Debates of 23 Mar 2010

MADAM SPEAKER
PRAYERS 11 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 11 a.m.
Madam Speaker 11 a.m.
Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Monday, 22nd March,
2010.
Pages 1-9 --
Mr Justice J. Appiah 11 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, page 15 (xlv), ‘Papa Owusu- Ankomah', is written, “Papa Owusu- Ankamah.”
Madam Speaker 11 a.m.
Pages 19-33 --.
The Votes and Proceedings of Monday, 22nd March, 2010 as corrected is adopted as the true record of proceedings.
We now move to the Official Report
of Friday, 12th March, 2010.

In the absence of any corrections, the Official Report of Friday, 12th March 2010 is hereby adopted as the true record of proceedings.

We now move to Urgent Questions. Is

the Hon Minister for Transport here?
Mr Cletus A. Avoka 11 a.m.
Madam Speaker,
with your indulgence and the Honourable House I want to suggest humbly that the two Urgent Questions that the Hon Minister is supposed to respond to this morning are interrelated.They both

concern activities on the Volta Lake. So the suggestion is that, to save time, if the Hon Minister can give the Answer to the two Questions then we can ask the Hon Members who have asked the Questions to ask their supplementary three -- questions. Other Hon Members can also ask their general questions --rather than the Hon Minister answering one Question and he comes back to give another Answer again. If we combine the two and he answers them together, then Question time can take care of the two.
Mr Ambrose P. Dery 11 a.m.
Madam Speaker,
thank you for the opportunity. I think that basically, they are related. Indeed, at the Business Committee, I recalled that when these two came up and there was a question why they were both urgent -- [Interruption.] They are clearly related. So it will be repetitive if we allow the Questions to be asked one after the other; so I do agree that they should be taken jointly and then supplementary questions asked thereafter.
Madam Speaker 11 a.m.
Yes, all right.
So we call on Hon Alhaji Ibrahim Dey Abubakari (Salaga.)
URGENT QUESTIONS 11:10 a.m.
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT 11:10 a.m.
Minister for Transport (Mr Mike Hammah) 11:10 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the ferry crossing between Yeji and Makango was suspended on Thursady, 4th March, 2010 following the breakdown of the main engine on the Ferry, MV Nana Besemuna on Wednesday, 3rd March, 2010.
Madam Speaker, immedia te ly following the breakdown of the ferry, the management of Volta Lake Transport Company Limited (VLTC) made concerted efforts to repair the engine which is more than 30 years old and has managed to obtain parts to overhaul the replacement engine. The replacement engine has successfully been tested in the workshop at Akosombo and will be mounted on the vessel by the 26th of March, 2010.
Madam Speaker, it is expected that ferry services between Yeji and Makango will resume before the end of March, 2010.
In the meantime, the Ministry has directed that the Ghana Maritime Authority is to step up the monitoring, enforcement and education of commercial boat operations to forestall accidents and ensure safety of lives.
Madam Speaker, with your indulgence I will take on the second question.
Madam Speaker, trhe Volta Lake Transport Company Limited provides north-south and cross-lake ferry services. The north-south operation is between Akosombo (in the Eastern Region) and Buipe (in the Northern Region), a distance of 415 kilometres, thus offering market access and improving socio-economic activities of the inhabitants living along the lake.
The main areas of operation are as follows:
i. the north-south service for the transportation of agricultural and petroleum products as well as general goods;
ii. t ramping service for the transportation of general cargo and passengers from Ako- sombo, terminating at Yeji with intermediate stops at Kete- Krachi and a number of make- shift ports between Kete-Krachi and Yeji; and
iii. cross-lake ferry services at four (4) ferry stations along the lake comprising Yeji, Dambai, Kete- Krachi and Adawso.
Madam Speaker, the following are however, the constraints affecting the operations of VLTC:
i. poor revenue generation due to the type of services it provides due to inadequate freight, especially with the stoppage of transportation of petroleum products by BOST;
ii. unreliable rainfall pattern;
iii. presence of tree-stumps;
iv. unchartered fairway;
v. poor access roads; and
vi. obsolete equipment and the lack of facilities.
Madam Speaker, the unreliable rainfall pattern obiously causes irregular trans-port operations at low tides thus, affecting the revenue base of the company. The provision of access roads to link the communities and the ferry sites is also under the Ministry of Roads and Highways but with the collaborative efforts of the two (2) Ministries, this problem is currently being addressed under the Integrated Transport Plan (ITP).
Minister for Transport (Mr Mike Hammah) 11:10 a.m.


Madam Speaker, the major constraint affecting the company's viability and current state is its poor financial situation. The transport service provided by the VLTC has some element of public service obligations as it cannot charge economic fares because of high level of poverty in the area.

What has exacerbated the poor financial state of the company is the stoppage of the transportation of petroleum products by BOST, which accounts for 70 per cent of the company's revenue. Since year 2006, BOST has entered into a joint ventureship arrangement with WORCON to undertake this service and from 2008 has stopped using VLTC to carry the product.

This has eroded the revenue base of VLTC causing serious financial constraints and the inability of the company to maintain and replace its obsolete operational equipment like the ferries which are over thirty (30) years old.

Madam Speaker, also the lack of funds makes it difficult to provide other logistic needs for loading and warehousing as well as develop landing stages and reception facilities to facilitate passenger transportation.

Last year for example, the total revenue generated by the company was about GH¢3.00 million, which was not enough to cover operational cost of GH¢4.00 million, not to mention its fixed cost.

Madam Speaker, the following are steps being undertaken by the Ministry to address VLTC's problems:

i. The Immediate/Short-Term --

A memorandum has been submitted to Cabinet to intervene for VLTC to continue with the transportation of petroleum products which constitute

70 per cent of its revenue after unsuccessful efforts made by the Ministry through the Ministry of Energy to get BOST to use VLTC's services.

Requested Cabinet's approval for the release of US$8.00 million by MOFEP to repair Ferry ‘A' and Ferry ‘B' which have been laid up for over five (5) years to ply between Kete Krachi-Kojokrom and Kpando-Torkor respectively.

Cabinet's approval for the release of US$5.00 million a year to the company for the maintenance and replacement of operational equip- ment due to its public service obligations.

We have finalized negotiations with the World Bank to utilize part of funds under the Transport Sector Programme (TSP) meant for feasibility studies to procure engines for three (3) ferries.

Has provided four (4) cargo handling equipment to facilitate loading and warehousing opera-tions.

Concluding a procurement process to construct two (2) new ferries and also rehabilitate the floating dock with funds from the Millennium Challenge Account.

ii. Short To Medium-Term --

Landing stages and reception facilities to be constructed to improve passenger transportation on the Volta Lake.

iii. Long-Term --

Madam Speaker, the Akosombo and Buipe terminals are to be developed as ports and navigation on the lake improved by the removal of tree stumps and the charting of navigational pathways.

Finally, Madam Speaker, Govern- ment will seek private sector parpticipation in VLTC to support and relieve it from Government's interventions.

Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I wish to state that the situation of VLTC now calls for bold determination and commitment on the part of Government to provide the necessary funding to the company in order to ensure the improvement and sustenance of safe transport operations on the Volta Lake to enhance the socio-economic conditions of communities in the lake catchment area and to reduce poverty.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Alhaji Abubakari 11:10 a.m.
Madam Speaker, supplementary questions.
Madam Speaker, I am asking of replacement of the brokendown ferry and he is talking about buying an engine to replace it. Madam Speaker, I do not know, if the Hon Minister had a physical look at the ferry at Yeji, he would have known that not only the engine, but the ferry itself is so dilapidated that it is very difficult to walk inside it.
So we are talking of a complete replacement of the ferry at Yeji and Makango. As it stands right now, even if you bring an engine, it is more like a disaster.
So I want to know when is he replacing
the ferry and not bringing an engine to put
in which will not last for a few months.
Thank you.
Madam Speaker 11:10 a.m.
First question, yes, Hon Minister; replacement, not repairs.
Mr Hammah 11:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker, in my Answer, I did say that there are immediate and short-term plans to resolve the problem and there is also the medium to long-term plans. So with the short-term, the normal thing to do is to, at least, fix the problem immediately and then in the long- term -- I have just said that we are talking to the World Bank to do some virement, instead of giving us money under the Transport Sector Programme (TSP) to do feasibility studies. We have told them that we have had enough of feasibility studies and why would they not give us the money to put into other projects, and this is exactly what the World Bank has agreed with us.
So under the TSP, the moneys that were
meant for the feasibility studies would now be used to procure new engines and once we do that, I am sure within a medium-term, we would replace the engine, give it a new lease, rehabilitate it and I am sure that it would be able to serve the purpose for which it was intended.
Alhaji Abubakari 11:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker,
Mr Hammah 11:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker, no.
Business is like risk taking sort of, so once you are in a business, you have to understand that it goes with risks. I do not think that the Government would be in a position to pay any compensation now.
Madam Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Hon Member, do
you have your last question? So we move to the other Question.
Hon Ahaligah, your supplementary question.
Mr Ahaligah 11:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker,
would the Hon Minister tell the House why articulated fuel tankers have access to carrying fuel to the North but the Volta Lake Transport Company Limited has been denied the opportunity to do so for the past two years?
Madam Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Hon Minister, did
you understand the question?
Mr Hammah 11:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I
think so.
Madam Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Do you want it
repeated?
Mr Hammah 11:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker, yes.
Madam Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Hon Ahaligah, can
you repeat the question?
Mr Ahaligah 11:20 a.m.
Madam. Speaker, I am
asking the Hon Minister if he would tell this House why articulated fuel tankers have access to carry fuel to the North but the Volta Lake Transport Company Limited has been denied the opportunity to do so for the past two years. There are two barges that carry about 1.5 million litres and they have not been given the chance but we all know that the charges of Volta Lake Transport Company Limited are less but articulated trucks are given the chance. The Hon Minister should tell us why that should happen.
Mr Hammah 11:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I think this issue came up when I undertook a familiarisation trip to the Volta Lake Transport Company Limited last year and as soon as we returned, I took the matter up with the Ministry of Energy. This is because Bulk Oil Storage Transport Company (BOST) is under that Ministry and requested that if we have to sustain the operations of Volta Lake Transport Company Limited, it is important that BOST transport most if its petroleum products on the Volta Lake because that was the mainstay of the Volta Lake Transport Company Limited.
The Hon Minister wrote to BOST
and requested that they had to resume operations, but unfortunately, that did not happen. That is why in the Answer that I gave, as immediate and short-term, we have now requested that Cabinet looks at it and takes a decision so that BOST would be compelled because it is a Cabinet decision to transport at least 70 per cent of the petroleum products on the Volta Lake.
Mr Ahaligah 11:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I want
to know from the Hon Minister if he is aware that because these two barges are not working for the Volta Lake Transport Company Limited, they are unable to pay their workers.
Madam Speaker 11:20 a.m.
So what is the question?
Mr Ahaligah 11:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker, my
question is that, the two barges are the live wires of the company but because they are not given that contract, they carry only passengers and that is not sufficient to pay the workers. So I want to know why they should be denied that opportunity and the workers do not get their pay.
Mr Hammah 11:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I am
aware that BOST's inability to use the
Volta Lake for transportation of petroleum products is affecting the operations of the Volta Lake Transport Company Limited. Their finances as I speak to you now, are in dire state and that is why in short to medium-term, we have taken this issue up with Cabinet and we believe that once Cabinet takes a decision on it, BOST would resume transportation of petroleum products on the Volta Lake and then we believe that their financial situations would improve.
Madam Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Any other questions
if you have any? There are no questions.
Hon Minister, thank you very much
for coming.
Hon Members, we move to the next Question which stands in the name of Hon Elizabeth K. T. Sackey, Member of Parliament for Okaikoi North.
Mr Justice Joe Appiah 11:20 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, the Hon Member has asked me to ask the Question on her behalf. She has travelled on an official assignment.
ORAL ANSWERS TO 11:20 a.m.
QUESTIONS 11:20 a.m.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH 11:20 a.m.
Mr Appiah 11:20 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, would the Hon Minister tell this Honourable House precisely when the project would commence?
Dr Kunbuor 11:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I did
indicate that the procurement processes for the equipment to upgrade it has actually been completed, but the one on the unit and the departments would be done as soon as funds are available. And I mean funds being available within this budget cycle.
Mr Appiah 11:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I want
to ask the Hon Minister whether it is under construction or when it is going to be constructed.
Madam Speaker, in the first paragraph of the Answer he gave to us, he said 11:20 a.m.
“As part of the Ministry's plans to upgrade Achimota Hospital into a district hospital, a new theatre unit, adequately equipped, is being constructed at the hospital.”
Dr Kunbuor 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the construction is on going but it is just one that would be set up for the equipment to be installed.
Dr Kunbuor 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the construction of a maternity block for Achimota Hospital is about 60 per cent complete. The Ministry of Health has made budgetary provision towards its completion within the next six (6) months.
Mr Appiah 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, would the Hon Minister tell us what has been done on that project.
Dr Kunbuor 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, these are technical quantities, I might need some notice to come back.
Mr Appiah 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, being the Hon Minister, he must be able to tell us actually what has been done. So we want to hear something from him; Madam Speaker, precisely, what has been done on that project?
Madam Speaker 11:30 a.m.
He says he needs
notice to give you correct facts and figures.
Mr Appiah 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I am
done, thank you.
Madam Speaker 11:30 a.m.
The next Question
is also from Hon Elizabeth K. T. Sackey, I think you are also holding brief for her? That is Question 450 -- Oh! You have finished that one, you do not have any supplementary questions for that?
Mr Appiah 11:30 a.m.
No, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Have you asked
Question 450?
Mr Appiah 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I have
asked two supplementary questions but the third one --
Madam Speaker 11:30 a.m.
No, what I mean is, two Questions stand in the name of --
Mr Appiah 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, next Question.
Madam Speaker 11:30 a.m.
The next Question
is 450, is it not? Have you finished that one?
Mr Appiah 11:30 a.m.
Yes, Madam Speaker, I have finished with all the Questions.
Madam Speaker 11:30 a.m.
All right.
District Hospital for Gomoah East
Q. 459. Mr. Ekow Payin Okyere Eduamoah asked the Minister for Health what effort was being made to construct a district hospital for the Gomoa East District
Dr Kunbuor 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker,
Gomoa East District is one of the districts in the Central Region without a district hospital. The district has been priotitised for the provision of a district hospital. The construction of the district hospital would commence as soon as funds are secured for the project.
Mr Eduamoah 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I would like to know from the Minister when soon, can he be precise, when funds will be available.
Dr Kunbuor 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, in the
case of Gomoa East District, it is one of the projects that is with the Crown Agents undergoing value-for-money assessment. When that is completed and we get the go ahead, the funds would be secured.
Mr E. Aduamoah 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, as I speak with you now, the few health facilities there,are underresourced. I want to know whether the Hon Minister would consider resourcing at least, a clinic to act as a district hospital before we get a befitting one.
Dr Kunbuor 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I
am afraid that it will be very difficult to substitute a clinic for a district hospital because of the type of procedures that go on in a clinic as against a district hospital. But I guess this is a matter I can discuss with the Hon Member for other alternatives.
Sunyani Nurses' Training School Infrastructural Facilities
(Expansion)
Q. 460. Mr Kwasi Ameyaw- Cheremeh asked the Minister for Health what plans the Ministry had to expand the infrastructural facilities at the Nurses' Training School in Sunyani so that enrolment could be increased.
Dr Kunbuor 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker,
currently, the Brong-Ahafo Region has been provided with one Nursing Training College and a Clinical Health Assistant Training School, both at Sunyani; Nursing and Midwifery Training College at Berekum, a Community Health Nursing School at Tanoso and the Kintampo Rural Health Training School. Enrolments into all these colleges/schools have more than doubled over a period of five years (average of 40 in 2004 to 100 in 2008).
The current focus of the Ministry is to improve on the quality of personnel being turned out from health training institutions through the provision of more
tutors, teaching and learning materials, and learning infrastructure and also build the capacity of health tutors. The Ministry may consider further expansion in the medium to long-term if the need arises.
Mr Ameyaw-Cheremeh 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, it seems to me that expanding the infrastructure for an increase in enrolment is not a priority for now. What is a priority, according to the Hon Minister, is to improve the quality of personnel, learning infrastructure and learning materials. I want the Hon Minister to expatiate on learning infrastructure, what he means by that.
Dr Kunbuor 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I might not be able to give you a definition. But any infrastructure that facilitates learning will be considered a learning infrastructure. We are here not dealing with only priorities in terms of the distribution but you keep assessing the training institutions year after year to see whether they are actually keeping commitment with the mandate for which they are set up. These training institutions are set up for some strategic purposes and whether you would expand or you would increase the number will depend on the extent to which they are meeting their mandate.
Mr Ameyaw-Cheremeh 11:30 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, in the light of the Answer given by the Hon Minister, will the Ministry consider providing lecture halls, boarding or hostel facilities for existing students in the school and how soon would that be?
Dr Kunbuor 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, it is
a matter that we will consider.
Madam Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Yes, Hon Minister,
thank you very much for attending upon this House to respond to our Questions.
Hon Members, in respect of Question
247 standing in the name of the Hon Member of Parliament for Bekwai, Hon.
WRITTEN ANSWERS TO 11:30 a.m.
QUESTIONS 11:30 a.m.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH 11:30 a.m.
Dr Benjamin Kunbuor 11:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the construction of the Bekwai Hospital experienced an initial setback as a result of a funding gap. Government has however entered into negotiations with ECOWAS Bank for International Development (EBID) to source funding to bridge the gap.
Cabinet's approval has been secured for a loan agreement and is currently awaiting parliamentary approval. The construction of Bekwai Hospital has therefore been scheduled to take off in May, 2010 barring any unforeseen impediments.
Madam Speaker 11:30 a.m.
We now move
to Statements. I have admitted two Statements and Hon Members, we will read the two Statements and then the comments will come on, to save time, and we have one hour for the comments.
The first one stands in the name of Hon Gifty E. Kusi, Member of Parliament for Tarkwa-Nsuaem.
STATEMENTS 11:40 a.m.
Mrs Gifty E. Kusi (NPP 11:40 a.m.
None

Nsuaem): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to make this Statement on the floor on cyanide spillage by mining companies and its effect on human beings.

