Speaker, I think that it is a very germane matter that has been raised by the Hon Member for Akropong. Mr Speaker, I find it very important because in my view, after the Constitution itself, the next most important document or piece of legislation is the Interpretation Act itself. If we set aside the relevance of the provision which is being alluded to by my Hon Colleague, what would be the import of it? Certainly, it would be counter to the provision in the Interpretation Act.
Mr Speaker, you do know that in
Parliament, more or less, we have been complaining on daily basis that the power of legislation even though so stated by the Constitution and trusted into the hands of the Legislature, has been taken away by this construction in the Constitution, that to the extent that a Bill that is introduced in the House has financial implications; it must be introduced in the House on behalf of the President by a Minister, otherwise a Private Member cannot introduce it.
Mr Speaker, this provision in the Interpretation Act has the same effect as the provision in the Constitution, and I think we should be very careful not to do anything that would run counter to provisions in the Interpretation Act, difficult though the situation may be. And I thought that in the circumstance -- and we have to subject what we are doing to the Interpretation Act, the relevant provision in the Interpretation Act. We cannot side- step it.
So, even though it is a difficult situation, I would have wished in particular, against the experience that has been shared by the Hon Member for Ahafo Ano South, that maybe, we simplify it. However, if
we did that, it would run counter to the Interpretation Act. How do we properly capture that provision and not do anything to offend it? I think that is something that should exercise our mind.
I do not know whether we cannot just say -- Because Mr Speaker, I looked at the functions of the Board being responsible for the management of the Fund, arranging appointments of a team of professionals for efficient management of the affairs of the Fund and so on. Really, on the face of it, it is not financial. Because just arranging for the appointment of a team of professionals for the efficient management of the affairs of the Fund, is it financial?
On the face of it, it does not have any financial implication, except one would say that even organizing the meeting may have some financial implications to the Board. So I think we should be very cautious and exercise some circumspection in this. If we have to, maybe, stand this one down for further consultation, I think it would be better for us. Otherwise, we may do something that may run counter to the Interpretation Act.