Debates of 14 Oct 2008

MR. FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:05 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:05 a.m.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:05 a.m.
Order! Order! Correction of Votes and Proceedings of 8th October, 2008. Pages 1, 2 . . . 12. [No corrections were made.]

We have a few Questions here for the

hon. Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing.
Mr. K. A. Okerchiri 10:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
I would like to crave your indulgence to permit the hon. Minister of State for Water Resources, Works and Housing, Ms. Cecilia A. Dapaah, to stand in for the hon. Minister, who is not available.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:05 a.m.
Very well.
Hon. Minister, you are welcome.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 10:05 a.m.
MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES, 10:05 a.m.
WORKS AND HOUSING 10:05 a.m.
Mr. Avedzi 10:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, will the
Ministry make provision in next year's Budget so that the problem would be solved?
Ms. Dapaah 10:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I believe
that is so.
Drainage Project on Gbemi Stream
Q. 1521. Mr. Alfred Kwame Agbesi asked the Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing, when the abandoned drainage project on the Gbemi stream in Ashaiman would resume.
Ms. Dapaah 10:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the project has not been abandoned. Indeed, it has stalled due to funding difficulties. The project, which is estimated to cost GH¢1.5 million, has been captured in the Ministry's 2009 budget, for continuation of the project.
Mr. Agbesi 10:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, can the hon. Minister tell me who the contractor is?
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:05 a.m.
Hon.
Member, I believe what she said was that the project in terms of continuation is stalled a bit because of money and it would be captured in the 2009 Budget.
Mr. Agbesi 10:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to
know the contractor. [Interruption.] Very well; I want to know who was the contractor before it was stalled.
Ms. Dapaah 10:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I can get
the name for my hon. Colleague later.
Mr. Agbesi 10:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, her pre-
decessor was in this House in an Answer to a similar Question or to that same Question, and he said that the project was abandoned or was stalled because of weather conditions and that the machines that were being used had been taken to Korle Lagoon project and they were waiting for that project to be completed and the machines would be brought back.
Her Answer today is different from what the hon. Minister said two years ago. Which of these two positions should we believe?
Ms. Dapaah 10:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am
amazed that my hon. Colleague is talking about something that happened two years ago. Indeed, he was not my predecessor. There was no Minister of State at that time. He was the sector Minister, if he is talking about hon. Hackman Owusu-Agyemang.
Definitely, if he wants the name of the contractor, like I said, I can produce that. But whether the machines were taken to Korle-Bu or not, I would have to find out.
Mr. Agbesi 10:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am also
amazed at this Answer. This Question has been put down for a long time. The Ministry had been scheduled to Answer this Question.
I have in my hand the Order Paper for Tuesday, 16th May, 2006 in which the
Answer was provided at page 3 and this is a Ministry with documents. I am amazed at the Answer the hon. Minister is giving.
The thing is that the hon. Minister has stated it, that because the place is wet they have taken the machine away. I am aware the Korle Lagoon project has been completed but for two years the machine has not come back; the contract is not going on; it is abandoned.
The word is ‘abandoned', and I want to know from the hon. Minister what the correct position is. Whether it is because of lack of funds, or because the machine is still lying at Korle-Bu and it is not being brought to Ashaiman, I want to know from the hon. Minister. Which of these positions should I take and tell my people in Ashaiman?
Ms. Dapaah 10:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I believe
this is an election year and all hon. Members are concerned about projects for their areas. I believe, of course, including me, and my hon. Member knows, that I was the one who came to inaugurate this project. So therefore, we are all concerned. I have got very good news for him here, if Mr. Speaker would permit me to tell my hon. Colleague that because we are so concerned, the project has started.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:15 a.m.
Hon. Minister, you mean the project on which you gave an Answer to has now started in earnest?
Ms Dapaah 10:15 a.m.
Yes please, and I would
find out exactly when.
Mr. J. Y. Chireh 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the
hon. Minister says this has been captured in the 2009 Budget which is still solely a proposal.
Now, she is also giving us good news. Is the contractor going to work and wait till 2009 to be paid or what is the position?
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:15 a.m.
Well, hon.
Minister, do you have any answer to that?
Ms. Dapaah 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would
find out for my hon. Colleague when I leave here.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:15 a.m.
Hon.
Members, we move on to the next Question and it is in the name of hon. Alex Kyeremeh.
Water Project for Aworowa and Akrofrom (Commencement)
Q. 1565. Mr. Alex Kyeremeh asked the Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing when Small Towns Water and Sanitation Project for Aworowa and Akrofrom in Techiman Municipality would commence.
Ms. Dapaah 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Govern- ment with a credit facility from the International Development Agency (IDA) of the World Bank is implementing the Small Towns Water and Sanitation Project in six (6) regions of the country including the Brong Ahafo Region.
Aworowa-Akrofrom, a twin town in the Techiman Municipality is one of the beneficiary towns in the Brong Ahafo Region. Currently, design of the water supply system and tendering for award of contract have been completed. Evaluation of tenders by the Municipal Assembly has been completed and as required by the World Bank, the evaluation report has been forwarded to the World Bank for clearance.
It is expected that clearance from the World Bank would be received before the end of October, 2008 following which the evaluation report would be submitted to the Municipal Tender Committee for
approval and award of contract.
Mr. Speaker, giving a one-month mobilization period from the award of the contract, it is expected that construction activities would begin early December 2008 to be completed by September, 2009.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:15 a.m.
Hon. Members, it appears that brings us to the end of Question time.
Thank you, hon. Minister, for making yourself available to us to Answer these Questions.
Yes, hon. Member, the next item?
Mr. Kwabena Okerchiri 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if we could move on to the Commencement of Public Business.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 10:15 a.m.
STAGE 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the rendition will now read 10:25 a.m.
“An employer is entitled to make deductions under subsection 5 (b)”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, subclause (7), line 3, delete “prescribed” and insert “relevant”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.

Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to

move, clause 3, subclause (8), delete and insert the following:

“(8) Subject to guidelines that may be issued by the Board, any person who is not covered under the first or second tier may make voluntary contributions under the third tier.”
Mr. J. Y. Chireh 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to find out why the change because the present rendition seems to be saying the same thing. Why is he making the change?
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, this is for the
purposes of clarity, to make the sentence much more readable friendly and to bring out the understanding very clearly. Mr. Speaker, even though the two may appear similar, the new proposed amendment is better than the first one.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 3, subclause (9), delete “this Act applies” and insert “first and second tiers apply”.
Mr. Speaker, it would therefore read as follows 10:25 a.m.
“A person to whom the first and second tiers apply, may in addition to the total contribution being made by the employee and the employer, make voluntary contributions to the scheme under the third tier of the Scheme.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Hon.
Members, I will ask all those who have
their mobile sets on to switch them off or put them on silence, moreso, if you are in the Press Gallery or in the Public Gallery itself; it could disturb what is happening here and the work itself.
Clause 6 -- Object of the Authority.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 6, line 1, delete “supervise”.
The reason is that the power of authority would be to regulate and monitor actors in the Scheme and not to supervise. That is the essence of the amendment.
Mr. Chireh 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think
the amendment is appropriate because if we leave the word “supervise” there, the Authority is likely to get into the business of the other Schemes that they are supposed to regulate. And as a regulatory body, they should define guidelines for them and then observe the way they go according to the guidelines. So this supervision would have made them directly involved in the management of the Scheme. So I think that hon. Members should support the amendment for it to go through.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 -- Functions of the Authority.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 7, paragraph (d), line 1, delete “supervise”.
Mr. Speaker, the rendition may now read as follows 10:25 a.m.
“approve, regulate and monitor trustees, pension fund managers, custodians and other institutions that deal with pension matters as the Authority may determine.”
[NII MANTE] [MR. FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER]
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 7, paragraph (g), line 1, delete “supervise” and insert “regulate and monitor”.
Mr. Speaker, the words would read as follows 10:25 a.m.
“ r egu l a t e and mon i to r t he implementation of the Basic National Social Security Scheme.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 7, paragraph (o), delete.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 7, paragraph (q), after “fees” delete “and levies”.
Mr. Speaker, paragraph (q) would now read as follows 10:35 a.m.
“charge and collect fees as the Authority may determine.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 -- Governing body of the Authority.

Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, subclause (1), paragraph (d), after “Pensions” add the following words: “not below the rank of a Director”.

Mr. Speaker, this is to ensure that the person representing the Ministry is a high-

ranking officer.
Mr. J. Y. Chireh 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment is in order but the issue has been who is the Minister responsible for pensions? It is not clear whether that is the Minister for Employment and Social Welfare or the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Hon. Yieleh Chireh, where are you? We are for subclause (1) and you are jumping the gun.
Mr. Chireh 10:35 a.m.
No, I am not jumping the gun because “a representative of the Ministry responsible for Pensions not below”. That is the appropriate clause. So the problem is, which Ministry is responsible for Pensions? [Pause.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Yes, hon. Yieleh Chireh, I am listening to you still.
Mr. Chireh 10:35 a.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, my point is that when it came to this representation, the issue was who is the Minister responsible for Pensions? Is it the Minister for Employment and Social Welfare or the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning; and how can we at any time determine who is to send the representative? If the Chairman can tell me then I will be happy.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Why? The Chairman cannot tell you this, hon. Yieleh Chireh. What is here is that any Ministry that will be responsible for the Pensions, and it could change at any time. I think this kind of controversy has been arising from the work we do; it could change at any time so let us have it as it is and continue. Are you opposed to the proposed amendment or not? If you are not, then let me put the Question, hon. Yieleh Chireh.
Mr. Chireh 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am not
opposed to the amendment. I said the amendment is in order, it is just about who is responsible.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Do you want to take responsibility over that?
Mr. Chireh 10:35 a.m.
No, I do not want to, but you see, we cannot make a law without knowing what the law is supposed to do and that is why I think that we should be a little more definite in what we are saying.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Hon. Yieleh Chireh, if it was the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, would you be against it? [Pause.] Anyway, hon. Chairman, do you have anything to say to what the hon. Member has asked?
Nii Mante: Yes, I think he must wait and see.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
What?
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, he must
exercise patience and see the outcome, whoever will take responsibility, but for now it is the Minister for Pensions which has not been created yet, Mr. Speaker.
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Fair enough. Yes, hon. Member for South Tongu?
Mr. Kenneth Dzirasah 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I do not subscribe to this state of uncertainty about the law because we are making the laws, the laws are based on policy that has been brought to this House; and the policy is ill-defined.
Currently the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning is responsible for that sector. So it stands to reason that we should be certain as to who has
responsibility for this schedule.
This is the House of Parliament and just to leave it to the pleasure of whoever subsequently takes the decision, may be shirking our responsibilities. My suggestion is that if the hon. Minister who has initiated this Bill is available in this House he should tell us who is the Minister responsible, because that ultimately would be reflected in the definition of the Minister. So if we do not know it at this stage then when are we going to know it?
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
The hon. Chairman has pleaded with you to hold your guns, that you will presently get to know everything. Am I correct or wrong?
Nii Mante: That is so, Mr. Speaker, you are with me. You know, as I said, the Minister here is the Minister for Pensions, but they should hold their fire; at the appropriate time they will also know if there will ever be a change. But the Minister here is the Minister for Pensions -- If we go to the Interpretation section of the Bill.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Yes, for the last time, hon. Yieleh Chireh?
Mr. Chireh 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the point we are making is that at the various stages the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning insisted that they should be specifically put on this Authority's board, and then currently, they are the ones responsible for pensions. Now, the Ministry for Finance and Economic Planning plays such a crucial role in this scheme of affairs such that if today it is the Ministry for Finance and Economic Planning, there is no problem. But if tomorrow they decide to give it to the Ministry for Information and National Orientation, then we will have a problem as to who would represent the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning. That is
Mr. K. A. Okerchiri 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thought that if we left it this fluid it answers his questions. So that whoever or which Ministry becomes responsible for pensions, we take the representative from the Ministry. I think that is it.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, subclause (4), delete “perform” and insert “ensure the performance of”.
Mr. Speaker, the reason being that the Board itself does not directly perform the functions but it will ensure that the functions of the Authority are performed. That is the main reason for this amendment, Mr. Speaker.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 9 to 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Chief Executive. Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to