Cyanide is a rapidly acting, potentially deadly chemical that can exist as a colourless gas, such as hydrogen cyanide (HCN) or cyanogens chloride (CNCI), or a crystal form such as sodium cyanide (NaCN) or potassium cyanide (KCN), which is extremely poisonous. Cyanide sometimes is described as having a “bitter almond” smell, but it does not always give off an odour, and not everyone can detect this odour.

People may be exposed to cyanide by breathing air, drinking water, eating food, or touching soil that contains cyanide. Cyanide enters water, soil, or air as a result of both natural processes and industrial activities. In air, cyanide is presently mainly as gaseous hydrogen cyanide. Poisoning caused by cyanide depends on the amount of cyanide a person is exposed to and the route and duration of exposure.

Breathing cyanide gas causes the most harm, but ingesting cyanide can be toxic as well. Cyanide prevents the cells of the body from getting oxygen. When this happens, the cells die. Cyanide is more harmful to the heart and brain than to other organs because the heart and brain use a great deal of oxygen.

People exposed to a small amount of cyanide by breathing it, absorbing it through their skin, or eating foods that

contain it may have some or all of the following symptoms within minutes: rapid breathing, restlessness, dizziness, weakness, headache, nausea and vomiting, and rapid heart rate.

Exposure to a large amount of cyanide by any route may cause these other health effects as well: convulsions, low blood pressure (hypotension), slow heart rate (bradycardia), loss of consciousness, lung injury and respiratory failure leading to death. Survivors of serious cyanide poisoning may develop heart and brain damage.

Clearly, cyanide has a harmful effect on human life and that is why reports about the spillage of cyanide by some mining companies into water bodies is very worrying since it might affect the lives of people living in these mining communities. The Ghanaian Chronicle of Thursday, 15 October, 2009 reported that Newmont GhanaGold, has within its Ahafo mine site, spilled cyanide into the Subri River, killing fishes. The environmental personnel of Newmont sent personnel in a dingy boat to collect the dead fishes that were floating on the stream and analysis at a commercial laboratory in Tema showed that indeed, cyanide killed the fishes.

According to the publication in The Chronicle, the Environmental Protection Agency, reported that the spillage of cyanide into the Yaakyi, a tributary of River Subri in the Asutifi District, was as a result of the negligence of Newmont GhanaGold Limited. The Brong-Ahafo Regional Director of EPA is reported to have told the GNA that Newmont failed to effectively monitor the rate of water flow into their environmental control dams and so when one of the dams began to overflow, the company could not detect it. Ghana News Agency investigations later revealed that indeed, many more people

were affected by the cyanide spillage.

The villages that were affected included Adofoasa Kontokrom, Bamfowaakrom; Akosua Gyakakrom; Bronikrom, Afua Serwaakrom, Kuma Gyakakrom, Yateabere, Kyeikrom Kantinkakrom and a host of hamlets depriving them of access to potable water as well as economic, social, recreational and cultural benefits they derive from the river.

I am reliably informed that the Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology set up a committee and Newmont has been asked to pay some compensation to the victims.

Recommendations

Madam Speaker, according to the publication, as many as fifteen officially reported cyanide spillages have occurred in Ghana within the last few years. This is unacceptable since the effect could only be tragic.

Madam Speaker, it is unacceptable to learn that the company admitted before a team of journalists, who the company flew from Accra and others from the Brong Ahafo Region, to visit the Ahafo Mine, that the company has now heeded the advice of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and has placed staff at the processing pond and event pond, where the overflow occurred to check the water levels in case the computerized level indicator failed again.
Madam Speaker, I wish to recommend the following 11:40 a.m.
1. The Chamber of Mines, the Mineral Commission of the Ministry of Lands and Mineral Resources as well as the Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology should, as soon as possible put together a Bill
Madam Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Thank you, Hon
Member.
Hon Wisdom Gidisu, your Statement, please.
World Tuberculosis Day
Mr Wisdom Gidisu (NDC -- Krachi
East): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to make this Statement to commemorate the World Tuberculosis Day which falls on 24th March, 2010.
Madam Speaker, 24th March is World Tuberculosis Day. The theme for this year's celebration is “On the move against tuberculosis. Innovate to accelerate action”. The theme calls for a fast move with new innovations in our global fight against tuberculosis.
It is exactly 128 years of the discovery of the bacterium that causes tuberculosis (TB) but it still remains a major threat to public health.
Globally TB is second to HIV/AIDS as a cause of illness and death in adults. It is also the single biggest killer of people living with HIV/AIDS. Statistics indicate that one person die of TB every second globally, accounting for nearly 9 million cases of active TB disease and two million deaths every year.
Madam Speaker, Africa accounts for a quarter of the World's TB cases with about 2.4 million cases and 540,000 deaths annually. Ghana recorded 15,298 cases in 2009 from National Tuberculosis programme records. That is an increase in cases as against 14,479 in 2008.
World Tuberculosis Day is set aside to create the necessary awareness of various stakeholders on the symptoms, diagnosis and treatment of TB and the importance of effective TB control. It has the potential to significantly increase case detection rate through education, awareness building
and social mobilization. The day seeks to increase the impact of activities by extending a focused “Stop TB” campaign beyond World TB Day to the rest of the year on the need for people to get tested when they have the symptoms.
Madam Speaker, the Ministry of Health, through Ghana Health Service, has put in a lot of interventions in its quest to fight TB. The country, at the moment, has about 1,057 TB treatment centres, 274 diagnostic centres.
Treatment of TB has been reduced from 8 months to six months. Community- based TB care is being implemented to improve access to TB care.
Madam Speaker, adherence to TB treatment has improved considerably with defaulter rate at its lowest level ever in 2008 at 2.3 per cent and the treatment success is 85.3 which is above the WHO treatment success target for Africa, thanks to special incentive package that empowers patients to continue to stay on their medication to achieve cure. These commendable efforts and proven interventions are threatened with increased financing gaps every year for TB control.
A key challenge is with low case detection. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that Ghana should be detecting 203 per 100,000 but we are detecting only 63 per 100,000. This means there might be a lot of Ghanaians undiagnosed and transmitting the disease to others. They are neglecting the simple cough which has a cure but can kill when not attended to.
Madam Speaker, it is a call for all stakeholders to fight the TB disease head-on since failure will lay us open to an uncontrolled epidemic of the disease. The world is now threatened with multi- drug resistant TB and extensively drug resistant TB which is man-made and takes
two years to treat and Ghana has reported some of such cases.
If patients do not get the needed support to complete their treatment, we may end up with more drug-resistant form of TB. This puts the whole society at a risk. What happens when multi-drug- resistant TB should affect our teachers, drivers, nurses, politicians, pastors, bankers and others who interact daily with other people? Anyone can contract TB whether rich, poor, young or old, male or female, once you continue to breathe.
Madam Speaker, in 1993, WHO declared TB as an emergency.
In 2005, 46 African Health Ministers unanimously adopted a resolution and declared TB as an African emergency. TB must be considered a national security threat in Ghana which deserves more attention from all stakeholders. We must all get involved in the fight against TB.
Madam Speaker, we have made considerable progress. But the evidence points to an urgent need to do more, do it better and faster. The theme of “Innovation” speaks to the need for a new way forward.
The year 2010 is also set aside as “Year of the Lung”. It has been discovered that millions of people round the world suffer each year from treatable and preventable chronic respiratory diseases like asthma, bronchitis and pneumonia, which have long been neglected in public discourse. There is, therefore, the need to increase awareness on lung health.
Madam Speaker, I would like to use this occasion to call on Hon Members to fast-track the Bill on Smoking in Public Places to protect our citizens from these diseases.
I call on all Hon Members of this august House to join in the fight against TB.
Madam Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Hon Members, we have one hour to comment on these Statements. I have also got a list of Hon Members to speak on Hon Gifty Kusi's Statement -- Hon (Prof.) Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi and then Hon Dr Prempeh. Hon Dr Prempeh, when I checked the other Statement, your name is also there. So take the opportunity to make those two comments. But we will start with Hon (Prof.) Ameyaw-Akumfi on Hon Kusi's Statement.
Prof. Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi (NPP -- Techiman North) noon
Madam Speaker, may I thank you for permitting me to contribute or support the Statement on the harm being inflicted by the mining companies on the environment.
Madam Speaker, the issue of cyanide poisoning so ably presented by Hon Gifty Kusi, when taken in a large context of chemical pollution, courtesy the mining companies, it is very, very frightening.
Madam Speaker, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is supposed to monitor levels of various chemicals in and around mining companies and inside shafts of mining companies. Madam Speaker, unfortunately for this House, the only report that we have looked at is the report of 2003. So this House does not even know the work being done by EPA in terms of monitoring. And even if you go to that report, there is a list of chemicals that are monitored by EPA. You have zinc, manganese, iron, copper, cadmium, lead and so on.
In a particular instance, when EPA monitored the levels of lead in one of the
mines, they recorded a level of 0.9 mm per litre. The permissible level of lead is 0.1 mm per litre. Madam Speaker, that means that the level of lead was nine times the permissible level; very, very dangerous. We do not know what became of the report and what measures were taken. Indeed, we do not even have any follow-up report on any of the mining companies as to what gets done when such levels are detected.
We know that lead is a very dangerous chemical and the levels, when not checked, will kill us slowly and this is the distinction between what we are learning about cyanide and elements like lead, mercury, which are slow-killing; they kill us, we do not notice. When cyanide kills you, it is detected almost instantaneously and that is the point which ought to be made, not only to the mining companies but to the public.
Madam Speaker, in 2006 the Minerals Commission i set up a team that looked at levels of Mercury which is an extracting chemical, and with respect to the galamsey boys and girls -- few girls, more boys. And what they did simply was to educate those who were using mercury for extracting purposes against the dangers of using this.
Now, beyond the 2006 Report, nothing has been heard from the Commission; they called that phase one, and whether or not there was phase two, nobody knows of that. How far that education went, nobody knows about that. In fact, Madam Speaker, these boys attempt to remove mercury from anywhere, including thermometers and this is because they need that chemical for extracting purposes. Have there been any replacements? We do not know about that. We know the harm that mercury does to those who handle this particular element.
Madam Speaker, we seem not to be taking the work of the EPA seriously. If you look at the 2010 Budget, the portion that talks about monitoring of activities of mining companies goes under extra- budgetary resource. And here, we have as
little as GH¢48,000,000.00 allocated for that purpose, and yet it is important that they carry out this function.
Madam Speaker, I would suggest that we put together resources from the Minerals Commission, from EPA, of course, the Ministry and other agencies that monitor activities of mining companies in coming out with resources that would support EPA in its activities.

Madam Speaker, let me repeat, we do not seem to take environmental issues in this country seriously, especially when we are dealing with things that gradually disturb our organic system and it is very serious. Cancer-causing agents are all over the place, nobody detects them. The work of EPA is being impeded because they do not have the resources and yet we sit here in this House to look for developmental projects and so on.

Madam Speaker, if we do not pay any attention to these matters, the development will come and meet corpses because we are all going to die. It is for this reason that this singular act by Newmont company ought to be condemned seriously. If we cannot have good monitoring system for levels of water and that spillages can simply occur, then we are in trouble.

Madam Speaker, I just want to end by

urging all of us to do whatever it takes to ensure that the monitoring agencies do their work and they do their work properly, otherwise, there would come a time when we are all going to get some of these chemicals detected in our systems and that time may be too late.

