Debates of 29 Jul 2010

MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:25 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:25 a.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Hon Members, item 2 -- Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 28th July, 2010.
Page 1 . . . 6 --
Prof. (Emeritus) Samuel K. Amoako 10:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, page 6, item 5, which states 10:25 a.m.
“Correction of the Votes and Proceedings of the Fortieth Sitting held on Monday, 27th July, 2010.”
Mr Speaker, Monday cannot be 27th July Monday was 26th July.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
The Table
Office to take note.
Mr Ambrose P. Dery 10:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am just following up on the Hon Prof. (Emeritus) Amoako's correction. It should be rather 26th July, 2010. We should take note of what is changing. It is the date that is changing, not the day.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:25 a.m.
Page 7 .

Hon Members , the Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 28th July, 2010 as corrected be adopted as the true record of proceedings.

Hon Members, Correction of the Official Report of Monday, 19th July, 2010.

Hon Members, in the absence of any correction, the Official Report of Monday, 19th July, 2010 be adopted as the true record of proceedings.
PAPERS 10:35 a.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Hon
Members, item 5 - [Pause] - I will step down item number 5 temporarily while certain issues are clarified and then we come back to it.
Mr Dery 10:35 a.m.
Well, Mr Speaker, I think we would go on but I believe the Minister is on the premises. He was just sitting here; they should call him to come so we would continue.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Yes,
Hon Members, let us start with the Consideration of the SADA Bill of 2010.
BILLS - CONSIDERATION 10:35 a.m.
STAGE 10:35 a.m.
Dr Kojo Appiah-Kubi 10:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, subclause (1), at end, add the following:
“. . .in consultation with National Development Planning Commission
(NDPC).”
Mr Speaker, Ghana has a decentralized
planning system with the National Development Planning Commission and the sectors at the apex and the district planning authorities at the district level. Because the decentralized planning recognizes the NDPC as the constitutional body to advise the President on development planning and strategy; it is supposed to issue the guidelines for all other development plans.
This Act aims at planning the northern ecological zone within the national development planning system. In this regard, the Constitution; in article 87 gives the NDPC the responsibility to design and develop development planning and strategy for the whole nation. For this reason, I believe that since the objectives of the Authority are aligned with that of the NDPC, I think that it would be proper if SADA is made to work together with the NDPC.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Hon Member, the amendment - where are we going to place it - at the end? Well, it is not very clear because if you put it at the end -- is it at the end of subclause (c)? When we put it at the end of subclause (c), it will affect only (c); so it has to be captured in such a way that it affects sub- clauses (a), (b), (c) because they all talk about planning and development.
Dr Appiah-Kubi 10:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the
amendment should be placed after (a) in line (1), it should read -
“The objects of the Authority are -
(a) in consultation with National Development
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
So you are saying it should be put - you are talking about line (1) - it is not clear in your amendment, that is why I want to be sure.
Mr Dery 10:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that
the concerns that the Hon Member of Parliament is raising are germane but they are covered adequately in clause (2) where it says -
“In furtherance of this object the Authority shall be guided by the Constitution.”
And the Constitution talks about the national development. However, if this amendment is allowed, it is going to kind of super impose the - they are talking of affirmative action and you should not tie the hands -- It says “in consultation with the NDPC --” [Interruptions] - By the Constitution - the Constitution provides for the NDPC, therefore, they are guided by that. But when you say “in consultation”, it becomes a different matter.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:35 a.m.
Hon
Member, the point being raised by the Hon Deputy Majority Leader is that if you single out the NDPC, then by necessary implication, you are singling out all other institutions that are involved in the planning, like the District Assemblies. So it is better you make it “subject to the Constitution”, then you bring the District Assemblies on board, you bring the NDPC and the various relevant State institutions on board. That is the point that he is making - because I was nearly carried by your argument but the point that he has raised now, you may have to respond to it, then I put the Question.
Dr Appiah-Kubi 10:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the

district planning authorities, which are the sole bodies responsible for planning at the district level, prepare everything on the basis of guidelines provided by the NDPC. So, they do not come in here. In any case, clause 25 (3) of SADA says that the SADA is allowed to receive directions from any Ministry, department or agency. And this is a bit difficult if you were to get somebody who would then take this law into his hand and says, “ yes, it gives me the authority to do whatever that I want in the name of this Authority -”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Hon
Member, let us limit ourselves to the particular clause under consideration. Because the point being made by the Hon Minority Leader is that, “look, the issue of the NDPC answers it in the subclause (2) because it is a constitutional body catered for in the Constitution.” m That is the point that he is making. So, it takes care of the NDPC by necessary implication because it is a creator of the Constitution itself.
Mr W. O. Boafo 10:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the
proposed amendment to insert what the Hon Member intends is something which is provided in the Constitution, which is the supreme law. And if we are to adopt his approach, then it means whenever we are establishing authorities, we have to make sure that we put this in those Bills. It is already in the Constitution. So, they operate subject to the supreme law of the land.
Alhaj i Mohammed-Mubarak
Muntaka: Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment should be rejected in the sense that - like my other Hon Colleagues have rightly mentioned - if we are not careful and we have to insert that amendment, that will mean, we will have to bring in all other bodies which we may even anticipate now. But by saying that “with regard to the Constitution”, it was enough. Since it is “in consultation”, the Constitution will guide which other bodies that they need
to consult. They are not going to take directives, like he himself has agreed. But the Constitution is very clear. Even at the district level, it will be impossible for them to be bringing up strategies or plans or budgets without consulting some of the District Assemblies and other relevant bodies which you cannot legislate. So, by saying that “having in mind the Constitution”, I believe it is enough. Mr Speaker, therefore, we should not waste time on it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Hon
Deputy Majority Leader, you were on your feet earlier?
Mr Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo 10:45 a.m.
Yes, Mr
Speaker. Just to support the fact that it is already “in accordance with the Constitution” and there was no need for anybody to imagine otherwise.
Dr Matthew O. Prempeh 10:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker,
I want to help my Hon Colleague. Because he took us to clause 25(3) I am bringing him back before he gets there, to look at clause 3, paragraph (k), which reads:
“For the purpose of achieving its object, the Authority shall perform the following functions:
(k) co-operate with key statutory institutions such as National D e v e l o p m e n t P l a n n i n g Com-mission, Ministr ies, D e p a r t m e n t s , A g e n c i e s , Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies to ensure conformity with overall national development so as to avoid duplication of functions.”
Mr Speaker, it is clear what my Hon Friend intends to do, is well catered for in this Bill, so he should be allowed to reconsider his position.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Hon Member, what do you do -- are you withdrawing or I should put the Question? It is clear.
Dr Appiah-Kubi 10:45 a.m.
On the basis of what
has been said, I would like to withdraw my amendment.
  • [Amendment withdrawn by leave of the House]
    • Mr Boafo 10:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
    clause 2, paragraph (a), line 2, after “Zone” insert “in accordance with the national development framework”.
    Mr Speaker, the Authority is not the creature of the Constitution; it is a creature of this Bill. So, if it should be subject to anything at all, it should be subject to the provisions of this Bill and the strategic plan which it is enjoined to work with, hence the proposed amendment --
    Mr Speaker, with your permission, if I
    may give the new rendition --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
    Very well.
    Except that you may have to give me a draft copy so that I know exactly what it is, know the kind of Question I am putting. You can go ahead. The rules allow you.
    Mr Boafo 10:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the new
    rendition will be that -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
    Do we take
    it that what is there is being withdrawn and you are substituting it with another one?
    Mr Boafo 10:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am just
    incorporating the proposed amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
    Very well, let us listen to you.
    Mr Boafo 10:45 a.m.
    The new rendition will
    be that:
    “In furtherance of its objects, the Authority shall be guided by the Northern Savannah Ecological Zone Development Strategy.”
    Mr Speaker, that is the proposed amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
    Hon
    Member for Akropong, in view of the earlier submission made, based upon which Dr Appiah-Kubi withdrew his amendment, how do you see your new amendment?
    Mr Boafo 10:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, he withdrew
    his amendment primarily based on clause 3, paragraph (k), which was invoked by the Hon Member for Manhyia because that particular paragraph takes care of -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
    But not the
    points raised by the Hon Deputy Minority Leader?
    Mr Boafo 10:45 a.m.
    I expressed my view on
    it too.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:45 a.m.
    Hon
    Deputy Minority Leader? After him, the Hon Member for North Tongu -
    Mr Dery 10:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that
    we should not forget that this whole Bill is set within the Chapter on Directive Principles on State Policy. So, you see even in the memorandum, it does refer to article 36 (2) (d). And that is where the guidelines of making sure that you have balanced development and - so, I think that the guidelines under the Directive Principles of State Policy are relevant. If you allow this amendment, it is repeating clause 1 because clause is actually is working towards that strategy -- “provide guidelines gto Government -- strategy,
    accelerated development strategy for the Northern Savannah Ecological Zone -- So, if you come again to repeat that - “it is guided by that”, it is repetitive and there is no need for it. So, I think the Constitution there -- yes, because of the Directive Principles of State Policy, it is the guideline, the target based on which the affirmative action is permitted. So, that is why the Constitution should be there.
    Alhaji Muntaka 10:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, just to
    emphasise why we should not support this proposed amendment.
    Mr Speaker, the Northern Savannah Ecological Zone Development Strategy is a document, maybe, only Hon Boafo knows because it is alien to almost everyone who knows about this SADA thing we are doing. So, to say that we should remove the Constitution and its place, put something that nobody knows apart from he himself, I believe that he should look at it again. I do not think it is necessary. We should just leave it to the Constitution -
    Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.
    Hon Member, the “development strategy” that they are talking about is in paragraph (a), that is it.
    Alhaji Muntaka 10:55 a.m.
    It is yet to be developed. Something that is yet to be developed, we are going to make reference to it and legislate. You do not even know the outcome of it; it is going to be more or less like a guideline for this Act to operate upon. So, how do you make reference to it when you have not yet even developed it? So, I think we should maintain the Constitution which serves as a mother guide to whatever would be done in future.
    Mr Boafo 10:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, to forestall any internal bleeding within the House, I withdraw the amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
    Very well. Yes, Dr Appiah-Kubi, you have an amendment standing in your name to clause (2).
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 10:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 2, subclause (1), add the following new paragraph:
    “(d) to educate the people of Ghana, particularly in its programmed areas, about the functions and programmes of the Authority.”
    In my opinion, the SADA is a new endeavour that is supposed to put more emphasis on the development needs of the northern ecological zone. And in order to get the buying and support of the people of Ghana and in particular, the people of the northern ecological zone, it is proper that an intensive education and dissemination of information is embarked upon. It is in this view that I make this amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
    Hon
    Members, the amendment has been proposed, any comments?
    Mr Hayibor 10:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not
    too clear about the Hon Member for Atwima-Kwanwoma, Dr Appiah-Kubi's amendment. If he can go over it and give us -- [Interruption.] But I am saying that the SADA actually is a package; involves education, provision of infrastructure, et cetera. So, implicit in the whole programme would be that element of education. I do not think it would stand as an object of the Authority.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 10:55 a.m.
    Why should we
    make it an implicit function of SADA if we deem it necessary as a function that SADA should embark upon; if it is necessary and if we regard it as a function that SADA should be performing, then we should also deem it necessary to include it as a separate function of SADA?
    Mr Dery 10:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we should be
    careful that we do not continue breaking down the objectives and multiplying, because when it comes to objects or objectives, you want to state them as broadly as possible. If you look at clause
    2 (b):
    “Mobilise human, financial and other resources for the implementation of the accelerated development strategy,”
    Clearly, when you are mobilising the people, it includes capacity, educating them about all these. So there is no need for number (5), because otherwise, what you are going to have is a tall list of objects, and when you are dealing with objects, you keep it as compact and as general as possible. So I think that it is covered by (b) and there is no need for a (d) dealing with that.
    Mrs Frema A. Osei-Opare 10:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not support this amendment on the fact that dealing with objects or objectives, you need the broad areas of the purpose for setting it up. As for activities, when you go to implementation levels, then you would detail specific activities that would in totality enhance the work that is being done. So for this particular purpose, I do not believe this education belongs to this level. We take it in good faith; it would be in the strategic plan.
    Dr Prempeh 10:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is a very important programme for the three northern regions and I keep hearing from both sides of the House words like: “This is affirmative action.” Mr Speaker, if as the Hon Deputy Minority Leader said, this is an affirmative action programme, then educating the people is far paramount. If the Hon Deputy Minority Leader still insists that this is an affirmative programme, then education is a key -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:55 a.m.
    Hon Member for Manyhia, the most important point being made is whether it should be kept under “objects” or it should be put under even “functions”.
    Dr Prempeh 10:55 a.m.
    That is what I am driving at. Mr Speaker, I do not believe
    Mr Samuel A Jabanyite 10:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in addition to that, the education he is talking about, is not an end in itself; it is something that is to make the people aware. So it is embodied in the general objectives. So if he says that this should be included, then it means that it is an objective by itself, which is not so.
    Mr Dery 10:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think my beloved Nephew on this side, if affirmative action is offensive to him, I do not have a difficulty to that. But that is not the issue here; the issue is not -- in my rendition -- So he should ignore the affirmative and allow the - to be withdrawn. All we are saying is what my dear Sister has put succinctly, that this is an activity and it can be brought subsumed under (b) and for that reason, we would plead that he considers withdrawing it.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 10:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought most progammes in the northern
    regions did fail just because of the failure or the inability of the people to participate; the lack of participation and lack of buying of the people in these regions. But if my Hon Colleagues believe that it is somehow implied in the functions of SADA, I withdraw my amendment.

    Clause 2 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3 -- Functions of the Authority.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 10:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, paragraph (a), line 2, after “Zone” insert “in accordance with the national development framework”.
    Mr Speaker, the aim as specified in the memorandum attached to this Bill says that SADA -- the aim is for the development of a comprehensive regional strategy that operates within a national development framework. And in order to remind SADA of the existence of a national development framework, it is necessary that this clause is amended and it is in that view that I make that amendment.
    Mr Pelpuo 10:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the
    amendment would have been very relevant if (k), as was mentioned by the Hon Member for Manyhia, Dr Prempeh had not pointed out. Subclause (k) has taken adequate care of that, and so even though it is a very important suggestion, Mr Speaker, I do not think it should find a place in the law.
    Mr Boafo 11:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, to be more specific, the penultimate line of (k) covers the proposed amendment to
    ensure conformity with overall national development so as to avoid duplication of functions. It caters for it.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 11:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    withdraw.
    Mr Hayibor 11:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 3, paragraph (c), line 2, delete “north” and insert “North”

