Debates of 21 Oct 2008

MR. SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
Order! Order! Correc- tion of Votes and Proceedings, Monday, 20th October, 2008. Pages 1, 2 . . . 19. [No corrections were made.]
Hon. Members, today we do not have
the Official Report.
Item 3 -- Questions. Ministry for
Lands, Forestry and Mines. Hon. Minister for Lands, Forestry and Mines, you may take your seat.
Question No. 1249, hon. Evans Paul
Aidoo, Member of Parliament for Sefwi- Wiawso.
Mr. Lee Ocran 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, hon.
Aidoo is bereaved and he has asked that I ask the Question on his behalf.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
You may wish to ask the
Question on his behalf.
Mr. Ocran 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, thank you.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 10 a.m.
MINISTRY OF LANDS, FORESTRY 10 a.m.
AND MINES 10 a.m.
Minister for Lands, Forestry and Mines (Ms. Esther Obeng Dappah) 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that ghana's forest reserves are grouped into protected and production areas.
The protected areas include national parks, game production reserves, globally Significant Biodiversity Areas (gSBA), specially protected areas such as Hill sanctuaries, marshy areas, et cetera. These protected areas are largely intact and do not suffer any form of depletion.
The production areas are areas that have been earmarked for timber harvesting under Timber Utilisation Contracts (TUCs).
Mr. Speaker, these production forest reserves are the areas where some form of deforestation takes place. The major causes of depletion are excessive slash and burn agriculture, wildfires, encroach- ment by cash-crop farmers and to some extent, illegal logging and chainsawing and surface mining.
In order to reverse the trend of forest depletion in these areas, the government has introduced governance measures and best-practised forest management prescriptions with support of communi- ties and civil society organizations to ensure effective protection of the areas.
Mr. Speaker, in addition, the govern- ment launched a massive reforestation programme in 2001 to restore the lost vegetation.
So far, over 140,000 ha of plantation has been established under various plantation projects. This has created over 45,820 permanent jobs and 1.1 million part-time jobs all over the country.
Mr. Speaker, with the effective implementation of the measures above,
it is expected that the problem of deforestation will be significantly reduced if not completely eliminated by the year
2020.
Mr. Ocran 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister in her Answer stated that the forest reserves had been divided into two groups and the second group which was the production areas, had been earmarked for timber utilization contracts.
May I know from the hon. Minister which forest reserve areas have been reserved for mining purpose? Because some mining companies have been awarded mining contracts in forest reserves.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
Would you be kind
enough to repeat your question?
Mr. Ocran 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted
the hon. Minister to explain which forest reserves have been reserved for mining, because she only mentioned that the production areas in the forest reserves have been reserved for timber utilization contracts, but some mining activities are taking place legally in some of the forest reserves. I want the hon. Minister to tell me which forest reserves have been earmarked or reserved for mining, because legal mining activities are going on in such reserves.
Ms. Dappah 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, to begin with, all mining leases are brought to Parliament. There are no specific areas reserved for mining purposes but that will depend upon where the particular mineral is located. When a mineral is located, it is brought to Parliament if it is in a reserved area. So if the hon. Member wants the details, Mr. Speaker, I have to be given
notice of this particular question.
Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Hon. Minister, if you need notice, say so. Do not attempt to answer when you do not have the information, please.
Mr. Ocran 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised that the hon. Minister wants notice to go and prepare and come back. She is in charge of the forest reserves and she is in charge of mining as well. Does she want to pass the buck on to Parliament, that it is Parliament that approves? She brings them here. Which ones has she reserved for mining, because they are destroying the forests. That is why I am asking her to try and tell us why is it that mining activities are taking place in some of our forest reserves.
Mr. David T. Assumeng 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to find out from the hon. Minister if she is aware that the operations of Chirano gold Mine is fast depleting the forest area in the Akoti area. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Hon. Member, this is not a supplementary question.
Mr. Kenneth Dzirasah 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, in paragraph 5 of the hon. Minister's Answer, she says that in order to reverse the trend of forest depletion in these areas, the government has introduced governance measures and best-practised forest management prescriptions.
I would like to know whether the consignment of game and forest reserves to mining companies to mine, is part of this best governance practice.
Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Minister, do you want the question to be repeated?
Ms. Dappah 10:10 a.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Hon. Member for South Tongu, kindly assist.
Mr. Dzirasah 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to know, taking a cue from what the hon. Minister has said, whether as a matter of policy the award of concessions for mining to take place in game and forest reserves, to use her words, is part of the governance measures and best-practised forest management prescriptions for the forestry sector.
Ms. Dappah 10:10 a.m.
I would like to reiterate that government does not give game areas to mining companies to mine. If any activity of mining is going on in any particular forest reserve then that reserve is completely depleted.
Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Question number 1528 -- hon. Herod Cobbina, Member of Parliament for Sefwi Akontombra?
Mr. Lee Ocran 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, hon. Cobbina is not available.
Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Ask the Question on his behalf.
Mr. Ocran 10:10 a.m.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Lands for the Expansion of Attakrom, etc
Q. 1528. Mr. Lee Ocran (on behalf of Mr. Herod Cobbina) asked the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Mines what plans the Ministry had to release lands for the expansion of the following communities within forest reserves lands in Akontombra constituency: (i) Attakrom, (ii) Wansampobreampa, (iii) Krokowa, (iv) Betenase and (v) Kwasiakrom.
Ms. Dappah 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the communities in question, that is Attakrom, Wansampobreampa, Krokowa, Betenase

and Kwasiakrom are communities located on the fringes of the Sui River Forest Reserve in the Sefwi Wiawso forest district.

These communities are therefore not located within the forest reserve, hence the issue of expansion of the communities into the gazzetted forest reserve is not possible.

However, in terms of addressing livelihood needs of these communities, the Forestry Commission has instituted a number of collaborative forest management programmes that is giving gainful employment to these communities in terms of boundary cleaning, fire protection, seedling production (nursery) and tree planting.
Mr. Ocran 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to learn that these communities that are at the fringes of the forest reserves are being assisted to engage in some form of activities. However, a recent incidence at one of the reserves near Asankrangwa created a problem. Since people need to sustain their livelihood, there is the likelihood that they chase grasscutters and rats into the forest reserve and sometimes they are arrested.
In fact, there is a case like that from Asankrangwa area in my constituency. The police arrested the culprit. What measures has the Ministry put in place so that such people living on the fringes of the forest reserves can have bush meat to sustain their protein intake?
Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Hon. Member for Jomoro, your question relates to Asankrangwa --
Mr. Ocran 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am still developing my point--
Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Then ask your question again, please -- [Laughter.]
Mr. Ocran 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to
ask the hon. Minister what assistance the Ministry is giving to people living on the fringes of the forest reserves to be able, occasionally, to enter the reserve to chase grasscutters and rats to sustain their protein intake?
Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Hon. Member for Jomoro, this is not a supplementary question. Ask others if you have them.
Mr. Ocran 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, they are allowing people to settle along the forest reserves and to make their life easier, they are being given employment in fire protection, seedling production and tree planting but they must live beyond doing these things. They must be able to have their protein intake and the only way they can do so is through hunting bush meat.
Is there any measure put in place by the Ministry to assist them to meet this requirement?
Ms. Dappah 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, in the case of where you have described, if it is not a game reserve, we usually give permit for them to enter the forest.
Mr. Joseph Yieleh Chireh 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister in the last paragraph of her Answer talks about giving jobs or gainful employment. I would like to know how many people have been given these jobs roughly, and whether they are on government payroll.
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon. Member for Wa
West, one question at a time please.
Mr. Chireh 10:20 a.m.
The first question is,
how many such jobs have been created and the people employed; that is what I want to know.
Ms. Dappah 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, in my
Answer to the Question raised by hon.

Member for Sefwi Wiawso, last but one paragraph, I indicated that the government had so far created 45,820 permanent jobs and 1.1 million part-time jobs all over the country. These jobs are mainly given to those who live along the fringes of the forest and they are on the government payroll. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Question No. 1569
-- Hon. Baba Abdul-Rahman Masoud, Member of Parliament for Pru?
Mr. A. Umar Abdul-Razaq 10:20 a.m.
Mr.
Speaker, hon. Baba Abdul-Rahman Masoud is still on his way and has asked me to seek your permission and ask the Question on his behalf.
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon. Member, you say
he is on his way from which area?
Mr. Abdul-Razaq 10:20 a.m.
From the
constituency coming to Parliament.
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Then I grant you
permission to ask the Question on his behalf.
Tree Stumps from the Volta Lake
Q. 1569. Mr. A. Umar Abdul-Razaq (on behalf of Mr. Baba Abdul-Rahman Masoud) asked the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Mines when the removal of tree stumps from the Volta Lake would begin.
Ms. Dappah 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the removal
of submerged tree stumps in the Volta Lake is being handled by a company called Clark Sustainable Resource Development (ghana) Limited (CSRD).
Mr. Speaker, the agreement to remove the tree stumps from the lake was signed in February 2006 between the CSRD on one hand and the government of ghana and Volta River Authority (VRA) on the other hand. The Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of Ports, Harbours and Railways
signed on behalf of the government.
Mr. Speaker, information provided to
me indicate that, since the signing of the agreement, a number of activities have been carried out to enable the company obtain a permit to commence operations. Prominent among them is the preparation of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA), which started in June 2007 and submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in December 2007. As part of the review process of the ESIA, a public hearing was held in September 2008 at Mpamproase.
The environmental permit is expected
to be issued in November 2008 after which a Forestry Commission permit will be issued to enable the company to commence with actual harvesting of the trees.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want
to find out from the hon. Minister, the agreement between Clark Sustainable Resource Development (ghana) Limited and Volta River Authority laid before this House and in approving it, there was a time limit to when they should do the uprooting of the trees. May I know when work is expected to be completed?
Ms. Dappah 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, this is
a process which started in 2007 and is being handled by the Ministry of Energy and Ministry of Ports, Harbours and Railways. The time limit would definitely be included in the agreement but unfortunately, I cannot tell you when work will commence. But when all the background work has been carried out, then it will come to my Ministry and the Forestry Commission which issued the permit.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, this
agree-ment was laid and the motion to it was moved by the Minister for Lands,
Ms. Dappah 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I will

