Debates of 27 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 of Friday, 24th October, 2008. Pages 1, 2 . . . 20. [No corrections were made.]
Hon. Members, we have two Official

Majority Leader, next item -- Do you

have the hon. Minister for Education, Science and Sports in the House?

Majority Leader/Minister for

Parliamentary Affairs (Mr. Abraham Ossei Aidooh): Mr. Speaker, the Minister has just been taken ill yesterday. I have spoken to the Minister of State at the Ministry of Education, Science and Sports and she has agreed to come here tomorrow morning to answer Questions. This is because she had very short notice of the hon. Minister's indisposition. So if the Questions could be deferred to tomorrow, 28th October, 2008 in the morning.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
We defer the Questions?
Mr. Aidooh 10 a.m.
Yes, sir, we defer the
Questions for the Minister of State to stand
BILLS - FIRST READING 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
I direct the Committee to report as to whether this is a Bill which can be taken under a certificate of urgency.
PAPERS 10 a.m.
  • [MR. KYEI-MENSAH-
    • Mr. J. B. Aidoo 10:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg
    to move, clause 26, subclause (3), delete “organization and control” and insert “control and supervision”.
    Mr. Speaker, “organisation and control”
    look a bit odd in their present context.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:10 a.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I am inclined to go along with the word “supervision” and only “supervision,'” not “control”. How do they control the employees? So I believe “supervision” is all right but certainly not “control” of the employees.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 10:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the
    two words go together -- “control and supervision”; they go together. You should have control over the whole organisation and then you supervise. The two words are not enemies.
    Mr. Chireh 10:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I do not
    think we should continue to add the “control”. We should just say, “for the supervision of the personnel”. “Direction and supervision” would be better. But “control” is not a good word. It means you do not allow them to do anything. So it should be “direction and supervision”. [Interruption.] No, you issue directives to people. You do not control people like that. So I would further -- [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
    Hon. Member, whom
    are you addressing?
    Mr. Chireh 10:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I would
    say that we should rather remove the two

    words, “control and organisation” and put there ‘direction and supervision'. If he agrees that would be a better rendition.
    Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe
    the use of the word “direction” would be more appropriate. Indeed, the personnel function of direction has to do with dealing with employees of an organisation. So we should go with the deletion of the word “control” and use “direction”.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 10:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I can
    see where the problem is coming from. The word “control” has some historical connotation; so instead of “direction and supervision” I would accept that we insert the word “supervision” to make it very simple. So the rendition would be:
    “The Executive Secretary is responsible for the supervision of the employees of the Commission.”
    Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
    Again, please. We do
    not have “Executive Secretary” here.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 10:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we have already taken a decision on this, that wherever the “chief executive officer” is found, it should be replaced.
    Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
    No, we have not taken such a decision.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 10:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I would
    take it again: “Clause 26 (3), delete “organisation and control” and insert the words ‘direction and supervision'.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. H. Iddrisu 10:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I crave your indulgence and seek your leave that clause 26 (1), if it could be reworded. It reads as follows:
    “The chief executive officer is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the affairs of the Commission and the implementation of the decisions of the Commis-
    sion.”
    Then we say:
    “subject to the general directions of the Commis-sion.”
    Mr. Speaker, for clarity the “subject to”
    must come earlier in line 1, that
    “The chief executive officer, subject to the general directions of the Commission, is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the affairs of the Commission and the implementation . . .”
    But you cannot close up with “subject to” when you have said that he has the authority and responsibility for the day- to-day administration. I do not know if it could be reworded, where “subject to” -- In my view, even “subject to” is not necessary. We should not subject that to a Commission.
    Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Let us leave this to the
    draftsperson.
    Clause 26 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.

