Debates of 1 Jun 2010

MADAM SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:20 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 28th May, 2010.

In the absence of any corrections, the Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 28th May, 2010 is adopted as the true record of proceedings.

We move on to Correction of the

Official Report.

I have here the Official Report of Thursday, 6th May, 2010.

In the absence of any corrections, the Official Report of Thursday, 6th May, 2010 is hereby adopted as the true record of proceedings.

Hon Members, in the absence of any corrections, the Official Report of Thursday, 27th May, 2010 is hereby adopted as the true record of proceedings.

We move on to item 3, Statements.
STATEMENTS 10:20 a.m.
Minister for the Interior (Mr Martin Amidu) 10:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker, in an incident report from the Ghana Immigration Service dated 6th May, 2010, addressed to the Ministry of the Interior, covering the period, 15th April to 5th May, 2010, it was reported that following the conflict that broke out in the Bunkpurugu/Yunyoo District of the Northern Region on March 18 and April 21, 2010, calm has returned to the district.
The Report indicated that rumours about the residents of the Bunkpurugu/ Yunyoo District fleeing to the neighbour- ing Republic of Togo (Togo) due to the fear of another looming conflict in the area could not be confirmed, given entry/exit figures at the border.
Madam Speaker, the National Disaster
Management Organization (NADMO) which had been providing for victims of the conflict in the district did not also report in its mid-May, 2010 report of any exodus of Ghanaians from the conflict area to Togo as refugees. NADMO had duly registered the number of people displaced by the conflict, all houses burnt down or whose roofs had been completely botched, the number of clinics closed down, and the fact that the schools in the conflict area had been closed down.
NADMO reported that on 11th May 2010, there was an easy calm at Nandom No. 2 when rumours spread that the village was the target of some unknown assailants. Some of the inhabitants were seen moving with their valuables to Bunkpurugu, Jelik, Chintilung, all in Ghana, and to Togo. The rumour was quickly discarded and life returned to normal in Najong and Gbankoni.
Madam Speaker, there was no report from both the District Security Committee
and the Regional Security Council of any Ghanaian refugees from the conflict area to Togo.
Madam Speaker, this was the situation
in the Bunkpurugu/Yunyoo District until it was alleged by the Britush Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) that 3,500 Ghanaians had fled the Bunkpurugu/Yunyoo District to Togo as refugees. The report which made rounds in the local media was worsened by the front page story of the 26th May, 2010 issue of the Daily Graphic stating that three thousand, five hundred (3,500) Ghanaians had fled the Bunkpurugu/Yunyoo District of the Northern Region to Togo as a result of a conflict.
Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that
the media reports were not consistent with the reports from the Ministry's agencies on the ground, and those of the Regional and District Security Councils, even after the publication of the media reports, an investigative team was dispatched by the Ministry of the Interior to the area to establish the veracity of the reports.
Madam Speaker, the conflict which is
the subject matter of the media reports on this Statement does not cover the whole of the Bunkpurugu/Yunyoo District. It is limited to three Bimoba clans who started fighting over a parcel of land at a village called Tobong as far back as January, 2008. The clans who live about 65 kilometres away from the Bunkpurugu- Yunyoo District capital are the Dikporu based at Kambatiak, the Nakuuks at Tabong and the Naadaungs at Gbankoni, who all share boundary with the Republic of Togo.
The recent conflict among three Bimoba clans of Dikporu, Nakuuks and Naadaungs is thus an intra-ethnic conflict which resulted in the burning down
of three hundred and sixty-eight (368) houses, four (4) deaths and a number of internally displaced inhabitants.
A report received from the Assessment Mission sent to the Bunkpurugu/Yunyoo District indicated that most of the displaced persons remained in Ghana. A visit by the Assessment Mission to the Republic of Togo where it is claimed the Ghanaian refugees are hosted reported sighting about twenty (20) tents unoccupied by any persons at the time of the visit.
It was observed by the team that most of the internally displaced Ghanaians continue to live on the Ghana side of the border but cross over to the Republic of Togo to receive food and aid any time food or emergency supplies are being distributed at that side and thereafter return to Ghana.
Madam Speaker, it is estimated that the total population of the area (the Dikporu, Nakuuks and Naadaungs clans) is about 2,000 with a registered voter population of 900. It would, therefore, be highly unlikely that any realistic refugee figures from there could be higher than the total population of the community.
Madam Speaker, international best practice requires that refugees be duly registered to facilitate exchange of information for their eventual return and re-integration. We have been unable to obtain any list of registered refugees from our Togolese brothers upon an earlier visit by the GIS team or the visit of the assessment team to the Togo side at the weekend.
Madam Speaker, until we obtain cogent evidence of the number of verifiable registered Ghanaian refugees on the Togo side of the border, any figures given as the number of Ghanaian refugees from this conflict on the Togo side ought to be

the area to help alleviate the plight of the displaced persons:

300 bags of maize

300 bags of rice

300 bags of beans

100 cartons of soap

100 cartons of cooking oil.

There has also been a regional allocation of:

200 packets of roofing sheets

5,000 mats

1,000 pieces of mattresses.

It is expected that the Bunkpurugu/ Yunyoo District will receive an additional allocation from the regional allocation of the roofing sheets and other materials for distribution in the district.

Madam Speaker, life is returning to normal in the area as the people in the conflict community are busy farming as well as engaging in other economic ventures.

I thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving me the floor to make this Statement.
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Thank you Hon Minister, for your Statement.
Mr Ambrose P. Dery (NPP -- Lawra/ Nandom) 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, I would like to, first of all, thank the Hon Minister for making this Statement. Except to say that, first, he talked about the report in the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) being
treated as merely speculative.
Madam Speaker, we are not in a position to deny that some Ghanaians, in fact, crossed over to the Togo side of the border in the heat of the conflict, as such, people will not first report for a roll-call before crossing over. That there may be some Ghanaians still living with relatives in Togo, we are also not in a position to deny or confirm. We can also not deny that some Ghanaians do, indeed, cross over to the Togo side any time relief items are brought there to be distributed to perceived Ghanaian refugees.
It is in the same vein that it is alleged that people from the Togolese side cross over any time NADMO is distributing relief items on the Ghana side. This is because the people at the border are the same people, divided only by an imaginary colonial border, it is difficult to tell a Ghanaian Bimoba from a Togolese Bimoba. Therein lies the paradox of setting numbers to this problem.
Madam Speaker, we are working hard to resolve any misperceptions that the allegations of Ghanaian refugees in Togo has given rise to. To this end, a team from the UNHCR (Ghana), the UNDP (Ghana), and an officer from my Ministry left Accra yesterday to join the Northern REGSEC and the Deputy Co- ordinator of NADMO who is already in Tamale to visit the conflict area again with these development partners to assess the situation for themselves.
Madam Speaker, be that as it may, Government has engaged and is engaging with the Republic of Togo to have an amicable resolution of any refugee problem created by the conflict in that area of the Bunkpurugu/Yunyoo District of the Northern Region.
Madam Speaker, Government has dispatched the following relief items to
Mr Ambrose P. Dery (NPP -- Lawra/ Nandom) 10:40 a.m.


in respect of the Bunkpurugu/Yunyoo conflict. I wish to put it on record that the initial report of BBC was in respect of Nandom and not the Bunkpurugu/ Yunyoo area.

Madam Speaker, indeed, the day that this august House decided that the Hon Minister should come and give this statement, a number of Papers, including the Crusading Guide had as their headlines: “Nandom”.

Madam Speaker, the importance of this is that, we must always get our information right on security issues. otherwise, the ramifications will be too serious for us. Madam Speaker, I do not want to believe that certain news reports that we heard prior to this misinformation relating to the fact that the police said that, at a certain stage, they had to withdraw because the District Assembly could not support, could be partly a reason for this.

Madam Speaker, I would like to urge the Hon Minister for the Interior to ensure that the attention that is given to the security of every community in this country is not predicated on the resources that the Assemblies can mobilise. Otherwise, it means that, we are going to be in for a lot of troubles.

I want to correct it that it started as Nandom, and therefore, it is necessary for the Ministry to have a communication system that would correct these mistakes immediately.

Madam Speaker, finally, we should ensure that people are secured regardless of the resource base of the District Assemblies.
rose
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Thank you very
much, Hon Member.

Hon Member, normally, a Minister's Statement --
Mr Duut 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker --
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
This is not an
ordinary Statement where everybody comments. This is a Minister's Statement.
Mr Cletus A. Avoka 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, if I can crave your indulgence. Madam Speaker, I think it is expedient and prudent that the Member of Parliament for the constituency where this unfortunate development took place, if he is desirous, to be permitted to contribute to the Statement.
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Well, all right --
Mr Avoka 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, at least, if nobody will contribute at all --
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
All right. I was just drawing attention to the Order which says that we do not comment on these Statements.

