a person”. All that I am saying is that the word “person” cannot fit into that space and that it should be dropped and that is the more reason why I am objecting to the insertion by hon. Yieleh Chireh and to have it read as follows: “By a person seeking legal advice from the lawyer”.

    Mr. Speaker, if you read the sub-section (1), you will get the import of what I am saying. So is sub-paragraph (2) the main clause. There is no need to add “a representative of a person”. There is no need.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:40 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I believe the intention of the Hon. Yieleh Chireh is to make what obtains in 2(a) more understandable and more reader friendly. That is why he introduced that. But indeed if we stuck with the original it will even still make sense because the point here is we are not only talking about the person seeking legal advice but we are talking about the representative of the persons seeking legal advice. In 2 (a) we are talking about not only the client but the representative of the client.
    Mr. Speaker, so that is the distinction
    and I think the point that my Colleague Chairman of the Committee, Hon. Nii Adu Darku Mante wants to make is that, if you said “by a person or the representative of a person” I mean the first use of the word person is not qualified. And then one may begin to think that that usage comes on its own and that is the issue that my Colleague is raising. It makes it undefined. So I thought that we could even leave what obtains here to stand along.
    If we said in 2 (a) for instance, and
    1723 28 Nov. 2006
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    So what
    should the rendition be?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:40 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, my own understanding my own proposition is that for 2(b), we write “by” and after by we introduce a comma or “by the representative of” another comma and then we have it covering the two people being talked about. Because the “by” then will qualify the person seeking legal advice and that will be Mr. Speaker, it is the way to go.
    Nii Adu Mante: Mr. Speaker, I
    totally disagree with my Colleague.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    You disagree. Very well.
    Nii Adu Mante: Mr. Speaker, the
    representative himself is a person.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Hon.
    Chairman, what I will advise is that; let us stand it down and then later one we come to that as well.
    Nii Adu Mante: Mr. Speaker, I have
    taken my time to look at this thing, over and over again.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Take
    your time and convince them after that we will put the question. We will move forward. I will not put the question on
    that particular subclause.
    Clause 170 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 171 -- 183
    Nii Adu Mante: Mr. Speaker, before
    you put the question, I would want to draw your attention to clause 169.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Clause 169 has been suspended so hold on.
    Nii Adu Mante: Mr. Speaker, the
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    No, I am saying that the whole clause has been suspended.
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Clause 171 -183 ordered to stand part
    of the Bill
    Clause 184 -- Insurance of commercial
    buildings
    Nii Adu Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg
    to move that clause 184, sub-clause (3), line 4, after “activity” delete “or”. It is a typographical error.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 184 as amended ordered to
    stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 185 ordered to stand part of
    the Bill.
    Clause 186 -- Object of the Fire
    Maintenance Fund
    Nii Adu Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg
    to move that, clause 186, line 3, delete “unwanted”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 186 as amended ordered to
    stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 187 -- Source of money for
    the Fund. Nii Adu Mante: Mr. Speaker, I
    beg to move that, Clause 187, delete and substitute the following:
    “The Commission Shall in consulation with the insurance assocations prescribe in the Regulations a percentage of the cross premium received by each direct insurer on policies issued in respect of commercial building under sections 183 (1) and 184 (1) to bve paid intot he Fire Maintenance Fund.”
    Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 2:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I support it but it will be useful if the Chairman explains the rationale behind this amendment.
    Nii Adu Mante: Mr. Speaker, the main
    reason for doing so is that we do not want to have the quantum of the premium as now specified under clause 187 here. But to have it in the regulation which may be fixed after consultations with the stakeholders in the business.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 187 as amended ordered to
    stand part of the Bill.
    2. 50 p.m.
    Clause 188 -- Management of the Fire
    Maintenance Fund
    Mr. Adu Mante 2:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg
    to move, that clause 188 -- subclause (1), line 2, delete “Board and substitute
    “Commission”
    Mr. Speaker, the word “Board” is out of place; and we have not established a Fire Service Board. So we are saying that the word “Commission” we should be the right word to be used.
    Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 2:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    believe when we come to “Commission” would be giving interpretation at the end of it to mean Fire Service Commission. With that I support it.
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:40 p.m.
    Mr. Spea-
    ker, I thought what we were establishing was the Insurance Commission to be the manager of the Fund and that is why the hon. Chairman is saying that we should delete the word “Board” and substitute it with the word “Commission”. But Mr. Speaker, if we go back to clause 3 where the Board is established, the governing body of the Commission is a Board; and I thought that now that we were making it a Commission, we would not be talking about the Board again. But the amendment being proposed, which we have glossed over on page 2 of the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, appears to be reinforcing this. “The governing body of the Commission is a Board”. How do we reconcile it?
    Mr. Yiele Chireh 2:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    think what the hon. Member is saying is that you can have the Commission or the Board but in this cas, it is more appropriate to say “the Commission”. There is no contradiction because any time that you mention Board, because of the Fund we are now establishing, you do not create the problem about whether there is a management committee or management board for the Fund. That is why it is referring to the Commission. There is no contradiction at all.
    1727 Insurance Bill -- 28 Nov. 2006 Con. Stage
    Mr. Adu Mante 2:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 188 subclause (2), delete “quarterly” so that the rendition will now read -- The contribution shall be paid to the Commission.
    Mr. Speaker, the form and manner of such payments will be determined in the regulations.
