Debates of 3 Jul 2013

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:30 a.m.
Dr Anthony A. Osei 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am wondering what is going on. I come under Standing Order 48.
It is strange that we do not even have one-third of Members of Parliament for us to start business. I wonder if we are properly constituted as a House. I can count on both sides less than 30, for a House of 275.
I do not know what is happening. We need to deal with it.
Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
I have taken note of what you said. I will not respond now.
Dr A. A. Osei 10:30 a.m.
I am formally coming under Order 49.
Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
Hon Member, you do the counting. I will verify from the Table Office.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:30 a.m.
  • [No correction was made to the Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 2nd July, 2013.]
    • Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
    At the Commencement of Public Business, presentation of Papers.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Dr Benjamin B. Kunbuor 10:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we could take item 4.
    Mr Gabriel K. Essilfie 10:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to crave your indulgence to ask permission as the Vice Chairman of the Finance Committee, to represent my Chairman who is out of the country, to present this Report.
    Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
    All right.
    PAPERS 10:30 a.m.
    Dr Kunbuor 10:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we could take item 5.
    Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
    I am wondering whether item 5 is necessary, in view of the fact that this is an urgent Bill. Whether we still need to suspend the Standing Orders.
    Dr Kunbuor 10:30 a.m.
    That is so, Mr Speaker. So, Mr Speaker, we can proceed to item 6.
    Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Essilfie 10:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to propose an amendment --
    Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
    Hon Member, take your time, please. I will call the clause and you will move your amendment. I have not called any clause [Pause.]
    Hon Minority Leader, do we need to suspend the Standing Orders-- item 5? I want to take your view and that of the Hon Majority Leader and one or two Hon Members, on this matter. But let me take your view.
    Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we started this Consideration Stage yesterday. If we are continuing, certainly, we do not have to go there. So, item 5, really, in my view, is redundant.
    Dr Kunbuor 10:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is in light of your ruling yesterday in relation to a Bill of an urgent nature. So, I guess that item 5 would be superfluous.
    We know, the Mace, by the time we adjourned, had not been tilted. So, we had to rely on your ruling on this matter and that shows that it is a continuation.
    Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah 10:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree that we do not have to have that procedural Motion because it is implied in the Order that gives the urgency to the Bill. If we are going to take the Bill through its motions in a day, then it implies that those orders do not apply.
    Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
    Very well. No! We did not start yesterday -- [Pause].
    Mr Alban S. K. Bagbin 10:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was getting a brief from my Chief Whip --
    Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
    I would want your opinion.
    When a Bill is determined to be of an urgent nature, do you need to suspend the Standing Orders to dispense with notice?
    Mr Bagbin 10:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is no need for notice. That Order will not apply in a situation when you have to take it through either a certificate of urgency or it is an urgent Bill. You do not need to give notice and therefore, the provisions, in my humble view, will not apply.
    Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, thank you very much. So, Communication Service Tax (Amendment) Bill, 2013 at the Consideration Stage.
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION STAGE 10:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
    Hon Vice Chairman, one at a time. If you had wanted all the amendments to be taken at ago, you could have filed them as one amendment. So, we have to put the Question on each one.
    Hon Members, this first amendment is really a drafting issue but I will put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
    Yes, the next one.
    Mr Essilfie 10:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, subclause (2), paragraph (b), line 2, delete “users” and insert “service providers”.
    Mr Joseph Y. Chireh 10:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, he has not given any reason for the amendment.
    Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
    Yes, Vice Chairman, they would want to know the reason behind your amendment.
    Mr Essilfie 10:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, that particular clause is to bring in some revenue from the providers of the service. When you use “users”, then in effect, you are looking at the end user who is the customer and I do not think that is what it was intended to be. That is why we are changing the “users” and bringing in the “service providers”.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 10:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, this amendment materially changes the principles which we debated yesterday. Mr Speaker would recollect that we had an occasion to advise the Vice Chairman who is acting as Chairman to even delete a certain sentence from the Committee's Report. If you read the memorandum, it is clear that the Government intended to charge users and not service providers.
    Mr Speaker, the second point is that, Ghana is a signatory to an ITU regulation, the Melbourne Convention, which frowns upon the levying of taxes on communications that do not originate in the country of the administration, that is, to try to charge taxes on communication originating from outside the jurisdiction. In effect, you are trying to tax people making calls from outside this country. Mr Speaker, these are my concerns regarding this amendment.
    Dr Kunbuor 10:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the concerns raised by the Hon Member were considered but what we did go in, specifically, was to find out whether the policy objective was indeed, to tax the provider. Why the amendment became necessary is that, if you go to the interpretation column, originally, “user”
    was used there because it also included provider in the definition. But we thought that we needed to clarify it by bringing it back to replace the user, so that it gives us the clarity, which is the object of the Bill to address this particular issue. Definitely, fiscal legislation is also one of the issues that international law does not impact or influence substantially.
    So, we might have some international commitments in terms of telecommu- nications but when it comes to taxing, it is a purely sovereign activity and it is only the sovereign arrangements of a country that can decide whether they want to tax or they do not want to tax; that is a generally accepted principle.
    So, when you are receiving any revenue that you do not want to tax as a sovereign right, you do that by a double taxation agreement within a bilateral or multilateral context. Yet once we have had the import of the policy as seeking to tax the provider, it does not go into the root of the legal substance of the Bill.
    But the concern that the Hon Member has raised, is a policy concern and I guess that the Government might have to grapple with that arrangement.
    Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
    Let me go back to the Hon Member for Suhum who raised the point. He made the point that we are a signatory to a certain international convention. Do you have the convention here to guide us?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 10:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have it in electronic form on my telephone.
    Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
    I would want you to read the relevant portion for us to hear.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 10:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you could give me a few minutes, I will load it and read it to you.
    Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Dominic A. B. Nitiwul 10:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, a senior Member of our side raised an issue about standing Order 48. Just as we all wish to work and work very carefully, once somebody has raised an issue, it needs to be addressed.
    Order 109 is also very clear on us putting Questions on issues and I thought that this issue would be addressed after the 10 minutes had elapsed before we could make progress on anything.
    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarak Mun- taka 10:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe my Hon Colleague, on the other side, the Deputy Minority Leader, knows very well that we have a convention in this House. When we are at the Consideration Stage, usually, we do not lay much emphasis. But he can see that an effort has been made to get Hon Members in and I can say that, Mr Speaker, if you check the number now, you will see that it has truly appreciated far better than when the issue was raised.
    I will indulge him and my Hon Colleagues who have this concern, if we could allow work to progress while we try to get our Colleagues who are in committee meetings to come in.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Dr A. A. Osei 10:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, as much as we want work to continue, normally, that convention holds when we are deep into the Consideration Stage. This is the starting of it. Some of us had to leave home very early to come here. These are some very serious matters we are looking at and if the Government's side is not able to demonstrate to us that this is serious,
    why should we take that position? If we had gone into about two or three hours of discussion and Members dwindled, I can accept that. But at the beginning-- So, these are very serious and weighty matters that we are discussing and we should not think that a few of us can decide that. I take that very serious. I would want it to continue but I think that our rules should be observed.
    It is not the convention two o'clock -- yes, people will go but 10.50 a.m. and we do not even have a quorum? Already, we are running into issues about international conventions. It does not help for only a few of us to be looking at these matters and I think that the Majority Chief Whip should not find an excuse.
    I have raised Order 48 -- the rules are clear; after 10 minutes, some decisions -- we can suspend while he looks on the down load, so that you get your act together. Suspend and bring the people but I am insisting on the Standing Orders.
    Mr Bagbin 10:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, Order 48 that my very good Friend, the Member of Parliament (MP) for Old Tafo raised, was in general terms drawing our attention to lack of quorum. But no number was mentioned. In spite of that, Mr Speaker, you took action and I heard the ringing of the bell, which allows for 10 minutes.
    Mr Speaker, the second Member who got up did not tell you that 10 minutes had passed. [Laughter.] He did not also tell you what number we have on the floor now to show that it does not constitute a quorum. And so, we should do things well.
    If you are insisting, when you are moving the Motion, move and state the number -- and Mr Speaker clearly told you that he will rely on the Clerks- at-the- Table and that is exactly what we are doing.
    Mr Bagbin 10:50 a.m.


    Mr Speaker, as of now, there are committees sitting and so, we would just ask the Whips to bring the Members in for us to continue. But I do not think it is advisable for us now to talk of adjourning the House because of lack of quorum. It has not been established that there is lack of quorum on the floor of the House.

    Thank you Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    Hon Members, I would want to ask both sides of the House whether they want to press this point because I have been around for some time and I know what we do here. We should be very careful not to set precedent that will come to haunt us in the future. So, I would want to find out from the Leaders whether they want to press on these points.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, you are putting me in a very awkward position --
    Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    This is because you have conducted yourself so well-- [Laughter]-- as far as this matter is concerned.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, you know my own attitude when we come to Consideration Stage and I am happy you are saying that you have been around for a very long time.