move, clause 16, subclause (1), line 3, after “insurance” delete “and” and insert “or”.

So, Mr. Speaker, the whole rendition shall read as follows:

“The President shall, in accordance with article 195 of the Constitution, appoint a person with expertise in pension, actuarial science,

insurance or related field as the Chief Executive of the Authority.”

Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 16 as amended ordered to stand

part of the Bill.

Clauses 17 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 -- Power to inspect business premises.

Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 27, susbclause (1), paragraph (a), delete and insert the following:

“between the hours of 8.00 a.m and 5.00 p.m, enter any premises in which an employer or a self- employed person operates business for the purpose of inspection and examination.”

Mr. Speaker, the main reason for this is to make the inspection and examination within normal working hours which is operating in this country.
Mr. W. O. Boafo 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the reason for the amendment appears to be all right but my fear is that it is presumed that every establishment operates between 8.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. It is likely that some establishments may choose to close earlier. They may not have any lunch break or have very short lunch break and close at about 3.00 p.m. or 4.00 p.m., which is defeating the idea behind it. The amendment is to make it to conform to working hours. So I would like to submit that instead of making it specific, that is 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m., we can limit it, that they can enter the premises during working hours. So that if a particular establishment operates outside 5.00 p.m., they can go there. If it operates before 5.00 p.m. too, they can enter.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Hon. Member for Wa West, the hon. Member is saying that instead of specifically stating the time, he wants to make it a bit open.
Mr. Chireh 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I support his further amendment and therefore we should urge the hon. Chairman to adopt that one and we do not have a debate. Because, if you leave it to the 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 pm, some people work shift and others do all kinds of things, so “working hours” will be more appropriate. I think that is a better rendition.
Mr. Dzirasah 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, if one adopts the principle of “working hours” it means that the Authority's staff can enter the premises at 9.00 p.m. and even at 12.00 midnight, which is absurd.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
You said at 9.00 p.m. instead of --
Mr. Dzirasah 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I refer to the “working hours”, if a business operates an eight-hour shift for a continuous production period, it means that at 12.00 midnight, the Authority's staff can enter the premises and my submission is that that will be a very absurd arrangement.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the Authority itself operates between the hours of 8.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., the normal working hours of several institutions. The Authority is not being given specific time within which it should enter the premises, but a latitude of time. So reasonable prudence would require that they commence their operations at 9.00 a.m .and end at 5.00 p.m. within which period every enterprise in the country would have been operating, unless the enterprise is one type of enterprise that prints illegal currency which operates at midnight.
So with due respect, the proposed further amendment would not answer or address the concerns that this amendment is intended to address.
Mr. Chireh 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I still stand by the proposed amendment because what the hon. Member is talking about, it is not a normal operation that people go and examine documents. It is not a regular thing unless there is a report of some malfeasance. And in any case we are talking about some people who are keeping people's money and doing all kinds of things. So it is not about production.
What the hon. Member was talking about, we are saying “working hours”. So if somebody says he or she works from 12.00 midnight, why not? We will go there at 12.00 midnight and officers of the Authority are not to be doing the routine duty everyday at midnight. When there is a report to them and there is something going on somewhere, they ought to go there at anytime. And that is why I believe that the further amendment is the better proposal.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Hon. Chairman of the Committee, are you following the argument?
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I would not adopt either of their positions.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Which one will you then accept?
Nii Mante: My own position as I strongly stated.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
I believe what the hon. Member for South Tongu is saying is in support of your argument.
Nii Mante: That is so.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
And you do not want him to support you?
Mr. Okechiri 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that I am very comfortable with the amendment proposed by the hon. Chairman of the Committee.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Hon. Members, I would put the Question on the further amendment proposed by Mr. William Ofori Boafo -- [Interruptions.]
Mr. Chireh 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Hon. Member for Wa West, you have the floor.
Mr. Chireh 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, your Question was not well put, that is why hon. Members were hesitating to answer “yes” or “no”.
Mr. Speaker 10:45 a.m.
I think so.
Mr. Chireh 10:45 a.m.
I think we should send the hon. Chairman's amendment away by voting on it first and then taking the second proposed amendment.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, he cannot tell you what to do. The procedure is -
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
He is advising.
Nii Mante: He cannot advise you as to what to do.
Mr. Speaker, if you adopt what the
House has just responded to, I would be most grateful by throwing his amendment away.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
I am in charge. What the hon. Member for Wa West is saying is that maybe the way I put the Question was misunderstood by the House. I now want a proper rendition.
What do you propose, hon. Member for Wa West?
Mr. Chireh 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, my sugges-
