Debates of 22 Mar 2010

MADAM SPEAKER
PRAYERS 11:05 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 11:05 a.m.
Madam Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 19th March, 2010.
Pages 1 - 9 --
Alhaj i Mohammed-Mubarak
Muntaka: Madam Speaker, I am sorry, I could not catch your eye when you were on page 6. Madam Speaker, on page 6, item 17, under “Absent with permission”. Madam Speaker, throughout last week, I was a member of the Select Committee on Health that was carrying out a national assignment, and we were out of here with permission. So, I would be very grateful if it is captured as such, because we sought permission before we left last week.
Madam Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Should it be
captured that you were absent with permission?
Alhaji Muntaka 11:05 a.m.
Madam Speaker,
where my name is, it is under “without permission”, but we were absent with permission.
Madam Speaker 11:05 a.m.
So then --
Alhaji Muntaka 11:05 a.m.
Madam Speaker,
four of us from the Health Committee were to join the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in Geneva, and we

sought permission before we left.
Madam Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Pages 9 - 11 --
Prof. Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi 11:05 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I am sorry to take you back to page 6. On page 5 (i), Madam Speaker, when a correction such as it appears here had been done, it means other aspects of the table also require corrections, what do we do? Because by changing that, you need necessarily to alter the total figure -- [Interruption] -- I calculated it. If you add all of that to 106, you will arrive at 328 -- [Interruption.] -- The original what?
Madam Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Yes, Hon Dr A. A. Osei?
Dr A. A.Osei 11:05 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the total remains the same. It was a re- distribution. Initially, there was a line called RCC, which was 20 million, which should be completely deleted now, and distributed between “basic” and “secondary” -- 10 each. So, the RCC line that we had originally should be deleted completely, then the total would not change.
Madam Speaker, that is what we decided.
Mr Ameyaw-Akumfi 11:05 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, if we do that, and it is a question of re-distribution, how should the correction appear in the Report?
Madam Speaker 11:05 a.m.
That is the case, is
it not? Correct “106” to “116”, is it not?
Mr Ambrose P. Dery 11:05 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, I think that the issue was that at the Committee of the Whole, we discussed, and we decided that we should split the figure into two: 10 to basic and 10 to second cycle. If we add that, we will get the “116”, so there should not be
any problem.
Madam Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Yes. We were on
11 - 19 --
Mr Stephen Amoanor Kwao 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker, page 19. The Committee on Education, the membership, viii, “Steven Amoanor Kwo”, the spelling had been horribly done. “Stephen” is “Steven” and “Kwao” is “Kwo”.
Madam Speaker 11:15 a.m.
The Clerk to note.
Page 19. Yes, Emeritus? [Inter- ruptions.] We have only one here.
Prof. (Emeritus) Samuel K. Amoako 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker, since you have said “Emeritus”, I will go to page 19 first. [Laughter.] The “Emeritus” is not well situated. Under item 2 (vii) -- “Prof. (Emeritus)” before the name -- [Laughter.]
But importantly Madam Speaker, page 17 -- I am sorry to take you back. Under “Finance Committee”, number 1, the second line, there is a redundant word there -- “The Committee met on Friday, he 19th March 2010 at 12.20 p.m. and discussed its programme . . .” The word “the” is not necessary, it is redundant.
Madam Speaker 11:15 a.m.
All right. Thank
you.
We move to pages 20 - 22 --
Prof. (Emeritus) Amoako 11:15 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, page 21; under “Opening”. The second line, the date cannot be correct. It is “Thursday, 18th March” or “Wednesday the 17th March”. I am not a member of the Committee, so I do not know which is which. Maybe, a member of the Committee can tell us when they met, either on “Wednesday the 17th” or on “Thursday the 18th”.
Madam Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Have you not got
a calendar there? So 17th would be what
date?
Prof. (Emeritus) Amoako 11:15 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, 17th was Wednesday and 18th was Thursday and what we have is “17th Thursday”. Somebody to correct it, a member of the Committee.
Madam Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Any member of
the Committee? We have to correct one of the words.
Mr Alfred W. G. Abayateye 11:15 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, as the Hon Member is saying, it should be “Thursday”; so it should be “18th”.
Madam Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Thank you, “18th
March”, yes.
Pages 22 - 26 --
Prof. (Emeritus) Amoako 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker, page 26, under “Committee of the Whole”. Again, the date is not correct. It should be “Friday the 19th of March” and not “18th”.
Madam Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Thank you; page 27 -- [Pause.]
The Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 19th March ,2010 as corrected is adopted as the true records of proceedings.
We move on now to the Official Report of Thursday, 11th March, 2010.
Any corrections?
Mr Abayateye 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker, please, let me take you back to page 21. That day we made two visits, so the one to the Ghana Broadcasting Corporation was “Wednesday 17 th March”. So please, the correction should be effected -- “Wednesday, 17th March”. So on Wednesday there were two trips by us.
Madam Speaker 11:15 a.m.
The Official Report

Hon Members, in the absence of any corrections, the Official Report of
Madam Speaker 11:15 a.m.


Thursday, 11th March, 2010 is hereby adopted as the true record of proceedings.
Mr Cletus A. Avoka 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the Hon Minister for the Interior, Mr Martin Amidu is in the House to answer Questions.
Madam Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Give him his normal chair, please.
Hon Members, we are still following the rules that if it is constituency-specific, the three questions must come from the person who asked the Question and I think today, everyone of them is constituency- specific.
The first Question stands in the name of Dr Kojo Appiah-Kubi (Atwima- Kwanwoma).
Mr Richard Akuoko Adiyia 11:15 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, Dr Kojo Appiah-Kubi could not be here today and he has asked me to ask the Question on his behalf. With your permission, may I do so?
Madam Speaker 11:15 a.m.
I do not know whether just to accept -- Somebody is not here today, has he got permission to be away or is it on some urgent matter that every time somebody will have to ask the Questions? Because when one's Questions are not listed, we see the furore we have here. Has he travelled or is he sick?
Mr Adiyia 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, he might still be at his constituency --
Madam Speaker 11:15 a.m.
I think this concerns
Members.
Mr Ambrose P. Dery 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker, in the absence of anything to the contrary from the original Questioner, I think that he should be allowed to ask the
Question because it will make us have a backlog. If he has the instructions -- and he is saying that he does -- let us give him -- Probably, even if the man was on the way, he would call that the Question be asked on his behalf.
Madam Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Hon Member, I am not denying that. I am not saying that he does not have the instructions. But as a House, even when one is not here, we would like to know -- absent with permission or what? So each time a Question is asked then somebody must ask for the fellow; he is not here. But if his Question was not listed, you will see how it is taken. So I think for the benefit of everybody -- but I am not insisting on it.
Mr Dery 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker, we
will discuss that later as business and streamline it.
Madam Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Otherwise, it does
not appear as if the Questions are so dear to the hearts of those who ask them.
Yes, Hon Member, permission granted.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 11:25 a.m.
MINISTRY OF THE INTERIOR 11:25 a.m.
Minister for the Interior (Mr Martin Amidu) 11:25 a.m.
Madam Speaker, a severe rainstorm destroyed about 70 houses and house roofs in the Nwenso Number

The rainstorm also destroyed two high tension electric poles and cables. A step-down transformer with six electric poles and wires connected to the main distributor of electric power to the entire community were also destroyed.

The National Disaster Management Organization (NADMO) is a statutory body under my Ministry, for the management of disasters country-wide. In an effort to put the victims in a position that will enable them go on with their normal day-to-day activities antecedent to the rainstorm, NADMO in July 2009, distributed the underlisted relief items to them:

1. Beans -- 5 bags

2. Rice -- 20 bags

3. Mattresses -- 50 pieces

4. Wellington boots -- 20 pieces

5. Cups -- 100 pieces

6. Plates -- 100 pieces

7. Second-hand clothing -- 4 bales

8. Roofing sheets -- 10 packets

9. Roofing nails -- 2 boxes.

The Electricity Company of Ghana also restored electricity to the community.

NADMO has also adopted mitigation

and disaster-prevention strategies to find a lasting solution to the frequent rainstorms within the vicinity. It has, therefore, started undertaking the following exercises:

i. tree planting (species with wide canopy);

ii. public education and awareness campaign;

iii. maintenance/inspection of structures prone to disaster; and

iv. first aid administration and post disaster advisory services.
Mr Adiyia 11:25 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I do not have any further questions. I yield to other Hon Colleagues who might have questions.
Madam Speaker 11:25 a.m.
We will move on
because you have only three questions yourself and I am not going to extend it further. Shall we go on.
Thank you for telling us the truth that you do not have any questions.
We move on to the next Question -- The Hon Member himself is here. Yes.
Mr Kofi Frimpong 11:25 a.m.
Madam Speaker, today my Question has seen the light of day so I thank you very much.
Madam Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Yes. Put your Question.
Armed Robbery, Car-snatching and Murders in Kwabre East
Constituency (Measures)
Q. 281. Mr Kofi Frimpong asked the Minister for the Interior what measures the Ministry was putting in place to curb the current spate of armed robbery, car- snatching and murders in the Kwabre East Constituency.
Mr Amidu 11:25 a.m.
Madam Speaker, admittedly, in the first four months of 2009, the Kwabre East Constituency expe- rienced a series of robberies in residential areas. Some residents were shot at and killed by the armed robbers in the process of the robberies. One of the fatalities and a victim of one of the robberies was a Police Detective Chief Inspector. He was shot and killed on 14th April, 2009.
On another occasion, two out of four of the armed robbers were shot and killed by a victim who had engaged them in a shootout.
Other victims of the robberies in the Kwabre East Constituency received gunshot wounds. Two vehicles were snatched as part of the robberies in the area but were later recovered in Suame and Atonsu, both suburbs of Kumasi.
The Police Administration has deployed enough men to step up night patrols periodically. Road blocks have also been mounted at vantage points supported by snap checks and periodic swoops, as well as cordon and search operations to frustrate the criminals.
The Kwabre East District has not experienced any violent crime since the Detective Chief Inspector was killed on 14th April, 2009. One Kwabena Takyi, who is suspected to have killed the Detective Chief Inspector, was arrested in Accra. He confessed his crimes and is currently in prison custody.
Two other suspects, Alidu Alhassan, 23, and Awudu Karim, 31, who were later identified as accomplices in robberies in Mampongteng area were killed in Kumasi during a shootout with the joint Police/ Military Patrol team in two separate robbery operations on 22nd June 2009 and 18th July, 2009 respectively.
Seven suspects have so far been arrested in connection with robberies in
the area and have all been remanded into prison custody pending trial.
Police patrols which ensure increased police visibility and accessibility in all districts in the Ashanti Region are still in progress. The patrols are periodically reviewed and would be sustained to ensure peace and security in the entire region.
Mr Frimpong 11:25 a.m.
Madam Speaker, in spite of all the effort by the police, armed robbery continues in my constituency. Just three days ago, I had a call that now the armed robbers are using, knives and whatnots to snatch ladies handbags, mobile phones and laptops from the students of Garden City University in my area.
Madam Speaker, my problem is, these armed robberies are continuing.
They have changed their style but it is going on in the two communities which are growing at a very fast rate, that is, Ahwaa and Kenyasi.
May I know from the Hon Minister whether he has plans to change their method of policing the place, and to be precise, whether he thinks it appropriate to establish police stations in these two communities?
Mr Amidu 11:25 a.m.
The question relates to an event which happened three days ago. The reports I have from the police have not indicated any robberies in the Kwabre East Constituency, particularly within the last three days. So I would check it up. However, I want to assure this Honourable House that the police is putting every effort to stem the tide of robbery in the Kwabre East District. My information has been that it has gone down. I know that there had been a few robberies in Ashanti but not Kwabre.
So I will check this up and we will take very strict measures to deal with it. As we came here, we did not have anything
about what happened three days ago and therefore, we have not really prepared to come and deal with that. But I can assure him that if it is true, patrols will be intensified, snap blocks will be intensified and the situation will be dealt with. This is because it is the general policy that the police should stem the tide of robbery in every district in this country where it arises.
As for police stations to be built to take care of the situation, this Honourable House is the only body together with Government that can facilitate my Ministry to be able to get police stations every- where and to put men everywhere to be able to stem the tide of armed robbery.
Unfortunately, budgetary constraints do not allow us to have police everywhere. One, we have to have accommodation for office; two, we have to have accom- modation for men before we can transfer personnel to those areas. So these are the constraints and this is why we use patrols as the alternative presently, until we can deal with that general situation.
Mr Frimpong 11:25 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Hon Minister whether he thinks the police barriers that we have on the main roads -- only the main roads -- are effective. I have been saying that these two communities are fast-growing communities in my constituency. The spill-over from Kumasi is suddenly in my constituency with its concomitant petrogeniality and complexity. Madam Speaker, my question is, does he think that this is the only way that armed robbery can be curbed? This is because I do not see it being curbed.
Madam Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Are you asking for
his opinion?
Mr Frimpong 11:35 a.m.
No, I am not asking for his opinion. I am asking that, can he think of other means other than what we have?
Madam Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Like?
Mr Frimpong 11:35 a.m.
Madam Speaker, like he thinks. He is a security boss, so like he thinks. I was suggesting the esta- blishment of police stations in the two areas and he is talking of lack of resources.
Madam Speaker 11:35 a.m.
I thought your Question was, “would he consider setting up road blocks?” That would be a direct question rather than --
Mr Frimpong 11:35 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the road blocks are on the main roads.
Madam Speaker 11:35 a.m.
So put it to him. Where do you want the road blocks? In the cities? In the towns?
Mr Frimpong 11:35 a.m.
In the towns? Yes.
Madam Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Then put it to him.
Mr Frimpong 11:35 a.m.
But the robbery cases are happening at the suburbs. What effort is he putting in place to help the people in the suburbs where even vehicles find it difficult to get there; where there is darkness, absolute darkness in the area?
Mr Amidu 11:35 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the police do not limit their patrols for robbery purposes to major road blocks. They patrol the constituency and that is why we talk about snap blocks. You put a snap, after sometime, you move somewhere and they get people going round; that is the method we use.
Apart from that, the police try to gather intelligence as to where these armed robbers are likely to strike and this helps us to arrest them. It is through the use of such facilities that we are able to arrest the
Mr Amidu 11:35 a.m.


armed robbers.

