Debates of 13 Nov 2008

MR. FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:15 a.m.

VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:15 a.m.

Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:15 a.m.
We have the Votes and Proceedings for Wednesday, 12th November, 2008. Pages 1 . . . 20. [No correction was made.]
Hon. Members, we also have the Official Report of Wednesday, 5 th November, 2008 in hand. I believe hon. Members have their copies. Could you go through that one as well and if there are any corrections to be effected, let us do that - [Pause.] Any corrections from hon. Members? [No corrections were made.]
We have also the 6th November, 2008 Official Report. go through that one as well. They are only two or three pages. No corrections as well.
Hon. Members, we have one important Urgent Question. The Question stands in the name of hon. Benjamin Kunbuor, Member of Parliament for Lawra Nandom.
Mr. Pele Abuga 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have the permission of the hon. Member to ask the Question on his behalf.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:15 a.m.
Fair enough.
URGENT QUESTION 10:15 a.m.

MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND 10:15 a.m.

Minister of State at the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (Dr. Akoto Osei) 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the information as at the end of October 2008 is not available but it is available as to the end of September, 2008. The total debt of ghana including the contingent liability from Cocoa Board as of 30th September, 2008, stood at US$7, 652.46 billion. This is made up of US$3,990.38 billion for the external debt of which Cocoa Board contingent liability is US$118.75 million and US$3,662.08 for domestic debt. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:15 a.m.
Any supplementary?
Mr. Abuga 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning, what the breakdown of the debt portfolio is?
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:15 a.m.
What exactly are you asking for?
Mr. Abuga 10:15 a.m.
I am referring to the break- down of payments that are being made in terms of the debt portfolio. Mr. Speaker, normally, there is a schedule of payment that the Ministry makes in terms of this debt portfolio. May I ask the Minister what the schedule of payments is in terms of this debt portfolio.
Dr. Osei 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that my hon. Friend will have to come back
properly. It is an entirely different question.
Mr. Abuga 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, may I know from the hon. Minister the breakdown of the domestic debt.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:15 a.m.
Hon. Member, that as well, you may have to come by notice. I am saying that you might, unless of course, he is ready to give it up because this is also a very new question that you are asking; but hon. Minister, a Member of this House says if you have the facts you may let them know.
Dr. Osei 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, there are different types of breakdown. When he says the breakdown, I am not sure what breakdown he wants, whether maturity, whether the holders; there are different ways of talking about the breakdown. So if he wants the maturity profile, he has to come back properly so that we know what he wants.
Mr. Abuga 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the holders of the debt.
Dr. Osei 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, as of September, 2008 the banking system, that is, Bank of ghana and deposit money banks held debts to the tune of 2,344.95, the non- banking sector 910.44 and the foreign sector 406.72.
Mr. Kwame Twumasi-Appiah 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the amount he is quoting is in what currency?
Dr. Osei 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the currency when I was answering the question. I said in US dollars. [Some hon. Members: No! No.] Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is wrong with my hon. Colleagues, they were not listening. For the avoidance of doubt let me repeat that statement. The Hansard has captured it.
Mr. Speaker, I said the total debt of ghana including contingent liability from
Cocoa Board as of 30th September, 2008, stood at US$7,652.46 billion and the distribution is as follows - external, US$ 3,990.38; domestic, US$3,662.08. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Twumasi-Appiah 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, will the Minister be generous enough to quantify this figure in the old ghana cedi term.
Dr. A. A. Osei 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the old ghana cedis is not legal tender, so I do not know why he wants to use currency that is not legal tender.
Mr. Lee Ocran 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised at the figure quoted by the hon. Minister because during the last Budget hearing when the late hon. Kwadwo Baah-Wiredu read the Budget, he put the external debt at US$7.8 billion. So how come that after all these years, we have been taking and taking and taking, every time we come we add more loans and still we are now moving backwards. How? I want the hon. Minister to explain better.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Hon. Member for Jomoro, what exactly are you looking for? Do you doubt the figures that he gave out?
Mr. Ocran 10:25 a.m.
I doubt the figures. I am telling him that I doubt the figures.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Well, if you doubt it, do you have any evidence contrary to what he is saying?
Mr. Ocran 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking whether he has added all the loans they have contracted between the last Budget and those as at September 2008.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
You did hear him say that as at September 2008.
Dr. Osei 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, my senior Colleague is a very good friend of mine. But for him not to understand this simple arithmetic, I am very surprised.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that we contract loans does not mean that they add up. First of all, the loan has to be disbursed for it to count as a loan.
Number two, we also make payments and he needs to factor all that out before he says that the former hon. Minister said it was $7.8 billion and how come it is going down.
So that explains why as at September, 2008 it stands at this figure.
Mr. Ocran 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, he has been
running a budget deficit. He has been borrowing from the local banks. He has been borrowing that money to consume, to “chop”, to use, to utilise, to use and to disburse. If we are still going back and saying that the total debts stand at that, I have my doubts. He may say that they have not used the foreign loans they have contracted, but they have borrowed the local ones to use.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Hon. Member for Jomoro, you are supposed to ask a question and not to debate.
Mr. Ocran 10:25 a.m.
It is a complex question.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
What is the question?
Mr. Ocran 10:25 a.m.
The question is, he should give me the total internal debt. That is all that I want to know.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
I think he has already done that.
Mr. Ocran 10:25 a.m.
I did not hear it.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
You did not hear that?
Mr. Ocran 10:25 a.m.
No, I did not hear about the domestic debt.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Too unfortunate.
Is there anybody else? Who wants to ask another question?
Mr. A. W. G. Abayateye 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Minister, what was the balance outstanding when the New Patriotic Party (NPP) government took over and what is the total debt they have incurred in addition to the outstanding balance.
Dr. Osei 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if my hon. Friend wants to ask a question, he needs to come properly - [Uproar] - Being a member of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), I suppose he knows how much they borrowed. He needs to come properly.
Mr. Abayateye 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the question is, he has given us the balance outstanding -
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Are you repeating your question or you want to ask a new question?
Mr. Abayateye 10:25 a.m.
My question is this -
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Are you talking about your earlier question or you are asking a new question?
Mr. Abayateye 10:25 a.m.
Please, I am repeating and expanding -
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
If you are repeating it, he has already answered it.
Mr. Abayateye 10:25 a.m.
All right, I am asking a new question.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Fair enough.
Mr. Abayateye 10:25 a.m.
The hon. Minister has given us a figure, I want to know, out of the figure that he has quoted, which one was incurred during the NPP era.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Hon. Minister, he said you have given a quantum of debt that this country owes as at now. He wants to know how much of it was incurred after the NDC government bowed out of office.
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Hon. Minister, please, answer the question.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Hold on. I have not called you yet. Hon. Minister, please, answer the question.
Dr. Osei 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. Deputy Majority Leader was advising me that -
Mr. Speaker, as I said, if he wants to know the answer to that type of question - the Question that was posed to the hon. Minister is very clear. So, if he wants that, I would be glad to answer. But he must come properly.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Very well.
Hon. Member, do you have any other question to ask apart from what you asked?
Mr. Abayateye 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I did not get him clearly.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Please, he said a Question was posed regarding figures and he has prepared and come to
this House to give an Answer. You are asking totally a different question. Maybe a little related, but it is a totally different question. And he says if you really want to know the figures, that is the quantum of what your government incurred and what the present government has also incurred, he will be ready to give an answer and come properly. I think it is a legitimate position for him to take.
Unless you have some other question,
would you take your seat and let somebody else ask.
Mr. J. K. Avedzi 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister quoted both the external and the domestic debt in United States (US) dollars. I want to find out from him when our currency is cedis, why is he quoting the domestic debts in dollars?
Dr. Osei 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what his problem is. I have quoted the stock of debt in US dollars and he is saying that because the domestic debt is in cedis terms, why I should quote it in dollars. It is the equivalent. There is no problem with that.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Hon. Deputy Majority Leader, I thought you were holding the Standing Orders in your hand and you wanted to, maybe, as it were, teach the House.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:25 a.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the question that the hon. Member for Sege (Mr. Abayateye) asked, the answer has already been given in an official publication. In the Budget, it was stated. And Mr. Speaker, clearly our Standing Order 67 (1) (h), which he must know by now, clearly stipulates that “a Question shall not be asked the answer to which is readily available in official publications”. And he knows that, so why