tion is that the Chairman made an amendment; he first made an amendment. Now, there is a further amendment. We must put the Question in such a way that we know whose amendment has been adopted. The second amendment? -- [Interruptions] - Why? It would not be thrown away like that; you do not know. In fact, the arguments I raised should convince people. What I am saying is that let us vote on ours first and you would see that the “yes” would have it.
Mr. Okerchiri 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thought
that his problem was that he is claiming you did not formulate the Question well and therefore hon. Members did not appreciate it. But what he is saying is completely different from how I understood you to get his question. He wants us to reposition the order of the asking of the Question; that rather the Question for the amendment of the chairman must be put first; this is what he is saying. This is not done. He has done the right thing, he has proposed the Question for the amendment and it has been solidly defeated.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
But you
did not even answer it when I put the Question.
Mr. W O. Boafo 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if I
understand my hon. Colleague rightly; what he is saying is that when the Question was put it was not informatory enough to enable hon. Members to decide whether to answer “Yes” or “No”. As a matter of fact
the Question should have been rendered in such a way that the premises can be entered within reasonable time within working hours as it is in clause 27 (i) - “enter, inspect and examine at a reasonable time within working hours”.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
That is your proposed rendition?
Mr. W. O. Boafo 10:55 a.m.
Yes, it is so. I am not saying that we should delete “reasonable hours”. That takes care of what the Member for South Tongu, Hon. Dzirasah said.
Mr. Speaker, if they want to actually do proper and effective work they may choose to go there if the people operate during the night -- to go there at night because maybe that would be the time when fishy and nasty things would be done within the premises.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon.
Dzirasah, are you following the hon. Member's argument? Do you agree to that?
Mr. Dzirasah 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, No, I do
not. The reason why I do not agree with him is that if you make the situation so relaxed, the clerical staff in whose custody these documents are for inspection, they normally come to work from 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. Those who are on shift do not do administrative work, they do factory duties --
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon.
Dzirasah, it depends on the nature of the work that is being done.
Mr. Dzirasah 10:55 a.m.
Absolutely. But what
is the general practice? Let him give us an example of a situation where a clerical staff who has custody of administrative and financial papers is in the office at 12
midnight. He should give us an example. That is why I am saying that we should not pass laws that would look absurd on the record.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
That
is why he is proposing that “within reasonable time”, -- at working hours.
Mr. Dzirasah 10:55 a.m.
What is reasonable as
a matter of practice in Ghana is that we work from 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. So if you state this why do you introduce the issue of reasonableness again?
Mr. Chireh 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the con-
fusion is like this; we are saying that working hours vary from organization to organization. Now, he is talking about clerical staff; of course, if an institution decides to work between 6.00 p.m. to 12 midnight, their clerical staff would also be there. [Interruptions.] Then how can they work? There is no other person who would not be there. But we are proposing “within reasonable time during working hours”. And any court can decide what is “reasonable time”.
In any case unless you are saying that those who are working outside 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. cannot be subjected to this law; it means we are making a law with a vacuum which people can take advantage of. This loose arrangement I do not think that this Parliament should agree.
What we are saying simply is that we all know that institutions have working hours and during these working hours it should be possible for the Authority to send officers there and the workers of that institution would be present, particularly the Scheme's management and all that. Some of them, when we were considering this issue said they work so long, some close at 9.00 p.m., some even do not close at 5.00 p.m. Who works to 5.00 p.m. anyway? Then that person is not a serious worker.
Mr. W. O. Boafo 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, our
target is not the employees of the Board who work between 8.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. Our target is persons other than the Board and that is precisely what the hon. Chireh is saying.
Mr. Speaker, Volta Aluminium Company (VALCO) ends work at 3.00 p.m. There may be other institutions that may close at 6.00 p.m., 7.00 p.m. Are we taking them out of the law? No! This House cannot legislate like that. We must legislate in a reasonable way to cover persons intended to be a target for the law; we cannot exclude other people at all. That is why I am convinced by the argument raised by hon. Chireh.
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon.
Dzirarah, I would have given you the apportunity if you want to change your position. But if you are not going to change your position, then let me allow somebody else to talk.
Mr. Dzirasah 10:55 a.m.
If you give him the
chance to repeat and repeats to adulterate our arguments then it stands to reason that we have a right of reply.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
I am not giving you the -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Okerchiri 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we
need to appreciate those who are going to operate this Scheme and who are the targets of this law in this particular clause. Mr. Speaker, those who operate this Scheme -- it is not the factory hands that operate shift, some operate from 12 o'clock to 1.00 o'clock; No! Those who would operate are within these normal hours from 8.00 a.m. to about 6.00 p.m. So all these arguments as if we are legislating for some institutions that operate shifts; it is a non sequitur.
Mr. Okerchiri 11:05 a.m.


Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 27 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 28 - Power to borrow.

Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 28 -- delete

Mr. Speaker, the reason is that as provided by article 181 of the 1992 Constitution, public borrowing can only be done with the approval of Parliament. Mr. Speaker, besides the deletion does not preclude the application of article 181 when required.

Question put and amendment agreed

to.

Clause 28 deleted.

Clauses 29-34 ordered to stand part

of the Bill.

