Debates of 18 Mar 2008

MR. SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
Order! Order! Correction of Votes and Proceedings. Pages 1 -- 8 --
Mr. Joseph J. Chireh 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, on page 8, item 9 the Question was proposed, and amendment deemed to have been withdrawn by leave of the House. Yes, that is the case but the spirit of this amendment was accepted but the location was the problem - whether it was to come at the end or not. Now, I see that they said it has been withdrawn. But it does not reflect the discussions yesterday. It was accepted in principle and indeed it was accepted that it should be the draftspersons who should decide where to put it. So that should be the reflection of this one.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
Page 9 -- 16. Hon. Members, we have the Official Report for Thursday, 21st February, 2008. [No correction was made.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 10 a.m.
MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES, 10 a.m.
WORKS AND HOUSING 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
Question No. 1244, hon. Dr. Kwame Ampofo, Member for Parliament for South Dayi? [Pause.] Question No. 1255, hon. John Kwadwo
Gyapong, Member of Parliament for Akan? Question No. 1286, hon. Stephen Amoanor Kwao, Member of Parliament for Upper Manya Krobo?
Communities in the Upper Manya Krobo
(Koforidua Water Project)
Q. 1286. Mr. Stephen Amoanor Kwao asked the Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing how many communities in the Upper Manya Krobo Constituency where water was being sourced for the Koforidua Water Project would benefit from the project.
Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing (Alhaji Abubakari Saddique Boniface) 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Koforidua Water Supply Project is being financed by the Governments of Ghana and Belgium. It involves the construction of an intake point at Kponyakorpe on the Volta Lake, a treatment plant at Bukonor Junction, raw water pipeline, treated water transmission pipeline and distribution mains, at the cost of €38,800,000.00 including financing costs. The following villages between Bukonor water treatment plant and the water intake site namely Kponyakorpe, AValajikorpe, Kasakorpe, Bukonor and Gartorba will enjoy potable water from the project.
Mr. Speaker, the following villages along the transmission pipeline to Koforidua all in the Upper Many Krobo Constituency will also enjoy potable water from the project namely; Oterkpolu, Huhunya, Pleyo Okper, Odorkrom, Nkrurakan, Aboabo.
Mr. Kwao 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister has not given any Answer to my Question. I am asking him how many villages and towns in the Upper Manya Constituency -- The towns
he has mentioned are all in the Yilo Krobo constituency; they are not in my constituency. Pleyo, Oterkpolu, Okpe, Odorkrom, Nkrurakan, Aboabo are all in the Yilo Krobo Constituency. I am talking of Upper Manya Constituency.
Alhaji Boniface 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform him that all the villages adjoining Koforidua, 50 kilometres will all enjoy from the water supply. So if it falls within that radius, every village within that radius would be covered.
Mr. Kwao 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, therefore will the hon. Minister assure me that towns like Otrokpe, before the treatment plant, Dawa, Sekesua Junction, Asasehene and Aeasewa will benefit?
Alhaji Boniface 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, this is simple mathematics. I said if you take the point where the treatment plant -- is the centre -- and you take a radius, if that village falls within that radius, it is covered.
Mr. Kwao 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. Minister how soon that project would be completed to enable our people have water.
Alhaji Boniface 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I believe by the end of next year, we would start enjoying water.
Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Question number 1310 -- Hon. Emmanuel Kwasi Bandua, Member of Parliament for Biakoye?
Bowiri-Kwamekrom Community Water Supply Project
Q. 1310. Mr. Emmanuel Kwasi Bandua asked the Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing when the Bowiri-Kwamekrom Community Water
Alhaji Boniface 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Bowiri-Kwamekrom water supply scheme was constructed under a funding provided by DFIF for eight (8) small towns water supply schemes in Eastern and Volta Regions and completed in May 2007. The system is currently under the one-year defects liability period which will end this year. Arrangements for commissioning would be made as soon as CWSA notifies the Ministry on the final acceptance and handing-over of the system to the community.
Mr. Bandua 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to find out from the hon. Minister whether it is only after the lapse of the defect liability period that the project would be commissioned.
Alhaji Boniface 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the testing period and the defect liability has to be undertaken. I believe if we commission it now, my hon. Colleague would be the first person to come here and criticize if there is any defect. So it would be very necessary for us to take measures to mitigate any problems in future. So we must make sure that the defects are corrected before handing over to him and the good people of Kwame-krom.
Mr. Bandua 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, can the hon. Minister give us a time-frame within which he expects the commissioning to take place?
Alhaji Boniface 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, right form the onset, I said as soon as the Community Water and Sanitation Agency notifies us or notifies the Ministry about the readiness of the project. I believe by the end of this year, it should be ready.
Mr. Edward Salia 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. Minister whether it is usual for defect liability period to expire
before the commissioning of the project.
Alhaji Boniface 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is not necessarily so. But to be within a safety- net frame, we need to make sure that things are made positive because we are in a positive system. We must make sure that everything is correct and defect free so that we can commission it for him to enjoy.
Mr. Salia 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, what then happens when usage has begun and the defect liability period has already expired and yet defects are noticed? It is normally the case that after usage, defects are noticed and then corrective works are done. In this particular case, that period would have expired. How would those remedies then be effected?
Alhaji Boniface 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, hypo- thetically, if one buys a brand new car, one is given a time period to test it -- a warranty. So if one is given six months and within the six months it fails, one can turn it in and take a new one. But in this case, I want to make sure that everything is correct and ready to be used. In that position, normally, we can commission whilst giving a time-frame within which the defect liability would be detected after which anything could go on.
But in our case, which I stated clearly, we want to make sure that whatever we present to him and the good people of this country is in good state. I do not want to present it and tomorrow he comes back to Parliament to say that the project that we commissioned together has started experiencing some defects. We want to make sure that everything is intact.
Mr. Speaker, in Upper West Region they are enjoying all the good water from the boreholes. So I do not think there is a problem at all.
Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Question number 1332 -- hon. Joe Danquah, Member of
Parliament for Tain?
Nsawkaw, Sabiye and Debibi Small Town Water System Project
Q. 1332. Mr. Joe Danquah asked the Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing when work would commence on the Small Town Water System for Nsawkaw, Sabiye and Debibi.
Alhaji Boniface 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the projected populations for Nsawkaw (5,100) Debibi (6,600) and Sabiye (2,500) qualify them to be provided with pipe borne water supply under the small towns component of CWSA activities.
The Government has secured a facility of 18.6 million euros from Agence Francaise de Development for a Rural and Small Towns Water and Sanitation Project in the Brong Ahafo Region to begin in the last quarter of this year. The project to be facilitated by CWSA would be implemented through the District Assemblies on a demand-responsive basis. All District Assemblies in the Brong Ahafo Region would be informed about the project when it takes-off to enable towns like Nsawkaw, Sabiye and Debibi apply for project assistance.
Mr. Joe Danquah 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, may I know from the hon. Minister why the last quarter and not the first or second quarter of this year?
Alhaji Boniface 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I wish it could have been now but whenever we have any project-financing for any project, there is the need to do feasibility studies and also call for application. All these would be assessed. And by the time they finish the feasibility studies and other activities that would be undertaken, it will take us the number of months that I mentioned and that will consume the whole of the first and second quarters
of this year. Therefore, by the end or the beginning of the third quarter, they can enjoy it.
Mr. Joe Danquah 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to know from the hon. Minister whether the communities would pay a counterpart fund.
Alhaji Boniface 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, under normal circumstances, under Rural and Small Town Community Water Projects, they are expected to pay a contribution of five per cent. Where they cannot pay, the Government can absorb that responsibility.
Mr. Joe Danquah 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to find out from the hon. Minister if the Government will absorb my community's counterpart fund because they cannot pay.
Alhaji Boniface 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot determine that now. It would be based on the assessment and the report that will be submitted to my office.
Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Question number 1340 -- hon. Charles S. Hodogbey, Member of Parliament for North Tongu?
Ghana's Water Policy
Q. 1340. Mr. Charles S. Hodogbey asked the Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing what the water policy of Ghana was and what the details were.
Alhaji Boniface 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the national water policy was approved by Cabinet on June 21, 2007. The policy is intended to provide a framework for the susta inable development of Ghana's Water Resources and it targets all water users, water managers and practitioners, investors, decision and policy makers within the central
Alhaji Boniface 10:20 a.m.
It recognizes the various cross-sectoral issues related to water use and the links to other relevant sectoral policies such as those on sanitation, agriculture, energy, transport, et cetera.
The policy document is organized under three (3) sections.
Section
1. Presents the overview of Ghana's water sector com-prising:
The state of water resources and management institutions,
Development priorities,
International obligations, and
Broad principles leading to policy formulation.
Section
2. Details the key policy issues related to the basic principles and challenges confronting water resources management, development and use in the three sub- sectors:
Water resources management,
Urban water supply, and
Community Water and Sanitation.
Section
3. Outlines proposals and guidelines for implementing the policy including:-
Institutional roles and respon-

sibilities,

Standards,

Regulations, and

Definitions.
Mr. Speaker, the policy is grouped under three (3) strategic areas, namely 10:20 a.m.
Water Resources, Management,
Urban Water Supply, and
Community Water and Sanitation.
For each of the three areas specific policy focus areas are provided and for each of the focus areas, principles and challenges, policy objectives and policy actions are presented.
Under Water Resources Management ten (10) focus areas are identified, namely:
Integrated Water Resources Management,
Access to water
Water for food security,
Water for non-consumptive and other uses,
Financing,
Climate variability,
Capacity building and public awareness creation,
Good governance,
Planning and Research,
International cooperation.
Under Urban Water Supply Eleven (11) Focus Areas are presented, namely:
Water sources,
Improving access to water,
Finance,
H y g i e n e e d u c a t i o n a n d environmental sanitation (HES),
Public-private partnership,
Capacity building,
Gender mainstreaming and good governance
Research development,
Monitoring and evaluation (M&E),
Emergency and extreme events, and
Pro-poor issues.
Under Communi ty Water and Sanitation Eleven (11) Focus Areas are presented, namely:
Access to potable water,
Decentralized delivery of water and sanitation services,
Finance,
Hygiene education and sanitation
(HES),
Public private partnership, Capacity building,
Gender mainstreaming,
Good governance,
Research and development,
Operation and maintenance (O&M), and
Monitoring and evaluation (M&E).
Mr. Speaker, for all these focus areas, the challenges are enumerated, policy objectives are stated, and measures or actions by the Government to achieve the objectives are stated.
The policy provides an overview of institutional roles and responsibilities and the following institutions and their roles are identified:
Ministry of Water Resources, Works and Housing (MWRW&H),
Ministry of Food and Agriculture
(MOFA),
Ministry of Fisheries (MOF),
Ministry of Energy (MOE),
Ministry of Ports and Railways
(MPR),
Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Environment
(MLGRDE)
Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MOFEP),
Ministry of Women and Children's Affairs (MOWCA),
Ghana Water Company Limited
(GWCL),
Community Water and Sanitation Agency (CWSA),
District Assemblies (DA) and
Ministry of Health.
The following allied institutions and their roles are also elaborated on:
The Water Resources Information Services (WRIS) institutions, namely:
Hydrological Services Department
(HSD),
Ghana Meteorological Agency
(GMA),
Water Research Institute (WRI) of the CSIR,
Publ ic Ut i l i t i es Regula tory Commission (PURC),
Environmental Protection Council
(EPC),
Ghana Standards Board (GSB),
Town and Country Planning Department and
The Parliamentary Committee on Water Resources, Works and Housing.
Mr. Speaker, the Implementation Strategies include 10:20 a.m.
Collaboration between and amongst stakeholders,
Sector wide approach for effective harmonization of implementation and monitoring approaches,
Development of “sub policies” for example on rain harvesting, noting different socio-economic zones and rainfall patterns for Urban and rural communities,
Development of a framework to interface community-managed systems and utility managed urban
Mr. Hodogbey 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the policy framework spelt out by the hon. Minister does not give us any medium term measures to resolve the water shortage situation now hitting the urban and peri-urban areas. I would like to know what efforts are being made to alleviate the acute water shortages in these areas.
Alhaji Boniface 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I believe my hon. Colleague, I would say, has a defect in asking that question because this arrangement, as he said, is captured in the document. You can see rain harvesting; you can see means of drilling boreholes which are all measures to arrest -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker, on the boreholes, you can find it in the document, where we are talking about boreholes. Coming straight to the question of what measures we are taking to mitigate the current water problems, Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I was on the field and I also gave immediate instructions that with immediate effect polytanks be sent to areas where they are having water problems, like Osu, La, Teshie, James Town and others that would
be identified. Currently, we have polytanks that have been situated at strategic places.
Secondly, we are also instituting water rationing to other areas. I have mentioned it over and over again to this honourable House that right from the beginning, the supply of water was over and above demand. In 1928, we had a population of five hundred thousand in Accra. Today as we speak, the population of Accra is 3.4 million. We expect to supply Greater Accra with 150 million gallons of water a day but what we can afford today, as I speak is 85 million gallons a day. But due to physical and commercial losses, we lose almost about 16 million gallons of water a day.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I was on the field and somebody was caught red- handed stealing two water meters. We caught him red-handed. We were also able to follow a pipeline which somebody had connected into his bedroom. Even those people in his house, Mr. Speaker were not enjoying part of the water. This fellow had stolen the water line. So first of all, he is causing financial losses to the State, he is causing physical losses; he is causing commercial losses to the State.
So that fellow is part of those causing the loss of 16 million gallons of water a day to the State. We were able to discover one hundred illegal connections.
Mr. Speaker, all these cumulatively affect us. Currently, as I speak every afternoon if you go to Nima, they get water flowing freely but before I went there it was difficult to get water. Yesterday I was at Sukura, Town Council Line, Dansoman, Kaneshie. Now go there and see.
So Mr. Speaker, we have all these measures in place and we need to be very, very nationalistic and patriotic so that
others would benefit.

With the medium term we are

mechanising boreholes. The East and West interconnections will add additional 15 million gallons of water to Greater Accra's supply.

Mr. Speaker, if we look at today's Order Paper, we are requesting for support from the honourable House. We are getting some financing for South Kpong and North Kpong. If we get the financing, we are adding more water to Greater Accra.

We are also expecting to raise a loan of about US$250 million that will help us bring in a new plant that would be able to add additional 40 million gallons of water. So effectively, at the end of the day, we will be going beyond the 150 million probably providing about 200 million gallons of water to Greater Accra.
Mr. Hodogbey 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, our
Mr. Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Hon. Member, this is not a supplementary question.
Mr. Hodogbey 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, my question is coming. My question is, according to the publications, the Kpong Water System produces 30 million gallons of water daily and the Weija system produces 45 million gallons daily. There is a plan to expand the Kpong Water to produce 40 million gallons daily to bring the total to Accra to 85. My question is, where is the funding for these projects coming from and how soon?
Alhaji Boniface 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, let me give the figures correctly. Weija provides
Mr. I. M. Abass 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, from the hon. Minister's answer, he indicated that it had to take his personal intervention to detect some illegal connections in the distribution system. I want to ask him what his assessment is of the current operator if it has to take his personal intervention to detect these illegalities.
Alhaji Boniface 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if my hon. Colleague would agree with me, I am not a Minister who is supposed to sit on a chair in front of a table, I am supposed to be on the field. I am supposed to play a role just like the operator, Aqua Vitens Rand and the monitor, Ghana Water Company Limited (GWCL). So there is that sort of a tripartite collaboration among
myself, GWCL and Aqua Vitens Rand. Therefore, if I make my proposal that does not mean that the other two had gone to sleep. We are working together as a team.
Mr. R. K. Ahaligah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about water policy and its details and he elaborated a lot of programmes he has put in place. We are not talking of only Accra. These days we see yellow gallons going round - [Interruption.] Well, I see yellow gallons -- whether it is for Kufuor or not, I do not know - [Laughter.] What I want to know. He gave a lot of details telling Ghanaians they are the people who feed Ghanaians with water.
Today we do not get water to drink. What is he doing? Is his Ministry really in control of water in this country? It is not only in Accra we are suffering; it is throughout the country. We have even brought institutions to come and help us get water but the institutions are not performing. So he should tell us whether his Ministry is really in control.
Alhaji Boniface 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, my hon. Colleague said that we are not getting water to drink. I want to ask whether we are drinking blood -- [Laughter.]
Mr. Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Order! Order!
Some hon. Members - rose -
Mr. Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Hon. Minister, with the greatest of respect, we are not talking about blood.
Alhaji Boniface 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I honourably withdraw.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. Colleague said that we are not getting water in the country to drink, it is rather unfortunate. Mr. Speaker, there is nowhere in this country where he would tell me that we are not getting water. Mr. Speaker, it is not true.
Mr. Speaker, as I speak, if one goes to La, Osu, Teshie where it was said that there was no water at all -- Yesterday, I was there to do my personal inspection and we had placed polytanks there full of water and there was nobody. [An hon. Member:
They did not know.] They knew about it. This had been announced on radio, television almost everyday. Mr. Speaker, that tells one that after taking those measures, people have started disconnecting their illegal connections and water is flowing freely -- [ Hear! Hear!]
Mr. Speaker, We need‘ to be very honest with each other.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, there was somebody who went on Voice of America saying that the hon. Minister has ensured that it is only East Legon and other areas where Ministers stay that the water flows. Mr. Speaker, how can somebody grant such international interview and say that in the whole of Accra there is no water except East Legon. Mr. Speaker, that is totally false. We should not make some irresponsible capital out of this.

Mr. Speaker, if you go to Nima in the afternoon, water flows; if you go to Town Council Line, water is flowing; if you go to Sukura, water is flowing; if you go to Osu right now, water is flowing -- [Interruption] -- Mr. Speaker, I agree that there are some places we have water not flowing because we are having the East and West Interconnection Project going on, and in those areas we are taking measures to give them water. Mr. Speaker, it is better to trade off one's happiness today and allow him to enjoy tomorrow because the East and West Inter-connection Project is going to add 15 million gallons of water to Greater Accra

Region's in a day.

So if I go to place a polytank at a strategic position for people to go and draw water from at a very subsidized rate, it will be better for them so that in the next three, four months, they will get water flowing each day, from morning to evening.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of water not flowing throughout the country is neither here nor there; it does not hold water. Mr. Speaker, if you go to Cape Coast, water is flowing; if you go to Sekondi-Takoradi, water is flowing; if you go to Kwanyaku, water is flowing; if you go to Kumasi, water is flowing; if you go to Tamale, water is flowing. Mr. Speaker, currently, if you go Tamale, water is flowing. Mr. Speaker, if you go to the whole of Upper West Region, water is flowing.

Mr. Speaker, boreholes - Almost every village in Upper West Region has a borehole. Mr. Speaker, if you go to Salaga, water is flowing; it is not because I am the Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing but still water is flowing. It is under Community Water and Sanitation Agency (CWSA); it is not under the NDC.
Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Hon. Minister, if you
have answered the question you may resume your seat.
Alhaji Boniface 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, thank
you.
Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
And thank you for coming. You are discharged.
PAPERS 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Page 5 -- Item 8, Chairman of the Committee? [Interruption] -- Majority Leader?
Mr. A. O. Aidooh 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, Motion Number 8.
Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee?
Mr. Aidooh 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the
Chairman is not in but I am a member of the Committee.
Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
You are a member? Please, go ahead then.
MOTIONS 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
Report of the Committee of the Whole
Mr. A. O. Aidooh (on behalf of the Chairman of the Committee) 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that this honourable House adopts the Report of the Committee of the Whole on the Proposed Formula for the Distribution of Subsidies to be paid to Licensed District Mutual Health Insurance Schemes for the year 2008.
1.0 Introduction
The National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) Allocation Formula for 2008 was laid before the House on Friday, 7th March, 2008 and referred to the Committee of the Whole for consideration and report
in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House and the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.
The Committee used the under listed documents as reference materials during its deliberations:
i. The National Health Insurance Act 650
ii. The Standing Orders of the House
iii. The 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana
Clarifications were also sought on the proposed Formula from Dr. Anthony Akoto Osei, Minister of State at the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MoFEP), Dr. Gladys N. Ashitey, Deputy Minister of Health, Mr. Ras A. Boateng, Chief Executive Officer of the National Health Insurance Authority (NHIA) and Mr. Ahmed A. Imoro, Deputy Director of Finance, NHIA and reports as follows:
2.0 Background
The National Health Insurance Authority (NHIA) was established by the National Health Insurance Act, 2003 (Act 650). The core function of the Authority under Act 650 is to secure the implementation of a National Health Insurance Policy that ensures access to basic health care services to all residents.
Section 76 of Act 650 established the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) and made the NHIA responsible for its management.
2.1 Sources of Funds to the NHIF:
Section 78 of the National Health Insurance Act, 2003 (Act 650)
a. The National Health Insurance Levy (NHIL);
b. Two and one-half per cent (2.5%) of each person's seventeen and one-half per cent (17.5%) contribution to SSNIT Pension Fund;
c. Funds allocated by Parliament;
d. Money that accrues to the Fund from investments made by the Council and
e. Grants, donations, gifts and any other voluntary contributions made to the Fund.
3.0 Object of the Fund
The object of the Fund is to provide finance to subsidize the cost of provision of health care to members of District Mutual Health Insurance Schemes (DMHIS) licensed by the Council.
For the purpose of implementing the object, the monies from the Fund are to be expended as follows:
a. to provide subsidy of such level as the Council shall determine to District Mutual Health Insurance Schemes (DMHIS);
b. to reinsure District Mutual Health Insurance Schemes (DMHIS) against random fluctuations of cost under conditions to be determined by the Council;
c. to set aside some monies from the Fund to provide for the health care of indigents;
d. to provide support to facilitate provision of or access to health services and
ITEMS 10:40 a.m.
ALLOCATION 10:40 a.m.
EXPENDITURE ITEM AMOUNT 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Iddrisu 10:40 a.m.
I think that Mr. Speaker, it is important that we set the time limit so that we know when this will take effect.
My other comment has to do with the amount of money that is allocated for advertisement. I think that it is too much and they should rather focus on making sure that the Scheme is sustainable.
The figures today vary from GH¢7.2, GH¢20 to GH¢12 depending upon the premium payable and I think that we need to address those inconsistencies. If it is GH¢12, let the Ghanaian public know that the premium payable is GH¢12 but not for some areas to pay GH¢10, others pay GH¢12.
And then when we say “distressed persons”, “indigent persons”; who identifies them? I think that it is important that we monitor effectively what is going on on the ground so that we know that the proper persons to whom these allocations are made are in fact made to benefit from this particular Scheme.
Mr. Speaker with these few comments, I associate myself with the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Licensed District Mutual Health Insurance Schemes (LDMHIS) for year 2008 and recommends that approval be given.
Respectfully submitted.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu (NDC -- Tamale South) 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion, in doing so to make a few comments, and in particular to refer Mr. Speaker to page 7, paragraph 8.1 of the Committee's report.
M r. S p e a k e r, t h e C o m m i t t e e
recommends the amendment of the National Health Insurance Law to include the mentally ill as indigent. And it also recommends that children under 18 -- I think that it is important that we fast tracked this process so that Ghanaian children can automatically benefit from this scheme and not on the basis that both parents must have registered with the scheme as it is with the current legislation. I also do agree that there is a high incidence of mental illness in this country, and hope that they will also take steps to supporting the construction around Frafraha of a mentally-ill hospital to cater for their needs.

