Debates of 19 Jul 2011

MADAM SPEAKER
PRAYERS

VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT

  • [No correction was made to the Votes and Proceedings of Monday, 18th July, 2011.]
  • [No Corrections was made to the Official Respect of Wednesday, 13th July, 2011.]
  • Madam Speaker
    Yes, Majority Leader, no Statement has been admitted today, so we move on straight to the Commencement of Public Business.
    Presentation of Papers; item 4-Leader.
    Mr Cletus A. Avoka
    Madam Speaker, we can lay item number 4 (a) but the debate will come later tomorrow or there about.
    Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Madam Speaker, I thought the Majority Leader and I had agreed before you, that in view of what we had been told, that they were looking for some information,

    maybe, it may find expression in the Report, for which reason, it may become, necessary to lay it tomorrow. And I agreed that, perhaps, when it is laid tomorrow, we can then agree to waive the various provisions in the Standing Orders and then commence the debate tomorrow. But they should not import kangaroos into this House this morning.
    Mr Avoka
    I have no objection.
    Madam Speaker
    In other words?
    Mr Avoka
    In other words, we could defer item 4 (a). Item 4(b) and the rest are ready.
    PAPERS

    Madam Speaker
    So Motion number 5 is deferred?
    Mr Avoka
    That is so; then we move on to item number 6.
    Madam Speaker
    Item number 6, at the Consideration Stage. I believe it is the Long Title that is left to be considered.
    BILLS - CONSIDERATION STAGE

  • [Resumption of debate from 12-7- 2011]
  • Mr Avoka
    Madam Speaker, we can suspend for fifteen minutes.
    10.50 a.m. - Sitting suspended.
    11.15 a.m. -Sitting resumed.
    MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members, Item 7 - Renewable Energy Bill, 2010 at the Consideration Stage -- Continuation.
    BILLS - CONSIDERATION STAGE

    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Chairman, do you want to still maintain "a fine of; you want the word "of" to be there?
    Mr Yakah
    Mr Speaker, the "of there is deleted, so "not exceeding two thousand penalty units".
    Mr William O. Boafo
    Mr Speaker, yesterday. the outstanding issue was whether this particular provision should be retained at where it is now or it should be transposed to the section dealing With offences. If it should be retained as it is now, then We have to prefix it with "despite the provisions of section 47"; and we were told that they were going to consult the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and come back to the House. So, maybe, the Hon Deputy Minister would-
    Alhaji Inusah A. B. Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, yes, yesterday, that was the position and Mr Speaker, I did consult the Attorney-General's Office. Mr Speaker, they are of the view that that, is the place that the provision should be, that it is following up from the general provision that deals with commercial activities and that there is the need to create an offence in that section This is because anybody who defaults in compliance with these provisions must suffer a penalty.
    Mr Speaker, I have further consulted with them why they did not give us an indication of the jail term that a non- payment of the fine should attract. Mr Speaker, their view is that, even though they have used "person", "person" here denotes artificial and natural persons; and that for artificial persons, one has to go behind to see who has committed the offence- So in their view, they never intended that this provision should attract a jail term. They intended that it should attract a penalty.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    If the offence should persist? Assuming it is more profitable to be in breach and continue to pay the monies we have prescribed under our law with impunity -

    When a person flouts our law in this way, or when a person, body, or authority - what should we do? This may be a first offender, a repeated offender, and he is doing it because - "Look, it is better for me to keep paying these fines and defying the Ghana law than to comply". What do We do?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, that then goes to the general provisions on offences, because that would entitle the Commission to withdraw the licence of such an offender for the repeated exercise of default.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Very well. Hon Members, any further comments?
    Mr Boafo
    Mr Speaker, I am wondering whether the position taken by the Hon Deputy Minister is deterrent enough under the circumstances, as you rightly pointed out that there may be preference not to pay. You see, there may be preference for the person not to pay. But if it is tagged with incarceration, then it would be much more deterrent. If it is tagged with incarceration and it is a body corporate, the veil can be lifted and we can go in for Directors or the Secretaries of the body corporate. We are only thinking of the deterrence effect.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    The Hon Deputy Minister's explanation is that, in that case, we would go back to the provisions relating to offences generally, where stiffer penalties would apply.
    Mr Boafo Mr Speaker, it is not clear. It is not every time that people would have access to the Hansard to know the rationale behind the withholding of incarceration, so that they can go to clause 47. So if we are to accept this proposition, then clause 8 should be linked with clause
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, the general intendment of this provision is to punish people engaged in commercial activities Who fail to comply with the Specified obligations under the provision dealing with commercial activities, and the penalty so indicated here is so harsh. Indeed, it is two thousand penalty units by GH¢12.00. It is harsh enough.
    Mr Speaker, we are further saying that the Interpretation Act - and I am sure my senior at the Bar, and in Parliament, and in age, knows that when one fails to comply with these sanctions, the Interpretation Act would immediately kick in and that provides. I am saying that where the default persists, Mr Speaker, the General Offences Act takes over, where the Commission would be entitled to withdraw the licence of such a person.
    So my humble plea is that, since we are going to be dealing with natural and artificial persons, to punish an artificial person with incarceration, would mean lifting the veil and seeing which people are directly involved in the commission of the offence -- This is because, you know, our legal jurisprudence frowns upon vicarious responsibility in criminal matters. So we want to see who is directly responsible.
    That is why we think that we should leave it this way, a penalty, where a person defaults in payment, then the Interpretation Act would kick in to deal with such a person whether natural or artificial. That would mean going behind the veil to see who is responsible. Where the penalty persists, then general offences would kick in and we would solve the problem.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Including possible Withdrawal of a licence?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Including possible Withdrawal of a licence because of the persistent default.
    Mr Boafo
    Mr Speaker, this is a situation where the person is operating without a licence. So where is the licence to be withdrawn? The person is operating without a licence, that is why he is being penalised. So where is the opportunity to Withdraw the licence?
    Mr Speaker, if you go to clause 47, and according to the Hon Deputy Minister, we tag the provision relating to imprisonment under clause 47 to clause 8, it is not proportionate at all. The fine under clause 8 as being proposed now, Mr Speaker, is about two thousand penalty units. And if we go to clause 47, Mr Speaker, it is about two hundred and fifty penalty units.
    The imprisonment is always relative to the penalty units. The imprisonment for 2,000 penalty units will be far, far higher than that of 250 penalty units. So, you see that it is incongruous.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    In other words, what the Hon Member is saying is that, the offence here is supposed to be far more serious than in clause 47. So, if clause 47 will be used as an ultimate sanction, then it cannot be a deterrent. In any case, Hon Deputy Minister, if you look closely here, it will look as if under clause 8, we are looking more at a person, a kind of promoter, someone who is operating without even a licence at all. This is a typical example of a case where the law will like to go quickly behind the veil and see who is behind a company that is operating unlawfully, without having a licence and then deal with him or her.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, We had thought that we should not discourage investment in this section. The Ministry, the policy direction and your committee, when they met, held the view that this was not a matter that we should incarcerate people for but punish them by way of fines. If the House is of the view that this offence is of the nature that we need to impose a term limit on an offender, that will be the House's decision.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Deputy Minister, I would like to know what you are thinking at this stage. This is because, you see, even when you have been given a licence and you do something wrong, it could be seen differently. But now, you know you must comply with a law; get a licence; you say, " as for me, I will not even take a licence, I am going on". That does not look like a law abiding person at all. That kind of person is the person you Want to deal with a bit more.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, exactly so. I agree entirely with him. That the offence created and the penalty, the consequences of the offence is so drastic in clause 8. It has been done so for it is intended to invite and motivate persons who intend to engage in any commercial activity to first apply for the licence. If you default or fail or neglect to apply for that licence, the consequences are more drastic. In fact, that was the intendment.
    So, when you look at the provisions, there should be every reason you should apply for. That is why, indeed, the penalty there is more drastic than the penalty under clause 47.

    Mr Speaker, like I said, I get the sense of the House that we should include custodial sentence and we are not opposed to that. We just thought that we should encourage investors to come into this country.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Deputy Minister, the Attorney-General's Department officials are just around the comer. If you would kindly ask them to simply give us the appropriate custodial sentence which goes with this kind of fine, we would make progress.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, they are thinking along that direction. They have already sent a paper and they are doing the drafting.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Thank you very much. I think we are making a lot of progress.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    So, Mr Speaker, we are further amending the provision to include a jail term for failure to pay the fine -- [Interruptions] - We will leave it to the drafts persons to come out with the-
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Let us have that now. We will stand that down for a moment. We will make progress with regard to other provisions and we will come to that for the moment they give us the appropriate custodial sentence in line with that.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Joseph K. Adda
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, new clause, after clause 1, add the following:
    "Establishment of a Ghana Re- newable Energy Authority:
    l. There is established by this Act the Ghana Renewable Energy Authority.
    Mr Joseph K. Adda
    2. The Authority shall oversee the harnessing and manage- ment of the country's renewable energy resources".
    Mr Speaker, indeed, after yesterday's deliberation, I thought it would be in the interest of this nation for us to introduce this clause to set up the Ghana Renewable Energy Authority. The practice, Mr Speaker, in many jurisdictions, is that we have an independent, dedicated agency or authority that is responsible for managing the affairs of the renewable energy business.

    The renewable energy business management is not in the hands of a regulatory body like the Energy Commission. It is not in the hands of any other generating body like the Volta River Authority (V RA) which deals with hydro or thermal but is left alone solely to look over the potential of the renewable energy in the nation which includes solar, wind, tidal waves, and biomass. But in Ghana, it is dispersed. All those potentials are there but the way we harness them or exploit them is disperse in all kinds of organisations.