    Mr Speaker, I know if we have to rake the past, we would know the conduct of an Hon Member of the House called Hon Doe Adjaho, when it comes to matters relating to quorum. A former Member of Parliament now at another level, Mr Speaker, I do not want to go there at all.
    As for the position being adopted now by a former Minority Leader, former Majority Leader, when he rose up, he also did not mention any numbers; he said we have a very considerable number of people here. And when he said that h i s s i de i s r ep r esen t ed i n good numbers, he said the other side were just 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 --
    Mr Speaker, I do not want to say that my brother and friend suffers from optical illusion, otherwise, this number is an illusion. Mr Speaker, these numbers that he sees on our side, the side that I represent -- 1, 2, 3 -- Charity should begin at home.
    Mr Speaker, my own position is that, we should be liberal when it comes to Consideration Stage; I still hold that position and I would plead with Hon Colleagues not to press this issue because if we do, clearly, the position being taken by some people would be -- Mr Speaker I do not want to continue but I would plead with my Hon Colleagues, that they should drop their gauntlets and plough their swords into their sheaths and we can move on. I would plead with them.
    Dr A. A. Osei 10:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in view of the pleadings by my Leader, I think that the point has been made and I am sure that the Minority Leader --
    Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    Hon Members, thank you very much.
    We have the numbers to transact business and take decisions. So, Hon Members, let us proceed.
    Yes, Hon Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration, I thought I saw you on your feet-- Still on clause 1, the second amendment.
    Ms Hannah Tetteh 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was going to give some information but on second thought and after some review, I have withdrawn my position.
    So, thank you for the opportunity.
    Dr Mathew O. Prempeh 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is sometimes disheartening when the Minister for Communications is not here, especially as regards some technical issues.
    Mr Speaker, the service operators have what we call termination charges among themselves all over the world and for that, AT&T in the United States (US) might have a termination charge with say, MTN in Ghana. Mr Speaker, what this clause is seeking to do, is to charge AT&T but in the era of simbox fraud that the Hon Minister says, maybe, even some local companies are involved, I do not know how --
    Mr Speaker, somebody should explain to me when you receive international calls these days and the number becomes a local number on your phones, how the Government is even going to realise the revenue from this.
    Mr Speaker, it is going to turn out to be another charge on local service providers. If the call is from outside, certainly, the service provider bringing the call inside Ghana is an international service provider. How are you going to collect your service charge or communication service tax from such an operator?
    Mr Speaker, we need more answers than it is forthcoming from the financial experts, the financial engineers. I know the Ministry of Finance is piloting this Bill. But the technical issues involved in this Bill, we either need support from the

    National Communications Authority or for that matter, the Ministry of Communi- cations.

    Mr Speaker, it is not just easy that somebody calls you -- now, even some networks are international, like Vodafone. The termination charges among Vodafone networks in different countries are different. Say, if you are using 02 from the United Kingdom (UK) terminating a call in Ghana -- These questions need to be answered and answered to the people's representatives. It is not easy charging service providers for such a thing.

    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Bagbin 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that this is a matter of policy and we need to check from the proposers of the Bill, what the policy is. Is it the policy that Government wants to charge users of foreign calls? This is because that is what it states here or the proposed amendment to charge providers of the service. It is a matter of policy. So, let us get clarification from the Government.
    If we cannot immediately do it here because the Minister is not around, then we can flag it, crosscheck and later pass. I believe that in many countries, they charge users for this service provided. Our worry here is the level of our income because any poor farmer can receive a call from somebody outside this country and that is a foreign call and then he would be asked to pay for the receipt of the call. That was our worry. But now, it is being shifted to the provider and that might not be the policy of Government.
    In many American countries, I know the users are those who pay and not the provider. It is the user -- [Interruptions] I did not say Untied States of America, I said American countries. [Interrup-tions.] By viture of my years in this House, I have
    Mr Bagbin 11 a.m.


    Mr Speaker, I would want clarification on this issue because really, charging the providers will raise some technical issues.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that Government is placed in a quandary, hence the problem we are facing presently.
    Mr Speaker, the parent Act which we seek to amend provides in section 1, imposition. Section 1, subsection (1) says and with your permission, I beg to quote:
    “There is imposed by this Act a tax to be known as the communications service tax to be levied on charges payable by consumers for the use of communication service.”
    So, the Communications Service Tax is a consumer tax to be levied on charges payable by consumers for the use of communication service.
    Now, we come to the amendment Bill; it talks about electronic communication services other than private electronic communication service and in the interpretation, we have --
    “user” means “a customer or a subscriber of electronic commu- nications network or service or broadcasting service and includes a customer that is an operator or provider”.
    That is the problem This is because if really the purpose of this amendment is to rope in providers in addition to users, then it is inconsistent with the original Act. This is because the communications service tax is supposed to be a service tax to be levied on charges payable by consumers for the use of communication service. And then, I now come to the amendment, because the amendment itself,
    I believe, is clarifying Government's position, which Government sought to avoid.
    So, this tax is not a service tax, it is an operators' tax, including outside operators and that is a major policy shift which Government should have satisfied itself that it is in conformity with international conventions. So, this is not merely, as I see it, a financial matter. It is a communication policy matter and they should not even have come by way of an amendment but must have come by way of a substantive Act. No! We do not cut corners.
    Mr Speaker, I have no problem with Government imposing a tax, in principle. In principle, I do not have any objection where Government seeks to impose a tax but Government must be clear in its mind. It should not be wishy-washy as we are saying in this case. It should not be clandestine as we are seeing in this case. It is clandestine insofar as it seeks.This is my opinion and that is why we are in Parliament. Yes, I am passing a comment on how I see this. This is because if you want to charge an operators' tax, say so. That is my point.
    This is what we want Government to say because if it is a user tax, then it is most difficult for a user to be paying any tax on this. I do not see how they are going to collect the tax in practical terms.
    So, Mr Speaker, I support the view. If this is what Government wants to do, one, it should satisfy us that it is in conformity with international convention. I do not have any problem because when the time comes, it would be said that the Parliament of Ghana, as usual, contrary to international convention, has enacted a law which seeks to impose tax on service providers outside this country. I would not be privy to that unless it is not in violation of any international convention.
    Dr Kunbuor 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is a technical issue involved here and that is what we need to clarify.
    The first thing is that the Act that we are seeking to amend is actually a Communications Service Tax Act. After that Act was passed, there was a general broader Act that was passed to convert communications service into an electronic communications service; and there is a difference in the definition between communications service and the electronic communications service.
    The second Act was passed after the first Act and because this is a drafting issue, you would see that the amendments are now beginning to adopt the latter regulation and L.I. -- [Interruption] -- The second one is Act 775, it is Electronic Communications Service Act, which is different from the Communications Service Tax Act. They are completely different -- [Interruption] -- Wait! I am coming.
    We are talking of electronic communi- cations and I am saying that there is a communication service and there is an electronic communications service. So, we are now converting -- we are no more using communications services but electronic communications service, which is the broader ITA categorisation now in the new Electronic Communications Act, which came after this one.
    So, what we are saying is that, all we are doing in this amendment is to get our communications service, which was the subject of the earlier tax, now amplified and put under the new category of electronic communications -- [Interrup- tion] -- That is what I am saying -- [Interruption] -- Excuse me; do not let us confuse ourselves -- [Uproar] -- Excuse me; one is actually an Act.
    The Acts that we are talking about and which are the subject here, are completely different numbers and if we get the
    Committee's Report -- [Interruption] -- Yes, one is 754 and the other is 775; and if we look at that Act, you would see that, that Act has, by implication, changed “Communications Services Act” into an “Electronic Communications Act” -- [Interruption] -- Yes, with the regu- lations. We can crosscheck it -- [Inter- ruption] -- Just keep quiet for me to finish.
    I am saying that there is a parent Act with regulations to the Act and it is the parent Act that converts Communications Services in Act 754 to Electronic Communications. The word “electronic” was not initially --
    Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Hon Members, if you look at persons liable to pay the tax under clause 2(3) of the Bill, they did make reference to the Electronic Communi- cations Act, Act 775 and Electronic Communications Regulation 2011, L.I.
    1991.
    Hon Members, the issues you are raising are very grave and very important. I have listened carefully to the Hon Member for Sekondi (Papa Owusu- Ankomah); I have listened also to the Hon Majority Leader. In order to effectively preside over the Consideration Stage of this matter, I need to have all these Bills and the Regulations with me, so that I can follow the arguments that are being made by the Majority Leader to see the effect of the latter legislation, that is, the Act 775 on the Communications Service Tax, so that we can really appreciate the point that is being made.
    But let me hear from the Hon Minority Leader and one other person from the Majority side and then we would know what to do.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it was just a small matter that I wanted to draw the attention of the Majority Leader to.
    Mr Speaker, it is not about definitions; it is about the category of people who should be paying the tax. That is what is involved; it is not about definitions at all. And he was waxing on definitions; it is not what is needed here now. It is the category of people --
    Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, that is precisely the point that I am making. If you look at clause 2 of the Bill -- “persons liable to pay the tax…” And then they mentioned those legislations that he was referring to in subclause (3).
