Debates of 29 Nov 2010

MADAM SPEAKER
PRAYERS 11:05 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 11:05 a.m.
Madam Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 26th November, 2010.

Hon Members, in the absence of any corrections, the Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 26th November, 2010 is adopted as the true record of proceedings.

Hon Members, we do not have an Official Report and we have not admitted any Statements for today, so we move on to Commencement of Public Business, item 4.

Hon Leader,item 4 (a).
Mr Cletus A. Avoka 11:05 a.m.
Madam Speaker, besides the Minister for Defence, the other Hon Ministers are available to do the presentation of these Reports. So we can lay 4 (a), (b), (c) and (d).
Thank you.
Madam Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Yes, so let us take 4 (a) then.
BILLS - FIRST READING 11:05 a.m.
Mr Avoka 11:05 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the Hon Minister for Defence, Lt Gen J.H. Smith (retd) has just returned to Accra from outside the region, so he will not be available this morning. With your kind permission, we will allow the Hon Minister for Communications take it for and on his behalf.
Thank you.
Madam Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Yes.
Veterans Administration Ghana Bill, 2010
An Act to revise and consolidate the law relating to veterans and to provide for related matters.
By the Minister for Communications (Mr Haruna Iddrisu) (on behalf of the Minister for Defence). Read the First time; referred to the Committee on Defence and Interior.
Data Protection Bill, 2010
An Act to protect the privacy of the individual and personal data by regulating the processing of personal information to provide the process to obtain, hold, use of disclosed personal information and for
related matters.
By the Minister for Communications. Read the First time; referred to the joint Committee on Communications and Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs.
Dr Anthony A. Osei 11:15 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, I am sorry to take us back. Last week, in your absence, the Hon First Deputy Speaker assured the House that upon your return this morning, on the matter of the University of Ghana Bill, you would say something to us about it. We have gone past that part and nothing has been said. So I do not know whether it is an oversight or --
Madam Speaker 11:15 a.m.
That part should have come under what?
Dr A. A. Osei 11:15 a.m.
Item 4.
Madam Speaker 11:15 a.m.
We have just finished with item 4. Hon Leader, what do you have to say to that? The last time I referred the matter to the Hon Leaders for investigations and report. Any feedback?
Mr Avoka 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the matter is in the process of being resolved. As you indicated, we had series of meetings between the Leadership of this august House, the Attorney, General and her staff, as well as the Office of the President. Indeed, our final meeting is today with the arrival of Madam Speaker. So today, this afternoon, after adjournment, we will meet and resolve the matter and inform you accordingly, either tomorrow or next tomorrow.
Thank you.
Madam Speaker 11:15 a.m.
In other words, Hon Dr Osei, I think he is saying that we will get back very soon, today or tomorrow. Let us make it tomorrow.
Mr Avoka 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I did not say today I said “tomorrow or Wednesday.”
Madam Speaker 11:15 a.m.
All right.
PAPERS 11:15 a.m.
Madam Speaker 11:15 a.m.
We move to item 6 - the First Deputy Speaker will take over.
11.20A.M. -- MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, what is the status of item 6 on the Order Paper -- Motion?
Mr Avoka 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the other day, I moved for the adoption of the Report but we deferred decision on its adoption because Hon P. C. Appiah-Ofori had indicated to the House that he was not serving on any Select Committee. I am in contact with the Hon Minority Leader and he has contacted the Chief Whip who had worked on it but who is outside the country now. He has agreed that he has actually put Hon Appiah-Ofori on a Select Committee.
So subject to that understanding, we may wish to adopt the Report in view of the fact that, the recomposition, some Hon Members would have to go for the Budget hearing with regard to their subject
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Hon. Majority Leader, is it not equally important that Hon Appiah-Ofori also knows the committee he has been placed on so that he can also take part in this Budget hearing?
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that should be of paramount importance because the prime responsibility of every Member of Parliament is the oversight of the Executive, which we do through the vehicle of the committees that we have in Parliament -- the Select Committee. So it is important that we locate him on, at least, one such committee.
Mr Speaker, the problem is, I asked the Chief Whip to take care of this, unfortunately, he is not with us. I called him, the line was bad and he said he was going to call back. It has been difficult getting through to him. But when we spoke to him, he said, he had taken care of it. Where he is, I do not know. I do not know which committee or committees he has put him on, and I do not want to do anything which may run contrary to what he has done. Which is why I am saying that, in agreeing to what the Hon Majority Leader has said, subject to this understanding, that when he comes, we certainly must find a place for him, at least, one committee for him, we can approve of the list that is coming from
the Majority.
I have just been told that the name of our former Colleague, Hon Doris Seidu has also popped up on some list. We may have to look at the list and cleanse it. I am saying that subject to that, we will approve of this. The Hon Chief Whip, certainly, is going to be with us on Wednesday and we will take care of the interest of our Colleague.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
When will the consideration of the Estimates start because the Hon Member must know which committee he belongs to, so that he can also take part in that process? So if he does not know, which committee will he attend? The fact that the former Member for Chereponi's name has popped up somewhere, also makes the list a bit of something else. So I do not know; will Wednesday be too late, for purposes of the consideration of the Estimates? If it will not be too late, it is only fair for the Member to know where he is.
Mr Avoka 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not know when the Hon Minority Chief Whip is coming back. Hon Appiah-Ofori is one person; we have about twenty to thirty people who have been re-shuffled in various committees as far as the Majority caucus is concerned. So we cannot hold it to ransom.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, do you know what it means? If you approve this list now, and it happens that all the committees have got their full complement, it means that this list must come back to the House for somebody to be removed for him to be substituted. This is what it means. We have to pass through the process again on the floor of the House for him to be replaced.
But Hon Appiah-Ofori, you used to be on the Select Committee on Food and
Agriculture and Cocoa Affairs?
Mr P. C. Appiah-Ofori 11:15 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, until the advent of the new list, I was a member of the Committee on Food and Agriculture and Cocoa Affairs.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Then why did they not -
Mr Appiah-Ofori 11:15 a.m.
They felt that I do not deserve to be on any committee, so I was thrown out. I am watching them --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, as I indicated, the Hon Opare- Ansah, who is our Chief Whip, has informed me that he has taken care of him. My attention has just been drawn to that arrangement. I indicated to you earlier that rather unfortunately, I have not been able to connect with him. But my attention is being drawn to the fact that some agreement was reached regarding taking off the name of Hon Osei-Prempeh and replacing same with the name of the Hon Member for Asikuma/Odoben/ Brakwa (Mr P. C. Appiah-Ofori), that is the Committee on Food, Agriculture and Cocoa Affairs, which is what I wanted to confirm. Unfortunately, it is being difficult.
But I will visit the office and maybe, enquire from the officers who are in his office and I guess by tomorrow, we should be able to tidy this up. As you indicated, we are not going to consider the various Estimates before Wednesday, so certainly, the right thing will be done before we come there.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Very well.
Alhaji Mohammed -Mubarak
Muntaka: Mr Speaker, I am at a loss at the explanation given by the Hon Minority Leader. The Hon Minority Leader will know that our Standing Orders and the Constitution do not put the issue of where

a Member should be, at the doorstep of the Chief Whip; it is at the doorstep of the Committee on Selection. And I would want to believe that there are equal representations in the numbers from both sides of the House.

So, I am at a loss when he keeps referring to the Chief Whip because our Standing Orders and the Constitution of this country do not talk about the Chief Whip when it comes to placement of Hon Members on a committee; it is rather the Selection Committee. So, I am at loss when he keeps emphasising on -
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon Members, the practice is that the \ leadership of both sides prepare their list and put them together and present it to the Committee on Selection. So, in practice, the work is really done by the various caucuses and that is why he is referring to the Chief Whip.
Dr Matthew O. Prempeh 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I wanted your direction in this very regard. Maybe, the Motion should read:
“That this Honourable House adopts the Report of the Committee on Leadership.”
That is what my Brother is trying to bring. I do not have any problems with that. But if he says a Report of the Committee on Selection, it must at least, be seen to be followed. No meeting has been held by the Committee on Selection and Members are telling us that. So, I do not have a problem if the Leadership is doing these changes but it must reflect on the Order Paper.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon
Member, the point being made is that, it is the various caucuses that put their lists together; they should decide that this is going to be our spokesperson on this committee or that committee from the various caucuses. And this is put together before it is presented to the Committee on Selection. That is the point that -- well,
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, first, to explain the practical procedure, the Hon Member for Asawase said that he was at a loss. I would plead that he remains missing -[Laughter] -- that he should stay lost.
Mr Speaker, we have a Committee
on Selection which is put together and chaired by Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, the practical reality is that, when Parliament first assembles, because Leadership would be in touch with the various Members, that is from the various caucuses, and because the Whips are positioned to be directly communing with Colleague members, when it comes to constituting the committees - and the Hon Member for Asawase would recall that when he first stepped here, he was required to give his bio-data to the Chief Whip.
So, because he knows all these things, when it comes to constituting the various committees, he will look at the preferences, check the backgrounds and help the Committee on Selection to compose. That is the practical reality, which I thought he understood. But since he said he was missing, I would plead that he stays missing.
But Mr Speaker, that is in the lighter vein. So, that is how come we have the Whips playing that role and that explains why I have kept referring to the Whip in this instance. I do appreciate the point made by the Hon Member for Manhyia that when we have constituted the list respectively for the various caucuses and then we have put them together in that happy union or marriage, whether it is convenient or in eternity, then the Committee on Selection should come and bless that marriage.
I agree with you with the position taken by the Hon Member for Manhyia. So, if that is what they are referring to, that blessing must take place in one way or the other.
Mrs Frema A. Osei-Opare 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am worried about the gender representation on some committees, such as Public Accounts Committee, Committee on Local Government and Rural Development, even the Committee on Subsidiary Legislation.
We know that at least, there are two female lawyers in this House. I am not sure whether the blessing of the Committee on Selection had taken place but I would like this marriage annulled with immediate effect, so that you go and do the right thing so that it can be properly blessed.
Mr Kwame Osei-Prempeh 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I just want to correct the Hon Member who just spoke by saying to her that Hon Esther Obeng Dappah is a member of the Committee on Subsidiary Legislation. So, there is a woman on it.
Ms Cecilia A. Dapaah 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought the Hon Member for Ayawaso West Wuogon wanted to talk about the membership of the Public Accounts Committee, that is highly anomalous. It is only men and I believe with the small pocket moneys provided by the men, the women rather should be more represented.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, much as we will appreciate the situation where we have women serving on all committees of the House, it is almost practically impossible given the paucity of their numbers in the Chamber. Mr Speaker, so I will entreat the women to persuade their Colleagues to populate this House in greater numbers than are represented now. Mr Speaker, so that is the practical thing, really.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon Members, I think that is enough on this matter. Let us move to item 7 on the Order Paper. Petroleum Revenue Management Bill, 2010, at the Consideration Stage?
BILLS - CONSIDERATION 11:25 a.m.
STAGE 11:25 a.m.
  • [ R e s u m p t i o n o f d e b a t e f ro m 26/11/2010]
    • Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, are we continuing with clause 8 or we are deferring it?
    Mr Cletus A. Avoka 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we will start from clause 8.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Avoka 11:35 a.m.
    I want to indicate that last Friday, we virtually concluded the debate on clause 8. There were more or less some consensus on clause 8 but we did not put the Question. In the circumstances, Mr Speaker may wish to hear from two persons, at least, the one who is moving the amendment plus the Ranking Member, and maybe, Prof. Gyan-Baffour, the Chairman, Hon Moses Asaga and one other. Then we can take the decision on this financial matter.

    Clause 8 --
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, my argument is very simple, that, if you look at even the Headnote, “Transparency and accountability”, you are talking about holding certain people accountable-- ensuring that the right thing is done

    transparently. You cannot say that you are holding somebody accountable, unless you give that person enough inputs to enable him to do the right thing.

    Here, it is stated that receipts in whatever form should be made mentioned or should be published but you cannot receive anything unless your goods, from which you are getting the receipts.

    So appropriately, Mr Speaker, in order that there is transparency, there is no fraud, Ghana's interest is protected, I am saying that it should protect the output. This time, I have added that even the unit price per tonne or whatever it is, so that when it comes here, we say that we have produced 20 metric tonnes of crude oil at X price, giving this total receipts, then you are holding somebody accountable. But if we are now confining ourselves to receipts only, then we are not but we are aiding the defrauding of the State.

    So I am saying that, and I expect that everybody will support me, it is in the interest of Ghana, that the amendment should be:

    “for the purposes of transparency and accountability, the records of crude petroleum outputs and receipts in whatever form shall simultaneously be published by the Minister in the Gazette and at least, in two national daily papers not more than 30 working days after the end of the applicable quarter.”