Mr. Speaker, but in looking at your

Resolved accordingly.

Suspension of Standing Order 80 (1)
Mr. F. W. A. Blay 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 80 (1) which require that no motion shall be debated until at least forty-eight hours have elapsed between the date on which notice of the motion is given and the date on which the motion is moved, the motion for the adoption of the Report of the Committee of the Whole on the Proposed Formula for the Distribution of the Ghana Education Trust Fund (GETFund) for the year 2008 may be moved today.
Mr. J. Y. Chireh 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
Report of the Committee of the Whole on the Proposed Formula for the
Distribution of the GETFund, 2008
Chairman of the Committee (Mr. F. W. A. Blay) 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully move, that this House adopts the Report of your Committee of the Whole on the Proposed Formula for the distribution of the Ghana Education Trust Fund (GETFund) for the year 2008.
1. Introduction
Mr. Speaker, the Report was distributed this morning and I believe hon. Members have their copies with them.
Further to the provisions of the Act 581, the 2008 Distribution Formula for monies accruing to the Ghana Education Trust Fund (GETFund) was laid in Parliament on Wednesday, 12th March, 2008 and referred to the Committee of the Whole for consideration and report.
The submission was made in accordance with section 8 (2) of the Ghana Education Trust Fund Law (Act 581, 2000) which enjoins the Board of Trustees of the Fund to annually submit to Parliament for
SPACE FOR TABLE 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Joe Gidisu (NDC -- North Tongu) 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to second the motion and in doing so, I have a few comments to make.
I t is quite heart-warming that the GETFund continues to meet the constitutional challenges that it had been created to address.
Mr. Speaker, in doing so, the priority areas of the country's educational system had been identified and we try to provide the needed support in terms of the allocation under the distribution, for example, that had been done this year. Mr. Speaker, I would want to say that the situation of the loans scheme for students in our tertiary institutions is a welcome idea.
But if you look at the conditionalities that surround the system in terms of guarantors that are needed, it is equally paralyzing the effective disbursement of this loan more especially as most of the students are finding it very difficult to get guarantors to support their applications. I would therefore want to call on the Board to critically look at and revisit the situation of conditionalities that surround the granting of the loan especially the need
for guarantors.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 10:50 a.m.
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, it is merely an enquiry so that we could follow the argument he is advancing. I do not know whether he is saying that there should be no guarantor for the loan the students seek. It was not clear. He said it should be revisited particularly the need for guarantors -- For us to be able to meaningfully contribute, I would want him to tell us, is he saying that there should be no guarantors?
Mr. Joe Gidisu 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is that as at now one of the requirements is that the person guaranteeing should be a SSNIT contributor and this situation cuts short the ambit for those who could guarantee the loans for the students. Most parents, for example, who are in the informal sector may not be contributors to the SSNIT Scheme and for that reason, if you limit the ambit of the guaranteeing or the guarantors to the SSNIT contributors, then you are cutting short a whole lot of potential people who could guarantee these loans for the students.
Mr. Speaker, I want to equally draw the House's attention to other areas of the miscellaneous items under the expenditure fold of the GETFund. Under the miscellaneous situation, we have quite a colossal amount going into those sectors and unfortunately, these are sectors which are emerging out of the current challenges in the system and for that reason takes away substantial amounts that could otherwise have been used for those traditional areas of expenditure of the educational system.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu (NDC - Tamale South) 11 a.m.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to associate myself with the motion for the approval of the sum of GH¢163,025,000.00 for the GETfund Secretariat to use to support education in general.
Mr. Speaker, may I refer you to page 6 of your Committee's Report still on the Students Loan Scheme. It is my humble submission or suggestion that our universities should begin to undertake a need-based test so that we determine who gets what. If you take a student reading the sciences, whether the person is reading medicine or the person is reading law or the physical sciences, the requirement in terms of money varies from individual course area to the other and I think that it
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11 a.m.
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what is happening with the Loans Scheme. Indeed, for certain science courses, you may be entitled to more money than certain courses relating to the arts.
Secondly, we also have needs testing.
It is not that you get there and anytime you apply, you get it. That is the purpose of the Students Loans Trust. It is needs testing and they have started it. They started it last academic year -- [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, I am saying this because I know it - [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker, it was during my tenure as the hon. Minister for Education, Youth and Sports that I introduced the variation. So I know that as a fact. Probably, they may say that we need to refine it, but that is what is happening presently.
Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon. Member, continue.
Mr. Iddrisu 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure in pursuit of his presidential ambition, the hon. former Minister for Education, Youth and Sports, may have abandoned some of his Ministry's policy issues. Only the day before yesterday, I am referring him to The Daily Graphic, the Students Loan Trust made a public advertisement asking for expression of interest for the conduct of needs test. So he may want to get additional fresh information regarding what is happening at his back since he left the Ministry.
It has now just been advertised and I
am saying that we should do it because it has been on the drawing board for years. I remember that the National Council for
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11 a.m.
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I am saying it as a matter of fact, that that is happening. What he saw was an advertisement so that we have a comprehensive scheme applicable throughout the universities. That is what he is talking about. It does not mean that it does not exist. What is happening is that presently, there is a need for a comprehensive and scientific needs testing, so that is what is happening. What I said was that it is in existence.
Mr. Iddrisu 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, he has admitted that there is an advertisement for a needs test. Indeed, I am sure he would further admit that the amount of money given to students today is uniform. It is not as he wants this House to believe. All of them apply and they get about the same amount of money and I am saying that it is important that - [Interruption.]
Mr. Iddrisu 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, when I say it is the same, students at the University of Ghana and students at the polytechnics get about the same amount. For instance, those reading law today pay around ¢25 million; they do not get up to ¢10 million as a loan. So all that I am suggesting is that they are making life increasingly hard for certain category of students.
Mr. Speaker, may I add that I have often heard arguments that the National Democratic Congress (NDC) was 20 years of waste. The GETFund is one of the enduring institutional legacies of the previous administration. They cannot attempt to debate this matter. I will tomorrow associate President Kufuor with
his National Health Insurance Fund but, at least, people must admit that they have inherited worthy institutions.
Indeed, but for the GETFund, I have no hesitation that higher education would be under its heels. Look at the colossal amount that is going to infrastructure development, science and technology education, all commendable issues, and I think that we are making progress.
rose
Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon. Minister for Tourism and Diasporean Relations, do you have a point of order?
Mr. Asamoah-Boateng 11 a.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my hon. Colleague is misleading the House when he says that we say the NDC was a full of waste but the NDC brought about the GETFund. Nobody is saying that they did not start the GETFund but they did not implement it. When you have a plan on paper, it does not work. In fact, when they left office, it was in arrears - [Uproar.]
Mr. Asamoah-Boateng 11 a.m.
It was in arrears and we had to collect the arrears and pay back. So it was in arrears. We implemented it. So he is misleading the House.
Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon. Member, please, proceed.
Mr. Iddrisu 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that the hon. Minister for Tourism and Diasporean Relations appreciates how laws work. The GETFund Act was given presidential assent before
Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon. Member for Tamale South, whom are you addressing?
Mr. Iddrisu 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, your good self and the House.
Mr. Speaker, I am making reference to some hostels which were built for CAN 2008 with resources from the GETFund, specifically, one of it is located in my constituency around Dungu in Tamale. I have information from the Municipal Assembly of attempts to convert the facility to a hotel facility. The only appropriate thing we can do is to bequeath that hostel to the University of Development Studies either as a guest facility or a guest house or to support their numerous accommodation problems, even if it could be given to lecturers -
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11 a.m.
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, this assertion has not an iota of truth. It cannot happen - [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
Order!
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, sometimes some hon. Colleagues behave as if it is only when you are a Minister that you can point out misleading facts being made. Mr. Speaker, that facility belongs to the University for Development Studies (UDS). It does not belong to the Assembly for the Assembly even to attempt to use it as a hostel. That is what he is saying; it is just hearsay. I think the best thing he ought to have done was to make an enquiry from the hon. Minister and not to come to the floor of the House and say that he has heard a rumour. We do not deal with rumours here. We deal with facts; the hon. Member is misleading the House.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, maybe, the hon. Minister for Education, Youth and Sports will help him with the records and I will proceed because as much as I want -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
He may want to contribute but in the meantime, please, go on.
Mr. Iddrisu 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker thank you.
I am sure the hon. Member for Sekondi (Papa Owusu-Ankomah) could do himself and this House a lot of good if he was in consultation with the man on the seat today and that is Prof. Fobih.
Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Whom are you addressing?
Mr. Iddrisu 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, indeed, there is a proposal and the Minister for Education, Youth and Sports is aware of the proposal and the Administrator of the GETFund is aware of the proposal. I can refer to witnesses where this was discussed. Indeed, the UDS have only written officially now for a buy out which is a proposal now being considered -- [Interruption.]
Prof. Fobih 11:10 a.m.
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the hostel is the property of the UDS and the UDS has the right to decide whether to make part of it a guest house. So that is just the decision.
Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Order! Order! Please, wind up.
Mr. Iddrisu 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, it was within the precincts of this House that the hon. Minister, Prof. Fobih -- I was with my Colleagues, hon. Fuseini, and hon. Sumani Abukari at the gate there when he said that these were few -- [Inter- ruptions.]
Mr. Iddrisu 11:10 a.m.
No, in Parliament here. Mr. Speaker, he told me this in private and it is not y intention to come and betray him but he knows. I am compelled to say it because he discussed it and the Administrator confirmed it here. [Interruptions.]
Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Order! Order! Hon. Members, please, let us have decorum in the House. Hon. Member for Tamale South, I have advised you only to address the Chair; you see the problem you land yourself in when you address individuals?
Mr. Iddrisu 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I take your guidance appropriately but in concluding,
I am saying that this matter was privately mentioned by the hon. Minister together with my Colleagues and we shared our position with him. We recommended to him that -- [Interruptions.] Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Administrator of the GETFund confirmed this at the Committee of the Whole here -- [Interruptions.]
Prof. Fobih 11:10 a.m.
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, my hon. Colleague is misleading the House, in the sense that what I discussed with him was that the University for Development Studies (UDS) may want to use it like Legon Guest House. That is what they have done to generate internal revenue for the University. So they are thinking of also using part of the facility as a Guest House. This is what I discussed with him -- [Interruption.] I discussed that with him as a Member of Parliament for the area and not as a private conversation as such and then he gave me his view on the matter -- [Interruptions.]
Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Order! Order! Hon. Member for Tamale South, please, wind up by speaking to the motion.
Mr. Iddrisu 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is confirmed that he discussed the matter with me; he even goes further to say that it was not private. And I am saying that he should let that facility go to the UDS. I am not raising any controversial issue. They can use it to augment their accommodation requirement; that is all the point I am making. And he has admitted that -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Are you winding up?
Mr. Iddrisu 11:10 a.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Prof. Fobih 11:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, what I said was that, the University was proposing to do that.
Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon. Minister, I have
Mr. Iddrisu 11:10 a.m.
So Mr. Speaker, it is important that the Ministry takes an appropriate position because as I said, the UDS like many other institutions is not adequately resourced in terms of its accommodation and academic infrastructure. And I think that if the property went back to them, it would serve a good course.
Finally, I associate myself with the motion.
Mrs. Eugenia Gifty Kusi (NPP -- Tarkwa Nsuaem) 11:10 a.m.
Thank you Mr. Speaker for the opportunity to contribute to the motion on the floor to approve the GETFund for the year 2008.
Mr. Speaker, I must commend the Government for ensuring that the GETFund has something in it for all these programmes to be followed. I know that there are governments that promise that it would do this, it would set up this or that but those proposals never see the light of the day. If it had not been the pragmatic measures that the Government put in place in terms of the economy, I am sure that today, there would be nothing in the Fund for us to use. People pay taxes when they do business and they earn something so that taxes could be paid on what they earn.
Mr. Mahama Ayariga 11:10 a.m.
On a point
of order. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is clearly misleading this House. I think it is important for the hon. Member to appreciate the type of tax that we are paying in terms of value added tax. In terms of value added tax, I will pay for a phone call to my girl friend. That is not a business that is prospering in respect of which I am paying tax. So to conclude that the taxes are coming because businesses are prospering, it is clearly a misleading statement with regard to the type of tax that is accumulating the money that we are talking about today.
Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Order! Order! Hon. Members standing, please, resume your seats.
Mrs. Kusi 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if I do not work for my employer to pay me. I cannot even buy milk so that I can pay the value added tax. Mr. Speaker, if the economic situation has not improved, we would not have got this money and I think this Government needs to be commended.
Mr. Speaker, the scenario is like this, someone can give birth to a son but will ensure that that son is never looked after, he is never put to school. Mr. Speaker, when that somebody elsewhere has been able to help this son to go to school and get some money, that father will not be proud to even say that this is my son. Mr. Speaker, if you give birth to something,
you just name that thing and you are not prepared -- even as at the time of taking power the Board that should administer this Fund had never been put in place.
Mr. Speaker, the GETFund today is so robust and we are all enjoying it; let us appreciate that the Government has really put in something and we are enjoying it. Mr. Speaker, what else can we expect if a country had only two and half weeks import cover, what could we put in the GETFund at that time?
So Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that as Members of Parliament (MPs), today we are all enjoying the GETFund because a Government has worked and we have put something in the coffers and therefore, let us enjoy it.
We are pleading that at least MPs should get monitoring fees to be able to go round and monitor the projects and I know that this has been approved. We thank the Government, we thank everybody especially the people of Ghana and the fact that we have a Government that ensures that whatever it says, it does it at the appropriate time.
I thank you Mr. Speaker for the opportunity.
Mr. F. W. A. Blay 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, thank you very much and hon. Members as well for their contribution. This is your Committee of the Whole and we all took part in the discussion and arrived at the conclusion that we presented. We thank the Administrator of the GETFund as well for the good work that he has been doing. Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I would say that you should go ahead and put the Question.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Chairman of the Committee (Mr. F. W. A. Blay) 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 80 (1) which require that no motion shall be debated until at least forty-eight hours have elapsed between the date on which notice of the motion is given and the date on which the motion is moved, the motion for the adoption of the Report of the Committee of the Whole on the Proposed Formula for Distributing the District Assemblies' Common Fund (DACF) for the year 2008 may be moved today.
Mr. J. Y. Chireh 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
Proposed Formula for Distributing the District Assemblies'Common
Fund for the Year 2008
Chairman of the Committee (Mr. F. W. A. Blay) 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that this honourable House adopts the Report of the Committee of the Whole on the Proposed Formula for Distributing the District Assemblies' Common Fund (DACF) for the year 2008.
Mr. Speaker, I do also in moving wish to read your Report, that is the Report that we all together arrived at.
1.0 Background and Introduction
Article 252 (2) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana and the District Assemblies Common Fund Act, (1993), Act 455 mandates Parliament to make provision for the allocation of not less than five per cent (5%) of the total revenue of Ghana to the District Assemblies' Common Fund for the implementation of development programmes in the Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies. Section 7 (a) of the District Assemblies' Common Fund Act, (1993) Act 455 also requires the Administrator of the District Assemblies' Common Fund to propose annually for the approval of Parliament a formula for sharing the Common Fund to the District Assemblies.
IN PURSUANCE of article 252 (2) of the 1992 Constitution and section 7 (a) of the District Assemblies' Common Fund (DACF) Act (1993), Act 455, the hon. Minister for Local Government, Rural Development and Environment, Mr. Kwadwo Adjei-Darko, on Wednesday, 12th March, 2008 laid before Parliament, the proposed formula for sharing the 2008 District Assemblies' Common Fund.
Mr. Speaker referred the proposed formula to the Committee of the Whole for consideration and report.
The Committee of the Whole met on Thursday, 13th March, 2008, deliberated on the proposed formula and accordingly reports:
2.0 Acknowledgement
The Commit tee acknowledges the contribution of Members and the underlisted state officials who participated
in the deliberations:
i. The hon. Minister for Local G o v e r n m e n t , R u r a l Development and Environment.
ii. The Administrator of the District Assemblies' Common Fund and his officials.
3.0 References
The Committee of the Whole in considering the proposed formula referred to the following documents:
i. The 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.
i i . The Standing Orders of Par- liament.
iii. The Local Government Act, (1993) Act 462.
iv. The District Assemblies' Common Fund Act, (1993) Act 455.
v. The 2007 Report of the Com- mittee of the Whole on the Proposed Formula for Sharing the Dis t r ic t Assembl ies ' Common Fund.
5.0 Development of the Formula
5.1 Considerations in Developing the Formula
Since the Common Fund is to be used solely for development in areas where development was not evenly distributed, especially between urban and rural areas, the Common Fund should help redress the imbalance in development.
Per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) estimates had, until the 1960s, been
accepted as the comparative measure of the level of development.
The conceptual shift in the meaning of development since the 1960s has necessitated a change of the key indicators as well. Thus, the mainstay of development now is the “basic human needs” approach and not only economic indicators.
Deve lopment o f the Formula involves identifying factors which are quantifiable and capable of depicting all the considerations of the Formula. Verifiable indicators are then derived for these factors, measured and combined in a mathematical relationship to arrive at a component proportion for each district.
The philosophical basis of this Formula is to address the level of imbalance in resource allocation for development. With these considerations in view, the following five (5) factors have been adopted in the 2008 Proposed Formula.
i. The Need Factor:- The need factor takers into consideration the level of development of each district with the view to addressing imbalances in the level of development.
ii. Responsive Factor:- This factor aims at motivating districts to generate more local revenue for their development projects.
iii. Equality Factor:- This factor ensures that each district should have access to some minimum amount of fund for development.
iv. Service Pressure Factor:- The rationale behind this factor is to ensure that highly populated areas are compensated for
the over-utilisation of their facilities.
v. Reserve:- There should be a r e se rve fund to ca t e r for contingencies and bulk purchases for the districts and also cater for the monitoring and evaluation of the districts by the Office of the Administrator. The reserve fund has been increased in 2008 to cater for sanitation in the country and also to fund the proposed District Development Fund (DDF) programme.
6.0 Proposals for 2008
In the 2008 Budget, the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning proposed to allocate an amount of two hundred and thirty-six million, one hundred and ninety- seven thousand, five hundred Ghana cedis (GH¢236,197,500) representing 7.5 per cent of the total national revenue into the District Assemblies' Common Fund.
After allowing for 15 per cent reserve, the remaining amount is distributed among all the MMDAs using the following factors and indicators:
A. Need Factor
(a) Health
(i) Facilities
(ii) Doc/Pop. Ratio
(iii) Nurses/Pop. Ratio
(b) Education
(i) Facilities (ii) Teacher/Pupil Ratio
(c) Water
(i) Water Coverage
Mr. D. A. Azumah (NDC -- Garu/ Tempane) 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion. Mr. Speaker, in seconding the motion, I would like to make a few observations.
Mr. Speaker, I think that this august House and the Government must be commended for first of all, increasing the District Assemblies' Common Fund from 5 per cent to 7.5 per cent. Indeed, it is going to make resources available to all Metropolitan, Municipal, District Assemblies and Agencies (MMDAs) sufficient funds for development programmes.
Mr. Speaker, in arriving at some of these recommendations in the Report, I would like to call on all MMDAs to make judicious use of the funds available to them now. My concern, Mr. Speaker is that before the introduction of the District Assemblies' Common Fund, we had District Assemblies like Kintampo, Techiman, Bawku and Obuasi doing very well in their internally-generated revenues. Indeed, they were the few Assemblies you could talk of when we
are talking of Internally-Generated Funds (IGFs) in this country. Having introduced the District Assemblies Common Fund, Mr. Speaker, there is a problem now in the internal-generated revenues and the Assemblies must sit up to improve upon their performance on that.
Mr. Speaker, further to that, I think that having increased this Fund to 7.5 per cent, I would like to call on the Auditor-General to improve the supervision of the resources of the District Assemblies. Indeed, as we speak now, there is a whole backlog of the report of District Assemblies still in the hands of the Auditor-General and the reasons given for the delay is that they lack staff. I hope that they would able to improve upon their staff strength and make sure that there is proper supervision especially the internal audit agency.
They are the first lien of defence in preventing fraud, and so if we are able to strengthen the internal audit agency, we must have very limited problems in terms of the finances of the District Assemblies. So I would like to call on the internal audit agency to beef up their work. After having inaugurated them, they appear to be on the quiet side.
Again Mr. Speaker, I think that the District Assemblies' Common Fund Administrator must do his best to submit at regular intervals, as required by the Act, reports of the use of the District Assemblies' Common Fund to Parliament, so that we would be able to give an informed opinion of its utilization, how effective it is going on. I have no doubt that it is making the necessary impact but I think that the District Assemblies' Common Fund Administrator must be able to update Parliament by way of the reports
on the use of the Fund.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clear the minds of hon. Members in case anybody has doubts on paragraph 6.1, the Reserve Fund. Mr. Speaker, unlike last year, there was 75 per cent of the amount distributed equally to the Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies (MMDAs) with the balance of 25 per cent left as Reserve Funds in which 10 per cent was used for the Members of Parliament (MPs) contingency projects and other expenditures comprising the funding of Regional Co-ordinating Councils counterpart funding for projects, the Office of the Administrator and of course contingency fund. 15 per cent of that balance, 10 per cent was used to distribute to all District Assemblies for sanitation for 2007.

