Debates of 27 Oct 2010

MADAM SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:10 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:10 a.m.
Madam Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 26th October, 2010.
Page 1...8 -
Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah 10:10 a.m.
Madam Speaker, page 8, (iii); I am not very sure if the statement there rightly captures what took place yesterday regarding the referral you made to the Privileges Committee. It is not my recollection that you made a ruling that it constituted contempt of Parliament.
I believe you made references to the
Constitution and our Standing Orders and alluded to the possibility of it bordering on contempt and for that matter, made a referral to the Committee.
Madam Speaker 10:10 a.m.
But the idea was to
reach those sections under which I referred the matter.
Mr Opare-Ansah 10:10 a.m.
Exactly, Madam Speaker. If you read the first paragraph of the statement, it says,
“. . . the Rt. Hon Speaker ruled that the performance index constituted contempt of Parliament.”
Madam Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Well, I cannot rule when I am sending the matter to the Committee -
Mr Opare-Ansah 10:10 a.m.
Precisely so,
Madam Speaker 10:10 a.m.
So it is that “relied on these and sent it to them”. So what word would you substitute for that because you are making the correction?
Mr Opare-Ansah 10:10 a.m.
I would suggest -- “Madam Speaker ruled that the performance index could constitute contempt of Parliament and as a result made a referral to the …”
Madam Speaker 10:10 a.m.
You would put “could” there?
Mr Opare-Ansah 10:10 a.m.
Yes, Madam Speaker.
Dr Anthony A. Osei 10:10 a.m.
Madam Speaker, with respect, the index itself cannot be considered to be constituting the contempt.
Madam Speaker 10:10 a.m.
The effect -
Dr A. A. Osei 10:10 a.m.
The conclusion coming out of there, I think, is what he is talking about because it is an act - the act could not be the index itself. So if we could use the language in article 122 rather than the index itself, it might be better because the index itself cannot be said to be constituting contempt of Parliament.
Madam Speaker 10:10 a.m.
I think the proper thing that happened was that -- Let us read it:
“Pursuant to the concerns raised by the House on the Statements made by Hon Members for Ashaiman and Manhyia and having regard to the provision of article 122 of the Constitution and Standing Order 30(2), the Rt. Hon Speaker referred the matter to the . . .”
That is really, really what happened -- “. . . referred the matter to the Privileges Committee.” Is that in order?
Mr Opare-Ansah 10:10 a.m.
Rightly so, Madam Speaker. I think that is in perfect order.
Madam Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Yes. So we move on to page 9 -
Mr Cletus A. Avoka 10:10 a.m.
I thought that the last paragraph of the matter in issue is well captured -
“Rt. Hon Speaker accordingly referred the matter to the Privileges Committee for investigation and report in accordance with Order
31.”
I think that is in place; that is correct.
Madam Speaker 10:10 a.m.
So how would you put it?
Mr Avoka 10:10 a.m.
So the whole of (iii), we maintain:
“Pursuant to the concerns raised by the House on the Statements made by Hon Members for Ashaiman and Manhyia and having regard to the provision of article 122 of the Constitution and Standing Order
30 (2) . . . ”
And we delete.
“. . . the Rt. Hon Speaker ruled that the performance index constituted contempt of Parliament”;
and then we join --
“Rt. Hon Speaker accordingly referred the matter to the Privileges Committee for investigation and report in accordance with Order
31.”
Madam Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Yes. I think so. I think that is really the spirit of what
happened.
Mr Avoka 10:10 a.m.
Yes.
Madam Speaker 10:10 a.m.
Thank you, Hon Member.
Madam Speaker 10:20 a.m.
So we move on to

Page 10 -
Mr Charles S. Hodogbey 10:20 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, I am sorry to go back to your referral to the Privileges Committee.
I think normally, a time frame is given to such committee or commission to report. So I would be grateful if you could put a time frame to that order so that we know what it is supposed to be -
Madam Speaker 10:20 a.m.
I suppose you should have said that yesterday. Today, it is only a correction and so if I did not say it we cannot import it into -
Dr A. A. Osei 10:20 a.m.
Is my Hon Colleague trying to direct Madam Speaker?
Madam Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Well, he is drawing my attention to it. But he could have done it yesterday when I made the order that we should specify the time, but since he did not and we are only correcting the Votes and Proceedings, correcting what happened, we cannot import it in and so -- I am sure the Privileges Committee will work on it fast, anyway.
So page 9, --
Reuben Nii Nortey Dua: Madam Speaker, I am very sorry to take you back or take the House back.
Yesterday I was here. I did sign. Unfortunately, it has been recorded that I was absent and my name is in the list of

the absentees.
Madam Speaker 10:20 a.m.
No, you were prominently here so the Clerk to proceed to do the correction.
Nii Nortey Dua: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Yes, page 9. . . 10 -- [Pause]
Hon Members , the Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 26th October, 2010 as corrected is adopted as the true record of proceedings.
We do not have the Official Report yet.
We will move to the next item. We have Urgent Questions. Hon Leader?
Mr Hennric D. Yeboah 10:20 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, the front page of the Order Paper, the Urgent Questions, 3(d), line 4, “gradually caving in”; it is not “generally caving in”;
Madam Speaker 10:20 a.m.
All right. Well, all right. That is your Question? Anyway,thanks.
Hon Leader, is the Hon Minister here to answer the Question?
Mr Avoka 10:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the Hon
Minister himself is not available. He has travelled out of Accra but the Hon Deputy Minister who is an Hon Member of Parliament is in the House to stand in for the Hon Minister. So I am seeking your permission and leave and that of my Hon Colleagues on the front bench of the Minority to accept our Hon Colleague, the Deputy Minister, to stand in for the Hon Minister.
Madam Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Yes, Acting
Minority Leader?
Mr Opare-Ansah 10:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker,
we would have no objection at this time but I hope the male Ministers are not
making the point made by Hon Cecilia Abena Dapaah the other day comes true that it is only the female Ministers who are always available.
Madam Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Very well. Hon
Deputy Minister, the first Question stands in the name of Hon Samuel Kwaku Obodai (Agona West).
Mr John Agyabeng 10:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker,
the Hon Member has given me permission to tackle the Question on his behalf, so if permission can be given to me to ask the Question on his behalf.
Madam Speaker 10:20 a.m.
The permission will
be considered when I know why he has asked you to tackle it.
Mr Agyabeng 10:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker, at
the moment, the Hon Member is in his constituency and I am not sure he can be here before the -
Madam Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Well, Hon Members,
that is the reason. Do we agree that always when Questions are asked, they are in constituencies? Anyway --
Mr Agyabeng 10:20 a.m.
Thank you, Madam
Speaker. This Question was filed as an Urgent Question in June, this year. As I am speaking, one of the two main bridges has been completed and the community is using it. The other one is about 80 per cent complete.
Madam Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Yes, so you are permitted to ask the Question. But if I may remind you, Question time is one hour.
Mr Opare-Ansah 10:20 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I think when you were conferring with the Clerk, the Hon Member indicated that the Hon Member, in whose name
the Question stood has asked him to withdraw the Question since the Question is about a year and a half old as an Urgent Question and apparently, the projects to which reference are being made have been completed.
Madam Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Member. So we then move to Question (b), which stands in the name of Hon Ahmed Ibrahim (Tain).
Mr Ahmed Ibrahim 10:20 a.m.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity. As the first Question goes, this Question was asked four (4) months ago. Fortunately, on our part, one has been repaired, so I am asking of the replacement.
URGENT QUESTIONS 10:20 a.m.
MINISTRY OF ROADS AND 10:20 a.m.
HIGHWAYS 10:20 a.m.
Mr Ahmed Ibrahim 10:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I would want to know from the Hon Deputy Minister -- As he said, the bridges get flooded every year and they require regular replacement of the woods. Is there no other option that would make it permanent instead of incurring expenditure yearly for the replacement of
Dr (Nii) Quaye-Kumah 10:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, just like I said, we want to construct something permanent, and that is why we want to construct concrete bridges now instead of the wooden ones we have there.
Mr Ahmed Ibrahim 10:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I would want to ask the Hon Deputy Minister, since the bridge linking the district capital to the Wenchi Municipality is the only bridge that links these two districts, how soon do we expect the replacement?
Dr (Nii) Quaye-Kumah 10:30 a.m.
It will be very, very soon.
Madam Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Hon Member, your third question.
Mr Ibrahim 10:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the bridges we are talking of, the third bridge is not the bridge linking Seikwa to Namasa, but rather it is the bridge linking the district capital to Debebi; what about that bridge?
Dr Nii Quaye-Kumah 10:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, we are going to give out all these bridges; they are going to be changed to concrete bridge under the 2011 bridge maintenance programme. So we are working on all.
Madam Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Yes, shall we then move on to the next Question in the name of the same Hon Member, Mr Ahmed Ibrahim, (Tain).
Mr Ibrahim 10:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the second Question is in the first Question that the Hon Deputy Minister has answered, so based on that, I withdraw that Question.
Thank you. Plans to Ensure Uninterrupted Flow of Traffic in Mampong
Mr Hennric David Yeboah asked the
Deputy Minister for Roads and Highways whether the Ministry was aware that sections of the trunk road within the Mampong Scarp were gradually caving in, and what plans were being put in place to ensure uninterrupted flow of traffic in case of such road blockage.
Dr (Nii) Quaye-kumah 10:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, in 2006, a section of the Mampong Scarp failed and the road from Jamasi through Boanim to Mampong was used as an alternative to the Mampong Scarp. The Jamasi-Boanim-Mampong road, which is 15 kilometres long was therefore, widened by the blasting of rocks, extension of culverts and preparation of the road up to sub-base level. The road linking Mampong from Nsuta to Oyoko (Effiduase) was also prepared to formation level to serve as another alternative route.
Currently, it has been observed that a long crack measuring about 500 has become evident on the Mampong Scarp in the Mampong bound lane.
Current Programme
While monitoring the propagation of this crack, the Ministry is planning to seal the 15 kilometres Jamasi-Boanim- Mampong road as an alternative route and to serve as a long-term solution to the unstable Mampong Scarp. The procurement of the works is in progress.
Mr Yeboah 10:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the Hon Deputy Minister said the Jamasi- Boanim-Mampong road was used as the alternative route. When was the last time he drove on the Jamasi-Boanim road and what was the condition when he drove
there?
Dr (Nii) Quaye-Kumah 10:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, it has been a long time I drove on that road, so I would not be able to tell the Hon Member what the condition is now.
Madam Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Hon Yeboah, your second Question, please.
Mr Yeboah 10:30 a.m.
Is the Hon Deputy Minister aware that Jamasi-Boanim- Mampong road is not good for motorists as of now?
Madam Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Hon Deputy Minister, that is your second question.
Dr (Nii) Quaye-Kumah 10:30 a.m.
This is an information the Hon Member has given me so --
Mr Yeboah 10:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the Hon Minister said the Jamasi-Boanim- Mampong road was an alternative route in the event of some disaster. The Jamasi- Boanim-Mampong road was given to a contractor on three phases. First, the contractor had to remove the big rocks there using dynamite; he did. Second phase, he had to regravel and widen the road; he did.
Third phase is to bitumen and when their government came in, they stopped the contractor.
Does the Hon Deputy Minister not think that when a disaster happens on the scarp and then we have to use Mampong road, they have to re-award the contract, and that will be causing financial loss to the State?
Dr (Nii) Quaye-Kumah 10:30 a.m.
Madam Speaker, we are reawarding the contract to a contractor. Why the first one was terminated, I think it has got to do with payments and now that we have paid most of the contractors, if the need be, that it should go back to the same contractor, we will have a look at it.
I can assure the Hon Member that we have plans for this road and it has been packaged; possibly, it will be reawarded in the next construction of the road.
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Any other question from the floor? Yes, thank you.
Shall we go to (e), Hon George Kofi Arthur (Amenfi Central).