Let me explain because the agreement was signed between these two Ministries. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this question should not have been addressed to the Ministry of Lands, Forestry and Mines at this stage. It is when the permit is needed to remove the stumps that is when it comes to Ministry of Lands, Forestry and Mines for us to issue the permit. Thank you.
Mr. Joe Gidisu 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want
to find out from the hon. Minister whether the current exercises she talked about, as forming part of the review processes of the ESPA were not to have been done before the signing of the agreement?
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Your question again
please.
Mr. Joe Gidisu 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, she
is talking about the Environmental and Social Impact of Assessment which is being done after the agreement had been signed. I am finding out from her whether these things should not have been done to find out the possible challenges that the project would have encountered before the agreement being signed.
Ms. Dappah 10:20 a.m.
To begin with, I do not
understand his question. I do not, please, could he repeat it?
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Would you be kind
enough to repeat the question?
Mr. Joe Gidisu 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am
trying to find out from the Minister whether the present assessment programmes she talked about should not have been done before the signing of the agreement and it being laid before Parliament?
Ms. Dappah 10:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do
realize that the hon. Member is seeking my opinion but in my opinion, I do not think it should have been done before the agreement was signed; that is, in my opinion.
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Minister for Lands,
Forestry and Mines, thank you very much for appearing. You are discharged.
Minister for Transportation?
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:20 a.m.
Mr.
Speaker, unfortunately these Questions were to have been answered by the Minister yesterday. He was not in Accra and we tried to get him and we relocated the Questions to today. Unfortunately, as of yet, we have not been able to contact him.
So Mr. Speaker, I guess we may still have to relocate the Questions possibly to tomorrow by which time I hope we would be able to track him.
Mr. Speaker 10:20 a.m.
At the Commencement of Public Business -- Item 5, Laying of Papers.
PAPERS 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Joseph Yieleh Chireh 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether the Chairman of the Finance Committee has been sacked and in his place we have hon. P. C. Appiah-Ofori, because he is there and Mr. Appiah-Ofori is getting up.
Mr. Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Hon. Chireh, you have no point of order.
RESOLUTIONS 10:30 a.m.
Minister for Lands, Forestry and Mines (Ms. Esther Obeng Dappah) 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that
WHEREAS by the provisions of article 268 (1) of the Constitution, any transaction, contract or undertaking involving the grant of a right or concession by or on behalf of any person including the government of ghana, to any person or body of persons howsoever described, for the exploitation of any mineral, water or other natural resource of ghana made or entered
into after the coming into force of the Constitution is made subject to ratification by Parliament.
IN PURSUANCE of the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution, the government of ghana has caused to be laid before Parliament through the Minister responsible for Mines, the Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and Anglogold Ashanti Limited.
NOW THEREFORE, this House in accordance with the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution hereby resolve to ratify the said Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and Anglogold Ashanti Limited.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu (NDC -- Tamale South) 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
GOG/Bogoso Gold Limited Mining Lease Agreement
Ms. Dappah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that
WHEREAS by the provisions of article 268 (1) of the Constitution, any transaction, contract or under- taking involving the grant of a right or concession by or on behalf of any person including the govern-ment of ghana, to any person or body of persons howsoever described, for the exploitation of any mineral, water or other natural resource of ghana made or entered into after the coming into force of the Constitution is made subject to ratification by Parliament.
IN PURSUANCE of the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution, the
government of ghana has caused to be laid before Parliament through the Minister responsible for Mines, the Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and Bogoso gold Limited.
NOW THEREFORE, this House in accordance with the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution hereby resolve to ratify the said Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and Bogoso gold Limited.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
GOG/Chirano Gold Mines Limited Mining Lease Agreement
Ms. Dappah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that
WHEREAS by the provisions of article 268 (1) of the Constitution, any transaction, contract or undertaking involving the grant of a right or concession by or on behalf of any person including the government of ghana, to any person or body of persons howsoever described, for the exploitation of any mineral, water or other natural resource of ghana made or entered into after the coming into force of the Constitution is made subject to ratification by Parliament.
IN PURSUANCE of the said article 268(1) of the Constitution, the government of ghana has caused to be laid before Parliament through the Minister responsible for Mines, the Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and Chirano gold Mines Limited.
NOW THEREFORE, this House

in accordance with the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution hereby resolve to ratify the said Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and Chirano gold Mines Limited.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
GOG/Sian Goldfields Limited Mining Lease Agreement
Ms. Dappah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that
WHEREAS by the provisions of article 268 (1) of the Constitution, any transaction, contract or undertaking involving the grant of a right or concession by or on behalf of any person including the government of ghana, to any person or body of persons howsoever described for the exploitation of any mineral, water or other natural resource of ghana made or entered into after the coming into force of the Constitution is made subject to ratification by Parliament.
IN PURSUANCE of the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution, the government of ghana has caused to be laid before Parliament through the Minister responsible for Mines, the Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and Sian goldfields Limited. NOW THEREFORE, this House in accordance with the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution hereby resolve to ratify the said Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and Sian goldfields Limited.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
GOG/Narawa Ghana Gold Limited Mining Lease Agreement
Ms. Dappah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that
WHEREAS by the provisions of article 268 (1) of the Constitution, any transaction, contract or undertaking involving the grant of a right or concession by or on behalf of any person including the government of ghana, to any person or body of persons howsoever described for the exploitation of any mineral, water or other natural resource of ghana made or entered into after the coming into force of the Constitution is made subject to ratification by Parliament.
IN PURSUANCE of the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution, the government of ghana has caused to be laid before Parliament through the Minister responsible for Mines, the Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and Narawa ghana gold Limited.
NOW THEREFORE, this House in accordance with the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution hereby resolve to ratify the said Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and Narawa ghana gold Limited.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
GOG/Newmont Ghana Gold Limited
Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:30 a.m.


Mining Lease Agreement
Ms. Dappah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that
WHEREAS by the provisions of article 268 (1) of the Constitution, any transaction, contract or undertaking involving the grant of a right or concession by or on behalf of any person including the government of ghana, to any person or body of persons howsoever described for the exploitation of any mineral, water or other natural resource of ghana made or entered into after the coming into force of the Constitution is made subject to ratification by Parliament.
IN PURSUANCE of the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution, the government of ghana has caused to be laid before Parliament through the Minister responsible for Mines, the Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and Newmont ghana gold Limited.
NOW THEREFORE, this House in accordance with the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution hereby resolve to ratify the said Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and Newmont ghana gold Limited.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly. GOG/Ghana Manganese Company Limited Mining Lease Agreement
Ms. Dappah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, that
WHEREAS by the provisions of article 268 (1) of the Constitution, any transaction, contract or undertaking involving the grant of a right or concession by or on behalf of any person including the
government of ghana, to any person or body of persons howsoever described for the exploitation of any mineral, water or other natural resource of ghana made or entered into after the coming into force of the Constitution is made subject to ratification by Parliament.
IN PURSUANCE of the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution, the government of ghana has caused to be laid before Parliament through the Minister responsible for Mines, the Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and ghana Manganese Company Limited.
NOW THEREFORE, this House in accordance with the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution hereby resolve to ratify the said Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and ghana Manganese Company Limited.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
GOG/Gulf Coast Resources Limited Mining Lease Agreement
Ms. Dappah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that
WHEREAS by the provisions of article 268 (1) of the Constitution, any transaction, contract or undertaking involving the grant of a right or concession by or on behalf of any person including the government of ghana, to any person or body of persons howsoever described for the exploitation of any mineral, water or other natural resource of ghana made or entered into after the coming into force of the Constitution is made subject to ratification by Parliament.
IN PURSUANCE of the said article
268 (1) of the Constitution, the government of ghana has caused to be laid before Parliament through the Minister responsible for Mines the Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and gulf Coast Resources Limited.
NOW THEREFORE, this House in accordance with the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution hereby resolve to ratify the said Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and gulf Coast Resources Limited.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
GOG/Med Mining Company Limited Mining Lease Agreement
Ms. Dappah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that
WHEREAS by the provisions of article 268 (1) of the Constitution, any transaction, contract or undertaking involving the grant of a right or concession by or on behalf of any person including the government of ghana, to any person or body of persons howsoever described for the exploitation of any mineral, water or other natural resource of ghana made or entered into after the coming into force of the Constitution is made subject to ratification by Parliament.
IN PURSUANCE of the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution, the government of ghana has caused to be laid before Parliament through the Minister responsible for Mines the Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and Med Mining Company Limited.

NOW THEREFORE, this House in accordance with the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution hereby resolves to ratify the said Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and Med Mining Company Limited.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
GOG/Adamas Resources Limited Mining Lease Agreement
Ms. Dappah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that
WHEREAS by the provisions of article 268 (1) of the Constitution, any transaction, contract or undertaking involving the grant of a right or concession by or on behalf of any person including the government of ghana, to any person or body of persons howsoever described for the exploitation of any mineral, water or other natural resource of ghana made or entered into after the coming into force of the Constitution is made subject to ratification by Parliament.
IN PURSUANCE of the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution, the government of ghana has caused to be laid before Parliament through the Minister responsible for Mines the Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and Adamas Resources Limited (Nkroful).
NOW THEREFORE, this House in accordance with the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution hereby
Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
GOG/Midras Mining Limited Mining Lease Agreement
Ms. Dappah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that
WHEREAS by the provisions of article 268 (1) of the Constitution, any transaction, contract or undertaking involving the grant of a right or concession by or on behalf of any person including the government of ghana, to any person or body of persons howsoever described for the exploitation of any mineral, water or other natural resource of ghana made or entered into after the coming into force of the Constitution is made subject to ratification by Parliament.
IN PURSUANCE of the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution, the government of ghana has caused to be laid before Parliament through the Minister responsible for Mines the Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and Midras Mining Limited.
NOW THEREFORE, this House in accordance with the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution hereby resolve to ratify the said Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and Midras Mining Limited.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
GOG/Talos Ghana Limited Mining Lease Agreement
Ms. Dappah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that
WHEREAS by the provisions of article 268 (1) of the Constitution, any transaction, contract or undertaking involving the grant of a right or concession by or on behalf of any person including the government of ghana, to any person or body of persons howsoever described for the exploitation of any mineral, water or other natural resource of ghana made or entered into after the coming into force of the Constitution is made subject to ratification by Parliament.
IN PURSUANCE of the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution, the government of ghana has caused to be laid before Parliament through the Minister responsible for Mines the Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and Talos ghana Limited.
NOW THEREFORE, this House in accordance with the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution hereby resolves to ratify the said Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and Talos ghana Limited.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
GOG/Goldenrae Mining Company Limited Mining Lease Agreement
Ms. Dappah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly. GOG/West Star Mining Company Limited Mining Lease Agreement
Ms. Dappah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that
WHEREAS by the provisions of article 268 (1) of the Constitution, any transaction, contract or undertaking involving the grant of a right or concession by or on behalf of any person including the government of ghana, to any person or body of persons howsoever

described for the exploitation of any mineral, water or other natural resource of ghana made or entered into after the coming into force of the Constitution is made subject to ratification by Parliament.

IN PURSUANCE of the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution, the government of ghana has caused to be laid before Parliament through the Minister responsible for Mines the Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and West Star Mining Company Limited.

NOW THEREFORE, this House in accordance with the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution hereby resolves to ratify the said Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and West Star Mining Company Limited.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
GOG/Blue River Mining Company Limited Mining Lease Agreement
Ms. Dappah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that
WHEREAS by the provisions of article 268 (1) of the Constitution, any transaction, contract or undertaking involving the grant of a right or concession by or on behalf of any person including the government of ghana, to any person or body of persons howsoever described for the exploitation of any mineral, water or other natural resource of ghana made or entered into after the coming into force of the Constitution is made subject to ratification by Parliament.
IN PURSUANCE of the said article
268 (1) of the Constitution, the government of ghana has caused to be laid before Parliament through the Minister responsible for Mines the Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and Blue River Mining Company Limited.
NOW THEREFORE, this House in accordance with the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution hereby resolves to ratify the said Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and Blue River Mining Company Limited.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
GOG/First Canadian Goldfields Limited Mining Lease Agreement
Ms. Dappah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that
WHEREAS by the provisions of article 268 (1) of the Constitution, any transaction, contract or undertaking involving the grant of a right or concession by or on behalf of any person including the government of ghana, to any person or body of persons howsoever described for the exploitation of any mineral, water or other natural resource of ghana made or entered into after the coming into force of the Constitution is made subject to ratification by Parliament.
IN PURSUANCE of the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution, the government of ghana has caused to be laid before Parliament through the Minister responsible for Mines the Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and First Canadian goldfields Limited.
NOW THEREFORE, this House in accordance with the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution hereby resolves to ratify the said Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and First Canadian goldfields Limited.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
GOG/Kibi Goldfields International Mining Lease Agreement
Ms. Dappah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that
WHEREAS by the provisions of article 268 (1) of the Constitution, any transaction, contract or undertaking involving the grant of a right or concession by or on behalf of any person including the government of ghana, to any person or body of persons howsoever described for the exploitation of any mineral, water or other natural resource of ghana made or entered into after the coming into force of the Constitution is made subject to ratification by Parliament. IN PURSUANCE of the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution, the government of ghana has caused to be laid before Parliament through the Minister responsible for Mines the Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and Kibi goldfields International.
NOW THEREFORE, this House in accordance with the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution hereby resolves to ratify the said Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and Kibi goldfields International.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
GOG/Ghana Bauxite Company Mining Lease Agreement
Ms. Dappah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that
WHEREAS by the provisions of article 268 (1) of the Constitution, any transaction, contract or undertaking involving the grant of a right or concession by or on behalf of any person including the government of ghana, to any person or body of persons howsoever described for the exploitation of any mineral, water or other natural resource of ghana made or entered into after the coming into force of the Constitution is made subject to ratification by Parliament.
IN PURSUANCE of the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution, the government of ghana has caused to be laid before Parliament through the Minister responsible for Mines the Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and ghana Bauxite Company. NOW THEREFORE, this House in accordance with the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution hereby resolves to ratify the said Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and ghana Bauxite Company.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
GOG/Savanna Cement Company