    It is a proper noun, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:05 a.m.
    Is it not a
    drafting problem or it is a real amendment? Table Office, I think it is a drafting problem, so take note of it.
    Mr Hayibor 11:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 3, paragraph (d), delete “similar facility for the North” and insert “other risk finance instruments”.
    Mr Speaker, we believe we have other risk finance instruments apart from joint venture. So we do not want to pin the Authority down to only one type of financial risk insurance. So we believe it should give them the leverage to operate.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:05 a.m.
    What is
    the difference between “similar facility” and “other risk finance instruments”? “Other facilities in relation to venture capital”, and what is the difference between that and what you are trying to put there?
    Mr Hayibor 11:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe
    that apart from the venture capital, there are other risk instruments.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:05 a.m.
    So they

    are?
    Mr Hayibor 11:05 a.m.
    Yes, they are.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:05 a.m.
    And
    they are saying that what is in the Bill is “similar facility”?
    Mrs Osei-Opare 11:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we
    believe that other similar facility for the North is a bit vague and restrictive, more or less. We believe it is a better rendition to say “other risk finance instruments”, so that it is clear what we want and I think we should urge the House to accept this amendment.
    Mr Alhassan Azong 11:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    I tend to associate myself with the explanation given by the Ranking Member in the sense that if we say “other facilities restricted to the North”, it means you do not open up to other people who want to invest in other areas from any part of the country as far as financial instruments are concerned. So we do not tie the managers of the programme to only facilities available to the North but open them up for other financial instruments for them to be able to have access. I think that was the explanation given.
    Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu 11:05 a.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, I think the clause as it stands should be maintained, because if we talk about venture capital, is it not a form of risk finance instrument? Maybe, the understanding here is that the first option is for venture capital. That notwithstanding, other similar risk finance instruments could be considered. So I do not see any significant difference between the two. So we may have to leave the clause as it stands.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:05 a.m.
    Hon
    Members, the alternative facility that they are talking about in the Bill must be in
    Mr Hayibor 11:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 3, paragraph (g), line 1, delete “implement” and insert “facilitate”.
    Mr Speaker, because we do not want to
    see the Authority as a dictator, it is a co- ordinating body. It is going to co-ordinate with other similar institutions working to achieve the same aim. So we believe they should rather facilitate than implement.
    Mr Pelpuo 11:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am just
    wondering who then will be implementing the programmes for SADA if theirs is to facilitate only because “implementation” m is a very harmless word. It means, bringing into reality, policies and programmes which are on paper. To facilitate, means to help the process to go fast and somebody else will be implementing.
    Mrs Osei-Opare 11:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the idea of facilitation should be looked at carefully. It allows the SADA to be able to work with other partners or promote private sector to take some initiatives. I hear they have seen the light of day, so I will rest my case.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Hayibor 11:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, paragraph (l), delete and insert the following:
    “ implement p rogrammes to support mainstreaming of gender and other issues of vulnerability through co-operation with the Ministry responsible for Women and Children's Affairs, relevant Ministries, other organizations and civil society.”
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Hayibor 11:05 a.m.
    We believe when you talk about the vulnerable, they are not only women and children; there are other people who fall under the vulnerability umbrella. So we do not have to tie it to only the Ministry of Women and Children's Affairs. That is why we are proposing that particular amendment.
    Mr Hayibor 11:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 3 , paragraph (i), line I, delete “implement” and insert “facilitate”.
    Mrs Osei-Opare 11:15 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    am urging the House to accept this amendment because it is consequential to the one that we have just done. It is the same kind of argument, so I am urging the House to accept it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
    Why
    should it be the same argument? One is a private sector which makes sense but this one is different. The other one was specific to the private sector, but this one

    is not a private sector. Why are they the same?
    Mrs Opare-Osei 11:15 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, let me
    then give my reasons. We believe that there are other programmes to improve access to food, sustainable livelihood such as even Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP). It is not the core function of SADA to do all these tiny, tiny programmes. SADA has a bigger agenda.
    So we believe we should talk about facilitation so that it can co-operate with the Ministry of Food and Agriculture pro- poor programme, Ministry of Women and Children's Affairs for credit programme, things like that so that we do not insist it should implement programmes focused on It is a bigger agenda.
    So the facilitation in this case is to allow co-operation or some sort of collaboration, that is, SADA is doing the bigger things, it can work with other agencies to deal with issues of sustainable livelihood for safety -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
    Hon
    Member for Ayawaso West, we are talking about programmes there.
    Mr Pelpuo 11:15 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the earlier one where they substituted the word “implement” with “facilitate”, was understandable because there was a medium which was the private sector through which programmes can be done and then you do the facilitation. Here, there is no mention of any other thing. If you are facilitating, what are you facilitating? Whose work are you facilitating? It is not indicated and once it is not indicated that you are doing any facilitation for anybody, it is best to say that you are implementing the programme in order to make food accessible to the people. In fact, it is a very crucial, a very important role and it should not be watered down by giving it
    a colour of facilitation when it should be doing the implementation itself. SADA should be doing the implementation and not the facilitation in accessing food for the people.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
    Here we
    are talking about programmes.
    Mrs Osei-Opare 11:15 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the
    object of SADA is not for duplication. SADA recognizes that there are other programmes in place and in fact, what we do not want to happen is that because of SADA, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture now folds its arms and says “you now go and do the fertilizer pro- poor programmes like that” or other Ministries like LEAP. They will now cede the northern sector to SADA. This is an addition and not a substitution.
    We want the Ministries to continue to do their work, because this is an additional support in order to bridge the gap between the North and the South. We have to be careful where we start putting in things that other Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) are mandated to do, then they become like - “you go to SADA for LEAP, you go to SADA for fertilizer, you go to SADA for this.” SADA is across-broad regional programme that seeks to uplift the development of the northern sector in a stronger way.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
    Hon Member for Ayawaso West, what you are saying, is it not in the area of co-ordination or it is facilitation? What you are talking about now, is it in the area of co-ordination or facilitation?
    Mrs Osei-Opare 11:15 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have
    not thought of co-ordination, because I do not see SADA replacing all the districts and the MDAs. It is not a co-ordinator of MDAs. But where for instance SADA is doing a programme that requires some intervention from, say, the Department
    Mr C. S. Hodogbey 11:15 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    I think we agreed on “facilitate” at the Committee level but having read through the sub- clause, if the SADA is to implement its own programme, then it should be “implementation” and not to “facilitate”. If some other organization is actually doing it as subclause (g), that one, is because the private sector is involved, that is why we used “facilitate”. But in our own programme, we have to implement that.
    So I would plead with our Chairman to
    withdraw that amendment.
    Alhaji Muntaka 11:15 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to support the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment is very, very important. Just as my Hon Colleagues rightly mentioned, this is supposed to be an addition to what already exists. When you say you are going to implement, especially when you are talking about programmes focused on improved access to food, are you going to replace Ministry of Food and Agriculture? We are talking about sustainable livelihood; are we going to replace Ministry of Employment and Social Welfare and other agencies and then safety net investment for vulnerable areas in the Northern Savannah Ecological Zone? You will be replacing so many
    others and the tendency for resources to be limited is very high even in the case of SADA.
    It is going to be additional. So they will have to facilitate if there is a programme for fertilizer applications or subsidy for fertilizer; they will ensure that that programme happens. They will coordinate and collaborate with the Ministry of Food and Agriculture.
    Currently, if we look at most of the
    programmes that are running now, like the School Feeding Programme, the actual feeding programme financed by the Government, one would see that there are fewer numbers for the three northern regions. When we ask, they say: “Oh, the Catholic Agency is doing some.”
    Meanwhile we do not know how much is being done by the Catholic Agency. They will say World Vision is doing an additional one, so this one, we have in mind, no, it is additional. What those agencies are doing are supposed to be additional. They are not supposed to substitute the main programme.
    If we put in “implementation”, then the tendency is that we should look at the Act we are supposed to do, the implementation and why are we coming to them. Ours is supposed to be additional. So it should be “facilitate”, so that they do not think that they are going to do those things themselves and run out of resources and therefore, get very little done.
    So Mr Speaker, I want my Hon Colleagues to support this proposed amendment so that we change the “implementation” to “facilitation”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Deputy Majority Leader, let me hear from you. I want to put the Question.
    Mr Pelpuo 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I can see what exactly they are looking for. The imagination is that when you say “implement”, then everybody will say you are the one implementing food access. But we do not know from the present rendition whose effort they would be facilitating.
    So, maybe, they would want to change the “facilitate” to “support” other organizations or agencies which are working towards food access. So that we know that they are supporting some people to do that or else. SADA will have its own strategic plan, SADA will have its own programme of food accessibility and they will be doing that. They will not be doing that, because other people are not doing it. But they will be doing that because their strategic plan will be asking them to do so.
    Everything in the law here is in reference to SADA and its implementation p rog ramme. So when SADA i s implementing its programme, it does not stop others from implementing theirs. It is simply working within the boundaries of SADA operation. So, I think we can either leave it as it is or we change the word to “support”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon
    Member for Ayawaso West, what do you say to the suggestion by the Hon Deputy Majority Leader that we should use the word “support”.
    Mrs Osei Opare 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think
    it is in the right direction.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon
    Deputy Majority Leader, then move your amendment.
    Mr Pelpuo 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon
    Deputy Majority Leader, move the amendment in line with the clause.
    Mr Pelpuo 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 3, paragraph (i), line 1, delete “implement” and insert “support”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Chairman
    of the Committee, are you withdrawing your amendment?
    Mr Hayibor 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    So, you
    support the -
    Mr Hayibor 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker -- the
    amendment proposed by the Hon Deputy Majority Leader.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon
    Members, the new rendition is that clause 3, paragraph (i), line 1, delete “implement” and insert the word “support”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Hayibor 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 3, paragraph (l), delete and insert the following:
    “implement programmes to support mainstreaming of gender and other issues of vulnerability through co-operation with the Ministry responsible for Women and Children's Affairs, relevant Ministries, other organization and civil society.”
    Mr Speaker, this is because if you look
    at the original version, it makes mention of only the women and the children but we believe there are other vulnerable groups to be taken care of other than women and
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Is it
    “organization” or “organizations”?
    Mr Hayibor 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is
    “organizations”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    So, there
    should be an “s” there.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Hayibor 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 3, paragraph (m), line 2, after “Savannah” insert “Ecological Zone”.
    Mr Speaker, this is because all along
    we just want to be consistent.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon
    Members, this is for the sake of consistency.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Hayibor 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 3, paragraph (n), line 2, delete “in a manner that ensures” and insert “to ensure” and in line 3, delete “being”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, what is the rationale behind the amendment?
    Mr Hayibor 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the original paragraph says:
    “. . . establish a system of rigorous monitoring and evaluation in a manner that ensures that strategic targets and results are being met in a timely and appropriate manner.”
    I believe that “in a manner that ensures”
    is superfluous, it is redundant. So we should just say that:
    “. . . establish a system of rigorous monitoring and evaluation to ensure that strategic targets and results are met in a timely and appropriate manner.”
    Mr Speaker, this is because we are monitoring, we are evaluating and it says “being”--That participle, I do not think is the best.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 3 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon

    Very well. Let us wait for the Minister for Education. I learnt he is around but he is not in the Chamber right now.

    Clause 4 - Powers of the Authority.
    Mr Pelpuo 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon
    Deputy Minister is here and he will be willing to take it up.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Because I
    have been advised that the Hon Minister for Education himself is around-- It is not like he is not around and that is why I have been advised by the Table Office --
    Mr Pelpuo 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, he has been
    summoned to the Castle for a meeting. We do not know when he will be back here, so once the Hon Deputy Minister is here and he has received briefing from him, we could go on with it if the Hon Members who proposed amendments are here.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon
    Members, item 5.
    Mrs OSei Opare 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want
    to move, I have already discussed with the Minister for Education -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon
    Members, that is precisely why we need the Minister to be here.
    Mrs Osei-Opare 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, exactly.
    There is a Second Consideration Stage that I want to -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Yes, I know that there will be a Second Consideration Stage but when I call it, somebody must rise.
    Mrs Osei-Opare 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have
    risen.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    I must get
    the Minister rising first and then you also rise and then we -
    Mrs Osei-Opare 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, all
    right. The two of us have risen, so we are all right.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    The
    Chairman of the Committee, are you not rising? Do you not also want to pass the Bill through a Second Consideration stage or you do not know that you are also to pass it through a Second Consideration Stage?
    Anyway, which of the clauses come first? Hon Member, we want to pass the Bill through a Second Consideration Stage and we are regulated by Standing Order 130. I just want to know - I know that you also want to pass it through a Second Consideration Stage. The Hon Member for Ayawaso West Wuogon also wants to pass it through a Second Consideration Stage. I just want to know which of the

    clauses that each of you want to pass through a Second Consideration Stage comes first, so that I will know who to call first.
    Mr Puozaa 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg
    to move, that the University of Ghana Bill, 2010, be taken through a Second Consideration Stage in respect of clauses 22 and 23.
    Alhaj i Mohammed-Mubarak
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Hon Members, you should be conversant with your rules if you want to do something. You should check the rules and be conversant with them.
    Alhaji Muntaka 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in line
    with our Order 130, I equally want this Bill to pass through a Second Consideration Stage with regard to clause 11.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Hon
    Members, an Hon Member moves a Motion; it must be seconded and then we move to the other Hon Member who also wants the Bill to pass through a Second Consideration Stage and then we all know the clauses that we want to consider at the Second Consideration Stage.
    Alhaji Muntaka 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg
    to second the Motion moved by the Hon Chairman of the Committee for a Second Consideration Stage.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Hon
    Members, what I intend doing is that, to avoid confusion in your minds, we will take it one by one; each Motion will be taken on its own merit. So we start with that of the Chairman.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Hon
    Members, the University of Ghana Bill, 2010 now be taken through a Second Consideration Stage.
    BILLS -- SECOND 11:35 a.m.
    CONSIDERATION STAGE 11:35 a.m.
    Chairman of the Committee (Mr Mathias A. Puozaa) 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22 (1) (a), delete and insert the following:
    “the halls or hostels of residence developed by:
    (i) the university, or
    (ii)other private and public persons.”
    Mr Speaker, this is because after serious discussions with the authorities and other knowledgeable persons, we were informed that the university really plays the role of a parent over our students who are residents there, who are enrolled in the university and in the event of any problem, it is normally the university authorities that are contacted first. Therefore, wherever they lodge while on campus, is really the duty of the university.
    So, what we proposed will really be taking that right or that responsibility from the university. Therefore, they are of the opinion that it will be in the interest of the students and everybody if they are
    still given that right to play that parental role over students. That is why we believe there is the need for a modification. Therefore, I plead with the House to accept the amendment as suggested.
    Mrs Osei-Opare 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, this clause has been debated for some time and I believe that the university ought to recognise that it does not have facilities to cater for the whole student population. There are private homes, private hostels that have been developed which can either offer facilities to students or anybody.
    We have limited this role, by the amendment that was made, to the authorities of the university within its jurisdiction, areas that are under the university because we cannot tell the house owner of Okponglo who has given two, three rooms to either stop, suppress, or whatever. The point is that students are not compelled to live in the university accommodation. Students have a right to choose what accommodation they so desire.
    We are saying that the university should restrict itself to those areas under its jurisdiction because we cannot, by this Act, say that any student of the University of Ghana ought to stay in a place only accepted by the university. It is not possible. I can choose to live at home and come to the university. There are rooms that people have hired. There are mature students living in their own places. So the authority of the university is important, within the areas of their jurisdiction but there is no law that debars an individual from staying anywhere and then attending the University of Ghana.
    Alhaji Muntaka 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the proposed amendment in the sense that when students get into the university - I am not a lawyer but
    this term, locus parentis, where the responsibility of every student could be held by the authorities. It is important. We are not talking about homes.
    We are talking about hostels, where people put up structures and call them “hostel” and they are renting these to students. It is very, very important that the university knows exactly what kind of facility is there and what is happening there. What if that hostel, the one who built it sells drugs there - cocaine and other drugs that are illegal? Are we saying that just because the person has said it is a “hostel”, students go to live in there and it does not concern the university?
    Parents bring their students to the university with the hope that the university authorities would watch out wherever they reside. If one is in the house, one is in the house. But when someone builds a hostel and the hostel is supposed to serve a university, it is important that the university authorities know what kind of facility they are -
    Currently, go and look at some of the hostels. You could just see that it is sheer exploitation but because there are no guidelines to guide the university, their hands are tied up and people are exploiting the situation and abusing students. I think that it is in our own interest to let the university have a say, so that when one says it is a hostel that one is going to rent out to students, the university should know what facilities one is providing and they should have some concern that they can express when something goes wrong. They will be in a better position to explain or to provide answers when something goes wrong.
    Mr Speaker, I urge my Hon Colleagues to support this proposed amendment because it is in the best interest of this
    country.
    Dr Ahmed Y. Alhassan 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, there has to be a limit to which we stretch this argument about the universities not having control over premises occupied by their students. In certain jurisdictions, the university sets standards for private hostel owners to abide by, if those hostels are to be occupied by university students. So the fact that we have not reached there, does not mean that we should unchain our private hostel owners, so that they can have control over what the university is supposed to be monitoring.
    Mr Speaker, it may be true that
    [Interruption] Yes a private hostel is a private hostel but the students are students of the university and their welfare, even as they reside in private hostels, must be of concern to the university. What if a private hostel is located at Okponglo -- just to use the example Hon Frema gave -- and that hostel is interested in drug addicts, homosexuals, et cetera?. Are they the examples we want to give to students who are studying in the university? Certainly not. And that is why we are saying that the jurisdiction of the university's disciplinary code with respect to students occupying hostels must include even the private ones that are outside the university's physical jurisdiction and I think that we must support the Chairman's amendment and move on.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon
    Members, I agreed to suspend the Consideration Stage of SADA to look at this because my understanding was that this matter had been discussed and there was a certain understanding among Hon Members of the House, so that we do not waste too much time in going back to debate matters that we have devoted a lot of time to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.