    As we speak, Mr Speaker, the VRA is trying to set up the solar aspect of renewable energy; Energy Commission has gone out to try and deal with the wind part of it. The biomass, I am sure, will be to another entity.

    The purpose of this amendment is to set up a dedicated authority complete with the Board, Chief Executive and staff that will focus on harnessing the renewable energy potentials of the country. Examples of other jurisdictions include Germany, Philippines, India and Egypt, all of which have independent authorities or agencies to deal with this business.

    I think, if we can get this amendment through, it will help us make inroads into the renewable potential of our country.

    So, Mr Speaker, my view on this is therefore, for us to accept this in principle. The other things that come along, such as the setting up of the Boards, the Chief Executive, the functions and powers of the Board, 1 have got all those covered. But l was advised by the Clerks-at-the- Table for us to lay the amendment in this form, first, to get it accepted in principle, if it gets through, then we put all the others in there.

    Mr Speaker, as I said, the Board and What have you, are all well catered for. If We can get this through, those will also be added on to the Bill.
    MrM0ses Aduko Asaga
    Mr Speaker, I rise to differ and to oppose the new clause that has been moved by Hon Kofi Adda.
    Mr Speaker, I think that we already have an agency that is responsible for regulating the electricity sub sector of energy. That agency is the Energy Commission,
    Mr Speaker, if you look at the Energy Commission Act, it has been given the power to give this regulation that Hon Kofi Adda is proposing.
    The fact that the source of the electricity is solar does not make it different. This is because it is the product that we are looking at. The product from solar is electricity and therefore, anyone Who wants to come in to use solar energy to produce electricity would be regulated and governed by the Energy Commission because the end product is electricity.
    MrM0ses Aduko Asaga
    Just like we do not have a special agency overlooking the generation of electricity from water which is hydro, otherwise, the same argument would go, that let us set up an agency that would regulate the production of electricity from hydro.
    The same argument would then go and say that let us regulate the production of electricity through thermal plants. All these are sources of electricity, but the end product is power- electricity-and it is the Energy Commission that is mandated to do that work. We should not see solar energy to be very, very special. It is a source. Solar energy does not mean I am going to dry my clothing in the sun and therefore, for that reason, it is different from electricity and we should get a different regulator.
    So Mr Speaker, I think that Energy Commission has all the mandate and the expertise to be granting licences, to be granting permits just like they have been granting licence to even VRA for the production of electricity from hydro; just like they have been granting licence to Sunnon-Asogli Power Plant, which is an Independent power producer, just like they have been granting licences to other producers.
    So Mr Speaker, this would just be a duplication and I think for now, we should not be encouraging this duplication of agencies. There is an agency that is already doing that work. I think technically, We need to understand what the end product is. The end product is electricity. So whether the electricity is from water or whether the electricity is from thermal plants or solar plants or even biomass, the end product is electricity and the Energy Commission has been established to perform those functions.

    So this is my point and I think that Hon Kofi Adda should bear with us and then we would continue using Energy Commission for those activities.
    Mr Adda
    Mr Speaker, indeed, I think my Hon Chairperson has missed exactly what I am trying to do. In the first place Mr Speaker, I am not asking for this Authority to do any regulations at all to the contrary. In trying to get them to dedicate themselves to the implemen- tation arrangements as it were, in other Words, convert the renewable energy potential into the energy that we need to use in this country. The Energy Commission would stay as it is, we would maintain its regulatory function, but it is purely are regulatory agency and should not be involved in implementation, in executing projects, in setting up windmills.
    Mr Speaker, as we speak, I attempted to say it yesterday that the VRA which is the generator, has moved on to acquire land to generate energy from solar. Energy Commission, I understand, has moved on to advertise get strategic partners to come in to help them to set up windmills. Is it a regulator or is it an implementing agency that is supposed to run the assets of a generating facility like a Windmill? That should not be the function of Energy Commission.
    If we set up this Authority, they would still have to go to Energy Commission to get their permits and licences that are required for that Authority, to as it were , negotiate with strategic partners to acquire assets, to execute projects that would transform with the potential we have into energy. So if one wants to equate it with or compare it with any agency of government at all, you could say that this is the generator from the renewable side, not the regulator, Mr Speaker.
    I am not arguing for the Authority to become another regulator. I agree with the Chairman, Mr Speaker; we would
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Adda, may I add, if only to help. If this new body is not going to be a regulator, what would be the essence of its function in terms of overseeing the harnessing and management of the country's renewable energy resources? Maybe, you can help us.
    Mr Adda
    Mr Speaker, the essence of this agency would be to oversee the assets and interests of the exploitation of renewable potential of this country that would be converted into energy. It is a dedicated agency basically to manage the assets, to enter into strategic arrange- ments with any investor, any interest person or body that is coming in to execute any project that would convert our biomass, our solar, our windmills into energy. So in a way, you could liken it to VRA that is doing that with hydro and with thermal.
    Otherwise, Mr Speaker, we just leave it open and anybody or agency or investor who is coming into this country, who is looking to do any business in converting our potential into renewable energy would not know where to go. A directory in the Ministry of Energy is supposed to be dealing with policy. When you go in there and you find them attempting to do any implementation of any project, it becomes difficult for them to perform their role in a manner that we think they should be performing as a policy arm of the State. If they are to go to Energy Commission, they should be doing regulations, to tell you, this is how we are regulating the renewable sector.

    201 l Consideration Stage 3046 But this Authority, Mr Speaker, is simply the equivalent of, for lack of a better way of putting it, VRA iI1 handling the renewable energy potential and running the assets - managing the assets, negotiating on behalf of the Government and they would get into strategic partnerships that would be necessary.

    If you wish to, Mr Speaker, we could stretch it a little further to what Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC) is doing for us in oil. But as it is now, we do not have any real agency or authority that is handling our potential and assets that we would be exploiting into energy and I think this is what would help us to speed up exploitation of this potential that would help us to create substantial levels of energy as we are targeting 10 per cent of our capacity in the country from that.

    Otherwise, today, VRA goes into any part of this country and starts operating solar plants and then another agency like Energy Commission is trying to do now, goes on to deal with windmills, and who knows, somebody else might come, maybe, another agency going into tidal waves. But if we have one stop-shop where all those things are dealt with, from an implementing angle, from management side, they would still need Energy Commission for the permits and, for the licences.

    Mr Speaker, as I said before, if you go to some countries like Germany, Philippines, Egypt and India, in some of those countries, they refer them as national renewable energy boards. But Mr Speaker, I chose not to call it "Board" because from the advice from the Attorney-General's Department, most of the Boards have been converted into Authorities and that is why I am introducing this amendment as a renewable energy authority.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, for starters, yesterday, we agreed that by reason of the flexible approach we are adopting, the 1-Ion Member should give us a comprehensive write-up on the Authority, including its structure, functions and the composition to help us debate this matter. I think that seeking to establish the Authority now without giving us a clear understanding of the structured composition and functions, we would be doing a disservice to this House.
    Number two: Mr Speaker, the ECG, the VRA and all others which are engaged in the business of providing electricity to our homes, comply with regulations put in place by the Energy Commission. Mr Speaker, the Hon Member is Well aware of this by reason of his status" as a former Minister for Energy. That the VRA intending to set up a solar site to generate solar energy, first of all, has to seek approval and obtain same from the Energy Commission.
    Indeed, even in putting in place a generating plant, the VRA requires not only approval from the Energy Commission, but also from the Environmental Protection Agency. This is because they need to know the Environmental Impact Analysis Report before they do so.
    Mr Speaker, the countries that the Hon Member has mentioned have Authorities. They do not have Commissions; they do not have Energy Commissions. As I said yesterday, the Commission, variously called, could be anAutho1ity, a Board. But even why would we go and set up an Authority when our Constitution gives us an indication of what bodies we should set up in matters of this nature? We are

    following clearly the dictates of the Constitution and we have set up a Commission and the Commission regulates.

    But even without carrying on the debate further, I think that we would be doing ourselves a whole lot of good if we are able to understand clearly, the functions, composition and structure, so that we do not duplicate the efforts of the Energy Commission. This is because if we set up an Authority, we are going to incur additional costs. There might be potential prospects in the exercise of their functions with this proposed Authority. We Will need personnel; so let us understand.

    Mr Speaker, I crave your indulgence and consistent with the decision you took yesterday, that We can still come back to this after we have finished; we can come back. But I crave your indulgence and urge Hon Colleagues to give us a comprehensive --- so that we understand - because it is a significant departure from what we are doing here and we need to understand it carefully.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    I thank you very much, Hon Member. I think - Hon Adda-
    Mr Adda
    Mr Speaker, indeed, I do appreciate what the Hon Minister has said. In our discussions yesterday, outside this Chamber, I proceeded to set up the fully fledged structure that he is thinking of, but as I indicated earlier, the reason, it was not reflected in the Order Paper was because we needed to get this fundamental principle right. Indeed, it is true, what he is saying, that this is a fundamental departure from the Whole institutional set-up in the Energy Sector.
    So I wanted this phase to go through first and then all the other things that involve - the powers and functions of the Authority, the Board and the
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Adda, you would withdraw this for now and you would come more fully.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, I was not here yesterday so indeed, I am not privy to the issues that were raised. But I have listened to the issues being raised by the Hon Member for Navrongo Central (Mr Kofi Adda) and I have also listened to the Hon Deputy Minister. Mr Speaker, I say if indeed, it is true that the Energy Commission is now involving itself in the development of some resources, then really, that would be wrong.
    If they are into developing the resources themselves, as he is alluding to, then it would be wrong. Mr Speaker, I say so because as the Hon Deputy Minister himself has alluded to, the language of the Constitution is very clear and as per article 269 (1) -- the Commission is to concern itself merely with Regulation and Management of the utilisation of the resource.
    Mr Speaker, unfortunately, I think the problem with the Act itself - the Energy Commission Act, Act 541 of 1997 has to do with the Long Title, which reads as follows:
    "An Act to establish an Energy Commission to provide for its functions relating to the Regu- lations"
    That is found in the Constitution; "Management",-that is also found in the Constitution and then we go to add "Development of Energy Resources".
    That is where the problem is, which is What he is alluding to.
    It also provides for the utilisation of the Energy resource, which is also found in the Constitution. We have rather added the development of the resource to their functions. But there cannot be are regulator and a developer at the same time. Mr Speaker, I think that is where the problem is. So perhaps, if We agree that there
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    In any case, Hon Minority Leader, even while we are yet to amend the law, we should not keep on deepening the departure from the Constitution. So even there, you are doubly right in the sense that we should do whatever we can to rather save ourselves from going deeper into those troubled Waters. I think that is very clear.
    So whatever we do further, we should not be misled by what should not have been in the Energy Commission Law, which happens to have been there and that should be the vision of the law- makers.
    I think we will stand this down and advise ourselves further. We will proceed.
    So the new clause is stood down accordingly.