    So that is my position and I expect everybody to support me so that we will be able to -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Are you deleting “unit price'?
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 11:35 a.m.
    Yes, I have added unit price to it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Ranking Member for Committee on Finance.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Hon P. C. Appiah-Ofori, I will take two quick ones and then I will put the Question.
    rose
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member wants to -- before I come in.
    Dr Prempeh 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to draw the whole House's attention to the fact that “petroleum receipts” has never been defined anywhere in this Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    It is “Petroleum Revenue” that has been defined, not “petroleum receipts.”
    Dr Prempeh 11:35 a.m.
    Because they are two, they are totally different issues. Government of Ghana can elect to receive its cash component in petroleum which is a receipt but not revenue. Mr Speaker, we have to find a place if we are going to accept what the Hon Chairman is saying; we have to define “petroleum receipts” in this Bill because there is nowhere that we have defined it.
    Mr Joseph K. Adda 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think, to help solve this problem, we
    the House are aware that for the past two to three years, we had been speaking of even the initial revenues coming from petroleum being in the region of 6 per cent of GDP. Today, we know better that it is going to be less than 2 per cent of the GDP from all the estimates which are available. And it is this type of confusing correlation which we wish to avoid. It is not the question of being opposed to a reporting on output which the House may want to address separately.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Appiah-Ofori, in view of the sense of the House, what do you say? That we get a new clause for the output? I think that is the feeling.
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, let us look at the title, “Transparency and Accountability”. I do not know the harm this will do if my amendment is accepted. I concede that I am prepared to remove “crude” but “output” and “add” must be in.
    Mr Speaker, I am speaking to you from experience. I have lived in Nigeria before and I was aware of the way big men in the country siphoned crude oil from the drilling point to go and sell outside the country, thereby denying the country such resources. We are also getting it. We are trying to put controls to prevent such things happening to us. So what harm does it do if it is reported to us or it is stated here that the quantity produced is added? What harm will it do to the Bill? Would it spoil it? So I am talking about accountability and transparency. Let us think what is good for Ghana and protect it. So I urge everybody to agree to the Question. If I lose, then it is all right.
    Dr Prempeh 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in view of
    the understanding on both sides, I propose that there should be subclause 3, where it
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, on Friday we debated almost ad nauseam on this matter. One of the first things we had not even taken into account is that there is nothing like crude petroleum, so the amendment seeks to remove petroleum and put crude petroleum. There is nothing in the literature about crude petroleum, so how could we be using this as an amendment? That is the first thing. The second thing we have argued - [Interruption.] You did not hear me? I am saying that the amendment says delete “petroleum” and insert “crude petroleum” but the term “crude petroleum” does not exist anywhere.
    So I am at a loss why he wants to make that change. I think that on the issue we said yesterday that the way “receipts” have been defined -- and I want to repeat it, unless there is some other way that he can calculate value without knowing the price and the quantity, he should tell us. They are supposed to value it and in my young age, the only thing I have been taught is that, to value, you must have price and quantity. So the Hon Member's amendment is almost redundant, to say the least.
    But the most important thing is that there is nothing like “crude petroleum”; so at least, if he wants to bring something else, he should find the proper thing because “petroleum” as defined, includes natural gas and petroleum or both. So when I see the words ‘crude petroleum' output and unit price, I am at a loss what he is talking about. I plead with him -- it will be redundant but the words “crude petroleum” do not exist; those words should not be introduced here at all.
    Mr James K. Avedzi 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, last Friday, we debated this issue at length and one point that we want to be made clear is that, petroleum revenue or receipts has been defined in the Bill to include royalties, corporate taxes, carried interests, participatory interest and so many other
    would perhaps, have to introduce a new clause specifically on transparency and accountability on “petroleum output” and in there, ask for the production levels or the output to also be gazetted. We are not necessarily saying that the total number of barrels of oil produced must be multiplied with the figure to give us the receipts. But let us know the quantity that is produced periodically. So, perhaps, a new clause, specifically, on output, to be gazetted must help us, so that we can leave this clause as it is and introduce clause 9, the new one that would be just on output.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Yes, the last one, Hon Deputy Minister for Finance and Economic Planning.
    Hon Asaga, you want to say something?
    Mr Asaga 11:45 a.m.
    No.
    Mr Seth Terkpeh 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wish to refer to clause 6 where it says “the following shall form” and we changed “petroleum account” to “holding account” and there, it makes mention of gross receipts and therefore, the items that follow referred to the receipts. When the debate ensued last week, it was with reference to the fact that these sources are defined.
    Mr Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the Hon Ranking Member and with the Hon Chairman, that there is a difficult correlation between these receipts and outputs and therefore, if it is the desire of the House to have reporting on output; using some international convention, which would be the responsibility of Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), in conjunction with Ministries of Energy and the Finance and Economic Planning, then this must be addressed separately so that we do not have a correlation which may not exist. This is the point I wish to buttress.
    Mr Speaker, indeed, Hon Members of
    Mr Seth Terkpeh 11:45 a.m.


    is dedicated only to the petroleum output to capture. And in subclause 1, where there is “petroleum receipt”, we replace it with “petroleum output” for subclause 3 as agreed. I am proposing it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Seth
    Terkpeh, what do you mean by “petroleum receipts”?
    Mr Terkpeh 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 6
    gives us details -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Look at
    the Headnote of clause 7.
    Mr Terkpeh 11:45 a.m.
    Yes, it is “carried and
    participating interest” but it is the revenue or the receipts that derive from this which are the subject of the Bill and how it is to be quantified either in cash or otherwise.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    So is
    it clause 6 plus clause 7 that constitute petroleum receipts? Is that correct?
    Mr Terkpeh 11:45 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    It is clause
    6 plus clause 7 constitute petroleum receipts.
    Mr Terkpeh 11:45 a.m.
    Yes, but clause 7 is referring to a specific output, not the entire national output.
    Ques t ion pu t and amendment
    negatived.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Appiah-Ofori, the next amendment is standing in your name.
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, subclause 2, line 2, delete “Ministry and” and insert “Ministry”; and in line 3, after “date” insert the following:
    “and be made available to the Accountability, Transparency and Public Committee.”
    What I am saying here is that, a copy of this report should be made available to the Transparency and Accountability Committee set up in this Bill, so that when they are trying to exercise their oversight, they will have the necessary information to do their work. That is my position. A copy of it should also go to the Transparency and Accountability Committee.
    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Member, that is not the name of the committee. Hon P. C. Appiah-Ofori, there is no “Accountability, Transparency and Public Committee” in the Bill. So the committee you are referring to is not known to the Bill. Hon P. C. Appiah- Ofori, the committee that you put in your amendment, you may have to withdraw the amendment and bring it back later.
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 11:45 a.m.
    Thank you, I will do that.
    Dr Owusu A. Akoto 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg you to go to clause 53, that is what Hon P. C. Appiah-Ofori --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Look at Hon P. C. Appiah-Ofori's name on the Committee and look at what you are referring to in clause 53 and see whether they are the same.
    Dr O. A. Akoto 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I know it is not the same but I am just trying to help my Colleague.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    That is all
    that I am saying, that committee that you put there in the amendment is not known to the Bill. That is all that I am saying and he had decided to withdraw it. That is it. For now, Hon Member, will you move your amendment?
    if you looked at the Headnote -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, that is why I am consulting with the Table Office. Look at the Votes and Proceedings of last Friday. There is some work that has been done on it by the House. Clause 9 --
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 9 is deleted completely.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Yes, it is deleted. So I will go to clause 10.
    Clause 10 - Establishment of the Ghana Stabilisation Fund.
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, Headnote, after “Establishment” insert “Object”.
    If you look at the Headnote, it reads:
    “Establishment of the Ghana Stabilisation Fund”.
    But if you read clauses 1 and 2, both deal with “Establishment and Object”. While clause 1 deals with “Establishment”, clause 2 deals with “Object”, So my amendment is: “Establishment and Object of the Ghana Stabilisation Fund”, so that when one reads it, it covers both clauses 1 and 2; that is my intention.
    Dr O. Afriyie Akoto 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think it should be “Establishment and Object.” So insert “and Object”, not just “Object.”
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 11:45 a.m.
    It was a printing mistake. I said: “and Object”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, not really to attack the purpose of the amendment, which I share. I think we could do without the insertion of the words or if you like, the name “Ghana”. Mr Speaker, we are doing these things in Ghana, so why do we say:
    Dr Prempeh 11:45 a.m.
    Yes, please. Mr Speaker, I would like to move for a new subclause
    2.
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    instead of “Accountability, Transparency and Public Committee”, I propose “Public Interest and Accountability Committee.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Member, you had said you would come back, you should come back.
    Let us take your amendment, Hon Member for Manhyia.
    Dr Prempeh 11:45 a.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker. We just agreed here; so my new clause 3 would be “For the purposes of transparency and accountability, the record of petroleum output in whatever form shall simultaneously be published by the Minister in the Gazette and in at least, two national daily papers, not more than thirty working days after the end of the applicable period”; just like the one but in this time substitute the “petroleum output” as a separate clause.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Member, I have not got your rendition. I have not got it; you have to write it on a piece of paper and let me look at it.
    Dr Prempeh 11:45 a.m.
    “For the purpose of transparency and accountability, the record of petroleum output in whatever form shall simultaneously be published by the Minister in the Gazette and in at least two national daily newspapers, not more than thirty working days after the end of the applicable quarter”. This would be a separate clause just like the one but in this style.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon Members, let me defer the clause.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, for clause 9, I do not see any amendments advertised, but I thought that
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.


