Debates of 14 Mar 2007

MR. SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
Order! Order!
COMMUNICATION FROM THE 10 a.m.
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF 10 a.m.
REPRESENTATIVES, FEDERAL 10 a.m.
REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 10 a.m.
SPEAKER 10 a.m.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 10 a.m.
SPECIAL RESOLUTION ON 10 a.m.
THE GOLDEN JUBILEE OF 10 a.m.
CONGRATULATORY MESSAGE 10 a.m.
CORRECTION OF VOTES 10 a.m.
AND PROCEDINGS AND 10 a.m.
THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
Item 3 -- Questions. Hon. Minister for Local Government, Rural Development and Environment -- Hon. Majority Leader, is he in the House?
Minister for Parliamentary Affairs/ Majority Leader (Mr. F. K. Owusu- Adjapong) 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I was just looking for the hon. Minister. He is caught up in a meeting with some chiefs outside Accra.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
Is he likely to come?
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we are trying to find out if we can get any of the Deputies.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
We shall take item 5 on the Order Paper -- Laying of Papers -- (a) (i) -- Chairman of the Finance Committee.
Chairman of the Finance Committee (Nii Adu Daku Mante) 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, that report is not ready but we would lay it.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
It is deferred.
PAPERS 10 a.m.
-- 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Item 6 -- Polytechnics
Bill at the Consideration Stage. Hon. Majority Leader, are we ready to go on with the Polytechnics Bill at the Consideration Stage?
Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 10:10 a.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker; the hon. Minister is around, the hon. Chairman is around, the hon. Minority Leader is there and I think we have the team. This is a very important Bill and we must ensure that we complete whatever we need to do before we rise.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 10:10 a.m.
STAGE 10:10 a.m.
  • [Resumption of Consideration from 8/3/07]
    • Mr. S. K. B. Manu 10:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 2 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, I understand there is a second amendment to clause 2.
    Mr. Manu 10:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, on clause 2, I do not have any other amendment.
    Clause 5 -- Objects of a polytechnic.
    Mr. Manu 10:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, paragraph (a), after “provide” insert “skills development and”
    Alhaji Sumani Abukari 10:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    the hon. Chairman said that on clause 2, he had no amendment; but earlier on we were given the impression that the whole clause was being deleted and we were
    not even told why it was being deleted. Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is enough to come to the House to say delete this clause without telling us why it should be deleted. Now, he says again that there is no amendment on it; so we do not know where we stand really.
    Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
    I t seems he has completely deleted that clause 2.
    Alhaji Abukari 10:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, he has not told us why, and I do not see why they should delete it, really.
    Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
    You may raise this matter later as we have voted on this matter. Let us go on to clause 5.
    Nii Adu Mante: Mr. Speaker, if you take a close look at clause 5(b) you would find “skills development”; and I do not see the reason why he wants the same phrase to be captured in 5(b) since it has already been taken care of in 5(b). That would be duplication.
    Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
    Are you opposing the amendment?
    Nii Adu Mante: That is so, Mr. Speaker.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 10:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    I am sorry about this. Probably, the hon. Chairman may withdraw the amendment. I think we had a discussion yesterday and it was a question of placement. I am sure it is an oversight because I also made the same observation. So he could withdraw the amendment in respect of the insertion of “skills development” as is provided for in clause 5(b).
    Mr. Manu 10:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it was an oversight. In fact, it is captured under clause 5(b) so needless should it be in (a). The amendment is hereby withdrawn.

    Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 6 -- Powers of a polytechnic.
    Mr. Manu 10:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,
    clause 6, paragraph (b), line 1, delete “degrees” and substitute “technology- based approved degrees accredited by the National Accreditation Board”
    Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I want to crave your indulgence to take the House back to yesterday's Order Paper. There is supposed to be an amendment on clause 6(a) but that amendment has not been captured in today's Order Paper. So I do not know whether after the hon. Chairman has gone through the (b) we can come back to the (a).
    Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
    We shall come back to it, but in the meantime let us take (b).
    Mr. A. S. K. Bagbin 10:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think I have to oppose this amendment because once we granted the power to the polytechnics to award degrees and our interest is in looking at technology, it means that the polytechnics can only award technology-based degrees. But we know the polytechnics do more than the area concerned with technology. They do other courses like business, commerce, marketing and the rest.

    Mr. Speaker, that is what is on the Order Paper and that was what was to be put to the House; and he did not in his amendment ask for the deletion of any

    of the words proposed in the amendment So there are two grounds on which I am opposing it. The first is that we pursue courses beyond technology; we pursue other courses that are not technology- based; and two, the fact that the wording of the proposed amendment itself is not correct, is not elegant and that you should rephrase it, even if we are to accept the proposed amendment.
    Mr. Manu 10:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I defer to hon. Adjei-Darko who has a very good rendition of this clause. We have looked at it together.
    Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I also raised the same concern raised by the hon. Minority Leader because we should not exclude other programmes being run at the diploma level by the polytechnics now which may not be technology-based.
    So perhaps, instead of “technology- based,” we can have “technical and vocational degrees accredited by the National Accreditation Board” so that all vocational subjects like the business subjects they are doing, the catering, and so on, can well be captured for if we want to run degree programmes.
    Mr. Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I want to support the position of the hon. Minority Leader. Mr. Speaker, when the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology was set up in Kumasi, it was purposely to pursue science and technology courses.
    Mr. Speaker, it is the foremost institution that offers courses in Art. One would ask, what is scientific about Art? Today, they are pursuing courses in Law and other Arts courses. So if we should restrict them in their awards of degrees and certificates to just some narrow confines,
    it would not be in their interest. We do know what they are supposed to do. But if in pursuit of the agenda set for them they find it convenient or it becomes necessary for them, there is nothing wrong with that.
    So we cannot restrict them to this narrow trajectory of technology-based courses, and so on. We know what their agenda is; let them award the degrees that they find relevant pursuant to the agenda set for them Mr. Speaker, so I would want to support the position of the Minority Leader. I do not think that we should tie their hands this way.
    Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:20 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with polytechnics and we do not have to create a situation where after a decade we would have polytechnics behaving like any other university, running all programmes; and they may even relegate the technology-based degrees and vocational courses to the background.
    Then, we would have to come back as a nation and start going through technical and vocational education again. That is why the emphasis should be on specific degrees. After all, there is a wide range of degrees in the technical and vocational areas. Should we give room for polytechnics to start running political science, sociology, and so on?
    Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 10:20 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we need to be very careful how we limit what institutions of higher learning can do. Mr. Speaker, when we all were told that Cape Coast was going to be established, the impression was that it was for teachers. Now, we have former students who are leading personalities, who are Chief Executives of non-teaching organizations and they are performing very well in their areas of endeavour. Mr. Speaker,
    Mr. Bagbin 10:20 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, just to add that even if you look at clause 5 which talks about the objects of a polytechnic, it says:
    “. . . provide tertiary education in the fields of manufacturing, commerce, science, technology, applied social science, applied arts and any other field approved of by the Minister.”
    So Mr. Speaker, we have gone far beyond just technology. Why are we now restricting them to only awarding technology-based degrees? I think that I am totally in support of liberation, where we allow the Councils with the availability of resources, to determine what sort of courses we can pursue in our institutions of higher learning, and not to use legislation to restrict the confines of the tertiary institutions.
    Mr. Akwasi Osei-Adjei 10:20 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think we should oppose this amendment because what we seek to do is to expand tertiary education, and it is up to the management board or the council to come up with modern technology-based science or applied sciences so that we can get our pupils well educated. This is the essence of it. If we restrict in this way, as has been done, it means the Council's hands will be tied - choosing certain subjects which might not be necessary at that moment. So Mr. Speaker, I think we should oppose this and make it “degrees” as it is now.
    Prof. Dominic Fobih 10:20 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I tend to disagree with the view that we should have an unrestricted qualification for the type of degrees that should be awarded by the polytechnics.
    In the first instance, polytechnics are created to fill certain vacuums which are normally not filled by the traditional universities. Therefore, even the diplomas
    they award, there are restrictions in types of programmes they can run. So they may probably run degree courses such as Applied Arts, Applied Social Sciences, and so on; which means these are related to vocational and technical programmes.
    Therefore, I would rather support the view that for the polytechnics to have a focus which is the purpose of their establishment, we should maintain, perhaps, vocational and technical-related degrees so that they cater for the focus we want them to fulfil.
    Mr. Manu 10:20 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am all for what the hon. Minister for Lands, Forestry and Mines has said. Mr. Speaker, polytechnics have been in existence for sometime now. They have been performing their functions; why has it become necessary now to enact a law to guide them? It is because if you read the Preamble, we are giving them an orientation that will lead them to produce the manpower that this nation needs in the fields of technology, vocational and technical areas -- [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
    Hon. Minority Leader, do you have a point of Order?
    Mr. Bagbin 10:20 a.m.
    That is so, Mr. Speaker. He is giving the impression that we are now enacting a law for polytechnics; but we have always enacted laws. In fact, the PNDCL 321 was the law governing the establishment of polytechnics. It is that law that is being revised.
    So when he makes a statement like how come that we are now enacting a law for polytechnics that have been in existence all the time, it is like they have had no law governing them; and that is wrong. He is misleading the public.
    Mr. Manu 10:20 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, when he was reading his Law, I was not there. So he cannot bring law to cheat me here. What I am saying is that we are making a law. Are we not enacting a law now? We are enacting a law.
    Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
    Hon. Member, go on with your submission.
    Mr. Manu 10:30 a.m.
    Allright, let me say we are relooking at the law that governs polytechnics; and in relooking at the law, we are giving them a focus. We are giving polytechnics a focus within which they should operate. So we cannot just leave polytechnics like the traditional universities where, if we are not careful, tomorrow you would hear a polytechnic awarding degrees in History.

