Debates of 9 Dec 2010

MADAM SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:55 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:55 a.m.
Madam Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 8th December, 2010.
Page 1. . . 20 -
Dr Ahmed Y. Alhassan 10:55 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, on page 18, just above 1, “Opening”, the “word Cutlure” should be corrected to read “CULTURE” and, similarly, on page 19, the same word has been wrongly spelt.
Thank you.
Madam Speaker 10:55 a.m.
All right, then page 20 . . . 24. [Pause.] The Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 8th December, 2010 as corrected is adopted as the true record of proceedings.
Now, we move on to the Official
Report of 25th November, 2010.

Hon Members, in the absence of any corrections, the Official Report of Thursday, 25th November, 2010 is hereby adopted as the true record of proceedings.

Let us look at the Official Report of Friday, 26th November, 2010.

Hon Members, in the absence of any corrections, the Official Report of Friday,

26th November, 2010 is adopted as the true record of proceedings.

Hon Members, there are no Statements

today so we move on to the Presentation of Papers, that is, item 4 (a).

Hon Majority Leader, is the Hon Chairman of the Committee laying the Paper today?
Mr Cletus Apul Avoka 10:55 a.m.
Madam
Speaker, I wish with your kind indulgence, to indicate that 4 (a) up to (h) are deferred for tomorrow, so we do item 5, page 2.
Madam Speaker 10:55 a.m.
So we move on to
item 5 then, Presentation and First Reading of Bills -- National Peace Council Bill, 2010, Minister for the Interior?
BILLS -- FIRST READING 11:05 a.m.
Madam Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Hon Majority Leader, this takes us to the Consideration Stage of the Petroleum Revenue Management Bill, 2010.
But before we go on, Hon Papa Owusu- Ankomah, you raised a matter about the University of Ghana Bill and you enquired the last time about the progress. I think I have now received the Report. I thought the Leader would be here to lay the Report today so maybe, we can take it on Monday or so.

Yes, Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
Alhaji Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo 11:05 a.m.
Madam Speaker, the two Leaders are in consultation regarding clause 5. So we could go on to clause 8 at the Consideration Stage - [Pause.]
Madam Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Well, while we are waiting for the two Leaders to confer, let us talk a little about this Report that I received.
You know there is no rule of procedure when it comes to this sort of thing and it is for us to initiate our own procedure. So as you are aware, I referred it to Leadership to check on the facts to see whether the matters raised were really correct. And we have been waiting for the report, like I said, which has come.
Now, we have to think about what to do with the Report with the aim of addressing the difficulty. I cannot come and sit here and make a pronouncement that this is the way we are going about it. So I have decided we lay the Report for everybody to have a copy, from there we will discuss about -- Because you will find in the Report that the two Leaders have said that we should just ratify the mistake -- Others have made other suggestions. So when we lay the Report, my intention is to get the Leader to present a Motion, supported by the Hon Minority Leader, who will also sign the Report, give a little time for consideration by the House as to the way to go and then formulate how we will go about it.
Hon Papa Owusu-Ankomah, have you got anything to say to this intention of mine? Because you must all see the Report and you must all agree to the new procedure we want to adopt. But this is the way I want to go about it. So I decided we will lay the Report today and by Monday, you will get copies. And then my decision is that we move it on a Motion supported and maybe, debated a little; and if we want to ratify it, yes, we will do it with
all the implications that will arise in that course of action. But this is to give you time so that when we come here, we can join in and do the work quickly.
The Consideration Stage of the Bill will be taken by the First Deputy Speaker.
11.12 a.m. -- MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Hon
Members, item 6.
Hon Deputy Majority Leader, are you ready to take it?
Alhaji Pelpuo 11:05 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker. Mr
Speaker, the Leadership is in consultation regarding clause 5 and as a result, we could move on to clause 8. But Mr Speaker, the intention is that, this is oil and we want to accommodate as many views as possible, so we can reach some consensus in this House rather than the very, very high affection people have about these amendments.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Hon
Deputy Majority Leader, I thought the Leadership was supposed to do that yesterday so that today Business could continue without unnecessary interruption?
Alhaji Pelpuo 11:15 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker,
we did. We had some consultation and we agreed that we would take some of the very contentious clauses and work on them. But it looks like clause 5 in particular needs further consultation and it is the reason they have gone out to do so.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Hon
Majority Leader, what should we do now?
Mr Avoka 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we will start
with clause 5, at the beginning.
STAGE 11:15 a.m.
  • [Resumption of debate from 29/11/2010]
    • Mr Moses A. Asaga 11:15 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    think on the Order Paper the amendment is supposed to be in my name, so we need to first correct the sponsor of the amendment to “Mr Moses Asaga”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, I want to find out whether the two amendments would have effect on each other. If it is so, we have to take the two amendments together. If the two of them have - If one would negative the other, then we have to take the two amendments together so that after listening to the Hon Members who move the amendments, then we will put the two Questions.
    Mr Avoka 11:15 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, my
    understanding is that they are independent of each other and they can be taken one after the other.
    Mr Speaker, we will take Hon P. C. Appiah-Ofori's amendment first; they appear on the Order Paper.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
    Hon P.
    C. Appiah-Ofori?
    Mr P. C. Appiah-Ofori 11:15 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    I beg to move, clause 5, subclause 1, delete “assets of” and insert “credit balances in”.
    Mr Speaker, clause 5 (1) says, “The assets of the petroleum account . . .” Mr Speaker, in accounting it is the balance
    sheet which shows assets and liabilities but accounts show credit balances or debit balances - accounts. So because it is here as “petroleum account”, I am saying we should delete “the assets” and replace it with “credit balances” in the account to conform with the accounting language used in preparing accounts.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
    Hon. P.
    C. Appiah-Ofori, now, the name based on the previous amendment -- the name is no longer “petroleum account” it is now “Petroleum Holding Fund.” Does it change anything?
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 11:15 a.m.
    It does. You see,
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
    No, it is no longer an account - because you are saying that in accounting term - [Interruption.]
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 11:15 a.m.
    Yes, assuming it is no more an account, let us look at the Consolidated Fund. We say “the credit balance” because it is a fund which account has been opened with the Bank of Ghana and it has credit balances and debit balances. It has not got assets and liabilities. It is not done; it is not known in accounting language. So what I am saying is that in place of “assets”, let us call it “credit balances” and in place of say “liabilities”, let us call it “debit balances” to conform with the way accounting is done.
    Mr James K. Avedzi 11:15 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker,
    the Committee proposed an amendment which was adopted by the House earlier and the “assets” there has been changed to “amount.” -- That the new clause would read “the amount in the Petroleum Holding Fund”. So if the Hon Member is proposing this new amendment, I do not think it should hold because we have already changed the “assets” there to “amount”. We changed it. The Committee
    proposed an amendment which was carried here.
    In any case, the “Fund” will always
    hold only one balance which would be a credit balance. Already, it is a Holding Fund which takes the money and disburses it, so there is no time that it is going to have a debit balance in that Fund.
    So the amendment should not be carried. It should be “amount” in the Petroleum Holding Fund, not credit balance in the Petroleum Holding Fund because there is not going to be any time that there would be debit balance in that Fund.
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 11:15 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    do not remember that this House passed an amendment, as he is saying, deleting “assets” completely and replacing it with “amount”. I do not remember this; I have not seen it. But if he claims they have done that, then it satisfies my argument.
    But all that I am saying here is that
    even if it is a Fund - even though the Consolidated Fund has credit balances, we do not say “assets in the Consolidated Fund”. It is not done and let us do the right thing.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
    Hon P. C.
    Appiah-Ofori, would you withdraw your amendment, if what the Hon Chairman is saying is that we have agreed to an earlier amendment --
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 11:15 a.m.
    If he is able to
    prove it, but I do not remember having seen it. Since we started this thing, I have not absented myself for even a day, so he should cull the records to show that there had been an amendment which had changed “assets” to “amount”.
    All that I am saying here is that it is
    wrong for us to use the word “assets.” So if they have changed it to “amount”, fine, but I want to see it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:15 a.m.
    Chairman
    of the Committee, can you assist the House to know which clause was changed because we did not touch clause 5 at all? We did not touch clause 5 at all, so you should tell me which clause has been amended and why we changed it to “amount”.
    Mr Avdezi 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the clause is
    the same clause 5, subclause 1, where the amendment was that delete “assets” and insert “amount”.
    In fact, at the committee level, we agreed to change the “assets” to “amount” and that is what we did here on the floor.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Well, I need to be assisted; I do not have my records here because the rules are very clear. If you look at Standing Order 128 (b), we cannot take a clause which is inconsistent - they must not be inconsistent with any clause already agreed to or any decision that has already come to by the House.
    Well, clause 128 (4)(b)? I have to be sure; I cannot remember. But if it is true that we changed it, let somebody help the Chair.
    Mr Asaga 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think at the committee level, in Koforidua, we had a new rendition which was brought from the Attorney-General and Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning and I am holding a copy of that document with me. It was agreed that clause 5 should read -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon Member for Nabdam, have we taken that decision on the floor? That is it. Because if we have not, then what we have to do - You can move another amendment that it
    Mr Asaga 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think we have to move a counter-Motion on that and it should read that instead of the word “assets”, we should now insert “amount”. I hereby beg to move.