    Clause 27 -- Directors of the Divisions of the Commission.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 27, subclause (1), line 2, delete “directors” and insert “a director”.
    Mr. Chireh 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I do not
    know why this provision because we used to have a very omnibus provision which says “appointment of staff” and then we recite article 195 again. Now, we are having only directors; what about the other staff? And in fact the directors are staff of the Commission who earn promotion and become directors. So I do not see how they should be specially appointed. Are they going to advertise their positions?
    No, I do not think so. Members of the Commission are there but the others as staff of the Commission are there who will earn promotion to become directors of the various places.
    If you think that this should be an advertised position, it is a different matter but I do not think that they should be specially provided for -- We should just say “staff of the” as we do with many of the bodies that we create.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the various units or divisions are going to be administered by directors and here specifically, we are saying that “each of these divisions”, each of them -- That is why we deleted the word “directors” and then we inserted the word “director”. Just to qualify each of the divisions and for each division, we are going to have a director and not directors.
    Mr. Chireh 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I see the point he is raising but you are bringing autonomous bodies and you want to collapse them into one single Commission. Now, what he wants to explain to us is that he wants the President to appoint them so that they have what? What is it that we want to do?
    These are staff essentially of the Commission. But if you now want each of them to be appointed by the President specially in this Act as if they are still autonomous and they can perform functions independent of the Executive Secretary, fine; otherwise, I do not see why we should provide specially for directors.
    Now, if it was a Director-general position and then we are saying that Deputy Director-generals are to be appointed, fine, but this one, they are just staff and heads of various divisions. And therefore, just like in the Ministries or any other institution where we have the
    Mr. Chireh 11:10 a.m.


    divisions, people get promoted through and get there. We do not advertise those positions.

    It is only the Chief Director's position that you may advertise. So in my view, if you are creating this and you want the bodies to be really integrated and then you are also creating a power where the President appoints them as a special case for them, we will end up saying that “I have my letter also from the President” and we have a difficulty there. But if he thinks that, that will help them, good.
    Mr. Ayariga 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that we are probably investing too much into this rendition because the clause subjects the appointment process to article 195 of the Constitution. And if we look at article 195 of the Constitution, it applies to all persons acting in the public services and whether they are officers or directors, they are persons, I believe acting in the public service.
    So, I am at pains to understand the argument of hon. Chireh, because if the President is appointing according to article 195, then the Public Services Commission is involved and in fact, under article 195 (2) the President could actually delegate the power to appoint to some other officer. So I have a difficulty appreciating the argument that he is making about the President directly appointing the directors of the various divisions of the Commission.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 27, subclause (2), line 1, delete “directly”.
    Mr. Speaker, this is because of the
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:10 a.m.


    creation of the position of a deputy, that is deputy executive secretaries. It will not be appropriate for the divisional heads to answer directly to the Executive Secretary.
    Mr. H. Iddrisu 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to oppose the amendment because nowhere in this Bill has mention been made of a Deputy Director. Nowhere has that been made. But Mr. Speaker, to seek your leave once again, clause 27 (2), I think that there is something lost between performance of functions. And with your indulgence, I read:
    “A director of a division answers directly”, (he is seeking deletion) “to the chief executive officer in the performance of functions”.
    There is a word lost between “of” and “functions”, so we include “his”.
    Mr. Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, “directly”, this one, are you persisting that we should amend that deleting it?
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, yes, because we are going to have the proposed amendment to have two deputies, one for operation and then one for administration. And therefore, if we are not careful, if we do not make any provision for the heads of the various units to channel their activities through these deputies to the Executive Secretary, I think there will be a problem. So this provision is actually to cure that problem.
    Mr. Chireh 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I have two things on this matter. One of them is that I think the drafting section should take note of the title. We have used “Executive Secretary” to run through all the clauses, where we are referring to the holder of the office. Now, this other words we agreed on as chief administrator and chief executive officer, is just descriptive of the functions
    that the person is to perform. So wherever we have here -- Now he is saying “Chief Executive Officer” -- He should really say “answer directly to the Chief Executive Secretary”. Because in that case, it is one person we are talking about and it is one person we are referring to. That is one aspect.
    He is talking about answering directly to - I do not know how you can answer to somebody and it will not be direct through another person. If we also remove the “directly” and as he is suggesting, it will mean that he still answers to him through another person. But if we want to we should state it rather than just remove “directly” because at the end of the day, he is directing the answers to that person.
    If there is this problem and I was not here at the beginning of the Consideration -- I do not know whether we have created a deputy executive secretary position; if we have not created it, I do not see why he should be worried about anybody answering directly to that Executive Secretary.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, let us stand it down. I have a reason for saying this because the proposed amendment had not been reflected in the notice.
    Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    We are standing it down, that is xvi.
    Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 29 -- Internal Auditor.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg
    to move, clause 29, subclause (2), line 1, after “chief executive” insert “Officer” and should apply wherever it appears.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 29 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 30 and 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 32 -- Funds of the Commission.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32, paragraph (b), line 2, after “by” insert “the”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32, paragraph (c), lines 1 and 2, delete “Minister for Finance and Economic Planning” and insert “Parliament”.
    Mr. Speaker, we are saying so because this is the responsibility of Parliament.
    Mr. Chireh 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I do not know why this amendment is coming because in many of the Bills that we consider, we normally have it. The first one, Parliament has a role, the second one, the hon. Minister could also help. But the hon. Minister knows his limitations and the Ministry can have internal arrangements there and decide on something.
    I believe that wherever it requires Parliamentary approval, the (a) caters for it but we have always provided this omnibus one. I do not know why this time we want to replace it with Parliament”; then (a) and (b) should not be there together. Everything there should be by Parliament.
    Dr. A. A. Osei 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, my senior Colleague has made a point. The hon. Minister would always have to come to Parliament to seek approval any way; so I am not sure why the Chairman of the Committee is seeking to remove it. The proportion of income that we get
    Dr. A. A. Osei 11:30 a.m.