Madam Speaker, I thank you.
Mr Clement K. Humado (NDC --Anlo) noon
Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Statement ably made by the Hon Member
for Tarkwa-Nsuaem.
Indeed, even though the focus of the Statement was on cyanide, I think the issue also extends to all chemicals that are used in the mining industry such as mercury and lead. Madam Speaker, what complicates the matter is the fact that mining represents a very important source of revenue to this country.
Our figures have it that it represents about 40 per cent of taxable revenue and also represents about six per cent of our GDP. While the nation enjoys revenue from mining, I believe that we should not as a result, compromise the health and the livelihood of our people. It is in this regard that I find the Statement very timely and very important.
Madam Speaker, cyanide,. for example, we are told, breaks down naturally when exposed to the sun. So the problem with cyanide is that when it is just used in the extracting industry to extract gold from ore, it needs to be immediately confined, that is, the residue needs to be immediately confined either in a pond or in a reservoir so that it is not allowed to flow into other sources of water. These regulations are there but sometimes during storms and other weather situations, the residue spills from the ponds into rivers and streams in the catchment area.
Madam Speaker, I think that the absence of an effective legislation on the minerals and mining industry is also part of the problem. So far, we do not have any operative Legislative Instrument (L.I.) to back up the laws on mining and minerals. I understand that this is being drafted and it is presently with the Attorney-General. I have looked at it and I think that when this L.I. finally comes to Parliament and is passed, it has enough measures to ensure that the regulation of minerals and mining exploitation in the country will improve.
Presently, what is worsening the case
Madam Speaker noon
Hon Prempeh is the next to contribute.
Dr Matthew O. Prempeh (NPP -- Manhyia) noon
Madam Speaker, I rise to support the Statement made by the Hon Member for Tarkwa-Nsuaem (Mrs Gifty Kusi) on the cyanide spillage by mining companies and its effects on humans.
Madam Speaker, I support what my
Hon Colleagues have said so I want to be brief here. Voluntary codes as to self- policing have never worked in the mining industry anywhere in the world. Even in America, big mining firms either in the oil industry or in the gold industry regularly pollute and they do not report.
But Madam Speaker, the difference is, in these advanced countries or where people are better regulated, when you are caught you restore the environment to its original state. The cost is not borne by the State but by the bottom-line of the company's profits. After that, there is punitive compensation.
In this country, as a symptom, as malice, I do not see any regulatory agency up to scratch, whether it is with the Food and Drugs Board; whether it is Water Resources Commission or any of our regulatory agencies. If we care about the health of Ghanaians, money is not necessary. Money is unimportant as far as the health of Ghanaians is concerned. So when we have a Mining Inspectorate Division under the Minerals Commission that is not up to its job, Madam Speaker, they are worrying times. Cyanide spillage in any part of the country can affect any part of the country because water flows.
So Madam Speaker, I want to recommend and encourage the Ministry of Energy or Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources to stop thinking about voluntary codes and to go into the area of training the communities in which these mines are, the people, to become the alarm signals. They should train them so that in any eventuality, the community can raise an alarm.
Secondly, Madam Speaker, I believe the “polluter pays principle” should be expanded very well so that when there is pollution, it is not only the restoration of the environment to its original state, it is the punitive damages that the company should incur.This is the only way
companies would be discouraged from inadvertently polluting the environment.
1. Madam Speaker, I know that my Hon Colleague from Abirem has made enough investigations into Newmont and its activities as far as cyanide spillage is concerned. She has been reassured that the treatment pond and its overflow pool will contain 95 per cent of any mis-adventure, but what happens when the 5 per cent happens? Who alerts who? Madam Speaker, even though the communities might be happy, cyanide and other spillages contribute enormously to ill-health in the country.
Madam Speaker, I would like to end by saying that compensation should take care of loss of livelihood and punitive damages, so that our communities, if it should happen that they are polluted, benefit favourably from compensation.
Madam Speaker, thank you.
Madam Speaker noon
Yes, any other
person on the Majority side to contribute to Hon Gifty Kusi's Statement? [Pause.] No.
Yes, we move on to the Statement on the communicable disease. I also have a list. Hon (Dr) Prempeh, you are on that list -- the Tuberculosis (TB) Statement
Dr M. O. Prempeh (NPP -- Manhyia) 2:10 p.m.
Madam Speaker, tomorrow is the World Tuberculosis Day, and I would like to support the Statement made by my Hon Vice Chairman (Mr Wisdom Gidisu) that as a country, our awareness level of TB even though high, is probably faltering.
Madam Speaker, 128 years ago, TB was discovered. Its name has changed, but I prefer the previous name of “a
consumption disease”, because once you see somebody with TB, the person is really consumed; he is walking like a skeleton. Madam Speaker, fortunately, with the advent of treatment, we do not see such harsh cases. Madam Speaker, Ghana has done tremendously well in its treatment success for TB. In Africa, probably, we are one of the highest, if not the highest, at 85.3 per cent. And our default rate is one of the lowest, about 2.3 per cent.
Madam Speaker, the troubling nature that we find these days is to the advent of multi-drug-resistant TB and extensively drug-resistant TB, which generally is man- made. If those who are supposed to have treatment do not follow their treatment regimes, these strains that are difficult to treat come up. And Ghana must be on the lookout that these strains the do not become the order of the day in this country, because it will hurt our socio-economic growth tremendously.
Madam Speaker, I fully support the Statement in the sense that National Security should treat TB as a national security threat. Of course, TB sleeps and lies very well with Human Immune Virus (HIV), which attacks the youth of the country. So, that is a direct security threat.
Madam Speaker, in other African countries, I hear that every job vacancy, they employ three people because at any material time, one is going to die, one is attending the funeral of a relative or friend and one will be on duty. Madam Speaker, we do not want that situation in this country. So, we should treat TB as a national security threat, to give it all the support that it deserves.
Madam Speaker, the other problem with TB treatment and HIV in this country is the financing gap. The money that should go into the treatment is probably, either dwindling or unavailable. So, it is worrying when you realize that those
Dr Kofi Asare (NPP -- Akwatia) 12:20 p.m.
Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to associate myself with the Statement made by the Vice Chairman of the Committee and I want to congratulate the Ghana Health Service and the TB programme for the tremendous success that they have achieved. It has not been easy over the years and I think we all need to thank them for what they are doing.
Madam Speaker, a paragraph in the Statement said.
“The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that Ghana should be detecting 203 per 100,000 but we are detecting only 63 per 100,000”
That is a big minus on our programme but these estimates are also based on world prevalence situations. We need to know
what the prevalence in Ghana is. I am afraid the last time we did a prevalence study in this country was in 1957, at the time of our Independence and that is 53 years ago. The situation has changed and we need to do a prevalence study to give us a better understanding of the TB situation in our country.
The programme has put up some financing but I understand there is a deficit of US$1.5 million and I think the Ministry -- Government -- and I saw the Deputy Minister for Finance and Economic Planning a few seconds ago -- that they should all put their heads together to make the money available to us for the programme to do this all- important prevalence study that will give us the true situation -- so that the Hon Deputy Minister who I know worships very well in the Presbyterian Church does not become a danger to himself when he goes to worship his Maker as ably said by Hon Muntaka. So Madam Speaker, these are some of the difficulties that they are facing doing their job.
The theme for this year is:
“On the move against Tuberculosis, innovate to accelerate action.”
We have all talked about drug resistance and we have ourselves to blame as has been said. One of the problems of drug resistance in tuberculosis has to do with the dual infection of HIV and TB. In our environment, anybody who comes down with HIV is said to have been Jujued and therefore, they do not seek real medical attention. They wander from prayer centres to juju centres, from herbalists and any other place apart from the hospitals. And dual infection is the number one killer of people living with AIDS and in their movement, they are spreading the disease and resistance in HIV infected people is higher than in any other case.
Therefore, we hope that this year, the
Madam Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Thank you, Hon Member.
Mr Mathias A. Puozaa (NDC -- Nadowli East) 12:20 p.m.
Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this Statement ably made by the Vice Chairman of the Health Select Committee.
It is surprising that the disease is on the ascendency instead of declining because Government is making so much effort in order to control it. But as stated, in 2008, as many as 14,478 cases were reported. In 2009, there was an increase instead of a decrease, so you have 15,298 for that year and it is rather worrying because so
much is being done to encourage patients to report at the hospitals.
For instance, we have what is referred to as the Enablers' Package. By this, patients are really encouraged by giving them free treatment. Anyway, TB treatment is free all over but they are given free treatment and given food to live on until the next visit. Apart from that, people are assigned to accompany these people and encourage them to really take the drug. So one can say that Government or for that matter, the Ministry tries as much as humanly possible to get people to take the drug. But unfortunately, people are not doing so, they are not really trying to help themselves.
Now, one may ask why this increase when there should be a decrease? I think the main problem is the stigma attached to TB. TB is seen just like an elder brother or a younger brother of AIDS. People with AIDS are very, very shy to be mentioned even in public. Similarly, TB patients find it very difficult to mix with other people because of the stigma attached. A patient drinks from a cup and even people do not want to get near to the fellow.
There was an instance where somebody I knew many years ago -- we lived, drank and did a lot of things together for more than 20 years, not knowing that the fellow was a carrier until eventually he had to go to hospital and died. It was pronounced that he was a TB patient; meanwhile, he knew of it but kept it silent from us.
So, it was simply because the gentleman did not want -- unfortunately, he is no more -- he did not want to be known and identified as somebody who could not be trusted and moved with.
So I think Government or for that matter the Ministry should lay more emphasis, on giving publicity to TB just like we have been doing to AIDS. In that we should let people understand that TB unlike AIDS, is curable. AIDS so far, I think can only be managed; the technical people are here.
We can only manage AIDS but TB is curable, so I think we should lay emphasis on this to encourage people to really -- just know that you are sick, go for the treatment and you would be cured. So we should really encourage TB patients to access the facilities that are available.
With this short addition, I wish to support seriously the TB programme and expect Government to give more publicity to the programme than they are doing at the moment.
Madam Speaker 12:30 p.m.
We now move to item 6 -- Commencement of Public Business and Laying of Papers.
PAPERS 12:30 p.m.
Mr Cletus A. Avoka 12:30 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I want to crave your indulgence and that of this august House, for motion number 7 to be taken this morning by the Deputy Minister for Finance and Economic Planning -- he is available. I pray that he will be permitted.
Madam Speaker 12:30 p.m.
He is craving indul- gence for the Deputy Minister to lay the Paper instead of the Minister.
Mrs Gifty E. Kusi 12:30 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I have no objection.
Yes, Deputy Minister, move your procedural motion number 7.
MOTIONS 12:30 p.m.
Mr Joseph Y. Chireh 12:30 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I beg tosecond the motion.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
BILLS -- SECOND READING 12:30 p.m.
Chairman of the Committee (Mr James K. Avedzi) 12:30 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I rise to support the motion moved by the Deputy Minister for Finance and
Mr Terkpeh 12:30 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I beg to move, that not withstanding the provisions of Standing Order 128 (1) which require that when a Bill has been read a Second time it shall pass through a Consideration Stage which shall not be taken until at least forty-eight hours have elapsed, the Consideration Stage of the 2009 supplementary Appropriation Bill may be taken today.
Mr Joseph Y. Chireh 12:30 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I beg to second the motion and urge Hon Colleagues to vote for it.
Question put and motion agreed to.
SPACE FOR FIRST SCHEDULE 12:30 p.m.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 12:30 p.m.
STAGE 12:30 p.m.
Chairman of the Finance Committee (Mr James K. Avedzi) 12:30 p.m.
Madam Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, line 3, between “hundred” and “forty-seven” insert “and”.
There is an omission of “and” so that it will read, “nine hundred and forty-seven” instead of “nine hundred forty-seven”. It is a drafting issue which can be taken care of.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 1 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Long Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Madam Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon Members, this is the end of the Consideration Stage of the 2009 Supplementary Appropriation Bill.
MR. FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr Gershon K. B. Gbediame 2:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is being suggested that, we
Dr A. A. Osei 2:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is a reason for this confusion, and I think the Hon Chairman understands. The Hon Chairman made some statements to Committee members but then he forgot that he had said it was of an urgent nature so it is being advertised for tomorrow. As you can see, even most of the Committee members are not around. I am surprised that having had that discussion, this would occur. I plead that it is important but then it would be useful if Hon Members of this side come to the floor of the House so that we can do it properly. This number is not suggestive of a very serious matter. [Interruption.]
Please! It has been advertised for tomorrow so you see that my people are not here -- It is a Resolution -- and my Leadership knows that it has been advertised for tomorrow. So, if you can give us a few minutes and the Leaders can discuss it and then we can come back and resolve it. At least, let the Leaders talk because they left knowing that it is tomorrow and I have not been given instructions to that effect.
So I think the Leaders should meet and let us see the way forward. I think it is important that my Leadership does not think that I am usurping their powers because they are fully aware that it would be taken tomorrow.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
You have made your point. Hon Akoto Osei, you know that when the Second Reading came, you saw the sense of the House? I even wanted to make some submissions but the way you reacted, I quickly developed cold feet and I decided not to take part. It means that the Committee has agreed that this is not a contentious issue.
Dr A. A. Osei 2:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is not contentious. My only worry is that the

FIRST SCHEDULE (SECTION
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
I know but there is no amendment here. We have finished the Consideration Stage which is the most important stage. We have done it before, so I just want us to finish this one and then we know that we have laid it to rest.
Dr A. A. Osei 2:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not disagree with you. I just want either the Hon Deputy Majority Leader to inform -- This is because they met early on and they did not tell me that they were going to do this. So I just want to inform them, so that, at least, I am not seen as just usurping their powers.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
I will come back to you, Hon Deputy Majority Leader.
Chairman of the Committee?
Mr Avedzi 2:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you rightly said that this is not a contentious issue and I believe strongly that my Hon Ranking Member, if he or even the Leadership here tells the Leadership of the other side, it will be something that they will willingly accept. Moving the motion for the Third Reading cannot bring the Hon Minister back from the office here just to come and do that tomorrow.
We want to plead with him that once the Hon Minister is already here, let us just go ahead and finish with the Third Reading because this is something to fulfil the constitutional requirement. So I plead with my Hon Colleague to accept that we do that now.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
Are you ready for that, Hon Dr.Akoto Osei?
Dr A. A. Osei 2:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you can give us 30 seconds for us to consult.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Very well. [Pause.]
Hon Member for Sene, you have finished your consultation?
Mr Twumasi-Appiah 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am grateful they have finished their consultations in view of the fact that the Committee's own Report of which I am a member and my Chairman is a member, recommends the urgency of this particular motion. So I will also want to add my voice, pleading with him to allow the Third Reading to be taken now in view of the fact that tomorrow, we have other pressing issues that this House should be able to consider.
Thank you very much.
Dr A. A. Osei 12:50 p.m.
We agreed that there is no fundamental problem. What I was not sure was what led the Leadership to put it tomorrow; they did not tell us the reason that informed it and that was why I wanted them to tell us. That notwithstanding, I plead with Hon Members that it is not a controversial issue, we can seek permission to amend the Order Paper so that the Third Reading can be taken.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Thank you -- the last submission on this point.
Mr Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, on this note, may I beg to move, that we amend the Order Paper for today to accommodate the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, 2009. Mr Speaker, since it is not against our Standing Orders, we may take it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Yes, I
think that what they are really going to do there should have been an addendum to the Order Paper. The Table Office will know how to go about it to cure the absence of that matter. If only you have got the terms of the procedural motion, that will have to be moved before we get there, then I will call on the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance and Economic Planning to move the procedural motion first, if he has got it.
Have you got the terms of the procedural motion? Because if you do not move the procedural motion, you cannot go to the terms of the substantive motion. Have you got the procedural motion there?
Mr Terkpeh 12:50 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Very well, then move it accordingly.
Suspension of Standing Order 131
(1)
Mr Terkpeh 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that notwithstanding the provisions of Standing order 131 (1) which require that when a Bill has passed through the Consideration Stage, the Third Reading thereof shall not be taken until at least twenty-four hours have elapsed, the motion for the Third Reading of the 2009 Supplementary Appropriation Bill, may be moved today.
Mr Chireh 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to second this motion and urge all my Friends to vote for it.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
BILLS -- THIRD READING 12:50 p.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Dr Akoto Osei, in view of the fact that these days we try to pass the Appropriation Bill before the beginning of the financial year and then the Supplementary Appropria-tion Bill of 2009 then comes later, after we have passed the Appropriation Bill of 2010, do you not think that the time has come for us to take a second look at this practice? In fact, that was going to be my submission this morning before you came in to support the motion with a few words. If you pass the Budget -- For example, this is 2010 and we pass the 2010 Budget this year, then you say you will bring the Supplementary Appropriation Bill the next financial year, it makes sense. But where we have passed 2010's, and we are now passing what has been spent in 2009 after the 2010 Appropriation, it makes it redundant.
Dr A. A. Osei 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that we have a Constitution. The Constitution says that is what we must do. So we are restrained by the Constitution; so I suggest that maybe, you propose this as one of the reviews for the Constitution. But article 179 (9) is what we are working under.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
I have looked at 179 (9) --
Mr Chireh 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree entirely with the suggestions that you have made. And it is about time for us to propose that an amendment be made to that part of the Constitution. Even if it is an entrenched one, fortunately for us, there is a Constitutional Review Committee and this is one of the things that while you are presiding over affairs now, you can ask the Clerk to Parliament to communicate immediately.
Mr Chireh 12:50 p.m.


This is because it makes a lot of sense; when people are about to debate the Supplementary Budget, they should be looking at what the law is saying and it should be passed at the time this is done. But not one year after, that is not proper. Particularly it goes against the spirit of this Constitution, to be making retroactive laws.

This is a law we have passed, and for the fact that it is within the Constitution itself, we should make it more compliant with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. So we should make such a recommendation.
MrTwumasi-Appiah 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thankfully, like he said, we have the Constitutional Review Committee and the issues that are supposed to go before them to be amended or not, I do not think, falls within the mouth of my good Friend to recommend. These are very good issues you have raised, very debatable.
I want to support also the position of Dr Anthony Akoto Osei and also to say that the laws make provision for this particular exercise we are doing in anticipation that -- I was even referring you, that is why if you look at, Mr Speaker, the enactment that we are making now or the Bill on item 2, it talks about the commencement of this Act that shall come into effect on 27th day of August, 2009.
Mr Speaker, in the minds of the framers of the Constitution, it was anticipated that we may not be having this situation every year. A year may come that we may not even spend in excess of what provisions have been made in the Appropriation Bill at all. So you would not have had any need to go back to enact any other additional expenditure to bring before Parliament for passage. That is why I think this Bill must be left as it is --
We cannot say as a nation that at every point in time we will be overspending in excess of the budgetary provision that has been made for us.
So Mr Speaker, once again, aspects which are to be amended in the Consti- tution and which should not be amended does not lie in the mouth of my good Friend to urge you to make a recommenda-tion to the Constitutional Review Committee.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Hon Members, I do not want to take further submissions on this matter. But this is something that has been agitating my mind all this while, especially when the Budget is read before the beginning of a new financial year.
MOTIONS 1 p.m.
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Gershon K. B. Gbediame) 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that this Honourable House adopts the Report of the Committee on Lands and Forestry on the Annual Report of the Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands for the year ended 31st December
2006.
1.0 Introduction
1.1 The Annual Report of the Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands (OASL) for the year ended 31st December, 2006 was laid before Parliament on Tuesday, 9th June, 2009 pursuant to section 14 of OASL Act, 1994 (Act 481) and referred to the Committee on Lands and Forestry for consideration and report in accordance with Order 177 of the Standing Orders of the House.
1.2 The Committee met with the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources (MLNR), his Deputy, the Administrator of Stool Lands and the officials of the OASL to deliberate on the Report. The
Committee is grateful to them for their input.
2.0 Reference
2.1 The Committee referred to the following documents during its deliberations:
i. The 1992 Constitution;
ii. The Standing Orders; iii. The Office of the Administrator
of Stool Lands Act, 1994 (Act
481).
3.0 Establishment and Mandate of
OASL 1 p.m.
Mr J. B. Aidoo (NPP - Amenfi East) 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to second the motion and to say that the Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands is a constitutional body with the mandate to collect stool lands revenue for disbursement to beneficiary communities and traditional authorities as well.
Mr Speaker, last week, the Committee on Lands and Forestry brought before this House two Reports, one relating to the financial year, 2004 and then the other one 2005 of this particular Office. And
Mr Speaker, the observations made in the Report being considered today, that is the Report for 2006 does not differ from the two previous Reports.
Two critical issues come up. One relates to the issue of defaulting by companies and then individuals who are to pay ground rents. The other issue is about the utilization of the 55 per cent of the stool lands revenue that goes to the District Assemblies.
Mr Speaker, it will interest this august House to note that the 55 per cent of the stool lands revenue that goes to the District Assembly is used for recurrent expenditure, to the extent that they use this money for sitting allowances, travelling and transport, buying of wax prints and other things, and once it is being used for recurrent expenditure, it does not reflect in the lives of the communities that
TABLE HERE 1.00 P.M.

are affected by either mining or timber operations. So we are recommending that the Ministry should come out with guidelines in respect of the utilization of stool lands revenue.

We are also asking that there should be an L.I. to give a legal backing to the Administrator of Stool Lands to enable this office actually and effectively deal with defaulting of payment of ground rents.

Mr Speaker, this is not a controversial Report and I will urge Hon Members to support the motion on the floor of this House.

With this, I thank you.

Question proposed.

Mr Herod Cobbina (NDC - Sefwi

Akontombra): Mr Speaker, I rise to support the motion.

Mr Speaker, I believe if you look at the

Report of the Committee, the performance of the Office has been encouraging for the past ten years. The Office was able to establish 70 offices in the districts. Even though it is encouraging, we hope that the Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands (OASL) should be encouraged to open more offices and equip them with staff and other logistics to enable them to mobilise revenue for the development of our country.

The OASL collaborated a lot with the

Forestry Commission, Minerals Commis- sion, Land Valuation Board and Land Title Registry. All these agencies create

wealth for the nation so it is important that we consider and assist the agencies to generate more revenue for the nation.

Mr Speaker, another area that the

OASL performed creditably was conflict resolution. We all know that land is associated with conflict. The OASL was able to resolve so many conflicts in some of the districts. And they are supported, they will be able to expand their activities and settle more conflicts in other parts of the country.

All that we are saying is that the OASL

needs a Legislative Instrument (LI.) to back its activities. Like Hon J. B. Aidoo said, if in the collection of revenue there was a default, there is no way money can be retrieved by hand unless it goes to court. But there is no L.I. which backs all these things. If all these things are supported, I believe the OASL will do better.