    Mr. Speaker, polytechnics by their nature and focus should award degrees that will be technical oriented, that will be vocational oriented, to fill the vacuum that our jobs and industrial markets are now lacking. If it were not so, why should we be relooking at the law now? So I am all for what the hon. Minister said. We should give them a scope within which they should operate. We should not just leave it for them to run any courses at all. They must be given an area within which they should operate.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 10:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I have noted the arguments advanced on the floor of this House, for and against the proposed amendment. But Mr. Speaker, law is also a tool for social engineering. And the object of this Bill is really to let the focus of the polytechnics be to provide higher level technical and vocational education. That is the purpose of polytechnics. Within the Education Strategic Plan, we would want to place
    Mr. Owusu-Adjapong 10:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, may I crave your indulgence to remind my hon. Colleagues of some two paragraphs in the memorandum. And with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I quote part of paragraph one:
    “. . . The existence of our poly- technics and the programmes they offer have over the years been plagued with many problems inc luding the p lacement of polytechnic graduates in employ- ment vis-a-vis their collea-gues from the universities.
    The Bi l l seeks to empower Polytechnic Councils to support the government education reform efforts and also solve the problems which constrain polytechnic education and hinder development in the country.”
    Mr. Speaker, when we look at the Bill itself, clause 6 (b), “award degrees subject …”; and the important portion is, “. . . subject to the conditions that the Council of that polytechnic may determine.”
    We seem to be playing the role of the Councils now. If we are now going to tell them that tomorrow read degree in this and that, then what is the usefulness of the Council? It is for that reason that this is there.

    Mr. Speaker, there is enough control here. Again, the funding procedure. You may decide that because you want more of skill-based people, therefore you are offering more scholarships there, like Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah. At a point in time he said that he wanted to ensure that we had more science and technology people.

    So if you go to the University of Ghana, Legon and you are reading history, you will get sixty cedis per year and when you are doing the science-based courses, one hundred and sixty cedis per year. So when you take the half allowance, it is almost twice what you can get at Legon. These are all there. Therefore, why should we come

    here and behave as though we are now making what will look like a legislative instrument to a Bill being prepared by us? If that is the case, then we should remove the clause that is saying that we are going to have a Council.

    Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that there is enough restriction in clause 6 (b) which ensures that competent members of the Council will provide guidelines to the academic authorities as to what is relevant under the circumstances.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, further to the argument which has been eloquently addressed by the hon. Majority Leader, I will address the provisions in clause 5 (a). Clause 5 (a) also says the objects of a polytechnic are to provide tertiary education in the fields of manufacturing, commerce, science, technology, applied social science, applied arts -- and of much more relevance -- and any other field approved of by the Minister.
    Mr. Speaker, if we should tie the hands of the polytechnics, it should determine which other fields that the Minister can even approve of. Mr. Speaker, what other fields are we talking about to be approved of by the Minister? So Mr. Speaker, this is a very dangerous amendment that is not good for the health of the Bill itself. Mr. Speaker, it should be jettisoned and we should not waste further time on this.
    Dr. A. A. Osei 10:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I will say very little. The amendment talks about technology-based degrees. Mr. Speaker, in this day and age, everything is technology-based, so I do not know why they are offering this type of amendment. Mr. Speaker, let us think about it seriously. The best universities, as he said, in the United States of America and the United
    Kingdom are polytechnics - MIT, et cetera. But the most important point here is that there is a council whose competence is such that it can determine what should be done. So Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think the Chairman should withdraw the amendment so that we move on.
    Mr. Yaw Osafo-Maafo 10:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, this amendment is absolutely un-necessary. In this day and age, if you are talking about tertiary education, you are also talking about a broad-based selection based on time. In the year 2030, the Council would determine which direction these polytechnics should go. So you cannot just tie their hands in the law on specificity.
    As my Colleague, the Deputy Minister for Finance and Economic Planning said, “technology-based approved degree” itself has a problem. What is technology- based? Today, “technology-based” may be something else -- [Interruption] -- Well, this is technology-based. That was what he said.
    So Mr. Speaker, I think Parliament would do well not to tie the hands of the Councils and the Ministry; let us leave these things to develop naturally within our environment. If we decide that in fact our polytechnics should only concentrate on agriculture, so be it. So why do we want to go this way? I completely agree with the Majority Leader that this amendment is absolutely unnecessary.
    Mr. Speaker 10:30 a.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, the ball is in your court now.
    Mr. Manu 10:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the final word on this. Mr. Speaker, having listened to the various arguments, I am tempted to believe that if you look at clause 5 (a) critically, what we want to do is even stated there. The areas that the degrees can cover are there. The amendment is therefore withdrawn.
    Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's Order Paper, there was supposed to be an amendment to clause 6 (a) but it is not captured in today's Order Paper. Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I want the amendment to be moved.
    Mr. Manu 10:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I have no objection.
    Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
    Then move the amendment; it was standing in your name.
    Mr. Manu 10:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, since the hon. Member has the Order Paper, if it would not be against the rules, could he move it.
    Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
    Hon. Member for Sunyani West, please go ahead.
    Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I would move it except that I would further amend that amendment because on the Order Paper the Committee is proposing that paragraph (a) -- [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
    Hon. Member, then I would suggest you hand it over to him to move it properly; then you may come in with your amendment.
    Mr. Manu 10:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 6, paragraph (a), line 2, delete “with” and substitute “provided that the programme is approved by the National Council for Tertiary Education and accredited by”.
    Mr. Speaker, I wish to amend this amendment further.
    Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
    Chairman, go on with

