Debates of 10 Nov 2008

MR. SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
Order! Order! Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 7th November, 2008. Pages 1, 2 …24 - [No corrections were made.]

Majority Leader, what is the situation now? The next item is Statements.

Majority Leader/Minister for

Parliamentary Affairs (Mr. Abraham Ossei Aidooh): Very well, sir, we may proceed. [Pause.] I understand the hon. Member is not in so we defer it and proceed with the other items.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
Do you suggest we suspend Sitting for some time or we go on?
Mr. Aidooh 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we shall abide by your discretion.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
At the Commencement of Public Business --
Mr. Aidooh 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, we can deal with item 4 and we may then suspend Sitting for sometime.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
Item 4?
Mr. Aidooh 10 a.m.
Very well, sir.
BILLS -- FIRST READING 10 a.m.
Mr. Aidooh 10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, may I pray
that the Committees look at the document and advise whether it is one of an urgent nature.
Mr. Speaker 10 a.m.
All right, as directed.
Internal Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill
An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Act 2000 (Act 592) to provide for the early payment of final tax on repatriated profits of non-residents and final withholding tax on the gross receipts of non-residents from the provision of shipping, air, transport and telecommunication services and for related matters.
Presented by the Majority Leader/Minister for Parliamentary Affairs (on behalf of the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning). Read the First time referred to the Finance Committee.
PAPERS 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Leadership, should we tackle item 8?
Mr. Aidooh 10:10 a.m.
No, sir.
Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Item 8 -- Electronic Transactions Bill at the Consideration Stage. [Pause.]
Hon. Majority Leader, I understand the Chairman of the Committee is not available. Which item can we deal with at the moment?
Mr. Aidooh 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I did not get you.
Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Is the hon. Chairman of the Committee available?
Mr. Aidooh 10:10 a.m.
In fact, he has been here; we are trying to get him. But my hon. Colleague would stand in for him for the meantime.
Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
So which is the next item we should take, please?
Mr. Aidooh 10:10 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, may we then suspend Sitting for a while.
Mr. Speaker 10:10 a.m.
For how many minutes? [Pause.] Should we suspend Sitting until 10.30 a.m.?
Mr. Aidooh 11:02 a.m.
Very well, sir.
The Sitting was suspended at 10.14 a.m.

Sitting resumed.
MR. FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:02 a.m.
Hon. Members, the House is called to order. We resume business.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 11:02 a.m.
STAGE 11:02 a.m.
  • [Resumption of Consideration from 7/11/08]
    • Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:02 a.m.
    Hon.
    Members, I believe we have already dealt with clause 18? I am being advised that we are now at clause 46; is that the position?
    Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Kojo Armah) 11:02 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am begging you a little to come back to clause 18. We actually want to abandon that amendment and rather go to clause 34 and seek your leave to do some little amendments there.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:02 a.m.
    I am being advised that we have already passed clause 34.
    Mr. Armah 11:02 a.m.
    All right, Mr. Speaker, we would wait and come back later. So we go on with clause 43.
    Clause 43 -- Procedure for grant or rejection of licence.
    Mr. Armah 11:02 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 43, subclause (2), line 2, delete “at the time of notifying the applicant of the rejection of the application” and insert “in a written notice of the rejection to the application”.
    Mr. Speaker, the sentence would read 11:02 a.m.
    “The Agency shall provide reasons for the rejection of an application in a written notice.”
    Mr. Speaker, that makes better English.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:02 a.m.
    Are you
    sure about what you are saying?
    Mr. Armah 11:02 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if you put
    the amendment as proposed in place of that one, it does not really make good sense in English:
    “The Agency shall provide reasons of the rejection of an application.”
    The original one is:
    “at the time of notifying the applicant of the rejection of the application;”
    and the amendment proposed was that
    “in a written notice of the rejection”.
    rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:02 a.m.
    Hon.
    Member, are you contributing?
    Mr. Agbotse 11:02 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we are only
    12 Members in this House; 12 Members out of 230 Members to consider such an important Bill. I think it is not fair to this country --
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:02 a.m.
    Thank
    you; yes, this is the proposed amendment. Any contribution on that? Should I put the Question?
    Mr. Aidooh 11:02 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, this is a rendition that says: “in a written notice of rejection . . .” Why do we say: “in writing?” To notify the applicant in writing of the rejection; why do we not say: “in writing”? Why: “in written notice”?
    Mr. Armah 11:02 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, that is fair; we can say: “in writing” “The Agency shall provide reasons for the rejection of an application in writing.”
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:02 a.m.
    So the rendition shall be: “The Agency shall provide reasons for the rejection of an application in writing,” or “At the time of notifying the applicant in writing.” Which is which?
    Mr. Armah 11:02 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we are removing “at the time”; once it is rejected.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 43 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 45 -- Procedures to be followed by licensed body.
    Mr. Armah 11:02 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 45, the headnotes, delete “body” and insert “person”.
    So the rendition will read: “procedures to be followed by licensed person”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Armah 11:02 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 45, subclause (b), line 1, delete “reasonable” and insert “such”.
    So it will read:
    “provide such level of reliability in its services which are reasonably suited to the performance of intended functions”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Armah 11:02 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 45, subclause (b), line 2, insert “the” between “of” and “intended”.
    So it will read:
    “. . . are reasonably suited to the performance of the intended functions”.
    That is the new rendition, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Aidooh 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the heading talks about procedures to be followed by licensing persons as amended, but the substance of the clause, even subclause (b) as amended -- it is not a matter of procedure. It looks more than a condition to be complied with -- in fact, the whole subclause.
    I do not know, the heading, even as
    amended, does not appear to tally with the body of the clause.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Well, of course, let us consider it together. What the Majority Leader is saying is that clause 45, paragraph (b) is not in tandem with procedures to perform, rather it appears to be a condition and not a procedure. What do you say to that, Chairman of the
    Mr. Armah 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if my leader could give me further explanation then - I am not too clear --
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    What he is trying to suggest is that paragraph (b) is in a place that is not appropriate. It should not have been there. We are talking about procedure to be followed, so what do you do with that?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think it is the use of the word “procedures” as appears in subclauses (a) (c) and (d), which informs the use of that word in the subheading.
    However, I agree with the Majority Leader that really we are talking about conditions and not procedures as such. We are talking about conditions that one ought to follow. In other words, the word “conditions” may appear interchangeable in the context with procedures. So I believe if we use “conditions” it would not be out of place. I think it is even a better word than the “procedures” even though we have applied the word “procedures”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    So what do you say, Deputy Majority Leader?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, in the circumstance of that construction, “procedures” may be acceptable but the better word, really is “conditions”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    You have not said much yet, so what do you say?
    Mr. Yaw Baah 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, while agreeing to the Majority Leader 's suggestion, I think if we look at subclauses (a), (c) and (d) we are talking of procedures, it is only subclause (b) for which I have concern. I think its removal and finding a place for it will be in tandem to what a licensee is supposed to do. To me the problem is with subclause (b).
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    But that
    Mr. Yaw Baah 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, exactly so.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    You should come out with a proper rendition or you want to leave it to the draftsperson?
    Mr. Yaw Baah 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, let me visit the issue again -- [Interruption.]
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I agree that we may leave it with the draftspersons. I have no difficulty with the use of the two words. The “conditions” is a better terminology even though we have applied the word “procedures” all through.
    Mr. Armah 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think subject to the little amendments that we are making we can leave that part of it to the draftspersons.
    Dr. Aggrey-Ntim 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the point raised by the Leader of the House and it would, in fact, appear that the removal of subclause (b) will not do any harm.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Let us leave it to the draftsperson's care, so that they could come out with something else and if this should be removed they make recommendations and we come back to consider it.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if I may, I do not think the issue relates to the removal of subclause (b) at all. Subclause (b) indeed, is a necessary condition and it must be there. The matter
    does not relate to removing it at all. I think it is the use of the words “conditions” and “procedures” which we are saying could be used interchangeably. So subclause (b) should be there, subject to the amendment offered by the Chairman:
    “provide such level of reliability in its services which are reasonably suited to the performance of the intended functions.”
    I think it is a very good amendment.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    We have agreed to that. We will leave it to the draftspersons.
    Mr. Armah 11:10 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we are still on clause 45 (d). Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 45, paragraph (d), delete “generally accepted” and so (d) will read:
    “adhere to such other security procedures and observe such other standards that may be prescribed.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 45 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 46 -- Scope of application.
    Mr. Armah 11:20 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 46, delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 46 deleted.