he should come here, and with respect to him, waste the time of the House, Mr. Speaker, I do not understand. I thought that he was completely out of order.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Hon. Minister of State at the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, do you want to say something else?
Dr. Osei 10:25 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Deputy Majority Leader said, all the Budget Statements have given all of us all these figures. I was trying to avoid embarrassing my hon. Colleagues. But if they want me to remind them, with your permission, I crave your indulgence to read some figures to them.
Mr. Speaker, the gross public debt, gross Domestic Product (gDP) ratio, starting from end of 2000, total public debt --
Year Total Debt
2000 U S $ 7 . 1 5 9 . 3 4
billion
2001 US$7.430.75 billion
2002 US$7.787.58 billion
2003 US$9.088.68 billion
2004 US$8.315.42 billion and it goes on.
As at September, 2008 it stands at US$7.533.71 billion, as I told you.
Mr. Speaker, a ratio of gDP 10:25 a.m.
Year GDP
2000 181.68 per cent
2001 141.61 per cent 2002 133.85 per cent
2003 121.26 per cent
2004 94.18 per cent
2005 78.35 per cent
2006 41.42 per cent.
As at September 2008, 45.41 per cent, which means that starting from end of 2000, when it stood at 181.9 per cent, it has dramatically declined to 45.3 per cent.
Mr. Abuga 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to know from the hon. Minister, how come, in spite of all the debt forgiveness of the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC), the debt stock as at September quoted by the hon. Minister is higher than that of 2000?
Dr. Osei 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is a Member of this House. Since 2001 I hope, he knows all the loans that he and his colleagues have approved. It is in official documents; what he ought to do, was to just go and add them up so he would know.
Mr. A. Ossei Aidooh 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister read some figures and some percentages and said these were proportions of gDP growth. I do not understand it; what does it mean in practical terms; the percentages, the debt ratio as a percentage of gDP? I do not understand the figures. In practical terms, what does he mean?
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Hon. Twumasi-Appiah, what is your problem?
Mr. Twumasi-Appiah 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I
have a serious problem. When the Minister was reading the gDP ratios and other things, I want to find out to which question was he answering, because the -
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Hon. Member, a Member of this House - [Interruptions.] Hon. Deputy Majority Leader, could you please let me handle this?
Hon. Twumasi-Appiah, the hon. Minister has answered the Question and the Majority Leader is posing another question and please, would you allow him to answer that?
Mr. Twumasi-Appiah 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, he was not answering any question. The hon. Minister is not here to make a Statement. To which question was the answer to the effect that this ratio was
A, B, C?
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Please, he is answering a question; let him answer the Question.
Dr. Osei 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, in practical terms what it means is that during their time, you would have to have two years of all your gross domestic product (gDP) to pay the debt. But at the end of September, you only need about 40 per cent of your gDP to pay the debt. That in ordinary language is what it translates to.
Mr. John Tia 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I want to know from the hon. Minister, how much is the total debt forgiveness since the introduction of the HIPC; since the HIPC inception?
Dr. Osei 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I have read the stock of debts for a series of years, from 2000 to 2008. The hon. Member has been in this House. So I do not know whether - [Interruptions.]
Mr. John Tia 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I only want
to know; maybe my addition is not very good. So I want to know from him, how much is the total; if it is one, say one, if it is 10 say 10. Why?
Dr. Osei 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, if he wants to ask these Questions, he needs to come properly.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Hon. Minister, all that the Minority Chief Whip is asking is that, do you have the numbers as to the total debt that has been forgiven as at the end of the HIPC period? I think that is the question; is that not it? I think that is a very fair question, if you want to answer.
Dr. Osei 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the exact number, I do not have, so I do not want to mislead this House - [Interruptions.] Mr. Speaker, I walk around with several numbers; I do not want to mislead this House. If he comes properly I would be glad to bring the information to him. He can even come to my office after we adjourn and I will give him the book that has the information.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
That is for your benefit, hon. Member for Talensi (Mr. John Tia). Do you want to ask some other question?
Mr. John Tia 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think that he is challenging your decision to allow this question. He is saying that if I come properly; I think it was proper, that is why -
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
He is not challenging my decision.
Mr. John Tia 10:35 a.m.
My follow-up question is, will the hon. Minister make this information available to the House now?
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Hon. John Tia, you have asked the question, the hon.
Mr. John Tia 10:35 a.m.
When will he make this information available to the House?
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
When you have posed the question properly; come by notice.
Mr. John Tia 10:35 a.m.
No, no. Mr. Speaker, you are -
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Hon. Member, do you want to ask any question, hon. Ahi?
Mr. Ahi 10:35 a.m.
Yes, Mr. Speaker -- [Laughter!] Mr. Speaker, I would like to find out from the hon. Minister, whether the total debt that he has given to the House includes the 41 trillion cedis the New Patriotic Party (NPP) inherited when they assumed office.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Honestly, I would not allow your question - [Interruptions.] Hon. Members, a question has been posed in this House: What is the total debt this country has? He has answered it and he is asking that why did he include - [Interruptions.]
Mr. John Tia 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member wants to know whether the total debt portfolio that he has mentioned includes the 41 trillion cedis that was inherited by them from the National Democratic Congress (NDC).
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Includes what?
Mr. John Tia 10:35 a.m.
You know the government of the NPP told the whole
world -
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
I am not aware of that; this is not before the House. If you were reading some newspapers or listening to the radio, it is your problem.
Mr. John Tia 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, again my hon. Colleague referred to publications and so on. This House has been properly informed and there are records to show - [Interruptions.] The source is the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, 2001 - [Interruptions.] Let me speak to the Speaker.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
It was not you who asked the Question.
Mr. John Tia 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, in fact, I do not think we should joke about these things. The whole world, the whole country, the State of the Nation Address was read here and it was told that the NDC government left a total debt of ¢41 trillion to the incoming government. It is known, we are asking to know from the hon. Minister whether what he has stated now as the debt portfolio of the country includes that one, or it has been settled and we have a new debt. That is all that we want to know.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Do you want to react to that?
Dr. Osei 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that my hon. Colleagues want to ask questions but they have not asked them here.
Mr. Speaker, let me explain to him, when you borrow money, some of it would be paid over a period of time. If they want to know how much of the NDC debt has been paid by this government, they have to come properly; I would be willing to give them that.
Mr. Speaker, the Question that has been asked does not even relate to debt
forgiveness. What he is asking requires a detailed analysis. If he wants to come properly, I would be glad to answer that because our stock of debt goes back years and how much of it even by the People's National Convention (PNC) or Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC), needs to be analyzed properly.
So I would be glad to answer the question, I do not have a problem. But I think they should do some homework and ask the appropriate question and I would be glad to come back.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Hon. Members, that brings us to the end of Question time. Thank you, hon. Minister for making yourself available to answer Questions posed by hon. Members.
At the Commencement of Public Business - Item 5 - Papers, Minister for Health?
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:35 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, may I seek your indulgence and that of the House to lay the Paper on behalf of the Minister responsible for Health.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
go ahead, hon. Deputy Majority Leader.
PAPERS 10:35 a.m.

MOTIONS 10:45 a.m.

Mr. P. C. Appiah-Ofori 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
Request for Waiver of Stamp Duty for Cocoa Purchases
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that this honourable House adopts the Report of the Finance Committee on the Request for waiver of Stamp Duty on a receivables-backed Trade Finance Facility of US$1,000,000,000.00 for cocoa purchases by ghana Cocoa Board for the 2008/2009 crop season.
Mr. Speaker, in so doing, may I present to you your Committee's Report.
1.0 Introduction
Mr. Speaker, the above request for Stamp Duty waiver was laid in the House on Tuesday, 11th November, 2008 and referred to the Finance Committee for consideration and report in accordance with article 174 (2) of the Constitution and Standing Orders of the House.
In its deliberations on the request, the Committee met with the Deputy Minister for Finance and Economic Planning, hon. Prof. george gyan-Baffour, officials from the ghana Cocoa Board and the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning and submits this report.
2.0 Background
The ghana Cocoa Board contracts receivables-backed trade finance facility annually to finance cocoa purchases and
other payments to stakeholders, which normally commence in October each year. This arrangement has been in place since 1994.
This year, over twenty-five (25) international financial institutions and three (3) local banks were involved in arranging the facility amounting to US$1,000,000,000.00 for the ghana Cocoa Board. The agreement on the facility was signed on 3rd September, 2008 in Accra.
3.0 Stamp Duty
Section 32 (6) of the Stamp Duty Act, 2005 (Act 689), mandates that for documents to be executable, valid and enforceable in ghana, such documents would have to be stamped.
However, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is empowered under sections 158 (2) and 113 (4) of the Internal Revenue Act, 2000 (Act 591) to waive Stamp Duty subject to approval by Parliament.
4.0 Total Waiver
The total Stamp Duty to be waived on all the documents covering the facility is ten million dollars (US$10,000,000.00), thus one per cent of one billion dollars (1% of US$1,000,000,000.00).

5.0 Observations

The Committee observed that the facility did not require government guarantee, as it is a receivables-backed loan facility.

Since it is not a loan contracted by government, it does not require

Parliamentary approval.

The Deputy Minister however informed the Committee that the Facility Agreement requires ghana Cocoa Board to take steps to obtain a waiver of stamp duty for the facility.

The Committee took note of the fact that over the years, the cocoa industry has played a major role in the economic development of ghana. It has continued to play this role in terms of its contribution to gross Domestic Product (gDP), employment generation, and as a major source of foreign exchange earnings. The sector has also made substantial contribution to revenue generation through the payment of export duty, inter alia.

The technical team from the ghana Cocoa Board informed the Committee that the country has a target of producing one million tonnes of cocoa per year and that the ghana Cocoa Board is working to make this a reality.

6.0 Conclusion

After carefully examining the request and satisfying itself of the key role played by the ghana Cocoa Board in the country's economy and the strategic nature of the facility to ghana Cocoa Board's operations, the Committee finds the request to be necessary for the smooth operation of the Board with regard to cocoa purchases for the 2008/2009 crop season.

The Committee recommends to the House to adopt this Report and approve by resolution, the waiver of Stamp Duty of 1 per cent (amounting to US$10 million; equivalent to approximately gH¢11,000,000.00) on a receivables- backed Trade Finance Facility of

US$1,000,000,000.00 for cocoa purchases by the ghana Cocoa Board for the 2008/2009 crop season in accordance with article 174 (2) of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of ghana.

Respectfully submitted.
ATTACHMENT 10:45 a.m.

FINANCE FACILITY - 10:45 a.m.

ASSESSMENT OF STAMP DUTY 10:45 a.m.

COMMISSIONER 10:45 a.m.