    your own amendment first.
    Mr. Manu 10:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, my further amendment is to replace the “National Council for Tertiary Education” with the “National Accreditation Board”.
    Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it looks as if the Chairman has captured the further amendment that I was going to move because originally, they wanted us to bring in National Council for Tertiary Education; but if you look at the Act for National Council for Tertiary Education, it is purely an advisory body to the Minister. And so they should not be involved in deciding what type of degrees, and so on, should be run.
    More so, if you look at the rendition in the Bill itself - “award Higher National Diplomas, diplomas and other certificates agreed on by its Council with the National Accreditation Board”. It means the National Accreditation Board is being given the power to be part of the decision- making, but that is not the function of the National Accreditation Board.
    Further, they are talking about National Board for Technician and Professional Examinations when examination bodies do not have any say as to what programmes institutions should run. Institutions should only run and then the examination bodies will examine according to the syllabuses given to them. So I want to support the further amendment that the Chairman of the Committee moved.
    Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
    In other words, you do not have any further amendment?
    Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    exactly because the Chairman has captured it.
    Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
    Hon. Members, the amendment is that paragraph (a), line 2,
    delete “with” and substitute “ provided that the programme is approved by the National Accreditation Board”. Chairman of the Committee, that is your amendment, is that not it?
    Mr. Manu 10:40 a.m.
    That is so, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we listened to the hon. Member for Sunyani West and it seems to me that he was canvassing the idea that we should not even include the National Board for Technician and Professional Examination, if I got him right.
    Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
    He said he is not proposing any amendment. So this is the only amendment they have.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is saying that the National Board for Technician and Professional Examination should not be included, if I heard him right; and the amendment being moved by my hon. Colleague, the hon. Member for Ahafo- Ano South (Mr. S. K. B. Manu) is that we delete only the word “with” and in its place substitute what he added, which would mean the retention of lines 2 and 3. So it is a bit confusing and that is why I am saying that there should be greater clarity in what they are stating to us.
    Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I want it to read “award Higher National Diplomas, diplomas and other certificates agreed on by its Council and accredited by National Accreditation Board”. That is how it should be.
    Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
    Hon. Member for Sunyani West, would you be kind enough to formulate the amendment.
    Mr. Adjei-Darko 10:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, then
    the amendment should be “paragraph (a), line 2, after “Council” delete all and substitute “provided that the programme is approved by the Council and accredited by the National Accreditation Board”. [Interruptions] -- I said after its “Council”. delete all and then substitute “provided that the programme is approved by the National Accreditation Board.”
    Mr. Bagbin 10:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I agree that 6 (a) be amended but not in the form that is being proposed. Mr. Speaker, the proposal is that the award can be done on the diplomas and certificates as agreed on by the Council provided they are approved by the National Accreditation Board.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that that is not correct. They should be permitted to award these things approved by the National Accreditation Board. If they are approved by the National Accreditation Board, are we saying that the Council can disagree with them? Would they have to accept the agreement of the Council after they have been approved by the National Accreditation Board?
    I believe that if those Higher National Diplomas, diplomas and certificates are approved by the National Accreditation Board, then it stands to reason that they can be awarded by the Council. [Interruptions.] But he is now adding “agreed” which means that you need the Council to also agree; and I am saying we do not need it. It says that “award Higher National Diplomas, diplomas and other certificates agreed on by its Council provided that they are approved by the National Accreditation Board” which means that the agreement of the Council is also of essence. But I think that once they are approved by the National Accreditation Board, the Council can award them.
    Mr. Osafo-Maafo 10:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think we must get the procedure right. Before you go to the National Accreditation Board to apply for accreditation for a programme/course, it would have been approved by the Council. The university would decide that they would want to do medicine; the Council would have gone through the motion and agreed that they want to do medicine as the University of Cape Coast did last year.
    Then they will be advised to go to the National Accreditation Board for accreditation, and therefore the approval of the Council is implied. Without the approval of the Council, who is going to apply to the Accreditation Board? So it is assumed that the approval one is actually seeking is now with the Accreditation Board, because one can only go to them when the Council has approved a programme. I think we must get it very clearly.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 10:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the rendition in the Bill, probably at the time, was intended to be a consultative process between the Council and the National Accreditation Board and the National Board for Technician Examination. However, that is not right. It is the Accreditation Board that accredits the programme, on the application of the tertiary institution, after the processes have been gone through by the relevant authorities within the institution. So the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Sunyani West ought to be accepted, as supported by the Minority Leader. And if my understanding is right, then a polytechnic may award a Higher National Diploma, diplomas and other certificates accredited by the National Accreditation Board. That is what I am saying.
    Mr. Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, final word from you on that.
    Mr. Manu 10:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the final word is that the rendition by the Minister is acceptable to the Chairman.
    Mr. Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    For the purposes of the records, let us have it; please go ahead with it.
    Mr. Manu 10:50 a.m.
    The rendition should be --
    “A polytechnic may award Higher National Diplomas, diplomas and other certificates accredited by the National Accreditation Board.”
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr. Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    Do you have any further amendment to clause 6; Chairman?
    Mr. Manu 10:50 a.m.
    No, Mr. Speaker.
    Clause 6 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 7 -- Governing body of a polytechnic.
    Mr. Manu 10:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 7, subclause (1), paragraph (j), delete and substitute “one representative of a relevant professional body determined by the Minister”.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, can the Chairman provide us with some justification for it?
    Mr. Manu 10:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I thought it was clear. Mr. Speaker, if you look at (j) it says - “one representative of the Ghana Institute of Engineers”.
    Mr. Speaker, if you put it this way,
    then other relevant professional bodies may have problem with representation. So in order not to create that problem for the professional bodies, we leave it to the discretion of the Minister who in his own wisdom and in accordance with which course is being run in which polytechnic would designate the representation - identify which relevant professional body is to be represented.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    There is a further amendment.
    Mr. Manu 10:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg move, clause 7, subclause (1), paragraph (m), delete and substitute “two other persons one of whom is a woman”.
    Mr. Speaker, this is to take care of the
    gender role in our development. There are women who are known to be doing well in industry and if this is not stated it may be glossed over. So in order for the women to be represented, we are saying “two persons, one of whom shall be a woman or is a woman”.
    Alhaji M. A. Yakubu 10:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    there is nothing that prevents those two people from being women. But the way it has been put here -- mandatory -- only one must be a woman; but those persons could be women. Therefore, it is better to say, “at least one of whom is a woman”.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it is not for nothing that the number for governing bodies is always an odd one. What we have here makes the number 13 -- it adds up to 13 -- but this new addition brings the figure to 14, an even number. So we should look at that.
    Mr. F. A. Agbotse 10:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am wondering at ‘woman' simpliciter. Would a woman not have some qualification? A woman who would be appointed; should she just be a woman? We are talking of polytechnic education.
    Mr. J. Y. Chireh 10:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think I will go along with the amendment but I would support the position of the Deputy Speaker (Alhaji M. A. Yakubu) in terms of saying that it is at least one woman. Because, if you just make it “one of whom is a woman”, it limits it and I think that it should be two, with at least one as a woman.
    Now about qualification, we have women who are very competent and are in the polytechnics already lecturing so we do not have any problem at all getting them. So this amendment should be supported with a further amendment if the hon. Member who moved the amendment agrees.
    Mr. Bagbin 11 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I also identified the problem articulated by the Majority Chief Whip. I believe it is important that we look at the numbers. Unless we want to give a casting vote to the Chairperson, to have an even number in a Council or a Board sometimes leads to problems in decision-taking; and in those situations we have to give a casting vote. But there is no intention to give a casting vote here and therefore we have to get an odd number for the Council. So Mr. Speaker, I think that the proposal to increase the ‘other persons' to three, at least two of whom should be women, will be more acceptable to me. So now we will get a Council of fifteen members, and in the fifteen members we are sure that at least two will be women, and not one.