    Indeed, I know the university authorities were summoned by Leadership to have a discussion with them. I was with them briefly and I thought that certain consensus had been built over this subject matter. But if you are going to restart, then I think that we may have to -
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is my view that in respect of some of these matters, we cannot debate them abnosium. So if there has been an extensive debate and Members are certain in the way they view things, then with all due respect, you exercise your power and then put the matter to a vote and put it to rest. Other than that Consideration Stage --we will go on and on and on and on.
    I agree that every amendment is important, we need to give Hon Members the right to express their opinion. But where opinions have been expressed --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon
    Member for Sekondi, there is a Motion by the Chairman to take the Bill to a Second Consideration Stage. So Hon Members, I will take one Hon Member and put the Question and let the House determine which way we want to go.
    Dr Prempeh 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, something serious is happening in this House. You asked for something to be stood down for winnowing; we go to winnowing and we agree at the winnowing, we come back to this House, then a Member says, “Oh, I have spoken to somebody else from the university”.
    Mr Speaker, I will give you another example; we went to winnowing a couple of days back and we agreed with the university authorities that certain aspects of the Bill, even clause 2 (b) should be deleted. Mr Speaker, all of a sudden --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Member, you know the rules at Second Consideration Stage, you do not re-open the whole discussion and that is why in moving this amendment, you must move it in relation to a particular clause.
    This amendment is in relation to a particular clause, so limit your submissions to the clause that is under consideration.
    Dr Prempeh 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, this
    particular clause under consideration was moved and voted upon in this House. [Interruptions.] I moved it, and it was accepted in this House -- the one we are talking about. So Mr Speaker, if after even the House has accepted it, we go through a second winnowing and we say we should come and open -- then what is my Hon Friend from Sekondi going to happen? Because I do not know why we should come here and agree on something and even vote on something and then -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon
    Member, the rules of the House allow it under Standing Order 130 to pass Bills through a Second Consideration Stage and that is precisely what we are doing. We are not doing something that is not known to this House. We are taking it through a Second Consideration Stage. That is why I put the Question whether this Bill should pass through a Second Consideration Stage; the House said, “yes, it should pass through a Second Consideration Stage.”
    It was on that basis that we are passing it through a Second Consideration Stage. If at the time I put the Question, you did not want it to pass through a Second Consideration Stage, that was the time for you to oppose the Motion which was moved by the Chairman. You allowed it to go through. Second Consideration Stage and now you are complaining.
    Hon Member for Manhyia.
    Dr Prempeh 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, for
    mentioning my name, this Bill is suffering from leadership. Mr Speaker, that is the truth. Because when I say “leadership”, I mean if we all agree on something and we are supposed to move forward, we cannot go back as the Hon Member for Sekondi is saying. So if we are going to move ahead, I hope that we do not suffer from somebody sitting at the back and saying we should not do this or that.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon
    Member, for the record, you cannot get up and accuse your Hon Colleagues just like that. You know that the decision to do further consultation with the University of Ghana authorities was taken by the Leadership of both sides, based upon which they were summoned to come. It was not by the Chairman of the Committee but it was a decision taken by the Leadership of this House, both sides of the House, that they should bring them to do further consultations with them.
    Hon Members, I will put the Question;
    if it is rejected, it is rejected; if it is accepted, it is accepted.
    Mrs Osei-Opare 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wanted to move a sub amendment and I was never given a chance. This morning, I have taken the trouble to discuss with the Hon Minister who is very sympathetic with the sub amendment and I am not being given the chance -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon
    Member for Ayawaso West Wuogon, which clause are you talking about?
    Mrs Osei-Opare 11:45 a.m.
    Clause 22 (a).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon Members, I think that we must put the House in order. We are on clause 22 (a), subclause (1), you are right. When I was informed this morning that they wanted to pass the Bill through a Second Consideration Stage. In order for us to be sure and for the Chair to be sure as to what we want to do, I asked them to print for
    me what they wanted to do, so that I could guide the House and read the amendment, so that Members will follow what we want to do through the Second Consideration. And this was what was given to me by the Chairman of the Committee; I did not get yours.
    However, I do not intend to shut the door to a Member of this House who feels strongly that he or she also wants to pass this Bill through a Second Consideration Stage. What I intend doing is that I will defer it and also let you print your amendment and let me have it and then we go back to it. So once the door has been opened for the Chairman, it should be opened for other Members.
    Let us defer this matter temporarily and then get all the Members who want to pass the Bill through a Second Consideration Stage -- Let me have it.
    Hon Members, let us go back to SADA.

    Savannah Accelerated Development Bill.

    Clause 4 - Powers of the Authority.
    Mr Boafo 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, under
    clause 4 (b), the provision leads to the power to designate certain areas within the ecological zone as special development areas. Mr Speaker, my fear is that it is likely to lead to discriminatory planning and development and it may also consequentially lead to conflict.
    Already, we are beset with a number of legitimate conflicts in the North and my fear is that if we legislate it in this way, we are going to compound the problem in the North hence the proposal to have it deleted. It is based on equality of development and the affirmative rationale behind the Bill.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think
    that I would like to support the amendment of Hon Boafo. I am not sure whether the
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 11:55 a.m.


    Authority has legal authority to designate an area as a special development zone. As far as my memory can serve me right, it is only the Free Zone Board and they can only do that on application to the Free Zone Board. So they themselves cannot designate an area as a special development zone. So I think that that amendment is right.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon
    Members, are you addressing the situation where for purposes of this Bill, the people might think that Tamale, for example, has had enough and yet people go and concentrate the development in Tamale? I think that what they are seeking to do there is to say that “let us go outside Tamale and put certain facilities there. “ mThat is what this paragraph (b) is trying to do. I want you to address that area before I put the Question.
    Mr Hodogbey 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 4(b) was specifically placed because we know in the Northern Savannah Ecological Zone, certain areas are not at the same level with the South. That is why the clause has been stated to say “designated areas in the Northern Savannah Zone” are special development areas. If we take it out, then the purpose of the Authority is actually shortened. Therefore, I move that we should retain that clause and not accept the amendment.
    Prof. G. Y. Gyan-Baffour 11:55 a.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, I think I agree with the proposed amendment in the sense that what we are trying to do here is to actually designate the entire northern savannah as a special development area first and foremost. Any attempt to actually look at certain parts of it as more important than others, can create some problems. Let us leave that to the planning process, the plans would actually come out and tell us exactly where emphasis should be and where it should be lighter.
    But if we actually legislate it here, it can create some problems among the
    various units there. Otherwise, as he just said, if you declare mine as better place where it needs more attention, those on the other side may feel a bit worried about that. So, let us use the process of planning to really determine which one requires the necessary attention.
    Mr Pelpuo 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have a
    feeling that that could be the answer to it, that in the course of implementation, where we see that one area deserves more than the other, planning and approval of the policy and programmes can take care of that within a specified year. But if we legislate to give that as a law, then it means that they are compelled to designate some areas as special areas.
    But we do not have to compel them to designate areas if they do not want to, and if they want to, they can do it without a law. So we do not need a law to be able to designate areas as special areas. That is my view, but the Chairman can further explain it.
    Mr Hayibor 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are of
    the view that even when we have the poor, we have the poorest of the poor. So when we have SADA, SADA is trying to target areas which are more poverty-striken than the other areas so that attention may be focused on them. It does not mean we are going to reject the development of other areas, that is not the aim. We just want to ensure that those less-privileged areas come at par with - For instance, you cannot say we should put a road at Tamale now; it should go to areas where we do not even have feeder roads. That is the idea actually behind that particular clause.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon
    Chairman, the point also being made is that we do not need to put it in the law; we should leave it to the discretion of the Authority. Address that aspect too.
    Mr Hayibor 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am
    sure the whole Act is going to deal with
    the Authority. We are dealing with the Authority here and we are giving that power to the Authority in this particular Act.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon Minister, what do you say? You are in charge of the Bill. I want to put the Question.
    Mr Azong 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I really want to allay the fears of my Colleagues that I do not think this particular designation would bring about any conflict. But we also have to realise that the main focus or the main objective of SADA is a special intervention. So if they are going to design certain areas for the sake of SADA, I do not think it is going to be a contradiction. I still maintain that it should stay.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    It should
    stay?
    Mr Azong 11:55 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    That is
    your view.
    Mrs Osei-Opare 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not support the amendment from Hon Boafo. As has been said, if for good reason SADA needs to demarcate certain specific areas for a special development project which may involve more than one district or even regions, it should be possible to do that so that real development agenda can be achieved. As my Chairman said, it is not for petty programmes, these are special programmes aimed at uplifting the Northern Savannah Zone.
    So I think that that authority should be there so that it arms the Authority and gives the confidence to plan a coherent development programme that would actually achieve the objective. Therefore, as it is now, it should stay and I am urging Hon Members not to accept the
    amendment by Hon Boafo.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was listening to the Chairman when he was speaking. He said the entire area is already being designated as special. This SADA is a special purpose vehicle, so why do we need -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    He also said that we have the poorest of the poor. He also made that point.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:55 a.m.
    Yes, but the entire area is there. So we do not need to legislate it the way it is. But let them do the work and if they find that that arises out of their work, then it is all right. The Bill itself is special and you want to legislate that -- That is where we have to be cautious about the point he raised. Once you start, you are going to get people beginning to say, ‘how come place “A” is special?' We do not want to create that environment, let it flow out of the work. It is special to begin with anyway, so what is the point in legislating it?
    Mr Emmanuel Armah- Kofi Buah 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think I wanted to stress on the whole point about SADA -- my Hon Colleague from Manhyia (Dr Prempeh) did not want us to use the words “affirmative action”. But that is exactly the point. But the fact is that we have identified that this whole area needs special attention, and once we delve into specific areas, we are talking about implementation and I do not think we should venture into that.
    Prof. Dominic Fobih 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    if you read the stem of the clause, you would find that there is this phrase “may in particular”. “May”, which means the Authority is not obliged to create such areas. But if it happens that there is need to create it, this legal Act is empowering them or strengthening their hand in doing so. So I think that since we are all agreed on the Authority having the need
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon
    Member for Akropong, let me hear your last word and then I put the Question.
    Mr Boafo 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, all that I
    need to say has been advocated by other Colleagues on the floor of this House. The proposal is intended to make sure that the idea of declaring the entire area a special development area is maintained.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon Minister, the point being made is that if you start designating specific areas of the North, others will then sooner or later start complaining that some are benefiting at the expense of others and that in itself can be a basis of dispute. What do you say? Let me hear from you and I will put the Question now.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    I will
    come to you, do not worry, since you are very passionate about that amendment.
    Mr Azong 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not think
    I tend to buy the proposition made by my Hon Colleague. The intervention of the programme, the main aim is just to bridge the development gap and the reasons were given more powerfully even by one of the Hon Members from their side, Hon Baffour-Gyan, and I do not think it is

    meant to discriminate.

    But the background, the main reason of this particular provision is to give power to the Authority, to districts that are contiguous to the northern sector. Let us assume that we are going to do six districts in Brong Ahafo and it so happens that there is a district that is not part of the designated area, the Authority has the right to have a special programme there based on the issues that are coming up.

    You cannot say because they are not part of the seven designated in Brong Ahafo, for that matter, there should not be a special programme. It is meant to give discretion to the managers of the programme to even go into other areas to design special savannah areas for the Authority.

    So it is actually meant to absolve certain things that would arise as a result of implementation. You cannot say because this district was not part of it yet there is the need for an immediate SADA intervention. So that gives the discretion to the managers of the Authority to go in and put up a special programme for the area. I think that is the main reason of that provision.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Brief
    comment, then we put the Question.
    Mrs Osei-Opare 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    think if you look at the expression, it says “as special development areas”. I hear arguments that the whole SADA is for the Northern Ecological Zone. I agree - Savannah ecological zone, I agree. That means that the main target is on that area.
    However, SADA is not a replacement as we say of every development programme. For the purpose of SADA's work, they may need to have a special geographical area demarcated for that special programme.
    Let us say a mango factory has been designated as something that is good for uplifting the development of the savannah zone, you may need to designate a whole belt whereby the raw materials and so on would then feed into the factory. This is proper development planning.
    So it is important for the Authority to get the power to designate special areas. SADA does not replace existing programmes and therefore, it cannot be said that every place is SADA. SADA is going to focus on specific interventions and that may require specific areas designated for that purpose. So I believe that what we have here should be supported and the amendment rejected.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, I think we have had enough on this particular amendment. I will put the Question on the amendment.
    Question put and amendment negatived.
    Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 5 - Independence of the Authority.
    Mr Boafo 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
    clause 5, subclause (5), delete and insert the following:
    “Except as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law, the Authority shall not in the performance of its function be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority.”
    Mr Speaker, the purpose of the amendment is to delete clause 5. Clause 5 says that -
    “Subject to section 15, the Authority shall be an independent and autono-
    mous statutory corporation”.
    But Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment seeks to modify this limitation. It is only to expand the limitation in this Act to section 15 alone, because in this Act there are other areas where the Authority will have to abide by consultation and advice of other Ministers. And also there may be other Acts, other laws like the Financial Administration Act where the Authority cannot act as an autonomous and independent body. Mr Speaker, I think it is an innocuous proposal.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Why
    do we not use “enactment”, instead of “law”? “Any other enactment”. Which one is better?
    Mr Boafo 12:05 p.m.
    Very well, Mr Speaker, “any other enactment” is preferable.
    Mr Dery 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you look at clause 5, it is talking about independent, autonomous statutory corporation. Does the amendment capture that status? I do not think so. The amendment is just dwelling on control but is missing the point that it is supposed to be a statutory corporation.
    In any case, if you look at section 25 (3), does It not talk about “shall not take directions from a Minister, Department or Agency in the course of operating”? It captures that. Section 25 (3) captures what this amendment is trying to achieve by being brought -- And then what it does is that it eliminates the statutory corporation element of clause 5, which is very, very essential and fundamental.
    So honestly speaking, I think that -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    He made a very special point that it is subject to, for example, the Financial Administration Act and Regulations made thereunder, and if you only subject it to section 15, simplicit alone, what happens to other enactments
    Mr Dery 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have already dealt with the Constitution. We have already dealt with subjecting this whole matter to the Constitution. So, it brings it under the supreme law. We have already said it. That is why we did not allow the amendment of the Constitution. All that comes in under that umbrella. So, if we joke, you would see clearly that what he is trying to bring in is a repetition of clause 25(3) and it is not necessary.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon Member for Old Tafo, are you supposed to address the House or talk to the Hon Deputy Minority Leader?
    Hon Member for Old Tafo?
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my Hon Leader was making reference to clause 25 (3) and it stipulates “subject to clause 15”. I was just bringing his attention to that part which somebody wants to amend.
    Mr Boafo 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you go to article 11, which sets out the laws of Ghana, the Constitution, is one source and there are other sources. And if we mentioned the Constitution, it does not mean that we have included other sources of law. So, what the proposal is seeking to do, is to take into account, for example, as we pointed out already, the Financial Administration Act procurement processes - Public Procurement Act (PPA) --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    But the Hon Deputy Minority Leader is saying that the phrase “Autonomous statutory corporation” is missing in your rendition. That is the point he is also raising, and he wants those words to appear very, very clearly in any amendment that will be made.
    Mr Boafo 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not think
    that the expression that the Authority is a body corporate is different from the expression that it is a statutory corporation under clause 1--
    “There is established by this Act a body corporate.”
    So, I do not see the need to bring the expressions “statutory corporation”.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think what we are trying to do here is to re-invent the wheel. We have series of Authorities that we have approved recently. We have the MiDA, we have the Bui Authority, we have all these Authorities. Are they not the same in terms of their independence? Why do we not keep it waiting and check on those Authorities and use the same language to describe the independence of this Authority? I think that will be a better way of looking at it.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Boafo 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as a follow-up to what Hon Prof. Gyan-Baffour has said, if we go to other Bills we have passed in this House creating Authorities, this is a common provision in those legislations. And I think we have to be more consistent.
    Mr Hodogbey 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with reference to clause 5, if we accept the amendment proposed by Hon Boafo, it means that even the President or Parliament cannot make proposals to the Authority. For that matter, clause 5 states, “subject to clause 15 --” If we accept his amendment, it means that the entire clause 15 is useless. Therefore, we should reject the amendment -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, it is not true. “Except otherwise provided in this Act …”, section 15 is provided in this Act. So, it does not render section 15 redundant at all. “Except otherwise provided in this Act . . .” and section 15 is provided in this Act. So the submission you are making is -
    Mr Hodogbey 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, based upon Hon Boafo's amendment, he did not make mention of “subject to clause 15”, he wants the entire thing to be deleted.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon Member for North Tongu, he needs not put clause 15 there. But it is there that “Except otherwise provided in this Act …” and section 15 is provided in this Act. So he has put it there. He has mentioned section 15 without putting it there in black and white.
    Mr Dery 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I appreciate the concerns that were expressed by the Hon Member for Old Tafo. But if you look at the governing body under clause 6, you would see that at paragraph (d), there is a representative from the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning not below the rank of Director. So, there are internal mechanisms to ensure that this Authority does not go outside the law because they are represented there to make - that is why that representation is an institutional representation. So, the mistakes that you hear might be committed because its independence would be checked.
    Mr Boafo 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the representatives do not come to the meeting, what happens? Or if that particular issue is not tabled at the meeting, which the representative attends, what happens? The security or the guarantee does not lie in the membership of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning on the Authority. The guarantee lies in what is provided in
    this law or in this Bill.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like just to ask a question. I am aware of the existence of the Statutory Corporations Act and its amendment. Do these amendments not have anything that adds up or subtracts something from this Authority being a statutory corporation? These are issues, probably, that we need to discuss. Whether being called, being made a statutory corporation, there is something that makes it special more than an Authority. Probably, the lawyers may have to think about that.
    Question put and amendment negatived.
    Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 6 - Governing body of the Authority.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Clause 6 -- Hon Dr Appiah-Kubi, I need not call you. Once, the clause 6 has been mentioned and the Head note announced by the Clerks-at-the-Table, you rise up and move your amendment.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 6, subclouse (1), paragraph (e), line 2, delete “Minister” and insert “nominated by Coalition of CSOs”.
    Mr Speaker, normally, what is done concerning community initiatives, community institutions or organisations is that, where the participation of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) is deemed very important, the coalition of CSOs is written to, to nominate a representative. This is to ensure the independence of that representative and this is also to ensure full participation of CSOs.
    On the other hand, this is also to ensure that the nomination is delinked
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as much as I buy the argument, I think that there is a reason for the role of the Minister there. So, if you may want to accept a further amendment to say:
    “The Minister in consultation with the civil society organisations … ”
    This is a government body and somebody must have a ministerial responsibility. You cannot completely divorce it; so the Board must be responsible to somebody. What is the locus of the CSOs nominating; in what capacity, as tax-payers? In consultation with the CSOs then, I think you would get what you want also, so that it is not the CSOs themselves. I am craving your indulgence to amend it to, “in consultation.”
    Dr Alhassan 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not think that amendment is necessary because this is the governing body of an organization. You are looking for somebody who can really serve the purpose of being part of that governing body and it does not lie on the organization to nominate one of their kinds who may not necessarily fit the Bill. So, the Minister is going to be sure that the person he is bringing on board would actually come and enrich the discussion as it is supposed to move the organization forward.
    At the same time, I quite sympathise with the Hon Member for Old Tafo, Dr Osei's further amendment, that fine, the Minister can consult the CSOs and get a nominee and not the CSOs to sit and get somebody, particularly that there is a very large number and in many instances,

