Debates of 3 Nov 2008

MR. SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:25 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Hon. Members, Correction of Votes and Proceedings and if the Official Report is there, that can be taken along as well. Pages 1, 2, 3 . . . 24. [No correction was made.]
It appears there are no corrections so the Votes and Proceedings therefore will be deemed to be the true record of proceedings of the House of the Sitting on Friday, 31st October, 2008.
There are no Statements. So at the Commencement of Public Business -- Laying of Papers.
PAPERS 10:25 a.m.
rose
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Hon. Member for Wa West?
Mr. Chireh 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, this Paper that has been laid, I do not think that the Committee has even met. So the hon. Chairman should be saying something about it.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Hon. Chairman, the Paper on item 4(c) on the Order Paper was laid on your behalf.
Mr. Yaw Baah 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, your Committee met on Friday, 31st October
2008.
By the Chairman of the Committee --
Report of the Committee on Works and Housing on the Statutes and
Conventions on the Establishment of the Volta Basin Authority (VBA).
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Item 5 -- Motion -- National Communications Authority Bill -- hon. Minister for Communications.
Mr. Aidooh 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Committee has some amendments and they are trying to move for a second Consideration of the Bill. So if you can defer motion number 5 and handle 6 first.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
So are you moving for the second Consideration Stage of the Bill?
Mr. Aidooh 10:25 a.m.
No, Mr. Speaker. I want it deferred until the hon. Chairman of the Committee comes in.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Very well. Then this would be stood down for now.
Motion 6 - Electronic Transactions Bill -- hon. Minister for Communications.
BILLS - SECOND READING 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Yaw Baah (NPP -- Kumawu) 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am seeking your indulgence to support the motion since the Chairman of the Committee is on another schedule with ghana Commercial Bank (gCB) team. And as a member of the Committee, I seek your indulgence to support the motion and present the Report.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Very
well, you may go ahead.
Mr. Yaw Baah (on behalf of the
Chairman of the Committee) 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion and in doing so, I present the Report of your Committee.
1.0 Introduction
1.1 In accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of ghana and Order 182 of the House, the Electronic Transactions Bill was referred to the Select Committee on Communications on 4th July 2008 for consideration and report.
1.2 The Committee met on the 12th
July 2008 to consider the Bill. The hon. Minister, Dr. Benjamin Aggrey- Ntim led the team from the Ministry of Communications to assist the Committee in its deliberations. Officials from the Attorney-general's Department, National Communications Authority and other stakeholders from the communications Industry were also present.
2.0 Reference Documents
i. The 1992 Constitution of the Republic of ghana
ii. The Standing Orders of the House
iii. The National Communications Authority Act, 1996 (Act 524)
iv. The National Communications Authority Bill
v. The National Telecommunication Policy, 2005.
3.0 Purpose of the Bill
The purpose is to provide for the regulation and control of electronic communications and broadcasting services in accordance with the National Electronic Communications and Broad- casting Policy of 2005. This involves the decoupling of operational from regulatory functions.
4.0 Contents of the Bill
Clauses 1 to 4 set the framework for the Bill by providing the object of the legislation, application and scope of the
Bill.
Clauses 5 to 24 deal with electronic t ransact ions and provide for the recognition and admissibility of electronic records and electronic signatures, the recognition of electronic certificates, electronic notarization, acknowledgement and certification services and automated transactions.
Clauses 25 to 27 provide for e-government service which is public service provided by electronic means by a public body.
Clause 26 empowers a public body to accept for filing, accept payment, issue permits, licences or approvals by electronic means. Under this Act, a public body may publish in the Gazette details of the manner and format in which it will accept and retain electronic records.
Clause 27 allows for the publication of the Official Gazette in electronic format.
Clauses 28 to 45 deal with issues relating to the Certifying Agency which is to certify encryption or authentication services provided in the country and monitor the conduct, systems and operations of encryption and authentication service providers.
Clauses 46 to 54 provide for the protection of consumers in electronic transactions.
Clauses 55 to 62 deal with illegal access to protected computers such as protected computer, identification of critical electronic record and critical databases, scope, registration and management of critical database.
Clause 60 provides that information contained in the register of a critical
database is not to be disclosed to another person other than to employees of the Agency who are responsible for keeping of the register.
Clauses 61 and 62 address the right of inspection as well as matters arising due to non-compliance with the Act.
Clauses 63 to 81 provide for the domain name registry which is established to assume responsibility for the “.gh” country domain name space from a date to be determined by the Minister by notice in the Gazette. Under the Act, a person shall not update a repository or administer a second level country domain name unless the person is licensed to do so by the Registry. Clause 63 also provides for the governing body of the Registry which is a Board composed of nine members and may be converted into a company limited by guarantee.
Clauses 82 to 87 provide for an appeal tribunal and establish the Information Communication Technology Tribunal.
Clauses 88 and 89 establish an industry forum. It will be a platform that brings the industry together from time to time to discuss matters of common interest to and concerning the industry.
Clauses 90 to 96 impose liabilities on service providers for electronically published matter that is illegal or unlawful.
Clause 98 deals with law enforcements agencies. This provision shall be in addition to the powers of arrest, search, and seizure of law enforcement agencies. The Bill empowers law enforcement agents in the course of the execution of court warrants to seize a computer, electronic record, programme, information, document or thing if they reasonably believe that there is evidence that an offence under the Act has been or is about to be committed.
Chairman of the Committee) 10:45 a.m.
x x v i . C l a u s e 9 4 - - amendment proposed -- para. 3, delete number “(2)”, insert number “(3)”; delete number “(3)”, substitute number “(4)” .
7.0 Recommendation and Conclusion
After careful examination of the provisions of the Bill and in accordance with the constitution and other relevant legislation and public documents, the Committee recommends to this honourable House to adopt this Report and pass the Electronic Transactions Bill, subject to the amendments proposed.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Nemine Contradicente.
The Electronic Transactions Bill was accordingly read a Second time.
National Information Technology Agency Bill
Minister for Communication (Dr.
Benjamin Aggrey-Ntim): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that the National Information Technology Agency Bill be now read a Second time.
Mr. Speaker, this National Information Technology Agency, is that body corporate with perpetual succession, a common seal and may sue and be sued in its corporate name. The Agency is allowed to acquire and hold movable and immovable property.
Mr. Speaker, the Agency is to promote the provision of quality information technology and standards of efficiency.
The functions of the Agency include the establishment and monitoring of
the implementation of the National Information Communicat ion and Technology Policy and the issue of licensing under the Act.
The Agency is to maintain a register of licences and deal with the application for licences and approvals given for equipment.
Mr. Speaker, other functions of the Agency include the formulation of strategy for the performance of the functions of the Agency, encouraging highest standards of propriety within the Agency, establishment of the policy and resource framework for the operations of the Agency and ensuring that policy directions given by the Minister are implemented.

Mr. Speaker, the governing body of the Agency is a Board of seven persons. It comprises the chairperson, a Director- general, a representative of the National Security Council, a person with expertise and experience in information communica- tion technology issues, and three other persons with knowledge and expertise in electronic engineering, law, economics, business or public administration.

Mr. Speaker, we are stipulating that at least, one of these officers mentioned above should be a woman and that means that it is the minimum number because out of the numbers mentioned, there could be additional women.

The Board members are to have a term

of four years each and are eligible for re- appointment. The Bill stipulates that the Board is to meet at least once every three months with a quorum of four members.

Mr. Speaker, these follow the same guidelines, as has been established for the National Communications Authority, except that here, we are dealing with very technical issues concerning the registration of domains and other things.

Mr. Speaker, in the same manner, we have allowed for a tribunal because in dealing with such measures you always enter into litigations.

We have said that in the initial stages, the Agency itself will set up internal mechanisms to resolve such issues if they arise, but failure to that, then this can go to a tribunal and this tribunal is set up in the same manner as the one established under the National Communications Authority.

So in essence, Mr. Speaker, this Agency is the one that is going to run the measures caught in the Electronic Transactions Bill, in the same manner as the National Communications Authority is the body that supervises the Electronic Communica-tions Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Chairman of the Committee (Mr.

Kojo Armah) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion so ably moved by the hon. Minister for Communications. In doing so, Mr. Speaker, I would beg your leave to read the Report of your Committee.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The National Information Tech- nology Agency Bill was presented to the House and read for the First time in Parliament on the 4th of July, 2008. Mr. Speaker in accordance with article 106 (4) of the Constitution of the Republic of ghana, and Order 182 of the House, referred this Bill to the Select Committee on Communications for consideration and report.

1.2 The Committee met on the 14th July 2008 to consider the Bill. The hon. Minister, Dr. Benjamin

Aggrey-Ntim led the team from the Ministry of Communica-tions to assist the Committee in i ts deliberations. Officials from the Attorney- general's Department, National Com-munications Authority, ghana Internet Service Providers, the ghana Investment Fund for Telecom- munications and other stakeholders from the communications industry were also present.

2.0 Reference Documents

i. The 1992 Constitution of the Republic of ghana

ii. The National Communications Authority Act, 1996 (Act 524)

iii. The National Communications Authority Bill

iv. The Electronic Transactions Bill

v. The National Telecommunication

Policy, 2005

vi. The Standing Orders of the House.

3.0 Purpose of the Bill

The Bill seeks to establish the National Information Technology Agency to regulate information communication technology under the Electronic Transac- tions Bill, 2008, pursuant to the ghana ICT for Accelerated Development Policy.

4.0 Contents of the Bill

Clause 1 establishes the Agency which is a body corporate, with the usual attributes.

Clause 2 provides for the object of the Agency whose mandate is to regulate the provision of quality information communication technology and promote standards of efficiency.
Mr. Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo (NDC -- Wa Central) 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion on the National Information Technology Agency Bill and to say that this is a very important Bill. The functions that are indicated by the Bill, that is to ensure that we encourage very high standards in information technology and again to ensure standards and propriety within the Agency itself are very important functions and would ensure that we have quality information delivery to the people of ghana.
Mr. Speaker, of late, there have been some very serious lapses in information technology in ghana and these lapses are affected by the delivery of services by the agencies that we pay for them to deliver us the services. So this Bill is going to streamline the operations of these organizations that are mainly private and mainly profit-making, to ensure that the Agency provides the basis for them to operate so that we do not have unnecessary lapses which go to provide services that eventually would cost us much more than we pay.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon. Majority Leader, is motion number 5 ready for the Second Consideration Stage now?
rose
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Yes,
hon. Chairman of the Committee?
Mr. Armah 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we will have
the second consideration but we are still waiting for the draftsperson to give us the rendition.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
So you
are not ready yet?
Mr. Armah 10:55 a.m.
We are not ready yet. We
want to defer it.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
It
continues to stand deferred.
Mr. Armah 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, thank you.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Item 8 - Northern Development Fund Bill at the Consideration Stage.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 10:55 a.m.
STAGE 10:55 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee (Nii Adu Daku Mante) 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, subclause (1), line 2, delete “three northern regions” and insert “north”.
Mr. Chireh 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, once again
on the amendment, I would suggest that we make the “n” in the “north” capital. This is because that is what is defined in the Interpretation section. So that wherever the “north” is it should be the “North”.
Dr. A. A. Osei 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, that is not
entirely correct. Under the Interpretation, the “north” is spelt with a small “n” and it is defined very clearly. The “north” with the capital “n” is nowhere to be found here under the Interpretation. So, the Committee agreed to use the small letter “n” which is defined clearly under the Interpretation.
Mr. J. Y. Chireh 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, my
argument is that if we want this “north” to mean the three northern regions, then it has to be capital “N”. But if it is the north
which is the ordinary use of, for example, the north of this Parliament, then we can use that. I am further suggesting that it should be capital “N” which distinguishes it. I know that under the Interpretation section, it is small “n”; that one is also not right. Because we are specifying an area and that is why I think that it should be the “North” in this particular case; “North” specially designated in this idea. So, I propose that the amendment is good, but instead of north with “n” it should be “N”.
Dr. Osei 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, with all due
respect to my hon. senior Colleague, in fact, part of the reason why the first “north” should be a small “n” is because of the debate that we had with the Committee. The Committee was concerned that the way it is written, at the moment, if the object of the Bill is to establish the Northern Development Fund for the three northern regions, then it has to be unambiguous that on the outset the small “north” is used and then the other “north” is defined differently here in terms of the districts contiguous to the North.
If the last “north” is used, I do not have a problem but the first “north” has to be a small “n”. For the purposes of this Bill, it has to be clear and unambiguous.
So with all due respect to my hon.
senior Colleague, I do not have a problem with the second “north” but the first part, has to be the small “n” because that is the purpose of this Bill. To first develop the three northern regions and any other part that may be defined as the big “North”.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon.
Member for Wa West, you think the case of the “n” presents any difficulty in recognising the area concerned in spite of the title of the Bill?
Mr. Chireh 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the pro- moters of this Bill are saying that they want a small “n”. I do not mind about
their small “n” so long as it is defined. But I thought that once one wants to designate something special, it should be so designated, because where “north” is used anywhere else in this Bill, in the ordinary sense of something north of another place, will be small “n”. But if it is all right with them, fine, I have no problem.
Mr. Aidooh 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am inclined
to support my hon. Colleague's proposed amendment. The word “north” as it is being used is a noun, if I am right. Nouns which are names of places start with a capital letter. In that sense, I support the proposed amendment of the hon. Member for Wa West that the word “north” being used is a noun and that it should go for a capital letter “n”.
Mr. J. B. Aidoo 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon.
Member for Wa West (Mr. Chireh) is right. If one uses “north” with the small letter, it only shows a direction. But if one uses “North” with the capital “N” is shows a geographical area, that is, it gives a geographical expression.
Therefore, if we want to describe the three northern regions, then the “north” should come with a capital “N”.
Mr. E. K. D. Adjaho 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker,
if the “north” here is to describe a place, then by parliamentary grammar, it should be capital “N” because we are describing a place. The name of a place is normally written with a capital letter.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if one goes through American geography or history, when you refer to the “South” in the United States, they use a capital “S”. So since it is a particular place that we are referring to, which has been defined in the Bill, then I think that it should be a capital “N” unless the place is not well defined. If it is defined, then it is a name of a place and therefore, it should be a capital “N”.
Dr. Osei 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, to begin with
Dr. Osei 10:55 a.m.