Limited Mining Lease Agreement
Ms. Dappah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that
WHEREAS by the provisions of article 268 (1) of the Constitution, any transaction, contract or undertaking involving the grant of a right or concession by or on behalf of any person including the government of ghana, to any person or body of persons howsoever described for the exploitation of any mineral, water or other natural resource of ghana made or entered into after the coming into force of the Constitution is made subject to ratification by Parliament.
IN PURSUANCE of the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution, the government of ghana has caused to be laid before Parliament through the Minister responsible for Mines the Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and Savanna Cement Company Limited.
NOW THEREFORE, this House in accordance with the said article 268 (1) of the Constitution hereby resolves to ratify the said Mining Lease Agreement between the government of ghana and Savanna Cement Company Limited.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
GOG/Ghana Cement Limited Mining Lease Agreement
Ms. Dappah 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that
Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
BILLS -- SECOND READING 10:30 a.m.
Mr. Haruna Iddrisu (NDC -- Tamale South) 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to associate myself with the motion for the adoption of the report of the Finance Committee on the Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill and in doing so, may I refer you to paragraph 4.0 - the observations of your Committee's Report and in particular, the third paragraph and with your indulgence,
Mr. Speaker, I beg to quote 10:40 a.m.
“The Committee observes that the Bill seeks to correct errors in Act 689 which have come about as a result of the wrong placement of words and omissions due to the complex and technical nature of the legislation resulting in uncer- tainties.”
Mr. Speaker, it is my view that this
is an indictment of this House, that in

placing words we create doubts and we allow uncertainties to clout clauses or provisions that we subject to scrutiny here for purposes of consideration. If we have a committee report saying that this House is associated with creating doubts, Mr. Speaker, certainty is a major legal requirement of every legislation and I think that it is bad enough for them.

This Act was passed in 2005. Only three years down the line, we are being called upon to review it because of some wrong placement of words and omissions. It means that it is a challenge to this House, particularly when we come to considerations that hon. Members would take particular interest in it, especially even in the placement of words, head notes and for purposes of consistency.

Mr. Speaker, I refer you back to page

one which reinforces the argument that I am making, that it appears that this House does not take its business much more seriously when it comes to matters of consideration. Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I beg to quote:

“The object of the Bill is to amend the Stamp Duty Act, 2005 (Act 689) with a view to correct some errors contained in the Act.”

Mr. Speaker, who should be responsible for these errors? Is it this House or the hon. Minister for Finance and Economic Planning who laid the report did not give adequate particulars of what its real intent was when they were passing this particular Bill. Mr. Speaker, I continue to quote:

“Whilst some of these errors are typographical, others are fundamental.”

Those that are fundamental, I think we are blameable. Those that are typo- graphical, I am sure we should refer them
Dr. A. A. Osei 10:40 a.m.
On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, it appears my hon. Colleague is being inconsistent. He started by saying that this House must take its work seriously. When a Bill comes to this House it is the property of the House and no longer the property of the Ministry. If there are any errors arising therefrom, he cannot ascribe those errors to the Ministry.
The responsibility is this House's responsibility and he cannot come back and say it is the Ministry that did it. I agree with him. All of us must pay particular attention when we are doing the Consideration Stage. Once a Bill comes here it is no longer our property so he should take due cognisance of that fact.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thought that hon. Akoto is a Member of Parliament first before being an hon. Minister of State. It appears that he is more interested in defending -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Hon. Member for
Tamale South, we do not have any Member called hon. Akoto.
Dr. Osei 10:40 a.m.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
Mr. J. B. Aidoo 10:40 a.m.
On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge my hon. Colleague to be careful in taking the House on.
We have been informed by the Committee that these mistakes have come about as a result of the complexity of the Bill that we passed, and also because of its technical nature. So in trying to take the House on, he should take all these issues
-- 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker 10:40 a.m.
You are prepared to
surrender to him? [Pause.] Yes, go on.
Mr. Sallas-Mensah 10:40 a.m.
On a point of
order. Mr. Speaker, the issue at stake is not whether this House had made a mistake or not. It was after the Bill was passed that we found out that there was an implementation problem. As a member of the Committee and also a tax person, I knew definitely there was an implementa- tion problem with the Act. That is why they have to come back to the House to seek an amendment and I do not think that it is a matter that we should belabour in this House.
Mr. P. C. Appiah 10:40 a.m.
None

Asikuma/Odoben/Brakwa): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The Stamp Duty Act, indeed, is a source of revenue for the State and anything negative that would make it difficult for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to implement the provisions of the Act must be corrected and therefore this Bill is right to be with us here.

Mr. Speaker, I remember very well

that at the committee level, when we were considering the Bill in 2005 most of the errors contained in the Act were pointed out by us and they were referred to as the responsibility of the drafters to correct them. It is not that we did not take notice of them. It is not that we overlooked them, but the consensus was that the drafting people would take care of those things and correct them.

So if they did not do that and the mistakes were retained in the Act, then that failure should not be ascribed to us as a Parliament but the printers and the draft officials. But once it is now known to us and it is being corrected, we do not have to criticize so much. Instead, we should give approval so that the right thing is done at the right time.

Question put and motion agreed to.

The Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Value Added Tax (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill
Minister of State, Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (Dr. A.A. Osei) 10:40 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that the Value Added Tax (Amendment) (No.2) Bill be now read a Second time.
Mr. Speaker, the object of the Bill
is to amend the Value Added Tax Act 1998, Act 546 to provide zero rating for locally produced pharmaceuticals and also provide for warrant of seal to empower the Commissioner to take action against recalcitrant businesses.
One of the promises of government
is to make the prices of locally produced pharmaceuticals competitive, by reducing the cost of production of locally produced pharmaceuticals. In line with this policy, the Bill seeks to zero rate locally produced pharmaceuticals to ensure that producers of these pharmaceuticals recover their input tax which would obviously result in lower retail prices.
Mr. Speaker, with those few words, I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Chairman of the Finance Committee
(Nii Adu Daku Mante): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion and in so doing, may I present to you your Committee's report which is a three-page report.
1.0 Introduction
The Value Added Tax (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill was laid in the House on 17th June 2008 and referred to the Finance Committee for consideration and report in accordance with the 1992 Constitution and the Standing Orders of the House.
To consider the Bill, the Committee met with the Deputy Minister for Finance and Economic Planning, hon. Prof. g. gyan- Baffour and officials from the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning and the Value Added Tax Service (VATS) and reports as follows:
2.0 Rationale of the Bill
The object of this Bill is to provide:
zero-rating for locally produced pharmaceuticals, and for a Warrant of Seal Off to empower the Commissioner to take action against recalcitrant businesses.
3.0 Contents of the Bill
The Bill is made up of seven (7) clauses as follows:
Clause 1 provides for the inclusion of Pharmaceuticals in the category of zero- rated supplies.
Clause 2 seeks to empower the Commissioner to take action against persons who qualify to register as tax persons but refuse to do so after sufficient notice has been given to them.
Clauses 3,4,5,6, and 7 seek to amend

the Schedules to Act 546 in order to re-introduce exemption from tax on imported agricultural machinery and to renumber First Schedule A and First Schedule B.

4.0 Observations and Recommendation

The Committee was informed that as part of government Policy there was the need to make the prices of locally produced pharmaceuticals competitive by reducing their cost of production. Due to this, the Bill is seeking to add locally produced pharmaceuticals to zero-rated supplies to ensure that the producers recover their input tax and thereby reduce cost.

The Committee was further informed that the removal of taxes would lead to a reduction in the production cost and thereby result in lower and competitive retail prices. It will also enable the industry to recover their input tax credit.

Members noted that this measure would go a long way to support the pharmaceuticals industry but were of the view that its impact may not be felt if the Commissioner of VAT does not refund the input tax credit to manufacturers on time. The Committee therefore, urges the Commissioner to ensure that such credits are refunded to the manufacturers on time to avoid any potential cash-flow problems as a result of a delay in the payment of the refund.

The Deputy Minister informed the Committee that the Bill seeks to empower the Commissioner of VAT to take action against obstinate businesses. This power will enable the Commissioner to lock up (seal off), without recourse to the courts, premises of persons who are qualified to register as tax persons but are refusing to do so after several reminders to them.