Mr. P. C. Appiah-Ofori (NPP - Asikuma/Odoben/Brakwa) 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion. Mr. Speaker, stamp duty is a sort of revenue to the State. If it is waived, the nation or the State loses revenue.
Mr. Speaker, if the stamp duty were to be paid by Ministries/Departments and Agencies (MDAs) that depend on the Consolidated Fund, I will say this one would not constitute a loss to the State.
But since Cocoa Board does not depend on the Consolidated Fund, if we waive it, as a matter of fact, the nation loses money. But I do not know if it would help the Cocoa Board to access the fund and purchase our cocoa to generate income for the country; we may wish to overlook this aspect and give approval accordingly.
Question proposed.
Mr. Pele Abuga (NDC - Chiana/ Paga) 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I just asked some hon. Members of the Committee who were present when this discussion took place and I am surprised hon. P. C. Appiah-Ofori seconded the motion and seems to oppose the motion at the same time but accepted it conditionally that if it smoothens the work of the Cocoa Board, then hon. Members may accept it, otherwise he thinks that it is a big revenue loss to the State. This position leaves some of us wondering what the whole idea is about because one would have expected that as an hon. Member of the Committee and the one
who is seconding the motion, he would have accepted and supported the motion. But if he says this then he leads us -
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
The fact that he has seconded it means that he gives his support.
Mr. Abuga 10:45 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, he seconded
the motion but he stood in the middle. He said it was a revenue loss to the State, at the same time if it would smoothen the work of the Cocoa Board, then hon. Members may accept it. So this is not a conclusive statement on whether hon. Members should support the motion or not.
So Mr. Speaker, one is wondering whether the Chairman cannot give us details on how this would smoothen the work of the Cocoa Board in order to sway us to the side of supporting this motion.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Your position is well understood.
Mr. J. B. Aidoo (NPP - Amenfi East) 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to urge hon. Members to support this motion.
In fact, if you look at the overall contribution of the cocoa industry to the ghanaian economy, one will realize that the stamp duty we are to waive is very insignificant, and therefore, I do not see eye to eye with the hon. Appiah-Ofori, for saying that the country will lose in terms of duties on the $1billion facility.
Mr. Speaker, let us look at what this money is going to give to the country towards our economy -- the mainstay of the economy, that is cocoa, in terms of contribution to the income of our farmers, to employment, and to other related activities. We must look at it in that context, for which reason if we
waive the stamp duty, ghana stands to benefit greatly, and therefore, I am urging everybody here to support the motion so that the stamp duty on the $1 billion facility will be waived. Mr. Speaker, thank you.
rose
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon.
Members, I take two more contributions, you and Prof. gyan-Baffour.
Mr. Simon Osei-Mensah (NPP - Bosomtwe) 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I think if we should give a waiver on the stamp duty amounting to about US$10 million, it is in the right direction. One may say initially that the government is going to lose some money, but at the end of the day, we are going to get the money back.
Mr. Speaker, the amount of money that will be available for the Licensed Buying Companies will make it possible for them to recycle the number of times or the guarantees that will be given or provided to them by the various banks.
Mr. Speaker, this amount that we are talking about, the Licensed Buying Companies (LBC) can only access them when banks provide bank guarantees to the various LBCs. And then upon that, the money can be released to these banks, and as they are able to recycle, that is the number of times they will be able to recycle, will determine the rate at which the country would benefit.
We should not forget the fact that as the LBCs recycle about two, three times, this $1 billion is going to work or do the work of about, let say $3 billion, $4 billion, and the profits that these LBCs, which total over -- in the country -- that is, the tax component that the government, at the end of the day is going to get out of their profits, far exceed the waiver that we are
going to give them today.
Mr. Speaker, in order to smoothen the work of the Cocoa Board, I think it would be prudent on our part to give this waiver to enable Cocoa Board have access to sufficient funds to do the purchases for the 2008/2009 cocoa season. Mr. Speaker, with these few words, I support the motion.
Deputy Minister for Finance and
Economic Planning (Prof. G. Y. Gyan- Baffour): Mr. Speaker, in actual fact, Cocoa Board pays to government the export duty which is a percentage of the free on board (f.o.b) price of the cocoa that we export. So indeed, they pay money into the Consolidated Fund.
Mr. Speaker, secondly, if we do not waive this one per cent of $1 billion, it means that Cocoa Board will have less money available to purchase cocoa. And remember, when the hon. Minister of State was talking about the debt in the country, he included some contingent liability, so whatever debt that is owed by Cocoa Board is a debt that government would have to pay, if Cocoa Board cannot do that. Whatever that they incur is actually contingent on government.
Therefore, allowing them to use this money to purchase the cocoa - which is about $10 million, if they do not have that $10 million to purchase the cocoa, it becomes contingent on government. giving it to them does not mean that the government is losing.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have to bear in mind what Cocoa Board has been doing in terms of national development. The cocoa roads that we are constructing now, which each of us is trying to get one into his/her area, is funded from the surplus profits of Cocoa Board; so Cocoa Board, if even that is an indirect way, is actually
RESOLUTIONS 10:55 a.m.

THIS HONOURABLE HOUSE IS 10:55 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED 10:55 a.m.

Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Motion 9, That the Home Mortgage Finance Bill
be now read the Third time.
Mr. Ossei Aidooh 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to seek leave to apply that this Bill goes through Second Consideration Stage in respect of clause 6.2 -
Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Clause 6.2 of the Bill?
So you want it to go through a Second Consideration Stage? give any good reason. What is the reason?
BILLS -- SECOND 10:55 a.m.

CONSIDERATION STAGE 10:55 a.m.

Mr. Aidooh 10:55 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 6, subclause (2), delete “with immediate effect” and insert “forthwith”.
Mr. Speaker, if I may read clause 6 (2) 11:05 a.m.
“A person who contravenes subsection (1) is liable to pay the whole of the outstanding amount with immediate effect.”
The words “with immediate effect” in

Mr. Speaker, my contention is that the words “with immediate effect” do not make any legal sense or grammatical sense. So I propose that those word are deleted and we insert thereof the words “forthwith”. So that we shall have:

“A person who contravenes subsection (1) is liable to pay the

whole of the outstanding amount forthwith.”

Or if somebody has a better word, fine. But these words are certainly not elegant at all. If nobody has a better word, I suggest that we put the word “forthwith” there.

Nii Mante: Mr. Speaker, I rise to give my unflinching support to this amendment. The words “with immediate effect” is akin to some military regime sometime ago. So I am in agreement with the amendment.
Mr. Kwamena Bartels 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the normal rule is that if one owes a debt and there is an arrangement to pay the debt over a period and one defaults, one becomes liable to pay the total amount immediately. So I do not see any reason why we should worry about it. If the person has defaulted then with the default comes the penalty of having to pay the total amount immediately.
Alhaji Malik A. Yakubu 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, it is not just a question of paying a loan; there is a mischief that clause 6 (2) wants to cure and I think that is where the Majority Leader wants to put it in a neat form. Clause 6 (1) is saying that:
“A person who obtains a loan under this Act shall not use the whole or part of the loan for a purpose other than the purpose for which the loan was obtained”.
So the “immediate payment” which can be put in good language is to prevent that loan from being used for purposes other than for the purpose for which it was obtained. And if there is a delay, the danger of the loan so wrongly used will be there. Therefore, all that is needed is to put it in a way that there is no time lapse at all; as soon as it is discovered that he is going to misuse the loan, it should be paid immediately. It is just a question of
Alhaji Malik A. Yakubu 11:05 a.m.


not allowing any time lapse at all. So the “forthwith”, I think, is a good wording.
Mr. Aidooh 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that my Colleague, hon. Kwamena Bartels does not see the difference between the words in the Bill and what he said himself. What he said means that upon default, the sum becomes due immediately. That is it, he is right but that is not what these words mean. I think that he must see the difference.
Mr. Speaker, if we say that the person must pay the money “with immediate effect”, what does it mean? It means he must pay it immediately or forthwith. But if we say he must pay it with immediate effect, it does not make either legal or economical sense. So we either have the words: “He must pay it immediately” or “He must pay it forthwith”. That is it and there is a world of difference between the two.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:05 a.m.
So the proposed rendition shall be what?
Mr. Aidooh 11:05 a.m.
“Shall pay the money forthwith”.
Dr. A. A. Osei 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment sounds very revolutionary but not being a member of the learned profession, I agree with my Chairman and my Majority Leader that it either has to be “forthwith” or “immediately”. We can afford to be revolutionary in this sense; “immediately” or “forthwith”, I think we accept that amendment.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Well, we have already adopted the word “forthwith” and therefore, I will put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:05 a.m.
That brings us to the end of Second Consideration Stage of the Home Mortgage Finance Bill.
BILLS - THIRD READING 11:05 a.m.

MOTIONS 11:05 a.m.

Chairman of the Committee (Mr. F. A. Agbotse) 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that this honourable House adopts the Report of the Committee on Subsidiary Legislation on the Road Toll (Amend- ment) Regulations, 2008 (L.I. 1945).
Mr. Speaker, in so doing, I present the Report of the Committee.
1.0 Introduction
1.1 The Road Toll (Amendment) Regulations, 2008, L.I 1945 was laid in Parliament on the 17th of October, 2008 in accordance with article 11 (7) of the 1992 Constitution and referred to the Committee on Subsidiary Legislation pursuant to Standing Order 166 of the House.
2.0 Deliberations
2.1 The Committee met on Saturday, 25th of October, 2008 to consider the Instrument. The technical team from the Ministry of Transportation led by Mr. Kwakye and the Director of Legislative Drafting Division of the Attorney-
general's Office, Mrs. Estelle Appiah were in attendance amongst others at the invitation of the Committee to assist in deliberations. The Committee is grateful to them for their attendance and input in its deliberations.
3.0 Reference Documents
3.1 In examining the referral, the Committee had recourse to the following documents:
a) The 1992 Constitution of the Republic,
b) The Road Tolls Act, 1973 (Act 153),
c) The Road Tolls Regulations, 1999 (L.I. 1660); and
d) The Standing Orders of Parliament.
4.0 Background
4.1 The Regulations in reference are being made under section 1 (1) of the Road Tolls Act, 1973 (Act 153) which empowers the then Commissioner for Transportation to make Regulations by Legislative Instrument subject to the approval of National Redemption Council (Cabinet):
a) declaring any road to be a toll road;
b) declaring any bridge to be a toll bridge;
c) fixing the tolls to be levied on motor vehicles using such road or bridge;
d) exempting any class of passengers, vehicles, animals or goods from the payment of such tolls.
Section 1 (2) of the Act 153 also empowers the Minister (then referred to
as Commissioner) to prescribe different rates of tolls for different classes of motor vehicles.
5.0 Object of the Regulations
5.1 The Regulations seek to expand the existing toll roads in the country by increasing the number of toll booths for mobilisation of revenue to improve the road network in the country.
6.0 Observations
6 .1 The Commi t t ee obse rved that good road network is a critical infrastructural requirement for socio- economic development of the country but involves huge capital investment. It is therefore necessary to ensure regular maintenance of our roads in order to keep such infrastructure in good condition at all times for the realization of the optimum benefit of such investment.
6.2 The Committee further observed that tolling of a number of our highway and major trunk roads have become one of the effective ways of mobilising revenue to support the maintenance and expansion of road infrastructure generally in the country.
6.3 The Committee took note of the fact that the Regulations also provide for the tolling of a number of roads which were yet to be constructed or rehabilitated. This new arrangement the Committee noted, would enable the Ministry to predetermine in the engineering works the design for the road corridors where toll booths will be installed to avert challenges such as accidents that normally accompany the siting of toll booths after roads have been constructed.
6.4 The Committee further noted that a number of road accidents the country
Chairman of the Committee (Mr. F. A. Agbotse) 11:05 a.m.


continue experiencing could be linked to the poor condition of some of our roads and therefore, welcomed the proposal to increase the number of toll boots on our highways as means of generating more revenue for the maintenance of our roads in the country.

7.0 Recommendation and Conclusion

7.1 The Committee has thoroughly examined the Regulations and is of the view that they are consistent with the Road Tolls Act, 1973 (Act 153), all other related statutes and the provisions of the Constitution. The Committee accordingly recommends that the Road Toll (Amendment) Regulations, 2008 (L.I. 1945) be allowed by this House to come into force with the effluxion of time.