    they are not even necessarily a federation. They may be sitting down as independent bodies and you cannot even get them to come together and get you a nomination. So, to get the Minister to consult with some of them and get somebody to represent, may be appropriate.
    Mrs Osei-Opare 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that if you look at various representations, there is a lot of room, as a government body, to nominate persons within certain Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) and so on, as well as even in three other persons. So that is adequately catered for.
    I must admit that this is not something we as a Committee proposed. However, I believe that if you want civil society participation, have civil society participation. If you do not want it, the Minister has one room, the three other persons can nominate a civil society organization or anybody depending on their capacity.
    But where you say, from civil society, the whole idea of civil society is non- governmental and therefore, frankly, I believe that, let the civil society organisations within the area nominate. As much as we do not have one big civil society organization -- it has never been difficult when you want to have civil society participation, to have them in the area. There are always civil society organisations that are accredited and known very much contributing to the development of this savannah zone.
    So, I believe that this is something we must seriously consider. Civil society participation therefore, should be civil society-nominated. If you make it a governmental/non-governmental nomination, it does not help the situation. In fact, it would be more beneficial to allow civil society to have an accredited representation for support of this programme; SADA would need them. So give them a voice.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    The Hon Members for Old Tafo and Mion, are you going to move your amendments -- the two of you -- so that I will know what to do?
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:25 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Then you should move them. Hon Dr Appiah- Kubi, are you going to move it or Hon Dr Osei will?
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to move, the amendment that Dr Appiah-Kubi was moving, to read:
    “… nominated by the Minister in consultation with civil society”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon Members, the new rendition is that, the Minister should do the nomination in consultation with civil society.
    Mr Dery 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want us to look very closely at this civil society matter. You have very powerful civil society organisations which can contribute to the programme. The Hon Member for Ayawaso West Wuogon, Mrs Osei-Opare has headed one before, like Action Aid and Water Aid, and those groups, if you do not give them some latitude, then you might have a representative there and you will not get the desired support from them. That is what we should take note of.
    So, they would want some kind of participation, and it is just one person and they might contribute so much, you would be surprised. So let us, in dealing with this thing, be careful that we do not let it appear -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon
    Mr Pelpuo 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am just wondering who the face of civil society is, when you say, “in consultation with civil society”. Maybe, we could be talking about an organised group; maybe, the coalition and we can be talking about their leadership. So, we have to be very specific about what we are saying or else it is not very clear, it is quite ambiguous.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the current rendition limits it to civil society organisation in the programme areas; it is specific, that is what we currently have. This is 6 (e); it is “programme” in 6 (e). So it is limiting it to those in that area, unless I am mistaken, that is what we have here. So, if consultation is weak, then we can say “on the advice”.
    But I think that the Minister should be the one doing the nomination but consulting with them. Otherwise, how could they ask them to go and put somebody there with no locus? Then civil society can be on everybody in the country because they have locus.
    Mr Dery 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let us be frank on this point. We are all politicians. We know that we have certain partisan civil society organisations, we do; let us face it on both sides. We want civil society organisations that will move the development of the savannah area forward.
    When you say “in consultation”, we know that depending on which side is in power, there is the possibility; I do not even want to say probability; that we could pick one of these political NGOs and put there and we would not be gaining any mileage at all, for the development of our people. They are powerful organisations and I am speaking from experience, who
    Mr Azong 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just want to say that one is not against the consultation with Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) but the problem I have is, we do not have a coalition of CSOs where one can say the leadership of coalition of CSOs is there, these are the people I am going to consult. We have Action Aid, we have World Vision, we have Afican Conservation and Development Foundation (ACDEF) and we have other non-governmental organisations that are also local and they are also CSOs .
    Do not forget, if we do not take time or allow that provision before one is nominated, you would have polarized and brought about a lot of enmity among the CSOs that are international. And you must stand the risk of losing certain resources that could be injected by them on their individual programmes.
    So to stay clear, I would suggest we just leave it as it is, so that the Minister or whoever is appointed will be able to do some individual consultation and take a decision.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Minister, what do we lose by doing consultation? We have everything to gain by doing consultation and you are not doing consultation with one CSOs. If you look at the Bill, it is talking about CSOs. If you go and do consultation with one, then you are in trouble the Bill itself

    is talking about CSOs and so, we have everything to gain by consulting them.

    I will put the Question. The Question is that clause 6, subclause (1), paragraph (e), after “Minister” add the words “in consultation with the Civil Society Organisations”.

    Do they have “coalition” in the programme area?

    We have coalition in the whole Ghana, do they have coalition in the programme area? We do not have coalition in the programme area.
    Mr Dery 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have acted as a lawyer for several organisations; they do have. In every region, they have the CSOs meeting every time and I am telling you that they know each other so well, they can tell you who would be useful. They do have, they have.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    They have? Very good -- “In consultation with the coalition of Civil Society Organisations”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Hayibor 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 6, subclause (1), paragraph (c), line 1, after “authorities” insert “in the programme areas” and in line 2, delete “Regional” and insert “National” and after Chiefs” delete “in the programmed areas”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Why
    are you using the “National House of Chiefs” instead of “the Regional House of Chiefs”?
    Mr Hayibor 12:35 p.m.
    Because we are dealing with about five regions - Upper East, Upper West, Northern, northern Volta and then northern Brong Ahafo.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Why not in the programme areas? “Regional House of Chiefs in the programme areas”?
    Mr Pelpuo 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that is most suitable rather than to say “National”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    So that if they would have to develop their own mechanism by rotating among themselves, they can develop that mechanism of rotating among themselves so that their interest is taken care of.
    So Chairman, get the right rendition and let me put the Question. We have “Regional House of Chiefs in the programme areas” already there.
    Hon Chairman, I think that you have to withdraw your amendment.
    Mr Hayibor 12:35 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, I withdraw the amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Boafo 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment is with the leave of the House being withdrawn.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 12:35 p.m.
    I would also want
    to withdraw in view of the fact that the previous amendment has been withdrawn.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Members, I will put the Question on the entire clause 6.
    Clause 6 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 7 - Functions of the Board.
    Mr Hayibor 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 7, add the following new subclauses:
    “(2) The Board has the responsibility to ensure the implementation of the functions of the Authority and the achievement of the objectives of the Authority. (3) Without prejudice to subclause
    (2) the Board shall:
    a) approve annual operative plans and budget of the Authority;
    b ) r ev iew the quar te r ly performance of the Authority inc luding s ta tement of accounts of monies disbursed from the fund;
    c) ensure adequate accountability to the stakeholders;
    d) approve an audit plan and monitor its implementation, a n d s e e k t h e f u l l implementa t ion o f the external auditors report within the specified time frame for actions; and
    e) approve the remuneration of the staff of the Authority.
    (4) The Board shall conduct reviews of the Savannah Development Strategy as determined by the Minister.”
    Mr Boafo 12:35 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 10 - Disclosure of interest.
    Mr Boafo 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment is withdrawn.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Members, I will put the Question --
    Mr Boafo 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Committee, with the greatest of respect, has taken an impervious position, entrenched position and it does not serve any purpose to pursue the amendments.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Hon Member for Akropong, you have announced that you have withdrawn your amendment and based upon which I asked that clause 11 be put so that I will put the Question of clauses 10 and 11. I think that I am here to protect any Hon Member who has filed an amendment and it does not depend on the position taken by the Committee.
    The Bill is now before the House as a
    House and you are entitled to make your point. But having made the withdrawal, I will put the Question but subsequently, do not allow any member of the Committee or the Committee as a whole to intimidate you. I will protect you.

    Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 12 - Stakeholder Co-ordinating Committee.
    Mr Hayibor 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12, add a new subclause (1) as follows:
    “The Committee shall serve as an advisory body to review plans and also provide stakeholder input into policies, programmes and projects of the Authority.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Hayibor 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12, subclause (2), paragraph (a), delete and insert --
    “Five Regional Ministers in the participating regions, with each Regional Minister acting as a Chairperson and convener on rotation” .
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment is in order but I will suggest that the “five” that they have stated there should be removed. I believe that is what informed the Committee to remove the regions by mentioning them. Should any region be divided or any other thing, the number would no longer be five and to avoid this, I would simply think that it should just read:
    “Regiona l Minis te rs in the participating regions, with each Regional Minister acting as

    a Chairperson and convener on rotation.”

    So that it makes real sense.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    We should remove “five”? Is the “five” not put there in order to know the total number?
    Mr Dery 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it does not really add anything. The important thing is that it will be rotational. That is all. So if we subsequently create more regions out of those regions, then it is still valid.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Hon Member for Asawase, then move the amendment.
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 12, subclause (2), paragraph (a), delete “Five” so that the rendition reads:
    “Regiona l Minis te rs in the participating regions, with each Regional Minister acting as a Chairperson and convener on rotation.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Hon Members, we are basically adopting the Chairman's amendment except that we are deleting the word “five”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12, susbclause (2), paragraph (c), line 3, delete “development initiative” and insert “Ecological Zone”.
    Mr Speaker, the development initiative is currently not in existence and therefore, the Act cannot talk about the development initiative. Indeed, the Act seeks to talk about Ecological Zone.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Hayibor 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg
    to move, clause 12, subclause (2),
    paragraph (g), line 3, delete “Forum of northern Ghanaians” and insert “Northern Development Forum”.
    Mr Speaker, we realise that there is already existing a northern Development Forum, so we just have to take that “Forum of northern Ghanaians” out.
    Mrs Osei-Opare 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, ordinarily, I should not be at variance with my Chairman but I have reflected on it. I think we need to recognise that there are many development groups interested in the development of the North. There is a forum but tomorrow that forum may not be there. It could be something else. It is important for us at any stage of the work of SADA, to bring on board any civil society group that is credible and working in the interest of northern Ghana. We now have a group calling itself so, but to what extent? Is this a group that has gone through a sort of democratic process of being the mouthpiece of northern Ghana? We have to protect SADA from any group. No group should hijack anything. We must ensure that at any point in time, SADA has the freedom to bring on board any development group that would serve its purpose.
    The Northern Development Group is not a legal - has not been selected by a forum of northern, whatever. It has not, it does not have the legal status to speak on behalf of northern Ghana. It is a civil society group, albeit did a very good job in terms of proposing amendments but it does not have that status to put into law. Then I think we must protect SADA from any such thing. So, I do not support the amendment, unfortunately.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, they are saying that Northern Development Forum is not a legal entity as such, the way you put it.
    Mr Hayibor 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is a
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon Members, what is the thinking of the House? Especially, these are people who are living outside the programme area.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    would like to support the Hon Member for Ayawaso Wuogon's (Mrs Frema Osei- Opare) assertion that this could bring politics into SADA. Let us assume, if the leadership of this forum which is actually not a legal entity, were to be dominated by a political party and another political party comes into power, it is going to be a bit difficult for both entities to work together.
    In order to avoid this, let us make this forum a stakeholder forum of northern Ghanaians; that will be far better than just to write the name of an entity whose constitution we are not aware of. I think that this amendment is wrong and it should not be supported.
    Mr Azong 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just want
    to put on record that the forum is legally registered and in 2007, they made a lot of contributions to support - though they are in Accra here, they are able to mobilize people of northern dissent to send some food items to the North. And they advocated from the beginning that they want to be represented on the Board, the governing Board but we felt getting a representation on the governing Board would be too much.
    But on the Stakeholder Co-ordinating Committee, we think that - even when they submitted their memorandum to the
    Committee, they still made that request that they needed to be represented on the Board. So we felt that giving them a place in the Stakeholder Co-ordinating Committee -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    This
    forum you are talking about, do they represent the other programme areas, like the northern Volta Region, northern Brong Ahafo Region?
    Mr Azong 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, where?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Do they
    represent the entire ecological zone, which is the subject matter of this Bill? Hon Minister, do they represent the entire ecological zone because as much as possible, this Bill seeks to concentrate on the Northern Savannah Ecological Zone. But that representation there, if you look at the Regional Ministers, you look at others, the planning officers, et cetera. This particular amendment, does it represent the interest of the entire ecological zone, the Northern Development Forum that you are talking about? Does it?
    Mr Azong 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, well, whether it has physical representation of northern Volta or Brong-Ahafo but the issues they talk on -- they agitate, represent the whole of that area. I just want to say I am not against the deletion of the amendment but what I am simply saying is that it is a legal body. They even arranged and met Members of Parliament; we had a meeting with them and they have been tasking us to make a lot of contributions.
    Mr Simon E Asimah 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    I think this amendment, I am not comfortable with it because though it is a legally registered body, it does not represent all the areas that have been mentioned in SADA. So I think to a large extent, we must not include this amendment in the Bill.
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this
    amendment is very, very necessary.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    It is what?
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is
    very, very necessary and I support the proposed amendment. The reason is that, before even the last administration established the Northern Development Fund, this group had done so much work and if you look at the composition, when you attend their meetings, you will see that they cut across all the three northern regions. Yes, I agree that northern Volta and northern Brong- Ahafo may not be far but if you look at the original intention of this, especially the Northern Development Fund, it was only the three northern regions and this will not prevent the others from the northern Volta and northern Brong-Ahafo from joining the Northern Development Forum.
    They have played a very significant role in even establishing this very Act and we cannot throw that resource and experience away. It is in this view that we believe they should be encouraged to continue staying together because with the coming into effect of this Act, the tendency is that, now, there is a body, so you people, go to sleep.
    We believe that with the long experience that they have had in championing some of these things, we need to give them a representation on the Stakeholder Co- ordinating Committee just to encourage them to continue working to be able to bring most of the issues at bay. So, I would want my Colleagues to support this amendment because it is very, very important.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, I want to defer this particular clause and then we continue making
    progress . We can make fur ther consultation. There is also an amendment there standing in the name of Hon Boafo but he is not here, so -
    Mr Hayibor 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12, subclause (4), delete and insert the following:
    “Representatives from other relevant Ministries, Departments and Agencies may be co-opted as ex officio members.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, what is the rationale behind the amendment? You just do not move it, you must explain to us to understand -
    Mr Hayibor 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, please, just give me one minute.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Hayibor 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I withdraw the proposed amendment.
  • [Amendment withdrawn by leave of the House.]
    • Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    What
    about 12 (2) (i), dealing with Members of Parliament?
    Mr Hayibor 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that one, I
    believe should stand; it should stand.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Have you
    moved it?
    Mr Hayibor 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the new?
    Which one?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    “Members
    of Parliament.” How do you effectively perform oversight responsibilities over
    3513Savannah Accelerated Devt 29 July, 2010 Authority Bill -- Con. Stage 3514 3515 Savannah Accelerated Devt 29 July, 2010 Authority Bill -- Con. Stage
    SADA?
    Mrs Osei-Opare 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    I think there is some confusion here regarding clause 12 (2) (i) because at the CDommittee level, we believed that regarding the representation, we must have the benefit of academic institutions that can contribute to the development programmes of SADA.
    We identified the University of Development Studies being based in northern Ghana and we also thought that there are other institutions which may not be based in northern Ghana, but through their research work, they can contribute effectively. So, this was the understanding we had in proposing that we must have representation from the University of Development Studies (UDS) and research and other tertiary educational institutions to tap the rich human resources we have in the country. I plead with the Hon Chairman not to withdraw it but to bring it back. It is a long time since we went to Ho, so I am just reminding him of the argument for that.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    would also like to support the view that that amendment should not be withdrawn on the following grounds: Most of the things that would be done in the savannah ecological zone have been researched already. They are in the institutes and universities, and I believe that if we were to get representation from the academia, they would be in a better position to provide scientific inputs. I do not know why the Hon Chairman would like to withdraw it. Like all Boards, representation from the academia is deemed desirable, let alone
    SADA.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon
    Chairman, are you reinstating it or you are -
    Mr Hayibor 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes; it was just a slight mix-up, that was why I was compelled to withdraw it, but actually, paragraphs (i) and (j) should stand.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Then I
    will put the Question.
    Dr A.A. Osei 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my
    problem is that you decided that you would defer the one on the NDF and the one by Hon Boafo. The next one is (xxix). I did not hear the Hon Chairman talking about that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    In fact, we
    did it earlier and I said it was a drafting issue.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Hayibor 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 12 subclause (2), add a new paragraph as follows:
    “ ( j ) s e v e n p e r s o n s represent ing Members of Parliament, five of whom shall be from the programme area and two from other parts of the country.”
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to crave the indulgence of the Hon Chairman for him to drop this one. How can you have oversight and go and sit on the stakeholders -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, I have taken note that this is stakeholders' and that Members of Parlikament are stakeholders. That is what we are saying. They say we are stakeholders; that is what they are saying, and they are advisory. They amended it earlier to mean that the Stakeholders' Co-
    ordinating Committee will be advisory, so as Hon Members of Parliament, they should be there to perform that advisory role -- as stakeholders. [Some Hon Members: And come back as stakeholders?] They may take or they may not take your advice but at least, it would let them know the inner workings of what is happening. They will make inputs.
    Initially, I was sharing the same
    Mr Alban S.K. Bagbin 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just to clarify this issue of oversight because the oversight responsibility is for Parliament, not for the individuals. We exercise oversight over the Executive but we are members of the Executive, we do that.
    We also belong to other institutions
    and boards and the rest but we still as an institution exercise that function of oversight over those institutions. So that should not disqualify Hon Members from serving on the SADA. I serve as Minister of State and Hon Member of Parliament, that does not prevent Parliament from exercising oversight over the Executive.
    Dr A.A. Osei 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, but it is not
    the best of the circumstances; that is the whole point. It creates in your situation a very serious problem of conflict of interest So it is a difficulty and when you can, you avoid it. But when you impose yourself there, it creates the situation where it can affect you.
    Mr Bagbin 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this issue of conflict of interest deals with personal interests but they are not there to serve personal interests. They are to serve public interest. So when you are interpreting “conflict of interest” provisions, you
    are talking about the conflict with your personal interests but their representation there is not for personal interest. It is for public interest. representing the interest of the people. [Interruption.] Yes, as an Hon Member of Parliament, you are not here for your personal interest, you are representing the interest of the people; it is public interest.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Chairman
    of the Committee, why seven? Why not five? These are people from the programme areas who are really interested in the area and therefore, they are stakeholders. They are stakeholders from the programme area. If you look at the Regional Ministers, they are from the programme area. Why is it that when we come to Members of Parliament, we do not limit it -- we have gone beyond the programme area?
    Mr Hayibor 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we believe
    that other people also have relevant opinions towards the development of the area, so we did not limit it to only Hon Members of Parliament. That is why we added two extra.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    So did you
    not add two other Regional Ministers apart from the five from the programme area?
    Mr Hayibor 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have
    five Regional Ministers already in there.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    And then when we come to chiefs, why did we limit it to only the Regional House of Chiefs from the programme area but when we come to Members of Parliament, we decided that we should expand the scope? And why do we not just make it five?
    Mr Bagbin 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the case of the chiefs, we know they represent the people, all of us together. The case of Members of Parliament (MPs) has some partisan representation and it is important
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Hon
    Minister, all that I am asking is that, why is it that it is only when it comes to MPs that that principle you are stating applies, but it does not apply to Regional Ministers, it does not apply to economic planning officers, it does not apply to the chiefs. It is only in the MPs' case that that principle applies; give it that national colour you are talking about -
    Mr Bagbin 1:15 p.m.
    I agree with you because as an MP, you represent your constituency and you represent the nation. As a Regional Minister, you represent only your region, yes, you do not represent any other region; So as an MP, we have additional characters, as a chief, you represent your people in that area.
    So the MPs have the wider presentation, the national representation, they have the linkage between the local and the national, they have the linkage between Parliament and the Executive and they have an overall oversight, and that gives them a very unique position to be effective participants of this development tool.
    Mrs Osei-Opare 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the inclusion of two other MPs outside the programme area, particularly, because MPs have a national role, and that national role, as we are doing today, you can see that we need the contribution of people outside the development area.
    I do agree with Hon Bagbin when he says: “this is a national programme” and for the national programme, we want a situation whereby the MPs who will sit