Yes, Hon Member.
Mr Emmanuel K. Duut (NDC -- Bunkpurugu/Yunyoo) 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I rise to comment on the Statement made by the Hon Minister.
Madam Speaker, Bunkpurugu/Yunyoo is really noted for conflicts, not only this year, but for a number of years past. The current conflict occurred as a result of an argument over a parcel of land. And the communities concerned or affected are divided by the natural border, of which part of their families are in Togo and some are in Ghana, and movement to Togo and Ghana is a daily activity carried out by
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, curiously, I see the Member for the place nodding his head that the tents were erected for the glory of it. Let him be truthful to himself. I do not think that certainly will be the practice. And in any event, what did the United Nations High
citizens in those communities. So when the conflict occurred, it was natural for some to move into Togo and some to remain in Ghana.
Madam Speaker, this does not mean they are refugees in Togo because some of them moved to stay with their half relatives in Togo and others who were in Ghana also moved to stay with their colleagues in Ghana. So it is something like an internal displacement, not a refugee situation. [Interruptions.] That is why I am saying that it is a daily activity in the area. [Interruptions.] Yes, I was part of the team that crossed into Togo to ascertain the truth. And when we got there, the tents were clean, emptied, not occupied by any person -- [Inter-ruptions.]
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Order!
Mr Duut 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, farms around the houses were already farmed, and they were there sowing. So, in fact, it was surprising to have heard the news that Ghanaian refugees were up to 3,500 camped in Togo. That is not true; it is not true. As the Member of Parliament for the area, this is the fact of the matter I am telling Ghanaians today.
I support what the Regional Minister said. Actions have been taken by the Ministry, National Disaster Management Organisation (NADMO) and National Security. The necessary support has been given to the citizens of Bunkpurugu/ Yunyoo who were affected by the conflict, and life has returned to normalcy.
Minority Leader (Mr Osei Kyei- Mensah-Bonsu) 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to also comment briefly on the Statement made by the Hon Minister.

Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and the UNDP say about it? If they went there and the people who went there might have moved back, that clearly, I guess, is what I derived from what the Hon Minister said.

But for the Hon Member to say that nobody went there at all, the erection of the tents would not be for the glorification of the area. So that is quite ridiculous and ludicrous for the Hon Member to say
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Order!
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the Hon Minister alludes to a conflict situation. He tells us that no report came from the District Security Committee, and no report came from the Regional Security Council relating to what occurred there. May the Hon Minister tell us what perhaps -- that is why Hon Asaga -- that is why I said if it is possible -- [Interuptiion] it is not question time. I am only commenting on the Statement, I know the rules, I will not go beyond them
So I am saying that if I heard the Hon Minister rightly, and if, indeed, the Hon Minister said that, I want to hear what occasioned the inability of the District Security Committee and Regional Security Council to have detected on their radar the infractions that occurred. I may also want to know what remedial actions are being taken to not only abate the conflict but to ensure that what prompted the conflict even after being told that it is not a today's event -- Whether indeed, we are attending to that. If the Hon Minister may tell us.

May the Hon Minister also tell us if it is possible because he talked about internally displaced persons? He told us about the number of houses that had been burnt down and the number of people who have rather unfortunately lost their lives. Four people dead. May we know what is happening to the families of the deceased and also to know how many internally- displaced persons there were?

As I said, these are some of the outstanding questions that I have for the Hon Minister if he has the answers to provide us.

Madam Speaker, I thank you and once again, I thank him for coming to brief this House on the situation.
Mr Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo (NDC -- Wa Central) 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I also rise to support -
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Well, Honourable, you know a Statement from a Minister can be commented upon. Just shortly. It is not like a normal Statement of public affairs but the Hon Minister is here to tell us the facts of what he knows and the Hon Minority Leader wants further facts which may not come today but he has asked for them and I think they would have to be provided. But otherwise, we are not opening a door to comment on this Statement. So let me hear what you have to say.
Mr Pelpuo 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, in actual fact, it is to contribute to the Statement, so you can decide whether the Minister --
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
That is why I said I would want to hear you.
Mr Pelpuo 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, let me start by thanking the Hon Minister for responding to our request to make a Statement here regarding what became an international issue that bothered us a lot when we heard it.
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
My problem is, we are not debating the Hon Minister's Statement.
Mr Pelpuo 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, this is not a debate. It is not a debate. I am making an observation --
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
The Minister came to give us facts and we are asking for more facts, so, even calling on the Member of Parliament for the area, I was not even too much in favour but it needs to stop at this stage.
Mr Pelpuo 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, it is a simple thing that I want to say. Even though we have to be wary about these issues and be careful about them, it is important that we get all the facts so that it should also be a caution to the international media as well as the Ghanaian media, to do cross-checking before such public statements are made. This is because they tend to paint a dark picture of a country which is actually not in the situation they are trying to paint.
Thank you very much.
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
That is why the Hon Minister is here to correct any wrong impressions, which I think he has succeeded but however, I thank you.
Shall we move on.?
Thank you, Hon Minister. I think more facts are needed, if you can provide them. I think you took down notes.
Hon Minister for the Interior, I think the Minority Leader wanted a few facts. The Minority Leader referred to a few facts he wanted. Not now but supply them to us.
Hon Minority Leader, I think we are

Mr Ambrose Dery - rose
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Is it a point of order?
Mr Dery 10:40 a.m.
On a point of order. Madam Speaker, I think that my Colleague on the other side would have a point but if he makes a blanket statement - yes, that NGOs would want to cash in - I think that in view of the fact that we have a lot of NGOs that are doing genuine work, good work, I think if he does not have facts to specify, he should probably withdraw that. I do not think it is fair that he should make such a statement.
Mr Pelpuo 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I think my Hon Deputy Minority Leader should do well to listen to what I am saying. I am saying that when these things occur, some NGOs, some development agencies might want to cash into it by painting a bizarre picture. It is common knowledge in the world that they try to give a black picture of it in order to earn money to work on it and I am saying that -
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Honourable - [Pause.]
Mr Pelpuo 10:40 a.m.
The situation we are seeing now, the Hon Minister has said that the total population of the people -
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Well, I did not like to open this door but - [Pause.]
Mr Pelpuo 10:40 a.m.
The total population of the whole area is just 2,000. The voter population is 900. We have heard on the

all interested.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, I raised a few issues and I thought the Hon Minister will be competent to address some of them, at least. For those of them that he may decide to come back later to the House, I have no problem. For those of them that he cannot provide some comfort to the House -
Madam Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon Member, I
am not going to call the Hon Minister to answer any question because it is just comments that we want from you. Your comments have been taken and he will come back with all these facts. If we say, right now he should come and answer any question, then we are really moving into the area of Questions and not comments. That is my view and that your questions will be answered in due time.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, with all due respect, the convention in the House, when Statements have been made by Ministers, is to comment and solicit clarifications and so on. Madam Speaker, that is just what I sought to do and not to provoke debate. That is why I am saying, if it lies within the competence of the Minister -
Madam Speaker 11 a.m.
That is what I was
avoiding - to provoke debate.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, so you would know, with respect, that I steered clear of provoking debate. I raised certain issues regarding the Statement itself made by the Hon Minister . If he has the competence to answer, fine. If he does not and he pleads for time, I have no qualms at all about that. But indeed, the convention is that when a Statement is made, comments may be made and out of the comments, if the Minister has to respond to some of the

comments made, the Minister is enabled and he is not restrained and constricted by our rules of procedure to clarify the situation for us.

Madam Speaker, it is not in any way to challenge what you said, if you mean that for a ruling.
Madam Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon Minority
Leader, I was just looking at the rules and of course, as for conventions in the House, I am a baby in them but I thought having made those points, what has happened to this, how many widows, what has happened to the relatives was a matter which the Minister should come and address us on. So I thought we should end it by asking him to come back and if you agree, I will ask him to jot those points down, find the answers and come back.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, I have nothing useful to add to what you have said, if you so direct, so be it.
Madam Speaker 11 a.m.
We thank you.
Hon Minister, except that, come again with those answers.
Shall we move to the Commencement of Public Business, that is, item 4 - Presentation and First Reading of Bills.
Hon Leader, item 4, is it coming on?
Mr Avoka 11 a.m.
Madam Speaker, item 4 is
not ready for presentation today.
Madam Speaker 11 a.m.
So you ask that we
stand it down? Shall we stand it down and move on to item 5?
Hon Leader, what is the next item?
Mr Avoka 11 a.m.
The next item will be
item 5. The Chairman of the Pan African Parliament who is also our First Deputy Speaker is not available this morning. Madam Speaker, we may have to defer this one too till he is available.
Madam Speaker 11 a.m.
Items 4 and 5
MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 11:06 a.m.
Hon Members, item 6. Plants Bill at the Consideration Stage.
BILLS - CONSIDERATION STAGE 11:06 a.m.
  • [Continuation of debate from 27-5- 2010]
    • Dr Alhassan 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Sspeaker, I beg
    to move, clause 73, head note, delete “manufactures” and insert “manufac- turers”:
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 73 as anmended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 74 - Processing of Application
    Mr William O. Boafo 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 74, subclause 5 add “fourteen days after decision.
    Mr Speaker, we did not provide any time period within which the application for review could be made; as it is now, the sky is the limit. But there should be a period within which such a right could be exercised by the applicant.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Thank

    you, Hon Boafo.

    Hon Members, the amendment is that clause 74 (5) should be amended by adding “within fourteen days”. Therefore, it would read -

    “A person whose application for registration is refused may apply to the Minister for a review of the decision within fourteen days.”