the big “North” is not defined. In fact, right now, if one is in the military, the north starts from Kumasi all the way up north. This Bill is specific. The ambiguity - we have to be careful, first we want to maximise development in the North, and as I said, and the contiguous districts in the big north, I do not have a problem, but the first small “n” has to be very unambiguous.

That is, I say, in terms of the hon. Member for Wa West's proposed amendment, in the first part, the small “n” must come, because the capital “N” is not defined anywhere. To say that it is defined geographically, why is the “north” defined here with a big “N”?
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
I am just
wondering, knowledge of what subject we are displaying -- whether geography or English, politics or whatever.
Dr. Osei 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the promoters

Please, Mr. Speaker, we are promoting the Bill --
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon.
Minister of State please, go on.
Dr. Osei 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if one reads the
Objects of the Bill, that is the intent, or that is the purpose. And then when one comes to clause 2, it was agreed that the whole clause 2 (a) has been written, there was no reference being made to a small “n” so, it is agreed that that should come first. Then if one wants to expand the definition to other parts of the big “n” it is all right, but first and foremost, we should link clause 2 (a) to clause 2 (1), we should not construe clause 2 (1) and that is why the amendment proposed by the hon. Chairman comes in.
The hon. Member for Wa West's
proposed amendment, from the paper I have just received says: “to maximise development potentials in the North” using the big “N”. We have not defined the big “N” anywhere in this Bill; we have not. We have first and foremost defined the small “n” and we want that to be unambiguous first.
Mr. Aidooh 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, what it means is that we have to amend the “north” to capital “N;” that is all.
Dr. Osei 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, at the committee, there was some attempt by some hon. Members to change the original definition of the small “n” to include other areas, which was not the intention of the Bill and the Committee decided that we have to be very careful because hon. Members preferences per se is a different matter; but the original intent of the Bill was to define that as a small “n”.
I remember the Ranking Member raised a lot of issues because suddenly, people were defining the North to include things that were not the intention of the Bill. And that was the difficulty why we said we should start using small “n” and if we try to amend it here, the promoters have not defined it that way; but for people to create their own definition of the North was seen to be dangerous.
So we limited ourselves to first and foremost, the original intent. Otherwise, what was happening was that everybody was now beginning to define their understanding of the North. So somebody from Kumasi was saying that the north here includes my constituency. That was not the original intention of the Bill. So for the avoidance of doubt, we wanted to limit it, first and foremost, to the small “n”,
because once we try to define the big “N” we are going to run into the same problems that we had at the Committee.
Mr. Adjaho 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we are on the floor of this House and listening to the hon. Minister of State and the explanation he is giving. I have no doubt at all in my mind that the focus of this Bill, the emphasis is on the three northern regions. These are well defined areas and are describing a particular place in ghana. All that we need to do is use capital “N” and then when we reach the definitions column we do -- [Interruptions.]
Mr. Speaker, we are now at the Consideration Stage of the Bill; whatever we do would have consequential effect when we get to the definitions column. Mr. Speaker, when we get to the definitions column it would have consequential effect.
So we cannot say because there is something in the definitions column, as if we are not going to touch the definitions column; we are going to touch it to reflect the thinking of this House, as far as this Bill is concerned and I support the proposal that it should be capital “N” and we are referring to the three northern regions.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:05 a.m.
I would pose the Question; we do not need to belabour so much on this and the Question would be that the proposed amendment by the Chairman of the Committee is going to be in two segments; that the amendment should be accepted with capital “N” for the “north” rather than small “n”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, subclause (2), paragraph (a), line 1, after “potentials” insert “in the north and”.
The paragraph (a) would therefore read as follows:
“ p r o g r a m m e s t o m a x i m i z e development potentials in the North and in districts contiguous to the three northern regions to promote economic development in the North.”
Mr. Chireh 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment. I had a similar amendment that I wanted to move, but given what the Chairman has said, he seems to have captured it. But I wanted it to be clearly put, such that the concerns that the hon. Minister of State was raising, if one sees the original Bill, it talks about potentials in the contiguous districts, which took the emphasis.
The argument was that the contiguous districts should be secondary to the issue and that the major activity should be in the North, which comprises the three regions. But all those other districts that border or are contiguous to the North could be beneficiaries of some of the potentials to be exploited because development is such that you cannot isolate some development from one point to the other.
That was the concern and I think that what the Chairman has moved essentially captures mine. So I will withdraw mine.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:05 a.m.
I saw a paper suggesting your amendment and I do not know how you synchronize that with the Business Committee and the proposer of this amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 -- Sources of money for the Fund.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I got up and thought I could catch your eye in respect of clause 2 (b); clause 2 (b) is not captured here. I do not know whether I should call it a typographical or grammatical error. Clause 2 (b) says:
“community driven development actions. . .”
Mr. Speaker, I believe there should be a hyphen between “community” and “driven”; otherwise, it gives us a different meaning altogether. “Community driven,” with the two words standing alone, on their own is completely different from “community-driven”. So they should be mindful of that. It gives it a different meaning altogether.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee, I think the hon. Member has a point.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, your Committee did not propose any amendment on it; I think this is a drafting matter and should be --
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, look at clause 2 (d), this certainly cannot be a drafting error --
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Just hold on, hon. Deputy Majority Leader, just bear a bit with us. Hon. Chairman of the Committee, do you see the point that the hon. Deputy Majority Leader is raising?
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I do. But what I was saying was that unfortunately your Committee did not propose an amendment. We saw it as a drafting matter.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Very well; the draftsperson should take note of that and then do the change accordingly, because it would make more sense --
Mr. Aidooh 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, clause 3, it appears that clauses 3(d) and (e) are the
same thing. So I would propose that we delete one of them; maybe clause 3(d) because (d) talks about monies donated by the Fund in pursuance of the functions of the Fund under this Act and (e) talks about Internally generated Fund (IgF); I do not see any difference between the two. Monies donated by the Fund pursuance to its functions and then clause (e) talks about IgF, it is about the same. So I propose that we delete clause (d).
Dr. Osei 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I tend to agree. We discussed this but maybe, we just forgot that we have changed it. But I agree with the hon. Majority Leader that subclause (d) was supposed to have been discarded.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Hon. Chairman of the Committee, do you see the point?
Nii Mante: That is so, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:05 a.m.
So clause 3 will be amended by the deletion of subclause (d). I hope the draftsperson is taking note.
Mr. Adjaho 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what this amendment wants to achieve. But I do not see the two as exactly the same as the hon. Majority Leader would want this honourable House to believe.
Mr. Speaker, subclause (d) of clause 3 is talking about moneys generated by the Fund in pursuance of the functions. At times they take the Fund and invest the funds and I think that is what the subclause (d) is talking about. But I think the two subclauses are not the same. If they are the same, then I do not know.
Dr. Osei 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the
intention was to have subclause (e) capture even what he was talking about because moneys invested are still internally generated. So subclause (e) should be the proper rendition of our intent, subclause (d) is almost superfluous. If we use “(e)” it will capture what he was talking about. That is why we support the Majority Leader's amendment. We can take away subclause (d) and when we have subclause (e), we are all right.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Hon. Adjaho, you saw the point?
Mr. Adjaho 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know, that is why I would want to listen to him. Mr. Speaker, subclause (e) is talking about internally generated funds and subclause (d) is talking about “moneys generated by the Fund in pursuance of the functions of the Fund under this Act”. Mr. Speaker, it is my considered opinion that subclause (d) is talking about situations where we have our Fund and we decide to invest the Fund. But subclause (e) is talking about charges for services -- [Interruptions.]
So, Mr. Speaker, I do not know but I totally disagree with the hon. Minister when he says that subclause (e) is the same as the subclause (d). I totally disagree with him. They are two separate things.
Dr. Osei 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, our definition of Internally generated Fund (IgF) goes beyond charges of levies and things like that. Even if we are investing it, it is internally generated fund. So in performance of their functions they may have levies, charges and things like that but even an investment that is done in pursuance of these functions in our view is considered internally generated.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Hon. Minister, maybe what you have to explain further is whether the Fund could externally generate funds for the Fund is opposed to internal generation.
Dr. Osei 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if you will indulge me, your definition of externally generated, I am not sure. By clause 3 (b) they will be able to get funds externally. For example, external funds would come in. But any investment that they do in pursuance of their functions will be internally generated in this sense, if it is not otherwise defined.
Mr. Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the two are different and should be maintained as it is because if we talk about funds generated to support the functions of this particular Act or Bill then it becomes an Act. It is purposely for the advancement of the interest of the functions. But some organizations are by their nature generating funds even though it might not be intended for the purpose for which the organization exists.
For example, if the organization raises funds to have a library and they decide to charge for the use of the library, if we are coming to the library we should pay a small amount of money. It might not be purposely used to do exactly what the Fund is saying. So that is an internally generated fund. But where they launch a fund-raising so that they use the money to advance the course of the function then that is internally generated and the two are different. So I think it should be maintained.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I believe there is fine line of distinction. The Minister of State is trying to persuade us that the two are the same. My worry is, if some moneys are paid from outside and it is invested, the money, donation or whatever comes from outside and it is invested, will it be
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:15 a.m.


counted as internally generated fund? The proceeds will not be counted as internally generated fund. This is why I felt that we could maintain it.