Amendment Proposed
Mr. H. Owusu-Agyemang (NPP -- New Juaben North) 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, just a little comment. Certainly, the move is in the right direction; we are hoping that the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning will have modules for monitoring the prices because many a time these initiatives are taken and do not get reflected in the prices to the consumer. I hope that it has been long standing in this business of zero-rating pharmaceuticals and that those in the industry would not abuse this privilege which is eventually meant to cushion up the consumer from the high price of pharmaceuticals.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, in advanced countries like Belgium and Italy, the prices of pharmaceutical products are pre-determined in conjunction with the Ministries of Health and Finance at the production stage so that you see the price written on it.
There are instances where there are as much as 30 per cent difference between the same product, say, the manufacturer
and pharmacy outlets. I have been in the industry so I know what I am talking about; I used to own a pharmacy.
So I hope that this gesture on the part of the State would be taken in good faith by those in the pharmaceutical industry to the extent that the reduction would indeed be reflected in the consumer prices that we have to pay.
At our level of development where curative medicine is more the order of the day than preventive, we need to make sure that these means of prolonging the lives of our people are safeguarded and that whatever the State gives as a benefit is reflected to the consumers. And that is what I would insist that the hon. Minister for Finance and Economic Planning and his team, together with the ghana Standards Board, the Food and Drugs Board and Ministry of Trade, Industry, Private Sector Development and PSI should make sure it is so.
I think in the course of time we would want to see a demonstration, some information as to what the effect of this particular amendment has given to the consumer. It is important, in our role as legislators and facilitators to know whether indeed, the good intentions of government always get reflected in what is happening rather than the tendency for people in industries and businesses trying and exploiting the situation without reflecting the benefit for which the State has intended for the ultimate consumer.
Mr. Speaker, I want it recorded that the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning would come to this House, be it within another six months or one year, to tell us what has been the effect of zero- rating on the prices of locally produced pharmaceuticals.
Mr. J. Y. Chireh (NDC -- Wa West) 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this motion and in doing so, I would like to emphasise the fact that this measure now is a little too late.
This was a government policy that was announced more than a year or two years ago and the local manufacturing companies and pharmaceuticals manufac- turing companies in particular were always asking government how to get the benefit. Once you leave the law as it was and you make a policy statement, there was no way anybody was going to benefit.
So it is good that this amendment is being made to make sure that they are zero-rated and that would enable the manufacturing companies have some money.
The difficulty, however, sometimes is in what the report itself is saying. When you give such a thing and it is a tax credit, to claim the money from government sources is sometimes very difficult. So I hope that after the passage of this Bill, it would be possible for the agencies involved to be able to give money back to those who are the beneficiaries so that the cost of pharmaceuticals in particular and the other products that are in this category would be made simpler and easier for everybody to benefit.
I also urge that any time the govern-
ment is about to make a policy statement, if you also look at the regulatory regime and bring the things simultaneously to the House, so that as soon as the policy is announced, the measures are taken and people benefit.
I urge that we support this motion because it is going to encourage local people to produce and not be at a disadvantage to those who import finished goods.
On this note, I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. P. C. Appiah-Ofori (NPP-- Asikuma/Odoben/Brakwa) 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the value added tax, we have what we call the Input and Output VAT. Mr. Speaker, if an importer of pharmaceuticals brings in drugs, he pays what is known as Input VAT at the point of entry. When he sells the goods, he charges what is known as Output VAT. Thereafter, he recovers his Input VAT from the Output VAT and the balance is paid to the State.
So contrary to what my hon. Colleague is saying, when VAT is being paid, it does not constitute cost to the importer, it rather harms the consumer and therefore, this amendment is intended to make drugs cheaper and makes healthcare delivery also cheaper to ghanaians and it should therefore be commended --
Mr. Chireh 10:50 a.m.
On a point of order. Mr.
Speaker, the hon. Member was pointing his finger towards me and making -- But he said exactly what I said. I did not say anything different but he was trying to create the impression that I said a different thing. I said this would enable the prices of consumables to be cheaper. So what was the difference? He should stick to his own ideas.
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, you
would bear me out, I did not mention his name. I explained the difference between Input and Output VAT. And I explained further that it was not a cost to the importer: it was a cost which was borne by the consumer, and this is what I said.
Mr. Speaker, now let us move to the
Mr. J. B. D. Adu 10:50 a.m.
On a point of
order. Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. Colleague is misleading the House.
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, let
us move forward. I do not want to waste my time.
Mr. Speaker, then we move to the second clause. It is only when a trader is registered that he would be able to charge VAT and pay to the government. The Value Added Tax Service itself does not directly collect the VAT. It is collected through agents who are the traders or manufacturers.
Mr. Samuel Sallas-Mensah 11 a.m.
Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member on the floor is trying to mislead this House. If the trader is not registered, the Commissioner of VAT can rope in the trader by evoking the
flat rate scheme. So I do not see why the government would lose unless the Commissioner of VAT is not doing his work properly.
Mr. Appiah-Ofori 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if
we were to hold this argument, then there is no need for this amendment; if that is what the hon. Member is saying, then we do not have to do that.
Mr. Speaker, they register and if they do not register, and become collectors of VAT for the nation, the nation is the loser. This is to give power to VAT Service to punish anybody who is to register and does not register so that at the end of the day the nation would be the beneficiary.
So I urge all of us to support it so that the government can generate enough money to prosecute its programmes for the country.
Mr. Lee Ocran (NDC -- Jomoro) 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion and I see this amendment as very important.
In fact, at the time when the sales tax
and excise duties were being paid, there were companies that were really in distress because they did not have the money and had to pay at the port for them to be able to manufacture and then later on tried to submit claim forms. I hope the hon. Minister of State at the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning is listening.
I wondered why the Ministry could not make it possible for such companies not to register with VAT at all so that they can clear their manufacturing inputs, manufacture and send them straight to those companies. This is because if there is no input tax, there would be no output tax. But if they have the input, then of course, with the output, they have to submit claims.
Submitting claims in this country

Mr. Speaker, I am saying that because there is an input and output tax, if these could be eliminated all together so that the person does not pay anything at all, so that when the manufacturing is completed and the drugs go onto the market, there would be no VAT on it and there would be no need for the manufacturer to go and claim money.

Mr. Speaker, if something like that could be done, it would ease the burden and those of us who need medicine to survive, would also find it very easy to go to the drug stores and buy drugs. Otherwise, the amendment is good and perfect and it would be good for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, with this, I support the

motion.
Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
Minister of State at
the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, you may wish to wind up?
Dr. A. A. Osei 11 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want
to thank all contributors to this motion.
We have taken note of all the comments by the various hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member who last spoke and hon. Hackman Owusu-Agyemang to ensure that the implementation can become very easy.
On that note, Mr. Speaker, I beg to
Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon. Members, we
move on to item 27 -- National Pension Reform Bill at the Consideration stage.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 11 a.m.
STAGE 11 a.m.
  • [Resumption of Consideration from 20/10/08]
    • Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I have just a small observation. I think yesterday we were made to understand that we were deleting the word “contributor” and inserting the word “worker” -- [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
    Which clause are you
    referring to?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11 a.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I am referring to clause 107 and
    Mr. Speaker 11 a.m.
    I hope the Table Office
    is taking notice accordingly?
    Clauses 108 to 111 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 112 -- Assignment of benefits.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 112, delete and insert the following:
    “112 (1) A scheme shall have rules that prevent the assignment of benefit;
    (2) A scheme may allow a m e m b e r t o u s e t h a t member's benefit to secure a mortgage for the acquisition of a primary residence but a member is not liable to pay tax on any withdrawals under this section.”
    Mr. J. Y. Chireh 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the way the amendment has been moved, is a little bit difficult. Is subclause (3) part of it or is gone?
    Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Hon. Member for Wa West, it is all gone, the entire clause is gone.
    Mr. J. K. Gidisu 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if that clause is being deleted, one very important
    aspect of that clause is “a contributor taking part of his or her contributions for educational purposes”. The “educational purposes” has been eliminated in the reviewed clause that is coming up.
    Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Chairman of the Commit-tee ?
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, it was the intention of your Committee to ensure that the safety of the pension funds is ensured.
    Mr. Speaker, I have also noticed that the education aspect which is in the subclause, line (2) will be done away with. But I think that has already been taken care of in some part of the Bill.
    Mr. Chireh 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment as being moved, has a little problem. If we have a mandatory requirement which says that “a scheme shall have rules that prevent the assignment of benefit”, then you go on to, without qualifying it or subjecting it to the earlier one; and we did a similar thing in a previous clause and I thought that we should be consistent in this case and add “despite subsection (1), then the rest of the amendment follows. If the Chairman would agree, I will accordingly move for the further amendment of this amendment.
    Dr. A. A. Osei 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I want to support the new proposal by my Colleague, the hon. Member for Wa West, Mr. J. Y. Chireh. Yesterday, we did one and I think it is important for the words “despite subsection (1)”; for the avoidance of doubt, we should do that and I would want to crave the indulgence of the Chair to accept this amendment to his amendment so that we can move forward.
    Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Chairman, what do you say?
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I do not
    think it is necessary, but the whole existing subclause, reads as follows:
    “Except as provided a scheme shall have rules that prevent the assignment of benefits.”
    It appears that we only deleted “Except as provided”. If Members are not very comfortable, this is a drafting issue, I may crave your indulgence that the drafters would look at it and then correct the same thing. It is a simple matter.
    Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the amendment being proposed by the Chairman of the Committee and to urge hon. Members to allow for the retention of the clause as it currently appears under clause 112. “Except as provided”, the presumption is that “Except as provided in this Act”, you are making provisions that a scheme shall have rules to prevent the assignment of benefit and where there is an assignment of benefit in respect of mortgages and education, you are seeking to exclude payment of tax.
    Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with it as it stands now and I think that the Chairman should allow clause 112 as it stands to stay. I do not think that we need to make any further amendments to it.
    By this clause we are seeking that a scheme “Except as provided in this Act” may be under some other clause, must necessarily have rules for purpose of preventing the assignment of benefit and then providing further clarity as to whether when the benefit is in respect of mortgages or it is in respect of an educational purpose, the person is liable for tax or not. To that extent, I think that we should not disturb this particular clause.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, under “Occupational pension schemes” we

    treated a similar issue under clause 101. And therefore, for purposes of consistency, I believe that we should do likewise for this particular clause. So, I would want to go with hon. Joseph Yieleh Chireh for suggesting that we must be consistent and amend the existing clause in clause 112.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think what has been captured as amendments really; if we are to go for symmetry, we do not need to propose this amendment at all. All what we have to do is to delete “Except as provided” in the original text and then for the avoidance of doubt when we come to (2), we just insert at the opening “despite subsection (1)” and that is it; so that we shall have symmetry with clause 101 and it will be the same thing. Mr. Speaker, I believe that is a better way of going about it and we stop with these amendments.
    Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, what are you suggesting?
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, as I reiterated earlier on, I am of the view that this provision specifically is a matter for the drafters.
    Mr. Speaker, if I should take you back to clause 101 of the Bill, the only difference here is this issue of tax exemption and I believe that we would have to look at those provisions vis-à-vis that of clause 101 and probably make a pronouncement on it. So I would crave the indulgence of hon. Members of the House to exercise patience; we can flag it and then move ahead.
    Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Deferred.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we just did an amendment Bill and we here a few moments ago alluded to this fact that when we left certain obvious things that we could have done in the hands of the drafters, it resulted in having to do a new Bill altogether. So
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.


    when we have the chance to effect such a simple correction and the Chairman is insisting that we leave it with the drafters and only flag it, Mr. Speaker, I do not know the purpose of this suggestion from the Chairman.

    Mr. Speaker, clearly, clause 112, we just delete the opening words of clause 112 (1) - “Except as provided” and the rest would stand.

    When we come to 112 (2), then in the

    opening, we open with the word “despite” and it will be in tandem with clause 101and that is it.

    So Mr. Speaker, I think it is a very simple way of going about it and it is clearer.
    Mr. Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    Hon. Deputy Majority Leader, it may be a very simple way but in the meantime, I have deferred it. Let us continue.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
    Very well, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    We will come back to it.
    Clause 113 -- Duty of employer in respect of personal pension scheme
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,
    clause 113, paragraph (a), line 1, delete “facilities” and insert “services”.
    This is for clarity sake.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 113 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 114 to 116 ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clause 117 -- Independent director and independent trustee.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 117, subclause (1), paragraph (a), delete and insert the following:
    “is a worker, partner or associate of a person who has applied to become a trustee.”
    Mr. Speaker, this is also for clarity.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 117 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 118 and 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 120 - Application for licence.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 120, subclause (4), line (1), after “licence” insert “and yet acts as a trustee”.
    Mr. Speaker, this is also for clarity.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 120 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 121 - Conditions for licence as a trustee.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 121, subclause (2), delete.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Chairman could explain the reason underpinning that suggestion.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, the same thing has been captured under clause 127 (1) (b). I am sorry, I did not indicate that.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 121, subclause (5), delete “A person” and substitute “An individual” and line 2, for “person” substitute “individual”.
    Mr. Speaker, this is also for clarity.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 121, subclause (5), paragraph (b), line (1), delete “undercharged” and insert “undischarged”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 121 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 122 -- Consideration of application.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 122, subclause (1), line 2, after “trustee” insert “and take a final decision”.
    This is for clarity sake.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 122 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    Clause 123 - Approval of application.
    rose
    Mr. Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    Yes, hon. Minister of State.
    Dr. Akoto Osei 11:20 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, just for clarification.
    Mr. Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    What are you referring to?
    Dr. Akoto Osei 11:20 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we just did clause 122 (1) and I was trying to seek an explanation to the amendment. I am not sure I heard the hon. Chairman correctly.
    Mr. Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    Hon. Minister of State, you may have to save your breath for the time being.
    Clauses 123 and 124 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 125 -- Representation to the Board.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 125, subclause (2), delete and insert the following:
    “Where the Board refuses an application, the Board shall give reasons in a written notice for the refusal to the applicant.”
    Mr. Speaker, the intent here is that when you refuse an application, there is the need to give reasons and not the word “rejection”. We thought the word “rejection” does not bound one to give a reason. But we thought when one refuses an application, there is the need to give reasons hence the amendment.
    Mr. Lee Ocran 11:20 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I thought the English Language there is a bit cumber-some. Why not “shall give reasons in writing” instead of “reasons in a written notice”? It does not sound well in my ear.
    Mr. W. O. Boafo 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment, as to the fact that the reason should be in writing, that it should also serve as a notice to the other party; to the applicant, is not only giving reason in writing, but it should be reasons which should be notified. So it should be retained.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    Mr. W. O. Boafo 11:30 a.m.


    move, clause 125, subclause (3), line (2), delete all words after “for” and insert “settlement through an appropriate dispute resolution mechanism”

    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clause 125 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 126 - Waiver of conditions

    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,

    clause 126, delete and insert “The Board may waive a condition where compliance with that condition in a particular case is not reasonably practicable”.