Ankwawso Bridge (Rehabilitation)

Mr George Kofi Arthur asked the Minister for Roads and Highways when the Ankwawso bridge linking the western north to the western south, which was at the verge of collapse would be rehabilitated.
Dr (Nii) Quaye-Kumah 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the Ankwawso bridge located between Sefwi Bekwai and Diaso and which provides a link to the northern and southern parts of the Western Region is an old concrete bridge of 26 metres span. The width of the bridge is 4.9 metres, which means, it is a single lane bridge.
The Ghana Bauxite/Excel Haulage Limited, which frequently uses that corridor has provided funds for the rehabilitation of the bridge as their social obligation.
The Bridge Maintenance Unit of the Ghana Highway Authority has mobilised to the site to repair the damaged sections, strengthen the deck and finally widen the bridge into a two-lane concrete bridge. Work has been disrupted due to the high flood level of the river. Work will resume when the flood recedes.
Mr G. K. Arthur 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I
am happy with the Hon Deputy Minister's Answer. But in 2007, I asked the same Question and the Ministry promised that in 2008, they were going to do the same

thing as he has said here. I also went and promised the people that the Ministry had taken the project up; I am hearing the same story today. Should I go and promise them again?
Dr (Nii) Quaye-Kumah 10:40 a.m.
Yes, Madam
Speaker. At the time -- I did not know about the promises that were made but I am speaking of now. We are going to do exactly what I have said here. So the Hon Member can go ahead and promise his constituents that this is what we have said.
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Hon Member, any
other question?
Mr Joseph B. Aidoo 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker,
the bridge in question spans the Ankobra River. The Ankwao as mentioned, is Ankobra. Madam Speaker, as the Hon Member indicated, the bridge is on the verge of collapse. This bridge is being used by heavy trucks -- cocoa and timber are being hauled over that bridge.
The question is, what step is the Ministry taking to ensure that disaster does not occur on this bridge point since the bridge is on the verge of collapse and yet heavy trucks are still using it.
Dr (Nii) Quaye-Kumah 10:40 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, like I said, we have got some funding from the Bauxite/Excel Haulage Limited as part of their social responsibility. So we have mobilised people from the Ghana Highway Authority to site to work on the bridge. So we are sure that there would be no disaster.
Dr A. A. Osei 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, in
his last Answer, the Hon Deputy Minister said they had received funds from a certain company and he was going to spend it. But I do not see where Parliament has given him approval to spend that money.
Is he saying that he is going to violate the Constitution by spending money without parliamentary approval?
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Hon Deputy
Minister, any answer to that question?
Dr (Nii) Quaye-Kumah 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I have not said that.
Dr A. A. Osei 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, he
said he was going to spend it. He had received money but that had not received -
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Well, let him
explain himself.
Nii Dr Quaye-Kumah: The money
was given for the construction of the bridge and that is what that money is going to be used for. But before that, if the need be that it should come through Parliament, we will have to do that.
Dr A. A. Osei 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the Hon Deputy Minister is saying if there is a need. Madam Speaker, our laws are very clear that a Minister cannot spend -
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
So there is a need?
Dr A. A. Osei 10:40 a.m.
There is a need. So is
he going to bring a request to Parliament to approve that spending based on the internally generated fund?
Dr (Nii) Quaye-Kumah 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, definitely, it would have to come through Parliament because the budget will have to be approved by Parliament.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 10:40 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, the bridge in question is a major one, and from what the Hon Deputy Minister is saying, there is going to be major reconstruction. I know that there is an alternative route but that route is so terrible that if the bridge is closed now, vehicles coming from that part of the Western Region to the southern section
have to go through Kumasi.
So the question is, what steps is the Ministry taking in the meantime, since the Hon Deputy Minister is not God and so he cannot predict a disaster will happen or not happen; what is the Ministry doing to rehabilitate the road through Afransie that vehicles would have to use in case the bridge collapses or in case the work that he is talking about starts on the bridge?
Dr (Nii) Quaye-Kumah 10:40 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, just like my Hon Colleague is saying, if we are going to rehabilitate that bridge, we will definitely create an alternative route.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, according to the Hon Deputy Minister, the Ankobra River was flooded, that was why the project could not start. I will not contradict him. But as I speak, the river is at its lowest level, so when is the project going to start?
Dr (Nii) Quaye-Kumah 10:40 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, I think we have our technical men on the ground, and when they think the river is at its lowest point like the Hon Member is saying, the work will immediately start.
Mr John Gyetuah 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker,
the Hon Deputy Minister is saying that a bauxite company is going to provide us with the funds. Would he be kind enough to tell us the amount that they are generously providing?
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Did you say a
bauxite company?
Dr (Nii) Quaye-Kumah 10:40 a.m.
Yes.
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
You said so?
Dr (Nii) Quaye-Kumah 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the amount is GH¢130,000.
Mr Kwabena Owusu-Aduomi -- rose
- 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Hon Members, that is the last question - Hon Member, were you up?
Mr Kwabena Owusu-Aduomi 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, maybe, the last question on this.
The Hon Member who asked the Question has indicated that the bridge is on the verge of collapse, so I wanted to know from the Hon Deputy Minister what work is the Bridge Maintenance Unit going to decide to do if the bridge is at the verge of collapse and what repairs work are they going there to do.
Dr (Nii) Quaye-Kumah 10:40 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the Bridge Maintenance Unit is in-charge of all bridges. Like we are saying - some people are saying the bridge is on the verge of collapse but for all we know, maybe, it is not on the verge of collapse. So we have sent our technical men there to assess the situation. So they are there to assess the situation and know if, indeed, the bridge is on the verge of collapse.
Madam Speaker 10:40 a.m.
We have to thank the Hon Deputy Minister then. Hon Deputy Minister, thank you very much for coming; we hope next time, the Hon Minister will come.
Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah 10:50 a.m.
Madam Speaker, on Questions generally, especially on Urgent Questions, we have witnessed a couple of questioners today dropping a Question in its entirety or a portion of the Question. If you look at our Standing Orders, Order 60 (3) provides that Ministers would not take more than
Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah 10:50 a.m.


three weeks to Answer Questions.

Madam Speaker, if you look at Standing Order 64 (1), which refers to Urgent Questions, indeed, Members are not even required to give notice except to ask the Questions by leave of Madam Speaker. That is precisely why we actually file the notice of Questions.

Standing Order 66 (1) provides that:

“Mr Speaker shall be the sole judge of the admissibility of a Question.”

Madam Speaker, when you combine all these Standing Orders, the effect as it would seem to the public who do not know our internal processes and how we work with, or to the Executive, would be that when Questions are filed, they either get delayed in Madam Speaker's Secretariat or the Clerk's Secretariat and the Hon Ministers only come here to answer them when they are forwarded to their attention by the Clerk. But we do know here that the Questions do not take any time at all either in your Secretariat or in the Clerk's Secretariat.

We would like to urge the Hon Ministers to respect our Standing Orders and try to come to the House as quickly as possible when they get these Questions so that we do not get to the point where Hon Members have to actually rise in the House and then withdraw Questions because they have become stale.

Madam Speaker, we perform a very

important function of representation of our constituents. We are here to represent their interests, and as the urgency of Questions has been determined in our Standing Orders, before Madam Speaker admits a Question as being urgent, then due consideration must have been given to it and indeed, it is urgent. And if it

takes four months, six months for bridges to be constructed before Questions are answered, then it does not help this House or our constituents for us to put these Questions across.