    That is a new amendment --replacing “assets” with “amount” -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon Members, the Hon Appiah-Ofori is saying that if the “amount” is there, he has no problem with that. So there should not be two amendments.
    Hon Appiah-Ofori, would you take objection to the use of the word “amount”?
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I will not.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Very well. So change it to “amount” and move it and let me put the Question.
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 11:25 a.m.
    Well --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    They
    say that is the decision the Committee has taken but they have not moved it, so - Since you say you do not have any objection, if you change it to “amount”-- so you move it in your name -
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 11:25 a.m.
    So you are saying the Committee is telling a pack of lies by saying that they have moved this amendment -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    It is not the Committee; it is not the whole Committee that has spoken on this matter. So you cannot -
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 11:25 a.m.
    It would change to --
    “The amounts in the Petroleum Account shall not be used:
    (a) to provide credit balances to the government . . .”
    I beg to move.
    Mr Asaga 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, support the amendment and urge the House to adopt it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Clause 5 subclause (1), delete “assets of” and insert “amounts in”.
    Hon Appiah-Ofori, is that correct?
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 11:25 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Haruna Iddrisu 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, before you put the Question on clause 5(1), the understanding that I have from the Committee is that we are not only deleting “assets” and substituting it with “amounts in”, but even “Petroleum Accounts” which follows must be changed to “Petroleum Holding Fund”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon Member, we have done that already. Wherever we find “Petroleum Account”, it should be “Petroleum Holding Fund”. That one has been done; it is consequential, so that is the position now. Is that your only concern? Hon Members, I will put the Question -
    Mr Albert Kan-Dapaah 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you have changed it to “Petroleum Holding Fund”, then I want to suggest for the consideration of my Hon Friend who made the amendment that -- why do
    we not say “the Petroleum Holding Fund shall not be used”? Because - we have got there, Mr Asaga -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon Member, you are introducing a new dimension. You were in Canada; where were you?
    Mr Kan-Dapaah 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was in the House.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Kan-Dapaah 11:25 a.m.
    If we want to be concise, I think it may be better -- We are talking about the Fund, not just the amount in - so it may be better if we say that “the Petroleum Holding Fund shall not be used . . .”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon Member?
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I see from your facial expression that you feel this is controversial; but that is not. This is what is in the Bill. The proposed amendment which is contentious has not been moved. So, “Petroleum Account” in clause 2 was changed to “Petroleum Holding Fund”. So now, clause 5, as it appears now, the heading should be “Prohibitive use of Petroleum Holding Fund”. And what the Hon Member for Afigya Sekyere West is proposing is that instead of “amounts in” and so forth, why do we not just leave it as “the Petroleum Holding Fund shall not be used”? And then we delete “assets of” and do not insert anything in its place. That is all.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon Member for Sekondi, you know that the Headnote does not tell us everything; you
    have to look at the clause to know exactly what we want to do? You know that - not that I think it is controversial because it was a compromised amendment; you cannot change it without hearing from this side. He was then going to move it in terms of an amount. Then he said he had no objection if they used the amount. So he cannot move it without hearing from the other side.
    Hon Member for Sekondi, do you get the point?
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Avedzi 11:25 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we can establish a Fund but if there is nothing in the Fund, there is nothing there. So we have to specify that the amount in the Fund shall not be used. If we establish a Fund, and there is nothing in it, we would just have established it. There is nothing in it. Would we have anything in it which we can use or cannot use?
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Asaga 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
    clause 5, subclause (1), line 1, before “shall” insert “earmarked for transfer into the Ghana Petroleum Funds”.
    The full rendition will be --
    “the amount in the Petroleum Holding Fund earmarked for transfer into the Ghana Petroleum Funds shall not be used -
    (a) to p rov ide c red i t t o the Government, Public Enterprises, Private Sector entities or any other person or entity;
    (b) as collateral for debts, guarantees,
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Hon Member for Akropong, let us listen to him, I will call you. This is the Consideration Stage.
    Mr Boafo 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment is not in his name. The amendment is in the name of the Chairman and we have not been told why he is getting up to -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Hon Member, I have been advised that it should have been in his name and that it was an error. That is the advice I have received.
    Mr Asaga 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, I think
    that that correction has been made.
    Thank you, Hon Boafo.
    Mr Speaker, the “earmarked funds”
    that we are talking about are the Heritage Fund and the Stabilisation Fund. And I think that it is justifiable that a Heritage Fund is supposed to be an Endowment Fund. It is meant for future generations. As such, it will not be good enough for us to use a Heritage Fund as collateral, which means that when there are problems, they could be charged upon. But when it comes to Stabilisation, for the Stabilisation Fund, that is also a Fund that is reserved, so that when there are shortfalls in oil revenue or even shortfalls in our expenditure revenue, we will be able to draw upon it to support it. Not only that, we have also seen situations where there are distressed economic conditions.
    For example, if cocoa price were to go down and we do not get enough revenue or if gold prices were to go down and Government revenue is not up to what
    was expected, we can draw from the Stabilisation Fund to support it. So, this is more of a cushioning Fund in times of distress.
    Mr Speaker, this is the reason for which I am moving this amendment.
    So, I am excluding those two Funds, that is, the Heritage Fund and the Stabilisation Fund, should not to be used for collateralisation. Anything in excesses of this could be used and should be used for collateralisation.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Hon
    Member for Wenchi East --
    Mr Asaga 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in conclusion
    - 11:35 a.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Oh! Hon
    Member for Nabdam --
    Mr Asaga 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in conclusion,
    there is some near consensus on this clause 5 -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Hon Member, if there is consensus, you get the feeling from the floor of the House, so what is your problem? If there is consensus, you will get it, once you move the amendment.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not know where the consensus is; there is no consensus. Mr Speaker, this clause 5 is the nerve centre of this Bill and whatever mistake that is made there, throws the entire Bill out of gear. It is about 70 per cent of the revenue that we are getting from the oil find, which is going to go for collateral.
    Depending on the structure of the collateral, that will mean that -- The 300 million that we have in this Budget this year, if we are collateralising something like three billion for ten years, it will mean that for the coming ten years, we cannot
    touch that money as long as we take the initial loan of three billion.
    If that is going to be used to pay for it, it excludes the possibility of changing our mind somewhere along the line -- So, personally, I am not against collateralisation in general but I am against collateralisation in the form that we have here with regard to oil.
    Mr Speaker, let me just - I know we
    are at the Consideration Stage, but let me give you the rationale behind why I am opposing this amendment.
    Mr Speaker, the ability of this country to borrow has just shot up. We have the ability to borrow as long as we have the oil, lenders are prepared to lend to us as long as we have the oil. We do not need to collateralise the oil, our credit rating is already up, and it will be up and therefore, we do not need to collateralise oil. That is number one.
    But more importantly, as soon as we use oil to collateralise, there is a moral hazard involved. And this moral hazard is this, the lender will be prepared to give us a loan irrespective of what we are going to do with it. If we are going to dig a hole from here to Kumasi and then fill it back, as long as he knows that we are going to pay with our oil, he will give it to us.
    Mr Speaker, on the side of the one who is going to take the loan, because it will be easier to actually contract a loan with that collateralisation, what it will mean is that due diligence, social and economic evaluation of that project will not be taken very seriously. The tendency is that we will end up, and just as other countries are faced with difficulties -- they get easy access to loans and they use them for frivolous project. Maybe, we can even decide to collapse the whole of Accra and rebuild it.
    This moral hazard is such that we have to be very, very careful how we handle this problem. But I think if we allow this
    thing to happen, we will be in trouble. I am against it because of the moral hazard involved; I am against it because we are going to use almost the entire 70 per cent to do this, and indeed, it is not even true that the Stabilisation Fund cannot be used for that.
    The Stabilisation Fund can be used to support the 70 per cent if we have shortfalls; at that point, we can use it. Of course, just to correct an error, the Stabilisation Fund is not to pay for a shortfall in cocoa price or in cocoa revenue; it should only be used when there is a shortfall in the revenue that is coming from oil. That is the only time that it should be used. That is my position and I think I will just let the House take its own stand on this. But in my opinion, this form as it stands now, I do not think I can support it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Hon
    Members, before I call people to speak, I just want to get some clarification based on your experience at the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning.
    When we put this law, we issue sovereign guarantee or Government of Ghana guarantee. Does this prevent anybody from touching even the Stabilisation Fund? Or even when they get judgement against us even if it is an international arbitration -- I want the House to address all these issues.
    Can this law have extra territorial jurisdiction by preventing somebody even if that person gets judgement against us, from touching our funds, which are even anywhere? I want us to take all these things on board because you raised a very important point that “this is the nerve centre of the Bill”. That is why I am just throwing this matter into the discussion.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    Mr H. Iddrisu 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to associate myself with the amendment ably moved by the Chairman of the Committee on Mines and Energy. Mr Speaker, in doing so, I refer Hon Members to page 7, particularly clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill.
    When we are construing Bills, we have to look at them as a whole. We are told why there is a Stabilisation Fund. It is explained under clause 10 which will be considered later on, and also why you need a Heritage Fund. Mr Speaker, what the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Mines and Energy is seeking is, for instance, you have 100 per cent revenue accruing from petroleum, out of that 100 per cent you anticipate and it is also provided in clause l9 of the Bill if we go further. You anticipate that 70 per cent --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon
    Member, limit yourself to the clause, because if you are referring to those clauses, we have not yet approved them; if we get there, we change those clauses, then your argument will hold.
    Mr H. Iddrisu 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am
    guided. But Mr Speaker, just to respond to the Hon Prof. Gyan-Baffour's comment.
    Mr Speaker, no loan agreement

    can be approved without the authority of this House. Therefore, issues of collateralisation and matters of due diligence are matters which this House must exercise under article l8l of the Constitution. So the issue he is raising, as legitimate as it is, it does not arise.

    When Government is giving a collateral, he knows better; it can be a sovereign guarantee or it can be a commodity swap and we have seen it happen before where commodities were used as collateral --

    In this case, what the Chairman of the Committee is seeking to do, is just to say that no matter what funds that we are putting aside for purpose of curing and supporting future generations arising out of the benefit of oil, should not suffer as a result of the decision to collateralise some aspect of the money, which is being earned.