Clause 35 -- Functions of the Trust Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to

move, that clause 35 -- paragraph (a), line 1, before “social”, insert “basic national”
Mr. Chireh 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the
Chairman has not offered any reason for this addition. And if you look at the Trust, it is specified. Therefore, if you say operate a social security scheme, what is basic or national about it? Because we are now talking about first tier, second tier and third tier. So either we put the first tier there or we do not just put anything because it is specified that the Trust should operate like that.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, the reason
is simply this: When we insert the words

“basic national security scheme”, it differentiates from the present state of affairs where we have the first, second and third tiers.
Mr. Chireh 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if you look
at the whole sentence, it reads as follows:
“To achieve its objects the Trust shall operate (a) basic national security scheme and other schemes as may be prescribed by law”.
That “other schemes that may be prescribed by law,” I think it should not be there. So if we agree with his amendment we should just say “the basic national scheme.” So that “other schemes prescribed by law,” that belongs to another group of operators and not the Trust.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:05 a.m.
So you
are against the proposed amendment, hon. Yieleh Chireh?
Mr. Chireh 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, to the extent
that he agrees for a further amendment of the deletion of “and other schemes as may be prescribed by law”.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Chairman
of the Committee, what do you say to that? Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I entirely
disagree with him. As I have already said, the words “basic national social security scheme” differentiates the existing scheme from the new ones that would be introduced by this very Act. That is the reason why we are using the words “the basic national social security scheme” which is understandable. Mr. Speaker, it was an omission from the onset.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 35 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36 -- Governing body of the
Trust
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, that clause 36, subclause (1), delete
and insert the following:
Governing body of the Trust
“36 (1) The governing body of the Trust is a Board of Trustees consisting of
(a) a chairperson nominated by consensus from Government, Employers' Associat ion and Organised Labour on rotational basis for a maximum term of three years,
(b two persons nominated by the President, at least one of whom is a woman,
(c ) two represen ta t ives o f Employers' Associations,
(d) four representa t ives of Organised Labour,
( e ) o n e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f N a t i o n a l P e n s i o n e r s ' Association,
(f) one representative of the Ministry responsible for Finance not below the rank of a Director
(g) one representative of the Security Services
(h) the Director-General of the Trust.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Yes, what
are your reasons?
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, the amend-
ment is aimed at reviewing and clarifying the composition of the governing board for better and effective performance of its function.
Mr. J. B. Danquah Adu 11:05 a.m.
Mr.
Speaker, as you rightly asked. What were the reasons? Mr. Speaker, I find the amendment 36 (1) (a) and (b) a little problematic.
Mr. Speaker, the issue that you can
[NII MANTE] [MR. DZIRASAH]
have the chairperson being nominated by consensus and on rotational basis, I find it too long, winding and bureaucratic. Imagine a situation where there is no consensus among these three, then what do you do?
Mr. Speaker, and also on a rotational basis, it is as if there is a right for each of these groups to have a chairperson, and therefore if one period expires, the next period should be the right of the other. I find that principle a little nebulous. On the (b), where it says at least, one should be a woman.
Even at the committee meetings, if I could remember, we wanted a situation where there will be at least a woman on the board, but here it seems the President is restricted, where the President's choice should be a woman. I suppose there should be the flexibility that one of the members or of the Board of trustees should be a woman and not necessarily from the presidency. That is where I find it a little restrictive on the President. The President should be given the freedom to choose and not necessarily restrict the President to one male, one female.
Mr. Chireh 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment proposed by the Chairman and we should ignore what (hon. J. B. D. Adu) is saying because what he is saying really is hypothetical - [Interruption] - Yes! This was thoroughly debated at the committee meeting and we agreed that it should be as it is now.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Hon. Chireh, there are two points that he has advanced. Which one are you disagreeing with?
Mr. Chireh 11:15 a.m.
I am saying that both
Mr. Dzirasah 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I support the first leg of his argument. Mr. Speaker, it is good to accomplish consensus at all times but in terms of drafting and interpretation if you put “consensus” in a Bill then you are excluding other sources of agreement. There are at least, in the face of subclause (a), 5 institutions that are stakeholders.
The question that we need to address is, assuming two of the stakeholders refuse you cannot get consensus. And once you cannot get consensus, then you cannot monitor it. So there will be a stalemate. So rather than compel them to choose by consensus let us delete the word “consensus” so that they could either nominate by consensus or through split decision. That is the way I look at this matter.
The second leg of it which I disagree with has to do with the fact that because all the other institutions are providing institutional representation, the only flexible area which would enable female empowerment to be exhibited is when the President is choosing. So it is only proper that we should assign that situation to the Presidency and that there is no way we could compel those other institutional representatives to emerge as women. So, by way of summary, I propose that we delete the word “consensus” and then that will settle the matter.
Mr. W. O. Boafo 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the hon. Member for Akim Abuakwa North (hon. J. B. D. Adu). Mr. Speaker, to provide in a legislation that there should be consensus is at times risky because as hon. Kenneth Dzirasah rightly said it could lead to stalemate if one of the stakeholders decides that he is not going by the proposal by the other stakeholders.
Mr. Speaker, on the question of rotation, I equally support him because Mr. Speaker, assuming that it is the turn of one of the stakeholders but the persons who have been nominated by them you cannot find any of them to be competent enough to hold the position of a chairperson of the Board, are we bound because it is their turn to nominate that person for appointment because it is rotation and it is their turn?
Mr. Speaker, we cannot make such a provision in a legislation to tie our hands down. I think it should be more flexible so that the stakeholders will have the option to decide on whoever is competent to be nominated as chairperson.
Mr. Speaker, we may have a very embarrassing situation where the stakeholders have agreed on somebody who on the face of it may not be competent but because it is provided in this legislation that it is their turn the President is bound to accept and nominate him. The President will eventually be the person who will be held accountable for the bad performance of the Board and we cannot tie the President's hands like that. So Mr. Speaker, if we want flexibility in this particular Bill, we should delete “consensus” and equally “the rotational reference”.
Mr. Chireh 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, they are trying to convince me but unfortunately the way they are also putting it, it does not convince me sufficiently. Mr. Speaker, a Board must work on consensus most of the time. Now if you want to introduce electoral politics to this one, where people vote, after you have voted the wrong person to be chairperson the Board cannot work well.
But the reason why this group has to do this on rotational basis is that there is one member of the group who is so powerful