This is the answer I can give to the question he has asked. Because if I want to go into details, my Ministry will not inform the public as to the real modus operandi we are going to deal with the armed robbers. This is a menace and we have the right to use methods which the armed robbers will not anticipate.
Madam Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Third question?
Mr Frimpong 11:35 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the victims of these armed robberies are victims of a disaster. May I know from the Hon Minister whether he has plans to help alleviate the predicament and the plight of the robbery victims?
Mr Amidu 11:35 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the Police Administration arrests, investigates and pursues suspected armed robbers. It does not mitigate the circumstances of the victims. That is the province of another statutory body, which is the National Disaster Management Organisation (NADMO). So in answering this question, I will not be able to speak on behalf of NADMO, which is not the issue of the Question.
Mr Frimpong 11:35 a.m.
No, no, no.
Madam Speaker 11:35 a.m.
You have finished your three questions.
Mr Frimpong 11:35 a.m.
Madam Speaker, NADMO is under his purview, so I do not know why he cannot speak on behalf of it. These are accident victims; they are victims of circumstances beyond they themselves; it is a disaster and they are disaster victims. Since he controls NADMO, we are not asking the police to come to the aid of the victims. I am asking the Hon Minister the plans he has for the victims and since he has NADMO under him, he can say something to them since my people are listening to him.
Madam Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Well, I will put it to the Hon Minister. But I thought the Hon Minister has told you what he has done for the victims, like mattresses -- But it seems you want a further answer.
Hon Minister, can you help him?
Mr Amidu 11:35 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I have taken note of his question. All I am saying is that, the major Question which he has put to me is in relation to armed robbery. He has raised the issue of disaster; I have taken note of it, I will see what NADMO can do, if any, in relation to that issue.
Madam Speaker 11:35 a.m.
The next Question is by Hon John Agyabeng. [Pause.] Is Hon John Agyabeng here?
Dr Matthew O. Prempeh 11:35 a.m.
Madam Speaker, Hon John Agyabeng is in the meeting with the Committee on Lands and Forestry elsewhere and with his kind permission and with your concurrence, may I ask the Question on his behalf?
Madam Speaker 11:35 a.m.
All right. Now, we know where he is. Carry on.
Agona Divisional Police Headquarters Project
(Completion)
Q. 360. Dr Matthew Opoku Prempeh (on behalf of Mr John Agyabeng) asked the Minister for the Interior when the Divisional Police Headquarters building project at Agona Swedru would be completed.
Mr MartinAmidu 11:35 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the Agona Swedru Divisional Police Headquarters project involves the construction of a divisional headquarters building alongside a four-storeyed residential accommodation building and this is one of the uncompleted projects of the Ghana Police Service.
The Police Administration, as a matter of policy, has decided to complete all of its uncompleted projects within a period of three and five years. These uncompleted projects have therefore been divided into three groups and projects in the first group which number 38 will be completed this year. Those in the second group of which the Agona Swedru Divisional Headquarters is part, will be tackled in
2011.
The four-storeyed residential building is about 50 per cent complete and the divisional headquarters building is about 60 per cent complete. In view of the acute shortage of residential accommodation, the Police Administration has taken the position that when it comes to the completion of the projects in the second group in 2011, the four-storeyed residential accommodation will be given priority over the divisional headquarters building even though both of them will be completed in the same group.
Dr Prempeh 11:35 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the 2009 Budget made provision for completion of same. In 2010, that line item has been repeated. Would the Hon Minister kindly inform this House the first 38 projects in this? He should name the district and divisional headquarters that are going to be completed this year.
Mr Amidu 11:35 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I did not get the thrust of his question.
Madam Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Hon Dr Prempeh, repeat the question.
Dr Prempeh 11:35 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I think he was distracted by my Hon Leader of the House. He should allow him to listen, please.
The first 38 projects that are going to be completed this year -- It was in the 2009
Budget and nothing was done and it has been repeated this year. Would he care to tell this House the names of those that are going to be completed this year?
Mr Amidu 11:35 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the 38 projects to be completed are nationwide. They stretch across most of the regions of this country. It would be difficult for me to name them offhand. There are 38 of them and he would agree with me that I cannot name them offhand. I will readily make available the list to him but I can assure him that each region is listed and location, number of projects to be completed, and I can assure him, we will try to complete them in 2010.
Dr Prempeh 11:45 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the Hon Minister cannot name the first 38 projects but he is assuring this House that in the second group, the Agona Swedru District Divisional Police Headquarters will be completed.
I want the assurance that so far this year -- How many of the 38 have been completed?
Madam Speaker 11:45 a.m.
Is it a question or assurance? How many have been completed?
Mr Amidu 11:45 a.m.
Madam Speaker, 38 of the uncompleted projects will be completed this year. They are in the process of completion; they have not been completed yet, but they certainly will be completed this year.
Madam Speaker 11:45 a.m.
Last question?
Dr Prempeh 11:45 a.m.
Madam Speaker, last year it was in the Budget; this year, it is in the Budget and he wants me to be re- assured that next year it will re-appear and it will be completed. When he cannot
Mr Amidu 11:45 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I am assuring the Honourable House that we shall complete these projects this year and that the projects are in the process of completion. There are subsequent Questions in which I indicate how far the projects have gone. So he should take that assurance that we shall complete the projects this year. This is because funds have been made available this year and that is why I am giving him the assurances. Once the funds have been made available, it means that we shall do our best to complete them.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Dr Prempeh 11:45 a.m.
Thank you, Madam Speaker --
Madam Speaker 11:45 a.m.
Your three questions are finished.
Service Conditions of the Ghana Police Service
(Improvement)
Q. 361. Mr Theophilus Tetteh Chaie asked the Minister for the Interior what measures had been put in place to ensure improvement in the service conditions of the Ghana Police Service with regard to accommodation and remuneration.
Mr Martin Amidu 11:45 a.m.
Madam Speaker, (a) Accommodation: It is common knowledge that the accommodation situation of personnel of the Ghana Police Service is not one of the best, and we as a Government and people have to do all we can to improve upon the situation. The role played by these gallant men and women of the Ghana Police Service cannot
be dispensed with in our quest to develop as a nation.
In the light of this, Government has approved 38 accommodation projects nationwide for completion this year and it is estimated that in addition to providing about 100 offices for operational and administrative activities, the residential housing stock of the Service will be increased by 1,700 housing units when these projects are completed.
(b) Remunerat ion: Concerning remuneration of personnel of the Ghana Police Service, Government, in 2009 increased the salary level by 17 per cent. Although the last year salary increment brought considerable relief to the personnel of the Service, it cannot be said to be adequate considering the nature of work that these personnel are doing for our country. The Police Administration is taking the following initiatives to achieve an improvement in the conditions of service of its personnel:
(i) The Administration is at present finalizing new Police Service Regulations which have new conditions of service as one of its main tenets. The document will be submitted to Government through the Police Council by May, 2010.
(ii) The Ghana Police Service has engaged the Fair Wages and Salary Commission in discussions aimed at ensuring that personnel of the Ghana Police Service are placed at appropriate salary levels to commensurate with their operational demands, res- ponsibilities and risks under the Single Spine Salary Structure.
The discussions which began at the time when there was no Police Council, had been at the level of
the Police Administration and the executives of the Fair Wages and Salary Commission. The Police Administration is currently finalizing a memorandum on the matter for the attention of the Police Council to get them actively involved in the discussions.
(iii) Realizing that the Archer C o m m i t t e e R e p o r t h a s recommended the decoupling of the Ghana Police Service from the Public Service and the separation of the Police from the Ministry of the Interior for budgeting purposes, the Police Administration is working on a memorandum for the attention of the Police Council and subsequently, Cabinet to achieve the decoupling and separation. It is believed that when this is done, the Service would be given the requisite attention which will lead to better resources and conditions of service.
Mr Chaie 11:45 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I want the Hon Minister to assure this House that by the end of the year, the 1,700 housing units will be ready for our gallant policemen.
Mr Amidu 11:45 a.m.
Madam Speaker, my Ministry gives general directions to the Police Administration. The Police Administration has informed me that by the end of this year, those housing stock will be available. So I suppose that they can give the assurance and I take their word to be that they can deliver. But I cannot personally give that assurance because the way the Council works is such that the operational control and the administration of the Service is vested in
the Inspector-General of Police (IGP). I only exercise Ministerial responsibility in terms of general policy. But once they have given this Answer, I can assure him that I will see to it that they keep by it.
Mr Chaie 11:45 a.m.
Madam Speaker, once again, I want the Hon Minister to assure this august House that the new houses to be built for the policemen will not be like the colonial housing where refrigerators, cooking utensils and in-laws are kept outside the main building --
Mr Amidu 11:45 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the Hon Member knows very well that the operational and administrative control of the Ghana Police Service by article 203 of the Constitution is vested in the IGP and not in the Minister for the Interior -- [Interruptions.]
Madam Speaker 11:45 a.m.
Hon Members, please, let the Hon Minister answer the question; he has not finished the answer.
Mr Amidu 11:45 a.m.
I can therefore assure him that under my supervision, I will hold the police to their word.
Madam Speaker 11:45 a.m.
Hon Member, what is your third question? Have you finished?
Mr Chaie 11:45 a.m.
Yes.
rose
Madam Speaker 11:45 a.m.
For this, I can allow more questions because it is not constituency-specific. I will allow two questions from both sides of the House. Our time is going; we have only one more day of work.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:45 a.m.
Madam Speaker, with respect to the Hon Minister, I find his answers most unpersuasive. The Police Council is not responsible to this House; it is he as the Hon Minister,
Madam Speaker 11:45 a.m.
Order!
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:45 a.m.
I am asking a question and so what? You are supposed to behave in a better way. You are the Hon Majority Leader and I believe that from now onwards you should behave as such. If the Hon Minority Leader is asking a question, you are asking a question -- so what? You should know better.
Mr Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo 11:55 p.m.
Madam Speaker, on a point of order. Madam Speaker, my point of order is that the Hon Minority Leader's presentation appears argumentative and it looks as if he is debating the Question, but our Standing Orders do not allow for debate. If he has a question, it is important for him to go straight ahead and ask the question -- [Interruptions] -- Madam Speaker, if he is premising the question by disagreeing with him, it is not a question about providing a premise, it is a question about disagreement and it opens up a debate and that was why the Hon Majority Leader was drawing his kind attention to it.
Madam Speaker, he was simply
Madam Speaker 11:55 p.m.
Hon Members, the Hon Deputy Majority Leader is also a Leader, so please, let us give him the respect which we would also give to this side. So let us give him mutual respect, let us not heckle too much, let us hear whatever everybody has to say.
Hon Minority Leader, put your question now.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I believe that we are to lead by example in showing how decorum should be enforced in the House, which is why I thought the intervention of my Hon Colleague was unfortunate. But I was quoting from the response of the Hon Minister to premise my question, that does he consider that he has ultimate responsibility to this House for which reason it may not sit well for him to say that he does not have direct responsibility -- that was the intendment of the question; what is the argument in this?
Madam Speaker 11:55 p.m.
Hon Minister, you have the question now.
Mr Amidu 11:55 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I have the responsibility to this House in as far as matters of laying of reports and all that for the Ghana Police Service is concerned, but when it comes to certain issues, the Constitution spells out clearly the responsible guidelines. All I am saying
is that, the Police Council, as we know presently, is chaired by the Vice-President and I, as the Hon Minister for the Interior, am just a member like the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General is also a member.
That is why I said that I do not act directly, because the Constitution states clearly, that the operational and administrative control of the Service, subject to the general directions of the Police Council, is vested in the Inspector- General of Police (IGP) and not subject to the directive of the Hon Minister. That is why I said that and as the Hon Minister, I will hold them to their words because I have access to the Police Council to say that they have not fulfilled this mandate.
I take this position because I want an independent Ghana Police Service, I do not want a Service in which I, as the Hon Minister, would go contrary to the mandate of the Constitution and issue orders to them and that is why I made that statement. It is meant to let the House know that the IGP, professionally, is responsible for this; politically, if I disagree, I would go back to the Police Council and ensure that it does what has to be done by law. That is why I gave that answer. I hope that satisfies the Hon Minority Leader.
Mr Charles S. Hodogbey 11:55 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I want to tell the Hon Minister that, we know the Ghana Police Service has different functions, some police officers put their life on the line in the streets facing criminals; there are others who are able to mount checkpoints on the roads. When we come to the question of remuneration, I would like to know if there is any differential payment or kind of allowance given to those police officers who put their life on the line and those who man checkpoints on the roads.
Mr Amidu 11:55 p.m.
Madam Speaker, if this question is intended to be in relation to remuneration, I will say that, the Ghana Police Service is a disciplined Service and all police officers are assigned to duties and they cannot refuse them. So whichever duty you are at, you get the same remuneration because you can be moved from one duty to another. You may be at peacekeeping duty today and tomorrow be assigned to armed robbery and at another time, you may be assigned to Motor Traffic and Transport Unit (MTTU). So the salary scale is the same.
Mr Kwame Osei-Prempeh 11:55 p.m.
Madam Speaker, the Hon Minister in his Answer said that:
“. . . Government has approved 38 accommodation projects nation- wide for completion this year.”
I would like him to tell us, at least ;three regions where these projects are located and the level of work done which makes him believe that by the end of this year, the 38 projects would be completed. Madam Speaker, this question does not need notice, the Hon Minister said they will be completed this year, so he should tell us when.
Mr Amidu 11:55 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I cannot give very detailed information but I can assure the Honourable House that we have seven projects in the Greater- Accra Region, there are three projects in the Central Region and there are four projects in the Ashanti Region, under the 38 projects which are supposed to be completed this year.
rose
Mr Osei-Prempeh 11:55 p.m.
Madam Speaker, the emphasis was on the amount of work done. The Hon Minister said that the 38 projects will be completed this year --
Madam Speaker 11:55 p.m.
Hon Member, you have finished your question, please --
Mr Osei-Prempeh 11:55 p.m.
Madam Speaker, the question has not been answered.
Madam Speaker 11:55 p.m.
Hon Member, please, respect the Chair and sit down. This is the first time I have asked anybody to sit down; I hope I would not have to do it often. You know the rules and if you try to breach them, I will not sit here and turn a blind eye --
The next Question stands in the name of Hon Ernest Attuquaye Armah.
Mr Alfred W. G. Abayateye 11:55 p.m.
Madam Speaker, Hon Ernest Attuquaye Armah talked to me on phone and he said that I should seek your permission and ask the Question on his behalf.
Madam Speaker 11:55 p.m.
Where is he?
Mr Abayateye 12:05 p.m.
He is indisposed,
please.

Police Station at Oduman Ablekuma (Provision)

Q. 362. Mr A. W. G. Abayateye (on

behalf of Mr Ernest Attuquaye Armah) asked the Minister for the Interior when a police station would be provided in the Oduman Ablekuma area of the Ga West District.
Mr Martin Amidu 12:05 p.m.
Madam Speaker, the good people of Oduman have recognized the challenges facing the Ghana Police Service and have kindly decided to assist in the construction of a police station building in their community to enable the Ghana Police Service provide them with their services. The people of Oduman have accordingly approached the Police Administration for drawings and technical specifications on the proposed project.
I am happy to inform you that the drawings and technical specifications have been completed and they will be handed over to the leadership of the community during the week ending 13th March, 2010. This will assist the people of Oduman to construct a police station and as soon as they complete the project, the Police Administration will take over and establish the police station with full compliments.
Mr Abayateye 12:05 p.m.
Madam Speaker, the people of the area are willing to do the construction. I want to know whether the Ghana Police Service will assist them in any way.
Mr. Amidu 12:05 p.m.
Madam Speaker, the agreement reached between the people of Oduman and the Police Administration is that the Police Administration makes the drawings available to them. They have undertaken that they will construct the structures to completion and the Ghana Police Service has undertaken that it will supply the personnel as soon as it is finished. There is no commitment of financial outlay from the Ghana Police Service because they do not have it in their budget.
Butchered Ghanaians at Agbogbloshie (Outcome)
Q. 363. Mr Justice Joe Appiah asked the Minister for the Interior what
stringent measures the Ministry had initiated to bring to book the perpetrators of crime against innocent Ghanaians who were butchered in broad daylight at Agbogloshie, a suburb of Accra.
Mr Martin Amidu 12:05 p.m.
The police have since the incident at Agbogbloshie, been pursuing investigations to enable them arrest the perpetrators of the disturbances, including the regrettable killing of some persons during the disturbances. In the absence of direct evidence as to the identity of the perpetrators of the disturbances and resultant deaths, the police have been involved in undercover operations aimed at fishing out information and gathering intelligence on the incident. Unfortunately, no significant breakthrough has been made so far.
One suspect, No. 198652G/CPL Musah Adam Mohammed (a military man) was arrested in connection with the clashes and arraigned before court. He was granted bail on 18th September, 2009. The case was adjourned to 1st March, 2010 at the last sitting of the court.
One of the difficulties encountered by the police in investigating this case has been the failure, refusal or reluctance of persons who have alleged that they possessed names of or knew the identities of some or all of the perpetrators of offences in this case, to co-operate with the police by providing those names, and/ or evidence to facilitate investigations.
The Police Administration is, therefore, appealing to the general public, including Hon Members of this House who have such names, identities and/or evidence or any other relevant information to make them available to the police to facilitate investigations into the Agbogbloshie disturbances and resultant deaths. It
is only when this is done that we can establish the veracity of the descriptive adjectives used in the question I am answering in relation to the unfortunate victims of the disturbances.
Madam Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Yes, carry on with your question; I thought you had finished.
Mr Appiah 12:05 p.m.
Madam Speaker, will
the Hon Minister consider it appropriate to pay adequate compensation to victims in such circumstances?
Mr Amidu 12:05 p.m.
Madam Speaker,
compensation will be considered after the perpetrators have been arrested and the circumstances of the offence are known. It is thereafter that the issue can even be thought of and compensation granted. As of now, one does not even know whether the victims were indeed, victims or they were just part of a mob which was fighting. So it is difficult for one to consider the issue of compensation at this stage.
Mr Appiah 12:05 p.m.
Madam Speaker, will the
Hon Minister arrange to set up structures to prevent the recurrence of such gruesome incidents in the future?
Mr Amidu 12:05 p.m.
Madam Speaker, the
Ghana Police Service has been established to prevent the occurrence of such incidents. Unfortunately, the Ghana Police Service is not everywhere, so these incidents will have to happen before they move in. Once this thing has occurred, the police have been vigilant in the Agbogbloshie area as they must do and that is the only thing we can do for now. So I can assure the Hon Member that the police are vigilant over the Agbogbloshie area to ensure that such incidents do not occur, or even if they occur, they are contained swiftly and deaths may not occur.
Mr Appiah 12:05 p.m.
Madam Speaker, may I crave your indulgence to read an extract from the Daily Graphic in connection with
Mr Appiah 12:05 p.m.


the Agbogbloshie incident. Daily Graphic of Wednesday, 26th August, 2009:

“Four men believed to be Abudus and Andanis were butchered to death at Agbogbloshie in Accra yesterday after a renewed clash between supporters of the National Democratic Congress and the New Patriotic Party. Two others sustained various degrees of machete and gun-shot wounds. Already the police have arrested a number of suspects pending further investigations into the clashes which eye-witness believed have political undertones. Eye-witness at the scene of the clashes told the Daily Graphic that the supporters of NDC after last year's election allegedly chased NPP supporters out of the Konkomba Market on the pretext that their Government was in power.”