    Clause 47 -- Information to be provided.
    Mr. Armah 11:20 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 47, subclause (3), line 1, delete “Act” and insert “Section”.
    So the rendition will be
    “If a supplier fails to comply with the provisions of this Section, a consumer may cancel the contract within fourteen days of . . .”
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    A very, very simple amendment that is proposed and I will put the Question.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, sir, before we proceed to that place, I notice that the word “Act” appeared three times in clause 47 and I believe if we should have a universal application in clause 47. So, indeed, we will start with clause 47(1) (q) then clause 47 (3) as he is alluding to and even clause 47 (4). Mr. Chairman, I believe you have seen them.
    Mr. Armah 11:20 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we have deleted clause 46 but if one looks at that small insertion, there is consumer protection. So this whole section is dealing with consumer protection. I think the word “Act” consequentially should all be replaced by “Section”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    Which one are you talking about?
    Mr. Armah 11:20 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the Deputy
    Leader raised the issue of the word “Act” appearing three times.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    But which one are you adding?
    Mr. Armah 11:20 a.m.
    I am not adding; I am saying that consequentially the word “Act” as appears should all, be “Section” starting from (q): “The rights of consumers as provided for in this Section.” And then subclause (3) will also be “If a supplier fails to comply with the provisions of this Section”. And subclause (4) will be “If a transaction is cancelled as a result of the failure of the supplier to comply with the provisions of this Section”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    Fair enough but I could see the hon. Deputy Majority Leader up still; do you have any other addition?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
    Well, Mr. Speaker, before you put the Question, just a small one. The clause 47 (1), “The supplier offering goods or services for sale, hire or exchange in an electronic transaction shall make available to the “consumer”, not “consumers”. So that is the first one. We have agreed on the “Act” but I thought that we would make this correction first, that is, clause 47 (1), line 2, “consumer” instead of “consumers” and 47 (2) (c), the word “to”. “To withdraw from the transaction before concluding the contract”. Mr. Speaker, those are the ones that I thought - they are minor ones but --
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    To withdraw from the transaction --
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
    “To with-draw from the transaction before concluding the contract”. That is subclause (2) (c).
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    Very well and that is to clause 47, is it not?
    Then I will put the Question. These are minor amendments that have been proposed and it starts with clause 47 (1), second line, instead of “consumers” the letter “s” from “consumers” should be deleted so that it will read as “consumer”. And further to subclause (q): “The right of consumers provided for in this section” and further with subclause (2), paragraph (c) to begin the sentence with the word “to”. “Section” should also be inserted, that is, subclause (3), line 1, the “Act” as it occurred in it should be deleted and in its stead the word “Section” be inserted.
    It should also apply to subclause (4), line 2 at the end of the first sentence.
    Question put and amendments agreed to.
    Clause 47 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 49 -- Cooling-off period.
    Mr. Armah 11:20 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg
    to move, clause 49, headnote, delete “Cooling-off” and insert “grace”. Instead of “Cooling-off period” it is “grace period”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, before we go, I thought the Chairman would add that consequentially if you have any “Cooling-off period” we should delete it and insert “grace period” because we have the same construction in clause 49 (4) (d) and I think it will affect it as well.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    Con- sequentially, this all should apply because we have already made the changes in the Headnote. So we agree that at any part of the particular clause 49, which is “Cooling-off” it should be changed to “grace”.
    rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    You want to make other changes?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, added to the Question that you posed first, but this other one, the grace period in clause 49 (1):
    “A consumer is entitled to cancel a transaction and any related credit agreement for a supply . . .”
    Mr. Speaker, I thought that if we made it rather disjunctive, then one could have the right to cancel either of the programmes, either the transaction itself or any related credit agreement for the supply. I propose that we delete “and” and insert “or”. So it becomes disjunctive. In other words, you could cancel the transaction itself. You could as well cancel any related credit agreement whilst leaving the transaction. The transaction could stand, whilst the credit agreement alone could be cancelled. The two could also go together.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    That is a bit complicated, hon. Member. So we could go on like that but maybe, later on we come back to that.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 49 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:20 a.m.
    Sorry, Mr. Speaker, for not catching your eye in good time. Mr. Speaker, in respect of the amendment just made by my hon. Senior, Deputy Majority Leader --
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    No, he has not made any amendment so far with that.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:20 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, in respect of the “or”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    No, we abandoned it. Now we go on to clause 50.

    Clause 50 -- Unsolicited goods, services or communications.
    Mr. Armah 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 50, subclause (1), before “(1)” insert
    “Except in the case of a notice sent by an electronic communications provider to a customer in relations to the service.”
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Should there not be the word “the” instead of “a” to the last word?
    Mr. Armah 11:30 a.m.
    To the consumer.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    To the consumer?
    Mr. Armah 11:30 a.m.
    That is so, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Fair enough.
    Dr. A. Y. Alhassan 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the very first last line, “the customer in relation to the service” instead of “relations to”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Still at clause 50.
    Mr. Armah 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 50, subclause (4), line 1, delete “this provision” and insert “subsection (1)”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 50 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 52 -- Electronic payment medium lists prohibited.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, you have just put the
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.