    Yes, Hon Boafo?
    Mr Boafo 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    “within fourteen days from the date of refusal”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    “Within fourteen days from the date of refusal?”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the intention really is not to arrest the voting. But I think that we should be consistent in what we are doing. I just looked back and I see at clause 36, that is Part 2, we have “Processing of application” and I just wanted the Chairman to lead us - [Interruption.]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Order! Order! Hon Members, order!
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
    Possibly, what we did when we were dealing with Part ii - “Processing an application with respect to seed”, Part ii. If we did that, then for consistency sake, if we repeat it here, I think it would be in sync with what we did earlier. But now we are at Part iii - Processing of application, and we are introducing this. I just want us to be consistent in what we do.
    So if the Chairman could let us know
    satisfies that important query; and it is useful because we have to be consistent.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, with the coast clear now, we can take the Vote.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, are you satisfied?
    Dr Alhassan 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment was originally proposed by the Committee on clause 36. So what Hon W. O. Boafo is suggesting is consistent with Part ii of the Bill.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 76 - Condition for transfer of registration.
    Dr Alhassan 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 76, head note, delete “Condition for transfer of registration” and insert “Non transferability of registration”.
    Mr Boafo 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is consistent with the corresponding clause under the Seeds, that is clause 38. There also, non transferability of registration was inserted.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank the Hon Member for Akropong for the additional information provided. Except to say that “Non transferability” as occurs here, Mr Speaker, is one word not two words because if you are going
    what we did for clause 36 -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, clause 36 (2)?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
    Clause
    36 (3).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Where the Minister refuses to grant the application?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
    Yes, clause36 (4)
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Clause36 (4)?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
    Yes, clause36 (4) Mr Speaker. I just want us to flash back -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, the point simply is, should we leave this as it is or amend clause36 (4) so that we have consistency?
    Mr Boafo 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, on the 25th of March when we were at the Consideration Stage of the same Bill, if you look at page 24 of the Votes and Proceedings, we amended clause 36 (4), line 2. The recording in the Votes and Proceedings is as follows.
    “Clause 36, amendment proposed, ‘subclause 4, line 2, at end insert ‘and the Minister shall determine the review within fourteen days after receipt of the application”.
    So Mr Speaker, what we are doing now is consistent with the earlier amendment we made to clause 36 (4).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    That
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, would you recommend a hyphen or a dash between - [Pause.]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, either way is right. Either we make it one word or a hyphen between “non” and “transferability”. It is the same thing; the effect is the same.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    So the amendment stands, save that there should be a hyphen between “non” and “transferability” for the sake of clarity; so that they do not conjoin.
    Mr Pelpuo 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, that was a very good observation, but if you read the clause,

    “Non transferability” does not define what is written there; the two are different things altogether and the heading is rather misleading. There is an exception, you cannot transfer with an exception and so you cannot categorise and say “non transferability”. So I think that even the present situation where we said -

    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr Alhassan 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 76, lines 1 and 2, delete

    “except with the written approval of the Minister”.

    This probably cures the Deputy

    Majority Leader's difficulty as earlier proposed.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clause 76 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 77 - Renewal of registration.
    Dr Alhassan 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 77, subclause (1), delete and insert the following:
    “(1) Registration is granted
    (a) in the case of manufacturers, registration is for five years in the first instance and subsequently to be renewed every two years.
    (b) in the case of importers and distributors, registration is granted for two years in the first instance and may be renewed under terms specified by the Minister.”
    Clause 77 (1), the original rendition as enshrined in the Bill tendered to lump manufacturers and importers to be put under one regime in terms of legislation. Upon further discussion, it was realized that manufacturers as such had a bigger investment to make than the other group and therefore, what the amendment seeks to do is to extend the time limit for registration for manufacturers and then put importers and distributors at a sub (b).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 77 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Mr E. K. D. Adjaho 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am making application to have item 5 - Laying of Papers -- on the Order Paper for today taken. I come under Standing Order 53 (2), dealing with change of business.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    Very well, Hon First Deputy Speaker, you may proceed.
  • [Continuation of debate at column 161.]
    • PAPERS 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    Thank you, we may now proceed with the -
    Mr Kwame Osei-Prempeh 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to know in what capacity the First Deputy Speaker laid this Paper.
    As Chairman of what committee? He said by the Chairman of the Committee, which committee is he the Chairman?
    Mr Adjaho 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, he is right even though his objection is rather late. You have ordered that it is laid for distribution but it is true, it should be the leader of the delegation. He is absolutely right, so by the Chairman of the Committee, should be by the leader of the delegation.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, while we are at it, I believe we should have a proper description of the

    people who go to represent this Parliament at the two Parliaments; Pan African Parliament and the ECOWAS Parliament.

    Mr Speaker, in all fairness, they are not a delegation. They are representatives, so when they go there, they are represen- tatives and not a delegation from this Parliament. Mr Speaker, the Hon Member for Nsuta/Kwamang/Beposo wants to make an intervention but I believe he knows the world of difference between a delegation and representatives.

    He knows, by protocol, they are representatives and not a delegation, let him refer himself to that.
    Mr Adjaho 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not want us to belabour this point and I do not intend to go into the protocol. Indeed, if you look at the protocol as he is talking about, strictly speaking, once you get there, you do not represent this Parliament again. We represent the people of Africa, we become representatives in the Parliament of Africa. But it is this Parliament that has delegated us to go and represent this country. And I am a bit surprised, but we are all learning.
    When he was the leader of the ECOWAS delegation, he never complained about the use of the word “delegation” - [Laughter] - Now, he is saying that we should not use the word again. But, at least, it is an improvement over what we have on the Order Paper as a committee which the Hon Member for Nsuta/Kwamang/ Beposo (Mr Kwame Osei-Prempeh) has pointed out. At least, for now, let us do with the word “delegation” and then at the appropriate time, we will adopt a word appropriate to both sides of the House.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    So,
    in fact, it is possible that there may be representatives in one capacity, while representing the people of Ghana or people of Africa, and so long as they relate to this Honourable House, they
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 11:30 a.m.
    STAGE 11:30 a.m.
  • [Continuation of debate from column . . .159.]
    • Mr Haruna Iddrisu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    thank you very much.
    Mr Speaker, if you look at subclause (1), the construction in both (a) and (b), in view, is not neat enough.
    For instance, it is stated that: “ (a) in the case of manufacturers,
    registration is for five years:”
    Then when you come to (b), it says:
    “(b) in the case of importers and distributors, registration is granted for two years …”
    If we want to use the word “granted”, we should use it at both instances, and if we are doing away with it, let us eliminate the word “granted” so that we will have consistency and neatness. So my further amendment should read as follows:

    “(a) in the case of manufacturers, registration is for five year, in the first instance and it is renewable after every two years.”

    The use of the word “subsequently” can also be misleading, if we say “. . . subsequently to be renewed …” It should just read: “… and it is renewable after every two years.”

    The third line should read as such so

    that in respect of (b), it should read as follows:

    “ (b) in the case of importers and distributors, registration is for two years..”

    The word “granted”should be deleted and continue as follows:

    “… in the first instance and may be renewed under terms specified by the Minister.”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the Hon Minister wants a more concise construction, which is why he is proffering that. But he would know that by the construction that he is proffering, it would mean that the process of registration is for five years by what he has said, which is not the intendment. So he should look at that and come with a better construction.
    Mr H. Iddrisu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it states
    that:
    “(1) Registration is granted
    (a) in the case of manufacturers, registration is for five years in the first instance and subsequently to be renewed every two years.”
    Now, if you go further to (b), it says:
    (b) in the case of importers and distributors, registration is granted for two years . . .”
    Why do we have that? In the first instance, we did not use the words “is granted” yet, we are talking about the same subject; the same issue. So I was saying that these words “is to be granted” themselves must be deleted or we import them into (a) and (b) for the purpose of consistency. Then the renewable principle -- Mr Speaker, which says:
    “… and subsequently to be renewed every two years.”
    Mr Speaker, if we want to say after two years, let us say so. When we say “it is subsequently to be renewed every two years . . .”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Hon
    Minority Leader, I hope you are very clear with the proposal of the Hon Minister at this stage?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, I understand the principle, I know where he is coming from. He wants a more concise expression.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Hon
    Minority Leader, would you kindly help with the concise expression that you are conjecturing?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, with respect to the Hon Minister for Communications, I know he is capable of rising above what he has done. Let him come in a tidier way and we will move on.
    Mr Speaker, the principle is well understood, and as I said, we should not make it appear by that construction that the process of registration is for five years, that is not the intendment.
    After registration, one has five years,

    then after, at the expiring of five years, registration could then be done every two years. That is the intendment of that construction.