Respectfully submitted.
Mr. Wisdom Gidisu (NDC — Krachi East) 11:05 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question proposed.
Mr. Pele Abuga (NDC -- Chiana- Paga) 11:15 a.m.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is all right to extend the road toll, particularly, in view of the fact that the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning anticipates that these tolls could be used for the payment of a loan we considered in this House.
Mr. Speaker, the other important issue concerning the roads for which tolls would be levied is the fact that many of these roads are beginning to deteriorate and the maintenance of them is something of concern, I think, to everybody and motorists in particular. I consider the case of the Kintampo-Paga road, because of the excessive usage by these big vehicles from our neighbouring countries, it is
beginning to develop numerous potholes in several places and one would have thought that a close eye would be kept on these roads to ensure that when potholes begin to develop something would be done about them.
If we allow the deterioration to continue, the holes deepen and in future it becomes even more costly, to maintain these roads.

So I think that while we agree that tolls be paid on these roads, it is also important to have a particular unit in the Ministry of Highways to ensure that these roads are maintained. That is why many people have questioned our maintenance culture in this country. It is very essential that we do not allow these good roads that have seen massive investments to reach a level where we will have to do the whole road again. The earlier we stopped some of these roads from deteriorating into large craters the better for us. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Question put and motion agreed to.

Resolved accordingly.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Item 11, Chairman of the Committee.
Suspension of Standing Order 80 (1)
Mr. Agbotse 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 80 (1) which require that no motion shall be debated until at least forty-eight hours have elapsed between the date on which notice of the motion is given and the date on which the motion is moved, the motion for the adoption of the Report of the Committee on Subsidiary Legislation on the Lottery Regulations, 2008 (L.I. 1984) may be moved today.
Mr. Wisdom Gidisu 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
Report of the Committee on Subsidiary Legislation on the
Lottery Regulations, 2008
(L.I. 1984)
Mr. Agbotse 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that this honourable House adopts the Report of the Committee on Subsidiary Legislation on the Lottery Regulations,
2008 (L.I. 1984).
Mr. Speaker, in so doing I submit the Report of the Committee to the House.
1.0 Introduction
1.1 The Lottery Regulations, 2008, (L.I. 1984) was laid in Parliament on 22nd October 2008 in accordance with article 11 (7) of the Constitution. Mr. Speaker subsequently referred the Instrument to the Committee on Subsidiary Legislation for consideration and report pursuant to Standing Order 166 of the House.
2.0 Deliberations
2.1 The Committee met on Sunday, 26th October 2008 and considered the Instrument. The Management Board of the National Lottery Authority led by the Chief Executive, Mr. Kojo Andah and the Director of the Legislative Drafting Division of the Attorney-general's Office, Mrs. Estelle Appiah were in attendance at the invitation of the Committee to assist in deliberations. The Committee is grateful to them for their attendance and input in its deliberations.
3.0 Reference Documents
3.1 In examining the referral, the
Committee had recourse to the following documents:
i. The 1992 Constitution of the Republic,
ii. The National Lotto Act, 2006 (Act 722),
i i i . The Standing Orders of Parliament.
4.0 Background
4.1 The Instrument in reference is made under section 55 (e) of the National Lotto Act, 2006 (Act 722) which empowers the Minister responsible for Finance and Economic Planning to make Regulations by Legislative Instrument for the effective regulation of the lotto industry.
5.0 Object of the Regulations
5.1 The L.I. 1984 seeks to establish systems, procedures and processes to regulate the operations of the lotto industry including the stakeholders.
6.0 Provisions of the Regulations
6.1 The Regulations provide for the establishment of a lottery Committee, licensing, prohibitions of lotto marketing companies, operation of lottery, claims for instant prizes, operation of online lottery, staking provisions, draw and supervision of national lottery and miscellaneous matters.
6.1.1 Establishment of Lottery Committee and Licensing
The Regulations provide for the establishment of a national lottery draw Committee, the composition of its membership and functions. The licensing provisions specify the licensing authority, the conditions for the grant of
Mr. Agbotse 11:15 a.m.


license, period of validity of the license, its renewal as well as the grounds for suspension or revocation.

6 . 1 . 2 P r o h i b i t i o n s o f L o t t o Marketing Companies and the Operation of Lottery

Regulations on the above specify in detail the activities which lottery marketing companies are prohibited from engaging in, state in clear terms persons qualified to operate in the lottery industry and further provide in detail the criteria for operating instant lottery.

6.1.3 Claims for Instant Prizes

The regulations on the above state the procedures and processes required in claiming instant prizes, the official closure of each instant lottery including validation requirements of such instant lottery.

6.1.4 Operation of Online Lottery

The above relates to online lottery and enables the board to empower the Director-general to select, operate and contract for the operation of online lottery subject to specified conditions. It further states the procedures involved in claiming online prizes. The Director-general is also empowered to replace invalid online tickets for future drawing of same amongst others.

6.1.5 Staking Provisions

The staking provisions specify the method of staking numbers, the registration of coupon by lotto marketing company, offenCes relating to the sale of coupons, obligations of stacker, acceptance of stakes and the procedure for depositing counter-foil books on stakes.

6.1.6 Draw and Supervision of National Lottery

The regulations also indicate the procedures and processes governing the draw of national lottery, the supervisory role of the national lottery committee, determination and claiming of prizes and the respective role of claimants, the Director-general and the Authority in the determination process. The provisions also include the authority to assign the right to claim a prize to another person and the procedural requirements therein.

6.1.7 Miscellaneous Provisions

Provisions on the above include requirements for persons to make payment, statement in accordance with identification numbers prescribe by the Director-general. Also included under miscellaneous provisions are forfeiture of security, deposit to the republic, payment of a commission by a lotto marketing company to the board, printing and allotment of coupon, discontinuance of existing lottery and introduction of new ones, suspension of lottery activity, prize disbursement account, custody of counter- foils and interleaves and the destruction of counter-foils and deletion of electronic data.

Other provisions include requirements for the preparation of daily, monthly and annual report on the efficient and effective operations of lottery in respect of number of licensed lotto marketing companies, new licenses as well as licenses suspended or revoked. There are further provisions on general penalties and interpretations.

7.0 Observations

7.1 The Committee noted that the Regulations provide opportunity for the banker to banker lotto operators who became redundant upon the coming into force of the Act 722 to re-engage in business. The Committee also found that the Regulations offer opportunity for

individuals to participate as operators in the industries. This, the Committee noted would serve as an avenue to create more sustainable employment opportunities.

7.2 The Committee observed that lotto has contributed significantly over the years to the national revenue and therefore, require national support to enable the industry generate more revenue for the accelerated development of the country.

8.0 Recommendation and Conclusion

8.1 The Committee has thoroughly examined the Regulations and is of the view that they are consistent with, the provisions of the Constitution and the Standing Orders and accordingly recommends that the National Lotto Regulations, 2008 (L. I. 1984) be allowed by this House to come into force with the effluxion of time.

Respectfully submitted.
Mr. Wisdom Gidisu 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
Question proposed.
Mr. P. C. Appiah-Ofori (NPP
- Asikuma/Odoben/Brakwa): Mr. Speaker, when this House passed the Lotto Act it ought to have been supported with L.I. in order that the organization would be able to generate enough funds. But this had not been done and therefore, the running, the management, and the administration of the Lotto Authorities were not going on well until the L.I. was brought before us.
We examined this, and whatever was negative, we corrected them. At the end of the day Mr. Speaker, if this is allowed to go on, the lotto institution will be able to generate enough revenue for the State and the government will also be able to
access funds to prosecute its programme for the benefit of the whole country. So I recommend highly that the House should give full approval so that the L.I. will come into force immediately. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Now, hon. Members, we move on to item 13 - RailwayS Bill at the Consideration Stage now.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 11:15 a.m.

STAGE 11:15 a.m.

  • [Resumption of Consideration from 12/11/08]
  • Mr. Appiah-Ofori 11:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we were on clause 25 and there seemed to be divergent opinions, so I had to do some consultations with the Deputy Majority Leader and the specialist. We therefore agreed to have a fresh rendition as stated in the Order Paper.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 42, Headnote, delete and insert “Condition for Transfer of Licence”.

    Mr. Speaker, if you read the provision there you will notice that the headnote does not fit in at all - “A licence granted is not transferable except with the written approval of the Authority”. If the sentence had ended at “transferable”, then the headnote would be appropriate. We are proposing that we change the head-note to read as follows: “Conditions for Transfer of Licence”.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 11:25 a.m.


    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clause 42 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 44 -- Power to suspend, cancel or modify licence.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 11:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 44, subclause (5), insert a new subclause as follows:
    “(5) Upon receipt of a notice, the operator may make representation to the Authority.”
    This is intended to strengthen the provision under clause 44.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 44, subclause (6), after “Authority” delete paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert “in respect of section 43 and this section”.
    It would take care of the entire provision and it would make it easy for anyone to read and understand.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 44 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 45 to 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 57 - Power of railway company