Madam Speaker, I have been to Court 4 and Her Ladyship, Chief Justice Court 21 but there was no trace of this case. Madam Speaker, will the Hon Minister indicate precisely where the matter is being dealt with?
Mr Amidu 12:05 p.m.
Madam Speaker, as I said, there was a military man who was arrested and has been put before court. The last time the case was adjourned to 1st March, 2010. I suppose that the trial may be on-going.
But in respect of the Daily Graphic which has been quoted, Madam Speaker, I respectfully wish to submit that I do not have to base my answers on opinion. The Graphic publication is an opinion -- [Interruptions.] All we are asking for is that, the facts should be supplied to the police. If the Daily Graphic reporter has the facts and can produce the witnesses he is stating to the police, I believe that the
police are willing -- and my information from the police is that they have not had any of these pieces of information. Go to them upon which they can investigate -- This is the answer I have for the House, Madam Speaker.
Mr Appiah 12:05 p.m.
Madam Speaker, the
answer is not what I am expecting from him --
Madam Speaker 12:05 p.m.
No, you do not
-- if you are not expecting the answer --
Mr Appiah 12:05 p.m.
I am asking the Hon
Minister precisely what --
Madam Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Hon Member, your three supplementary questions have been answered, please, sit down. We cannot allow one person to do something and another one not to do it. So if your three supplementary questions have been answered, we move on.
Thank you, Hon Member.
Madam Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Hon Member, this is a constituency-specific Question. Were you going to ask a question?
Mr Appiah 12:05 p.m.
Madam Speaker, it is a national issue.
Madam Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Who says it is a
national issue when we have decided, the whole House has decided that when it is constituency-specific -- because of lack of time we are taking -- [Interruptions] -- Well, I am sorry, I go by the decision of the House -- [Some Hon Members:Oh! No.] -- [An Hon Member: Madam Speaker, this is not constituency-specific.] -- It is, is it not? Agbogbloshie -- Agbogbloshie, is it not specific? I do not agree with you, Hon Member, it is constituency-specific.
Mr Appiah 12:15 p.m.
Madam Speaker,
Agbogbloshie is not in my constituency; it is in Odododiodio, it is not in Ablekuma North.
Madam Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Can the Hon

Let me decide whether it is or not.
Mr Appiah 12:15 p.m.
It is not in my consti-
tuency, Madam Speaker. I t is in Odododiodioo Constituency.
Madam Speaker 12:15 p.m.
But you were
entitled to three questions and --
Mr Appiah 12:15 p.m.
Madam Speaker, it is a
national issue.
Madam Speaker 12:15 p.m.
What do you mean
it is a national issue? We have taken a decision in this House and Hon Members, I would go by that decision because it is not my will; it is the will of the House.
Hon Members, we are moving on. --
[Uproar] -- Well, whoever says no, can do what he wants to do, I am keeping to the instructions --
Hon Minister, thank you, very much

Hon Members, you are heckling too much. Please, put a stop to it. Even though you can heckle, you are heckling too much and disturbing the House.

I take instruction from the House as a whole, and when the House has decided, I act on those instructions. I do not come here to change them despite their prior instructions. Maybe, the Hon Leaders can help in this, but we have taken that decision. And if nobody is coming to my assistance, I say, I am bound by the decision of this House.
rose
Madam Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
Thank you, very much, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, the issue that you raised is quite appropriate. We decided to assist in running the Business of the House. And because we are drawing to a close, we indicated that for outstanding Questions, as many as possible could be listed for a particular day. So, if there are constituency-specific Questions, and Hon Ministers come to respond to them, then you allow those Hon Members who might have filed the Questions to ask the Questions --
Madam Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Three Questions.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
Those are the constituency-specific Questions.
Madam Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Yes.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
Madam Speaker, in this particular case, we have held a press conference and we have come out with names. The Hon Minister is suggesting to us that he does not have any names. On the contrary, names have been supplied. And -- [Uproar.]
Madam Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, you know, the Hon Leaders are always allowed the last questions. So, if your case is that, quite apart from the rule that we are applying, you have one last question, I always allow the Hon Leaders' questions. Do I not? And this can fall under that.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
Madam Speaker, indeed, I acknowledge that. And it is for that reason that in this particular case, I have been up standing for quite a long time.
Madam Speaker 12:15 p.m.
I called upon you.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
Madam Speaker, in this case, you did not.
Madam Speaker 12:15 p.m.
No, I said, I am calling upon you to ask the question.
Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
Since you have now discharged the Hon Minister --
Madam Speaker 12:15 p.m.
It does not matter. I am the very person who discharged him; I can bring him back to his chair.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
Then, Madam Speaker, I appeal to you to bring him back.
Madam Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Hon Minister, thank you for not leaving the House.
rose
Madam Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, I always allow last questions from the Leadership.
Mr Avoka 12:15 p.m.
Madam Speaker, that is your discretion and I am not opposed to your instruction.
But to take care of the apprehension of the Hon Minority Leader, if it is a national matter and we are so concerned about it, it is possible for an Hon Member to make a Statement on the floor of this House. Similarly, it is possible for this august House to invite the Hon Minister for the Interior to come and make a Statement which we can debate. But this is Question time. I think that we are guided by rules and regulations. That is all.
Madam Speaker 12:15 p.m.
He was particularly referring to a last question which I always give to Leadership. Was that not it, Hon Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu? Of course, if you were not the Leader and any other person had sought to ask the question, I would apply the rule.
But the rule I have applied is that every time, I allow the Leaders to put the last few questions and if you want to put a question,
I would allow it on this occasion.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. But to remind the Hon Majority Leader that Statements are not debated. Statements, if he cares to know, are not debated. So, if he comes up to say that we should have come up with a Statement for it to be debated, Madam Speaker, Statements, for his elucidation, are not debated --[Hear! Hear!]
Madam Speaker, now, I may ask a question. And the question is -- the Hon Minister, in his Answer, has indicated, and I refer to page 24 of the Order Paper:
“One of the difficulties encountered by the police in investigating this case has been the failure, refusal or reluctance of persons who have alleged that they possessed names of or knew the identities of some or all of the perpetrators of offences in this case to co-operate with the police by providing those names
. . .”
Madam Speaker, is the Hon Minister aware that the Minority held a press conference on the 27th of August, 2009 and disclosed the names of seven persons who were alleged to be the architects and executioners of the violent and brutal assault? And the names of the seven person include:
1. Suley
2. Mohammed Ayatu
3. Sahana
4. Awal Voulina Na
5. Suley Nabiya
6. Abdullah Rasta; and
7. Abdallah Sey.
Seven of them -- and indeed, the police even followed up and came for the identities of the names and we gave them to them. So, for him to allege that we have refused or failed or being reluctant to provide the names, is incorrect. Would he admit that this has been forwarded to the police?
Madam Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Yes, Hon Minister?
Mr Amidu 12:15 p.m.
Madam Speaker, the
Madam Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Order!
Mr Amidu 12:15 p.m.
But what I am saying is,
in my brief -- they specifically mentioned it, but I just thought that courtesy did not require me to zero on any person. That is why I made a general statement.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Would it help if you supplied the Hon Minister with the names?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
Madam Speaker, the names that I have mentioned would even be in the Hansard. As to saying that I have not helped to identify them, Madam Speaker, I do not know them by faces -- [Interruptions.] How am I supposed to help identify them? [Interruptions.]
Madam Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Order! Order!
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
Madam Speaker, beyond giving the names, how am I -- and since that I was not at the scene of the crime, how am I supposed to help identify the individuals? But if it is the names that he wants, as I said, they are already in the Hansard. But I will still give them to him, so he does what is required to be done.
Madam Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Yes, I think that was a good question; it has brought to the fore the fact that the names would be supplied. That he cannot identify them, is a real problem, but the names, he says, he would supply -- [Interruptions.] Order! Order!
Hon Majority Leader, have you got a question? If not, can we discharge the Hon Minister?
Mr Avoka 12:25 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I have no question to ask the Hon Minister.
Madam Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Hon Minister, I think the Minority Leader would supply you with the names; that is all he can do.
Thank you very much --
Mr Amidu 12:25 p.m.
Madam Speaker, when he supplies the names -- [Interruptions.]
Madam Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Order! Order!
Mr Amidu 12:25 p.m.
Fortunately, Madam Speaker had been Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) of this country before. When he supplies the names, he has to assist the police to be able to identify them --
Madam Speaker 12:25 p.m.
That is what I am saying.
Mr Amidu 12:25 p.m.
So giving just the names -- for instance, I always insist that my initial should be added to my name because I know that there is another Martin Amidu. So when he supplies the names, we would try as much as we can, using those sources which gave us the names to assist the police so that they can trace the perpetrators. But the names alone will lead to what the police have said. They have the names, they cannot trace them, and they want you to help them to trace them. They have not been able to do that. [Interruptions.]
Madam Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Order! Order! So the question has been answered that they have the names, only they cannot trace them. I think that is a legitimate answer, is that not it? Would you accept that answer? So your name is now left out of the thing because they have the names that you are supposed to have, but they cannot trace them. That is the answer we got.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
Madam Speaker, as I said, I was not at the scene of the crime, people brought me the names, I have given them to the police, they followed up to confirm after the press conference whether indeed, those were the names that were given, and I wrote them by hand and gave them to them. I thought that was what I was supposed to do. If they require further assistance, nobody has contacted me. But I take it from him, because if they are minded to
Madam Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Order! Order! Let us lower the heckling. Hon Minister, since this is your last question, we can only thank you for coming and you are discharged.
We now move on to Laying of Papers.
PAPERS 12:25 p.m.
Madam Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Majority Leader, item 5 (b).
Mr Avoka 12:25 p.m.
The Hon Minister for Finance and Economic Planning is in the House today and he has a message to be delivered in respect of (5) (b). So if you allow, we would rather invite --
Madam Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Yes, is he going to
-- (5)(b) --
Dr. Kwabena Duffuor 12:25 p.m.
Madam Speaker, it is (5) (b); we are withdrawing this to be replaced later.
Madam Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, (5) (b), what is happening?
Mr Avoka 12:25 p.m.
Madam Speaker, my information is that the Supplementary Appropriation Bill is not ready for this House to do business with. I understand the Committee will have to re-look at it. So we are withdrawing the Paper altogether for them to re-visit it and then it would be re-laid later.
Mr Hackman Owusu-Agyemang 12:25 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I think the rules are being changed a bit. You do not just say you are substituting. The document which was so laid becomes the property of this House by our own rules. So it can only be withdrawn with the permission of Your Madam Speaker and the House. But what he is telling us about he coming and substituting, is never heard of in this House. So if he wants to withdraw, he can come properly, get it withdrawn and then re-submit it. Let us do the proper thing; Madam Speaker says decorum should be in this House and rules must be obeyed, so let us go by the rules -- [Interruption.]
An Hon Member -- rose --
Mr Owusu-Agyemang 12:25 p.m.
Would you
sit down, Mr Chairman.
I have not finished, please. And so I do not understand what he is saying by changing it. He cannot change anything. Let us do it properly, please.
Madam Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Hon Leader, so what are you doing?
Mr Avoka 12:25 p.m.
With leave of this august House, we want to withdraw the
Supplementary Appropriation Bill before the House. I think that is what my Hon Friend --
Madam Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Hon Hackman, is it the Leader or the Minister who withdraws it?
Mr Owusu-Agyemang 12:25 p.m.
Madam Speaker, it is the Minister, the one who laid it. But since he is here, the Hon Minister should withdraw it, not the Leader. Let us do the right thing. The Hon Minister would withdraw and then we move on.
Madam Speaker 12:25 p.m.
Hon Hackman, I thought the Hon Leader was giving me notice because I wanted to know the position of (b). So now the proper withdrawal should be done.
Hon Minister, (5) (b), properly withdraw it.
Dr Kwabena Duffuor 12:35 p.m.
Madam Speaker, with the leave of the House, I would like to withdraw the Supplementary Appro-priation Bill and re-submit it later.
Madam Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Hon Members,
that is the will of the House that I give the approval for withdrawal. So I give the approval and I will also then withdraw the referral to the Finance Committee.
Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah 12:35 p.m.
Madam
Speaker, this House has passed many Appropriation Bills. The Hon Minister now tells us he is withdrawing the Supplementary Appropriation Bill but he never added any year. He never added any year. Is it the one that we passed for 2009 that he is now withdrawing -
Madam Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Well, that is a very, very legitimate point. Is it last year's Bill or this year's Bill? What is the year that should follow the Bill?
Hon Minister for Finance and Economic