With these few words, I pray that the motion be carried by this House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon Adjei- Yeboah?
Mr Adjei-Yeboah 1:10 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Is that the name?
Mr Adjei-Yeboah 1:10 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Yes, go ahead.
Mr Andrews Adjei-Yeboah (NPP - Tano South) 1:10 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity given to me to add my voice to the motion on the floor.
Mr Andrews Adjei-Yeboah (NPP - Tano South) 1:10 p.m.
Added to it also is the delay that is associated with it, especially with royalties that are coming from the Forestry Commission. Both institutions are under the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources. But in most cases, the Forestry Commission sits on the money and does not release it. When we were there, we made a lot of efforts to make sure that these moneys were released to the OASL after they have taken their Commission so that the OASL can pass the money on to the beneficiaries.
We were encouraged yesterday and even as we look at the Report that yes, now the Hon Minister is on the Forestry Commission to make sure that the moneys are released to the OASL to enable it to give them out to the beneficiaries for them to use in performing.
Mr Speaker, these moneys are needed for development. These moneys are essential so that pressures that are going to go on to Central Government can then be relocated to District Assemblies if the moneys are there. But if they are not coming, then unnecessarily, lawmakers become automatic agents of development and then pressure is brought on us to provide schools, roads, clinics and all those things. But if these moneys do go and go well, then the District Assemblies will have some resources in providing some of these development infrastructure for the respective communities.
Much has been said about the L.I. and I believe, even as we discussed yesterday, I know for a fact that when they bring it

we are going to encourage and support it so that they have teeth to bite; defaulters can be brought to book and punished if they are not paying.

Mr Speaker, on this note, I thank you for the opportunity given to me to contribute to the motion.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon Members, that brings us to the end of the debate on the Committee's Report.
Do you want to wind up? There is no winding up; this is not a controversial Report. I would put the Question.
Question put and motion agreed to
Resolved accordingly.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon Members, I wanted to take refuge in Standing Order 53 (2) by bringing the Committee of the Whole first, in the sense that while we finish, they can go and be writing the Report which can be taken tomorrow. But I have been informed that the officials of the OASL are yet to be here. But we want to take it, so while we are working on the draft Report, then the Consideration Stage of the Plants Bill, 2009 can be going on so that tomorrow morning we can take it. If we take it very late, it will be difficult getting a proper Report done in the morning for it to be taken

Hon Minority Leader, I am now seeing you for the first time.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, I have been in and out. I came here, stepped out for a meeting, came in and stepped out again. This is my third time of entry.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
I see. Very well. That is what I am proposing, Hon Deputy Majority Leader, that we start the Consideration Stage. Once the officials from the Common Fund Administrator's outfit come, we suspend and we go into the Committee of the Whole, and while they are writing the Report for tomorrow, we can continue with the Consideration Stage.
Mr Pelpuo 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are agreeing with you. I think it is a laudable proposal and -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Very well. Plants Bill, 2009 at the Consideration Stage, item 12.
BILLS - CONSIDERATION STAGE 1:20 p.m.
Mr William Ofori Boafo 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 49, subclause (4), line 1, after “Inspector” insert “on production of an identity card”.
Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment to clause 49 is to ensure that we do away with the selective production of identity cards. A close look at clause 49 indicates that as it stands now, clause 49 (iv), the Inspector is required only to produce identity cards under clause 49 (iv) (a) and (iv) (e). The proposed amendment is to ensure that in every instance where he seeks to enter premises or storages or ask for an inspection of seeds or copies of documents and so forth, he is required to produce an identification card to ensure that he has the authority to do so.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Have you finished moving the amendment?
Mr Boafo 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I accordingly move for the proposed amendment.
Mr Pelpuo 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 49 (ii) has rendered his proposal unnecessary, because it provides for all that he is asking for in the provision of identity cards for inspectors and producing them when they are doing inspection. It is already taken care of.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
The point that he is making is that the identity card should apply whenever they perform any function of inspection and that it should not be limited to what is captured in 49 (ii). Clause 49 (ii) does not cover all the situations where an inspector is performing his functions. That is the point he is making.
Mr Boafo 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, 49 (ii) indicates that identity card would be issued to the Inspector and he should carry it along. Clause 49 (iv) specifies situations where the inspector is required by this law -- it is not an option for him to produce the identity card.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Hon Boafo, the point being made by the Hon Deputy Majority Leader, I am now seeing it. It is that of the inspector's powers - So once one is going to exercise that power, one must have an identity card under clause 49 (ii).
Mr Boafo 1:20 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker. Clause 49 (iv) further requires that in certain specific situations he is required to produce -- Generally, he is to be in possession of an identity card, but if he decides to exercise his powers under a specified situation provided in clause 49 (iv) - So the need -- for the production of an identity card under 49 (iv) is not otiose; it is a specific instance. Clause 49 (ii) is a generality, it is a generic provision, but 49 (iv) is specific.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Yes, the point being made -- Just before I call the Hon Minority Leader, the point being made by the Hon Deputy Majority Leader is that once one is an inspector,and performing any functions as an inspector under this Act, one has to have an identity card and therefore, it is superfluous to bring it under 49 (iv) because under this Act -- So once one is an inspector under this Act, performing any of one's functions, exercising any of one's powers, then one will have to get an identity card.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I initially was minded to go with the Hon Deputy Majority Leader. But upon careful reading, I realise -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
I was also carried away initially by Hon Boafo but after also looking at 49 (ii), I think that the Hon Deputy Majority Leader, too, seems to be making a point there.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
No, Mr Speaker. Upon careful reading, you would realise that the Hon Member for Akropong, Mr Boafo, is right. All that he is doing or seeking to do -- If you read clause 49 (iv), the requirement to produce the identity card is embedded in clause 49 (iv). He is only bringing it up so that it

qualifies the opening paragraph of clause 49 (iv) and thereby render what obtains in clsuse 49 (iv) (a) -- because we have the production of the identity card in clause 49 (iv) (a).

If you go further down, clause 49 (iv) (e) also requires the production of the identity card. So he is only bringing it up to the opening paragraph to render redundant its repetition in clause 49 (iv) (a) and clause 49 (iv) (e).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Yes, I have got the point. But the point that the Hon Deputy Majority Leader is making is that any function that you perform under this Act as an inspector, is obligatory; they use the word “shall”, one must carry an identity card. Any function a person performs as an inspector under this Act -- not even only clause 49, any other function that one performs one must carry an identity card under this Act. So he is arguing that in view of that it might not be necessary to introduce it at clause 49 (iv). Do you get the submission?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, your own intervention seeks to introduce a new dimension. This is because if we do not go by his suggestion, or the proposal by the Hon Member for Akropong, we would then be forced to leave it as it stands. And then if you read clause 49 (iv) (a), the requirement to produce the identity card before the inspection is provided for in clause 49 (iv) (a). If you peruse the other provisions covered by the various alphabetical arrangements, they are there.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
I think the point is now clear. So if we have production of identity cards in clause 49 (iv) (a), then it must run through up to (e) by introducing it at where the Hon Member for Akropong is also introducing it or we delete the “production” there completely and maintain clause 49 (ii) to
take care of all the situations.
Hon Deputy Majority Leader, the problem is with clause 49 (a). If your argument is to be taken, then why did they put “identity card” at 49, (a)?
Mr Pelpuo 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the
requirements there would be that as soon as it is introduced in line 1, as he has said, then the repetitions in the subclauses would no longer be necessary so that that adjustment would just come in line 1.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr Boafo 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 49, subclause (4), paragraph (a), lines 1 and 2, delete “on production of an identity card”.
Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment in respect of subclause 4 (a) is consequential to the early on amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Boafo 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 49, subclause (4), paragraph (e), lines 1 and 2, delete “on production of approved identification”.
The proposed amendment to sub-clause 4 (e) is also consequential.
Question put and amend ment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 49, subclause (7), line 3, at end, add “immediately”.
It is just to underline the urgency with which the Inspector must place the notice on the seed. We are talking about seed here and we do not want too much time to be left in between for the wrong things
Mr Pelpuo 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are worried about the grammar. The concord does not appear elegant. Maybe, we could say “shall immediately” so that - [Interruption.]
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, while agreeing to the need to add the word “immediately”, where the Chairman is proposing it be situated is grammatically incorrect. It should be after the word “shall” in line 2 --
“The Inspector shall immediately issue any notice to that effect to the owner of the seeds or the person selling the seeds.”
That is grammatically tenable.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Hon Members, then somebody should move that new amendment.
Mr Kyei-Mensah Bonsu 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, accordingly moved.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
So the new rendition is that the “immediately” should come after shall in line 2, between “shall” and “issue”. Is that correct?
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Boafo 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, after carefully reading subclauses 10 and 11 together I have decided to withdraw the proposed amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Very
well. So the amendment to subclause 10 accordingly withdrawn.
Mr Boafo 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes.
Dr Alhassan 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 49, subclause (11), delete and insert the following:
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
Hon
Members, there is a problem there. It means that the Minister himself must do the disposal under the new rendition.
Chairman of the Committee, the
original rendition is that it should be at his instance but right now you are saying that the Minister should dispose of it. Is it practical?
Mr Boafo 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this is only in respect of the new proposal -- line two, the second “with” should be changed. “. . . in accordance with directives of the court” and not “directives with the court”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:30 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, I believe the intendment of the proposal by the Chairman is that a disposal shall be upon the instructions of the Minister in accordance with directives by the court. So
“Seeds which are confiscated shall be disposed of upon the instruc-tions of the Minister in accordance with directives by the court.”
I think that should be the proper sense.
Mr Chireh 1:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we
should replace this whole disposal matter to the extent that it should be “with the directives of the court or by the court”. Now the Hon Minister cannot issue other directives. It is the court which will say how it should be disposed of. So we should delete, if he agrees, as we want to do, where the Hon Minister is to give the directives.

Once we have two individuals there, the court and the Minister, one of them should be giving the instruction and that is the court unless the confiscation was not made by the court. If any con-fiscations are made by the court, the court will look at what confiscating powers are in the law enabling the court to do that. So we should not have “with directives from the Minister and the court”. We are playing two powers against each other. It should be strictly in accordance with the directives of the court.

If the Chairman is not minded to agree with me, I still think that we cannot have a situation where we say “with the court”, no, “directives of the court” or “from the court”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
So, you are suggesting that we should remove “the Minister” completely?
Yes, Hon Member for Akropong?
Mr Boafo 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, when a court gives an order, there is a body within the judicial system which carries out court orders, that is the Sheriff Section. I believe that the rationale behind giving the power to the Minister is to indicate that, in this particular case, if the court gives the direction, it is not the Bailiff or the Sheriff who is to carry out the directives, but it is a Ministerial affair. As a matter of fact, it is not the Hon Minister who is going to carry out the disposal. He will ensure that it is carried out by his officers.
So, I believe the idea is to take it away from implementation by the Sheriff's outfit to the Ministerial section.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Can it be argued that since the disposal is to be done by the Hon Minister, if somebody
else does it, can one say that the disposal is unlawful? Can that argument crop up, as you were saying, that they want to put the obligation on the Minister, and put it in Ministerial realm? And the disposal is done by some other body apart from the Hon Minister. Can somebody say that the disposal is unlawful?
Mr Boafo 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, precisely so. Mr Speaker, it is just like a court having ordered a sale of property, and it is taken to an auction, and instead of an auctioneer doing it, somebody else does it under the Auction Sales Act; that is precisely so. If the law says it should be the Minister, and somebody else does it, then it is grounds for setting the disposal aside on grounds of irregularity. This is the practice.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Yes, Chairman, then the Hon Deputy Majority Leader.
Dr Alhassan 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, let us
convince ourselves that we are talking about seed here, and a lot of technical processes must have taken place to conclude that that is not suitable seed, and therefore, it has to be disposed of. Indeed, the original draft gave the powers to the Minister to do so even without resorting to the courts, but during committee discussions, we felt that some litigants may take advantage of that, that is why we thought the Minister should, at least, report to the courts to get the order to dispose of the material that is not suitable, anyway. If it is not the Minister or the Ministry that is doing it, and for some reason, the seed gets out into the public domain, an entire agricultural system will be under threat, and that is why we have to be careful so that we do not open to many gaps for litigants to take advantage of.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Yes, let me hear you, Hon Member for Sene (Mr.Felix Twumasi-Appiah).
Mr Felix Twumasi-Appiah 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to support the position of my Hon Good Friend here. And indeed, he has even made my point easier, because I do not think the court will make any ruling based on any unfounded technical expertise. When a court makes a ruling, it is based on this technical expertise that may be provided by the Minister. And for that matter, I think that if the court -- Just as lawyers will say, when the court gives an order and one does not go along with the order, it becomes a contempt of court, and one will even have a bigger punishment unlike the initial one.
Mr Speaker, I strongly believe that if this exercise is left in the hands of the court, they will use appropriate means or measures to ensure that the seeds are being well disposed of instead of us taking the power back to the Ministerial section. Indeed, it is even the same Minister through whose advice the court will rule whether the seeds are suitable or not. So, I would want to go with the position of Hon Yieleh Chireh.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Hon Members, the point that is being made by the Hon Member for Akropong, and indeed, the Chairman of the Committee is that they want to attach some Ministerial responsibility to it, because the technical people who are involved in these processes are under the Minister. And they want a certain kind of Ministerial responsibility, that is why the framers have put “the Minister” here, except that it should be done in accordance with the rule of law. That is why they brought the court into it in that amendment.
The point now is that, if you put “the Minister” there, the way the rendition is -- That is why the Hon Minority Leader is trying to introduce a certain rendition
there. If they put “the Minister” there, then the Minister must be involved in all corners of Ghana. The Minister must personally be involved in the actual disposal, and in m y opionin, a litigant can go and exploit that small thing.
So, if you can get some rendition that does not create the impression that it is the Minister who must go - “by the Minister”, so that the Minister is involved, maybe at his -- As for the court, it has given the order. Who is going to do it? Is it the Minister himself? I think that that is the submission coming from both sides, so I want us to get it right so that we can reconcile our various positions and I will put the Question.
Yes, Hon Deputy Minority Leader?
Mr Ambrose P. Dery 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you look at clause 11 -- and we are talking about a disposal upon the orders or directives or instructions of a court -- It means that the Ministry will have to go to the court to get the order. Now, when the Minister has gone to court to get the order, we cannot then say that it should be subject to the directives of the Minister again, because the court would then order the disposal -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
Hon Dery, the amendment there is the:
“. . . dispose of by the Minister in accordance with the directives of the court”.
That is the amendment. -- [Pause.] -- “Dispose of by the Minister. . .” -- [Pause.]
Yes, Hon Dery?
Mr Dery 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, why are we insisting on tagging “the Minister” after “the disposal by the court.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
After “the
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.