    This is for clarity sake, Mr. Speaker.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clause 126 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 127 - Appl ica t ion for registration of occupational pension scheme or provident fund scheme as employer sponsored scheme or master trust scheme.

    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 127, delete “natural persons” wherever it appears and insert “individuals”.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am getting a bit uncomfortable with the substitution of the word “person” with the “individual”, because if you go back through the clauses that we have passed, in clause 120 (1) for example, the Chairman allowed “persons” to be used there. In the same clause 120 (2) a “person” was used. If you come to clause 120 (4) a “person” was used; 121(1) a “person” was used. But then when you come to 121(2) an
    “individual” has been used there and Mr. Speaker, in 121(5) in particular, we have “a person”, but the Chairman asked us to change it to “individual”. So we have this inconsistency.
    In one breath, a “person” is being used, in another breath, an “individual” is used. He should explain to us why this interchanging of words, thus “individual” versus a “person”. Which should we use?
    Mr. Speaker, I am asking this because yesterday we used a “person” and then along with it we used “it” for the “person” and I asked whether we can qualify a person with “it” and he said yes, by legal definition “person” includes institutions and other bodies. So he should explain to us why this inconsistency in the use of the word “person” as against “individual”. I am not feeling comfortable at all in the use of these two words.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, it depends
    on the context in which these words are found. When you read clause 127 carefully you would realize that we have areas where you find “company” and it is for this reason that we want to differentiate an ordinary company which in our interpretation is an artificial person.
    And we are saying instead of the words “natural persons” it should be “individual” because in our interpretation Act, we do not use the word “natural persons” but “an individual”. This is for consistency sake. But as I have already said, when we used “person” we were not talking only of “natural persons,” but it included companies, organizations, et cetera. They fall in the category of artificial persons.
    But this one is quite different from what I explained to him earlier on; this is for a “natural person” and we are saying that in the context in which he finds himself the word “individual” would be better
    because in our interpretation Act we used “individual” instead of “natural person”.
    Mr. Speaker, I would crave his indulgence and that of yours for him to read the entire clause together and he would find the import of what I am telling him.
    Dr. A. A. Osei 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am also a bit worried about this explanation, because in clause 120, we have not changed it to “an individual”. If what the Chairman is saying is correct then by extension the “person” under clause 120 should have been “individual”, but we did not. So this artificial person, individual thing -- we are not lawyers, but for the sake of consistency then he ought to have changed the “person” in clause 120 to “an individual”, then we would see this flow of logic.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, he would
    be missing the point and then the whole meaning of the clause would be changed entirely. Mr. Speaker, I am craving his indulgence and that of yours, to read clause 127 out:
    “An application for the registration of an occupational pension or provident fund scheme as an employer sponsored scheme may be made to the Board only by:
    (a) a company which has been approved as a trustee or has applied for approval as a trustee;
    (b) two or more natural persons who are approved trustees, or have applied for approval and at least one is an independent trustee; or
    (c) a company and one or more natural persons.”
    Mr. Speaker, throughout you would find “a company” and a “natural person” and we are saying that in order to bring the word “natural person” in conformity with our interpretation Act it should read “individual”, not “natural persons”. So instead of “two or more natural persons”, it should be “two or more individuals” who are approved trustees.
    We think this is much more appropriate than natural persons and it brings out the entire meaning of the clause. If “a person” is used here Mr. Speaker, then it would give another connotation and meaning altogether, hence the differentiation. There would be a company, there would be an individual who is not an artificial person.
    Mr. Chireh 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, he was referring to clause 120, but in clause 120 he must look at it as a whole. You cannot separate the first subclause from the rest of it. In that case, you do not need to change it to “an individual”; if you are referring to clause 120 because at the end of it all you will have “a person” as a trustee, and a “person” can be an individual as well.
    So where you have a whole clause talking about “a person” it means that in it you can isolate a company, “an individual” or whatever. But where you are talking about “natural person”, you want it to be “an individual”. And as he is already saying -- [Interruption] -- I am saying that you have to read the whole clause together, you cannot separate them. In law you do not do that.
    Dr. A. A. Osei 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, by his own logic, we changed - [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Hon. Minister, exercise

    patience. I will call you in due course.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    following from what my hon. good friend has just said, if you take clause 121 (1), it starts with “a person” but then when you come to 121 (5), we have just amended 121 (5) and then instead of “a person” we have inserted “an individual”, and that is where the inconsistency lies. Why do we change 121 (5) if we are to go by consistency? Mr. Speaker, this is where our worry is. In some breath we are using “individual”, in another breath, we are using “a person”, and it is not good for --
    Mr. W. O. Boafo 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if you look at clause 121 (5) that they are referring to - the subclause (5) (a). It deals with a person who is found by a competent court to be of unsound mind. Mr. Speaker, that explains why they have to limit the expression to “individual” because if you retain it as “a person”, it means artificial person is also involved. But artificial person cannot be pronounced upon to be of unsound mind. That is why I presume there was a change to “individual” in that subclause.
    Mr. Speaker, if we come back to clause 127, you could see that under 127 (1) (a), it talks about a company that can apply as of right and then under (b), it talks of “natural persons”. In this case, we are trying to substitute “individual” for those who can apply in their own rights. And then under (c) they talk about a combination of a company and individuals who can apply in their own rights. This is the import; this is the purpose why the Chairman is seeking to amend that section to bring out the differences.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:40 a.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I believe the hon. Member for Amenfi East has understood it now.
    [NII MANTE] Because it commences from clause 120 (1) where the distinction has been made, 121 (1) emphasizes the “individual”, that is the natural person. And then 121 (3) makes the distinction and then isolates “a company” also as a person but deals with it as a company. And so following from that we then come to clause 127. So the distinction as made by the Chairman is most appropriate, and I believe the hon. Member and the hon. Minister of State do now understand and we can make progress.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 127, subclause (3), delete “those persons must be” and insert “whom is”.
    Mr. Speaker, this is for clarity sake.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:40 a.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, if the Chairman could go over it. I am not too sure of what he means by “whom is”. Is it “who is” or “whom is”?
    Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, please, read the sentence -- [Interruption.]
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, let him come
    out again.
    Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    What was the point you were making Chairman of the Committee?
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I am saying that he should come out again; I did not hear him well.
    Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Would you kindly
    read that clause, taking into account the insertions you want to make. Chairman, subclause (3).
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, what we are proposing is that we are to delete the words “those persons must be”. “If an application is made by two or more approved trustees who are - in this case, we are deleting - [Interruption] -- “all natural persons”. Mr. Speaker, it appears they are now understanding it - [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    No! We are not understanding it, please, go ahead.
    Nii Mante: If an application is made by two or more approved trustees who are individuals, at least one of them must be an independent trustee. That should be it.
    Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    So what is the proper rendition now? Chairman, you said one of them.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, that is so.
    Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Which is so?
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I am saying that one of them shall be an independent trustee.
    Mr. Chireh 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I thought the problem was the word “whom is”, if you say that “one of whom is” that is a better rendition. Because anytime we are categorizing the appointment of people and we say “ten people, one of whom is a woman”. That is the correct thing we have been saying. So in this particular case the appropriate word is not “them”, it is “whom”.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:40 a.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, the hon. Member who just spoke, hon. J. Y. Chireh got the import of the debate wrong. If we should go by what the Chairman is saying then that sentence would read: “If an application is made by two or more approved trustees who are individuals at least one of who is or of whom is”, it will not make sense. Clearly,
    Mrs. Frema Osei-Opare 11:40 a.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I think we should maintain this consistency in this whole document. I just want to also refer to clause 36 where we also say that two persons nominated by the President, at least one of whom is a woman. In this particular case, I do not see the difference. One of whom must be an independent trustee, so it is the same --
    It has to be consistent. So this “one of them” business I think we should reconsider. Please read the sentence, but I believe consistency must be maintained and I think in this particular case “one of whom is an independent trustee” is appropriate.
    Mr. Kenneth Dzirasah 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    I think the Chairman's amendment is correct. It should be “one of whom” with “m” at the end of “who”, that is the correct statement. It runs. The sentence goes as follows:

    I see. I get him. I have reviewed my arguments in the matter. I think “one of them” is better.
    Mr. Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Chairman, what is your
    rendition?
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I thought
    I had already stated. Mr. Speaker, “If an application is made by two or more approved trustees who are individuals at

    least one of them must be an independent trustee”.

    Question put and amendment agreed

    to.

    Clause 127 as amended ordered to

    stand part of the Bill. Clause 128 and 129 ordered to stand

    part of the Bill.

    Clause 130 - Rejection of application.

    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to

    move, clause 130, subclause (1), line 1, delete “reject” and insert “refuse”.

    Mr. Speaker, this is for consistency. We have already made a previous amendment by the deletion of the word “rejection” and the insertion of the word “refuse”.

    Question put and amendment agreed

    to.

    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to

    move, clause 130, subclause (2), delete “rejects” and insert “refuses”.
    Mr. Dzirasah 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, in respect
    of clause 130 the side notes also have to be changed to “refusal of application” since in essence we have changed “to reject” to “refusal”. “Rejection of application should read “refusal of application”.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I so agree.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 130 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 131 and 132 ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clause 133 - Appl ica t ion for
    registration as personal pension scheme.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg
    to move, clause 133, subclause (1),
    paragraph (b), line 1, delete “natural persons” and insert “individuals”.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to. Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 133, subclause (2), delete.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, if the Chairman may help the House by assigning reasons for such enterprise.
    Mr. Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Chairman, it is always
    advisable you give us background to it.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, that is to
    avoid a repetition which is already covered under subclause (1).
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 133, subclause (3), delete.
    As I have already said, this is also a
    repetition and it is covered already under subclause (1).
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 133 as amended ordered to
    stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 134 - Contents of application.
    Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I thank
    you for your indulgence. I have been looking at the head notes of clause 134 and its contents. Mr. Speaker, “Content of application”. Mr. Speaker, if we look at clause 134 (1) to (2), it rather emphasizes the requirements of an application. I do not know whether a substitution of content for requirement will not be more appropriate.
    For instance, you are saying that a requirement is to specify particulars of the scheme to be registered accompanied by a copy of the proposed rules and an application fee. But if you say content of application, I do not know whether with Mr. Speaker's leave we would not want to change the head note to read “Requirements of application” since what is listed thereafter are all what is required before an application is considered.
    Mr. Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Chairman of the
    Committee, your comment on that.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I am not in
    total agreement with my learned friend.
    Mr. Speaker noon
    You want it to stay as
    it is?
    Nii Mante: Yes. “Contents of
    application”; it amounts to the same thing.
    Clauses 134 and I35 ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clause 136 -- Rejection of application.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 136, subclause (2), line 1, delete “rejects” and insert “refuses” and in line 2, delete “rejection” and insert “refusal”.
    Mr. Speaker, we may also have to
    amend the sub-heading to read “Refusal of application”.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clause 136 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
    Mr. Speaker, sir.
    Mr. Speaker noon
    Which one are you
    referring to?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
    Mr.
    Speaker, clause 136. I do not know whether they brought on board the headnotes -- 136. I think what the Chairman moved was in respect of subclause (2) - 136, it was in respect of subclause (2).
    Mr. Speaker noon
    Yes, together with the
    heading.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
    All right,
    sir. I was discussing something with hon. Haruna Iddrisu so I did not follow it.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, let me also
    crave your indulgence to say that the word “reject” in subclause (1) of clause 136 should also read “refusal” with the greatest respect.
    Mr. Speaker noon
    Referring to --
    subclause?
    Nii Mante: Shall not refuse - the word “refuse”.
    Mr. Speaker noon
    Is it in subclause (1)?
    Nii Mante: That is so Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Ocran noon
    Mr. Speaker, in English
    you reject an application. It is better than using the word “refuse”.
    Mr. Speaker noon
    Hon. Member for
    Jomoro, it seems you have been out for sometime - [Laughter.] We are not with you.
    Dr. A. A. Osei noon
    Mr. Speaker, I want to
    advert the Chairman's mind to the issue of time limit that was considered. I have not seen it in the amendment. There should
    be a time limit for writing to give notice about refusal -
    Mr. Speaker noon
    Which clause are you
    referring to, please?
    Dr. A. A. Osei noon
    Mr. Speaker, clause
    136.
    Mr. Speaker noon
    We are now dealing with
    clause 137.
    Dr. A. A. Osei noon
    Oh, sorry.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 137 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 138 - Power to impose, amend or waive conditions.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 138, subclause (1), delete and insert:
    “Where the Board decides that it is appropriate to impose or amend any conditions imposed as regards the administration or marketing of a personal pension scheme, the Board shall give to the approved trustee:
    (a) not less than thirty days notice of its decision and the reasons; and
    (b) an opportunity to make written representation to the Board.”
    Mr. Speaker, your Committee feels this rendition is better than the previous one as captured in the original text and makes it clearer than before.
    Mr. Kenneth Dzirasah noon
    Mr. Speaker,
    I agree with the amendment but for the fact that on the amendment sheet in line (6) the word “to” should be deleted out of