But he is saying that once the money comes and they invest it, by their definition it will be counted as internally generated fund and I beg to disagree with him. But if in the definition they will have that, I would not have anything against it. Otherwise, I think that the two legs are different.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Hon. Minister, as I said, what you need to convince hon. Members -- [Inter-ruption] If by the initiative of the managers of the Fund they do activities which will attract contributions or whatever from outside sources and because of their initiative the Fund has generated money and then there are also these situations where by certain arrangements internally they can generate some fund. So you will have to look at the two in order to convince the House.
Dr. Osei 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, to begin with the Fund managers cannot do anything that is not in pursuance of the functions of this Act. They cannot. Under clause 3(b) there is a definition for grants, donations, gifts and other voluntary contributions from outside that will be captured there. So anything else that comes will come under subclause (e). And I am saying that to the extent that in pursuance of the functions of the Fund, whatever they do, they cannot choose to invest for some libraries which is not in pursuance of the functions of the Act. They cannot by themselves do that. It will be illegal.
The distinction between subclauses (b) and (e) normally is that for subclause (e) we limit ourselves to domestic. That is why we have made that distinction in terms of subclause (b). But once we come
under subclause (e) it is assumed to be domestic. But they cannot do anything else they wish by building a fund that is not in pursuance of the functions -- It is not available to them because their functions are well defined in clause 2 and all those functions must be in pursuance of this Act. So investing for a library must be considered in pursuance of this Act. They cannot do otherwise.
I am saying that clause 3 (b) captures what they are talking about. If they choose to go and invest it must be in pursuance of this Act. Subclause (b) captures the external questions that people are raising but subclause (e) will capture the domestic version which I think subclause (d) will be superfluous.
Mr. J. Y. Chireh 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wanted to raise the point that he is making that a library is for development; in fact, you need to do a research in the library to be able to do a proper development. But the important thing is that the two things do not spoil anything. I raised the issue about whether they were different. At the committee it was explained to me that they were different ones, and I think that we should maintain them as different because what the hon. Minister himself is saying is not possible for implementation.
Firstly, if there is some money that they have put in treasury bills or anything that they can do or in savings and the interest accrues, how will he know and ask to determine how it is spent? But that is what is captured in terms of subclause (d). Internally generated Fund (IgF), we know; if they charge people for services, and they pay, that one they will be issuing government receipts and therefore, you will know how much they get at the end of the year. That one is also different; so I think that we should just keep it as it is.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we have not got there yet, but let us advert our minds to the functions of the Board -- clause 7 (3) (a), talks about
“For the purpose of subclause (1), the Board shall
(a) pursue policies to achieve the object of the Fund”.
Now clause 7 (3) (f), reads as follows:
“invest some of the moneys of the Fund in safe securities that the Board considers financially beneficial to the Fund”.
Mr. Speaker, certainly, that may not necessarily be internally generated fund but then it may qualify to be moneys generated by the Fund in pursuance of the functions of the Fund under this Act. So I think that we could allow the two legs to stand and it will not do any harm.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
I am going to put the Question -- All right, I will give a bit more time.
Dr. Osei 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, investing some
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon.
Minister, let us hear hon. Asaga.
Mr. Moses Asaga 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that subclauses (e) and (f) should
stay as they are because they are different. Internally generated fund by definition, we know is money that you accrue as a result of services that you grant. But when you are investing a fund and you get an interest income, it cannot become internally generated fund, and that is why with the Central Bank, when we are looking at their lines, we have internally generated fund, which is the service that they provide to the other banks, and when they invest, you have a column called interest income. So there is a thin line but they are different.
Mr. Speaker, I think it should stand as it is, and there is no need for even putting the Question.
Mr. Adjaho 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that we have made laws for the investment of funds by an organization, in addition to their internally generated funds. Mr. Speaker, if you read clauses 3 and 7 together we will be very clear in our minds that they are giving an opportunity to the Fund managers to invest some of these funds in securities for example; and this would put the matter beyond reasonable doubt as to whether funds generated can be invested. I think that they should allow the clauses to remain.
Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised, this is a Bill that had passed through Cabinet and passed through committees, but the hon. Minister who is in charge of this Bill never made any amendment at that stage, and all of a sudden wants that subclause to be removed. I think that we should retain it and to put the matter beyond that the managers of the Fund are given the opportunity to invest the Fund into securities. And I do not think that it undermines the clause 3 or the clause 7 for that matter.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
It is not the Minister who made the proposal;
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.


he is only supporting the proposal. He did not make the proposal. Chairman of the Committee, you wanted to give -

Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, your Committee saw that the two should stay and never made any proposal too. So when you said you wanted to put the Question, I thought I should stand up and then whoever feels strongly against the two being together must come properly and not orally.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon. Member, that one is for the Chair. When that proposal was made orally, I accepted it. So if it has generated views from the House, definitely, we should take the views of hon. Members into considera- tion.
Dr. Osei 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think my hon.
Colleague, hon. Moses Asaga is talking about times when he was Deputy Minister; so there is a historically context in which he is trying to merge the two. Mr. Speaker, typically what has happened in the past is that we have not allowed funds to invest historically, because most of them were not like these funds. This is a special type of fund, so we expect that it had to, out of necessity invest.
So from our sense, we are not going historical because such funds exist, the investment function becomes internally generated fund. But because in the past we have looked at funds that did not have that window of investing, we still think that internally generated fund means only charge, it does not. It is not correct. Mr. Speaker, if hon. Members think that it is not superfluous, we will not object but I think it is superfluous, from our end.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Very well, that will end the debate on this.
Question put and amendment negatived.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 4 -- Bank account for the Fund.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (3), line 2, delete “fifteen days” and insert “the next working day”.
Dr. Benjamin Kunbuor 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, this matter came up because of some experience we have had with some of these statutory funds. When long time lag is given then there is no compulsion to actually get the payment effected. And that was why it was considered expedient that we do not give those in whose hands the Funds would come any leeway to unnecessarily delay. And that is the most important consideration why I support the amendment.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:25 a.m.
Mr.
Speaker, I just looked at subclause (3), line 2, they are proposing the deletion of the words “fifteen days” and inserting “the next working day”. So the rendition would be:
“Any person in possession of money intended for the Fund shall within the next working day, after receipt of the money, pay the money into a bank account opened under subsection (2)”.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Maybe
the word “within” .
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, yes, the word “within”.
“Shall after receipt of the money, pay the money in a bank account the next working day”.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Were you saying “by next working”.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, no. “On the next working day”.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
I think
in proposing that word was not looked at.
Mr. Pelpuo 11:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the whole construction or rendition is confusing. If at a fundraising for the Fund, I pledge gH¢100.00, and I say that on Monday, the money will be ready, the money is with me, intended for the Fund. If on Tuesday, I do not put it in the bank, will that be against law?

So I think instead of the word “intending” there should be a sub-stitution. For example, “held on behalf of the Fund” or “received on behalf of the Fund”. So that we know that after receipt -- [Interruptions] -- Mr. Speaker, my attention is drawn to something. Mr. Speaker, I would like to look at it.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Hon. Member, are you then persuaded?
Mr. Pelpuo 11:35 a.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will look at it and come again.
Mr. Chireh 11:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the amendment is good and we should support it but I ask the draftspersons to put it properly to make sure that the qualifier is closer as is possible. The payment of the money should be within the next working day. So the drafts-persons should take note.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
I believe the intention is quite clear. The draftspersons should put it in a neat form.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
rose
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Hon. Deputy Majority Leader, you have a problem with clause 5?
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, this recent style of making the laws -- “Establishment of the Board of Trustees” and the construction there -- it is not futuristic. It is not saying that there shall be established by this Act a Board of Trustees to be known as “the Board”.
Mr. Speaker, it is present. “There is established by this Act a Board of Trustees. . .” So the Board is known as the Board not to be known as the Board. If you are saying that it is established already it is known as the Board but it may be a style of drafting. I believe the draftspersons will have to take a second look at it.
Dr. Kunbuor 11:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is the new drafting technique that we are all getting accustomed to. In previous drafting mechanisms they will say hereinafter referred to as “the Board”. But that is always a mouthful. So people just want to use very simple language and I am sure that is why it is rendered the way it is. I do not think there is anything offensive about it.
Clause 6 -- Membership of the Board.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee, there is amendment in your name.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 6, subclause (1), paragraph (a), delete the words “who is an eminent person”.
Mr. Speaker, we think this is unnecessary.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Item 5 - Chairman of the Committee.
Mr. Chireh 11:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, my amend- ment precedes his. So if you would not mind I will take - [Interruption.]
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Which amendment is that?
Mr. Chireh 11:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is clause 6 (1) (c ).
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
I have a bit of a problem with it. Chairman of the Business Committee, you have got his amendment?
Mr. Aidooh 11:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have a copy.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
I want it to be properly recognized. So let us hear from the Business Committee.
Mr. Aidooh 11:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if he is referring to this document, then I will say it has been circulated.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Very well. Let us hear you, hon. Chireh.
Mr. Chireh 11:35 a.m.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 6, subclause (1), paragraph (c), delete
and insert “one representative from each region of the North nominated by the respective Regional Co-ordinating Council”.
Mr. Speaker, I am doing so because if you read the current rendition it says 11:35 a.m.
“one representative from each region in the north who is the designated member of the National Development Planning Com- mission.”
Even though they try to give good reasons why those same people should be members of this Board there is too much duplication and the person will be overloaded. Indeed, if you have a different person who also is well trained in development issues to represent them, they still have an option to co-opt people to participate in it. Where you have one person serving at the National Development Planning Commission and then again serving on this Board, I think that we should not do that.
So I recommend that in fact, the Regional Co-ordinating Councils should have the opportunity to nominate people to do this on their behalf and not necessarily those they have already selected to serve on the NDPC, which is a completely different matter.
Dr. Osei 11:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, there is a role for the Board and there is also a role for what is in clause 12 they call the stakeholder co-ordinating committee.
Mr. Speaker, it is true that there is some difficulty trying to marry the two but for the Board, the purpose is that, we wanted to ensure that there is some co-ordination between the NDPC and the Board here which is tasked to implement the Northern Development strategy.
Any person from the Regional Co-
ordinating Council (RCC) may not necessarily be privy to the bigger national development strategy which those on the NDPC will have. And since the Board is tasked with the function of doing that we wanted to show that the information flow from the NDPC to this particular Board is smooth enough to ensure consistency with the broader national development agenda. That is the reason.
In the clause 12, there is room for the stakeholder co-ordinating committee to get people from the RCC to work there but it is very important for the work that is coming from the NDPC to be imported to the people charged with overseeing the Northern Development strategy. Otherwise, if it is missed we may be going into different functions hence the reason for making sure that people from NDPC are placed there.
Admittedly, people had difficulty with members who were nominated to the NDPC but we should correct that mechanism and make sure that those persons who are nominated there are the right people. Essentially, we wanted to ensure this co-ordination function from the bigger NDPC to the people charged with performing the Northern Development Strategy. This is why we wanted to make sure that they are there.
Dr. Benjamin Kunbuor 11:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the concern of the hon. Minister of State but let us be very careful here. We are dealing with a constitutional provision for NDPC - we are dealing with two major laws, Acts 479 and 480 on systems. It is not clear from the Constitution and the two legislations who the designated member of the NDPC is. It is not too clear in those two pieces of legislation, who exactly they are.

Everybody will say perhaps the regional planning and co-ordinating unit representative for instance works to the National Development Planning Com- mission and he is designated as it were. There are people who also represent the Regional Co-ordinating Council in the NDPC; they are also designated. So who exactly are you talking of here? That is the first. I think because the NDPC is not supposed to work under the direction and control of any other institution let us be careful; by forcing them into an arrangement you might be infringing that particular constitutional provision.

The second thing is that the community ownership and initiative of this Fund is very, very central. So even if government has a policy that we would want to have the technocrats located within it, let us be very careful that we do not lose the local community initiative that at the end of the day is the only one that will ensure sustainability.

I believe that if we leave it loosely at the level of the Regional Co-ordinating Council, governments can then use administrative procedures to ensure that the person they actually nominate onto it will be somebody who is up to the task and is better that these things are done administratively than putting it in the legislation.