Planning, is it 2009 Bill or 2010 Bill?
Dr Duffuor 12:35 p.m.
Madam Speaker, it is
2009.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:35 p.m.
Madam
Speaker, I believe the Hon Minister has now withdrawn the Supplementary Appropriation Bill that was referred to the Committee but I believe that he has to go further and present the Supplementary Appropriation Bill for the First Reading [Interruption.] I do not know whether it is ready.
Madam Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Hon Members,
it is not ready and that is why they just withdrew it. So I have also withdrawn the referral.
Hon Leader, what is the next item then?
Is item 6 coming on?
Mr Avoka 12:35 p.m.
Madam Speaker, my information is that the Supplementary Appropriation Bill for 2009 has been now agreed by the Committee and with your permission, we would let the Hon Minister present the Bill for the First Reading for further consideration. [Interruption,] Sorry, Madam Speaker, it is not the Committee. Madam Speaker, the document is now ready for the First Reading. It is not the Committee's Report.
Madam Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Hon Members, they
have got the permission to withdraw the Bill and to present a new one for the First Reading. Can we have the First Reading of the new one then? Appropriation Bill for 2009, the new one.
Dr Anthony A. Osei 12:35 p.m.
Madam Speaker,
I think the Leadership should assist the thing to be done right. If he wants
to present a Bill for the First Reading, he needs to seek the approval of this House because there is no amendment to this Order Paper. So he needs to seek permission - it is not listed, so what are we debating? He needs to seek permission of this House to agree that we amend this Order Paper before we can carry out with the First Reading. There is no addendum. It is not on this Order Paper, so we cannot just do that. I think the proper thing should be done. There is no amendment to this Order Paper.
Madam Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Hon Leader, I thought the agreement was to withdraw today and then present the Bill for First Reading. But if the rules are that having had permission to withdraw it and you want to re-present it today, you have to also seek permission, then let us go by that way.
Mr Avoka 12:35 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I thought I took a cue from the sentiments of the House and I asked for leave for the Hon Minister to present the Bill for the First Reading?
Madam Speaker 12:35 p.m.
I think it is the
Speaker who takes a cue from the sentiments of the House but that the Leadership abides by the rules and conventions.
Mr Avoka 12:35 p.m.
Madam Speaker, we
know, I appreciate that. I am saying that that is why I asked for leave for the Hon Minister to present the Bill because it is not on the Order Paper. If it was on the Order Paper, I would not need to ask for leave.
Mr Ambrose P. Dery 12:35 p.m.
Madam
Speaker, I think the Hon Minister should go step by step. First of all, the Hon Minister asked for leave to withdraw the Bill and it has been granted. Before the Paper is re-presented, he should ask for leave to amend the Order Paper for that activity to be taken in. He must go step by step. So he is supposed to do that and he is supposed to go by the Standing Orders. Then he is saying that he is taking the
sense of the House.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
Madam
Speaker, I think we are ready to indulge the Hon Minister for Finance and Economic Planning except we believe that the proper thing must be done. The proper thing, as the Hon Majority Leader would want to know, is to amend the Order Paper. What we have often done is to print an Addendum.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:35 p.m.
Madam
Speaker, in parliamentary practice, we have shadow boxing, so we must always try and manage the Business of the House in such a way that we promote co- operation. I am pleading with the Hon Minority Leader that on this occasion, we would indulge him if he makes it verbal and thereafter, he does it without necessarily getting an Addendum Order Paper.
Madam Speaker, I am urging the
Majority Leader to try as much as possible to facilitate the business of this House. I am begging of him.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
Madam
Speaker, just what the Hon Member for Sekondi (Papa Owusu-Ankomah) said is what I said. I said that ordinarily, we would require an Addendum but given the circumstances of the time, we would expect the Majority Leader to do the
proper thing by coming with a proper application, and we indulge the Hon Minister for Finance and Economic Planning. That is why I said to him, the Majority Leader, that he should get up and do the proper thing, that is, come by the proper application and we indulge the Hon Minister.
Madam Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Hon Majority
Leader, we have already withdrawn the Bill. We want to --
Mr Avoka 12:45 p.m.
Madam Speaker, it is
my commitment that in view of the fact that we are rising in the next three days, we should be able to accomplish the Business that is already before the House. Madam Speaker, against this background, I humbly apply that the Order Paper for today be amended to include the First Reading of the 2009 Supplementary Appropriation Bill.
Madam Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Hon Members,
from the look of things, I do not think anybody is against it, so you are granted permission to present new Appropriation Bill at First Reading.
Hon Majority Leader, show the Hon Minister how it is done.
BILLS -- FIRST READING 12:45 p.m.
Madam Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader, item 6.
Mr Avoka 12:45 p.m.
Madam Speaker, if it
Madam Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Hon Majority
Leader, what about the others? Items 6, 7, 8, 9 and you are moving to 11. Why?
Mr Avoka 12:45 p.m.
Madam Speaker, item
Madam Speaker 12:45 p.m.
So are they deferred?
Mr Avoka 12:45 p.m.
Madam Speaker, yes.
Madam Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Then let us say so.
Yes, Hon Deputy Minority Leader.
Mr Dery 12:45 p.m.
Madam Speaker, it is
legitimate for the Hon Majority Leader to propose that item 6 be deferred, but he cannot say that; “it is hereby deferred”. He does not have the authority to say that -- [Interruption] Yes. He has to propose that it be deferred. And then --
Madam Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, I think we are keeping strictly to the rules now. So, are you asking that we defer it? Are you asking that we defer items 6, 7 and 8?
Mr Avoka 12:45 p.m.
Madam Speaker, that is so.
Madam Speaker 12:45 p.m.
So items 6, 7 and
8 are deferred. Items 9 and 10, are they deferred? [Interruption] So, we move on to item 11, is it? [Pause.] We will move
MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
Hon
Members, Plants Bill, 2009.
BILLS - CONSIDERATION STAGE 12:55 p.m.
Dr. Ahmed Yakubu Alhassan 12:55 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, line 1, delete “The purpose of this Part is to provide” and insert “This Part provides”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr W. O. Boafo 12:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, line 2, after “pest”, insert “regulate the import and”.
Mr Speaker, the purpose of the amendment is to include importation as part of the area being covered by clause 1. Mr Speaker, as clause 1 stands now, it only deals with exports of plants and plant materials. But a close look at the Part One indicates it covers both exports and imports, hence the proposed amendment to insert “regulate the import and” after the word “pest” in line 2 of clause 1.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move accordingly.
Dr Alhassan 12:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, so far as the rest of us are concerned, there is nothing wrong with the amendment, and it should
be carried.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 1 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause 2 -- Minister to regulate importation of plants, plant materials and conveyance.
Dr Alhassan 12:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, subclause 1, delete and insert the following:
“A person shall not import a plant, plant material or conveyance without an import permit and a phytosanitary certificate.”
Mr Speaker, the amendment proposed is to improve the rendition in particular that upon further discussion, we noticed that a phytosanitary certificate must come with an import permit. So it is not “either” or but “import permit and import phytosanitary certificate”. And that is what the amendment is made to underline.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 12:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 2, subclause (3), line 2, delete “Director” and insert “Minister”.
Mr Speaker, the idea is to take out
responsibility from the Director to the Minister since he is the one making all the proposals.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 12:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 3, subclause (1), line 1, before “plant material”, insert “plant.”
Mr Speaker, the idea is to insert “plant”
before “plant material” just to eliminate any ambiguity with respect to plant and plant material.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 12:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, subclause (1), paragraph (b), after “permit”, insert “and phytosanitory certificate”.
Mr Speaker, it is simply to synchronize clause 3 with clause 2 that the import permit and phytosanitary certificate come with the import permit. It is just to add “and phytosanitary certificate” to paragraph (b) of subclause 1.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Dr Alhassan 12:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, subclause (2), line 2, delete “Ghana Post” and insert “designated post office”.
The reason is that Ghana Post can
change in due course and the implementer of the Bill should be free to identify any other post office that has competence to deal with the subject. So instead of “Ghana Post”, it should be “designated post office”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr W. O. Boafo 12:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 3, subclause (3), paragraph (a), line 1, before “plant material”, insert “plant.”
Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment is
to synchronize that particular sub- section with the earlier proposed amendment to clause 3, subclause 1, line 1 to indicate that the reference to plant is not excluded under this subclause 3. This is to avoid the invocation of the rule of construction that is the inclusio unius exclusio alterius.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 -- Importation to conform
with International Plant Protection Convention.
Dr. Alhassan 12:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 4, subclause (1), line 2, delete “their” and insert “its”.
Mr Speaker, this is appropriate for
the rendition.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Boafo 12:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (3), line 1, delete “Director” and insert “Minister”.
Mr Speaker, the purpose of the
amendment is to indicate the clear role of the Minister. That it is the Minister who issues the notice or directs and not the Director.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Dr Alhassan 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4 subclause (34), paragraph (e), lines 1 and 2, after “or” delete “any location which the importer may designate” and insert “a designated location”.
Mr Speaker, this makes it simpler to comprehend.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4 subclause (3), paragraph (g), delete “and” and insert “or”
Mr Speaker, the reason is that there is supposed o be a re-arrangement of the entire paragraph and the appropriate word to use there is ‘or' and not “and”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 1:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (4), delete “costs” and insert “cost”.
After a lengthy discussion, it was
agreed that dropping the last “s” from the cost was the appropriate thing to do. So instead of “costs” it is going to be “cost”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 - Consignee in Ghana to give
notice.
Dr Alhassan 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, subclause (2), line 1, delete “Director” and insert “Minister”.
Again, the amendment is to take out responsibility from a Director and hand it over to the Minister.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 - Export of plant materials.
Dr Alhassan 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 6, subclause (4), line 2, delete “date” and insert “time”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am not too sure of what the intendment of this amendment is because if you do not include the date and we state merely the time, understanding it becomes difficult. So maybe, we want a greater degree of exactitude, in which case, we may want to add, ‘and time', to the “date” but deleting the “date” is not proper. You may say the “stated export date and time” but to say that we should delete “date” and insert “time”. I am not sure that is how it should be done.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
Hon
Chairman because “time” can be rather ambiguous. “Time” can refer to a whole period, whereas “date” is definitely specific and the “time”, there will then mean the “exact time” by way of the clock. So we may well have “date and time” if we want to be that specific.
Dr Alhassan 1:05 p.m.
Well, if it is adding
instead of replacing the date, we say “date and time”, that is fine because there was a lengthy discussion before we arrived at taking out the “date” and putting “time”, in thinking that the “time” would include “date” from a few hours up to the number of days. But if putting the two words would make things clearer , I am not particularly against it.
Mr Boafo 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there should not be any ambiguity if the whole sub- section is read together instead of considering the words involved because the controlling portion of the amendment being sought is the period. If I may read -
“The examination shall be conducted within 6 hours before the stated export time in case of perishable consignment and between six hours and three days before the stated export date . . .”
So if you read it, you will see that the insertion of “time” relates to the division of the day. That is, if it is a perishable item, it relates to the division of the day, but if it is an unperishable one, then it is given a longer date. That is how I understood the Chairman when we were at the winnowing, unless he has a change of mind.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
With
regard to perishable items, time can be very, very tricky even in terms of minutes and perhaps, we could be on a safer side by having date and time as the Hon Chairman of the Committee has stated, upon the prompting of the Hon Minority Leader. It only makes certain more certain.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, as I said, I understand the
perishable items, we are talking about days. But if the further amendment will not create difficulties in contractual matters as the Hon Speaker is stating, it should not be too much to take.
1.15 p.m..
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, I want the two of you to come to some clear understanding so that we can put the Question.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
May I have an indication from the Hon Minister for Justice and Attorney-General? Please, I will come back to you. I want you to give me a formulation
Dr Alhassan 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the issue that is being articulated here is about a certain amount of time to be allowed to carry out examination before export of a commodity and because some commodities are perishable, it has to be done within a certain number of hours and because others are non-perishable, it has to be given some leeway -- number of days. So the issue of date does not really arise as long as we are talking about time in both cases, that is, time in number of hours and time in number of days; this is the reasoning behind the clause.
So if we say “date and time”, I would have thought that the “time” includes, as I said early on - the time is about how much time is allowed for the activity to be carried out, not the date on which it is to be carried out. So that is where I have difficulty with the inclusion of both date and time, whereas time could have taken care of both number of hours and number of days.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
Hon
exactitude that they want but if you stated for instance, that the time would, maybe, specify, say 4.00 p.m. -- departure time and you want to do it within 6 hours before 4.00 p.m., 4.00 p.m. of which date? You require to know the date. That is why I am saying that, it should come with a date. So 4.00 p.m. of say, Thursday, 20th April, that is what you want because you have specified that in the case of perishable consignment, it should be done within specified time limits, hours that you have stipulated. So I am saying that, to make it tidier, the time that you have stated is important but we should include the date so that we will have let us say Thursday, 20th April, 4.00 p.m. and we would look for greater exactitude in that.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
Incidentally, sometimes we find that 10.00 p.m. of the 10th may work into 2.00 a.m. of the 11th, and it can bring sometimes matters of controversy, contractual matters in law in court and so on. So Hon Chairman of the Committee, what should be our final formulation?
Dr Alhassan 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, well,
the drafters signalled that it may not be particularly harmful to say “date and time” but I would have thought that if you read the entire subclause, the time would have looked at both time in number of hours and days not about what is on the clock. This is how we were reasoning, not time on the clock but time in terms of what period should be allowed before examination can be conducted depending on the kind of goods that are being handled. That is why it is categorized as “perishable” and “non-perishable”.
So the perishable ones, we are dealing with a certain number of hours, the non
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the issue here is when examination should be conducted and we are saying that because they are perishable items, they should be conducted within a certain stipulated time just before the export. We are saying that it should be within six hours before export, that is, six hours before the time of departure - before the export and he is saying that we should delete “date” and just say “time,” which would mean say, 4.00 p.m. He is talking about a time range -- before it leaves, the examination should be done, and I am saying that if you just stipulate the time, it may just mean 4.00 p.m. of which date? That is why I said he could include it to make it tidier.
I understand that because we have stated export date in line 3, I think he has read it to mean that the time would qualify the export date on line 3 which is why he thinks that in that case, he could stipulate time there. But a careful look at this would suggest to you that the export date relates to non-perishable consignments which is why I thought that he could bring it forward.
Indeed, even with the second line, between six hours and three days, I thought we could just say, “within three days” instead of saying “between six hours and three days before the departure”. So it is just to tidy up. I believe we are on the same wavelength except for the exactitude. I thought that it should - I understand he is adding the “time”; I understand that but it should be “time and date” in the case of perishable consignment. So we know the time and the date that he is talking about. But they think that we should go along that way, fine.
Dr Alhassan 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I get the
impression the Hon Minority Leader is abandoning the further proposal that he made -- or? So that we can go on with the original.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
He is not insisting? All right.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am saying that, just read it, “The examination shall be conducted within six hours before the stated export date.” That is what we have there. He is saying that we should delete “date” and just write ‘time'', before the stated “export time.” “Times of which date? That is in the case of perishable consignment. And then the other leg is “between six hours and three days -” I am asking why we cannot also have for that formulation, “within three days” instead of saying that “between six hours and three days” for non-perishable items? But as I have said, I thought that it would make it tidier; if he thinks otherwise, fine.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 -- Risk for exportation and spread of plant pests.
Dr. Alhassan 1:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 7, subclause (1), lines 4 and 5 delete “followed by re-examination at a later date”
And end at “appropriate treatment.”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman may provide us with justification for that because the entire clause is on what to do if requirements are not satisfied in the first place. If you are not satisfied in the first place, then there may be re-examination
Dr Alhassan 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we thought that the appropriate treatment given the materials may render re-examination unnecessary and that is why we insisted that “appropriate treatment” should be defined in the definition column so
that everybody knows what goes into “appropriate treatment.” But certainly, if there is a need for re-examination, the subclause (2) then goes into that detail.
Mr Boafo 1:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it appears that under subclause (1), there is no provision which enables “re-examination” to be conducted if we delete “followed by re- examination at a later date”. So subclause (2) which provides the manner in which a “re-examination” should be carried out happens to be a stranger so far as the entire provision of clause 7 is concerned. So I believe that if we intend clause (2) to stand, then we should give that enabling power of “re-examination” under subclause (1) as it stands now, “followed by a re-examination at a later date” is an enabling power. Then subclause (2) indicates how the re-examination should be carried out.
So I think what the Minority Leader is saying should be considered because he is advocating for an enabling power under clause 7 (1) to enable clause 2, the procedure for carrying out the re- examination to stay.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, the idea is that if you delete “followed by re- examination at a later date”, we will need an introductory statement that will bring about the empowering of what we are describing in detail. So you may want to address your mind.
Dr Alhassan 1:25 p.m.
Yes, in view of that explanation, we will stand down that amendment. We would accept the re- instatement of what we sought to delete, that is “followed by re-examination at a later date”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
So you are withdrawing the amendment?
Dr Alhassan 1:25 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
Very well, the amendment is accordingly withdrawn.
Mr Boafo 1:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not have any re-captioning of 7 (2). 7 (2) only indicates procedure for carrying out the re-examination.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
All right, thank you very much.
Mr Boafo 1:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, Clause 7, subclause (3), line 1, delete “costs” and substitute “cost of “.
Mr Speaker, this is only for consistency purposes. Under clause 4 (4), which was just amended, we substituted “costs” for “cost”, but under that clause, you could see that after “costs”, there is “of” but under 7 (3), after the “costs” there is no “of”. So this is just for consistency of expression.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8 - Establishment of the Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Directorate.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader first.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:25 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, before we went to clause 8, I wanted to crave your indulgence to affect clause 7 (1) in some way to bring clarity. I believe it is a matter for the drafters anyway. It is rather the use of punctuation marks which has caused the Chairman to call for deletion of “followed by re-examination at a later date” which he has fortunately abandoned for us. We may just include two commas on line 3 and that will make it clearer. As I said, we will leave that to the drafters of the Bill. Because after “materials” we would then bring “subject to appropriate treatment” and relocate “shall be” after that one, “followed by re-examination at a later date”. As I said, we would leave that for the drafters of the Bill.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
Very well, we will leave this at this stage for the drafters.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, the amendment to clause 8 stands in your name.
Dr Alhassan 1:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, delete and insert the following:
“Establishment of the Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Directorate
The Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Directorate of the Ministry is responsible for the implementation of this part of the Act.”
The original proposal was to make this clause establish a Plant Protection
Dr Alhassan 1:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the reason for this amendment was because they think that this Act should be “establishing the Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Directorate”, because that is entirely the job of the Civil Service and a particular department within the Ministries should not be established by law to the neglect of other departments of the Ministries.
I thought that if we gave “responsibility” to the directorate, it is the Minister who designates officers to carry out implementation of this part of the Bill. So if the “Directorate” is not established by law, then it does not have to have the President appointing officers accordingly. Because this is a Civil Service organization and there are procedures for engaging staff to perform their duties; it does not have to be by this law.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, you would realize that in clause 11, there is an amendment in the same vein, so that “the designated officer” would be “a designated officer” so that there would not be any kind of permanently designated officer, so-called. Is that the idea, that there would not be any permanently designated functionary but that an officer designated would act?
It appears this also goes to clause 11, and I think it is good to draw attention to this so that we can look at them in holistic terms, where we would delete “personally or through the nearest authorized designated officer” and insert“or the nearest office of the Ministry personally”. And it goes to clause 14, where we have delete “Minister” and insert “designated officer”.
So let us hear from you accordingly, Hon Boafo?
Mr Boafo 1:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, under clause
Regulatory Services Directorate and we thought that may go contrary to the Civil Service rules and regulations. So rather than say so, we thought that a new caption of clause 8, that is, responsibility of implementation be given to the Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Directorate of the Ministry. So the idea is to take out what is in the Bill now and substitute what has been proposed.
I so submit.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, we are not there yet, but I want us to read clause 8 together with clause 9, which the Hon Chairman of the Committee is calling on us to delete. Clause 9 establishes the officers of the directorate who are to be called “designated officers”. For the first time, we have that usage in clause 9. The Chairman of the Committee is calling on us to delete clause 9. So I would plead with him then to consider the two together and have maybe a construction that will include “designated officers”, because from now on, that is beyond clause 9, we will be using “designated officers” and we need to know who they are. It reads as: “the Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Directorate of the Ministry”.
I would want us to include
“the officers of which shall be known as designated officers, are responsible for the implementation of this part of the Act”.
So that we would take on board what is contained in clause 9 which the Hon Chairman of the Committee is calling on us to delete.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
Yes, in all future reference to “designated officers”, otherwise, that might appear to

122 of the interpretation clause, page 58, “a designated officer” is defined to mean “any officer appointed under section 9 . . .” which is being deleted. So Mr Speaker, having regard to the substitution of the new clause establishing a new clause making the Plant Protection and Regulatory Service Directorate responsible for this Act.