    Question on clause 51, I thought we should look at clause 51 (1), line 2, the use of the word “collusion” --

    “A holder of an electronic payment medium shall not, unless acting in collusion with another person, be liable to the issuer for loss arising from use of the medium by a person who is not acting or being treated as acting as the agent of the holder.”

    Mr. Speaker, my worry is the applica- tion of the word “collusion”. It smacks of conspiracy.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    But that is exactly what it means.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, “a holder of an electronic payment shall not, unless acting in collusion . . .”
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Yes, so let us continue, then.
    Mr. Armah 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 52, subclause (1), delete and insert as follows:
    “A financial institution shall not
    (a) make available
    (b) lend, or
    (c) sell
    any list or portion of a list of holders of an electronic payment medium and their addresses and account numbers to any person without the prior written consent of the holders except by order of a court.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 52 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 54 -- Non-exclusion.
    Mr. Armah 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 54, before “54”, insert
    “Scope of application
    Sections 46-54 apply only to electronic transactions.”
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if the Chairman could offer more explanation. I am not getting the flow of what he is saying.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Chairman, can you explain?
    Mr. Armah 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we had earlier deleted “The scope of application” as appeared in clause 46 because we knew this one was coming up but I think the proper place for the amendment should be before clause 47.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Which section are you talking about?
    Mr. Armah 11:30 a.m.
    It should be “section 47 to 54”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Do you agree to it?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, earlier on, clause 8 (iii) where we had this deletion, that is for clause 46 and he proposed that we delete the entire clause 46. So there is no clause 46 now. It means clause 47 becomes clause 46. So when he says that it should rather be “sections 47 to 54 apply only to electronic transactions”, I do not understand.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Chairman,
    could you explain.
    Mr. Armah 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, since we have deleted clause 46 much earlier, then this one should now become 46, because clause 47 has become clause 46. So clauses 46 to 54 should become the scope of the application.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Is that all right?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I do not really see why we have to delete and bring it down. It is about the same substance. In any event, if we have to bring it down instead of opening it with it, it should rather read, because we are talking about a list of sections, so, it should be “sections 46 to 54 apply only to electronic transactions”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Hon. Chairman, what do you say?
    Mr. Armah 11:30 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we agree with the Leader. That should be the new arrangement.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Hon. Members, I am being prompted from the Front Desk that I should leave that to the draftpersons for it to be rearranged and made more elegant. But the essence of the proposed amendment is to relate the application of those various clauses, that is, from clauses 46 to 54 only to Electronic Transactions.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Clause 55 -- Protected computer.
    Mr. Armah 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 55, subclause (5), delete “(5)” and insert “(4)”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 55 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 56 to 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 59 -- Management of critical databases.
    Mr. Armah 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 59, subclause x (1), para- graph (e), line 1, delete “disaster” and insert “accident”.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 59 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 60 and 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 62 -- Non-compliance with Act.
    Mr. Armah 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I seek your leave to put the two amendments together, that is, (xii) and (xiii).
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 62, subclause (1), paragraph (a), before “action” insert “recommended”;
    Clause 62, subclause (1), paragraph (a), delete “required”.
    Clause 62 (1) reads:
    “The Minister on receipt of the audit report shall consider . . .”
    So the new rendition will be
    “The Minister on receipt of the audit report, shall consider the recommended action to remedy