Before anybody says “now you know -- I am talking about the Executive. So it could be Executive of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) or executive of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and the Executive should take note that this House takes these issues very seriously.
Mr Avoka 10:50 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I will convey the sentiments of the House to the Executive. Indeed, we have been doing so several times, the need for them to respond timeously to Questions generally -- not just Urgent Questions but Questions generally.
But I thought that it was advantageous that if one asked a Question about a development, a project, and then by the time the Question was ready for answering the project had been completed, it is in the Member's interest. The Member does not lose anything while the project has been completed. He or she can even take pride that he or she prompted them to complete it on time.
I appreciate the concern and I will draw the attention of the Executive to the concern of this august House.
Madam Speaker 10:50 a.m.
The next item is (5) -- it will be taken by the First Deputy Speaker.
10.55 a.m. - MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Hon Members, at the Commencement of Public Business -- Students Loan Trust Fund Bill, 2010 at the Consideration Stage. Hon Majority Leader, is that right?
Mr Avoka 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, happily, I wish to inform you that through the hard work and diligence of the ad hoc Winnowing Committee, we were able to winnow all the amendments that were filed. So this morning, we are poised to take the Consideration Stage of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Thank you very much.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 10:50 a.m.
STAGE 10:50 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Mathias A. Puozaa) 10:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, subclause (1), line 3, after “institutions” insert “in Ghana”.
This is to limit the Fund just to students studying in Ghana and not outside the country.
Mr Joseph B. Aidoo 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to oppose this amendment. In essence, it is superfluous because when you read the clause, it says that:
“The object of the Fund is to provide financial resources and the sound management of the Fund for the benefit of students of accredited tertiary institutions. . .”
That is enough. “. . . accredited tertiary institutions. . . “ -- Certainly, it is referring to institutions in Ghana and not foreign institutions. So to bring in “in Ghana” would make it redundant.
Mr Puozaa 10:50 a.m.
Well, Mr Speaker, I do
not think this is superfluous. I think it is rather to lay emphasis. But then the other - For instance, anybody studying outside is deemed to be doing so in an accredited institution but it is not within this country. So we feel that it should be limited to the country.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Hon Member for Sekondi?
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am a member of the Committee. Unfortunately, I did not participate fully in the business of the Committee, so I do not intend to say anything to contradict the Hon Chairman. If I get up to say anything, it must be in support. If I cannot say anything in support, I prefer to remain silent - [Laughter.]
Alhaji Sumani Abukari 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, I think my Hon Colleague who has just spoken is actually against this amendment but he cannot say it. I will say it for him.
Mr Speaker, this law is being made for Ghana, for this dear country of ours. Do we need to state that it is for Ghana?
I think it is completely superfluous; it is something we do not need to add and will suggest that we delete it and leave it as it is.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee, is there anything in this Bill that will indicate that if you do not put “Ghana” there, it can be used for foreign purposes? Is there anything in this Bill that if you do not insert that amendment there, you do not amend that clause, it can be used for institutions outside the country?
Mr Puozaa 10:50 a.m.
Well, this is really a harmless -- [Interruptions] - Oh no, it is not harmful. This is really a harmless amendment that is intended to really limit the use of the Fund.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if I could help the Chairman. If you look at clause 38,
“ a c c r e d i t e d i n s t i t u t i o n s ” include tertiary institutions with accredi tat ion from National Accreditation Board established under the National Accreditation Board Act, 2007, (Act 744).”
So really, it cannot extend to institutions outside Ghana because the National Accreditation Board has not got the power to accredit foreign institutions.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, in view of that provision, what do you say, so that we make progress?
Mr Puozaa 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I do agree to the -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11 a.m.
So what do you do?
Mr Puozaa 11 a.m.
Since it would not affect -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11 a.m.
In view of the clause that the Hon Member for Sekondi (Papa Owusu-Ankomah) has drawn attention to, what do you do?
Mr Puozaa 11 a.m.
All right, let it go. I want to withdraw the amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11 a.m.
Formally withdraw the amendment so that we move to the next one. [Pause.]
Mr Puozaa 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, by the leave of the House, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Mr W. O. Boafo 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, subclause (1), line 4, delete “Articles 28 and” and insert “Article.”
Mr Puozaa 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, at the winnowing session, we were made aware that article 28 really deals with children's rights and since we are dealing with loans for students, I think it is quite appropriate to drop article 28 and accept article 38.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Puozaa 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, subclause (2), paragraph (a), line 1, delete “facilities” and insert “financial support”.
This is really to specify what the Fund is basically meant to do. That is, to provide financial support to students; “facilities” is too broad.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Boafo 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, subclause (2), paragraph (a), delete.
Mr Speaker, my proposal for deletion of paragraph (a) of subclause (2) emanates from the fact that I am proposing a combination of paragraphs (a) and (d) under item (vi) on page (3) -- paragraphs (6) on page (3), that is (vi) on page (3) of the Order Paper.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon Member for Akropong, are you deleting and trying to substitute?
Mr Boafo 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am deleting (a) and (b) and substituting the proposed
amendment under (vi).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11 a.m.
Then the amendment has not been well captured on the Order Paper. It is problematic.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I appreciate the rationale behind the amendment the Hon Member for Akropong proposes. However, it is not going to change the meaning of the particular subclause, and drafting is also an art. You do not lump so many things together in one subclause. Since in essence it is not going to change the meaning, I would propose that if we could reconsider the amendment.
Mr Boafo 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, a careful look at the proposed amendment would demonstrate that the amendment seeks to confine the Bill to the core duty of the Fund, that is, providing financial support for the needy students.
Mr Speaker, if you look at subclause (2) (b) carefully, then you would find that the core function as I see it, is being extended to cover other activities and programmes. And one just asks himself, what is the function of the GETFund then?
Number two, the extensions to cover other programmes and activities, is it not going to reduce the amounts which would be set aside for the scholarships or the financial support for the students and thereby reduce the number of students who may be willing to access this facility?
So Mr Speaker, there is a difference. I am not only collapsing the two paragraphs but I am making the proposal to enable the Fund concentrate on its core function for providing financial support for students.
Mr Speaker, the mischief which is also
being sought here is to make sure that the resources available for the Fund are not used for other purposes and we would all agree that if you give such a flexibility and room, there is the likelihood of an abuse. A person may spend the money on something else and fix it for a justification.
Mr Speaker, that is the explanation behind my proposed amendment.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am tempted to lend support to the Hon Member for Akropong (Mr W. O. Boafo), for the proposal he is submitting.
Mr Speaker, if you look at the original rendition, if you take (2) (a), it talks about provision of financial support, which is very nebulous. And when you go to (b), it is talking about money to support other activities. It is not also very clear. But the proposed amendments as he has indicated on page (3) of the Order Paper, Mr Speaker, it is very explicit and more specific.
In making a law, the Act should be very clear and explicit. It should not be left to the interpretation of those who are going to be affected by the law and I think that is exactly what the Hon Member had tried to do.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
Hon Member for Amenfi East, based on your own argument, look at amendment (b), which is on (vii) -- is that also specific?
Mr J. B. Aidoo 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the (a),
which he had proposed clears the air. Let us tackle (a) first and then we come to (b). When we get to the bridge, we shall cross; at the moment, we are not at that bridge.
What we are talking about is what he has proposed for 2 (a), which I think is very explicit and therefore, we should
Mr Puozaa 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if you look
at clause (2), that is (v), Hon W. O. Boafo and I, the Chairman, have agreed on the amendment that we should delete (b) because we believe that we will be setting up another Ghana Education Trust Fund (GETFund), a parallel financial institution and God knows what confusion can arise from that.
But then, I am not agreeing with him when it comes to that lengthy statement there, that is, clause 2 as seen on page 3. We were against it because we felt that it is impossible to list all the activities that the Fund should take care of and we will be tying the hands of whoever is going to manage that Fund if we try to list -- we will be tying the hands of the Board if we attempt to list all the activities that they should be doing. So this is why I do not agree with that.
Mr Boafo 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in view of
the fact that I have had the opportunity to at least, sound a warning to those who administer the Fund, that they should concentrate on the core function of the Fund and not dissipate the amount or the resources on any other projects, I will not pursue my proposed amendment and I will go with the (vii).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
So you have formally withdrawn the amendment?
Mr Boafo 11:10 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Boafo 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with your
permission, I beg to move, clause 2, subclause (2), paragraph (b), delete and insert the following:
“(b) the provision of money to support other activities related to the promotion of programmes and relevant courses in tertiary institutions as determined by the Board in consultation with the
Minister.”
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be that 11:10 a.m.
“To achieve the object, the moneys from the Fund shall be applied to the relevant activities that the Board may determine which include the provision of money to support other activities related to the promotion of programmes and relevant courses in tertiary institutions as determined by the Board in consultation with the Minister”.
Mr Puozaa 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, this was
really agreed on because it is better than the earlier provision.
Thank you.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Clause 2 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
So what it means is that (iv) and (vi),their amendments have been withdrawn. For the record. “Sources of money for the Fund.”
Mr Puozaa 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 3, paragraph (a), line l, delete “money” and insert “moneys” and in line 2, before “Trust” insert “Ghana Education”
This was the advice from the Attorney- General's Department. The same clause 3, after that, you have, before “Trust” insert “Ghana Education” to differentiate this Fund from other Trust Funds.
Mr Boafo 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the
proposed amendment to insert “Ghana Education” before “Trust” for the reasons
given by the Chairman to distinguish it from the current Trust Fund in the Bill.
But Mr Speaker, with regard to the change of “money” to “moneys”, I had the opportunity to refer to the Interpretation Act, which provides that the singular shall include the plural and I do not think it is necessary for us to go to the extent of doing this. They should leave it with the Table Office to handle it.
Mr Puozaa 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, at the Committee's meeting, we all agreed to what we have here but if the House feels that it is more convenient -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
I think that
it is not really an amendment. It is really not an amendment, so the Table Office will do the necessary correction. I think that is what he is suggesting, and once that is done, it takes care of your amendment. But I will put the Question on the second leg of the amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr Puozaa 11:10 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 3, paragraph (d), line 2, delete “up to the” and after “equivalent” delete “of 0.5 per cent “and insert “to 0.3 per cent”.
My Colleagues were of the view that 0.5 per cent was a bit on a higher side and therefore, it was agreed that we should lower the deduction to 0.3 per cent to make it more attractive.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr Puozaa 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, paragraph (e), line 2, after “Trust” insert “upon terms and conditions as shall be agreed upon”.
This is to at least, give the Board the chance to determine what they want.
Question put and amendment agreed
to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Table
Office to take note of that amendment.
Mr Puozaa 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 3, paragraph (f), delete and insert the following:
“(f) donations, gifts,bequest and other moneys from any Ghanaian, foreigner or entity”
This is also to expand the scope of donations in order to improve on the revenue generation of the Fund.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Chairman, is “foreigner” the same as “foreign entity”?
Mr Puozaa 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, “foreigner”
or “any entity”.
Mr Boafo 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I rise to
support the proposed amendment but with this variation.
Mr Speaker, looking at the original rendition, it is limited to Ghanaian or foreign entity. At the winnowing, the understanding was that, we should expand it to include individual foreigners who may be in a position to help the Fund. So the rendition which we are proposing, will read as follows:
“donations, gifts, bequest and other moneys from any Ghanaian, individual foreigner or entity.”
Mr Opare-Ansah 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the rendition as it stands here sounds better because are we saying if a foreign entity then wants to make a donation into the Fund, we would not accept it? I do not think that is the intention -- so “Ghanaians, foreigners and any entity”. Entities could be foreign entities or local entities.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
That
is why I asked the previous question. Maybe, we have to clarify this. Your amendment is talking about foreigners and then you add entity. It is not foreign entity. So is it the intention of the amendment to exclude foreign entities because the entity can be local. But you have not qualified the entity. So we should remove all doubts and make it very clear what we intend to do. Because as of now, the new rendition is not clear. Are we excluding foreign entities?
Mr Puozaa 11:20 a.m.
According to what we
discussed yesterday at the winnowing stage, the example was given as to, let us say, somebody like Bill Gates wants to support the Trust, there should not be any reason it cannot be accepted. So he is a foreigner and an individual. But then we also have some organizations outside which -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
But you
know Bill Gates has his own foundation for charity, so he might want to use either his name or the charity as the vehicle for the donation. So when you do not qualify the “entity” with “foreign”, then it creates a problem what type of “entity”. Then when they go to the legislative history and they realize that we have deleted “foreign entity” from the previous amendment, then it creates a problem.
Mr Puozaa 11:20 a.m.
I think it would be in the
interest of the Fund if we should broaden it by making it “foreign entities.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
Look at the definition column of “entity.”
Mr Puozaa 11:20 a.m.
“Entity” here means “a
company, body of persons or partnership.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
The
amendment is not clear to me because
when you go and mention “foreigners” and you do not qualify the “entity”, whether it is local or foreign, then there is a doubt there because you would actually single out the foreigners.
Dr Kojo Appiah-Kubi 11:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker,
I would like to support the amendment but with a slight variation. I would like to suggest that we remove “entity” totally from the amendment, so that it reads, “donations, gifts, bequest and other moneys from any Ghanaian or foreigner.” The “Ghanaian” would capture individual persons as well as local entities and legal entities. And “foreigner” would also capture individuals as well as corporate entities. So the “entity” which has been added may not all that be necessary.
Mr Boafo 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the proposed variation by the Hon Dr Appiah-Kubi, I think, covers the rationale behind the proposed amendment because when we refer to a Ghanaian, it could be individual Ghanaians or a corporate Ghanaian body.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Are you sure of that? Why? Hon Member for Akropong, if you refer to Ghanaians, does it extend to corporate entities? How does it extend to corporate entities?
Mr Boafo 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Ghanaians refer more to individuals.
Mr Boafo 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, at the same time, we have Ghanaian corporate bodies. And if we say “foreigners”, we are also referring to individual foreigners as well as foreign entitities.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Hon Members, why do we not just put “Ghanaians, foreigners, foreign and local entities” then it puts the matter beyond all doubt. “Ghanaians, foreigners, local or foreign entities.”
Mr Opare-Ansah 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, all these are persons, so, “from any person” simplifies it for us because I believe the Interpretations Act interprets “person” to mean a “natural person or a legal entity.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
But it does not determine whether it is foreign or local?
Mr Opare-Ansah 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that is why you qualify it with “any”, “any person.”
Mr Boafo 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, for the avoidance of doubt and to be more precise in the legislation, if we adopt the expansive rendition that you gave, that is, “from any Ghanaian, foreigner or local entity or foreign entity” -- If that expansive expression is given, then that will be more precise.
Mr Puozaa 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to propose another rendition and that is”,
“donations, gifts, bequest and other moneys from any Ghanaian or foreign individuals or entity”
That is, from any Ghanaian or foreign individuals or entity. That is more comprehensive.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Are you excluding the local entities? What you have done now, you have brought in the Ghanaian but you are excluding the local entities. For the avoidance of doubt, you are making law. Why do you not take liberty and go with what Hon Boafo has just moved? It puts the matter beyond doubt. Hon Boafo, move your amendment and let me put the Question.
Mr Boafo 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to move, clause 3, paragraph (f), delete and insert the following:
“the sources of money for the Fund are:
(f) donations, gifts, bequest and
other moneys from any Ghanaian or foreigner, local entity or foreign entity.”
Dr Appiah-Kubi 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that we could adopt this new rendition:
“donations, gifts, bequest and other moneys from any local or foreign source.”
And that captures individuals as well as any moneys from local or foreign source.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
My Brother, when you bring “source”, you are creating more problems for all of us, even if the source is illegitimate.
Dr Appiah-Kubi 11:30 a.m.
Yes, but that is -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
No. In this era of money laundering, that one is difficult.
Dr Appiah-Kubi 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that source could be from an individual or [Interruption]-- but still any Ghanaian - are we then going to ask where the money is coming from? If it is from a foreigner, are we then going to ask where the money is coming from?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Hon Member, if you can help the Chair, what problem do you have with the Hon Member for Akropong, Hon Boafo's amendment?
Dr Appiah-Kubi 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am not comfortable with the syntax. I am just not comfortable with the syntax. And this one is more straightforward “from any local or foreign source”.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, again, I am inclined to go with Hon Boafo except the last part of the rendition that he gave. If you look at the spirit of these
amendments that we are doing, it tries to capture the individual as well as the body aspect. And he indicated that the money should be from any Ghanaian or foreigner. Then the second part, he said, ‘local and foreign entity'. I think it should be ‘local or foreign entity', so that there is consistency in the amendment that he had proposed. So, I want to go with him except that the rendition of the amendment being proposed should be:
“donations, gifts, bequest and other moneys from any Ghanaian or foreigner, local or foreign entity.”
Thank you.
Mr Puozaa 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think it is neater than the former one.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Very well, I will now put the Question.
Mr Boafo 11:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I was just reflecting on what Hon Dr Appiah-Kubi said about the longevity of the expression and maybe come up with something which may be acceptable to Mr Speaker and the House. That is to shorten it to “from any local or foreign person.” So that it will encompass both natural and artificial persons, that is, individuals and entities.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
Hon Member, but the problem is that where the Bill has defined ‘entity' - you see, you, as a lawyer, will quickly go and look at the Interpretation Act, but we are making law for the ordinary people of this country. They should be able to take this law and then understand it, so that when they look at “entity” and look at the definition of “entity” but you as a lawyer knows that I have to go and look at the Interpretation Act and then define “person”. So, that is why once “entity” has been defined in the Bill, as much as possible, let us do with the “entity.”
Mr E. A. Owusu-Ansah 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker,
I do not think we need to entertain the amendment as captured in the Order Paper. I think that a simple rendition as follows will suffice - “moneys, donations, gifts from any Ghanaian or foreign individuals or entity”. As simple as that, and we forget about ‘request' and all those things. [Interruption.] The “entity” is the problem and I am saying that immediately after ‘foreign' you put ‘individuals' there in- between foreign and entity so that it will capture -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
‘Foreign'
qualifies both the “individual” and the “entity”.
Mr Owusu-Ansah 11:40 a.m.
That is so Mr
Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
So that as
an adjective qualifies it. What happens to “local entity”? [Laughter]. Hon Owusu- Ansah, what happens to “local entity”?
Mr Owusu-Ansah 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we
may as well add “local entity”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
You
have come back to Hon Boafo's amendment. If I get the spirit of Hon Boafo and the Chairman who moved this amendment right, all that they want to do to this amendment is to bring in “foreign individuals” and “foreign entities”. That is all that they are adding, that if you have a foreigner or a foreign entity who wants to contribute to the Fund, he should be allowed to do so. That is the spirit behind the amendment. So how do we make sure that we capture the “foreign individual” and the “foreign entity”?
Hon Balado Manu and then the Chief Whip for the Minority.
Mr Stephen K. B. Manu 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker,