Mr Speaker, we can resolve this issue by looking at the definition section and reconstruct the interpretation of “designated officer” to bring the person under section 8, which means “any officer appointed under section 8 . . .” or some-thing to that effect. If we leave it to the draftspersons, they can do that for us -- “Any officer attached to the Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Directorate as a designated officer.”
Dr Alhassan 1:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the definition of “designated officer” itself has been amended subsequently to mean “an officer delegated by the Minister to enforce provisions of the section” and not what is currently in the draft Bill. That is why it has taken out “the designated officer and substituting it with “a designated officer”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, is there any further difficulty?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that was why I said we should read clauses 8 and 9 together so that we are sure of what we are doing. By the new definition, it would mean any officer delegated by the Minister to enforce this section. Which section is the Chairman of the Committee talking about?
Dr Alhassan 1:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are talking about the section that empowers the Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Directorate to implement. We should note that earlier provisions provide that that Directorate is in charge of
implementing that particular part of the Bill, Part I of the Bill. So the designated officer is an officer in that Directorate mandated by the Minister to carry out provisions of the Act.
.
Mr Boafo 1:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, having regard
to the new definition of “designated officer” in the proposed amendment to the interpretation section, the matter should rest.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
Very well. Hon Members, for that matter, we will leave that amendment to the interpretation section to when we get there, and the Chairman of the Committee should remember to kindly bring that amendment up.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9 - Appointment of Designated Officers.
Dr Alhassan 1:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9, delete.
Mr Speaker, in view of what just happened in clause 8, we thought that clause 9 was redundant and should be deleted.
Question put and clause deleted.
Clause 10 - Functions of the Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Directorate.
Dr Alhassan 1:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, paragraph (a), line 1, delete “permit” and insert “permits”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:35 p.m.
Mr

Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the Chairman to the use of the word “surveillance” in clause 10 (c). Mr Speaker, I do not know why we cannot use another word in place of “carrying out surveillance”.

Mr Speaker, as you do know, when we talk about surveillance, we are talking about carefully watching someone especially by the police or the armed forces, usually there is a resort to the police and so on, to carry out these activities. I do not think that that is what we mean. I know, maybe, we are referring to closely watching the growing of plants and so on; do we need to use the word “surveillance”? I think it is far too strong a word.
Dr Alhassan 1:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am happy that the Hon Minority Leader has recognized the strength of the word “surveillance” and that is exactly what we want.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11 - Powers of a Designated Officer.
Dr Alhassan 1:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 11, paragraph (d), line 3, delete “the designated officer” and insert “a designated officer”.
Mr Speaker, in view of what just happened in clauses 8 and 9, we thought that instead of “the designated officer” it must be “a designated officer”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with respect, if I am not taking us back, clause 11, the opening paragraph:
“For the purpose of safeguarding public health, agriculture and the environment . . .”
Mr Speaker, do we need to add “in the country”? This Bill is for the Republic. Otherwise, at every step, we have to be adding “in the country” “in Ghana”, and so on and I thought that even saying “for the purpose of safeguarding public health” - if we want to make it neater, we could just say “to safeguard public health, agriculture and the environment, a designated officer . . .”
Dr Alhassan 1:45 p.m.
Well, I think that what is being proposed does not really harm the provisions in there and if the House agrees that --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
Do we want “in the country”? The point is, we may have to say it everywhere and we all know this law is for Ghana.
Dr Alhassan 1:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as I was saying, if taking out “in the country”, and then knocking off “the purpose . . .” et cetera, will help the rendition without affecting the substance of what is, being proposed, I am for it, and if that is the pleasure of the entire House, we should accept the Minority Leader's proposal.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
While we can leave the early part to the drafters,

as for “in the country”, if it is our wish, we may safely do without it because definitely, the law applies to the country and we may be tempted to repeat it about 100 times in one law.
Dr Alhassan 1:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my attention has just been drawn to the fact that the reason for saying that it is “for the purpose”, adding “for the purpose” is because we want to limit the powers of the person who is supposed to carry out the Act. So “in the country” can be dropped, but -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13 - Obligation to give Information on a quarantine pest.
Dr Alhassan 1:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 13 paragraph (b), lines 2 and 3, delete “personally or through the nearest authorised designated officer” and insert “or the nearest office of the Ministry personally”.
Mr Speaker, the amendment proposed is to expand the options for people who are to report on a quarantine pest. It may be that a pest would occur at a point where the division may not have a well-defined office or officer, but if it is expanded to include “the office of the Ministry”, then the options would be much wider for people who want to make such urgent reports.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 13 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
Hon Members, considering the state of business in the House, I direct that Sitting be held outside the prescribed period in accordance with Standing Order 40 (3).
Clause 14 - Measures by the Minister on an infested or infected quarantine pest
Dr Alhassan 1:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 14, subclause (3), line 1, delete “Minister” and insert “designated officer”.
This is because most of the activities in there are to be carried out by such an officer. So asking the Minister to be the person doing this particular activity is not appropriate. That is the feeling. So instead of “Minister” we have “designated officer”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15 - Disregard of notice by an owner or occupier.
Dr Alhassan 1:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, line 2, delete “term” and insert “terms”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the
Dr Alhassan 1:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 17, subclause (1), line 2, after “harmed”, insert “by a designated officer”.
Mr Speaker, that is to make it specific that it is only acts performed by this “designated officer” that would require compensation that would be paid by the Minister.
Mr Joseph Y. Chireh 1:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what will the meaning be by this insertion? He is talking about “by a designated officer.” Does it mean that if any other person harms another person in the process, the person will not be compensated?
Dr Alhassan 1:55 p.m.
It means so, Mr Speaker. The harm caused must relate to an activity that must have been generated by “a designated officer” performing his duties under the Act. That is all that it is trying to say. It will be too open not to specify the reason for paying compensation.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Boafo 1:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 17, subclause (1), line 2, delete “action” and insert “payment”.
Mr Speaker, clause 17 (2) deals with compensation to persons whose plants or property might have been destroyed or harmed. And as it stands now, it may well turn out that the amount to be paid, at the time of action, will be the investment value of the property or the plant. The proposed amendment seeks to avoid the situation

where the person will be at a loss. And it is proposing payment of the restored value. That is, the value as at the date of payment, that is the restoration value.

So Mr Speaker, the issue is between investment value and restoration value, hence the need to substitute “payment” for “action”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, any objection?
Dr Alhassan 1:55 p.m.
No, there is no objection to taking up action for payment.
Mr Chireh 1:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you replace “action” with “payment”, it is not the appropriate thing to do because you must first estimate for the payment to be made. So, it cannot be at the time of payment. What are you going to pay, if you do not know the estimate?
If you want that even after the action
has been taken, there is a lapse between that time and the value or the compensation value has been determined and there is a lapse of time, and he wants that to be added as interest or whatever, this does not convey that meaning.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the amendment is misplaced. Indeed, the action there refers to the destruction or the harm that might have been caused. So,
“the compensation shall be estimated on the basis of the value of the plant or the property destroyed or harmed at the time of the action”
-- at the time of the destruction or at the time the harm was effected. It does not refer to payment.
So, I think that we should rather allow
the word “action” to remain instead of deleting it and inserting “payment”.
Mr Speaker, what is here in the Bill is correct.
Mr Boafo 1:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just as the Hon Minority Leader rightly pointed out, the action does not refer to the time of commencement of the suit or the pursuit of payment for compensation but it refers to the time the destruction took place. And assuming that the destruction takes place and it takes about a year or two to make the payment, certainly, the claimant will suffer a loss. That is why I am proposing that instead of having the value as at the date of the destruction, which will be the investment value in the property or the plant destroyed or damaged, we should rather consider the value which we receive in order to replace - The value will be so sufficient, will be adequate so that if he goes to the market or he wants a replacement, he can get the item for replacement.
If you pay him the value as at the date of the destruction, if he goes to the market, he has to find money to top up whatever he obtains at the date of the action in order that he may procure a replacement.
So, Mr Speaker, it is the question of equity in these circumstances. And it is not a strange proposition. This compensation - land compensation for property which are damaged during road construction and so on, the payment is based on the restoration value - the replacement value and it is equitable.
Somebody who is proposing that the person should be paid in accordance with the value as at the date of action, that is the investment value, that proposition is unconscionable and it should not be entertained. We are here to do fairness and
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader, I thought there was an indication from your end?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the Hon Member who moved the amendment is making himself clearer. When he got up initially and he advocated the amendment, the intention did not come out, which is why I said that in that case, the “action” there is better.
But I think that now he is stressing equity, that when payment is being effected, it should be the value of the product at the time of the payment, so the person does not suffer any loss. If that is the intention, then it is a different matter altogether, and in that case, I would agree, except that, the initial justification that he provided, in my view, was wrong.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
Let us go by the revised standard version and the improvement.
Very well, in the circumstances, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
Dr Alhassan 1:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the advice that we are receiving is that, perhaps, this is meant to set a baseline as to what point in time an estimate can be made of the value of the item to be destroyed. And the only time to do so is the time that you are going to destroy the item, if it is supposedly the case. So, it serves as a base to start, if you like, compensation discussions.
So, if you estimate it and by virtue of time, it is more than what it ought to have been, then some top-up can be paid. It may even be the case that interest must have fallen to the extent that the value will be lower. So, it is better to put it at the time of
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
And if by the time of payment, maybe, two, three, four, five years after, the value has dropped tremendously, what will you say?
Dr Alhassan 1:55 p.m.
Then, it should be the case. The circumstance then will determine what payment should be done. But the emphasis is to know the value of the item at the time it is supposed to be destroyed, just so that you can have a basis to build on.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
So, the real issue is whether Hon Members of the House will want the value to be at the time of destruction or at the time that actual payment is being effected -- all of us knowing the consequences of inflation and so on.
Dr Owusu Afriyie Akoto 1:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, to get around this problem, we have to insert “current value”. In line 1,
“. . . the compensation shall be estimated on the basis of the current value of the plant or property…”
I think that should get us round this problem of real value.
Mr Boafo 1:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker -- [Inter- ruption] -- I was just reacting to -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
Hon Boafo, please, the contribution.
Mr Boafo 1:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the point is that from the practitioners' point of view, if you are making a claim for compensation, you may decide to put up a figure which is supported by valuation or you will leave it to the court to order that you should be paid a replacement value. That is as at the
date of payment. So, there is no difficulty at all in estimating the amount that should be paid as is being postulated by the Hon Chairman. There is no difficulty, from practitioners' point of view.
Mr Chireh 2:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the issue I want this House to look at is this. If there is a destruction, you must first do an estimate of the value that has been destroyed. In terms of sequencing, if you go and do the estimate, it can be immediate, then you know that whatever value you get is the value. If the payment is not immediate, then the principle of equity as he is saying, is always agreed and claimed. It is not something that you legislate for. In terms of what he is saying, I have no objection to somebody being paid the value for what really is.
But he also knows in claims that the person can claim for loss of use or for whatever reasons as they do with cocoa farms when somebody is doing mining or constructing a road. What do we do there? You must first assess the current value of what is destroyed.
What I am saying is that, if you say, at the time of payment, at what time of payment? Are you assuming then that it is at the time of payment that you are going to do the estimate? The evidence would have been destroyed, anyway, if it is something like that. So that is why I am saying, he can re-phrase it to take account of the normal thing that you do. If you owe me and you do not pay early enough, I will claim interest on it and the courts are the ones to do that. It is not for us to legislate such a thing; which means that at the time of payment, you are going to say, now, “go and estimate and bring it”.
Which value? At the time of the destruction. If the value is known and is not paid immediately, then whatever
Mr Barton-Odro 2:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are looking at a situation where destruction has been effected and before the destruction - [Interruption.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
Order! Order!
Mr Barton-Odro 2:05 p.m.
And before the destruction is effected, some valuation must be done. So it is the value as at that time that we are looking at. If there is any delay in payment, like the Hon Minister for Local Government and Rural Development, said, you have the right under the law to go to court for a top-up because it has not been fair to you. But we are looking at the time when the destruction was effected; what was the value?
Mr Ernest A. Debrah 2:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not think we should split hairs over this problem. The normal way of valuing anything, everywhere in the world, is that value is related to a particular time and date. And you can only value at the time that an item is being destroyed or an item is being sent somewhere. That is the particular time that you can have the value of the item.
As you said, the value would then be related to a particular date in time. Time value of money would come in at the time of payment. At that time, you can assess the difference and add it to it. But as regards the estimation of the value, it must be done at the time that the item is being destroyed -- that is all and then say that the value as at that time was so much.
So if it is going to be paid ten years later, then you can now find the difference with regard to time value of money and then it can be assessed later. But with regard to the valuation, it must always be related to the time the item is being destroyed.
Dr Alhassan 2:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, additionally, we have to be careful that people do not unnecessarily litigate just to delay so that they can have more money for items that they know will obviously be destroyed. So I would like to appeal to my Hon Colleague, Mr Boafo, to reconsider the amendment so that we can make progress.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
Hon Boafo, would you consider to withdraw the amendment at this stage?
Mr Boafo 2:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I feel strongly about this amendment because -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
Very well.
Mr Boafo 2:05 p.m.
Because if you leave it as at the time of action then the statute is giving the court or whoever is assessing the damage for the compensation to be paid, a power to determine it as at the time of action. So inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of the other. That is a basic interpretation. So you are excluding or depriving the person assessing or the court of a power to determine it as at the date of payment.
Dr Alhassan 2:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 17, subclause (2), line 2, delete “action” and insert “agreed to by both parties”.
The original proposal was to have an arbitrator appointed by the Minister. But we think that since the Minister would be an interested party in this matter, even if he appoints an arbitrator, that arbitrator must be agreed to by both parties.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
And if the parties are not able to agree, they should appoint a third party or what? Should we leave it like that?
Mr Justice Appiah 2:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I come under Order 48 (1) and with your permission, I quote:
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
I will direct the Clerk to ensure that those drinking tea are brought into the House,
and we shall continue.
Thank you for drawing attention to the tea drinkers. They are to be brought into the House and for business to continue.
Clause 17 --
Dr Alhassan 2:15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, you posed a question whether they disagree. It was said that if they disagree, one of the parties must be the person who is not in support and could resort to the courts.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
Hon Member, you should come again. You have moved the amendment and the idea is, assuming you are appointed by both parties and the parties do not agree, then, what do we do? Normally, the parties would appoint one arbitrator each and then the two arbitrators would appoint a chairperson. I do not know whether we are leaving a vacuum. I want Hon Members to put their minds to it.
Hon Papa Owusu-Ankomah, I know you have been involved in a number of such cases, you may want to avail us of your experience.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 2:15 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a very small matter. It is just to determine the amount of compensation and to respond to the concerns that you raised, failing an agreement I just think that if there is a body comprising an agriculturist or a professional body then that matter is referred to that body to appoint an arbitrator to determine the cost.
Instead of the Minister appointing an arbitrator, you let an institution appoint an arbitrator whose determination of the level of compensation shall be final. This is a very small matter really so concerning the amount to be paid and so forth, yes, you

can get three arbitrators but they would have to be paid, it is too expensive.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
So an institutional arbitrator but not the Minister and not by the parties because the parties‘ arbitrators may not agree and things would continue winding up?
Mr Chireh 2:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you know that in these matters, particularly, in making law, you have to get somebody to do an action. Somebody has to do the appointment. Indeed, concerning the amendment that was brought by saying that we should delete the “Minister”; once you delete the “Minister”, the thing is hanging. The two of them, is it the Minister who appoints or is it the aggrieved person who is to appoint? So I think that what we should have done is to leave the Minister to appoint and then the part that says and agreed to, in the process of the Minister appointing, he has to consult the institutions that are relevant for arbitration.
It depends on who are the experts in the area. But it must be he who would say “this is the person I want to do the arbitration”, and for the other party to now say, “no” or “I agree”. But if we leave it to be agreed by nobody, there would be a problem. I think that we should still have the Minister initiating the action and then the other party agreeing or not agreeing. This is what I think in the matter.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
I do not think there was anything like “an appointment by nobody”. I think it was very, very clear that “an appointment by an institution” - and perhaps, you may want to add that wisdom by suggesting such an institution. Because let us face it; we all want to avoid giving too much discretion to persons in political authority. I think that is the order of the times. So we want to do the institutional. Do we have such
an institution?
Dr Alhassan 2:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the advice that we are getting is that perhaps, instead of having it being referred to an arbitrator agreed to by both parties, we should have it as follows: “shall be referred to arbitration”, in which case, the legal process of arbitration can carry the issue through.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
After all, we have a whole law on arbitration. So it should be referred to arbitration. So that we delete “appointed by the Minister . . .” -- Give us a rendition then, Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Dr Alhassan 2:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, subclause 2 would then say:
“Where there is disagreement as to the amount of compensation to be paid, the matter shall be referred to arbitration.
Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu 2:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I just wanted to add, “in accordance with the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Act”, to put it straight into the law referred to arbitration. Since we are just about passing the ADR Bill, we would just fit it there so as to make easier for us to know where to go, what we mean by arbitration and all the rules that are provided for in the legislation.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
What is the observation on that?
Dr Alhassan 2:15 p.m.
I was just wondering whether we should tie the hands of the parties involved to the law. I do not know but I thought that there should be other forms of the parties agreeing -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
Do you not want to find some work for your law