    through levies, charges and fees comes to Parliament by legislation, to seek approval to retain a certain proportion of the funds that they receive. So I think it is redundant to try and remove it.
    Mr. Aidooh 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that clause 32 (c) deals with Internally generated Funds (IgF) by the Commission and what percentage or portion the Commission can retain. So that is not quite the same as 32 (a). That is why I believe the amendment is to insert “Parliament” which is the body that can authorize retention of IgF by any agency.
    So I think the amendment is in order and it should be supported. It is IgF and it is only Parliament that can authorize any agency to retain any portion of its internally raised income and that is why the Chairman intends to insert “Parliament” and delete “Minister” who cannot on his own grant the use of IgF by any department or agency.
    Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Chairman, do you have
    anything to say?
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:30 a.m.
    Yes Mr. Speaker, I think our amendment is in a proper direction because paragraph (a), the monies there being referred to are completely different from what we have in paragraph (c) which talks about IgF.
    Mr. Ayariga 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why we are seeking to amend it by the deletion of “Minister for Finance and Economic Planning” and yet retaining the other “Minister” which is -- There are two Ministers involved here. There is the Minister I believe in charge of the sector and the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning. If the principle is that Parliament is the only body that can approve monies for use by the Commission, why then do we still retain the one “Minister” and delete
    Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    We are dealing with paragraph (c).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 32 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 33 -- Accounts and audit.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 33, subclause (2), delete and insert the following:
    “The Board shall, not later than three months after the end of the financial year, submit for audit to the Auditor-general, its books and records of account”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg
    to move, clause 33, subclause (3), delete and insert the following:
    “The Auditor-general shall not later than three months after the submission under subsection (2), audit the books and records of account and submit a report to Parliament”.
    Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Hon. Member for Tamale South, you seem to have another amend-ment?
    Mr. Ayariga 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, with your kind permission, I wish to move on behalf of the Member for Tamale South (Mr. Haruna Iddrisu).
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 33, subclause (3), delete and insert the following:
    “The Auditor-general shall, not

    later than three months after the receipt of the accounts, audit the accounts and submit a copy of the audit report to Parliament”.

    Mr. Speaker, the idea is to set a time

    limit within which the report should be submitted to Parliament. Mr. Speaker, this House is gradually moving away from delayed audit reports, et cetera. So I think that in line with that tradition, the objective will be enhanced further if we set time limit within which the Auditor-general -- [Interruption.] --

    Yes, the amendment moved by the Chairman talks about the submission, that

    “the Board shall not later than three months after the end of the financial year submit for audit to the Auditor- general its books and records of accounts”.

    Is that not the amendment? [Inter- ruptions.] The other one?

    “The Auditor-general shall not later than three months after the submission under subsection (2) audit the books and records of accounts and submit a report to Parliament”.

    Mr. Speaker, ours is that

    “The Auditor-general shall, not later than three months after the receipt of the accounts, audit the accounts and submit a copy of the audit report to Parliament.”