I think if we say donations, gifts, bequest and other moneys from any Ghanaian or foreign organisation”, that will save the problem of “entity”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon
Member, “entity” has been defined in the Bill. If you say “an organization”, then we have to go back and find the definition of “organisation.”
Mr Manu 11:40 a.m.
If entity has been defined,
then I drop the “organization”.
Thank you.
Mr Opare-Ansah 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I
thought the last rendition given by the Hon W. O. Boafo was very good because he qualified it with both the “local” and “foreign” and then simplified the humans and everything with “person.”
Mr Speaker, I believe the lawyers here would agree that any time “person” is made reference to in law, it is quite clear that we are talking about both natural and legal persons. The Interpretation Act goes further to cement that for us. So I do not think there is any ambiguity about that at all. But if we feel so, then we could as well lift the interpretation of the “person” as appears in the Interpretation Act into the Interpretation Section.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
M r F i r s t D e p u t y S p e a k e r :
Amendments numbered xiii and xiv are consequential So we move to xv -
Table Office to take note accordingly.
Mr Puozaa 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, Paragraph
‘j', line 3, line 1 is also consequential. It is about moneys.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Table Office, it is consequential. So wherever you see ‘money', you put ‘moneys'.
Mr Puozaa 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, add the following new paragraphs:
“(k) one per cent of moneys taken from the Communications Service Tax Revenue
(l) any other sources of funding that the Board in consultation with the Minister for Finance may determine.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, the amendment - Chairman.
Mr Puozaa 11:40 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker, please.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
“Any other sources of funding that the Board in consultation with the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning may determine.”
Mr Puozaa 11:40 a.m.
Is it too elastic?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
It is not only elastic, it is dangerous. If you are not sure, do further consultation on that because “any other sources of funding”--
Mr Avoka 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with you but not only that one, but also with clause 3 (1) - “1 per cent of moneys taken from the Communications Service Tax revenue.” We cannot just sit here and then say that. There must be further consultation before we make this type of amendment.
Mr Boafo 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I find it
difficult to see the risk involved in this unless we make it “subject to parliamentary approval”. But if we find that it is likely to be abused or it is too wide, then we can add that “after the determination by the Board in consultation with the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Yes, that
is why it needs further consideration. But you see, what the Hon Majority Leader said, if you look at article 108, and with your permission, I quote:
“Parliament shall not, unless, the bill is introduced or the motion is introduced by, on behalf of the President --
(a) proceed upon a bill including an amendment to a bill . . .”
It is an imposition.
So let us defer that amendment and do further consultations and then come back to it.
Mr Puozaa 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the advice is well taken. We step it down.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Very
well.
Clause 4 - Bank Account for the Fund.
Mr Puozaa 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 4, line 1, delete ‘money'. It is consequential.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
No, it is not.
Mr Puozaa 11:40 a.m.
That is line 1, delete
“money” and insert “ moneys.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:40 a.m.
Yes, yes. But there is a second leg to the amendment.
Mr Puozaa 11:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 4,
line 1, before “Fund”, delete “Trust” and in line 3, after the word “the”, “insert” “Controller and”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Very well. Hon Members, the amendment is that, before the word “Fund” delete “Trust” and line 3, after the word “the” insert the word “Controller and”. Chairman is that right?
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - The Governing body of