and strong that every time it wants its way and you know that member here. Therefore, the other social partners in this will want an occasion to do that. But you see, legislation is a guide also.

If we say this and they are going to nominate people to these positions and they know that that person is likely to be the Chairperson, they will come and nominate him; for instance, they can nominate me so that I can chair the Authority. But if they see this that they have the chance they will not go and nominate somebody who cannot chair.

Mr. Speaker, I am saying that the way it is put there if we want the thing to be by any other means other than by consensus, then we must put it specifically. Just deleting the word “consensus” will not solve the problem. I think that it should still be rotational because the other partners also want to be in the chair to make decisions and to direct the Authority. Thank you.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Hon. Members, if you would not mind, the proposed amendment is quite extensive and is not just words or sentences. There are quite a number of issues to be put together. It is a consensus issue in terms of the rotation and so on and so forth. I will stand it down and then we work on it and you will then find a way of going about it so that it does not hold us back from making progress. Mr. Chairman, if it is all right, can I go on? Chairman, do you agree to that?
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I would have wished to say the last word but since you have given an advice that we should stand it down I am agreeable, and I can come back maybe in an hour's time.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Thank you very much. Then let me continue.

Clause 37 -- Knowledge and Understanding of Board of Trustees

Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 37, susbclause (1), line 2, delete “be conversant with” and insert “must have knowledge and understanding of”. Mr. Speaker, the main reason being that we want clarity in this clause.

Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Still clause 37 -- Chairman of the Committee?
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 37, subclause (2), delete. Mr. Speaker, the reason being that it takes care of what we have deleted in clause 37 (1).
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Still at clause 37 -- Chairman of the Committee?
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 37, subclause (5), delete “Despite subsections (1) to (3).” Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 as variously amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 -- Tenure of office of Members.

Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 38, subclause (1), at end add “in succession”.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon.
Members, the proposed amendment is the addition of the words “in succession”; is that so?
Nii Mante: That is so, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this will ensure that a person can serve more than two terms and it is for clarity sake.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Fair enough.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39 - Meetings of the Board of Trustees
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (3), delete and insert “the following:
“the quorum at a meeting shall be seven members including the Director-General or any other person acting as Director-General”
Mr. Speaker, we are moving this
amendment and the reason being that it is to make it an odd number in the first place. Secondly, the Director-General of the Trust is being made an automatic member of the quorum to ensure that without him no business can be transacted by the Board since he is the Chief Executive Officer.
Mr. Chireh 11:25 a.m.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the amendment is in order because it is important that the Director-General himself or somebody who is in the position as Director-General acting for him will have sufficient information to make meetings more meaningful when that decision is made.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
I will put the Question then.

Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 39 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clauses 40 and 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42 - Allowances.

Nii Mante: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, line 3, delete “on the recommendations of the Authority and”.
Mr. Okerchiri 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I just want the Chairman to read the clause for us because it does occur to me that it does not make full sense if he takes that out of it. He may want to read it to us and let us get the sense of what - [Inter-ruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Well, for you hon. Chairman; what do you do to satisfy him since he does not see his way clear? What do you say to that?
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, if we delete those words then the rendition will be as follows and I will read.
“Members of the Board of Trustees and members of a committee of the Board shall be paid allowances approved by the Minister in consultation with the Minister responsible for Finance”.
This is very simple.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Very simple indeed.
Mr. Okerchiri 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, who is the Minister? Obviously this is the Minister for Finance now so he does that in consultation with himself, that is the kind of thing that I do not -- [Inter-ruption.]
Nii Mante: It will be in consultation
with the Minister responsible for Pensions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon. Chairman, it appears that there is still a little problem there. What they are saying is that assuming, and for the purposes of this debate, it turns out to be the Minister for Finance who is still in charge of this Pension, is he consulting himself for the decision or what?
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, if we go to the Interpretations column or part of this Bill the Minister has been defined as to be the Minister responsible for Pensions. So Mr. Speaker, there will be two Ministers.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Are you sure there will be two Ministers?
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I may not know for now but it does mean that there is the likelihood that there will be two Ministers. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
You are making the law, hon. Member. You are making this law, Chairman, so you are allowing your other Friends to punch you at the moment.
Mr. Chireh 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear. First of all, the matter I raised about the Minister responsible for Pensions earlier, now is relevant here. But indeed, if it is the same Minister then he consults himself, there is nothing wrong with that. This is a provision in all our laws where we always say the Minister will pay the allowances in consultation with the Ministry of Finance or the Minister for Finance; because it is the Minister for Finance who will decide whether there is money to pay that much money or not.
So there is nothing wrong with the provision as it is now. The reason for the amendment was that we did not want
Mr. Dzirasah 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is totally wrong for my Colleague to say or to suggest that a Minister for Finance should consult himself and we put it in a law. Why should it first of all be carried in a law and to enable the Minister for Finance to consult himself? Now the issue that we raised about the certainty relating to who the Minister for Pensions is, is something that we must establish and confirm in the House before the close of deliberations on this Bill. So I would suggest that - [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon. Ken Dzirasah, I think that we have dealt with that issue in this House before. It is not the House that appoints Ministers for whatever purpose; it is the prerogative of the President so to do. If the President appoints the Minister for Tourism to be in charge of Pensions there is nothing you can do here.
Mr. Dzirasah 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, with all
due respect the Executive represented by the President acting through his Minister brought us these proposals to approve and there is a misunderstanding as to who is the Minister for Pensions. That must be clarified because we are supposed to give an approval of these provisions and if there is this clear misunderstanding as to who the Minister is and it is even being suggested by Colleagues that the Minister for Finance should consult himself in a matter like this then with all due respect we are not doing our work.