    “Establishment of Ghana Stabilisation Fund?” “Establishment and Object of the Stabilisation Fund”. Simpliciter, I believe that captures the essence of it.
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 11:55 a.m.
    The reason “and Ghana Stabilisation Fund” is there is this, it is a Fund which has been established and therefore, that is the name as established. And so, having been produced, I think that is the right thing, because reference is being made to the Fund established.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    What the Hon Minority Leader is saying is that we are in Ghana, and why do we qualify it with “Ghana”?
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 11:55 a.m.
    Then it means therefore, that the establishment of the Fund, Ghana must be deleted completely from the beginning.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    That is
    his suggestion.
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 11:55 a.m.
    If it is deleted from the beginning, all right.
    Mr Osei-Prempeh 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that the name “Ghana” put there is for a purpose. As the Hon Member said, it is a name. If you open an account outside this country, it is going to be “Ghana Stabilisation Fund”. “Ghana Heritage Fund”. So it is not that it is there as a nominal - It is there for a purpose and I believe we need to retain it. In fact, even at the Bank of Ghana, it is going to be “Ghana Stabilisation Fund”, so that it can easily be referred to, instead of deleting it and making it “The Stabilisation Fund” -- of what?
    Mr S. Osei-Mensah 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, to support what my senior Colleague just said, there could exist other stabilisation funds in Ghana. I do know quite well that the COCOBOD has a stabilisation
    fund. This is distinguishing it from other stabilisation funds that we have, so that this Ghana Stabilisation Fund would be purposely for petroleum purposes.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon
    Members, the explanation is very clear.
    Mr Avedzi 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to
    speak to the proposed amendment by the Hon P. C. Appiah-Ofori. Mr Speaker, even though I am not opposed to adding the “Object” to the title, it looks like if we are doing this, we are going to set up a precedent that if the objectives of that particular item are more than one, we would be tempted to be bringing all those things to the Headnote. So if you say “Establishment of and Object of Ghana Stabilisation Fund”, and then you go to the subclauses, and you are repeating the same thing there -- we have it at the Head- note and repeat them.
    But why do we not just say: “Ghana Stabilisation Fund” as a Headnote; then you go to subclause 1, you establish it; clause 2, you bring the objectives, so that we do not set up a precedent to a point where if the objectives are more than one, we would be forced to list all those objectives in the headnotes.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought that my Chairman was agreeing with Hon P. C. Appiah-Ofori, so we could move on. But Hon Appiah-Ofori's point, Mr Speaker, I am afraid, is correct. We boxed ourselves in there by saying “Establishment” but we also want the “Objects”. So we are forced to bring it. If you wanted a different head- note as “Objects”, then it should have come separately.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    The Chairman is saying that we should remove “Establishment” and we have “Ghana Stabilisation Fund.” And so, the clause 1 and clause 2 do not really -
    Mr Avedzi 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we delete all the words after shortfall, which reads:
    “Whether caused by a fall in a petroleum price or through adverse production changes.”
    Mr Speaker, a shortfall in petroleum
    revenue can be caused by either of the two. Either there is an adverse production or there is a price which is less than the anticipated one. So, I think it is brought for us to know that these are the two areas that can have a shortfall.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon
    Member for Akropong, what about if the shortfall is due to stealing? What do we call it? When they bring the ship and they carry - What is the terminology for it?
    Mr Avedzi 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, any shortfall
    that is due to stealing is the adverse production. It results in having a production quantity, which is less than you have budgeted for or estimated. So it covers that one.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker. Hon Member, if it takes care of all situations or shortfalls, then the amendment standing in the name of the Hon Member for Akropong holds. That is why I want to give you the example of the case of stealing and if that is your answer, then it addresses all the concerns.
    Mr Avedzi 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it addresses
    all the issues that have been raised but there are two major areas that the shortfall can occur.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    The
    argument is that, if there are other areas and you limit it only to this, then if those areas occur, then they cannot benefit from the Stabilisation Fund. They cannot address the issue of the Stabilisation Fund. That is the point made by the Hon Member
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:05 p.m.
    But that clause is seeking to establish it. The fact that we also brought the “Objects” under subclause (2) -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon Members, the amendment does not take away anything from this Bill. So let us go ahead and put the Question. It does not really take away anything.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr W. O. Boafo 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, subclause 2, lines 3 and 4, delete all the words after “shortfalls”.
    Mr Speaker, the purpose of the amendment is to make sure that we are not making any attempt to exhaust the root causes of the shortfalls, for the purpose of future. This appears to exhaust the root causes of the -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    A shortfall is a shortfall.
    Mr Boafo 12:05 p.m.
    It is a revenue shortfall. Mr Speaker, I want to go to the extent of proposing the deletion of “anticipated revenue shortfall.”
    M r F i r s t D e p u t y S p e a k e r : “Unanticipated”; it is unanticipated.
    Mr Boafo 12:05 p.m.
    “Unanticipated”. Mr Speaker, so my first proposal -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    You want us to delete “unanticipated”?
    Mr Boafo 12:05 p.m.
    No, I want us to delete the words after shortfall.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee.
    for Akropong because you have limited it to only two scenarios.
    Mr Clement K. Humado 12:05 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, I think the inclusion of the word “whether” makes a difference because if it was unanticipated revenue shortfall caused by a shortfall in petroleum price and all that, then it is specifically limited to those two factors. But I think the inclusion of the word “whether” makes it flexible and I will plead with the Hon Senior Colleague that the original rendition should stay because it is relevant to the context in which the subclause is designed.
    Mr Simon Osei-Mensah 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    I support the amendment and it should stay. In order to avoid any ambiguity, when it ends at “shortfalls”, then whatever would be the cause of the shortfall is taken care of because a shortfall in revenue could be a change even in Government policy, in terms of royalty, et cetera. So the basis for the shortfall could be many. Let us avoid creating problems for ourselves and then accept the amendment to end after the “shortfall” and delete all other words after that.
    Mr Kwame Osei-Prempeh 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I need not belabour the point. I believe you answered the question. The question you posed was very, very relevant, so that taking the amendment will cater for every anticipated or unexpected, including stealing, hijacking, and everything. So I believe that the amendment must be supported.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought that one of the reasons that we were -- My understanding is that, he wants the shortfall be specific to something in the petroleum sector, not any other calls. Example, if it is a shortfall in Government revenue, not related to the petroleum sector, you cannot consider it a shortfall. So it has to be petroleum-specific. That is why it is limited to price or quantity; the usual causes. That is why it is in there
    for emphasis.
    Mr Kofi Adda 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am
    happy about what my Hon Colleague who just spoke before me said. If we go back to the subclause and look at the second line, there is sustaining public expenditure capacity. Are we talking about public expenditure capacity relating to just petroleum inflows alone or public expenditure in general, Mr Speaker? I think the nation should not limit itself to just petroleum shortfalls alone.
    If something drastic happens to the economy and the Government of the day wants to call on these funds to support public expenditure, I think they should be at liberty to be able to do that.
    Therefore, it is not just the changes in production and price alone but anything that impacts on public expenditure. I think if we support the amendment and take out the areas that the Hon Member is proposing we should delete, I think it will be good for Government; it will be good for the nation in supporting public expenditure.
    Mr Avedzi 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in determining the benchmark revenue, we use two variables, the quantity and the price. If at the end of the year or at the end of the period, there is an effect of any of these variables, we will put it on the Stabilisation Fund. If the price we use in determining the benchmark revenue, we are not selling at that price and therefore, there is a shortfall, we fall on the Stabilisation Fund to support the economy.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    The point
    being made by the Ranking Member of the Energy Committee is that, you should read it within the context of public expenditure.
    Mr Avedzi 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that will open it and it is very dangerous. It means that every year, we will be falling on the Stabilisation Fund. That is why we are limiting it to adverse effect in production and fall in the price for petroleum. That
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon Member for Asawase has not moved an amendment. He only made the suggestion.
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    propose a further amendment to Hon W. O. Boafo's amendment that in ending at “shortfall”, we should insert between after “anticipated petroleum” before “revenue”.
    The rendition now becomes:
    “ T h e o b j e c t o f t h e G h a n a Stabilisation Fund is to cushion the impact on or sustain public expenditure capacity during periods of unanticipated petroleum revenue shortfalls”.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
    Mr Boafo 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it takes care of the concerns I expressed.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Absolutely,
    that solves the problem for all of us, both sides of the House.
    Hon Members, I will put the Question.
    Some Hon Members — rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, there is a consensus here. What we intend doing is to -- between the word “anticipated” in line 3 of subclause 2, and “revenue”, we insert “petroleum”, that is the proposal.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, we are talking about the object of the Stabilisation Fund and as far as I am concerned, it is not only to cushion the impact on or sustain public expenditure during periods of unanticipated petroleum revenue shortfalls; it is also going to absorb excess petroleum revenue. And now that we are talking about the object, why can we not find space for it expressly, in clause (10), either to capture it at clause 10 (3) or maybe, to provide for it to be
    is why it is put there.
    Prof. G. Y. Gyan-Baffour 12:15 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, I think the Chairman is right. If we allow the Finance Minister that whenever there is a shortfall in even the traditional sources of revenue, he will go in and pick the money from there and that is what leads to the tendency of what they call the “dark disease”. So we should not allow any shortfall to be charged against what is in the Stabilisation Fund. It should be a shortfall only in petroleum receipts.
    Alhaj i Mohammed-Mubarak
    Muntaka: Mr Speaker, I perfectly agree with my two earlier Colleagues, Hon Prof. Gyan-Baffour and the Chairman of the Committee. If we look at the trend of our Budget, even this year, even before we start spending, it is clear that there is a shortfall. If we look at the anticipated revenue against the anticipated expenditure, there is already a shortfall. That means we will not have the Stabilisation Fund because each year, we will be running to take the money, so we should restrict it. If we really want to end at the shortfall, I will then propose that in between anticipated and revenue, let us put petroleum there and then we will end it at the shortfall so that it just restricts it to petroleum, whether the shortfall is going to be as a result of production or as a result of price drop, it is still petroleum and we will leave it there.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want
    to support this proposed amendment because it cleanses a lot of things for us. For example, because we have defined “petroleum revenue” to include things like “royalty”, if we stop at “petroleum revenue shortfalls,” then we have included all of those areas. Because if you limit yourself to price, all quantity and the Government policy changes the nature of the royalty, there could be a severe shortfall. So I think it is in order. I support the proposed amendment.

    added at the end of subclause 2.

    Mr Speaker, I know that it has been captured elsewhere but for the avoidance of doubt, since we are talking about the object, can we not include it at the end? For instance, if we could say “the object of the Ghana Stabilization Fund is to cushion the impact on or sustain public expenditure capacity during periods of unanticipated petroleum revenue shortfalls or to absorb excess petroleum revenue through -- well, then we end there or maybe, we create a third, a sub- clause 3 for it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon
    Minority Leader, the problem here is to stabilise so if there is an increase, if there is excess, there is not so much of a problem. The problem comes up when there is a shortfall.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no! When COCOBOD was established, cushioning -- it is to cushion against shocks, whether positive or negative. Whether positive or negative, otherwise, you would say that when the price goes up too much, then everything should be paid to the farmers.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    We are
    talking about when there is petroleum revenue shortfall. It is to cushion it when there is petroleum revenue shortfall.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that fact is known. Stabilisation does not only refer to shortfalls.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    I agree with you but in this context -
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what context? What we defined for stabilisation would mean what the context is and that is why Mr Speaker, if you go to clause 12 (2), it covers what I am talking about. It covers what I am talking about except I am saying that we should disaggregate. So we would have
    it as part of the object in clause 10; so when we come to clause 11, it will also be captured. That is all that I am saying, otherwise, it -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    I think that I will agree to your other suggestion when we - so that it will be a separate clause, then we can look at it on its own merit and put the Question on it.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, even
    in addition to what my Leader has just said, I just would like to ask a question -- what determines public expenditure capacity? How do we determine that? Is the Government going to determine it on its own public expenditure capacity? That will mean that every year, the Government could decide to increase public expenditure in anticipation of a shortfall, so that it would then come back to rely on -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, we have passed that stage.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we
    have not passed that stage; please, listen to what I am saying. Let me speak --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    We have gone past there. Hon Appiah-Kubi, that is why the amendment has come to limit it to -- if you know that you are going to get an X amount from petroleum revenue, so if at the end of the financial year or somewhere along the line and there are some developments and you get X minus on the petroleum revenue alone, then you can fall on it.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let us
    take the example of 2007 -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon
    Member -
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, excuse

    I am saying this because it should first receive the excess revenue we obtain from petroleum receipts and then as savings, upon which it will serve as the basis of cushioning future shortfalls in expenditure. That will take care of the concern of the Hon Minority Leader because we cannot say that the receipts of excess petroleum revenue into the Stabilisation Fund is not part of the object.

    I think this should be taken into serious consideration because the fund itself should first take on board the excess petroleum revenue before we can use it to cushion. Because I am very sure we cannot use an empty fund, Mr Speaker, we cannot use an empty fund to cushion shortfalls. So we should take what the Hon Minority Leader said into consideration and consider another amendment.
    Mr Avedzi 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is true that we cannot use an empty fund and the source of fund into the Stabilisation Fund is from the Petroleum Holding Fund, which, if you go to clause 12, it has addressed that where the Stabilisation Fund will be receiving the money from. So if we do that amendment in clause 10, it means that in clause 11, we will be doing a similar amendment in subclause (2) and then clause 12 will be redundant. So, we should maintain the clause 12 and therefore, the amendment should not be carried.
    Mr Boafo 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the concerns
    of the Hon Member is taking care of by the combined effect of clause 12 and clause 24. And there is no need for us to repeat it, otherwise, the Bill will be very bulky.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my reason
    is not of the bulkiness or otherwise. My understanding is very simple. Subclause (2) only seeks to contain an adverse impact, nothing else. By the formula, if there is excess revenue, for example, if Government projects crude oil at US$70 per barrel and it goes to US$80 per barrel,
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon
    Appiah-Kubi, if you want to file an amendment, let me look at the amendment, then I will put the Question, and then I will be very clear. I will be very clear with what you want to propose.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon Appiah-Kubi, if you have an amendment, let me have the rendition and then we will know how to -
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just
    want us to ponder over an issue similar to what happened in 2007, when oil prices increased to about 147 per cent. We all knew that, that was not sustainable. A Government could then decide to budget on the basis of that figure, in anticipation that when the prices come down, it will then fall back to the Stabilisation Fund. That is the danger that I would like us to beware of.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon
    Dr Appiah-Kubi, the situation you are talking about is entirely different from this amendment, so you have to bring an amendment to address the point you are raising. You are making a point but it is different from what we are trying to address here. You can file a proper amendment and we will look at it.
    Mr Simon Osei-Mensah 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to file another amendment against the one we just passed. I think clause 10 (2) should read:
    “ T h e o b j e c t o f t h e G h a n a Stabilisation Fund is to receive part of the excess petroleum revenue so as to cushion the impact on or sustain public expenditure capacity during periods of unanticipated petroleum shortfalls”.
    each of those funds will get extra.
    So, by implication, the Stabilisation Fund will get more, the Heritage Fund will get more, so a whole lot of amount going to the Budget. But this is designed to cure only one thing and that is petroleum revenue shortfall, either by price, quantity or royalty, you name it. So I think it is sufficient the way the amendment has been proposed.
    Prof. G.Y. Gyan Baffour 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think Members should not belabour this issue. The Stabilisation Fund is not going to be put somewhere infinitum. It is going to be actually used -- we will put some money in the Budget, that Stabilisation Fund eventually gets itself into the Budget. So it is not something that is going to sit somewhere else. So I think we should disabuse our minds of the fact that it is savings that is going to be there forever. It is actually part of the Budget. Eventually, if next year, we have we have a shortfall, it comes into the Budget. So we should not worry about that aspect of it here.
    Alhaji Mubarak 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just for
    emphasis. Whether you get an increase in excess revenue as a result of increased production or as a result of an increase in price, the formula is that, as it stands now, it is 70 30. So once there is excess, you anticipated that you were going to get 90 million, now you get one hundred million. Thirty million is going to be disbursed for Heritage and Stabilisation. So the Stabilisation, like my Hon Ciolleague for Old Tafo said, will also receive more.
    But the essence of this is in an unlikely event or in a situation where your anticipated revenue from petroleum products falls, then you can then look into the Stabilisation Fund to make up the difference. That is the main essence. Yes, it is true, in terms of excess, unless