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I know, but the Hon Member for Nadowli- Kaleo (Mr Bagbin) expressed some confusion about the policy. I think the policy really is captured in the memorandum and the memorandum provides in clause 1, the third paragraph of the first page, and Mr Speaker, I beg to quote the second sentence:
    “The tax is to be levied on electronic communications service supplied by service providers and charges payable on electronic communi- cations service received by users from sources outside this country”
    Now, if we come to where it is intended to be amended, that clause 1(2)(b), they have used the same language there -- “users from sources outside this country.” That reflects the policy as captured in the memorandum. Now, they are saying that they want to change it and that is where the problem is.
    Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    That is the point the Hon Member for Nadowli-Kaleo said, that it is one of policy issue. But you see, the Hon Majority Leader is also making a valid
    point and you are also making a valid point. We need to reconcile -- In fact, if they had not introduced those legislations under persons liable to pay the tax, we would have said that those legislations that he was referring to are not relevant. They are relevant to the extent that the persons liable to pay the tax -- I would want somebody to refer to the relevant provisions of that law and let us see its impact and its effect on the Bill.
    Hon Members, I am suggesting that let us suspend briefly, let us look at the relevant legislations, let us look at the conventions that our attention has been drawn to. We are making laws; we should not make a law only at the end of the day, to embarrass ourselves as a House.
    Of course, we are also looking at -- our attention has been drawn to the memorandum to the Bill and at the end of the day, what is the policy? What do we want to do, so that we are clear in our minds exactly what we are doing? We can defer this while we move to other matters.
    Hon Members, do not forget that we devoted the whole of yesterday to this Bill.
    Dr Kunbuor 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, when we met yesterday, after the House adjourned, we did invite the policy people to ask them to tell us exactly what they want to do. And their communication to the group that met to discuss this matter, which included Hon Members from the other side, indicated that they wanted to, in addition to taxing, the conception of “user” in the Communications Service Tax Act to tax the providers as well. And the way they want to tax the providers, is through interconnectivity.

    That explains why, if you look at the definition of electronic communication, it is completely different from the one that was in the Communications Service Tax Act, and it extends to include inter- connection. So, we are no more talking about electronic communication in terms of -- but it extends to include interconnection. The interconnection is at the level of the provider.

    If you come to “user”, the interpretation has defined “user” again to include a provider. These are the essentials of the amendment. So, I do not see the legal issue here. This is because they want to now begin to tax providers through inter-connectivity. They expanded the definition of “user” to include the provider; and in electronic communications or communications services to include a producer through interconnection. That is what is in the Interpretation section.

    That is why I am saying, if you take the object of the Bill, and you go and take the new definition of electronic communication and you go to the interpretation section what a user means, you will see that all of them converge and the object is to tax the providers. So, the first charging section in the Communi- cations Act that is left, you have brought the second charging section to now bring in interconnection and that is why it is worded the way it is. And all these issues were considered yesterday.

    So, I would want us to look at it just from the pure legal perspective; if there is a problem with it, we re-draft. But the policy issue in the object of the Bill we debated, it is clear that they want to tax the providers and the providers being taxed would be through inter-connec- tivity. So, there is no doubt whatsoever in what the object of the tax is.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is no problem -- [Interruption]
    Mr Speaker, I do not have a problem if the Government's policy now is to tax service providers as well. But the way it is being brought here, is very problematic. If you go to the memorandum, that section on clause 2, it is specific and I beg to quote:
    “Where the service is received from a source outside this country, the tax is to be paid by the user who receives the service.”
    The amendment that is being intro- duced, would change that to “service provider”. That is the policy change. So, I think we should think about bringing it properly.
    The neater way would have come with a new Act that deals specifically with the service providers because using a definition in the Interpretation, then if you go to clause 1 (2) (b) -- even in clause 1 (2) (b), the original language is “user”; it is not “service provider”. That is the problem we have and I think that we should look at this carefully, the Interpre- tation --
    Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, they are referring next to the memorandum of the Bill -- and if you look at clause 2 -- the explanation offered to clause 2 in the memorandum to the Bill, it says that where the service is received from a source outside this country, the tax is to be paid by the user who received the service. Now, we are making it “service providers” and that is the point that is being made. Maybe, you can clarify that position and we may see our way forward. After that, the Hon Member for Wa West
    -- 11:20 a.m.
    Dr Kunbuor 11:20 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, it is because there is an old sense of the use of the word “user” and then a new sense in a subsequent legislation, which is the electronic communications and that is what has been lifted and brought into this amendment.
    If we had not defined “user” here at page 7 of the Bill, which states that --
    “… after the interpretation of “tax period”, “user” means a customer or a subscriber of electronic communications network or service or broadcasting service and includes a customer that is an operator or provider of electronic communications network. . .”
    It is because of this expanded context of “user” in the amendment that it now also means “user” can be used inter- changeably with “provider”. At the meeting yesterday, they said, to make it clearer, we should rather remove the “user” and bring “provider” in. That is why that was done, otherwise, the original rendition used “user” as understood in the Interpretation section, Mr Speaker.
    So, if you are looking at “user” at the level of your old legislation, then you will not see “provider” in it. But if you are using “user” in the Bill and in the
    Electronic Communications Act as defined, then it includes a “provider”, Mr Speaker. This is the technical nature of the issue.
    Mr Joseph Y. Chireh 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that what the Hon Majority Leader is saying clarifies the position. Number two, if you look at the amendments that are being proposed, there are two Bills that are involved. Now, because of the extensive nature of the amendments, I will agree with what many of my Hon Colleagues are saying, that a substantive Bill ought to have come, which would reconcile all the languages from the two and the most recent ones.
    But in terms of the policy, I think the policy is clear. If you also look at the means by which the collection is done, if you say a “user”, you are not going to come to me directly and take the money. I must use the service of the provider and the provider will collect the tax and then transfer it to Government -- the percentage we are talking about.
    Therefore, sometimes, the conception about the use of the words “consumer” and “user” and the “provider”, we must also be linking them to the method of collection of the tax. And I think that with this clarification -- Another issue of what the Hon Majority Leader is saying, is that, once we change what we are charging from just “communication” to “electronic communications”, it then clarifies what we are charging. Therefore, there should be no issue --
    I have heard Hon Members talk about international conventions. But I am also saying, if we do not have these interna- tional conventions readily available, those who are using them, can they tell us what is in them? Otherwise, we are making our own policy to tax providers who in turn would charge users. Nobody is running away from that fact but it is the providers
    you are going to charge. If you charge me, I would not pay because I do not know who to go and pay to, but I have been already charged when I was talking. I have also heard about farmers being charged and they may not be able to pay; that does not arise at all. This is because currently, we do not even know how much the charge is genuinely and particularly, those who generate Ghanaian numbers, even though it is somebody calling you from outside.
    I think that the clarification is clear, the policy is definite and we should support the amendment that is being proposed.
    Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, if you are telling this House that the definition of “users” is the definition in the Electronic Communications Tax, why do you not use that definition and why are we now changing it to service providers?
    Dr Kunbuor 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, this was precisely what we started discussing. At the Committee meeting, I insisted yesterday that there is nothing wrong with using the word “user” if you go to the interpretation section and they said -- But to give it some clarity, so that people can make a distinction between “user” as provider and “user” as consumer of the service --
    Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    But the point is that, having done that, you are still using the definition of “users” in the current Bill. You are using the “users” in the Electronic Communications Act; that definition is the same definition, which is in the current Bill. So, for consistency sake, you should not have filed this amendment; you should have left the clause there because we are using the “user” as referred to in the Electronic Communications Act.
    Dr Kunbuor 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is exactly the type of consensus that we are trying to build and Hon Opare-Ansah and Hon J. B. Danquah would agree with me. I insisted that technically speaking, one could not change this word to “provider” without changing your definition of “user” in the interpretation.
    It was like we had to build consensus to make the law clearer because they said clarity was the object. But technically speaking, there was nothing wrong with the use of the word “user” and that was why the Chairman agreed, that well, why do we not bring it that way while it would not do any violence whatsoever to it?
    That is why this amendment became necessary. Otherwise, legally speaking, the amendment is not necessary to clarify the Bill. And if Mr Speaker agrees, we can stand down this matter and do further consultation and bring back the original rendition and we should not have that problem.
    Mr Speaker would realise that yesterday, on this floor, I kept drawing attention to the technical soundness of the drafting because my attention was drawn to the Electronic Communications, which lifted and put in here. When one legislation is passed after another, it is anticipated by implication that if there is a conflict between the two, the latter legislation takes precedence.
    And the draftsperson used those as a guide in drafting. So, I thought this matter was understood in that context. So, if Mr Speaker would stand it down, we can do further consultations on it and get an acceptable rendition with the policy people and then come back.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Majority Leader seems to be labouring to determine whether to use “user” or “service provider.” The fact remains that whatever he succeeds in doing, the Government wants to levy some tax on inbound international traffic; that is the issue.