Unlike 2008, Mr. Speaker, that 10 per cent that was shared equally has now been factored into the main account and so has been distributed equally to all the 170 District Assemblies such that they now have sufficient money in their accounts for them to be able to fight sanitation in their own districts. It has therefore reduced the reserve fund from 15 per cent to 5 per cent in Accra, at the national level.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to appeal to my Colleagues to note that the hon. Members of Parliament (MPs) share of the Common Fund does not belong to hon. Members of Parliament. It is State resources and must be used for the intended purposes. I am very much aware that hon. Members of Parliament are very conscious about that and they are very careful so that the Auditor-General does not come in to the District Assemblies and find faults with Members.

The impression created out there in the
Mr. Joe Danquah (NPP -- Tain) 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I also rise to support the motion. I would like to make some few observations. Mr. Speaker, my first observation is on the newly created districts. Mr. Speaker, it looks like in the Fund we have not catered for certain basic needs of the newly created districts. The newly created districts are supposed to use part of their District Assemblies Common Fund allocation to provide for certain basic needs like administration block, residential and office accom-modation for heads of department and other staff.

Minister for Local Government, Rural Development and Environment (Mr. Kwadwo Adjei-Darko): Mr. Speaker, I hope I have mentioned in this House that the newly created Assemblies are going to be assisted by the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Environment to acquire administration blocks.
Mr. Joe Danquah 11:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Minister for that but I am not only talking about administration blocks. There are other major things that the newly created districts will like, and as I said, office accommodation and even residential accommodation for decentralized departments and other civil
and public servants who would be posted to such districts.
Mr. Speaker, I also agree with the Committee that tarred roads should be a major factor in determining the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF) and therefore some of us are not comfortable with the Administrator removing it from the Formula. In fact, some of us from the rural constituencies will lose this year but I hope that next year, the Administrator will take note of that. Mr. Speaker, let me refer you to page 4, “Sanitation Factor” and Mr. Speaker, with your permission I quote:
“The sanitation factor is to be shared among the Metropolitan and Municipal Assemblies”.
Mr. Speaker, it is as though it is only in the Metropolitan and the Municipal Assemblies that we have sanitation problems. Mr. Speaker, that perception is wrong. Mr. Speaker, if you go to all other districts even the rural districts we have sanitation problems. Mr. Speaker, to reduce the sanitation fund to only Metropolitan and Municipal Assemblies is totally unacceptable. I think we should share the Fund among all the District Assemblies so that the Assemblies can really manage their wastes. In fact, when you go to some of these rural districts, sanitation is a major problem.
Mr. Speaker, before I take my seat, I would like to comment on the deductions that are usually done by the Office of the Administrator of the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF). Mr. Speaker, I am not against the deduction per se but Mr. Speaker, deductions are made and it dislocates the whole budget that the Assemblies prepare.
Mr. Speaker, I have with me the Fourth Quarter release of my District Assemblies'
Common Fund allocation that is the Tain District Assemblies Common Fund and out of the GH¢240,000 we are left with only GH¢118,000 after the deduction. Mr. Speaker, this is a huge sum of money and as you all know these Assemblies prepare their budgets long, long before and therefore, any deduction that is made will affect a project or projects in the districts. And as I speak now, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of projects that are not completed because of this deduction.
Since the Assemblies did not know and have awarded the contracts to contractors and contractors have started work on those projects, Mr. Speaker, it is a problem for some of us. Going back to tell them that the Administrator has deducted all the money and therefore they should wait would be very difficult for some of us.
Therefore, I would like to plead with the Administrator that in future, if he would like to do any deduction at all he should consult with the Assemblies so that the Assemblies will incorporate it in their supplementary budget before deductions are made. Mr. Speaker, with these few comments I support the motion.
Mr. Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo (NDC -- Wa Central) 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion and to say that this Fund is one of the most important sources of development funding in this country but is also the most abused in the course of its administration.

Mr. Speaker, the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF) is a very controversial fund as well. Apart from the adverse public opinion about it, imagining that it is in the hands of people who are using it the way they want and especially the hon. Members of Parliament, it is also clearly being abused by many District Chief Executives (DCEs) and Municipal Chief Executives (MCEs) as well.
Mr. Adjei-Darko 11:40 a.m.
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is making a very serious statement. We have the Auditor-General and if it comes before the House that specific contracts have been inflated, Members and the general public have the right to talk about it. But for an individual hon. Member, just on perception, without any scientific basis to get up and make serious allegations against the use of the District Assemblies Common Fund -- He may perceive it to be on the higher side, that is the project cost, but then we would all accept it if he complains and people go into it and conform that in fact it has been inflated. Other than that we should not be making such statements on the floor of the House because the DCEs are not here to defend themselves.
Mr. Pelpuo 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on authority. I know that many of us have read it in the newspapers, and I know we have also found it in the Public Accounts Committee report, and I know that a very senior Member here has even complained about it in public. It is common knowledge that the District Assemblies Common Fund is largely being abused and it is important that we bring it into public domain. I am not going to make any concrete sugges-tion that there is this thing happening and I am pointing fingers at anybody. But it is important that that perception is brought up so that we can go into it more forcefully and bring out -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Pelpuo 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, because the impression being created is that I am making statements that are controversial, for the moment, I would not go that direction any longer. But it is important that we investigate the use of the District Assemblies Common Fund and it is important also that we hon. Members of Parliament take particular interest n it. It is crucial because it is the only thing that is left now.
The Assemblies are finding it difficult to do local resource mobilization. There is a fund created for them, it must be followed and we must ensure that this Fund is used properly. That is why the 2 per cent allocated in the report for hon. Members of Parliament to do monitoring is very crucial and critical.
I will urge hon. Members to make use of the 2 per cent and more through a monitoring exercise and ensure that the Fund is properly used. I am saying this on the basis of perception but I have raised the alarm and it is important that we go ahead and concretize findings about them so that in the future, when eventually the Funds are approved, we are sure that they are sued for the purpose for which they are provided.
Mr. J. H. Mensah 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I asked your kind permission that you make a ruling and perhaps, if I may appeal to you once more to rule those words out and have them withdrawn not appear in our records.
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon. Member, I thought you were going to withdraw, please withdraw and let us make progress.
Mr. Pelpuo 11:40 a.m.
I actually withdrew it but maybe he did not hear me.
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
You may wish to repeat it for the benefit of others.
Mr. Pelpuo 11:40 a.m.
I am saying that because what I am saying is largely on perception I am withdrawing that aspect and I am emphasizing the need for us to go into the fact that the perception must be investigated and scientific proof given so that we can be sure that what we hear from the radio and read in the newspapers are true or false. This is money that we have earned through hard work ad it is supposed to be used for development purposes. And if DCEs are found guilty and culpable for offences of that nature and reported in the newspapers, it is important to investigate. But I withdraw it in that respect.
Mr. Speaker, I said that there are two things I want to present in addition to what I have said so far. The first one is that I have also head from the press a lot of arguments about the Members of Parliament holding of the District Assemblies Common Fund, the need for hon. Members of Parliament to have it. Some say it is not necessary and others say it is very necessary. I think that it is a very crucial and very important part of the job of the Member of Parliament, to
have at least some level of control of some funding for emergency projects.
We are not equal to the hon. Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom or United States of America or Germany or in any of the western countries. This is the Parliament of Ghana; we define how we want to look like and how we want to run our legislature. If by the wisdom of the people, the framers of the Constitution and then the super structures that make up the legislature, there is the need for us to have a District Assemblies Common Fund, we need to maintain it so that eventually it will couch out a certain tradition and convention that can be enduring and that can be beneficial to our people.
To say that the hon. Members of Parliament should not control it is a very dangerous trend of argument and I want to put it on record that it is important that hon. Members of Parliament's District Assemblies Common Fund as approved by this report is used by the hon. Members of Parliament in the most appropriate way so that the public will no longer have it in mind that we put it in our pockets and work with it. We do not put it in our pockets, it is something that is with the DCEs and we authorize their disbursement on projects as a result.
Mr. Adjei-Darko 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
Mr. Pelpuo 11:40 a.m.
It is Common Fund given to the Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies (MMDAs) and the heads there are the DCEs and the MCEs. And I am not talking about just physically giving it. I do not think that he should also have that impression the public is having that anytime monies are set to the Assemblies, they are located in the pockets of the MCEs and the DCEs. I do not want to create that impression.
Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon. Member, wind up.
Mr. Pelpuo 11:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is important that those factors are able to ginger up the Assemblies to generate their own funds. If we completely rely on this Fund, it is going to eventually collapse and the Assemblies would be in trouble.
In conclusion, I am just saying that once
these monies go to the Assemblies, the Assemblies would have the responsibility of expending them in the best interest of the people. And if some care is not taken, eventually, we would have it out there in the public opinion that it is used for personal purposes which is not the reason we are sending it.
Thank you Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity.
Alhaji M. A. Yakubu (NPP - Yendi) 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to speak on one issue conflicts between hon. Members of Parliament (MPs) and District Chief Executives (DCEs). The way this paragraph goes, it looks as if as soon as the 2 per cent of the MP's share of the District Assemblies Common Fund is set aside and Members of Parliament (MPs) are able to access the amount from the Office of the Administrator then the conflict between MPs and DCEs will go.
I think that while the District Assemblies Common Fund plays a major role in the conflict between MPs and DCEs, there are a lot of other areas that conflict free, tension free MPs/DCEs relationship will help in a tremendous way in the development of the districts.
Therefore, this is a matter that ought not to be looked at as if it is just this aspect as has been indicated here that that will solve the problem. DCEs and MPs need to co-operate for the total development of the area and MPs have a lot of roles to play in lobbying and making valuable contacts for projects to go to the districts if the two co-operate.
The most effective way, however,
fortunately is one that has been initiated by the Ministry for Parliamentary Affairs and the Office of the District Assemblies
Common Fund (DACF). By organizing workshops, the recent one being at this weekend which was held in Ho for the MPs and the DCEs and MCEs from Eastern and Volta Regions, to objectively and critically examine those factors that account for this poor relationship between MPs and DCEs.
I think the Ministry for Parliamentary Affairs and the DACF should be commended very highly because that is a move that will effectively remove whatever accounts for the tension and conflict between DCEs and MPs, and all must help in this effort so that this workshop will travel all over the country and eventually DCEs and MPs will see that their constituents and their areas stand to benefit more from their co-operation than their conflict.
I think it is a very good point that has been brought here, but let us not look at it as if as soon as you deal with the District Assemblies Common Fund then all the problems are gone. I think we need to go deeper into the factors, and remove these factors militating against the co-operation between the two sides. I think it will be better for the country.
Alhaji Collins Dauda (NDC -- Asutifi South) 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I also rise to support the motion and in doing so I just want to make one or two observations. Mr. Speaker, no doubt this DACF is a fund that has moved the developmental agenda of this country forward and therefore I see any issue relating to the DACF as a very important issue. Mr. Speaker, but District Assemblies to some extent are not given the free hand sometimes to determine what they would want their Common Fund to be used for.
Mr. Speaker, District Assemblies are in charge of the development and programmes of the District Assemblies and therefore
Alhaji Collins Dauda (NDC -- Asutifi South) 11:50 a.m.


District Assemblies have their own developmental agenda and would want to prosecute such developmental agenda, using resources at their disposal, which includes the DACF. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, sometimes, certain deductions or some deductions are made at the centre that are done without the approval of the District Assembly.

Mr. Frederick Opare-Ansah -- rose
-- 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Hon. Member, do you have a point of order?
Mr. Opare-Ansah 11:50 a.m.
That is so, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Colleague on his feet is misleading the House and the entire country. He is not a member of the District Assembly -- [Uproar.]
Mr. Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Order! Order!
Mr. Opare-Ansah 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Hon. Member for Asutifi South, please continue.
Alhaji Collins Dauda 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the reaction of the House will tell him whether he got it right or wrong. Mr. Speaker, all that I am saying is that the Assemblies must be given the free hand so that their developmental projects are not disorganized by such actions.
In 2006 also, in one of my release letters, I noticed that some money had been deducted at the centre for the procurement of television sets when the Assembly never took any such decision to buy television sets.
Mr. Speaker, the District Assembly has very important or pressing issues that these monies could have been used to address but this is deducted at source. And for the Assemblies to have free hand, I will suggest to the Minister for Local Government, Rural Development and Environment that from now on let us pass on the money to them, provide the guidelines within which they have to operate and give them the free hand to utilize the money the way it will benefit the people.
Mr. Speaker, this suggestion is very useful. If we have a District Assembly that utilizes the Common Fund for the benefit of the people of the District Assembly, Mr. Speaker, it goes a long way to promote the government in power.
Therefore this suggestion must be taken in good faith.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, last year, we had the opportunity and privilege of debating the Annual Estimates of the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Environment and in
the Report of your Committee on Local Government the issue of standardization of project cost came up and it was debated on the floor here.
Mr. Speaker, in some Distr ict Assemblies, you would find that if a World Bank project, or an NGO, or for that matter any institution other than the District Assembly or government is putting up, for instance, a six-unit classroom block, the cost of that sometimes varies and is very huge compared with the cost of a similar structure provided by the District Assembly and funded by the District Assemblies Common Fund.

12 noon
Mr. Joe Danquah 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, he

Mr. Speaker, that is the procurement law and therefore I do not know how the hon. Minister for Local Government, Rural Development and Environment can send a letter to say, an Assembly in the

North, Upper East or Upper West telling the Assembly that this is how much they should expend when somebody bids and maybe he won and the contract sum is over and above what the hon. Minister stated.

Mr. Speaker, again you look at where some of our Assemblies are - Paga, Upper East, Upper West and then Greater Accra here - and the cost of transportation, look at the cost of building materials from here to the Upper East and Upper West and again look at the labour cost. Mr. Speaker, there is no way the hon. Minister for Local Government, Rural Development and Environment can instruct all Assemblies to standardise prices and therefore the hon. Member is misleading us.
Alhaji Dauda 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad that he started by saying that he was confused. I would help him out of the confusion, but maybe not on the floor of the House. When we get out I would help him out of that confused state.
Mr. Speaker, I raised that issue because it was embodied in a report of your Committee on Local Government and it was debated and certainly it was not for nothing that the issue came up in your report. I can cite examples in my constituency. In my constituency, there is one of the zones called Sienkyem and in the project list last year one project, a six classroomed block was being constructed by a non-governmental organisation (NGO) and the cost of that project was ¢350 million. In the same village there was another project, a three-classroomed block and that also cost ¢550 million. So it was raised at the Assembly.
The reason the District Chief Executive gave was that the consultants who put the cost together were those that we needed to question. But the fact still remains
Mr. Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Hon. Member, please wind up.
Alhaji Dauda 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, all that I am saying is that we need to take a close look at the cost of the project in the Assemblies so that we can make savings for more projects to be executed by the District Assemblies and also go give the Assemblies free hand in determining what projects they want to execute for the benefit their people.
On this note Mr. Speaker, I thank you so much.
Minister for Tourism and Diasporan Relations (Mr. S. Asamoah-Boateng) 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to contribute to the debate on the report of your Committee. Very briefly, I would like to talk on the “Observation” -- 8.1 -- Increment of the Fund from 5 per cent to 7½. Mr. Speaker, I think we should commend the Government for the 50 per cent increase in the District Assemblies Common Fund which would go a long way to help the decentralisation process. When last year this House approved it, it was very laudable to both sides of the House and I believe that the districts would appreciate that this is no solution to their internally generated funds. I have had the opportunity of being at the Ministry and I have had an opportunity on the floor of the House to insist that internally generated funds within the Assemblies must be of priority.
The District Assemblies Common Fund has now become like everything to all the Assemblies and it is not going to help them if that is what they are going to use. The new districts; the new districts must not only be looking up to the District Assemblies Common Fund; they must be encouraged to look at the internally generated funds and raise enough revenue and in so doing modify the way they do things, not the same old ways of collecting revenue, not the same old ways of expecting the urban councils and others to collect the money and not giving them anything in return.
So there is no cooperation. They should be able to work together and raise enough revenue at the local level and use the District Assemblies Common Fund as some sort of addition.

I will not mention names; some come from the hon. Member's area. Some of the

District Assemblies do not even care; they do not even go to learn how they utilise the money in other districts. So we have been encouraging them to learn from each other. Whenever they meet they must learn the best practices around them so that they can all raise the standards in their districts.