    in this House to advocate for development of northern Ghana; there are more voices besides those from the development area. It is unique; it is not the same as the Executive which has a geographic responsibil i ty and administrat ive responsibility. Our responsibility goes beyond our constituencies; we have a national interest and we do have a national responsibility.

    So I urge all Members to support this very honourable amendment.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think it is very practical, in fact, what is being proposed here. And the reality of the issue is that, all the MPs will be from that programme area. But then when you bring somebody from outside, it brings in the national character. When you want to avoid political biases in the whole thing, it is very clear; we all know it.
    When you look at the composition, majority of the MPs from the North will come from one party and then just the minority from the other party. So to avoid partisan in the whole process, let us have some others from the South who probably may not be in one party or the other, so that we can mix members from the two parties -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Hon Member for Wenchi, are you sure that those who will be implementing will be guided by what you are saying? Because what is here does not necessarily prevent, it depends on who is implementing it. If that is what we really want to achieve, then this amendment is not going to achieve that purpose. So if that is what you want to achieve, then you must rather go and put it beyond all reasonable doubt.
    But I will put the Question, hoping that when it becomes an issue, people will take the contributions on the floor into consideration.
    Chairman, is it “programmed area” or “programme area”?
    Mr Hayibor 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “programme area”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    So you remove the “d”?
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Hayibor 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12, subclause (4), delete and insert the following:
    “Representatives from other relevant Ministries, Departments and Agencies may be co-opted as ex-officio members.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    No, there is some confusion there; we have (i), so you should be amending (i) in actual fact and not subclause (4).
    Chairman, did you get the point we are making? You should be amending clause 2 (i), not subclause (4).
    Mr Hayibor 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, since it has already been captured in (i), I withdraw this particular amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    No, you are not withdrawing it, because there is a small difference which vests discretion-- “may be”. Hon Member, what you will do is that, line 2, after “Agencies” and “co-opted”, you insert the words “may be”. Did you get it?
    Mr Hodogbey 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have a problem with that clause because assuming there are several programmes going on under different agencies and Ministries, are we saying we should co-opt them all into the -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    That is why it is discretionary; they may or they may not. That is why it is important to
    put the “may” there. So when they think that it would facilitate the work of the Stakeholders Co-ordinating Committee, they may, if it would not, they may not.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg
    to move, clause 12 - add the following new subclause:
    “ ( 5 ) T h e S t a k e h o l d e r C o - ordinating Committee shall meet at least twice annually and in a place within the Northern Savannah Ecological Zone.”
    Mr Speaker, these are the reasons 1:25 p.m.
    the Act recognises the formation of a stakeholder committee but it does not tell when and where it is supposed to meet. I think that it is important that the Act also tells when and where they are supposed to meet.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    So if you make it twice and there is need for an emergency meeting, what happens? That is the point.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 1:25 p.m.
    It was also thought
    of but if owing to the cost involved in such meetings -- [Interruptions] - We can insert the words “at least”.
    So the new rendition should read as follows:
    “Stakeholders Co-ordinating Committee shall meet at least twice annually and in a place within the Northern Savannah Ecological Zone.”
    Mrs Osei-Opare 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you
    look further in the Bill, you would find that this stakeholder forum is a self-supporting one. It is not at the cost of SADA; in fact,
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my Hon Sister is saying this committee has always existed. Mr Speaker, we are just now about to create it. We are about to create it; and she said it has always existed? It could be her imagination. This is the Bill; when was it created? If it has been created, then why are we working on the Bill? We are about to create it but we have not created, it yet.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, now that we are giving legal recognition to the co-ordinating committee, are you saying that public funds should not be spent on it? Is that what you are saying?
    Mrs Osei-Opare 1:25 p.m.
    Yes. Mr Speaker,
    that is the intention of this Bill, that the stakeholder forum is an independent forum that meets to deliberate without the interference of Government. So, my concern is, if they choose to meet more than once, so be it, but for us to legislate a body that we cannot control, whose activities are independent -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon Member, if a Member of Parliament (MP) is chosen and he is chosen from say, Ellembelle to be on the co-ordinating committee, he will go at his own cost? Is that what you are saying?
    Mrs Osei-Opare 1:25 p.m.
    This is precisely
    what I am saying.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Is there
    anything in the Bill to support what you are saying?
    Mrs Osei-Opare 1:25 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Which clause?
    Mrs Osei-Opare 1:25 p.m.
    You will see it further in the Bill that they are to meet at their own cost. And I take caution from what my Brother said, that we are now considering the Bill, so I should not refer to a body that exists. But we are learning from a practice that exists, a practice that has more than ten years' standing, whereby organisations have been meeting regularly every year with no cost -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, now, we are giving it a legal recognition. We are now giving it a legal recognition and assigning it what I may call a statutory responsibility. We are now assigning it a statutory responsibility.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is
    not true that they will go on their own expenses. If you are sending the Regional Minister, is he going there in his personal capacity? No. The State will have to bear the cost. Public funds are spent on the representatives from the Ministries, Departments and Agencies; they are not going there in their personal capacity, those from the District Assemblies. So, it is not everybody that will have to pay from their pocket; public funds would be involved in some way or the other even though that may not be the intention. It is not really practical, so we have to recognise that fact.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in
    addition to what Hon Akoto Osei has just said, it is in the formative stages and people are willing to contribute
    voluntarily.
    But let us assume in five years' time when there is money in the kitty, people will be willing. But when they see the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) driving a very big car, definitely, people would not be willing just to go there regularly, thus footing the cost of going there on their own. I do not think so.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon Members, if it is the thinking of the House that we should include the number of times that they should meet in the Bill, then let me put the Question.
    Mr Hodogbey 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I tend to
    disagree with Hon Frema Osei-Opare, in the sense that, if you look at clause 12 (1), it reads as follows:
    “Without limiting section 11, the Authority shall establish a S t a k e h o l d e r C o - o r d i n a t i n g Committee…”
    Therefore, even though they might be independent, it is established by the Authority.
    Mrs Osei-Opare 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was guided by the fact that this stakeholder committee was supposed to be self- supporting. Now that it is being established, then once we establish it in this Act, SADA will have to have responsibility. I have no problem legislating how many times they should meet, because the cost is yours.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon
    Minister, are you satisfied with at least, two times? The Committee meeting at least, two times or since it is an advisory body, you want to leave it for regulation?
    Dr Alhassan 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, exactly
    so. The reason that was given was that --
    the time SADA had not come into being, people were prepared to volunteer and have stakeholders meetings. But you stand the danger of calling these same people to go for a meeting now that the Authority is in existence and so it would be difficult to have them to discuss issues on SADA. So it was thought that they should put in the Bill, at least, two times in a year. He made his reasons clear and we felt it was necessary to accept the amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    So it should be two times a year, at least, to make room for emergency situations and all those things.
    Hon Members, I will put the Question. We are adding a new subclause in the following words:
    “The Stakeholders Co-ordinating Committee shall meet at least twice annually …”
    Hon Members, “at least two times”, which one is better?
    “…at least two times annually and it a place within the Northern Savannah Ecological Zone.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Members, because of the issue of the Northern Development Forum, I will defer putting the Question on the entire clause 12. When that matter is resolved, then we put the Question on the entire clause 12.
    Clause 13 - Allowances of members of the Board of the Authority.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, we have called clause 13.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    We have
    done that.
    Mr Oppon-Kusi 1:35 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker,
    I want us to --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    That is not
    what has been accepted, you were not here.
    Mr Oppon-Kusi 1:35 p.m.
    All right. So what
    was accepted?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    No, we
    have restored the Regional House of Chiefs.
    Hon Members, clause 13 - Hon Boafo?
    Mr Boafo 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment is withdrawn.
    Mr Oppon-Kusi 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am
    back on my feet.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    No,
    you do not have the floor. Hon Member, we have dealt with what you want to do. We have put the Question. You can only come at the Second Consideration Stage, not at this stage. So if you feel strongly about something, you can only come at the Second Consideration Stage.
    Clauses 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 15 - Ministerial directives for the Authority.
    Mr Boafo 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move,

    clause 15 subclause (1), line 1, delete “on authority of the President”

    So that the new rendition would be -

    “The Minister may give directives in writing to the Board on matters of policy and the Board shall comply.”

    So it appears the way it is rendered now, the Minister cannot on his own or on the advice of the Regional Minister even take --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon
    Member for Akropong, you know they want to make an independent and autonomous body and that as much as possible [Interruption] yes. So they do not want a situation where there would be unnecessary interferences from the Ministries.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, could
    those who wrote give us the relevance of this because we have never legislated anything like this? To begin with, I mean, no authority --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, I will call on them to explain.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:35 p.m.
    But on his amendment,
    it is only saying that the Minister is only acting on the authority of the President. So this is just to take the “on the authority of”, because the Minister cannot act on his own. He is acting on authority, so we do not need “on authority” again. You always act on the authority of the President, you do not act on your own.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon

    You know when we want to pass

    laws, let us try to be as consistent as possible because in most legislations, we use “the Minister”. So I do not know on this occasion why we are using “the

    President”.
    Mr Dery 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the
    Constitution is clear that Executive authority is vested in the President and that Ministers are appointed to act on behalf of the President. You do not have any locus outside the authority of the President. So it cannot be gain-said that that should be. It is an anomaly and it is superfluous.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    If you go
    and do it and the President does not know, that is your own problem.
    Hon Minister in charge of the Bill?
    Mr Azong 1:35 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, I think I
    support the proposed amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Hayibor 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, - add a new subclause (2) as follows:
    “(2) the directives shall be consistent with the Northern Savannah Development Strategy”.
    Dr A.A. Osei 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, could he give the rationale behind that amendment so that we understand it - [Pause.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Yes?
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it might
    be helpful if, maybe, the Minister and the Chairman of the Committee might give us some understanding of the relevance of the entire clause. We have never in this House legislated this type of ministerial
    directives and unlawfulness and so on and so forth. Would somebody explain why this clause is there at all because it is huhudious?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon
    Minister, your subclause (1) is saying that “if the directive is given, they shall comply.” And then the subclause (2), then you negate it. You negate subclause (1) by subclause (2). Look at it -
    Dr. A. A. Osei 1:35 p.m.
    That is what I am saying. And it is unlawful; how do you determine unlawfulness? It is all - that is why I am saying that maybe, if they gave us the background, we might understand better. But as it is, it is so confusing.
    Mr First DeputySpeaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon
    Chairman of the Committee, they are saying that this is the first time they are seeing this type of provisions in a Bill. It creates room for unnecessary conflict. I thought that the whole thing must go, but it is for the House to decide. Look at it.
    Mr Hayibor 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe
    this question would best be answered by the Minister and since he is here --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    But I have
    referred the Bill to you to go and consider and report to the House and you are leaving the provisions intact. So it is not only the Minister but I can also ask you.
    Mr Hayibor 1:35 p.m.
    But I want the Minister
    to just help explain this particular aspect.
    Mr Pelpuo 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, subclause (2), they have to add a subclause to clause 15, that the directive shall be consistent with the Northern Savannah Development Strategy. If it is upheld, Mr Speaker, it is unnecessary to say that if something is unlawful, it is this or that. If it is consistent
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    In fact, the
    whole of subclauses (2) to (4) - Yes, Hon Deputy Minority Leader?
    Mr Dery 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wanted to say
    that subclauses (2), (3) and (4) should go. In fact, thankfully, Hon Boafo has already filed that. But even with the clause 15 (1), I just wanted to propose further that it should read:
    “The Minister may give directives in writing to the Board on matters of policy.”
    Because -- “and the Board shall comply” - what is that? It is implied
    - 1:45 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    It is consistent with the other pieces of legislation - that particular one is consistent with the other ones that this House has passed. What is strange are subclauses (2) to (4).
    Hon Minister for Water Resources,

    But you were contributing earlier, so I thought you had the Bill in front of you.
    Mr Bagbin 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was always
    borrowing and making the necessary interventions.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Look at
    subclauses (2) to (4).
    Mr Bagbin 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I totally agree

    So, Mr Speaker, I think that clause 15

    (1) is all right and the subclauses (2), (3) and (4) should go. Because the clause

    15 (1):

    “The Minister may …on the authority of the President”.