    So I will propose an amendment that “. . . three other persons at least two of whom should be women”.
    Mr. Adjei-Darko 11 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it
    looks as if the confusion about numbers is coming in because in the earlier amendments which were advertised even on 5th March 2007, the Committee said we should delete 7; and then it came out with a new 7 which listed all members and excluded one representative of Ghana Employers Association. That was the Committee's composition.
    So if the Ghana Employers Association was deleted then two representatives or two people at least one of whom shall be a woman will still give us the odd number. But I do not know why now the whole thing has changed because in earlier advertisements on the Order Paper and the Committee's Report we were supposed to delete Ghana Employer's Association so that we may not have to add to make it three. So we could still have our two and have our odd number.
    Mr. Osafo-Maafo 11 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we
    must be mindful of the size of these Boards. The bigger they are the more confusion we have. I think that the original framers in thinking about thirteen -- we should find a way of retaining the thirteen. Adding the two to make it fourteen gave a problem of this even and odd numbers - therefore simpliciter, that addition should be a woman so that the original one should stand. Because what we are trying to do is that if we add two, it becomes fourteen and then we must try to fiddle with some of the positions and make it fifteen.
    Mr. Speaker, thirteen is about large enough. For councils like this nine is about the best. So thirteen is large enough
    and I therefore would say that that last representation should be left as it is in the original Bill. The chances of those institutions bringing women are very bright and therefore this was thought through and I think that we should leave it as it stands.
    Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
    In other words, you are
    opposing this amendment.
    Mr. Osafo-Maafo 11 a.m.
    Completely. I
    am opposing the amendment. It is not necessary because it introduces the element of this fourteen - this issue of even and odd numbers; and what the Majority Chief Whip said is very relevant. You do not want to give a casting vote to a chairperson. It is not our practice in this Parliament and therefore we should allow it to stand as it is. The last person should be a woman and then we can have a Council or a Board of thirteen and there is no problem.
    Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
    Chairman of the
    Committee, what do you say to that?
    rose
    Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
    Minister for Education,
    Science and Sports, what do you say to that?
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    I indicated that there was no need for any amendment to the list of persons represented in the original Bill. So I agree to “one person who shall be a woman”. That is more than enough.
    Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
    Chairman of the
    Committee, are you abandoning this amendment now?
    Mr. Manu 11 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I abandon the
    amendment and will want to retain what is originally stated on the Bill.
    rose
    Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
    Hon. Majority Chief
    Whip, are you introducing another amendment?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11 a.m.
    No, Mr.
    Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
    My understanding is that
    the amendment to (v) has been abandoned. That is it.
    Mr. Bagbin 11 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if the House
    is minded to accept the numbers as we have, I still feel that 7 (1) (m) needs some rendition. I am not comfortable with language like “one other person who is a woman.” Mr. Speaker, this is a kind of much ado about nothing - verbose language - one other person who is a woman -- [laughter].
    Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
    Minority Leader, you
    are agreeable with what is there but your problem is with the rendition.
    Mr. Bagbin 11 a.m.
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
    Then we will leave it
    to the draftsperson. You have made your point.
    Amendment (vi), it is in the name of
    hon. Member for Tamale South.
    Mr. Joseph Yieleh Chireh 11 a.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, he has asked me to move the amendment. He is on his way here. I beg to move that this Governing Body recruits one representative of the National Council
    for Tertiary Education (NCTE).
    If you look at this body as it is constituted now, the Tertiary Education Council is not represented and that is why we urge that this amendment be made to include them because they have a key role in the functioning of polytechnics. I therefore move.
    Mr. Manu 11 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I oppose
    the amendment. We have just struggled to come up with the thirteen. If we should accept his amendment for any reason, we shall now come back to fourteen and still struggle to come to an odd number of thirteen or fifteen. For that very reason, I oppose the amendment.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11 a.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I am opposed to this amendment. Indeed, the National Council for Tertiary Education is to advise the Minister on the development institutions of tertiary education in Ghana and to make enquiry into financial needs of the institutions. It is not necessary for that institution to be represented on the Governing Council of the polytechnics. It is not necessary.
    Mr. Chireh 11 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, with your
    permission I will withdraw the amendment.

    Clause 7 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 8 -- Functions of a Council.

    11. 10 a.m.
    Mr. Manu 11 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, paragraph (h), line 2, delete “institute” and substitute “institution”
    Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of language.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Manu 11 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 8, paragraph (f,) delete and substitute the following: “regulate the appointment and determine the conditions of service of the Rector, the Vice Rector, lecturers and other members of staff”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr Akoto Osei. 11 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, what does “regulate the appointment mean”? Mr. Speaker, there is something innocuous about that language - regulate the appointment”, what does that mean? We have to be careful; we are passing a law that we do not understand. “Regulate the appointment”; how do you regulate the appointment? There is something wrong with the language there, obviously.
    Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
    We shall come back to it but in the meantime, let us deal with (ix).
    Mr. Manu 11 a.m.
    I will come back to that. As Mr. Speaker has said, we will move ahead to deal with the next amendment.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, add the following new paragraph 11 a.m.
    “determine appropriate tertiary programme of the Polytechnic”.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11 a.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, (j) is omnibus submission and it takes care of the amendment being suggested by my hon. Colleagues. So I believe that he had better withdraw and we move on.
    Mr. Manu 11 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think I would agree with him and withdraw the amendment, it is withdrawn, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, having dealt with (a) to (j), in

    all the provisions we have used the word “polytechnic”. Mr. Speaker, I cannot comprehend the employ of the word “institution” in (h). I thought that we would have used the word “polytechnic” for consistency, because it is the word that we have used throughout.
    Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
    Which paragraph are you referring to?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, clause 8(h).
    Mr. Manu 11 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I do not have any problem with that. The institution we have in mind is the polytechnic, so if we shall say “polytechnic” to avoid the question of doubt, I think it is all right.
    Mr. Bagbin 11 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am not opposing what they are saying but I think according to our procedure this is not the proper time to try to move another motion to amend a decision that we have already taken. We have taken a decision proposed by the hon. Chairman by deleting “institute” and substituting it with “institution”.
    Now, we are at a different clause, even though it is a subclause of clause 8, we cannot now be taking over surreptitiously to go and amend the decision that we have taken. I think they can come properly and let us all accept it.
    Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 11 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, add the following new paragraphs:
    “ ( a ) R e g u l a t e t h e appointment, conditions of service, termi- nation of appointment and retirement benefits of the staff of the institution
    ( b ) K e e p i n g t h e s e a l o f the Polytechnic in proper
    custody and ensuring that the seal is used only by authority of the Council
    (c) Ensure the implementation and achievements of the objects of the Polytechnic.”.
    Mr. Speaker, given that this House has already approved something in relation to conditions of service, I rather would want to move the amendment in respect of the paragraphs (b) and (c). When we have the opportunity to come back to what hon. Dr. Akoto Osei raised, then I believe the rendition here would be much more elegant than what the House approved. Mr. Speaker, those must be core functions of the Council.
    Mr. Adjei-Darko 11 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment except that for proper rendition, if we read the whole clause 8 -- “The Council of a polytechnic has general control over the efficient management and policies of the polytechnic and shall….” So one cannot say “shall keeping” but “shall keep” and then “ensure”; so “ensuring” should be “ensure” and “keeping” should be “keep”.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am not too comfortable with this new rendition and I thought that we should really not concern ourselves with this. Mr. Speaker, how can we trust the Council to keep the seal of the polytechnic? I believe this is a very incongruous kind of provision and we should not busy the Council with this duty. Maybe, we should find another place for it but certainly not in the bosom of the Council.
    Mr. H. Iddrisu 11 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I may wish to withdraw it but the understanding that I have if we were looking at it as a tertiary institution like the universities is that it is not out of place. Indeed, it is part of the functions of the Council of any university to keep the seal. But without trying to hold this House to ransom - Also
    much of the amendment, if we want, is just that I came in late.
    If you read the book edited by Prof. Henrietta Mensah-Bonsu and Mr. Paul Effah on the functions of the “Governing Council”, this is their recommendation and I thought that it could help our process of law making. But I beg to withdraw that and maintain the last one as a new paragraph.
    Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
    So you have only one amendment, as it were?
    Mr. H. Iddrisu 11 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, rightly so -- ensuring the implementation and achievements of the objects of the polytechnics.
    Dr. A. A. Osei 11 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, as a non- lawyer, I do not know how lawyers understand the English language but “ensure the implementation and achievements of the objects . . .” Is it the ‘achievement' or ‘achievements' of the objects? It does not sound as proper language. I think the word “achieve- ments” should be “achievement”.
    Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
    Hon. Member for Tamale
    South, there seems to be a problem with that. Maybe, you may wish to withdraw the entire thing.
    Mr. Bagbin 11 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think the Council might have to concern itself with making sure that the objects of the polytechnics are implemented. So I think this proposal is to ensure the implementation of the objects of the polytechnics; the Council is to ensure the implementation of the objects of the polytechnics and not “. . . achievements of the objects”.
    They should ensure the implementation of the objects of the polytechnics, that would be very relevant and very important, because it would now draw the attention of the Council to making sure that what