    Clause 9 - Qualification for licence.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    There is no listed amendment. Clause 9 is for the consideration of the House.
    Mr Boafo
    A Mr Speaker, what I notice about clause 9 is that, we are being parochial and it is not consistent with the advocacy of trying to open the door for investment being pursued by the Hon Deputy Minister on the floor of the House.
    I do not see any provision which permits a joint venture between a citizen of Ghana and an outsider. Mr Speaker, clause 9 states-
    "A licence under this Act may only be granted to a citizen."
    The body corporate should be a Ghanaian and then the partnership should also be a Ghanaian based.
    Mr Speaker, I do not see any room for a joint venture which may not be founded under the Companies Act or the Partnerships Act. I do not know why they have intentionally excluded such a joint venture or agreement between a citizen of Ghana and an outsider.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, we have not excluded joint ventures. In fact, we have rather included joint ventures. This is because a joint venture, normally, the practice is that they establish a single- purpose vehicle for the implementation of the Joint Venture Agreement, and that special purpose vehicle has to be incorporated under the laws of Ghana and

    the proper place to incorporate it will be under the company's code and that will be legal - so we have actually taken care of joint ventures-
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    So subclause ( c ) will not derive from (a) (a) and (0) stand independent of each other. Is that what you mean? So if it is a partnership, then it does not matter whether it is Ghanaian/European partnership. We must only be careful that the Act is not so construed that looking at (a), you would automatically want to .exclude foreigners per se and I do not know whether in the eyes of Hon Boafo, there is some ambiguity in that regard. We do not want any confusion as if the law makers did not foresee some of these possibilities.
    Hon Boafo, does that explanation take care of your query?
    Mr Boafo
    Mr Speaker, it partially takes care of it but still I am not sure why the foreigners should be excluded.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    When it comes to (c), partnership, in effect, the Hon Minister is saying, a foreigner needs not be excluded and if it comes to (b) actually also, a foreigner needs not be excluded if it falls under our incorporation rules; That is all.
    Mr Boafo Mr Speaker, a foreigner on his own, just as a citizen in his own right can do it, I do not see any provision in the Act for that. A foreigner on his own cannot go into a partnership.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, I guess his concern is that you have given the power to a citizen acting as such to obtain a. licence. But, we have not extended that

    right to a foreigner acting as such to Obtain a licence. We have said that the citizen can obtain and that is it. We are saying that a foreigner who wants to apply for a licence can only apply for such a licence if he incorporates a person, because he is a foreigner. But we need legal persons. SO that person, to be a legal person in Ghana, can only operate as a company.

    I think my Hon Senior Colleague is getting the understanding. This is because a foreigner will only be entitled to the protection of the laws of this country but not a legal person. So to become a legal person to be entitled to enjoy the benefits under this Act, such a person acting alone must incorporate a company.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    And in line with other laws regarding incor- poration. I hope Hon Boafo, we can make progress.
    So the proposed amendment is abandoned. "
    Mr Joseph Y. Chireh
    Mr Speaker, the problem he is raising-
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Minister, are you agreeing=
    Mr Chireh
    Mr Speaker, I am talking about clause 9. I am not agreeing=
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Very well, I think the argument has been well debated and we are putting the Question.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Minister, I am afraid, we will put the Question.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Member, do you have any difficulty?
    MrKyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Boafo who spoke to the issue appears to be a lone ranger. But the Hon Colleague who has just got up, I see he wants to offer a spirited attachment to the position espoused by Hon Boafo. So he is only seeking-
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Minister, you gave me the impression that you do not agree with the amendment and I said we had gone beyond that. Hon Minister, do you agree with the amendment proposed by Hon Boafo?
    Mr Chireh
    Mr Speaker, I can only agree if I tell you why I am saying so.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Minister, are you supporting that position? Then we listen to you.
    Mr Chireh
    Mr Speaker, with further amendments to his, as it is now, if you look at the provision, it is saying, we could just say; "body corporate" or if we say; "body corporate" it will also include in that case, a partnership or joint venture-ship or anything. Now, we are even making them too specific to laws in case those laws are amended or abolished. So it does not make the rendition proper. We should just say, "Issued to a legal person or a citizen".
    In which case, even if the person is a foreigner and he registers under our laws, he becomes a citizen. In that case, we do not have the problem- But if we mention specifically the Act which I quoted here, we would then be looking for a joint ventureship outside this arrangement, which should not be the case. Any person who is a legal person should be given the licence. That is what I wanted to say.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, no, that will be too dangerous to pursue. That is because any person can be a legal person, but legal persons are recognised in Ghana. It could be a legal person but recognised in other jurisdictions. The legal person for the purposes of this Act must be a legal person recognised in Ghana as such. For example, you will remember Adusei and Diners Club- The first objection that was taken was that, Diners Club was a legal person registered in Switzerland.
    But it was demonstrated in court that, that legal person, that Diners Club had incorporated in Ghana. So it was a legal person incorporated in Switzerland and also in Ghana. It is important that a legal person for our purposes is a legal person registered or licensed under our laws. It is very important because if we leave it that way and J. V. Japan comes here, it is a legal person. But is it a legal person under our laws? No!
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Minister, do you anticipate that once a company is incorporated outside, it can come-
    Mr Chireh
    Mr Speaker, what he is saying is not the correct position. Our laws that we make here are not extra territorial, they are confirmed to Ghana, therefore, if one comes as a legal person, he has to operate within the laws of Ghana. We cannot go and apply our law in Japan as he trying to say.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Minister, I want to know, if you come as a legal person, what makes you a legal person? Is it because you are a legal person in Switzerland for example?
    Mr Chireh
    Mr Speaker, nobody can come to Ghana as a legal person, unless the person is registered under our laws.

    Mr Second Deputy Speaker; That is exactly what the Hon Minister has provided for under this Act.
    Mr Boafo
    Mr Speaker, we have to distinguish between persons who do business within Ghana and persons who do business with Ghana. My concern was in regard to persons doing business with Ghana. They may be outsiders, they may not choose to register under the Companies Act as external companies and in that case, what do we do? They want to do business with Ghana and not to do business within Ghana
    If it is the policy of the Ministry that in such cases, you have to be registered, I do not have any problem. My. only problem is, are you trying to exclude persons who choose to do business with Ghana and not within Ghana?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, any person, natural or artificial, who Wants to engage in any form of business in Ghana will be entitled to perform certain obligations and demand certain rights and privileges. Those obligations and privileges that such a person would want us to accord him, can also be accorded to Ghana as a person, as a country.
    For instance, Ghanaians and persons who want to engage with such a person, will want to know where they will find that person. This is because, any engagement would create enforceable rights. So, if such a person is not registered in Ghana, where do you pursue him to? You know, Hon Senior Member, the law in Ghana is "pursue your data".
    So, if you want to pursue your data, Where do you find him? That is why even when you do not want to incorporate the company in Ghana, and you want to operate as an external company, the law says you must register and provide your

    principal place of business. So, we are saying that, this is consistent; even Mr Speaker, our Petroleum Agreements, we say that those companies are already existing outside and performing exploratory activities elsewhere but when they come here, they must incorporate a company.

    They must be a Ghanaian entity because we must pursue them and find them. When they breach your laws and pollute the environment, Where do you find them? The same thing, Mr Speaker, renewable energy will include solid waste. We bring a company, if it is not registered in Ghana, a foreigner, he brings trucks that expose the waste, so that when they are driving past your house at Dome, you cannot sleep- How do you find that person? We must find them. This is consistent with the laws, practice and conventions of this country.

    Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    ‘Clause 10 -Application for licence.
    Mr Yakah
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, subclause (2), paragraph (a), line l, delete "ten" and insert "five".
    The new rendition reads as follows:
    "The Board shall acknowledge receipt of an application within five working days after receipt".
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Yes, Hon Minister.
    Mr H. Iddrisu
    Mr Speaker, we just wish that the Hon Chairman would offer an explanation Why he wants a reduction in the number of working days from ten to five. Knowing the reliability of our postal system, if he can explain, we want to know why he is seeking this amendment.
    Thank you.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, I beg to object to the explanation being sought from the Chairman by the Hon Minister. The reason is that, we all understand. Let him not trouble the Hon Chairman with further explanation. We understand.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    He happens to be the Hon Minister responsible for the number of days that our letters will take. Hon Minister, is that not so?
    Mr H. Iddrisu
    Mr Speaker, I have just benefited from-
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    So, guarantee the five days.
    Mr H. Iddrisu
    Mr Speaker, I have just benefited from some explanation from the Table, and I appreciate that they have a strong feeling that ten days is too long to acknowledge receipt of a letter. I therefore, would want to go with the Hon Chairman now. He may want to move his amendment again.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    That the Hon Minister for Communications will ensure that the letters get to their destinations at the appropriate time.
    Mr Boafo
    Mr Speaker, even the language of that particular paragraph states: "acknowledgement'. Acknowledgement of the receipt and not the delivery to the person within five days, acknowledgement but not that the applicant should have received it within five days.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, I think, just on the lines of what we have done, the Hon Chairman would look at clause 10 (2) (b) which still repeats the "ten days." So, perhaps, we would want to delete "ten" in line 2 of subclause (b) and insert "five" to be consistent with what we have just done.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Chairman, is that all right with you? Further to "ten" in (a) the same should apply to "ten" in (b).
    Mr Yakah
    Mr Speaker, yes, agreed.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 10 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Avoka
    Mr Speaker, thank you. It is a consequential matter that I want to draw our attention to, otherwise, we may leave it out of oversight.
    The clause 10(2)(b) states as follows:
    "inform the applicant in writing of the decision of the Board within sixty days after the ten days".
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    That is exactly what the Hon Minority Leader has led us to amend.
    3061 3062
    Mr Avoka
    Mr Speaker, yes, very well.

    Clause 11 - Grant of licence.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    There is no listed amendment. It is for the consideration of the House.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, I am sorry but again, I was not here yesterday but I may want to enquire from the Chair.
    Mr Speaker, whenever we have come to such in other Bills, that is the grant of licence, we give some time frame within which the application will have to be satisfied, that is, after you have submitted your application. If it is vetted and the licence ought to be granted, we give a time frame. Clause 11 appears to be open ended and maybe, it will be worth the While of this Bill, if we had some time frame defined.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    So that discretion is not indefinitely extended and I think we have a tendency to abide by this-
    Mr H. Iddrisu
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, and just to agree with the Hon Minority Leader and probably, to seek your leave and indulge the Hon Chairman that clause 11 (1) could read as follows:
    "where an applicant meets the conditions required by this Act for a licence to engage in commercial activity in the Renewable Energy

    industry, the Board shall grant the application and issue the licence within 14 days".

    You do not even need to repeat "the applicant" and those other words. l do not know if that will satisfy the legitimate concern the Hon Minority Leader raised.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members, the proposed amendment is for the consideration of the House - 14 days.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, l just want us to situate it in the context of clause (10) (2) (b); it says that the Board should be acting within 60 days and sol am concerned whether we should not give a specific time, so that it will rather come to clause 11.
    Mr J. B. Aidoo
    Mr Speaker, it was the same issue I just wanted to draw attention to clause 10 (2) (b).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Yes, just go ahead and make your emphasis.
    Mr J. B.Aidoo
    Mr Speaker, in clause 1O (2) (b), it states that:
    "the Board shall inform the applicant in Writing the decision of the Board within 60 days after the five days"
    Meaning that if it is the decision of the Board to grant or even refuse granting, that decision will be communicated within 60 days. So there is no need to propose another amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    So that matters of clause 11 flow from clause 10.
    Mr H. Iddrisu
    Mr Speaker, I will accordingly withdraw my proposed amendment. But Mr Speaker, I was wondering that even if the decision is taken, how long should it take the Board to communicate the decision? That was why l was tempted to agree with the Hon Minority Leader.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    How long will it take to communicate? Within 60 days? Within 60 days, you must communicate, according to clause 10 (2) (b). Hon Minister, is that all right?
    Mr J. B.Aidoo
    Mr Speaker, that has also been stated. Thus, five days upon receipt and then 60 days after the five days, the decision of the Board will be communicated.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to .
    Clause 11 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 12 - Conditions of licence.
    MrYakah
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12(1), line 2, delete all words after "licence".
    So it reads as follows
    "a licence granted by the Commission is subject to the condition specified in the licence".
    Mr Boafo
    Mr Speaker, just as the Hon Minister for Communications asked the Hon Chairman, may I learn from the Hon Chairman why he is seeking to delete those provisions? Mr Speaker, I am asking this question because I feel the effect of having regard to the functions of the Commission and the nature of the licence required purpose to set the limits for the conditions which should be specified in the licence,
    In other words, it should not be ultra vires the Commission. That is the caution that this provision seeks to give to the Commission. So I do not see why at this stage, the Chairman Wants to withdraw those provisions.
    Mr H. Iddrisu
    Mr Speaker, just to share the position espoused by my Hon Colleague. I would have even further wished that the Chairman abandoned only the Words "in respect of functions of the Commission" but "nature of the licence required" is still useful. So it should read as follows: - it is a proposal-
    "a licence granted by the Commission is subject to the conditions specified in the licence having regard to the nature of the licence required".
    As for functions of the Commission, everything being done here necessarily has to be consistent with what the Commission will be doing. But the nature of the licence required may still be necessary as part of defining the conditions of the licence.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Chairman, in other words-
    "a licence granted by the Commission is subject to the conditions specified in the licence having regard to the nature of the licence required".
    That is what the Hon Minister is proposing.
    Mr Avoka
    Mr Speaker, I want to support the Chairman's amendment. The amendment encompasses all the information that the extra part of lines 2 and 3 provide:
    "A licence granted by the Commission is subject to the conditions specified in the licence."
    They are conditions; the conditions will indicate the nature of the licence et cetera and the information to the Commission is already there. So they are superfluous.
    So we should end it at 'the licence.'' So I support the Chairman of the Committee. The amendment is correct and then the further amendment by the Hon Iddrisu is superfluous.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    l will put the Question with regard to the amendment proposed by the Chairman. A "A licence granted by the Commission is subject to the conditions specified in the licence".
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 12 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Boafo
    Mr Speaker, I want to 'crave your indulgence and take advantage of your liberal approach to Consideration Stage, to revisit clause 11, subclause 2. Mr Speaker, that is, lines 1 and 2 of sub- clause 2 after, "may", the expressions "for compelling reasons founded". Mr Speaker, my problem is, what' is "compelling reasons"? It is too subjective and it tends to give broad Executive discretion but I think one of our objectives here is to try and put some checks and balances so far as the exercise of Executive discretion is concerned.
    So, Mr Speaker, l would prefer that, so long as the Board is required to base the rejection on the matters stated in paragraphs (a) to (f), they are bound to give reasons. So, this issue of compelling would create a problem for us. How do we determine that the reasons are compelling or they are not compelling? It is too subjective.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members, what the Hon Member is saying is that in effect, clause 11 (2) should be: "despite subsection (1), the Board may for reasons founded on. . ." rather than saying" compelling "which will bring all manner of controversies and subjectivities.
    " Hon Deputy Minister, do you have any difficulty?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, we have no objection at all. We thought that we were setting a higher standard, but if the standard in the view of the Hon Member--
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    It may bring controversy.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, well, we are not opposed to it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 12 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 14 - Duration and renewal of licence.
    Mr J. B. Aidoo
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 14, subclause (1), the second line, we have . . .the licence and may be renewed". I believe that it should be ". . shall be renewed". The word "may" is more or less not compelling enough.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker; Hon Member, but that apparently is the choice of licensee; if you like, you may renew it. You have a choice to renew it or not. It may be renewed at your pleasure, if you want to, but nobody will compel you to renew your licence if you do not want to. But if you want to go out of business, the choice is yours.
    Question put and amendment negative
    Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 15 - Power to modify licence.
    Mr Yakah
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, subclause (l),_lines 2 and 3, delete "in accordance with" and insert "permissible by the". .
    Mr Speaker, so that it will read as follows
    "Subject to this Act and Regu- lations made under it, the Board may modify a licence granted under this Act if the modification is permissible by the terms of the licence or is required in the public interest".
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Deputy Chairman, is "permissible" followed by "under" or "by"? Is it "permissible by" or "permissible under" the terms? Hon Deputy Minister, would you want to examine that?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, it should be "permissible under".
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Thank you. So it is "permissible under."
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Deputy Chairman, there is a further amendment.
    Hon Boafo, are you going to deal with the further amendment?
    Mr Boafo
    No. Mr Speaker, I wanted to draw your attention to -- [Interruption ]- and also an observation that I have made. So after the Chairman has moved his amendment, then I will-
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Would you be looking further at (v)?
    Mr Boafo
    Mr Speaker, I am rather looking further at clause 15 (2), line 2, where it is written. as follows:
    "A modification shall not be made unless the Board has given the licensee and the general public at least, sixty working days' notice. . ."
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    " Very well. That will come pursuant to the Vice Chairman's amendment.
    Vice Chairman of the Committee, would you move your further amendment?
    Mr Yakah
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 15, subclause (4), paragraph (a), lines 2, 3 and 4, delete
    "for the purpose of bringing the matters to which the notice relates to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it".
    Mr Boafo
    Mr Speaker, the provisions under subclause (4) (a), I believe are in furtherance of subclause (2), which requires that notice should be given to the licensee and the general public. But Mr Speaker, subclause (4) which seeks to indicate how the licence should be given limits it; it makes it selective if we look at the amendment being proposed by the Vice Chairman- The Vice Chairman's amendment limits the notice to the persons likely to be affected by it.
    But subclause (2), line 2 is very explicit; it is more expansive. It makes it specifically to the licensee and the general public. but the Vice Chairman's amendment seeks to limit the range of the notification; not to the general public but to persons who are likely to be affected by it. So, l need the explanation why he has chosen to limit the notification.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Vice Chairman, are you with your Colleague?