The Co-ordinating Council is a broader enough structure from which they can get the person that can be appropriately represented. But because we are not very clear of the NDPC's own legal and constitutional position in these matters we should not specify it.
Dr. Osei 11:45 a.m.
Two things, Mr. Speaker, first of all, the language there, if we took out the term “designated” it will resolve part of the problem. But I am told that
Dr. Osei 11:45 a.m.


the representative on the NDPC is also nominated by the Regional Co-ordinating Council anyway. So that if you just had one representative from the North who is a member of the NDPC that nomination will be coming from the Regional Co- ordinating Council any way then it will not be a problem. So if we change it to “a member of the NDPC” then that member would be nominated by the Regional Co- ordinating Council. So it will not hurt anything.
Mr. Chireh 11:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why I moved this amendment is that, you have a member each from the Regional Co-ordinating Councils or the regions on the NDPC. They are supposed to be there and do what the NDPC is to do. Now we are setting up a Board which is by and large supposed to have their own initiative in doing things. Then you want some more informed person, some senior prefect who comes and says, “No, NDPC is saying this, you cannot do this”.
I am saying that you have enough people who have requisite qualification and experience to represent each of these regions.
In addition, as I am saying, if it is important that NDPC policies influence this particular decision they are going to make they have every option. And in fact, what I am saying is that, as hon. Dr. Kunbuor said, if you have the Regional Development Planning Units there and they have qualified people there, they can even serve there administratively and better inform anybody on these things.
Now, most of the people who are appointed on the National Development Planning Commission are also very busy people and I am saying that you should not have one person doubling as, no, they should be separated.
Indeed, it does not prevent any Regional Co-ordinating Council from
nominating the same person if they so wish. If they think that this person can do the job and he is good, why not? But I am saying if you limit it to them, it is not right. If I as Regional Minister or representing a Regional Co-ordinating Council nominate somebody who may not even be performing well at the NDPC automatically he is also a member of this. That is why I am saying they should be separated and I still urge that we should see the argument in that light.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the core of this Bill is trying to reconcile national development and tailor it to suit the developmental needs of the North; which is why on page 2 of the Memorandum, the last but one paragraph it says:
“The s t r a t egy a ims a t t he development of a comprehensive regional strategy that operates within a national development framework.”
Mr. Speaker, the national development framework is fashioned by the NDPC. I agree with the Minister of State at the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning that sometimes, indeed often times in appointing persons to serve on these institutions we have not really done justice to the requirement to serve on these committees. Mr. Speaker, if you come to consider the regional representatives on the Council of State, for instance, I am not in any way trying to impugn -- [Interruption] -- They were elected.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
Deputy Majority Leader, do not be distracted, just go on with your contribution.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we should be very serious in nominating the persons to serve on these. If indeed, we have the right calibre of materials of persons serving on these, nobody will question what we have here -- the construction here, nobody will
question that. The point being made is, we may nominate persons who may not have the correct orientation to serve or the correct competencies to serve on the NDPC, which is why the hon. Member for Wa West is making this point.
But I believe that we should also situate what we are doing within the context of the National Development Planning Commission so that we have a reconciliation of programmes and projects which should be tailor-measured for the three regions in the North. So I think we should have what we have here, we should maintain this except to have a better construction. I would urge that we adopt the amendment by hon. Yieleh Chireh except not to accept the Regional Co-ordinating Council.
Mr. Speaker, if you read what we
have here, “one representative from each region in the North”, Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what it means and I raised this matter when we came to the Second Reading. “One representative from each region in the North” is a bit weird. Whom are they talking about? “One representative from each region in the North”, is it one representative from each of the ten regions residing in the North? Mr. Speaker, read the construction; that is what we are talking about. It should be “one representative of each region in the North”; “of the North”, that is what I am saying that that is a better construction. “One representative of each region of the North” and we are restricting ourselves to the three northern regions. That is what it means, not “in the North”. So that one, I do not accept.
Mr. Speaker, the other leg, that is the nominating body, Regional Co-ordinating Council is where I think we should allow the National Development Planning Commission to hold sway and not the
Co-ordinating Councils.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
In advancing your arguments, there are times that we can link two bodies if you think they might be playing complementary roles where you normally say one does in consultation with another. You can think about that while we argue this matter.
Alhaji Sumani Abukari 11:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I will start with the second leg of the argument by my good Friend and newly qualified Draftsperson, the Deputy Majority Leader.
Mr. Speaker, the definition of “North”
as provided here on page 12 says that “North” means the Upper West, Upper East and Northern Region. So you do not have to say “each of the three regions in the North”. It is not necessary. If you just say “North” it means the three regions.
Secondly, the Minister of State, I think he defeated his own argument by agreeing to the fact that the RCCs are the same people who nominate persons to represent the regions in the NDPC.
If they are the same bodies which nominate these people, why then do you tie their hands to stick to these three people who are in the National Development Planning Commission to also serve on this Board? Why do you not give them the free hand to see whether those people are competent enough to serve on the board, in which case they can re-nominate them. Nothing stops them from for re- nominating them.

But if they find out that there are other people outside this board who are more qualified and more competent and who will perform better, they can nominate those other people and they need not come from the National Development Planning
Alhaji Sumani Abukari 11:55 a.m.


Commission.

Let us also accept the fact that the

board is going to comprise technically qualified people with experience. They cannot therefore do anything that will be contrary to the national plan as a whole. In Fact, this Fund is not meant to contradict the national development plan; not at all. It is meant to expedite the growth of these three areas. It is meant to fast-track the development of those three areas.

But in doing so, they are not going to conflict the development as planned for the whole nation. I am sure the board will be competent enough to know that everything they do must be in line with national development only that they have to fast-track it in certain areas; I think this is clear.

It is not necessary for us to tie the hands of the Regional Co-ordinating Councils by saying that the people they nominated to serve on the NDPC should necessarily be the persons to represent them on the Board. So I think that clause 6 is a very acceptable amendment which we must all support in the interest of the efficient performance of the Board.
Mr. Lee Ocran 11:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am just
rising to react to the hon. Deputy Majority Leader's objection to this phrase: “from each region in the North”. How many regions are in ghana? There are ten regions in ghana; there are three regions in the North, so I do not see his problem with “in” instead of wanting us to put “of” -- “of the North. …” Whether it is “of” or “in” they are all inside so I do not see his problem.
Dr. Osei 11:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I was listening
carefully to my senior hon. Member on the other side, former Ambassador. I think the intent is not to tie the hands of the Regional Co-ordinating Council (RCC). From experience, what we find is that or
part of the reason is, a lot of these things, no matter well intentioned, when people go into these small corners, they forget that there is a bigger national agenda. And we are trying to assure ourselves that the RCC in nominating people to the NDPC will pick the right people.
But the people who are picked to the NPC will have to make sure that all those plans and works that are being done there, are brought back here.
That is the only assurance. It is not automatic that an expert, no matter in what field, knows exactly what is being done in the NDPC. In fact, I can give you several instances where we have these regional plans going on and they have no bearing. In fact, they do a lot of things almost contrary to what the NDPC is thinking about and that is why we are trying to assure ourselves that, if the RCC is doing its homework very well, then it is sending the right people to the NDPC.
So i t is incumbent upon these representatives to make sure that they bring back these national plans to the work of Northern Development Fund. It is just to assure ourselves, it is possible there may be difficulties in the nomination, but you want to correct the idea so that you nominate the right person, then you are sure he has the right expertise.
In fact, one has to make sure that the Board's work is informed, it is almost like a law, his job is to make sure that when he comes down there, he is bringing the work of the NDPC to inform the work of the Board. Most people do not have the opportunity all the time to study the work of the NDPC. It is those who are mandated to work there who know what is going on in there.
Some of us may read it in passing, but if it is their job, then we will know that we can be assured that it will be their responsibility to bring back the work of the NDPC to this Board, That is all we are seeking to do.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
I had
dropped the hint, hoping that you would pick it up; that if by this amendment there is some sort of apprehension as to whether RCC or NDPC would be the appropriate body, why do you not consider linking them in your arguments so that if it is the RCC and you include “in consultation with” the National Development Planning Committee. That is a hint I thought you will pick up.
Mr. Aidooh 11:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg that
we defer this clause and proceed.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Majority Leader is suggesting we defer that clause and sort things out.
Dr. Osei 11:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, just a piece
of information. Article 86 (2) of the Constitu-tion tells who appoints these representatives.
Article 86 (2) says:
“one representative from each region of ghana appointed by the Regional Co-ordinating Council of the region.”
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Order!
Order!
Dr. Osei 11:55 a.m.
It is for the avoidance of
doubt but that is why I said the language may change - who is “a” member and not “the designated”, then it might meet the same criterion.
Dr. Kunbuor 11:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do not
think that, with the greatest respect, we need to be belabour this matter. It is just because we are not keeping the tally of the argument. The essential concern of the hon. Minister is to make sure that there is harmony between what will be happening in the three northern regions and what will be happening within the national plan. At every point, there are institutional structures that make that happen.
The first is that even your district medium-term plans are harmonized by the Regional Co-ordinating Council and sent down to be harmonized with the sector plans, that is the entire new planning process that we have. So right from the district down to NDPC, you always have this process taking place.
When you come down to the Bill, you will see that there are committees, the Board is supposed to work with committees and experience show that, that is where the technical people really come in. Your regional NDPC representative can actually serve on these committees and the technical work that you want to bring to bear will actually take place.
Mr. Speaker, my worry is that we have
found out that even with the decentralized planning arrangement in this country, the role of the NDPC over the years, has been coming out with a national framework that quite often has no meaning to particular districts. And this has become the worry. When you choose to decentralize the implication is that various districts respond to development initiatives differently and that is why you have agreed to decentralize in the first place. Why would you always want to use a national framework as one that will determine what will happen at the local level?
So NDPC comes out with guidelines, these guidelines find their way down to
Dr. Kunbuor 12:05 p.m.
their Regional Co-ordinating Council, down to the district and every District Assembly medium-term plan is a carbon copy of the other. And yet this does not address the real issue of what you want to do at the local level. So if you want your national plan and what will be happening to be in harmony, you can use the existing structures to ensure that. In fact, it will be illegal for any activity to place in the three northern regions that is not in harmony with the national plan.

So the concern really does not arise; there are enough safeguards. The worry is that we do not want that they should designate the NDPC representative, who is already so busy, who perhaps, might not be representing the region adequately, and you tie the Regional Co-ordinating Council's hands just to that specific category of people, I think that it is not a fair arrangement, except there is another concern. But if it is about the harmony with the national development aspirations, I believe that there are enough legal and institutional safeguards to ensure that that happens.

Then you go to the stakeholders. Just

look at the stakeholder representation. If you are very worried, you can even take out the NDPC representative and go and put him in the stakeholder section where he becomes a stakeholder representing the interest of the National Development Plan instead of putting him in the governing Board that would be performing roles that might be entirely different from the technocratic role that he is supposed to be playing and making sure that there is harmony between the initiatives in the three regions in the North and the national development plan.

Therefore, there are various levels at which we can still achieve this harmony without having to put the NDPC re- presentative --
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Just put
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
Mr.
Speaker, before we take that one, I have just a small correction. Clause 6 (1) (a), we just agreed to the amendment but just to point out that it should not be “the chairperson” but “a chairperson”. “The Board comprises a chairperson”.
Alhaji Abukari 12:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I agree
with him.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Let the
draftsperson take note of it.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 6, subclause (1), paragraph (d), add a new paragraph as follows:
“(viii) law.”
T h e l e a r n e d p r o f e s s i o n w a s inadvertently omitted from the list of professions hence the inclusion by your Committee.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
Mr.
Speaker, for subclause (d), we have, “three other persons, two of whom are women with strong professional expertise in (i) finance, (ii) development planning and management, (iii) community and stakeholder relations”. But the last one says, “allied fields”. I thought this would perhaps include what the hon. Chairman is talking about. But if he wants us to state that, what would be the reason for particularising? If he could assign reasons to it?
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Hon.
Deputy Majority Leader, I thought law
was so prominent that it deserves to stand on its own and not to be subsumed under any other profession. Would you not agree with that?
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
Mr.
Speaker, the hon. Chairman himself is a lawyer and I believe that he lobbied himself to include it but I want him to justify it.
Dr. Kunbuor 12:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think this
addition was made from a broader context. Increasingly, I think ghana is about one of the few emerging economies that are not addressing the law and development connection.
Quite often, we actually come out with our development initiatives then after that we go to look for the legal interventions to implement them; and yet the connection between the type of law regime that gives effect to a particular development initiative should be part of the background thinking. You will see that most of these initiatives have failed because almost every legal thing in a constitutional arrangement is reduced into legal form now. So the law and development connection becomes important.
Why we did not want to specify law and development is because there is a professional category in this country that deals with that and we left it at the level of the generic law, which we believe will address these concerns.
Mr. Speaker, if you go to Kenya, if you look at the example in South Africa, every development plan now has a complete chapter on the link between law and development. If this is your development plan, what is the type of law regime that you need to ensure that that development plan is implemented?
So from the onset, whoever is implementing the policy, is clear in his
mind as to the type of consequential legislation that he needs to implement and that would be the role of the lawyer in this type of initiative. But quite often as we have here in ghana, we finish with the policy and we then go round looking for what has happened in other countries in terms of the legal regime and you always see some dichotomy between the type of legal framework we put in and the type of policy.
Invariably, you find that they do not work. One typical example is if you take this up is Act 462 on decentralisation in ghana, the legal framework was sought after we had thought through the nature of the decentralisation process and you will find that Act 462 does not address the main objectives that decentralisation in ghana was seeking to address. I think there was a very, very powerful -- [Interruption.] I am not interested in whether it is was passed during the National Democratic Congress (NDC) time or whether it was not. What I am interested in is to say that there is that dichotomy and we must begin to correct them as we move along.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Hon. Chairman, I believe you do not intend it to be last. It should come before the general one, “allied”, in terms of arrange-ment.
Mr. Kenneth Dzirasah 12:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I was thinking that it should even come before agriculture because when it is law, we do not have the equivalent of “ally”. Agriculture has a lot of allies.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Let us leave that to the draftsperson.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we seek to include law but all that we are doing is related to development and we are talking about not only development planning but land use and land management, that is, spatial planning. Would anybody then say that we should
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.


subsume those ones under allied fields? That is why I thought that we could have that omnibus provision and all others could go under that.