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Mr. Adu Mante 2:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg
    to move
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 188 as amended ordered to
    stand part of the Bill
    Clause 189 -- Conditions for providing
    grants from the Fund
    Mr. Adu Mante 2:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    beg to move, clause 188 subclause (3), line 1, delete “Board” and substitute “Commission and in lines 2 and 3, delete “by the Board”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Clause 189 as amended ordered to
    stand part of the Bill
    Clause 190 ordered to stand part of
    the Bill.
    Clause 191 -- Penalty for non
    compliance by an Insurer
    Mr. Adu Mante 2:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 189 line 1, delete “Board” and substitute “Commission”
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Clause 191 as amended ordered to
    stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 192 ordered to stand part of
    the Bill.
    Clause 193 -- Objec t o f the
    Compensation Fund
    Dr. Richard Anane 3 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    I beg to move, clause 191 -- delete “Commiss ione r” and subs t i t u t e “Commission” and delete “Board” and substitute “Commission”
    Mr. Speaker, the reason for asking for the complete deletion of subclause (c) is that in subclause (c) the sentiment expressed within it, which is that the Fund is to be used to create a rescue fund to protect clients in insurance companies that become bankrupt, does not really seem to capture the essence of the creation of the Motor Compensation Fund. We cannot use the creation of the Motor Compensation Fund to rescue clients who may be asking for premiums under fire, under life and under any other form of insurance. Mr. Speaker, because of this, I am also going to propose -- and which have been captured in the Order Paper -- new clauses to cater for the sentiments so expressed. When we reach those points I shall put across the argument which requires that we delete completely the subclause (c).

    Nii Adu Mante: Mr. Speaker, that paragraph, in fact, is out of place. That paragraph talks about the Rescue Fund when the subject matter talks about the Motor Compensation Fund. In fact and indeed we have proposed a new subclause and we shall deal with it later.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, before you put Question, there is another amendment in the name of hon. Appietu-Ankrah. If we could take that and then you take the vote on it. Otherwise, if
    1731 Insurance Bill -- 28 Nov. 2006 Con. Stage
    it loses out and it has to be reinstated, in a way it may create problems. If you could ask him to move it since it relates to the same subclause.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    But they have already said that the Rescue Fund is incongruous with that clause and for that matter we should forget about it.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, my own thinking is that even the construction; it says that, the fund is to be used to serve as a rescue fund. He limits the scope of the fund and that to me is wrong. That is why I thought that if he is here he could justify it. To me, it is really out of place.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Is he here. If he is here, we will continue.
    rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, he has asked me to canvass his view that this be retained as agreed, by the deletion of ©. It would appear it is serving the same purpose. So I am unable to kind o9f canvass, as it were.
    Mr. K. K. Mensah (on behalf of Mr. James Appietu-Ankra) 3 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 193, paragraph (c) delete and substitute the following:
    “Serve as rescue fund to protect motor insurance policyholders against insurance companies that become bankrupt.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 193 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 194 - Source of money for the
    1733 Insurance Bill -- 28 Nov. 2006 Con. Stage
    Dr. Anane 3 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 194 delete and substitute “This amount shall not exceed five (5) per cent of the gross premium received by each direct insurer on policies issued in respect of motor vehicles to be prescribed in the Regulations and shall be paid to the Commission for onward transmission into the Motor Compensation Fund”.
    Nii Adu Daku Mante: Mr. Speaker, I oppose this amendment.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Hon. Dr. Anane, since you would need some assistance, can you really convince the House by advancing the debate?
    Dr. Anane 3 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. Chairman is not opposed to the spirit behind the amendment. He is only worried about the rendition of the amendment which I think can always be catered for by the drafters. Mr. Speaker, we are asking for some quantum of money, in percentage terms, to be allocated through the Motor Compensation Fund for the purpose. But Mr. Speaker, we do not also want to leave it just like that to the discretion of the insurers as to what should be done. So what we are saying is that, yes, we do appreciate it could be constrained but as much as possible, they should ensure that at least not more than 5 per cent of the amount available - [Interruption]
    Mr. J.Y. Chireh 3 p.m.
    On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, if he deletes the entire clause, he cannot start his contribution by pegging this unless he wants to canvass that this should be subclause (2), an additional clause to save the situation. This is because that first part creates the condition for him now to say no, let us peg it.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Hon. Chireh, that is not a point of order. You were just drawing his attention to something else. But be it as it may I think
    it is to the rescue fund.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Hon. Chairman, what is your position on that?
    Dr. Anane 3 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, that was why I started by saying that the hon. Chairman is absolutely not against the amendment. The hon. Chairman, I know, would be more in favour of what hon. Chireh has said. I have no objection to it but I just would wish that we have a clause of this nature in order to ensure that some quantum of money is made available.
    Nii Adu Daku Mante: Mr. Speaker, I would take you slightly back to what we did at clause 187. The problem here is that no empirical studies have been done to know the exact quantum, so between now and the time regulations are made or they come out, these amounts for the quantum might have been determined. As he has rightly put it, a certain percentage should be prescribed I the regulation, but as of now, there is no empirical study to know whether or not the 5 per cent is sufficient or insufficient. Mr. Speaker, I am therefore saying that we leave this amendment out and find a place for it later in the regulation, by which time his Ministry or he himself and the stakeholders might have determined the quantum and placed same in the regulation.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    In principle you are not against it. Now, it is a question of fixing the quantum in terms of percentage. But how do you make room for that? The regulation is for the quantum to be determined but how do you provide that certain amounts should be set there because you have already deleted that earlier on in the creation of the Fund.
    Nii Adu Daku Mante: Mr. Speaker,
    1735 Insurance Bill -- 28 Nov. 2006 Con. Stage