    it otherwise, the first paragraph does not run with the itemized details. So it will read as follows:

    “Where the Board decides that it is appropriate to impose or amend any conditions imposed as regards the administration or marketing of a personal pension scheme, the Board shall give the approved trustee

    (a) not less than thirty days”

    instead of ‘shall give to' the approved trustee. So we delete the “to”.

    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I believe that

    the word “to” should be there because we are giving notice to the approved trustee. So we give to. I think it is better than omitting the word “to”. We give notice “to”. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, in the original Bill, an opportunity is provided for written representation to be made to the Board and that is captured in 138 (1) (b). The Board may be influenced by the representation made to it and then they may appropriately respond by either amending the conditions imposed or imposing the conditions may be un- persuaded by the representation made. And that is captured in (c). Now that (c) has been deleted and so if a presentation is made, what happens?
    I do not really understand why that leg has been removed because there should be a consequential action after a representation has been made. That is captured in 138 - (1) (c). So if the Chairman could explain to us.
    By this new amendment that he has proposed what happens to that other leg. After the representation what happens?
    Nii Mante: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    I thought the concerns of my good Friend and Deputy Majority Leader has been well addressed and captured in the new rendition that we have given. We are saying that where the Board decides that it is appropriate to impose or amend any conditions imposed as regards the administration or marketing of a personal pension scheme the Board shall give to the approved trustee (a) not less than thirty days notice of its decision and the reasons; and (b) an opportunity to make written representation to the Board. His concerns which he has found in (c) has been incorporated in the first armbit of the new rendition, it is there.
    We are saying where the Board decides that it is appropriate to impose or amend any conditions imposed as regards the administration or marketing of a personal pension scheme, the Board shall give to the approved trustee:
    (a) not less than thirty days notice of its decision and the reasons; and
    (b) an opportunity to make written representation to the Board.

    (c) is saying the Board shall amend or impose the conditions after that and the same reason is in this new rendition.

    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the Chairman clearly is not following the point that I am advancing. Indeed, his own amendment is not stating anything different from the opening paragraph of clause 138. Mr. Speaker, what it means is that the Board on its own could vary the conditions and maybe stick to the same conditions.
    Then (d) provides an opportunity for a representation to be made to the board
    Mr. W. O. Boafo 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think (c) is a natural flow from (a) and (b); it is not necessary. If you are making a representation to a Board, naturally they are going to respond; it is not necessary for you to put it in a legislation. They are going to respond and if they do not respond there are other remedies; you can go in to compel them to respond. There are other remedies under the general law; there are other remedies, you can compel them to respond. It is not necessary. And Mr. Speaker, if you read it (c), it is making it compulsory for them to respond. “The Board shall”. Why should you tie the Board's hands in a compulsory manner? Mr. Speaker, it is natural flow from (a) and (b); it is not necessary. It is not necessary at all.
    Dr. Osei 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with my good friend, the Deputy Minister for Defence. Mr. Speaker, if you look at the amendment, “the deletion”, the only word that was taken was “notice” really and everything else is the same. And the reason for taking out (c) was not given and I agree with the Deputy, the Board should take an action and it should be compelled to amend or impose the conditions after that. We cannot take it for granted as a response to the representation. So I want to crave the indulgence of the chairman that we keep (c) for the avoidance of doubt.
    Mr. Chireh 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, what the Chairman has moved is correct because (c) has been encapsulated in the first part where - [Interruption.] Why?
    Mr. Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Please, go on, go on!
    Mr. Chireh 12:10 p.m.
    I am not misleading the House. It says that where the Board
    decides that it is appropriate to impose or amend any conditions imposed as regards the administration, marketing of a personal pension scheme, the Board shall give to the approved trustee not less than thirty days, notice of its decision and the reasons; and (b) an opportunity to make written representation to the Board.
    Why do you want (c) there when the (c) has been captured already?
    Mrs. Osei-Opare 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    having listened to all the arguments and re- reading it I think (c) is superfluous because the beginning statement clearly says amend or impose. Therefore, it is taken care of; once you are given the opportunity then you may amend or impose. So I think the Chairman of the Committee is right.
    Mr. Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Deputy, let us hear you.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think those opposing what we are saying do think that this natural action has been encapsulated in the opening paragraph but clearly it is a misconception.
    Mr. Speaker, what 138 (1) means is that, the Board on its own could take a decision to amend even without representation. That is the import of it. But whatever conditions, that are imposed, be it the original conditions or the amended conditions a person could react to or could make representation to the Board about it and the Board must take an action whether after consideration to do what is required of it, the original impose same conditions or further amend their own amendment if they have so done. That is what it means. And so that leg is of relevance and must stay.
    Mr. Chireh 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if you read the first part well, so long as it is appropriate for the Board to do this it means it can always repeat it. In law making you do not say further and further; you do not say that because that power has been given to them in that one. You are now talking about further consideration or further imposing and you need to put a clause there, no, the one that is already in there gives them that power again.
    In any case, will you be there to know how many times the Board - but they are saying “when it is appropriate to do so”. So I do not think that you need to repeat the same thing. Indeed, the Drafters considered all these and put it there but not the logical thinking that you -- are misunderstanding the clause and I know that you have the tendency of looking at everything grammatically but not the logical sequence of the event.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clauses 139 to 141 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 142 - Knowledge and understanding of corporate trustees.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 142, subclause (2), delete.
    Mr. Speaker, your Committee is of the view that it is superfluous since it has already been covered under 142 (1). Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 142 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 143 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 144 -- Pension fund managers.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 144, line 2, delete “licensed” and insert “registered”.
    Mr. Speaker, the intent is to register the applicants and not to license them since they would have been licensed already by the Securities and Exchange Commission. So here they would be licensed by another body hence the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment.
    Mrs. Osei-Opare 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think we should retain “At the commencement of this Act”, because where a new Act is coming into force it is important for this emphasis to be given so that people's attention is drawn. I saw that in the Fair Wages Act and even though there was a transitional clause, we made sure that where appropriate we emphasised “At the commencement of this Act”, I think it helps people to know what is expected and for the avoidance of doubt. And we have done it with other recent Acts. So I would suggest that we keep it.
    Mr. Kenneth Dzirasah 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, this is a proposal which is clerical in nature. Whether it is there or it is not there, it does not change the character of the legislative sentence. So I would suggest that if the draftsperson is available, we

    should refer this matter to her and for her to decide upon. Some of these things are of technical nature and we should defer to their experience.
    Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon. Member for Tamale South, do you concede to that?
    Mr. Haruna Iddrisu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, where we have the opportunity to make amends, I think that I would encourage that we take a position. Every other provision in this Bill is workable at the commencement of this Act. So whatever provision you have put here is only workable at the commencement of this Act. So one would not understand why we want to open that with “At the commencement of this Act”, unless of course you want to give us an explanation as to the transitional role of pension managers.
    But even that, the hon. Deputy Majority Leader has dealt with it. We have a savings clause. So, Mr. Speaker, for purposes of elegance, we should just say “pension managers”. “Pension funds” would do. You do not need “At the commencement of this Act”. Other than that, every other clause here is workable only under the commencement of this Act, when this Act is passed.
    Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon. Members, I am putting the original amendment first, that, line 2, delete “licence” and insert “registered”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    The second amendment is, line 1, delete the words, “At the commencement of this Act”.
    Question put and amendment negatived.
    Clause 144 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 145 -- Functions of pension fund managers.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 145, paragraph (f), line 2, delete “is” and insert “are”.
    This is a grammatical error, Mr. Speaker.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 145 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 146 -- Requirements for licence as a pension fund manager.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 146, line 1, delete “licenced” and insert “registered”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Item (xxxii), clause 146, Chairman - [Interruption.]
    Dr. Osei 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think before line 1, the heading should also be changed from “Requirements for registration as a Pensions Fund Manager” -
    Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon. Chairman, what about the heading for clause 146?
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I thought we were to finish what you asked me to do.
    Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    I know, but the heading first. Let us go to the heading; a question has been raised.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, the words here, “Requirements for licence of a pensions fund manager”, let us be careful.

    The Securities and Exchange Commission is going to be the body to license. The Board cannot license; the Board only registers.
    Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    All right, hon. Chairman, please go on. go on with the item (xxxii) and then later on we would decide on that.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 146, paragraph (d), delete and insert the following:
    “satisfies the minimum capital requirement and net asset value of any sum that may be determined by the Board”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 146, add a new subclause as follows:

    “(2) A person shall not practise as a pension funds manager unless that person has been registered by the Board.”

    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clause 146 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 147 - Application for licence.
    rose
    Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Yes, hon. Minister of State?
    Dr. Osei 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, there are two points, about the heading again and clause 146(f). If the Security and Exchange Commission is the one that licenses people to manage pension funds, then I
    do not really understand subclause (f), “has obtained approval from the Board to manage pension funds”.
    Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon. Minister, are you asking questions here?
    Dr. Osei 12:30 p.m.
    Yes, it goes to the Chairman. On the heading, if he does not agree that it should be changed and the import of subclause (f) after this change -
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, the heading is very simple. The view of your Committee is that registration as a pension fund manager will only be done by the Board. When it comes to licensing, that is done by the Security and Exchange body and not by this Act. I am craving the indulgence of hon. Members here to have a look at the whole subclauses of clause 146, from (a) to (f) to see whether the appropriate word here should be “registered” or “licensed”. I am of the view that the heading should be as it is.
    Mr. Chireh 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, because he is seeking an amendment to register, once you make that amendment, it is consequential and the draftspersons would take note of it and change it as well.
    Dr. Osei 12:30 p.m.
    The hon. Chairman is insisting that the heading should read “license”, but then the amendment would not be valid. The hon. Member should read his amendment, “A person shall not qualify to be registered”, but the heading is saying that a person is to be licensed. That is all I am saying. If you want the amendment, then we do not have any choice but to change the heading from “license” to “register”. Otherwise, your amendments would not be valid. So it is consequential as he said, that is why I said it should be “registered”.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think we have a problem there. If we stick to licensing, then of course

    we must look at the relevance of (c), because it is the Security and Exchange Commission that does the licensing. If you are saying that before the licensing, they must be licensed by the Security and the Exchange Commission, then clearly there is a problem there.