Mr. Speaker, there is a strong case. Because we are talking about development planning, it relates to land use and land planning -- spatial planning. Would we then find space for all of them? We should be careful not to have a very tall list of all people that we deem are qualified to be there.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Are you then suggesting that engineering and all that should be removed? Is that what you are suggesting?
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thought the construction, “three fields” would cover everything but as I said, there is also a strong case to include spatial planners.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Well, you have not so moved.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Alhaji Abukari 12:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, my concern was with clause 6 (1) (d), “there other persons two of whom are women with strong professional expertise”. First of all, I find -- [Interruption.]
Dr. Osei 12:05 p.m.
On a point of order. Mr.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
He
wants to raise something whilst he is on his feet.
Dr. Osei 12:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, as a new amendment?
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Yes.
Dr. Osei 12:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thought he would come clean and -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Leave that for the Chair; yes hon. Member for Tamale North?
Alhaji Abukari 12:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, in clause 6 (1) (d), first of all I find it restrictive. Why are we limiting the President to appoint two women? What stops him from appointing three women? If he looks at the entire list and sees that women are not adequately represented, why can he not appoint three women? Why then do you restrict him to two?
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to women we find “with strong pro- fessional expertise”. That is discri- minatory; “strong professional expertise” should apply to all of them, not necessarily only the three, two or one woman that he chooses. So let us leave the President, give him a free hand, if he wants one woman or three women, let him do so and I am sure he will know the type of woman he is going to choose. Let us not qualify it by saying “with strong professional expertise”. That is discriminatory, in my view.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Hon. Member for Tamale North, are you suggesting that the other one who is not a woman should not have these qualifications?
Alhaji Abukari 12:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting that it should not even be one. The President should be able to choose three if he wants.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
You were giving the impression as if “with strong professional expertise is applicable only to the women.
Dr. Kunbuor 12:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think it was actually an oversight for most of us because the very reason why we removed “eminent person” was because it was not capable of being assessed objectively and so we could leave it just as “professional expertise” but “strong professional expertise”, which are the indicators that we will use to measure how strong or how weak? So “strong” ought to be removed altogether. That was the argument that was used to remove “eminent persons” because we found that the only eminent persons you have in ghana will be Cardinals, because they are the only ones designated officially as eminent.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Well we do not have to involve ourselves in unnecessary arguments. Chairman of the Committee, you have heard the suggestion that is being made, that you should remove the words “strong” because it will be difficult to -- [Inter-ruption.]
Nii Mante: I do believe the word “strong” should be taken out from the context in which it appears and the “three other persons”. Mr. Speaker, we are talking of the two other persons; they should have expertise not only the women as my learned friend wants to believe.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Well it is a question of drafting it in such a way that all doubts are removed.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is just what you said. If it should apply to all three persons, then there should be a comma after “women”; so that we have “three other persons two of whom are women with professional
expertise”. So the draftspersons could attend to that.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
The draftspersons should take note of that so that we remove ambiguities.
Mr. Chireh 12:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, as he said, we are being discriminatory if we limit it to only those three people. If we think these are the relevant qualifications for everybody who is to be on the Board, then it should be everybody “with this expertise or qualification” but we should not limit it to only the three people because there is no reason why they should be there without these qualifications and three people are there. So I think in appointing, we can remove “list of professionals” and put it that “the President in appointing should take into consideration people with these relevant qualifications” and not “qualify” only for the three people. It will not be fair.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Hon. Member for Wa West, have you carefully looked at the other areas to see if they are some calling that vest them with some type of expertise in various ways?
Dr. Osei; Mr. Speaker, it is not only the President who is going to appoint these people but, for example, in the case of our earlier amendment, you want the Regional Co-ordinating Councils (RCC's) to appoint people; so it is not only the President who must do that work. On what basis is the RCC going to appoint people with expertise in these areas? Because we have not specified that so why should he be limited to that?
I hope the object here was to ensure that, just this special group, have expertise in these areas. For example, we do not know the qualification of the person who is the Director of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning; they have not specified any area and there is a reason why the person has financial background.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.


They do not need to have expertise in these areas, they might have a special expertise in something else. But it is this category of persons that we want to insist that they have expertise in these areas. The reasons of the rest, a chairperson could be appointed, not necessary with expertise in all these areas, but in something else that is special to what the President wants so that is why it was limited there.
Alhaji Abukari 12:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have even overlooked something. The whole idea of “strong professional expertise” should be deleted. Mr. Speaker, I say so because if you look at clause 6 (3), it say and I quote:
“The President shall in appointing a member of the Board under subsection (1) have regard to the person's integrity, knowledge, expertise and experience in matters relevant to the functions of the Board.”
So it is not necessary to qualify some other people, because it is all subsumed under clause 6 (3). It is no more necessary; we can delete the entire thing.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Order! Order!
Alhaji Abukari 12:15 p.m.
It did not say at least, it said two of whom shall be, so I feel that is restricted. Let us allow the President to appoint whoever he thinks -- [Inter-ruption.]
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
I just
wanted you to come clear. If you are saying that 6 (1) (d), we should remove “with strong professional expertise” how will the whole thing then stand?
Alhaji Abukari 12:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is covered under 6 (3) as I read out. It already has categorized the sort of persons the President should appoint.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Do you mean the whole of (d) should go?
Alhaji Abukari 12:15 p.m.
No, Mr. Speaker. He can appoint three other persons and stop there. That is my idea, so if he chooses three women, that is fine by me. But as to their qualifications; it comes under 6 (3) so we do not need to repeat that up there.
Mr. W. O. Boafo 12:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I believe my hon. Colleague is overlooking the distinction. Paragraph 6 (1) (d) deals with professional expertise, but paragraph 6 (3) where expertise is mentioned is generic. Clause 6 (1) (d) is in addition to what is provided under 6 (3) so it should stay.
But I agree with the hon. Member for Lawra Nandom (Dr. Kunbuor) that it is very difficult to measure what is a strong professional expertise. So we should delete the word “strong”.
Dr. Osei 12:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am not a professional expert in the English Language, but I do not think 6 (d) stops the President from appointing three women. The clause says two of them but he could appoint three; so I do not think it stops him from appointing three other persons, two of whom are women, at least for emphasis.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I thought that to accommodate what the hon. Member for Tamale North
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Is the “Law” coming before that?
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
That is right, so that the person or the persons could have expertise in any of them, not necessarily everyone because it is going to be very difficult to find one person with expertise in all these fields listed there if I may say so -- [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, I believe we should insert the words “at least” two of whom are women”-- [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, there should be a comma after women as I said, to make it clear.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
The draftsperson has been asked to take note of that.
Question put and amendment agreed to viz:
Clause 6, subclause (1), paragraph (d), after “persons” insert “at least” and delete “strong”.
Mr. A. S. K. Bagbin 12:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think the proposed amendment by the hon. Deputy Majority Leader is also very relevant, we cannot leave it to the draftsperson. The deletion of the word “and” and the insertion of the word “or” is very important. So that it is either or any of whose expert qualification -- but when you put “and” then it means that that person would need to have all knowledge.
So that is important and we should do that.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
So the amendment is that in place of “and” we should insert “or” and draftsperson should take note accordingly.
Dr. Osei 12:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Chairman's amendment I think should not be (viii), it should be before “allied fields” so that the “all” would follow the “Law.”
Mr. Chireh 12:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we stood down part of clause 6.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8 Tenure of office of members.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, subclause (2), at end add “and those members appointed under section 6 (1) (c)”.
Mr. Speaker, I think this amendment, because of what we have already said of clause 6 (1) (c), we need to drop it until we resolve that position.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
So are you standing it down?
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, that is so until we resolve the (c).
Alhaji Abukari 12:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do not see the reason why we need to drop it. Whatever compromise we come to under clause 6 (1) (c) would be covered by this amendment, so why do have to drop it? [Interruptions.]
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Clause 8 (5) -- [Interruption.]
Dr. Osei 12:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, last time I think there was an amendment to add “for stated
Dr. Osei 12:25 p.m.


reason” at the end of the subclause 8 (5), but I cannot see it on the Order Paper. I do not know if we have done that, but I remember the hon. Member who made the proposal said at the end we should add “for stated reason”. I think it was the Majority Leader who brought that amendment but it does not appear to be on the Order Paper. The proposed amendment is for clause 8 (5).

Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this proposed amendment, it is not coming from my Committee.
Dr. Osei 12:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is in my
notes that is why I brought it up but I just cannot recall who brought it up whether it was the Majority Leader or not.
Dr. Kunbuor 12:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think it was in respect of subclause (4) that:
“A member of the Board other than the Executive Director who is absent from three consecutive meetings of the Board without sufficient cause ceases to be a member of the Board.”
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Hon. Member, that would not go with what he is saying because the cause is shown therein.
Dr. Kunbuor 12:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, for stated reasons, I think this matter came up -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Hon. Member, is this amendment for subclause (4) or (5)?
Dr. Kunbuor 12:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is clause
8 (5) and the suggestion is that if a member chooses to leave or if the President is going to revoke, then it means that it must be for stated reason.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Well,
the Chairman of the Committee says he is not aware of that but you can move the proposed amendment.
Dr. Kunbuor 12:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, it flows
immediately from subclause (4) that if under (4) you need some reasonable excuse which can absorb you from losing your membership and then when you come to the revocation by the President by letter, you are not even perhaps given a hearing as to why you should revoke it.
Dr. Osei 12:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to crave the Chairman's indulgence to propose an amendment to -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
You do not need his indulgence, you just address the Chair.
Dr. Osei 12:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, subclause (5), add “for stated reasons”.
Alhaji Abukari Sumani 12:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I find this rather absurd in a way, with the greatest respect.
Mr. Speaker, if the President appoints somebody he does not necessarily have to give reasons I am sure he would have sought advice and listened to wide opinion before appointing the person.
In like manner, in revoking the appointment, he would do the same, but he does not have to state it. For instance, if he appoints a Minister, must he give a reason for removing him? Why must he give a reason for removing a Board member? Mr. Speaker, I do not think that it is necessary for the President to state any reasons for revoking the appointment of a Board member, I do not think so.
Dr. Osei 12:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the conditions
rose
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Hon. Minister, wait to be called. Yes, hon. Deputy Majority Leader?
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if subclause (5) flows from subclause (4), then I do not see the reason for that addition, because subclause (4) says:
“A member of the Board other than the Executive Director who is absent from three consecutive meetings of the Board without sufficient cause ceases to be a member. . . . ”
Automatically.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
But does that roll logically into subclause (5)?
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
Yes, so Mr. Speaker, if indeed we are being told that it flows from subclause (4), then there is no need -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Hon. Member, I am asking you whether you think it logically rolls into subclause (5)?
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, yes, and that is what we have been told by the -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
So convince the House.
Mr. Aidooh 12:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think it does. You see, subclause (5) reads:
“The President may by a letter addressed to a member revoke the appointment of that member.”
You see, so it does not necessarily flow from subclause (5) in general. But I want to have these words before we go on in
subclause (4). He was referring to a point, the words “sufficient cause” I will virtually move that we should change “sufficient cause”. But I do not accept that subclause (5) flows from subclause (4). No, I do not think so, it is separate.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
You do not agree subclause (5) follows from subclause (4)?
Mr. Aidooh 12:35 p.m.
No, the words “that member” used in subclause (5) do not necessarily mean the member who is absent. It means any other member can be fired by a letter from the President.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Yes, that is right. That is why I was saying that the hon. Member should show that subclause (5) necessarily follows from subclause (4).
Dr. Osei 12:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Majority Leader, subclause (5) does not flow from subclause (4). But I withdraw my amendment.
Mr. Bagbin 12:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that my good Friend should not withdraw his amendment, it is really relevant and very important. I do not, for example, even like the word “revoke”, I do not. I think “remove”, you see, “revoke” is when you give instrument of appointment - instrument. “Revoking appointment, “remove” you remove. If you look at even the Constitution we are talking about “removal” by revoking appointment. But that is not the thrust of my point here.
I believe strongly that we need to put stated reasons. It is important that we just do not grant too much discretion to the President. If you look at all the others, there is always a reason. Even the appointment, we have put qualifications and all those things, there is always a reason -- like the proposed amendment about Regional Co-ordinating Council, if
Mr. Bagbin 12:35 p.m.