    As the Hon Leader alluded to, we held a meeting yesterday and we drew the attention of the policymakers to the fact that in the Electronic Communications (Amendment) Act, there is already a 6 per cent per minute levy. By law, no operator is allowed to charge anything below 19 cents per minute. And 32 per cent of that money is paid to the National Communications Authority (NCA) to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
    So, clearly, Government wants to now impose a 6 per cent additional tax on the 13 cents that accrue to the operator. And our position is that, if this is the policy that Government wants to implement, they should come very clear instead of this confusion that we seem to be having over the definition of who a “user” is.
    Mr Speaker, that is when we drew attention to the Melbourne Convention. Mr Speaker, I have it here now. In article 6, specifically 6.13 of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), it says, and Mr Speaker, with your permission I beg to read:
    “Where in accordance with the national law of a country, a fiscal tax is levied on collection charges for international communications service, this tax shall normally be collected only in respect of international services billed to customers in that country.”
    Mr Speaker, that is why we are saying that if there is a call originating from Ghana, where users are billed for calling destinations outside this country, then
    you are free per this convention to levy your taxes on them. But where calls are coming into your country, originating from sources outside this country, according to the clause that we are dealing with, then it is against the principles of this convention to try to levy any tax on them.
    Mr Speaker, that is why in amending Act 775 previously, to get that 6 cents for Government, Government could not come straight to this House in the form of a tax, but raised it to 19 cents and took a whopping 6 cents out of the 19 cents as if it is doing some revenue sharing with the operators. Today, after doing your revenue sharing for several years, suddenly, you are going against the principle of this Convention to tax the 13 cents that the operator is keeping.
    Mr Speaker, after taking this tax, it is a revenue that would accrue to the operator. At the end of the day, the operators would have to pay taxes again -- coming to this House with this policy and other things like stabilisation levy and the rest --
    Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Hon Member for Suhum, you are shifting to something else. Let us concentrate on the Bill before us. You raised the issue and referred to the International Treaty or Convention to which Ghana is a signatory and they were asking for further and better particulars from you. Let us see whether it is one of policy, let us see whether it is illegal. Those are things that we are concerned about. Whether what we are doing is contradicting the law that you referred to, so that we would know exactly what we are doing.
    Hon Majority Leader, why do we not defer this matter and take sometime with it and then bring it back?
    Dr Kunbuor 11:30 a.m.
    Very well, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    This is a very technical --
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if I can crave your indulgence, I think it would be useful to get the communications people involved in terms of policy because this matter is coming as a revenue measure and I am not sure the Ministry of Finance will be able to deal with telecommunication issues because that is where the problem is. I think, for us to move forward, it will help this House if they are involved, not the Hon Minister necessarily but in policy form, so that we can combine the two.
    Mr Speaker, if you look at it purely as a revenue measure, we would run into the kind of trouble we are in now.
    Dr Kunbuor 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, there are many areas of their own regulatory regime and when one moves in to tax that particular regulatory regime, one must be very careful not to look at the regulatory regime of that sector in terms of tax regime. The two are completely different. Mr Speaker, that is why I am saying that you can bring in all your communication experts on this matter.
    They will take you through the regulation threshold and what you need to do in terms of international regulation. But that still will not answer your question on what you want to tax. That was why yesterday, I drew attention to something which had to do with the tax base. This is because what we are dealing with now is to identify the particular base, which is the circumference of what is out to be taxed. Government is the one that will take political responsibility for that policy decision to tax.
    It comes with consequences. So, we cannot sit in this House and be seen taking away the consequences of a policy decision that is not illegal or unconstitu- tional. If there is something illegal about
    it, if there is something unconstitutional about it, this House would make sure that that does --
    But if it is an executive policy position and it is not so absurd to the extent that they said they want to tax and tax again, then it is a political question that has to be decided and taken over. But whether legally, we have structured the tax regime in a way that it can go through the House, I think we have. As a tax regime, we have -- but I am amenable to --
    Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, I entirely agree with you that we should concentrate on the legal and constitu- tional issues that are being raised and that is why it is -- and then the technical issues in terms of definitions and all those things and at least, your explanation now has actually clarified some of the confusion in the minds of some of us that you are lifting the definition from a latter legislation into the current one.
    That has also clarified the position. But in order to make progress, I suggest that let us move on and then we come back to this particular Bill.
    Do we take item numbered 12, the Value Added Tax (Amendment) Bill, 2013?
    Which item are we taking?
    Dr Kunbuor 11:40 a.m.
    Item numbered 16, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Why not 12?
    Dr Kunbuor 11:40 a.m.
    I was guided --
    Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Deputy Minister for Finance, they took permission --
    Hon First Deputy Speaker to take the Chair.
    Minister for Finance) 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that the Special Import Levy Bill be now read a Second time.
    Mr Speaker, the purpose of the Bill is to impose a special import levy on imported goods at the point of importation.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you very much.
    Question proposed.
    Vice Chairman, Committee on Finance (Mr Gabriel K. Essilfie) (on behalf of the Chairman): Mr Speaker, I rise to support the Motion. And in doing so, Mr Speaker, I would like to crave your indulgence to present your Committee's Report.
    Introduction
    The Special Import Levy Bill was presented to Parliament by the Hon Minister for Finance and read for the First time on Friday, 28th June, 2013. The Bill was referred to the Finance Committee for consideration and report in accordance with article 174(1) of the 1992 Constitution and Order 169 of the Standing Orders of the House.
    Mr Speaker further directed the Committee to determine whether the Bill is of urgent nature to be taken through all the three stages of article 106 (13) of the Constitution and Order 119 of the Standing Orders of the House.
    Pursuant to the referral, the Committee met with the Hon Minister for Finance, Mr Seth E. Terkpeh, Deputy Ministers of Finance, Hon George Kweku Ricketts- Hagan and Hon Cassiel Ato Forson, officials from the Ministry Finance,
    Attorney General's Department and the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) and considered the referral.
    The Committee is grateful to the Hon. Minister, Deputy Ministers and officials from the Ministry, Attorney-General's Department and the GRA for their assistance.
    Reference
    The Committee referred to the following additional documents during its deliberations:
    The 1992 Constitution of Ghana.
    The Standing Orders of the Parliament of Ghana.
    The Ghana Revenue Authority Act, 2009 (Act 791)
    Harmonised System and Customs Tariff Schedules 2012.
    Background
    The Government in the 2013 Budget Statement and Economic Policy presented to Parliament outlined a number of measures aimed at fiscal consolidation and promotion of growth. However, the 2013 Budget has a funding gap of about eight billion Ghana cedis. There is therefore, the need to identify other avenues for revenue generation to help mobilise funds to finance the funding gap in the budget as well as reduce the 2013 budget deficit.
    The Special Import Levy, therefore, represents one of the measures being adopted to increase revenue generation to support government programmes outlined in the 2013 Budget.
    Purpose of the Bill
    The Bill seeks to impose a special import levy on selected imported goods at the point of importation.
    Provisions of the Bill
    The Bill is divided into six clauses as follows:
    Clause 1 imposes a special import levy on imported goods to be paid at the point of importation and to be computed on the Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF) value of the goods for the 2013, 2014 and 2015 calendar years.
    Clause 2 provides a schedule for the computation of the levy imposed under clause 1 for the various imported goods described.
    Clause 3 provides for the adminis- tration of the Levy. The clause mandates the Ghana Revenue Authority as the sole entity responsible for the administration of the Levy.
    Clause 4 provides that the Customs, Excise and Preventive Service (Manage- ment) Act, 1993 (PNDCL 330) applies for the assessment, collection and recovery, of the Levy imposed and for related matters with the necessary modifications.
    Clause 5 mandates the Commissioner General of the GRA to pay all amounts collected into the Consolidated Fund.
    Clause 6 relates to interpretation and definition of terms used in the Bill.
    Observations
    Urgency of the Bill
    The Committee, in its deliberations, considered the Bill to be of an urgent nature and must be taken through all the stages in one day in accordance with article 106 (13) of the Constitution and Order 119 of the Standing Orders of the House.
    Expected Revenue
    The Minister informed the Committee that the estimated revenue expected from the imposition of the Levy for the remaining half year of 2013 will amount to two hundred and eight million Ghana cedis (GH¢208,000,000). The Minister added that the revenue will ensure fiscal stability and provide resources for investment in social services and infrastructure across the country
    Levy on fertilizers
    The Committee observed that the Bill proposed a 1 per cent levy on all fertilizers listed under Chapter 31 of the Harmonised System and Customs Tariff Schedules, 2012. Though the Committee is not against the attempt by Government to raise additional revenue to implement the programmes and projects outlined in the 2013 Budget, it believes that the proposed levy will increase the cost of fertilizers and ultimately lead to an increased food cost.
    The Levy further has the potential to impoverish the many subsistence crop farmers, most of whom are below the poverty line. The Committee accordingly proposed the deletion of the 1per cent levy on fertilizers.