    On the other hand, if you should sound that it is the registration that you are talking about which is done by the Board, then what is the import of (f)? Registration is done by the Board and you are saying that before the registration by the Board, the Board ought to have approved them to manage the funds? Clearly, there is a problem there. And we must look at it, either way. If it is licensing, they have to look at 146 (c). If it is registration, we would have a problem with (f).
    Dr. Osei 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if I can crave the indulgence of the Chairman, I do not know if we were trying to do both there. But because he moved an amendment for us to change “license” to “registration”, it creates a difficulty. I do not know if you want us to separate the two, that it might be consistent with the change. Once we have just approved the amendment to change “license” to “registration”, there is a difficulty in the heading and even some of the subclauses.
    So we can stand this down and come back and do it properly. It is not straightforward. Mr. Speaker, I request that we stand this down if the hon. Chairman does not mind; there is a serious difficulty here.
    Mr. Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    In respect of especially the heading?
    Dr. Osei 12:30 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mrs. Osei-Opare 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think the two issues need to be separated. Clearly, there is a need to state that the
    Mrs. Osei-Opare 12:30 p.m.
    fund managers should be licensed under a heading. That should be distinct. Then we talk about registration, which is now the prerogative of the Board so that the relevant clauses will go under registration where the licensing will also have its heading. But the appropriate clause in this case (c) would be there as how you register to be a fund manager.

    Clause 147 - Application for licence.

    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 147, subclause (2), at end add “and be accompanied with the prescribed fee”.

    Question proposed.
    Mr. Pele Abuga 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that there is some work to do to tidy up 146 and 147 because like we were arguing earlier, we said “Requirement for registration”. When you come to “Application for licence” under 147, the reading seems to suggest that it is the Board which is going to license the operators. Yet, they are supposed to register -- [Interruptions.]
    It gives meaning to what the hon. Member was saying, that we need to tidy up this section. Because if you say “Application for license” and you are applying to the Board to be licensed, yet we say the Board does not license but registers; then there is a problem there. So I would suggest that we allow the draftspersons or a second look to be taken of clauses 146 and 147 so that we can tidy them up properly.
    Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Hon. Chairman, do you see the problem?

    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. Colleague here that this is a matter that we would have to crave the indulgence of the drafters. This is because the sub- heading itself is “Pension fund managers” and then when you come to page 69, we have “Pension fund custodians”.

    Mr. Speaker, we have said again and

    again that the Pension fund managers would be licensed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). So if we are not very careful and we start replacing “license” with “registration” wherever we find them, we shall be creating confusion. So we must be very, very careful in this respect. Mr. Speaker, I would crave your indulgence therefore, that we would have to look at the provisions of clauses 146 and 147 again, whether the appropriate word should be “licensed” or “registered”.
    Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    You may at this stage even look at clause 147 too. It talks about approval being given by the Board. So you can see that there is a little bit of confusion somewhere. We may have to stand clauses 146, 147 and 148 down.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am afraid, it would have to go to clause 150, then we continue from clause 151.
    Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    We would take clause
    151.
    Clause 151 - Investment policy.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 151, subclause (1), at end delete “prescribed” and insert “determined by the Board”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 151, subclause (5), line 4, after “liable” delete all words and insert “to a penalty determined by the Board”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 151 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 152 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 153 - Pension fund custo-dians.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 153, line 2, delete “licensed” and insert “registered”.
    Mr. Speaker, it would now read 12:40 p.m.
    “At the commencement of this Act pension fund shall only be held by Pension fund custodians referred to as custodians registered by the Board.”
    Mr. Kenneth Dzirasah 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think by virtue of the word “licensed” and “registered”, it falls in the category of clauses that we have deferred. This is because the fate of whether it is going to be licensed or registered would depend on what decision we take on - [Inter- ruption.]
    Mr. Speaker, this is because the
    question has to do with whether it is the Board which is going to license or it is the Board which is going to register.
    Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Hon. Member for South Tongu, we are talking about Pension fund custodians.
    Mr. Chireh 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, with respect, this is not in the same category; this is about registration by the Board. In fact, as you have noticed, the problem is about licensing by SEC and also being

    registered by the Board, where the person operates and has to be licensed by the SEC. That is a different thing. In the other clauses that we are deferring, it is sometimes when there is a mixture - it is not who should do what.

    In this particular case, it was determined that the Board should be the one to register them but they must have a licence from another regulatory body.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr. Osei 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am just going through some notes from the Committee's sittings and with these clauses even though it is between Custodian and Pension fund manager, the same problem is going to arise. The licensing is supposed to be done by the SEC. So it may be useful then to take a look at these clauses and clean them up because in the Committee's work, we changed licensing to registration, but the licensing is going to be even for the custodian as we see in clause 155 (d).
    So it may be useful for us to stand these clauses down, pass out again and come back to clean up on the distinction between registration and licensing because it is the same Board that is supposed to be licensing.
    Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Leadership, at this stage, we may have to adjourn and put our house in order. What do you suggest? Hon. Member for Abetifi, what are you suggesting? It seems as if we have a bit of problem on our hands. We need to clarify matters before we continue. What do you say hon. Member for Wa West?
    Mr. Chireh 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it appears that the Chairman of the Committee cannot stand on his leg again, he is tired as well. And we are not in the mood now. I think we could stand the whole thing
    down.
    Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Hon. Member for Wa West, I do not know how the Chairman comes into this matter. Chairman of the Committee, it appears we have a real problem on our hands now. What do you think we should do?
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, you would have noticed that we have already dealt with the issue of registration by the Board; that has been done. But we are talking of an issue where you may find licensing by SEC and at the same time licensing by the Board. This is what we want to solve and that only appears in clauses 146 and 147. So we have dealt with that.
    Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    So do you suggest that we should continue?
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, if you are disposed for us to continue - [Inter- ruption.] Mr. Speaker, we would continue because today my legs are stronger than yesterday. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, did you ever have problems with your legs; this is what the hon. Member is saying?
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, that was well after 2.15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Hon. Member for Abetifi, should we continue?
    Mr. E. A. Agyepong 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, there is this problem as mentioned by the Minister in charge of Finance. There is this requirement for licence as custodian; the other one is about licence registration, they all run through this Bill. So I would,
    Mr. E. A. Agyepong 12:50 p.m.


    if possible, suggest a break for lunch.
    Mr. Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Should I give you one hour or two hours to put your heads together and then come back, because we can have extended Sitting today. One hour, Deputy?
    Several hon. Members - rose
    - 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Hon. Member for Abetifi?
    Mr. Agyepong 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, during that time we may have consultations with the draftspersons if they are around and then we can clear the issue.
    Mr. Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Yes, the consultant is in the House.
    Mr. Lee Ocran 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, from the way I see things either we continue or we adjourn, because if we go, you will not find people coming back - [Inter-ruption.]
    Mr. Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    But we need to clarify some points which we can only do so in consultation with the consultant.
    Mr. Ocran. All right, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe we can suspend Sitting for an hour to sort out all these difficulties and maybe in the process, we could have our lunch and then come back at 2.00 p.m. sharp to continue.
    Mr. Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    We shall suspend Sitting until 2.00 p.m.
    The Sitting was suspended at 12.53 p.m.

    Sitting resumed.
    MR. FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Hon. Members, the House is brought to order.
    Hon. Deputy Majority Leader, tell me what the position is.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we have had some discussions involving all shades of opinions in the House and I believe we can make progress. I do know that the Committee on Finance is meeting and the hon. Minister of State at the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning is also with them at the meeting. So I think in the circumstance, we can make progress. We can recommence - [Interruption.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    “. . . in the circumstance”? - I did not hear the last words.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I said in the circumstance we can continue from where we left off.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Yes, is that the feeling of the House?
    Mr. Ocran 2:50 p.m.
    Yes, Mr. Speaker, let us continue.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Very well. I am informed that we were at clause 152, line 2. Chairman of the Committee.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, let me crave your indulgence and take you back to clause 146.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    What of that?

    Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, we can go ahead because it is a straightforward matter. [Interruptions.] We have been replacing the word “licensed” with “registration”. So, I can go ahead -
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    But if you are saying that instead of “licensed” it should be “registration”, then I believe that you have agreed to that; then let it apply subject to the relevant changes in respect of all the various clauses that you have mentioned. If you have reached an agreement on that matter, I think we should continue with that.
    Is that the case, hon. Deputy Majority Leader?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:50 p.m.
    Basically, Mr. Speaker. Except to observe that the problem that arose was subsequent to amending that clause in respect of clause 146 (f). And this is quite a substantive matter. The agreement now is to delete subclause (f) of clause 146 after the amendment in the head note, that is requirement for registration as a pension fund manager. When we have deleted the word “licensed” and inserted in its place “registration”, it will have consequential effect; of course, on the opening paragraph of clause 147 -
    “A person shall not qualify to be registered as a pension fund manager for the purpose of this Act unless that person . . .”
    And it flows.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Are you suggesting that it must be completely deleted or subjected to some changes?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it must be deleted because we are dealing with requirements for registration as a pension fund manager and the registration is to be done by the Board. If we retain it, it will mean that we are saying that before the Board approve of a person's registration, one must obtain approval from the Board to manage pension funds and that will be double stating the issue. And so, subclause (f) has no place. Indeed and in truth, if one comes to clause 147, what the person is required to do to obtain the registration is captured there, which explains why subclause (f) must be deleted.
    Subject to that, Mr. Speaker, you may put the Question on clause 146 and then we can move on. It will be clearer that way than the blanket application being sought by the hon. Chairman. There may be some confusion; that is why I have taken my time to explain that the word “licensed” in subclause (c) is not affected.
    Mr. Speaker, we can go further on that and I think it may not be difficult. So if you may put the Question on clause 146, subject to these amendments, then we can make further progress.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, you would notice on the Order Paper that your Committee, on clause 146 at item (xxxiii) has introduced a new subclause which reads as follows:
    “A person shall not practise as a pension fund manager unless that person has been registered by the Board.”
    That is a new subclause to clause 146. So I just want my good Friend to look at that and see whether there is still the need to do away with clause 146 (f).
    Mr. Speaker, I just want him to look at that.
    Mrs. Osei-Opare 2:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I missed the explanation of the hon.