you are not one of those serving the MDPC you cannot be appointed.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Hon. Minority Leader, the hon. Member has withdrawn, you are attempting to re-state it, so say it very expressly.
Mr. Bagbin 12:35 p.m.
Yes, I am proposing it. I have to lay a solid foundation before I propose it. So I believe strongly, Mr. Speaker, that there must be stated reasons for the removal of such a person from the Board, and since my hon. Colleague still admires the word “revoke” may I just say:
“The President may by a letter addressed to a member revoke the appointment of that member with stated reasons.”
Mr. W. O. Boafo 12:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if you read clause 8 as a whole, you will realize that there is no need for this addition because of reciprocity. When a member wants to resign, he is not required to give reasons, he only resigns in writing addressed to the President. Likewise, when the President is revoking an appointment, he does not need to give reasons, he only revokes in writing. Clause 8 (3) says:
“A member of the Board may at any time resign from office in writing addressed to the President through the Minister.”
Again, clause 8 (5) says:
“The President may by letter addressed to a member revoke the appointment of that member.”
This is pure reciprocity. Even if he is required to give one month's notice to
terminate you, you are also required to give one month's notice to resign. It is based on the general law of reciprocity and I believe that is the essence of the draftsman's approach.
Mr. Chireh 12:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we should add “for stated reasons” and I know that with the power of President he can refuse to give a reason, we cannot send him to court. But what I am saying is that it would have been on the advice of a Minister or from the nominating body if the person was nominated. So whatever reason is to be assigned, it should be --- Because if we also leave it like that the discretion is too much, somebody may be doing very well on the Board meanwhile somebody who wants to occupy his place goes to gossip to the President or some other powerful person and they remove such a person.
I think we should allow “stated reasons” to also guide any decisions that are going to be made about removing somebody from the Board and I will suggest that we really support this addition. Because the addition is not relevant to what he is saying that “notice”, “notice” is different from “reasons”. I can give you notice that I am going to resign as an hon. Member of Parliament. If I say so, I have said so, but if I give reasons why I am resigning as an hon. Member of Parliament it is a different matter. I think that we should allow for the addition of “stated reasons”.
Dr. Osei 12:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I withdrew it for a reason -- The President appoints people under clause 70 of the Constitution and under that article there is no stated reason for appointment. So in revoking the appointment, I do not know why he should be required -- Article 70, states a criterion but it does not state the reason for the appointment; it says “The President shall, acting in consultation with the
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
You who originated this thing are now -- [Interruption.]
Dr. Osei 12:35 p.m.
Yes, that is why I just wanted to tell my senior Colleagues why I am withdrawing.
Alhaji A. S. Boniface 12:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I was trying to go against his decision that the President must give reasons for revoking one's appointment. Mr. Speaker, hypothetically, if you have a football team and the coach is sitting on the touch line and decides to remove a player he does not have to give any reasons for removing the player from the field. So if you are a member of the Board and the President decides -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Order! Order! Hon. Members may not talk across to each other.
Alhaji Boniface 12:35 p.m.
Ah! I am on the
floor, why are you arguing with me?
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Order! Order!
Alhaji Boniface 12:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, he is telling me that it is because of my arguments that I have not been made
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Hon. Member, ignore it.
Mr. J. B. Aidoo 12:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if you go to the Constitution, we have a million of positions that are being appointed by the President. And when it comes to revocation, there is nowhere the President is being requested to state reasons for the revocation of some appointments. Mr. Speaker, I do not know why this particular case should be exceptional unless maybe my senior hon. Colleague can prove otherwise.
rose
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Hon. Member for Lawra-Nandom, I will come to you.
Mr. J. B. Aidoo 12:45 p.m.
I have not come across any of such instance for which reason this particular case should be exceptional. Therefore, the President should revoke without writing the reasons why somebody's appointment should be withdrawn.
Dr. Kunbuor 12:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I guess that article 70 categories are not limited to only governing bodies of corporations. You will be surprised that this matter has also been ruled on by the courts of this country in Dr. Oppong v. the National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE) and Attorney-general.
The Commissioner for the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) the Chairman of the Electoral Commission (EC) and their deputies cannot be removed from office without stated reasons. There are procedures including a Board of Enquiry.
Mr. J. B. Aidoo 12:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if you go to the Constitution, we have a million of positions that are being appointed by the President. And when it comes to revocation, there is nowhere the President is being requested to state reasons for the revocation of some appointments. Mr. Speaker, I do not know why this particular case should be exceptional unless maybe my senior hon. Colleague can prove otherwise.
rose
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Hon. Member for Lawra-Nandom, I will come to you.
Mr. J. B. Aidoo 12:45 p.m.
I have not come across any of such instance for which reason this particular case should be exceptional. Therefore, the President should revoke without writing the reasons why somebody's appointment should be withdrawn.
Dr. Kunbuor 12:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I guess that article 70 categories are not limited to only governing bodies of corporations. You will be surprised that this matter has also been ruled on by the courts of this country in Dr. Oppong v. the National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE) and Attorney-general.
The Commissioner for the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) the Chairman of the Electoral Commission (EC) and their deputies cannot be removed from office without stated reasons. There are procedures including a Board of Enquiry. If it is on mental incapacity, it is a medical board of enquiry.
If it is a stated misbehaviour, it is the Board of Enquiry that will determine that stated misbehaviour before the
President can actually take an action. The hon. Member said under the article 70 categories, the President does not have to state reasons for the removal of appointees and I am saying, no, it is not just one category; reasons can be stated. This is a novel thing dealing with the Fund and we want to give a lot of room and independence to that Fund as well. So we want to create security of tenure of the Board members and that it the reason why we are introducing this.
rose
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Hon. Deputy Majority Leader, are you on a point of order with him?
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am on a point of order, even though upon second consideration, I believe that we should re-instate the amendment by the hon. Minister of State. But the issue that my hon. Colleague from Lawra-Nandom is saying is completely different. Those bodies such as NCCE, CHRAJ, EC, et cetera are independent constitutional bodies. So the terms do not apply to them.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Hon. Deputy Majority Leader, you are out of order. The hon. Member for Lawra- Nandom was responding to the quotation of article 70.
Dr. Kunbuor 12:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, what I was indicating is that the argument seems to be that if one has the power to appoint, one should have the power to remove and that that is consistent with article 70. And I am indicating that the categories are not the same. If one look at those officers who are involved in article 70, one will see clearly that one cannot just remove some of them. So if this is a particular legislation we
want to raise to that category that does not offend article 70, we should still insulate them by giving them a security of tenure. That is the basis of the argument that I am raising.
So I say that it is false to say that under article 70, just because the President can appoint, he can remove without reasons.
Mr. Aidooh 12:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we must add the words suggested by the hon. Minority Leader. This concept that one who appoints can fire, I think comes from the Common Law position and it can be changed by statute. The concept that an employer can fire without giving reasons is a Common Law position and it has been reviewed in this country as at now.
The labour law has changed the position. One cannot sack a person without a reason under the new Labour Act. So the statute can change the Common Law position. And I see no reason why we must not limit the power of the President in firing an appointee under this matter.
I therefore, advise hon. Members that we should accept the words suggested by the hon. Minority Leader because the world is changing. We have changed the law in several instances in this country.
To respond to my hon. Colleague, the hon. Member for Amenfi East, we have had Bills passed by this House where we have put in this clause that member can be sacked -- many of them -- only for stated reasons. And I advise hon. Members to go along with the amendment, restated by my hon. Colleague, the hon. Minority Leader.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
I would take the last contribution on that.
Alhaji Abukari 12:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I still stand on my original view that those words
-- “for stated reasons” -- should not be added to the clause.
Mr. Speaker, I cited an example; I agree
perfectly with what the hon. Member for Lawra/Nandom (Dr. Benjamin Kunbuor) said. But those are exceptional cases enshrined in the Constitution. Those are completely different. But in cases like this - I gave an example, the appointment of a Minister. Has any hon. Minister being removed with stated reasons?
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Hon. Member, let us hear your Colleague.
Mr. Aidooh 12:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, a Minister is in practice, an agent of the President and he can revoke the Minister's appointment without any reason.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Hon. Member for Tamale North, can you complete your contribution?
Alhaji Abukari 12:45 p.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker. A Board member is even lower than the Minister. What I am saying is that the President is not just going to bed, have a dream and say that Mr. Kyei-Mensah- Bonsu must be removed from this Board, and the next day, he writes a letter revoking his appointment.
Even in writing such a letter, I am sure the President will put some reasons in there. But we do not have to make it compulsory for him to state reasons why he is removing one member or the other. He must have consulted the Board, or Board members would have advised him
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:55 p.m.
Mr.
Speaker, if we look carefully at the tenure of office of members, that is clause 8, subclause (3) states “A member of the Board may at any time resign from office. . .” That is one way of creating vacancy, the person on his own volition resigns. That one does not call for the revocation of the membership, because the person himself has resigned.
Mr. Speaker, the other subclause, that is clause 8 (4) relates to absence from three consecutive meetings and the person automatically seizes to be a member.
These are the only stated reasons apart from clause 8 (6) --
“Where a member of the Board is, for sufficient reason, unable to act as a member, the Minister shall determine whether the inability would result in the declaration of a vacancy.”
But there could be other ways apart from these two which have been stated, where a person could be removed, his position or membership could be revoked. And for those ones, the President must come with a stated reason.
For instance, we have spoken about subclause 6 (1), we have stated “qualifications” - three other persons, at least two of whom are women with professional expertise in finance, and so
on and so forth. A person submits his curriculum vitae upon which he is given an appointment, then it is found out that the person was or is a fraud. How do we terminate the appointment of such a person? In revoking the appointment or membership, the President then comes with a reason. This could be one of the ways.

So apart from the stated ones, because in this one when the person resigns the vacancy is created automatically, just like if the person does not attend three consecutive meetings he ceases to be a member automatically. There are other - [Interruptions.] Yes, the reasons are known; in those instances, the reasons are known - [Interruption.]
rose
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
Hon. Member, are you on a point of order?
Dr. Osei 12:55 p.m.
Point of information.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, with respect, if it is information, I am not too sure that I need it now. [Laughter.] Anyway, I would yield.
Dr. Osei 12:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, in clause 3, we
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
Hon. Minister, that is not information; he is already here; he has seen it.
Dr. Osei 12:55 p.m.
I am just reminding him that
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
Order! Order! Hon. Deputy Majority Leader, you may conclude.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, if I resign on personal grounds, I may not need to go further. Personal grounds; that is the stated reasons. Mr. Speaker, as I said, the reasons - [Interruptions.]
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
Order!
Order! Please, go on.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, may you prohibit this harassment from my hon. Colleague; protect me.
So in these instances, the reasons already are known and so if the President, as per the narrative given by my colleague the hon. member for Tamale North, Alhaji Abukari, just wakes up one morning and says that the person is over-working, he is exposing certain things and so he cannot accommodate that person, he must revoke his appointment, that could be very much untoward.
Mr. Speaker, we expect the President to come clean and state the reasons. Apart from these two stated grounds, I would entreat my Colleague to reinstate his amendment and failing that, then we could go with the proposal by the hon. Minority Leader.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
He does not need to reinstate it. The hon. Minority Leader has already revived it. So he is now on the floor and the Question is - [Interruption.]
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:55 p.m.
So Mr. Speaker -- [Interruption.]
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
Hon. Member, I think you have landed.
Mr. Bagbin 12:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I move the amendment and I move that we insert at the end of clause 8 (5) the words: “with stated reasons”. Mr. Speaker, it is part of the duty of this House to enact laws that would protect public servants to work with diligence, to work independently without looking back at the executive powers of the President.
rose
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
Unless you are on a point of order, you may resume your seat.
Mr. J. B. Aidoo 12:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am on a point of order. My point of order is that what we are doing has some implications. Mr. Speaker, we must look at the effect of what we are doing because eventually when we put those words there it would mean that when that person is not satisfied, he would take the President to the court - [Interruption.]
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
Hon. Member, that is not a point of order. Please, resume your seat. Hon. Minority Leader, please, go on.
Mr. Bagbin 12:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am saying
that the letter and spirit of the Constitution support this position and if you look at article 190 (1) (d) -- because we are establishing a Board which should be part of the public services of ghana -- and with your permission, I quote:
“The Public Services of ghana shall include -”
and they are stated there -
Mr. Bagbin 12:55 p.m.