    the non-compliance and the period within which . . .”
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Hon. Members, this is a straightforward amendment.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:40 a.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, what we have there reads as follows: “action required to remedy the non-compliance” and the Chairman is proposing that before “action” we insert “recommend”, that is, “recommended action” to remedy the non-compliance. I am not seeing who is recommending the action to be taken. Is there any provision where a body or a person recommends or is it that maybe the audit report may make some suggestions about the action.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Naturally you are talking about the audit report, the audit report will recommend an action to be taken, so it is a recommended action in the audit report.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, not, the action required by the -- I am not too certain about that.
    Mr. Armah 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if you go to subclause (2) of clause 62, there is the sentence “The Minister shall report the recommendation to the National Security Council”. So in order for it to flow, instead of “action required” we are talking about the “recommended action” --
    Mr. Aidooh 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, in that case, it should be “any” because they may not make any recommendation, they are not bound to make any recommendation. If we use the word ‘the' it means they must make recommendations. But I think in view of what he said, the word ‘the'” should be “any”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    It should be what?
    Mr. Aidooh 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it should be
    “The Minister on receipt of the audit report shall consider “any” recommended action instead of “the”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Hon. Chairman, are you opposed to that?
    Mr. Armah 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to that.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 62 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, what we just read, clause 62 -- the head- notes. How does it conform or how does it synchronize with the body? “Non-compliance with Act” and then we are talking about recommendations from the Audit Service or whoever audits the programme or the project. How does it sit with the body of clause 62, the head- notes? I am not too sure of that; if the Chairman could offer better explanation to that, otherwise, we may have to work on the headnotes.
    Mr. Armah 11:40 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the right of authority, that is, we are talking about the Minister demanding certain audit reports about database dealing with the compliance with the provisions of this Act. In other words, the Minister may cause audit to be made as to how far the provisions of the Act are being complied with by the service providers and the players in the industry.
    So after the audit has been made, a report is made to the Minister who then takes the recommendations made by the audit report to a higher authority.
    Therefore, I do not see the difficulty the Leaders of the House are having with the headnotes “Non-Compliance with the Act”. We are dealing with the Act as a whole, whether the provisions under the Act are being complied with by those who are supposed to do so. It is a “non- compliance” so if they are not complying with them then --
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    We shall come to it again, assuming there is any need for it.
    Clause 64?
    Clause 64 - Functions of the Registry.
    Mr. Armah 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 64, subclause (2), line 3, after “country” insert “except as provided under this Act” after the words “come to”.
    Question put and amenment agreed to.
    Clause 64 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 65 and 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 67 -- governing body of the Domain Name Registry.
    Mr. Armah 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 67, subclause (1), paragraph (c), delete “two persons” and insert “one person”.
    So it would be “One person nominated by the public universities”.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, “the governing body”, I think for obvious reasons, in constituting such bodies the number is always an odd number but if the Chairman deletes “two” and substitutes it with “one”, what does the total come to? The total would come
    to an even number.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Do you agree with the suggested number? Do you want to increase it? Do you want an explanation as to why it should be “one”? Or, you want to know what the total number of those who would be; on the Board would be, is that your question?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, my worry is, if we delete “two” and insert “one”, would the total now not come to an even number? [Interruptions.] But I am being prompted that elsewhere some amendment has been made to bring the number still to an odd number.
    Mr. Armah 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, there is a further amendment where there is one person nominated by the private universities. You would see that in subclause 67(c) it is “one person nominated by the public universities”. And then if you go to (xvi) on the Order Paper, clause 67, there is a further amendment which states
    “Add a new paragraph as follows: One person nominated by the private universities.”
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 67, subclause (1), add a new paragraph as follows:
    “one person nominated by the private universities”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Armah 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 67, subclause (1), paragraph (e), delete “internet service providers” and insert “Industry Forum”.
    So it would be “Two persons nominated by the industry forum”. I think the word “licence” should also be deleted.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Hon. Members, are we sure we are doing the right thing?
    Mr. Armah 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, “licence” there refers to “the internet providers”. There is a platform for all of them so “industry forum”.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I do recollect that when we were dealing with the Electronic Communications Bill, an amendment was effected to introduce these words, “industry forum” and we were asking where it appears and were assured that it appears in this new Bill -- the Electronic Transactions Bill. But if you look at it, they have just written, “Forum means industry forum”.
    If they could have a proper definition of “industry forum”, we would be better for it because it does not appear as if we have established any forum as such anywhere. We just say that we should have representatives from the industry forum. Whatever it means has not been properly defined.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    I suppose it did. We talked about it earlier on. I am not sure it is today, but when we were doing some other Considerations we talked about “industry forum”. Indeed, you used a word and the word was “nurture” or something and then we debated on it and agreed that it should be “industry forum” because there had earlier on been an agreed position on it. But, be that as it may, I want you to talk.
    Dr. Aggrey-Ntim 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, you are right. In fact, by the formation of this Bill, the “industry forum” also becomes a legal body that exists as part of the whole
    sector and it is spelt out in this Bill.
    Mr. Armah 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, there is a detailed provision on the “industry forum” and I am trying to locate in which of the four Bills it is. But I would come back to it.
    Alhaji Mubarak 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, as my senior Colleague, hon. Kyei-Mensah- Bonsu was saying, the “Industry Forum” today may be referring to a particular group. Tomorrow, their name could change. But when we talk of “internet service providers” all across the world, it is a name that refers to a group. Maybe, because of other service providers we could take off the “internet” and leave it as “service providers within the industry”.
    That one would better capture it than to use “industry forum” that exists today and which name could be changed tomorrow and could create more problems for us as a lawmaking body. Even though I know that anytime we could come back with amendments, the “Industry Forum” refers to a group today. I want to believe, that just as we have Cable News Network (CNN), British Broadcasting Cor-poration (BBC), et cetera, tomorrow the name could change.
    But in the telecommunications, industry when you talk of “internet service providers” all across the world, regardless of the name, you fall within. I think that they should look at it very well so that we do not have an ambiguity where tomorrow we could be defining and someone would say, “What was the definition then? Today, the definition has left some people out.” Anytime you talk of “internet service providers” regardless of the name, you could be well identified. So I think we should look at it critically so that we do not create confusion.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Hon. Member for Asawase, do you not think that the word “internet” may even change tomorrow? Do you not think so?
    Alhaji Mubarak 11:50 a.m.
    Rightly so, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I was saying that we may look at taking out the word “internet” and leaving it at “services providers within the industry”, rather than to say, “Industry Forum.” “Industry Forum” may be alien to Togo. The moment you get there and you start talking about “Industry Forum”, they would ask you what is all that about? But there, when you talk of “internet service providers” everybody knows what you are talking about.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 11:50 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am just up to assist my hon. Chairman. I think what he is struggling to come up with is at clause 88; Industry Forum has been defined there.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
    Mr. Speaker, if we look at clause 88, it establishes an Industry Forum, but what we have at the interpretation column is not “Industry Forum”. It is only “Forum” and it means Industry Forum -- [Interruptions.] It is “Forum” that has been defined.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker noon
    I think it is a terminology that has been agreed to by the key players in the industry, so let us make a little progress on that. Where were we, hon. Chairman, is it clause 67 still?
    Mr. Armah noon
    Mr. Speaker, we were dealing with clause 67.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 67, subclause (4), delete and insert the following:
    “The Board shall ensure the proper and effective performance of the functions of the Registry.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 67 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 68 -- Tenure of office of members.
    Mr. Armah noon
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 68, subclause (1), line 3, after “terms” insert “in succession”.
    The rendition reads as follows:
    “A member of the Board shall hold office for a period not exceeding four years and is eligible for re- appointment but a member shall not be appointed for more than two terms in succession.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Armah noon
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 68, subclause (3), line 2, delete “sufficient case” and insert “reasonable cause”.
    Mr. Speaker, the rendition reads noon
    “A member of the Board, who is absent from three consecutive meetings of the Board without reasonable cause ceases to be a member of the Board.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 68 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 69 -- Meetings of the Board.
    Mr. Armah noon
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    Mr. Armah noon
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 73, subclause (1), paragraph (d), delete “certify” and insert “cite”.
    It reads as follows:
    “The Dispute Resolution Committee shall have power to cite a person for trial at the High Court for contempt.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 73 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 75 -- The Executive Director.
    Mr. Armah noon
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 75, subclause (1), line 2, delete “Board” and insert “Registry”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Armah noon
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 75, subclause (3), delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 75 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 77 -- Appointment of other staff.
    Mr. Armah noon
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 77, subclause (3), after “advisers” insert “and consultants”.
    Mr. Speaker, it reads as follows noon
    “The registry may engage the services of advisers and consul- tants on the recommendations of the Board.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 77 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 78 and 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 80 -- Annual report and other reports.
    Mr. Armah 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 80, subclause (1), line 2, after “annual report” insert “in the form specified in the Schedule”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 80 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clauses 81 and 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 83 -- Composition of the Tribunal.
    Mr. Armah 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 83, subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 3, delete “telecommunication” and insert “electronic communication”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Armah 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 83, subclause (2), line 1, delete “chairman”.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon.
    Member, we should finish with this clause before we come to clause 82, unless it would in a way influence what we want to do with clause 83. Would it influence it?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Yes, Mr.