    Now, the difference between the Chairman's amendment is that the time frame is set from the point of submission of the books and records of accounts whilst hon. Haruna Iddrisu's amendment talks about the receipt of - [Inter-ruption.] Mr. Speaker, I would want to have us stand down this particular amendment when he comes in.
    Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Hon. Member, you do
    not need to stand it down, you do not
    have --
    Mr. Aidooh 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think
    it is a simple matter. Mr. Speaker, the Chairman's amendment talks about submission under a certain clause, that the accounts are submitted, so after they have been submitted, so he said after submission under a certain clause and then “within three months of that submission,” the Auditor-general must audit and submit to Parliament.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, hon. Haruna Iddrisu's amendment uses words that I support. The words are “three months after receipt of the account”, that is the difference. And so they all have span of three months each but it is the wording or the language whether we should accept the wording as “submission under certain clause” or “three months after receipt.” And I would support the amendment that is badly moved by my hon. Colleague on behalf of hon. Haruna Iddrisu.
    Mr. W. O. Boafo 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I see
    the difference not in terms of time only but also in terms of what should be laid before Parliament. The hon. Chairman's purported amendment states that
    “The Auditor-general shall audit the account and submit a report on the account to Parliament. The purported amendment by hon. Haruna Iddrisu is different.” He says “The Auditor-general shall audit the accounts and submit a copy of the audit report to Parliament.”
    This is the difference I see, and I would go along with the Chairman's amendment.
    Because normally what we see here in Parliament is a report from the Auditor- general but not the draft audited accounts, if we are to be consistent with whatever should be laid before Parliament. So I would go along with the Chairman's proposal.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe that the two amendments have been given a time frame within
    which the Auditor-general is to work. Mr. Speaker, I want to go along with the proposal submitted by the Chairman on behalf of the Committee, because we could have a situation when after the submission of a report, somebody at the Auditor-general's Department may claim that he has even not seen it or received it, but then the account might have been submitted to all intents and purposes to the Auditor-general.
    There should not be any excuse in the sense of the Auditor-general saying that even after, due submission of the records of account to them, they have not received it, and so they have not been able to work with it within the three months' period. So I believe the proposal made by the Chairman on behalf of the Committee is a better rendition.
    Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Hon. Member for
    Tamale South, are you abandoning this amendment in favour of the Chairman's amendment?
    Mr. Ayariga 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the interes-
    ting thing about this amendment is that the Chairman uses “submit” and we used “receive” but you receive at the point of submission. So Mr. Speaker, I think it is the same time frame that we are talking about.
    The Chairman talks about the report and he says “submit a report to Parliament” and hon. Haruna Iddrisu uses “a copy of the report”. I do not think there is really any difference between the submission of a report by the Auditor-general to Parliament -- I think it is the same document which is the audit report.
    Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    You may wish to
    abandon that one amendment and then
    let us vote on the Chairman's amendment.
    Mr. Ayariga 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, that is so.
    Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    It has been abandoned.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 33 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 34 and 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 36 - Offences.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg
    to move, clause 36, paragraph (b), line 3, delete “request” and insert “requires”.
    Mr. Speaker, this is a drafting language and we believe that hon. Members would agree with us.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Hon. Member for Tamale South, clause 36 (xxiv). Is it going to be taken by the Chairman? Both of you have your names to the proposed amendment.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am
    not privy to this, I do not know how my title appeared on this amendment.
    Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Hon. Member for Bawku Central, do you have any instructions on this?
    Mr. Ayariga (on behalf of) Mr.
    Haruna Iddrisu): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 36, -- last line, delete all the words after “both”.
    Mr. Speaker, it is such a long clause and it reads as follows 11:30 a.m.
    “A person who on request of the
    Commission or a Regional Lands Commission for information deliberately or negligently submits a false or misleading statement or
    (b) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction or to a fine not exceeding two hundred penalty units or to a term of impri-sonment not exceeding six months or
    (c) to both the fine and the impri- sonment.”
    Mr. Speaker, I think it is all right if we just ended it at “both”. Repeating the fine and the imprisonment is tautology. Mr. Speaker, it is in that respect that he proposed that we should delete all the words after “both”.
    Mr. Speaker, it is superfluous.
    Mr. Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Chairman of the
    Committee, what do you say to that?
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think
    it is neater.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 36 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 38 - Regulations.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 38, paragraph (e), before “for” insert “providing”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 38 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 39 - Dissolution of Specified Bodies.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 39, paragraph (c ), at the end, delete “and”.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 39, paragraph (d), delete and insert “the Land Registry; and” to make that paragraph complete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 39, paragraph (e), delete “Secretariat”.
    Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    You are deleting “Secretariat”?
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:40 a.m.
    Yes, Mr. Speaker, delete “Secretariat”. It should be “Lands Commission”. The words there should be “Lands Commission,” and not “Secre- tariat”.
    Mr. Kenneth Dzirasah 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the idea is subclause (d), at the end of “Registry” you add “and”, before you delete “Secretariat”.
    Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, have you done it?
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that one has been dealt with in clause 39, it -- (xxvii).
    Mr. Dzirasah 11:40 a.m.
    Oh! all right, I agree.
    Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Right, thank you.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 39, paragraph (g), delete “Offices of”.
    Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Chairman, again, we have no (g). Where is (g)?
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:40 a.m.
    Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I think the clause should be clause 40.
    Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    You do not have any further amendment for clause 39?
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:40 a.m.
    No, Mr. Speaker.
    Clause 39 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 40 -- Transfer of assets, obligations and rights.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 40, paragraph (g), delete “Offices of,”
    Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    So in clause 40 (g), you are deleting “offices of”?
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:40 a.m.
    “The Lands Registry.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 40 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 41 -- Interpretation
    Mr. Mahama Ayariga (on behalf of)
    Mr. Haruma Iddrisu 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 41, add the following:
    “Board” means governing council of the Commission. “Division” means a division of the Commission. “Regional Lands Commission” means a branch of the Commission in a region.”
    Mr. Speaker, these words have
    been used throughout the Bill without