the Fund.
Mr Puozaa 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, subclause (1), line 1, after “the”, delete “Trust”.
So it would read as follows:
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Hon Members, I will put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Puozaa 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, subclause (1), paragraph (d), delete and insert the following:
“one representative of a recognised Students' Associations nominated on rotational basis for one term only”
This was found necessary to involve the students since the whole Fund is for the interest of students. But then, we also felt it was necessary to make this representation rotational. Other than that polytechnic students or whoever is near might hijack it. But we feel that it should just go round.

Thank you.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Chairman, but the phrase “one term only”, if it is on rotational basis -- everybody goes there with a term, so if their term ends, then they would rotate. But when you put it there “for one term only”, it is not tidy. As if the recognised bodies have only one term.
Mr Osei B. Amoah 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I tend to agree with your submission. “One term only” is problematic in the sense that, are we saying that for instance, if NUGS should have their turn, that is the only time that they should serve on the body? And secondly, these recognised associations, we have to be very cautious. How many are they now and which are the recognized ones? I believe we have the National Union of Ghana Students (NUGS), Ghana National Union of Polytechnic Students (GNUPS), University Students Association of Ghana (USAG) and the others.
If you look carefully, on the GETFund, we appear to have a problem because of this arrangement and even that, it was only two bodies; they were rotating. But if we are not careful and we have more than two bodies - we have four or five and if we do not run it well, there is going to be confusion in the student front. We have to be very careful about the wording and what we really mean by the “student associations.”
Mr Puozaa 11:50 a.m.
Well, the Committee's main objective was not to limit it to any particular student organization. We are also aware that there are several of them. So all that we are trying to do is not to make it a monopoly of any particular organization. And we also know that the Ministry of Education has a list of recognized students' organizations in this country.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Who does the recognition? Mr Chairman, who does the recognition?
Mr Puozaa 11:50 a.m.
They write to the Ministry.
Prof. George Y. Gyan-Baffour - rose
- 11:50 a.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Wenchi -
Prof. Gyan-Baffour 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if there are so many of them, who actually tells whose turn it is? The original one had the Hon Minister doing the nomination; now, it is a rotational thing. So if one finishes, who tells the other that it is its turn?
Let me say it again. You see, the original rendition here, the Hon Minister was the one who should nominate. This time round, it is rotational but they are not only two, there are several of them. So if ‘A' is the one doing it this year, who tells who is going to be next year? Is it by the Hon Minister or by somebody else? This rendition does not actually tell who does that.
Mr Opare-Ansah 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we should allow the original rendition to stand - it rests with the Hon Minister to make the determination. Mr Speaker, I say this because it is not very clear what we mean by “recognized associations”. Even if we are going to allow the original rendition to stand, I would suggest that we move an amendment to remove that bit and simply make it “a student nominated by the Minister”.
Mr Speaker, this issue came up when we were considering another Bill, which involved, for instance, the representation by a certain group of people. Mr Speaker, how does one begin to know when and where the list of these associations end? Is the Hon Minister going to submit a list
Mr Opare-Ansah 11:50 a.m.


of recognized associations today as an appendix to this law and close the door on the formation of new associations? So if I am in one existing association and I feel that I will never have an opportunity to be rotated upon, then it will be in my interest to get out of that and form a smaller association in the hope that this rotation may catch me one day.

So Mr Speaker, as long as these

associations are not grounded in law, I think that we should not be legislating with these associations in view. That is why they all work up to particular Ministries and I think we should give the Ministers the benefit of the doubt in this regard to be able to make the right nominations.

Thank you.
Mr Puozaa 11:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, one plain fact is that, all youth associations must be registered with the National Youth Council. So at least, we know that there is a body that takes care of that. [Interruption.] Through registration with the Council -- but then I think that in order to meet the other growth requirements, let us insert “students associations nominated by the Minister.” If we could insert that -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
The mischief that we want to cure is to involve the students. Now, how to get the group is becoming problematic and one Hon Member made a point that they keep on increasing and so, how do you get them to end - making a law when you are not certain of the group that the legislation is being directed to.
In fact, for example, my experience when I was on the National Media Commission, we knew we had the Christian group. What they did was that they also went on rotation but they did consultation and whatsoever. But even then the Constitution was clear to mention
the Christian group. So if you look at article 160, it says the “National Catholic Secretariat, the Christian Council and the Ghana Pentecostal Council”. So it is clear that the group -- but now, it is at large, any new groups keep on coming up.

Yes, Hon Chairman, move to the next amendment.
Mr Puozaa noon
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, subclause (1), paragraph (h), delete “two professionals” and insert “one professional” and after “experience” insert “in investment and financial management.”
This is necessary because we felt that we could limit the allocation to one professional instead of two so that we will create room for a lawyer. That was not included in the original Bill. So we have decided to create room for a lawyer to be on the Board, precisely from the Attorney- General's Department.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Minority Chief Whip, I thought you were on the floor?
Mr Opare-Ansah noon
Mr Speaker, I was trying to get clarification from the Hon Chairman and the Hon Minister what they mean in that particular clause, the phrase, “with specialist experience”. I think they should be more specific. If you are talking
of professionals, you have accountants, teachers, engineers and doctors. So what exactly are they talking about “specialist experience”?
Mr Puozaa noon
Mr Speaker, we want to limit the choice to somebody with investment and financial management background and experience because this is a Fund and it is supposed to be properly managed by an expert.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Chief Whip, we are dealing with the amendment, that is why we are amending it.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Puozaa noon
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, subclause (1), paragraph (i), line 1, after “Government” insert “at least, one of whom is a woman”. That is to be specific.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
“. . . one of whom shall be a woman”, “or . . .one of whom is a woman”?
Mr Boafo noon
Mr Speaker, this is the new drafting approach.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
All right; “is”?
Mr Boafo noon
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Very well. Everybody is learning.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Puozaa noon
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, subclause (1), add the following new paragraph:
“(j) one representative from the Attorney-General, not below the
level of Principal State Attorney.”
Mr Speaker, it was realised that in the original Bill, there was no place for a lawyer, so we felt that the Attorney- General - [Interruption.] It was realised that there was the need to create room for a legal adviser. That is why we -
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
And that legal adviser should come from the government sector, not the private sector?
Mr Puozaa noon
Mr Speaker, we felt that it would be safer getting -
Mr Boafo noon
Mr Speaker, I think this is more of departmental representation rather than professional. I think the Department is not the Attorney-General's; the Department is Attorney-General's and Ministry of Justice.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
The Ministry is Ministry of Justice and -
Mr Boafo noon
Ministry of Justice and the Attorney-General's Department.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Yes. But the Department is the Attorney-General's Department.
Mr Boafo noon
Mr Speaker, in all legislations where we require representation from that particular sector, we refer to the full rendition of the Ministry of Justice and Attorney-General.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Very well. You see, when you add ‘the Ministry', what it means is that, there are other people who are at the level of Principal State Attorneys who are not directly under the Attorney-General but under the Ministry of Justice, like those at the Registrar- General's Department who are under the Ministry of Justice but they are not under the Attorney-General's Department.
It does not really -- Once a lawyer always a lawyer, so we can use the whole rendition and then leave the representation