    otherwise, Members are of the view that, any time there is excess, the whole of that excess should be taken without regard to the formula into the Fund but other than that, automatically, the formula will give more to the Stabilisation Fund.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon Members, I put the Question and the Motion has been carried.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, the point being articulated is well appreciated and understood. I was only saying that you are talking about the object and the object is not established to be withdrawn from. That is not the only function. I was trying to see whether we could not capture it. I drew attention to clause 12 (2) but Mr Speaker, the Committee Chairman himself has proposed an amendment to delete that portion from the provision. That is why I said for the avoidance of doubt, we could relocate there because the object is not only to draw from but also to put into.
    That is all that I meant. It is not as if I did not understand the point being made. I understand it. I appreciate it but the object of establishing it is not only to draw from the account or the Fund but to also put something inside and in particular, when you come to clause 12 (2), where it is provided. We have now proposed that it should be deleted and so, I said for the avoidance of doubt, we should relocate there but if you think that we do not need it, well.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, let me put the Question on clause 10.
    Mr W. O. Boafo 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, earlier,
    I had referred the House to the expressed “unanticipated”. Mr Speaker, I just want a comment from the Chairman. What
    about anticipated but unpreventable shortfalls? You anticipate it but you have no control over it and it happens. Would the Stabilisation Fund not go to its rescue?
    In other words, can we do awary with “unanticipated” and just say “shortfalls”?
    Mr Avedzi 12:25 p.m.
    If it is ‘anticipated', it would have taken care of in determining the benchmark revenue. If you anticipate it, you use it in determining the benchmark revenue. It is not a problem there. It is only when you do not anticipate it and it happens, that will have an effect on the benchmark revenue and for that matter, what could have gone into the Budget and what would have gone into the Stabilisation Fund would be affected. There, you will fall on the Stabilisation Fund to cushion it.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 10 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill
    Clause 11 - Establishment of the Ghana Heritage Fund.
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 11, Headnote, after “Establishment” Insert “Object”.
    Mr Speaker this is consequential to the earlier one.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Clause 11.
    Mr Hackman Owusu-Agyemang 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I will need some little explanation on clause 11. It is creating a bit of confusion for me.
    11 (2) - “The object of the Heritage Fund is to provide an endowment
    to support the welfare of future generations after the underground petroleum has been depleted.”
    In the amendment, it says also that after the petroleum reserves are depleted.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon Member, let them move the amendment first. The amendment has not yet been moved.
    Mr Owusu-Agyemang 12:25 p.m.
    I wanted an
    explanation.
    Mr. First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    No, no.
    Let the amendment be moved.
    Mr Owusu-Agyemang 12:25 p.m.
    All right,
    that is fine.
    Mr Avedzi 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    move, clause 11, subclause 2, line 1, before “Heritage” insert “Ghana” and wherever “Heritage Fund” appears in the Bill and in line 2, delete all the words after “generations” and insert “when the petroleum reserves are depleted.”
    Mr Speaker, the purpose of this Heritage Fund is to provide an endowment to support the welfare of future generations. So, the amendment is seeking to establish and have a better rendition that when underground petroleum is depleted but when the petroleum reserves are depleted and petroleum reserves have been defined in the Bill.
    Mr Owusu-Agyemang 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as I said, I have a difficulty with clause 11 because -- even the amendment says “when the petroleum reserves are depleted'. Does that mean that the people to be born will wait -- if for example, the petroleum reserves keep going on for one hundred years, then you are not really utilizing it? So I have a difficulty in understanding that.
    I believe that the younger generations, if they are 20 years, another 50 , 60 years, they will be 70, 80, they may be gone and
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    The
    merger is only in terms of the inflows. Look at the Headnotes. They have not merged it. It is rather in clause 12, you are talking about clause 11.
    Mr Owusu-Agyemang 12:25 p.m.
    I am just
    giving the reason why I have difficulty with that because when you come to clause 12, it merges the two and if it merges the two, how do you safeguard the ones that you say it is for posterity? It is for the future generation and then you have also ways and means of withdrawing from it. So at the end of the day, the Heritage Fund may find that it has all been withdrawn and the Fund does not exist.
    So therefore, Mr Speaker, I have great difficulty in understanding why the framers of this law should say that until the resources are finished. It must be used to the extent that future generations can benefit from it - Nigeria has been producing oil for so long and therefore, the Heritage Fund under these circumstances, could not be used. That is what we are saying.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    The Hon Member for Wenchi strongly raised some of these points during the Second Reading, so let us take some few points and that we take the thinking of the House
    on the use of the Heritage Fund.
    Mr Owusu-Agyemang 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    I am talking about the amendment; until the thing is finished -- that is what is bothering me. Otherwise, the children need to use it before they die off. For ten years, twenty years, or eighty years, then they cannot have access to it to use for their own thing and before you know, it has been taken up by the Stabilisation Fund and everything is finished. I do not agree, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Humado 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have also
    looked at the rendition very closely and I want to propose that the Heritage Fund can be established but it should become operational after a certain number of years, because the present economic situation; we have demands, the basis be laid for the future generation.
    The future generation will not come and build the economy the way - we have to lay the foundation, therefore, I will propose that the Heritage Fund should be established but we should agree on a certain number of years after which it should become operational and I want to propose ten years.
    Secondly, in the same amendment is the use of the words “petroleum reserve”. The understanding of petroleum reserve may be obvious but to the extent that it is not captured in the Interpretations, leaves it to different understanding. So, I would accept the amendment, provided “petroleum reserve” is defined in clause 64 under the Interpretations.
    Mr Asaga 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that
    at the Committee level, there was an explanation to all these, and we think that future generation also deserve to benefit from the resources today. I think that they deserve to benefit. My rendition for this should rather be that it should be reviewed

    every five years or every ten years so that if there is the need, then we can draw on it for development against future generation.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    So you are
    saying that the utilisation of the Heritage Fund should be reviewed every five years?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    By
    Mr Asaga 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so I will go
    for a review every ten years.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Ten
    years?
    Mr Asaga 12:35 p.m.
    Yes.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    I think what the Hon Member for New Juaben North (Mr Hackman Owusu- Agyemang) was saying was that when you said that the money should be kept until we have depleted the resources underground, it is going to be hundred years, because the one that we have there now, we have still not depleted it.
    The one in Saltpond, we have not depleted it but it does not give us anything. So let us put a limit to it; maybe, fifty years, thirty years, after that time that is when we should use it. Otherwise, it would be there, we keep coming up with new finds and then it will be there for perpetuity.
    Nobody wants that in perpetuity, we need to do something with it, so we have to terminate it at some point and that is his point of argument.
    Mr Terkpeh 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the issue
    at stake has been discussed at length and the compromise for review may be considered by the House. Indeed, one of the points that was made in the course
    of the discussions is, at which point do you establish for example, a sovereign wealth fund, which countries have had reserves established for the purposes of an alternative investment vehicle including even risky investments as we have in places like the Emirates?
    So, the point being made is considered, this is a point which has been felt strongly that this Fund is in perpetuity. But in doing so, Mr Speaker, the object of the Heritage Fund must be borne in mind, it is to invest in future generations but it is also to protect current generations in consolidating the reserves of the country and establishing a strong external side of the economy particularly, the equality of the currency. Because with strong reserves, you are also able to send a strong signal to the market that you have the wherewithal to have a stable micro- economic environment.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we
    all accept the idea that petroleum is a finite commodity and that is why the memorandum attached to this Bill goes from the premise that - This petroleum revenue should be used for the benefit of current and future generation -- If the oil as a finite commodity belongs to the current and future generations then the Heritage Fund is the right fund, the right share for the future generations. I believe if we or this sort of thing had been done for the current generation in the past, from other resources like gold, cocoa, we will not be suffering as we are doing at the moment.
    I would like to support the idea that the Heritage Fund should be made to function immediately because the oil is a finite commodity and if you look at countries which have had oil, it is going to last them less than hundred years. [Interruptions.] People are saying hundred years, one hundred and fifty years, it is never true. The oil has lasted or it is going to last less than hundred years, and if we agree on that, then we should start putting that of
    the future generation aside for them.
    So, I will like to support the Bill as it stands now.
    Mr Avoka 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that while I appreciate the fact that we should establish this Fund, I think that its commencement is very important and critical.
    Mr Speaker, against the challenges that we have now -- our developmental challenges that we have now, I am of the firm belief that having provided for the establishment of the Fund in the law, we should talk about its commencement after five years. Mr Speaker, I do not want us to believe that when we talk about the future generation benefiting, they are only going to benefit from cash.
    Supposing we use the Petroleum Revenue Fund today to build an airport, how many of us in this Chamber, like some intimated the other day, are going to live for the next thirty or forty years -- beyond forty years to benefit from the airport but future generations will benefit from it.
    Mr Speaker, our first President Osagyefo Dr Kwame Nkrumah is not alive, we are benefiting from the motorway, we are benefiting from the Akosombo Dam, we are going to benefit from the Job 600, the State House. He built this conference hall we are in today, we are benefiting from it. So who says that if we use the money today to develop Ghana, future generations are not going to benefit?

    Mr Speaker, I think we must be realistic

    as a country. [Interruptions.] Ten years would have been a good number of years, then we can develop the country. After ten years, we start contributing to the

    Heritage Fund and the Stabilisation Fund, that is all. We should not be ostriches. [Interruptions.] I believe that with all humility Mr Speaker -- [Interruptions.]

    Mr Speaker, so I want to plead with

    Hon Colleagues, that if we do not develop today, even if we keep millions of dollars for the next 20 years or 30 years, it will become meaningless. What we can use ten million dollars to do today, in the next 10, 15 to 20 years, we might use hundred million dollars and may not be available. So for the first 10 years, let us concentrate and develop the country, let us put mechanisms in place for transparency, accountability and monitoring.

    If we have those structures in place that can monitor the efficient use of the resource, let us do it now, rather than keep money there for future generations when we are uncertain. Let us develop the country for the future generation to come and know that when we were Hon Members of Parliament (MPs) this is what we have also contributed to the development of this country.
    Mr Owusu-Agyemang 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe my Friend the Hon Majority Leader got it all wrong.
    Mr Speaker, it cannot be said that when you are making provision for future generations, you must be awash with billions of dollars before you do that. This is because even the poor man in my village also thinks of the future for the children. So, I do not believe that you have to wait for a long time and use the money anyhow; this is a brilliant idea.
    Norwegians and very few countries have Heritage Fund and I believe that if we must implement it, there is not much point in postponing it for 10 years or five years or one year. It must go as soon as
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Hon Member, he is saying that after five or 10 years, we can start using it; this is what he is saying.
    Mr Owusu-Agyemang 12:45 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, what the Hon Majority Leader was saying was different from what was said by our Hon Friend here; so the two are different. I do not have any difficulty supporting our Hon Friend from Anlo but 10 years, I think, Mr Speaker, it is a bit too short. We have difficulties, we are managing to move this country along, and I believe that we should start using the Heritage Fund, maybe, after 30, 40 50 years, but not 10 years.
    This is because if we do not do that governments, whichever side they come from, have a way of using money and at the end of the day, the Heritage Fund, I bet you, will not see the light of day. If we leave this thing to any government, to your right or left side of the House, it may not see the light of day.
    So, let us establish it and make sure it is insulated from being used by anybody and it is operational from day one as we start the business. That the younger generation out there will know that we are thinking of them, but not that we want to spend the money now and then they may -- That is what I want done.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Hon Members, let us structure the discussion. There is a strong feeling that yes, the principle behind the establishment of the Heritage Fund is good, but we cannot link it to the depletion of the reserves because we do not know when these reserves are
    going to get depleted. So, we should put a cap on it, after 30, 30 or 40 years. That is the thinking now.
    Let me get the idea and let me get the amendment, so that I can -- Others too say that we should use all the money until after five years before we establish tyhe Heritage Fund. Those are the two views.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just a point of information. The phrase “petroleum reserves are depleted” is going to be defined in such a way that there will be a time limit on it. If you look at how one of proposed amendments “petroleum reserves” has been defined such that the case of the Saltpond issue does not arise. So there is a time limit on it. Mr Speaker, with your permission, let me read that definition:
    “It means that production that can be economically extracted from petroleum resources and which is anticipated to be commercially recoverable.”
    There is a limit -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Hon Member, you are limiting it to the economic viability of the reserves. This a law that applies to the whole country. What about if another period we discover oil again in another place? The reserve will still be there, so there is a problem with that definition.
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am proposing an amendment, that the Heritage Fund starts now. I beg to move, after the “future generations”, insert “after every 10 years”. So after every 10 years, we empty it for development and then we start - [Uproar.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    No, no. Hon Member, if you empty the whole
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Do you know the name of the future fields?
    Dr Prempeh 12:45 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, I can tell you two -- one is coming very near you, which is a field. So Mr Speaker, I want to appeal to the Leadership of the House that we should agree to stand it down; let us go and reflect because every field has a duration of life; we can say that we are going to spend five or 10 years of every field in saving but we cannot keep all Heritage Fund for all Fields into one basket, I believe it will be wrong.
    This is because if we are listening to what my Hon Brother said, if we are going to review after every ten years and the fields get depleted and we do not know the circumstance in five years, what happens? [Interruption.] Yes, it has happened in Mexico. If we care to know, one of their longest sea wells, when they started exploring after two years, they realized that all their data was wrong.
    Dr Prempeh 12:55 p.m.
    It happens all over the world, so let us treat the Heritage Fund separately from the Stabilisation Fund that is going to cushion us in times of economic shortfalls. Let us stand the Heritage Fund down and let us go and think about it and let us both agree and go forward.
    Mr Fifii Kwetey 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am glad about the amount of intense
    thing, then you defeat the purpose.
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you review it every 10 years, but my position is that we should start now. You cannot say because you are not making enough income, you will not make some savings, neither would you want to be saving forever. It is important that you save but then every 10 years, you review the position. So, Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (2), line 2, after “future generations”, insert “reviewed”, and after “after”, insert “every 10 years”, so the rendition will now read:
    (2) “The object of the Heritage Fund is to provide an endowment to support the welfare of future generations reviewed after every 10 years”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon Members, we have discussed this matter enough. I want to take concrete amendments from the floor, otherwise, we will be tempted to go back to the principles.
    Dr Prempeh 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to bring this House's attention and distinguish between the “Stabilisation Fund” and “Heritage Fund”. Mr Speaker, both sides of the House can be right on this argument. Those who are supporting. “Let us spend now” can be right and those who are saying “Let us save and spend after a period of time” can also be right. Why am I saying that?