I think that what should properly happen in this matter is for us to step down this particular provision and do further consultation on it.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Well, it is for you to decide. I did not take part.
Prof. Dominic Fobih 11:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the confusion is arising from the fact that with all Boards and Councils, the recommendation is made through the sector Minister, then finally to the Finance Minister. But in this particular case, the Minister for Finance happens to be the immediate Minister for the sector and that is why the confusion is arising to break the general trend. So we have to sort that technical issue there out to be able to get a workable system.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
So hon. Minister, what is your proposal? What have you proposed?
Prof. Fobih 11:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, my proposal is that we have to reflect on it very well because it is a peculiar case.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
You propose that we stand it down? Sitting here, I am not convinced.
Mr. Chireh 11:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we do not need to stand this down and what my Colleague is suggesting to me is not what I said. What I am saying is that indeed the reason the Minister in all the laws consults with the Minister for Finance is because the Minister for Finance has information and knows how much is in the kitty. If he happens to be that same Minister, then he knows already, the consultation will be superfluous. Thus, he goes ahead to approve the thing in that capacity. The Bill does not say that you must now go and seek information.
The reason for the consultation is just to find out how much they can pay the people. He happens to be the one and he knows the information. In any case, I am not saying that the Minister in this particular case should consult himself just because of this law. No! I am saying that if he is seized with the information, he should go ahead. So there is no confusion at all. That is the standard procedure that we have always provided for in these laws.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Chairman, do we go ahead to put the Question? I have heard enough arguments on that. What do you say?
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 -- Regional and district offices of the Trust.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 43, subclause (1), line 1, delete “shall” and insert “may” and in line 2, delete “by” and insert “as”.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Hon. Members, that is a two-pronged proposal for amendments, that is in line one and two of the same clause.
Mr. Joe Gidisu 11:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know the rational behind the replacement of the “shall” and the “may” but if you look at the demand or at least the outlook of the labour market whereby they are calling for the decentralization of the operations of the Pension Scheme, we are not making it mandatory for the offices to be opened in those centres. Especially at the district level, it will undermine the spirit of the agitation of the labour market to make the Pension Scheme decentralized to the district level. So I want to go with the original clause as it stands.
Mr. W. O. Boafo 11:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the rendition of clause 43 (1), the last line,
I think there is the absence of the word “may”. If I may read the whole paragraph for Mr. Speaker's attention:
“The Board of Trustees may establish regional and district offices of the Trust in each regional capital and in the districts as the Board of Trustees determine.”
So I think if we insert “may” in between “trustees” and “determine” that will be more elegant.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
You mean the omission of -- [Interruption.]
Mr. W. O. Boafo 11:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the omission of the word “may”. Either we insert the word “may” or we make “determine” “determines”.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
In principle, you are for the amendment except that the arrangement -- [Inter- ruption.]
Mr. W. O. Boafo 11:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am for the proposed amendment but I am just making additional -- [Interruption.]
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Very well, I think we leave it to the drafting officers.
Mr. Chireh 11:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the whole amendment was that it is “may”, the first “may” but the word “determine” is now “determines” so that we do not have too many double “mays”. So it will be “s” you add to the “determine”.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Is that alright, Chairman?
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, if you add the letter “s” to the word “determine”, it may read as this: “The Board of Trustees determines” which I think is grammatically wrong. I may prefer the word “may” between “Trustees” and “determine”.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
So in that

Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, in that case, the whole rendition will be:

“The Board of Trustees may establish regional and district offices of the Trust in each regional capital and in the districts as the Board of Trustees may determine.”
Mr. Dzirasah 11:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the two arguments are plausible and so I will respectfully suggest that since this is a drafting issue, we should leave it to the draftperson.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
We are only prompting them. I think the Clerk's Office will draw their attention to that, that on the floor, some hon. Members have expressed the desire that to make it more elegant either the word “may” be inserted or when it comes to “determine” they add the “s”. They should look at it and bring it back for us to look at it.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 44, Director-General of the Trust.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 44 -- subclause (1), line 2, delete “and in consultation with the Authority”
Mr. Speaker, the reason is that it is not
in line with article 195 of the Constitution.
Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 45 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46 - Deputy Director-General.

Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 46, delete and insert “the President may appoint for the Trust such Deputy Directors-General as may be necessary”.

Mr. Speaker, the Trust may make a case for consideration, to the President, regarding the appointment of Directors- General as found necessary. That is the thrust of this amendment.

Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 46 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 - Functions of the Deputy Director-General.

Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 47 delete.

Mr. Speaker, it is consequential to the earlier amendment to clause 46.

Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 48 -- Appointment of other staff.

Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 48, subclause (1), delete and insert

“The President shall in accordance with article 195 of the Constitution appoint for the Trust other staff necessary for the proper and effective performance of the functions of the Trust.”

Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 48 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49 -- Secretary to the Board

of Trustees

Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 49, subclause (1), line 1, after “shall” delete all words and insert “have a Secretary”.

Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 49 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50 -- Internal Auditor

Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 50, subclause (2), paragraph (a), line 2, after “months” insert “or such shorter periods determined by the board”.

Mr. Speaker, this is to ensure that this can be done at shorter periods than the stipulated three months as and when necessary.

Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 50 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 51 to 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54 -- Supervision of the Trust.

Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 54, headnote, delete “Supervision” and insert “Regulation”.

This is consequential to earlier amendments we have already made.
Mr. Dzirasah 11:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am a bit confused as to why there should be this replacement. I do not know when the Committee took this decision. But be it as it may, I was thinking that the word “supervise' adequately fits into this whole arrangement than “regulate”.
Mr. Chireh 11:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Autho- rity is a regulatory body and the reason we say that it should be regulatory is that as he himself is indicating, it is supposed to issue guidelines to direct various schemes as to how to operate. If you look at “supervision” in the dictionary it means, like the former hon. Senior Minister has just entered, he comes to find out how the young hon. Members of Parliament are talking -- direct.
But with this case, you issue guidelines and say this is how things should happen. So we want to limit the Authority to regulation instead of supervision. I am saying as we said earlier, that we remove the word “supervision” and retain the “regulation” so that it would perform its regulatory function. There is no confusion at all.
Question put and amendment agreed
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
So what shall be the rendition?
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, the rendition therefore would be:
“The Authority shall regulate the activities of the Trust to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Act.”
This is in conformity with the objects of the Authority as we saw in clause 6.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55 -- Actuarial valuation reports
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 55, subclause (1), line 1, after “valuations” insert “from an external actuary”.
The reason being that this actuarial valuation should be obtained from an external actuary.
That is the main reason for proposing this amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 56 -- Exemption from taxes.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 56, delete and insert:

“The Trust is exempted from the payment of corporate income tax and subject to article 174 of the Constitution, the Minister may, with prior approval of Parliament, waive other taxes in relation to the Trust”.

This is to draw a distinction between the words, “exemption” and “tax waiver.”
Mr. Dzirasah 11:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think it
is in order except that the Minister there ought to be qualified, that is the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning. It should be,
“The Minister for Finance and Economic Planning may, with prior approval of Parliament, waive other taxes…”
This is because all those arrangements are brought to this House under the auspices of the hon. Minister for Finance and Economic Planning.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Are you
against that, hon. Chairman? That is, the insertion of the words “Minister for Finance and Economic Planning”.
Mr. Chireh 11:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, my question relates to grammar. Is it “exempted” or it is “exempt from the payment of taxes?” Secondly, what he is saying is true but hon. Ministers can also bring loan agreements. Now what I see is that we have a joint memorandum with the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning.
So really, if we leave it at that, that memorandum that is coming to Parliament may necessarily be signed by the hon. Minister, that is the Minister for Pensions together with the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning. So I think we may retain it as it is now.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Chairman
of the Committee, these are the two issues on the floor.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I entirely agree with the hon. Member who last spoke. So we leave it as we have captured it here.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
He says that he is not too sure whether what we have captured should be “tax exempt” or “tax exempted”. Was that not what you said, hon. Yieleh Chireh?
Mr. Chireh 11:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I was just talking about the grammar of it. Those of them who do tax exemptions, it is “tax exempt” or it is “tax exempted?”
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Maybe hon. J. H. Mensah may say something about that. He has been dealing with taxes and the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning. It is “tax exempt” or “tax exempted?”
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, it is “tax exempt”. The words here as we have rightly captured are to distinguish between “exempt” and “tax waiver”. The two are different -- “exemption from payment of tax” and “total waiver of tax”. One is, you are liable, the other, you are not liable at all.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
You have missed the point. The point is, is what you have here the appropriate rendition in terms of grammar? It is talking about two things: One is by Parliament itself; you do not have any quarrel with that. But he asked whether it is “tax exempted” or “tax exempt?” That is what hon. Chireh is drawing your attention to.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, it is “tax exempt”. Mr. Speaker, what I read to you is:
“The Trust is exempted from the payment of corporate income tax and subject to article 174 of the Constitution, the Minister may, with prior approval of Parliament, waive
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Hon. Yieleh Chireh, are you all right with this?
Mr. Chireh 11:55 a.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker. He wants to say that in this particular case, the “exempt” is a verb. But I thought it was a way of putting it, that somebody is “tax exempt”. I thought it was “tax exempt”. You can say “tax exempt from”, but he is saying “tax exempted”. There is no problem about it; I agree now.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
12. 05 p.m.
Clause 58 - Permitted expenditure from scheme funds.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg
to move, that clause 58, line 3, delete “prescribed” and insert “determined”
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 59 -- Account of members.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 59, subclause (2), line 5, delete “issue” and insert “send”
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 59 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Hon. Members, at this point we will suspend the Consideration and take it up for some

other time. Meanwhile, we have a Paper to be laid by the Minister for Chieftaincy and Culture.
PAPERS 11:55 a.m.
Mr. Okerchiri 11:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, there will be committee meetings for today, I beg to move, that this House do now adjourn to tomorrow at ten o'clock in the forenoon. I so move.
Mr. Dzirasah 11:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT 11:55 a.m.