    to enter land adjoining railway line.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 57, subclause (3), paragraph (b), line 1, delete “ensure safe” and insert “ensure the safety and security of”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Which paragraph are you talking about?
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am talking about line 1 of subclause (3) which states: “The Authority may take any appropriate action” I am of the considered opinion that the word “to” which precedes “prevent” should rather be moved to “action”, so that it would take care of (a) and (b).
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    So how would the rendition read?
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    the rendition may read as follows: “The Authority may take any appropriate (a) action to prevent a threat of life or property and then to “ensure the safety and security of”.
    Mr. Speaker, the rendition would now be 11:35 a.m.
    “The Authority may take any
    appropriate action to (a) prevent . . .” and (b) “to ensure the safety and security of railway operations.”
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Chairman on that amendment except, again, if you look at the construction, “The Authority may take any appropriate action to” and he is saying that in place of “ensure safe” we now substitute “ensure the safety and security of”. The new rendition then would read:
    “The Authority may take any appropriate action to ensure the safety and security of railway operations or safety in relation to railway construction, management or operations.”
    Mr. Speaker, it is a bit repetitive, so I think what we should do by adopting what he has written is, we would say “to ensure the safety and security of railway construction, management or operations.”
    This is because the two descriptions, that is the adjectives there “safety” and “security” relate to railway construction, railway management and railway operations. So we are just saying that “to ensure the safety and security of railway construction, management or operations.”
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    I think the hon. Member's rendition is a neater way of going about it.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I accept it.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 57 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 58 - Compensation.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 58, add a new subclause (4) as follows:
    “The Authority shall be responsible for ensuring that any compensation due is paid to the person who has suffered a loss.”
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Chairman, the new subclause should be numbered
    (4)?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we would leave that one to the draftsperson, but I thought that it should really be subclause (3) and then the original subclause (3) then goes to subclause (4).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 58 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 60 - Appointment of Railway Safety Inspectors.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 60, add a new subclause as follows:
    “The Authority shall prescribe the qualification of a Railway Safety and Security Inspector.”
    Mr. Speaker, this is to strengthen the rendition.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I thought that what we do when we use the word “prescribe”, normally it comes via Legislative Instruments. But this one, we are talking about the outfit itself determining the qualifications. So I would suggest to the Chairman that we rather delete the word “prescribe” and in its place substitute “determine” just so that we may not confuse ourselves with the procedure for Legislative Instruments.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, this is acceptable.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 61, subclause (2), line 2, delete “or purported exercise”.
    Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely redundant; it plays no role here, so it should go.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 61 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 62 - Reporting of Railway accidents.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 11:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 62, subclause (1), delete and insert the following:
    “Where an accident occurs in the course of the operations of a railway company, that railway company shall immediately report the accident to the police and bring it to the notice of the Authority.”
    Mr. Speaker, I have deleted “give notice of the accident”. I think it is not right so I have changed it and in its place inserted “bring to the notice of the Authority.” So the proposed amendment would read as follows:
    “When an accident occurs in the course of the operations of a railway company that railway company shall
    immediately report the accident to the police and bring the accident to the notice of the Authority.”
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, again, I believe that it would be better to have this construction. The principle is understandable but I believe that we can have it neater if we said:
    “When an accident occurs in the course of the operations of a railway company that railway company shall immediately report the accident to the police and notify the Authority.”
    The accident is reported to the police and the Authority is notified. But to say “and give notice of the accident to the police”; I do not really understand the intentment of that construction.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 11:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, in
    fact this is what I had wanted to do and I have written it here, but I am of the opinion that “to bring it to the notice of the Authority” is better than “notify”: But if the concensus is that “notify” is all right, then let us go with it. This is because the hon. Members in the House are not nodding their heads.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 11:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg
    to move, clause 62, subclause (2), delete and insert the following:
    “In this section and section 63, “accident” means an unexpected and unpleasant event that:
    (a) causes harm or injury to a person or damage to equipment or property or connected to railway
    operations,
    (b) affects the safety and security of a person or property connec t ed t o r a i lway operations.”
    Mr. Aidooh 11:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, in the (a) “causes harm or injury to a person or damage to equipment or property or connected to railway operations”. Mr. Speaker, these words; or connected to railway operations” are not necessary. (b) deals with an accident that affects person or property connected to any railway operations.
    So (a), must be limited to “accident that causes harm or injury to a person or damage to equipment or property”. In fact the last words “connected to railway operations” means nothing in the context and I propose that those words are deleted.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Are you agreeable hon. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:45 a.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I think it is rather the inclusion of the word “or” that is making it meaningless. It an event that “causes harm or injury to a person or damage to equipment or property that is connected to or with railway operations” that is the intentment of it:
    So it is the inclusion of the word “or” --
    Mr. Speaker, if you come to the word
    (b), that Majority Leader is conceding, you would see that clearly, the word “or” is not there and that is why it makes sense. But in (a) -- and may I appeal to him to hold his guns.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Are you
    proposing that instead of deleting those words, we might as well delete just one word “or”?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:45 a.m.
    “or” in the
    third line.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Fair
    enough.
    Mr. Aidooh 11:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I think
    he is very, very wrong. If that is done, it will mean that “an accident would include damage or harm to a person or property or equipment that is not connected to railway operations”. That is what he is asking to do. If we did what he is suggesting it would mean that accidents are limited to damage to property, persons or equipment connected to railway operations only, and that an accident that causes damage to a pedestrian may not be called an accident.
    So (a), deals with accidents to persons and property generally. And the (b) deals with accidents that are connected to property or persons connected with operations; that is the distinction.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Majority Leader, what we are dealing with is the Railways Bill. We are talking about injuries which happen in connection with the operations of railways; that is all that (a) means. So if there is a road accident elsewhere, nobody is saying that is not an accident; but it is not connected in this context with the operations of railways. Mr. Speaker, if the Majority Leader and Leader of the House would hold his guns -- I think that is what it means and allow us to go on.
    Mr. Lee Ocran 11:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    wish on this occasion to side with the Deputy Majority Leader. We are talking about an accident that involves railway operations. If equipment, property, a house or whatever is damaged in the course of railway operations, then you have -- But if it involves a car accident then that is not it. So it is an accident involved with railway operations. But if you say “or connected to railway operations” then you are differentiating between the two but it is only one.
    Mr. Lee Ocran 11:45 a.m.


    Mr. Speaker, and for the first time I would side with the Deputy Majority Leader.
    Mr. Aidooh 11:45 a.m.
    I will concede if he can
    convince me that when a pedestrian hit by the rail that is an accident all right, and if injury is caused to walking, that is also an accident.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon.
    Members, in order to make progress let us defer this and consult the draftsperson. It is a drafting problem so that the sense would be brought out as to whether you are talking about a group of people or class of people that this could relate to. Please, sort it out and let us effect the relevance in order not to waste time.
    Mr. Aidooh 11:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the clause
    says “accident causes harm or injury to a person or damage to equipment or property connected to”; not “in connection with. If you say “in connection with” then it would affect a pedestrian. But in this case the “person, property, or equipment must be connected to” that is what we have here. So that person or equipment must directly be connected to. It should be an integral path for the operation. So my distinction still holds.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon. Majority Leader, as I said, I do not want any more contribution on this matter. We would stand it down for awhile. Later on, we will come to it.
    Clause 63 - Inquiry into an accident.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    beg to move, clause 63, subclause (2) (b), delete “rail” and insert “railway line”.
    Mr. Speaker, this is not an advertised amendment, I just want to correct it.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 63 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 64 to 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 75 - general duties of a railway
    company as a carrier of goods.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg
    to move, clause 75, subclause (4), line 2, delete “when” and insert “where”.
    In the circumstance, “where” is more
    appropriate than “when”.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to. Clause 75 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clause 76 - Liability of a railway company in respect of goods.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    beg to move, clause 76, subclause (1), paragraph (d), after “commotion” delete “from any clause”.
    This rendition is better.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 76 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clause 77 - Notice of loss, damage
    or delay.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg
    to move, clause 77, line 3, delete “four months” and insert “one hundred and twenty days”.
    This will be more accurate and more reliable than saying “four months” because at times a month maybe 28 days, 30 days or 31 days. But if we actually go by days, it will be more accurate. That is why we proposed this amendment.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, with respect, I got up in respect of clause 76. I have a minor correction.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Let us put the Question on clause 77. Does it relate to clause 77?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
    I just want
    to make a minor correction.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    We would
    do that but let us put the Question on the proposed amendment to clause 77, and then we can go back.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
    All right.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 77 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Yes, hon.
    Deputy Majority Leader, let us hear you.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, it is clause 76 (1) (d) - “riots or civil commotion from any cause”. The hon. Chairman moved for the deletion of the words “from any cause”, which is acceptable. But - “riots or civil commotion” - Mr. Speaker, I thought the better word is “civil disorder” not “civil commotion”. I hope the hon. Chairman is listening.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon.
    Chairman, are you all right with that?
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 11:55 a.m.
    Yes, I am all right with that.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Although
    I believe that commotion is a little better than disorder, but if you say so -
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    would have preferred commotion but because the hon. Deputy Majority Leader is the boss here, I do not want to challenge him.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 76 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clause 78 - Stoppage in transit.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg
    to move, clause 78, subclause (2) delete “proving “ and insert “proof”, and also in line 1, delete “or delay”.
    Mr. Speaker, the whole sentence will
    read:
    “The onus of proof that there was no negligence in respect of the goods while the goods were held in transit is on the railway company.”
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, may we hear from the hon. Chairman the reason for deleting the words “or delay”? Maybe some delay could be acceptable but if it is undue delay then one could be culpable. Maybe we could say “or undue delay” but to delete it entirely, I do not really understand. If he could offer convincing and persuasive argument to that, I may agree with him. Otherwise, I would rather suggest that we insert “undue”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon. Chairman, do you agree with that?
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 11:55 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I

    do not.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    You do not?
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I do
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Not only
    “negligence” but “delay” also as a damage or some kind of liability is caused to somebody whose goods you are supposed to carry from one spot to the other. If there is undue delay you would incur some damages.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    look at where clause 1 ends. With your permission, I read:
    “A railway company is not liable for loss of or damage to goods or for delay that occurs while goods are stopped and held in transit at the request of a person who is entitled to make the request except where a railway company is negligent.”
    So the whole thing is centred on negligence. If the railway company is negligent -
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon.
    Chairman, do not let us haggle over it. The delay is part of it; it is not only negligence we are talking about; we are talking about delay as well. The second subclause is also talking about negligence and delay. So if we can make progress on that, let us continue.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:05 p.m.
    All right, if you
    say so.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 78 as amended ordered to sand
    part of the Bill.
    Clause 79 - Liability of originating railway company.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, clause 79 establishes liability. I just wanted to draw the attention of the Chairman that we have established liability for undue delay. So maybe, we may not on that part as well, insert “undue” before “delay” at clause 79 (1).
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Honestly,
    hon. Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu, since clause 78, subclause (1), did not talk about “undue”, but they only talked about “delay”, your insertion of “undue delay” changes the whole meaning, unless you want to introduce “undue delay” in the earlier subclause.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the Chairman had moved that we delete the words “or delay” and I felt that it was indeed necessary - [Interruption.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Agreed,
    but as I said, the first subclause, talks about delay.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
    If we
    allow it to stand then perhaps -- because I was going for a more convincing persuasive reason why we should allow “delay” to stand.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Indeed,
    “delay” ought to stand without even the word “undue”.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
    That is
    all right with me, Mr. Speaker. And that would mean that we have to look at clause 78 (2) again and remove the word “undue” which I introduced. Then clause 79 (1) withholds. Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, the Chairman also moved in respect of the construction, “the onus of proof”: We have the same thing happening in clause 79 (2). So if we had accepted his amendment, it
    may have consequential effect on clause
    79 (2).
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Chairman,
    do you agree to that?
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clauses 80 to 82 ordered to stand part
    of the Bill.
    Clause 83 - Undelivered goods.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    beg go move, clause 83, Headnote, delete “undelivered” and insert “unclaimed”. If you read the provision in subclause (1) you would see that the appropriate word should be “unclaimed”. not “undeli-vered”. The railway company has no business going to deliver goods to anybody; it is rather that if you do not receive your goods, you come there to collect it.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, if I may - clause 83. I think the construction there certainly is not the best at all, the opening words of the subclauses there, Mr. Speaker, subclause (1) says: “if goods come into the possession of the railway company”; subclause (2) “If” and then we go on and on; subclause (3) “If”. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we delete the word “if” as appears in all these and then substitute “were”. I think that has been the word that has been applied elsewhere, in most places.
    So I guess the draftspersons may take note. It should be “where goods come into the possession of the railway company for . . .” Then subclause (2):”where that owner or person is not known;” subclause
    (3): “where the person entitled to receive the goods or notice is known or the railway company is in a position to serve . . .”
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Chairman
    of the Committee, do you agree to this proposal?
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:05 p.m.
    I do not see the
    need for it. This is a conditional tense: If this happens, that should be so. It is conditional and when you are constructing a sentence and you use “if”, you are saying that unless that happens, this should not take place. So I do not see why there should be any need for that.
    Mr. Ossei Aidooh 12:05 p.m.
    Yes, it is conditional, but the conventional method we should use the word “where” and not “if”. That is more conventional.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    So
    Chairman, would you agree to that?
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:05 p.m.
    Well.
    Mr. J. B. Aidoo 12:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if our
    hon. Leaders are saying that that is the conventional method, then it should apply wherever “if” appears, because it runs through; if you take section 71 for example, “if” has been used there to classify a number of sub-sections. And so wherever “if” appears, it should be replaced with “where”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon.
    Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu, do you agree to that?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, what I said should not have universal application here. Mr. Speaker, we are particularly talking about clause 83 and my hon. Colleague is going somewhere else. We are talking about the commencement of that construction and the hon. Member for Amenfi East, Mr. Aidoo should not confuse us. Mr. Speaker, this is specific.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Chairman, will you agree to that?
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, once
    they say it is conventional, let us go with the conventional one.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to, viz
    Clause 83, subclause (1), (2) and (3)
    at the beginning delete “if” and insert “where”.
    Clause 83 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 85 - Threat to safety.