to the Minister. Definitely, it is the Attorney-General who will nominate, so we can - So let us have -
Mr Opare-Ansah noon
Mr Speaker, I think the reference to the Attorney-General is in order. Do not let us forget that the Attorney-General is actually a creature of the Constitution and there has always been a debate about -
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
But it cannot be one representative from the Attorney-General; it cannot be.
Mr Opare-Ansah noon
Mr Speaker, the Attorney-General's Office.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
The Attorney-General is a person; it is an office.
Mr Opare-Ansah noon
Mr Speaker, I mean the Attorney-General's Office.
M r F i r s t D e p u t y S p e a k e r : Department.
Mr Opare-Ansah noon
Department. But, Mr Speaker, my issue is to do with the fact that already, if you count the number of persons and you take cognisance of the fact that in paragraph (h) we have reduced it to one, then we already have 11 persons in there.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
With or without the Principal State Attorney?
Mr Opare-Ansah noon
Mr Speaker, without.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
We have
11?
Mr Opare-Ansah noon
We have 11.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
So we will have 12?
Mr Opare-Ansah 12:10 p.m.
So my suggestion was, why do we not go back and modify the representatives of Government to include a person from the Attorney- General's Department instead of adding a whole new clause?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Chairman
of the Committee, if it is going to be 12 -- I have not counted it but if what the Hon Minority Chief Whip is telling us, is going to be 12, it is not ideal then.
Mr Puozaa 12:10 p.m.
The Committee decided to drop one person from the two in order to create room for this new person that was not included and that should make it an odd number.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Yes, I thought so because I thought that you made it so and when it comes to the professionals, you would reduce it to one and then you are now creating space for the Principal State Attorney. But he is saying that even with that, it is 12.
Mr Puozaa 12:10 p.m.
Let us check.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
It is 13.
Mr Puozaa 12:10 p.m.
Yes.
Mr Boafo 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not think there is even any fear when the number is an even one. Because we have in the Bill, provisions relating to what happens in the event of equality of votes. The Hon Chairman has a casting vote.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Very well.
Mr Puozaa 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, could I take this opportunity to make that correction there? That is, Attorney-General's Department, on the Order Paper?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Very well.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Hon Members, in view of the fact that we have deffered one of the amendments relating to the students representation, I will not put the Question on the entire clause, so I will defer putting the Question on the entire clause until we resolve the issue.
Clause 6 - Functions of the Board.
Mr Boafo 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 6, subclause (2), line 1, after “assign” delete “and” insert “mortgaged or”
So the new rendition will be;
“The Board may convey, assign, mortgage or transfer movable and immovable property or an interest in property vested in it on behalf of the Fund.”
Mr O. B. Amoah 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am
not too comfortable with “mortgage”, in the sense that, this is a public institution and for public institutions, we have to be very cautious in giving them such powers including being able to mortgage public properties. So I believe the “assign and transfer” should be all right but ‘mortgage' brings in a whole new dimension, and we have to be very cautious.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Hon Boafo, if you look at “convey, assign, and transfer”, which are used in the Bill, they all convey something of transferring, but “mortgage” is not transferring, so it does not transfer the interest. So in “mortgage”, it is different, it is not in that category to be captured there.
Hon Member for Akropong, you see, the “assign”, you convey; if you “assign” you do not get it back; if you transfer, you do not get it back; but “mortgage”, you get it back. So you see that it is in a
different category in terms of dealing with an interest in a property.
Mr Boafo 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you convey, you do not get it back; if you assign, you do not get it back --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
If you transfer, you do not get it back?
Mr Boafo 12:10 p.m.
It depends on the transfer, but if you mortgage, you can get it back; the monies can be retrieved. Mr Speaker, this is only to create room in the event that the Fund needs to raise any money. If the communication tax allocation is not sufficient, and there is the need to cater for more students, by a social democratic government, then this is very precise.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
As for that one, I am not too sure, maybe, those who believe in property-owning democracy might want to, since we are talking about property. [Laughter.] No, I think that the point Hon O. B. Amoah made a very valid and strong point which we have to look at. There are different types of transfers, so the transfers are akin to, in the nature of conveying them and nature of assignment. But in case of “mortgage”, going to “mortgage” -
Mr Boafo 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I may concede, but I think recently, we did that to the University of Ghana and that may be a different institution. We inserted the right to borrow, and mortgage in the University of Ghana Act.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
You know, as for the universities, “they are in the world of their own, sort of”. The kind of independence that the universities have, I do not think this organisation has that level of independence.
Hon Members, what is the sense of the House?
Mr Puozaa 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, since Hon
Mr Puozaa 12:10 p.m.


Colleagues are not so comfortable with the amendment, I think it will be safer for us to drop it.
Mr Boafo 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not understand the Hon Chairman. He says Hon Colleagues, but only one of my Colleagues stood up to make a comment. He should have said since a Colleague is not comfortable with it -- in any event, Mr Speaker --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon Chairman, the Hon Member himself said he was ready to concede. I thought you were going to use his own words to appeal to him to concede because he himself said he was ready to concede.
Mr Boafo 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not want to wait for the Chairman. I withdraw the amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Very well. Thank you very much.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 - Tenure of office of members of the Board.
Mr Boafo 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 7, subclause (7), paragraph (a), after “subsection” delete “(2)
But Mr Speaker, if you look at subsection (2), it does not talk about the creation of a vacancy at all.
Subsection, reads as follows:
“Subsection (1) does not apply to the Chief Executive Officer of the Fund.”
And there is no need for it to be included under where there is a vacancy.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment.
Mr Puozaa 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we had no problem with it yesterday. We agreed to it.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8 - Meetings of the Board.
Mr Puozaa 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8 - Add the following new subclauses:
“(3) The quorum at a meeting for the Board shall be 8 or greater number determined by the Board in respect of an important matter.”
“(7) The proceedings of the Board shall not be invalidated by a reason of vacancy among the members or defect in the appointment or qualification of a member.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Before I call on other Members, I want you to give clarification for this amendment. What do you mean by “important matter”? Have you defined important matter in the Bill?
Mr Puozaa 12:20 p.m.
I do not think we have done that in the interpretation.
Mr Boafo 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the provision relating to this important matter has been lifted from the Interpretation Act, and that is the expression used in the Interpretation Act.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Has it been defined in the Interpretation Act?
Mr Boafo 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is not defined so it is subject to contextual interpretation. When the issue arises, you may determine whether it is important or not.
Mr O. B. Amoah 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, indeed, the expression “important matter” is so nebulous. We should restrict ourselves; if it is a quorum, it is a quorum.
We should not determine which one is so important that the number should vary and then which one should stay at 8 for it to be a quorum. It would create problems for everybody. If the Board is meeting, once they are meeting, they should have their quorum and the number should be specific, certain, instead of one being important and the other not being important. It is a bit dangerous for us.
The urgency of the situation may require that the notice for the meeting would be short et cetera but we do not get to the meeting and say that this is an important meeting, so the quorum should change. It would create problems for the Board.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon Members, when we are making legislation, the interpretation comes in when there is doubt, when there is the need for interpretation. But we are making the law now, let us be sure of the kind of law we are making. When we are making a law and we are talking about interpretation, interpretation comes when there is doubt, then we fall on the interpretation.
We are making a law now, it is for the ordinary people of this country and then you want us to go for - interpretation is to resolve doubt, that should not be the law.
Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, even before we go to whether a matter is important or otherwise, the wording of the proposed amendment, new subclause
3, Mr Speaker, which reads as follows:
“The quorum at a meeting for the Board shall be 8 or greater number determined . . .”
Some Hon Members 12:20 p.m.
He said it.
Mr Osei-Owusu 12:20 p.m.
Who said it? I did not hear that. So it should read as follows:
“The quorum at a meeting for the Board shall be 8 or greater number determined by the Board in respect of an important matter.”
As for the important matter, I think it has been sufficiently argued, so I will drop that one.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Chairman, advise yourself with this amendment. Because if you look at subclause 4 of the Bill, they say decision will be taken by majority, and you are not deleting that subclause and you are giving us 8. They said decision shall be taken by a majority in subclause 4.
Mr O. B. Amoah 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was coming to that. I think the even number should be looked at. Even though the Chairman will have a casting vote, I think the quorum of 8, I do not know whether if we really want to talk about majority -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
You cannot take any decision but the majority can take a decision, and the majority in this instance, is 7 and you are putting quorum to transact business at 8. Meanwhile, the one for decision is 7 and you are not deleting that subclause 4, which talks about majority; I do not know.
I think that the one in the Bill -- subclause 4 in the Bill is the majority. It
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.