Mr. Speaker, my last comment is
Alhaji Muntaka Mubarak 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, on a point or order. If my hon. Colleague says that it is in consultation with the Assembly, that cannot be a factual statement. Talking with the District Chief Executive is different from talking with the Assembly and when the monies are approved from this House it is only the assembly that can approve its expenditure and he would agree with me that most of the discussions are at the level of the District Chief Executive. That is not enough and I think he is misleading this House by creating the impression that it is the District Assembly that is being consulted for the use of this money.
Mr. Asamoah-Boateng 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the District Chief Executive or the Municipal Chief Executive and his/her Executive Committee are almost always in consultation on any issue that the centre
Mr. Mahama Ayariga 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important for this principle to be clearly stated that the current arrangement for decentralization does not vest the in the Executive Committee and the Municipal or District Chief Executive to take decisions on expenditure. Decisions regarding spending must be made by the Assembly. The Executive Committee, as the words denote, is to execute decisions that have been taken by the Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, so if he has been a Minister for Local Government, Rural Development and Environment, and he is saying this on the floor of the House, I think it is important for us to clarify it because the whole country is listening to him and we do not want District Chief Executives and Executive Committees to take away the message that they can bypass or that they can approve expenditures and later on go in for ratification. It is not a good practice. It is not the best practice at all. So please let us correct this statement.
Mr. Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Hon. Minister, you may wish to take this on board.
Mr. Asamoah-Boateng 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I take on board the point he made. But
there is nothing wrong when there is an emergency situation and the Executive Committee -- [Interruptions] -- But that is a fact, there is nothing illegal about it. But it must go to the Assembly. Even if it is outside their expenditure which was approved by the Assembly, it must go back to them. They do. So the point is not anything different from what he said.
Mr. Speaker, finally, I want to comment on the proposed two per cent from the Member of Parliament's share of the Common Fund for the monitoring. We commend the Administrator and the hon. Minister for that. But of course, as my hon. Colleague, the hon. Second Deputy Speaker has mentioned, it is important for us to recongise that by so doing, it does not remove the so-called conflict which obviously we all know exists in some areas.
It is one aspect of it. Of course, this contention about utilization of money also brings a conflict. It is a good effort but we must go beyond that and establish good working relationships between Members of Parliament and District Chief Executives (DCEs), that calls for more than just allocation of money. And that calls for the input of all the stakeholders, especially the traditional authorities so that we can have a harmonious relationship at the district level.
On that note, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to contribute to the motion.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu (NDC -- Tamale South) 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I need your guidance on a matter before the conclusion of the debate and before you put the Question.
Mr. Speaker, I have with me the abridged version of the Budget Statement which was presented by the hon. Minister for Finance and Economic Planning, in
Mr. Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Who is winding up to
clear these matters?
Yes , hon . Minis te r fo r Loca l Government, Rural Development and Environment?
Mr. Kwadwo Adjei-Darko 12:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, before I wind up, I want to draw the attention of the House to page 6 of the Report, item (iv) -- Conflicts between Members of Parliament (MPs) and DCEs. At the Committee sitting, I had the impression that what is put down here is not the correct thing.
Mr. Speaker, the Members of Parliament are getting six per cent of the total and out of that part of it is going to monitoring. But what has been put here is two per cent of Members of Parliament's share. Let us take a hypothetical case where the Member for Parliament's share is GH¢6,000. Two per cent of it would be GH¢120 but I think by the committee's, the Member of Parliament's share, if it was GH¢6,000, GH¢2,000 was going to go to the Member of Parliament and GH¢4,000 was going to go to the projects. This is the impression I had. So the language here should be examined because two per cent of GH¢6,000 would give us GH¢120 which is far, far less than what the Members of Parliament expect.
So it should be corrected before we approve it -- [Interruptions] -- I said, page 6, (iv) -- Conflict between Members of Parliament and DCEs -- We are setting aside two per cent of Members of Parliament's share. So if one is getting GH¢6,000, two per cent of that GH¢6,000 and that will be GH¢120, so we have to correct it.
Mr. Speaker, taking off from the last point which was given by the hon. Member for Tamale South, yes, we have to categorise the Assemblies. But perhaps,
not taking them off completely from the District Assemblies Common Fund since it is meant for the District Assemblies, all of them should enjoy it. Perhaps in looking at the formula, we should see that those who are expected to generate less revenue should be given less of the District Assemblies Common Fund so that we can maintain the balance.
Mr. Speaker, there was a contribution on the internal audit mechanism. I must say that the Internal Audit Agency has not been quiet after its inauguration as was suggested by an hon. Member. Internal Auditors have been posted to all the initial 138 districts. Some have reported but others have not. So the Ministry is in the process of checking to find out where vacancies are so that we fill all these places with internal auditors.
Another comment was on the fact that the sanitation factor has been limited to support only Municipal and Metropolitan Assemblies. Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that most of our metropolitan areas have floating populations on daily basis. There are millions of people who come to Accra on daily basis, transact their businesses, contribute to waste and leave. So, if the centre is assisting with limited resources to help the Assemblies in the metropolitan areas and the municipalities, perhaps, we have to understand it that way.
Mr. Speaker, I must thank hon. Members but draw their attention to one fact which I want the House to look at. The National Association of Local Government of Ghana (NALAG) collects dues from the Assemblies using a percentage. Normally, organizations will look at their budget expenditure pattern for the year and share it amongst members as dues for payment but NALAG takes a percentage.
So as the quantum goes up, the Assemblies are paying more to NALAG and whether they need that money or not, they will find a way of using it. It was 5 per cent, now we have gone up to 7.5 per cent. And if it is one per cent of the District Assemblies Common Fund, it means they have also moved form one per cent of the national revenue to one per cent of the 7.5 per cent of the national revenue. We have to look at that as a House. I have drawn the attention of the leadership of NALAG to it but I think we also have to look at that.
Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon. Minister for Local Government, Rural Development and Environment, which figure are we dealing with? The hon. Member for Tamale South mentioned several other figures, which is the correct figure for purposes of our record?
Mr. Adjei-Darko 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, form the point of view of the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Environment and what the Administrator is working with, I would say we are dealing with what is on the report, unless the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning would want to explain further.
Minister of State (Dr. Akoto Osei) 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot confirm the GH¢236. What we are aware of is the GH¢234 that we brought to this House,
GH¢234,290.07.
Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
What is the figure?
Dr. Osei 12:20 p.m.
The figure they have put in the report is GH¢236,197,500, form the Committee's Report. What we brought to this House is GH¢234,290,700. So if the honourable Chairman does not mind we can caucus to confirm the numbers and come back for the vote so that we know the right thing is being done.
Mr. Freddy Blay 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, that places us in a tight corner but if the two Ministries could put their heads together and advise us, we would agree to the figure that the two of them have agreed on. In that respect Mr. Speaker, maybe, we would plead that you defer the vote till tomorrow.
Mr. E. K. D. Adjaho 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I just need your direction. Are we deferring it for them to give us the correct figure? Because that is the proposal -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
You are approving it subject to this correction.
Mr. Adjaho 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is important that we know because I have seen another figure in the budget that tallies with what we have approved.
Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Are you suggesting that we should correct it before we put the Question?
Mr. Adjaho 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we should know the amount for our monitoring purposes for us to perform our oversight duty. As a Parliament we should know the amount we are approving for purposes of the District Assemblies Common Fund for the financial year ending 2008. Now that there is a certain doubt, let us get the correct figure -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon. Deputy Minority Leader, we will defer it for the next few minutes. We will put our heads together and resolve it.
Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Leadership, can we take item 14?
Mr. A. O. Aidooh 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, let us
rose
Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon. Member for Bawku Central, what is it?
Mr. Ayariga 12:20 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that we are taking the Communications Service Tax Bill and I am the one who moved the amendment to clause 1 and that is why I am on my feet.
Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
They have not read it out yet; exercise patience, young man.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 12:20 p.m.
STAGE 12:20 p.m.
  • [Resumption of consideration from 17/3/08.]
    • Mr. Ayariga 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1 -- delete.
    Mr. Speaker, this clause seeks to impose a tax to be levied on charges payable by consumers for the use of communication services. Mr. Speaker, if you refer to the memorandum to the Bill, it reads and with your permission let me quote:
    “the imposition of this tax is part of efforts by Government to widen the tax net in order to increase revenue yield”
    rose
    Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon. Member for Sekondi, do you have a point of order?
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:20 p.m.
    Yes Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the direction in which the hon. Member is proceeding is contrary to our rules. Mr. Speaker, I refer the House to Order 128 (2) and (4) (b).
    Mr. Speaker, Order 128 (2) states that and with your permission I quote 12:20 p.m.
    “At the Consideration Stage of a Bill the House shall not discuss the principle of the Bill but only its details”
    And Order 128 (4) (b) states that and with your permission I quote:
    “At the Consideration Stage of a Bill the House may make such amendments as it considers fit, provided that the amendments (including new clauses and new schedules) comply with the following conditions: (b) “they must not be inconsistent
    with any clause already agreed to or any decision already come to by the House.”
    Mr. Speaker, in debating or in considering the Second reading of the Bill, we discussed the principle and we took a decision that the House agrees with the principles of the Bill and therefore, it successfully went through the Second reading stage. Now, what the hon. Member seeks to do is to oppose the very principles of the Bill, the imposition of the tax and if this continues, what it would amount to is that the decision would be inconsistent with the decision already come to by the House that the Bill be read a Second time.
    The combined effect of these provisions, therefore, makes the direction in which the hon. Member to be proceeding to
    be contrary to the rules of the House. I, therefore, pray that, Mr. Speaker, you rule the hon. Member out of order and then we proceed with the consideration of the Bill.
    Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon. Member for Sekondi, whilst I do not intend to rule on this matter, I will rather put the Question so that we vote on it.
    Mr. Ayariga 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, that has spared me the need to respond -- [Interruption.]
    rose
    Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon. Member, do you intend the challenge the ruling on this matter?
    Mr. Hackman Owusu-Agyemang 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think you put it in a very difficult way. I do not intend to challenge the Speaker but that notwithstanding, the rules of this House are quite clear and therefore, we are setting a precedent because it is not everything that - It is the spirit of what we are discussing. So in putting the Question, Mr. Speaker, it means that we are completely going against our own rules, the grain of our rules of procedure here.
    Mr. Ayariga 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before I was interrupted by the hon. Member on the other side, I believe that if the objective of the Government is to widen the tax net, existing evidence shows that even for the tax legislation that we already have and the intended targets, if we were to work harder and reach out to all those who are supposed to pay tax even income tax alone, we would be raking in more than 50 or 100 per cent of what we are currently raking in by way of tax revenue. And so Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the best approach to increasing

    our tax revenues is to consistently pass new legislation imposing tax on all sorts of consumables that the citizenry are entitled to.

    Mr. Speaker, I also want to refer to the memorandum and the argument for the imposition of tax under clause 1 of the Bill.
    Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon. Member for Bawku Central, you have made your point. You may resume your seat while we listen to the views of others.
    Mr. Ayariga 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it is not just one point that I seek to make.
    Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    How many points?
    Mr. Ayariga 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I have two points.
    Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Go ahead.
    Mr. Ayariga 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the second
    Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 12:30 p.m.
    On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Bawku Central (Mr. Mahama Ayariga) is completely out of order and you should not allow him to continue to hold this House hostage. Mr. Speaker, per our Standing Orders, as much as this side disagrees with the principle which is so coherently stated at the Second Reading, Mr. Speaker, your good self put the Question and the principles on the basis of the majority and numbers was to take it through Second Reading
    The issues he is seeking to raise is to reverse us back to another unacceptable Second Reading of the Bill. This is because Mr. Speaker, the amendment on clause 1 as he seeks to make is the
    Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon. Member for Tamale South, as I did indicate that I was not going to rule on this matter but that I was going to put it to a vote; that is what I indicated.
    Mr. A.O. Aidooh 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, yesterday my hon. Colleague spoke for about 20 minutes on the same matter, so he should not be given any more time.
    Mr. Ayariga 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that as an hon. Member of this House, I have a right to move for the amendment of any clause in a Bill and this action is pursuant to that right.
    Mr. Speaker, the second point that I wish to make is that clause 1 which seeks to impose a tax on a consumable like communication services is said to be predicated on a need to pursue some development agenda and create more jobs, et cetera. Mr. Speaker, indeed, we have been bombarded with a number of advertisements indicating that this tax is being imposed for the purposes of promoting development and creating more jobs for the people of this country. Mr. Speaker, the available evidence does not show that increased taxation indeed promote development and create more jobs for the people of this country.
    Mr. Speaker, to date, this Government has raked in not less than 20 billion dollars since they came into office. Mr. Speaker, it has not translated into addressing the social and economic conditions of the people of this country. Mr. Speaker, this
    tax that is being imposed is being imposed to finance the obvious conspicuous consumption of the Government and must be opposed.
    Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon. Member, you have made your point.
    Mr. Ayariga 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I have not finished.
    Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    You have made your point.
    Mr. Ayariga 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, unless you are asking me to wind up.
    Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon. Member, you are not going to take the whole day.
    Mr. Ayariga 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am winding up. But Mr. Speaker, considering that my hon. Friends on the other side have mobilized their numbers today in order to be able to defeat me on this amendment.
    Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Order! Order! Hon. Members, unfortunately, we do not award cost in this House. It is withdrawn.
    Amendment by leave withdrawn.
    rose
    Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Do you intend to move another amendment?
    Mr. Baah-Wiredu 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend is going to be featured on television with the points he made which are not true. Mr. Speaker, even in the imposition of taxes, we are reducing taxes. Even on today's Order Paper, page 3, we
    are reducing taxes. The Committee has even proposed - reduction of value added tax and the National Health Insurance Tax and then other taxes. So Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend is misleading the whole country. He is misleading the whole country and all the points that he has raised are not true.
    Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Minister, the hon. Member has already withdrawn his application, so let us go on.
    There is a further amendment in the name of the hon. Member of Tamale South. Are you withdrawing that too?
    Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, we discussed this with the Majority Leader at winnowing and I may withdraw it on condition that the proposed amendment to clause 1 that these matters are restricted to class one licences are accepted. So if with your indulgence we can take that one and I am convinced it will not stretch to the limits that we seek to define it, I may consider withdrawing several other amendments.
    Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    You are withdrawing?
    Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 12:30 p.m.
    Not so, Mr. Speaker. I am saying subject to us debating an amendment to clause 1 and it being accepted.
    Mr. Aidooh 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, what it means is that we must take clause 1 - item (v) first.
    Mr. Hackman Owusu-Agyemang 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, some clarification is required regarding the withdrawal and the submission by the hon. Minister of Finance and Economic Planning. Is it my understanding that all that he has said is going to be expunged from the

    records? Because from what he said, the hon. Minister for Finance and Economic Planning is saying that what he said is not true, and we do not wan to debate. And Mr. Speaker, you have said we are not going to debate, otherwise, we would have come by a substantive motion.

    It has to be the case that whatever he has said must be expunged from the records. Otherwise, there should be an answer form this side to all the things he has said. So it should be expunged from the records. Mr. Speaker, that is the proper way to go; we cannot let him go for posterity to read what he had said when it is not true, and when he is gone unchallenged because of your ruling. And so Mr. Speaker, it has to be expunged from the records. That is the submission I want to make, and I think I am on a very sure ground.
    Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    You may be. But I am not sure. Deputy Minority Leader, what do you say to that?
    Mr. Adjaho 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the suggestion coming from the former presidential aspirant is not supported by the practice and the rules of this House. Mr. Speaker, any Member at any time can always withdraw his amendment. And that is by taking the sense of the House, by taking the reaction, by taking all other factors into consideration. Mr. Speaker, if you look through the Hansard there had been several times that hon. Members withdraw their amendments.
    Mr. Speaker, I think he has withdrawn the amendment, I think that we have to make progress. Asking him to withdraw is not supported by the rules. If there is any provision which says that refer to the Standing Orders and let us see.
    Alhaji Malik Alhassan Yakubu 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if you are minded to let things stand as the hon. Member for Bawku Central (Mr. Mahama Ayariga) concluded, then in order to give a fair balance to both sides, you may have to allow the hon. Minister for Finance and Economic Planning who had got up to respond to what he described as inaccuracies in hon. Ayariga's statement -- [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Order! Order! Hon. Members, please, let me explain this situation to you. In any case, the hon. Minister for Finance and Economic Planning was given the opportunity to react to that too, and his point was quiet clear that the figures the hon. Member for Bawku Central had given were all wrong. I thought that should have settled this matter.
    Alhaji Yakubu 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, well what I -- [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    If we want the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning to go into details, it is going to take us the whole day.
    Alhaji Yakubu 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the point I wanted to make -- [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    I have not called you yet.
    Alhaji Yakubu 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, -- [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    I have not called you yet. Majority Leader?
    Mr. Aidooh 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I propose that we take item 5 --
    Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Majority Leader, I did not hear what you said.
    Mr. Aidooh 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I propose that we move on to amendment number
    5 --
    rose
    Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Hon. Minister for Manpower, Youth and Employment, what do you have to say?
    Nana Akomea 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, there is one serious statement I need to bring to your attention. The hon. Member for Bawku Central (hon. Ayariga) in withdrawing his amendment said that he was going that on the basis that we had mobilized our members that was why he was withdrawing it. Mr. Speaker, we have not mobilized members to oppose him. Indeed, the first hon. Member of this House who opposed him was the hon. Member for Tamale South (Mr. Haruna Iddrisu) who is a member on his own side. So that basis of his statement should be expunged from the records because it is not true.
    Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    We are going on with this. What about the further amendments? Chairman of the Committee?
    Nii Adu Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1 -- subclause (2), delete and insert “the tax shall be levied on all communications service usage charged by communication service providers licensed with Class I licences as contained in the National Communications Regulations
    2003 (L.I. 1719)”
    Mr. Speaker, taking direction from your good self and that of the Leader of this House, I move to item 15 (5), roman (v) on page 19. Mr. Speaker, that is the Committee's recommendation and in conjunction with hon. Haruna Iddrisu so that is the new insertion we want this House to adopt instead of the subclause (2) as contained in the Bill. I so move.
    Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Hon. Member for Tamale South, is it the case?
    Mr. Iddrisu 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, that is the case. I wan to support the amendment but with your indulgence, just make a few remarks to explain.
    Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Do you have to? -- [Interruption.]
    Mr. Iddrisu 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I have to. Mr. Speaker, initially, in doing so, I may even seek your indulgence after you have put the Question to withdraw amendments in respect of roman numbers (ii), (iii), -- All the amendments proposed in my name under clause 1 would become redundant if this is approved. And the idea is that we did not want the tax to be stretched to affect internet service providers who are doing some services for us in respect of young people using internet, and we did not want this tax to be a disincentive to it. So the idea to restrict it to voice com-munication was to narrow the institutions or the service providers who will be affected. These new proposed amendments carefully taken, I associate myself with them and would consider those earlier ones withdrawn.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 1 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, do you intend to move this further amendment of yours?
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, there is one other amendment -- in clause 2, if my hon. Friend wish to withdraw that.
    Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    We have not yet got to clause 2. I am referring to roman (v). [Interruption] -- That is all right. Then clause 2 --

    Clause 2 -- Persons liable to pay the tax.

    Hon. Member for Tamale South, are you abandoning it?
    Mr. Iddrisu 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, absolutely. Because of the item v that we have adopted.

    Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3 -- Rate of the tax.

    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, subclause (1), line 1, delete “not be more than 8% and insert “be 6%”.
    Mr. Speaker, the clause would therefore read as follows 12:40 p.m.
    “The rate of the tax shall be 6 per cent of the charge for the use of the communication service”.
    Mr. Speaker, your Committee so proposes.
    Mr. J. Y. Chireh 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I wan to oppose the 6 per cent. I want it to go down to 5 per cent if you would allow the amendment to be -- [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Hon. Member for Wa West, I thought I gave you the opportunity yesterday to discuss these matters and agree on something.
    Mr. Chireh 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we did not agree on this one so the point I am making is that taxes are difficult to pay so in this respect we just want 5 per cent and not 6 per cent.
    Mr. Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee is this agreeable to you?
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, absolutely no.
    Mr. Hackman Owusu-Agyemang 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the original formulation, it shall not be more that 8 per cent, so it could be 6 per cent and that gives a bit of flexibility. Is it my understanding, from the Chairman, that he wants to absolutely fix it at 6 per cent because he said not more than 8 so it could be 6 at the discretion of the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning? But right now, he is restricting him to 6 per cent, is that the intention of the amendment?
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, because of the nature of the imposition of the tax, we want the tax to be specific. In this case therefore, by specifying an amount, 6 per cent or let us say, one per cent, it is better than the use of the words “not more than 8 per cent”. Mr. Speaker that is the essence of why we introduced 6 per cent and that is in conformity with the proposed agreement with the providers, the Ministry and your Committee.
    Maj. (Dr.) (Alhaji) Mustapha Ahmed (retd.): Mr. Speaker, the original proposal says “not more than 8 per cent” and if that is being deleted, I believe that then we must take the mean value. One to eight, the mean value or the median value is four. Therefore, I proposed four per cent.
    Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the proposal except to accept the deletion of the words “not be more than” and make it big but not six per cent. It is not wholly true that the service providers agree to 6 per cent. I have taken part in every discussion of this Bill and ideally, I have done my computation; they have shifted away from per minute to ad valerum. Five per cent on the basis of the traffic that we have on our airtime particularly so that inter-connectivity is
    now going to be affected which originally was not their intention.
    They can rope in the amount of money that they need with the five per cent and indeed, the service providers at the last meeting called for four per cent but I have graduated it by an additional one. The Chairman was in that meeting and he is aware that they said that they were more comfortable with four per cent. So Mr. Speaker, let them agree for the first time, let them agree to something from this side - five per cent and then we will make progress - five per cent. There is a proposed amendment at the back stage for five per cent, so let us resolve it. Mr. Speaker, this is a new tax regime. With your indulgence, let me explain.
    Mr. Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    You have made your point. Let others speak.
    Mr. Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, so it should be five per cent.
    Mr. Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, let us hear from you first.
    Mr. Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    What are you proposing?
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, six per cent. Even if we were to take his reasoning, if you add five to eight per cent and divide it by two, you get 6.5 - [Laughter.] If you add 6 and 8, you get 14 and you divide it by 2, you get 7. So Mr. Speaker, if you are looking for a median then we should have event taken 6.5 and not 6. But here to satisfy the service providers, we took 6 and they were all in agreement. It was only one voice which said “Why not” - and it was his view. And he was new to the industry

    [NII MANTE] so may I say that I am opposed to his five per cent and that the Committee's six per cent must be acceptable.
    Mr. Owusu-Agyemang 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that we should not allow ourselves to fall into a situation where service providers and those upon whom the tax will be incident to will dictate to us. As a Parliament and as a Government, we should be able to assess what they think is reasonable. So I do not think that hon. Haruna's point that, that is acceptable to the service providers that is what we should go by. We have to impose it on them; as for them they wish it was zero. So I do not think that we should encourage that in this House.
    In any case, we are told that it is not the truth so I think that we better put it to rest but let us not create that impression that they dictate to us. They can never dictate to us.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Viz, clause 3, subclause (1), line 1, delete “not be more than 8%” and insert “be 6%.
    Mr. Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Hon. Member for Tamale South?
    Mr. Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the Question you just put renders that redundant.
    Mr. Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Yes, it is abandoned. You have another amendment in your name; (ix). Are you abandoning that as well?
    Mr. Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, no. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, subclause (2), delete. Mr. Speaker, I think it is in consistent with the Chairman's position. Mr. Speaker, the idea is that if you read article 174 properly, the power - In any case, once we have agreed to a fix amount of six per cent, the Minister therefore, does not need any opportunity to want
    to have to vary this again. So that is not necessary too. The Constitution does not clothe the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning with any authority to vary or waiver a tax except with the prior approval of this House and it was on the basis of that, that we said this particular clause be deleted.
    Mr. Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Are you abandoning?
    Mr. Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, no, I am going ahead. The Chairman supports me.
    Mr. Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Chairman, what are you saying? Are you supporting it?
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that he rather should support me and not the other way round. It is the Committee's Report and it is our view that there is no need for a subclause (2). This is what we are saying, so all that he has said is in support of the Committee.
    Mr. Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Chairman, we are referring to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Tamale South, (ix). Both of you?
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 3 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 4 - Collection of the tax and payment into Consolidated Fund.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (2), line 2, delete “penalty” and insert “penalty”
    This is a typographical error.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Iddrisu 1 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4 (2) delete. Mr. Speaker, if you look at clause 4 (2), it reads as follows:
    “The Commissioner of the Value Added Tax Service shall pay the tax collected together with any interest and penalty into the Consolidated Fund.”
    Mr. Speaker, all along, on this floor, throughout the debate on the Budget Statement, approval of appropriation even outside this House, Government sources in particular, the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning sources have articulated strongly publicly that the money from the tax to be levied and the money to accrue from this will be used to support the National Youth Employment Programme.