    Mr. Speaker, there is a Tribunal and so

    I am saying that when we come to clause 82 (1) (c) which talks about a decision of the Dispute Resolution Committee, there is no such body established by clause 81. So we may be talking about maybe a body to be dealing with dispute resolution but it is not statutorily established as a dispute resolution committee. So I believe we should have a better formulation of that.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Clause 81
    (3), what do you make of it?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, that clearly is the procedure for the resolution of disputes. I am saying that we could have such a procedure or a forum but there is nowhere is it established sta- tutorily a Dispute Resolution Committee.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Chairman
    of the Committee, what do you say to that?
    Mr. Armah 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I tend to
    agree with the Deputy Majority Leader that possibly instead of making it Dispute Resolution Process, it should be Dispute Resolution Committee. But I want to leave that one to the draftsperson to work on.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Is that
    important, hon. Minister?
    Dr. Aggrey-Ntim 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the
    Dispute Resolution Committee is an internal body within the Agency. It is only when you fail to reach an agreement on any issue that you go to this Tribunal.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    But it is not specifically set up by that clause, so maybe, it is a lacuna and needs to be cured by the drafting office. So let us keep in mind that clause -- [Interruption.]
    Mr. Armah 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, there is a
    Dispute Resolution Committee establis- hed in clause 72.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Are you
    sure?
    Mr. Armah 12:10 p.m.
    That is so, Mr. Speaker,
    it is on page 33.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon.
    Members, that has already been done, so
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.


    let us move ahead. The Question that I was putting before I was rudely interrup-ted was on clause 83 --
    Mr. Yaw Baah 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am
    just drawing your attention before you put the Question. Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of the Committee did propose that in the rendition, we need to delete only “Chairman” but to make it readable friendly. I think it should be extended to “Chairman of the” so that the rendition would be
    “The members of the Tribunal shall be appointed by the Public Services Commission.”
    So the deletion must be “Chairman of the” and not “Chairman” alone.
    Mr. J. B. Aidooh 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am
    drawing your attention to the various sub- sections under clause 83. We have (3) appearing twice, so the second sub-section (3) should be (4) instead of (3).
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    I think
    you are right. Chairman of the Committee, do you agree to that?
    Mr. Armah 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I do.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 83 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 84 -- Rules of Procedure of Tribunal.
    Mr. Armah 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 84, subclause (1), delete and insert “The Board shall propose rules of procedure for the Tribunal”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Armah 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 84, subclause (3), delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Armah 12:10 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg
    to move, clause 84, subclause (5), at beginning, insert “Subject to the Constitution”.
    Mr. Speaker, so the new rendition would be
    “Subject to the Constitution, the Tribunal shall be independent of any authority in carrying out its duties.”
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, really I am getting a bit confused. If we look at the flow of it, before then we said a body was to be composed to propose the rules of procedure.
    Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, subclause (3) has been deleted; we are deleting subclause (3) all together.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    We are deleting subclause (3)?
    Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    But, Mr. Speaker --
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    It has already been deleted, has it not? It has been deleted -- delete and insert “The Board shall propose rules for the procedure
    for the Tribunal”. Are you all right? Are they using the word “proposing” instead of “approving”?
    Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the Tribunal is an ad hoc body, therefore once the need arises for such a tribunal the Board shall propose the rules which would then be approved by the panel members of the tribunal before they go on with it.
    Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    The panel members of the tribunal?
    Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
    Of the tribunal, that is so, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    They will rather approve of it?
    Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    “The proposed rules of procedure shall be approved by a panel of the Tribunal specifically convened for the purpose.”
    That is what the Act is saying.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Could we step it down for a while and reconsider it later? Because as the Deputy Majority Leader was suggesting or raising some concerns over, the Board is above the tribunal. Now the Board is proposing for the acceptance of a panel of the Tribunal which itself wants to sit and hear cases and make determination. I thought they should propose and be approved by the Board itself. I am not too sure, but Chairman of the Committee, could we look at it later?
    Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
    All right, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 84 as amended ordered to stand
    part ot the Bill.
    Clauses 85 to 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 88 -- Establishment of Industry Forum.
    Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 88, subclause (1), line 3, delete “concerning” and insert “that relate to”.
    So,
    “There is hereby established an Industry Forum which shall be a platform to bring the industry together from time to time to discuss matters of common interest that relate to the industry.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 88, subclause (7), line 1, delete “Minister” and insert “Ministry”.
    “The Ministry and the Agency shall participate in the Forum as observers.”
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, just a minor correction. Mr. Speaker, clause 88(2), line (2), I think we need to insert between “if” and “satisfied” with the words “the Agency is.”
    So that the whole reading would be
    “The Agency may designate an industry body to be the Forum by notifying that body in writing if the Agency is satisfied.”
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Why do you not put “if it is satisfied”?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    Yes, we could say “if it is satisfied” except that there may be some misunderstanding between what we are referring to, whether the body or the Agency. So for the avoidance of doubt we say “if the Agency
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.


    is satisfied.”
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    I think it is a harmless amendment proposed, I believe Mr. Chairman, you would agree to it; is it not?
    Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I agree to it but I thought your rendition possibly would have saved us a few more words, but I do not have any objection to it.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Fair enough, “Agency” is all right if it is clearer, if the word “Agency” is inserted it does no harm.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 88 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 89 -- Industry code
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, just before you move to clause 89, I think what we did, the Chairman of the Committee moved that we delete the word “Minister” and insert “Ministry.”
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Do you want something else to be added to it?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    Not really, Mr. Speaker, “Minister” has been defined as the Minister responsible for Communications. “Ministry” is not defined, so we may then need to define the Ministry we are talking about.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    So you would rather prefer that the word “Minister” remains?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    If he insists that it should be “Ministry” then in the “Interpretation” we should interpret “Ministry,” to mean the Ministry responsible for Communications.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Will you
    agree to that, Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we will do that.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    You will do that?
    Mr. Kojo Armah 12:20 p.m.
    Yes, Mr. Speaker. We will weave it into the Interpretation.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    In the Interpretation you will define not just the “Ministry” but also the “Ministry” so that it will cover that and then it will agree with your proposed amendment.
    We are still at clause 89.
    Mr. Armah 12:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 89, subclause (1), line 1, delete “An” and insert “The”.
    So instead of “An industry forum” it should be “The industry forum may prepare a voluntary industry code. . .”
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, just for consistency sake, clause 88(7) where we just deleted “Minister” and inserted “Ministry”, it should read: “The Ministry and its Agencies shall participate in the Forum as observers”. After the introduction of “Industry Forum”, thereafter, we have been referring to it as “Forum”. So I believe that if for consistency, we may say that the Forum may prepare a voluntary industry so and so, unless of course because we are talking about an established body, it should begin with a capital “F”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon. Deputy Majority Leader, please go over it. I am not following your proposed amendment.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, he just said that we delete the word “An” in clause 89(1) and the rest stands. He said in that case, it should read: “The industry forum” and I am saying that because it has been established as a body in clause 88, we capitalise the “I” and “F” for it to read “The Industry Forum”.
    Alternatively, as I said, for consistency sake, because “forum” has been defined as meaning “Industry Forum”, we could simply say -- and of course we have applied it in clause 88(7) - “The Forum may prepare a voluntary industry code . . .” and the rest will follow.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the hon. Deputy Majority Leader in the sense that if we look at the first paragraph of clause 88(2) and then paragraph (a), in fact throughout the whole of clause 88 (2), the words “Industry Forum” have been inter-changed with “the Forum”. So, it should run throughout. And that is why I believe “Forum” has been defined in the Interpretation as “Industry Forum”. So we must be consistent, throughout.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    And the consistency you are talking about in clause 89 should read:
    “The Forum may prepare a voluntary industry code to deal with the matters provided for in this Act.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 89 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 90 to 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 94 -- Take-down notification.
    Mr. Armah 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 94 subclause (2), line 1, delete “an” and insert “the”
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    What will be the rendition?
    Mr. Armah 12:30 p.m.
    The rendition will be:

    Mr. Speaker, I really do not even see where the amendment should come in because we are amending “an” which does not appear in that subclause. So maybe, we should abandon that proposed amendment as well.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Very well, it does not go very well. But there is a further amendment.
    Mr. Armah 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am told that it is clause 94, subclause (3) instead of subclause (2). Mr. Speaker, the rendition will be:

    Mr. Speaker, let us step that one down because I cannot find the location.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    It is clause 94, subclause (3) and your proposed amendment is that we delete all the words in that subclause after “facts” and insert “is liable to pay a pecuniary penalty equivalent to five hundred penalty units”. It reads:
    “A person who lodges a complaint

    of an unlawful activity with a service provider knowing that it materially misrepresents the facts commits an offence and is liable to pay a pecuniary penalty equivalent to five hundred penalty units.”

    Hon. Chairman, is that your proposed amendment? Do you agree to that?
    Mr. Armah 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I agree to that one. I thought we were coming to it later but as it is, the first amendment of subclause (2), line (1) should be abandoned so that we will move to subclause (2).
    I beg to move, clause 94, subclause (2), line 2, after “facts” delete all the words and insert “is liable to pay a pecuniary penalty equivalent to five hundred penalty units”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon. Members, I believe you are following what the hon. Chairman is saying unless of course it creates a little confusion. If it does not, I will put the Question.
    Mr. Armah 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, before you put the Question, subclause (2) of clause 94 has been repeated. That is what is creating the problem. We have clause 94 (1), clause 94(2), and the second clause 94 (2) should be clause 94 (3).
    Clause 94 (1) is:
    “A person who claims that an electronically published matter is illegal or unlawful shall notify the publisher.”
    Clause 94 (2) is:
    “A notification of unlawful activity”
    with all those subclauses under (a) to (f).
    And then another clause 94 (2) appears and we are saying that that should be clause 94 (3).
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Well, whatever it is, the arrangement should be properly effected.
    But are you abandoning your proposed amendment to clearly state it to make the rendition more elegant? Are you abandoning that as well?
    Mr. Armah 12:30 p.m.
    No, Mr. Speaker, we are not abandoning that one.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Very well. That is the major amendment that we are effecting and I am putting a Question on that. The rest, you are talking about the rearrangement and for that reason, I am putting a Question on the last one.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 94 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Talking about the arrangement, I think the draftsperson should take into cognisance what the hon. Chairman is saying and effect the relevant amendment so that it will make a little more sense.

    Clauses 95 to 107 ordered to stand part

    of the Bill.

    Clause 108 - Appropriation.
    Mr. Armah 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 108, subclause (1), line 1, delete “Criminal Code 1960” and insert “Criminal and Other Offences Act 1960” and wherever the expression appears, it will be consequential.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 108 as amended ordered to
    stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 109 to 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 115 - Forgery.
    Mr. Armah 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the figure
    115 relating to forgery does not appear; so I would suggest that it -- Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 115, after line 4, after the word “part” insert “effected”. So the rendition would be:
    “…whether or not the forgery is in whole or in part effected by use of any electronic process or is in electronic form.”
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 115 as amended ordered to
    stand part of the Bill. Clauses 116 to 121 ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clause 122 - general offence for
    fraudulent electronic fund transfer.
    Mr. Armah 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 122, line 4, after “anything” insert “fraudulently”.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 122 as amended ordered to
    stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 123 to 127 ordered to stand part of the Bill
    Clause 128 -- Denial of services.
    Mr. Armah 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 128, line 2, delete “constitute” and insert “effect”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 128 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 129 ordered to stand part of the Bill
    Clause 130 - Unauthorised access to computer programme or electronic record.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 130, subclause (2), line 1, delete “section”, and insert “sections”. I think we have been making this amendment and we should be consistent. It should rather read: “purposes of sections 107 to 141.” This is just to draw the attention of the drafts office.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 130 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    We should refer that one to the drafters. Definitely, the change should be effected.
    Clauses 131 to 144 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I just wanted the Chairman to look at clause 134, the formulation again.
    “A person who knowingly engages in conduct, including virus writing, virus and worm dissemination which causes a computer to cease to function permanently or temporarily…”
    Mr. Speaker, are we talking about cessation of functions? They may not cease to function; they may function, but then they would be malfunctioning; it would not be functioning properly. So I thought we could have such an addition to it. It does not necessarily mean that it would cause the computer to cease functioning at all, whether permanently or temporarily. It could be functioning, but it could function incorrectly.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Chairman,