    As I said, what the Hon Minister is proposing is to make it tidier; his own proposition is tidier than what we have here, except that it is subject to various interpretations and he understands. So let him do a better construction and we will go with him.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Hon Minister, we are looking for your assistance and if you would kindly help.
    Mr H. Iddrisu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I will
    and I appreciate the direction of the Hon Minority Leader. But Mr Speaker, even upon further consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, what he means when he says “renewed every two years” is that, you only renew it for only two years after the first five years. That is not conveyed in this particular amendment. So I would think that the rendition, in my view, should read as follows:
    “(1) Registration is granted
    (a) in case of the manufacturers, registration is for five years in the first instance and renewable for two or a year.”
    Mr Speaker, or if we want to add “even for an additional two years”-- That is what the Chairman sought to convey. And for (b), it should read as follows:
    (b) in the case of importers and distributors, registration is for two years…”
    The words “is granted” should be deleted and should continue with:
    “… may be renewed under terms specified by the Minister.”
    I humbly submit for the consideration
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Hon
    William Boafo, does this touch on your amendment?
    Mr Boafo 11:30 a.m.
    No, Mr Speaker. But if
    I heard him right, he was saying that it should be granted in the first instance for five years, and renewable every two years -- renewable at the intervals of two years. I think a more concise expression would be “renewable at the intervals of two years”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Hon
    Minister, would you like to take that into consideration and give us a rendition?
    Mr H. Iddrisu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, maybe,
    I will confer with the Chairman; I am still getting slightly concerned. Because even when we say “in the first instance for five years, and it is renewable every two years,” it may mean that within the five years, you have to do arenewal depending upon how we couch the word. So we would have to do a reconstruction of it and I will do it with the Chairman and if Hon Boafo can join us, that is appreciated, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    So we will hold on with your amendment for it to be polished.
    Hon Boafo, your amendment on clause
    77, subclause 2 -
    Mr Pelpuo 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the introduction of the word “renew” tells you that the five years has an expiry time. So there is no fear that it is within the five years. If they say, “in the first instance five years and renewable every two years”, it conveys a very clear sense that it is after the five years that the question of renewal comes in. So we could just introduce

    “after” to --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Thank you. I believe the Hon Minister for Communications and his Colleagues would work on this. For example, introducing things like “in the first instance for five years and thereafter renewable …,” I believe they are very - let them work on this and come.
    Hon Boafo, I hope you are with me?
    Mr Boafo 11:40 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Hon Minister for Communications, if we look at it in terms of granting “in the first instance for five years and renewable thereafter for two years,” that kind of expression, I believe, we can --
    Mr H. Iddrisu 11:40 a.m.
    I am very fine with that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    So we are getting somewhere. Very well, then can you conclude that and then come back to us?
    Mr H. Iddrisu 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 77 should read:
    “Registration is granted:
    (a) in the case of manufacturers for five years in the first instance and renewable for two years.”
    “In the case of importers and
    distributors, for two years in the first instance and may be renewed under terms specified by the Minister.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, have you got that clearly or you want him to repeat it?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the Hon Minister may repeat -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Yes, so that it becomes very clear. The idea is very clear, but -- [Pause.]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:40 a.m.
    The idea is very clear, but while we are at that, he may address his mind to the last line in (a) when he said that “subsequently renewable for two years””
    I think the intendment here is that whenever it is done, it will then be for two years. But by what you read, I got the impression that after the expiry of the first five years, you can only do it for another two years. But it would have to be rolling over for two years, two years, two years. So if we can capture that because that is the intention. That is why I said he should read it again and factor that, what I have just suggested, into the new construction, and Mr Speaker, I believe we would be home and dry.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    So that it would not look like for one instance only, so that in “every subsequent instance, for a period of two years only; if that can only be captured. Hon Minister for Communications, so that “renewable for a period of two years in each instance”.
    Mr H. Iddrisu 11:40 a.m.
    Perfect, Mr Speaker, “renewable for two years in each instance”. So we can add “in each instance” to make it perfect.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Does that help?
    Mr Boafo 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am familiar with the expression “renewable every two years at any one time”, not “at every instance”; “at any one time”. That is the

    language I am familiar with.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    You would prefer “at any one time”?
    Mr Boafo 11:40 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Very well, the idea is captured.
    Hon Minister for Communications, kindly read all that for us so that we know it would be captured accordingly.
    Mr H. Iddrisu 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, ordinarily, I would have needed the guidance of the Minority Leader and Hon Boafo, but I would attempt. The Chairman of the Committee will do that for us, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Very well, Chairman of the Committee?
    Dr Alhassan 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause
    77(1):
    “Registration is granted - (a) in the case of manufacturers, for
    five years in the first instance and renewable for two years at any one time.”
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Hon Boafo, “at any one time”?
    Mr Boafo 11:40 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, I believe there is “and thereafter is renewable for two years at any one time”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    “And thereafter renewable for two years at any one time?”
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the more appropriate construction would be “and thereafter is renewable for two years at any one time”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    There is a further amendment to clause 77.
    Mr Boafo 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe there is clause 77 (1) (b) which has not been taken. We have taken clause 77(1) (a) so we are left with (1) (b) and it is for the Chairman of the Committee to make the proposal.
    Dr Alhassan 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 77(1) (b), delete and insert as follows:
    “In the case of importers and distributors, for two years in the first instance and may be renewed under terms specified by the Minister.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Boafo 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 77, subclause (2), at end, add the following:
    “except that the Minister may at the request of the applicant extend the renewal dateline.”
    Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment is to introduce some flexibility. As it is now, if the person or the applicant by any misfortune forgets to apply to the Minister and the period expires, then it means that is the end, he cannot have any right to apply for renewal. And most importantly, Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment now is consistent with an earlier amendment we have made which has been accepted by the House.
    I have the Votes and Proceedings here, that is, 22nd March, 2010, page 25, “clause 39 - Amendment proposed - subclause
    Mr Boafo 11:40 a.m.


    (2), at end add “except that the Minister may at a request by the applicant extend the renewal date.” Proposed by myself -- “Question put and amendment agreed to.” So it is a matter of consistency in the legislation.
    Mr H. Iddrisu 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, my initial inclination would be to oppose this amendment because we expect that applicants must be diligent and they should stick to the rules if they require to be so registered. However, if we want flexibility for the purpose of Ministers to extend the renewable deadline, I may want to urge the Hon Boafo that his amendment may be altered further to read:
    “. . . except that the Minister may extend the renewable dateline without any reference to the applicant”,
    so that the Minister is exercising some authority and flexibility in determining that. But to do that at the applicant's request - Mr Speaker, if you have an applicant who is not ready to do business, he comes to tell you “postpone, I am on my way, I will come again”, Mr Speaker there will be others. I think that he may wish to further amend his proposal or abandon it all or go for an option which would read that “except that the Minister may extend the renewable dateline”.
    So that the mandate is left with the Minister to exercise, which we often do here through even Legislative Instruments (L.I.s)
    Mr Boafo 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would not have reacted to the Hon Minister's except that now I see some change in his attitude. He has tasted the exercise of Ministerial power, so he now thinks that he wants to object to the flexibility approach. [Laughter.]
    Mr Speaker, he knows and he would agree with me that the expression, “at the request of” is nothing than on the application by the applicant. It is not putting the authority on the other side. “At the request of” is only another form of saying “on the application by the applicant”. That is, the Minister may not act suo motu but he should act on the application by the applicant.
    So, if he agrees with the rationale behind the proposed amendment, he should concede.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    And the Hon Minister knows very well that lawyers are always making applications for extension of time and so on, though the rules are there. So, if the circumstances are justified, the Minister will accept. If they iare not justifiable, he will throw them away.
    Hon Minister, shall we put the Question?
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Yes,
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
    Mr Pelpuo 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, let us advert
    our minds to the very purpose of this Bill. Clause 72 says that the purpose of Part III is to provide for the control and regulation of fertilizers. And we know what it is dealing with. We also know what it is applying fertilizer for. It has to do with the whole survival of our farmers in the industry.
    So, the regulation has to be strict and must be adhered to by clients and users. So, I believe that if we give too much leverage to the applicant, they will abuse it. And I suppose that the amendment might not be necessary at all, given the import of the Bill we want to send to our clients.
    Mr H. Iddrisu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, even
    before I make my submission, may I request Hon Colleagues to read in particular clause 77 (2):
    “a person who desires to renew the registration shall submit an application for renewal to the Minister not later than three months before the registration process.”
    This is adequate and sufficient time. Why do we still want to give the applicant the adoption of wanting to request the Minister to extend a deadline?
    I think that if we tie clause 77 (2) together, Hon Boafo should re-consider this particular proposal. Even if want to grant it, it should be left to the flexibility of the Minister and not at the instance of the applicant. Three months is sufficient period, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Boafo 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, as I indicated early on, I have been motivated by the flexibility approach. That is the basis of my argument, that in legislation, we need to be more flexible, and he is familiar with the right to apply for extension in almost all cases. Even in the Court of Appeal, when you are given three months, you have the right to apply for extension for another one month. There is bound to be forgetfulness. There is bound to be mistakes on the part of applicants. That is why there is room for extension of time.
    But if it is made so strict, then you cannot, after the expiry of the date - And we must be guided - I always mention this rule of construction - that the inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of the other. And this can seriously be used or canvassed by an advocate in the court of law to deprive a rather genuine person from pursuing a right cause which he is entitled to in order to achieve his business purposes.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Hon
    Mr H. Iddrisu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wish I could be persuaded by your conclusions. However, that is why I was further urging Hon Boafo to let it read that “except that the Minister may extend the renewable dateline”.
    Mr Speaker, the very good example you pointed out can only point out to a very dead or redundant postal system where there is reference to parcels not reaching in three months. Mr Speaker, the reasonable time theory, three months is adequate and reasonable time for a transaction. And for an applicant to be aware that his renewable

    process is three months, if, indeed, they are in business, even before three months, they know that before end of year, they must be facilitating other applications for purposes of renewal.