order by the court”?
Mr Dery 1:40 p.m.
Yes, after “the order by the court”. Why should we say it is the Minister who should do that? It is not necessary to do that because the judicial authority would have then issued instructions, and it would be carried out.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
They have
argued that they want the Minister to be responsible for it, that is why they put it there. That the submission by the Hon Member for Akropong (Mr W. O. Boafo) and the Chairman of the Committee (Dr. A. Y. Alhassan), they want to put that responsibility on the Minister to make him guard it cautiously so that it does not get out of hands and create other problems in the system.
That is the submission that was made by the Hon Member for Akropong before you came, and the Chairman of the Committee in that matter. And I thought that I should let you know so that you can be well informed in your submission.
Mr Dery 1:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Judiciary arm has been disposing and destroying things and objects including narcotics, contaminated foods, and what have you. So, there is an established procedure for that, it is tested. And it is normally done in the presence of interested parties as you know. Because when the order is given, the disposal process is normally supervised, it is not done in secret, it is done publicly.
Mr Speaker, we should not try to re- invent the wheel. When it has been ordered by the court that it should be destroyed, there are established procedures that apply. And in that process, the Ministry will be involved, because that is what normally happens.
This is because whoever sends the application is present at the destruction. That is why when courts have ordered that expired or contraband goods that
have been imported into the country should be destroyed. Customs, Excise and Preventive Service (CEPS) is present -- CEPS is present. So, the requisite government institution is normally present when this destruction is taking place.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
I will take
the last two on this matter.
Mr Chireh 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that the point that he has made is exactly what we should do. Mr Speaker, the courts cannot on its own confiscate any seeds, no. It is somebody who goes to say that this is the evidence that it is no good seed, it must be destroyed.
Well, you can see the number of courts in Ghana, and where it can happen. Therefore, it is only the officials of the Ministry who will send each case to court. The court says destroy the thing and that is supervised by the court. I am saying one cannot put the Minister against the court on --
Now, if we put it there, then we are introducing bureaucracy in the sense that after a court has ordered, one will wait until the Minister gives directives for the thing to be destroyed. Please, let us leave out the Minister once we are talking about a court. It is the Minister who is sending the case to court. It is the Minister who will decide how the disposals should be done so I think the Chairman should agree with me. The Ministerial responsibility is not at the level of the courts.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Chairman of the Committee, the point being made now is that they have confiscated something in Mion. The Minister is not there, they might be officials, but they have to make sure that they get the Minister to dispose of it after the court has made an order, it will introduce too much
bureaucracy into the system.
That is the submission being made and the way your rendition is, it creates the impression that it is the Minister who must do the disposal. But when you say it is the Minister who must do it, if any other person does it, it raises an issue of illegality.
Yes, respond. That is why we have a committee, that is why a committee must go and get all the answers.
Dr Alhassan 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am not a lawyer but I thought that in this particular context ,disposing of does not necessarily mean destroying the item. The Hon Deputy Minority Leader was making my point when he said it is actually the Minister that has gone to the court to ask for legal permission to dispose of the item, so he must be the one doing it and not some other entity.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
The point that the Hon Deputy Minority Leader is making is that, look, it is they who will go to court, so they will be part of the process of the disposal. So it will be superfluous to mention the Minister in that clause because they are the ones who will send the person to court anyway. They are interested parties and the court cannot make an order ignoring them. In any case the lawyer representing the Ministry will make sure that their interest is taken care of in the court.
Hon Member, I think that this argument is now becoming clearer.
Dr Alhassan 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought that if the Minister is going to court, he must be asking for permission or an order to dispose of the item himself, not to ask the court to take over the disposal process. If he goes to court then he is asking --
Mr David Assumeng 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I had a personal experience in my constituency. Recently, I caused the arrest of some large quantity of rice seed which was contaminated and was imported illegally into the country. I reported the issue to the police in Akuse and the issue went to court. Up to today, the court cannot order how this produce should be disposed of. So I think that the court should also be mandated, such that they can also help in disposing of this produce.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Clement K. Humado 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the difficulty here is that the Bill that we are passing is also crafted within some international protocols. One of the international protocols is that of the international Plant Protection Convention which places responsibility of disposal on an authorized officer designated by the Ministry; so that is where the difficulty is.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Hon Members, I direct that having regard to the state of business of the House, Sitting be held outside the prescribed period in line with Standing Order 40 (3).
Yes, continue.
Mr Humado 1:50 p.m.
So I would want to draw the attention of Hon Members to this fact that, this Bill is crafted also within an international protocol, that of the International Plant Protection Convention, which puts the responsibility of destruction of such seeds and plant materials on the Ministry.
So I would want to suggest that as a compromised rendition, seeds which are confiscated shall be disposed of by an officer of the Minister, in accordance with directives of the court.
Mr Dery 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that we should be clear on something. The applicant for the order to dispose of must be the Minister that is -
Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
-- or an
officer of the Minister -
Mr. Dery 1:50 p.m.
Or an officer acting on his
behalf. Now, after the court has ordered its disposal, the Minister or the representative would be present because that is an order in response to the application. When we now say, “by the directives of the Minister,” what we are trying to do is to eliminate the partici-pation of the court process which is rather counter-productive. The court would not eliminate the applicant because that is the judgement creditor in a sense. But the court will be present to make sure that it is done as one has applied.
Now, as he said, it might not necessarily be destruction but one's application will tell the court the method of disposal, and then the court will grant it. Once the court has granted it, the court officials and officials of the applicant Ministry will go ahead and deal with it. If we now say that it should then be left to the discretion of the Minister or the Minister per se, then that means that we are going to restrict it to the Minister and that is where we can actually have abuse. One has gone -- they have granted it, the disposal would be as one has requested and the court processes to assist one -- there is no problem at all.
Mr Pelpuo 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that the responsibility of the Minister in this Bill to carry out the destruction or disposal or otherwise of seeds found not to be in accordance with the standards we are asking for is paramount and cannot be left out.
If we look at clause 31, subclauses 1 and 2, we find that the position of the Minister in this respect is very crucial. It is unavoidably so, because when an
aggrieved person or if an aggrieved person decides to appeal, he appeals to the Minister to stay execution of the directives. The Minister upon examining the appeal and -- let me read it so that it will be clear:
“An owner or occupier of premises of an operator of a carrier aggrieved by a decision of a designated officer to destroy, dispose or treat plant materials, beneficial organisms, soil or any plant or plants products being exported may appeal to the Minister.”
When an appeal is filed, the Minister takes reasonable steps to stay the intended action to destroy, dispose or treat the plant or plant products being exported -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Hon Member, that is the administrative procedures but we are talking about court situation.
Mr Pelpuo 1:50 p.m.
So I am just saying that because of the position of the Minister in this respect, it is still important to have consistency.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
Hon Deputy Majority Leader, how does that take away the powers in clause 31 that you referred to?
Mr Dery 1:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, look at the section that he is referring to and look at clause 4. Clause 4 says that where the complainant is dissastified with the decision of the Minister, the complainant may seek remedy in court. So it means that what the Chairman is amending, the effect of what he is doing now is good. Because beyond the Minister, there is recourse to due process and what the Chairman is now doing with this amendment is that the disposal should be upon the orders of the court which just settles it.
So in the end, you will agree that even by this law, although the responsibility is given to the Minister, the due process is still an avenue to go when there is disagreement. So where the two meet is when the Minister or his representative has made an application to the court for a disposal and the court then orders.
Clearly, the Minister or the represen- tative would go ahead and make sure that the order is enforced. That is the process, so the Minister is covered, internationally, we are covered. So there is no fear at all. I think the amendment should be made to stand the way it is because the applicant will be the Minister or the Minister's representative.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
So what is the new rendition now? Should it be the Minister's representative or the Minister?
Mr Pelpuo 2 p.m.
I think you are saying it
should be allowed to stay?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
Have you
reversed your position?
Mr Pelpuo 2 p.m.
You can bring it up.
Dr Alhassan 2 p.m.
I think the new rendition
would just be to replace the word “with” with “of” “ after “directives” and then it stays.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
Hon
Dery, is that what you are saying?
Mr Dery 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
“the seeds which are confiscated shall be disposed of in accordance with the directives of the court”.
Take off “the Minister” because the
Minister will be the one applying for the disposal.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
Chairman
of the Committee, you are the one who has gone to court, you are physically present, you are the one who is saying that the thing should be confiscated, they have made an order that it should be disposed of in any way; why should we put your name there, because you are the one who is going to court?
You are now the one who has taken the matter to court. Why do you think that your interest will not be taken on because you are the one - the court has made an order based on the application that you have sent for confiscation?
Dr Alhassan 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the
difficulty we have is that this is a Bill that is regulating individuals as actors and also a commodity that has to be carefully handled.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
Chairman of the Committee, you are the -- [Interruptions] - The Member for Anlo referred to an international protocol. If you remove “the Minister”, will it be infringing the international protocol?
Dr Alhassan 2 p.m.
We will have difficulty
. So we are thinking that -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
Will it
be an infringement of an international protocol if you remove the Minister from that amendment?
Dr Alhassan 2 p.m.
Yes, the international
protocol places the burden of responsibility with respect to these on the public agencies in charge.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
But
you also know that you cannot go and confiscate anybody's property just like that. You have to go to court, and that is why you have introduced the court there. You know that is why you have introduced the court there?
Dr Alhassan 2 p.m.
Yes.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
And so if
the court says that it should be disposed of in that way, what role is the Minister playing again?
Dr Alhassan 2 p.m.
Well, we were trying to
modify it so that we will see whether that will go down well. To say that
“seeds which are confiscated shall be disposed of by an officer determined by the Minister and in accordance with the directives of the court -- ”
Mr Dery 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, supposing
we said --
“seeds which are confiscated shall be disposed of upon application by the Minister in accordance with the directives of the court, --”
out of abundance of caution --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
No, there is a problem because the clause 31 or 32 that you referred to early on, the complainant too can go to court, and the court can make an order. It is not only the Minister who will go to court. If the complainant whose seeds are being -- If he is dissatisfied with the determination of the Minister ,he is allowed also to go to court and the court can also make a certain order.
Mr Dery 2 p.m.
Good, I go back to my
former rendition.
Thank you.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 2 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, from this clause 49, the seed can be confiscated by an inspector without recourse to a court. That is my understanding. He makes an order of confiscation. A person who is dissatisfied may go through a certain process. When he confiscates it, impliedly, it is the Ministry that takes custody of the seeds or plant or whatever. When a person is dissatisfied, it goes through a certain
process.
Ultimately, he goes to court, the court can either confirm the confiscation and make certain orders or determine that the confiscation is wrongful and it should be returned to the person from whom it was seized. So presumably, at every point in time, the confiscated material will be in the custody of the Minister and not the court. If the court says the confiscation is right, then the situation is kept as it is, everything will be in the custody of the Minister. And the Minister will have to determine what will happen to the confiscated seeds or plant.
In my opinion, I do not even see the point in the amendment that the Chairman is bringing. That is rather confusing the issue because --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
What
the new amendment is trying to do is to introduce the court there so that - to introduce the court in the process so that - compared to the original rendition that did not involve the court as if the Minister can go and --
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, even with this amendment, I believe that the Minister, after confiscation, unless the person is dissatisfied, can deal with the confiscated seeds or plant in whatever way he deems fit. All right. So if the thing goes to court and the court either confirms or determines that the confiscation is wrongful, it will either be two things -- return the property to the person from whom it was confiscated, or the Minister will deal with it as he deems fit.
Therefore, the purpose of this amendment presumably, is to make the Minister subject to the directives of the court, when the case goes to court. That is my understanding. Because, for instance, when narcotic goods are seized, one goes through a process, one
denies, one tenders it in evidence, the court orders that it be confiscated. And it is confiscated by the person who has possession of that particular commodity under the supervision of the court. So I do not really understand the difficulty here.
Mr Joseph B. Aidoo 2 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the amendment is relevant. Now, when you look at clause 11, subclause 11 is flowing from clause 10 and if you look at clause 10, it says where a person is convicted for an offence in relation to seeds, “the seed” which is the subject of the offence shall be confiscated to the State.
It means that the seed in question, that is the subject of confiscation, is already before the court because here we are talking about conviction of an offender and this conviction can only take place at the court.
So I want to believe that since clause 11 is flowing from clause 10, the amendment that is being proposed by the Deputy Minority Leader should hold and I want to support that.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Hon Members, I think that the Hon Member for Amenfi East has thrown in a very important dimension to the submission and if you read clauses 10 and 11 together, even in the original rendition, there is no need for the amendment because that confiscation they are talking about in clause 11 is based after the court case. So the clause 11 that they are talking about can only happen after the court process.
Mr Dery 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is why the
amendment is necessary. This is because when the court has taken a decision, it is not now subject to the directive of the
Hon Minister; that is the point. The Hon Minister can decide not to destroy it. You do not make the court's order subject to the direction of the Hon Minister; that is the point. The Hon Minister can decide not to destroy it. The Hon Minister is not superior. That is why the Hon Deputy Majority Leader's reference was spot-on because it tells you what the intendment of this Act is, that the Hon Minister has got the authority but the ultimate is with the court.
If you say that after that, it means the thing should be taken away from the court and then disposed of subject to the directives of the Hon Minister; he can decide that it should not be disposed of. Please, the simple thing is that it should be disposed of in accordance with the directives of the court, that is it and not that we should give the chance to the Hon Minister now to take it away and decide whether it should be destroyed or not.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Hon Member for Akropong, I will call you after the Hon Deputy Minority Leader.
Mr Dery 2:10 p.m.
It has to become an exhibit; it has to be brought under the control of the court for the destruction to take place. Otherwise, the police would take narcotics to the court, they would order that they should be destroyed and if it is subject to their directions, you know what will happen. So, the directives of the Hon Minister after the court order is just non sequitur, you cannot have that.
Dr Alhassan 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
No, I will come to you after listening to the Hon Member for Akropong, then you will have - and then I will start seeing how I can put the Question. So many amendments now.
Mr Boafo 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the purpose
of the amendment is not to empower the Hon Minister to give any instruction. The directives have already been given by the court. So what the Hon Minister is required to do under these circumstances is to supervise the destruction or any treatment that they will give to the confiscated plant. It may be a diseased plant which may pose a risk, spread of disease and so forth.
So if the court orders for its disposal, it requires the supervision of the Ministry to ensure that they are dealt with in a way that will not pose any risk to the society or the public. So, my understanding of “shall be disposed of by the Hon Minister” is only giving the Hon Minister a supervisory role over the disposal. So far as the instructions are concerned, the instructions have already been made by the court. The Hon Minister is not required to give any further instruction, so if the Hon Minority Leader's proposed amendment that it should be “with the instructions of the Minister” could be modified to read that “under the supervision of the Minister”, maybe, that would be accepted.
Dr Alhassan 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Chairman
of the Committee, I will come back to you. I think that after these two, we have to determine what we are going to do.
Dr Alhassan 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, Hon Papa
Owusu-Ankomah and Hon Boafo have made submissions well in terms of the legal language. I just wanted to add that even though disposal may include destruction,
Mr Dery 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that the
important point I am making about adding the directives of the Hon Minister after the court, is making whatever the court does subject to the directives of the Hon Minister, be it destruction or whatever and that is not possible. And as we rightly said, the applicant for this order is the Ministry or the Hon Minister, therefore, it goes without saying that the applicant would be there to see to the destruction. He would be there to see to the disposal, the Hon Minister or his representative. So the decision of the court, the Hon Minister or his representative will be there to ensure that the court's decision is complied with.
But what we want to prevent is the situation where it is thought that the court's order is subject to the directives of the Hon Minister. When you say “in accordance with the directives of the court”, it implies clearly that the applicant will ensure that the court's order is complied with and so there is no harm.
But if you say, “subject to the Minister's directives” then it is possible of that destructive interpretation, that the court's judgement is subordinate and considering clause 31(4), it means that the respondent will come with another application that the court's order is not being -- and then you will have a multiplicity of suits. So it is the order by the courts. Let the disposal be in accordance with the directives of the court.
Mr Pelpuo 2:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the whole issue of confiscation, disposal, which amounts to destruction or treatment or whatever is technical and because it is technical, it has to be handled by the Ministry. If you are going to destroy,
the supervision or the directive as to how it should be destroyed, would be by a competent organisation or individual and that is the Ministry.
So, I have the feeling that it is not a misnomer for us to say that once the court has ordered for the disposal, the one to do the final disposal to make it safe for the environment and to also ensure that the thing is properly done the way it should be, should be the Ministry because they have the technical expertise and I do not see anything wrong with that. So, I just think that the only thing we need to do to the motion is to correct the “with” to either “of” or “by” and then we leave it there.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
Hon Members, I think that we have had enough on this matter. It is a very difficult one but we also have to make sure that the due process is followed because we are subject to the Constitution in terms of confiscating people's properties, and seed, for this purpose, is a property.
My problem with the current rendition is that, it creates the impression that it is the Hon Minister himself that might dispose of it. The Hon Minority Leader was trying to give us a certain rendition. This is because if you put the “Minister” here, personally as the Hon Minister, then even the Deputy Minister cannot. So, that is my worry. If you put “Minister” here then it is only the Hon Minister and the Hon Minister alone who can be involved in that process. So, if you put a “Ministry”, then it would be clear that you are talking more of the supervision.
Mr Barton-Odro 2:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I
think, to solve that problem, we can say that “an official determined by the Minister” or “somebody designated by the Minister”. The best practice that
we are talking about, must involve the participation of the Minister. But he can delegate that responsibility.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
Hon
Deputy Attorney-General, what is your response to the submission made on the floor that instead of using one level, you are using two levels? In other words, instead of complying, you are bringing ‘the Minister' again and if the Minister does not comply, it creates other problems. What do you say to that?
Mr Barton-Odro 2:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what
I can say is that, in the early stages, if a party is not dissatisfied with the decision of the Hon Minister, it does not even get to the court and the Minister disposes of that matter at that level without any court order. It is only when a party is dissatisfied, that the process they have gone through with, gets to court and then the court makes these orders. So, as far as we are concerned, it is the Minister who disposes of, but this time under the direction -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
Hon Deputy Attorney-General, look at clause 10, it is when the person has been convicted, it is a special case.
“Where a person is convicted for an offence in relation to ‘seeds', the ‘seed' which is the subject of the offence shall be confiscated to the State.'
So this one is different from the administrative procedures of clause 31. This one is after the conviction, it is not when the administrative procedure has been - because we are going to prosecute the person. The person has been convicted, the conviction is in relation to the “seed”, then the court makes an order. Do you need ‘the Minister' again there? It is he who has gone to prosecute the person on the authority of the Attorney-General.
Mr Barton-Odro 2:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if I
Mr Barton-Odro 2:20 p.m.