    what do you want to say to that?
    Mr. Armah 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe the whole idea is to ward off interferences with the functioning of a computer by any of the means already enumerated. Whether it is temporarily or permanently, it constitutes an offence. So I am not too sure what the Leader wants us to do now. What could be the difference between malfunctioning and ceasing to function? But Mr. Speaker, if it does not go to the core of what we are doing, we possibly could ask the draftsperson -- [Interrup- tion.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    I believe
    we should discuss this with the drafting office and they could know what to do as to which word to bring up. The Long Title --
    Mr. Armah 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, Long Title, line 1, delete “regulation and insert “oversight”.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, before the Long Title, I do now recollect that the Majority Leader has drawn our attention consistently to the use of the word “knowingly” in the context like this and we have changed many such constructions, in clause 134, “A person who knowingly engages in conduct . . .” We have consistently changed these words. I am just drawing the attention of the Chairman to that.
    I think that his own preference has been “willfully or intentionally” and I do not know whether upon reflection we may not delete the word “knowingly” in this context and insert “willfully” or “inten-tionally”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Do you
    agree to that?
    Mr. Armah 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe either of the two words can replace “knowingly.” So we may take the word “willfully.” “A person who willfully en- gages including . . .” That is clause 134.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, if I may help the Chairman, we have used the words on a few occasions, even 132, 133. As occurs at the relevant places, maybe, the draftspersons would address their minds to them and change them.
    Mr. Yaw Baah 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am
    at a loss with regard to the Long Title. Basically, the purpose of this Bill is regulation, so why are we now attempting to use “oversight”? For me, the right word should be “regulation”. So with regard to the Long Title, I am at a loss because the purpose of this Bill is to ensure that a body is set up to regulate.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Chairman, what do you say to that?
    Mr. Armah 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we just
    discussed it and I think the word should be “regulate'. So we abandon the amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    The Long Title ordered to stand part
    of the Bill.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, with
    your kind permission, we look at clause 136(2) (b) again. In this section, “child pornography” includes material that visually depicts a person who appears to be a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
    Mr. Speaker, I think this can create a lot of confusion in the law courts. “A person who appears to be a child”. What do we mean by a person who appears to be a child as a child had already been clearly defined? A child means a person below 18
    years. So if we say a person who appears to be a child engaged in sexually explicit . . . what do you mean by this? I am not a lawyer but Mr. Speaker, honestly, this will create a lot of confusion at the law courts. Is it the height? Is it the size? What do we mean by a person who appears to be a child?
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    What it
    means is that there may be an old person who looks like a child.
    Mr. Armah 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, of late, we
    have in this country some film showing the Aki and Popo phenomenon and if we have a case like that I believe such people cannot be caught on that act. So I think it is in the proper place.
    Ms Christine Churcher 12:50 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I tend to agree with hon. J. B. Aidoo because if we are talking about appearances, they can be very deceptive. Is it because you are smallish or is it emotional or inadequacy? What are you talking about? Mr. Speaker, the law must be as explicit as possible. Many can hide behind this and use it to say, this is a child when the person is an adult or this is an adult when the person is a child.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    The
    impression being created here, I believe the target of the law is that child pornography, is bad and for that reason if we even use somebody who may be older but looks smallish and creates the impression that she is a child in child pornography, the person commits an offence. Anybody who uses a little boy, like he is mentioning, Aki and Popo -- I think that is what the law is targeted at, to wipe from the system any child pornography.
    Or even if you are an older person but you appear to look like a child, you should not be used to do that kind of thing because
    it creates a wrong impression. I believe that is the reason. It seeks to protect the public and children.
    Ms Churcher 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, what
    about somebody who looks physically like an adult, tall but who is a child? Where lies the protection for that person?
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    They have
    said it. If a child engages in it then you are a child. Even if you look like a grown-up up and you engage in it and are a child, you are liable. But what they seek also to do is that even if you are grown but you appear to look like a child, anybody who uses you for that purpose is liable. I think it is good. It protects the public. This is my impression.
    Chairman, do you want to react to the suggestion that has been made? Are you all right with that?
    Mr. Armah 12:50 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    We have
    come to the end of this Consideration Stage subject to those clauses that we deferred or stood down for further consideration later on.
    Leader, I believe that brings us to the end of today's --
    Mr. Aidooh 1 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, item 11.

    Suspension of Order 128 (1)

    Mr. A. O. Aidooh (on behalf of
    Minister for Finance and Economic Planning) 1 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 128(1) which require that when a Bill has been read a Second time it shall pass through a Consideration Stage which shall not be taken until at least forty-eight hours have elapsed,

    the Consideration Stage of the Home Mortgage Finance Bill may be taken today.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
    Question put and motion agreed to.
    Resolved accordingly.
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 1 p.m.
    STAGE 1 p.m.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    It appears
    there is not any representative from the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning for this matter, apart from the Chairman.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I believe the Chairman of the Committee is a very powerful man.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Yes, I
    have noticed that he is powerful but there is not anybody from the Ministry -- Those who are sponsoring the Bill, they are not here.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
    Well, Mr.
    Speaker, if we could start as the initial ones are not very technical. So if we could start with them.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Very well. Clause 1.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I notice that for clause 1, the use of the definite article there applies for (a) and (b). You could have universal application for all the subclauses. So I guess we will leave that one to the draftspersons. Either we include them or delete them wherever they appear. But that is just a minor thing and I believe we
    could leave it to the drafters.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    The
    draftsperson will take care of that.
    Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of
    the Bill.
    Clause 4 -- Mortgage to be evidenced in writing.
    Chairman of the Committee (Nii
    Adu Daku Mante): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (1), paragraph (c), after “required” add “if any” so that it reads as follows:
    “Names of persons whose consent is required if any”.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am not seeing any subclause (4) under clause 4.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    You are
    right, there is no subclause.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I did not say
    subclause (4); I said clause 4, subclause (1) (c).
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    The
    advertised amendment is subclause (4). Is it (1) (c)?
    Nii Mante: It is subclause (1) (c).
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Very well. Subclause (1) (c): “Names of persons whose consent is required if any”.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I do not understand what the Chairman is talking about. Clause (4) (1) (c), there is no subclause (4) as you said. If it is (1) (c), (1) (c) then would read:
    “A mortgage is not enforceable unless it is evidenced in writing and provides for the names of persons
    whose consent is required if any”.
    Mr. Speaker, what does it mean?
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, some
    members of your Committee thought that there could be circumstances in which the consent of a person may not be necessary or those persons may not be present, hence names of persons whose consent is required; not in all circumstances. That is the position of some members of the Committee. If it is there, Mr. Speaker, we thought it is also not harmful. So it may read: “Names of persons whose consent if any is required”. So that if you do not have any person in that circumstance, you do not seek his consent.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    But
    where you are placing it appears to be a bit incongruous.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, precisely the point I am making. Where he is placing those words is my concern. If he says “Names of persons whose consent is required if any” -- the “if any”, then because it is immediately following “required” is the requirement or otherwise. That is why I am saying that it is the location of the amendment that is my concern; so that it brings the sense out clearly.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    So where do you put it, Chairman?
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, if he is in
    agreement to the inclusion of the words “if any” then we can leave that to the drafters to find the appropriate place.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Well, if it
    is necessary then the drafts office should look at it and then insert it. If that will satisfy the Members who proposed it, fair enough.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 4 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 5 -- Disclosure.

    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, subclause (1), line 2, after “mortgagor” delete all the words and insert the following:

    “disclose all relevant information in writing to the mortgagor in accordance with the Borrowers and Lenders Act”.

    Mr. Speaker, this is for clarity.
    rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Yes,
    before I put the Question?
    Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu: Mr. Speaker,
    I think it would be better to state it more clearly --
    “disclose all relevant information in writing to the mortgagor in accor- dance with the relevant provisions of the Borrowers and Lenders Act”
    instead of just leaving it that flat.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    I believe
    that it is better this way. So let us continue. It is with the Act. So “relevant section of the Act” is the same thing.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
    If you say so, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Well, I
    was suggesting that. I was not saying so.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.


    to.

    Clause 5 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 8 -- Insurance.

    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, subclause (4), line 5, delete “on” and insert “from”.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.

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

    Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 10 -- Mortgagor's right to transfer restricted.

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

    delete and insert the following:

    “Transfer of interest or creation of further charges

    10 (1) A mortgagor shall not

    (a) transfer an interest, or

    (b) create further charges or interests

    in the mortgaged property without the prior written consent of the mortgage.

    ( 2 ) A m o r t g a g e s s h a l l n o t

    u n r e a s o n a b l y w i t h h o l d the consent required under subsection (1).

    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clause 10 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 11 -- Mortgagor's right's to create further charges restricted.

    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to

    move, clause 11, delete. We collapsed this clause into clause 10. So, Mr. Speaker, it is redundant.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clause 11 deleted.