    So, I am demonstrating his kind of flexibility by saying that he should maintain the amendment but further amend it to read: “except that the Minister may extend the renewal dateline” so that the authority and flexibility rests with the Minister.
    Mr Boafo 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree to his proposed further amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    That the “Minister may extend the renewal -
    Mr Boafo 11:50 a.m.
    The deletion of “at the request of the applicant”. So that the new rendition will be:
    “except that the Minister may extend the renewal dateline”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    So that the proposed amendment should read:
    “except that the Minister may extend the renewal dateline”.
    Is that all?
    Mr Boafo 11:50 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    And will this renewal dateline be a kind of general extension or a case-by-case extension?
    Mr H. Iddrisu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is why we are leaving this to the discretion of the Minister. On the basis of compelling circumstances, he may extend the dateline.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Is the amendment “except that the Minister may extend the renewal dateline” clear now?
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
    Mr Speaker,
    I am happy that my Hon Colleague has dropped the amendment as he proposed. I think the new one is better because the effect of the registration is to last for five years. And if one intends to renew, you have the entire five-year period to do it except that you cannot go less than three months before the expiry and I think that it is a reasonable proposal . This further amendment says that the Minister may extend the date for renewal and I think we should take it as that.
    I may further, Mr Speaker, propose that instead of saying “except that the Minister may extend the renewal dateline”, it should more appropriately read:
    “except that the Minister may extend the dateline for renewal”.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that that is the more appropriate construction.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker noon
    So that
    the amendment proposed should read:
    “Except that the Minister may extend the dateline for renewal”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 77 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 78 - Power to suspend, cancel or modify registration.
    Mr Boafo noon
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
    clause 78, subclause (4), paragraph (a), line 1, after “in” insert “the Gazette or in. . .”
    Mr Speaker, the idea behind the proposal is to make the cancellation, suspension or modification on notice; the original rendition does not provide notice to the applicant.
    In the first place, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a correction in my proposed amendment. It reads that: “The Minister may be…” but it should be “The Minister may by notice…”. So the idea is that it should be on notice to the applicant and it should not be an arbitrary exercise by the Minister.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr H. Iddrisu noon
    Mr Speaker, I support
    the proposed amendment except to further ask whether the word “cancel” should not be substituted for “revoke” but there is no difficulty atall going with
    “The Minister may by notice in writing having the authority to suspend, cancel or modify a registration”
    I just want to know what we use in contemporary times, whether it is “cancel” or “revoke”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker noon
    Very
    often, it appears when it comes to things like licences and so on, we use the smaller word “cancel” and when it comes to bigger things, then we talk about revocation. That is the tendency anyway
    Very well, Hon Members.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
    Mr
    Speaker, again, I would want us to go back to what we did in respect of clause 40 so that we would be consistent because that also talks about power to suspend, cancel or modify registration.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker noon
    Very
    well.
    Mr H. Iddrisu noon
    Mr Speaker, I abandon
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker noon
    It is
    very strong, let us leave it for higher matters not licences.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker noon
    There
    is a further amendment to clause 78 which stands in the name of Hon Boafo.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
    Mr Speaker,
    I just want us to be very exact in what we did in respect of clause 78 (1) even though you have already put the Question.
    Mr Speaker, I do not want to believe that the construction here by the person proposing the amendment, Hon Boafo, is to end at where he has ended. I thought that, because he said we should delete and substitute, we should have the other leg incorporated in this:
    “The Minister may by notice in writing suspend, cancel or modify a registration if there is good reason for the suspension, cancellation or modification.”
    I do not think you intended that we should end at where you have ended. So I just wanted us to have the full complement if the Chairman does not disagree. If they believe that we should end here, so be it.
    Dr Alhassan noon
    Mr Speaker, I think
    the submission by Hon W. O. Boafo is very appealing because the issues of justification for the cancellation of whatever, should come in the adminis- trative procedures put in place that an applicant should respect to get his registration going and that should be in the regulations that will back the main legislation.
    That is why I thought that it should not end at “the Minister may by notice

    in writing suspend, cancel or modify a registration” and leave the justification to the administrative procedures leading to the registration.
    Mr H. Iddrisu noon
    Mr Speaker, I believe
    that the motivation of Hon Boafo in insisting that there must be notice in writing is to check unreasonableness and capriciousness. So once a Minister will write, you would give basis why you want to cancel or modify a particular licence. So I would think that the rendition as was read should stand. We would not need to go further in stating the good reasons; the notice in writing is to deal with that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker noon
    Very
    well, shall we then proceed?
    Hon Boafo, you may please, move your amendment.
    Mr Boafo noon
    Mr Speaker, I want to withdraw 78 (4) to be consistent with the earlier thing that we have done to similar provisions.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker noon
    Very
    well:
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, you are agreeable to that so we can proceed?
    Dr Alhassan Yakubu noon
    Absolutely,
    yes.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker noon
    Very
    well. The further amendment is withdrawn.
    Clause 78 ordered to stand part of the
    Bill.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am sorry, but I have not been part of the earlier considerations. But I noticed, after being part today, that correspondence is to the Minister. What we have here is the Ministry. Is clause 79 (1) the Ministry or the Minister?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, it appears that from clauses 79 (1), 80, 81 and apparently furthermore, we are now speaking in terms of the Ministry as against the Minister. I do not know whether you have any observation on this.
    Dr Alhassan 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the issues that I referred to for specific actions, the Minister is held accountable. But we want to involve the entire Ministry in this particular case because we do not want people's documents and information in respect of the subject to be out in the place, that is why the entire Ministry is being committed and not the Minister. We do not want the situation where the Minister may not be doing it and somebody else will do it in the Ministry and would not be held liable.
    Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 80 - Publication of infor- mation.
    Dr Alhassan 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 80, paragraph (a), line 2, delete “and region” and insert “region and district”.
    Mr Speaker, it is just about information gathering in respect of fertilizer movement and consumption. The earlier rendition left it at just accounting for the tonnage and by region, including districts so that data with respect to consumption and movement of fertilizer into districts would be accountable.
    Mr H. Iddrisu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is because the Chairman was on his feet. But even in his own submission, he did what is appropriate, “regions” and “districts”. I think we are referring to a plural; we just need to add “s” and not “region” and “district”. But in his submission, he used the words “regions” and “districts.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon

    Members, the substitution should read: “regions” and “districts”. Add “s” to “region”, add “s” to “district.”

    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clause 80 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 81 - Fertilizer register.
    Dr Alhassan 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 81, head note, delete “Fertilizer Register” and insert “Register of Fertilizers”.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Dr Alhassan 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 81, paragraph (a), line 1, delete “fertilizer types” and insert “types of fertilizer”.
    Mr Speaker, paragraph (a) is talking about fertilizer types, and the proposal is to delete fertilizer types and say types of fertilizer. Mr Speaker, that seems to be more appropriate.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, two things. The first one relates to the amendment proposed. It should be “types of fertilizer” and not “types of fertilizer”.
    Mr Speaker, after the cleaning of the head note, I thought the opening paragraph for clause 81, the Chairman should have read that consequential upon the amendment that he did in the head note, it should reflect in the opening paragraph. If he could do that for us.
    Dr Alhassan 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought the Hon Minority Leader has just done that so - that is accepted. The opening sentence should have cleaned up the head note. That is to say, it should be “Register of fertilizer”. Indeed, I have it in my notes except that it did not come up.
    So clause 81, the head note will be “Register of fertilizer”. The clause itself shall be
    “The Ministry shall keep a Register of Fertilizer in which it shall be recorded
    (a) types of fertilizer manufac- tured or imported into this country.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr Alhassan 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 81, paragraph (b), line 2, delete “seed” and insert “fertilizer”.
    The subject here is “seed” and not “fertilizer”. So the names, addresses, principal places of business and other particulars of entities which register as fertilizer dealers and not seed dealers.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Chairman would have helped us if he had said “register as dealers in fertilizer” and not “fertilizer dealers” and I hope he would appreciate what I have said.
    Dr Alhassan 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, both of us are not lawyers but if the legal people accept the construction, that is fine.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    It is more of elegance of expression than a legal issue. It is well taken.
    Chairman of the Committee, can you read the entire rendition now for us then?
    Dr Alhassan 12:10 p.m.
    The proposed amendment for clause 81 (b)
    “The names, addresses, principal places of business and other particulars of entities which register as dealers in fertilizer and (c) . . .”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr Alhassan 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think

    there is a small misunderstanding. That particular main heading is about clause 82 and note clause 81.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    That also will come to clause 82?
    Dr Alhassan 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not
    know how it came about, but the idea is to delete that main headline. “Manufac- turing and distribution of fertilizers” is to be deleted. So, clause 81 just starts with the head note: “Register of fertilizer”. Maybe it should have been an earlier proposal. It should come to the end.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    So that
    further affects clause 81?
    Mr Boafo 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is not clause
    81, I think it is a sub-division of the part dealing with fertilizer. It is a su-division of Part iii, that is the production and marketing of seeds. [Interruption.] -- That is not part of clause 81.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as has been appropriately observed, it is not part of clause 81. Indeed, if you turn the Order Paper to the following page, page 4, what is supposed to be done has been captured there. So, what appears in item (xii) is clearly a mistake. It refers to item (xii). So, it is just a mistake. It has been brought forward, but it is wrong. So, Mr Speaker, if you may put the Question on clause 81 as variously amended.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Very
    well. Chairman of the Committee, are you agreeable?
    Dr Alhassan 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 81 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clause 82 -- Fertilizer manufacturing
    and distribution.
    Dr Alhassan 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 82 -- main heading, delete “Production and marketing of seeds” and insert “Manufacturing and distribution of fertilizer”.
    Mr Pelpuo 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the amendment is appropriate. But the amendments coming up now just indicate the shoddy work that was done. There are these things that they do not need to bring to Parliament for corrections. So, it is important that subsequently, if Bills are brought and they are not properly done, they should be sent back so that we would not spend so much time on them. This Plant Bill, for example, is a case study.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, you may want to convey the esteem sentiments of the Hon Deputy Majority Leader to the appropriate quarters.
    Dr Alhassan 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, except to
    add that, this is a particularly complicated Bill, because initially, it was meant to be three separate Bills. And at the tail end of the consideration, perhaps, by the Executive -- the Attorney-General's Department was challenged to merge the three. So, obviously, in considering the Bill at the committee level, these difficulties or challenges were observed and that is why the Bill is literally being reviewed and not necessarily amended. Mr Speaker, certainly, we will take his concerns on board, but these are things that we definitely noticed at the outset.
    We also have to add that we were operating under a severe time constraint, so it was going to be extremely difficult, and not to achieve the objective of the