    Mr. Speaker, I am a very young person and I do share the plight of our young people who are without jobs. I do not think that this money must go into the Consolidated Fund. We should create a separate fund like the GETfund or the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) Fund swiftly so that this money would be used for the purpose for which it is intended.

    Mr. Speaker, my argument is further strengthened by paragraph (1) to the Memorandum to this Bill and with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I quote:

    “The imposition of this tax is part of efforts by government to widen the tax net in order to increase revenue yield.”

    Mr. Speaker, this paragraph is

    significant; it continues:

    “Revenue accruing from the communications service tax is to be used to support the development agenda including employment programmes.”

    But, Mr. Speaker, they have run adverts. Unless they want to dissociate themselves from their advertisements. They have run public advertisements that this money is to be used for the NYEP. I wholeheartedly support that and I think that the money should not go into the Consolidated Fund. I urge them, if they want the NYEP to succeed - I know that the hon. Minister has a lot of difficulty in paying. In the last four months, many of them have not been paid. They need money. If this money goes into the Consolidated Fund, this House cannot tailor the use of the money; our young people will not be “cured” on the NYEP of Government.

    I therefore urge them to stand firm by their own advertisement that this money be used for NYEP and therefore it should not go into the Consolidated Fund. I hope the hon. P.C. Appiah-Ofori (Member for Asikuma/Odoben/Brakwa) will support me.
    Mrs. A. F. Osei-Opare 1 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the Memorandum is very clear -- “national development agenda including employment programmes”. Therefore we do not use an advertisement as the one to be used to make a decision in this House. So I think he is misleading this House with his argument.
    M r. S p e a k e r : C h a i r m a n o f the Committee, do you support this amendment?
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, no please. If you may want to put the Question I would be most grateful.
    Mr. Chireh 1 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that if you would remember, the hon. Minister for Finance and Economic Planning, during the Budget debate, talked about introducing some Bills that would control how we spend money. But most importantly, when you are raising funds like this it is important that we ring-fence it and dedicate it to a particular use.
    The hon. Deputy Minister is looking at her bosses and trying to please them, but in her heart of hearts, she really wished there was this money for payment for youth employment. I do not believe in sending this money into the whole kitty for the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning or any other person to decide how much he should give to youth employment. I think that we should dedicate the fund to youth employment. It is a major problem for everybody that the youth are on the streets. If they let this money into this big bowl called the Consolidated Fund, to trace it and get even a certain percentage would be difficult.
    The principle is that the youth are on the streets and they want to employ them. They have employed them and they cannot pay them because they are borrowing from the District Assemblies Common Fund, Road Fund, GETfund, NHIS Fund; all these funds -- They are not correct things we are doing. Therefore, if we have this opportunity to create a fund and pay money into it, why not? I think that this amendment should really be supported by every hon. Member because we have milling youth in our constituencies who need jobs and who cannot be employed without being paid. That is why I think that this must be supported properly.
    Dr. Osei 1 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is talking about creating a fund. He is grossly misleading this House. Mr. Speaker, with your permission, let me

    read the clause so hon. Members would remember:

    “The Commissioner of the Value Added Tax Service shall pay the tax collected together with any interest and penalty into the Consolidated Fund.”

    It does say that we cannot create a fund. Mr. Speaker, all tax revenue go into the Consolidated Fund before it is put into NHIS, DACF, Road Fund, et cetera; it is not automatic. It has to go into the Consolidated Fund for the Controller and Accountant-General to create the fund they are talking about.

    Mr. Speaker, if you look on page 25, we have not got there yet. If they want to create a fund and they are bringing a new amendment, that is fine. This simply says that the Commissioner shall put it into the Consolidated Fund. This is simple. You do that for DACF, GETfund, Road Fund and all these other funds so I do not see why they want to mislead this House.
    Mr. Speaker 1 p.m.
    Hon. Members, I am putting the Question.
    Question put and amendment negatived.
    Clause 4 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 5 -- Submission of tax return and time for payment of the tax
    Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 1 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    beg to move, that clause 5 -- subclause (2), line 2, delete all the words after “and” and insert “any related matters that may be required.”
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, it appears that
    subclause was lifted from the VAT Service
    but in any case, I have no strong objection to the insertion of those words “and any related matters that may be required.”
    Mr. Speaker 1 p.m.
    You support it?
    Nii Adu Dako Mante: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any strong objection to it.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Speaker 1 p.m.
    There is a further amendment, item 13(xiii) on the Order Paper; hon. Member for Tamale South?
    Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 1 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I would like to withdraw the amendment by leave of Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker 1 p.m.
    Item 13(xiii) on the Order Paper -- hon. Member for Tamale South?
    Mr. Iddrisu 1 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, item 13(xiii) and 13(xiv), we went through a winnowing process and we agreed that it was the construction of the draftsperson and in their tax language they prefer using “a further tax.”
    Mr. Speaker 1 p.m.
    I want to get it clearly. Are you withdrawing that?
    Mr. Iddrisu 1 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am withdrawing it with your leave.
    Mr. Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Item 13(v), Chairman of the Committee?
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 5, subcluase (8), line 3, delete “GH¢1000” and insert GH¢2000”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 5 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 6 - Payment of interest on outstanding tax.
    Chairman of the Committee 1:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I bet to move, that Clause 6, subclause (1), delete and insert the following:
    “(1) Subject to section 5(6), a service provider who fails to pay the tax by the due date shall pay monthly interest on the tax due at the rate of one hundred and fifty per cent of the average of the prevailing commercial banks' lending rates as published by the Bank of Ghana.”
    Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 1:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to support the amendment, except that I may further wish that the one hundred and fifty per cent was reduced to a hundred per cent of the average prevailing rate of the bank lending rate. Ideally, one would have even preferred that you would just say, at an interest depending on the lending rate. That is a better rendition than to quote one hundred and fifty per cent of the average of the lending rate.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, it was the agreement of both parties to the meeting to accept one hundred and fifty per cent.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 6 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 7 - Recovery of tax, interest or
    penalty due.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 7 - subclause (1), line 1, delete “and any” and insert “or”.
    Mr. Speaker, the clause will read as follows 1:10 p.m.
    “A tax, penalty or interest due under this Act which remains unpaid after the due date may be recovered by the Commissioner as a debt.”
    So the words, ‘and any' should give way to the word ‘or'.
    Mr. Yieleh Chireh 1:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it is a good amendment, we should support it.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 7 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 8 - Distraint for liability.
    Mr. Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Which one are you referring to?
    Nii Mante: Clause 8.
    Mr. Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Your own amended one?
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the Bill itself.
    Mr. Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Yes, but you are now amending your amendment.
    Nii Mante: That is so.
    Mr. Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    You are abandoning your amendment?
    Nii Mante: That is so, only to say
    Mr. Chireh 1:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I really do not think that there should be any amendment there because we are talking about responsible officers of the Police Service. We should not just leave it to any police officer or any Constable to go and perform such an important duty. Indeed, if you look at the other revenue laws where distress is levied, you must have somebody responsible to do this. That is why “a Police Officer” is more appropriate in this respect and not just generally “the Police.”
    I think that the amendment is absolutely unnecessary and we should abandon it and defeat it because we want “a Police officer” and not just “the Police.” If we say “the Police” and one Constable decides one day to go and do the thing, it will not be right.
    Mr. Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Are you therefore abandoning your amendment?

    [NII ADU MANTE] Nii Mante: That is so. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 8 - subclause (6), paragraph (a), delete and insert the following:

    (a) the cost or charges of

    (i) the distress

    (ii) maintenance of the distress, and

    (iii) the sale Mr. Speaker, it is to make for easier

    reading and understanding.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to withdraw the other proposed amendments in clause 8 subclause (6) and subclause (7).

    Amendment by leave withdrawn.

    Question put and motion agreed to.

    Clause 8 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clauses 9 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 12 -- Evidence in proceedings.

    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I wish to withdraw the proposed amendment to clause 12 subclause (2) line (1).
    Mr. Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    It is abandoned?
    Nii Mante: That is so, Mr. Speaker.
    Amendment by leave withdrawn.
    Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 13 Directives and powers of the
    Minister and the Commissioner.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 13 - subclause (1), line 1, delete “responsible for Finance”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 1:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 13 - subclause (1), line 1, after “directives” insert “to the Commission” and in line 2, after “for the” insert “effective”
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection.
    Question put and motion agreed to.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that Clause 13 - add a new subclause (4) as follows:
    “(4) The Minister in colla- boration with the Minister of Communication shall esta-blish a monitoring mecha-nism shall establish a monitoring mechanism to verify the actual revenue that accrue to a communications service provider for the purpose of applying the tax”
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 1:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I have been closely observing the way the Chairman has been introducing the amendment and he does not give any reason on each occasion for these amendments. The reason behind the amendments is not articulated. This does not enable us to contribute meaningfully.
    Mr. Speaker, for me, for instance, why should we make a provision in a Bill for a monitoring mechanism, is it necessary? We are going to impose a tax we have to verify. Do we need to make a specific
    provision to say that we would verify the revenue before imposing the tax? Probably there is something more that he may want to tell us. So if he does not do that, then he does not really appreciate what is happening here.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, it appears during the committee meeting, three was some proposition by some hon. Members that there was the need for such a mechanism in the form of monitoring. But Mr. Speaker, frankly speaking, I for one was not in support of it, I have to be honest - [Laughter.] -- I was not in support of it but the majority were of the view.
    Mr. Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    No, Chairman of the Committee, this cannot be your stand. You are moving this amendment.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, it stands in my name as the Chairman of the Committee and that is the reason why I am saying that.
    For me in person, as hon. Adu Mante, Member of Parliament for Klottey Korley, I was not in full support of this proposition. This is all that I am saying.
    Dr. A. A. Osei 1:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I think my Chairman is out of order. Mr. Speaker, the Chairman is here to represent the Committee. If he wants to bring his personal matter then he should speak not as Chairman of the Committee. But I think that the Chairman speaks for the Committee and he cannot talk about his personal views in his capacity as the Chairman. If he wants to raise the amendment as hon. Adu Mante that is a different matter. Mr. Speaker, He got up and said Chairman of the Committee and he says ”I personally oppose it.” I do not think this House should allow that, he is speaking for the Committee and not for

    himself.
    Mr. Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Hon. Member, please deal with the merit of this application. That is what they want.
    Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 1:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I entirely agree with the hon. Papa Owusu- Ankomah that with this amendment, the Chairman should be encouraged to withdraw it. Mr. Speaker, along the line when it came, we strongly said that it was necessary. In any case, the National Communication Authority (NCA) already has a mechanism of monitoring the flow of calls and it is on the basis you would have a percentage to put it on. It was not the Committee's decision, it was hon. J.B. Danquah who kept marketing it on the corridors of the committee meeting, it was not a popular amendment.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that it must be withdrawn. The Chairman was only compelled to be associated with it and I think that it was not necessary. The hon. Minister for Communications does not need to monitor calls, the NCA has a mechanism for determining the traffic or air time flow - air traffic flow of communication services. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this amendment and I think that it should be withdrawn. Nobody should be given any power to monitor anybody's revenue, they have their income and expenditure account; they prepare their audited accounts at the end of each year and on the basis of it they submit it and on the basis of it the tax would be determined.
    Mr. J.B. Danquah 1:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this amendment and in doing so also to correct the erroneous impression being created by my hon. Colleague on the other side.
    Mr. Speaker, the NCA has not got the
    power to monitor revenues. The NCA Act talks about monitoring as to the standard use of the equipment; it does not talk about revenue and this is about revenue monitoring. So the NCA does not and I can read the relevant provisions in the NCA Act which talks about monitoring; it has nothing to do with revenue monitoring.
    The basis for this being a very technical area requires that proper revenue monitoring is done especially so when during the meetings hon. Members expressed the concern that we tend to bring in all these taxes but we do not have the elaborate monitoring mechanism to ensure that Government is actually getting what is due. That was the reason behind why we are putting it through such a monitoring mechanism.
    In any case, our VAT or all our other revenue agencies do not actually have those mechanisms present and therefore the hon. Minister in conjunction with the Minister for Communications would put in place such a mechanism to ensure that revenue accruing to Government does not slip. That was the reason and nothing else. So it is not a question that the NCA has the ability to monitor revenues in this country. They do not have that ability and the Act does not give them the authority to do that.
    Mr. Kenneth Dzirasah 1:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it is proper that you are allowing these arguments to take place on the merits of the amendment. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the position taken by hon. J.H. Danquah. Mr. Speaker, this particular matter was the subject of heated debate at the committee level. If we are guided by the experiences that we are having, particularly experience about unwilling- ness of VAT collectors to account for earnings that come from VAT collections,
    Mr. Speaker, it stands to reason that there must be a mechanism in place so that at the end of the day, we do not unduly enrich these service providers. That is the
    essence of it.

    These things are going to be collected from us bit by bit and if there is no way to monitor, the monies would not be accounted for. There are several institutions, factories that are being closed down by VAT Service because those who are supposed to account never do so. And we cannot just pass a law and create an open-ended situation where there would be no means of monitoring how much is coming into the kitty for the purposes of accountability to the State.

    That is the essence of this amendment. We are providing the general framework for the subject and then the details of it shall be considered by the two Ministers. That is why we are calling for collaboration between the Ministries of Finance and Economic Planning and then Commu-nications. Mr. Speaker, all that we are seeking to do is to at least close the gap where leakages of revenue continue to flow through. So I would urge my hon. Colleagues notwithstanding the stand they have taken to support this amendment.
    Mrs. Akosuah Fremah Osei-Opare 1:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I want to support the amendment as on the Order Paper by the Chairman of the Committee. I think it is important that we recognize the nature of this particular tax and ensure that whatever is due Government is actually collected. Most of us have even had concerns about the use of our mobile phones and how much they are charging us is not transparent.
    So I believe that a mechanism that would really ensure that leakages are reduced to the barest minimum should be supported by hon. Members. So I support this amendment on clause 13 that
    stands in the name of the Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr. Frederick Opare-Ansah 1:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, at the time the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning proposed the introduction of this particular tax, the Ministry of Communication at its stakeholders meetings found out that the general public's concern was whether Government had the capacity to adequately monitor the taxes that will have to be collected by these operators. I came across the same concerns when I visited my constituency and had the opportunity to meet various communities.
    Mr. Speaker, the telecommunications industry is a very complex one and indeed, when you go to other jurisdictions specifically, in Mauritius for instance, when a similar mechanism was introduced it was found that operators in the country were actually hiding huge quantums of moneys from the Government. And so it will be in the interest of the nation that such a mechanism is put in place for monitoring purposes.
    The reason why I bel ieve the Committee found it necessary to do this in collaboration with the Ministry of Communication is specifically because it is only the National Communications Authority (NCA) which has the technical capability of installing and indeed operating any such monitoring mechanism if it is going to be a technical mechanism. So I will urge all hon. Members to vote in support of this amendment.
    Mr. Chireh 1:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that what we are talking about, we are not specific. We cannot make laws and mention mechanisms and talk about collaboration. We must talk about who is to do what. The concern that was raised
    Mr. Chireh 1:30 p.m.


    the committee level was how we were to determine whether the consumers having consumed the product and based on the consumption of that product the revenue was properly collected. How do we know how many minutes I have talked or how many minutes I have used the internet for them to charge me. And if they know, then it becomes a technical problem, and that is why the National Communications Authority (NCA) was mentioned to be the one.

    Now you are talking about monitoring the revenues; we are talking about a completely different matter. It means then that you are going to supplant that Service, the VAT Service or the Commissioner of VAT or officers who should monitor those who are not paying up the money that they have collected. If we do that, if the two Ministers collaborate, to do what? They must be collaborating with the specific mandate. If it is about the money being collected by VAT Service not being paid into the Consolidated Fund that is the work of the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning.

    If his revenue secretariat cannot make sure this is done then obviously we have no - but the way it is put here I do not see which of them we are asking to do this. If you want it to be in the law that we cannot implement, fine. Otherwise, I oppose this entirely, it is not necessary.

    If it is a technical thing let us find the equipment that will find out how much we are consuming and should be charged. And if we have been charged based on that thing there is no service provider who will then say I would not pay the money that has been collected by the service provider for the VAT team. And that monitoring I am saying is the work of VAT Service.
    Minister for Finance and Economic Planning (Mr. Kwadwo Baah-Wiredu) 1:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment proposed. Mr. Speaker, this is both a technical and financial issue. And this law is basically to maximize collection for the development of this nation. Mr. Speaker, at the same time, we are reducing taxes or removing taxes on handsets. So it is better for us to monitor how the moneys would be coming in. That is why it is necessary to have this monitoring mechanism which is a collaboration between the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning and the Ministry of Communications.
    Mr. Speaker, the practices of the day, the experiences of people who have worked in different areas call for an improvement in whatever control systems we have. Recently, a staff of Societe Generale (SG) was able to dupe the company of about $7.4 billion. That means that whatever you are doing now you must take the current situation into consideration and then maximize what you are collecting. So I agree with hon. Dzirarsah that we need to have a system of this nature, the details will come later, the way things will be working, is known.
    The systems are also around for us to work on. So I will recommend that we support this amendment and then have the monitoring mechanism in place especially with regard to revenue collection. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    Question put and amendment agreed to, viz
    Clause 13, add a new clause (4) as follows: “(4) The Minister in collaboration with the Minister of Communication shall establish a monitoring mechanism to verify the actual revenue that accrue to a communications service provider for the
    purpose of applying the tax”
    Clause 13 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    rose
    Mr. Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Were you drawing my attention to something?
    Mr. Iddrisu 1:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I need your guidance but I would have preferred that I caught your eye before you put the Question.
    Mr. Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Unfortunately, if that is so you may resume your seat.
    Mr. Iddrisu 1:30 p.m.
    I still need your guidance. Mr. Speaker, there is clause 5 which we have already approved. There is clause 7 and with your indulgence let me read clause 5. “Unless otherwise directed by the Commissioner in writing a communication service provider shall file a tax return…” Against what we have just approved, what is the essence of the tax return?
    Mr. Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Anyway, thank you for that. Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 15 - Interpretation.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, “Interpretation,” “charge for communication service usage” delete all the words after “levy”. This is to bring it in conformity with the new clause 1(2).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that Clause 15 - “Interpretation.”

    “Communications service” line 3, delete all the words after “functions”

    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clause 15 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 16 - Commencement

    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that Clause 16 delete entirely. This is to bring it in conformity with the earlier amendment in clauses 3(5) and clause w.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clause 16 as amended agreed to.

    Clause 16 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New Clause -
    Alhaji Collins Dauda 1:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that, that New Clause - add a new clause as follows:
    “At least 30 per cent of the revenue generated from the Communications Service Tax shall be used to finance the National Youth Employment Programme.”
    Mr. Speaker, the reason for proposing this amendment is that the Government has indicated its intention quite clearly in the memorandum. It says that, revenue accruing from the communications service tax is to be used to support the developmental agenda which includes solving unemployment problems in the country.
    We do appreciate the fact that the unemployment situation in the country has to be dealt with precisely. Even
    Alhaji Collins Dauda 1:40 p.m.


    though the intention of the Government is provided for in the memorandum, it is not part of the Bill and the fear is that the Bill is passed in this state, the Government is not compelled to use part of this revenue for employment generation. It is for this reason that I suggest that if indeed, we are committed to solving unem-ployment problems in the country, then we need to set a percentage of the revenue generated from this tax aside for that specific purpose. I think that this amendment is very harmless.

    Again, it is from experience. When I had the opportunity of serving as the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Lands and Forestry in 1994, we took a look at the Trees and Timber (Amendment) Bill which sought to impose levies on the export of air dried lumber and the intention of the Government, as stated in the Bill at the time was to use revenues accruing from that levy for afforestation and re- afforestation. Unfortunately, because we did not factor that into the main law, we ended up passing the law, the revenues were collected, but they could not be used for the purpose for which the levies were imposed.

    As a result, it was in the year 2000 that the Plantation Development Fund Act was passed in this House to enable the Government utilize the revenue.