    When are we going to end? But every responsible person will tell you, “save between 15 to 20 per cent of your

    discussion that this particular Heritage Fund is generating. The truth is that, even at the level of Cabinet, this is the same amount of intense debate that it generated. Now, it shows that across the table, there is a certain desire to make sure that we do what is really, really good for the country.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Is it point of order?
    Mr Owusu-Boateng 12:55 p.m.
    Yes, on a point of order. Mr Speaker, I am surprised. I think the Hon Deputy Minister is actually saying things that he has no power to say, misleading the House. He is saying when they attended Cabinet meetings I do not know whether Deputy Ministers attend Cabinet Meetings. I need your guidance.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon Member, under the practice, anybody can be invited. You may not necessarily be a Cabinet member but you can be invited to attend Cabinet meetings. Even though you are not a Cabinet member, you can be invited to attend.
    Mr Kwetey 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the point I am making is that, increasingly, as a nation, we are going to be servicing loans that are going to be costing us in the region of about 8 per cent, 8.5 per cent, similar to, for example, what we are at the moment
    servicing on the Eurobond. Eurobond which we are paying over the next seven years, and we are paying on an annual basis, an interest of 8.5 per cent.
    Talking about setting up a Heritage Account - This is an account which is going to be invested, first and foremost, outside of our jurisdiction, meaning there is no direct economic benefit to the nation. This is because it is completely going to be in places like the United States of America and in other dispensations.
    Two, you are going to be earning on that Heritage Account, anything in the region of about 2 per cent because at the moment, qualifying instrument -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Minister, we are now at the Consideration Stage, which is more clause specific. We have passed the principle stage, so look at the clauses there and if you want to subtract some words or add some words, you do so. Please, continue.
    Mr Kwetey 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the point I just wanted to make was that, actually, we would have sided more towards what the Hon Majority Leader has proposed -- a situation where, given the tentative nature of our economy over, at least, the first 10 years, we do not operationalise the Heritage Fund and till after ten years, when we start taking a look at it. This is because as a country, we need not put ourselves in a situation where we are going to be servicing interests that are going to be heavy while getting very limited interest on the Heritage Account, until we see how things span out after the first 10 years.
    Mr Dominic B. A. Nitiwul 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you look at the formula for the disbursement or the allocations, in principle, the Heritage Fund takes just about 9 per cent of the 100 per cent. If somebody would tell me that despite
    Mr Boafo 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to support the proposal to have the Heritage Fund withdrawals reviewed. As has rightly been pointed out, we cannot have this in perpetuity. Hence, Mr Speaker, proposed amendment: “Despite clause 21 of this Bill, Parliament shall be entitled to review the withdrawal from the Heritage Fund at the intervals of twenty years from the commencement of this Bill”.
    Mr Buah 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr Speaker, I do that by making two points.
    One, there is real value in having reserves, and I believe that the Heritage Fund will really bring real value. It is going to strengthen the macro-economy; it is going to really give us the kind of standing we need to borrow money for the infrastructural investment that we are talking about. And Mr Speaker, I support my Colleagues that we review this every ten years.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Some are saying “ten”, others are saying “twenty”. Hon Members, do we defer it and get -
    Mr Owusu-Agyemang 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, one little clarification. In making laws, we should be absolutely clear. The word being used here is “review”. What precisely do those who are proposing a review mean? What does “review” mean? If we do not define “review”, we would have a problem.
    Some Hon Members think “review” means that after ten years, you can use it; other Hon Members mean that maybe, after ten years, you can increase the percentage or lower the percentage. So we do need to define the word “review”.

    the fact that the Budget allocation is combined with the Stabilisation Fund, which takes about 91 per cent, he would still not be satisfied that we want only the 9 per cent to grow. I am afraid, it would not wash.

    Mr Speaker, I want to make an amendment and I support the position of those who think that we should review the processes or the principles behind the Heritage Fund after every ten years instead of limiting it or leaving it till when the reserves are depleted.

    I also support those who think that the Heritage Fund can be by two-thirds majority of Hon Members of Parliament. If we think that at that time we should use it, if we think that at that time we should let it continue, then two-thirds majority should be needed.

    So Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (2) should read:

    “The object of the Heritage Fund is to provide an endowment to support the welfare of future generations”.

    Then, every word after that should be deleted and we insert “but its operations should be reviewed by not less than two-thirds majority of Members of Parliament after every ten years.” That is the way I would have gone and that is my amendment that I am proposing that we should establish it now but that its operations and principles and rules should be reviewed after every ten years by not less than two-thirds majority of Members of Parliament.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to support the new proposal of my good Friend, Hon Nitiwul, that the new rendition should end just after “future generations”, then we add “but it should be supported by a review after every twenty years” instead of “ten years”.
    If it means “utilisation”, then twenty years, thirty years, fine, but we start now. What do they mean by review? It has to be made clear otherwise, we shall run into problems in future.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we have listened to many arguments and I would pray that we stand this particular provision down for further consultations. The reason being that there are many sides to the arguments that are being raised by Hon Colleagues. Perhaps, we may need to reconcile and harmonize some. I, for instance, believe that even the use of the word “welfare” -- I am not too comfortable with the use of the word “welfare”, which connotes provision of some comfort.
    I th ink we a re t a lk ing about development. Maybe, we have to look at all these things, and given the way we are going forwards and backwards, I guess we may stand that one down for further consultations.
    Mr Avoka 1:05 p.m.
    In the light of the diverse interests and concerns, I support the Minority Leader that we defer this, consult further and come back with a better amendment. I agree that if we talk about welfare, that one is questionable. We can talk about the development of the country in the future; not just welfare. Welfare is different from development, even though it can also include development. So, we can defer that clause.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, are we taking the other amendments? There are other amendments to clause 11 there. [Pause.] Hon Catherine Afeku?
    Dr Prempeh 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought we were deferring the whole of clause 11 so that she would be invited to that meeting and maybe, she might not even
    have any amendments.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Those amendments are different from what we have discussed so far.
    Dr Prempeh 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the reason they are bringing those amendments would be better served if we call those Hon Members to that meeting, so that we could reconcile.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Avoka 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that they address different issues. We are talking about whether to make savings now or not and we are also talking about whether to review the condition after ten years or not. We are not talking about whether we should keep for another region or another person or not; it is a different matter.
    So, we can address those issues. We can take those amendments.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker if you look at those amendments, it is a matter between development and savings; so it is the same matter. She is asking that you “chop some”. That is all. So it is better that we meet about it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, let us just defer it so that we can make progress.
    Clause 12 - The Ghana Stabilisation Fund and Ghana Heritage Fund inflows.
    Mr Avedzi 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12, subclause 2, line 2, delete all the words after “Account” and insert “petroleum revenue in excess of the Annual Budget Funding Amount” - [Interruption.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon Members, order! Yes, Hon Chairman.
    law a bit murky and not too clear. So let us have the Ghana Heritage Fund and the -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon Member, if you look at the Headnote, it is talking about the inflows, so it only relates to inflows -
    Mr Owusu-Agyemang 1:05 p.m.
    Yes, that is
    what I am saying -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    That is why they have merged them.
    Mr Owusu-Agyemang 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is precisely what I am saying. It looks as if the two Funds are between the same base and the same parallel as they say -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, does the amendment that you are proposing tell us the percentages that would flow into the the Stabilisation and the Heritage Funds? You say the excess, but does it tell us the percentage that would go into each Fund?
    Mr Avedzi 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have that one; I think in clause 19. How the excess fund would be shared between the two, is taken care of in clause 19.
    Dr Prempeh 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I tend to support the statement you have just made. We have not got to clause 19 and he is introducing excess funds here. It is like we are preventing Hon Members from going further than necessary. This one must be very, very clear. I think if we are giving specific percentages, let us know and he should let us put it there and then the excess becomes a bonus for these Funds. As it stands, if the Annual Budget Funding Amount is just equal to what the Petroleum Holding Fund receives, that means, nothing goes into the Ghana Petroleum Funds.
    Mr Speaker, even clause (I), it is the collective of the Ghana Heritage Fund and the Ghana Stabilisation Fund that we
    future generations”. Then we add, “It shall receive funding from the . . .” This makes it is very clear -- It shall receive funding from “a”, “b”, “c”, “d”.
    Then you come to the Stabilisation Fund. There also, you add, “It shall receive fund from “a”, “b”, “c”, “d”. The moment you put them together, even if it is for inflow purposes, it becomes murky. That is not how to make a law. It becomes murky; it is not clear. Anybody who takes this law in future should be clear in his mind what precisely we are talking about.
    We can collapse clause 12 into clause 11 and say that, “It shall receive funds from the petroleum” something rather than putting them together and make it “Funds” and everybody gets the impression that the two Funds are being merged, when in fact, they are not being merged. This is my difficulty.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Chairman, you even see that subclause 1 of clause 12 is establishing the “Ghana Petroleum Fund”, so the amendment there should be “Ghana Petroleum Fund”. Have you seen the subclause (1)?
    Mr Avedzi 1:05 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker. In that case, we need to amend the Headnote because the subclause (1) of clause 12 actually establishes the “Ghana Petroleum Funds” which is the merger of the two. Or, the two put together and called “Ghana Petroleum Funds”. We can then amend the Headnote to read, “Establishment of Ghana Petroleum Fund”.
    I wanted to bring the inflow into the -
    Mr Humado 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, even before we amend subclause (1) of clause 12, the way the rendition stands is inconsistent with the interpretation. If we look at the interpretation, that is not what is said in subclause (1). The interpretation refers to three (3) Funds -- to the Petroleum
    Mr Avedzi 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the new
    rendition for subclause (2) of clause 12 will now read:
    “The Ghana Stabilisation Fund and the Ghana Heritage Fund shall both receive from the Petroleum Holding Fund, petroleum revenue in excess of the Annual Budget Funding Amount”.
    Mr Speaker, the purpose of this is that, both Funds can only receive from the Petroleum Holding Fund, any difference between 100 per cent and a percentage for the Annual Budget Funding Amount. So, if we are setting the Annual Budget Funding Amount by 70 per cent, the difference would then go into these two Funds. But if we are setting the percentage for the Annual Budget Funding Amount to 80 per cent, it means that 20 per cent would go into these two Funds.
    So we want this rendition to take care of the difference, the excess of the benchmark revenue above the Annual Budget Funding Amount, which should be taken into the Ghana Stabilization Fund and the Ghana Heritage Fund.
    Mr Owusu-Agyemang 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    laws should be made in such a way that posterity can read them and understand. For starters, I do not see why the Stabilisation Fund and the Heritage Fund are captured together.
    Indeed, when I read it at first, one of my Hon Colleagues said, they will be different. I suppose there is no need to capture both the Ghana Stabilisation Fund and the Ghana Heritage Fund in clause 12. So for starters, I think Ghana Heritage Fund must stand on its own and the Stabilisation Fund must also stand on its own. But putting them together the way it is, the impression is created that you have merged the two Funds. You go further to clauses 13 and 14 -- before you begin to see that the two Funds are different.
    They all can come from the funding receipts from the Petroleum Account, but they have to be different. I do not see the essence of the merger. It would make the
    are calling “Ghana Petroleum Fund”, not Funds. So, it cannot be “Funds” when you say “collective”, that means, you have brought them together, it is one Fund.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that what my Hon Colleague is saying is that, perhaps, it is a matter of precedence and that, before we get to -- In other words, it appears that clause 19 should be preceding this clause, and then clauses 12, 13 and the rest should follow, so that it would become neater. I think, the drafters should be able to do that one for us.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Let us agree first. Then the placement can be for the draftspersons. Let us agree to what we want to do, then the placement comes.
    Mr Terkpeh 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wish
    to draw the attention of the Honourable House to the fact that clause 12 talks about inflows and clause 13 follows immediately with withdrawals, therefore, it is looking at these two Funds.
    On the other points made by the Hon Member, the reason they are put together and called “Petroleum Funds” is that going forward, we would see that these are the two Funds which are placed under the management of the Central Bank and they refer to their management under the Petroleum Funds. The plural is used because, to all intents and purposes, they are not managed as one fund.
    There are separate conditions, for example, for withdrawal as we have been discussing. There are separate conditions even for the way they are operated. I want to make these points of clarification.
    Mr Owusu-Agyemang 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what we have to do is, if we take the Ghana Heritage Fund, “The object of the Heritage Fund is to provide an endowment to support the welfare of
    Dr Prempeh 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if I listened carefully to the Hon Deputy Minister, he explained that the word should be “Funds” because they are going to be managed by the Central Bank separately and that is why they did not say “collectively” - The Hon Minister said there were going to be three (3) Funds and withdrawals from those Funds are going to be separate, and they are going to be managed separately. It is not one Fund. I understand his point.
    But Mr Speaker, the issue is, let us make it so simple by taking the inflow to where that Fund has been established. If we do not do that -- As clause 12 (2) stands, it is only the excess revenue that is going to go into these Funds, which is not the point because from the Petroleum Holding Fund, some amount of money is going to go into these Funds directly, anyway. If it is excess revenue that we are apportioning, let us take it under where we have established the Fund and where that Fund is going to get its inflow and let it be neat and remain there.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Are you suggesting that we collapse subclause 2?
    Dr Prempeh 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what I am really suggesting is that we delete the whole clause 12 and re-arrange the inflows to where, for example, when we go to the Ghana Heritage Fund, we put it there, and when we go to the Ghana Stabilisation Fund, we put it there and it makes it so simple and then we go on.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think before the Hon Minister tries to explain this to us -- he should explain
    this to us, the rational behind collapsing the two Funds into one. What is the rational behind that? Is he anticipating something, that is why he wants the Ghana Petroleum Fund as one and the two Funds collapsing into one?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Hon
    Deputy Minister, if the object is different, if the purpose of the Fund is different, then why do you collectively refer to them as one?
    Mr Terkpeh 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I did
    explain that for the purposes of managing the two Funds, they are all to be guided by the prudential requirements of the Central Bank, to the extent that they contain balances. And therefore, when it comes to the aspects of management and prudent management of those resources as the Bill mandates or proposes to mandate the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning and the Central Bank, then there is a commonality.
    Mr Speaker, I also mentioned that when
    it comes to other parts of the Bill, for example, the purpose of the Stabilisation Fund as opposed to the purpose of the Heritage Fund, the inflows and outflows from those Funds are different. I was suggesting, that is the reason we have the reference to “Funds” instead of one Fund.
    If I may also clarify a point with respect to the Hon Member for Manhyia. The word “excess” - you would note, is used in relation to the Petroleum Account which we changed to the “Holding Fund” and this goes to the formula. So it is the excess of what goes to the Annual Budget Funding Account that flows into these two. So the excess is a reference to the amount that would be left after the now Petroleum Holding Fund has been transferred into the Annual Budget Funding Account.
    Dr Prempeh 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that sends a chill down my spine. So the Hon Deputy Minister is trying to say that it is possible
    specific amendment.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    so you see; I said “let us advert our minds to it, so that if we did so for the Heritage Fund, we would be home and dry, then we would not need clause 12 (2)”. Now that we are there, I will propose that in place of “excess” -- because all the while, we are talking about a percentage. Why are we running away from that formulation? We are not talking about the quantum of percentage.
    We could say that “a percentage of the petroleum revenue”. We are talking about percentage, not “excess”, so why are we not being neat about this and trying to avoid certain - we are not talking about percentage here but it is a percentage -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    At this
    stage, we are not talking about excess, it is the percentage.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:15 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, absolutely.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    And then
    when we get to the specifics, then we will know what percentage to talk about.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    for now, we are talking about percentage.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Hon
    Chairman, for now, we should be talking about percentage, in other words, part of -
    Mr Ntiwul 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was just thinking aloud that where are the “Achimota” people because we are - the budgeting funding as proposed by the proponents is 70 per cent and we are looking at any percentage beyond what will be for the budgetary funding. So I was asking where were the “Achimota” people because -
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the
    “Achimota” people are here. I want two things. I think that following from what
    that in a certain year, even though we have set up the Stabilisation and Heritage Fund, zero funds will flow into it? That is why the use of the word “excess” confuses this matter. That is all I am saying. If it is no, then the “excess” here confuses the matter.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Hon
    Member for Manhyia, if you look at the amendment standing in the name of the Hon Chairman at clause 12, it explains that “excess” but it is not clear in the original rendition. The amendment there is after you have taken the Annual Budget Funding, whatever is left, is what goes into both the Heritage Fund and the Stabilisation Fund.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the law at this point does not know the Annual Budget Funding Amount. So if he says “excess”, when it is not known to the law, it becomes a bit confusing. That was why he was suggesting that the Annual Budget Fund, that is clause 19, should come before these other clauses because if he says “excess”, excess of what? At that point, the law does not even know whether something is going into the Budget or not, then he starts saying excess should go into this.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Do you see the point that the Hon Member is making? All of a sudden, you introduce Annual Budget Funding Amount, but before then reference has not been made to it.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, first of all, as I indicated at the outset, when we got to clause 10, I suggested that we found space for inflows and it was rejected. But now, that is where we are. We have come round, round and back to square one. If we had done so, then when we came to Ghana Heritage -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    It was
    not rejected; we suggested that you file a
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Again?
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Clause
    12 to -
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, because
    if we do not cure clauses 10 and 11, we would be talking all day about clause 12.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, the Hon Minority Leader has actually made a point, that what we have to do, is to make a statement, that part of the Holding Fund will go into the Stabilisation and the Heritage Fund and that cures the inflow issue. So, where to put it -- we should all agree where to put that.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am
    offering an amendment. If we step clause 12 down, it would be captured in
    clause 10. [Interruptions.] Please, wait, Chairman. What is wrong with you? I am trying to help you do your work and you are acting as if I am against you. How?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    For now,
    what we should be doing, we should not be talking about “excess”. We should rather be talking about what goes into the Stabilisation Fund. We said “part of”, or “percentage of”, so and so goes into different funds.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the object
    of the Ghana Stabilisation Fund is to receive part of the benchmark revenue to cushion the impact on, or sustain -- and the rest will come - receipts.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    If you say that, then you also have to repeat it for the Ghana Heritage Funds because the same principle applies to the Ghana Heritage Fund.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I intend
    to do that, precisely.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Let me get
    the rendition. Put it down on paper and let me have it and then I can -
    Mr Avedzi 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as the
    Ranking Member offered to give the rendition, he should take note of not only the receipts or the inflow into the Stabilisation and Heritage Funds but what actually goes into it should also be taken care of because if you say “the object of the Stabilisation Fund” is also to receive; what is it going to receive? It should take care of that as well. So, I just want to remind him.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the object of the Ghana Stabilisation Fund is to receive part of the benchmark revenue to cushion the impact, et cetera. Now, I am leaving it at the benchmark revenue,
    move, clause 13, delete and insert the following:
    “(1) Where petroleum revenue collected in any quarter falls below one-quarter of the Annual Budget Funding Amount for that financial year, withdrawals may be made from the Ghana Stabilisation Fund.
    (2) The allowable amount to be withdrawn shall be the lesser of;
    (a) either seventy-five per cent of the estimated amount of the shortfall for that quarter; or
    (b) twenty-five per cent of the balance standing to the credit of the Ghana Stabilisation Fund at the beginning of the financial year.