“(d) such other public services

as Parliament may by law pres- cribe.”
Mr. Speaker, article 191 talks about this 12:55 p.m.
“A member of the public services shall not be -
(a) victimized or discriminated against for having discharged his duties faithfully in acco- rdance with this Constitution; or”
the relevant one is
“(b) dismissed or removed from office or reduced in rank or otherwise punished without just cause.”
How do you know the “just cause”? It means that the person would always have to go to court and say:
“I have been removed; I do not understand why I have been removed -- there is no reason stated -- Then I would go to court and the reasons would now be given at the court and then you would now determine whether it is just or - Please, I think it is important that in such cases the person is just given the reason - ‘with stated reasons'.”
We are having too many sycophants and hypocrites in the public services because they are always afraid that even when they are critical of their work, somebody would sit somewhere and just remove them without giving any reasons; they go to court and then the person comes and tries to give reasons. But if the reasons are stated in the letter, you would see them. They are genuine and state that you have committed such an offence and, that is
why you have been removed. In that case you would have to go to court.
Please, we are talking about a Board, we are talking about members and those members, some are not just there on their own volition, they are representing some interests and I think that it is not fair just to allow the President to descend on such members and just dismiss them without any reason. I strongly insist that we should put “with stated reasons”.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
I am
going to put the Question; this matter cannot keep us arguing indefinitely.
Question put and amendment negatived.
Mr. Aidooh 12:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, clause 8, subclause (4), I beg to move, delete “sufficient” and insert “reasonable”.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
Hon.
Member, the hon. Member is proposing that clause 8, subclause (4), in place of “sufficient” we substitute “reasonable” so that it would read:
“A member of the Board other than the Executive Director who is absent from three consecutive meetings of the Board without reasonable cause ceases to be a member of the Board.”
Mr. W. O. Boafo 1:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think in this particular Bill, the word “sufficient” is found even under clause 8(6) --
“Where a member of the Board is, for sufficient cause…”.
Mr. Speaker, I am saying that there is no magic in the words “reasonable cause”. “Sufficient cause” is interchangeably used with “reasonable cause”. So I do not see the reason why specifically, we should come with the substitution of “reasonable” for “sufficient”. We have to be very consistent with the legislative process in
law making.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
Are you opposed to the amendment?
Mr. W. O. Boafo 1:05 p.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Bagbin 1:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment. “Sufficient” deals with quantum. We are dealing with one, two, three, four - sufficient. “Reasonable” deals with merit. That is the difference. And we are talking about whether the reason given is meritorious. It is something that one should consider in accepting it. But if we are talking about sufficient, you can give one and when they say no, you add another and you add another, that is with quantum. There is a clear difference.
Mr. Aidooh 1:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, last week I gave an example. If an hon. Member is drunk and cannot attend business, it is sufficient reason why he cannot go to work. He was drunk. But if reasonable, he is not. That is the other difference.
Mr. Chireh 1:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment. I think that reasonableness has been determined in the courts but sufficiency, I do not know about it, I have not read it in any law report. Reasonableness is there and therefore we should go along with the amendment.
Alhaji Abukari 1:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
wholeheartedly agree with the amendment. Let us put “reasonable” in place.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
Clause 8 (6) also has “sufficient”.
Mr. Aidooh 1:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am all right with that in the context as it appears now.
Clause 8 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause 9, Meetings of the Board.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9, subclause (3), line 1, delete “three” and insert “five” and delete all the words after “members”.
Mr. Kenneth Dzirasah 1:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we would need further clarification from the Chairman as to whether by increasing the number to five, he would not also recommend that the last leg of that subclause -- “a greater number deter-mined by the Board” -- should not go. Once we have raised the number, it is sufficiently high so that we do not give discretion to the Board to determine on the basis of fluctuation as to how many more people should be added to it before you can constitute a quorum.
Dr. Osei 1:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, to go along with that I was going to suggest that instead of just leaving it at five we could use the words “at least five”, and then the second part could go. That way we do not leave the Board to determine that greater number, but “at least”.
Mr. Chireh 1:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, it should be five. The reasons we said five was that the membership of the Board is nine and we were saying three should be the quorum. Of course, unless we do not want them to make decisions -- That is why it was sent to five. The qualification of the “sufficient cause” is a significant decision. We have had it in many of our Bills and the question is who is to decide that number? So once we have a higher number than half to be a quorum, it may as well go, that last part as has been suggested by hon. Dzirasah.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, may I therefore read the new rendition so that you can now put the Question as the position is that we are taking out all the words after “members”. So it would read:
Dr. Osei 1:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, could the
Chairman give us the reasons for changing the word from “two” to “three”? I am not sure the intent is to find non- residents representing each particular region. So I
am not sure of the Chairman's reason for changing the word from two to three.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
Hon.
Chairman, he wants some reasons for your amendment.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, when we
normally talk about the North, we talk about three northern regions, hence the amendment.
Dr. Kunbuor 1:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I guess
that is the reason because if you look at the representation, they have been sensitive to the specific regions. So once you are going to be nominating people resident outside it, it should also be reflective of the distribution, and I guess that there is quite a lot of history in northern ghana where when you have an initiative for development and you end up having the leadership coming from one of the regions, the rest abandon it to that region, and the initiative quite often does not survive. But when you get it across the three regions then it becomes easier to get everybody on board.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 12, subclause (2), paragraph (g), line 2, after “members” insert “as and when required”.
Mr. Chireh 1:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, this thing
was debated at length at the committee. If you look at subclause (3) which limits the membership of the Committee to a certain number against the ex-officio members we should ask, are they in attendance? And if so, we should say so. If they are ex officio, they are coming as members of the quorum, and if the forum is to take a decision, and they say they will also vote, then we will have a little bit of a problem.
The number also is not determined,
as and when required. So it now makes your limitation of the number a little difficult. I think that we should let them be in attendance rather than let them be members of the committee.
This forum is a committee of the Board, and therefore, as a committee of the Board, they are supposed to take decisions as any other committees. If you do not have a definite number and you are making them ex-officio - If I become the Chief Director of the Ministry of Health, and then you say, I should be part of this meeting; I would insist on voting, going by the way it is couched. I think that they should be in attendance rather than put them as members of the forum so that we know the number that should be there.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
Hon.
Chairman of the Committee, if you are saying that after “members”, you insert “as and when required”, are you still leaving the ex- officio there?
Alhaji Abukari 1:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
completely agree with the hon. Yieleh Chireh. Mr. Speaker, the numbers should be stated and it should be made clear that they are strictly ex-officio who will have no vote. In fact, they should come there because their expertise would be required for particular discussions. If the discussion going on is such that anybody from the Ministries, Departments and Agencies can come and throw more light on, then they can be invited to come in attendance, give their expert opinion but not take part in the voting. I think that it is very essential. Otherwise, some of them would come and say that, yes, they have been invited and so they are going to vote. It should be strictly ex-officio who have no vote.
Dr. Osei 1:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, what we
might also consider is to remove that particular section and put a clause that says that committee can invite persons. So this clause can go and some generic thing inviting experts anytime can be substituted. We do not have to include them in the right number?
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
Yes,
there is a suggestion further to the Chairman's amendment. Did you hear the hon. Minister, hon. Chairman?
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, in that case,
may I say that we drop the amendment and leave the provision as it has been couched now:
“Representatives from the relevant Ministries, Departments and Agencies co-opted as ex-officio members”.
In fact, when you attend most of these District Assembly meetings, we have all the relevant stakeholders being represented as stakeholders; they do not vote. The co-option is there, they are ex- officio members, they do not have the right to vote. That is the position, Mr. Speaker. So if we may drop my amendment “as and when required”, fair enough. I may agree.
Mr. Aidooh 1:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I must
confess. I am not sure what the rights of an ex-officio member are or are not, especially as regards whether they can vote or they cannot vote. “Ex-officio” that I know means somebody who attends a meeting because of his office or who is a member because of his office, and that will not define his voting rights.
So I would support my hon. Colleague's amendment that we make it clear that they cannot vote, that they are non-voting members.
Dr. Kunbuor 1:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, that is right because we have been using this word “ex-officio” which looks like if a Minister is represented, he is there as ex- officio, despite the fact that you have not mentioned it. If he ceases to be a Minister, he can no more continue to function. So if we were using ex-officio again in another sense by mentioning it expressly, then we should either define it or add the proviso that they do not have the right to vote, which shows the category of ex-officio they are. Otherwise, if you look at most of the areas, most of them are ex-officio.
But the idea has always been that when you are said to be ex-officio, it means you cannot vote; it is wrong. Legally, “ex-officio” means, your office, it is just by dint of your office that is why you are represented there. And if others would have voting rights, and you have ex- officio down because you have mentioned expressly, you must say they do not have the right to vote, then it makes it clear where they belong to.
Dr. Osei 1:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. senior
Colleague's difficulty is that the last subclause is trying to limit the number of the stakeholder committee. And if the person is going to come and not vote but he is counted as part of the committee, there, we have to be careful. If we leave it as this, they will be counted as part of the limit of thirty. So I think it is better to remove that clause because the Board has authority to invite people anytime there is such a committee as expert.
That way, his concern will not be breached, then his worry will be taken off if we take it off. But if you add them to the number, then his concern will not be fully addressed.
Mr. Dzirasah 1:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we
need to do a little mathematics here. The Bill under subclause (3) is setting a ceiling of thirty. Let us for the purposes of argument presently delete (g) from it. If we do the head count in respect of all the others, how many do we get? In that situation, how many are we going to add as representatives from the relevant Ministries, Departments and Agencies? Because my understanding of subclause (2), the opening statement --
“The Stakeholder Co-ordinating Committee comprises”.