is 7 because there are 13 members on the Board, so the majority is 7.
Mr Puozaa 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the correction is accepted. It looks rather to say the least, it is not good enough. So let us leave it as follows:
“The quorum at a meeting for the Board shall be 7.”
And we leave it at that. The issue of important matter should not arise.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
When the issue of interpretation crops up and somebody is alleging that it is an important - that is for the court to decide whether it is an important matter. But when we are saying it is an important matter and we ourselves who are putting it in the Bill do not know what constitutes important matter, it is -
Mr Boafo 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, maybe, this may be of a guide to us. Under section 24 of the Interpretation Act, that is, section 24 (1) (b), it reads as follows:
“Where an enactment contains words, establishing or providing for the establishment of a body corporate, the words operate . . .
(b) to vest in a majority of the members of that body corporate, the power subject to a quorum fixed by the enactment under which it is established or by the relevant regulation or rules to bind the other members of that body corporate, but in an important matter or question, ….(and there is an extended definition here) …. which has financial implications, the quorum shall not be less than two-thirds of the members of the governing body of that body corporate.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
So for
an important matter, then the quorum should be eight, which is the two-thirds. So if you really want to comply with the Interpretation Act, then we would use 8, which is 8 over twelve, two-thirds. Then we can just say for important matters it is 8.
Mr Boafo 12:30 p.m.
So Mr Speaker, I think the rendition should rather be that
“the quorum at the meeting for the Board shall be seven with regard to ordinary matters. But with regard to important matters relating to financial transactions the quorum shall be nine.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Eight - two-thirds is 8. Oh! 9, sorry.
Mr Opare-Ansah 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, nine. The membership is thirteen, and it is 8.6.
Mr Boafo 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we should leave it to the draftsmen to -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Yes, I agree with you, but the spirit of the - Chairman, have you got the spirit of the discussion now in line with the explanation with reference to section 24 of the Interpretation Act? “In important matters relating to financial transactions” - so they will capture it in that language, even though it is better to get the rendition so that we are all sure of what we are agreeing to.
Chairman of the Committee, do you want us to come back and get the rendition so that we can take the vote on it or we should leave it to the Table Office to capture the spirit of the discussion?
Mr Puozaa 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think it will be safer for us to let the Table Office take care of it, since they have seen the spirit of the discussion. So that is 7 for ordinary and then 9 for very important issues.
My worry about that modification is that the whole Bill is -- [Interruption] - everything concerns money anyway -- money, so it means that every meeting should have financial issues. Everything there is about money. It is a Trust Fund.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon Boafo, the Chairman of the Committee is making a very important point, that most of the things that they would be discussing and most of their major decisions relate to financial matters. So should we just fix the quorum at 9, simpliciter?
Mr Boafo 12:30 p.m.
But Mr Speaker, if they are discussing the eligibility of a student to qualify as a borrower, is it a financial matter which would require a larger number? I think the deliberations of the Fund would not be confined to financial matters only.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
But determining whether people qualify to have access to money. Whether you are qualified to have access to the Fund. Anyway, what is the sense of the House?
Dr Ahmed Y. Alhassan 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that we should simplify issues by putting the quorum at 9 because any discussion will impinge on monetary matters. If we leave it at 9, then it answers all questions. Every issue will be important at the meeting. And if we need a fewer number of people to discuss, a subcommittee can deal with it and advise the body in total.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon Members, you know that at times getting quorum to transact business is not an easy thing in practice. So 9 out of thirteen is quite on the high side and we must exercise a little caution when we come to the practicalities of it, of Board meetings.
Especially, if you look at the category of people on this Board, most of them are very busy people.
Some would be travelling out of the jurisdiction et cetera. It is not a full time job, so we may have to - So I would suggest that we limit it to the majority one suggested by Hon Boafo from section 27 of the Interpretation Act - 7, and then maybe financial matters, 9.
Mr Boafo 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that takes care of the contingencies where we may have matters to be discussed, which are not necessarily connected with financial matters.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Table Office, can you capture the - [Pause] - Should we defer it so that you bring the rendition for us to take a vote on it tomorrow? Very well, it is deferred. Let us get the rendition so that we can take a decision on it tomorrow.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Establ ishment of committees.
Mr Puozaa 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, that clause 10, subclause (2), line 1, delete “discipline” and insert “Complaints”.
So that it would read:
“Without limiting subsection (1), the Board shall have a complaints committee.”
We say it should be “complaints committee.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon
Mr Puozaa 12:30 p.m.
I think you would complain to the Board.
Prof. Christopher Ameyaw-Akumfi 12:30 p.m.
Was it because I was shaking my head? [Laughter.] I was agreeing with you that the two are different. Disciplinary committee and complaints committee are different. Which one do you want?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
He wants “complaint” but what is in the Bill originally is “discipline”. He wants to have “complaints.”
Prof Ameyaw-Akumfi 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, he is changing it and what I am saying is that a “disciplinary committee” will do some work very different from a “complaints committee.” You think you do not need the “disciplinary committee?”
Some Hon Members 12:30 p.m.
No.
Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi 12:30 p.m.
You do not?
Mr Puozaa 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe the Committee felt it would be in the interest of the Fund to have a “complaints committee” where students and other people can submit their grievances more than a “disciplinary committee.” A disciplinary committee here will not be relevant, I think. Whom are you going to discipline?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon Members, the disciplinary issue is more for management but the complaints in this instance, is for people who are aggrieved in terms of not having access to the facility.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Puozaa 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, subclause (3), line 1, delete “may” and insert “shall”, and in line 2, delete all the words after “Board”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon Member, I think the first amendment you have moved is the proper one; the one you moved first. Because if you do not delete those words, you are going to keep “disciplinary”. And you have not filed an amendment to “Disciplinary”. So that is the only way by which “Disciplinary Committee” can go.
Mr Puozaa 12:30 p.m.
I think -- [Interruption.] No, why are we deleting it? Line (2), no, there is something to delete: “By a member of the Board.”
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Yes, that is your amendment?
Mr Puozaa 12:30 p.m.
Yes.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon Member, I have already pronounced on the voice vote.
Dr Appiah-Kubi 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to make an amendment to clause 10. If you look at clause 10, it talks about the establishment of committees -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Which clause are you talking about?
Dr Appiah-Kubi 12:30 p.m.
The whole of clause 10. [Interruption.] I am making a point; I am making a point.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon
Member, you are out of order. Hon Member, you have to wait till another stage - I would listen to you even though you are out of order. Because I have already pronounced on the amendments. You cannot make any amendment that can negative what the House has agreed to already, except at the Second Consideration Stage. But let me listen to you.
Dr Appiah-Kubi 12:30 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
If you look at the establishment of committees, clause 10 (1) talks about committees to perform a function. Clause 2 also talks about a complaints committee which has been made a statutory body of the Trust Fund. In my opinion, since this has been made so, it would be appropriate and better if you were to be more specific in the case of the complaints committee by defining, at least, the composition and if possible the functions, because we see the importance of the complaints committee.
I foresee a situation whereby just the Chairman would add somebody to himself to constitute a complaints committee and then adjudicate, if you are not careful. So I would suggest that probably, we specify the composition and if possible, the functions.
Mr Boafo 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, further on, under clause 37, where we have the regulations, there is a proposed amendment to allow the Minister to make regulations to constitute or compose the subcommittee, that is, the complaints committee of the Fund. So his fears are taken care of.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Hon Member, your fears have been taken care of because there is an amendment, clause 37 dealing with regulations where the Minister would make provisions for the composition and other matters relating to the complaints committee.
Clause 10 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11 - Allowances.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to
move, clause 11, line (2); the word “the” before “allowances” delete.
Mr Speaker, as it stands now, the article “the” there is very definitive and removing it would make a better sense. The rendition then becomes:
“Members of the Board and Members of a committee of the Board shall be paid allowances approved by the Minister in consultation with the Minister responsible for Finance.”
Mr Puozaa 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think it is in order.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12 - Ministerial directives.
Mr Boafo 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
clause 12, line 2, delete “and the Board shall comply”.
Mr Speaker, that expression fetters the initiative of the Board members.
Mr Speaker, I am thinking of a situation
where the directive may come from a Minister and the Board member feels that that directive is not in consonance with the education policy. With this expression, he has no room to object. If he is taken on for insubordination and he wants to defend his position, he may not have any defence, because the law says he should comply.
Mr Speaker, the other aspect is that systematically, we are clothing the Executive with too much power as a Parliament and there is the need for us to find ways and means of curtailing this Executive power and this is an opportunity for us to do so.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
But
you know that a weak government or an Executive is equally bad. So I was thinking that you would file an amendment not just deleting it but only on good grounds. Otherwise, you weaken the Minister too because the example you have given is a very legitimate one. So if you can file an amendment to that on stated grounds. But where you delete it completely, you just throw the policy of the day away and weaken the --
Meanwhile, it is the Minister who is responsible to this House. He comes to answer Questions; he will be coming to answer Questions affecting this institution we are setting up today. So if you can file an amendment where you limit it so that it is not so absolute, it would be better in line with what you have suggested.
Mr Owusu-Ansah 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I
want to pose an amendment:
“The Minister may give general directives in writing to the Board on matters of policy for consideration of the Board”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon Member, policy is policy and you should know that it is the policy of the Government of the day elected by the people.
Mr Owusu-Ansah 12:50 p.m.
Then Mr Speaker, that is correct but as you rightly said, in order that the law would not be made in the way that would make the Minister almost redundant, we must find a way of making any policy directive that the Minister would give to the Board to be considered. Indeed, if it is a policy matter that the Minister is proposing to the Board, the Board is entitled to consider it and even make a suggestion to the Minister that that policy cannot be accommodated. That would be entirely between the Board and then the Minister. But the way it is couched here, I do not think that is proper and entirely removing the clause will also

make the Minister more or less redundant.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
I just want to remind Hon Members that we have a lot of laws we have passed in this House with this clause in it. It may be good, it may be bad, but I just want to inform the House that we have made a lot of laws in this House --
Mr Osei-Owusu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think as a policy, we want to decide before we even go to the nitty-gritty of the Bill before us, whether we want to be in good government practices or we want to continue with the situation where we want one Minister to micro-manage all the agencies under it. In this situation, the Minister has the power to appoint the people or recommend the people for appointment by the President.
The presumption is that those people he would appoint are people who know and agree with the policy they are supposed to implement. If any point in time he finds them not implementing the policy he wants them to, he has the power to replace them. But we should create a situation where the Minister micro-manages; writes to the Board, “do this (a), (b)” instructions, and they are required by the law to comply. That is the complaint here. They are required by the law to comply.
Mr Speaker, in that case, then the Board ceases to be the governing authority, what we want to create in all -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
This is policy.
Mr Osei-Owusu 12:50 p.m.
That is the point. The policy underpins the law. The policy finds expression in the law we pass. The objective of the law defines the policy we want to implement. So once we give it to the Board, the Board is to manage the
organization, to make sure that the policy we have expressed in the law is brought into being.
We should not also have a situation where the Minister would be giving instructions, and indeed, the policy is defined by what we say here in this House, the Bill. It should not be left to the Minister. As you know, Ministers change, we do not have consistency. I think that once we appoint a Board, then the Board should be given the mandate and the free hand to manage. That is the best practice in governance, I suggest.
Mr Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in matters of policy, nobody challenges government and nobody chal lenges the representat ion of government in the form of the Minister and let us not confuse policies with programmes. The proposal here has been very specific about matters of policy. But policies are broad outlines which are defined in directives. For example, we can say that rather than limiting student loans to public schools only, from now on, we are adding private schools, that is a policy area.
But whether how Student Loans are delivered, are given out and who is to do it and all that, those are not the ones the Ministers do. In fact, Ministers are precluded in running Ministries to implement policy, they do not implement, they give directives about policy but the implementation agents are the departments. Normally, Ministers do not go to that extent. So I think it is harmless and we should allow it to go.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon Deputy Majority Leader, the point being made is that we should extend the
boundaries of checks and balances and the point being made is that where the directive coming from the Minister is even inconsistent with the law or a broader policy, what happens? And the person feels that that directive is not - People have come across such types of situations. What happens? So that is the point that they are making.
Where we have a situation, where the Minister decides to send a certain directive which they think that is inimical to the whole Student Loan Trust Fund and that kind of thing, what should they do? That is the point that is being raised because the words “shall comply” are there. That is the point. So I want you to address that point, then I will call the Minister then I will come back here.
Mr Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that Ministers generate policy from the government itself and the government generates its policy from the promises it makes to the people at elections. [Interruption.] Yes, if those promises become policy and then you cannot have the right to authorize a Board to implement them --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Those policies should be consistent with the laws of the land.
Mr Pelpuo 12:50 p.m.
Yes, that is true, Mr Speaker. They must be consistent but I am yet to see policies based on promises made by government which are not consistent with the law. The assumption is that, governments are responsible and then when they make policies, they are for the good of the people. They are not made to contravene the Constitution nor to be inimical to the progress of the people.
Mr Alex N. Tettey-Enyo 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as we have already been told by the
Mr J. B. Aidoo 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe there is a mischief in this clause for which the Hon Member tried to cure by requesting that we delete the words “and the Board shall comply.”
Mr Speaker 1 p.m.
Is it not possible to use another example minus me?
Mr J. B. Aidoo 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, minus you? It could be any other person.
Mr Speaker, the point I am trying to make is that policies can be either good or can also be very distasteful and it is not every policy that the Board will have to take on board. They have to give consideration to such policy directives.
So Mr Speaker, I would rather suggest an amendment, that is, at the tail end, that instead of deleting the entire words
“the Board shall comply”, it should rather read “and the Board shall consider them.” [Interruption.] No, it is not the same. Compliance is different from considering them. In consideration, they may either accept the directives of the Minister -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Hon Owusu-Ansah also used the word “consideration”. He says “for consideration of the Board”. Those are his words.
Mr J. B. Aidoo 1 p.m.
Yes, so it can also be the same. I think it should end there.
Mr Opare-Ansah 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe the intention of the mover of the Motion is very clear and I do agree with him. We have moved from the situation where Ministers of State used to double as Chairmen of Boards. This day, where we have independent boards and we still have as the Hon Minister for Education rightly cited in our statutes, lots of situations where the Hon Minister may direct and it leaves a lot of ambiguity as to what we mean by policy.
Then the Hon Minister can direct and say by policy, and since he is in Cabinet and is responsible for making policies whatever he says virtually becomes a policy and the Board then has to comply.
But Mr Speaker, as you very well know, very many of our recent budgets include policy initiatives which this House debates and then approves. But instead of simply saying that we delete the words “the Board shall comply”, I think it would be proper that we rather qualify “policy” to mean policy that has been approved by Parliament.
Indeed, then it is only to give effect to some approval that the Hon Minister has already obtained from Parliament that he is writing to the Board to comply with. So I think we have to qualify the