    1235. p.m.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, subclause (4) (a) is intended to be read together with subclause (2); and when you read them together, there will not be confusion after the deletion. This is because clause 15, subclause (2) says that you cannot take a decision on any matter unless you communicate; you notify the people in contention.
    Sub-clause 4 (a) talks about the way the notice should be done and we think that if we limit it to "appropriate", we are now vesting the authority in the person who is to give the notice in such a way that subclause 15 (2) will be complied with.
    I think the amendment proposed is in the right direction. The notice is intended to be given to those who would be affected by it; that is the intention, as captured in subclause (2). So when we read it together, we would not create any confusion after the deletion.
    Mr Boafo
    Mr Speaker, with that explanation, if it appears in the Hansard and everybody reads it, it would guide us in giving a very good interpretation to it.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 15 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Boafo
    Mr Speaker, may I crave your indulgence to revisit clause 15.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Very well. Hon Boafo, you may revisit clause
    15.
    Mr Boafo
    Mr Speaker, if you look at clause 15 (5),
    "The expense incurred or damage caused as a result of a modification to a licence shall be considered as part of the capital expenditure of the licensee".

    Mr Speaker, if the modification is not being made at the instance of the licensee and it is originated by the powers that be, and the expenditure involved is over and above what the licensee had anticipated to incur in his own budget, I do not see the justification for calling upon the licensee to bear that expenditure- If there is any good reason, we are ready to listen to the Hon Deputy Minister -- Why, if the licensee is not the originator of the modification and the powers that be proceed to make a modification, it should be at the expense of the -licensee irrespective of the range of the expenditure involved.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, that is done for good reason. In determining the tariffs to be paid for power generated from renewable energy sources, you would need to compute the capital expenditure that was deployed in the generation of that power and pay for it. So we are saying that, if there is any modification, in the long-term, that modification should be added to the capital cost.
    This is because, if not, the investor would be hard done by if it is not added. In fact, you are just seeking to protect the investor, that the cost he incurred in complying with the modification, in computing the tariffs, that cost should be added to the capital expenditure for the determination of the capacity charge.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    I think that answers the difficulty because, after all, in the final analysis, you would apply and it is in the interest of the investor. In calculating total cost from which the kind of tariff he would need would be calculated. In fact, if it is left out, the investor would be worse off.
    Mr Boafo
    Mr Speaker, that is precisely what I am trying to seek from the Hon Deputy Minister.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    And you are satisfied? Are you satisfied?
    Mr Boafo
    No, Mr Speaker, I am not satisfied with the explanation given by the Hon Deputy Minister, how fair and just it is to ask the licensee to pay even if he cannot bear it.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, somewhere in the Bill, there is an obligation imposed on the investor to ensure that the system and technology that would be employed would be connectable to the national grid, so that he should align the system to the national grid, and we are evolving.
    If at this present time, we grant a licence and we are saying that, to connect to a 33 KV, you need this material, and then at the time that the investor is ready to connect to the national grid, we are transmitting at 160/161 or 250 or 230, and there is modification - We are saying that if an investor complies with the modification, the capacity charge should include the expenditure.
    Indeed, this is the best that we can do for the investor, for we are assuring him that any expenditure that would be incurred in complying with the modification would be taken care of in determining how much we are going to pay him for generating power. It is one of the incentives that this Bill is giving to the investor.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, I believe the Hon Deputy Minister is not responding adequately to the concerns raised by the Hon Member for Akropong. Yes, he is right in saying that they want to compensate the licensee if additional cost is involved.

    The issue he is raising is, as per clause 15 (1), which says that-

    "Subject to this Act and Regula- tions made under it, the Board may modify a licence granted under this Act if the modification is in accordance with terms of the licence or is required in the public interest."

    Let us go on the second leg: In the public interest, the Board on its own decides to effect the modification and informs the-licensee who has to comply. But he is saying that the licensee, perhaps, is not in a position to self- support what the modification entails, even though he is sure that if he does it, we would compensate him by letting it reflect in his capital expenditure.

    The person is not in a position to do it. So what happens? That is the import of the issues that he raised. So if he would address his mind to it. What would be the way forward in such an imbroglio? Mr Second Deputy Speaker; The Board decides you need the modification, you cannot afford it; and then you cannot have a licence. Anyway, Hon Chairman, we are waiting for you.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, indeed, that is the answer - You cannot have a licence if you cannot afford to do the modifications, especially if the modifi- cation is in the public interest, and that is the practice, that any time there is modification, the investor will be obliged to go and look for resources to comply with the dictates of the modification and that is taken care of. This is because it is an investment. We do not want to create a situation where you cannot properly determine ownership in a matter of this nature,
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, I think at face value, what the Deputy Minister is saying makes some sense. But we are in a human society, and there could be a spurious resort to this construction to overly burden an investor, just to elbow the person out, for whatever reason. Mr Speaker, these are realities and that is the fear. But if it has to be taken by face value
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Minority Leader, in which case, what amendment would you suggest by way of addition or subtraction?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, on the spur of the moment, I am not able to offer any way out of it but I thought that it was something that should engage our-attention
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    I think in view of the flexibility approach at the Consideration Stage, let us make progress and any time there is a formula, we would consider it, so that there will be no abuse under any circumstances as a way of imposing some weird conditions only to frustrate a particular investor. I think we can consider that but for the time being-

    Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 17 - Complaint to the Minister
    Mr Yakah
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 17, delete and insert the following:
    "( 1) A person who is aggrieved by (a) a refusal to grant a licence or the renewal of a licence under this Act;
    (b) the modification, suspen- sion or cancellation of a licence under this Act may within thirty days of the decision of the Board lodge a complaint with the Minister.
    (2) The Minister shall within thirty days of receipt of the complaint-
    (a) investigate the complaint;
    (b) set up an arbitration panel under the Alternative Dis- pute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798) to settle the matter amicably with the aggrieved person; and
    (c) take a decision in respect of the complaint;
    (3) Where the Minister and the aggrieved person are unable to reach an amicable settlement under paragraph (b) of subsection (2), the aggrieved person may pursue the ' matter in the High Court".
    Mr Boafo
    Mr Speaker, the amendment is in the right direction. But I have two observations to make on the amendment.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, I think that I share the concerns of the Hon Member in respect of the period of time within which the Minister is to constitute a panel to investigate the complaint. We had thought that we could provide for the provision in the general section, where a Minister fails to comply with the provisions of this Bill, what will follow? But it is consistent with good governance and human rights, that we need the Minister to act timeously in matters of this nature, in order not to let the investor suffer unnecessarily.
    So I agree entirely with him- The time lines for an aggrieved person to go to court. Yes, even that will be a relief to the Minister. This is because if the aggrieved person fails to act within the time stipulated under the Bill, he might lose the right to go to the High Court. So it also will put finality to matters of dispute in terms of the Act. So I agree entirely. So the Hon Member can suggest an amendment and we can consider it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Very well, as you put your heads together to get the formula to clause 17, let us move on to clause 18.
    Clause 18 - Settlement of disputes by Arbitration
    Mr Yakah
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18 - subclause (1), line 3, at end, add "or on its own initiative".
    Mr Speaker, the rendition would then read
    "The Board shall set up an arbitration panel under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798) at the request of a licensed person or on its own initiatives".
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 18 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 19 --Application.
    Mr Yakah
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19 - delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 20 - Production and supply licence.
    Mr Yakah
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, delete clause 20 entirely.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Very Well. If that is so, can we go back now to clause 19 and then just withdraw the amendments with regard to clauses 19 and 24 for them to stand part of the Bill?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Yes, that Mr Speaker, for the abundance of caution, we should leave them there
    .
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19 be brought back to stand as part of the original Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Very well.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    In the circumstances, we shall consider clause 20 to 24.
    Clause 20.
    Mr J. B. Aidoo
    Mr Speaker, yesterday, we made substantial amendments to clause 8. We removed "storage", "processing" was out, "assembling" was out, "manufacturing" was out and now, they are featuring in clause 20. So we have to be very careful with the amendments that have just been proposed by the Minority Leader and passed. I want to believe that it is just a repetition of what we have in clause 8.

    2011 Consideration Stage 3 0 82 A1hajiFuseini: Mr Speaker, in fact, clause 19 was the reason we did clause 8. Clause 19 gave us the guidance for clause 8, except that when it came to the House, we added "sell" and "marketing." But clause 19 gave us the guidelines. If you look at clause 19, we were talking about "production, transportation, storage, marketing, installation and maintenance".

    I do not think that we would create any inconsistency in the Bill if it comes back. This is because even in clause 20, we are saying that-

    "where the Board grants a licence to an applicant to produce and supply a renewable energy, the licence shall. . ."

    We are just talking about the things that it would do; it does become what the licence must talk about but what the licence must do.
    Mr J. B. Aidoo
    Mr Speaker, I was Referring to clause 2O- This is because if clause 19 stands and we take clause 20 --- for instance, clause 20, subclause (b), talks about "manufacture and assemble"- Meanwhile, clause 20 (a) talks about "manufacture and assemble". Also, yesterday, we indicated that manufacturing and assembling of such facility should all be lumped together under production.
    So if this clause 20 is to stand, it means that all that we did yesterday had been made redundant and that is the point I want to make - This is because, if we take clause 8, it talks about "requirement for licence". What is so special in clauses 19, 20, 21 and so on and so forth that he Wants us to retain them? What is so special, unless maybe, somebody can convince me that there is something so special about clauses 20 and 21 that we should retain them -- this is because they are just a repetition of what we did yesterday, in respect of clause 8.
    Mr Boafo
    Mr Speaker-[Intervention]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Order! Order! I can see an Hon Member speaking conspicuously on the telephone. Hon Member, order!
    Yes?
    Mr Boafo
    Mr Speaker, I remember that when we were trying to resolve the issue under clause 8, we came to the conclusion that instead of elimination, we would combine some of the items that appeared under clause 8 and among other things, it was felt that when we talk about production, then it includes manu- facturing and assembly and other processes. So Mr Speaker, I am subject to correction. But if you look at clause 20 (a), then it would mean that the Ministry is trying to place some emphasis on maintenance and assembling. So I do not think there is any inconsistency in what we did yesterday. Here, they are being more specific, which aspect of production they are talking about.
    So I do not see any inconsistency in what we did yesterday. The reference to "production" is a generality, but under clause 20, it is specific and this is perfect under legislation.
    Mr J. B. Aidoo
    Mr Speaker, yesterday, the amendment that we made came to the conclusion - what we agreed upon was that, the renewable energy industry should involve the following commercial activities -- (a) production, (b) transportation, (c) storage, (d)

    distribution, sale and marketing, (e) importation, (t) exportation and re-_ exportation, then (g) installation and maintenance.