    I think this law, we need to take a lesson from what we went through in 1994. And I think so long as it is very harmless, the hon. Minister for Finance and Economic Planning would accept this one.

    Capt. Effah-Dartey (retd.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the amendment. [Interruptions.] Mr. Speaker, I am opposing the amendment because - [Laughter.] Mr. Speaker, very well, I yield to the hon. Minister of State at the Minister of Finance and Economic Planning.
    Dr. Akoto Osei 1:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my senior in Parliament but my

    junior in high school for yielding to me. I do not fundamentally oppose the principle that my senior brother, the hon. Member for Asutifi South (Alhaji Collins Dauda) is talking about at this particular moment. We had an earlier discussion and I tried to explain to him that it was just a mistake we made by not introducing the principle. However, in the practical application of it, it is important that because it is a new Bill and the language that is being chosen, that we tread cautiously in the quantum that we are proposing.

    It is just a new Bill. We are three months into the year and we would probably implement it in fourth or fifth months after. But if he could kindly consider an amendment to reduce the number to at least twenty, then it would make it easier for implementation since this is a new Bill. But the principle of it, we do not fundamentally, object. So if he could kindly accept my slight amendment to his amendment, I would duly appreciate it.
    Alhaji Dauda 1:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, so long as the principle behind the amendment is acceptable to my colleagues on the other side of the House, I have no difficulty at all. What I want to ensure is that we set a percentage aside and make sure we can hold the Government accountable for that. If this amendment is for me to consider scaling it down from 30 to 20 per cent, I think that it is a good start; we can improve upon the 20 per cent subsequently. I therefore change it to twenty per cent.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 1:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe that we should also be guided by the principles of legislation. This particular clause precedes the next clause which is talking about the establishment of the Youth Fund.
    Once you say that a percentage of
    Dr. Akoto Osei 1:40 p.m.
    On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, my senior Colleague and former Attorney-General is misleading the House. In this House, we have something called HIPC Fund in name, but we have not set it aside the way he is thinking. It is just named HIPC Fund. We take revenue that should accrue to savings and put it there. The fact that it is a Fund does not mean that we have set it aside as he is referring to. If before we get to the next amendment, we think that we want to create a fund like the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF) that is a different matter.
    All we are saying is that we want a certain proportion to be used for a specific purpose, that is all - HIPC or the GETFund. But we have not gotten to the next point yet. Maybe, he is anticipating that one might support it, not necessarily so. As it is, even though it is called the HIPC Fund, it is a creation just to allow us to monitor it properly, just so we know that it is HIPC Fund. We can do that for the same purpose.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 1:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker - [Interruption]
    Mr. Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    On, wait until you are called on -
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 1:40 p.m.
    I am sorry,
    I thought it was a point of order that he raised.
    Mr. Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    In any case, I must call you, whatever it is. Hon. Member for Sekondi, you may continue.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 1:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker
    - 1:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Oh, wait until you are
    called on.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 1:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    I am sorry, I thought it was a point of order that he raised -
    Mr. Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    But in any case, I must
    call on you, whatever it is. Hon. Member for Sekondi, you may continue.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 1:50 p.m.
    Thank you
    very much. Mr. Speaker, the analogy that he has given is not on all fours with what I am saying. The HIPC Fund or whatever is not created by statute, that is the difference. HIPC Fund is something like budgetary intention that is stated, it is not created by statute. What we are seeking to do is to create by statute 30 per cent to use it for a certain purpose.
    Mr. Yieleh Chireh 1:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    I rise on a point of order. The former Minister is misleading us. You see, all the revenues are by law. They cannot collect illegal taxes. What I want him to understand is that as the Minister of State is indicating, once you know how much we expect to raise from this Fund, like we do in the budget, and you set aside a certain percentage allocated to youth employment, there is nothing about Fund in this.
    You know how much Supposing we say that we are going to get 20,000 or
    Mr. Yieleh Chireh 1:50 p.m.


    200,000 Ghana cedis of this amount this year, 20 per cent of that should be for this. It is in the budget and therefore, as the money comes, it is allocated to the sector. We do not need a fund to do all these things and I think that he is misleading us by talking about differences when you create a tax law to collect a tax and arrangements through HIPC funds. I am saying that this is not a fund that he is talking about.
    Mr. Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon. Members, we
    shall have extended Sitting.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 1:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    with all due respect, that is a point of argument. It is not a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker, for instance, we are talking about a National Youth Employ-ment Programme, which is only a programme. It is a programme which may end even next year. It is a programme that is part -- [Interruptions] - Please, please. Mr. Speaker, I am saying that it is a programme being undertaken by Government. It is just a programme. In terms of financing the programme and in terms of imposing any tax at all you do not need to even state in the law that part of that tax should be used for a certain programme.
    And indeed, the memorandum does not say that it is going to be used for the National Youth Employment Programme. It was only indicative, an example of the sort of programme that this tax will go to support. So, I am even surprised that the hon. Minister of State is saying that, yes, it can be 20 per cent.
    I think that it will be a very wrong precedent that we would be setting in this House where we are imposing a tax, a terminal tax on a matter to say that a percentage should be set aside for a certain purpose without even creating a fund for that purpose. And it is for this reason that I am opposed to this amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to, viz
    New clause, add a new clause as follows: “At least 20% of the revenue generated from the communications service tax shall be used to finance the National Youth Employment Programme”
    Mr. Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Clause 16 (xxxii)
    Mr. Yieleh Chireh 1:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    I wish to withdraw on his behalf - [Interruptions] I did not want to waste the time of the House. I have the mandate of the Member to withdraw all the amendments.
    Mr. Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    All withdrawn, thank you very much.
    The Long Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    We have come to the end of the
    Consideration Stage in respect of the Communications Service Tax Bill.
    Proposed Formula for the District Assemblies Common Fund, 2008
    Mr. Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon. Members,
    we go back to item 13 - District Assembl i e s Common Fund , the figure is GH¢234,290.700 instead of
    GH¢236,197.500.
    Question put and motion agreed to.
    Resolved.
    That this honourable House adopts the Report of the Committee of the Whole on the Proposed Formula for Distributing the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF) for the year
    2008.
    Chieftaincy Bill
  • [Resumption of Consideration from 17/3/08]
    • Mr. Ossei Aidooh 1:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, that
    is the case.
    2.00 P.m.
    MR. FIRST DEPTY SPEAKER
    Mr. Appietu-Ankrah 1:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    beg to move, clause 15, that subclause (1), line 2, add the following: “but shall meet at least twice in a year.”
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr. Isaac Asiamah 1:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    I beg to move, clause 15, add a new subclause as follows:
    “(5) A Judicial Committee of a Tradi-tional Council may be assisted by a lawyer appointed by the Committee”
    Mr. Speaker, this is to support the
    functions of the Judicial Committee, that they should get a lawyer to assist them at the traditional council level.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 15 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part
    of the Bill.
    Clause 18 -- Membership of Divisional
    Councils.
    Mr. Mahama Ayariga on behalf of
    Mr. Haruna Iddrisu) 1:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move clause 18, subclause (3), line 3, delete “may” and insert “shall”.
    Mr. Speaker, the amendment is a straightforward one and I think it is on a point of law. Clause 18 subclause (3), provisions relating to the amendment of the register which reads as follows and with your permission I quote:
    “Where the National House of Chiefs is satisfied after consultation with the appropriate Traditional
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Chairman
    of the Committee, what is your position on the matter?
    Mr. Asiamah 1:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it falls in
    line; we are all right with it.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 18 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 19 -- Presidency of Divisional
    Councils
    Mr. Mahama Ayariga (on behalf of
    Mr. Henry F. Kamal) 1:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, line 1, delete all the words after “the” and insert “most senior chief and in his absence the next most senior”.
    Mr. Speaker, clause 19 deals with the presidency of a Divisional Council. It proposes that the presidency of a Divisional Council shall be held by the members of the council on an annual rotational basis in alphabetical order of stool or skin name. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is proposing that to use
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Chairman
    of the Committee, what is your position on that?
    Mr. Asiamah 1:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we are all
    right with the new rendition.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:50 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I am struggling to find the relevance of this because if you say that there shall be rotation except that it shall begin with the most senior chief, it presupposes that if you go down the line it may come a time when the most junior would be the presiding officer in the any event. Then that being the case, what is the justification of this amendment?
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon.
    Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu, I am not too sure whether you are following the argument.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:50 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I am really following the argument.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    The
    proposal is that the whole clause be changed so that the presidency shall be by seniority. I think that is what he is saying; so rotation and so forth may not arise. I do not know whether I am wrong and you are right, but can you explain that a little further?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the amendment is not quarrelling with the rotation; it is not, except that it is saying that it should begin with the most senior. Mr. Speaker, I believe the fear is that if you have a very senior chief, then you may not have a situation where a junior chief presides. But you start with the most senior and you are going on an annual or bi-annual rotation, you may get to a time where you will have a very junior
    chief presiding in any event. That is why I am asking what is the relevance of that amendment.
    Mr. Mahama Ayariga 2:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, actually the amendment quarrels with the rotational basis that is being prescribed presently. And that is why is it suggesting that we readically amend clause 19. The new rendition would read like this.
    “The presidency of a Divisional Council shall be held by the most senior chief and in his absence the next most senior chief.”
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Do not go there.
    Mr. Ayariga 2:10 p.m.
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Is not him; he proposed it on behalf of hon.
    Henry Ford Kamal.
    Capt. Effah-Dartey (retd.): Very well. If one follows the proposed amendment, then what is going to happen is that there will be a situation where somebody will occupy the position of the presidency by virtue of his seniority. So if one is a young or a junior chief, then it will never be one's turn to preside. Bu the problem is rotation because they are of equal rank.
    Mr. Speaker, we are talking about division and when we talk about division, we must know that on top of the division, is a traditional council which is always presided over by the Omanhene. So there is no problem there but with a division, we have a problem because the chiefs there who constitute that division may be of equal rank. So the aim of the amendment is to sow confusion and create chaos. It would not advance the cause of chieftaincy at all. That is why the drafters of the Bill have made it that the presidency would rotate on annual basis; no more. One holds office for one year and moves on to the other one.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Well, the hon. Chairperson has said that he is not opposed to it but the arguments for and against appear to have been exhausted. In that case, I would put the Question, unless of course, the hon. Minister wants to say something.
    Mr. S.K. Boafo 2:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think I have no objection to the proposed amendment.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe that in that case, the amendment proposed is after the second “the” because the way it has been captured there was a bit a confusing.
    Question put and amendment agreed to, viz
    Clause 19, line 1, delete all the words after “the” first occurring and insert “most
    Mr. Isaac Asiamah 2:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that Clause 24 - delete the Head notes and clause and insert the following:
    “Appeal to the Supreme Court”
    An appeal against a decision of the national House In the exercise of its
    a) original jurisdiction lies to the Supreme Court, and
    b) appellate jurisdiction lies to the Supreme Court with the leave of the National House or of the Supreme Court”.
    Mr. Speaker, this is in line with article 273 (1) of the Constitution.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon. Members, I believe this does not present any controversy. I that regard, I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 24 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 25 to 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 30 - Customary arbitration.
    Mr. Ayariga (on behalf of Mr. J. Yieleh Chireh) 2:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 31 - subclause (5), line 3, delete “and not by a lawyer” and insert “with or without a lawyer”
    Mr. Speaker, if one reads subclause (5), the impression that one gets is an attempt to present a person appearing before the Judicial Committee of the Traditional Council appearing by a lawyer. If that is the intention, then clearly it violates the right to counsel of persons who are appearing before judicial bodies. This is obviously a quasi judicial body and it exercises quasi judicial powers and functions which could affect the right of an individual.
    So once we are beginning to make amendments entitling the judicial committees to have lawyers to assist them in their functions, then clearly individuals appearing before them should have the right to appear there either by themselves or by a counsel chosen by them.
    Mr. Speaker, it is in that respect that we would wish to move for the amendment. And form all indications, the hon. Minister and the hon. Chairman of the Committee are not opposed to this amendment.
    Mr. S.K. Boafo 2:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, to save the time of this House, we agree to that.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 31 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 32 and 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 34 - Certain appeals to operate as stay of execution.

    Clause 34 - Certain appeals to operate as stay of execution.

    Mr. Mahama Ayariga (on behalf of
    Mr. Yieleh Chireh) 2:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 34 - add a new subclause as follows:
    “(2) Subject to section 62, appeal does not operate as stay of execution if it is filed within the last seven days of the fourteen days.”
    Mr. Speaker, does not appear that the Committee is opposed to this amendment, so I will not waste the time of this House.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Hon. Minister, what do you say to that? Chairman of the Committee, what is the Committee's position?
    Capt. Effah-Dartey (retd.): Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Wa West. Mr. Speaker, the aim of the provision, which is there, is that when you file an appeal it acts as a stay. The essence of the amendment is to reduce in actual fact the 14 days leave to seven days and that is not proper. If we want to avoid chieftaincy disputes and if we want to reinforce supremacy of the law, then the law should remain as it is. The new clause will bring
    chaos. There is a provision by section 60 subject to section 50 that once a decision has been given, within 14 days you can file an appeal against the decision, that should stand. So this amendment Mr. Speaker, is not in the best interest of the law.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, what is the Committee's position?
    Mr. S.K. Boafo 2:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it is 14 days but I would like us to take judicial notice of the fact that sometimes to get records of the proceedings in order to file your appeal is also difficult and it takes time. That is why I am trying to say that probably the 14 days should remain instead of the seven days. This is because most of the us who have been practicing know that to get a good reason for your appeal, you need to get part of the judgement or the proceedings and it takes more than seven days to get it. It is not a serious matter but if the hon. Member can convince us, we will all agree to it.
    Mr. J. Yieleh Chireh 2:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if you look at this provision under the original clause 34, if you read clause 34, they wanted what is in clause 62 now that they are going to move to be there and I said no, for the purposes that they wanted to achieve for clause 34, I am saying subject to clause 62 because the clause 62, when we were making the amendments that was from the Committee itself and this one was (1) and this was (2) and all that and I said no, it is misplaced. What should happen is that it is subject to clause 62 that their own provision should stand.
    Indeed, that is why if you agree to clause 62 which lays down the conditions then anybody who has an appeal - It is about installation of chiefs, it is not about any matter at all. It is about when a chief is going to be installed and somebody brings an injunction and all that. That is why the
    Mr. Asiamah 2:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 40 - Head notes, delete “destoolment” and insert “deposition” and insert accordingly wherever the word “destoolment” appears in the Bill.
    Mr. Speaker, this is in line with the Constitution. The Constitution uses the word “deposition” rather than “destoolment”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. J. Yieleh Chireh 2:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 40 - subclause (3), delete and insert as follows:
    “(3) A chief is not deposed unless
    (a) deposition charges have been instituted againstthe chief in accordance with the appropriate customarypractice for depo- sition in the area concerned; or
    (b) the deposition is accepted without challenge by the chief.”
    Mr. Asiamah 2:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to that.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Do you wan t oppose it hon. Ayariga?
    Mr. Ayariga 2:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I just want to request that he should consider a further amendment. Mr. Speaker, if you say that somebody has been deposed simply because deposition charges have been instituted, that is far fetched because the institution of a deposition charge that cannot constitute deposition. If I institute the charges against somebody that cannot constitute deposition unless we say the person is “successfully prosecuted.” If it is just the institution of deposition charges that alone is not enough to constitute the deposition of - [Interruption]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Hon.
    Ayariga, we are talking customary law and in some cases you know what is done. They do not appoint a judicial committee when they want to destool you as a chief. They only prefer a charge against you and say you are destooled. That is all.
    Mr. Ayariga 2:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, very often,
    Mr. S.K. Boafo 2:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think
    Mr. A.O. Aidooh 2:30 p.m.
    I do not know these matters very well but I am inclined to agree with my hon. Colleague. At least, they must be instituted and established.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Indeed, before whom?
    Mr. Aidooh 2:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the
    appropriate body.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    The
    kingmakers? They themselves prefer the charges against you.
    Mr. Aidooh 2:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it should be instituted and established in accordance with custom.
    Mr. Chireh 2:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if we look at
    the Bill itself, it is the way it was captured that created the problem. One would not know what they were saying and so I merely refined it. So the Ministry of Culture and Chieftaincy Affairs should be able to tell us. I thought that the way it was captured it was a little bit muddled up. What I am also saying is that in some places, people just say that they have destooled you; no charges are preferred against you. If the charges are preferred against you there should be a mechanism by which this is done. So I would really not object to any amendment that seeks to establish the guilt or otherwise of the person.
    Mr. S.K. Boafo 2:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the deposition is accepted without challenge by So the moment he challenges you he puts you into joint issue and then the matter is tried. It does not automatically destool you but if you do not challenge it - “I charge you, you have done this, you have done that” then you slaughter sheep - it is like swearing the oath. I say ntamkesee against you - This and that and then you have to reply - [Interruption]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Hon.
    Minister, maybe you are talking about Akan custom. It is a bit dicey; it is not easy to explain.
    Capt Nkrabeah Effah-Dartey (retd.): Mr. Speaker, I think the confusion that is raging is because of the amendment proposed by hon. Yieleh Chireh. If we look at what is inside the Bill itself, it speaks a lot of volumes. I agree that because of the Constitution maybe, instead of “destoolment” we can use “deposition”. But apart from using “deposition” for “destoolment,” I think what is here should
    stand. But Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect if we look at it, it says
    “Except where deposition is accepted without challenge, and subject to an appeal, a chief is not deposed unless (a) deposition charges have been instituted against the chief,”
    That is the first step. And then
    “(b) the appropriate customary pra- ctice for deposition in thearea concerned have been complied with.”
    What that means is that in every traditional area in Ghana when deposition charges have been levelled against you what happens next? In some areas, they have to establish the charges. So Mr. Speaker, it would be better if we leave the rendition as it is here, only that we should change “destoolment” to “deposition.” But if we adopt hon. Yieleh Chireh's amendment in replacing what is here with his, then there will be chaos because then it will become a generally accepted norm that immediately deposition charges are levelled against you it means you are destooled. Mr. Speaker, that will not be fair.
    So I would recommend that he should withdraw his amendment or improve his amendment by saying that we should keep what is here, subject to substituting “deposition” for “destoolment” and then that will be all right.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Hon.
    Yieleh Chireh, do you go with what has been suggested?
    Mr. Chireh 2:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, indeed, I
    had three items. I am surprised that my items have become two. That is why I will agree with him because initially I looked at the way the subclause was couched and
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    So in this
    case what do we do? We only change the words? Instead of “destoolment” we insert ‘deposition'. Is that all?
    Yes, I want to hear you hon. Member
    for Sekondi.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 2:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    So what
    you are proposing is a further amendment and I will read the rendition if you all agree with me. The rendition shall be
    “Except where deposition is accepted without challenge and subject to an appeal, a chief is not deposed unless deposition charges have been instituted against the chief and the appropriate customary practices for deposition in the area concerned have been complied with.”
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr. Adjaho 2:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, there is no
    amendment filed in respect to subclause (4) but I think there is a small problem
    there. Subsection (3) does not preclude the Traditional Council from imposing appropriate customary sanctions on a divisional or subordinate chief of a traditional area, the Traditional Council or a member of the Traditional council of the area.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    What is
    your problem with that?
    Mr. Adjaho 2:30 p.m.
    My problem is how a
    traditional council can impose a sanction on itself, on the traditional council.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    On a
    subordinate chief.
    Mr. Adjaho 2:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, customary
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    And what
    is the problem hon. Member?
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 40 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.

    Clauses 41 - 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill

    Clause 44 Stool property

    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 44 - paragraph (c), line 1, after “acquired” insert “or with stool resources” Mr. Speaker, the reason is that to just leave it the way it is that:

    “Any property movable

    property after the installation of the chief”.

    In other words, when hon. Ayariga becomes a chief, any property he acquires as stool property becomes part of stool property. The essence of his amendment is to highlight any property movable or immovable acquired with stool resources.

    Mr. Speaker, what constitute stool resources? Now that you have become a chief how are we going to find out which resource is stool resource and which is your personal resource? So we leave it as it is. If you are lawyer and you become a chief, and you continue going to court, and in the process you make revenue to build your own house, as an individual, there is nothing wrong with it. But when you come to the palace sitting as a chief, and they bring you gifts, and they bring you certain regalia, and you those things to acquire any other assets, it is strictly stool property. So it is better for the rendition to stay as it is then to create confusion with the amendment that hon. Ayariga is introducing.
    Mr. Aidooh 2:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment. Mr. Speaker, if you say that “any property acquired as,” it means that I can use stool property to acquire property for myself. You must go for my intention, and so I can use stool property is mine or otherwise is my intention upon acquisition, and that is the danger in this rendition. So we are saying that it is better to say that: all property acquired with stool resources, no matter your intention, becomes stool property. Otherwise, one can acquire and say I used stool property to acquire but I intended it to be mine, that is the danger of it.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 2:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe that this amendment may not even be necessary. Mr. Speaker, it is clear:
    “Any p roper ty movab le o r

    or immovable acquired as stool property after the intallation of a chief”

    might be very confusing. But if we are to limit it to:-

    “Property acquired with stool resources”.