word “policy” with “policy as approved by Parliament” because indeed, we do the approvals every year.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Hon Members, I want us to defer this matter. Both sides have legitimate points but we may have to arrive at a certain compromise. There could be a situation where the Board is mismanaging the Fund. For instance, if there is an audit report before the Minister, he has to take an action in a certain direction. Does he wait? Or there is information that there is a certain discriminatory practice with the administration of the loan, there is some evidence before the Ministern -- Would the Minister write to them and they would say “no, we would not consider it.”
The amendment moved by the Hon Member for Akropong is in good faith but we should also manage it in such a way that at the same time, in doing so, we do not overprotect the Board and protect their wrongdoings, just as we do not want to give an absolute power also to the Minister. In these matters, there is need to agree somewhere.
I will take two contributions on this matter but then we would defer this amendment and see how we can arrive at a compromise. I will defer the discussion. I will take only two contributions.
Dr Matthew O. Prempeh 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to draw Hon Members' attention to a fact. There are certain Boards that, by the laws this House had passed, whatever they do every year, should come to this House for approval. I will give an example, GETFund, District Assemblies Common Fund and National Health Insurance Fund --
In the respective laws, we have put a similar clause. I will give an example. We passed the National Health Insurance Fund this year and there is an outbreak of a disease in some parts of Ghana and because of this clause, the Minister writes that the policy that the National Health Insurance Fund should follow is to help combat that outbreak. That entails financial outlay. Does it have to come back to Parliament because Parliament has approved their disbursement formula? Yes, it has to come back to Parliament unless we do not understand what we are doing here.
So I agree with Mr Speaker that we have to fine-tune this amendment so that we do not overgive boards so much power of independence, neither do we give Ministers absolute control to willingly do away with what Parliament has approved in certain circumstances.
Mr Opare-Ansah 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is just to say that the point you raised about if there is a report before the Minister and he sees that there is something going wrong, that is precisely why there has to be something to do with the approval of Parliament. But Mr Speaker, all these reports would eventually find their way to the Public Accounts Committee -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Hon Member, you know that it takes a long time for these reports to be finalized before they get to the House. You know it is a long process. You have been in government and action ought to be taken to stop some rot there; what do you do?
Mr Opare-Ansah 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, to do with reports and all that, that is why I believe the Constitution specified that all these reports would have to first come to Parliament, because the flip side is also that a Minister can abuse that and use
Mr Pelpuo 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I just want us to take note that if we try to strengthen the hands of boards by removing ministerial control in the form of policy, we will be creating Frankenstein's monsters in the form of boards. Because these will be monsters that you cannot control, they will be monsters that Parliament itself will have no control and they will eventually be left on their own.
The Board is a public board, established with public money and has to be controlled by a public figure. And the public figure we can have, that can be credible and that can be questioned, is the Minister and so, we give the Minister the rights, the legal backing to spell out policy guidelines for the boards.
When they give those directives, the boards must comply, otherwise, why are they there? The boards are there to serve the people of Ghana; the Minister is there to serve the people of Ghana; the Minister drives their mandate from Government; Government drives its mandate from the people and so it is not going to be anything unconstitutional and let us stop confusing the nitty-gritty of running a board to policy directives.
Policy directives are too broad; they have no relation with how the board is run on everyday basis. We are only talking about broad things like, let us now make
the loan X or Z. Let us include private students in the loan; let us take them away; let us now rather than making one person a guarantor, let us make it two. Those are broad. They have nothing to do with the details and I think that it is standard to allow Ministers to have broad control over boards through policy and I think we should allow it that way.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon Members, the -
Mr Boafo - rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
The amendment is in your name, so --
Mr Boafo 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have heard Hon Members saying that we have this provision in other legislations. But Mr Speaker, we sit here as legislators, we are not here to make restatements of the laws. We are here to make laws and so we have every opportunity to review the law when we feel that it is bad irrespective of the number of repetitions it has received in previous legislations.
The proposed amendment becomes very crucial in the sense that in most areas of our governance, we do not have national policies.It was only recent that we had the youth policy laid before Parliament. So, there is the tendency to assume that what is contained in a manifesto is the policy but what is contained in a manifesto is how the policy is to be implemented by the party.
So, I think this particular amendment is very necessary and we will have to consider it in the light of your guidance to find a way of making it more amenable to the House. Because contextually a policy direction may come to the Fund but at the time that they receive the policy directives, it may be contextually, improper, inconvenient, inappropriate to implement and there should be room to

indicate that we cannot comply with this for these reasons.
Dr Appiah-Kubi 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am inclined to support the initial amendment of Hon Boafo. I think we need to distinguish between micro-management of an institution and policy. Policy, in my opinion, is a statement of intent to fulfil an objective or a set of objectives. Let me emphasize it once again on that statement.
It is a statement of intent. It is not a directive to do a specific thing in a specific institution. No. So, if we agree on that definition, then I do not see why people are saying a Minister can give a directive to purchase a vehicle. On the other hand, if Parliament passes a Bill and later on there is something which a Minister or somebody does against the Bill, it is not the authority or it does not lie within the purview of Parliament to ask for that thing to come back. We should be aware of separation of powers.
We have the Judiciary; we have the Executive and it is the Executive that micro- manages this economy by the initial stages putting forward a set of policies. So, in my opinion, if there is something going wrong with a Bill that has been passed, it is left to any one of us or anybody in the country to send the Bill to court. It is not left to us to interpret the Bill but rather it is left to the Judiciary to do the interruption.
So the idea that everything should come back to Parliament is neither here nor there. If there is anything wrong with a specific Bill, the way it is being implemented, then it is left to any individual to go to court for interpretation. So, I will support the amendment, that yes, a policy is a policy, it is not micro-
management of an institution or an organization. And if a policy directive is given to any organization, that should be complied with because it is a policy, it is government's -- [Interruption.] Yes, I support the amendment.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon Member, then you are rather kicking against the amendment because what the amendment is seeking to do is to avoid micro management of those -
Dr Appiah-Kubi 1:10 p.m.
But here the rendition is:

I will recommend that only “shall the Board comply” should be deleted so that in case of anything to be discussed with the Minister -- if the Board should have a problem in complying with a directive, it would then contact the Minister for clarification.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Hon Member, you have made your point.
Mr Simon Osei-Mensah 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think this amendment should be looked at in terms of three things.
First, flexibility in the policy not restricting it to only policy, guidelines that have been approved by Parliament. There could be some other policies that have not had direct approval from Parliament but they would be in the interest of the nation. So, we do not have to restrict or qualify
Dr Joseph S. Annan 1:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it seems to me that apart from the fact that this phrase exists in many other Acts that have been passed in this House, what is important is that from a holistic view, Government makes policy and the policy does not affect one sector alone.
Here, we are talking about the Students Loan Trust Fund Bill but it is in conjunction with all the other areas in tertiary education and so on. So, if we make an exception and not allow a Board to comply with a policy directive -- policy directive is a general directive as to what Government is planning to do across the
Board and in most cases this is something that comes out of Cabinet. So if we are saying that the Board shall not comply with Cabinet decisions in the main, then I think we are running a risk of undermining the role of the Executive.
I think it is important that where Parliament has oversight, that oversight is provided. But we cannot deviate from overall Government policy and Government policy is a holistic affair. Government policy is not just made for individual sectors or indeed, in the case of the Students Loan Trust Fund, just for the Students Loan Trust Fund. So I suggest that we stick to the present configuration.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
Hon
Members, I will defer this matter and let us see how - because the point that you may have to note is that the Minister's hand must be strengthened to supervise those institutions under him, but at the same time you would not also want a Minister who would come in and use that to do all manner of things.
Even if you want to insulate the Minister, there should be a basis for them not to look at the policy. So let us see whether we can arrive at any concensus by tomorrow. So let us defer this matter. So clause 12 is deferred.
Let us take clauses 13 and 14 because there are no amendments there and then I will call for directions from the Leadership.
Clauses 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo 1:20 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, I have noticed that we have come a long way and we have done a lot in this Consideration Stage of the Students Loan Trust Fund Bill, 2010 and I beg to move, that at this juncture, we adjourn until 10.00 before noon tomorrow.
Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah 1:20 p.m.
Mr
Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
Question put and Motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT 1:20 p.m.