    Amendments
    Based on the above observation, the Committee proposed the following amendments to the Bill:
    i. Schedule (Regulation 2) S/No 2 -- Amendment proposed -- delete.
    ii. Schedule (Regulation 2) S/No 3 -- Amendment proposed -- line 3, after “27” insert “and fertilizers listed under Chapter 31”.
  • [MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER IN THE CHAIR.]
    • Dr A. A. Osei 11:47 a.m.
    I think something has gone amiss. We should have done item number 15 before 16. But we suddenly jumped to 16 when item 16 has not been taken care of. Procedurally, we have to do item number 15. This is the first time we are looking at this Special Import Levy Bill and we are going to the Second Reading. I think a mistake has been made and we ought to correct it before we go further.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:47 a.m.
    Hon Member, I believe that if you look at the first Motion numbered 5, the reason for doing away with that would appear to be the same reason that we would have to apply to this one.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:47 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, yesterday, we went through all of that Motion through the Second Reading and the Consideration Stage was today. So, that is the reason. But this is the first time we are coming to this one.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:47 a.m.
    Yes, I appreciate the point you are making but you see, because the Bill has been placed
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:47 a.m.
    Yes, I am with you. Which part of the Schedule?
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:47 a.m.
    Number one -- Machines and Equipment listed under Chapters 84 and 85 of the Harmonised System and Customs Tariff Schedule 2012. That is the Special Import Levy on the back.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:47 a.m.
    Yes, we are listening.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the senior Hon Members who are making that noise ought to be disciplined --
    Those included items such as outboard motors, generators, energy saving bulbs- [An Hon Member: Cocoa spraying machines] Cocoa spraying machines? No! I am not sure. I am wondering if the
    Government has thought this through very well. These items were given zero rated for a specific reason. Now, suddenly, we are looking for money and we want to go and tax one per cent of the CIF value of these items? I think the Government ought to reconsider it.
    These items were given a zero per cent rate to encourage people to bring energy saving bulbs. Energy saving -- I am sure the Hon Minister for Energy and Petroleum was not consulted on this matter, neither was the Hon Minister for Fisheries and Aquaculture Development. This is because we are going to discourage specifically the Food and Agriculture Ministry.
    Mr Speaker, I am wondering -- This is supposed to be a Cabinet decision, so unless the Government is telling us that this “Better Ghana Agenda” now wants to tax fishermen, farmers, and people who want to save energy. If that is what they want to do, let the people of Ghana decide. But I am sure that if you look at it as a purely revenue measure -- [Interrup- tion.] So, I think I am raising this issue as we go through the Memorandum for the movers of the Bill to look at it carefully.
    Mr Speaker, I see the conference of Hon Ministers --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Hon Member, can we get the response from -- [Interruption.] No! I know. This is a very important point that he has raised. I think we need some kind of response. The Energy and Petroleum Minister, fortunately, is over here with us and -- [Interruption.] Let us hear from him.
    Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarak Mun- taka 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, if you could allow the debate to
    continue, because these things were taken care of at the Committee level. At the tail end, the Hon Minister will have the opportunity to do a wind up instead of responding to every issue that is raised. So, I would plead with you, even though you have made this comment, to allow the debate to flow, so that towards the tail end, he summarises on all the issues. I think that would be better than responding to every single issue.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    All right. Thank you very much.
    Hon Member for Old Tafo, continue.
    Dr A.A. Osei 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it would have helped me greatly with my contribution if I had been given answers. It would help in the other parts of my contribution, to enrich the debate. I think it would have helped me.
    But Mr Speaker, you and I were not there, so, once you have directed, I will -
    - 11:50 a.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Hon Member, I can assure you that after the response has been given at the end of your contribution, if there is any need for you to come back, I would let you.
    Dr A.A. Osei 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you.
    The second issue I would want to bring your attention to, is the matter of clause 1 of the Bill. I do not see the Hon Chairman of the Committee. Clause 1 of the Bill, and the Hon Chairman of the Committee whom I am addressing just read it. We are addressing it and he is standing there having a conversation --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, we need you to take your seat, so that you can listen to the contributions.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman has brought us the Report and we are addressing the principles in it and he is not paying attention.
    Mr Speaker, I will read clause 1 of the Bill. With your permission, I beg to quote 11:50 a.m.
    “There is imposed by this Act for the calendar years of 2013 . . . ”
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Chireh, is it on a point of order?
    Mr Chireh 11:50 a.m.
    I have a point of order, Mr Speaker.
    The Hon Old Tafo --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Hon Member for Old Tafo --
    Mr Chireh 11:50 a.m.
    The Hon Member for Old Tafo is misleading the House by what he is saying. No law can be implemented unless it is passed, and it takes effect only when it is passed by this House, with effect from the day it is passed. The six months are gone. So, he should not mislead anybody.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:50 a.m.
    My Speaker, my senior Friend and Hon Colleague should go to page 3 of the Bill, unless he is optically,
    physically challenged. “Calendar year” means the 12 months period starting from 1st January. [Interruption.] That is what we are being told. I am saying that no amendment is being proffered, even on the Interpretation and that should have come. So, what he is saying about the Bill is neither here nor there.
    The Committee met and is giving us a Report. It is unconstitutional for Parliament to accept what the Committee is telling us -- The January 1st. That is the point I am making, that an amendment should have been proffered. [Interrup- tion.] It is not, and I am bringing the Committee's attention to it, that clause 1 as it is, ought to have been amended. That is all I am suggesting -- [Interruption]
    Mr Essilfie 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to respond to what the Hon Ranking Member of the Committee -- On a point of order.
    Mr Speaker, at the Committee meeting, this issue was actually raised by another Hon Member and I, because, definitely, as an accountant, when I read that, it meant something differently to me than what I was told. And the Hon Minister explained, just as the Hon Member for Wa West said, that once the Bill is passed, its effective date for the charge is when the Bill is assented to and that it is not a retroactive charge. There would be no retroactive calculation. And that was why in the Report, we would have addressed it.
    So, I do not want the Hon Ranking Member to play to the gallery as if the Finance Committee members do not know what they are doing.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Hon Member, please, watch the choice of words. I think he has raised a point; we need to address it. Some contributions have been made indicating that it is
    effective from the date of the passage of the Bill into an Act, so, let us make some progress.
    When he completes his submissions, we would listen to the Hon Members of the Committee and then possibly, the Hon Ministers responsible.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Vice Chairman is my good Friend, but I find it offensive and I am asking you to direct him to withdraw the statement that I am playing to the gallery. I find it very offensive. He is my Hon Friend, but on this matter, I am sorry. [An Hon Member: Do you play to the gallery at committee?] Was he playing to the gallery at the Committee?
    Mr Speaker, he should withdraw it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Hon Vice Chairman, I think it is in order that you withdraw that portion of your contribution.
    Mr Essilfie 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I withdraw it, but I do not know why my Hon Friend is so upset because the gallery is empty.
    Dr A. A. Osei noon
    Mr Speaker, it is good and well to say that it was discussed by the Committee but we have this Report and nothing is said about it. Even if that discussion had been put in the Report, we would have raised different issues. Mr Speaker, I have told you why I was not there, if you want me to repeat it, I will. [Interruption.]
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    Hon Member, is it on a point of order?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    Hon Member for Old Tafo, I think the point is well made.
    Dr A. A. Osei noon
    Mr Speaker, I am not sure of where he is going. My point is that we are debating the principles and also the Report. I do not know if he has a copy of the Report. It does not mention anything about a discussion on the time for it to be effective; it does not. And I am saying it should have -- I am not talking about an amendment.
    I know-- he has been here longer than me but I know that at the Consideration Stage, Hon Members can propose amendments. I am a member of the Committee but I was not present. I am inferring that the Committee should have looked at that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    Hon Member, from what you are saying, if we should go along with you, it will mean that there will be the need for an amendment to that portion. That is why he is saying that if it is a question of amendment, you are free to also propose it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    Any more contributions? No more contributions, so I will go ahead and put the Question.
    Hon Minister, can you address the issues raised, especially with regard to what the Hon Member for Old Tafo said?
    Mr Forson noon
    Mr Speaker, it is true that the HS Code, we have certain items like engines and other machinery which are
    zero-rated. But this has become necessary in view of the fact that there is an urgent need for us to close the fiscal gap. That is why the Ministry of Finance is coming in with an amendment to be able to raise enough revenue to address the fiscal challenges that we are facing at present.
    Mr Speaker, I also want to make a quick remark how --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    The Hon Deputy Minister is winding up; I do not know --
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    Is it on a point of order.?
    Dr A. A. Osei noon
    Mr Speaker, Iwould want to make sure that I understand what he said, because he is answering to my direct query.
    Is he saying that the Government has decided that because they want revenue, they are willing to tax fishermen? Is that what he is saying? He should be clear.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    Hon Deputy Minister, please, proceed.
    Let us have some order.