    Clause 12 -- Default in payment. Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,

    clause 12, subclause (1), at end, add “as agreed by the parties”.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Still at clause 12.
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 12, subclause (2), line 3, after “note” insert “in accordance with the Second Schedule”. It is an omission.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 12 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I notice that clause 12 (3) (b) --
    “The mortgagee may deliver the notice and the demand note to the address provided by the mortgagor through a person apparently above the age of eighteen years Q. . .”
    Mr. Speaker, if a person is eighteen years and above he is eighteen years and
    above. Why do you say “apparently above the age of eighteen years”?
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Hon.
    Member, what he is saying is that if you come to the House and somebody who looks big and looks at you you cannot verify his age. So if he appears to you big and above l8 years, you give it to him. You serve him. That is all -- [Interruptions]. What do you mean by that? [Laughter].
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, what I was
    saying was that it is even providing for people in his constituency.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Why people in his constituency?
    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I have the
    feeling that some of his constituents may not be so literate. So maybe, this will take care of -- those who may not even know their ages. So you can use their looks -- [Interruption].
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    I think you
    are wrong. That is not the case. What it means is that the person appearing to be above 18 in terms of physique -- if he is above that then you serve the person because you do not know if the person does not tell you his age.
    If he says he is 14 when he appears to be 30 years or 27 years, do you say you cannot serve him? So if you make the mistake and everybody - it will be a question of fact or later on a judge to look at him and say that indeed he appears to have been above 18 years and it is fair for the person to be served through him. I think that is all. Can we go ahead or you want something else?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I felt the submission by the
    hon. Chairman is the most outrageous statement.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Are you going back to it? You do not know how to forgive?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious House and the Chairman ought to know this and to make such a submission in this House. Mr. Speaker, clearly, there may be something wrong somewhere but I will not go further. It means that he himself does not really understand the full indications --
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    I think you stop there, you have made your point. Do not go further to --
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, so let us look at the construction there again and I think it will serve this House a better purpose other than --
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    So what do you suggest? Majority Leader, I saw you also rising up.
    Mr. Aidooh 1:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I have seen some provisions in the Bill which I think will require the presence of the hon. Minister for Finance and Economic Planning here. The Bill is making some monstrous intrusion into our liberties. [Minister of State at the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning entered] -- Yes, he is here at the right time.
    The Bill is making, if I may use his words, I do not know what --they strike me as very, very dangerous provisions. In this Bill, first of all, if one looks at clause 2 (2), it says that:
    “Where there is an inconsistency between the Mortgages Act and this Act, the provisions of this Act shall prevail”.
    It is there.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Wait and let me have a look at it. “Where there is

    an inconsistency between the Mortgages Act and this Act, the provisions of this Act shall prevail.” And what is your problem?
    Mr. Aidooh 1:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, and then
    after that, the Bill grants to the mortgagee the right to possession, the right to sell the property, the right to appoint receiver manager without going to court.
    Clause 14 (2) says
    “In the exercise of the right of possession, the mortgagee is not obliged to take court proceedings.”
    Clause 15 (2) also says
    “In the exercise of a right of appointment of a receiver, the mortgagee is not obliged to go to take court proceedings.”
    Then clause 21 (1) also says
    “Where a mortgagor fails to carry on an act or acts secured by the mortgage, the mortgagee may sell the mortgaged property.”
    Clause 21 (2) says
    “A mortgagee may exercise the right of sale without recourse to court.”
    No reserved rights, there is nothing. I want the Minister to be able to answer these questions, otherwise, I am not a finance person but this Bill seeks to set aside all the rights of a mortgagor as the mortgage decree. That is one --
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    It looks like what it is in the United Kingdom and all other places. It cuts short litigation and allows the mortgagee like you have said.
    Mr. Aidooh 1:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I know that but in the same Bill, there are provisions which may make a mortgage unenforce- able.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Well in that case I will even suggest that we hold on when there are quite a number of
    people around here, then we can in detail consider it.
    Mr. Yaw Baah 1:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, just to buttress or to support Majority Leader's assertion, if you go to that of clause 14, it will be a very dangerous precedent. Either we are legitimising an illegality or what not. If you go to clause 14 (4), it says:
    “A mortgagee may seek assistance from the ghana Police Service for the enforcement of the rights of the mortgagee under this section.”
    And it is very dangerous. It is only the court that could grant the order, otherwise, we are resorting to what has been going on during the military regime era where any one gets to any security operative and take possession from anywhere without resorting to the courts to give them order to do so.
    Today, we are trying to legislate and to give such a lee way. To me, it will be a very dangerous precedent because if you go to clause 14, subclause (5), it says:
    “A mortgagee who intends to engage the assistance of the Police to secure possession under this section shall submit to the Police a Statutory Declaration in the form set out in the Third Schedule”;
    which is quite clear and it is good. But if you go to subclause (4), you could seek the assistance of the Police to undertake such an exercise only by court order, otherwise, we will be abusing the whole system and that is also another area which we need to attend to.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Well, as I said, we should look at it again but it appears that that is the law on mortgages. It makes the mortgagee a little free in terms of enforcing its rights against a mortgagor who is, as it were, defaulting. If it happens like that, you do not need to go through the rigmarole of going to court.
    But I understand you the lawyers, it

    appears that you are used to the situation where the court will have to give an order before you can go into possession or move somebody who is defaulting in the payment of what he/she is supposed to be paying to you after he/she has agreed for you to buy from him/her a house which is mortgaged to you or taking a loan from you. But lawyers are up in arms, but I want to hear you, the Chairman of the Committee.

    Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I thought I overheard you say in that case, you will want to adjourn proceedings. In that case, I want to entreat hon. Members to read -- it is a short Bill. This is quite different from our mortgages so if you will entreat Members to just glance through it, they will get the import of what we are introducing -- the amendment. So you can adjourn proceedings.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    You agree that it is making very far-reaching and - which will in a way -- [Interruption] -- base level our attitude towards mortgages and so on and so forth. I know that the lawyers are up in arms, they do not want it in that way.
    Dr. Osei 1:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I just came in and heard what the Majority Leader was saying and I think it is prudent for him to ask for an adjournment so that we can read for people to see the intent. They are provisions that really allow the mortgagor to go through a certain series of steps before going for possession. It is not that immediately, you are in default there is a demand notice. The intent is to make sure that our financial institutions will be able to -- so after they have read it entirely we may be able to make progress.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Well, in the circumstance, will I ask that you move that we adjourn proceedings, unless you have some other business that you want us to consider.
    Mr. Aidooh 1:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that this House do now adjourn till
    tomorrow at 10.00 in the forenoon.
    Dr. Ahmed Yakubu Alhassan 1:20 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
    Question put and motion agreed to.
    ADJOURNMENT 1:20 p.m.