    it is tasked to achieve as an institution or as a polytechnic is achieved. So that can be put there because I do not see anything wrong with adding this to the functions of the Council.
    Dr. A. A. Osei 11 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment by the hon. Minority Leader, I think it is very important that we keep them in line.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:20 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    adding this one may not do any harm but it is really not necessary. It is really not necessary. If we look at the functions of the Council, as stated in clause 8, they are all designed towards pursuing the objectives of the polytechnic. And then we have (j) which says, “perform any other functions that are ancillary to the objects of that polytechnic”. To introduce a new clause to say that “… ensure the implementation of the objects of the polytechnic”, to me, is adding more language that would not even enrich the clause.
    So I believe that this amendment should be withdrawn. Probably, it is being introduced for the purpose of emphasis but it is already embodied in clause 8.
    Mr. Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    Hon. Member for
    Tamale South, what do you say to that?
    Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 11:20 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    I would rather go with the amended version of it which was given by the Minority Leader. Mr. Speaker, that should be the primary responsibility of the Council - ensuring that the objects of the polytechnics as captured under clause 5 are achieved. I think that I would want to proceed further with this amendment. You may go ahead to put the Question.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, the purpose of these objects is really to ensure efficient management and policies of the polytechnics and it is appropriately captured in clause 8 - “The Council of a polytechnic has general control over the efficient management and policies of the polytechnic.” Mr. Speaker, that is why the last point says, “and shall perform any other functions that are ancillary to the objects of that polytechnic”.
    So Mr. Speaker, I do not see why we should be splitting hairs on this. However, if the mover of the amendment insists, then perhaps we can even conjoin it to (j) -- “ensure the implementation of the objects of the polytechnic and perform any other functions that are ancillary to objects of that polytechnic,” if indeed we could have it there. But Mr. Speaker, I do not think that it is necessary because it is captured in the opening paragraph of clause 8 and really, I believe it is a distinction without a difference.
    Mr. Manu 11:20 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if we read
    clause 8, by the end of the clause we would have had what he is trying to put in one sentence. If we read 8(b) it says, “The Council shall determine the overall educational mission and programmes for the furtherance of that polytechnic's object.” It is embedded in here. The hon. Member for Tamale South in proposing this amendment, I can see, is only engaging in obscurantist verbosity and should not be entertained.
    Mr. Bagbin 11:20 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, they are
    speaking about different things altogether. The (b) says, “determine the overall” -- determine. What we are talking about is ensuring implementation. They are not the same. The (b) is to determine the overall educational mission and programmes. We are now talking about implementing the objects. Determination is not the same as
    implementation. Clause 8 says that
    “The Council of a polytechnic has general control over the efficient management and policies of the polytechnic.”
    Management and policies are different from objects. The management and policies are meant to achieve objects because we carve out policies and programmes and we manage them in order to achieve our objective.
    Now, what we are proposing is to make sure that they ensure that those objectives are implemented and that, I do not think, is captured by any of the subclauses. And that should come before (j), because (j) is dealing with other things ancillary to the objects, not the objects. So the proposal should come before (j).
    Mr. Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    Let us have your
    amendment.
    Mr. Bagbin 11:20 a.m.
    So Mr. Speaker, the
    proposal is to insert at an appropriate place, under clause 8, an amendment as follows: “Ensure the implementation of the objects of the polytechnic.”
    Mr. Manu 11:20 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think we can accommodate the amendment. I have no problem with that.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 8 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clause 9 -- Tenure of office of members
    of a Council.
    Mr. Chireh 11:20 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 9, subclause (4), delete.
    Mr. Speaker, if one looks at subclause
    (2) of the same clause -- and with your
    permission, I read:
    “Where a member of a Council, other than the Rector and an ex officio member resigns, dies, is removed from office and is for sufficient reason unable to act as a member, the chairperson of the Council shall through the Minister notify the President of the vacancy and the President shall, acting on the advice of the nominating authority and in consultation with the Council of State appoint another person to hold office for the unexpired portion of the member's term of office.”
    Now this sufficiently takes care of all those who for whatever reason would not be able to function as Council members.
    If we come to subclause (4),, there
    is an abnormality there. There the Council itself shall appoint -- when it is indeed the President who should appoint in accordance with article 70 of the Constitution. That is already a flaw. Then we are also encouraging a 13-member Council of decision-makers that one member being absent for a long time -- that nominating body must decide whether that person's long absence needs to be that or they should be represented. So I think that the whole clause is a new addition to our law-making and we should delete it.
    Adjei-Darko: Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment. Mr. Speaker, if you read the amendment it says, ‘temporarily absent' so it presupposes that the person may come back. So what happens to the person who was appointed by the Council to replace the member who was temporarily absent?
    As also argued out, if we look at clause 7, (2) the appointments are done by the President so we do not have to give the power to the Council to appoint a member to replace somebody. Even clause 10(3)
    Mr. Osafo-Maafo 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment is absolutely in order. Clause 9(2) is strong enough to take care of absenteeism, no matter the nature of it. And if it becomes necessary, the appointing authority is the President. This thing will create problems in the final analysis, so let us delete it and let the power reside in clause 9(2). This is because the word “temporarily” there is even uncomfortable. Who determines the temporary nature of the absenteeism?
    In any case, the most important thing is that if they have a quorum to perform their job, the absence of one person should not hinder the work of the Council.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Manu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I was up but I could not catch your eye before you put the Question.
    Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Go on.
    Mr. Manu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, thank you. Mr. Speaker, if you read the whole of clause 9(2) well -- [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Are you proposing an amendment to clause 9(2)?
    Mr. Manu 11:30 a.m.
    Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, “Where a member of a Council other than the Rector and an ex officio member resigns, dies, is removed from office”, we have “and” -- I propose that we delete “and” and substitute it with “or” -- “or is for sufficient reason unable to . . .” -- Yes, it is a matter of language.
    So instead of “and”, it should be “or”. And then subclause (5) of the same
    Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Hon. Chairman, let us vote on that.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Yes, continue with subclause (5).
    Mr. Manu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, clause 9, subclause (5), “A member of a Council who is absent from the country for a continuous period of twelve months, ceases to be a member.” What about if the person is not out of the country, but does not attend meetings for twelve months?
    So I propose that we delete the words “the country” and substitute them with “meetings” so that it will read,
    “A member of a Council who is absent from meetings for a continuous period of twelve months ceases to be a member.”
    Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    You want to delete “the country” and substitute “meetings”?
    Mr. Manu 11:30 a.m.
    Yes.
    Mr. Adjei-Darko 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think it is in order. But since it is with meetings, I would propose that that subclause is shifted to clause 10 where we are dealing with meetings. This is because, it is not just about the composition or the membership, but it is dealing with meetings also. Therefore, I think the appropriate area for the amendment should be under clause 10.
    Mr. Bagbin 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that is the appropriate place; because it is dealing with membership and not meetings. It is only that the word “meeting” is brought in. It says that “ceases to be a member”. So it is dealing with membership. But I
    am a bit hesitant to leave it ‘at meetings'. What about if the absence is absence with permission? That is where you have the problem.
    It says, “A member of a Council who is absent from meetings for a continuous period of twelve months ceases to be a member.” Assuming you are absent from the meetings for twelve months with permission -- [Interruptions] -- You cannot have a permission? How? No, you can have.
    Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Hon. Minority Leader, you should not be distracted.
    Mr. Bagbin 11:30 a.m.
    Sorry. Mr. Speaker, I believe that for good reason, one could, with permission, absent himself or herself from Council meetings for one year -- twelve months. This is because if you go through meetings, if we are talking about meetings -- [Interruption] -- Because we are talking about membership of the council -- and you are a member but for some good reason -- it could even be official duties that are taking you away from the meetings. You are still a member of the Council and you can still make inputs in the Council's deliberations without being at the meetings.
    So you are representing a body, an institution or an appointee of the President and for some reason you are not able to attend the meetings. Even though you can write your views to the Council without attending and you are absent for twelve months, you cease to be a member. Mr. Speaker, I think it should be “meetings without permission”.
    Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Hon. Members, for the sake of order, let us come back to it another time and then continue. In the mean time, you can put your heads together.
    Clause 10 -- Meetings of a Council
    Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, subclause (3), line 2, delete “in respect of an important matter”.
    Mr. Speaker, clause 10 deals with quorum of a meeting. Quorum is quorum. It should read properly, “The quorum at a meeting of the Council is seven members of the Council or a greater number determined by the Council”. I think that it should end there, it should not proceed to say “in respect of an important matter”. What matter is less important?
    If we are empowering the Council to work, they must work and I think that it is just important that we have the maximum number of people who should be present for the meeting to proceed. So I beg to move for the deletion of “in respect of an important matter”.
    Dr. A. A. Osei 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I agree with my Colleague but I think saying “seven… or a greater number determined by the Council” is superfluous. A quorum is at least seven. The language should change so that it is not a “greater number”.
    Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Are you proposing another amendment?
    Dr. Akoto Osei 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if you will indulge me, what he proposed keeps the language at “… or a greater number determined by the Council”.
    Mr. Iddrisu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if you will permit met to explain so that we will see how we - [Interruption]
    Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Only when I call you.
    Mr. Adjei-Darko 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think I will go with what the hon. Deputy Minister for Finance and Economic Planning has said. In his argument, he is saying that every matter is important. So
    Mr. Adjei-Darko 11:30 a.m.