to do? [Laughter.] I thought you would want to see the law in operation.
Dr Alhassan 2:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought that if we left it open, the options would be wider for - [Interruption.]
Mr Boafo 2:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the point is that we do not need to specify this “referred to the ADR” because if the ADR should come into force - that is the only law which governs arbitration in the country. Because the ADR will repeal the Arbitration Act. The proposed amendment is very much in order because as it stood, the Minister would have been a judge in his own court, which would be sinning against natural justice.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Boafo 2:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 17, subclause (4), line 3, delete “partially” and insert “substantially”
Mr Speaker, the reference to “partial” may be minute but the reference to “substantial” means that it should be something which is a bit enhanced. “Wholly” or substantially”, not “wholly or partially”; “partially” can be very minute and the Minister may use it to deprive somebody of what he is entitled to hence the proposed amendment.
Dr Alhassan 2:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the proposal is acceptable.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 2:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that this is a matter of public policy. The Plants Bill is really to promote a certain public policy. The import of this amendment is that if it is partial, then the State should be responsible for it. I do not think that should be the case. However minute, it is the person who is
responsible for it who must bear the cost, unless of course, we can say the State contributed to it.
So, for me, this amendment itself may even defeat the whole purpose of the Bill. “Substantial”; what is “substantial”? “Partially” -- you know that you have contributed to it. When one is talking about contributory negligence, one does not talk about substantial contribution. It is contributory. So, partially -- I believe that we should let “partially” stay. If we make it “substantial”, it would be defeating the essence of the Bill.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
Mr Osei-Owusu 2:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I am saying that the proposed amendment should be carried because the contribution of Hon Papa Owusu-Ankomah suggests that when the State has contributed, then there should be compensation. That clearly is what the proposed amendment is seeking to achieve. That is, if the person's fault can be measured, then he should not lose every compensation he is entitled to, but if we say, even if he is responsible for a small portion, whatever portion, what the law says is “partially”; whether he is wholly or partially responsible, it takes away the responsibility of who is responsible for the other part.
Mr Speaker, so by his own admission, if the State contributed or an agent of the State contributed, then there should be compensation for the part, which is the fault of the contributor. So, I think that the amendment should be carried, in which case, we will have space for the person who is at fault. The person who is at fault will be responsible for his fault, and the part, for which he is not at fault, he will be compensated for it.
Mr Chireh 2:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I am torn between supporting “substantial” and “partial”. But, if you listen to what Hon Papa --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
You
mean Papa ?
Mr Chireh 2:25 p.m.
The Member for Sekondi. The Member for Sekondi makes a better case, and the drafters are better in this argument than the “substantial”. Maybe, he is thinking about his days that he was doing court cases, and then the courts had determined that some value can be put to the word “substantial”. The last person whose argument was to support the amendment even defeated his own case, because if it is by wholly or partial, then the value “substantial” does not come in.
So, if he is saying that because he wants the person who suffered the destruction to get it -- It is “partial” destruction; the value is different. “Substantial” talks about value, so if I partially destroy it, and somebody says that it is not substantial, then it means I will not get anything. If I partially destroy it, the “partial” entitles me to a fraction, even if it is a fraction. If I want the fraction or I do not want it, but that is not it. So, he was not even supporting it, he was defeating his own friend by this argument.
The argument is that, if the thing is “wholly or partially”-- But if we are talking about “substantially”, unless, we are saying that the courts have determined what is “substantial”, and you can refer to court cases as opposed to “partially”, that is different. But the “partially” rather entitles the person more to the value, - [Interruption] -- He is not reading the clause. I think that in that case, we should take the “partially”, not the “substan- tially”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Avoka 2:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that the amendment is unnecessary. [Inter- ruption.] -- Yes, it is unnecessary in the
sense that he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. So, the issue of “substantial” or “partial” -- “sub-stantial” should not come in at all. It is enough to indicate that one partially contributed to the mess, and if that is done, it will be difficult to talk about whether it was substantial or not substantial.
In fact, it will be unending litigation as to the quantum of substance that we are talking about. How are we going to determine whether it was substantial or not substantial? It is enough to indicate that one partly or partially contributed to the problem. And I think that the rendition as in the Bill should stand.
Question put and amendment negatived.
Clause 17 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19 -- Composition of the Council.
Dr Alhassan 2:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, subclause (1), paragraph (b), line 1, before “Plant” delete “the”.
So, it will be “the Director of Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Directorate”, instead of “the Director of the Plant Protection and Regulatory Services”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 2:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, subclause (1), paragraph (d), at end, insert “with specialisation in

plant protection”.

This is to qualify the representation from the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR).
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just some small cleansing work.
Mr Speaker, clause 19 (1) (c) says 2:25 p.m.
“One represen ta t ive of the Universities in Ghana.”
I think the “Universities' should start with small “u” not capital “U”. And then if you come to (f), reads:
“One representative of the Ghanaian exporters of plants . . .”
Equally so, for (g), and it reads:
“One representative of the Ghanaian importers…”
It should not be “the Ghanaian importers” in these cases. So, we delete, the “the” in respect of (f) and (g) and for the universities it is small “u” --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, would you please, come again?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I just tried to put the clause more in tune; clause 19 -- “one representative of the Universities in Ghana”. I said that the “Universities” in this case, is not a capital letter, but small letter “u”. But for (f); “one representative of the Ghanaian exporters”, and (g) “one representative of the Ghanaian importers of plants and plants products”. So, in both (f) and (g),
we delete the word “the” and for (c), Universities, we use small letter (u).
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
(f) delete “the” before “Ghanaian” so that it would read:
“One representative of Ghanaian exporters”.
(g), delete “the” before “Ghanaian”, so that it would read:
“One representative of Ghana importers”.
Is that so, Chairman of the Committee?
Dr Alhassan 2:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, that is all right.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20. Tenure of office for Members.
Dr Alhassan 2:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 20, add a new subclause as follows:
“(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to section 19 (1) (a) and (b)”.
The original rendition limiting the number of years of members of the Council were to serve did not make a distinction between the institutions that are permanent in existence and then those which could change from time to time. So the amendment being proposed is to add a new subclause to say that “subsection (1) does not apply to 19 (1) (a) and (b)”. 19 (1) (a) and (b) being the Minister and the Director of Plant Protection and the Regulatory Services Directorate.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 2:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 20, subclause (6), paragraph (a), delete and insert “under subsection (3), (4) or (5)”.
Mr Speaker, the amendment is to sub- clause 6, paragraph (a) to delete and insert “under subsection (3), (4) or (5)” instead of what it is on the original Bill.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21 -- Meetings of the Council.
Dr Alhassan 2:35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 21, subclause (3), delete.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
To
Dr Alhassan 2:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, reference was made to the new Interpretation Act which deals with the subject adequately.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
And that reference to the Interpretation Act therefore, means that we should do what? How does that justify it? Let Hon Members know.
Clause 21, subclause (3), delete.
Mr Boafo 2:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we have been
encountering these provisions, delete and reference to quorum in the Bills because of the provisions in the Interpretation Act. Some of us, our candid view is that the provisions of the Interpretation Act can be invoked where we do not have any provision at all; where we think that there is no need for any provision to regulate the quorum.
So if we decide to regulate the quorum of a particular issue then the Interpretation Act will not come in at all. And I think that was the trend of the decision which was taken when we were considering the Ghana Boundary Commission Bill. And I think when we went to the winnowing, we agreed to maintain this particular provision. I had my session marked as indicating that it should stay, and I do not know why the Chairman is saying that - Because we agreed on 7. That the 7 should be a quorum.
Mr Speaker, the other factor about the
Interpretation Act is that the provision in the Interpretation Act deals with situations where we have to take a decision, not where we require a number to commence the business of the particular body concerned.
It says that if you want to take a decision, an ordinary decision, you require a majority. But where there is a matter concerning a major decision or a financial matter or affair, it will require two-thirds of the members. We agreed that there is a need for us to have a quorum for purpose of commencing the business of the body. And we agreed on seven so that if it becomes necessary to take a decision, seven will form the majority to take a decision.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
Thank you very much and that is the more reason I asked that we should have a justification and not simply proceed.
Mr Barton-Oduro 2:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, under the Interpretation Act, the provisions state categorically, as far as quorum is concerned, half plus one; it is a formula sort of. Half of the number plus one, so that we have it transcending all these - it does not matter what it is.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
Very well, but I think when we are making a law, it is better to be on the side of caution and non-ambiguity. If you think it does not spoil anything, shall we keep the number there? And particularly, if that is in line with the Interpretation Act, because there is also the point being raised that there is a difficulty about the number for commencement and number for decision- making. We would not want to leave any gaps unless we cannot help it.
Mr Boafo 2:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you look further at clause 21, subclause 5:
“Matters before the Council shall be decided by the majority of the members present and voting, and in the event of an equality of votes, the person presiding shall have a casting vote.”
This subclause 5 takes care of what is in the Interpretation Act. But what should happen when they come to decision- taking? And subclause 3 is trying to cover a situation where they require a number to commence a business. Mr Speaker, I challenge the Deputy Attorney-General to read the provisions of the Interpretation Act which require the quorum to have fifty per cent plus one (50 + 1). There is nothing in the Interpretation Act to that effect.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
And particularly if you look at 3 and 5 together, the argument is strengthened that we should make provision for quorum; it strengthens the argument clearly.
Mrs Gifty Eugenia Kusi 2:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the other time when we were passing the Boundary Bill, we encountered this problem. But I think that since we are making it law, it will be very difficult for these people who will use this law to always refer to the Interpretation Act before they can take a decision. I have been a member of a Board before. It is very, very difficult when a law does not stipulate what you should do, because we are the law makers. I think it will be better we put in and ensure that we are specific so that the people will not be confused when it comes to taking decisions.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
Will you want to withdraw the amendment?
Dr Alhassan 2:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the problem we have is that the total number of people on the Council is nine and we thought that a quorum of seven was rather on the high side to get a meeting to start. It means that only two people could be absent. We thought that if the Interpretation Act gives us an opportunity to have half the number plus one to start the meeting, then it makes the situation more flexible.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
Hon Chairman, if my memory serves me right, that half plus one, I am not sure of it, unless somebody will want to read that, honestly. That half plus one as part of - it is not clear to my mind.
Mr Barton-Odro 2:45 p.m.
If we go along, we can call the office to send us a copy.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
We can, but nevertheless, by way of getting a quorum, what do you think will be in terms of numbers? If not seven then what?
Hon Boafo, there is a suggestion of five -
Mr Boafo 2:45 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker, five. Mr Speaker we precisely agreed on the figure five at the winnowing, I do not know what is happening.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
Very well, so Hon Chairman of the Committee, will you want to re-formulate it?
Dr Alhassan 2:45 p.m.
Yes, the amendment is further amended to say that the quorum, clause 3, be re-stated with the amendment that a quorum at a meeting of the Council is fice members of the Council, or a greater number determined by the Council in respect of an important matter.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22 - Secretary to the Council.
Dr Alhassan 2:45 p.m.
I beg to move, clause 22, delete the article “the” before “Plant”Yes, simply to tidy up the statement that the “Director of Plant Protection” instead of the “Director of “the” Plant Protection. So the definite article “the” before “Plant” is taken out. That is the amendment being proposed.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23 -- Functions of the Council.
Dr Alhassan 2:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 23, subclause (3), delete and insert the following:
“Functions of the Council
23. The Council Shall:
a. develop and promote a national plant protection system;
b. co-ordinate the public and private sector participation in plant protction related matters;
c. provide assistance in the preparation of Regulations, orders and notices under this Act;
d. provide assistance in the implementation of Regulations, orders and notices under this

Act;

e . examine complaints and objections lodged in respect of decisions and measures taken;

f. keep records of its deliberations and attendance at its meetings; and

g. any other matters concerned with plant protection”.

Originally, the Council was being set up as an advisory one. But in the wisdom of the Committee, we thought that if it is an advisory council to advise the Minister, and the Minister is the Chairman of the Council advising him, then, it was better to make the Council a decision-making body, in particular that this was in accord with international best practice so far as this subject is concerned.

So instead of making the amendments within, we thought that we could lift all of it out and put the new rendition as proposed on the Order Paper from (a) to (g).

Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 23 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 24 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 - Plant Protection Fund.
Dr Alhassan 2:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 27 delete.
Mr Speaker, in considering the Bill, we noticed that various funds were to be established for the different parts of the Bill, and we thought that it was better to consolidate all of it into one fund and that is why this will run through in a consequential manner. So the fund is established as a consolidated one for all parts of the Bill. That is why issues to deal with establishment of funds in the body of the Bill, according to three parts, will be deleted accordingly. So that will
affect 27 and anything that has to do with the establishment of the Plant Protection Fund.
Question put and amendment negatived.
Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28 - Sources of the Fund.
Dr Alhassan 2:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 28, paragraph (a), delete “provided” and insert “approved by Parliament”.
Mrs Kusi 2:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought the Chairman said that clause 27 was deleted? So there is no protection fund. So how then do we have “sources of the Fund”?
Dr Alhassan 2:45 p.m.
That must have been a sad confusion with the Secretariat. She is right.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
So will you like to delete 28 or what?
Mr Boafo 2:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, he should abandon that amendment then we proceed to the next one and delete - he should abandon all his amendments clauses relating to 28 and 29.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
And that deletion in clause 28 actually will be a follow-up clause to 27. It will be purely consequential, it will flow from it.
Dr Alhassan 2:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I was not paying attention, I was attending to some --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
I was asking whether that deletion in terms of
28 will not simply flow from 27?
Dr Alhassan 2:45 p.m.
Yes, that was the point I made originally, that any other provision that had to do with the establishment of a Plant Protection Fund will certainly stand deleted.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
Very well. So will you like to move your amendment in terms of clause 27 by saying it should be deleted?
Dr Alhassan 2:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 27, delete.
Question put and clause deleted.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
And Hon Boafo, that will affect the subsequent amendment in clause 28.
Mr Boafo 2:45 p.m.
That is so, Mr Speaker.
I beg to move, clause 28, delete.
Question put and clause deleted..
Clause 29 -- Management of the funds.
Dr Alhassan 2:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 29, delete.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
You mean the entire clause? [Pause.] If you look at clause 30, there is a further amendment which says that you must insert. Now, all should go, is that what you are saying? [Pause.] Very well.
Clause 29 - Hon Boafo, there is one amendment which stands in your name. That is also to be deleted?
Mr Boafo 2:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am asking for the deletion of the entire clause 29.
Mr Boafo 2:55 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
Hon
Chairman of the Committee, you are asking for the deletion of the entire clause 29?
Dr Alhassan 2:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is in order.
Question put and clause deleted.
Clause 30 -- Accounts and audit.
Dr Alhassan 2:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30, subclause (1), line 2, delete “in relation to hem”.
Mr Boafo 2:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to urge the Hon Chairman to move the provisions relating to the keeping of proper books of accounts to the new clause that he is proposing regarding the establishment of the accounts under clause 121. It is not published, but under clause 121 -- that is where the accounts are being established.
I think if the accounts are being consolidated, then the proper books of accounts should be kept for the entire Fund. Separate books would be kept by the various directorates, but they are still required to keep proper books of accounts. So I think if he is consolidating all the accounts, then the provision relating to the proper keeping of books of accounts should also fall under the same clause.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
So, in effect, you are saying --?
Mr Boafo 2:55 p.m.
I am not opposed to the provision that proper books of accounts should be kept but what I am saying is that, if this can be transposed then it becomes more elegant drafting.
Dr Alhassan 2:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes. Actually, the reason clause 30 is being
kept here is because the other provisions were about the establishment of a Plant Protection Fund which is quite different from the directorate receiving normal government allocation to run affairs of the department; that will impinge on provisions of the Act, and that is what the accounts and audit provisions here are meant to affect.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
Very well. So, for now, the amendment is essentially a matter of wording? Shall we keep to that as at this stage? Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 2:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30, subclause (2), line 2, at end, delete “years” and insert “year”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 2:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30, subclause (3), line 2, before “forward” insert “audit the accounts and”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Boafo 2:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30, subclause (4), delete.
Mr Speaker, since the directorate is part of the Ministry, there is no need for this provision because it is obtuse. The directorate will have to fall in line with the government financial year, so the provision here is obtuse; there is no need for it.
Dr Alhassan 2:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is acceptable.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31 -- Complaints.
Dr Alhassan 2:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 31, subclause (3), delete and insert the following:
“On receipt of the appeal, the Minister shall refer the complaints to the Complaints Settlement Committee established under section 25 (2).”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32 -- Offences.
Dr Alhassan 2:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32, subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 2, delete “or” and insert “and”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 2:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32, sub-clause (1), paragraph (c), before “fails” insert “wilfully”.
So, the (c) will read “wilfully fails to comply”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 2:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32, subclause (1), paragraph (d), before “fails” insert “wilfully”.
Dr Alhassan 2:55 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32, subclause (d) (1), after
paragraph (i), insert a new subclause as follows:
“Penalties
where the offender under clauses 32 is.
1. An importer, that person i s l i ab le on summary conviction for the first time, to a fine of not less than one hundred penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not more than six months and on subsequent conviction to a fine of not less than two hundred penalty units or a term of imprisonment of not more than one year or to both.
2. An exporter, that person is l iable to a summary conviction for the first time to a fine of not less than one hundred penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not more than six months and on subsequent conviction to a fine of not less than two hundred penalty units or a term of imprisonment of not more than one year or to both.
3. A person other than the importer or exporter, that person is liable on summary conviction for the first time to a fine of not less than one hundred penalty units or a term of imprisonment of not more than six months and on subsequent conviction to a fine of not less than two hundred penalty units or a term of imprisonment of not more than one year or to both.”
Dr Alhassan 2:55 p.m.


Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 3:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32, subclause (1), paragraphs (j), (k) and (l) should read “33(1) (a)”, “33(1)(b)” and “33(1)(c)”.
Mr Speaker, that is the arrangement being proposed.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, the Hon Attorney-General is not here. Is that only a matter of re-arrangement, or we should leave it to the draftsmen?
Dr Alhassan 3:05 p.m.
That is all right, Mr Speaker.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
Very well, we shall leave that to the draftsmen.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Dr Alhassan 3:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32, subclause (1), paragraph (k), line 1, delete “as a first offender”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 3:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32, subclause (1), paragraph (k), line 2, after “conviction” insert “for the first time”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 3:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32, subclause (1), paragraph (k), line 3, delete
“fine of not less than one hundred
penalty units or to a subsequent conviction to a fine of not less than one hundred penalty units or to a subsequent conviction” and
insert “term of imprisonment of not more than six months and on subsequent conviction”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 3:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32, subclause (1), paragraph (l), line 4, before “two” insert “months and on a subsequent conviction to a fine of not less than”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 3:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32, subclause (1), paragraph (1), line 5, before “imprisonment” insert “a term of”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 3:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32, subclause (2), line 1, after “subsection” insert “32”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33 - Offence by designated officer or staff
Dr Alhassan 3:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 33, delete.
It is about a subject that has been dropped in the entire Bill, “Designated officer”.
Question put and clause deleted.
Clause 34 - Purpose of Part Two.
Dr Alhassan 3:05 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 34 -- Main heading, after “importer”, insert “and exporters”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35 -- Registration of Seed Importers, growers and cleaners.
Dr. Alhassan 3:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 35, Head note, delete “growers and cleaners” and insert “exporters, growers and dealers”.
Mr Speaker, I do not know whether we ought not to leave this for the draftsmen because it is about the main heading.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 3:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 35, subclause (3), delete and insert the following:
“35. (3) the application shall be
(a) in a form determined by the Minister; and
(b) accompanied with a fee determined by the Minister in consultation with the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning and approved by Parliament.”
Mr Speaker, clause 35 is to tidy up the discussions at the Committee.
Mr Boafo 3:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this is with regard to clause 35, subclause 1, line 1. It is another tidy-up.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
Should it be taken care of by the draftsperson?
Mr Boafo 3:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is the insertion of “export” either before or after “import” which shall read: “A person shall not export, import, produce this and that …” because of the earlier amendment made to insert “export” at the sub-title and then the head note as clause 35, line 1.
Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, the proposed amendment under clause 35, subclause 3, delete and insert the following - Mr Speaker, that is on clause 35 (3)(b), the lines 3 and 4 which read: “. . . and approved by Parliament.” Mr Speaker, if I may read the whole provision and it states:
“(b) accompanied with a fee deter-mined by the Minister in consultation with the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning and approved by Parliament.”
Mr Speaker, I think under clause 121, the Minister is empowered to make regulations, and among other things, he is required to determine the fees by
Mr Boafo 3:15 p.m.


Legislative Instrument (L.I.) and certainly, the L.I. will be laid before Parliament for approval. So I do not see the need for the provision that, what it should do should be subject to approval by Parliament. Certainly, if the Hon Minister is going to make the L.I. to prescribe the fees, he would lay it before Parliament and that is the process of approval. So we should leave it. It becomes obvious.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
So we should not say “approved by Parliament”?
Mr Boafo 3:15 p.m.
No, because certainly, we are going to approve it.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
This is because the L.I. is automatically approved by Parliament?
Mr Boafo 3:15 p.m.
Yes.
Dr Alhassan 3:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not know what harm it would cause if we state that it should be approved by Parliament when we know that Parliament approves an L.I. Mr Speaker, in any case, we recently passed a law that took all fees and charges together in one document from various departments and agencies and this is exactly what we were thinking about when we said so.
Previously, the individual agencies were charging and coming to the House at different times for approval, but this time round, it was all consolidated and given one approval by Parliament. So we were looking at this provision in those terms. In any case, if Parliament is to approve the L.I., I really do not see why Parliament is not approving the fee.
Mr Boafo 3:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is precisely what I am saying. The fee would be included in the L.I. We cannot impose fees without the L.I. because as it is provided under clause 121 -- clause 121, subclause 1, line 3 says that:
“The Minister may by Legislative Instrument make regulations to prescribe in Part I, subclause (a)(3), the fees and charges for any permit or certificate issued under this part.”
So certainly, it is coming to us under L.I. and we are approving it. I do not see the need for us to make it specific here that it is subject to approval by Parliament. Are we also going to say that penalties imposed under - I do not know whether the ‘fertilizer regime' or the ‘seed regime' should also be approved by Parliament. I think that we should leave it so that the law takes its normal course, that the L.I. should come to us and we approve it.
Mr Humado 3:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think it would help if the Hon Member gives us his rendition, then we can look at it vis- à-vis what is here and then we can take a decision.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
Hon
Boafo, for the avoidance -- and in compliance with the normal thing, that too much fish does not spoil the soup -- do you want to make an amendment to remove that, and if you insist, can you give us a rendition?
Mr Boafo 3:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would prefer that the amendment being proposed by the Hon Chairman stops at the “Minister for Finance and Economic Planning”. Mr Speaker, that we accept the amendment but it should stop at “Minister for Finance and Economic Planning”. Mr Speaker, are we saying that in all cases; these things are required, we should repeat in the Act, approved by Parliament when
there is already an existing procedure for approving this?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
Very
well. So the amendment should read:
“(b) accompanied with a fee determined by the Ministry in consultation with the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning.”
And we all know that it requires parliamentary approval.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36 - Processing of application
Dr Alhassan 3:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 36, subclause (1), paragraph (b), line 1, delete “sixty days” and insert “thirty days”.
Mr Speaker, the amendment being proposed is to cut down on the time allowed for the Hon Minister to inform an application from sixty to thirty days. Basically, that is what the amendment proposes to do.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 3:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 36, subclause (4), line 2, at end, insert --
“and the Minister shall determine the review within 14 days after receipt of the application.
Mr Speaker, the amendment is meant to ensure that the Hon Minister does not take forever to make a determination.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 3:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 36, add a new subclause as follows:
“(5) a person aggrieved with a decision of the Minister may apply to the court”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 - Conditions for transfer of Registration.
Dr Alhassan 3:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 38, Head note, delete and insert “Non-transferability of regis- tration”.
I think that can be left to the drafters to consider.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 3:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 38, line 1, delete “except with the written approval of the Minister”.
And leave “the registration is not transferable”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Dr Alhassan 3:25 p.m.


Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Boafo 3:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I notice from clause 39 (2) that there is no room for a person whose preparation for renewal is delayed to apply to the Hon Minister for an extension of the time for the renewal dateline and I do not know to what extent that would appeal to the Hon Chairman if a provision is made for such a person to apply to the Hon Minister for the extension of the three months period if he fails to renew it within the period that is specified under the Act, so that he can apply to the Hon Minister for an extension of time. It is more liberal.
Dr Alhassan 3:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the
idea is not to leave the system so open that people would choose to register whenever they want. And in any case, you are already holding a registration certificate and you are only seeking renewal, and the provision is saying that “three months before the last one expires”, put in an application for renewal. The three months is not up, so I do not know how that can be done.
If there is a particularly difficult reason the application would not be put in three months before -- I think it will be difficult for the Act itself to look after such a circumstance. It would be like predicting the open situation when the Act is being implemented and that will be extremely difficult. I think that is why “three months before” has been made as provision for anyone who wants to renew his licence to do so.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
And what happens when the person's application for renewal is rejected by the Hon Minister and he is aggrieved?
Dr Alhassan 3:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think
subsequent clauses make room for that.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
Hon Boafo, I hope you are satisfied.
Mr Boafo 3:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was trying to convince the Hon Colleague to move from rigidity to a bit liberal approach - to be more flexible.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
Very
well. So persuasion having failed -- you are not insisting on anything?
Mr Boafo 3:25 p.m.
I believe he is in a position
to review his stand in view of the appeal that he would be more flexible. This is a law and if you are too rigid then, you see, the person will be so frustrated. But we should allow his trading to go on, just extension of time - a person fails to renew three months before time, then he enters the fourth month leg.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
At
this stage, I think we shall make progress. Maybe, we could come back to that later upon discussions.
Dr. Alhassan 3:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, let me
make a last point and see whether my Hon Senior Colleague would be convinced.
We have to be careful that we do not give the Hon Minister the opportunity to vary things at will. If everybody is coming to give a reason why the time should be extended, it could be misused. But if everybody is subject to “three months before the expiry of your licence” I think it makes life easier for everybody, just to ensure that both the people who are applying for licences and the person who is issuing them are not caught in a situation of abuse of the facility.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 as ameded ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40 - Power to suspend, counsel
or modify registration.
Dr Alhassan 3:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 40, subclause (2), paragraph (b), line 2, delete “sixty days” and insert “thirty days”.
Mr Speaker, paragraph (b), line (2), simply to cut down the time - to give a written notice from sixty to thirty days.
Mr Boafo 3:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, since sub
clause (2) has been amended from sixty to thirty days, I am proposing that sub- clause (2), we amend that by this rendition:
“That the Minister shall not suspend, cancel or modify a registration unless the Minister has given the holder of the registration at least a thirty working day written notice.”
Because the thirty days now applies uniformly to suspension, cancellation and modification, so there is no need to provide those two paragraphs. If I may go over the rendition - the rendition would be that:
“The Minister shall not suspend, cancel or modify a registration unless the Minister has given the holder of the registration at least a thirty working day written notice.”
So that we delete in subclause (a) the words after “notice”, “in the case of suspension” or, and then we delete the entire subclause (2)(b).
Dr Alhassan 3:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the
amendment proposed is for clause 40 sub-clause (2)(b), it is that one that is being cut from sixty to thirty days. But we have not done anything about (a); (a) is not amended so it is not correct - it may be true that they are both thirty days -- [Interruption.] Oh, anyway, you want to say that instead of (1) and (2), you are putting the (2) together?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
Consultations, you may.
Dr Alhassan 3:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are advised to take the proposal made by Hon Boafo - to marry; not divorce them, to marry the two. So if he can give us a rendition.
Mr Boafo 3:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the rendition
is as follows:
“The Minister shall not suspend, cancel or modify a registration unless the Minister has given the holder of the registration at least a thirty working day written notice.”
That is all, Mr Speaker.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
Hon
Chairman of the Committee?
Dr Alhassan 3:35 p.m.
That is acceptable, Mr
Speaker.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
Then, I
would put the Question.
Mr Boafo 3:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the rendition
again:
“The Minister shall not suspend, cancel or modify a registration unless the Minister has given the holder the registration at least a 30 working day writing notice.”
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr Boafo 3:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 40(1),
line 2 where the Minister is required to give a good reason. Mr Speaker, I do not see the need here because under sub-clause (3), under notice, the Minister is required to state the reason for the suspension, cancellation or modification

of the registration. Is there the need for us to repeat?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
Hon
Boafo, shall we go one after the other?
Mr Boafo 3:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, under clause
40 (1), it provides as follows:
“The Minister may suspend, cancel or modify a registration if there is a good reason for ‘the suspension, cancellation or modification'.”
Then under subclause (3) (b), the Minister is required to give notice. And it states that;
“the notice shall state the reasons for the suspension, cancellation or modification of the registration.”
And I am saying that can we not do away with the first reference to “good reason” under clause 40 (1), line 2 so that clause 40 (1) may read:
“The Minister may suspend, cancel or modify a registration”?
And then subclause (3) will say, to provide that he should give reasons in his notice.
Mr Humado 3:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the
clause 40 (1) should stand as it is because it is the good reason that empowers the Minister to proceed to take action while clause 40 (3) (b) deliberately asks the Minister to state the reasons. So I think they are two different things and I believe that it should stay the way it is.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
Hon
Boafo, are you with him?
Mr Boafo 3:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am entirely
with him. I appreciate his approach that clause 40 (1) requires what the Minister
should do - that is a good reason. I have now seen that it is -- “not only reason” but “good reason” under clause 40 (1).
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
Then,
kindly repeat your earlier amendment so that the Question is put.
Mr Boafo 3:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have not
proposed any amendment to clause 40 (1). My amendment was in respect of clause 40 (2) and I have given the rendition already.
But Mr Speaker -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
Hon
Chairman of the Committee?
Mr Boafo 3:35 p.m.
In the earlier -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
So
much water has gone under the bridge. I want Hon Members to be very clear of the Question.
Dr Alhassan 3:35 p.m.
The proposal made by
him earlier was to marry clause 40 (2) (a) and (b) which we did and you put the Question and we agreed to. And he was making another suggestion that we drop clause 40 (1), which he has abandoned. So, we can now go to -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
There is
another amendment in your name.
Dr Alhassan 3:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 40, subclause (5), line 2, at end, insert “within fourteen days”.
That is to keep an active deadline within the Minister should perform a particular act.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Dr Alhassan 3:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 40, subclause (6), line 2, delete “to it and insert “within fourteen days” and after “modification” insert “of
the registration”.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 40 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause 41 - Seeds register.
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
Hon
Boafo?
Mr Boafo 3:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 40
(1), line 1, I do not know whether it is my copy - it is
“for the purpose of section (1), the Ministry shall keep seeds register in which shall be recorded …”
Mr Speaker, I believe the reference to the section is rather section (35), that is Part II, section (35), the heading of which is “Registration of Seeds Importers or Exporters, Growers and Dealers”. I think the error - is in reference to “for the purpose of section (35), the Ministry shall keep seeds register in which shall be recorded …” not section (1) because section (1) of clause (1) deals with the purpose of Part I and there is no reference to “Register”. The only reference to “Register” or “Registration of Seeds” is clause 35.
Dr Alhassan 3:35 p.m.
That is agreeable. That is so. It is a good observation to make. It should be carried.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
So,
“for the purpose of section (35), …” So, in clause 41, (1) should be deleted and replaced with (35).
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 41 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42 - Seed production and marketing.
Dr Alhassan 3:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 42, subclause (2), paragraph (c), line 3, delete “or”.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 42 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43 - Importation and exportation

of seeds.
Dr Alhassan 3:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 43, delete and insert the following:
“43. (1) A person who intends to import seeds of any crop:
(a) for the purpose of seed production for experimental or research purposes or;
(b) for direct and commercial distribution to farmers for production shall submit samples of the seed to the Director for testing by an accredited research institution or entity.
(2) The Director shall submit the report of the test to the

Minister who shall approve or prohibit the importation of the seed on the basis of the recom- mendations contained in the report.

(3) The Commissioner shall forward two copies of the declaration to the Minister.

(4) The Minister shall --

(a) refer the seeds to the accredited research insti- tution or

(b) refer the seeds to the accredited entity for testing.

That is just to tidy up the various discussions that we had on clause 43 and we thought that the rendition that has been proposed would neatly seat with the corrections that were made with respect to clause 43.

Question put and amendment agreed to.