    So we are seeking to protect the Stabilisation Fund and the Heritage Fund from being used for purposes of collateral. What accrues to Government, whether it comes as petroleum revenue will necessarily go in as revenue to Government, which is part of the larger sovereign guarantee. So I think that what the Chairman of the Committee is proposing, we should safeguard the Stabilisation and Heritage Fund from being used for purposes of collateralisation.

    Thank you.
    Prof. Ameyaw-Akumfi 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    we are not talking about whether the Stabilisation Fund or the Heritage Fund should be part of the collateralisation, that is not the issue. What I am saying is that, even the 70 per cent which is outside these two Funds that are going to come into the Budget or wherever it is going to be put, is the one that I am against, that it should not be used for the collateralisation -- the entire thing. That is what I meant; these are the two --
    Dr Anthony A. Osei 11:45 a.m.
    Mr. Speaker, if I understood the Hon Chairman of the Committee as of this moment, what he is seeking to do is to say --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    He is
    moving the Motion as Hon Moses Asaga.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:45 a.m.
    All right. His
    amendment, first and foremost and as of now, is simply that, even though we have not established the Stabilisation and Heritage Funds yet -- clause 5 does not exist but he wants to say that we cannot use it as a collateral. The principles for doing so, I do not have any objection to that --
    My problem is that, something that is not yet known - the Stabilisation Fund is not known to this Bill as of clause 5; neither is the Heritage Fund known as of clause 5. It is not neat to start talking about how you cannot use it. I am saying -- to talk about the use or not use of it, it has to be established -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    The House has agreed in principle so far, as of now, to establish it - that is at the Second Reading, where the principles of the Bill -- there is a general decision - that is why the principle that we should establish has been agreed upon at the Second Reading of the Bill. Which form it should take and how it should be couched in the Bill, is where we are now. But the general principle that the Heritage -
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, all I am
    suggesting is that, to let us follow closely, it may be prudent to deal with clauses l0 and 11 and then come to the Hon Chairman's position, which, as I said, at this point, is not very controversial. The other one he is going to introduce is where the issue of collateralisation of the 70 per cent really comes. But it is clumsy to say
    that do not touch it when it is not known at this point.
    Mr Speaker, that will be my suggestion.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Yours is more with regard to the order in which the amendment is coming.
    Mr Avedzi 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think his issue is about the numbering or the order of the clauses in the Bill. If at the time, as in clause 5, the Stabilisation Fund and then the Heritage Fund are not known, we can make reference to those clauses that established them. If we want to follow everything, the number or the sequence, we will create a lot of problems. So it is a matter of making reference to those clauses that established those funds.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Members, let us take a decision. When we get to the end of clauses 10 and 11 and there is a problem, we will take them through a Second Consideration Stage. Otherwise, with this Bill, we will always have problems.
    Dr Kojo Appiah-Kubi 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, just like my Hon Colleague from Wenchi, I think that we need to tread cautiously when we are deciding to collateralise revenues that have not been earned -- revenues that are meant for the current and future generations. There are a lot of experiences that this country can learn from both negative and positive -- especially from Nigeria. One such experience that this nation can learn from, is how Nigeria, after having earned billions of dollars from oil revenues, is today languishing -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Member, we are not doing principles -- We are dealing with a clause, so you go straight to it. If you oppose it, tell us why you are against it and then we move on.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am personally against the collateralisation and I will like to use the experience of Nigeria to drum home why we need to tread very very cautiously. [Interruptions.] Between l97l and 2005, Nigeria earned US$390 billion in fiscal oil related revenues. At the same time, poverty levels in Nigeria increased from 28 per cent to 54 per cent. External debt -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon. Member, this is the Consideration Stage but you are going to principles. Hon Member, you are doing more of principles than -
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not talking about principles; I am giving you the reasons -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    I want to give the oportunity to more people to speak on this matter. Do you understand?
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 11:45 a.m.
    I do understand.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    So, please
    -- 11:45 a.m.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 11:45 a.m.
    We also need to understand why one is against by learning from experiences of other countries and particularly from that of Nigeria because between l97l and 2005, Nigeria had earned about US$390 billion. At the same time during this period, poverty levels in Nigeria seemed to have risen from 28 per cent to 54 per cent and that is why we need to tread cautiously. The external debt of Nigeria as at 2005 stood at US$33 billion.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Member, what you are really doing is going back to the principles of the Bill. If you are against it - like the way the Hon Member for Wenchi spoke -- those are considering the Bill but you are going to the principles, telling us the history of Nigeria's debt and all those things. It is
    the principles.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not talking about the principles I am just giving you the background why I am against the collateralisation and the experiences of other countries which we need to learn from.
    Today -- and as of 2005, Nigeria was owing US$33 billion after having earned US$390 billion, and Ghana, today, is poised to repeat some of the mistakes of Nigeria. Mr Speaker, let us ask ourselves, how did Nigeria land herself in such a big mess -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon
    Member, we are not talking about Nigeria; we have not looked at even the law. We are not looking at the legal regime of Nigeria; nobody has got the Bill of Nigeria.
    The way you are going -- we not are talking about the principles. The next person is Hon Member for Sene -
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speqaker, what I am saying is, it appears that we are poised to repeat the mistakes of other countries -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon
    Member, we have given you enough time. This is the Consideration Stage.
    Mr Felix Twumasi-Appiah 11:55 a.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, I fully support the amendment ably proposed by the Hon Member for Nabdam, Hon Moses Asaga. In doing so, I want to allay the fears of my Hon Colleague from Wenchi (Prof. G. Y. Gyan-Baffour) who spoke about some moral issues and because of that he does not want to support the amendment. I do not know how infectious or how strong this moral thing is about that will actually affect him to impede his own ability to do due diligence on every loan that comes to this House.
    Mr Speaker, whether we use petroleum revenue, sovereign guarantee or any other guarantee to secure a loan, what matters is that, every loan that comes to this House

    will be examined on its own merit and for that matter, I do not think that even if we approve that all the commodities in Ghana should be used as collateral for a loan, the fact that we have approved in this Bill that it should be collateralised just de facto, the Bill comes here and it just goes through.

    All we are saying is that, yes, we allow Government to use part of this particular fund as collateral for a loan, but when the loan comes to this House, it is incumbent upon all of us to do the actual due diligence and ensure that the loan is given approval or otherwise.
    Mr Kwaku Agyeman-Manu 11:55 a.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, I personally will also not want to agree with the amendment Hon Asaga has moved. Mr Speaker, I accept collateralisation as a financial instrument, but in this particular case, I am afraid I cannot support Hon Asaga's amendment and I would urge the House that the principle upon which the drafters of the Bill actually drafted clause 5 should be maintained.
    Mr Speaker, we have our normal
    streams of revenues; we have our tax revenues; we have our revenues from cocoa and now oil is going to come in. Mr Speaker, the danger for some of us is that, when we expose ourselves to so much loans, to the extent that all the nation's assets have to be collateralised without any restrictions, how are we going to protect our oil money?
    Mr Speaker, I will want to believe that we should tread cautiously and continue to borrow along the lines we have been borrowing as of now, and then reserve oil moneys, protect oil moneys, use those that will come online on annual budgetary basis and allow our oil wealth to stay without mortgaging the oil money for any other purpose.
    Mr Speaker, why are we rushing so
    much for loans? When are we going to stop borrowing? [Interruptions.] Mr Speaker, we have borrowed since independence up till today. With oil coming, we are going to see an expanded economy and then our physical capacity to borrow more on our normal revenues will even be bigger. Mr Speaker, any lender on earth knowing that we are producing oil to whatever extent that we have, would be prepared to give us the loans that we need.
    So, I believe that for the sake of our children and their children for posterity, we should, as Members of Parliament, accept to protect oil wealth for loans such that we can use the oil money, current online, to do projects that we want to do on annual basis and reserve this without collateralising it.
    So, Mr Speaker, I would urge my Colleagues to accept and reject Hon Asaga's amendment and accept the principle under which clause 5 was actually brought.
    Mr Haruna H. Bayirga 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, when you look at the country, in the rural areas, they need massive development -- [Hear! Hear!] - in the road networks, education and health. Mr Speaker, I sincerely believe that whoever will not support collateralisation is not looking for development. [Hear! Hear!]
    Mr Joseph B. Aidoo 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    Mr Joseph B. Aidoo 11:55 a.m.
    recently, this matter of using oil as collateral came up in Amsterdam. Mr Speaker, Venezuela was holding talks with banks in Amsterdam for a loan of US$600 million as bridge. And Mr Speaker, the Venezuelan team refused to use oil as collateral. Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, I would want to quote what the team leader said:
    “If you sell up your principal asset on a platter now, it sets a dangerous precedent.”
    He said “oil pricing has been rising in recent weeks with US oil prices jumping 10 per cent last week because of mortgage world production and lower inventories.”