    appropriate definitions being given and it is in that respect that the hon. Member thinks that we should add these ones for the avoidance of doubt; so that in the interpretation of these words in the Bill, we can be guided by this.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to agree, if he can explain further why the inclusion of these interpretations.
    Mr. Aidooh 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, just so that I can understand. I am not sure whether I have seen the word “Board” in the Bill. I am not very sure where the word “Board” appears anywhere in the Bill.
    Mr. Ayariga 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, in respect of “Board”, we wish to drop the proposed amendment. But the other expressions have been used extensively in the Bill, such as “Division”. Mr. Speaker, it cannot be denied that “Division” has been used in the Bill and it is necessary for us to have a clear definition of what “Division” is.
    Mr. Speaker, while we admit that the definition of “Board” might not be that necessary “division” still remains very relevant. So Mr. Speaker, we would further amend our own amendment by the deletion of “Board”, meaning governing council of the Commission and retaining “Division” and “Regional Lands Commission.”
    Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Hon. Member, do you not have “Division” in the law itself? I thought it was quite clear. Do you not have it?
    Mr. Aidooh 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, clause 19 of the Bill makes an attempt to define “Divisions” not necessary because clause 19 describes and defines by implication what a “Division” is. We have got the heading “Division of the Commission” - “The Commission shall have the following Divisions” and there is a list. And so to define them is most redundant and
    unnecessary.
    Mr. Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Are you abandoning this
    amendment?
    Mr. Ayariga 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I wish to abandon the amendment.
    Clauses 41 and 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 43 -- Transitional and Saving Provisions.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 43, subclause (1), line 7, after “Registry” insert “the Lands Registry.”
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe the question was put on item (xxxii) in respect of the new clause.
    Mr. Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    No, we are dealing with the clause 43, item (xxxi).
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
    All right, Sir.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 43 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    We shall now deal with the new clauses.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, new clause, add a new clause as follows:
    “(1) The Commission shall have not more than two deputy Executive Secretaries appointed by the President in accordance with article 195 of the Constitution.
    (2) The deputy Executive Secretaries shall perform such functions as may be assigned by the Commission.
    (3) In the absence of the Executive Secretary, the most senior deputy Executive Secretary shall perform the functions of the Executive Secretary.”
    Mr. Speaker, section 19 of article 483 makes provision for a deputy executive secretary but this was omitted in the Bill. The merger will also mean an increase or an additional work volume for the Executive Secretary, hence we are making this provision for two deputy Executive Secretaries to support the work of the Executive Secretary.
    Dr. Kunbuor 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am
    not too clear in my mind who, in the absence of the Executive Secretary is senior Deputy Executive Secretary. Are we talking of the oldest of the Deputy Executive Secretaries, the one who went to primary school first, the one who graduated first, or the one who was given an appointment letter first. It is not too clear who this senior Deputy Executive Secretary will be.
    Dr. Osei 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, in addition to what the hon. Member for Lawra-Nandom said, I am not sure what this amendment tries to do.
    First of all, the hon. Chairman referred to article 195 of the Constitution. And nowhere in there does it limit the President as to how many he may appoint. It says that the authority vests it in him. We do not know the functions that are going to come. Yes, they may be expanded. Why then should we limit ourselves to two if it is vested in the President? I think we should leave room as article 195 says.
    It says, the power to appoint, et cetera shall vest in the President. And we are