    Bill, if it had to be sent back to retrace all the steps back to Parliament. That is why we thought that, rather than take the review back to the Attorney-General's Department, we could take it as part of the amendment process. So, people have worked extremely hard to get the product that we have. Nonetheless, the sentiments can be conveyed for a better job to be done next time round.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Very
    well. Chairman of the Committee, proceed.
    Mr Boafo 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on the clause
    82, page 4. The reference is not to the main heading. This is a division of Part iii
    -- [Interruption]-- it is a division. We have parts, divisions and then the head notes. We may have sub-divisions and so forth. So, the proper reference should be a division of Part iii.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Very well. That being so, any other obser-vations on the amendment? The appropriate placement will be done. But shall we proceed with the substance?
    Hon Members, any other observation?
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Dr Alhassan 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 82, subclause (2), paragraph (c), line 1, delete “or” and insert “and”
    So that it should read:
    “it is manufactured in a registered facility and tested in a registered laboratory”.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Dr Alhassan 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 82, subclause (3), line 2, delete “subsistent” and insert “sub- sistence”.
    Mr Speaker, so that the subclause will
    Dr Alhassan 12:20 p.m.


    read:

    “Person registered under this Act shall inform the Division in writing of additional distribution points during the subsistence of the registration.”

    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Members, I will put the Question on the entire clause 82 -- [Interruption.]
    Mr Boafo 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before you put
    the Question, there is the need to look at the head note of clause 82. In view of the amendments to the division -- that is, the head note of clause 82 reads -- [Pause.] -- Mr Speaker, I withdraw it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, are you satisfied?
    Mr Boafo 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I will
    withdraw it. It is only a question of language.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Thank
    you very much.
    Clause 82 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 83 -- Importat ion and exportation of fertilizer.
    Dr Alhassan 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 83, subclause (1), paragraph (c), line 1, delete and insert “the disposal of the fertilizer is subject to the prior approval of the Minister”.
    Mr Speaker, this should be the rendition rather than what is in the draft Bill.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 83 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 84 -- Packages and labels.
    Dr Alhassan 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 84, subclause (4), paragraph (a), lines 1 and 2, delete “a reputable researcher accepted to the Regulatory Division” and insert “an accredited research institution”.
    This is simply to take the responsibility
    out of an individual researcher to an institution that has the reputation to do such a test.
    Question put and amended agreed to.
    Dr Alhassan 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 84, subclause (4), paragraph (b), line 2, delete “Administrator” and insert “Body”.
    That is because in the body of the Bill, there was supposed to be a “fertilizer regulatory administrator” but that seems to be reconsidered and therefore, should just be the “Regulatory Body” as enshrined in the law. That is why the “Administrator” is to be taken out and replaced with “Fertilizer Regulatory Body”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Bill provides for the Fertilizer Regulatory Division. The regulatory division for fertilizers and so far, we have been using “Division.” Why is it that he is now proposing “Body” instead of being consistent with the word “Division”? I thought, as per subclause (4), we have been using the construction, “Regulatory Division” and we should keep to that. Why do you say “Regulatory Body”?
    Dr Alhassan 12:30 p.m.
    I can hazard an explanation and that is because that will limit the standards of procedure to just the body in Ghana but it has to be related to internationally accepted procedures. And it may not necessarily be the division that will hold the knowledge to deal with it and that is why “Regulatory Body” is more encompassing. There has to be a relationship with other internationally accepted procedures. I agree with you that that introduces a bit of inconsistency but we thought that the acceptable way to get round the problem was to say “Fertilizer Regulatory Body” instead of pinpointing the division which may not have the necessary tools to deal with the standard of procedures that should test fertilizers. It is not convenient.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you take subclause (4) and you read the entire provision, it provides:
    “if claims are made on the label other than nutrient guarantees, the Regulatory Division may require that the registered person provides:
    (b)a laboratory procedure acceptable to the Fertilizer Regulatory Division for evaluating these claims.”
    That is consistent and the flow and the logic is there. I do not see why he is introducing another thing altogether. That is how it is supposed to be.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, you want to withdraw the amendment?
    Dr Alhassan 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes and go with my Hon Colleague, the Minority Leader.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Very
    well, the amendment is withdrawn accordingly.
    Dr Alhassan 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is withdrawn and repIaced with “Division” a “Fertilizer Regulatory Division” and not -- [Pause.]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Except that the word “Division” should be there.
    Dr Alhassan 12:30 p.m.
    Very, well. Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 84 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 85 -- Inspection.
    Dr Alhassan 12:30 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 85, subclause (3), paragraph (b), line 1, delete “seize” and insert “confiscate”.
    Question put and amended agreed to.
    Dr Alhassan 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 85, subclause (5), delete and add same under clause 119 as subclause
    (5)”.
    The amendment is to delete subclause
    (5), as it is presently located and add same to clause 119 because it seems to be dealing with penalties and clause 119 is what deals with the subject, so the idea was to take it out of this place and then put it as a subclause of clause 119.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    So that -- [Pause.]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, I do not have anything against the proposal by the Chairman. But earlier, I wanted to draw attention to the question proposed in respect of clause 85 (2), which we have just dealt with. I felt we should for consistency -- because we recognised the Fertilizer Regulatory Division as a unit. We should capitalize it as we have done in clause 84. So for clause 85, wherever it appears because it is a recognised unit, it should be capitalized. You have put the Question, Mr Speaker ,but just to let the drafters capture that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Very
    well.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
    But the one
    that is being canvassed, I have nothing against it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Very
    well, the drafters will capture that suggestion accordingly and for clause 85, further amendment -- subclause 5, we should move that and put same under clause 119 as subclause (5). It is a matter of placement at the appropriate place.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 85 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 87 -- Plant nutrient deficiency.
    Mr Boafo 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, under clause 87, subclause 3, where there is a provision relating to the penalty, there is no basis or guideline as to the assessment of the penalty. Mr. Speaker, if you read that sub- clause it is as follows:
    “A distributor shall pay a penalty assessed under this section to the concerned consumer within two months as the date of notice from the division to the registrar.”
    Mr Speaker, it appears that the penalty is left at large and it could be arbitrarily determined and that is giving too much power to somebody. We have to curtail it. I do not know whether the Chairman has any proposal on curtailment of such excessive power. [Pause.] Mr. Speaker, I hear some sounds that it will appear in the regulations but it must be so stipulated. The enabling power must be in the parent Act unless the Chairman can point out that there is a provision else- where giving the power to the regulatory division or the Minister to do that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Hon
    Boafo, you are particularly referring to --
    Mr Boafo 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am referring
    to clause 87, subclause 3 which deals with the penalty to be imposed on a distributor in favour of a consumer and there is no basis for determination of the penalty and it smacks of arbitrariness.
    Dr Alhassan 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to
    hazard an explanation. The intendment is not to make this a strictly legal process of assessing penalties but it is more administrative just to ensure that the industry operates under certain guidelines and that the consumers are not robbed of the value for fertilizer they want.
    So it is not really a court situation where fertilizer is tested and somebody is asked to pay certain huge sums of money but certainly to provide a basis for settlement of disagreements with respect to materials that have been tested. Mr Speaker, we have to know that this is like a ground breaking law, nobody has no experience with respect to legal matters affecting fertilizer use in the country and this is just an attempt to introduce some
    sanity into the industry.