    Mr Speaker, it is important that we safeguard our interest for future purposes because oil is very volatile and because of its volatility, prices can change - [Interruptions] Wontie a -- You can go ahead -- wontie --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon
    Member, address the Chair.
    Mr J. B. Aidoo 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, what
    about if NDC found the oil, what would have happened in this country? They were in power for 19 years, if they found the oil, what would have happened? [Interruptions.] Now, they are only to manage it and look at what they are doing. This is a very important asset, we do not have to play with it and I, personally, am opposed to this new amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, I am going to put the Question. Hon Minority Leader, you suggested four Members from each side of the House and I have taken four including the Hon Member who moved the amendment from both sides of the House. So I am going to put the Question but if the Leaders want to speak, I will give them the chance -- [Interruptions] -- and I will put the Question.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, may I plead with you, given the sensitive nature of this very one, because this is the most controversial, it is the kernel of the --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon
    Minority Leader, you signalled me that I should take four Members from each side of the House and I respected your signal and complied with it, so that we can work together in this House. I agree with you. But the line of the debate is such that it is entrenched.
    If somebody was taking an amendment, which was different from what is here, then we can know that we are looking at an alternative; but what we have heard so far, the right side of the House is singing the same song as the left side. In my opinion, an experience of this nature, the best thing to do is to resolve this matter by the decision of the House.
    Hon Minority Leader, if you want somebody to contribute, then give me the name, one Member from each side of the House.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    we have had some discussions and I thought that we would get somewhere. That is why I am proposing to you that you allow the two Hon Members to speak and then we the Leaders will wind up.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Very well,

    Hon Members, the Hon Leaders have had some discussions, so we are going to get somewhere. On the basis of that premise, I am taking two contributions from each side of the House.
    Mr Dominic A. Azumah 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to support the amendment as proposed by Hon Moses Asaga.
    Mr Speaker, in today's world, prominent businessmen have gone into collateral with their assets to be able to access sufficient funding to improve upon their businesses. These are individual businessmen who can go to a bank and collateralise their properties to be able to raise sufficient funds. How about a whole country? If we can challenge ourselves here, everyday, as we stand on this floor of this House, everybody is demanding for a good road, health facilities, good water, demanding for everything and yet we do not want the Government to raise that sufficient money to be able to provide that facility. What are we Sitting here doing?
    People are currently dying in hospitals for lack of basic provisions and that will be improved if we can get these resources. Yet we say we should not collateralise our oil to raise that sufficient fund for that.
    Mr Speaker, I have not seen anywhere in this world and I will challenge anybody where an oil company has collateralised its oil and has defaulted and has been taken to any court. I challenge anybody to show me where. Countries in the Middle East have collateralised theirs and have been able to develop and you can see massive developments going on in this kind of the world. Why is Ghana an exception?

    Mr Speaker, on that note, I urge everybody --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, that language is too strong; withdraw it [Interruption.] Hon Members, order!
    Hon Member, the fact that somebody has a different opinion from you, does not make him an anti-developer.
    Mr Azumah 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with
    all due respect, I withdraw that “anti- development agenda” but I urge anybody who is interested in the development of this country to support this amendment.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you so much.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon
    Majori ty Leader, wil l you make contribution? The two includes the Leaders?
    Hon Members we have agreed to take two Members from each side and the two -
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon
    Majority Leader --
    Mr Avoka 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, like you
    rightly observed, I think that we should avoid the process of shifting the goal posts. So I know that it is a contentious matter and I agree with you that you should allow some Members to contribute on the subject. I think that generally, five from each side of the House is opinion enough for us to take a decision. We can talk days, forty years, it will not change anything. Mr Speaker, as you can see, we have over 200 amendments. So with the greatest respect, you have taken one person from the other side of the House, you can take one other and that will be the end.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon
    Minority Leader, I have taken one from each side now and I want to find out whether you the Leaders are going to contribute. If you are not going to do so, I will take one from each side of the
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, I thought the understanding as you even indicated a few moments ago, was to allow one from each side of the House exclusive of the Leaders. I was pleading for two, two exclusive of the Leaders. So how can you now say that it is one, one and with respect --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon
    Minority Leader, what I did say was that I was taking two, two including the leaders -- that includes the Leaders. I am taking two, two; -- yes, that is why I want to find out from you whether the Leaders are going to speak. And if the Leaders are going to speak, then I will go straight to them -- Because the one, one has spoken from both sides -- I have not called Hon Kan-Dapaah --
    Mr Albert Kan-Dapaah 12:15 p.m.
    Thank you
    Mr Speaker for this opportunity.
    Mr Speaker, let me draw the attention of the House to the fact that while preparing for this Bill, the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning found it necessary to undertake a nationwide survey. Mr Speaker, one of the things that was said was that 83 per cent of Ghanaians did not want Parliament to exercise the oversight control that is formally reserved for Parliament. Mr Speaker, I believe this was a very serious indictment and we should never lose sight of it.
    Secondly, Mr Speaker, according to the public survey, a copy of which I have here, between 70 and 80 per cent prefer that government refrains from borrowing against future oil revenues. Mr Speaker, we are talking about 70 and 80 per cent of the people who voted us into this House and it is important that we do not disregard that.
    Mr Speaker, i f you read the Memorandum to the Bill, it says that the need to have a Petroleum Revenue Management Bill is essentially because we want to accord it some special status and do not treat the petroleum revenues the way we have been treating other revenues.
    Mr Speaker, the clear import of this
    is that, as far as petroleum revenue is concerned, we will give it a special treatment. The spirit behind this Bill will be defeated if we were to go ahead with this collateralisation. Mr Speaker, collateralisation is nothing more than eating your dinner and lunch at breakfast time -- [Uproar.] That is what collaterisation is all about. We need to listen to what the people of Ghana are telling us. We should not rush into doing what we are doing when Ghanaians have specifically said to us that they are against it.
    The credibility of Parliament, Mr Speaker, is at stake and I believe that instead of rushing this through, they should give us some additional time so that there can be more consultation for us to find a middle way out of this. If you do not do that, we will be disappointing the people of Ghana. And Mr Speaker, can I ask what has happened between the time when this Bill was approved by Cabinet and today? What has necessitated a change of mind by Government? Mr Speaker, this hypocrisy should not be disregarded --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, withdraw that word “hypocrisy”. If somebody changes his mind, that does not make the person a hypocrite. Withdraw the word “hypocrisy” and use another word. We can make our points on the floor without using strong words against one another.
    Mr Kan-Dapaah 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    withdraw the word and I apologize for that.

    But Mr Speaker, I still desire to know from the government side, what has happened between the time that Cabinet gave approval to this and today which has necessitated this quick turn down? Mr Speaker, is it because of the STX arrangement? Is it because of the promise we gave to the Chinese? What exactly has happened which has emboldened this House to go against the dictates of the people who voted them to this House? Mr Speaker, we should not destroy the credibility of Parliament this way.

    I urge you, Mr Speaker, to hold this matter up and allow more consultation to go on before taking a decision. Mr Speaker, the credibility of Parliament is at stake and I urge you to please, reconsider your decision and do not hasten to take a vote on this matter.

    I thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Alhaji Inusah A. B. Fuseini 12:15 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker what we are being invited to do this morning is to tie up the loose ends of the Bill. Hon Moses Asaga's amendment will tie up the loose end of the Bill.
    Mr Speaker, reading the Bill as a whole, the petroleum account is made up of three components. The three components are the Heritage Fund, the Stabilisation Fund and the Annual Budget Funding Amount.
    Mr Speaker, when you look at clause 43 of the Bill, it expressly prohibits any encumbrance on the petroleum account. That is, the petroleum account is the Stabilisation and the Heritage Funds. Mr Speaker, clause 19 deals with the Annual Budget Funding -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, we have not got to clause 19; we do not know how it will finally end. So,
    please, limit yourself to the amendment.
    Alhaji Fuseini 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have
    not got to clause 19; I am aware that we are on clause 5. But Mr Speaker, I was providing a rational basis for this amendment. The Annual Budget Funding Amount, no provision has been made to tie it up. What the amendment is seeking to do -- Mr Speaker, look at it carefully. Look at the amendment carefully and that we all should do the proper and fitting thing in these circumstances.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment by Hon Moses Asaga, the Chairman of the Committee says “after “shall” insert “earmarked for transfer into the Ghana Petroleum Fund”. That is consistent with the intention of this Bill. It is consistent because the Ghana Petroleum Fund is a fund that deals with two accounts and those accounts have been incumbent.
    So if you do not provide for that exception after “shall”, you will be putting a total lead on the Petroleum Account, which lead, is not intended by this Bill. The lead is not --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Wind up.
    Alhaji Fuseini 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is
    on the basis of this -- it is not about collatealrization, it is about doing the proper and fitting thing in this circumstance that we pass a law that will stand the test of time; that we look at the Bill with the intention of the proponents of the Bill and do the proper thing. And the proper thing is to support the amendment of Hon Moses Asaga so that we can have a neat and clean Bill for posterity.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Dr Anthony A. Osei 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    you earlier made a statement that it looked like they were entrenched positions. Mr Speaker, I want us to be careful and remove the emotion out of this particular debate.
    Mr Speaker, we are all here representing the people of Ghana. We ought to be informed by experiences elsewhere. Mr
    Dr Anthony A. Osei 12:15 p.m.


    Speaker, under normal circumstances, I would not have a problem with what might appear to be a small amendment, but it has huge limitations and I want to plead with my opponents on the other side to let us be careful and examine the merits of the argument.

    Mr Speaker, as soon as the change of heart came, some people kept referring to some cocoa agreements and hotel agreements. Mr Speaker, people must learn from experiences. Mr Speaker, these agreements were of a limited nature. The proposed amendment implies a 100 per cent collaterisation of the ABFA. Mr Speaker, the Minister stood here and talked about rigidities in the Budget. What was he talking about? His inability to use funds appropriately.

    M r S p e a k e r , u n d e r n o r m a l circumstances, if you are able to pay your loans, there is no problem; but the problem comes when you are unable to pay them and the person calls on the collateral. Mr Speaker, if God forbid, we go and collateralise and we are unable to pay, the implication will be that 100 per cent of that oil revenue would be used for that particular project. Mr Speaker, it is not prudent.

    I believe that we are aware that collateralisation to politicians can be intoxicating. Collateralisation can be seductive. Mr Speaker, the case of Angola, the case of Venezuela -- Mr Speaker, we should not bind ourselves into a situation where we are doing a 100 per cent collateralisation.

    Mr Speaker, as I said, as of now, it is new for us. They mentioned two examples, those are the two that we know. We are new in this area. Let us not blindly run into an area where we are doing a 100 per cent collateralisation. Mr Speaker, why majority of Ghanaians are

    saying that they are in favour, is because they are not suspicious of us and we should not dismiss it.

    Mr Speaker, the proper way if we want to collateralize, is for us to find a medium to assure Ghanaians that if we must collateralize, we are going to be cautious. We should therefore avoid a hundred per cent collateralisation. It is rigid and it is dangerous.