    It is odd and it is good that it has been taken off.

    “The Minister may give directives in writing to the Board on matters of policy”,

    That should have been the end, “and the Board shall comply” means that the Board has no alternative even if maybe, the directive may not be in tune with -- So, that can only be done if you have already put the Question at the Second Consideration Stage. If you have not put the Question, I think that we can still at this time, since Consideration Stage is flexible, allow the amendment on clause 15 (1) and therefore, we can just say:

    “The Minister may give directives in writing to the Board on a matter of policy.”

    The rest of the subclauses (2), (3) and (4) could be deleted.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in
    the creation of these authorities, I think we cannot have our cake and then eat it. We said in clause 5, “the independence of the Authority”, and now you are saying that the Minister should give directives. In my view, the entire clause 15 should go away.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, in actual fact, we are creating an independent Authority, but it is also not an island onto itself. Those ministerial directives are actually presidential directives. And if you go back and you want funding and you go to the President and the Minister for funding to defend and answer questions on your behalf, and you
    are saying the Minister has no role at all to play? I think that is also not --
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that one may not imply that he should give directives -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    In fact, you can look at a lot of legislations that we have passed in this House and you would see that clause 15 (1), up to the end where it says “shall comply”, is standard. We have passed it through a lot.
    I remember one vividly, because I was
    once the Hon Deputy Minority Leader and I was objecting to something and the Minister came to my office and said, “Look, I want that Bill, so if that is your problem, then let us try and clear it out” and we resolved it there. But this is very consistent with a lot of Bills we have passed. I do not have any problem. It is the decision of the House. I am only offering guidance.
    Mrs Osei-Opare 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on
    the suggestion that the entire, beyond “policy”, the rest of subclauses (2) up to (4) be deleted, I beg to differ.
    Mr Speaker, the reason is that we live
    in this country and our laws should really reflect true situations. The directives may be given but what the subclauses seek to do is to give a process where the directives are not in line, there is a procedure for dealing with it. It then reduces conflict and it allows the Authority to go through proper process of sending back information to His Excellency that his directive through the Minister, actually, we cannot comply with. It also protects the staff because people may be given directives and they have not complied and they get into trouble -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, do we need to put this in the Bill? That is the point. There could be other mechanisms through the backdoor in resolving some of these matters.
    Immediately you put it here, somebody will be looking at the directives and then be reading them word by word and then you are creating unnecessary confusion. I do not know.
    Mrs Osei-Opare 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Authority needs a bit of protection from directives that may not be in compliance with the strategy -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Member, you know that as a former Hon Deputy Minister, at times when certain things come from Castle and you are not too clear with them, you go and sit down with them and resolve them. You know, it does happen. When you were in your Ministry and they give some instructions, you do not just go and then -- there is a way of even going to the President to say that, this one, let us do it this way. You do not put these things in the Bill.
    Hon Members, let somebody move and delete the subclauses (2) to (4) - [Some Hon Members: It is there] - Is it there? Then, if I had seen it, I would have put the Question long ago.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 1:45 p.m.
    I would like to know how we can reconcile clause 15 (1) with clause 25 (3) -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Members, I will put the Question on subclauses (2), (3) and (4).
    Hon Boafo, you should move for the deletion of subclauses (2), (3) and (4).
    Mr Boafo 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, subclauses (2), (3) and (4) delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon Members, we go to amendment in sub- clause (1) - [Pause.]
    Hon Members, in line with Standing Order 40 (3), the House will sit outside the prescribed period.
    Hon Chairman, the amendment is
    there; it is a new subclause. I have not put the Question.
    Mr Dery 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with you that we have this as a standard form, but in order to cater for all these things about whether it is consistent with directives or not. As you rightly said, when the directive is given, if there is any difficulty, the Presidency would be consulted and then it would be resolved. So I would have thought that we deleted “and the Board shall comply”. I thought he said it was normal, that was normal drafting. We have removed subclauses (2) to (4), and we have also said that it is superfluous to talk about the directives being consistent with the policy.
    But it pervades the whole Act and therefore, if we remove “and shall comply”, it does not mean they shall not comply. But in practical terms, all it is supposed to do is to give policy directions; it is not as if it is taking Executive decisions from day-to-day. That is not what it is. So I thought if we eliminated “and the Board shall comply”, it would show a deviation from the standard, probably, indicating a certain level of -
    Mr Haruna Iddrisu 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would urge Hon Ambrose Dery to reconsider this position and allow that - I share with him the first aspect, that the Minister may give policy directives. But the move to delete “and they shall comply,” will render that particular provision redundant, and it is also consistent with
    many of the Bills that have gone through this House. Mr Speaker, even from experience, with my very few years as Minister of State, there are times that the Board would take a particular position, not consistent with the policy vision or directive of Government.
    The only way to call them to order is for the Minister to issue such directive and they are expected to comply. I could give a particular example where I was in a dilemma to leave some spectrum available for the use of the State. My Board felt otherwise that that spectrum should go on auction. The only mandate I could exercise was to give them a policy directive that it is a policy decision that reserves this for the Republic and there they will comply. Other than that, when they go to the Board meeting, they may be swayed by other considerations and that can affect policy intervention.
    Now, consultation with the President, absolutely unnecessary. The Minister is an appointee of the President. The other aspect where he articulated that consistent with SADA strategy, the Minister knows that the directive he is giving is pursuant to this. So I agree with him in the first part, but I think the obligation for the Board to comply with the ministerial directive is important and it must stay.
    Mr Boafo 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to support the Hon Minister, because now, he is an advocate for strengthening Executive power. [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon Members, I think they shall comply. You know from experience, some bosses become too powerful and try to even undermine some of their sector Ministers, yet this House summons them to come and answer questions and when they are not even able to perform, we may not

    know. But the truth is that there is no co- operation between those bosses and their sector Ministers. So far, there is no record that this power has been exercised in a way that has created any major problem. But it is for the House to decide as to what-- Hon Minister?
    Mr Bagbin 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, then the issue that the Hon Member for Wenchi (Prof. Gyan-Baffour) raised is very relevant. If the clause stays as it is in clause 15 (1) -- except just the amendment on the authority of the President, if it states that the Board shall comply, then the essence of clause (5) would just be only on the issue of autonomy; it cannot be independent again. So we will have -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon Minister, that is why we made the independence subject to this clause 15.
    Mr Bagbin 1:55 p.m.
    What independence is that? That is autonomy, not independence. So we can accept this, that they shall comply because of our experiences. That, truly, there are some chief executives, there are some boards that are so powerful that they do not take policy directives even from their Ministries and then accept that that authority is autonomous and as it is stated here, statutory co-operation; that is how they put it. But not independence, because if your independence is subject to the control of somebody, then you are not independent.
    Mr Dery 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am still strong on the principle, but I do not mind if we want convention to be our guide. I do not want it to appear as if I do not want the Board to respect the directives of the President; no, that is not what I want. So to that extent alone, I may ask leave to
    withdraw the amendment. But it should go on record that there is the danger that what is going to happen is that, there is not that independence and capricious letters from the Minister, may well be obeyed with the alibi that they shall comply. So I will withdraw my proposed amendment and leave it as it stands now.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Very well. I will now put the Question on clause 15, in view of the [Interruption] He has withdrawn, so there is nothing to argue about.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 15 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 16 -- Appointment of Chief Executive
    Mr Hayibor 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 16, subclause (1), line 2, after “Executive” insert “Officer” and after “Authority” insert “for a term not exceeding four years”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon Member, the amendment you are moving, is it consistent with what has been put on the Order Paper?
    Mr Hayibor 1:55 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker; clause 16, subclause (1).
    Mr H. Iddrisu 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the Chairman could guide us well. If he says: “for a term not exceeding four years”; there is normally an opportunity for re-appointment. If the person is to be re-appointed, it exceeds the four years. So if he wants to say he should be appointed for a term of four years, I think that is more -- For clarity, “for a term of four years” is more acceptable. But when we say: “not exceeding four years”, it means
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Hon Members, the four years, there is no need for us to put it in the Bill, because there are processes which involve Public Services Commission and a whole lot of processes and then the conditions would be stated in the letter of appointment as captured in subclause (3).
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the rationale behind this is to avoid Executive interferences during change of governments and things like that. So maybe, we have to craft it in such a way that it overlaps the tenure of the President, so that we do not change them just like a new government comes in and all Chairmen of all Boards disappear immediately. I think that is the reason maybe, the Members want to do that. Maybe, the Chairman can explain it a bit further.
    Mr Hayibor 2:05 p.m.
    That is the reason behind the change as he said.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    That is the reason behind? It depends on when one is appointed. If one is appointed in January, immediately the President comes, the person will run four years with him and then his or her term will come to an end when the President too is going. So putting “four years”; in itself, does not cure the mischief that the Hon Member for
    Wenchi is talking about. Well, if you want us to put the term, “four years” there, I will put the Question if that is the thinking of the House.
    Mr Bagbin 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think we should maintain the provision as it is--
    “The President shall in accordance with article 195 of the Constitution, appoint a Chief Executive for the Authority”.
    That should be it. There is a lot of cost involved in giving the opportunity for us to change at will, within four years or whatever, Chief Executives. We lose all the experience, the expertise, the institutional memory and all those things.
    These are not political positions, these are public service positions; and we want them to be able to carry on a strong institution that can implement a strategy to try to close the gap. So giving an opportunity for frequent changes, we are not going to move fast. Sustainability, continuity is very important in this matter.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    So it is better to leave these matters with the governing body and the Public Services Commission to determine.
    Mrs Osei-Opare 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we must also not lose sight of non-performance, so that one gives room for change when it is necessary even within the term of an existing President. So let us not over legalise this whole term and ensure that the basic principle of continuity is there but not necessarily tying anybody's hands. This is because somebody might pass an interview but when we put them there, we may find that the person is not performing and we should have the right to change that person so that the work will go on. So I believe we should not tie anybody's hands. It could happen even within the term of an existing government.
    Mr H. Iddrisu 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the point made by the Hon Member who just spoke, precisely supports the position the Hon Alban Sumani Bagbin raised that normally, in the appointment letter, terms and conditions are stated. And if we find the performance to be unsatisfactory, we would exercise the condition that is stipulated for termination under it. So I think that we should stay off and just allow the President to exercise his authority under article 195.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Hon Members, let us go back to clause 8 (1) and (2). You will see that in subclause (1) --
    “A member of the Board shall hold office for a period not exceeding four years and is eligible for re- appointment but a member shall be appointed for more than two terms.”
    Subsection (1) does not apply to the Chief Executive. Yes, it does not apply to him but you are making it to apply to him, which is inconsistent with what we have agreed on.
    Mr Hayibor 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have no objection to the guidance of the House. So I am accordingly withdrawing the proposed amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    The amendment that you have filed there to insert “Officer” after “Chief Executive”. Why did you not file it under clause 8 also? So wherever there is “Chief Executive” , “Officer” should be added? Chief Executive Officer (CEO) [Interruption] Yes, I am saying that you did not file that amendment in clause 8 (2). Have you seen it? So we make a general statement that wherever “Chief Executive” appears, they should add “Officer”. I hope that is consistent with our rules -- without necessarily going through, otherwise, when we do not amend a particular place, then it creates a problem - [Pause.]
    Wherever we have “Chief Executive”, it should be read as “Chief Executive Officer”.
    Hon Chairman, in view of the discussion so far, are you going to move any of the amendments in clause 16 and if so, which of them?
    Mr Hayibor 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am moving the last one, that is page 11. We are adding the following subclause:
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    No, based on what we have discussed, that amendment - I was rather thinking of where we have the -- Is it 44, clause 16, the one dealing with subclause (5)? Let him move the amendment first, Hon Chairman.
    Mr Hayibor 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (5), line 1, after “Executive” insert “Officer” and in line 3, after “function” delete “not otherwise conferred on the Chief Executive” and insert “in consultation with the Chairperson of the Board”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    We have to take that amendment together with the one standing in the name of Hon Boafo. Hon Boafo, we have to take the two amendments together because you are saying they should delete the entire subclause (5). So you have to move the two so that we debate the two together - [Pause.]
    You do not need the Constitution to move the amendment.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Hon
    Minister, the amendment is not in your name. You have to wait for him to move it and then if you will support him, you support him; if you will oppose him, you
    Mr Boafo 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the subclause 16 (5) purports to give to the Chief Executive powers which are reasonably incidental to his functions in the case of emergencies and I find it not necessary.
    Mr Speaker, if I may refer to article 297 ( c ) of the 1992 Constitution and with your permission - if I may quote:
    “(c) where a power is given to a person or authority to do or enforce the doing of an act or a thing, all such powers shall be deemed to be also given as are necessary to enable that person or authority to do or enforce the doing of the act or thing;”
    So Mr Speaker, it is not necessary to legislate for this because as a Chief Executive Officer, if anything happens which is an emergency, he has that incidental authority, carry out an action which would protect the public interest.
    Mr H. Iddrisu 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to associate myself with the amendment moved by Hon Boafo and to oppose the one proposed by the Chairman of the Committee. Mr Speaker, if we go to the interpretation column of this Bill, “emergency situation” is not defined and we should be careful that we should not clothe the Chief Executive with authority that itself may be exercised capriciously.
    If we can define what an emergency situation is, I do trust that persons of competence will fill that particular position. But to say that he shall exercise some authority in an emergency situation, when the “emergency situation” is not defined in the interpretation column, will be too open an opportunity and authority
    given to the Chief Executive. So I support the view that the entire subclause (5) be deleted.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, if I should offer some guidance, withdraw that amendment because if we are not careful that will become the rule rather than the exception.
    Mr Hayibor 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we also faced the same concerns as to what the emergency situation should be. So as you have said, I withdraw that particular proposal.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Hon Members, I will now put the Question on Hon Boafo's subclause (5), “delete.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 16 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 18 - Sources of funds of the Authority.
    Mr Hayibor 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18, subclause (1), add the following new paragraph:
    “(h) levies on non-petroleum imports dedicated to the funding of the Savannah Accelerated Development Authority as may be approved by Parliament; and”
    Mr Dery 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to propose a further amendment and to let (h) read:
    “levies on imports dedicated to the funding of the Savannah Accelerated Development Authority as may be approved by Parliament; and”

    and leave it that way. Why should we start drawing lines? This is because we impose -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Hon Members, Parliament is now making the law, so if we are clear that we want to create a special levy to fund the SADA; then this is the time to put it in the Bill. But when we say that Parliament shall approve - When are they coming to approve it again? We are now making the law, so if we want to make a provision as to the source of funding, then we may have to take the opportunity now and make the provision . Otherwise, I do not see - I do not know. I am at a loss.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to seek your guidance because I would like to move in a direction where I do not have the right expertise. But I would like to ask whether this amendment is actually constitutional. I doubt because if we look at article 174 (1), it says and with your permission, I beg to quote:
    “No taxation shall be imposed otherwise than by or under the authority of an Act of Parliament.”
    And I suggest that this should be read in conjunction with article 108 (a) and (i) and with your permission, I beg to quote:
    “Parliament shall not, unless the bill is introduced or the motion is introduced by, or on behalf of . . .”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Hon Member, this Bill has been introduced by the President -- on the authority of the President. It is not a Bill introduced by any Hon Member here. This is an Act of Parliament. The aricle 174 that -
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what I
    mean is that should it not be an Act in itself? Because it is already - [Interruption.] Let me finish it, please --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Hon Member, I know where you are going. A Bill is introduced on behalf of the President and therefore, Hon Members have the right to do all the necessary things they ought to do to the Bill to be passed.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if Hon Members have the authority to do so, is this clause not catered for in subclause (1) (a)?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    I think you are making some point there. Let me hear from one or two people.
    What he is saying is that Parliament shall not, unless the Bill is introduced or the Motion is introduced on behalf of the President, proceed upon a Bill including an amendment to a Bill -- including an amendment. So he is saying that this is an amendment and we are imposing a charge on the Consolidated Fund. That is his argument but let me hear from you, Hon Members.
    It is not my duty to interpret the Constitution. That is for the Supreme Court but I only express an opinion.
    Mr H. Iddrisu 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that we have got to a very important aspect of this Bill and the very future of the SADA and the intervention that it seeks to do will depend upon what decision this Honourable House takes on its funding sources.
    Mr Speaker, if one goes back into the debate at the Second Reading of this Bill I shudder to suggest that there was unanimity on both sides in suggesting that we assure the Fund of a dedicated and
    Mr H. Iddrisu 2:15 p.m.