    Clause 86 - Other offences.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 86, subclause (2), line 1, delete “and” and insert “or”.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, clause 86 (3) (c ), I wanted to draw the attention of the Chairman to the omission of the adjunct, “a person who (a) (b) (c), so after “passengers” there should be “or”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    So there
    should be “or” after “passengers”,after (c), is that not it? “Travels in the part of the train not identified for the use of passengers or (d). Is that not it? That is a minor and it should be effected.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 86 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, it is in respect of clause 85 (2). I think this construction has always been coming back to haunt us. “A person who, knowingly (a) uses any material, (b) does any work, (c) conceals any defect.” Mr. Speaker, I think we have resolved to do away with such constructions and in its place we have substituted “wilfully” or “intentionally”. We have resorted to either of these words, “wilfully” or “inten-tionally” not knowingly. So in the circumstance, we may use either of them, “willfully” or “intentionally”. And if it is so agreed perhaps we could leave it to the draftspersons to choose whichever is most appropriate.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 85 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    It should
    be done by the draftsperson that is to clause 85 (2).
    Clauses 87 and 88 ordered to stand part
    of the Bill.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, again, the same thing for clause 88 between subclauses (a) and (b), we should look at it. Mr. Speaker, I think for these minor ones we could leave them to the draftsperson so that we could have “or” after “warehousing”.
    Clause 89 - Neglect of duty by
    employee of railway company.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    beg to move, clause 89, delete and insert the following:
    “(1) An employee of a railway
    company who causes, aids or abets a situation:
    (a) which leads to or is likely to lead to the occurrence of a derailment or to a collision of a train or vehicle of a railway company, or
    (b) in which the safety and security of a person travelling by or working on the railway is or is likely to be endangered, commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than two thousand and five hundred penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not more than five years or to both.
    (2) An employee of a railway company who:
    (a) refuses or willfully neglects to carry out that employee's duties,
    (b) carries out that employee's duties recklessly or with gross negligence; and
    (c) wilfully disregards a regulation, lawful order, directions or rules applying to or given to that employee, shall be subject to disciplinary proceedings by the railway company.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 89 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clause 90 - Drunken employee on railway facility.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg
    to move, clause 90, line 2, insert “on duty” after “while”
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 90 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, just to remind the Chairman that he himself has been calling for the deletion of these words “and”, “and” whether inserting “or” but he comes there and he is repeating the same thing that he has been drawing our attention to, in respect of clause 89(2)(b), the new proposal. So the last words in subclause (b) should be “or” and not “and”.
    Mr. Speaker, clause 89(2),
    “An employee of a railway company who
    (a) refuses or wilfully neglects to carry out that employee's duties,
    (b) carries out that employee's duties recklessly or with gross negligence,” or
    (c ) wi l fu l ly d is regards a regulation, lawful order, directions or rule applying to or given to that employee s h a l l b e s u b j e c t t o disciplinary by the railway company.”
    I am saying that the word “and” at the end should rather be deleted and in its place have “or”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Honestly,
    I am not following you.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, clause 89(2) (b), the new proposal on the Order Paper.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Clause
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.


    89 (2)?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, Clause 89 (2).
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Clause 89
    has no subclause (2).
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, it is on the Order Paper. That is the amendment being proposed by the Chairman, page 8, sir.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    On the proposed amendment which we have carried? Do you want us to effect a change? What are you talking about?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
    Yes, just
    the deletion of the word “and” at the end of 2(b) and insertion of the word “or”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Instead
    of “and” you want it to be “or”?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Fair
    enough, let us continue.
    Clause 91 - Drunkenness on duty
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    beg to move, clause 91 - Headnote, delete and insert the following:
    “Drunken employee on duty. responsible for traffic operations or maintenance of railway line”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    “Railway
    line”?
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:25 p.m.
    Yes, I want us to
    add “railway line” to it - “maintenance of railway line”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Instead of “railway”?
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:25 p.m.
    Yes, “railway
    line”, “maintenance of railway line”.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I think this new construction wants to describe the entire clause, and I do not think it is necessary. It is drunkenness on duty that they are talking about. Of course, it is in respect of employees and it is in respect of the operations of railways. I do not think we have to go this whole hog and write a whole paragraph to describe this, I do not think so. We could leave it as it is, “drunkenness on duty”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    I believe
    that is a more reasonable approach towards it because the Headnote is too long - “Drunkenness on duty”, that is all and it will affect all. The Headnote need not be that long.
    Chairman of the Committee, will you
    agree to that?
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:25 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Clause
    91 --
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    beg to move, clause 91, after paragraph (d), add four new paragraphs as follows:
    “(e) in charge of a train or vehicle
    of a railway company
    (f) a railway engine
    (g) guarding a railway van
    (h) any railway duty, the perfor- mance of which the safety and security of other persons
    depend”.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I just looked at the (e) there and I think it does not sit with the construction of the opening paragraph --
    “An employee of a railway company who is found to be under the influence of alcohol or narcotic drug while on duty and responsible” ”
    and then you say
    “and responsible for in charge of a train . . .”
    It does not sit with the opening paragraph so if we could have another construction or a better rendition of that part - Perhaps, “ who is responsible for a train or vehicle of a railway company”, instead of saying “who is responsible in charge of a train or a vehicle of a railway company”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    What do
    you say to that, Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, yes,
    what he is saying is right but let us refer it to the draftsperson to help us with the phraseology.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Fair
    enough.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 91 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, sir, I am sorry for taking us back a bit in respect of clause 89 (2) (c), that is the new construction that we dealt with, the amendment proposed by the Committee on page 8 - reads:
    “An employee of a rai lway company who wilfully disregards a
    regulation, lawful order, directions or rule applying to or given to that employee . . .”
    Mr. Speaker, I think the better construction is, instead of “directions” “directives” - “wilfully disregards a regulation, lawful order, directives or rules applying to or given to that employee”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Fair enough, I think it should be effected.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 91 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 92 - Test for alcohol or drugs.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    beg to move, clause 92, line 3, before “Inspector” insert “and security”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    But what
    are you saying, are you aware of any word we used? Was it not “Safety Inspector?” Was there anything else?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
    That is
    why I am enquiring from the Chairman. I think what we did was really establishing the position of “Railway Safety Inspector”. I do not recollect that we added “security”.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.


    If indeed, we did then it will be appropriate to do that. If we did not then we cannot introduce it.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:25 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    what we are trying to say is this: wherever we have “Safety Inspector”, it should read “Safety and Security Inspector”. In other words, we want that person to be responsible for both safety and security.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    It is a new
    proposal that you are making?
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:25 p.m.
    Yes, so wherever
    we have “Safety Inspector” it should change to “Safety and Security Inspector”. This is all that we are trying to say.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    But what
    he is saying is that we have earlier on considered it. Was it the case? If it was not the case, why are you bringing it? If you are bringing it and you say it is acceptable then it should apply.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:25 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, I think I have now seen it. It is in respect of clause 60 - we established a “Railway Safety Inspector” and he is now saying that it should be “Safety and Security” -- I was wondering.

    Mr. Speaker, I just realized that there was an amendment proposed there to include security, so he will be right. But that is where the justification is and not what he is saying now.