    Mr Speaker, for example, the question

    you should be asking yourself is, why did the same Government withdraw the issue when the STX came up? They had a reason. They knew that it was dangerous. So why are they coming back and say we should accept a hundred per cent collateralisation?

    Mr Speaker, I plead with the mover of the amendment to look at it carefully. Hundred per cent collateralisation in the hands of politicians, in the light of the survey, cannot be acceptable. Mr Speaker, we should be cautious, not to be emotional and look for -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, your last sentence.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want
    to urge the mover of the amendment to reconsider the amendment in the form that he has put it. To modify his amendment, so that together, we can be seen to be moving forward. If this entrenched position is taken, Mr Speaker, I can assure you that Ghanaians, our children and grandchildren would not forgive us --
    Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu - rose
    -- 12:25 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon
    Minority Leader, do you have anything to say?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
    Yes, Mr
    Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, the background noise is too much.
    Mr Joe Ghartey 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank
    you very much. In fact, that was what I was going to say. There are a lot of little meetings and conversations going on. We are trying to listen and understand -- Alhaji Muntaka, I would be grateful if you could keep quiet.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon
    Minority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, so I was saying that we should be careful with what we are doing. I know that Government really is in some state - in some very awkward position. Ordinarily, we should have even passed this Bill before the Budget was read. Now, we have to consider the two of them pari passu.
    But Mr Speaker, let me address the
    matter that has been raised by the Hon Member for Nabdam, when he said that the Stabilisation Fund plus, as per his amendment, the Stabilisation Fund and the Heritage Fund cannot be collateralised. Mr Speaker, that is not entirely true because if you look at clause 13 (1), it completely negates what he himself is saying. That the purpose for the Stabilization Fund -- it provides that where petroleum reserves
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, we have not done clause 13. When we get to clause 13, we do not know the final shape in which clause 13 would be. But as the Hon Member for Old Tafo has pointed out, part of the problem is the arrangement in the Bill. But we have not got there. We do not know the final shape of clause 13 when we go there. So when others were going to clause 19 and other clauses - as much as possible, let us limit ourselves to the amendment. It is tempting though but let us limit ourselves to the amendment as much as possible.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, the Hon Member in justifying his amendment referred to it, that we are not collateralising the Heritage Fund, and I am saying that that position is not tenable. It is untrue as per clause 13 (1), which has not been amended.
    Mr Speaker, the purpose for the
    establishment of the Stabilisation Fund is clearly defined and so if at any year, at any quarter, there is a shortfall, Government could fall on that. Why is he saying that by his amendment, the Stabilisation Fund cannot be touched? It is untrue and it contradicts what is in clause 13 to the extent that that one has not been amended.
    Mr Speaker, so it looks like because
    of the haste, we are not doing things in a very tidy way. That is my worry. Mr Speaker, we all do know that this country has a problem, indeed, a huge deficit in infrastructural development. The Hon Member who spoke is justifying the need for collateralization on infrastructural deficit. But Mr Speaker, we have heard this all before; the countries that have gone on that path used the same justification.
    So, in my opinion, we should not really be singing that tune here.
    But Mr Speaker, we are also aware and as per the Bill, we have informed ourselves that if Government has to collateralise, there is the need to predicate it on a long- term national development plan. The worry, when we all saw the basis of this, Mr Speaker, if you are indicating to us that we should not proceed on areas that we have not touched - but Mr Speaker, if you look at clause 24 -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    That, we have not taken a definite decision on.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
    Right. Clause 22 (4) provides that in such cases, we should base whatever we do on a long term national development plan. Unfortunately, the Committee is proposing that -- at least, the Chairman is proposing that we even delete that, that we do not need any long-term plan for anything. That Government then could act on a short-term or knee-jerk situation. Mr Speaker, it is dangerous; it is dangerous.
    So Mr Speaker, I believe we should look at the proposal. I am saying that it is not the best to do but even if we have to do it, we should look at ways of girding and guarding what then would be our resort. The amendment proposed by the Hon Member for Nabdam, does not provide any ceiling. My Hon Colleague was talking about a hundred per cent; it could even be more than a hundred per cent, as per the amendment. It could even be more than a hundred per cent or even one thousand per cent.
    Mr Speaker, elsewhere, in clause 19, they are providing a cap, that we should collateralise up to 10 years. Mr Speaker, in my view, that is not even sufficient.

    There could be some other measures and Mr Speaker, we could be talking about using our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a guide to set a limit. Perhaps, we could say that we should not go more than 70 per cent of our GDP. Even if we come to that conclusion, would it be wise to say that one regime could then hit the ceiling? Perhaps, we could say that no government maybe, could collateralise beyond a certain limit of our GDP, say ten per cent, say fifteen per cent, or say twenty per cent. That could be a useful guide.

    Mr Speaker, as it is, it is very, very dangerous and I believe we should all advert our minds to it, otherwise, we will be leading the effort at national development into a ditch.

    I thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader -
    Mr Avoka 12:35 p.m.
    I am deferring to my Deputy.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Very well. Hon Deputy Majority Leader -
    Alhaji Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to support the amendment for two major reasons.
    First of all, I notice that with all the interventions, with all the effective temperatures demonstrated here about what the amendment could represent for us, in collateralising oil, I have not heard an alternative view, an alternative amendment to the amendment proposed by Hon Moses Asaga. Mr Speaker, all we have heard is -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    There have been alternative suggestions.
    Alhaji Pelpuo 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, all I have heard are arguments for or against collateralisation.
    Mr Speaker, the other reason, I am supporting is that, it is the way to go. We have found oil in Ghana, we have increased capacity to generate wealth. Mr Speaker, the wealth of the nation has increased, our ability to generate income has increased. If we want more income to flow into this country, it is only logical that we should demonstrate the wealth by telling our lenders or our partners, our donors that we can pay what they give us all the time. It makes credit cheaper and it makes negotiations cheaper and it enables us to have easy access to funding to construct this country.
    Mr Speaker, I will not talk much -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, conclude.
    Alhaji Pelpuo 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I will not talk much because the lines are drawn. The only thing I will mention is that, there have been several references to surveys that are done. Mr Speaker, while we do not dispute the fact that there was a survey, we cannot agree in toto that survey -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, conclude. I want to put the Question.
    Alhaji Pelpuo 12:35 p.m.
    So Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I want to call on all Hon Members including them, to vote on this amendment, so we can move forward.
    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
    Question put and the House counted.
    AYES -- 97
    NOES -- 87
    ABSTENTIONS -- 1
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, clause 8 -- Order!
    Mr Avoka 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Members, order! The list given to me by the Table Office includes clause 17. I want to get that clear, whether clause 17 is part of it.
    Hon Minority Leader, is clause 17 part of it? The list given to me by the Table Office includes clause 17 -- Very well, let us take the clause 19.
    Mr William O. Boafo 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I will like to refer you to Order 113 (2) and ask for a division -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon Member, if the voice vote of the Speaker is challenged -- I have not pronounced on a voice vote. So you are out of order - [Hear! Hear!].
    Hon Leaders, you met the Speaker and you gave a certain number of clauses that you thought should be disposed of. I have a list given to me here which includes clause l7 - the Hon Majority Leader is saying clause l9 and so, I do not know.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:55 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, clause 17, the next destination. Really, it relates to the disbursement from the Petroleum Holding Fund. The amendment being sought now is to the effect that the disbursement from the Petroleum Holding Fund -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon

    Member, are you going to move the amendment?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:55 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    My attention has been drawn to a small amendment in clause 5 but I do not see it as an amendment. It is a drafting matter so the Table Office is to take note accordingly. It stands in the name of Hon Appiah-Ofori, it is to put “a” before collateral. So it is really a drafting matter. So I have directed that the Table Office and the draftsperson should take note accordingly.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, can we clarify what currently is the status of clause 5 (2) - what is the current rendition?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon Member, that really is the position with clause 2 -- my understanding is that I call the amendments that are filed - I have not seen any amendments, so I do not see your problem.
    Hon Majority Leader - we are taking clause17. Hon Members clause17.
    Clause 17 - Disbursement from the Petroleum Holding Fund.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the first amendment that is being proposed by me relating to the Headnote has already been taken care of. So I am not going to move it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    That is consequential. Very good.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:55 p.m.
    The second
    one standing in my name is what I am going to move.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move that in
    clause 17 -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    There
    is an earlier one standing in the name of Hon Appiah-Ofori. Apart from the consequential one, the next one stands in the name of Hon Appiah-Ofori.
    Hon Minority Leader, do you get the point?
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    I beg to move, clause 17, line 1, delete “Disbursement” and insert “Disbursements” and also delete “only be made to” and insert “shall be made only”.
    This is a better rendition than the present rendition. So this is not controversial and therefore, I urge everybody to support it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    What is
    the difference between what is there and your amendment?
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 12:55 p.m.
    My amendment puts the language in a better shape. It is better than what it is now.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, what is the difference - the amendment of Hon Appiah-Ofori?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was really not following but the point is, if we have to amend that one, then necessarily, we must also amend the Headnote.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Yes, we can make it consequential. But I am not worried about the disbursement, the second leg of his amendment.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that it is referring to the fanning out of the amounts, that is, the receipts into the Petroleum Fund, going to three different areas, plus maybe, deductions for management and so on.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    What is here is that “shall only be made to” and he says “shall be made only to”. I do not know. I think the one in the Bill is a better rendition.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:55 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, the correct rendition really should be “shall be made only to”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Very
    well.
    Mr Avoka 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that it
    is a drafting matter. These are issues of drafting. So I think that we should refer it to the draftsperson so that they will do it -- [Interruptions] - In modern drafting, Mr Speaker, they have come across new terms that some of us are not conversant with. So I think that for purposes of making a good law, let us refer it to the drafters. It is not on policy.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing, do you have your Bill there?
    Mr Alban S. K. Bagbin 12:55 p.m.
    Yes. Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, the draftspersons have always complained about the clarity of the decision of the House. They want to know what the House has decided, whether it is a matter of secretarial, typographical or whatever. They want directions. So I believe that these amendments are meant to direct them to the proper phraseology that is used in circumstances of this nature and I think the Hon Member is right. Hon Appiah-Ofori is right; the rendition should be “disbursements from the Petroleum
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Clement K. Humado 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment sought by Hon Appiah-Ofori, the way it is couched, has introduced another problem, that is to insert “shall be made only”. If you put that into the original rendition too “shall” will appear. So, I think the amendment should also be amended.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon
    Member for Dormaa West?
    Mr Agyeman-Manu 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not know precisely what you want me to do.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon Member, I saw you on your feet and I signalled you that after the Hon Member for Anlo, I was going to call you. You have changed your mind?
    Mr Agyeman-Manu 1:05 p.m.
    Yes, please.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Very well. Alhaj i Mohammed-Mubarak
    Muntaka: Mr Speaker, if you look at the amendment proposed by Hon Appiah- Ofori and even what the Hon Minority Leader read, they are different. If you look at the rendition very clearly, if you take what Hon P. C. Appiah-Ofori says, the rendition will then be as follows:
    “The disbursement from the Petroleum Account shall be made only --
    (a) Consolidated Fund . . .”
    And it does not even sound well. I believe that we could just further take off the “shall” and at the end of his amendment,
    put the word “to”. So, the rendition will now read as follows:
    “Disbursement from the Petroleum Account shall be made only to. . .”
    So that it follows what the Hon Minority Leader said. Because currently, as it stands, it did not put “to” at the tail end and the “shall” is repeating -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    It does not go to the substance of his amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, the first and second a m e n d m e n t s i n y o u r n a m e a r e consequential; we have done that already - the “Holding Fund” and the “Account” issue?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
    That is so.
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move,clause 17, paragraph (a), before “the Consolidated” insert “into”.
    Mr Speaker, we do not put funds “to” the Consolidated Fund but “into” the Consolidated Fund. It should not be “to” but “into” the Consolidated Fund.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon Member, that amendment, the word “into”, if you say paragraph (a), as if it is only qualifying the Consolidated Fund but it is qualifying (a), (b) and (c) of that clause. So, what you should rather do is to delete the word “to” in line 1 and put “into”. So, move the amendment and let me put the Question. So it should be line 1, not paragraph (a).
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 1:05 p.m.
    All right. So, delete “to” and put “into” in place of this. So you do not transfer “to” but you transfer “into” the Consolidated Fund.
    Mr Ambrose P. Dery 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we are to delete “to” and insert “into”, it means it should apply to (a), (b) and (c). And if that happens, (c) becomes discordant “into exceptional deductions according to provisions of the Act”. So, I think that “to” is better than “into”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon P. C.
    Appiah-Ofori, this is quite clear, so what do you do?
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we
    pay money into an account but we do not pay money to an account. So it will be wrong for us to say that pay it “to” the account -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    We are not paying, it is disbursement.
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 1:05 p.m.
    Yes, disbursement into. So, it is better we use a language --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon P. C. Appiah-Ofori, what the Hon Deputy Minority Leader is saying is that you cannot use the word “into” to apply to (c). Your first amendment only applies to (a) which is also not correct. What we have printed on the Order Paper too is also not correct.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think what he is trying to do is to separate the three because the word “into” affects (a) and (b) and if you come down, he uses “for”, that is on top of page 13. He used “for” to qualify exceptional deductions. So, he has broken all of them down.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Very good. Hon P. C Appiah-Ofori, move the
    amendment.
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 17, before “the Consolidated” insert “into” so that the rendition will be as follows:
    “Disbursement from the Petroleum Account shall be made only into the Consolidated Fund”.
    Mr Jospeh Yieleh Chireh 1:05 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, I do not think that we need any “into” in that place. Disbursements are made -- and from the way we are putting the thing, and if we make something to, it is inside. The Consolidated Fund, is it a box that you will put something into? It is not a box, so you just put the thing to. So there is no need for this. Let us reject it outright.
    Alhaji Pelpuo 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I suppose
    that the amendment is well intended except that it is not necessary because we pay into but we disburse to. So, I think we leave it like that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon P.
    C. Appiah-Ofori, you have got the sense of some of the Members of the House?
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 1:05 p.m.
    This is my position and if the House says, no, I have no objection.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Are you
    withdrawing your amendment or I should put the Question?
    Mr Appiah-Ofori 1:05 p.m.
    No, I am not withdrawing. I will not withdraw any of my amendments, so put the Question and let me lose it.
    Mr Bagbin 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we just finished with his first amendment and
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Well, I thought as much but he said we should put the Question; he will not withdraw the amendment; Hon P. C. Appiah-Ofori?
    Mr P. C. Appiah-Ofori 1:15 p.m.
    I am not withdrawing the amendment at all. I am correct, so put the Question and let me lose it.
    Question put and amendment negatived.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    It is consequential, so there is no need for you to move the other ones.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 17, paragraph (a), delete and insert the following:
    “the Petroleum Development Fund as part of the consolidated national budget”
    Mr Speaker, the amendment will read as follows 1:15 p.m.
    17. “Disbursement from the Petroleum Holding Fund shall be made only to:
    ( a ) t h e P e t r o l e u m Development Fund as part of the consolida-
    ted national budget;
    (b) the Ghana Petroleum Funds for purposes of savings and investments; and
    (c) exceptional deductions according to the provisions of this Act.”
    Mr Speaker, the reason for this amendment is to enable Parliament and indeed, even the Hon Minister for Finance and Economic Planning to be able to make disbursements of funding to programmed activities.
    Mr Speaker, if we do that, it will allow us to be project specific; that is the first it will also enable us to target the needs that we desire to address.
    Mr Speaker, it will allow for effective monitoring and also provide for effective oversighting of resources allocated to programmes.
    Mr Speaker, I say so because in what has been done now, as regards just allowing the receipts to hit the Consolidated Fund to support the Budget -- Mr Speaker, we are unable to know exactly for what commitments these funds are being targeted. As in the Budget now, we do not even know and the Hon Minister himself is not helped at all by the fact that the amounts just go to support the national budget.
    Mr Speaker, the other day we argued that one of the reasons for introducing the concept of decentralisation was not only to empower the District Assemblies to be effective participants in governance, but to allow for mobilisation of resources from local areas to develop the localities. Immediately, people got to know that the District Assemblies Common Fund was trickling in, the effort at the local level had been killed.
    Mr Speaker, nobody is saying that Government should not use the resources for development; that should be what should be done. What this amendment is seeking to do is to allow for us to better

    target programmes so that we would be able to monitor and oversight its use and the Hon Minister would be helped tremendously.

    Mr Speaker, if we are not careful and we just allow the Consolidated Fund to swallow, as it were, revenues from petroleum, we would not be able to know where they are going and when the resource dries up, it will be difficult for us to point to any thing that we might have done with it. So I am not proposing two Appropriations Acts, no. That is why I have said that it should come as part of the presentation of the Budget; we have this and then it is consolidated into one Appropriation Act.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, I follow your augment very well but I need clarification from you. We only have national budget, what is Consolidated National Budget?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect, national budget is not even known to our Constitution.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    But at least, when you use national budget, everybody here knows what you are talking about. They use “national budget” in the Bill, but you are using “consolidated national budget”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is only to provide a distinction that I am not talking about the regular national budget. That is the only distinction. If people understand and we should even hive off that word “Consolidated”, I do not mind. But the principle being established is what I am interested in. Mr Speaker, I believe it will help us tremendously to be project -- specific as I have said, to target our development needs to effectively monitor the use, and also for Parliament to
    properly oversight the projects for which funds are allocated.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister himself, if he allocates resources to Ministries, it is often very difficult for him to monitor the use of the resources. That is why I am saying that the Hon Minister would be helped tremendously if we go that line. Mr Speaker, I believe a word to the wise is enough. I am done.
    Mr Haruna Iddrisu 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to oppose the proposed amendment moved by the Minority Leader and possibly to persuade him to abandon it. Mr Speaker, in doing so, may I refer you to article 175 of the Constitution:
    “The public funds of Ghana shall be the Consolidated Fund, the Contingency Fund and such other public funds as may be established by or under the authority of an Act of Parliament.”
    But article 176 is very significant:
    “There shal l be paid into the Consolidated Fund, subject to the provisions of this article -
    (a) all revenues or other moneys raised or received for the purposes of, or on behalf of, the Government; and
    (b) any other moneys raised or received in trust for, or on behalf of, the Government.”
    Mr Speaker, for purposes of national budget, it is only money from the Consolidated Fund which will support what goes in, depending upon what Parliament approves under appropriation. Therefore, to say that we should have a petroleum development fund, in my view, begs the issue legally and I think that he should be persuaded to abandon it.
    Dr A. A.Osei 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that my good Friend and Hon Colleague who is a lawyer is completely misleading this House. He made reference to article 175. No, both articles 175 and 176 -- he should have read article 176 (2). And again, as he keeps reminding us, he has to read some of the clauses together. He should go to article 179 (2) and the point that my Leader was speaking about becomes clear. Mr Speaker, for the avoidance of doubt, let me read it:
    “The estimates of the expenditure of all public offices and public corporations, other than those set up as commercial ventures -
    (a) shall be classified under programmes or activities which shall be included in a bill to be known as an Appropriation Bill and which shall be introduced into Parliament to provide for the issue from the Consolidated Fund or such other appropriate fund . . .”
    And this is what my Leader is referring to.
    “such other appropriate fund”
    that we are creating. But it becomes part of the Appropriation Act which covers estimates of expenditure. So my good Friend, Hon Joe Ghartey was about to offer an amendment to remove the words “national budget”. That will cure
    Mr Joe Ghartey 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    am happy that Hon Dr Akoto Osei has described me as his good Friend. Mr Speaker, I want to assure you and the whole House that he is always my good Friend. We disagree a lot of the time but he is always my good Friend.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my good
    Friend does not come to Parliament very often. When he comes - (Now he is hitting my leg)
    But i f the Hon Minis ter for Communications will look at the principle -- I think it is the principle -- and if the amendment is --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    But when the Estimates come, they would be able to - In fact, this is a constitutional requirement. They have to classify them under “programmes and activities” like we did for the Highly Indebted Poor Countries
    (HIPC).
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:25 p.m.
    But the HIPC was not -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    No, no, no. Like we did for HIPC.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:25 p.m.
    The same principle will apply.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    But initially, it was not coming but when we pushed, it was brought. So whenever we go to a committee meeting, we were able to tell that this is an allocation for HIPC to support this and that.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:25 p.m.
    That is the point. That
    will help us really be able to monitor these identifiable projects; it will help the Minister, it will help Parliament and others -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    But this