    sustainable flow of resources that would make the interventions under SADA meaningful.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Hon Member, my direction on this matter is that the amendment can only be moved by the Hon Minister who introduced the Bill. He should do the necessary consultation and come back to the House on that particular amendment.
    I agree with your principle but the Hon Appiah-Kubi has raised a very fundamental point. When I looked closely at it, this is an amendment to a Bill that is imposing a charge on the Consolidated Fund. And now we are saying that it can only be done under the authority of the President or on behalf of the President. The question now is, has the President given the -- So I am deferring it and to give him authority to consult and then he can come and move that amendment.
    Mr Bagbin 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the “authority” being referred to there is the authority to bring the Bill, the authority to introduce the Bill into Parliament. It is not that any amendment that is going to introduce taxation must get - [Interruptions.]
    Hon Members should please listen. I am making a point; just a minute - It is not that any amendment that is going to impose taxation must come from the authority of the President; no. This is because the power to tax is the power that resides in Parliament. It is in the Constitution. Article 174 (1) and Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to quote:
    “No taxation shall be imposed otherwise than by or under the authority of an Act of Parliament.”
    Who is in control of Acts of Parliament? It is Parliament. So, one cannot impose taxation without us. If it is that we are taking the authority from the President, then it is the President that is imposing the tax and not us.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Hon Member, the person that passes it should be this House; we pass it.
    Mr Bagbin 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, exactly.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    But the law, it is the net effect.
    Mr Bagbin 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am coming to that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Bagbin 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am coming to that. When you go to article 108, it says and with your permission, I beg to quote:
    “Parliament shall not, unless the bill is introduced or the motion is introduced by, or on behalf of, the President -
    (a) proceed upon a bill including an amendment to a bill, that, in the opinion of the person presiding, makes provision for any of the following -”
    It means we shall not proceed on it, that is in case it is a Private Member's Bill. We cannot proceed on this if it is a Private Member's Bill but when it is introduced on the authority of the President, then we can proceed on it. That is it. That is the interpretation because it says unless the Bill is introduced or the Motion introduced by or on behalf of the President. So, when it is introduced by or on behalf of the President, we can proceed to do what is stated there.
    But if it is a Private Member's Bill, we cannot. That is the simple thing that article 108 is saying. We cannot if it is a Private Member's Bill, but if it is introduced by or on the authority of the President, we can do these amendments and this is introduced on behalf of the President. That is my understanding of article 108. And I think that understanding is the right position.
    Mr K. T. Hammond 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, one minute. My Hon Colleague is having a chat with me and I think I would -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Hon K. T. Hammond, I will not give you the chance again.
    Mr. Hammond 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I will take my chance.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    There were a lot of people on the floor but I thought that you - When I called you, and now you are saying that you are consulting you further --
    Mr Hammond 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, because of something, he is drawing my attention to so I thought -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    All right, I will come back to you.
    Mrs Osei-Opare 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is a very important section of the Bill. In fact, at the Committee level, we even sought to designate a certain percentage but we were guided by the constitutional provision. Can we in this Parliament, without any authority, decide that we want to impose 30 per cent levy of non-petroleum products to SADA? If we have the authority, let it be. We in the Committee have a figure; but the point is that we were guided by the Constitution that the best we can do is to do an amendment that seeks to ensure that the Government will now come with a certain percentage of levy in order for us to
    approve in Parliament for that to be given to SADA. That is the guidance because if we have the authority, I dare say that our Committee actually has a figure, so we can even put the figure.
    Whether that will be right -- I do not think that will be right. I think we should be guided by the fact that if we approve this amendment, what it does is to allow the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning and the President and the Executive to think through and look at the national budget and come up with a proposal.
    But if Hon Bagbin, with all due respect, a very experienced Parliamentarian and now a part of the Executive, wants to say that this Parliament can impose a levy, then I do not think even this amendment is adequate. As a matter of fact, then we will impose tax, the levy as we deem fit. Indeed, as I said, the Committee as a recommendation -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Hon Members, at this stage, I want us to defer the consideration of SADA, and go back and complete the University of Ghana Bill. I have just been advised by the Table Office for very good reasons. I have formed my own opinion on the matter; it is not to defer -- If we are able to clear it, we can go back to SADA and -
    Mr Dery 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, certainly, I respect your ruling except that I want it to go on record that I shall continue when we come back that I am on all fours with Hon Alban Bagbin that we go ahead and get the levy. But if that is your ruling that we go to the University of Ghana Bill and come back, that is all right.

    Bills -- Second Consideration Stage

    University of Ghana Bill, 2010
  • [Resumption of debate from Column 3488]
    • Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Clause
    22?
    Mr Puozaa 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, the University of Ghana Bill, 2010 be taken through -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Hon Chairman,we have done that already; the House has agreed, so you go straight and move your amendments.
    We have already done that; I have put the Question; they have agreed that it should pass through a Second Consideration Stage so —
    Mr Puozaa 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, subclause 1, paragraph (a), delete and insert the following:
    “the halls or hostels of residence developed by -
    (1) the university or
    ( 2 ) o t h e r p r i v a t e a n d public persons.
    Mr Speaker, the purpose for this change of position is that, the university believes that it has a duty to be concerned with the students that register with the university. For that matter, it plays some sort of parental role over whoever is there, whether resident or otherwise, and therefore, it considers it a duty to be concerned with whatever is happening to these students during the school term. And therefore, feels that if we go by the amendment that was accepted the other day, it would mean that we are taking that responsibility from the university which they believe is irresponsible on our part.
    Also, we know that in this country, if you have your own private building which you want the public to use as residence, like a hotel, guest house or anything, you are forced to register that residence with the Ghana Tourist Board, that is, to give it that recognition. So if this should apply to the public, then why should we
    not give the university the right to really have some amount of control over where their students sleep?
    If the ordinary public have control over where they sleep as a hotel or a guest house and is being sanctioned by an authority, why should that right not be given to an institution like the university, to at least, have access or be able to have a say in whatever or wherever its students are? I think that is very, very important and if we do take this control or responsibility from the university, I do not think we would be doing service to ourselves.
    I therefore, think that the amendment should be accepted.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Hon Members, I think that there is also another amendment to subclause (1) in the name of the Hon Member for Ayawaso West Wuogon, so I will let her also make her point and then we take it up from there.
    Mrs Osei-Opare 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to propose an amendment to clause 22, subclause (1), paragraph (a) and that is to delete and insert the following:
    “the halls or hostels of residence developed by the university or within the jurisdiction of the university taking into consideration the social and economic needs of the student population.”
    Mr Speaker, let me give my reasons --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Very, very brief but deep.
    Mrs Osei-Opare 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, a university has to recognise various social and economic needs. The university

    needs to recognise that there are matured students, there are international students, there are people who prefer to be in single- sex accommodation and some who prefer mixed accommodation.

    The university is a place for adults, so there are various social and economic needs. What this means is that, in the exercise of the power that we are conferring on them, that is to establish, to vary and to suppress or de-establish, the university must be guided by the social and economic needs of the student population so that that would be a guidance to the university. So, that is my motivation for this amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, how do you respond to the Hon Chairman's amendment to the effect that if you allow our students in the University of Ghana to go to any private hostel without any kind of arrangement, relationship between the university and those - and their lives are endangered, the university's name will necessarily be attached to them and give a certain image to the university and that is the import of the Chairman's amendment. I want you to address it because your amendment does not address that particular issue.
    Mrs Osei-Opare 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the university cannot outside its jurisdiction, be compelled to regulate where students of the University of Ghana sleep. The university can and has the right to call for the registration of those who want to offer accommodation services to the university and give them conditions and guidelines, which then allow them to register hostels. So, that situation of actually recommending private houses or private hostels for the student population is all right because the university has the right to do that and it can do it.
    However, Mr Speaker, it is impossible for the university to say that if you are a student of the university of Ghana, these are the only places you can sleep and so on. It is not possible because you have people coming from their own homes, you have people who rent accommodation in Okponglo, for instance, just as an ordinary person and go to the university. But if you have hostels which want to offer services to the university, like any other service to the university, you can register and be given the right guidelines in order for you to be an accredited hostel and which can then be given to students on registration as to places that are recommended by the university.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Hon K.T. Hammond?
    Mr Hammond 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it was not meant to be a point of order, if she has not concluded --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, have you concluded? I think so.
    Mr Hammond 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the amendment moved by the Hon Chairman of the Committee. In reality, my Hon Sister appeared to be essentially developing the first argument raised by the Hon Chairman of the Committee. It is just that she has gone back to put in the bit about the jurisdiction and the economic consideration.
    But if you read critically what the
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Hon Members, this is the Second Consideration
    Stage, so we do not normally waste too much time as we are at the first consideration stage.
    But Prof. Fobih, let me hear something briefly from you then I will put the Question.
    Prof. Fobih 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just want to make a short statement on this. We should make a distinction between “on campus” and “off campus” status of a student. If a student is on campus, it is the responsibility of the university authorities to make sure that his interests are taken into account by the administration of the university.
    If a student is staying outside the university, that responsibility does not rest on the university. That is why they defined ‘off campus' and ‘on campus'. If I do not get ‘on campus' accommodation from the university, and I am supposed to be an admitted student there, and I find accommodation at Kasoa or Kaneshie, it is not the responsibility of the university of Ghana to take care of my welfare. In other words, the university cannot say that do not stay in this house because I have not registered -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Let us look at the amendment in the name of the Chairman; we are not talking about private homes, hostels; we are not talking about people staying in their private homes and coming, we are talking about hostels where we have a large number of our students congregating at a particular place.
    Prof. Fobih 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, a hostel can exist on the university campus, it can also exist anywhere at Kasoa or any other place. So once it is a hostel to receive people who need accommodation or some group of students, who need
    accommodation, what I am saying is that, if it is anywhere on the campus, then the university has jurisdiction over how the place is administered. But if it is a private hostel outside the precinct or the jurisdiction of the university, then the university should not extend its responsibility there.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, I will put the Question. I will start with the Chairman's one first. Those in favour of the amendment standing in the name of the Chairman -- I do not know whether you have it there.
    It is the same as what was originally in the Bill. Well, that is, if you have the University of Ghana Bill, that is the original text in the Bill, that is what the Hon Chairman is seeking to restore, what was amended. Clause 22 (1) (a) (i) and (ii).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Hon Member, yours is automatically lost.
    Mrs Osei-Opare 2:45 p.m.
    It is not lost.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    You cannot put the Question on it because it is inconsistent with the Chairman's one, so the two cannot run together. All of you sought to delete subclause 1.
    Chairman of the Committee, please, hurry up.
    Mr Puozaa 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, delete the following subclause; “the internal organisation of the university shall conform to democratic principles and its actions and purposes shall not contravene the inconsistence with the Constitution of the Republic.”

    After several discussions with others, it was found to be superfluous because all Acts in this country are supposed to conform to the Constitution.

    Therefore, there is no reason we should insert this in an Act of the university, because all activities or actions in this country are supposed to conform with the Constitution. So it is felt that it is superfluous.
    Mr Boafo 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the proposed amendment is in order. After several reflections, I realised that this particular provision was inserted by my goodself; but I believe article 21 of the Constitution takes care of this situation. So I support the amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 22 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 23 --
    Mr Puozaa 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 23, subclause 5, delete and insert the following:
    “The University Council shall enact statutes in accordance with the laws on intellectual property to govern the creation, ownership and use of intellectual property including copy right, patents, trade marks, trade names and industrial designs by university employees.”
    It has been observed that this is just similar to the original and it is felt that the amendment that was made was not really anything different from this and there was no need for us to have done that. So we do appeal to the House to just go back and stick to the original.
    Mr Boafo 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am more comfortable with this amendment than what originally was in the Bill. Because our fears under the original version was
    that the “statutes of the university” was going to run contrary to the existing law on copy right, patent law, trade marks and industrial designs.
    But in the amended proposal, the Committee has inserted “in accordance with the laws on intellectual property”, that is, “the statutes of the university” regarding copy right, trade marks and other intellectual property laws, will be made in accordance with the laws on intellectual property. So I am more comfortable with this version.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Hon K. T. Hammond, then I will put the Question.
    Mr K. T. Hammond 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I also support the Motion as moved and supported by my Hon Colleague here.
    Mr Speaker, I think it is also again a rationalisation of the clause as it originally existed. Mr Speaker, if you read what you find there, you are tempted to think that the university was going to put its own law and statutes together, which might be contrary to the laws of the country. But it seems to me, for the sake of rationality, this has now been put in there and it fits in there perfectly and I agree to it.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 23 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Hon Members, that brings us to the end of the Second Consideration Stage --
    Nana Abu-Bonsra 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to move for a Second Consideration Stage in reference to clause
    11 -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Hon Member, wait.
    Mr K. T. Hammond 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect, I think his is part of what we have just completed. I think there were two Papers; one is what we have just dealt with and the second is what he is actually proceeding to. So -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    But the motion that was moved by the Chairman was for clauses 22 and 23. There is no amendment to reconsider clause 11. So he has to start and make a new amendment; move the motion first and if the House agrees to consider clause 11 - if it is agreed by the House to carry on clause 11 before we go to the Second Consideration Stage. If the House says no, then that ends the matter and that brings us to the end of the Second Consideration Stage.
    Hon Member, the Mace is now upright, you can move your motion.
    Nana Abu-Bonsra 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that the University of Ghana Bill, 2010 be taken through a Second Consideration Stage in respect of clause
    11.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    If there is no seconder, then motion collapses immediately. [Laughter.]
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, we are not at the Second Consideration Stage yet. You have moved a motion, nobody has seconded it and that ends the matter.
    So Hon Members, that brings us -
    Nana Abu-Bonsra 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I did not know that you were asking for that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Hon Members, that brings us to the end of the Second Consideration Stage.
    Hon Minister, move for the Third

    Reading.
    BILLS - THIRD READING 2:55 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Hon Members, let us go to the Savannah Accelerated Development Authority Bill.
    BILLS - CONSIDERATION 2:55 p.m.
    STAGE 2:55 p.m.
  • [Resumption of debate from column 3455]
    • Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Hon Members, I have carefully listened to the submissions on the floor on this matter, I have looked at the rendition on the Order Paper, and I think that it is proper and it is within the laws and the rules of this House.
    I will therefore put the Question.
    Some Hon Members 2:55 p.m.
    Which clause?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    We are on clause 18 (1).
    Some Hon Members 2:55 p.m.
    Paragraph (h).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    It is in a new subclause, whether it is paragraph (h) or not, it is for the draftspeople. There is only one amendment there for subclause (1) and that is what I am -
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    You have
    said that you were in all fours with the Hon Minister?
    Mr Dery 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just want to
    remind you. What happened was that the Hon Chairman moved the motion and then I wanted to propose a further amendment. That is what I wanted to do and then it was taken away from me.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    I made the ruling based on what I have here. If you want to make further amendment, then what I will suggest is that, let us make progress, I will come back to that one.
    Mr Dery 2:55 p.m.
    No. Mr Speaker, to be fair, I do not think if you check the Hansard, you will find it. What I said was that, I was just adding something to modify the amendment.
    Mr Dery 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move add “levies on petroleum and non- petroleum import.”
    That is all.
    Mr Hammond 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not
    comprehend why there should be more taxation. We should see the Bill as it is originally rendered -
    “any other moneys that the Hon Minister responsible may approve of.”
    He can deep into the Consolidated Fund, he can approve this and that. He can do this et cetera. Why the burden of taxation? The people of Ghana will cry. They are crying as it is now, for the purpose of development of a particular area, we are going to -- when we have the Consolidated Fund, when we have all sorts of moneys sitting somewhere else. Indeed, when the oil moneys are going to come, indeed, people are already cashing in on the oil money. There are people with US$5 million or whatever paid into their account. Why can Government not -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Hon Member -
    Mr Hammond 2:55 p.m.
    I am out of order
    on that one. I am really out of order on that one. I am out of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Hon Member, you are out of order. Withdraw it.
    Mr Hammond 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that bit is withdrawn for the purpose of - [Interruption.]
    rose
    Mr H. Iddrisu 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that we can accept the rendition as was read by the Chairman of the Committee that --
    “levies on non-petroleum imports dedicated to the funding of the Savannah Accelerated Development Authority”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    I thought you were coming under a point of order, and I thought that was what you were coming to do because he has not finished? He was still on the floor. Hon Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing, are you all right?
    Mr A. S. K. Bagbin 2:55 p.m.
    I am all right.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Hammond 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so really, it is a question of taxation. Let us stick to the original one because the Hon Minister has got various avenues of raising money; let him raise the money and let us save the people of Ghana from further taxation if they are not already choking under the burden of taxation as it is.
    Mr H. Iddrisu 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, but just to persuade the Hon K. T. Hammond. We have had the experience even under the Northern Development Fund (NDF) where some commitments were made relying on the budgetary benevolence of the Hon Minister for Finance and Economic
    Planning, it did not work, even beyond the floods that have happened. We also have this other experience, where even in the 2009 Budget Statement, commitments were made, they were not honoured.
    So we are saying that, let us dedicate a fund because we all think that we need to achieve, holistic development as a country. We all agree that there must be affirmative action; maybe, if your difficulty is the inclusion of petroleum products, we can narrow ourselves to non-petroleum products and with Mr Speaker's indulgence, I may further amend to say that “not more than one per cent of that” be dedicated to SADA. And if that is agreeable - it should include “non-petroleum product import” just not more than one per cent of it.
    I will take some advice from Hon Prof. Gyan-Baffour if that can be done under the circumstance.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    Hon Members, you see, that is why I thought that further consultation would be made so that when the issue of percentage crops up and all those things, there would not be any difficulty on the matter.
    Mr Bagbin 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the
    rendition as we have from the Chairman of the Committee, is preferable because we have a second opportunity. He says “levies on non-petroleum imports …” I would have gone straight to say “as may be approved by Parliament”. You see, “levies on non-petroleum imports as may be approved by Parliament.” Which meant that when they are bringing usual regulations and the rest, they would be included there and Parliament would get the opportunity to approve them. Already, we have levies on non-petroleum imports.
    This is not an additional taxation, it is the existing ones that we want some percentages that would be determined by Parliament in future to be dedicated to
    this Fund. That is what we are looking at and that is how it can be managed. So it is “levies on non-petroleum imports as may be approved by Parliament.” If you talk about petroleum, we are having problems because in future, we may not be importing petroleum products because we have them here already and we would be using that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    So it
    should be what?
    Mr Bagbin 3:05 p.m.
    Non-petroleum imports -
    “Levies on non-petroleum imports as may be approved by Parliament.”
    Mr Dery 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think I will
    withdraw my amendment and support the one that the Chairman has moved.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    Hon
    Minister, let me get your rendition right -
    “Levies on non-petroleum imports as may be approved by Parliament.”
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, for
    the avoidance of doubt, I think we would have to have it as “part of existing levies.” His concern here is that, when you say “levies”, it means that we are going to levy new levies. But I think the argument here is that, we are going to use part of the existing levies to fund it. So, I think that is how probably, it should go.
    Mr Pelpuo 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that
    it is best if it is left this way. The Minister determines how he wants to bring it to Parliament, and we all know that this is the idea and it is best to have the principle in there for the details to be worked out later on.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    Yes, Hon
    Dr Appiah-Kubi?
    Mr Hayibor 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he is not
    here but since we are towing the same line concerning this particular amendment, if you allow me, I can move it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    You
    are the Chairman of the Committee, has your Committee as a committee endorsed this amendment or you are using your discretion? I have to be very sure.
    Mr Hayibor 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    Move it,
    go ahead.
    Mr Hayibor 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 18, subclause (2), line 4, delete “one year after the passage of the Bill”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, we have lines (1) and (2) there, you have jumped to line (4).
    Mr Hayibor 3:05 p.m.
    No, those two are not - we did not discuss those two but we discussed the other one on page 13.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    But you see, that precisely is the problem. Anyway, he is not here, so let us move to the ones that the Committee has no problem with.
    Mr Hayibor 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 18, subclause (2), line 4, delete “one year after the passage of the Bill” and insert “three months after the passage of the Bill.”
    We believe that the one year is just
    Mr Hayibor 3:05 p.m.