    Question put and amendment agreed

    to.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, in that case, we only have to say
    that wherever it does appear we should have consequentially that amendment instead of doing so at every place.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg
    to move, clause 92, add a new subclause as follows:
    “A person shall be taken to be under the influence of alcohol where the alcohol concentration in that person's blood or breath as shown by any competent medical evidence or any other competent evidence is 0.08 per cent or more when measured within two hours of the time of operating or attempting to operate a train.”
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 92 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clause 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 94 - Application for relief.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg
    to move, clause 94, Title, delete and insert “Complaints to the Authority”
    Mr. Speaker, if you read the provision it relates to complaints more than application for relief. Complaints lodged by the aggrieved person with the Authority. So we are saying that instead of calling it application for relief, let us call it complaints to the Authority.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    beg to move, clause 94, delete Headnote, subclauses (1) and (2) and insert the following:
    “Right to lodge complaint
    (1) A person dissatisfied with any act or omission of the Authority may lodge a complaint with the Authority for redress.
    (2) The Authority on receipt of a complaint under this section may make an order to grant the relief requested and grant further or other relief as the Authority considers just and appropriate.
    (3) The decision of the Authority under subsection (1) is subject to section 99 to 104.”
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    The
    clause 94 -- there is a little confusion on how you have gone about it. I believe it is repeated. You have already as it were amended the headnote. But in your latter part of it, you have also repeated delete “headnote” in subclauses (1) and (2) and insert the following - [Interruption] -- That is all right. What you are saying is that delete “headnote” subclauses (1) and (2) and insert the following: “right to lodge complaint”. What exactly are you talking about? Is it from 94 - Chairman?
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, let
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    No, it is
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, what
    I am saying is that we are deleting the whole thing and substituting it with this
    one, so please put it to hon. Members for consideration.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Very well.
    We will stand it down - defer it.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, clause 94, it has been better captured in this amendment. If you read clause 94, what obtains in the document; it reads:
    “The Authority on receipt of an application or complaint under this Part . . .”
    The amendment now says:
    “A person dissatisfied with any act or mission of the Authority may lodge a complaint.”
    So it sets out the procedure for lodging a complaint in a better manner. That is all that it means. And why the Chairman is saying that we should stand it down, I do not understand.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe we could go on. It is better captured here. The procedure is better expressed in the amendment that the Chairman is proposing. My only worry is in respect of the new proposal - the amendment 94 (3):
    “The decision of the Authority under subsection (1) is subject to sections 99 to 104.”
    Mr. Speaker, the decision is not only
    in respect of subsection (1), so we would say that the decision of the Authority under this section. We could just say that instead of saying subsection (1) -- and it is subject to sections 99 to 104.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    It should be under this section or under this clause? Under what?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, under this section because we are talking about section 94, that is the complaint section.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.


    Member, but my problem as I had earlier pointed out is that we have earlier on “deleted the “headnote”, clause 94”. Amendment proposed subclauses (1) and (2) and insert - that is fair enough. We have talked about it but earlier on, “Title - delete and insert complaints to the Authority”. It is in respect of the same clause. So what is it that you want to do?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, are you talking about the headnote?
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Yes.
    Earlier on there had been a proposed amendment to the headnote which we have carried.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, clause 94 - the application for relief, and it said, we should delete it and insert “complaints to the Authority”. All right, and then we come down and it says that we should rather read “right to lodge complaints”.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Delete
    again the headnote?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe we can leave that to the draftsperson -- [Interruption.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    You will come back to it.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    This section?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, sections 99 to 104 by pluralizing the word “section”.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:35 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, that is
    the reason why I said that we should refer the matter to the draftsperson -- there is confusion here.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Very well. I think I will do so. There is a little mix- up, we need to refer it to the draftsperson to take a second look at it, and do the rearrangement properly and then effect the relevant amendment as has been discussed here.
    Clause 95 -- Fact finding by the Authority conclusive.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg
    to move, clause 95, line 1, before “finding” delete “The” and insert “A”.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 95 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clauses 96 to 98 ordered to stand part
    of the Bill.

    Clause 99 -- Establishment of Railway Complaints, Appeals and Review Panel.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    beg to move, clause 99, subclause (2), line 2, delete “at least three” and insert “not more than three”. It is a better rendition than the previous one.
    rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Hon.
    Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu, do you have any problem with that?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:45 p.m.
    Yes. Mr.
    Speaker, clause 99 (2) says:
    “The Railway Complaints Appeals and Review Panel shall consist of seven persons at least three of whom shall be lawyers”
    And the Chairman is proposing that we remove the words “at least three” and insert “not more than three”. So he is suggesting to us that we could have just one person out of the seven as a lawyer and I do not understand.
    Mr. Speaker, if we had all seven
    members as lawyers so be it, because we are talking of a Complaints Committee and Appeals and Review Committee all rolled into one. And if we have all of them as lawyers so be it. Why do we have to say that not more than three should be lawyers? It means we could have only one person as a lawyer.
    Mr. Lee Ocran 12:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, when we
    were discussing the Bill at the committee level at Koforidua, the consultant to the government, who is a lawyer brought this matter up and there was a long argument but eventually we settled that at least three of the people should be lawyers.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    In that
    case, Chairman, will you consider your -
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if
    you say at least, then it means all the seven can be lawyers.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    That is
    right.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:45 p.m.
    Do you understand
    what I am saying? But we are not saying we do not want it like that. We are putting a cap -
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    That is
    not so from the way they were proposed.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:45 p.m.
    This is what the
    Committee decided that the number of lawyers that would be there should not exceed three, so that the remaining four other professionals can come in. This is what we decided. So if he says “at least not less than”, then it means all the seven can be lawyers, it is not good. So Mr. Speaker, we are saying that we are putting a cap -
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    But your
    proposed amendment, it may put a cap but indeed, it does not even allow for - what you are saying is that it could be one lawyer, two lawyers but definitely not more than three. Is that what you are proposing?
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:45 p.m.
    We are not forcing
    anybody but we are saying that not more than three lawyers should be members of the committee.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    But do
    you not say “not more than or less than three”?
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:45 p.m.
    We are saying
    that we should not flood the place with lawyers; the place should not be flooded with lawyers.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    It is a
    committee of appellate powers and for that matter you understand why they say lawyers should be involved.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:45 p.m.
    There are some
    professionals in which jurisdiction, certain areas or certain offences they have better experience and knowledge to settle, better than even lawyers. Do you understand? So if you fill the place with lawyers - this is what the law is saying; so we are saying that we should not take in more than three lawyers and the rest, other professionals should come in. This is what we are

    saying.
    Mr. Ocran 12:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, in this case,
    why do we not put it this way:
    “shall consist of seven persons three of whom shall be lawyers”.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I do not see really the reason for this amendment. Yes, it is unnecessary. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if you go on the wings of what my Colleague, the hon. P. C. Appiah-Ofori is proposing, even if that is in, the unlikely event that the committee is packed with seven lawyers, there is still room to co-opt any expert for purposes of its work and that is captured in clause 99 (6).
    So Mr. Speaker, I think if you allow what is here to be there it allows for flexibility and I do not think the appointing Authority will not be mindful of the issues being raised by hon. P. C. Appiah-Ofori. We should accord them some level of reasonability that they would take all these factors into consideration. And so I propose that the amendment -
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    You
    oppose the amendment?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:45 p.m.
    Yes, I
    oppose it.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:45 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, put the Question again, please, with respect because I think -
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    You have
    challenged it; so I will put the Question again. Hon. Members, maybe of course we are making a law -- let us understand it properly. What the amendment is proposing is that, there should not be more than three lawyers and this is the proposed
    amendment.
    Question put and amendment negatived.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, as for
    this we are not going to agree.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    You and
    who are not agreeing?
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:45 p.m.
    Those of us
    who said “Aye”, we do not agree. I am challenging him - [Laughter] -- [Pause.]
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Hon.
    Members, we continue. There will be a Second Consideration Stage, when we come to that; so we continue.
    We still continue with the other
    amendment to clause 99, subclause (7), line 2.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg
    to move, clause 99, subclause (7), line 2, delete “set out by Regulations”; we want to remove it completely.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg
    to move, clause 99, subclause (12), delete and insert the following:
    “The Minister shall appoint members of the Complaints, Appeals and Review Panel not later than ninety days after the commence-ment of this Act to review complaints and appeals made by a person against the Authority.”
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Still at
    clause 99.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg
    to move, clause 99, add a new subclause
    as follows:
    “Not later than fourteen days of the setting up of the Panel, the Minister shall cause the names and particulars of the Panel to be published in the Gazette and newspapers of national circulation that the Minister may determine.”
    The proposed amendment, that is, “Not later than fourteen days”, instead of “of”, we are making it “after”. So we now propose that a new subclause should be adopted. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    But
    subject to which amendment?
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:55 p.m.
    Subject to deletion
    of “of” and insertion of “after” so that it will read:
    “not later than fourteen days after the setting up of the panel . . .”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 99 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Clause
    100.
    Clause 100 - Power of the Authority to investigate and decide on complaint.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    beg to move, clause 100, subclause (2), line 2, delete “fourteen days” and insert “twenty-one days”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Clause 100 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 101 to 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 105 - Rules applicable to review proceedings.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Chairman?
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg
    to move, clause 105, subclause (3), delete and insert the following:
    “The Panel may review its own decision on request by a complainant, a party to the complaint, the Minister or the Authority for justifiable reason but neither the Minister nor the Authority shall have the power to review or alter a decision of the Panel.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Clause 105 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 106 - Regulations.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, after
    careful consideration it appears to me that this particular one should be withdrawn.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Very well.
    rose
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Yes,
    Leader of the House?
    Mr. Aidooh 12:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, we had one
    amendment taken that deleted a bit of clause 106 and I was going to raise an objection. That is related to the power for prescribing procedure, the procedure for the panels. Now this was to be done by regulations and then we deleted clause 99, subclause (7).
    “The Panel shall hear, review and deliberate on a complaint in accordance with this Act the rules and procedure set out by the Regulations.”
    Mr. Aidooh 12:55 p.m.


    This has been deleted and I want to ask why but I found that 106 was being amended to the effect that the Minister could do this by guidelines or something. Now if we have approved the amendment by deleting clause 99 (7) and then we do not amend clause 106 to give the Minister the power to do this, I am getting a bit confused.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    You have
    succeeded in confusing me too.
    Mr. Aidooh 12:55 p.m.
    Then we should proceed
    with the amendment to 106 first.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Let us
    listen to the Chairman as well.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, look
    at the amendment and look at the whole provision. You will see that the proposed amendment cannot fit in unless it is properly recast. Let us look at what it looks like. Clause 106
    “The Minis te r may, on the recommendation of the Auhority, by legislative instrument make Regulations to prescribe (f) . . .”
    “The Minister may”, again where does it fit in?
    We are removing “the rules and procedure for the hearing…” We are deleting it and inserting this one. Does it fit in? It does not fit in. So if it is necessary there, then the whole thing should be recast.
    Mr. Aidooh 12:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, it does not
    fit in but why did we then delete clause 99 (7)? Then we must insert clause 99 (7) and then abandon the amendment we want to make to clause 106.
    So we leave clause 99 (7) as it is, then we can drop the amendment to clause 106.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, “set
    out by Regulations” we feel that it is just unnecessary repetition because “rules and procedures” are already regulations. So if we say “set out by Regulations” it is
    repetition, that is why we said it should go. But if the amendment we have proposed, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, read it yourself and see whether it fits in. It does not fit in at all. There is no place for it. So why do we adopt it?
    Mr. Aidooh 12:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I agree that
    the amendment to clause 106 does not fit in and so it should be dropped. We need not amend clause 106 but we found it necessary because we had deleted clause 99 (7). Clause 99 (7) is saying that the committee shall hear appeals in a certain manner. And clause 106 (f) gives the Minister the power to make regulations which will prescribe the procedure for hearing appeals and reviews.
    So if you want to drop the amendment to clause 106 (f) then you must reinstate clause 99 (7) and leave 106 (f) as it is.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 12:55 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, let us
    refer it to the draftsperson. We will meet with them and resolve this issue.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Very
    well, maybe that will do. In that case, the proposed amendment to clause 106 will be deferred.