    amendment will not address that mischief that you are talking about.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:25 p.m.
    No, Hon Joe Ghartey was going to offer a slight amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Very well. Chairman of the Committee, let me hear you.
    Mr J. K. Avedzi 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to oppose the proposed amendment. Mr Speaker, I do so for the reason that the proposed amendment has a good intention but it is not necessary to create another fund.
    Mr Speaker, when you read the clause 17, the proposed amendment which talks about Petroleum Development Fund, we have not established any Petroleum Development Fund. Therefore, we cannot be saying that disbursement should be made to the Petroleum Development Fund. That is number one.
    Number two, the intention of the proposed amendment is to have identifiable project which we can point that these projects are funded from the revenue coming from the petroleum sector. And that can conveniently be taken care of in clause 22, where you are referring to the use of the Annual Budget Funding Amount. You can specify there that the budget should include programmes and activities that are going to be funded by the Annual Budget Funding Amount. That is completely taken care of.
    Creating another fund is not necessary. So I think that I plead with the Minority Leader to rather direct that intention to clause 22, so that we can couch the clause 22 in such a way that we can have identifiable projects that are funded from the petroleum revenue.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to support the amendment by Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu.
    Mr Speaker, the very reason we are here today trying to come up with a law is because (part of the reason is that) the resource which we are dealing with is finite and the revenues coming to that resource are also finite. Therefore, we do not want to find a situation where you add these resources, you co-mingle them with resources that are coming from the general pool. Once you put them in the pool, they are lost and lost forever.
    When the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning was here the other day, we asked him where that GH¢322 million that was supposed to be in the Budget is. Because it is for the Budget support, he could not tell us; it is all mingled into the Budget. So at the end of the year, he would not be able to tell what that money was used for.
    Mr Speaker, we would come back next year and we would not know where that money is gone except for the fact that we were using GH¢252 million for the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC); even that one, we do not know the programmes and projects that the GNPC is going to use the money for. So what he is suggesting here is that, let us get the development fund. That fund, no matter how the details are, whether it is outside budget or inside budget, let the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning bring here programmes and activities when he is presenting the Budget as part of a consolidated budget, so that we will know that this is what it is going to be used for, so that next year, we can come back here and say that that oil money was used for this.
    Now, as it stands, there is nowhere in the Budget that the Minister can tell us that that is where that money is going to go. So that is exactly what he is trying to tell us.
    Mr Speaker, the Minister will even be
    given more fiscal space in funding Item 4, the non-development component of Item 4. As it stands now, he put it all, maybe,
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon
    Member for Asawase.
    Alhaji Muntaka 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the principle that maybe, informed this amendment is good but I wonder whether the Minority Leader will not advert his mind to clause 22 when we get there; because that is where it is talking about the use of the Annual Budget Funding Amount, where I have even proposed an amendment suggesting that we should do it the way he was putting it. So I believe that if we take it there, it may save this situation because the principle that he is espousing too is good -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    He wants to do at the point of disbursement.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:25 p.m.
    On a point of clarification. He asked whether I will not change my mind in view of the proposal for clause 22. Mr Speaker, clause 22 is completely different. It only tells us that we should prioritise in these areas. It does not provide any line items to enable us know exactly where they are going; it does not.
    So we are only saying that, yes, let us look at those places. We have agreed that even there, we will create that terrain, that space for ourselves but I think we were getting to some concensus the other day when we dated the principles, that even there, the terrain is too large. We could prioritise from among that but we are not there yet.
    Mr Speaker, what we are saying is that, to allow for better project, funding, it is better we go this way. That is all that we are saying.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Let me
    hear from Hon Joe Ghartey, then the Minister for Local Government and Rural Development.
    Mr Joe Ghartey 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    basically, the Bill we are looking at looks at three streams of funding.
    There is the Heritage Fund which is dealt with in other clauses. Then there is the Stabilisation Fund.
    Mr Speaker, the Stabilisation Fund also, it has no own formula and if there is a shortfall in the Budget, it goes into the Budget and from the amendment, I can see that there is no quarrel about that.
    Then there is the third stream and the third stream is the stream which is supposed to be for development and that is what we are discussing.
    Mr Speaker, the purpose, and I support
    this amendment, is simply to have a situation where this third stream which is a development stream, if I may call it that, is rephrased in a manner which is accountable, which is transparent and which is easily traceable.

    Mr Speaker, when an amount of money goes into the Budget and it is allocated to a Ministry, under our current situation and under the law, the Ministers have some flexibility, discretion in viring the amount. In fact, except for Item 1, the Ministers can vire. It is not misapplication - they can vire with the permission of the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning; but it is not misapplication of funds.

    So a certain amount is given to the Attorney-General's Office and when they come here, we look at the Estimates. They say that they are going to build

    another building in Kumasi. Six months down the line, the Minister decides that “well, I want to send 30 lawyers to do Oil and Gas”, so the Minister then goes to his Colleague Minister for Finance and Economic Planning and within that general remit, he can vire because the entire amount is covered by the Appropriation Bill.

    Mr Speaker, you would see that the

    HIPC Fund as you mentioned, the GET- Fund --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    I
    mentioned HIPC Fund.
    Mr Ghartey 1:35 p.m.
    Yes. The HIPC Fund,
    Mr. Speaker, as you mentioned -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    And there is a reason behind it which Hon Akoto Osei is aware of --
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not aware of - I cannot look through your mind.
    Mr Ghartey 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, and all these - the HIPC Fund, the GETFund as well as the NHIS Fund -- are Funds that we have created, given a specific purpose to and are Funds that are saved as well. Mr Speaker, if these amounts of money were just put into the Budget, the general pool, perhaps, we would not have achieved the results we have achieved under HIPC, under GETFund and under NHIS.
    The next question is that, so the whole purpose of this amendment is to ring-fence the amount, have a targeted, as it were, programme of activity, a programme that can be monitored and therefore, an increase of accountability and transparency? Mr Speaker, the only question for me is that, is this process that is being suggested allowed by law?
    Mr Speaker, indeed, I have the
    permission of the Minority Leader to introduce a friendly amendment and perhaps, that amendment will help us see our way clear. And Mr Speaker, instead of “as part of the consolidated national budget”, which you correctly said there was nothing like a “consolidated national budget, we should rather use the words in article 179 (1), which says:
    “. . . shall be part of estimates of revenue and expenditure of the Government of Ghana for the following financial year.”
    This is because what we have termed as the Budget in this House is really, as it is described in article 179, the estimates of revenue and expenditure. So when the Finance Minister comes to the floor of Parliament, he would talk about how he is going to spend money from the Consolidated Fund. Then he would talk about how he is going to spend money from the Petroleum Development Fund. Mr Speaker, indeed, the Constitution itself envisages that apart from the Consolidated Fund, there would be other public funds. Article 175 states and I read:
    “The public funds of Ghana shall be the Consolidated Fund, the Contingency Fund and such other public funds as may be established by or under the authority of an Act of Parliament.”
    This is the third leg that we are seeking to come under. It would not make the Minister less powerful. The Minister would continue doing his estimates of revenue and expenditure. It would not tie the hands of Government. Government would continue to do its programmes and say that they are going to build a school at Esikado, I hope so, or a hospital at Esikado out of the Petroleum Fund. All it would do is to increase transparency and accountability.
    So what is said to come out of the Fund, it can easily be monitored by this House regardless of what Party is in power and there would be transparency and

    accountability and the people of Ghana would see that this amount was what came into the Petroleum Account; this amount, we said in Parliament that we would use for this, this is what it has been used for. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment.