    Mr. Speaker that will make it more certain in terms of what is a stool property and what is not a stool property.
    Mr. Ayariga 2:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, (c) does not deal with gifts because it talks about “acquired”. So if it is a gift you can say it was acquired by the stool.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Can that remain stool property still?
    Capt. Effah-Dartey (retd.): Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the amendment. Mr. Speaker, the rendition here is adequate and alright. It says and I quote:
    “Any p roper ty movab le o r immovable acquired as stool
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.


    Clauses 41 - 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill

    Clause 44 Stool property

    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 44 - paragraph (c), line 1, after “acquired” insert “or with stool resources” Mr. Speaker, the reason is that to just leave it the way it is that:

    “Any p roper ty movab le o r immovable acquired as stool property after the intallation of a chief”

    might be very confusing. But if we are to limit it to:-

    “Property acquired with stool resources”.

    Mr. Speaker that will make it more certain in terms of what is a stool property and what is not a stool property.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Hon. Ayariga, what about if somebody gives out property to the stool? Is it acquired with stool resources?
    Mr. Ayariga 2:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it does not fall within subclause (c) because subclauses (a) and (b) deal with such arrangements. Subclause (b) for instance says any other movable or immovable property handed over or declared as stool property to the chief on installation and then subclause (1), the stool itself, and all the insignia of that stool.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    But the rendition as it stands, doe sit not appear that it covers all that?
    Mr. Ayariga 2:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, (c) does

    not deal with gifts because it talks about “acquired”. So if it is a gift you can say it was acquired by the stool.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Can that remain stool property still?
    Capt. Effah-Dartey (retd.): Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the amendment. Mr. Speaker, the rendition here is adequate and alright. It says and I quote:
    “Any p roper ty movab le o r immovable acquired as stool property after the installation of the chief”.
    In other words, when hon. Ayariga becomes a chief, any property he acquires as stool property becomes part of stool property. The essence of his amendment is to highlight any property movable or immovable acquired with stool resources.
    Mr. Speaker, what constitute stool resources? Now that you have become a chief how are we going to find out which resource is stool resource and which is your personal resource? So we leave it as it is. If you are lawyer and you become a chief, and you continue going to court, and in the process you make revenue to build your own house, as an individual, there is nothing wrong with it. But when you come to the palace sitting as a chief, and they bring you gifts, and they bring you certain regalia, and you those things to acquire any other assets, it is strictly stool property. So it is better for the rendition to stay as it is then to create confusion with the amendment that hon. Ayariga is introducing.
    Mr. Aidooh 2:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment. Mr. Speaker, if you say that “any property acquired as,” it means that I can use stool property to acquire property for myself. You must go for my intention, and so I can use stool property
    is mine or otherwise is my intention upon acquisition, and that is the danger in this rendition. So we are saying that it is better to say that: all property acquired with stool resources, no matter your intention, becomes stool property. Otherwise, one can acquire and say I used stool property to acquire but I intended it to be mine, that is the danger of it.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 2:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe that this amendment may not even be necessary. Mr. Speaker, it is clear:
    “Any p roper ty movab le o r immovable acquired as stool property…” simplicita. I can use my own resources. If I buy stool regalia, does it make it my personal property because I did not use stool resources? There are so many chiefs who acquire property for the stool with their own resources. But when they cease to be chiefs, they cannot say that because they used their own resources to purchase it, it belongs to them. I believe that when you start talking about “with stool resources” it defeats the very intention of this particular clause.
    Mr. Yieleh Chireh 2:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment, and the reason I support it is that what they are saying really goes to defeat the point. If you generously acquire something with your own resources which you intend to give to the stool, when you are not there, your children would say, “We know the source of the money used to buy this, it is for our father, we will not agree.”
    Again, if I say that something is there, and they say only a stool can acquire it, as an occupant of the stool, I can say I am acquiring it for the stool with my resources. As soon as I acquire it with
    my resources, I say I will not hand over. That is why we do not want any confusion at all. It should be that once you acquire anything with stool resources, if you are generous to hand over what you have acquired for the stool, that is a gift, there is no problem about it. But we should support the amendment.
    Mr. E.K.D. Adjaho 2:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I have a problem with the amendment; because they have acquired it as stool property. If there is stool property, it is stool property. If “stool property” were not there, then we would have said that “any other property you acquire after installation becomes” - But it is qualified as “stool property.”
    Mr. Aidooh 2:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that what I said was not understood. The intention would come to play if we leave it as it is. What we can do is to combine the two. And I would give a suggestion, combine the two. Mr. Speaker -
    “Any p roper ty movab le o r immovable acquired as stool property or with stool resources “…
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Hon. Members, do you agree to that? That is his suggestion - So now, the rendition of the amendment shall be that:
    “Any p roper ty movab le o r immovable acquired as stool property or with stool resources after the installation of the chief …”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 44 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill2.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.


    Clause 45, to 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Clause 48 - Preservation of stool property affected by chieftaincy disputes.
    Mr. Mahama Ayariga 2:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 48 subclause (1), line 3, delete “in that district” Mr. Speaker, upon a second look I just want to add to the original amendment. Instead of deleting “that district” I want to delete “in that district”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Can you go over it again? I fail to see what you want to say.
    Mr. Mahama Ayariga 2:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, clause 48 says that “A Regional House acting in accordance with the order of the Judicial Committee of that House may order the Registrar of the Regional House to take possession of stool property” and then it adds “in that district.” My argument is that the phrase “in that district” is unnecessary once you are talking about regions. So instead of “in that district” we should just leave it at “stool property” and -
    “(a) where the stool property is affected by …
    That is the proposal.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Which
    region even are you talking about? If you do not even mention it; the region, which
    is in the district in the region or what?
    Mr. Yieleh Chireh 2:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, “in that district” should be deleted for this simple reason that stool property can be located anywhere in the country; it does not have to be in the same traditional area. So I think that wherever it is, the Registrar should be mandated to take possession of it and not in that district. Otherwise, it will be limiting where the property will be. But stools I know have houses in Accra though they are in Western Region.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 2:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am supporting the amendment. What is the jurisdiction of a Regional House of Chiefs? Matters that come within, lie within the jurisdiction of that Regional House of Chiefs and so you do not need to designate the area or describe the area, or even state whatever region, because whether it is Volta Region, it is Volta, in Ashanti Region it is Ashanti. So there is no need for any such words as “in that district”. “Stool property,” that is all, I am supporting. Mr. Minister should wait for us to contribute and after that he can say something. That is all I am saying.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    So you do not support amendment, do you?
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 2:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment because he corrected it that he wants “in that district” on the 3rd line of clause 48 (1) to be deleted.
    Mr. Mahama Ayariga 2:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the original amendment as advertised is “the district”. I am saying that even before moving that amendment, I wanted to further amend to “in that district” and they all support the amendment. Mr. Speaker, I believe you can now put the Question. [Laughter.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Hon. Members, you have succeeded in making
    me a little confused myself as to what exactly I am supposed to do. Is it that you are talking about the region and in this case it is being suggested that we expunge the whole idea of “region” and put “district”? I am getting worried.
    Mr. Doe Adjaho 2:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, all that we are seeking to do is to delete the words “in that district” in clause 48(1) because properties can be located anywhere. If you say in that district, the question is which district are you talking about? So ‘district' does not add up to anything in this clause at all. We are only deleting the words “in that district” as we find in line (3) of subclause (1).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Mahama Ayariga 2:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, again, I beg to move, that in clause 48, subclause (2), line 2 between “court” and “for” insert the words “through the Judicial Committee in writing”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, do you agree to that?
    Mr. Isaac Asiamah 2:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it is not relevant here.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    It is not relevant.
    Amendment by leave withdrawn.
    Clause 48 as amended ordered to stand part of the bill.
    Clause 49 and 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Clause 51 - Declaration of customary law.
    Mr. Yieleh Chireh 2:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg top move, that clause 51 - subclause 93), line 3, delete “President of the Republic”
    and insert “Minister”
    And “Minister” is already defined in the interpretation section to mean “the Minister responsible for Chieftaincy.” We are arguing this because we have a Presidential system and everybody in office, executive or otherwise acts for or on behalf of the President. Therefore if the President has a Minister, he should be able to do the things for him.
    The second issue is that if you look at all the laws that we have made, we have covered ourselves with “the Minister responsible for” the sector. And even if the President has no Minister and begins to act like the Minister, he can as well do the same thing. That is why we think that wherever we have “President”, it should be replaced by “Minister”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Hon. Minister, they still want you to have that power instead of the President. What is your reaction to that?
    Mr. S.K. Boafo 2:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to that.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    You love it. [Laughter.]
    Mr. S.K. Boafo 2:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, Let me explain.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    What is your objection, hon. Doe Adjaho?
    Mr. Doe Adjaho 2:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, a matter of customary law - and indeed customary law constitutes part of the laws of this country - is not a matter that should be taken lightly and I think the President of the Republic should be involved. It should not be a matter between a House of Chiefs and a Minister. It deals with the law of this country, the law of the land.

    Indeed, if you look at our Constitution, you would realize that one of the laws of this country is the customary law of Ghana. Therefore, for the law of Ghana to be a matter between the Minister and the House, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the President ought to be involved when there is a change or when to declare the customary law of an area.

    Capt. Effah-Dartey retd. - rose -
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Hon. Effah-Dartey?
    Capt. Effah-Dartey (retd.): Mr. Speaker, I am rather rising to support hon. Doe Adjaho.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    But he has not finished.
    Mr. Doe Adjaho 2:50 p.m.
    So Mr. Speaker, I am totally opposed to this amendment.
    Mr. Isaac Asiamah 2:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, in any case the Minister acts on the authority of the President and so there is no dispute about this one.
    Mr. Mahama Ayariga 2:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think it should be clear in our minds that the President is not declaring the custom. Indeed, it is just the submission of a declaration of customary law that has been made by a Regional House of Chiefs and attested to by the National House of Chiefs and a copy is being made available to the Presidency. So the President is not making law; all he is doing is just receiving a declaration of customary law. And for a declaration of customary law, I believe the Minister can do so on behalf of the President.
    Mr. Mahama Ayariga 3 p.m.


    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Ayariga 3 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that
    Clause 51-- subclause (4), line 1, delete “President” and insert “Minister” and at end, delete “Chief Justice” and insert “Attorney-General”
    Mr. Speaker, as you can see, this
    proposal is ably supported by the Chairman of the Committee. I would not therefore waste the time of this House.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Hon.
    Members, I would put the Question since this is not a controversial issue.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. J.B. Aidoo 3 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, before you put the Question on clause 51, I would crave your indulgence that we go back to subclause (3), on the starting word, ‘if'. Throughout the provision, we have been using ‘where' But in this particular case we say, ‘if the National House of Chiefs…' ‘If' and ‘where' can be used interchangeably but I would plead that we use ‘where' instead of ‘if' for this particular instance.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Chairman
    of the Committee, you agree with that, that in the cases where it is grammatical and it looks like it makes some sense it should be ‘where' instead of ‘if?'
    Mr. Asiamah 3 p.m.
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 51 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 52 -- Alteration of customary law.
    Mr. Chireh 3 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, that clause 52 - subclause (2), line 4, delete “President” and insert “Minister”
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Chairman
    of the Committee, are you opposed to that?
    Mr. Asiamah 3 p.m.
    No, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    What is
    your reaction?
    Mr. Asiamah 3 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it is
    consequential.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Chireh 3 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it is
    consequential and I would just move that we amend it accordingly. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that Clause 52 - subclause (3), line 1 delete “President” and insert “Minister” and in line 2, delete “Chief Justice” and insert “Attorney-General”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 52 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 54 - Assimilation of customary law.
    Mr. Chireh 3 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, these are consequential to the earlier one agreed on and so if we can take both at the same time and approve them.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Which
    ones?
    Mr. Chireh 3 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, clauses 54(1) and 54(3) are consequential amendments. I beg to move, that
    cause 54 - subclause (1), paragraph (b), line 1, delete “President” and insert “Minister”
    Clause 54 - subclause (3), line 1, delete “President” and insert “Minister” and at end, delete “Chief Justice” and insert “Attorney-General”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 54 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, further to that, wherever the word ‘President' appears it should now read ‘Minister.' Equally so for the ‘Attorney-General' because as you go down, clause 59(3), 59(4) - it saves time. Wherever “President” appears it now should read ‘Minister' and for ‘Chief Justice,' ‘Attorney-General.'
    Capt. Effah-Dartey (retd) - rose -
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Before I put the Question,I want to hear you, hon. Capt. Effah-Dartey (retd.)
    Capt. Effah-Dartey (retd): Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we are, as it were, replacing ‘President' with ‘Minister' and ‘Chief Justice' with ‘Attorney- General.' But I want to plead that we must look at the object of this Bill. We must not forget that we are dealing with chieftaincy and we are now talking about customary law. It is my view and my humble submission that when you remove ‘President' and you make it ‘Minister' and when you remove ‘Chief Justice' and make it ‘Attorney-General' you are
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Hon. Capt. Effah-Dartey (retd.), you are out of order. Please take your seat and let us continue.
    Clause 55 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 58 - Categories of chiefs
    Mr. Isaac Asiamah 3:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 58, paragraph (d) delete “and” insert the following: “or all other chiefs below the rank of subchiefs”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Are you abandoning the original rendition?
    Mr. Asiamah 3:10 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr. Ayariga 3:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I support the current rendition because it captures the import of my subsequent rendition and so when we get there, I would drop my amendment. His earlier amendment was to delete “Adikrofo” but now he keeps it and adds “other subchiefs” which is what I wanted to achieve by my amendment. So I support the current rendition.
    Mr. Adjaho 3:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I do not have any problem with the amendment, but the problem is that, that “Adikrofo” has not been defined in the interpretation column. So when you keep it, then you must go and find its interpretation at the interpretation column, or you find an English word to describe what “Adikrofo” is. - [Interruption]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Well,

    I think it would be more elegant if it is interpreted or described.
    Mr. Adjaho 3:10 p.m.
    So we should find a way, because the Chairman who is moving the amendment has not provided any definition in the interpretation column.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Very well, hon. Minister, do you have any objection to what the hon. Deputy Minority Leader has said?
    Minister for Culture and Chieftaincy Affairs (Mr. S.K. Boafo) 3:10 p.m.
    I think he is a seasoned Lawyer, and I know him, that he has always been using the word “Adikoro”. It is used in almost all the Akan areas and that is why it is so clear. We have also said, “Adikrofo or chiefs below the rank of subchiefs” The Adidroko are chiefs below the rank of subchief. It is defined.
    Mr. Aidooh 3:10 p.m.
    In that case it should be “Adikrofo or all other chiefs below the rank of subchiefs”. That would tie it.
    Mr. Ayariga 3:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think there is some consensus. We gather, it should read “Adikrofo or all other chiefs below the rank of subchiefs”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 58 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 59 - National Register of chiefs.
    Chairman of the Committee 3:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 59 - subclause (3) line 1, delete “a person authorized by the President” and insert “the Minister”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Isaac Asiamah 3:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, they are consequential amendments.
    Mr. Yieleh Chireh 3:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 59 - subclause (3), line 1, delete “The President or a person authorized by the President” and insert “The Minister”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Yieleh Chireh 3:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 59 - subclause (5), line 1, delete “President” and insert “Minister”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Yieleh Chireh 3:10 p.m.
    mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 59 - subclause (5), line 1, delete “The President or a person authorized by the President” and insert “The Minister”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Chairman of the Committee 3:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 59 - subclause (5), line 1, delete “The President or a public officer authorized by the President” and insert the following “The President or the Minister”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Chireh 3:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 59, subclause (7) line 3, delete “Supreme Court” and insert “High Court.”
    Mr. Speaker, this is not the proper

    forum for this kind of appeal. First, if there is a substantive case against the chief and the Regional House of Chiefs decides on it and he is not satisfied, he appeals to the National House; if he is not satisfied with the decision, he does to the Supreme Court.

    This one is merely saying that I have been made a chief in my village, I have applied to the National House of Chiefs to enter my name in the register; there is no court case, there is no litigation and they are asking me to leave Paga and come here and file an appeal at the Supreme Court; can we imagine the number of cases that would be inundating our Supreme Court? This is a mere right; I have been made a chief, my name should be in the register. I do not think that we should burden our people and the Supreme Court with this minor issue.

    The second issue is that in the Edusei versus the Attorney-General, where the Supreme Court itself declined the jurisdiction, it is argued that any human rights issue as in article 33 of the Constitution should go to the High Court as the first court of call. This is not a case that should really to go the Supreme Court based on that principle. Even that one they say fundamental human right cases should go to the High Court, let alone a small right as a chief for my name to be written in the register then I have to go to the Supreme Court. That is why I think that because of this Constitution and because of that Supreme Court ruling, this matter properly belongs to the High Court.
    rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    Hon. Adjaho, do you oppose to that?
    Mr. Adjaho 3:20 p.m.
    Very much so, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we know the law is very clear. The authorities are clear that
    with regard to the supervisory jurisdiction that is where the High Court comes in. But whether you are a chief or not, drawing that line is so thin that if we leave this matter to the High Court, they might end up determining causes or matters affecting chieftaincy.
    Mr. Speaker, in any case, the ordinary process of appeal from the National House of Chiefs is that it goes to the Supreme Court and therefore, it would be consistent with that practice to allow a person who is aggrieved with the decision of the National House of Chiefs to go to the High Court.
    I think that the Supreme Court should be the proper place for this matter to go, otherwise, what will end up is that there would be so many multiplicity of cases with regard to this matter; you go to the High Court and then somebody goes to veer into the area of cause or matter affecting chieftaincy, then where do you appeal to? Do you go back to the Court of Appeal? Do you go back to the Supreme Court. Or you go back again and say that we can hear it? Mr. Speaker, I think that for the avoidance of all doubt, it is better to place this matter in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
    Mr. A.O. Aidooh 3:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my very good friend intends to pursue the amendment or withdraw it at this stage. Mr. Speaker, during the winnowing we had some discussion on this matter, and then he told us that the right to be registered is a fundamental human right. And I said he was very wrong because the Constitution on which he relied lists the fundamental human rights and that does not include a right to be registered as a chief. Mr. Speaker, he cited the case of Edusei. Edusei's right to passport was under his right to free movement and that is why it goes to the High Court.
    Under the Constitution, human right issues under article 33 are enforceable by the High Court but the right to be registered as a chief is not one of those rights. And therefore, if he wants to place it under fundamental human right, he is completely wrong because the Constitution lists all the rights that are fundamental and this right is not one of them. So I would once again plead with him to withdraw the amendment. The authority on which he based his case, Edusei case has to do with his right to free movement and that was it. And Mr. Speaker, this amendment must be opposed very, very fiercely.
    Mr. Mahama Ayariga 3:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am violently opposed to this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I am violently against this amendment. Mr. Speaker, the reason is very simple - [Interruption.]
    Mr. S.K.B. Manu 3:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, my point of order is to caution the hon. Member for Bawku Central on the use of the word ‘violent' knowing where he is coming from - [Laughter.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    I think you are not being fair to the hon. Member, connecting where he is coming from with the use of the word “violence”. I think you owe him an apology.
    Mr. Ayariga 3:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the threat of violence is making him to want to withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. Chireh 3:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, based on the tenure of the discussion, I withdraw this amendment. Even though I still feel that in future we need to look at this issue because it could be inadvertent bureaucracy or some other things. So if somebody for bureaucratic reasons does not register me as a chief and I have to go to the Supreme Court - But I withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    I am disappointed that you have withdrawn it.
    Clause 59 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 60 and 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 62 - Enstoolment, distoolment of a chief to be reported to the National House of Chiefs.
    Mr. Asiamah 3:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 62 add a new subclause as follows:
    “(2) An installation of a chief or queen mother is not valid unless, at least fourteen days before the date of the installation, public notice of it, in accordance with the custom of the area, has been given.
    (3) For the purpose of this section,
    (a) an interim injunction shall not be granted on application within the
    last seven days of the fourteen days, and
    (b) an appeal does not operate as stay of execution if it is filed within the last seven days of the fourteen days”
    Mr. Speaker, this is important to avoid the situation whereby dubious people would unnecessarily or always interfere in the installation of a chief or would want to always depose chiefs or to embarrass people who have been invited to such a grand occasion. So to forestall such occurrences that is why the Committee deems it fit to come out with these new clauses. I so move, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I do not really oppose the amendment proposed except that I believe if we are dealing with a Bill relating to chieftaincy, we must get the nomenclature right.
    Mr. Speaker, in Ghana and particularly the Akan areas, the concept of queen motherhood is very foreign, it is not known to Akan tradition. It is a word that we have imported and it has no relevance in Akan tradition.