    Mr Forson noon
    Mr Speaker, I would want to put on record that we are not saying that we are taxing fishermen. What I am trying to imply is that, indeed, there are items in the HS Code that say that items such as engines and other motors are zero- rated but we are very much aware of its implication. But it does not necessarily mean we are taxing fishermen. It does not necessarily mean that and I would want to put that on record.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to further state that this has become necessary in view of the fact that there is an urgent need for us to close the fiscal gap and that is why we are coming with this tax measures to close the gap.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
    Mr Speaker, it seems to me that the Hon Deputy Minister has left several questions unanswered.
    First, he raises the issue that Government has determined to resort to measures to close the fiscal gap. Now, he must tell this House what the quantum of the fiscal gap is.
    Second, the Hon Muntaka, the Majority Chief Whip is indicating to me that that amount was in the budget; I agree. But let him be assured -- Mr Speaker, there are so many figures that have changed in the budget document. The Hon Deputy Minister knows that. There are figures that have changed in the budget document. [Interruption] Are you asking me “what”? Should I tell you one?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
    Hon Member, can you please, address the Chair. Please, address the Chair.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
    Mr Speaker, so, it is something that he must allude to. Then he says, relating to the question that has been posed to him, they are resorting to these measures of taxation to rake in funds to bridge the gap. Would that justify the resort to any vehicle at all to rake in funds because there is fiscal deficit? Clearly not. There should be reason-ableness and affordability injected in this. So, he should let us know if he will consider this resort to be reasonable.
    He just spoke to us about the application of this tax on engines including outboard motors and he said that: “Oh, fishermen are not being taxed”. But outboard motors are included in the engines that he is applying this tax on. That is why we are saying that we should be very reasonable in the application of the tax.
    First of all, we agreed that if there is a funding gap, we need to resort to taxation. It is time that we lived up to our responsibilities. I agree. But it should not be because we need to fill the gap, the resort should apply to whatever, however, regardless of whatever is raised. That is the issue being raised by my Hon Colleagues and we would want him to specifically answer to these queries.
    Alhaji Dauda noon
    Mr Speaker, I am very clear in my mind that you were about to put the Question but you asked the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance to wind up. I would want your direction on this matter, whether in a debate, a Minister is under obligation in this House to respond to all the concerns raised. I would want a direction from the Chair.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, I think it would be very absurd to expect that every point raised would be addressed at this stage. No! I think that we have to be as reasonable as possible.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on the second matter which is on the revenue, he did not respond to it at all. [Interruption.] It is very important because the Report says GH¢208 million. Already -- [Interruption.] So, I think it is important.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    All right. I will ask him to respond.
    Mr Forson 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, at the Committee, after taking off the fertilizers, we came to an estimate of a total amount of GH¢208 million to be raised as and when this law becomes active.[Interruption.]
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Any more? I thought I was going to put the Question?
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just for clarity. [Interruption.] We are going to vote on the matter, just for clarity.
    Mr Speaker, I was specific in my query. We have three items; he said the total is GH¢208 million and I am saying, as it is now, number 2 has been neutralised to zero. So, is he saying that between one (1) and three (3) is where the GH¢208 million is coming from and what is the distribution if he has it here? This is because if he gave it at the Committee, then it means he has it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Minister, do you have a response to that, please?
    Mr Forson 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think I have answered the question. I said, that obviously, outside the fertilizers, we are estimating a total amount of GH¢208 million and that is what I said. It is GH¢208 million per our estimate, and I would want to say that that is an estimate. It is not cast that we are going to accrue that revenue. This is an estimate.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, I think that I will put the Question.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    The Special Import Levy Bill, 2013 was accordingly read a Second time.
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would want to proceed further to item 18, which is the Consideration Stage of this very Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Item 18 --
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    I thought we had finished with that issue?
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I stood up to catch your eye, but your eyes apparently were looking elsewhere. Mr Speaker, I would want to crave-- I was looking for you to get a headcount on the earlier vote but --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, item 18 -- Special Import Levy Bill, 2013 at the Consideration Stage.
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 12:10 p.m.
    STAGE 12:10 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    There is no amendment pending. Is that alright with you?
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was going to ask the Hon Chairman to consider that clause again, and maybe, at the Second Consideration Stage -- It is not clear in clause 1 what the words “at the point of importation” means -- This is because what we are saying is that it should be collected -- That is how I am reading it --It should be collected at the other end but there is no definition.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think it is important that the Chairman of the Committee takes this on board. This is because the point of importation is different from the point of entry; it is different. I think for reasons of clarity, we should look at that. [Interruption.]
    Mr Speaker, the answer does not lie in the shaking of the head of the Hon Vice Chairman. The answer does not lie in the shaking of the head. The two are different. We should look at that.
    Mr Speaker, then the other one is the point raised by the Hon Member for Old Tafo in respect of the calendar years 2014 and 2015. There is nothing wrong with 2014 and 2015, but 2013 would pose a problem, the way it has been captured. Mr Speaker, we should not be misled by whoever is saying that it comes into effect and it starts counting when the President appends his signature.
    Mr Speaker, that is not true. It does not exist in the Constitution. The Constitution provides that it becomes law when the President assents to it. As to when it starts counting -- [Interruption.] He himself has given a definition of the calendar and he says calendar year means “the twelve calendar months starting from 1st January”. That is where the problem is. So, we have to look at it and re-capture it. So, these are the two things that I may want the Committee to reconsider. [Interruption.]
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Before you make a contribution, Hon Minister for Information and Media Relations, I think that if there is a problem with the definition, when we get to clause 6, we can look at it. But for now, let us go with it. When we get to clause 6 and there is a need to amend it by way of a definition to make it more specific, we can do that.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there are two issues; the date and the point of importation as against the point of entry.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    The point of importation, can you address that?
    Mr Ayariga 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that clearly, Hon Members on the other side have raised concerns about the inter- pretation of “calendar year”. My understanding, Mr Speaker, is that, the Bill makes provision for a calendar year and tries to define it. When the law comes into force, that is when the power to charge, levy or to take the duty comes into force. So, at that point, when one imports an item, it is only then that one becomes liable to pay.
    As we speak, one is not liable to pay if one imports any item until this becomes law. So, it does not matter if the definition of a “calendar year” says “a calendar year begins from January to December.” It is the day that one imports the item and if at the day that one imports the item there is in existence of a law that says that one is liable to pay a duty, then one's liability arises.
    So, I do not see why there is an attempt to relate the definition of “calendar year” to when an individual becomes liable to pay a duty. One only becomes liable if the law comes into force. As for the law, it makes a general definition of a calendar year. So, I think that once the law comes into force, it is the day that the President gives his assent; it is from that day that all those who are importing become liable to pay their duty. It has nothing to do with the definition of “calendar year.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, if we are not careful, we will belabour this point. I think that when we get to clause 6, we can set the record straight. Assuming that there is the need for an amendment regarding the definition of “calendar year” --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with you that we may have to perhaps, wait. But the path that the Hon Minister for Information and Media Relations is leading us onto is very, very errorneous; it is a path of unrighteous- ness. Mr Speaker, he says to us that the date that the President assents to a Bill is the effective date of the operation of the law. Mr Speaker, he is totally wrong. It is not true.
    Mr Speaker, article 116 (11), for instance, gives Parliament the authority to postpone the effective date of a Bill. So, if the President assents to it today and Parliament says that it should have come into operation in December or even the following year, he will be wrong to say that immediately the President signs it becomes operational. He is totally wrong. That is number one.
    Number two, Mr Speaker, there is nothing here which suggests, that is, article 106 (11), which says that immediately the President assents to that Bill, it becomes operational. There is nothing there. That is why we should be careful when we construct the language in this manner. Yes, article 1 says that it should be imposed in calendar year 2013 and it goes on to say that calendar year 2013 starts from January 1st. Let us make it neater; that is all that we are saying.
    I think that it is not beyond us. We can have a re-construction of that in respect of year 2013 -- in respect of that year alone. I think it is very reasonable a proposition, which should be understood by the Hon Minister who is striving in a very spirited way to mislead this House.

    The leg I guess, Mr Speaker, we should also address, that is the entry point and the point of importation, is something innocuous and we can also take that on board.
    Mr Ayariga 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the object in this Bill for which the calendar years have been specified, is to state that this is not a law that will stay until amended or repealed. This is a law that is applicable for just a period of three (3) years and then there is an attempt to define the calendar year, so that we know from when it starts and when it ends. That is why in the opening clause, we have a provision that says “for calendar year 2013, 2014,
    2015” --
    It is to give an indication that this is a policy that is meant to be implemented within a certain limited period; that is the object. Now, when it comes to the issue of whether or not for 2013, if we pass this Bill and it is assented to, if one imported an item in February, the importation of that item will attract a duty -- Mr Speaker, the argument I am putting forward is that the duty is at the point of entry, which is usually the port or the border where one is entering the country.
    That is where the duty is applicable. I am saying that as we speak, there is no such law and the law will only apply at the point of entry. So, if at the time that this law is in force, the item arrives at the point of entry, that is when one is held liable for the payment of the levy. Mr Speaker, there is no dis-ingenuity in this and there is no attempt to mislead this House.