    You would realise that "manufacture" and then "assembling" were not included in the requirement. But if you look at clause 20 (a), we have "manufacture" and "assemble" there and that is what I am saying that it would make the earlier provision which we have agreed upon inconsistent. We have to be consistent in what we are doing. Yes, it has been lumped together there. All that we are doing now is just a repetition of what we did yesterday, except that here, it is more elaborate maybe, than-
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Minister and Hon Ranking Member, does the elaboration create any difficulty even if for-
    Mr J. B. Aidoo
    Mr Speaker, rightly so. Yesterday I argued extensively here that much as we were trying to seek brevity, we were going to lose relevance in what we were doing, and the consensus here was that, yes, we wanted the whole thing to be very concise, and I agreed upon that. Today, we are changing our position on that we agreed upon yesterday and that is where my concern lies. This is because yesterday, I brought this issue up that why should we lump all of them together? Say, if we take "production", production involves manufacturing, it involves processing, it involves assembling; all that.
    We argued extensively here yesterday over that, and the state was that we needed brevity. Today, we are shifting our position because what we are doing now is more elaborate. So we have abandoned our pursuit of brevity and now going for details and relevance. We have to be consistent in what we are doing.
    Mr Adda
    Mr Speaker, 1 do, indeed, agree with my Hon Colleague that we must be consistent. But I do not really see the inconsistency here. We tried to re- categorise what appears in clause 8, to the new version that was reflected in the amendment that we passed yesterday, whereas he mentioned "production", for instance, was stated to cover "manu- facturing". "processing," "assembling" and what have you.
    I think all those things that we did yesterday under the amendments to clause 8, can still fit into what we are trying to do here if based on what the Hon Minority Leader said, we agree to maintain clause 19 to 24.
    If we agree to maintain them, what I think, We need to simply do -- if we go to clause 20, for instance, where We did not specify "manufacturing" in the amend- ment yesterday, we are now putting "manufacturing" under "production and supplier licence" and then we can be consistent if the Hon Colleague wants us to be by simply adding "processing" and "refinery" to this and then it captures all of that. So, there is really no inconsistency in this matter if we make sure that What we did yesterday, is adequately reflected in here.
    The same will go, Mr Speaker, for "storage", for instance- We referred to "storage" separately yesterday but in the provisions under clause 19 to 24, we are stating "storage" and adding "bulk" to it. So, it means any "storage" that is not "bulk" may not be relevant in this particular case. So, if we are talking about consistency, again, I think the "bulk storage licence" thing, we can take out "bulk" and then we fit it well with what we amended yesterday and agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, I will call you finally. I want the Hon Members to iron out this and then seek the Hon Minister's view.
    Mr J. B. Aidoo
    Mr Speaker, I posed a very harmless question in trying to find out what was so special about clauses 19, 20, 21 and 22. I was not at the Committee's sitting, but the Committee agreed that all those provisions were to be deleted. Now, the Committee is changing its ,earlier position. But they have not convinced me yet why they are changing the original position they took to delete all these provisions.
    This is because, as I argued earlier, clause 8 deals with requirement. When we come to clauses 19, 20, 21 and 22, they also talk about special requirements. And I am asking, what is so special there? Somebody should convince me and then I will hold my fire.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, before the Hon Deputy Minister comes in, I believe the Hon Member should not have any fire at all.
    Mr Speaker, I understand that yesterday because of the use of the word "production" you had to delete "manufacturing" and "assembling" in clause 8. If I were here, I would have even proposed that we deleted "refining" because it will be part of "production" -- [Interruption] That was also deleted? Good - So, Mr Speaker, we now come and break the "bulk" in clause 8.
    So, for clause 20, we are now dealing with what constitutes "production". I think what the Hon Member may have to add for clause 20, is to rather include "processing and refining" so that they will then be safely disembowelled, so to speak, because we deleted them for the fact that we considered them as part of production.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    So, we are providing all the relevant details?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Deputy Minister, are you agreeable, so that we take a formulation and then we deal with clause 20 and proceed accordingly?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Minority Leader, except to say that, indeed, there is no contusion at all in the minds of anybody and 1 agree that the Hon Member's confusion-is not founded at all. In the clause 20, we have chosen to use the verb "produce" and the noun is "production" and that is what we captured. So, there is no confusion at all. And we are saying that if you take a licence to produce, that licence must necessary give you the permission to manufacture and assemble. That is what it means. You have a production licence so inherent in the-
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    But Hon Deputy Minister, if we have the principle the same way, then shall we simply look at the formula proposed by the Hon Minority Leader and if you are agreeable to the formula, then we just make progress? Otherwise, we will be going forwards and backwards.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, I am agreeable. Except to say-
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    You are agreeable basically?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Yes, I am agreeable. I am just saying that the "processing and refining", we had considered that and that appeared to be related to biofuel. But here, we are talking about installation of solar panels, wind 5- and they are different dynamics, I think in the Bill, we have an area that deals with the refining of bio- fuel, processing of biofuel - we have a provision. That is a separate provision. So, I would crave his indulgence to wait till We reach there, then we can put refining and processing in the bio-fuel. But this is limited to installation.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    So, can you please, help us with the formulation?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, the formulation, in my view, should be the way it is: "manufacture and assemble, install, generate and supply, and produce bio- fuel". So when we get to the biofuel, we will put "refining and processing" there. And it is there. I have just seen it here "Sale of bio-fuel blend" --- it is in clause 43 . You look at "Control and management of biofuel and wood-fuel". That is a different area. That is where "refining" probably, comes in.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, I am happy the Hon Deputy Minister understands the point we are making. But this is the place relating to "licensing". "What should go into the application? Mr
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Deputy Minister, now, it is just a matter of how best to formulate this. I think we agreed basically on that?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, I think I agree basically with the sentiments of the Hon Minority Leader, except that we need to be careful with the formulation. I thought that initially we could have put "manufacture and assemble" or "process and refine". But we would crave your indulgence to refer it to the drafts persons to see how they can capture it, because

    2011 Consideration Stage 3090 the next one talks about: "install, generate and supply". You might not be installing any machine in terms of wood-
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    So in a moment, you can get that.
    Clause 20 is therefore, stood down.
    Clause 21 - Bulk storage licence.
    Mr Adda
    Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to go back to What my Hon Colleague, Mr J. B. Aidoo said earlier. He explained that the Committee had agreed to delete clause 19 to 24. But I think We have changed our mind now to keep those clauses there for the sake of emphasis; there is no problem with that. But Mr Speaker, I am going back to the heading of that section where you put in there "special requirements". There is truly nothing special about this. This set of clauses are coming up from the requirements for licence, beginning from clause 8.
    So if we are trying to elaborate from clause 19 to 24 and ensure that these are spelt out in the licence or for the avoidance of doubt, that nobody gets a licence and goes to do something else, I think we simply need to get rid of the "special"; it is a requirement relating to licence. This is because there is truly nothing special about these requirements.
    Mr J. B. Aidoo
    Mr Speaker, I am glad I am now getting support. The point is that if it is "detailed requirement", I will agree. But if he says "special requirement" - Honestly, if you look at the head notes - "special requirement"-
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    So shall we say "requirement" or "detailed requirements"?
    MrJ. B. Aidoo
    "Detailed requirement", I would agree.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Minister, "detailed requirement"?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Well, I totally agree with the Ranking Member and Hon I. B. Aidoo. There is nothing special about this requirement; the requirements would be included in the certificate anyway. So they are not special in anyway. I do not know; the drafts persons decided to call it "special; but it should be "requirement", simpliciter.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    So you move that the subheading should be: "special requirements" -
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, I thought that we would conclude that particular part before we come to the subheading; I thought that was the practice.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Let us conclude then.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Very Well.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, Head-notes, delete "special" and in its place, insert "detailed".
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, are we in a position to go on with clause 21?
    Mr Yaka
    Mr Speaker, I withdraw the amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members, any comments?
    MrJ. B. Aidoo
    Mr Speaker, he should explain. If he says he is withdrawing the amendment-
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    I think we have got the rationale already; we have debated the rationale at length.

    Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Yaka
    Mr Speaker, I crave your indulgence to withdraw the amendment proposed and that clauses 22, 23 and 24 become part of the Bill.