may liken it to these drug cases, the case gets to court, there is a trial, there is a conviction and then the court makes an order that the material be disposed of. It is in the custody of the police as at that time. So, the police sees to the disposal of the stuff. Therefore, what we are saying is that there is the need for the involvement of the Minister or the Ministry.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
Is it always the case that the police sees to the disposal of the narcotic substance? I have seen situations in my practice where the court supervises the disposal.
Mr Barton-Odro 2:20 p.m.
Yes, the court supervises the disposal but it is the police who carries it out.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
Hon Members, I will put the Question; if you like you can come for second Consideration Stage. I think that we have done enough. Because of the due process, I have been slow in putting the Question. What we have done here, if it contradicts the Constitution, people can take us to court that -
Mr Dery 2:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, let me respond to my Hon Colleague, the Deputy Attorney-General. It is trite that under the auspices of the Attorney-General's office, prosecution is conducted. And when the prosecution is conducted, the articles which offend are tendered in evidence.
Mr Speaker, I am speaking to you as experienced in prosecution; it is tendered in evidence and it becomes an exhibit, they convict the person and then they order that the thing is confiscated to the State. It is said in clause 10, it is confiscated to the State.
Then the disposal of it, Mr Speaker, it is clear; I have done narcotics, I have done many cases in which there is destruction. The destruction is done by the court officials in the presence - [Interruptions] -- Please, he likened it to narcotics, so I
am responding to him expressly.
The narcotics are not left with the police to go and destroy, they are destroyed by accredited court officials in the presence of the police and interested parties like lawyers. So it is not the case that when they convict, they say go and destroy and they allow the police to go and destroy. Mr Speaker, you know what will happen when you allow the police alone to go and destroy. So it is not the case. Mr Speaker -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
Hon Members, I have two amendments before me, I will now put the Question I will put the latter one first, in line with our rules. The latter one does not involve the Minister, the first one, the one here involves the Minister except that we remove “if” there and put “off”, so I am going to put the Question.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader, so I thought we could all agree.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:20 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, it has been quite a laborious exercise and it means that many of us have even lost the trend. So before putting the Question, if we can even have a re- statement of the amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
Yes. One is that,
“seeds which are confiscated shall be disposed of by the Minister in accordance with the directives of the court”,
The second one is that,
“seeds which are confiscated shall be disposed off in accordance with the directives of the court”.
It does not involve the Minister. So at the close of the debate, those are the two amendments.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought that with respect to the first one, we have made some movement from this original position when we said that if we have this original construction, it may mean that the disposal would have to be done by the Hon Minister himself and not even his representative or even his deputy. So we tried to further amend to say that
“Seeds which are confiscated shall be disposed of at the instructions of the Minister in accordance with the directives by the court.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
There would be double instructions, one from the court and another instruction from the Hon Minister.
Hon Minority Leader, somewhere
along the line the impression was that, they said the Minister would supervise the destruction, that was the impression I got, but it keeps on changing.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you introduced an element when you said that in that case we would require the express involvement of the Hon Minister. In particular, when “the Minister” has been defined in the Bill to mean just “the Minister responsible for Agriculture”. So if we insist on this construction, it would mean that, at every term you would require the express involvement of the Hon Minister and that indeed, could be a problem.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
In
fact, that is my main concern with this amendment because, in fact, if the court makes an order and the Hon Minister goes to do something contrary, there are consequential things against him. So I am not too much worried about that. But if you make it “the Minister”, then it is the Hon Minister alone who can dispose
of it. I am not too much worried about “the Minister” because “the Minister” cannot go in any way against the orders of the court.
Mr Barton-Odro 2:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is why we brought in this proposal that “the Minister or an officer designated by him”, that one would take care of the problem that you are raising and the Minority Leader is also raising. So that there is an official of the Ministry who would be designated to carry it out.
Mr Pelpuo 2:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that will not cure the controversy we are having now because if it is still subject to the Minister, either the Minister giving directives to his subordinates, it is even complicating it further. Let us say “the Minister” -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
Hon Deputy Majority Leader, the point being made is that, the Bill has defined who a Minister is. So what we are saying is that, “the disposal” or “the supervision” or whatever term you want to use, if you mention him as “the Minister”, then it means that even his deputy cannot go and be involved. That is the point being made. So “the Minister” there is very dangerous because how can he be all over? We have, for example, Directors of Agriculture in the regions and the districts. Why can they not be designated to be there to do those things?
So you go and centralize the whole thing at the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, that is the point being made by me and indeed, the Hon Minority Leader. So even though -- whether you agree with this - those who want “the Minister” to be involved, they must couch it properly, otherwise, we would create another complication.
Mr Humado 2:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to give a new rendition and that is as follows:
“Seeds which are confiscated shall be disposed of by a designated officer of the Ministry in accordance with directives of the court.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
Hon Members, this is a very important amendment and I will want to defer the clause. The rules allow me, so that we all put our heads together. We should not necessarily push this thing; we should put our heads together and then no other final submission on this matter. Another “final” would open another “final” -- there would be yet another “final.” So at this stage, the whole clause 49 is deferred.
Hon Members, we would suspend Sitting and dissolve into a Committee of the Whole to consider the District Assemblies Common Fund.

2.35 p.m. -- Sitting suspended.

5.20 p.m. -- Sitting resumed.
MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER 2:30 p.m.
IN THE CHAIR 2:30 p.m.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
Hon Members, we are continuing with the Plants Bill at the Consideration Stage.
Clause 49 is deferred.
Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 51 -- Pre-basic seed.
Dr Alhassan 2:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 51, subclause (1), delete.
This is mainly because the industry, as at now, does not have the capacity to have a pre-basic seed for the generations. So, it was agreed that it be deleted.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the justification being provided by the Hon Chairman for the deletion of the clause is that, the Ministry, as at now, does not have the capacity to do this. But Mr Speaker, if that is the sole reason, is it intended to have this? Is the Ministry required to provide this even in subsequent times when they might have built capacity? If indeed, that is the case, then we may have to look at ways of capturing it instead of just saying that we should delete the entire provision because we do not, as of now, have the capacity. I think it will be wrong to do that.
Dr Alhassan 2:30 p.m.
Actually, the mandate
for production of pre-basic seed for the generation does not lie with the Ministry currently. The CSIR and other research institutions have that capacity. That was the real reason. So, it will be taking some other agencies' mandate and introducing it in the Ministry that does not have to do it.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, does that explanation satisfy the query?
Yes, Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
Mr Pelpuo 2:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if it is not there now and the law thinks that it should be at the Ministry and it has been indicated here -- If they do not have it now, it does not mean that the law should not recognise the fact that there is the need for it to be at the Ministry. So, I will go with the Hon Minority Leader. It not being there now should not prevent us from legislating on it.
In any case, what has been stated here is a recognition of it but not a mandatory indication that it must be there. They are just recognising that it should be there,
and if in future they put it there, so be it.
Mr Chireh 2:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I see that the Hon Chairman wants to delete clause 51(1) and also move subclause (3) - is he leaving the clause with only one and that is the subclause (2) and then it will be hanging. What is it supposed to do? It is also a definition more or less. I think that if you want, delete the total clause. But you know that if you have used a word in this part of the Bill, which you need to define, you then move it to the definition or the interpretation section.
But if you just say that clause 51, only subclause (2) is the one you would want there and the other two subclauses are gone, it does not make sense. It means you are defining a pre-basic seed. But is there a place where pre-basic seed and maintenance is? [Interruption.] Where? Then you move the amendment properly; let us delete the entire clause.
Dr Alhassan 2:30 p.m.
The clause 51(2) is stating responsibility for the maintenance of pre-basic seeds which cannot be ignored at all. That is what the clause 51(2) is meant to do. So you cannot take it to definition and that ends it. It is an activity and that activity must be defined and kept in, so it is the maintainer of the variety that keeps the pre-basic seeds. In respect of clause 51(1), the capacity to do so is already undertaken by other State agencies within the country.
So the Ministry does not have to start doing something that is already being done. It is a plant breeding procedure. And that procedure is already being undertaken by the experts in plant breeding within the country. So the Ministry does not have to start the whole exercise again.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, for 51(3), re-locating it to interpretation,
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:30 p.m.
Chairman of the Committee, can we reformulate -
Dr Alhassan 5:30 p.m.
I want the Minority Leader to come again with the rephrasing of the -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:30 p.m.
Let

us work on a re-formulation and make progress.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we could say,
“The Ministry shall ensure the existence of a pre-basic seed for the generation of G1, G2 or G3 seed between parent material and a basic seed.”
If we did that, I believe -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:30 p.m.
That is for clause 51 (1)?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:30 p.m.
51 (1), Mr Speaker.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:30 p.m.
And by that 51 (2) would remain?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:30 p.m.
Yes, 51(2) would remain.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:30 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, are you satisfied with that?
Dr Alhassan 5:30 p.m.
If the Ministry is to be empowered by this law to ensure that other agencies do this activity, I am comfortable with it.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:30 p.m.
Very well. Then Hon Minority Leader, kindly go over the rendition so that we put the Question.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if I should repeat, it should now read:
“The Ministry shall ensure the existence of a pre-basic seed for the generation of G1, G2 or G3 seed between parent material and a basic seed.”
Mr Speaker, I beg to move for this amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 5:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 51, subclause (3), delete and add same under clause 122.
It was noted that the subclause (3) is a definition. So the recommendation was that it should be carried to clause 122, which is the definition section.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 51 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52 - Seed analyst.
Dr Alhassan 5:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 52, delete.
It seems the Act is trying to establish
a seed analyst to be appointed by the President and we thought that it is an administrative position and the same procedure should be used in appointing a seed analyst and not a seed analyst from the Office of the President. So we thought it should be deleted since it is a civil service position.
Question put and clause deleted
Clause 53 - Power to assign.
Dr Alhassan 5:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 53, delete.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we have spent so long a time on clause 49 (11). We spent over an hour on clause 49 (11) alone. Mr Speaker, I thought that if we tidied up clause 53, in particular (3), then it could take care of our toils in clause 49 (11), because the definition of Minister refers to only the Minister responsible for Agriculture.
Now, if we came to clause 53 (2) saying that in exercising his powers of assignment, the Minister could delegate, then that would take care of our toils in clause 49 (11). But the Chairman is saying that we should delete the entire clause. So I do not know whether to agree with him or not to agree with him.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:30 p.m.
Chairman of the Committee, do you think any difficulty flows from clause 49 duly stood down?
Dr Alhassan 5:30 p.m.
I thought that clause 49 (11) was very specific about the disposal of items that have been confiscated and the disagreement was simply whether the Minister should do it in person and our difficulty was in defining “Minister”, whether it was the institution or the person. I thought it is usually implied that when we say “Minister”, we actually mean the institution and not the person.
This particular one just seems to be emphasizing the fact that the Minister could delegate. But in the normal course of duty, the entire Ministry is there for the Minister to delegate. So we did not think
it was necessary to put it there. I do not get the connection the Minority Leader is making.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Chairman appears to be convincing, but I am not persuaded at all by this argument. However, if it is the sense of the House that he goes on, I would not want to impede that. You may put the Question and let the majority decide.
Question put and clause deleted.
Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Chireh 5:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am very worried about the number of councils we are establishing in this Bill. When I looked at clause 122, a council is defined there in terms of Plant Protection Advisory Council. Here we are talking about the Seed Council. I think that we should look at the use for some other term, committee or whatever it may be, so that there is no conflict as to which council we are referring to when we mention council in the Bill. [Interruption.] The definition, go to clause 122 -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:40 p.m.
Hon Minister, you address the Chair.
Yes, Chairman of the Committee.
Dr Alhassan 5:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the Hon Minister has not completed his query, so I will rest my response.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker,

to help the Hon Minister, in clause 122, there are Parts, Part One, Part Two, Part Three and the various interpretations affect the various Parts.

Clause 55 - The functions of the Council.
Dr Alhassan 5:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 55, paragraph (a), lines 1 and 2, delete “advise the Minister on policies for the development of seed” and insert the following:
“formula te pol ic ies for the development, production”.
The amendment being proposed in
clause 55 is to make the Council a decision- making Council and not an advisory one. So there are various amendments on the functions accordingly; instead of “advise” or “recommend”, it is to take a decision on each particular activity, that is why various amendments are being proposed.
Mr Pelpuo 5:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I stand
corrected but policies are formulated by the Minister. Normally, councils and other organizations would have inputs in the development and formulation of policies but they do not formulate policies. So, we may say that they would support the Minister in the formulation of policies or they would suggest or do something but if we leave policy formulation to them, then we would be taking away the core job of the Minister. That is my thought about it.
Dr Alhassan 5:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the particular case of the National Seed Council is because there are private sector players to be involved and we do not want the Council to be working seriously below the Minister -- To take decisions with the Minister in the interest of the seed industry. If the Council is only to advise the Minister, the tendency is for a
bureaucracy to intervene the process.
So in the interest of both public and private sectors, we thought that the Council is a convergent point of the two sectors and since the Minister is sitting there as Chairman ,then it is better to have that Council as a decision-making body rather than an advisory one because what it means is that they can advise the Minister and the Minister can do something entirely different. This is the idea behind the decision or the proposal.
Note that it is also being inspired by international protocol that we have signed up to. The practice elsewhere is to have a Seed Council as independent as possible but in collaboration with the public sector institutions to promote the industry.
Mr Pelpuo 5:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, then we could say they would formulate policy with the approval of the Minister. So that the Minister still stands to be responsible for policy at his Ministry including the Council and every other person under the Ministry. It means that if they do a policy counter to the core functions of the Ministry, it still stands because the law would have backed it but then we would not encourage that. So “they would formulate policy or develop policy with the approval of the Minister”. So that we know the Minister can be held res-ponsible.
Dr Alhassan 5:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Deputy Majority Leader does not have to be afraid. The Minister is the Chairman of the Council in the first instance, and therefore, all policy matters can be discussed there.
Secondly, many of the members of the Council are public institution represen- tatives. So there is actually no cause to fear that the Minister is going to be below the Council as such.
Mr Chireh 5:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I recommend the amendment for this House and fully
support what the Chairman is saying because the Minister formulates policy and it is this Council he is chairing that must formulate the policy for the implementation of others. So it is very appropriate, let us vote for it.
Mr Avoka 5:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, at the end of the day, the fears expressed by the Deputy Majority Leader are allayed by the fact that the Minister already has an oversight responsibility over the Council. So that takes care of the jurisdiction of the Minister as the overall person in charge of the Council. Otherwise, there would be feet dragging -- that we have asked the Minister - let them do the work and then the Minister would have an oversight responsibility. So I support the amend- ment proposed by the Chairman of the Committee.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 5:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 55, paragraph (a), line 3, at end, insert “of seed”.
Mr Speaker, that is just to make it more
complete.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 5:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 55, paragraph (c), line 1, delete “recommend to the Minister” and insert “develop”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just a little tiding up of clause 55 (a). I think that it was rather inadvertent. The first amendment proposed by the Chairman, we have already taken a vote on that but it seems to me that he rather meant to delete “advise the Minister on policies for the development of seed production”.
We should have included “pro- duction” in that construction; otherwise, “production” would be repeated. So, we delete “production” after “seed” and then to have the new construction:
“Formulate pol ic ies for the development, production”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:50 p.m.
For the development -- [Interruption.] Let us get that straight.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:50 p.m.
“Formulate policies”. Mr Speaker, what I mean is, the Chairman proposed that paragraph (a), lines 1 and 2, we delete the words “advise the Minister on policies for the development of seed”. I am saying that we should have included “production” after “seed”, so that the deletion would affect “advise the Minister on policies for the development of seed production”, that is where it would end. And then we insert: “formulate policies for the development, production”, and then we continue. Otherwise, “production” would be repeated.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:50 p.m.
“Advise the Minister on policies for the development,” there we remove “of seed” -
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it would be
“to formulate policies for the development, production, ins- pection, sampling, analysis, con- ditioning and marketing of seed”
That will be the entire construction.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:50 p.m.
Yes, but if that is so, the difficulty can be cured by simply removing “of seed” that occurs at first and bringing it to the end. Please, let us get it clear, and then we can debate --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:50 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, it is only because in that earlier amendments, they wanted to change that construction by deleting “advise the Minister”, and in its place, inserting “formulate policies for the development, production, inspection, sampling, analysis, conditioning and marketing of seed”, that is how they have that construction.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:50 p.m.
Hon Members, the idea is that having made the role of the Council not merely advisory, but actually formulating policy, if we come to its function, it will be preferable not to say, “advise the Minister”, but that
“formula te pol ic ies for the development, production, inspec- tion, sampling, analysis, condition- ing and marketing of seed”.
Chairman of the Committee, are you with me?
Dr Alhassan 5:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, I am with you. Mr Speaker, that is the right rendition.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:50 p.m.
Thank you.
Yes, Hon Member.
Mr Humado 5:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my under- standing of the comments raised by the Hon Minority Leader is that the way the amendment is phrased, if we go by that, we will repeat “production”. And that is what he wants to correct. So, I think he is right.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:50 p.m.
But have you got the formulation I made from what he said?
Mr Humado 5:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:50 p.m.
Yours is, “formulate policies for the development, production, inspection, sampling, analysis, conditioning and marketing of seed”; is that all right with you?
Yes, Hon Deputy Minority Leader.
Mr Dery 5:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think you
have got it right. I think the problem is, originally, we should have just deleted “advise the Minister on” and inserted “formulate”, and then just move “of seed” to the end, that is it. So, I agree the formulation is the right thing.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 5:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 55, paragraph (c), line 1, delete “recommend to the Minister” and insert “develop”.
So that it would now be,
“develop procedures for the registration of cultivars.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 5:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 55, paragraph (d), line 1, delete “recommend to the Minister prescribed” and insert the following:
“prescribe standards for seeds and procedure for the certification of seeds”.
Mr Dery 5:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that we should just take off “recommend to the Minister”, and then change “prescribed” to “prescribe”, and the rest goes. So, we did not have to recap the whole sentence. We just delete “recommend to the Minister”, and then insert “prescribe” and the rest of the sentence follows.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:50 p.m.
Hon Members, if you look at the other amendments that follow clause 55, it
appears there is a certain principle that is de-linking the Minister per se as much as possible, and if we get that principle right as per our previous decision, it would help us to follow those amendments, so that it is not Minister, Minister, Minister. If we get that, I think it would help us to proceed with the other amendments affecting clause 55. So, Hon Members, another view?
Yes, Hon Minority Leader.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we will end up achieving the same results if we go by the recommendation of the Hon Deputy Minority Leader or the proposal by the Chairman. I think the end product is the same, but I may want to know from the Chairman, the text talks about procedures -
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Chairman is being distracted by the Hon Member for Tamale North (Alhaji Sumani Abukari) -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:50 p.m.
He is giving him advice on the same matter. Yes, Hon Member.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in the text, they have employed “procedures”, but he is saying that we should now use “procedure; is there any reason for that? I understand the amendment for clause 55 (d), you are saying that the new construction should be “prescribed standards for seeds and procedure for the certification of seeds”, and I am saying that in the text, apart from the allusion to the Minister, the text talks about “procedures” not “procedure”, and I am asking whether there is any special reason for not using “procedures”. You are
using “procedure”, is there any reason? Otherwise, can we not use what is in the text -- “procedures”?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:50 p.m.
Chairman of the Committee, now, it appears you are recommending “procedure”, and we would like to know if there is any special reason for that.
Dr Alhassan 5:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is no special reason for that. I believe it is just a -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:50 p.m.
A drafting mechanism?
Dr Alhassan 5:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, but we would prefer “procedures”. “Procedure” with an “s”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6 p.m.
You personally will prefer procedures?
Dr Alhassan 6 p.m.
Mr Speaker, no, “procedures” is what we think it should be and not “procedure” in this particular case.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6 p.m.
Very well, so that the amendment should read - “prescribed standards for seeds and procedures for the certification of seed”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
rose
Dr Alhassan 6 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am getting a signal that he has something on clause --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6 p.m.
Order! Order!
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6 p.m.