    If he thinks that it is not clear enough and he wants to introduce an amendment, Mr Speaker, he can introduce it. It will be
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Thank you very much. I will want us to make some progress. I have already indicated that when we get to clause 6, we can take a bite at the issues being raised now. In the meantime, we are dealing with clause 1.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect -- the other point is the un- clarity about the point of importation or point of entry. If we stick to it, then I would suggest that we define “point of importation” so that we are very clear in our minds.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, what is your response?
    Mr Essilfie 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is taken on board and when we get to the amendment, we will do so.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill --
    Clause 1 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 6 -- Interpretation.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Yes, over here, we have a number of amendments. If we can take those amendments.
    Mr Ayariga 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, even though I had said earlier that clause 1 could be read to mean when the Act comes into force, for clarity, I think it would be good to indicate that in the Interpretation of Calendar Year and to add at the end of the same year, that provided that for 2013 -- [Pause] -- except that for 2013, the Calendar Year will commence upon the passage of this Act -- [Interruptions.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    I am not too clear with it. Upon the passage of what? Just go over the proposed amendment and let us see how it goes.
    Mr Ayariga 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, upon the coming into effect of this Act -- that is the amendment, Mr Speaker.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if my good Friend would not mind, if I amend his amendment slightly but it may mean amending one. I think the neater way is to delete that Interpretation, “Calendar Year” and then when we go to one, this Act for the years 2013, 2014, 2015 -- This is because it can only be charged after it becomes effective but mentioning the years will not affect anything but we do not need to define the calendar years at all.
    So, if the Hon Chairman may want to consider those amendments, I think it will be neater and I think the reason is that we may have a customs officer who might say that as for him, we said January 1st so, he is going by January 1st. It will be a nuisance but the mischief would have been caused.
    Mr Chireh 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as I indicated earlier, if we pass a law and we mention calendar year -- By the way, a year is defined in the Interpretation Act and therefore, no matter what we say -- If we say year, it has a meaning in Ghana. Now, what I am saying is that, we do not need to talk about these past six months. Nobody can go back and collect any taxes. This is because we have passed a law effective today. It does not happen anywhere because the power to tax is based on the law and if the law was not made at the time, we cannot go back.
    There is a problem about retrospec- tivity and retroactive legislation and that is technical. Supposing we had said that the law, whenever it is passed, takes effect from the 1st of January, that would have been a problem. But this one, it is clearly from the date, that month onwards. We do not need to legislate; we do not need to do anything else. Our laws have effective dates.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is exactly what the Hon Member for Wa West has said; if we say in the Bill, that the levy is being imposed for calendar year 2013 and then we go further to define “calendar year 2013”, as starting from 1st January, then you are giving it a retrospective effect. That is the point we are making and I thought that was clear enough.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member should not wipe his mustache; does he understand? So, let us deal with that; that is why it is important that we listen to the amendments being proffered by the two Hon Colleagues.
    Alhaji Dauda 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I oppose the amendment being proposed by my Hon Friend and Colleague because I do not see any problem or difficulty at all when we leave it to stand as it is. Mr Speaker, clause 1 says that --
    “There is imposed by this Act for the calendar years 2013, 2014 and 2015 a special levy on imported goods to be paid at the point of importation and to be computed on the cost insurance and freight value of the goods.”
    Mr Speaker, I am opposing the amendment because in January this year, goods were imported and those goods that were imported in January are either in the market or have been consumed.
    So, on what basis are you going to impose a tax? The tax is supposed to be imposed at the point of entry and so, how are we going to do it? The interpretation of “calendar year” is just in conformity with what is provided in the Interpretation Act and I think therefore, that because this House has no right or authority to enact a law to have a retrospective effect, it implies that this law will come into force when the President assents to it and therefore, the interpretation must be left as it is.
    I thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
    Mr K. T. Hammond 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree entirely with my Hon Colleague. [Interruptions.] No! I will explain. The fact of the Interpretation of “calendar year” commencing from January does not relate to the issue of retrospectivity at all. January to July, as the Hon Member rightly said, the goods are not there in anyway. And the fact is that whoever is going to import would have to now import for the goods to come to the port for the tax to be imposed.
    So, the question of relating it to January does not mean that the tax is going to be retrospective. Mr Speaker, I contemplate that we should, for the sake of completeness, add the point that this law shall not be taken to be retrospective but that will be otiose, it will be absolutely useless because everybody knows that we cannot do that sort of thing. So, I agree with that sort of thing. Let us leave
    that sort of definition; whatever is left of 2013, 2014 and 2015, we should leave it like that. I guess that really makes some sense.
    Dr Kunbuor 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I guess that this thing is raising this problem because we have expressly attempted to define a “calendar year”. Mr Speaker, the idea is that when a law is being made, it takes into consideration the existing law. So, anytime we expressly make a provision on a matter that is covered by an existing law, then we mean you want to effect a form of a change.
    I have not seen anything in the Bill that wants to give “calendar year” a different meaning as it is understood and it has no linkage whatsoever with this Bill. So, let us just delete that definition of a “calendar year” and leave it to the general law of interpretation and then we do not even have the problem once the law comes into effect.
    So, immediately “calendar year” is put there, then everybody begins to ask “Do they want the calendar year to be different from what is understood in the Interpretation Act of retroactivity?” Let us leave it out. This is the content; if we leave it out, it does not raise any issue at all, Mr Speaker. So, I will rather ask that we should delete the “calendar year” in the definition and then leave it. Even the Act addresses this same issue.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I may agree somewhat with what the Hon Majority Leader is saying. The description may not be necessary; in which case, we could say there is imposed by this Act for the years 2013, 2014 and so on. Mr Speaker, the Interpretation Act, section 44 (9) (d) provides,
    “In an enactment, a reference without qualification to a year shall be construed as a reference to the period of 12 months as specified in the enactment”.
    A reference without qualification -- but we are qualifying the year. That is the problem. So, I guess, in that case, we could delete the “calendar” qualifying the year, then we will not need to define what we mean by “calendar year.” That will be sounder but the moment you introduce the qualification, then you have to make it explicit, so that it does come without any bargain.
    Mr Haruna Iddrisu 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
    I rise in support of the position adopted by the Hon Majority Leader and partly supported by the Hon Minority Leader for the deletion of the entire calendar year for the interpretation clause under (6). Mr Speaker, it is important -- and I have Act 792 here.
    I have listened to the various debates about various principles of retroactivity, objection to constitutional provisions with reference -- date of commencement of enactment is section 17 of Act 792 and Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, let me quote article 106 (11) of the Constitution:
    “Without prejudice to the power of Parliament to postpone the operation of a law, a bill shall not become law until it has been duly passed and assented to in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution and shall not come into force unless it has been published in the Gazette”.
    Mr Speaker, I come back to 17 (2) again which says that The day, month and year of the assent shall be inscribed on an Act and that inscription is part of the Act. So, that should put to us whether what
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Yes, you are alright with the contribution?
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:40 p.m.
    I was going to crave your indulgence to put the Question on the amendment, so that we can move on on clause 6.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    You would want to do what?
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:40 p.m.
    Put the Question on this amendment, so that we can -- clause 6 as amended -- move on.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    All right. Hon Ayariga.
    Mr Ayariga 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the contributions from both sides of the House give indication that the consensus is towards going back to clause 1 to amend it, so that it will have the consequential effect of making my proposal regarding clause 6 unnecessary. If that is the case,
    then I will withdraw my proposal regarding clause 6, so that we go back and deal with the problem from clause 1 and that will address the concerns of the House.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    I believe that as matters stand, I will relax the rules, so that we will go back to clause 1 and effect the necessary amendment and we can then come back to clause 56. Who is moving the application?
    Mr Gabriel K. Essilfie 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1 instead of --
    “There is imposed by this Act for the calendar years of 2013, 2014 and
    2015”,
    we will make it --
    “There is imposed by this Act for the years 2013, 2014 and 2015”.
    So, we are deleting “calendar” and then “of”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 1 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Now, we move back to clause 6.
    Clause 6 --
    Mr Essilfie 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 6, amend “point of importation” as follows:
    “. . . and explain that “point of importation” means “point of entry”.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the Chairman may be kind enough, I would want to suggest that instead of putting that in the Interpretation, that clause 1, line 3 “importation” just put “point of
    entry”; then you do not need to put something like -- because “point of entry” is known by the customs officers, so, you do not have to put it in the Interpretation; if he can consider that amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    I cannot hear you; if you could speak a little loud.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:40 p.m.
    In clause 1, I am asking for his permission, that instead of including the definition in the Interpreta- tion, that in clause 1, line 3, delete “importation” and insert “entry”. He was amending clause 6 to define “point of importation” as “point of entry”. And I am suggesting that in clause 1, line 3, delete “importation” and insert “entry” as a new amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Hon Members, I believe that for record pur- poses, let me again relax the rule, so that we come back to clause 1 and then Hon Member, you can move your proposed amendment or the Chairman of the Committee can do so.