    So we must be careful where we situate this designation. There is nobody by that designation “Queen mother” in the Akan traditional setting. And I do not know of its place anywhere in the country.
    Mr. Chireh 3:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that the amendment is in order. I support it except to add that subclause (3) should rather go to clause 34. The drafters should take note. And that 34, if you look at that amendment standing in my name has been repeated in this one. So subclause (3) rather should go to 34. That is where we deal with appeal. But he was talking about “Queen mother”.
    Indeed, in our Constitution, the definition of a chief includes a queen mother. It is not foreign; it is nomenclature because it has been used over the years and we have accepted. He himself said queen mother. So the issue is, whether there is a “Queen mother” in the Constitution; so he has no point. We support this amendment and we will vote for it.
    Mr. Adjaho 3:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, ordinarily I will not have any problem with it but where I come from, notice is not given. So there is a problem here. In fact, they normally do not tell who the chief is. They virtually arrest you. So if you put this

    thing here, it is going to create a problem where I come from. So there is a problem here and it is to that extent - maybe, it applies.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    What you are saying is that where you come from before an installation you are not in court.
    Mr. Adjaho 3:30 p.m.
    Yes, in fact there is always a surprise element there where I come from and I am sure there are other places too. You cannot give notice, Mr. Speaker. And so for this, we are not making a law for a specific area; we are making this law for the whole of Ghana and to that extent if this amendment is going to create a problem for where I come from and to that extent I am opposed to it.
    Mr. Boafo 3:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think my brother should know that it is according to the custom of the area. So it takes care of Tsito or where he comes from, Sogakope. It takes care of it. Please, what is happening is that, when they are out- dooring then the last day somebody brings a court order and then it embarrasses the people that they have invited to the function and that is why there is the need for it.
    Mr. Adjaho 3:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the point he is making, that is not what is captured in this amendment. The point that I am making is that in my place we do not give notice. - [Interruption.]
    Mr. S.K. Boafo 3:30 p.m.
    There are two areas, we have selection. That is where his comes in. We have selection and then installation. This selection is part of this. So that where you surprise the people, you bring the people and you select the person Doe Adjaho is there as the chief then th-ere is the need to install. So it is telling two things.
    Mr. Adjaho 3:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the custom is that you are t hen picked suddenly and then you are confined and then you are out-doored.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    He is explaining that it is at the stage of out- dooring - [Interruption]
    Mr. Adjaho 3:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, in terms of out-dooring, the Public Order Act has already made provision for it as a special event. If you look at the Public Order Act strictly, it has been captured as a special event and has taken place where you give at least five days notice to the police. And I think that if it is a question of that notice to maintain law and order otherwise I do not see why if the people follow the custom of the area and they have not given a certain notice than the installation is null and void. Yes, it is invalid, the installation is rendered invalid.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    Have you read the Act?
    Mr. Adjaho 3:30 p.m.
    Yes, I have.
    Mr. Adjaho 3:30 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    Then you are speaking at cross purposes, with what you are saying.
    Mr. Adjaho 3:30 p.m.
    No.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    Alright.
    Mr. Adjaho 3:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, with your permission I beg to quote that part of the Act:
    “An installation of a chief or queen mother is not valid unless at least fourteen days before the date of the installation public notice of it in
    accordance with the custom of the area has been given”.
    So if it does not apply to me and you do not satisfy this then you render it invalid. That is the point that we are making.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, what do you say to that?
    Mr. Asiamah 3:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, installation is a process that you go through. So for what he is talking about, you can go through whether capturing or whatever it is but at the end of the day once you identify the chief, it is made known to the public. So in that case a notice is given to the public of when the person is to be introduced and installed officially. That is all that this thing is seeking to do. So installation is a process and you go through selection and all these things and officially the person is outdoored to the public. That is why we are saying it is a process.
    Mr. Chireh 3:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the installa- tion needs to be defined in the inter- pretation section to include out-dooring. What I am saying is that if you talk about enstoolment, destoolment and all that or putting somebody on the stool or on the skin, some of it is secret. But what we are talking about the installation itself means you have been recognized and put there. It needs a public event and I do not see why a public event should be secret, unless of course installation is different from the person actually being put there and told he is the chief.
    And the reason these things were introduced as they say sis that first, there may be a need for somebody to be installed, then somebody goes to file an injunction. And that is why I am saying that if you look at clause 34, clause 34 is where they were trying to introduce this.
    But here, installation is where it properly belongs and where the notice needs to be given for somebody to be made a chief.
    What I am saying is that unless we take all the processes of somebody becoming a chief. But installation as far as I am concerned, we can as well define it here to make it a public event which does not include somebody being confined for a number of days, somebody being secretly selected. But because that process as we know, it is always going to be a problem. They say according to the custom of the area.
    Mr. Edward Salia 3:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we have to admit that customs for naming chiefs differ. In some parts of the country, installation is a secret process; it is not a public event. If you compel people to give public notice then the element of secrecy is completely removed. It is out-doorings that are public activities. Installation is different from out-dooring and in a lot of customary arrangements - [Inte-rruption]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    You are speaking in relation to some other customs.
    Mr. Salia 3:30 p.m.
    Customs that I know of.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    Fair enough.
    Mr. Salia 3:30 p.m.
    So if we make it this way and say ‘subject to the custom' then we will not be covering the perception.
    rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    Are you on a point of order.
    Mr. Aidooh 3:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. Colleague is a bit off the argument. The installation process can be secret but what we are saying is that give public
    Mr. Aidooh 3:30 p.m.


    notice of it. It does not mean install the person in public. It says, give public notice of the event but it does not mean the installation must be in public.
    Mr. Salia 3:30 p.m.
    As soon as you give public notice then the element of secrecy is broken because if I am going to install - It is a ritual and they are not supposed to know that you are even undergoing the ritual. I do not know what the difficulty is. We can reconstruct this to apply to those who can make it public and to make it not to apply to those - [Interruptions.]
    Mr. Isaac Asiamah 3:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think we can defer this one.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:40 p.m.
    I should defer it for a while? Fair enough, I will do so. Hon. Members, clause 62 is accor- dingly deferred.
    Clauses 63 to 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 68 - Estimates of Houses of Chiefs.
    Mr. Mahama Ayariga 3:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 68 - subclause (1), lines 2 and 3, delete “Office of the President” and insert “Minister”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 68 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 69 and 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 71 - Regulations
    Mr. Yieleh Chireh 3:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 71 - line 1, delete

    “President” and insert “Minister”

    They are consequential as well because it is just replacing ‘President; with the ‘Minister'.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Yieleh Chireh 3:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 71 - line 2, delete “President” and insert “Minister”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 71 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 72 to 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 75 - Election regulations.
    Mr. Mahama Ayariga 3:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 75 - delete
    Mr. Speaker, the electoral laws of this country grant the Electoral Commission the authority to supervise all public elections. Mr. Speaker, I therefore find it superfluous to repeat these clauses here, authorizing the Electoral Commission to make regulations for elections under this particular Act.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:40 p.m.
    Hon. Member, you are not against it but you consider it to be superfluous, is that your position?
    Mr. Mahama Ayariga 3:40 p.m.
    That is so, Mr. Speaker.
    rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:40 p.m.
    Hon. Yieleh Chireh, are you against it?
    Mr. Chireh 3:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that
    we should allow it to be there because anytime that the Electoral Commission is to conduct an election, it must issue a Constitutional Instrument to guide it. - For parliamentary elections, it is there, for presidential elections it must be there. So if it is going to conduct elections in respect of the House of chiefs, it should also issue a similar Instrument. I think that it is proper it is retained.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. Member who is proposing the amendment is assuming that we do not need to have this provision because the Electoral Commission knows what to do. Mr. Speaker, it does not really derogate from the function of the Electoral Commission if we put this there. It does not take anything away from it, so I propose that we should have it as it is.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:40 p.m.
    Hon. Ayariga, you want to withdraw it or what?
    Mr. Mahama Ayariga 3:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I have been coerced into withdrawing the amendment - [Interruption]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:40 p.m.
    In spite of the fact that you are from Bawku?
    Mr. Ayariga 3:40 p.m.
    In fact, here I am very helpless and I have been coerced into withdrawing it, so I therefore withdraw it Mr. Speaker.
    Amendment by leave withdrawn.
    Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 76 - Performance of functions conferred on President.
    Mr. Yieleh Chireh 3:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 76, delete
    Mr. Speaker, because of the changes we have made, there is no need for clause 76 again. We should delete it. But I want to remind the draftsperson that the function given to the President under clause 64 is a specific function which is a constitutional one in terms of appointing staff of the various Houses of Chiefs.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:40 p.m.
    So are you withdrawing that one?
    Mr. Chireh 3:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, No, that is a specific one, so we do not need this one, we should delete it.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 77 - Temporary prohibition of a person.
    Mr. Isaac Asiamah 3:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 77 - subclause (1), line 1, delete and insert the following:
    “The Minister in consultation with the Minister for National Security may in the interest of public order and safety obtain in court order to -
    “to direct a person reasonably connected with a chieftaincy dispute to reside outside or not remain in an area where there is already or likely to be danger to life, property and public order as a result of the chieftaincy dispute”.
    That is it, but Mr. Speaker, I want us to give you a background to this whole rendition. Mr. Speaker, this is a modified form of what is the present law. Act 370, section 52 Mr. Speaker, I want to seek your indulgence to read it to the whole House.
    If it appears to him to be necessary to do so in the interest of public order, the Minister may by Executive Instrument -

    (a) prohibit any person who is not a chief whether or not he was formerly a chief, purporting to exercise any of the functions of a chief be required that no person shall treat as a chief a person subject to such prohibition;

    (b) The Minister may also in the interest of public order direct in writing any person described in sub section 1 (a) of this section to reside outside or not to enter or remain in an area specified by the Minister in an areas which he is or includes any place in a relation to which that person wrongfully claims to be a chief or in relation to which any other person wrongfully treats him as a chief”.

    Mr. Speaker, this is what pertains in the existing law. Mr. Speaker, I think the rationale behind the Committee's new rendition is that we believe that whether we like it or not we are still engulfed with numerous chieftaincy disputes, and that it is proper that a law is put in place to ensure that the Minister for Chieftaincy Affairs and Culture in consultation with the Minister for National Security may reasonably through a court, or by court action or court order take such an action necessary to forestall peace and ensure public order.

    So Mr. Speaker, this is a more advanced form of the existing law and we believe that since the existing one has not been abused in any way, there is no record of its abuse, and that since there is that element of reasonability - Since 1971 this law has never been abused by any Minister
    Mr. Isaac Asiamah 3:50 p.m.


    and that is why the word “reasonable” is there. We believe that now that there is that element of court action, at least, it can enhance the fundamental human rights or whatever it is of any person who may be caught in such an act. So that is it. We still believe strongly that this thing is the best form to curtail or make sure that we get the peace that we need. Mr. Speaker, that is in the wisdom of the Committee.
    Mr. Chireh 3:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I rise to
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    Well,
    where are you reading, hon. Member?
    Mr. Chireh 3:50 p.m.
    Mr.Speaker, I am
    Mr. Asiamah 3:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think
    the Committee sat down, it was not the Minister. This is a committee's decision, so reference to the Minister is neither here nor there. It is a committee's decision we took, so the reference to the Minister does not hold.
    Mr. Chireh 3:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, what we
    are saying is that under the Constitution, we do not need any such powers to vest in the two Ministers to go to court to do
    any such a thing. Indeed, if anybody commits an offence against anything, whether you are a chief or not, the police, the law courts are there, they should arrest you, you have simply just infringed a law. And no Minister should go to court asking the court to order you to be banished. Secondly, why do you banish anybody? It is not right to be banishing people.
    Mr. Mahama Ayariga 3:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    I really do not appreciate the direction of this argument because the powers that they are seeking to vest the Minister with under the proposed amendments are actually powers that are contained in our Constitution. Indeed, if you read article 21 of the Constitution, the power is vested in some lawful authority to apply to the courts to prohibit a person from moving in Ghana or residing in certain locations in Ghana. And you apply to the court and the court may grant you such an authority.
    And I think the first seven days the person whose freedom of movement has been restrained can apply to the court to review the order and if after the first 7 days it is not reviewed, after every month you can apply to the court to review the order restraining you or restricting you from moving.
    So Mr. Speaker, I think this is clearly in the Constitution.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    Hon.
    Member, are you sure you have read to us the relevant --
    Mr. Ayariga 3:50 p.m.
    That is so, Mr. Speaker,
    it is there.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    Where is
    it, can you read it?
    Mr. Ayariga 3:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it is there,
    section 21. Part of 21 deals with freedom of movement -
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    Where
    exactly?
    Mr. Ayariga 3:50 p.m.
    You see, article 21
    paragraph 1(g) - and I beg to quote:
    “All persons shall have the right to -- Freedom of movement which means the right to move freely in Ghana, the right to leave and to enter Ghana and immunity from expulsion from Ghana.”
    And then it goes on to say that -
    “4 (4) Nothing in, or done under the authority of, a law shall be held to be inconsistent with, or in contravention of, this article to the extent that the law in question makes provision -
    (a) for the imposition of restrictions by order of a court, that are required in the interest of defence, public safety or public order, on the movement or residence within Ghana of any person.”
    Mr. Speaker, if we continue, it all talks about restrictions on movements within Ghana.
    Mr. Asiamah 3:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if he talks
    about human rights, freedom or restriction in this law; we have passed several laws with it, about movement. Even your own wife sometimes if there is a problem you can be restricted. This Domestic Violence Act or so, we passed a law that restricts you from getting access to your wife when
    Mr. Asiamah 3:50 p.m.


    there is a problem. So there is nothing like absolute freedom.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    Hon.
    Member, that is not a point of order, allow him to make his point.
    rose rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    Hon.
    Ayariga, have you finished?
    Mr. Ayariga 3:50 p.m.
    No, Mr. Speaker, I was
    on my feet -
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    The three
    of you, who is on the floor? I want to find out from you.
    Mr. Adjaho 3:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I need your
    guidance.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    Gentle-
    men, hold on, hon. Ayariga has the floor. So hon. Doe Adjaho, will you take your seat until I call you.
    Mr. Adjaho 3:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I will but I need your guidance with the greatest respect to the Chair.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    Before I
    call him; let me call you before.
    Mr. Adjaho 3:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the hon.
    Member is debating the matter. He has not raised any rule that the hon. Member on the floor has breached. He should wait for his turn and when his turn comes he will contribute.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    Hon.
    Member, I only hear those who catch my eye and I call to make their contributions. He has risen to oppose an amendment that has been proposed and I think it is his right to do so. So allow him to do so. Hon. Ayariga, continue.
    Mr. Ayariga 3:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I was
    Mr. Frist Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    I think
    we have passed that stage.
    Mr. Ayariga 3:50 p.m.
    Yes. So I have tried to
    show that in the Constitution there are actually provisions that entitle the State to restrict the freedom of movement or even residence of individuals in certain locations. And then also, there are rights to go to court to review those restrictions. I was simply drawing his attention to the existence of those constitutional provisions. Therefore it is not altogether unconstitutional to have a proposal like the one that he seeks to put into the law captured in the amendment. That is all what I am trying to say.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    So hon.
    Ayariga, you rose to amplify the law and to correct him, or to inform him. But what was your position? Are you opposed to the proposed amendment?
    Mr. Ayariga 3:50 p.m.
    No, Mr. Speaker, I was
    just correcting a statement that he made because he was on the floor. I was just drawing his attention to those provisions.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    Very
    well.
    Mr. Joseph Y. Chireh 4 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, this correction was absolutely unnecessary. In recognized that and I said that anybody who infringed the law and the courts finds guilty is imprisoned, he is restricted from movement. You can be banned from entering some places. Why is he telling
    Mr. Joseph Y. Chireh 4 p.m.


    me about the Constitution? All that I am saying is that this not a matter for politicians to got to court. The police and the security agencies already have enough to be able to do that. It is not for somebody to say, “Oh! I do not like this man, he wants to be a chief, let me send him away from the place” and go to court to obtain a court order. That is my argument.

    So I say that the thing should be deleted; it should not be even an amendment, it should not be in the law. I was arguing that we already have sufficient security guards and I am saying that this idea of two hon. Ministers going to court to get an order is not proper. - [Interruption] - So I oppose the amendment.
    Mr. Asiamah 4 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment. To answer my hon. Colleague, the position here is that all Ghanaians accept our general laws and yet it permits this House to put into any enactment a piece like this. It tells you that when that is done it is constitutional. Therefore, I support the amendment and I urge hon. Members to vote for it.
    Mr. Adjaho 4 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment that I am completely opposed to. The amendments are two, all under clause 77. One is seeking to delete and the two must be taken together.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 4 p.m.
    We have not come to that place.
    Mr. Adjaho 4 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this amendment and I have a number of friends opposite who are opposed to this amendment. I do not want to mention them, otherwise I would be mentioning people who are sitting where they should not be mentioned. But Mr. Speaker, on a very serious note, I think this is a very important part of the Bill. In fact, the Chairman of the Committee tried
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, on a point to order. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member in beginning his own interven-tion is saying that there are people from the other side who support his own position. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that he is being sincere and fair to the people that he has in mind. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe - [Interruption]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 4 p.m.
    Do you support him?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe he is not being fair; I do not support him at all.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 4 p.m.
    Are you sure?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4 p.m.
    That there are people from the other side who support his own position is incorrect. Mr. Speaker, if he believes it is true, let him mention those names.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 4 p.m.
    Hon. Deputy Majority Leader and Minister of State you may not be sure, you would not know; you know these are human beings. So he is making his position. Allow him and if it comes that stage, we would see.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, with respect, it is a very serious allegation. I have cause to disbelieve hon. Doe Adjaho in his assertion. Mr. Speaker, let him mention names if indeed what he is saying is true.
    Mr. Adjaho 4 p.m.
    When we were debating at the Second Reading, hon. Members from the opposite side stated their position. If they changed their mind this night then it is a different matter. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this amendment and I have been opposed to this amendment ever since I saw it at Koforidua. They tried to improve it, by bringing in the Minister
    for National Security which has worsened the matter.
    Mr. Speaker, the current law which is the Chieftaincy Act was passed under the Second Republican Constitution and at that time the power of recognition was given to the Government. Therefore, in order to understand the section 52 which the Chairman of the Committee quoted that under the current law, there are similar provisions, we must go back and look at the role of the Government, the provisions of the Constitution in relation to the Government. Ever since the Third Republic Constitution, that power of the Government to meddle in chieftaincy affairs has been taken away.
    Mr. Asiamah 4 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is misleading this House. He should quote any relevant provision today that prohibits this House from going ahead with this new rendition. Just one relevant provision.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 4 p.m.
    He has not said so. [Interruptions]
    Allow him. He did not say so; I never had that impression.
    Mr. Asiamah 4 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, he did mention the regime that initiated the other law and he indicated that maybe that regime or the law then did not permit that, and I am saying he should today quote any - [Interruption]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 4 p.m.
    I never had that impression.
    Mr. Adjaho 4 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the consti-
    tutional framework under which the current law, the current Chieftaincy Act that we are seeking to repeal and replace with the current one was passed is different from the current constitutional arrangement. Under the Chieftaincy Act of 1971, if you look at the Constitution closely, a certain role has been given to the Government in terms of recognition; that has been removed ever since the coming into force of the Third Republic and subsequently the 1992 Constitution. Therefore, we have to understand that provision of section 52 of the current law in that context. That is my first point.
    My second objection is this amendment is the fact that we must be very careful to give powers to Ministers of State which ambit we cannot control. “Reasonably connected” to what degree? To what degree are we talking about? Is it that because the Majority Leader who is linked to some stool in Ashanti and is a lawyer and can advise, one of the factions would go to court and say that because he is reasonably connected to it, he should not enter Bekwai again? We must be very, very careful.

    Let everybody come in and debate this matter and vote for it or against it and the record would show what some of us said it. Mr. Speaker, it is on that basis I am raising the question of quorum. The whole House
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 4 p.m.
    Hon. Member, are you continuing? I thought you have made your point. You want only yourself to be heard and nobody else.
    Mr. Asiamah 4:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe that certain statements should be checked well. This proposed amendment is not seeking Government's involvement in chieftaincy matters.
    On numerous occas ions , hon. Colleagues on the other side have called on the Government to provide public safety and security especially in areas of chieftaincy conflicts. My hon. Colleague for Bawku Central has consistently asked the Government to provide security. So these are some of the measures we have to take as a nation.
    For me, it is not about chieftaincy matters, but about providing security, as the hon. Member for Bawku Central (Mr. Mahama Ayariga) has always been calling for, in Bawku area, for example, and other chieftaincy troubled spots. So this is in line with what they have consistently called for. That is all that we are doing.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Hon. Majority Leader, to buttress his position, your hon. Colleague resorted to revoking the idea of quorum. What do you say to that?
    Mr. A.O. Aidooh 4:10 p.m.
    It is clearly a case of subterfuge.
    Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 4:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am referring you to Standing Order 48, that before you put a Question, we should have at least a reasonable number of hon. Members present. I do not see - [Inter- ruption]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Very well. I find my hands tied and so I would not continue with the proceedings. - [Hear! Hear!] -
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe that this is a very disingenuous way of bringing proceedings of this House to a close.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    I agree with you.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, in any event, Standing Order 48(2) does not say that immediately an issue of quorum is raised, proceedings should grind to a halt. This is very disingenuous. I repeat, it is very disingenuous and proceedings should go on until at least ten minutes after the issue has been raised.
    Mr. Adjaho 4:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, you have ruled on the matter. He is out of order.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Hon. Members, the House would stand adjourned till tomorrow ten o'clock before noon.
    ADJOURNEMNT 4:10 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 4.14 p.m. till 19th March, 2008 at 10.00 a.m.