    (1) In the event of successive petroleum revenue shortfalls in the second and third quarters of the same financial year, the amount to be withdrawn at the end of the third quarter from the Ghana Stabilisation Fund shall be double the allowable amount of the third quarter shortfall.

    (2) If there are successive shortfalls in any of the preceding quarters in the same financial year, the fourth quarter withdrawal from both the Petroleum Holding Fund and the Ghana Stabilisation Fund shall be enough to meet the Annual Budget Funding Amount approved in the Appropriation Bill for that financial year, subject to subsection 20 (2) of this Act.

    (3) Transfer out of the Ghana

    whatever percentage you decide. Period.
    Mr Avedzi 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is receiving
    part of the benchmark revenue but we are saying that, that benchmark revenue, the part that it is receiving, it is the excess of the annual budget funding amount.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Annual
    Budget is not known at this point.
    Mr Avedzi 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you take
    this document, the Annual Budget funding amount is defined in it. Why do you say it is not known?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    No! We
    are moving clause by clause and when he says that it is not known, it means that then, we had not got there. So when you make mention of it, somebody would ask - “what are you talking about?” That is the point that the Ranking Member is making.
    Hon Members, Hon Majority Leader, at least, for now, we have got the principle, why do we not get to harmonize it and then tomorrow we just put it without wasting time on it? What do you say?
    Mr Avoka 1:35 p.m.
    I have no objection.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon
    Minority Leader.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    I believe that is the right way to go.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    At least,
    we have got the principle, so we just harmonize it and then we do not waste too much time on it.
    Clause 13 - Withdrawals from the Ghana Stabilisation Fund.
    Mr Avedzi 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the point
    I was trying to bring my Chairman's attention to -- clause l9, which defines the annual budgetary amount is one of the areas that we have not agreed on until we have done that - that is why I said, it needs to come earlier, otherwise, all these other clauses that depend on it are consequential and we have not worked on it, we have deferred it, the committee could not reach a consensus. So I think that in clause l3 - we cannot withdraw from something that has not been decided on yet.
    So I humbly submit that in clauses13 and 14, any amendment should be deferred. That is why I am saying that, it appears that to deal with the Heritage Fund and the Stabilisation Fund, you must establish the Annual Budget for this amount, otherwise, we would be wasting too much time. It is not established yet. So I humbly submit that we step it down also.
    Mr Asaga 1:35 p.m.
    I do not think that it is clause 19 that defines the Annual Budget Funding Amount because if you go to the interpretation, it is there. So it is already defined. Anywhere you find it, does not mean that we must deal with clause l9 before it can stand.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:35 p.m.
    The Committee has not taken any decision on clause l9.

    So it cannot be defined. That is one of the clauses that we stepped down as a Committee. So when you say that it has been defined -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Members, you know that clause l9 - the percentage has not been agreed upon by the Committee. That is the point that the Hon Ranking Member -- and yet we keep on referring to the annual budget funding means that -- amount before we get to clause l9.
    Mr Asaga 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what I am referring to is page 27 of the original Bill, and I am saying that on page 27, Interpretation -- clause 64, it is defined there -- Annual Budget Funding means that. So it holds for every clause -- so clause 19 is not specifically defining it.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let me try
    and explain. Mr Speaker, it is not -- only l9 - if you look carefully at clauses l7, l8 and l9 and bring them before clauses 12, l3 and l4 because they are all subject to that. But I am saying as a Committee --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon
    Member for Old Tafo, if you agree to clauses l3 and l4, those clauses that you are talking about, how will it affect clause l9? I agree that it would have been neater if clause l9 had come before the clauses l3, l4 and all those things, that one, I agree with you . But in principle - will it negative clause l9? Because clause l9 is only talking about the percentage to be used. Do you see the point I am making? The clause l9 there - what we have not agreed on, is whether it should be 50 per cent or 70 per cent -- that is the main question at clause l9. Would it take anything away from clause l9?
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there
    are several formulae in clauses 13 and 14 which depend on some agreement on clause l9-- it is not just agreeing on small percentages. So that it is neater for me, in my view, to talk about clause l9 and then
    l9, then we have to take the clause l9 first before we do clauses l3 and l4. That is the question that I am asking the members of the Committee. If it will negative something in clause l9, then we have to do clauses l3 and l4. If it will not contradict anything, then we can go ahead and take the clauses l3 and l4 and then we can leave the re-arrangement to the draftsperson. That is the point I am making and I need a member of the Committee to help me on this matter.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I tend to
    agree with you. I think the Hon Member for Wenchi raised a fundamental point as to whether or not there is consensus on the Annual Budget Funding Amount, whether or not it should go as part of the Budget. I think it is fundamental. So if you can settle on that, it will -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    That one,
    we shall all agree whether it is 50 or 70 per cent.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:35 p.m.
    No, no, no.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    What?
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:35 p.m.
    Whether or not it
    should be part of the normal Budget or it should be a separate fund? That is fundamental. There is a big difference.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    But if it is part of the Annual Budget amount, it would be used for the Budget.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:35 p.m.
    That is why I am saying
    that it is not trivial. So let us not -
    Mr Nitiwul 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, during the
    deliberations of the Committee, there were three schools of thought that came. One was whether we should even put the Petroleum Holding Fund into the Budget or we should set it aside as a separate fund. And I remember even on the floor here, some Hon Members argued that look, instead of trying to put the whole thing into
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    there is something more fundamental to the percentages and all that. In clause l9, the agreement is whether the amount that should go to support the Budget is still pending in the committee. We have not decided that -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    It is not
    pending. It is pending in the House -
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 1:35 p.m.
    But when you
    go to clause l3, it starts talking about Annual Budget funding amount - that particular aspect of it has not even been agreed upon. So you cannot be repeating it here.
    Mr Avedzi 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the Bill, we
    have established the Ghana Stabilisation Fund because it is a fund, so we are establishing it. Ghana Heritage Fund, we have established it. The Annual Budget funding amount is not a fund, so first of all, there is no need to establish that. Now, the point that the Hon Ranking Member is making is that, we are making reference to Annual Budget funding amount, meanwhile, at the point, we are now at clauses l2, l3, we do not know what is annual funding amount - I think his issue is about the arrangement of the clauses. If that be the case, we can pull the clause l9 before the clause l3, or the clause l2, so that that issue will be resolved.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    That is
    why I said that in terms of the arrangement, I agree with him. And that was why I was asking him that even if he agrees on this, would it take away anything or negative the clause l9. If it would take anything away or - it would negative the clause
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Members, having regard to the state of Business of the House, I direct that Sitting be held outside the prescribed period in line with Standing Order 40 (3).
    Dr Prempeh 1:35 p.m.
    I want to end. Mr Speaker, let the President through his Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, come to this House to introduce a Bill to say the revenue has fallen, we have already said that this is for that, it has fallen by this amount, so we want to plough it from the Stabilisation Fund or whatever fund. It is simple; Ghanaians can follow. It is accountable and it is transparent. This thirty per cent, forty per cent, sixty-seven per cent, we need mathematicians to compute these things and it will not help governance process in this country in the era of accountability.
    Mr Avedzi 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, first of all, I oppose Hon Nitiwul's position that we should set aside or create a fund separately for the Annual Budget Funding Amount. Mr Speaker, governance is such that tying the hands of Government will make governance very difficult. We have already put measures in place that Government does not use all the petroleum revenue and we are saying that a percentage be used to support the Budget, yet we are saying that that should also be set aside. So I oppose

    the Budget, we could even set it up as a separate fund, so that we could monitor it. That is where the Hon Member for Wenchi is coming from, that once that question has not been settled, it is not the matter of just 50 and 70 per cent, it is not absolute.