    if every matter is important, I do not know why there should be room for the Council itself to determine different figures for quorum.

    So if he wants it to be done, then he should delete the whole of line 2, that is, starting from “all” to “matter” so that it reads: “The quorum at a meeting of the Council is seven member of the Council.”
    Mr. Iddrisu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I agree with it so you may put the Question.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I just thought that we should be consistent in what we do. For the quorate for meetings of boards and governing councils we have almost always limited ourselves to one-third of the number. Why, in this case, should it be one-half of it? If they could explain to us? What is the good reason?
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether this is Question time. If the hon. Member has an amendment eh could propose that amendment. But Mr. Speaker, you would note that when it comes to the governing board of polytechnics, overwhelming majority is institutional. You do not have the President appointing about three or four as in other boards.
    So it is important that we get at least one-half of the membership present at a meeting to constitute a quorum for business.
    If the hon. Majority Chief Whip wants
    a reason, that is the reason.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    There is a further
    amendment, that is, item (xiii) and it is in the name of the hon. Member for Wa West.
    Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg
    to move, clause 10, subclause (5), lines 1 and 2, delete “a government nominee” and substitute “a member of the Council” so that once the Council meets and thinks that it has faith in the competence and abilities of any of the members, the person may proceed to chair the meeting.
    Mr. Manu 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I oppose
    the amendment. This is an institution and sometimes their decisions have financial implications. So if you leave the government nominee out and a financial decision is taken, who conveys this to Government? I think the government nominee should at all times be present so that if such decisions are taken, he would be in a position to explain. It is not for nothing that a government nominee is appointed to the Council; he is there for very many reasons and I think at all times, at meetings, he must be present otherwise certain decisions taken may not be implementable.
    Dr. A. A. Osei 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I support
    the amendment by the hon. Member for Tamale South, Mr. Haruna Iddrisu. I am surprised that my Colleague the hon. Member for Ahafo Ano South, Mr. Balado Manu, thinks that it is the responsibility of a government nominee to inform Government about financial implications.
    There is the Ministry of Education, Science and Sports and the Council will
    eventually report to the Minister; you do not need a government nominee to report to Government about financial implications. That is not the job of the government nominee; he is there as a member of the Council with special competency on matters of education and in this case, polytechnic education.
    It is not his job to report matters of financial implications to Government. In any case, it has to be assumed that all of them are competent members of that Council and should be able to chair the proceedings. Otherwise, you are using some criterion which is not acceptable at all.
    Mr. Bagbin 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I support the
    proposed amendment. It is talking about ga overnment nominee and apart from the chairperson, it would be one woman. That is all. And the Chairman is saying that if the chairperson is not there, then the one woman must chair; that automatically, she must be there and she must chair.
    Mr. Speaker, I do not think that it is right. I think that in appointing the members, the Government would definitely be looking at competence of the representatives, even though they are going to represent institutions. Even looking at the Rector of the polytechnic, we are talking about competence. They should all be competent persons.
    I think that the members after a number of meetings can see the input and contributions of one another and can determine, in the absence of the chairperson, who should chair. We have served on boards, we have served on councils and we know that these things come through experience. So we should not tie the hands of the Council as to who should chair in the absence of the chairperson. I think that the proposed amendment should be supported by the
    House.
    Mr. Osafo-Maafo 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    think the amendment is laudable. The government nominee would not even be the best member amongst them to do the chairing. They meet there and they may find that somebody, say, the guy from the Ghana Institution of Engineers may be the best.
    Therefore, making it look like the government nominee is going to perform a special role is even not right and as the Deputy Minister for Finance and Economic Planning said, conveying decisions of a council to the Minister for Finance when it has financial implications, is the function of the Minister for Education, Science and Sports. In fact, if there is anything relevant they have a secretary to the Council who would write some of these things through the Ministry of Education, Science and Sports.
    The budget of the polytechnic would be coming from say, the Ministry of Education, Science and Sports; and therefore the government nominee being the competent person to convey matters with financial implications is just not correct. Therefore, let us support the amendment and let competence play that role.
    Mr. Adjei-Darko 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    perhaps for consistency sake, I may want to refer the House to Act 672 of 2004, on University of Education, Winneba, and Mr. Speaker, with your permission I quote --
    “9. Meetings of the Council --
    (2) The chairperson shall preside at the meetings of the Council but in the absence of the chairperson, a government nominee on the Council elected by the other members of the Council present shall preside.”
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:40 a.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, my mind went to the issues which have been raised by my Colleague but indeed, this is a 13-member committee, and there are only two government nominees. Mr. Speaker, even without considerations of competence, is it being advocated that once the two of them are not present, the meetings shall never hold? Is that the position? Because, if for any reason, say, for some months the two are not present,
    it would mean that no meeting can be convened even when they form a quorum, and that is not being fair to the rest of the Council members. So I believe that we should all support the amendment as proposed by my Colleague from Tamale South.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 10 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clauses 11 to 19 ordered to stand part
    of the Bill.
    Clause 20 -- Convocation.
    Mr. Manu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, his argument is in order and I support it.
    Question put and motion agreed to.
    Clause 20 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clauses 21 and 22 ordered to stand part
    of the Bill.
    Clause 23 -- Chancellor of a
    polytechnic.
    Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    beg to move, clause 23 -- headnotes, delete “Chancellor” and substitute “President”.
    Mr. Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Hon. Member, please
    do not be destracted.
    Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, maybe
    for want to a better word, the Minister for Education, Science and Sports may make a new proposal. But I just thought that we needed to be able to distinguish between the polytechnics and the universities. In terms of admission, they are distinct
    institutions. One is supposed to produce middle-level manpower; the other concentrates on general academic training. I thought that ‘chancellor' for university is all right; but for polytechnics we should use ‘president', not ‘President' in the context that the Minister aspires to be.
    Mr. Manu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I oppose the amendment. Mr. Speaker, the argument adduced for the amendment is untenable.
    Mr. Speaker, jus t as we have chancellors in the universities and he does not want us to use “Chancellor” for the polytechnic, even within the polytechnic set- up, we have President of the Students Representative Council (SRC). So if we have “president”, then the question will be which president are we talking about?
    So we should retain the designation chancellor so that the chancellor of the polytechnic would feel he is of equal standing with the chancellor of the university; and that would even boost the image of the polytechnics in terms of public image. So I oppose the amendment. We should retain the headnote which is there in the Bill -- “Chancellor”.
    Mr. Chireh 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I have
    been trying to advise my brother to withdraw the amendment. The position of ‘chancellor' is actually an honour and also to give autonomy to the tertiary institution for that matter. Formerly, some of the universities had ‘president' as the chancellor but now we are honouring people who have distinguished themselves in one field or the other to be chancellors.
    Therefore, really, it should be the same for everybody. The other complication is that in America the vice chancellor may be called “president of a college” Again, that is an executive position as opposed to the honorary position of the chancellor. So
    Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, once
    he concedes that in America they do use “president” and not “chancellor”, it means that it is workable. But on that note, I withdraw.
    Mr. Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Hon. Member for Tamale
    South, you have a further amendment. Do you abandon that too?
    Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, consider
    that one too abandoned.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, just before you put the Question, I do know that this issue about diplomas is one that becomes very contentious and so clause 6 talks about differentiating the diplomas -- Higher National Diplomas, diplomas and so on. So Mr. Speaker, if the Chairman would not mind to introduce that distinction in clause 23 (2) (a) so that we shall have degrees, higher national diplomas, diplomas and other qualifications because indeed, that is what this whole enterprise is about
    Mr. Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    In the meantime, let us go on; we may come back.
    Clauses 23 and 24 ordered to stand part
    of the Bill.
    Clause 25 -- Functions of the Rector.
    Mr. Manu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 25, paragraph (b)(i), delete.
    Mr. Speaker, what is captured there
    -- “implementing the decisions of the
    Mr. H. Iddrisu noon
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    withdraw the proposed amendment.