These representatives who are unnamed and unnumbered are part of the Co-ordinating Committee and they should be part of it to bring up the number to a cealing of 30. So we need to do a lot of mathematics to even determine how many people are left now as representatives. Until we are able to do that, the mathematics will not jive us at all.
Mr. Chireh 1:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Chairman
tried to explain that we are co-opting the people. But in that phrase, you have “co- opted as ex-officio members.” If you co- opt somebody into a committee and he becomes a member of the committee, it is wrong. In the setting up of the committee or even the Board meetings, there is a subclause there that says that the Board can co-opt other people. But they have no voting rights. Therefore, if you are talking about co-option, then you should be talking about members.
If you remove the word members then they cannot therefore vote. But we want it to be expressly stated that these people should not vote. They can be co-opted. But if you say “co-opted as ex-officio members”, ex-officio means that in the office, or you are a member of a Board or a committee because of your office.
Therefore, the issue of whether because you used the word “co-opted” or not they cannot vote does not arise. No. You have made them members by this phrase. So I think that it should be qualified that they should be in attendance and should not have any voting rights.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
Hon.
Chairman of the Committee, there seems to be some clumsiness here and I hope you are following the argument where you start clause 12 (2) - That the Stakeholder Co-ordinating Committee comprises - It means you are stating the membership. And then you come to (g) and then you say, some people will be co-opted as - Why do you not complete the designated membership and then you have another provision to talk about co-option? That will cleanse it and make it neater. Do you not think so from the arguments that you are hearing?
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, the arguments
are varied and the hon. Member who spoke last even said that we should add “without the right to vote”, which I have no quarrel with. But if you look at the initial rendition as captured by the draftpersons, all that your Committee had wanted to do was to add about four words, that is “as and when required”. But Mr. Speaker, all that I am saying is that we can drop “as and when required” and then add “without the right to vote” to make it clearer, that ex- officio members who may be representing the Ministries, Departments and Agencies as ex-officio members have no right to vote. I think that will be it, Mr. Speaker. It will not look clumsy.
Dr. Kunbuor 1:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, based on
your guidance from the Chair, I guess that the neater way would be to create subclause (3) and remove (g) and bring
it down to subclause (3) and then render it in a way so that they do not fall under (1). We will then shift subclause (3) down and create subclause (4). I guess that will be neater.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
They do
not fall under subclause (2)?
Dr. Kunbuor 1:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is under
subclause (2) that we are having the difficulty. If we move it out and create a subclause for it, we can then put in whatever words we want to show that they do not have voting rights.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
Just
cleansing it?
Dr. Osei 1:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, just to buttress
his point. So far, my hon. senior Colleage, Dzirasah, talked about the numbers. If we put hon. Chireh's amendment that is coming in, we have 24. So there is room for six and if that is brought under this clause, it will be much cleaner. But as of now, if I add the amendment that is forthcoming, I get 24. So his worry about six will be all right.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
So
Chairman of the Committee?
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, my fear is
that, when we are reading these clauses, we should try and exercise patience in reading not only the clause we are referring to but all the clauses under the subclause.
Mr. Speaker, we have under the main clause, two subclauses, (2) and (3). Mr. Speaker, you will notice that even here, the last subclause we have stipulates that the committee shall not exceed 30 members. Your Committee amended it to read 31, taking into account the various positions. Mr. Speaker, this is very important and if we are having difficulties in agreeing with the Chairman of the Committee, may I
Mr. Aidooh 1:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think
that the (g) is not determined. There is no number. So it does not factor into the number 24 or 31. From what I have here, it is not determined and I was suggesting that we delete (g), have a new clause for those who are not members of the Board as has been said by the Minister himself and Dr. Kunbuor. We should delete (g) and create a new subclause for it because it is not part of the 30. We do not know the number. It can be 30, 15 or it can be 6.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
Hon.
Chairman, you will see that (g) has some different character altogether. The rest are definite members; they belong to the co-ordinating committee. The position of (g) looks different. So the suggestion from hon. Members is that you take it out and create a separate subclause for it and, then you will have a very clear membership of the Stakeholder Co-ordinating Committee.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, and that is the
reason why I was saying that because we need to re-draft - they are not suggesting that we delete entirely but create another room for the same provision.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
Hon. Chairman, while we are at it, instead of giving ourselves extra work, you can just move it to (3) then your (3) can become (4) and then you have finished with it.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I thought the
wording now for (g) if we should take it out, we have to couch a new wording for (g); that is how I see it. I am agreeable that we should take it out. I am also agreeable that we should find a new area for it. But then the wording. Can we do that immediately or we refer it to the drafters? This is my position.
Mr. Bagbin 1:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I will clearly support the reference to the draftsperson because of the totality of that clause. If you look at 12 (1) talking about the Stakeholder Co-ordinating Committee, it shall be made of (2) (a) and (b) - strong stakeholder ownership. And the next one -- “effective co-operation between statutory bodies, Ministries, Departments and Agencies”.
So the intention is to have MDAs' representatives being part of the Co- ordinating Committee. That is my understanding so that there can be effective co-operation and co-ordination. If we remove it, that is (g) from subclause (2) and make it (3) the way some are proposing, there might not be members of the Co- ordinating Committee, and we will lose out subclause (1) (b) which is talking about the issue of co-operation and effective co- ordination. Those Ministries are to be there as members of the committee to make sure that this happens.
So we will need to take the draftsperson to see how they can fashion this out to make them members and still make sure that that number is determinable so that we do not leave it unwieldy, Mr. Speaker.
Prof. G. Y. Gyan-Baffour 1:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Minority Leader to a point. The understanding here is that we are having a development fund where there are genuine stakeholders within government, within the Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs). For instance, the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning is a genuine stakeholder, the Ministry responsible for development, whatever it is, is a genuine stakeholder and those names should be mentioned specifically in (g) which requires that maybe the Committee will have to go back and think through it a
little bit more to identify them specifically.
Then there is another subclause which gives that omnibus permission for them to actually bring in anybody who can contribute to their discussion, who should not be really a voting member. But with this one the identified, one should be voting members of the coordinating committee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
I think that it is important that we get the membership right. I will stand down this clause 12 (2) (g) so that you put your heads together with the draftsperson and identify the very relevant ministries that should be named.
Dr. Osei 1:35 p.m.
Information - I think I stated earlier that the number was twenty-four. That is incorrect. The current changes we have made makes the maximum number in the relevant Ministries three. As of now, we are going to have twenty- seven including his amendment. So by definition, those relevant Ministries at a point in time cannot exceed three, and I agree with hon. Alban Bagbin. I think you cannot delete that thing from there. But the term that the Chairman is using now I can see why it is important because at any point in time you are not going to exceed three relevant Ministries and Depart-ments. So if we keep that we have now brought twenty-seven including his amendment then by implication, we only have three that would be left from the relevant Ministries and Departments.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
Very well. I have stood it down for us to get the specified Ministries correct. So there is still amendment to clause 12, subclause (2) where you want to add a new paragraph.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I thought we had agreed that we suspend that and have
a meeting with the Draftsperson and then we finish it once and for all. It is the same clause 12. I am talking of clause 12.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
Yes, I am not standing down all; we have already dealt with parts of clause 12.
Nii Mante: I thought we were dealing with clause 12, sub-paragraph two.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
And then (2) (g). If you think this will present a problem also - [Interruption.]
Nii Mante: This is what I have been saying all the time, that the (g) and then the last subclause (3), because of the numbering -
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
Not subclause (3), clause 12 (2), before (3), you want to add a new paragraph. That is what I am talking about.
Nii Mante: All right.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
If it will present a problem, then all can be taken on board.
Nii Mante: That is so, Mr. Speaker; this is my position.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
Chairman, it seems you -
Nii Mante: If Members want me to move, I will so move.
Mr. Aidooh 1:35 p.m.
I do not see a problem. This is a different subclause, a new subclause, I believe and he must move it.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (2), add a new paragraph as follows:
“(i) three persons from the north representing elected Members of Parliament, selected by the

Northern Parliamentary Caucus and reflecting Majority and Minority representations on the caucus.”
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
I see that hon. Yieleh Chireh also has something in the same vein.
Mr. Chireh 1:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that subclause (1) should read as follows:
“(i) three persons from the north representing Members of Parliament nominated by each regional Parliamentary Caucus.”
The reason is that we are going to democratize the choice of representatives. Indeed, if you look at the way it is framed here, it is to take account of the fact that we have Upper West Caucus. There is a Northern Region Caucus and then there is the Upper East Caucus. Now if we want people to represent us and not necessarily Members of Parliament from the way it has been put, not necessarily Members of Parliament we can, as a caucus, decide that something should represent us or one of us should go there and be part of it. But if you make it look like the Northern Caucus meeting and deciding, that is a bigger body that will really not reflect the democratic aspirations of each of the Caucuses, and that is why I think that these persons should be nominated by each regional caucus.
Dr. Osei 1:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with him a bit except with the modification that the term “reflecting Majority and Minority representation of the Caucus” should be added to yours so that you can have true democracy. So I hope hon. Yieleh Chireh can consider that.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
As you do your contributions, you should see where the actual appointment is going to
come from, whether Parliament or just the Caucus; whether the Caucuses are going to nominate and Parliament will appoint or the Caucuses will just nominate and that is it.
Dr. Kunbuor 1:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that when you see what is reflecting the Majority and Minority representations, it does not seem to sit well with the fact that you want that thing to be related to the Northern Caucus. Are we talking about the Majority and Minority in relation to the Northern Caucus or in relation to the national Parliament? We have the words “Minority” or “Majority” in our Standing Orders and so the assumption is that it is referring to the numerical strength of the House and not the numerical strength of the representation in the Northern Caucus.
That is where the ambiguity comes in and that is why we were thinking that we should rather spread it across the three regions and that makes it neater. And since consensus building is part of it even if Parliament is the umbrella body that takes responsibility for that nomination, they will seek counsel from the three regional caucuses to assist the House come to a reasonable position just as we have done with other forms of representation.
It is peculiar in northern ghana because our national majority and minority do not coincide with the majority and minority in the Northern Caucus. That is where the difficulty is. And if it has to be representative and democratic then it must be where the numbers are.
If you were to go and take the majority caucus that will have five hon. Members of Parliament and you take the so-called minority at the national level that has twenty-three, then the way you will represent them will vary. But to also de-politicize as much as possible this type of endeavour, the regional caucus arrangement will be neater and less
political than if you were leaving it to the Parliamentary caucus in terms of Majority and Minority.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
I think this should be taken up with the other parts of clause 12 that have been stood down, that way the algebra of it will be put into neat package and we will not get confusion there. So this amendment will also be taken on board.
Chairman of the Committee, take it up with the draftsperson and then a neat arrangement will be done. I believe that the clause 12 (3) will definitely be affected when you come to conclude these numbers.
Chairman of the Committee, sometimes it does not appear you are with us.

So I am saying that subclause (3) where you want to move an amendment to raise that number to 31, it will be relevant in the determination if the issues be stood down. If you agree we stand that also down.

Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I have already reiterated this several times to the House that the whole of clause 12 should be looked at.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
If you had made that clear we would have agreed with you.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I made it, probably -
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
The Chair has not heard that clearly.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, it is captured in the Hansard.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
So the remaining amendments to clause 12 will be stood down and then with the drafts- person, you put your heads together and get a neat rendition of those various provisions.
Clauses 13 to 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18 - Secretariat of the Board.
Mr. Chireh 1:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18, subclause (1), line 2, delete “northern part of the country” and insert “the North”. The subclause will read:
“The government shall provide a secretariat for the Board located in the North.”
My North with a capital N.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
So
you want to delete “northern part of the country”. All right that is his amendment.
Dr. Osei 1:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, given his earlier amendment, is that not consequential?
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 19 to 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Dr. Osei 1:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, clause 22, it looks like there is an amendment.
Clause 22 - Borrowing powers.
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, line 3, after “Minister” delete “for Finance”since “Minister” has already been defined in the interpretation
Dr. Osei 1:45 p.m.


column of the Bill.

Question put and amended agreed to.

Clause 22 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 -- Accounts and audit.
Mr. Chireh 1:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 23, subclause (5), line 1, delete “Board” and insert “Fund”.
It is a minor one which refers to the legal personality, that is the Fund rather than the Board which operates.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 24 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27 - Interpretation.
Dr. Osei 1:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I was craving
the indulgence of my senior Colleague in terms of an amendment in clause 27 whether he intends to amend the small “n” in north to the big “N” as in North. The definition of north. Consequential.
rose
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
Hon. Yieleh Chireh, please take your seat. So you will be at your desk and give us your answer.
Mr. Chireh 1:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, as the
hon. Minister of State was saying, it is consequential and I said that once we were going to make it north, the north in the other ones should be capital “N”. So I beg to move, clause 27, “Interpretation”,
delete “north” and insert “North”.
Mr. Bagbin 1:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I was just going through the Interpretation clause and I came to “poor person”. I think the definition of a “poor person” seems not to be too clear for my understanding. It says, and Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I beg to quote:
“ ‘poor person' means a person who is unable to cater for basic human needs or the additional necessities of health services, shelter, clothing and education.”
“The words, “additional necessities”, I do not know what that means.
Dr. Osei 1:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think, to be
on the safe side we need to redefine it as it is defined by the ghana Statistical Service (gSS). This would create a problem for us so we beg to come back later with a proper definition as to how it is officially defined.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
So clause 27 would be stood down so that the draftsperson would look at the definition.
The Long Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
Majority Leader, we are almost at 2 o'clock; it is yet quite 2 o'clock so the discretion of the Chair is not --
Mr. Aidooh 1:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, may I move that we adjourn proceedings and come tomorrow morning at 10.00 a.m.
Mr. Bagbin 1:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I second
the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Mr. Bagbin 1:55 p.m.


ADJOuRNMENT

The House was accordingly adjour-

ned at 1.58 p.m. till 4th November, 2008, at 10.00 a.m