    too much.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    Hon
    Chairman, what we have there first is subclause (2), not subclause (4) as you mentioned first - line (4) -
    Mr Dery 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if I heard the
    Chairman right, he said delete “one year after the passage of the Bill” and insert “three months after passage of the Bill.” [Interruptions] But that was what he read. - So, I want it to be clear that we are dealing with what is on the Order Paper because it is “three months after presentation of the programmes of the Authority”.
    Mr H. Iddrisu 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I share
    the position raised by the Hon Deputy Minority Leader. If he wants to say “after passage of the Bill”, let him say so. But we cannot be dancing between “passage of the Bill”, and “presentation of the programmes of the Authority.” But with the indulgence of Mr Speaker and the Chairman of the Committee, because of the budget cycle, normally, three months may not be enough for planning purposes to allow the Hon Minister to have a determined position as to how to fund this. I will further amend it to be “six months”, if you would have no objection to it.
    At least, within six months, the Minister can have a picture of what his inflows and revenues into the Consolidated Fund would look like and how that can support the implementation of this. So I will further amend it to that.
    Mrs Osei-Opare 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think
    if we legislate by law “six months”, we might get into trouble because it takes time to get these things organised. So, even though there is an urgency and that is why we are all here, I still believe that given the normal processes of developing a plan and coming up with this, we should not tie the hands of the Authority. It may not be possible. So, let us not legalise
    the time. When we say “one year”, it means you can come “ six months”, “three months”. Whenever you are ready, you are ready within.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, what we have there is “within one year”, and I think that we have taken into consideration all the factors.
    Mr Bagbin 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the proposed
    “within one year”, is talking about after the passage of the Bill and they gave one year. But this one is talking about “after presentation of the programmes of the Authority”. It is not talking about the Bill again but it is talking about the programmes - when the programmes of the Authority are presented to the Ministry, then there is the need for a financial sustainability plan.
    Yes, I agree with the Hon Minister for Communications that three months is rather too short to be able to prepare such a plan. And that, normally, when we have given an opportunity for people to look at financial situations, we give six months. Auditor-General, Controller and Accountant-General and all those things, we give six months, because there is bound to be some consultation. So, I would go with him that we should rather put it that “within six months after presentation of the programmes of the Authority.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    If the
    programmes are not available, how can they prepare a financial sustainability plan? So, you agree with the programme?
    Mr Bagbin 3:15 p.m.
    Yes, the programme.
    When they present the programme to them, then they now have the opportunity to do financial sustainability plan. So, it is after that. Because if you say within one year after the passage of the Bill, and there
    is no programme, how can they present a sustainability plan?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, the new rendition is, instead of “three” there, we have “six months after presentation of the programmes of the Authority.”
    Mrs Osei-Opare 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in
    practical terms, when you set up an Authority, it will develop a plan. When they have to do recruitment, they will develop a plan. When you talk about financial sustainability, we are looking at it as if it is a one-off programme. Financial sustainability cannot be a one- off programme, that within six months, we have the blueprint and that is it.
    In fact, some of the programmes that
    may come about may not be in one year. Some of the programmes will come - there will be feasibility studies and the rest and it might come in year two or year three. So, the whole term of financial sustainability of one year is really misplaced. It is misplaced because programmes are dynamic. The Authority needs to look at a plan, debate it, make sure that they have worked things out. And some of it may not even be ready within the one year. It is not as if it is a small project that you can have a fixed term, you know your objectives and you are going to do that. We must allow this Authority to do what it is supposed to do. It needs, in some cases, time to actually develop a cross regional plan and so on and the financial needs may even take them out to source for funding.
    So, please, let us look at the real
    object of SADA and not tie it as if it is some one small project with a definite programme and therefore, bring it. So, I believe this whole financial sustainability is questionable; it does not serve a good
    purpose.
    Thank you.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    think I agree with my Hon Sister. I do not even know what is being referred to as financial sustainability plan. If we want the thing to start quickly, it is not about the Finance Minister developing a plan. That even brings another bureaucracy into the whole process. You bring the plan, so what?
    I think the idea here is to be able to
    start the thing quickly. If that is the idea, then we need to revise it in a way that will enable the Finance Minister act quickly. But to say that he should bring a plan, he even does not know what you are going to do. How is he going to give you a plan? The plan should come from SADA. I am not so sure what this really means.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    Hon
    Members are even questioning the whole subclause (2), and they have made a strong case.
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader, I will come to you later.
    Hon Minister, I saw you on your feet
    earlier?
    Mr Azong 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so. I
    really want to associate myself with what the Hon Ranking Member is saying, that we should allow the original rendition to stay. It should happen after the passage of the Bill -- for one year.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    The
    original rendition is being questioned. They are saying that there is even no need to put the subclause (2) there at all. That is what they are saying. And that we should rather leave it to the political will to implement the Act rather than trying to
    Mr Azong 3:15 p.m.
    All right.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    If that
    is the thinking of the House, then somebody must move for the deletion of the subclause.
    Hon Members, what is the thinking of
    the House?
    Mr Pelpuo 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the thinking
    behind this subclause was because there was no specific understanding of where money was going to come from. Now, we have a proposed source of funding. So, subclause (2) therefore, will no longer be relevant and I beg to move for its deletion.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18,
    subclause (2) delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 18 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill. Clause 19 - Retention and utilisation
    of internally generated funds
    Mr Ameyaw-Cheremeh 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    I beg to move, clause 19, subclause (5), line 1, after “expenditure” insert “funded by internally-generated funds”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    Where is the subclause (5)? Very well. So you should say that the second subclause (4) - that is what is in the Bill - the second subclause (4).
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 19 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clause 20 - Power to contract loans
    Mr Ameyaw -Cheremeh 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    I beg to move, clause 20, subclause (3), line 1, after “Minister” insert “responsible for Finance”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 20 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 21 - Investment activities and income.
    Mr Hayibor 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 21 - subclause (1), line 1, after “may” insert “in consultation with the Minister responsible for Finance”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    There are other amendments in clause 21. But I have noticed he is not there, that is why.
    Clause 21 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 22 - Annual Budget of the Authority.
    Mr Hayibor 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, subclause (1), line 4, delete “recurrent” and in line 5, delete “capital”.
    We think they are redundant words.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, what is the rationale behind the amendment? [Pause.]
    Mr Hayibor 3:25 p.m.
    Expenditure, I am sure it is recurrent and also -- Capital is capital
    and expenditure -- I do not know. What we are asking is that, they almost mean the same thing; so we feel we have to delete them.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    But if they are expecting them to earn an income and they want to look at it, what is wrong in putting it there, Chairman? If you are expecting them to earn an income and they want them to show the income that they are going to earn in their estimates -- maybe, there is some other reason for it.
    Mr Hayibor 3:25 p.m.
    Probably, in accounting, we have income and expenditure; so I do not know -
    Mrs Osei-Opare 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we intended rather to delete both “recurrent” and “capital”, so that it reads: “comprising estimates of expected income and expenditure in that financial year.” That is what my notes say. So, Mr Chairman, I think we do not insert “capital.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    What you are saying is different from what is here. [Pause.]
    Mr Azong 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have income and expenditure and that could include “recurrent expenditure” or “capital expenditure”. So when you use “income and expenditure”, it is quite explanatory. So, you do not need to repeat those words -- recurrent or capital expenditure. So, it is just “income and expenditure.” Income is inflows and the outflows are the expenditures for the financial year.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 22, as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 23 to 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    Hon

    Members, I would go through it and take the new clause there or we should take the new clause first? [Pause.] Very well.

    Clause 26 - Incentives for private sector investment
    Mr Hayibor 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, subclause (2), paragraph (c), line 1, delete “loan guarantees for” and insert “facilitate the acquisitions of loans by”.
    Mr Speaker, we do not want to see the Authority as advancing loans; we see it as rather facilitating them.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 26 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill.
    Clauses 27 to 31 ordered to stand part
    of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, let us take the newclause -
    Mr Hayibor 3:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, add the following new clause:
    “Division of the Authority --
    ( 1 ) T h e B o a r d m a y establish divisions or units it considers necessary within the Authority for the effective performance of the functions of the Authority.
    (2) There shall be appointed for each unit, a Director who is the head of the unit.
    ( 3 ) E a c h D i r e c t o r s h a l l b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the management of the unit under the Director and shall answer to the Chief Executive
    Officer in the performance of the functions of the Director under this Act.
    (4) The qual i f ica t ions for appointments as a Director shall be determined by the Board.
    (5) The staff strength, duties, and functions of each unit shall be determined by the Board.
    ( 6 ) F o r t h e p u r p o s e o f determining the duties and functions of each unit, the Chief Executive Officer shall draw up for the consideration of the Board a service charter which shall set out the duties and responsibilities of the Units.
    (7) The service charter is subject to revision by the Board.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
    Hon Members, is it not better to leave this to the internal organisation of the Authority?
    Mr Boafo 3:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the new clause talks about division of the Authority. On subclause (1), we have reference to “The Board may establish divisions or units” but Mr Speaker, throughout the other subsections, there is only reference to “unit” and there is no reference to “a division”. So I believe -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
    Chairman, did you get him? So, do the proper thing quickly.
    Mr Boafo 3:35 p.m.
    The subclause (7), there is reference to the service charter. “The service charter is subject to revision by the Board.” But there is no definition of what is meant by service charter.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
    Hon Members, apart from subclause (1), the rest are administrative.
    Mr Dery 3:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I even think the whole new thing is administrative. The organogram, whatever the Authority decides, would be dealt with as an administrative matter. So why are we imposing -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
    Yes, I agree with you, Hon Deputy Minority Leader, but we may have the first one. It is in other legislations we have passed, so that the Board then sees the organogram and all those things but the subsequent ones are basically administrative.
    Mr Bagbin 3:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I take a cue from your submission but we have a problem there. You are now compelling the Authority to call them “divisions” and also call them “units”. These are terminologies that could be different. You can call them “departments” or “sections”. But now, we are going to impose “divisions” and “units”. So I think that these are matters we should leave to the Board and the Board will draw up an organogram, use the proper terminology and use the proper structure for the Authority. It is not for us to legislate here because depending on which Authority, they use different nomenclatures.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, did you get the thinking of the House?
    Mr Hayibor 3:35 p.m.
    Yes, please.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
    So what do we do?
    Mr Hayibor 3:35 p.m.
    We will go with theirs.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
    What is theirs? If you are withdrawing, then withdraw, then we go with theirs.
    Mr Hayibor 3:35 p.m.
    I wi thdraw the amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
    Well, it is good. Earlier somebody complained that he is being intimidated by the Committee. So if the Ranking Member on the Committee is also complaining now, that he is also being intimidated -
    Hon Members, the Chairman has withdrawn it and I think that should be the proper thing to do. Definitely, they will have an organogram that they will approve at the Board level.
    Mr Dery 3:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we skipped one part of the Bill; if we could just finish that and do the Third Reading --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
    Yes, that is what I am going to now. Clause 12.
    Hon Members, we deferred clause 12 (2) (g). We want to go back to it and sort it out.
    Mr Hayibor 3:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wish to withdraw that particular amendment. Clause 12 (2) (g) withdrawn.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
    So Hon Member, what should be --
    Mr Hayibor 3:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want the original rendition to stand.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
    Very well.
    So I will now put the Question on clause 12 as amended.
    Mr Azong 3:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before we take the Question on that one, I want to suggest that we could go back to (i) under 12 to include “implement and support programmes focused on improved access to food security” instead of deleting the “implementation” and putting only “support” there.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
    I am not with you; I am not following you. You are talking about 12 (i)?
    Mr Azong 3:35 p.m.
    Because you wanted to put the Question on the whole -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
    Is it 12 (i)?
    Mr Azong 3:35 p.m.
    Sorry, it is on (3).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 12 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    The Long Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
    Hon Members, that brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage of the Savannah Accelerated Development Authority Bill,
    2010.
    Deputy Majority Leader, I am going to
    adjourn the House. Do you have anything to say?
    Mr Pelpuo 3:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in all my years in Parliament, this is the first time I have seen a Speaker Sitting through a Bill from beginning to end, and with dedicated Hon Members of Parliament Sitting through to see it to the end of
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader, we did not want to hear those sermons, we want you to perform.
    Mr Pelpuo 3:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, these sermons are very necessary as a motivation both to you and to us. So I want to say congratulations to us all and it is a great achievement.
    Mr Speaker, I would therefore say that after all these hours of Sitting, you may adjourn the Sitting until we meet again in the forenoon tomorrow.
    Thank you.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
    Deputy Minority Leader, do you have anything to say before I adjourn the House?
    Mr Dery 3:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was wondering if it is not possible to vary something and have the Third Reading today -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
    To do what?
    Mr Dery 3:35 p.m.
    Well, I will reluctantly support. I wanted the Third Reading of the Savannah Accelerated Development Authority Bill, 2010 today.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
    I was thinking somebody was going to suspend the Standing Orders and then have the Third Reading done. But unfortunately, I did not get it from anybody so that we rest the matter. The mood in the House is in favour of that but actually Hon Members, we can do that tomorrow. Third Reading does not really take any time, so we can do that tomorrow. It will not take any time.
    Mr Dery 3:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I leave it to your discretion.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 3:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let us defer this for tomorrow; let us go and think over these things, sleep over them. Maybe, there can be something useful coming out tonight so that we do it tomorrow.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:35 p.m.
    Very well, Hon Members, at this stage, I adjourn the House to tomorrow at 10 o'clock in the forenoon.
    Thank you very much, Hon Members, for your support and co-operation.
    ADJOURNMENT 3:35 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 3.45 p.m. till Friday, 30th July, 2010 at 10.00 a.m.