    So we may not have all the answers in the law but I believe that regulations that will be made to back specific subjects as dealt with in the law will provide some answers.
    Mr Boafo 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we read
    sub- clause 1, at the tail end, that is, the penultimate line, the value of the deficiencies shall be assessed by utilizing the penalty system determined by the Ministry. So Mr Speaker, I will suggest that the Chairman should consider providing an insertion under clause 121 on regulations, that is, (c) in Part iii so that when we come to that he will give us an enabling power by the Minister to impose the penalty.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    So, Hon
    Boafo, shall we flag this for that part of the Bill?
    Mr Boafo 12:40 p.m.
    Precisely so, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    So, that
    Mr Boafo 12:40 p.m.
    I do not have any objection
    to clause 87 -- I do not have any more objections.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Thank you very much.
    Hon Members, I will put the Question -- Hon Minority Leader, any indication?
    Dr Alhassan 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the clause 88, subclause (7) where a fertilizer producer in the country exports part or all of its products, the export --
    Mr. Second Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Did we
    complete 87? I am yet to put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the proviso is that we relocate this, that is, the “determination of the penalty system” to the “regulations”. Subject to that, we may then adopt clause 87 as --Well, there is no amendment. So we can take the Vote on it subject to --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Does that mean we are deleting subclause 3 at this stage or that from Hon Boafo's, position, we give the details? -- Shall we get that very clearly?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
    I think the intention really is that as provided for by clause 87 (1), the penultimate line which we read, “the value of the deficiencies shall be assessed by utilizing the penalty system determined by the Ministry”, we could just add, maybe, “provided for by the regulations”. And when we come to the “regulations”, we find space to add that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Very well. So we should now amend by adding to --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
    Clause 87 (1); so that clause 87 (3) would remain. But then it would mean that when we go to the “regulations” we would have to find space to accommodate what we --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, kindly repeat for the sake of clarity and for the records the addition to clause 87 (1). So that clause 87 (1) should be amended by adding -- [Pause.]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
    By adding at the end of the sentence -- Of course, the full stop would have to go --“as may be provided for by the regulations”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    As may be provided for by the regulations?
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 87 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, further amendment to clause 87 --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Hon Member, please, continue; we are at the Consideration Stage.
    Mr Boafo 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you look at clause 87 (5) which gives the right to appeal against a penalty imposed, my concern has always been that we need to provide time limit within which such a right could be exercised. There must be finality.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    You suggest within a period of --
    Mr Boafo 12:50 p.m.
    Fourteen days from the date of the imposition.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Yes, Chairman of the Committee?
    Dr Alhassan 12:50 p.m.
    That is all right, we can take the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 87 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 88 -- Inspection fees.
    Dr Alhassan 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I bg to move clause 88 (7) line 3, delete “s” after the word “export”. It will read:
    “Where a fertilizer producer in the country exports part or all of his products, the export. . .”
    not “the exports” . . . “ is not subject to the inspection”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Please,
    can you read again?
    Dr Alhassan 12:50 p.m.
    Where a fertilizer producer in the country exports part or all of his products, the export is not subject to the inspection fee.
    But here it is “the exports is not subject to the inspection fee”. The “s” must go; it is singular, not plural.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    “Where a fertilizer producer in the country exports part or all of his products” the export is not subject to the inspection fee.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the definite article before “inspection” is not needed. It is “ not subject to inspection fee”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    “Where a fertilizer producer in the country exports part or all of his products the export is not subject to inspection fee”.
    Yes, Hon Appiah-Ofori?
    Mr P. C. Appiah-Ofori 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, instead of making it singular, let us make it plural; and instead of “is” let us make it “are”. So it becomes “the exports are not subject to inspection fee”. Because the exporter is not going to export only one item, so instead of making it “the export is” it should be “the exports are not subject to any inspection”.
    Thank you.
    Mr Boafo 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is no problem with what he is saying. The only problem is that under the Interpretation Act the singular includes the plural, so
    it takes care of that -- “export is”, if it is plural it would be “exports are”. We would maintain the singular so that in the interpretation, it would include the plural.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think I have changed my mind. I notice that there is a prescription for inspection fees, that is how come it has been qualified with the definite article. Indeed, if we look at the preceding subclauses, including clause 88 (4), we are talking about the payment of the inspection fee.
    So I believe the original construction including the definite article “the” is correct. Why the Chairman did not oppose my amendment, I do not know; but I think --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    So that it refers to an aforementioned inspection fee.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before you close the chapter, in that case, it will have a consequential effect on the subsequent clauses. This is because the one following (8), talks about “inspection fee”, so we would then need a definite article. It is repeated in (9) and I guess (10) as well, so it will have a consequential effect.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Hon
    Minority Leader, just for the sake of clarity, can you read it for us?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
    Clause 88
    subclause 8;
    “Where a fertilizer importer in the country exports part or all of its imports, the portion exported is not subject to the inspection fee.”
    For (9), the last but one line,
    “. . . material is subject to the inspection fee”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    In fact, (9) the second line as well as the third line. . . . “fertilizer shall not be subject to the inspection fees . . .”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you are right. So let us agree that it will have a consequential effect on all the others.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    It will have a consequential effect on all the others, (8), “subject to inspection fee”, (9), “subject to the inspection fee twice”. chairman of the Committee, is that agreeable?
    Dr Alhassan 1 p.m.
    I am not sure because the different subclauses tend to be addressing different subjects and material. So I am not sure whether the amendment should be consequential. I am just not sure, there is some conference going on. I am just not sure about the (7), but the (8), (9) and (10) -- I am not sure whether really “some other inspection fee” is not referring to the one that we are dealing with in the Bill. After the conference maybe, -- [Interruption.]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, clause 86 provides for the determination of the “inspection fee” and clause 88 talks about the “application of the inspection fees”. So it refers to a definite inspection fee. And without the definite article, we would not know that that is what it refers to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    And
    they are all the inspection fee anticipated in clause 86.
    Chairman of the Committee, I think the inspection fee has been specifically introduced?
    Dr Alhassan 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if that
    would make things clearer, I think that we should accept the Minority Leader's --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Thank
    you very much. Subclause 7, export and the inspection fee would flow into (8) subject to the inspection fee and line (2) of (9) “…not subject to the inspection fee” and in line 3 of the same, “raw material” is subject to “the inspection fee”.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 88 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill
    Clause 89 -- Stop sale order
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    There
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, the Hon Chairman may explain the use of the word “lot” after “fertilizer” as in clause 89 (1) --
    “Where an inspector finds a fertilizer lot being offered for sale contrary to this Part, the inspector shall immediately issue and enforce written or printed ‘stop sale, use, or removal' order to the owner or custodian of that fertilizer and hold the fertilizer at a designated place and may affix to the lot or container a warning tag that states the lot is held.”
    -- [Pause.] All right. I think it is self explanatory.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    In fact, Hon Members, the (xlvii) should be part of clause 90.
    Dr Alhassan 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg

    to move, clause 90, head note, delete “analyst” and insert “analysis”.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clause 90 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Dr Alhassan 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 90, subclause (1), line 2, delete “sixty days” and insert “thirty days”.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment is simply to cut down the time limit from sixty days to thirty days. The sixty days was considered too long for the activity.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Dr Alhassan 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 90, subclause (2), paragraph (a), line 1, delete “that” and insert “that”.
    The (“,”) that is being introduced is being effected.
    Mr Boafo 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we are going to maintain that throughout, then I will propose that at the end of line 1 of paragraph 2, we insert after “evidence”, “that” so that it takes care of the introduction of “that,” “that,” under subclauses (a), (b) and (c). That would be more elegant.
    Dr Alhassan 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is
    true. I did not have a look at the complete amendment or the rendition which says: “(a) that, the official sample was . . ..” and those portions deleted from the sub paragraphs. The words “official sample” were to be added to the opening line (2) and then (a) will start from “…taken according to the methods prescribed”; (b)
    will be “analysed by the method”; and so on, which is consistent with what Hon Boafo is proposing.
    So I want to read the complete rendition
    -- 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Hon
    Boafo, is that acceptable?
    Mr Boafo 1:10 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker. I think
    that is acceptable.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Has that addressed your concerns?
    Mr Boafo 1:10 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker. It
    addresses the concerns so far as elegance is concerned. And there is a further amendment to be made on the last line of paragraph (2), where there is a reference to analysis. I think instead of “i”, “e” is used. So if that also could be corrected.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    That is
    the singular “analysis”?
    Mr Boafo 1:10 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker. It should
    read: “… the results of any analysis”.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    There
    is a further amendment in the name of the Chairman of the Committee?
    Dr Alhassan 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, indeed, the amendment we have just completed affects the entire clause. So that takes care of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), except for the re-arrangement to be done such that subclause (c) in the original draft Bill will now be (a) and (b) will be (c) and (a) will be (b).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    And that affects subclause 2, paragraph (c)?
    Dr Alhassan 1:10 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Which comes as last amendment under clause
    90?
    Dr Alhassan 1:10 p.m.
    Yes.
    Question put and amendments agreed to.
    Clause 90 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 91 -- Establishment of the Fund.
    Dr Alhassan 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 91, delete.
    Mr Speaker, clause 91 is about the establishment of the Fund which is supposed to be done through an amendment process proposed by myself and Hon P. C. Appiah-Ofori. Therefore, the entire clause is to be deleted because it has been taken care of in the miscellaneous part.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 91 deleted from the Bill.
    Clause 92 -- Object of the Fund.
    Dr Alhassan 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 92, delete. Mr Speaker, similarly, if the Fund is not
    established, its objects will not be there. It has been taken care of in the amendment to be proposed. So the proposed amendment is that clause 92 be deleted.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 92 deleted from the Bill.
    Clause 93 -- Management of the Fund.
    Dr Alhassan 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 93, delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 93 deleted from the Bill.
    Clause 94 -- Misbranding
    Dr Alhassan 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 94, -- Head note, delete “Misbranding” and insert “Mislabelling”
    Mr Speaker, the proposal is to delete “misbranding” and insert it with “mislabelling” because in effect, when you go to the body of the clause, the entire discussion or what is being put there is about mislabelling and not misbranding. So the head note, which is the first amendment, is to delete “misbranding” and insert “mislabelling.”
    Mr Leo K. Alowe 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, may I kindly draw the attention of the House to the fact that conspicuously, we seem in our numbers to lack quorum to continue with the business of the House --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    The Clerks will accordingly have the bell rung and we will carry on from that end.
    Chairman of the Committee, we are on clause 94.
    Dr Alhassan 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    said that the head note on clause 94, instead of “misbranding” we should use “mislabelling”.
    Mr O. B. Amoah 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the circumstances, while we wait for the bell to be rung, I was wondering whether we can take a decision as far as the amendments are concerned.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Order! If the Hon Member would draw my attention to the Standing Order which says that the mere raising of an issue of quorum will halt decision-making until the issue has been determined -- whether the reason of this can apply as an injunction.
    Mr O. B. Amoah 1:20 p.m.
    Very well, Mr Speaker. We are constrained --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Please, read me the appropriate Order.
    Mr Amoah 1:20 p.m.
    Very well, we will come back, Mr Speaker. With deference to you, we will come back, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    I think business will continue while we determine the matter.
    Mr O. B. Amoah 1:20 p.m.
    Very well. Mr Speaker, while we are still on business, with respect to the amendment “Misbranding” and “Mislabelli,” clause 94 (1) also has “misbranded” which should then of course, be amended to “mislabelled”.
    I have seen that reference has been
    made to only the sub-heading and then
    (2) -- “a fertilizer is misbranded …” But before then, “a person shall not distribute or offer for sale misbranded fertilizer”. It means that “misbranded” should also be changed to “mislabelled.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    All references to “misbranding” in clause 94 should read “mislabelling”. Is that not so, Chairman of the Committee?
    Dr Alhassan 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment so far is about the head note which is “mislabelling” instead of “misbranding”. If it is about clause 94 (1) the “misbranded” is not to be changed, we want it to be “misbranded”, and in clause 94 (2) “a fertilizer is mislabelled …,” and then the explanation is given in (a) to (d). In other words, the “mislabelling” is not consequential in all cases.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, clause 94 (1), we should substitute “mislabelled.” The head note should change to -- [Pause.]
    Dr Alhassan 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the head note is to be amended by substituting “mislabelling” for “misbranding”. Clause 94 (1), no amendment has been proposed by the Committee. Clause 94 (2), the word “misbranded” is to be taken out and “mislabelled” put in its place.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, if the essence of it all is mislabelling, then how do we substitute “branding” for the particulars of that which is mislabelling? One would have thought that the detail must correspond with the major already stated.
    Dr Alhassan 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the clause 94 (1) is meant to address the subject of offering for sale fertilizer that has been misbranded. That is the essence of clause 94(1). The head notes, we thought, should be changed to “mislabelling”. But
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if one mislabels, the effect of mislabelling is to misbrand. So I do not see the distinction that the Chairman is drawing. Because if you have, for instance, a Toyota vehicle and you take the label and rather put Bedford, you want to suggest to the world that your vehicle is a Bedford.
    In actual fact, it is not; you have mislabelled it and you have misbranded because it is not the original brand. So it is a distinction without difference and why he is struggling to do this, I cannot tell. If he persists, we would just say that “misbranding” and “mislabelling” for the head notes because the effect is the same -- the value is the same. So he should save his breath.
    Mr O. B. Amoah 1:20 p.m.
    Indeed, Mr Speaker, if we look at the definitions of “brand” and “label” and then we go further to read clause 94 (2) (a) ,(b),(c), (d), particularly if we look at 2(b), then obviously “misbranding” and “mislabelling” will end up being the same thing.
    Probably, to save us from this trouble, then the sub heading should be “misbranding/mislabelling”. Why should it only be “misbranding” when somewhere along the line we also talk about “ mislabelling”? So either the sub heading becomes “misbranding” and “mislabelling” or we stick to one text because as we go further, the decision is blurred.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, shall we take your “mislabelling” as the main sub-heading and then wherever there is branding, we adopt “label” for consis- tency and clarity?
    Dr Alhassan 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wanted
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, for Part III), “brand” means a term, design or trademark used in connection with one or several grades of fertilizer. “Label” means the display of written, printed or graphic matter upon the immediate container. So it is the label that gives the brand. That is why I am saying that the distinction that he is trying to foist on us should be avoided and can be avoided.
    Mr Speaker, what we have here, you may just use the two terms, “misbran- ding” or “mislabelling,” or if you like, “misbranding and mislabelling”. It is the same thing, so we leave it as it is because what is in clause 94 is appropriate.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    So that, Hon Minority Leader, you are suggesting we can save ourselves a lot of trouble by the main heading being “misbranding and mislabelling”, so that all subsequent uses will follow?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
    That is so, but the “mislabelling” first because it is the “mislabelling” that affects the brand. So “mislabelling and misbranding.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    “Mis- labelling and misbranding”, so that it will be consistent with the subsequent mixed use of “misbranding” and “mislabelling.”
    Dr Alhassan 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
    Mr Pelpuo 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you do not label anything; you label a brand. And it is very odd to talk about misbranding because the product as you see is of a certain quality and the quality is defined by branding it, and you cannot brand it if you do not label it. So I believe the Hon Minority Leader, we could even just talk about “mislabelling”, and it will end there. Everybody wants to promote a brand name. The brand name can come out because of labelling, so it is the labelling that is likely to be mislabelled
    Mr Yaw Effah-Baafi 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think we should go along with the mislabelling and the misbranding because the misbranding has to do with the fact that when the content of a brand is adulterated, you misbrand it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Very well.
    For the avoidance of doubt, we would go for both to save ourselves from some of the difficulties that come with that.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, further amendment to clause 94?
    Dr Alhassan 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the totality of the amendment that we did and the conclusion that we came to, will cure the further amendment proposed.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Thank you very much. So, that amendment is
    withdrawn.
    Clause 94 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 96 -- Short weight.
    Mr Boafo 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
    clause 96, subclause (2), line 2, delete “one” and insert “first”.
    It is just a substitution of “first” for “one”. If I may read; it is as follows:
    “(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable in the case of one violation within a three-year period
    …”
    And instead of “one violation”, Mr Speaker, I am proposing the substitution of “first violation”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    “First violation” --
    “A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable in the case of the first violation within a three-year period to suspension of the licence for ninety days and for a subsequent violation within the three-year period to permanent cancellation of the licence.”
    Mr Boafo 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am making
    this proposal because in criminology, we have “first offenders” and not “one offender”. So, it is “in the case of a first violation”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    So, we substitute “a first” for “one”.
    Mr Boafo 1:30 p.m.
    Yes.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 96 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 97 -- Harmful substances.
    Mr Boafo 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would like to draw your attention to the earlier submission made with regard to quorum. The bell has rung and it is ten minutes past the time that the bell was rung and still there is no improvement in numbers. And this is being made under Order 48 (2).
    Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would read 1:30 p.m.
    “If at the time of sitting a Member takes notice or objection that there are present in the House, besides the person presiding, less than one-third of the number of all the Members of Parliament, and after an interval of ten minutes a quorum is not present, the person presiding shall adjourn the House without Question put until the next sitting day.”
    Mr Speaker, I submit accordingly.
    Mr Pelpuo 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have also taken notice of Standing Order 48. I realise that the Hon Member has a point and I think that you can make a decision accordingly.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I notice the point raised by my Hon Colleagues which has been attested to by the Hon Deputy Majority Leader. Mr Speaker, it will mean that -- because we have just about 26 of us and we have been taking decisions, if we extend the arguments, then what we have been doing here is a complete illegality. Mr Speaker,
  • [MR KYEI-MENSAH-BONSUthat is the position. However, my own position on these matters is that, in all jurisdictions, when it comes to making laws, not too many people are interested. Normally, you would have the committee dealing with the subject matter, you have Hon Members in the House to pilot the Bill. The rest of the Hon Members may not show much interest. Mr Speaker, this trend obtains in all jurisdictions, which is why in considering our Standing Orders, my position has been that once we start business in the House and we have the quorate number to operate, we should carry it through until we get to the period for closing. So, that portion of our rules of procedure, in my view, we may have to look at it again. It is rather unfortunate that in times past, whenever I alluded to this, people would not listen -- My Hon Friend, Alhaji Muntaka, is laughing -- I always cautioned that we should be careful otherwise, if we stretch it, we cannot transact business in this House. When we come to dealing with serious business, we do not have the quorate number to operate, it is something that we should look at critically. I remember, Hon Members, high profile Hon Members, many of whom are Hon Ministers of State who would always -- particularly when they offered amendments and the amendments were defeated then they would move to adjourn the House. I always raised this matter that we should be very careful. Now, we are here. And as I said, if we stretch the argument, it will mean that the 26 of us who have been taking decisions have been breaching our own rules and the decisions, if we stretch them, should not hold. So what do we do? Mr Speaker, I would plead that let us engineer something for ourselves and
    • Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Thank you very much; save to say that no rule is breached until a matter is raised, and previous decisions are not in doubt as a result of that. When a matter is raised of quorum, then you consider it at that point. I also hope that Hon Leaders would want to speak to Hon Members on both sides so that we continue to exhaust government business, for that matter, the nation's business.
    As for the rest, when we come to look at our rules again, as we are in the process of doing, they may duly be considered.
    The House stands adjourned till tomorrow at ten o'clock in the forenoon.
    Thank you very much, Hon Members.
    ADJOURNMENT 1:30 p.m.