    I am grateful.
    Mr Joseph Y. Chireh 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    I oppose the amendment.
    First of all, the reasons are very simple. If you look at the amendment and the current rendition of the Bill, you do not see what the amendment is all about. You are saying that the money for the Budget comes from petroleum resources. That is all you are saying.
    Now, you are setting up another fund - how many funds do we want to set up for only petroleum resources? How many funds? You cannot create so many funds within one law. It is not possible. Why? Look, the issue is simple. If you want programmes and projects --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, you can set up as many funds as this House would agree.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:35 p.m.
    On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, he is misleading this House. The Bill itself has created three funds - Annual Budgeting Funding Amount, Stabilisation Fund and Heritage Fund. They are already in here. So what is he talking about?
    Mr Chireh 1:35 p.m.
    Then why do you create another Petroleum Development Fund? [Interruption.]
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:35 p.m.
    What the amendment seeks to do -- [Interruption.]
    Mr Chireh 1:35 p.m.
    To develop petroleum or what? What are you talking about?
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:35 p.m.
    It is to change the name of one - You have done it, he is just changing the name.
    Mr Chireh 1:35 p.m.
    I am saying “Petroleum Development Fund”, are you going to develop petroleum? [Laughter.] What are you going to do? Mr. Speaker -- [Interruption.]
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Minister just came -
    Mr Chireh 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon. Members, one at a time.
    Mr Chireh 1:35 p.m.
    No, he is harassing me. When he was speaking, I did not get up.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not sure where he has been. The whole Bill is about three Funds being created. The entire Bill talks about three Funds. The Minority Leader is seeking a change of name of one of them, and then he is asking how can we create three Funds? Mr. Speaker, he should be asking the Government that question. It has already created three Funds, so what is he talking about?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member -
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    No, no, please, you have made your point. So let him -
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:35 p.m.
    With respect, to the Hon Minister, he should address his mind to the fact that the Bill has already created three Funds. So he cannot say that we
    cannot do that unless he is coming with an amendment to create only one. So he should not say that we are creating more Funds.
    Mr Chireh 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker by our rules and procedure, anybody who supports an amendment to a Motion speaks to it. That was why when he was making all the statements, I kept quiet. After I have finished, he can point out what things I have got wrong.
    But I want to tell him that, first of all, he is going to set up another Petroleum Development Fund. What is Petroleum Development Fund. To develop petroleum or what? -- [Laughter.] The issue is that we are taking resources derived from the petroleum that we have found. If he wants Government each year to indicate the projects the money is to be used for, he must say so, not by this amendment. If he says that the resources from petroleum each year should have a separate itemized projects to be undertaken, he can add it to this Bill, but not this amendment.
    The amendment is simply saying that, yes, funds or resources from petroleum products or the petroleum resources should be put in the national budget. If you say so, then you should go further to say that under this scheme, any project that would be undertaken using this money must be specified in the Budget Statement.
    That goes to the priorities in clause 22. If you just say that you are creating another Fund to be put into the national budget, you have not added anything. You have not instructed the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning to bring the specific projects that are to be undertaken --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Minister, you have made your point.
    Mr Chireh 1:35 p.m.
    So my point is that this amendment is absolutely unnecessary. If he wants to get the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning to indicate the specific projects that the monies derived from the oil should be used for, then we should say so in clause 22 and that should be a command, not to create another Fund for the development of petroleum. No way.
    Mr Stephen K. B. Manu 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to support the amendment. Mr Speaker, we all know that if monies are put in the general Consolidated Fund, tracking their use for projects is very difficult. The examples that they have given, if you go to your constituencies, or if we go to our constituencies, we are able to count projects that the Ghana Education Trust Fund (GETFund) money has sponsored. We can count projects that Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) funds have supported; we can do same for the National Health Insurance Fund. But if we ask you, where are the consolidated fund projects? You would not be able to point to any. Please, it is going to be as he is saying aban aban. And that is where monitoring and tracking down the use of the oil money is going to be lost on us.
    So this amendment he is proposing, seeks, just as Hon Yieleh Chireh said, to outline clearly what the oil funds would be used for. If for this year, we are using it for railways, then we know the money for this year is building the railway from Tarkwa to Paga. If we are able to do that then we know we have achieved something. Then next year, we say we are using it to build hospitals, then we draw projects that the money would be used for. That is why he is calling for that amendment.
    So I believe that if we are sincere and committed to transparency and easy monitoring and evaluation of the use of
    petroleum money, then we should vote massively for this amendment. Other than that, the years would go and come but we cannot account for the moneys that are going to accrue from the oil fund. This is going to be very sad for this country.
    Do not let us behave like women - [Interruption] - Excuse me to use “women”, who when they go into their marriages and they know they would not keep long there, when they uproot the cassava, they do not plant it again because they know the year would not go and come and meet them. So please, let us be serious with this money before somebody misuses it.
    I thank you Mr Speaker.
    Mr H. Iddrisu 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    just want to renew a position that the creation of new Funds is not a matter that Government is encouraging.
    Mr Speaker, let me just refer you to paragraph 929, page 229 of our Budget Statement, a policy statement we only approved yesterday, where the Hon Minister for Finance and Economic Planning shared with this august House, problems with rigidities in the Budget and earmarked funds and in particular he made reference to, for instance, GETFund, National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), District Assemblies Common Fund and the paragraph ends on this note:
    “ . . .The rigidities that these statutory and contractual payments introduce in the budget are such that virtually every little revenue is left to fund other critical expenditures.”
    Mr Speaker, even without this
    reference, I share a position and a sentiment which were well espoused by the Hon Papa Owusu-Ankomah when we were looking at the Second Reading of this
    particular Bill, when he asked for more transparency and openness. Mr. Speaker, under Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI), billions of dollars came to Ghana under MDRI. Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) - billions of dollars came to this country.
    Mr Speaker, we did not legislate on the disbursement of those funds; as important as they were, we did not. I am all for transparency; I am all for openness but not to legislate to create a Fund. I think what we should agree with the Hon Minority Leader is to take a position that, yes, we would incorporate it in the national budget but the Hon Minister for Finance and Economic Planning must provide a detailed item by item activity of what would be funded under petroleum revenue as part of the national budget.
    Mr Speaker, if you go to clause 18, as was rightly pointed by the Hon Yieleh Chireh, there is a position that this may be approved by the Parliament of Ghana. So in exercising that approval, we would ask detail by detail, expenditure, what the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning is seeking to do with petroleum revenue. But to earmark another Fund, I am afraid, is not something that Government will encourage.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Member for Amenfi East.
    But before then, I would want to find out from the Hon Minority Leader, from what the Hon Minister for Communications has just said, can you work out a certain compromise round that? So that whatever - if it is an “X” amount, we know that this is a detailed expenditure that is going to - without necessarily creating a Fund. That is the point that the Hon Minister is making.
    Can you work out a certain compromise? I have deferred the Hon Member for Amenfi East for a very long time, so let me give him the opportunity.
    Mr Joseph B. Aidoo 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the
    question that ought to be asked is, why are we having a whole Bill on Petroleum Revenue? It is because the oil revenue is special. It is different from other commodity revenues like cocoa, gold, timber Mr Speaker, for that reason, the way the petroleum revenue must be used ought to be given a special consideration, a special attention.
    Mr Speaker, all what the Hon Minority Leader is proposing to do is, as Hon Joe Ghartey said, introduce transparency and accountability in the way the petroleum revenue would be utilized.
    Mr Speaker, I have heard Hon Colleagues mention clause 22 and once you have this framework - What this amendment is seeking to do is to provide a solid foundation and a framework within which this transparency and accountability would arise.
    Therefore, the amendment is going to assist in providing that framework for clause 22 to operate, for which reason, I want to believe that the Hon Minority Leader's amendment should be sustained. I will urge Hon Members to support it for the sake of transparency and accountability in the utilization of the petroleum revenue along the Budget lines.
    Mr Bagbin 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, everybody is talking about transparency, openness, accountability and the rest. How do you achieve that is what is being debated. But when you propose a Fund as Petroleum Development Fund, by the name, it is meant to develop petroleum. [Interruption.]
    I think that there is a problem with the nomenclature that has been used. From the debate, there is a clear intention of having the revenue that is coming into the consolidated account being earmarked for specific projects. But if you say
    “Petroleum Development Fund”, it gives a different meaning. So, if that is the intention, you could say “Special Projects Fund” which we approve. Special Projects Fund and we know that, that money is going for these types of projects that we have approved ourselves. Very open, very transparent.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, I do not intend invoking Standing Order 40 (3) so that, after this discussion, we can go and look at the Estimates. My information is that the MDAs, some of them are waiting. So, after this, we will defer this matter and then --
    Mr Dery - rose —
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Yes, I will call you after the Hon Minister because I have called you already, so after you. So, you have to do it briefly because I do not intend invoking Order 40 (3).
    Mr Bagbin 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my worry is that we have already created so many funds in this Bill, so many apart from the Heritage, Stabilisation, Petroleum Holding Funds - there is another one we created. There are so many and now so many Funds in one Act. That is my worry. I think that if really, we want to add for progress, I will propose that we take the “Special Projects Fund”.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon Member, you have two minutes, we will continue this matter because some

    consensus is coming along the line. So, two minutes because at 2 o'clock -
    Mr Dery 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the end, the Hon Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing has agreed that there is nothing wrong with having a Fund, just the nomenclature, which I do not have a problem with. We can deal with the name. The important thing is that the Constitution has made room for those number of Funds, as we look at article 179 (2) (a). Why does the Hon Minister for Finance and Economic Planning complain because it gives him little room to move funds and that is good for us? Because the more room we give to the Hon Minister to move funds round, the less control that we have.
    Mr Speaker, talking about the Special
    Projects Fund, if you look at page 16 of the Order Paper, the Hon Minority Leader has already made provision to capture those that will come as activities to be covered by it. We do not want the money, which is already created by this Bill, which is to go to development just to go into the Consolidated Fund and get lost.
    We want to be able to trace it. So if you give it a name, “Special Projects Fund” or whatever, that is fine. When special projects are brought and the Minister is limited to use the money to ensure that the projects under article 22 are implemented, I think it is better for us and we will get better returns. So, I will continue the submission tomorrow.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Yes, very good.
    Hon Majority Leader, I want us to adjourn but it is not yet 2 o'clock, so you move the Motion for adjournment so that they go and look at the Estimates. So tomorrow morning we continue the so-
    called controversial clauses. [Laughter.] The two Leaders have a clause that they are referring to as a controversial clause.
    Mr Cletus A. Avoka 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    in the light of many of the Ministries, Departments and Agencies personnel standing by for us to look at the Estimates. The time now is almost 2 o'clock and I beg to move, that this House now adjourn until tomorrow at ten in the forenoon.
    Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought we were going to put this particular one behind us and then maybe, tomorrow take the others? But if you want to stand down the Bill till tomorrow, so be it Mr Speaker. For that reason, I beg to second the motion for adjournment.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    ADJOURNMENT 1:55 p.m.