    Chairman of the Committee. But my view of subclause (f) is quite different from that of the hon. Deputy Majority Leader because I think that what subclause (f) seeks to do is to say that one may have all these qualifications but unless one has been written to or given approval from the Board, one cannot operate. One must receive an approval before one can operate. So I do not think it conflicts with the intent of clause 146 as in the preamble before the subclauses.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 2:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the hon. Deputy Majority Leader, in the sense that if one looks at the head notes, it reads - now it is going to be “Registration” - “Require- ment for registration” and then when one comes to subclause (f), we are saying that before a person registers with the Board, that person has to obtain approval from the Board. I do not see the logic in this provision at all because we are looking at the requirement for registration and at the same time we are saying that for one to register with the Board, one should first obtain approval from the Board before one registers.
    Mr. Lee Ocran 3 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, clause 146 (f) and clause 147 (i) are identical except that clause 146 (f) supersedes clause 147 (i) which should not be the case; because a person who desires to operate as a pension fund manager of a scheme shall apply in writing to the Board. Meanwhile, the requirement is saying that he should have already obtained permission from the Board, which is not possible. So we have to delete it.
    rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Yes, I will give you the last opportunity and
    then I will put the Question. But you need to explain the matter very well. The way it is written here says that, yes, it is not automatic; you could have all those requirements, but you must as well have approval from the Board. I do not see the confusion here.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, with respect, there is a big confusion here.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Yes, I want you to convince the House; go ahead.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3 p.m.
    It is most unfortunate that the Deputy Minister for Manpower, Youth and Employment, Mrs. Osei-Opare was not at the winnowing; she would have understood it.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Please,
    continue, you make your point. She was expressing her opinion.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if one is going to the Board to be registered, one ought to have fulfilled certain conditions before the Board would give one approval. If one of the conditions is that the Board ought to have approved of one first before one goes to the Board, what is the sense in that?
    So Mr. Speaker, when we got there we realized that it was a mistake and all of us therein assembled agreed that it was a mistake. I raised the matter here; there was some confusion; there were some doubts. But when we got there we all realized that it was a mistake to have placed this one here. It has been captured, as I said, under clause 147, but it would not be part of the processes for consideration by the Board. If it is made as part of the processes for consideration by the Board, then what would the Board be doing? -- Appear before me? But before you come before me you ought to have had approval from me.

    Mr. Speaker, it does not make sense whatsoever and we have all agreed. I am sorry the hon. Deputy Minister is bringing us back -- Mr. Speaker, I know she now understands.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Are you sure she understands?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, she now understands.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Chairman, what do you say to that?
    Nii Mante: That was the agreement,
    Mr. Speaker, to have subclause (f) taken out completely. Mr. Speaker, if that is the wish of the House you may go ahead and put the Question -
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    No, hon. Chairman, it is not the question of saying if that is the wish of the House.
    Nii Mante: We have agreed that it
    should be taken out.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Yes, if you say you have agreed then that should be known.
    Nii Mante: But it was a mini committee; that is why I am using the words “that if the House agrees with us that subclause (f) should go away,” so be it. That is all that I am saying. It was a small committee that was held in the Majority Leader's office and we the Committee members agreed to have subclause (f) taken out completely, for the reasons given by the Deputy Majority Leader, which I accept. And I am saying that if the plenary is also in agreement with us, so be it.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Are you
    making a recommendation?
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Do you agree therefore?
    Mrs. Osei-Opare 3 p.m.
    Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think I concede.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Fair enough. Hon. Members, in that case we have gone round it and what he is saying is that clause 146 (2) -- Put it up again. We have gone to 146. We were at clause 152 and you brought us back to clause 146 (2).
    Nii Mante: I was then craving your indulgence to introduce a new subclause which your Committee has fashioned out and it reads as follows -
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Please, you got me confused. Let me tell you where my confusion is. We were brought back to clause 146 for an amendment, which as it were, you all agree to except that the hon. Deputy Majority Leader added that if we were going to carry on with the proposed amendment, we might as well drop clause 146 (f). Is that the agreement?
    It means clause 146 (1), delete “licensed” and insert “registered” and it should apply to all the other clauses that follow to clause 152, except that in the case of clause 146 (f) it should be dropped entirely. I think that is the agreement
    I am putting the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. j. B. Aidoo 3 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, there is also friction in the case of clause 146 (c); the “licence” there should be retained.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    But it has

    been retained except subclause (f) which we are deleting. Is that not the agreement? I think we can move on.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 3 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the word “licensed”, “licensed” is going to replace the word - [Interruption.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    That is (c) as well; it should be - [Interruption.]
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 3 p.m.
    But in the case of (c) it should be retained.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Chairman, are you all right with that?
    Nii Mante: But Mr. Speaker, may I know whether you have accepted the proposal of your Committee that clause 146 should have an additional sub-clause?
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    That is a new proposal.
    Nii Mante: That is so. That has been captured at page 23, item 33.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, this has the same import as the one we have deleted, clause 146 (f); that one that we have deleted. This new amendment proposed by the hon. Chairman has the same import as subclause (f) which we have dropped. So the Chairman should not - [Interruption.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Hon. Deputy Majority Leader, my immediate reaction to that is that there is a slight difference. The difference is that you could qualify, but until you have had the permission to practise you cannot practise. There is a slight difference there.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:10 p.m.
    That is so, Mr. Speaker, except that this very one, the
    import is captured under clause 147.

    So it should not be part of the requirements. When you have satisfied the requirement then can you come under clause 147.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    You
    are absolutely right. He should drop it completely. It becomes completely redundant.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, so be it.
    Mr. Speaker, let us move forward. Mr. Speaker, can I quickly take you back to clause 147?
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Are you
    going back to clause 147?
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, yes.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 147,
    subclause (3) delete
    Mr. Speaker, after a second thought, we
    thought that we should retain clause 147 as it is. If my Deputy Majority Leader would bear with me, it was agreed, it was his thought which the draftsperson also accepted.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:10 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, the Chairman is right. Indeed, this amendment proposed by the Committee does not change the character of what is there. They are only deleting (3) and adding it to (2).
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    So instead
    of deleting it, it should stay. Is that not it? Then you are withdrawing your proposed amendment; is that not so?
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, that is so.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Let us continue. We will not move it. We will go to clause

    152. So you should not have brought us back to this.

    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,

    clause 152, line 2, between “trustee” and “subject” delete all words.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Let us
    hold on; is it clause 153 before clause 152? -- Let us go on -- [Pause]. Clause 154, hon. Chairman, are we all right the way it has been -- Was it a typographical error that we put the 152 before the 153?
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I think that is
    the printer's devil.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Fair enough, then I will put the Question on
    154.
    Clause 154 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 155 - Requirement for licence as custodian.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,
    clause 155, paragraph (c), at end add the following words: “company or a non-bank financial institution”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,
    clause 155, subclause (h), delete.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Hon.
    Deputy Majority Leader, are you all with it?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:10 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, it is in tandem with what we just did in clause 146.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    We are
    going back to clause 155 (e); or there is no (e)? Clause 155, paragraph (e) - we are going back to (e).

    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 155, paragraph (e), after “capital” insert “requirement”.

    Question put and amendment agreed

    to.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:10 p.m.
    Mr.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    The one
    that they have added -- “requirement”?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, “prescribed”. Mr. Speaker, “satisfy minimum capital requirement and net asset value or a sum” -- instead of “prescribed”, “determined”. So we delete “prescribed” and in its place we use “determine from time to time by the Board”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    Is that what was agreed to? Or that is your new proposal?
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, that is what we have agreed to, that wherever we find “prescribed by the Board”, it should rather read “determined by the Board”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 155, add a new subclause as follows:

    “(2) A person shall not practise as a

    custodian of pension funds unless that person has been registered by the Board.”
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:20 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, we just did this and I am surprised the Chairman is bringing this one back. The clauses in 146 are what are confronting us in clause 155 so that one has no place there. It has no place there and I thought bringing this one back through the window is improper.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    Are you
    sure you agree to that?
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I will plead
    with my hon. good Friend and leader to exercise patience. Mr. Speaker, the sub-heading for 146 is “Pension fund management” and this one is “custodian”; so the two are different.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    Hon.
    Deputy Majority Leader, this time round you need to be a little patient with your Chairman because you are talking of two different things.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:20 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, yes, I know they are different matters. This one is requirements for pension funds custodians. Mr. Speaker, we were talking about licensing. This is no longer licensing; it is approval by the Board - [Interruption.] Is it not, Mr. Chairman? And before one has approval you must have obtained the approval from the Board. Do you see how the first one is resonating from here? [Interruption.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    Hon. Deputy Majority Leader, I think you should allow the Chairman in this case.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, they are in
    two categories. The custodian is quite different from the manager.
    Mr. Speaker, I would be very grateful
    if you would put the Question so that we will move forward.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    I will put
    the Question in spite of everything.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:20 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, please, let us hasten slowly, with respect; because I thought when we had the winnowing we had agreed on this again. We had agreed to delete (h) in respect of clause 155 on the same principle and so when he is bringing this one back it is reinstating the (h) that we have deleted. That is what I am reminding him about.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    I think
    you are right again. Mr. Chairman, yes, we are talking about custodian but what we are doing is in respect of custodian.
    Nii Mante: That may appear to be so.
    But let us read (h) in conformity with this opening sentence --
    “A person shall not qualify as a custodian for the purposes of this Act unless that person
    (a) is a body corporate;
    (b) is a bank . . .;
    (c) is a wholly owned subsidiary of a bank, an insurance firm;
    (d) is licensed by the Securities and Exchange Commis- sion… satisfies the minimum requirement”.
    Mr. Speaker, these are some of the requirements of a custodian. We have agreed to delete (h) but the wording here and its import is quite different from (h). We are saying that a person shall not practise. Here, (h) is saying “has obtained approval”. It is saying that a person shall not practise as a custodian of pension fund unless that person has been registered by the Board. Are they not two different things?
    Mr. Ocran 3:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think
    this idea of trying to amend this Bill by five people does not seem to be proper. Although I was part of the winnowing,

    some controversial issues are beginning to arise and this is a very important Bill.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    It is a
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:20 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, clearly, my hon. Colleague has a problem with numbers. I do know that he has never been an adherent of the lotto business. He has a problem certainly with counting. Mr. Speaker, the number here certainly is more than the number that he has quoted.
    But on a more serious note, Mr. Speaker, this very one that we are seeking to drop - If we look at clause 157, just like it happened with clauses 146, 147, what the Board is required to do to give approval is captured there. And so again, it is the same principle that we are extending there that if before the Board approves one has to obtain approval from the Board, what is it that we are saying?
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    Hon. Majority Leader, it appears that the hon. Chairman disagrees with you. I am not too sure. [Pause.]
    Mr. Ocran 3:20 p.m.
    We are still at clause
    155. Mr. Speaker, we have deleted (h) of clause 155 and he is beginning to raise an issue. Is that not so? That is why I am saying that there is no consensus on some

    of these matters. This is the Pension Bill, something that all of us - [Interruption] -- Me, I do not need pension, he needs pension, so let us - [Interruption.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    Chairman,
    what do you say to that? There are two issues here. You obviously disagree with the hon. Deputy Majority Leader who I believe - [Interruptions] -- No, what he is saying is that - Hon. Chairman of the Committee on Finance, what the hon. Member for Jomoro is saying is that we all went for winnowing but obviously there is a serious disagreement as to what was agreed to in terms of proposed amendments.
    And you have already expressed that you are in total disagreement with him. He is saying that, if you cannot agree on the winnowing, then you must as well suspend the Consideration of the Bill here so that -
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, that
    winnowing did not affect the new position. We winnowed and agreed upon that each should go out, in fact, it also appears in our amendment that each should go out. But the new amendment should be accepted.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    Of course,
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, with respect I am really baffled as to why this is happening because in this particular case we all agreed that (h) has no business being where it is and that it should go.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    I think we
    agreed on that one.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:30 p.m.
    Mr.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    You do not
    ascribe that motive to him. You do not say that because it has already been advertised that is why he is pushing it here. I think that is not very fair to him.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:30 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, that is right. I agree with you. But I am saying that at the winnowing all therein assembled accepted the principle that it had no business being there. Whether it was in the same language or put in other words, it had no business being there. But in view of what the Chairman is required to do, which he is not doing, Mr. Speaker, I would urge that you use your discretion and let us continue tomorrow.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    I will

    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, may I be

    heard before you adjourn the House.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    No, I
    would not hear you any more on this matter. The debate is closed for the day and the House will stand adjourned till tomorrow at 10.00 o'clock before noon. Thank you very much.
    ADjOURNMENT
  • The House was adjourned at 3.35p.m. till 22nd October, 2008 at 10.00 a.m.