    Some are of the view that we should not even put the whole thing into the Budget; we should set it up as a fund and use the money for projects where the Hon Minister will come with his projects lists and locations. So please, I think that it will negate something in clause l9; until clause l9 is determined, I beg to say that we should not be using that term.
    Dr Prempeh 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is one of the two clauses, l3 and l4 that I think we should rather have an enlightened view. I think that the reason both sides are not agreeing here is because -- I do not think it is necessary. These funds - Stabilisation Fund and Heritage Fund are not funds that are being used immediately for development.
    So I believe that the Stabilisation Fund, you only touch it when there is revenue shortfall and the Heritage Fund, we agree that we might use it at certain time that we will agree in this House. So, these two Funds are not funds we are going to use as of now; we have to decide. So why would the Committee not take a step back and decide that, for both the Stabilisation Fund and the Withdrawal Fund, in this particular case, the Stabilisation Fund, if the Hon Minister or the Government so desires that the revenue shortfall has come, they should just apply to Parliament and bring a formula for Parliament to agree.
    Why do we have to put in forty per cent, twenty per cent?
    Mr Speaker, I do not know why we are doing this. If we are in the process of this governance and the petroleum shortfall is,
    that completely.
    When you come to Hon Prempeh's position, the purpose of the Stabilisation Fund is to control the effect of the petroleum revenue of the economy. That is why every year, the benchmark revenue that is calculated, whatever collection is made, a portion goes to the Stabilisation Fund, and if there is a shortfall as we define early on, you go back to the Stabilisation Fund. You do not go there and take everything from the Stabilisation Fund if you do not need all that.
    So, this is a measure that is to control how much is taken from the Stabilisation Fund. That is why I said, whichever is lesser. So it is meant to control the fluctuation in the economy, therefore, if you say we should not put up any procedure on how to go and take that money from the Stabilisation Fund, it means that Government will only come and say, “we have so much in the Stabilisation Fund, he need everything”, then it is emptied. That would be detrimental to the purpose of that Fund.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Members, I thought we had done winnowing for this Bill?
    Dr Prempeh 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he is misleading me -- he is misleading the House and he is misquoting me. I did not say that the Government could take the money. I said the purpose of the Stabilisation Fund is not the definition he has just given. The definition here in this Bill is that when there is a revenue shortfall, the Government can rely on the Stabilisation Fund.
    I am saying that if we have already agreed with that principle, then what we need to say about the withdrawal is simple, that once the Government has assessed that there is a revenue shortfall,
    it should introduce a Bill to Parliament to tell us how much money it needs to cushion itself, not that willy-nilly -- and I think that is simpler. But if we want to go through the long way, fine, we are here.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you asked a question which my Hon Senior Colleague, Hon Dr Akoto Osei answered and I wanted to add to what he said. You asked that if we bring clause 19 before clauses 12 and 13, what would be -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    No. I asked if we take clauses 13 and 14, whether it will take anything away from clause 19.
    Prof . Gyan-Baffour 1:45 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, it will. In order to get better flow of the whole argument, and for people to appreciate and comprehend effectively, I think from clause 17, immediately after clause 11, when we are aware of the Petroleum Holding Account, we are aware of the two Funds -- the Ghana Stabilisation Fund, before we talk about the inflow, we have to move to the disbursement from the Petroleum Holding Account, and that will set the basis for the inflow into the two different accounts and following from there, when we know the disbursement - where the disbursement from the Petroleum Holding Account is moving into, then we move on to talk about the benchmark revenue.
    So we understand what is meant by the benchmark revenue, then we come to the Annual Budget Funding Account. All these terminologies would have cleared. So when we move down from clauses 13 and 14, the flow will be better than what we are doing now. That is why people are getting a bit confused -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Member, this amendment is in the name of the Committee. This amendment that the Chairman is moving, is in the name of the Committee and the presumption is that,
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Member, all of us know that the Petroleum Holding Fund is a holding fund and from it part of it goes into the Stabilisation Fund, part of it goes into the Heritage Fund and then part of it goes into the Annual Budget Funding Account. So the problem - [Interruption.]
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect, the Committee has not agreed, and that is the point Hon Nitiwul is making. It is important that we come to a consensus on whether or not it should go to the Budget or a separate fund.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Members, we have agreed that we are not creating -- if you listen to the debate so far, up to this point, no fund has been created for the Annual Budget amount.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:45 p.m.
    We have created the Holding Fund, we have created the Stabilisation Fund, we have created the Heritage Fund, what we have not agreed on is whether there is something called -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon Ranking Member, you are a former
    “The Committee could also not reach consensus on the Annual Budget Funding Amount as contained in clause 19 (1). Some members advocated for an Annual Budgeting Fund of 50 per cent with the remaining 50 per cent saved for future generations. The members contended that petroleum resources are finite and therefore, an equitable percentage should be saved. Some members however, said that given the infrastructure deficit of the country and the high percentage of donor support for the Budget, it was important that a greater percentage of 70 per cent ...”
    This is the issue of percentage; this is your Committee's Report, which was adopted by the House virtually. This is the Committee's Report. It is not a question of whether it should be a separate fund, it should be established as a fund or not, that issue never cropped up at all, even in the debate of the House.
    Mr Adda 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, indeed, you are right in saying that we did not reach a consensus on the Annual Budget Funding Amount; but the thing is - [Interruptions.] We did agree that there will be Annual Budget Amount, but whether it should go directly into the Consolidated Fund, was something that we discussed and some of us had different views on that.
    Mr Avedzi 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 20
    talks about transfer to the Consolidated Fund; where clause 20 (1) says;
    “Transfer of the Annual Budget Funding Amount from the Petroleum Holding Fund to the Consolidated Fund”.
    There is no amendment to that; that was the decision we arrived at at the Committee level.
    you all agree that this amendment should be moved. If it is not going to affect clause 19, even if this amendment is carried, let me put the Question on it, then we can look at the re-arrangement later. I agree that there is a problem and it has to be re- arranged, then we can put the Question on this, we can do the re-arrangement, then that one will be the draftsperson's matter.
    Mr Nitiwul 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman did not understand me. Mr Speaker, what I said is - when we get to clause 19, maybe, the Chairman can disagree with what I said. But we have not got there yet, so when we get to clause 19, he can disagree.
    What I said was that, there are people who differ in the thought that we should not even put the money into the Budget and that is at clause 19. So if we begin to mention the Budget Funding Amount, we may already be prejudicing what the people will do at clause 19. That is what I was just trying to say that, there are some who will propose or who will say that we should not put the whole money into the Budget, we should treat it as if it is the Common Fund where the Hon Minister comes with a formula. There are people who think like that. That is what I was just trying to say, that if we go ahead and start mentioning the Budget amount, we would be prejudicing those who will argue against that clause. That is what I am trying to say.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Very well. Hon Member, what I am going to do is that I am going to put the Question on clause 13. We have deferred a lot of clauses today. I will put the Question on the amendment in clause 13; it is in the name of the Committee. If we get to clause 19 and there is a problem, we will solve it there, then we can look at the re- arrangement of the clauses, otherwise, we will never make progress.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    Minister at the Ministry of - actually former Minister for Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, do you think that is very practicable?
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:55 p.m.
    That what?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    The
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:55 p.m.
    Yes, because the
    development is equally viable, so that it does not get into the Consolidated Fund. That is one of the arguments he is making, so that we can monitor properly. So there is an issue that I am saying we should not trivialise. Maybe, when we get there, we can come to a consensus; but let us try and at least, establish that, then these things will be consequential.
    Mr Asaga 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that I
    do not agree with the Hon Nitiwul. The Committee probably did not come to an understanding. From my point of view, we had an understanding that we will have the Heritage Fund, the Stabilisation Fund and we will also have the money that will go into the Consolidated Fund. This principle was well understood. So for him to now come and say we are supposed to re-fence it and make it a special fund, was not the understanding of the Committee.
    If he wants to introduce a new amendment, then it should have been done and that is why you gave an opportunity for us to make any amendment. But as the Committee is concerned, the position that we have taken on clause 13 as per the Committee is what we are discussing -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, I am a bit surprised at the turn of events because the Report is before me here; the Report of the joint Committee is before me here, the Annual Budget Funding Amount, it reads as follows:
    Mr Nitiwul 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just said that, across board there are people who think differently from even us, so we should be careful. Let me read what Hon Muntaka has put here as an amendment; clause 22, go to the Order Paper, he says; amendment proposed, subclause 1, line 1, delete:
    “. . . part of the national budget and shall be subject to the same budgetary processes that are necessary to ensure the efficient allocation and monitoring of any use”.
    and insert the following :
    “The Minister shall estimate and certify the Benchmark Revenue using the formula set out in the First Schedule not later than September 1st of each year”.
    “in a formula submitted each year showing areas of expenditure for approval by Parliament separated from the main Budget”.
    So please, I am saying that people hold different views, so let us get to the clause 19 and make sure that we agree on a position and then we come back. It is as simple as that.
    Mr Terkpeh 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, without
    going into the merits or otherwise of whether the funds should go into the Budget or not, in fact, the Order Paper at page 12, to buttress the point made by the Hon Chairman, captures the conciseness with which the Committee wanted the application of the Annual Budget Funding Account on Budget and it says at page 12, clause 22 (1) that:
    “The Annual Budget Funding Amount, its use and expenditure is part of the national budget and shall be subject to the same budgetary processes that are necessary to ensure the efficient allocation and monitoring of any use”.
    This is what was agreed.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Well, he
    is saying that there are people who hold contrary view and he made reference to a particular amendment standing in the name of Hon Muntaka and that is the point that he has made. The Committee agreed that it should be part of the Annual Budget Fund, at least, from what the Hon Deputy Minister has drawn our attention to.
    Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that you should go ahead and put the Question. If anybody thinks that there is the need to revisit what we approved today, he can always come for a Second Consideration Stage. If we do not do that, we cannot make progress and I think that what we are also trying to do, is to look at the amendment. If somebody has any issue with the amendment, fine. But there is no issue involved and I think that we have to make progress as far as this is concerned. So can you please, as the Hon Speaker, go ahead and put the Question?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    I noticed that the Hon Minister for Local Government and Rural Development joined the debate not long ago and so he may be permitted or allowed to make such an intervention.
    Mr Speaker, let us go back to clause
    7, you may recollect that I had suggested when we got there, that this matter about the money directly going to support the normal or regular national budgetary process is something that some of us have a problem with. Nobody is saying that the
    always insisted that if Government is minded and purposed to go a course, in spite of whatever advice that is proferred, if Government decides that this is the way I want to go, one cannot physically prevent Government from pursuing that course, except maybe, when we came there, then it would be said that at that juncture some arguments were raised against this course Government insisted and went that way.
    Nobody can physically prevent Government but let us confront that matter first and when we have done so, then we move forward.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Except to say that I mentioned clause 7 and I handed over the Chair to my Hon Colleague, the Hon Second Deputy Speaker last Friday.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I now recollect, but you may also recollect, when you were in the Chair, I made this point vividly when we were debating the principles. I made the point vividly.
    Mr Buah 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member's point is a very important one. But I think the point that I noted from that presentation was that, there was something really wrong with our budgetary mechanism and the need to improve it. I am not very sure if we do not improve the budgetary system and make sure that we have strict appropriation mechanisms, if we set up another Fund, we would be able to address that.
    But I think that what needs to be done, we should look at the budgetary process to make sure we strengthen it; there are clear transparent appropriation mechanisms in place. I am not sure setting up a new fund, we would address that problem, anyway.
    Mr Avoka 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that we are no more debating the principles of the Bill. People are taking us backwards and I did not want to intervene at a certain stage but I think that we must address

    money cannot be used for development.

    That, indeed, is what we all anticipate should be done; but it is the view of others and Mr Speaker, I remember you were in the Chair, when I canvassed this opinion, that in view of what happens with resource allocations to the District Assemblies, which has killed the local initiative and also at the national levels of countries like Nigeria and so on, I thought that it would not be prudent to just let the quantum, whether it is 50 per cent or 70 per cent or perhaps, even 80 per cent, if we agree to hit the Consolidated Fund to support the Budget.

    Mr Speaker, some of us are of the

    opinion that if it should go there, the application of that money would be difficult to monitor and at the end of the day, much of it will be used for capacity building, buying 4x4s and so on and so forth. Mr Speaker, when the resource has dried up, we would not be able, in all fairness to ourselves, to tell where we have applied the money.

    Let us establish a fund, maybe, a development fund which would run pari passo with the regular Budget funding, so that we would be able to monitor. It would be good for the Ministry and it would be good for Parliament. That is where the problem is. And Mr Speaker, I canvass the ideas that we should be very cautious and circumspect and you remember, when we came to clause 7, I proposed an amendment but then the Hon Chairman said they were proposing to delete clause 7 (2) which is why I said, that being the case, we were resting the case until we got there.

    So Mr Speaker, we need to be very clear on what we think that we want to do. Once we establish that -- and I have
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I entirely agree with the position by the Majority Leader except we are at a critical juncture. Where we are, we need to confront what we have avoided. That is why I am saying that, let us come home and address that matter. As for the Hon Deputy Minister saying that, taking the course that he has taken.
    Mr Speaker, we understand from the principles enunciated by the Bill, that any spending should be foundationed on long- term planning, which we do not have, and we felt that if we did it the way some of us are proposing, it would at least, satisfy the demands and aspirations of the nation at this time, at least, pending the time that we have this long-term plan.
    Otherwise, we may be applying some knee-jerk reactions. If it is to support the normal Budget, maybe, some disaster somewhere and then we have to fetch from it just to down the flame. But serious concerns would still be outstanding. So that is where we are and I do not know.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Hon Members, I have looked again at the amendments standing in the name of the Hon Chairman, the clause 13. If we look closely at it, I do not think it is going to affect what is in clause 19 because it is a specific amount that will be determined at any particular time. And whether

    it is a fund or it is an amount for the Consolidated Fund, it is an amount that has to be taken. And so, we can still take a vote on this and then when we get there and we decide that it becomes a fund, then it becomes consequential.