    Clause 107-- Interpretation.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 1:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg
    to move, clause 107, Interpretation, insert the following:
    ‘“Freight' means goods other than gratuitous goods delivered to a railway company by a shipper;
    ‘ghana Railway Company Limited' means the entity previous existing as a statutory corporation under SMCD 95 of 1997 and subsequently incorporated a limited liability
    company and registered on 7th March 2001 under the Companies Code, 1963 (Act 179) with registration number 94, 198;
    ‘Originating Railways' means Railway Company to whom freight is first delivered by a shipper to be conveyed to a given destination or a specified consignee;
    ‘Railway Assets' include assets which are vested in the Authority by law or otherwise, and include the assets of the ghana Railway Company Limited transferred to the Authority pursuant to section 32 and the Second Schedule of this Act and those acquired by the Authority pursuant to this Act;”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 107 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 108 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    New Clause --
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 1:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg
    to move, New clause, insert a new clause after clause 108 as follows:
    “Transitional Provisions
    (1) Unless contrary intention is expressed under this Act, the entity originally created as a statutory corporation under SMCD 95, 1977 and subsequently registered under the Companies Code, 1963 (Act 179) numbered 94, 198 known as the ghana Railway Company shall upon the coming into force
    of this Act, continue to operate as a going concern under the Companies Code, 1963 (Act
    179).
    (2) Staff of the ghana Railways Company who may be directly assigned responsibility by the Minister in respect of the Railway Asset transferred to the Authority shall be deemed to have been appointed by the Authority under this Act and shall be deemed Transferred Staff until the Board of the Authority otherwise decides.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    The Long Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, we stood down clause 25 for further consultation.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    We did
    and you were supposed to put your heads together and come up with an agreeable rendition.
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, the Chairman has it.
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 1:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I
    beg to move, clause 25, delete subclauses (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5), and insert the following:
    “ ( 1 ) T h e B o a r d s h a l l
    be responsible for the management of the Fund.
    (2) There is hereby established a
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 1:05 p.m.


    Fund Committee of the Board which shall be responsible for the day-to-day management of the Fund and shall be answerable to the Board.

    (3) The Fund Committee shall consist of one representative of

    (a) the Ministry of Finance

    (b) the Ministry responsible for Railways, and

    ( c ) t h e C o n t r o l l e r a n d A c c o u n t a n t - g e n e r a l 's Department who should not be officers below the rank of a Director.”
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, the hon. Chairman added that none of these three officers shall be below the rank of Director. I thought that maybe, for the avoidance of doubt, we could just tie it in with, when we come to ‘a representative from the Ministry of Finance' who should not be below the rank of Director. It is in respect of the three; all of them.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 25 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    The Short Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon. Members, that
    brings us to the end of the Consideration for the Railways Bill.
    Mr. Aidooh 1:05 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if I may
    seek your leave to lay a Paper on behalf of the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning, that is, an Offtake Agreement.
    PAPERS 1:05 p.m.

    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, still on the Railways Bill. The Table Officer came and we were putting our heads together so I got a bit distracted. But in respect of clause 62, we deferred it. Mr. Speaker, we have
    “In this section and section 63, ‘accident' means “an unexpected and unpleasant event that
    (a) causes harm or injury to a person or damage to equipment or property or connected to railway operations'.”
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that delete ‘or connected to' in line 3 and insert ‘in connection with'.
    So we have the full rendition as;
    ‘(a) cause harm or injury to a person or damage to equipment or property in connection with railway operations.'
    Then (b), delete ‘connected to' and insert ‘in connection with'.
    So the rendition would be:
    ‘(b) affects the safety and security o f a person or p roper ty in connection with railway operations.' Mr. Speaker, I beg to move.
    Mr. Aidooh 1:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, this is nearer to what I was arguing for initially but upon further refreshing and having looked at the words closely, I suggest that the words ‘in connection with' even though they are nearer what we intended, it would be much clearer if we use the words ‘as a result of'. That would be much clearer.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    It means
    you have still not agreed?
    Mr. Aidooh 1:15 p.m.
    I have agreed to that.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    ‘As
    a result of' in both cases instead of ‘in connection with'?
    Mr. Aidooh 1:15 p.m.
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Hon.
    Members, have you agreed on that?
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:15 p.m.
    Mr.
    Speaker, if you can put the Question on (a) first. We would do further consideration to see what happens to (b).
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Now
    what do you say to clause 62 (b)?
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 1:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, the
    Committee came up with this amendment and the frontline has usurped its authority and decided to do whatever he likes, so let him complete it.
    Mr. Aidooh 1:15 p.m.
    I propose that (a) deals
    with ‘harm caused to anybody as a result of operations of railway'. (b) I now propose that it should be left as it is. It deals with accident; “caused to person or property connected to railway operations” and that can be an accident that is caused by factors that are extraneous to the equipment or the persons who are operating the railway.
    So I propose that we leave (b) as it is and (a) as amended. Eventually, I will explain to the hon. Chairman why we are opposing this amendment and he would understand it.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Do you
    agree with it, hon. Chairman, that your proposed amendment stands with regard to paragraph (b)?
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 1:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, this
    is exactly what I want so it should stand.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 62 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Hon.
    Members, that brings us to the end of Consideration Stage of the Railways Bill. I want to be guided by you, Leader. Well hon. Members, I am being asked that clause 106 was also deferred. Chairman of the Committee, did we defer clause 106 of the Bill?
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 1:15 p.m.
    Yes, we deferred
    till tomorrow, 14th November, 2008.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    So what
    do we do?
    Mr. Appiah-Ofori 1:15 p.m.
    So far as the
    Railways Bill is concerned I have finished my job, it is now left with the Leadership to decide what to do.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Well, as
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.


    a matter of fact I was not addressing the question to you; I was addressing it to what you describe as frontline. Majority Leader?
    Mr. Aidooh 1:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I understand
    that the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs wishes to take the Alternate Dispute Resolution Bill through Consideration Stage when we come between the 16th and 23rd of December 2008. I do not know why we would not do it now, but we are bound by their decision. I once again move adjournment of the House till tomorrow at 10.00 o'clock in the morning.
    Mr. Lee Ocran 1:15 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I second
    the motion.
    Question put and motion agreed to.
    ADJOURNMENT 1:15 p.m.

    THE 10 a.m.

    PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC 10 a.m.

    MR. FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
    PRAYERS 10:35 a.m.

    VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:35 a.m.

    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
    Order! Order! Hon. Members, correction of Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 11th November, 2008.
    Alhaji Mubarak 10:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I want your guidance on this. If you refer to our Standing Order 13 --
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
    You are out of order. Wait, at the appropriate time you can raise what you want to raise. Let us first go by what has been laid down in our Standing Orders. At the moment we are handling corrections of Votes and Proceedings. Pages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
    Nana Abu-Bonsra 10:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I just realised that in yesterday's Votes and Proceedings I was listed as being absent with permission for Monday, 10th November, 2008 but I was here during the Prayers and everything. So I just want to draw attention to that.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
    Very well, the Clerk's Office to correct that. But you spoke of Monday, is that what you said? We are correcting the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday, Tuesday, 11th November, 2008.
    Nana Abu-Bonsra 10:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, yes,

    I was seeking your indulgence to ask the Clerk's Department to do the necessary corrections.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
    I do not have the Votes and Proceedings for Monday, 10th November, 2008 in my hand. You should have been here yesterday to correct it.
    Nana Abu-Bonsra 10:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I was.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
    And you could not correct it?
    Nana Abu-Bonsra 10:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I did not take notice of that.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
    Un- fortunately the train has missed you so you could go to -- We cannot use today's proceedings to correct what happened yesterday. Pages 6, 7, 8, . . . 29.
    Alhaji Mubarak 10:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I earlier on was on my feet; you have said it was not the appropriate time. If you look at our Standing Order 13 (2), it states categorically that and with your permission, I quote:
    “Whenever the House is informed by the Clerk at the Table of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, the First Deputy Speaker shall perform the duties and exercise the authority of Mr. Speaker in relation to all proceedings of the House until Mr. Speaker resumes the Chair, without any further communication to the House.”
    Mr. Speaker, a number of times Mr. Speaker has been absent and we are not told anything; the next morning comes, all we see is that one of the deputies takes over. I would want your guidance on this and to seek, with all due respect,
    the presence or absence of Mr. Speaker. We want to know, is Mr. Speaker around or Mr. Speaker has travelled, what is it? Why are you in the Chair?
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
    Very well, I think it is an oversight and a minor oversight.
    Mr. Ossei Aidooh 10:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I do not know the import of what he read but it does not mean that you cannot act without that notification. You are properly in the Seat and so I urge you to continue without any formal announcement.
    Alhaji Mubarak 10:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I am not challenging your authority to preside over the House, but we have our rules and the rule says that anytime Mr. Speaker is not around we need to be informed of the whereabouts of Mr. Speaker and then you take over.
    I am not challenging your authority to preside, but I am asking where does this Order of ours stand when we are not informed of the whereabouts of Mr. Speaker and all we see is the Deputy taking over.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
    Well, as I said it was an omission, the Clerk will do that before I continue. Mr. Clerk of Parliament, could you inform us?
    Mr. Aidooh 10:35 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, as I have said earlier, the rule does not say that Members must know where the Speaker is; it does not say so. The Speaker can be absent from the Chamber for many reasons. There is no need to assume that Mr. Speaker has gone outside or has not gone outside the country. As I have said, the rule does not also say that you cannot act as Speaker if we have not been informed about where the Speaker is; it does not say so. It says whenever that
    information is made available to us, he may act. It is not exclusive so I submit that you are properly in the Seat and you must proceed without any formal announcement to the House.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
    Hon. Members, in all fairness to you, the Speaker has travelled on official assignment. He has travelled to Brazil and for that matter, I am in the Chair acting as a Speaker. [Hear! Hear!]
    Hon. Members, at the Commencement of Public Business, item 4 - Presentation and First Reading of Bills.
    BILLS -- FIRST READING 10:35 a.m.

    PAPERS 10:35 a.m.

    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
    Yes, next
    Paper, hon. Minister?