    Clauses 22, 23 and 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Minister, any resolution regarding clause 20, the matter outstanding?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, I have just drawn the attention of the Energy Commission to this provision and I have asked them to-
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    You are still considering it?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Minister and Hon Chairman of the Committee, clause 17, do we have a resolution?
    Mr Boafo
    Mr Speaker, if I may proffer this amendment subject to the Hon Deputy Minister - [Interruption] Clause 17 (3) on the Order Paper:
    "Where the Minister and the aggrieved person are unable to reach an amicable settlement or the - Minister fails to take a decision under paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2), the aggrieved person may within a period of fourteen days from the date of disagreement or failure pursue the matter in the High Court."
    Madam Speaker, may I go over again?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Already, the Hon Deputy Minister is in agreement. But you may go over for clarity, because we have the formula now and then we make progress-
    Mr Boafo
    Mr Speaker, I read:
    "Where the Minister and the aggrieved person are unable to reach an amicable settlement or the Minister fails to take a decision under paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2), the aggrieved person may, within a period of 14 days from the date of disagreement or failure, pursue the matter in the High Court."
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Thank you; we have a formulation. And I will put the Question as I see the Hon Minister nodding-
    Yes, Hon Minority Leader, any difficulty, please?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Yes, Mr Speaker, the difficulty is the subsections that the Hon Member for Akropong quoted. He quoted (a) and (b); but I think the operating subclauses are rather (b) and (c).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Both are operative.
    Hon Boafo, it affects both - the way you have combined them so gently and well.
    Mr Boafo
    Very well, Mr Speaker, for the avoidance of doubt, we can make it (a), (b) and (c).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Very well. But (a) is not affected.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, one, (a) is not affected; two, the (b) relates to a different matter, that is, the Minister setting up an arbitration panel to settle a matter and maybe, the panel not being able to come to an amicable resolution of the matter; three (c) relates to a different matter where the Minister fails to take a decision in respect to a complaint that has been launched. So the two relate to different matters and therefore, the two cannot be lumped together. So it should be (b) and (c) relating to the two legs, and in my view, we should even add "respectively".
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    The (b) and (c) respectively?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Yes, of sub- section (2)-- [Interruption]
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    The (b) and (c) of subsection (2) respectively.
    Yes Hon Minister-
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, initially, I thought that there was the - But reading it again, the intendment of Hon Boafo's amendment is to ensure that we do not give the Minister unnecessary time leverage to sit on the matter. So I am further proposing that we collapse (c), because the way it is couched, if we take 2(a), the Minister will have 30 days to investigate the matter. After the investigation, he or she has another 30 days to take a decision - so 60 days. We do not need to give the Minister 60 days to investigate and take a decision. so we can collapse (0) and say that-
    Alhaji Fuseini
    And (b) --"Set up an
    ... "
    Mr Speaker, further modification for elegance
    "Investigate and take a decision in respect of the complaint."
    Or
    "Set up an arbitration panel under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798) to settle the matter amicably with the aggrieved person."
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Yes, Mr Speaker, I think that it should be mutually exclusive. If the intendment is to cut the time, it should be mutually exclusive, So the

    Minister should choose one way or the other. If We do it mutually inclusive, he would finish with the taking of the decision and then say, "Oh, I have taken a decision to set up an arbitration panel" and that again, would take thirty days. So Mr Speaker, we should make it mutually exclusive -"Or".
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    "Or"; very Well.
    Please read it again.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, clause 17, subclause (2), paragraph (a) is further amended to read:
    "Investigate and take a decision in respect of the complaint, or set up an arbitration panel under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798) to settle the matter amicably with the aggrieved person.
    (3) Where the Minister and the aggrieved person are unable to reach an amicable settle- ment under paragraphs (a) or (b) of subsection (2), the aggrieved person may within two weeks - 14 days after the taking of the decision -- pursue the matter in the High Court."
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Thank you very much, Hon Deputy Minister. That in my mind, is very clear.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 17 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Chairman of the Committee, are we on Clause 25? We want to know where exactly we are now. .
    Clause 25, just for clarity; Hon Ranking Member
    Mr Adda
    Mr Speaker, indeed, I was trying to catch your eye before you put the Question for us to take a decision on clause 19 to 24 but there are two things that are so important that I think we need to pay attention to.
    In the first place, Mr Speaker, we were talking about consistency when Hon Aidoo brought up the issue of these clauses as against clause 8 and I thought it would be a good idea for us to delete "bulk" under clauses 21 and 24 and also in clause 22-
    Mr Adda
    Yes, delete "bulk" in the sub- heading for clause 21 and also delete "bulk" in the subheading for clause 24. So that it becomes "Storage licence" under clause 21 and then "Transportation licence" under clause 24. This is because if we go back to clause 8, we do not have "bulk" there; so we need to take those two out, Mr Speaker.
    May I proceed to the second one?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    I think we shall deal with them one by one just for the sake of - Remove "bulk". Maybe, We do not want to prejudiced by the
    "BOST"-
    Hon Minister, any difficulty?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, it should not be removed because we have said that these are detailed requirements. So even though we did not use "bulk", we are now saying that these are "detailed requirements". So the "detailed requirements" is clearly giving expression to the use of the words "commercial quantifies" and we are saying that any product stored in large commercial quantities constitute a bulk product. So if it is biofuel- bulk. So Ranking Member, pray drop this. in fact,

    he has established the practice in the trade. When he was there, he classified the transporters to be either "bulk transporters" or "retail transporters".
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    And we have Bulk Oil Storage and Transport (BOST), [Laughter] Hon Ranking Member, since we are talking about details here, is it possible to abandon that and make progress here? We are describing something in greater detail and I think that is what we all agreed basically We are going to do.
    Mr Adda
    Mr Speaker, I have no major problem with that but I am only thinking of guarding against unscrupulous people who may divide up the bulk quantity and store them and resort to any licensing requirements. So I think for the avoidance of doubt, it would be easier for us to just leave it at storage - So if I make it even five, ten, that does not qualify it to be bulk, and we do not go for licence. Is that all right? Should we compromise standards on licensing? If he has no problem with that, I have no major issue with this matter.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Deputy Minister, will you leave some leaway for mini-bulk, small quantity exploiters?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, We will come back to the same argument. The licence will clearly on its face give you an indication of What "constitutes bulk storage". The licence on its face will give you an indication of what constitutes "bulk transportation". The fear is that when we begin to nibble away these important words, we might end up with a law that will totally be disincentive for investment. That is the problem.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Deputy Minister, really, is "bulk" an important word? And like the Hon Ranking Member has said, will "bulk" rather not introduce leaways whereby some amount of storage would then not be bulk as such but would be a certain
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, we have bulk transporters in the trade. If we remove "bulk", we would be confronted with a situation in which somebody at Dzelukope or Sogakope has a drum of biofuel and is moving it from Sogakope to Accra and he is confronted that he is transporting - It might be that he has produced it not in commercial quantities but for his own consumption.
    Again, this is the problem that we face even with the trade in transportation of petroleum products. If someone from a community in Chuchuliga comes to Navronga to buy one drum of kerosene and he is transporting it, is it bulk? That is the problem. So let us leave "bulk" to "bulk".
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Adda, do you have any further issues as we go backwards?
    Mr Adda
    Mr Speaker, yes.
    Based on the scenarios that he has just
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    You leave "bulk" to "bulk" and proceed.
    Mr Adda
    Mr Speaker, l just wanted to bring in a bit about somebody getting a licence to bring in bulk solar panels, and what have you and somebody is going to go ahead and store them somewhere and is sneaking them into the market without licence,- how would you deal with that situation?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Minority Leader is going to venture an answer.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr-Speaker,I am not venturing any suggestion at all. I, think maybe, We should leave it at that. This is because in this country, we have seen situations when people with more than five tablets of soap -- six tablets of soap- were said to be hoarding. Anything beyond five was at the time described as "commercial quantities". [Laughter] So Mr Speaker, let us leave it for anybody to bring his own interpretation.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Members, shall we make progress now?
    Clause 25-
    Mr Adda
    Mr Speaker, with your permission, I raised two matters, one about the "bulk" and the other one about clause
    22.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Please, go ahead with clause 22 as we have finished letting "bulk" be "bulk".
    So let us proceed with clause 22.
    Mr Adda
    Mr Speaker, reading clause 22, the third line, you will find right in the middle of that line, after "export", "of each consignment" when we are talking about getting a licence for each consignment of wood-fuel and biofuel.
    Mr Speaker, administratively, it is very expensive. I think business wise, prac- tically, it is difficult and it is too restrictive. So if we are talking about bio-fuel, let us use charcoal as an example. The standards have been set with the licence for us to be able to export wood- fuel. Should one get the licence upfront to do that business and be monitored by Energy Commission periodically, or when you load up any one truck, you must go in for a licence? So my view is that if we delete "of each consignment" after "export", it would be good.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    So "For the export of wood fuel and biofuel", that is your amendment?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Ranking Member knows that wood-fuel - The determination of Government is to ensure that we save the environment. Mr Speaker, that is why we should be mindful if somebody is going to export. We did not say "consume" --"export". We should not give unfettered rights to anybody at any time to go and harvest our wood-lot and export. Yes, it is for export only.
    So any time you load the container or vessel or any time you want to export any wood fuel, we have to know. Where have you harvested it? Are you contributing to environmental degradation or global warming? We should know. You are about to export charcoal. You have a whole ship of charcoal. Where did you get it from? Did you go to dissipate the forest in Atiwa or what? We must know. So Mr Speaker, it is very, very important. If we give unfettered right to people, they will harvest all our wood lands for export.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    A very restrictive measure.
    Mr Adda
    Mr Speaker, indeed, what the Hon Deputy Minister has raised is so important that we must all be careful about depleting our forest. But I am not talking about production. I am not talking about cutting down the trees, giving me a licence for one acre or ten acres to cut down the trees and produce charcoal. I am talking about when I am carting one truck or two trucks down to Tema Harbour where it will be very clear in the ship that I have got a shipload of it that I can get a licence for. But when I am bringing it as a truck from there to Accra or to Tema, should I get a licence for each of those trips or should it be for the shipment?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Member, it is restricted to the export of each consignment of wood-fuel and bio- fuel. So it is a restriction aimed at export only.
    Mr Adda
    Mr Speaker, I do understand.
    Mr Adda
    Mr Speaker, I used the example of Tema. I am from Navrongo, just a few kilometers from Paga. I can export to Burkina Fasso and there I would not need a whole ship load. If I have one five-tonne truck just to take the charcoal across, I go in for a licence. The next day, another truck goes in for the licence; these are the issues that I am raising. If I can get the licence broadly, and it is said "Hon Adda is an export of wood fuel to Burkina Faso today", it is my duty and the duty of the Commission for us to work together to monitor and make sure that I am complying with the requirements of the licence.
    But if you say every five-tonne truck, I should get a licence for that, I think practically it becomes difficult. But this is what the law says. The administrative cost is so huge for all of us and I do not think we should have that. So, once you get the licence, the rest of it is for monitoring to take place. But if it is big ship load, I do not have a problem with that, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    The Hon Deputy Minister says, it is meant to protect us.
    Hon Deputy Minister-
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    It is a restrictive measure.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Yes, Mr Speaker, this restrictive measure has been around for a very long time. Wood - dried wood, processed wood; any time you load a truck, you need to show a licence, you need to show a permit- Even one truck, if you are taking it across to ‘Burkina Faso, you need to show a licence, Yes.
    You need to show - We need to protect the forest and that is why I crave your indulgence to, let us leave it there. This is because you are going to say every - Let us leave it for export, give him the opportunity to export any quantity, and that one consignment, because we do not want to increase the cost, we will not be able to monitor. And We have a responsibility to monitor the operations of people in the renewable energy sector. That is why we want to" know any time we give a consignment - We are not talking of a truck, but if the truck constitutes a consignment, so be it.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Thank you very much.
    Hon Members, with regard to the time and the state of business in the House, I direct that Sitting be held beyond the proscribed period.
    Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 26 - Renewable energy purchase obligations.
    Mr Yakah
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, subclause (2), delete and insert the following:
    "The Public Utilities Regulatory Commission shall in consultation with the Energy Commission, specify the percentage level of electricity to be purchased by the electricity distribution utility and bulk customer".
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Yakah
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, subclause (6), delete.
    Mr Boafo
    Mr Speaker, just as the Hon Majority Leader pointed out, We do not have the definition of "premium" and "bulk customer" in the Interpretation column. So I do not know Why he wants us to delete it.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, these are definitions, so we are taking it to the definition column. I thought that the Hon Minority had tolerated me from the beginning, so I do not know why he is now raising it But on a more serious note, these are definitions, We are taking them to the definition column.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    We delete and take to definitions.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Yakah
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, add the following new sub-clauses:
    "(6) Where an electricity distribution utility fails to procure a specified percentage of its total purchase of electricity from renewable energy sources, that distribution utility commits an offence and:
    (a) is liable on summary conviction to a fine of one thousand penalty units; or
    (b) the Commission may suspend the licence of the electricity distribution utility.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Please, proceed.