    trying to say that we know that he will need not more than two. I think it is a clear usurpation of the President's appointing authority. I think we should abandon this new clause.
    Mr. Ayariga 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the hon. Minister of State's argument. Mr. Speaker, even though the President has the appointing powers, the office has to be created by law and that is exactly what this proposed amendment is seeking to do. So we can decide that it should be ten, we can decide that it should be one, we can decide that it should be three, but we must decide on a number before the President can exercise his power to appoint.
    So if the hon. Minister of State's argument is that the President needs five, he can convince this House why he thinks the President needs five, so that we indicate that the President needs to appoint five Deputy Executive Secre-taries, on which basis, we can then approve so that he can appoint. But we cannot leave it open. We must determine that it is one office or two offices, or three offices.
    Mr. Speaker, I have an additional issue with this proposed amendment and that has to do with the determination of functions. We are saying that the determination of functions should be done by the Commission. This is a very dangerous arrangement because we can have a situation where when the Commission has a problem with a particular Executive Secretary, then they will determine that some of the core functions of the Executive Secretary should be assigned to the Deputy Executive Secretary with whom they have good rapport.
    Mr. Speaker, effectively the Executive Secretary will then be bypassed and undermined once the deputies know that their functions are determined, not
    Mr. Ocran 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we have finished with those clauses that the hon. Minister for Women and Children's Affairs is talking about. We are now on the proposed new clause which is about Deputy Executive Secretaries. And I want to go with the hon. Member for Bawku Central.
    Anyone who has ever headed an institution with deputies would realise that some deputies can be very difficult people to deal with. They will start fighting that person if their functions are not properly defined. Especially, they will fight the person more if their functions are defined by somebody outside the administrative setup like the Chairpersons of some Commissions. And most chairmen of Commissions tend to take their positions as their private positions.
    The Executive Secretary should assign the deputies their jobs. That is what he should do. So I think the proposed amendment should read:
    “The Deputy Executive Secretary shall perform such functions as may be assigned by the Executive Secretary.”
    rose
    Mr. Ocran 11:50 a.m.
    Let me finish. Why are you against me? I have not finished making my point.
    Mr. Speaker noon
    Hon. Member for
    Jomoro, you are not in charge.
    Mr. Ocran noon
    Mr. Speaker, I am
    sorry. Mr. Speaker, I am proposing this amendment to avoid the Executive Secretary being made a Simpa panyin who would sit there and somebody from outside who has his favourite appointed as one of the deputy executive secretaries tries to undermine the Executive Secretary if he does not like him. It has happened in this place and there has been confusion all the time in the setup. Let the boss give the instructions; I think that is the best way to run an institution, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
    Mr.
    Speaker, I am inclined to support this amendment, but I believe the amendment should be further amended. Mr. Speaker, the Committee is proposing that -- the first one -- The Commission shall have not more than two deputy executive secretaries appointed by the President in accordance with article 195 of the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I believe we should be very clear in our minds what we want to do.
    You cannot just say that the Commission shall have not more than two deputy executive secretaries. If we are clear in our minds, then we would know what we intend to do. We could then say that the Commission shall have two deputy executive secretaries appointed by the President and then we could also proffer a better job description.
    For instance, we could say that one of
    them shall be in charge of administration; one perhaps in charge of finance. We ought to do that and then beyond that we could say that the deputy executive secretaries, beyond the job description shall perform such other functions as may be assigned by the Commission or by whoever.

    Mr. Speaker, the third point that I want to make is in respect of (3). Already, we are saying that the Commission shall have, by this construction, not more than two deputy executive secretaries. It means that the Commission could appoint one deputy executive secretary. Then when we come to (3), we are saying that in the absence of the executive secretary the most senior -- Mr. Speaker, assuming they are even two, comparative, we cannot say the most senior. We would then be talking about the more senior and not the most senior.