Chairman of the Committee.
Mr Chireh 6 p.m.
I beg to move, clause 55 (e), delete “recommend to the Minister for publication” and insert “publish”.
Mr Speaker, if you look at the trend, we are recommending - if you look at clause 55 (e), we are deleting the “recommendation”, so I also propose to amend (e) by saying that the Council should publish annually and not recommend the Minister for the publication. “The Council should publish annually” and therefore, we delete “recommend to the Minister” and insert “publish” so that it accords with the principle -- I beg to move.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6 p.m.
Hon Members, there is a proposed amendment for paragraph 55 (e) and the principle is that we are doing away with recommen- ding to the Minister, so and so on. So we render it --
“publish annually in the commercial and industrial bulletin, a list of varieties of crops for which seed marketing is permitted in the country.”
Dr Alhassan 6 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not agree with the amendment because we want the Minister to be the one keeping the list of varieties of crops and all that the Council is seeking to do is to recommend to the Minister to publish it for public information. It should not be the Council that is publishing it because the Council is not keeping the list of varieties. So that is why the Minister is specifically being asked to publish it annually for general information. So in this particular case, the Council is recommending for publication and not deciding to do so because they do not have any list of varieties to publish.
Mr Chireh 6 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if he is saying this then he is reducing the Minister to a registrar of varieties or keeper of varieties and I do not think so. But if he does not want it that way, it is an activity that has to be undertaken and the Minister is the Chairman of that Council. So indeed, in this matter, the Council is recommending the Minister himself, so I do not see why we should repeat the Minister in this one.
The Minister is going to chair the Council that is going to recommend to him -- I think that just consistent with the trend that we have developed, it should be that “is published” because the Minister will be chairing that meeting. If there is any place that they can show me that the Minister is the keeper of the varieties and therefore somebody else should come and recommend to him to publish it, I do not see that. It is just that the Council upon advice or after they have decided, should publish it; that is how I see it. It should be consistent. We should not reduce the Minister to a keeper of varieties, no.
Dr Alhassan 6 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am convinced.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 6 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 55, paragraph (f), at end, add “with approval of Parliament”.
The amendment for (f) was simply to give the powers of approval of the fees to be done by Parliament, to recommend to the Minister fees for the certification and testing of seeds for the approval of Parliament. This was the idea. But previous experience as at yesterday suggest that it is completely unnecessary so we could as well abandon the amendment.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6 p.m.
We
Dr Alhassan 6 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes.
Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi 6 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I did not follow his final word but looking at the proposal, you do not want “with the approval”. I think what he wants to say is “for the approval of Parliament” if he is still going to keep it. If he says “with the approval of Parliament”, it does not sound correct. They are recommending to the Minister for the approval of Parliament, a fee blah blah if he wants to maintain it.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6 p.m.
Early on, we had said we all knew these fees are subject to parliamentary approval and for that matter, we deleted “for approval of Parliament”. At least, for the sake of consistency, we must advise ourselves accordingly.
Dr Alhassan 6 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that was exactly the point I was making, that yesterday it was agreed that it was unnecessary to keep “with the approval of Parliament” in the amendment because the Minister is empowered by this Act to publish an L.I. that will fix fees and the L.I. will definitely come to Parliament and will be passed. So it was not necessary to re-state it again in the body of the Bill ;so I was thinking that for consistency, there was no point for putting it in. That is why we are stepping down the amendment.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6 p.m.
So you are withdrawing the amendment? The amendment is accordingly withdrawn.
Dr Alhassan 6:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 55, paragraph (g), delete “recommend to the Minister” and insert “establish procedures for accreditation”.
Mr Boafo 6:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am worried about the use of the expression “establish procedures”. If we adopt the earlier expression “prescribe procedures”, I think that is better than “establish procedures”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:10 p.m.
“Pres- cribe procedures”, instead of “establish procedures”?
Dr Alhassan 6:10 p.m.
I am convinced, Mr Speaker. Instead of “establish”, let us use “prescribe”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 6:10 p.m.
I beg to move, clause 55 add a new paragraph as follows:
“ensure the establishment and maintenance of a national seed security stock at all time”
Which previously did not exist as a function of the Council although this is an extremely important activity to be undertaken by the industry and the Council.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:10 p.m.
It is a fresh proposal to reinforce the functions of the Council.
Mr Humado 6:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I endorse the amendment but just a little of cleaning. The word “time” in the amendment, I think , should be “times”, “at all times”, instead of “time”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:10 p.m.
“Ensure the maintenance of a national seed security stock at all times”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not have anything against the amendment in principle but I am wondering if the sense has not been captured in clause 55 (b). Maybe, we can expand that one a bit but I think the sense has been captured in clause 55 (b). So if you like us to add the word “stock”, we could find a place for it there, and if you like also to add “at all times”, that could be done. But having another clause about repeating the same sense, in my view, is rather unnecessary.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:10 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, the idea is that we can abandon this proposed amendment and expand clause 55 (b) to cover it by the rendition made by the Minority Leader.
Mr Chireh 6:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, even though we have voted on that one, the clause 55 (b), I will like us to take the “monitor” `there and rather add it to this one and abandon clause 55 ( b) . So it will now be “monitor and ensure”, then the rest follows. If the Chairman agrees to that -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:10 p.m.
Can we have (b) by way of “monitor and ensure”?
Mr Chireh 6:10 p.m.
You just bring “monitor”
from clause 55 (b) and say “monitor and ensure”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:10 p.m.
“Ensure the stock --”
Mr Chireh 6:10 p.m.
“Ensure the establishment and maintenance of a national seed security stock at all times”. “Monitor and ensure”.
Alhaji Abukari 6:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we have used “monitor” so much today that it has gone into his head. I do not think it is necessary to put “monitor” there. The way it is phrased, is fine. So let us leave it like that.
Mr Humado 6:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think those two activities are distinct and different. The monitoring of the supply of seeds to ensure seed security is a different activity from the establishment of a national seed security stock. I believe if we attempt to combine the two, it may be unwieldy. I would suggest that we keep it separate to conform with the separate activities that are intended under the law.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:10 p.m.
In other words, they are two separate things -- you must ensure it is there and you must also monitor it at all material times. If I get the import of your point -- Yes, any other view points?
Alhaji Abukari 6:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I still do not agree with the insertion of the word “monitor”. How else can you ensure if you do not monitor? You are to ensure and that “ensure” covers the word “monitor”. There is no point bringing in “monitor” again.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
yes, I think that it is a bit repetitive using “ensure” and “monitoring”. I think basically the sense contained in this new subclause and clause 55 (b) are about the same. Mr Speaker, I do not see the distinction. They are about the same.
However, if the Chairman insists, well, I think it is just contributing to making the Act very long and unwieldy.
Dr Alhassan 6:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you look at clause 55 (b), I think it is talking about monitoring the supply of seeds such that there will be security. This one is to hold a national seed security stock either for the maintenance of the varieties or for situations where there will be disasters and you have to fall on them or quickly multiply for supply. So the other one is from time to time and this one has to be held in stock. So I think it is important to introduce the new subclause.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we talk about food security, we mean having enough stock of food. If we are talking about seed security, we are talking about having enough stock of seeds. Clearly, this is a distinction without difference and I do not see the fight of my Hon Colleague on this. It is really much ado about nothing and we are only adding to the length of the Act.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:20 p.m.
Hon Members, we must be careful we do not introduce such tautology that will make the lawmakers look not experienced or just going round the same matter. If a clause becomes redundant on the face of it, it may give a wrong impression and introduce inelegance. So let us -
Mr J. B. Aidoo 6:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I just rise on the same line as the Hon Minority Leader did. In the new proposed amendment, to say that “seed security stock” -- If you look at the phraseology of that, all that it is trying to say is either “the seed security” or “seed stock”, simply that. It is either the “seed security” or “the seed stock”. When you come to clause 55 (b), it is neater. All what we have to add
is, maybe, “at all times”. If we can add “at all times” to clause 55(b) -- “monitor the supply of seeds to ensure seed security in the country at all times.” I think that should solve the problem.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:20 p.m.
Chairman of the Committee, what is your inclination at this stage?
Dr Alhassan 6:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if the (b) is amended to include the “at all times” then we can abandon the introduction of the new clause; that is fine by me.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:20 p.m.
Very well.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:20 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, are you therefore withdrawing the proposed amendment by adding a new paragraph?
Dr Alhassan 6:20 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Dr Alhassan 6:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 55, add a new subclause as follows:
“The National Seed Council shall determine a class of non-certified seeds to be used in case of an acute seed shortage, during and after disasters.”
The reason behind this is to empower
the National Seed Council to determine what class of non-certified seeds that could be used in the event of acute shortage as a result of disasters.
Mr Humado 6:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I endorse the amendment but a bit of cleaning. The comma (,) after “shortage”, I think, is not relevant; it should be removed because the “acute seed shortage” refers to disaster.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just two proposals.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:20 p.m.


First of all, just so that you will not be talking about two Councils, we would need to capitalise the ‘s' in the ‘seed' and also capitalise the ‘c' in the ‘council' so that we are seen to be talking about the same “National Seed Council”. That is number one.

Mr Speaker, number two, in that case, this proposal should come after (g) before we have the (h) so that it becomes the new (h) and the (h) now will become (i).

Finally, in line 2 of the proposal,

“The National Council shall determine a class of non-certified seeds to be used in the case of an acute shortage during and after disasters.”

This construction implies that in the event of an acute seed shortage during or after disasters, we necessarily may resort to non-certified seeds. So just to clean up that place.

“The National Seed Council shall determine a class of non-certified seeds which may be used..” (“which may be used” not “to be used.”) “in case of an acute seed shortage during and after disasters.”

Mr Speaker, if the Hon Chairman is with me, I believe that is a better rendition.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:20 p.m.
Thank you very much. I will capture it for Hon Members and the Hon Chairman to comment.
“The National Seed Council shall determine a class of non-certified seeds which may be used in case of an acute seed shortage during and after disasters.”
Dr Alhassan 6:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am all right with that modification.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 6:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to believe that this new subclause is part of the functions of the National Seed Council
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:20 p.m.
And that is actually to be in consonance with the rest of the framing, the formulation all through, so that it will read,
“determine a class of non-certified seeds which may be used in case of an acute seed shortages during and after disaster,”
and also, that should be made a new (h) and the existing (h) should be moved to (i).
Chairman of the Committee, is that so?
Dr Alhassan 6:20 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:20 p.m.
Thank you very much.
Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi 6:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
what is the relevance of the last bit “… during and after disasters”? Can we not end “..in case of an acute seed shortage”?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:30 p.m.
The proposal is that we may end at “. . . acute seed shortage” because the “shortage” may not necessarily arise out of “disasters”. Assuming “shortage” arises out of any other situation that may not necessarily be seen as a disaster, what do you do? Well, that is to you.
Dr Alhassan 6:30 p.m.
That is all right, Mr
Speaker, I agree with my learned Professor.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:30 p.m.
“to determine a class of non-certified seeds which may be used in case of an acute seed shortage.”
That becomes (h) and the existing (h) which talks of other functions moves to (i).
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 as amended ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause 56 - Composition of the Council.
Dr Alhassan 6:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 56, subclause (1), paragraph (b), delete and insert the following:
“The Director-General, of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, or a representative of the Director General, not below the rank of a director.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:30 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, “the rank of a director”, do you want to keep that as small “d” as against other renditions of “Director”?
Dr Alhassan 6:30 p.m.
I want advice from the Minority Leader. Do we keep “director” small (d) or with capital (D)?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:30 p.m.
Other “Directors” there have initial capital (D).
Dr Alhassan 6:30 p.m.
Rightly so, Mr Speaker, so the small (d) be converted to capital (D).
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:30 p.m.
Also, with regard to the first “Director-General”, there is a hyphen; second reference to the “Director General” is without a hyphen.
Which one do you take?
Dr Alhassan 6:30 p.m.
Both “Director- Generals” must carry hyphens. So the second “Director General” must have a hyphen between the “Director” and the “General”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:30 p.m.
The second reference to the “Director General” shall have a hyphen and the last reference to “director” which is spelt with a small (d) should also be spelt with an initial capital (D).
Hon Members, any further amend- ment?
Mr Humado 6:30 p.m.
Also, the comma after the first “Director-General” is not necessary and can be removed.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:30 p.m.
The comma after the first reference to the “Director-General” should be removed to read:
“The Director-General of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, or a representative of the Director-General, not below the rank of a Director.”
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, all the commas in that construction are uncalled for.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:30 p.m.
“The Director-General of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research or a representative of the Director-General not below the rank of a Director.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Dr Alhassan 6:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 56, subclause (1), paragraph (1), line 2, delete “Institution” and insert “Institute”.
Dr Alhassan 6:30 p.m.


Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Pelpuo 6:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I just want to point out the numbering. There are (a), (b), (c) and (d); there are no (e) and (f); but we got to (g), so if that can be corrected.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:30 p.m.
Very well, that will be corrected.
Dr Alhassan 6:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 56, add a new paragraph as follows:
“(h) and two others nominated by the President, one of whom shall be a woman.”
Mr Speaker, the proposal is to add to their membership to give the President the opportunity to nominate two other persons, one of whom shall be a woman.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:30 p.m.
Hon Chairman, the tendency these days is to say “at least one of whom shall be a woman”. Otherwise, assuming the President wants to appoint two women, what would he do? He is estopped. If two women are found to be the most competent people, the President cannot appoint the two under this kind of provision. So the tendency is to say “at least one of whom shall be a woman”. I do not know whether you may want to consider that.
Dr Alhassan 6:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with the modification, in particular that the rest of the members are all likely to be men. So the idea is, if we can have two women nominated by the President, all the better. So “at least one of whom shall be a woman” is better.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:30 p.m.
So you want us to have that formulation?
Dr Alhassan 6:30 p.m.
Yes.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:30 p.m.
“at least one of whom shall be a woman”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just to say that, with this new (h), the “and” that commences it should rather be moved to what will become (g) after the comma after “Institute” and the “and” will be moved to follow a comma after “Institute”.
And so the (h) then would begin -- not “two others --” but “two other persons nominated by the President at least one of whom shall be a woman.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:40 p.m.
Chairman of the Committee?
Dr Alhassan 6:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is acceptable, it tidies up.
Mr Avoka 6:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am not against the inclusion of a woman on the membership. But if you look at the list of members, they are basically technical people - the Director-General of C.S.I.R. or somebody not below the rank of Director; Director of Crop Science and one representative of the Seed Growers Association, Mr Speaker.
So in trying to include the woman, I am wondering whether it is not also prudent to identify the calibre of woman that we may be talking about. Otherwise, they can go to Parliament or go to Makola and pick any woman and then put there. I am wondering whether we also need to have a particular type of woman whose background is relevant for this particular purpose.
Mr Dery 6:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have listened closely to the Majority Leader. I know he has made the intervention in good faith. But if you look at (e) - “one representative of the Seed Growers Association of Ghana”, there is no directorship or otherwise. Then one representative of the National Farmers' Association. So
we should leave the “two other persons”, at least one of whom shall be a woman. I believe that the discretion would be properly exercised and the appropriate woman will be appointed.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57 - Tenure of office of members.
Mr Boafo 6:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 57, subclause (6), delete and insert the following:
“under subsections (2), (3) or 59(2)”.
Mr Speaker, clause 57 requires the Minister to inform the President to fill vacancies occurring on the Council and there is one which is missing. If you read clause 57 (6) (a), the reference is made to subsections (2) and (3) of clause 57. But Mr Speaker, there is another vacancy under clause 59 (2) “where the person fails to disclose his interest”. So the proposed amendment only seeks to add clause 59(2) to subsections (2) and (3). [Pause.] Mr Speaker, I have not finished. Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be as follows:
“where there is a vacancy under subsections (2) and (3) or section
59 (2).”
Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment is not to delete the entire subclause 6. It is only to delete subclause 6(a) and make the insertion. It is not the entire subclause 6.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:40 p.m.
You mean your amendment would now be subclause 6 (a), not subclause 6?
Mr Boafo 6:40 p.m.
No, Mr Speaker, subclause 6 (a).
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:40 p.m.
Hon Members, by the Hon Member's ren- dition, the amendment does not apply to the whole of subclause 6 but only to sub- clause 6 (a), and in that delete and insert the following:
“Under subsections (2) (3) or 59
(2).”
In other words, that clause 59 (2) is also affected and that it should not be limited to (2) or (3) alone.
Mr Boafo 6:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, may I seek your leave to read out the amendment.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:40 p.m.
Please, do.
Mr Boafo 6:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in view of the fact that subsections (2) and (3) appear, may I amend it further by saying that it should be “under subsections (2), (3) or section 59? (2)”?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:40 p.m.
Thank you, I think we have got you clear.
Mr Chireh 6:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not know why my Friend just decides to make things difficult for everybody. You are adding clause 59 (2) to the already existing (2) or (3) and then you say delete again and insert; that is complicating the matter. He is adding clause 59 (2) to the (2) and (3), so he should have said that. It is commendable, let us vote for it.
Mr Boafo 6:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the reason I couch it this way is that, in the original clause 6(a), you would realize that we have subsections (2) or (3). But I cannot recommend a repetition of the “or”, “or” that is why I ask for the deletion of that 6(a) and the insertion of the proposed amendment which retains only one “or”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I even think that for consistency, we should rather use “or” and not the comma, because if you go back to clause 20, which has a similar provision on the tenure of office of members of the earlier Council that we established, the Plant Protection Advisory Council, we have used “or” instead of the commas. So, Mr Speaker, I think that we should add “or” rather than the comma, to be consistent with what we have done in clause 20.
Mr Chireh 6:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, indeed,
I agree with the suggestion made by the Hon Minority Leader with a little modification. Because subclauses (2) and (3) are of this clause, we should say sub-sections (2) and (3) or clause 59 (2). Because this (2), subsection (2) and subsections (3) are of this clause. But clause 59 is separate. So that is where you add “or”. Otherwise, for uniformity as he is saying, you should add the “or” throughout.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker,
I think that the proposer has qualified it by introducing “section” for clause 59. So, it is under subsections (2) or (3) that we refer to this section or section 59(2). And I think it is as he has proposed.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:50 p.m.
Hon
Boafo, final formulation.
Mr Boafo 6:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the rationale
behind the proposed amendment is to transpose section 59(2) to section 57 (6). So, however, it is couched by the draftsperson is not my concern. My concern is to make sure that all the vacancies are taken care of by the Minister.
Mr Speaker, we have dealt with this clause 20 earlier. Earlier,we had also considered section 24(2) when we
considered clause 20.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:50 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee?
Dr Alhassan 6:50 p.m.
I support the amendment, it is all right.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:50 p.m.
Hon Members, I would put the Question.
Dr A. A. Osei 6:50 p.m.
Which one? Because the Hon Minister for Local Government and Rural Development got up and said it should be “and” which is completely false. We cannot have “subsection (2) and”; it will destroy the meaning. So, it is the “or” that we should be using.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:50 p.m.
The Hon Member who moved the motion has agreed with the rendition of the Hon Minority Leader.
Hon Minority Leader, if you would just repeat that for the sake of assurance being double sure.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment. I only said that we should maintain the “or”. So, it is “under subsections (2) or (3) or section 59(2)” as proposed by the Hon Member who moved the amendment.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:50 p.m.
Hon Chairman, is that clear?
Dr Alhassan 6:50 p.m.
Absolutely, that is it.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 - Meetings of the Council.
Dr Alhassan 6:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 58, subclause (3), line 2, delete “of the Council”.
This will make the rendition better. That the quorum at a meeting of the Council shall be seven or a greater number determined by the Council in respect of an important matter. That will avoid the repetition “of the Council” getting too many.
Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi 6:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with the deletion. But Mr Speaker, if you look at clause 56, the membership unless resolved somewhere, I count seven, possibly nine and he is saying that the quorum will be seven and in case of special consideration, a greater number. What is he asking for?
Dr Alhassan 6:50 p.m.
We dealt with this yesterday. There was reference to the Interpretation Act which defined quorum at meetings. And we thought that for a Council that is to be taking such important decisions on such a sector, the quorum has to be seven and not five as we said.
Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi 6:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the Hon Chairman is confusing everybody and himself. Mr Speaker, what we are saying is, if the total number is nine, and for the regular quorum, we have seven, and we go on to say that a greater number will be required or determined by the Council in respect of an important matter, then the question is, what greater number are we talking about? The entire membership of nine or eight?
Mr Chireh 6:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that instead of seven, the quorum should be five. And then what is in the clause remains, in terms of the greater number but not seven because seven is already too great a number. So, the number they agreed on at the Committee was five. I am speaking on the authority of the Hon Chairman, so the Hon Minority Leader should sit down first before I talk -- [Laughter.] So, first, the quorum should
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I want us to be very consistent in what we have been doing. Mr Speaker, going back to clause 19, there we have a nine-member council and if my memory serves me right, we did not alter the membership; I think it remained nine, and the quorum as provided for - [Interruptions] -- let me finish this one - the quorum as provided for in clause 20 is seven -- that is for clause 20 that we did. So for consistency, unless we have amended that one, and I do not think we did amend -
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7 p.m.
Was that not brought to five? If my memory serves me right, that was amended to five.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7 p.m.
Mr Speaker, my attention is being drawn to the fact that yesterday the quorate number was reduced to five. If that is the case, then we may apply same to what we are dealing with. That is 58, because we cannot have that inconsistency in the same Act. The same membership, at one point the quorate number is five and the other one is seven. So let us reconcile; if we adopted five, the same should apply for this one.
Mr Boafo 7 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I just wanted to confirm the five. The Votes and Proceedings of Monday, 22nd March, 2010, page 17 where clause 21 is referred to: “Subclause (3) delete 7 and insert 5.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7 p.m.
Thank
you very much for the confirmation of what I thought was the amendment.
Mr K. Anyimadu-Antwi 7 p.m.
Mr Speaker, a proposed amendment has been made at clause 58 (3), line (2), to delete the words “of the Council”, because it is redundant and I am opposed to that. With

respect, if you look at clause 58 (6), it says and with your permission I quote:

“The Council may co-opt a person to attend a Council meeting, but the co-opted person shall not vote on a matter for decision at a meeting.”

I am of the view that the wording there, “of the Council” at clause 58 (3), line (2), is to distinguish between members of the Council and any other person that has been co-opted to the Council; to distinguish between co-opted members and -- So talking about quorum, do we say that a co-opted member of a meeting should be counted or not?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just to inform my Hon Colleague that, again, what we just referred to, clause 21 (6) talks about co-option of members and it does not affect the quorate number. So it should not arise; the issue he is bringing up should not arise at all.
Dr Alhassan 7 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I accept the proposal that for consistency, we make the quorum number five and leave the rest of the clause.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7 p.m.
The quorum should be five and that we delete “of the Council”. Is that so, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we have agreed that the number should be five, to be consistent with what we did for clause 20.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7 p.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, would you want to move the amendment to that effect?
Dr Alhassan 7 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, I beg to move, that the quorum to establish a meeting be five and the rest of the clause
remains.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60 - Committee of the Council.
Mr. Cletus Avoka 7 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if I may make an intervention at this stage, and if it is your pleasure I want to humbly suggest that we take the addendum in respect of the Formula for the distribution of the District Assemblies Common Fund and then after that - [Interruptions] - we could come back to the Bill. [Pause.]
Resumption of debate at colum 2868.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7 p.m.
Hon First Deputy Speaker would proceed on the procedural aspect of the matter and then we move the substantive --
Mr E. K. D. Adjaho 7 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have to lay it first before I move to the Suspension of the Standing Orders.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7 p.m.
Is the Paper ready to be laid? [Pause.] Yes, the Addendum is now before the House.
PAPERS 7 p.m.
MOTIONS 7 p.m.
Mr J. Y. Chireh 7 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to second this motion. Please, vote for it. [Laughter.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:10 p.m.
Hon Members, we are now on the procedural leg of the matter.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.

Proposed Formula for the Sharing of the District Assemblies Common

Fund for the year 2010
Mr E. K. D. Adjaho 7:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, that this House adopts the Report of the Committee of the Whole on the Proposed Formula for sharing the District Assemblies' Common Fund (DACF) for the year 2010.
Mr Speaker, in so doing, I present your Committee's Report.
1.0 Introduction
On Friday, 19th March, 2010, the Hon Majority Leader, Mr Cletus Avoka laid before Parliament the proposed Formula for sharing the 2010 District Assemblies Common Fund.
This was done pursuant to article 252 (2) of the 1992 Constitution and section 7 (a) of the District Aseemblies Common Fund (DACF) Act, 1993, (Act 455).
The Speaker referred the proposed Formula to the Committee of the Whole for consideration and report.
The Committee of the Whole met on Tuesday, 23rd March, 2010 and deliberated on the roposed Formula and reports accordingly. 2.0 Background
According to law, that is article 252 (2) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana and the District Assemblies Common Fund Act, (1993) (Act 455), Parliament is mandated to make provision for the allocation of not less than five per cent (5%) of the total revenue of Ghana to the District Assemblies Common Fund for the implementation of development pro- grames in the Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies (MMDAs). Sub- sequently, this was amended to seven per cent of the total revenue of Ghana.
By the stipulations in section 7(a) of the District Assemblies Common Fund Act, 1993, (Act 455) the Administrator of the District Assemblies Common Fund is to propose annually for the approval of Parliament a formula for sharing the Common Fund to the District Assemblies.
3.0 Acknowledgements
The Committee, during its deliberations on the Formula, met with the sector Minister, Hon Joseph Yieleh Chireh and the Administrator of the District Assemblies Common Fund, Mr Joshua Magnus Nicol and his officials.
The Committee is grateful to these persons for their contributions.

4.0 References

The Committee of the Whole in considering the proposed Formula referred to the following documents:

i. The 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana;

ii. The Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462);

iii. The District Assemblies‘ Common Fund Act, 1993 (Act

455);

iv. The Standing Orders of Parliament

v. The 2009 Report of the Com-

mittee of the Whole on the proposed Formula for sharing the Dis t r ic t Assembl ies‘ Common Fund; and

vi. 2010 Proposed Formula for the sharing of the District Assem- blies Common Fund

5.0 Development of the Formula

Mr Speaker, in developing the Formula, the Committee was informed that the Administrator continued to consider the “basic human needs” approach to development. On that basis, therefore, the principles of Needs Factor, Respon- siveness Factor, Equality Factor and the Service Pressure Factor served as a guide.

Mr Speaker, the Committee was informed that, these factors when properly applied will ultimately ensure that percep- tions about unfair and discriminatory approaches to development would be avoided.

Mr Speaker, the Committee was informed that development of the Formula involved identifying factors which were quantifiable and capable of depicting all the considerations of the Formula. Indicators were then derived for these

factors, measured and combined in mathematical relationship to arrive at a composite proportion for each district.

The guiding principle in choosing the factors and the corresponding indicators was how relevant, comprehensive, reliable, measureable and simple to interpret.

In the light of these considerations, the following factors were taken into consideration in developing the Formula:

i. The Need Factor

Regarding this factor, the Administrator considered availability or non-availability of health and educational facilities in a district and access to potable water as a determinant of how much money should go to that district.

ii. Responsiveness Factor

The responsiveness factor considered Assemblies' approach to revenue generation outside the Common Fund allocation.

iii. Service Pressure Factor

Urban areas should be compensated for the over-utilization of their facilities.

iv. Equality Factor

The underlying principle that a district should not be deprived of needed funds to pursue developmental goals is the basis of this factor. By deploying this factor, it is ensured that districts receive a certain minimum amount of funds even if all other factors go against it.

v. Reserved

There should be a reserved fund to cater for contingencies and bulk pur-chases for the districts.

6.0 Weighting Scenario For 2009

Mr Speaker, the Administrator presented three different scenarios of the weighting to the House. Based on
HEALTH 7:10 p.m.
EDUCATION 7:10 p.m.
WATER 7:10 p.m.
RESPONSIVENESS 7:10 p.m.
SERVICE PRESSURE 7:10 p.m.
INSERT 7:10 p.m.
HEALTH 7:10 p.m.
EDUCATION 7:10 p.m.
WATER 7:10 p.m.
RESPONSIVENESS 7:10 p.m.
SERVICE PRESSURE 7:10 p.m.
Mr Dominic A. Azumah (NDC -- Garu/Tempane) 7:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I rise to second the motion.
Question proposed.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu (NPP -- Suame) 7:10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, who is the First Deputy Speaker, who presented the Report, made mention of some cor- rections. He said for the constituency, the figure should appreciate by 1 per cent, so it should go to 7 per cent and the figure for the cured lepers should go down by half
percentage point to 0.5 per cent and for training, it goes down, so the new figure is 0.5per cent.
Mr.. Speaker, the Hon Chairman has
also indicated to us that in respect of the constituency percentage, 4 per cent is to go into project development and 3per cent for Monitoring and Evaluation (M and E). Mr Speaker, we should be told how these new percentages affect the quantum because the corrections did not affect the quantum provided for. Would the Hon Chairman tell us so that we know for sure what it comes to?
Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman of the Committee did not say that it should have consequential effect; he just moved it and left it there. He should tell us that it should have consequential effect on the quantum, and if it has had already, he should tell us. And clearly, the figure here is unreflective of the appreciation and the depreciation, for the cured lepers and training. So he should tells us --
Mr Avedzi 7:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was actually on a point of order to give the Hon Minority Leader what he is asking for. The explanation here is that the development figure that goes to the constituency will increase by 1 per cent, which means that whatever has been going to the district previously will increase by 1/3. So it would not be the same as it used to be where the figure for both the monitoring and the development are the same. Now, the development figure will be higher than that of the monitoring by 1 per cent or 1/3.
Mr Dery 7:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I just wanted to help clarify the situation. Table A talks about the proposal as was presented to the Committee of the Whole and below that we have “A” and “B” which were our suggestions. When we do adopt the Report, then it would be worked in. The constituency will then become 7 per cent and the corresponding figure will
be stated. I think that is what the Hon Chairman should have said and not gone that circuitous route.
But I think that it is quite clear. So it would increase accordingly. So we would say that we are adopting the Report as presented, 7 per cent with the corres- ponding figure as stated. That is all, Mr Speaker.
Mr Azumah 7:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just to help the Hon Minority Leader in the calculations.
In the Formula, the Constituency Development Fund is 6 per cent and the figure is GH¢26, 069,088.18. We are
asking that 1per cent, that is, 0.5per cent from the cured lepers and 0.5 per cent from training be added to it and that total GH¢4,344,848.03 is going to be added to the 26, which is now going to read GH¢30,413,963.21. So that is what each Member of Parliament is going to take
- GH¢30,413,936.21.
.
Dr A. A. Osei 7:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the
Chairman wants to do the right thing but he is just grossly misleading the House. Each MP cannot get GH¢30,413,963.21. Mr Speaker, what it means is that the constituency figure now goes up to, in total, GH¢30,413,936.21. But each MP-- there are 230 of us. So we cannot each be getting GH¢30 million. So the statement he made is incorrect. Mr. Speaker, if he wants the number then we may get
Dr A. A. Osei 7:10 p.m.
INSERT TABLE HERE 7.10
(Page 6)

GH¢75,562 -- something for each Hon Member.
Mr Adjaho 7:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just to thank Hon Members for this overwhelming support for the motion.
You may now put the Question.
Question put and motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:20 p.m.
Hon Members, we are back to the Consideration Stage of the Plants Bill.
BILL -- CONSIDERATION STAGE 7:20 p.m.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:20 p.m.
Hon Members, order! Order! There is an
amendment which stands in the name of the Chairman of the Committee.
Dr Alhassan 7:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is a head note.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:20 p.m.
I am told
that it is a headnote, and the drafters would take care of it.
Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:20 p.m.
Hon Members, order! Order!.
Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I noticed that we have done quite well on this Bill. Mr Speaker, with respect
to you, I noticed that you are quite worn out. Mr Speaker, the Chairman of the
Committee has done tremendously well to pilot this Bill to the stage that it has got to. Mr Speaker, unfortunately, the Hon Minister has been unavailable all
this while during which time Parliament has been most diligent helping out in
“smithing” his Bill for him.
Mr Speaker, at this time, may I propose that the mood of the House is not well disposed to continue business on this
Bill. Mr Speaker, for this reason, I may propose that we bring proceedings to an end to continue -- [Interruption.] Mr
Speaker, well, the Hon Majority Leader is beckoning, I do not know whether he is protesting or he is agreeing. I take it
that he is agreeing to the submission that I am making.
Mr Speaker, I believe that we are terribly worn out; if we may be allowed
to continue tomorrow.
Mr Speaker, I thank you.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:20 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, your inclination?
Mr Avoka 7:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support
what my Hon Colleague -- [Laughter] -- I do not want to be left here alone --[Laughter.] So I support the motion moved by the Hon Minority Leader for
adjournment to tomorrow, but I pray that tomorrow, we will have to start early
and work hard and then complete.
I thank Hon Colleagues for their perseverance and endurance today. I
am confident that tomorrow, before this time, we will be able to complete the
business.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:20 p.m.
Hon Members, the House will stand
adjourned to tomorrow at 10 o'clock in the forenoon.
Thank you very much for your cooperation.
ADJOURNMENT 7:20 p.m.