Clause 43 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 - Tagging and identi-fication.
Dr Alhassan 3:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 45, paragraph (c), delete “F1” and at everywhere it appears in the Bills.
It is simply to take out the words “F1” and it should be consequential; wherever “F1” is found before “hybrid seed”, we should remove it and just leave it as “certified seeds and hybrid seeds”.
Mr Chireh 3:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, when you said clause 45, what I heard was “Tagging and Identification”. Has there been an amendment to the head notes?
Dr Alhassan 3:45 p.m.
I think he should read the entire heading then we can follow.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:45 p.m.
Is there any difficulty as it is being proposed? Do you see any difficulty as it is being suggested? -- Clause 45 - Tagging and identi-fication of locally produced seed.
Maybe, the full rendition -
Mr Humado 3:45 p.m.
Sorry, I think we overlooked something in clause 43; I just want to -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:45 p.m.
But there is something else standing at the moment; let us finish that before we go backwards, otherwise we would have too many things -- Is there any difficulty now, Hon Minister? Hon Minister, there is no difficulty, and that is with regard to clause 46, is that not so? Hon Minister, that is with regard to clause 45? I will put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 45 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Humado 3:45 p.m.
Clause 43 as amended, sections (5) and (6), I think it is a repetition. So one of them has to go.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:45 p.m.
Oh, it is simply a typographical repetition. Let that be taken care of, administratively.
Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47 - Variety registration.
Dr Alhassan 3:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 47, subclause (3), delete and insert the following:
“An accredited public, agriculture organization shall conduct test to establish distinctness, uniformity and stability or value for cultivation and use in accordance with the guidelines established by the National Technical and Variety Release Committee.”
Mr Chireh 3:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you look at the original clause, it talks about “private” and “public”. I cannot see any “private” in the amendment. Is it deliberate to omit “private”, why?
Dr Alhassan 3:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, we think it should be a public organization because we are talking about establishing the distinctness, uniformity and stability of a crop and it would be better consigned to a public organization to establish rather than a private one. Even if a private entity was going to do so, it should be delegated by a public institution, which is the Ministry of Food and Agriculture in this case. It is about administration of a scientific entity without compromising standards within the agricultural sector.
Mr Chireh 3:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not think that we should leave out the “private” in this case. You are saying even if it is so, you know that in this country, if an institution is established, if it is a school, you must get the National Accreditation Board to accredit it. If it is something that you are doing, Standards Board would have to certify and if it is also a product, you must get the Food and Drugs Board
in case it has something to do with food or drugs. In this particular case, everything is emphasising on only “public”.
There may be some people who are very good in this whole idea of producing and marketing the product. So why do we restrict ourselves? We may not have the capacity now, but we should just put the “private” there and it is known that unless the person is accredited, he cannot do so. But if you leave it out and subsequently, a private sector has the capacity to do it, then you will come and amend the law? I think we should put back the “private” even though we know it is difficult to attain that.
Mr Boafo 3:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the provision should stand as it is now, because we would have to encourage private/public partnership and also we should not always make the public the largest employer of people seeking to get themselves engaged in employment. We should also try and assist the private sector to build the capacity to absorb more people so that we create more jobs -- more than 1.6 million.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:55 p.m.
Is it possible to say “an accredited agricultural organization”?
Mr Humado 3:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the subject matter being referred to is registration. It is not testing or any other function which the private sector could be allowed to do, it is registration. So I think that the amendment being proposed should be as such.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:55 p.m.
If it is, for example, the World Food Organi-sation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, some ECOWAS organi-zations or African
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:55 p.m.


Union organization, you mean to say they cannot do this kind of job, they cannot advise, assist? It has to be some public organization in Ghana or a powerful think- tank which is private.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there are far too many matters that this proposed amendment is throwing up and if we have to adopt it, the Chairman may have to explain further.
First of all, if we read this construction, “An accredited public agriculture organization -” [Interruption.] The “comma” is gone? [Interruption.] We should ignore it? But you did not say so. “agriculture organization”, why not “agricultural organization” but you say “agriculture organization”?
Mr Speaker, the original rendition, the language that was used is “may”, that they “may conduct test to establish distinctiveness”. He has employed “shall” in place of “may”. He does not explain. Then the word used is “suitability”. He decides to use “stability”; he has not explained. Then he is talking about “suitability or value for cultivation or use”. He decides to do away with the “or”, he is talking about “and”.
Mr Speaker, so many inconsistencies and the Chairman has not found it convenient to explain to us. Mr Speaker, I believe what we have here is better than what the Chairman is proposing for us to adopt and we better stick to what is known than go with the Chairman on this errand which would lead us to nowhere.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:55 p.m.
Chairman of the Committee, are you taking us on an errand that would lead us to nowhere?
Mr Avoka 3:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as a middle line action or a compromised motion, I
thought if the essential ingredient there was accreditation, we can amalgamate the two and say “an accredited public or private agricultural organization…” So we insert only “accredited”. So “an accredited public or private organization” and then the rest follow. So the insertion there will be the “accredited”. It is possible to just say “an accredited agricultural organization” so that it encompasses both private and public.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:55 p.m.
“An accredited agricultural organization”. So it is not going to be “an agriculture organization”?
Mr Avoka 3:55 p.m.
“An accredited agricultural organization may conduct test . . .”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:55 p.m.
“May” instead of “shall”?
Mr Avoka 3:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the rest of the rendition in the original Bill will stand as such. I do not know whether the Chairman will guide us whether they want “shall” or “may” under the circumstances.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:55 p.m.
The Chairman says “shall”. Chairman, are you in line with “accredited agricultural organization”?
Dr Alhassan 3:55 p.m.
Yes. But Mr Speaker, there is this talk about private and public. We have to be careful that -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:55 p.m.
Mr Chairman, if you are agreeable on that, let us move forward and please, address what the Hon Majority Leader is rather saying with regard to “may” or “shall” and then we proceed.
Dr Alhassan 3:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what is missing with that one is, who is empowered to accredit a private or public organization to do the test? That is the difficulty. This
particular provision empowers a public agricultural organization and that is in line with the international best practice. You do not leave the agency that is to determine standards of your seed industry to anybody to take part in, no. You do not do that.
I know that this particular law is a ground-breaking one; we have never had one regulating our seed industry. This is our first attempt at it and we would have to be careful we do not open our floodgates for anybody to justify that his seed is distinct, therefore, it must be registered.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:55 p.m.
So what about ‘suitability' as against ‘stability'.
Dr Alhassan 3:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, those words are technical -- “uniformity, stability and distinctness”. They are technical words used in plant breeding -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:55 p.m.
They are technical expressions. They are terms of art.
Dr Alhassan 3:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we want “stability” and not “suitability”. That is the reason why the whole sentence was re-done. So those words are technical -- “uniformity, stability and distinctness” are technical words that are used in the seed industry in particular, with plant breeders. And if we are to register a particular variety, then all these are conditions that have to be met and if we have a young seed industry such as we have, we have to be careful not to open our floodgates too much for anybody to just -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:55 p.m.
Mr Chairman, still on your feet, kindly address -- “value for cultivation and use” or “or use”. I hope you are with me. After “cultivation” should we have “and” or should we have “or”, if I captured the Hon Minority Leader well?
Dr Alhassan 3:55 p.m.
Once there is cultivation
or uses. So “and” should go.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:55 p.m.
If I may read what we have:
“An accredi ted agr icul tura l organization shall conduct test to establish distinctness, uniformity and stability or value for cultivation or use in accordance with the guidelines established by the National Technical and Variety Release Committee.”
Have there been any previous reference to guidelines?
Dr Alhassan 3:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, there are guidelines to be provided by the National Technical and Variety Release Committee.
Mr Speaker, the only word I did not find out of your rendition was “public” The word “public”. is meant to identify somebody to do it. So if we leave it at “accredited agricultural organization --”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:55 p.m.
From what the Minority Leader and the Majority Leader stated, it appeared there was a certain consensus on “agricultural organization” and I would be glad if we do not go back.
Dr Alhassan 4:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the issue of agriculture was about whether “organization” was to be qualified by “agriculture” or by “agricultural”, which is agreeable. Certainly, it is “agricultural organization”. But, “public” --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:05 p.m.
Does it
have to be “public” by all means?
Dr Alhassan 4:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:05 p.m.
What
may need, supposing you have a very powerful body that can assist in any work? Does it have to be a “public” one?
Dr Alhassan 4:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes. Indeed, any international organization that is supposed to lend support to this effort must do so through a public agricultural organization in the country. Mr Speaker, this is being done in line with international best practice. You are not just doing it as a country alone. This Bill is being inspired by international best practice.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:05 p.m.
Hon Members, I think the only issue now is, “public” to be in or not, so let us have your --
Mr Chireh 4:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that when we say, we should remove “public” or “private” and let it be a neutral institution and the Hon Member says no, we should qualify it with “public”. Now, my argument is that, if you read the whole subclause, the key actor, the one who should ensure quality, and does not do anything is the National Technical and Variety Release Committee (NTVRC), because they issue guidelines. They should be the ones to determine whether somebody who wants to test or to test the seed or whatever has the requisite equipment and everything to do so.
Now, when you talk about public institutions, there are more advanced private sector companies. And it is just like in our own business and trade, we have SGS, we have so many other agencies doing the test for us. No matter how important we think that a seed should be -- but I believe that so long as the NTVRC is there, it is that one which should accredit whoever is to test for these things. And therefore, it should not be a
Mr Chireh 4:05 p.m.


about international organizations that we

public institution necessarily.

We also may not have the capacity as a nation; you just do so and then let a private person come, convince a public institution, “oh, we are in collaboration”, you have no control over what he is doing. Why do we not just face it, and say that because of this Committee that first accredits such an institution should also be the one to determine the guidelines? If the person does not satisfy the guidelines, you cannot go and test.

So, I think that we should still remove both words, and then lease it as an agricultural organization.
Dr Alhassan 4:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, except to say that even when you have satisfied the guidelines of the NTVRC, the material you are bringing that you purport to satisfy the guidelines will be tested. It will be further tested by the Committee to ascertain that what information you are giving in respect of that particular variety or seed is actually true or not.
So, you may have satisfied their conditions on paper, but after submitting the samples to the Committee, they have to go out and test them before they are recognized as such. So it is not correct that once you satisfy the guidelines, you will definitely be registered, no. And it is that test that has to be done by a “public agricultural organization”, and as I said, even if a public agricultural organization does not have the capacity, that public organization must identify a private agency that has the capacity to do so.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:05 p.m.
Hon Member, but if a law says this work shall be done by a public organization, does the person who has the responsibility have the discretion to say, there is no
capacity, therefore, I am going to get a private organization to do so, when the law mandates that function to be done by a public organization? And this is the problem about being so specific about “public” per se. If you say it is public, no one has a discretion to say that now, there is no capacity, therefore, I am going private, no, you cannot do that. It will be against the law. But let us take that into consideration and then proceed.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think, as has been argued by the Hon Minister for Local Government and Rural Development, the guidelines will be established by NTVRC; those are the guidelines that will be established by them. An “accredited agricultural organization” will then be called upon to conduct the test.
Mr Speaker, I think the operative word here is “accredited” and if it is accredited, it needs not be public; it could be private. Mr Speaker, if we go back to the establishment of Plant Protection Advisory Council, per clause 19, we have included representatives of the universities in Ghana with specialization in plant protection. It is for good reason that we did not say that it should be “public universities”. Just universities and it could be private, provided they specialize in plant protection. Mr Speaker, why should we come and seek to preclude other institutions from this; if they have the capacity and if they have the accreditation?
Mr Speaker, so, I believe leaving it open -- “accredited agricultural organizations to conduct tests”, in my opinion, is appropriate, and I think that the test should be plural, and not singular, as we have here.
Mr Ernest A. Debrah 4:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think what this clause seeks to deal with
is, one, the guidelines, and two, how to conform to the guidelines.
Mr Speaker, the NTVRC comprises people from other institutions, and they set the guidelines. Now, this is a seed industry for Ghana. So, if you want to bring in any seed, they want to see whether the seed conforms to the standards or the guidelines established by the NTVRC. Now, we are precluding the private sector from coming in, because we want to make sure that our public sector can give us exactly what we need.
So, we have precluded the private sector because we want the national organizations to come out with whether the seed actually conforms to the guidelines set up by the NTVRC. If the public Committee has not got the capacity, it will go to an accredited agent that has got the capacity and get the testing by them or done through them to satisfy the requirement.
But we would not want the private sector or a private organization to now say that, well, the seed conforms to the standards set by our own NTVRC. We want our own organizations to go through them and ensure that what they get is the right source. That is why we have limited it to public organization, but not the private organization.
rose
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:05 p.m.
At the Consideration Stage, these things are very important and we have time.
Yes, Hon Deputy Majority Leader.
Mr Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo 4:05 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, in actual fact, I wanted to go with the Hon Minority Leader, but the Hon Member for Tano North (Mr E.A. Debrah) has brought out an issue, and I suppose that by just mentioning “public”,
and saying that the public has the right to go to a private organization to check, if they do not have the capacity, we would require further amendments to that.
So that we say ‘public', but may -- [Interruption] -- Something to couch it -- to say that, they may be able to go to a private organization, if they do not have the capacity. [Interruption.] The best would have been just to leave it like that, but we know that once we say an organization, we mean public organization. Other than that, we need to define the word “public”, it is not defined in this Bill, so that we know that public means - [Interruption.]
Mr Debrah 4:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you take, for example, bird flu, our veterinary laboratory has some level of capacity in testing for the virus. But when it is finished, it always goes for confirmation from two laboratories, one in Egypt the other in Paris the World Animal Science laboratory in Paris. So if our public organizations have not got the necessary capacity, we have got a way of confirming their findings or testing in other labo- ratories and come out with the result as our own result. It will be dangerous for us to rely on private laboratories elsewhere to tell us that the seed being tested conforms with the standards of our Technical Variety Releasae Committee. So we have to determine the quality ourselves.
Mr Avoka 4:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the Committee has made a case; you may wish to put the Question now.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:05 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, the case being what? Please, repeat it because some arguments have been made. Hon Majority Leader, if you can say it -- what you are saying, if you can elaborate so that we know exactly what you mean. That it should be an “accredited public agricultural organization? Is that what you are saying?
Mr Avoka 4:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, I agree with them now. I am saying so because if you look at the Police Forensic Laboratory that we have in the country and you look at the Narcotics Control Board and how they test some of the exhibits, it will be dangerous to refer this to private laboratories to examine and give you a genuine report. There can be other external considerations which will not inure to the benefit of the people of the country or the Government.
So it is against that background that I think it should be a “public accredited institution” that will undertake this responsibility rather than at this stage to add private laboratories.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:05 p.m.
Thank you very much.
Mr Avoka 4:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, so that is why I said that the Committee has made a good case and we should back them.
Dr Owusu Afriyie Akoto 4:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are talking about a regulatory body to regulate the standard and it can only be done by public body and not a private body. When it comes to the commer- cialization and those aspects, yes, public/ private but they are keeping the standard. So you cannot give it to a private body to do that. A public body is the right one for regulation.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:05 p.m.
So, in fact, the only issue out of the amendment is line 3 - Value for consideration, instead of “and”, put “or”. Are we clear? And “agriculture” should be “agricultural”.
“An accredited public agricultural organization shall conduct tests to establish distinctness, uniformity and stability or value for cultivation
or use in accordance . . .”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 48 -- Seed quality control.
Dr Alhassan 4:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 48, subclause (3), delete.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 4:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 48, subclause (4), line 3, delete “the Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Directorate” and insert “it”.
Mr Speaker, it is to avoid repeating the department again in the sentence.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 4:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 48, subclause (9), delete “standards and these are” and insert “the following standards”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just for consistency. If we are talking about seed, let it be seed. If you look at 48, there are places that we used “seed” and other places that we used “seeds”. I believe this is for the drafters; let them look at it so that we are consistent in the use of whether it is “seed” or “seeds”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:05 p.m.
Thank
you. If the drafters will accordingly take note of consistency and apply “seed” or “seeds”.
Hon Members, that brings us to the end of the listed amendments for consideration for today and it ends our business for today.
Alhaji Sumani Abukari 4:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was just going to remind the House that many more amendments are still to come. If we can take them early tomorrow, it will do us a lot of good. The time is running out.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:05 p.m.
We will take notice of that. But in the absence of anything special from Leadership --
Mr Avoka 4:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, those clauses
that had gone through the winnowing process are those that we have completed the amendments today. So I will appeal to the few who have filed amendments to let us meet again.
Mr Speaker, we can do against the time that we have now. It is 4.20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, time is not on our side. So if it is the pleasure of my Colleagues, the Chairman of the Committee and the Ranking Member, we may have to meet again this evening at 5.00 p.m., it is 4.20 p.m. now, we can take a rest and meet at 5.00 p.m. and then within one hour, up to 6.00 p.m. or 6.30 p.m., we will finish the rest of the amendments in the winnowing process so that tomorrow we can complete this exercise.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:25 p.m.
Very well, thank you very much.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if there is going to be anything special, definitely, it will come from the Majority Leader and not me.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:25 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, are you taking a cue from your counterpart for special things to facilitate the work?
Mr Cletus A. Avoka 4:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that will be “two-man” talk.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:25 p.m.
Very well.
ADJOURNMENT 4:25 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 4.27p.m. till Tuesday, 23rd March,2010 at 10.00 a.m.