    It goes across the Bill, it affects everything in the Bill. Hon Members, do you get the point I am making? If you get to clause 19 and we decide to establish as a fund, it is a certain amount that -- it will automatically affect any other clause in the Bill. It is just like what we did for the “Holding Fund”.

    When the amendment was moved, when the Hon Minority Leader brought the idea and we agreed that it should be a Holding Fund, it affects any clause in the Bill; it is no longer an account, it becomes consequential. So if the principle enunciated in clause 13, the amendment in the Chairman's name is agreeable, we can take it. When we get there and we finally decide as a House that it is going to be a fund, then whatever we are referring to there, becomes a fund.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you may recollect that when the initial proposal came for the re-christening of the fund, one of the arguments that was raised by the Chairman of the Committee was that if we did it, then we would need to re-engineer the entire document, which is why eventually, we came to settle on the “Holding Fund”, even though the initial proposal was that because it is petroleum, we should simply call it “Petroleum Fund”. But given what we said then, we said, all right in order to negotiate that, let us take the coinage, the “Petroleum Holding Fund”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    The other reason also was that there is a mention of Ghana Petroleum Fund; that was also the second reason, so that we are not confused between the “Petroleum Fund” and the “Ghana Petroleum Fund”. So we
    what we are doing, the procedure we are adopting is not against the Constitution; let us make progress. When we get to clause 19, we can know what to do.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 2:05 p.m.
    On a point of order!
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Against who, the Chair? Are you raising a point of order against the Chair?
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 2:05 p.m.
    No, not necessarily. Mr Speaker, I come under Order 48 (1) and with your indulgence, I would like to read -
    “The presence of at least one-third of all the Members of Parliament besides the person presiding shall be necessary to constitute a quorum of the House”.
    Looking round, I do not think the number of persons present constitute one-third. So I would like to seek your ruling on that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Hon Member, you know the rule is that -- ordinarily, we have ten minutes. But this is also at the Consideration Stage and we must be very careful not to lay down rules to haunt in the future. We should be very careful not to lay - But we can, if it is the thinking of the House that we should adjourn at this time, we can adjourn. Without ruling on the issue, without necessarily ruling on the issue of quorum, but I have ten minutes within which to take a vote on the matter.
    Hon Members, I want to at this stage, adjourn the House, or -
    Mr Owusu-Agyemang 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, one little thing. I just want to make sure that we understand ourselves in this House. You did say that when we get to clause 19, we shall revisit and I want that
    should use the word “holding”. So it is a “Holding Account”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:15 p.m.
    Precisely the point I am making. I am saying that if we had done so, we would have had to do a lot of re-engineering; that was what he said and because it has been applied in many other places. Mr Speaker, the point I am making is, the philosophy behind the adoption of the Petroleum Account or the Budget Funding Amount is completely at variance with maybe, the proposal to have it serviced, say a development fund from which programmes and activities would be brought from the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning to Parliament for approval and funding. Mr Speaker, the philosophies underpining the two are completely different. And that is why I am thinking that if we have to confront it, let us do so instead of just saying that let us do this and when we get there, perhaps, it may be amended. I think it is a difficult situation that we are boxing ourselves into.
    Mr Asaga 2:15 p.m.
    I thought we had made the point very clear in support of the Committee's amendment for clause 13, which is being moved by the Chairman. And I think this was the understanding; so if there are other amendments, we will finish with clause 13 and then they can also come with amendments.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Hon Member for Nabdam (Mr Moses Asaga), you know my position really is to put the Question on clause 13 but the Minority Leader is making a point. And the point that he is making is that some of them hold the strong view that it should be a fund in which case the use of it, it should come in the form of a formula -- a statutory fund, where the formula should come to the House -- It should be a fund.
    Hon Members, I still believe that once
    Dr A. A. Osei 2:15 p.m.
    I was not party to this discussion, but I think that at least, I can speak on this side. My services are needed to help with the debate and to follow the debate on the Budget. Spending three days with the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, will detract from a primary responsibility here, and plus - I do not believe just the Chairman and the Ranking Member would be sufficient, given the debate that is going on. If not the Committee, it may be larger than that. But then you are talking about the fact that it would be extra duty for that Committee in the midst of the debate on the Budget.
    The logistics must be thought through very carefully, because it cannot be something - [Interruption.] No, it is important. Because we are going to prepare for the debate, then we would rise from the debate, we go to the Petroleum Revenue Management Bill, it means, we have to be spending almost up to midnight.
    to be absolutely clear that we would revisit it. Otherwise, the difficulty we have here may resurface. So you said that and I want the Table Office to capture that; that when we get to clause 19, we would take care of it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Hon Member, I am not the one saying it. Even the Committee did not agree; the Committee did not agree on clause 19, so the Committee has left the matter to the House to decide. I am only re-echoing what the Committee said they have left it to the House to decide, because the joint Committee could not take a decision; so it is for the House to take a decision on clause 19 and I am only re-echoing that point. I am not saying anything different from what the Committee has said in its Report.
    Hon Majority Leader, what is your view?
    Mr Avoka 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is a school of thought that we discussed sometime, during the latter part of last week, which I want to draw the attention of the august House, so that if it is acceptable, then we follow that.
    Mr Speaker, in the light of the numerous amendments that we have, we were thinking that the Committee Chairman and Ranking Member can meet the Attorney- General and Minister for Justice and they would harmonize them together, because the Committee alone has about a hundred amendments. Now, if the Ranking Member and the Committee Chairman are able to meet the Attorney-General, they would be able to harmonize those and then in fact, the few of us.
    Then while that is going on for about two, three days, then we can begin the debate on the principles of the Budget, so that by the time that the harmonisation is done, then we would have also completed

    Then come back from the debate, we need to think through carefully. If the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice has some comments to make in terms of drafting, is a different matter. But the issues are beyond drafting; the way I view it. I do not believe that the Committee itself has so much -- We agree a lot on the amendments. Now, the House must confront the issues that we could not deal with. Let us not go back into a small committee and come back and have the same issues -- Look, we are discussing minor amendments, in my view -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    The Majority Leader is not referring to those areas that the Committee did not grab, but he is talking about those that you have filed amendments, which are about hundred; that is the ones that he is saying that if they can harmonise -- In fact, the idea came at the morning meeting last week with the Leadership of the House.
    Dr A. A. Osei 2:15 p.m.
    The example I have is that, we thought as a Committee, we were agreeing on - Those amendments were not controversial, and you see that when we bring it to the House floor; so you can see that when we get to the controversial ones, we may spend much more time. I just want to--
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Hon Ranking Member, the ones -- who are those causing confusing? [Interruption.] I am not saying as an individual; I mean the members of the Committee. Yes, both sides, because you agree on your amendments and then you come to the floor and then you start - Somebody raises a point and you get confused and you also join the people. So that is where the problem is coming from. If you all agree -- those members of the Committee, both sides, if you all -
    Dr A. A. Osei 2:15 p.m.
    You are the Speaker, encourage Members of this House, when they change their mind, to be bold enough to state it on the floor. You have been encouraging Hon Members to do that and
    we like you for that. So now, to pretend to change your mind, this is not healthy for democracy.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    No, it is not a crime to change your mind at all; that is not what I am saying.
    Mr Avoka 2:15 p.m.
    I was referring to those amendments where the Committee as a body has agreed; yes, the controversial ones -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    These are the ones the Majority Leader is saying that maybe, if you look at the drafting and all those things, you can take a shorter time to agree on them.
    Mr Avoka 2:15 p.m.
    We can reduce the number and then while we debate the Budget, we do not need to be there every day, no. And then we concentrate and debate the controversial clauses here - clause 5, clause 53, one or two others. But the rest, I think we can agree upon them. Otherwise, the way we are going Mr Speaker, by 21st December, we would not have gone far.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    I entirely agree with you.
    Dr Prempeh 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, is the Majority Leader by this statement informing us that we are starting the Budget debate tomorrow, because he had indicated to us on Wednesday? We want to be clear. Is it Wednesday or tomorrow?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, --
    Dr Prempeh 2:15 p.m.
    In the light of these happenings --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    These developments, are we starting the debate tomorrow?
    Mr Avoka 2:15 p.m.
    In fairness to Hon
    Mr P. C. Appiah-Ofori 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Leader's suggestion implies withdrawal of the Bill. At the moment, we have not even looked at the Exploration and Production Bill. We have not. It was withdrawn quietly for certain changes and unless that one comes, we cannot vote on this one.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Hon Member, you are out of order. There is a ruling on that matter already.
    Mr Owusu-Agyemang 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on a lighter note. To what extent are the interested parties - What is the criteria for -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Some Hon Members have filed amendments. They can join the Committee.
    Mr Owusu-Agyemang 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, those are the interested parties?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Absolutely.
    Mr Owusu-Agyemang 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    the problem that arises is not those who have filed the amendments but those who do not understand what the amendments are supposed to be -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Hon Members, on this note --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think in that case, we are not starting the debate on the Budget tomorrow.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    That is the understanding, so that they can work tomorrow and debate starts on Wednesday.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    Members, we had earlier indicated that -- In fact, last week, we said Tuesday, but subsequently, I said Wednesday and I think that Hon Members might have adverted their minds to Wednesday. But I know we have had -- There are some of us here -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, why would we not allow the Committee, what you suggested earlier, we take the debate from Wednesday so that the Committee can meet with the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice to work on those things the whole of tomorrow and give them the necessary logistical support.
    Mr Avoka 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was going to say that I did not want to take you by surprise, by saying, let us start the Budget debate tomorrow. It would not be fair. So in the light of what you have said, we can let the Committee concentrate with the Attorney-General's Department tomorrow and then Wednesday, we start the debate on the principles of the Budget and then we see how far they would have gone and then subsequently, we continue.
    Mr Speaker, let me add that if somebody has any other amendments, he should let us have them now and pass them on to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. We do not want people to come here and they start introducing new amendments. You can only introduce them at the Third Reading stage and not when we are doing the Consideration.
    Mr Joseph K. Adda 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to get this clear. Is the Majority Leader talking about just the -- He keeps mentioning “committee, committee”, I do not know whether he is talking about Finance Committee or the joint Committee of Energy and Finance.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    He is referring to the joint Committee and interested parties.
    Mr Avoka 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, but even on
    because the same people involved will be also involved there tomorrow, the whole of the day.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    If the same people who are going to speak on the Budget are the same people who are going to work on this Bill, we cannot do both at the same time. The better approach is that, let us give them tomorrow to have consultation with the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice; they sit down and work the whole of tomorrow on the amendments so that the debate can take place as programmed in the Business Statement.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    that is where my problem even is, because I just enquired from my Hon Colleague, the Chairman of the Finance Committee whether in the light of this development, they could begin on Wednesday. First, I said tomorrow and he said tomorrow, he is certainly not prepared.
    But if he is going to be fully engaged tomorrow, I am wondering whether he would be able to find time because, of course, as you do know, the debate has to be led by the Chairman of the Finance Committee and the Ranking Member. I am wondering whether he will still be able to find time for us to start any meaningful debate on the Budget on Wednesday.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    I know the Ranking Member will be speaking on Wednesday if the debate starts on Wednesday. Do you also want to speak on Wednesday?
    Mr Avedzi 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would have wished to start the debate on Wednesday but in view of what we are asked to do, probably, it would be difficult for me to do the preparation adequately for the debate

    on Wednesday. But we will strategise and see what happens on Wednesday.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as you do know, the normal thing is for the debate on the Financial Policy of Government to be led by the Chairman and maybe, if we had a Minister who is a Member of Parliament, perhaps, he would do so and to be responded to appropriately by his Hon Colleague on the other side. That being the case, I do not know how it is going to be if he is not going to be able to do it. [Interruption.] You will do it. Of course, I know you will take some notes from somewhere.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, he can speak later. If you look at the practice, he can speak later. What we need now to kick-start the debate, really, is the Ranking Member, so that the other side to the debate is heard, then the responses will start coming from both sides. What we really need is the Ranking Member.
    Mr Avoka 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am confident that he can start on Wednesday.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    He cannot start on Wednesday. He is the Ranking Member - Hon Majority Leader, you meet later on and let us see how it will go. You should meet and advise the Chair.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is so because if you look at the Provisional Order Paper, you would notice that even though there was an attempt by the Majority Leader to spiritedly second the Motion, it has not been covered in the Order Paper as such. That would then mean that it would have to be properly seconded by the Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, the Budget Statement is specific. What I said that day was that, secondment does not negative the Motion. Advisedly, that was what I said that day.
    Mr Avoka 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what does the Chair say about Wednesday?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    That is in consistent with the Business Statement that you read last Friday. But I would want to plead with the joint Committee to do some serious work on this Bill tomorrow. Leadership should facilitate the Committee so that they can work throughout the whole of tomorrow on this matter.
    ADJOURNMENT 2:25 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 2.32 p.m. till Tuesday, 30th November, 2010 at 10.00 a.m.
    • SPACE FOR STANDING 2:32 p.m.
    SPACE FOR STANDING 11:55 a.m.
    SPACE FOR STANDING 11:55 a.m.
    SPACE FOR STANDING 11:55 a.m.