    But Mr. Speaker, my thinking is that we should be specific; what do we want to achieve? I believe we can have two deputy executive secretaries and then we proffer the job descriptions in respect of the two that we want to do and then the third one if we are minded to take two then maybe, we could consider the application of the word “most”. It would not be necessary in the context or it would not be applicable in the context.
    Dr. Kunbuor noon
    Mr. Speaker, I think
    we are getting into some difficulty here. I agree with my hon. Colleague who has just finished speaking. You are giving the responsibility of appointment to the President and the President appoints with an instrument of office, and in most cases that instrument specifies the nature of the appointment which implies the function.
    If the President is appointing and in his instrument he stipulates exactly what he is supposed to do as a Deputy Executive Secretary and then you give the functions to the Commission and the Commission or any other body decides otherwise which one exactly would be the function of this Deputy Executive Secretary. So you must be clear about the appointing authority and the instrument that is given that it is not inconsistent with another legal authority
    you are giving to a body to prescribe what exactly that person will do; it creates some difficulty.
    So we must start from the appointing
    authority, the nature of the instrument the person would be given down to the function. If not, there is bound to be a problem. If you want the Commission to appoint them, you can get the Commission to appoint them and assign them the functions.
    Because if you look at the consti- tutional commissions, you would see quite clearly that when the instrument of appointment is given, in some cases, they specify what exactly they are going to do like the hon. Member for Suame, hon. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu has said; that if you are going to be a Deputy Commissioner of National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE) in charge of adminis-tration, that would be detailed out. If another commission were assigning functions and said his function is operations; you would find that that is inconsistent with the instrument appointing the person. Hon. Minister for Women and Children's Affairs, Hajia Alima Mahama raised the issue of the organogram and normally these organograms emerge from the legislation. You cannot use the organogram. It should actually be the law that you follow to decide the structure of the particular institution. So I think that more clarity is needed here to specify the appointing authority and the functions that we actually want two deputies to perform so that we can get the hierarchy clearly.
    Dr. A. A. Osei noon
    Mr. Speaker, this
    is why I think trying to limit it to two, baffles me. The Chairman said, maybe -- Functions are defined in clause 5. Now, people are talking about one being in charge of finance and administration. Mr. Speaker, those are two distinct important
    functions that we must separate. There could be operations. In article 195, we say “with the advice of the governing council”.
    Mr. Speaker, I think we should let the governing council advise the President how many deputies that are needed for this expanded role. You cannot just say, because you have expanded it you have one for finance.
    In fact, part of the difficulties we are having these days is that people combine finance and administration as if you need the same skill for both. The two are distinct. And then you have the proper thing about operations.
    So it is premature for us to say, no more than two. I think it is proper for us to let the council advise the President and how many would be needed for whatever expanded scope we have defined from (a) through (t); that would define what the functions of the deputy would be. But as to my good friend's argument, I think it is also dangerous to say that their functions should be defined by the Executive Secretary.
    The functions are defined; so the Executive Secretary who does not like a deputy may also decide that out of the 20 or so functions he is giving just one to a deputy. So it is also dangerous. I think we should allow, as we say in the Constitution, the governing council to advise the President as to how many would be needed for this expanded scope because we do not know what it is going to be like.
    Mr. Speaker noon
    I think we need further
    consultation. So this matter ought to be stood down.
    Long Title --
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo noon
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, Long Title - line 3, delete “holistic”
    and insert “efficient”.
    We believe this is a more appropriate word.
    Mr. Ayariga noon
    Mr. Speaker, I was
    wondering if we could just take that together with item (xxxiv) because it seeks to amend significantly --
    Mr. Speaker noon
    I do not know whether
    you have instructions on this. Do you have instructions?
    Mr. Ayariga noon
    Mr. Speaker, with your
    Mr. Speaker noon
    You have been abandon-
    ing these amendments. That is why I -- Are you abandoning it or not?
    Mr. Ayariga 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if you read
    the Long Title; it says:
    “An Act to establish the Lands Commission . . .”
    Mr. Speaker, but the truth of the matter is that we are re-establishing a Lands Commission, not establishing the Lands Commission for the first time; we are simply reconstituting it, expanding it, et cetera, assigning it additional functions.