    Mr Boafo Mr Speaker, the other observation is the severity of the penalty. Five thousand penalty units, if we may have an explanation for why that case alone, such a severe punishment is being imposed?

    Mr Speaker, notably, when we were dealing with the Bill, a person who failed to obtain a licence is only required to pay a penalty unit of 2,000. But here, somebody who has operated and only some small mistake he is required to pay a penalty of 5,000 penalty units. So Mr Speaker, we need some explanation why there is no provision for committing an offence but the fine is being imposed, and secondly, the severity of the penalty units.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, in the 5, there is non-compliance, there is failure, there is neglect, there is refusal, all captured in the word "fails". But it is not intended to be an offence. This is because the unit cost of renewable energy, it was demonstrated, will be so high that if you do not compel bulk customers to buy, they would not buy.
    That is why this thing comes imme- diately after the feed in tariffs. If you think that you do not want to use renewable energy, you must be prepared to pay, so that we put it in the renewable energy fund to support the development of renewable energy sources in this country.
    So that was the intendment, that you make it compulsory for bulk customers to buy renewable energy to promote the use of renewable energy. And that is why there is that severity of punishment, so that you do not say "all right, because it is low, I can always pay". They are businessmen, they will always do the economics. Look at the opportunity cost and see whether the cost is beneficial to them.
    Mr Speaker, like you rightly mentioned, if there is every reason for a
    Mr Adda
    Mr Speaker,I was going to talk about the proposed - [Interruption]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Adda, are you speaking on the same-
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Very well. Then. Let us conclude - Hon Boafo, I thought you were-
    Mr Boafo
    Mr Speaker, then may I find out from the Hon Deputy Minister if it is intended not to be a criminal offence, why he chose to impose penalty units because penalty units presuppose criminality? If he can change the language, which will reflect civil imposition of a fine, then I think it will be consistent with our process of legislation. Penalty. units connote

    2011 Consideration Stage 3108 criminality. But according to him, it is not his intention to make that failure a criminal offence. He does not intend to criminalise it. So if he can use another language.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Deputy Minister, is that the intendment, not to criminalise it?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Precisely so. We do not intend to criminalise the Act
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    The moment you talk of summary conviction- [Interruption]
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Yes, Mr Speaker, I totally agree with you and I see that you are thinking in terms of the way Hon Boafo is thinking. That is it. We intend it to be a tax but the tax is not necessarily criminal. It is an obligation that one has to comply with. So when you pay the tax at the end of the month, it is a fine. - [Interruption]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    I will ask you something, so that we will understand the situation well. At what forum would a conviction be determined?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    The conviction in terms of?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    At which forum will the conviction be determined?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Because it helps us to deal with the matter.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    I think that when the Attorney-General was drafting it, at that place, they added "commit an offence" because they were thinking in terms of -- It is not intended to be an offence. It is just intended to compel distribution companies to buy a certain percentage
    Alhaji Fuseini
    The whole generation is going to be metered; those who produce renewable energy are going to be metered.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Who will preside over that determination?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Energy Commission
    (EC)
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Very well. Then I think we have to rephrase this.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Very well, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, this is an amendment that has come -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    If that is the true intention, I think we would need to re-formulate it.
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Mr Speaker, I think I agree with you that we re-formulate it. It has just come and we will take it back to the EC for them to look at it carefully but the intendment is not to criminalise the Act.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Very well. At this juncture, if there is nothing special from the Hon Majority Leader and Minority Leader- Hon Majority Leader, are you with me? I wonder if you can hear.
    Mr Avoka
    I am with you- [Laughter]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    I thank you very much.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, We had dealt earlier with clause 26 (6) where both the Chairman and the Deputy Minister requested for the deletion of subclause (6). Mr Speaker, you will notice that earlier, in clauses 21 and 23, when we came first to use the word "bulk", the intended meaning is that something should be in commercial quantities. "Bulk" has not been defined in the Interpretation. But the intended meaning in clause 21 is commercial quantities. Equally so for its appearance in clause
    24.
    Mr Speaker, SO I thought that the special meaning given to "bulk" when it comes in conjunction with "customer", the meaning given to it in clause 26 should stand there and not just be deleted and taken to the Interpretation. Otherwise, you will confuse the meaning of "bulk" as in clauses 21 and 24 and then 26.
    So for that section, it has been given a clear meaning and we should allow it to be there instead of taking it to the Interpretation. "Bulk" appears first time in clause 21 and it is not in the clause 5 but obviously, the meaning is the existence of whatever is in commercial quantities. lust so for clause 24. So let us not confuse ourselves, otherwise, I think we will be making the work difficult-
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Chairman of the Committee and Hon Deputy Minister for Energy?
    Alhaji Fuseini
    Indeed, Mr Speaker, "bulk customer" is a term of the Act, it is not limited to renewable energy alone. So we were thinking that even this definition is imported from other places, the Act. So that is why we thought that we should confine it, so that it will be consistent with the Act.
    ‘Bulk storage". There is a necessary inference in that provision of the meaning of "bulk storage"; it is there. If you read the heading "Bulk storage licence" and
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Well, if that is the viewpoint of the drafts persons, let us put it at that place and we can look at that further later.
    Mr Boafo
    Mr Speaker, the original intendment can be seen from the phraseology used; it is not stating that "for the purpose of this Act", it says "for the purpose of this section". So I believe the drafts person intends that the meanings of "bulk" and "premium" should be confined to section 26. So we cannot take it to-
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Maybe, they may want to, later on, re-phrase it as "of this Act". So when it moves to the general section - I think we can leave this now, so that upon further advice, we would proceed accordingly.
    Hon Majority Leader, any special matter? Do you have anything special?
    Mr Avoka
    Mr Speaker, l do not have anything special. I am at your liberty.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Hon Minority Leader, anything special?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu
    Mr Speaker, I do not have anything special except to observe that if the Hon Deputy Minister had allowed the Vice Chairman to proffer the reason for this one, he would not have landed us where we have landed, in respect of clause 26 (6).
    The Vice Chairman was in full control and the Hon Deputy Minister usurped the functions of the Vice Chairman - [Laughter] -- and landed us rather ingloriously, and crush-landed all of us. But Mr Speaker, we will take a cue from what has happened and continue tomorrow.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    Not with- standing the full control of our Chairmen, we all love to see the Ministers here. Is that not so? So Hon Deputy Minister, we would love to see you.
    Mr Avoka
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Deputy Minister was only complementing the efforts of the Vice Chairman and nothing else. [Laughter]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker
    That is very, very true in accordance with the true wishes of the House.
    Hon Members, the House will stand adjourned till tomorrow at ten o'clock in the forenoon.
    Thank you very much.
    ADJOURNMENT