    Clauses 29 and 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. H. Iddrisu noon
    Mr. Speaker, I want your leave to move an amendment in respect of clause 31, if you would so permit.
    Mr. Speaker noon
    Very well.
    Clause 31 -- Accounts and audit.
    Mr. H. Iddrisu noon
    Mr. Speaker, clause
    31 reads: “The Council of a polytechnic shall keep books of account . . .” I thought we should say, “shall cause to be kept …” I am not sure it is the responsibility of the Council to do that. So I beg to move, clause 31, subclause (1), delete “keep” and substitute “cause to be kept” to read as follows:
    “The Council of a polytechnic shall cause to be kept books of account and proper records in relation to them in the form approved by the Auditor-General.”
    Mr. Manu noon
    Mr. Speaker, I uphold the amendment.
    Mr. Speaker noon
    Are you supporting the amendment?
    Mr. Manu noon
    Mr. Speaker, I support it because it is not the Council that would keep the accounts but they would see to it that it is kept.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clauses 31 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 32 to 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 35 -- Relationship with other institutions.
    Mr. Haruna Iddrisu noon
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 35, after paragraph (b), add a new paragraph as follows:
    “National Accreditation Board (NAB) and the National Board for Technician and Professional Examinations (NABTEX).”
    These are insti tutions that the polytechnics would necessarily have to co-operate with, and there are even earlier provisions -- In this Bill, in particular, if you look at the powers of a polytechnic, reference is made to these institutions and I think that it is appropriate that they are mentioned as institutions that poly- technics must collaborate with.
    The National Accreditation Board (NAB), as we know, is responsible for determining the status of the kind of
    diplomas that they award and NABTEX plays a significant role in matters related to the examinations of the polytechnics.
    Mr. Adjei-Darko noon
    Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Member was not in the House when we were talking about the powers of the polytechnics. I do not think this amendment is necessary because the polytechnics have been given the mandate to run their courses and from the powers already given to the polytechnics they would have to run these courses and make sure that these courses are accredited by the relevant bodies.
    Even if you look at clause 35 (c), the Council has been given the function to collaborate with any other private or public institution that the Council considers necessary.
    Also, I do not think that we have passed any law in this House where we have made it mandatory for an institution to, by all means, collaborate with an examination body like the West African Examinations Council (WAEC) or any other examination body. So bringing in the NABTEX and so on, I do not think it is necessary. Once the omnibus clause is there at subclause (c), we leave the polytechnics to do that.
    Mr. Speaker, I may have to draw attention to subclause (a) also because we have already deleted clause 2. So we would have to consider subclause (a) and delete it.
    Mr. Manu noon
    Mr. Speaker, consequential to what we did in clause 2 by deleting the idea of affiliating polytechnics to universities, I move that subclause (a) be deleted. And then the “National Council for Tertiary Education (NCTE)” also be deleted because it is the Council that would manage the affairs of the polytechnic. NCTE is just an advisory
    body to the hon. Minister. It should not have any role to play in the polytechnics.
    Therefore, we only have subclause (c) as the only clause to be retained and that takes care of the amendment that the hon. Member was trying to move; because the Council in the performance of its functions shall co-operate with any private or public institution that the Council considers necessary. So those that be is mentioning, if the Council considers them necessary, they would collaborate with them. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the amendment.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
    Mr. Speaker, in supporting the position of the Chairman, I do not see the relevance for the distinction that he is making between private and public institutions, given the fact that whether public or private, they are required or they may, if they so choose, collaborate with them. So it is that, “The Council of a polytechnic shall in the performance of its functions collaborate with any institution that the Council considers necessary.”
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move.
    Mr. H. Iddrisu noon
    Mr. Speaker, indeed, I did not have the privilege to participate in the proceedings where the powers of the polytechnic were looked at. And if in fact, the reference to NABTEX and NAB is not part of the clause 6 (a), then that renders my proposal redundant and to that effect, it is abandoned.
    Mr. Bagbin noon
    Mr. Speaker, I think that it is important we still maintain the “private or public institutions” because we are establishing public institutions here - polytechnics - and it is important that we draw their attention to the fact that they should not only deal with public institutions but that they are also permitted to deal with private institutions.
    Mr. Manu noon
    Mr. Speaker, it is for this very reason canvassed by the hon. Minority Leader that the words “private and public” were put there. For instance, what Apostle Kwadwo Safo is doing there, if the Council decides to collaborate with him, somebody may come out and say he is a private person. But the Polytechnic Law is trying to forge closer relationship between the private sector and the public sector, especially industry.
    So we put the “private and the public” there to give them a free hand to collaborate with any institution that they feel they can deal with. So it is important that we put the “private” there to inform them that they can go to any sector for collaboration. I therefore support the amendment.
    Dr. A. A. Osei noon
    Mr. Speaker, he ended by saying “any institution” and I do not know if “any institution”, whether it is private or public is implied by that statement. There must be a reason why the hon. Member wants “private or public”. Otherwise, “any institution” means “any institution”. So I do not understand why we have to bring “private or public”.
    Mr. W. O. Boafo noon
    Mr. Speaker, if I could take you back to clause 4 (1). It is provided that “A polytechnic established under this Act is a public tertiary institution”. So I think that it is better we make it clear that in spite of the fact that it is a public tertiary institution, it could still do business with the private sector.
    Mr. Speaker noon
    Hon. Members, the amendment is this: “Clause 35 - The
    Mr. Manu noon
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 36, paragraph (a), delete
    Mr. Speaker noon
    Hon. Chairman, clause
    36 is an important clause.
    Mr. Manu noon
    Mr. Speaker, I stand down
    the amendment.
    Mr. Speaker noon
    Hon. Members, we
    would come back to clause 36 but we would go on.
    Mr. Bagbin noon
    Mr. Speaker, I think it
    is very easy; we do not need to go and come back. The proposed amendments on the Order Paper are not talking about anything on the Bill, there is no clause 36 (a), and there is no 36 (b). I think they were referring to clause 35 (a) and (b), which we have done with already. So in clause 36 it is only providing for the Minister to make regulations, so there is no (a) and (b). I think those are misplaced.
    Mr. Manu noon
    Mr. Speaker, I accept what
    has been said. It is the numbering that created the confusion. Instead of clause 35 they wrote clause 36 and that was creating the confusion. We have already done it so I have no amendment there.
    Mr. Adjei-Darko noon
    Mr. Speaker, there
    is an amendment.
    Mr. Speaker noon
    To clause 36?
    Mr. Adjei-Darko noon
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 36, add a new subclause as follows:
    “Subject to this Act, the Minister may by Legislative Instrument, make Regulations for the esta- blishment of private polytechnics.”
    Mr. Speaker, what we have been
    doing so far is clear. We are making or promulgating an Act for the establishment of public polytechnics. When it comes to the establishment of private polytechnics, there are certain clauses which would not be applicable, especially when it comes to appointment of council members, and so on. Private polytechnics would not expect the President to appoint council members. So this clause is being inserted to let the Minister have the power, using this Act, to come out with Legislative Instrument to set up private polytechnics.
    Mr. Speaker, if you look at the Ghana
    Education Service Act, there is now a problem with the private institutions because the Ghana Education Service Act did not make such provision and therefore any -- Even if it comes to fixing of fees and other conditions in the private institutions, which the Ministry of Education, Science and Sports and, for that matter, the Ghana Education Service are overseeing, they are all done by administrative convenience.
    But strictly speaking, there is no law which gives that power for that regulatory activity; and that is what we want to avoid now. We want to encourage the establishment of private polytechnics but they should be within the framework of the law. That is why the Minister should be given the opportunity to come with a Legislative Instrument outlining how private polytechnics can be set up.
    Mr. Bagbin noon
    Mr. Speaker, I think the proposed amendment is completely misplaced. We are passing an Act to govern public tertiary institutions and therefore we cannot insert a provision under that to cover private institutions. If we want to get a law to regulate the establishment of private institutions, it should not come under this Act; and moreover the proposal is subject to this Act.
    This Act has nothing to do with private institutions at all so it should not come into this Act at all. I believe strongly that such a proposal could come under the Education Act, which is in the offing. I have seen a draft Bill on the Education Act of which I have a copy. I believe we can look at and insert such a provision but not specifically in Act dealing with public tertiary institutions. We cannot insert a provision to cover private institutions.
    Mr. Adjei-Darko noon
    Mr. Speaker, when
    I was arguing it out, I expressed the reason why -- because a vacuum has been created when it comes to the Ghana Education Service and how it regulates the private institutions now. Strictly-speaking, they do not have the backing of any law. But if there is a law in the offing or a Bill in the offing which would cater for all these, then Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw it so that whatever Bill comes out caters for that.

    Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the

    Bill.
  • [Clause 37 -- Interpretation.
    • Mr. Adjei-Darko 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, this would have gone through if the earlier one had gone through. So it is consequential.
    Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    It is abandoned.
    Mr. Manu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I still want to move that amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Sunyani West.
    Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Which one are you
    referring to?
    Mr. Manu 12:20 p.m.
    Clause 37 -- Interpretation
    of Minister.
    Mr. Adjei-Darko 12:20 p.m.
    Sorry, Mr. Speaker.
    That amendment, (xxiv), is not withdrawn. I thought we were talking about the other one.
    Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    You made a mistake in withdrawing? This is a fact.
    Mr. Adjei-Darko 12:20 p.m.
    No, after with-
    drawing clause 36, clause 37 is not withdrawn. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 37, line 5, delete “and Sports”. It should be “Minister responsible for Education” because at one time it was “Education and Sports”, and at another time “Education, Science and Sports”. So since it is Education, “Minister responsible for Education”.
    Mr. Manu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, for the very
    reasons stated, I support the amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Chairman of the
    Committee, do you have any further amendments here you wish to move?
    Mr. Balado Manu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    clause 37, the hon. Adjei-Darko has an amendment proposed, unless he wants to abandon it.
    Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    (xxvi).
    Mr. Adjei-Darko 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Yes, (xxvi). Chairman of
    the Committee, are you abandoning that?
    Mr. Manu 12:20 p.m.
    No, Mr. Speaker. I beg
    to move, clause 37, Interpretation, at “National Accreditation Board”, lines 2 and 3 delete “1992 (PNDCL 321)” and substitute “1993 (PNDCL 317)”.
    Mr. Speaker, it was a mistake they
    made there. The National Accreditation Board Law is indeed 1993 PNDCL 317 and not 1992 PNDCL 321.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 37 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the
    Bill.
    Clause 39 -- Transfer of assets and liabilities.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, with respect I think we should have a consequential deletion here as well. Clause 38, what we did should also affect 38 (1).
    Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    The correction of the
    law, yes.
    Mr. Manu 12:20 p.m.
    No, Mr. Speaker. Mr.
    Speaker, I corrected that it is not Polytechnics Law but it is National Accreditation Board Law.
    Mr. Manu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 39, subclause (1), delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, you have a further amendment?
    Mr. Manu 12:20 p.m.
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 39 subclause (2), delete and substitute “The assets, rights, liabilities, subsisting obligations and properties of a polytechnic in existence immediately before the coming into force of the Act and the persons employed for that polytechnic are hereby transferred to the respective polytechnics established under this Act .”
    Mr. Speaker, I so move.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 39 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, clause 39 (3) captures the essence of what my hon. Colleague just said. So if indeed he has re-crafted 39 (2) then we should delete the 39 (3).
    Mr. Manu 12:20 p.m.
    That is exactly what I
    Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Chairman, you must
    always wait until you are called.
    Mr. Manu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I said earlier
    that we were deleting the entire 39 and in its place we put what has been put there.
    Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Chairman, you have
    also deleted 39 (3), have you not?
    Mr. Manu 12:20 p.m.
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.
    The Schedule --
    Mr. Chireh 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    Mr. Manu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I have no objection. Since it is alphabetically arranged, I think he is right.
    Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon. Member for Wa
    West, are you formally moving it or you are leaving it to the draftsmen?
    Mr. Chireh 12:20 p.m.
    No, I am formally moving
    it. Sometimes, when I leave it to the draftsmen they do not change it.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    The Schedule as amended ordered to
    stand part of the Bill.
    The Long Title ordered to stand part
    of the Bill.
    Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon. Members, clause
    9 (5), have you been able to resolve that?
    Mr. Manu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, clause
    9 (5) -- “A member of a Council who is absent from the country for meetings for a continuous period of twelve months without permission ceases to be a member”.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 9 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the clause 8 (h), I beg to move, delete the word “institution” proposed by the hon. Chairman and substitute polytechnic”.
    Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon. Chairman, what
    do you say to that?
    Mr. Manu 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I have no
    problem with that.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 8 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon. Members, we have
    come to the end of the Consideration Stage of the Polytechnics Bill.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, there are three very important committee meetings and having exhausted the agenda for the day, I beg to move, that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow at ten o'clock in the forenoon.
    Mr. Alex N. Tettey-Enyo 12:30 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
    Question put and motion agreed to.
    ADJOURNMENT 12:30 p.m.
    - 12:30 p.m.