    So Mr. Speaker, the amendment that we move is that the Long Title should now read:

    “An Act to re-establish the Lands Commission to consolidate the operations of public service land institutions under the Commission to provide for the regulation, effective management and co-ordination of policies in Land Administration and accordance with the Constitution
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am
    completely in disagreement with this amendment being proposed because once the new Lands Commission Bill is passed, it means that the existing Lands Commis- sion is abolished. It disappears. We are now establishing a new Lands Commis- sion as required by the Constitution. So say that to “re-establish” raises the question to re-establish what? So Mr. Speaker, I oppose his amendment.
    Dr. A. A. Osei 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I want to
    support the Chairman of the Committee. Hon. Ayariga's rendition of his amendment wants to re-establish to consolidate. I think the proper thing is what the Chairman is saying and the word is chosen advisably. “To establish the Land Commission to integrate” I think that is exactly what we are doing. But this rendition about to re- establish, to consolidate is not what the Bill seeks to do. So I think the Chairman is correct in the sense that after we have repealed it, we want to establish a Lands Commission to integrate as it says in the Long Title. So I think I agree with the Chairman of the Committee.
    Dr. Kunbuor 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I agree
    perfectly because apart from this amend- ment being very, very clumsy, one would not be able to appreciate what “public service land institutions” mean, “public service” is a term of all that has been used in the Constitution and we do not know whether that public service has land institutions. So it becomes a bit more difficult to understand.
    The public services include the Parliamentary Service, the Judicial Service. So we are not sure which of these public service institutions are the land institutions one is talking about.
    Mr. Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon. Member, are you
    abandoning this amendment?
    Mr. Ayariga 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, considering
    that the person who put me to it is sitting behind and not offering any assistance -- [Laughter] -- I hereby abandon it.
    Mr. Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    It is abandoned. We are
    taking the Chairman of the Committee's amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    The Long Title as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Majority Leader, the
    next item?
    Mr. Aidooh 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we may
    proceed with item 8.
    Mr. Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    National Communica-
    tions Bill at the Consideration Stage.
    Mr. Aidooh 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, hon. Yaw
    Baah is standing in for the Chairman, he has just gone outside.
    Mr. Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon. Members, have you taken over the chairmanship from the hon. Member for Jomoro?
    Mr. Lee Ocran 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker --
    Mr. Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    I have not call you yet.
    Mr. Yaw Baah 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, first
    and foremost, I would like to offer my apology for having held the House whilst waiting - I had the documents in my car. Mr. Speaker, I am also seeking your
    indulgence being an hon. member of the Committee since the Chairman is on parliamentary duties outside, to deputise for him by leading the discussion on this Consideration Stage.
    Mr. Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Are you ready to go on?
    Mr. Yaw Baah 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, that is so.
    National Communications Authority Bill
    Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the
    Bill.
    Clause 2 -- Object of the authority.
    Mr. Yaw Baah (on behalf of) Chairman of the Committee 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2 -- delete “telecommunica- tions” and substitute “communications”.
    “Communications” is more embrasive since we are talking of both print and electronic media.
    rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Yes, hon. Ocran, you want to take over from the Chairman?
    Mr. Ocran 12:10 p.m.
    No! Mr. Speaker, it seems the Chairman is not ready. He is just a member of the committee. He is not ready and he is delaying us. He is not ready and so why do we not go and come and do it properly tomorrow.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    He has already offered to hold brief and so let him attempt.
    Mr. Aidooh 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, let us get this point straight. When a Chairman is not in, an hon. Member can act for the Chairman. So get that straight. When the
    Chairman is not in, and the Vice-Chairman is not in, an hon. Member can act, and in case of extreme necessity, an hon. Member can act.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon. Ocran is saying that it appears that the Chairman or the one who has taken over from both the Chairman and the Vice is not ready to do justice to the Bill, but let us have a little patience for him.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member indeed, is ready. The unfortunate thing is that there appears to be a mix up with regard to the document itself. So I believe the better thing to do now is to adjourn and let us reconcile opinions on the documents that we have before us. Mr. Speaker, in the event, may I -- [Pause.] Mr. Speaker, I was going to move that this House do now adjourn but my Leader is saying that I do not have his permission to move the motion -- [Laughter.] Well, I think I have been stopped and so you may listen to the Majority Leader.
    Mr. Aidooh 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, just to make one point. There is no problem with the Bill. It may be the nature of the amendments proposed. The Bill that was handled by the Committee was all right. If there is anything it may be the nature of the amendments proposed but my Colleague was talking about the documents that we have. That was why I said that that may not be right. In any case, looking at the mood of the House, I beg to move that we adjourn proceedings till tomorrow at
    Mr. Lee Ocran 10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
    Mr. Lee Ocran 10 a.m.


    Question put and motion agreed to.
    ADJOURNMENT 10 a.m.