    Mr Essilfie 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in line with what the Ranking Member for the Committee just suggested, I would like to withdraw the amendment that I was making on the clause 6, withdraw it and rather amend clause 1, line 3, to change “importation” to “entry”.
    Dr Prempeh 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “point of entry” is wrong. Goods in transit will come through a point of entry; bonded warehouse goods will come through a point of entry. So, maybe, we need to refine the term but “point of entry” is wrong. The fact that the goods have entered Ghana, does not mean they are dutiable because they might be in transit to Burkina Faso. So, it is not that every good that lands at Tema -- When you are going to
    a point of entry -- Maybe, unless the destination is in Ghana, so, it has to be refined.
    Dr Kunbuor 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the point of entry is clear in all the customs schedules. Transit goods have their categorisation in the entries. “Entry” does not mean “physical entry”. “Entry” is in relation to destination; that is why there is the distinction between transit --[Interrup- tion] -- [Pause.] I am resisting the temptation. The entry I am talking about is in relation to customs entry; I am not talking about going inside. It is a technical term for the customs.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    I believe we are alright with that kind of explana- tion.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think reasonably so. This is because my worry really is not to do with the bonded warehouse but the landlocked countries using our ports as entry points, that was my worry. But if we are to believe what the Hon Majority Leader has said, then perhaps, we could go along with it. Otherwise, if perhaps, the “destination point” is more user friendly, then we can use that.
    But I think it is a term of art; let the draftspersons, now that we have this under-standing, apply the better word and we would be comfortable whether “destina-tion point” or “entry point”, either of them, depending on the language of the Customs, Excise and Preventive Service (CEPS).
    Dr Dominic A. Ayine 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect to the debate about entry, it is important to note that in world trade law, whenever goods are subject to customs valuation, they are only dutiable at the point where they are destined for consumption. So, if the goods are not
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    All right. Thank you very much. I think we will stick to that and give some directive that the draftpersons should look at the best form of rendering that particular form of amendment.
    So, we will go back to take the amend- ment as taken now --
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 1 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Now, shall we go back to clause 6? Yes, we were debating clause 6, so, if there are any further contributions, let us look at them.
    Mr Essilfie 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are amending the Schedule by deleting the entire Schedule and the reason for that is explicitly put in the Report, page 3 --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Can you just give us the reason instead of referring
    us to your Report? Can you give us the reason in a brief summary form?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I know the antecedents of the Vice Chairman of the Finance Committee. But Mr Speaker, Ghana was a British colony and we gained independence on 6 th March, 1957.
    Mr Essilfie 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, it is understandable that those who were trained in Britain say “Sed.ju:l” but I do not pronounce “Schedule,” as “Sed.jul:l”. So, since he knows I was not trained where he was trained, my word is “Sked.jul”, not “Sked.jul,” so, he has to accept it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Hon Members, I think that it is a question of choice. Shall we look at the Schedule again?
    Now, Hon Members, I thought we were dealing with clause 6 before we moved on to the Schedule. So, let us look at clause 6, if the way we have couched it is alright for us; otherwise if there is the need for any amendment -- Hon Chairman for the Committee.
    Mr Essilfie 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 6, delete Interpretation of “calendar year”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Yes, I think that is in order.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 6 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr William O. Boafo 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, about the definition of “levy”, I do not see that it is necessary because that is the only “levy” referred to in the Bill. Clause 1 gives the full rendition and then when we come to the subsequent clauses, the definite article is used “the levy,” which is referrable to only the one in clause 1. So, I do not think there is the need for a definition of “levy.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee, how do you react to that?
    Mr Essilfie 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not know, but I believe what my Hon Member is coming up with is basically, maybe, in the parlance or the language that he understands. But as far as I am concerned, the referral to “levy” is an interpretation for the Bill that we want to pass and what it is meant to do. That is the understanding I have. So, we should leave the “the” there and not take it out.
    Dr Kunbuor 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I guess that, we have used “Special Import Levy” in some clauses; we have used “levy” in some clauses; we have used “the levy” in some clauses. So, what they have done is to clarify that wherever we come across this, it is actually referring to the “Special Import Levy” imposed under this Act. So, we need to leave it there because of the different ways in which we have used the word “levy”, and I think that makes it easier for interpretation.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Yes, Hon W. O. Boafo, how do you respond to the Majority Leader's comments?
    Mr Boafo 12:50 p.m.
    Well, Mr Speaker, if he wants it out of the abundance of caution, I do not have any problem.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I know -- [Laughter] -- Mr Speaker, I think the Chairman is right, for the avoidance of doubt. We ought to be able to keep it there, men -- [ Laughter.]
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Clause 6 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Now, shall we move on to the Schedule or Schedule, whichever way you want to pronounce it?
    The Schedule -- Regulation 2 -- Rate of Special Import Levy
    Mr Essilfie 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, guess for the purpose of this House “in the House,” so that even I would conform to how you pronounce “Schedule”. “Schedule” I would use “Schedule.”
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, Schedule, delete the entire item (Regula-tion 2) S/ No 2.
    The reason for that, Mr Speaker, has to do with the levy that was proposed on fertilizers and considering the economic constraints that it would put on our farmers and the country in general in terms of fertilizer as an input, and then in the end prices of the output may go up and the economic hardships and all that; and in addition to what we are closely elaborated in the Report at page 3, that is the reason we are deleting that.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, but by parity of reason, I would have thought that we would do the same for outboard motors and all fishing gear. Why do we restrict it to fertilizers? In fact, if he is saying that putting the duty on fertilizers would affect the farmers, the fishers are also farmers in a way. They produce food, and I would have thought that the Chairman being the MP for Shama, a fishing community, he would extend this amendment to fisher folks. So, I am saying that --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Hon Member, he is not an autocratic Chairman. He has a team, so, maybe -- [Laughter.]
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:50 p.m.
    Thank you. Forgetting that the Hon First Deputy Speaker also represents a fishing community -- [Interruption] -- The Hon Deputy Minister for Finance, Cape Coast South, he represents a fishing community; I represent a fishing community and I am proposing that -- [Interruption] -- yes; I thought that -- unfortunately, Mr Speaker, some of us do not have the harmonised system with us -- [Interrup- tion] --Yes.
    So, for instance, we have agricultural machinery -- ploughs, harrows, cultivators, outboard motors, energy saving fluorescent lamps-- I think all these things should be deleted. Fishing nets -- [Interruption] -- what they call “putsiisee”; what is putsiisee in English? Weight; they should all be exempted. Yes.
    So, I am proposing that we look at this thing and then include energy saving fluorescent lamps, outboard motors, agricultural machinery, et cetera. As for diary and milking machinery, I do not think that too many people in this country use them.

    Mr Speaker, unfortunately, when we were dealing -- the first one -- machinery and equipment, listed under Chapters 84 and 85, except outboard motors, diary milky machines and agricultural machinery -- ploughs, harrows, cultivators -- [Interruption] -- No! As for transformers, they are for the Electricity Company of Ghana.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Minister, can you respond to this proposal?
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:50 p.m.
    I so propose.
    Mr Forson 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to oppose the proposal made by my Senior, Hon Papa Owusu-Ankomah. Mr Speaker, the reason is that, at the Committee, we explained the reason behind the removal of the fertilizer, that there is already a standing Government policy in place that says that we give some subsidy to fertilizers.
    So, imposing a tax on it will indeed, defeat the purpose of the subsidy. But we do not have a subsidy in place for outboard motors and that is why Mr Speaker, I propose that I cannot bear with my Hon Colleague.
    Mr Essilfie 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, to add to what the Hon Minister said, when we talk about fishermen, I am surprised that the Hon Member for Sekondi made it look like fishermen do not get any subsidy or any break from Government.
    Mr Speaker, we all know the outboard motors that are sold to the fishermen are sold at a reduced price -- [Interruption] -- No! Those subsidised ones are -- [Interruption] -- and then not only that. Mr Speaker, we all know, pre-mix fuel, as a
    policy, came into effect purposely to help fishermen and the price of fuel today, one gallon, is not what the fishermen pay. Fishermen are paying less than 50 per cent of the cost of a gallon of fuel.
    So, with that, if we are considering to exclude fertilizer, it is just an even playing field because fishermen are already enjoying the petroleum subsidy. So, it is important for us to do that same thing for fertilizer for fishermen.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in fact, there is serious contradiction. While the Hon Deputy Minister, MP for Ejumako/Enyan/Essiam is saying that already, the subsidy -- [Interruption] -- No, he is from Central Region even though he originated from my consti- tuency, actually, my polling station. The Chairman is saying that already there is a subsidy for something else. Whatever it is, if already there is a subsidy even on outboard motors, it is not for every outboard motor.
    Government purchases outboard motors at subsidsed prices and distri- butes them to some fishermen -- [Interruption] -- and I do not want to go there; I do not want to go there. They are distributed at the Regional Co-ordinating Council offices -- [Interruption.]
    rose
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we know these things, we do not want to go there. I am saying that for those who do not benefit from this selective Government largesse, because Govern- ment cannot offer it to all fishermen --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, is it a point of order?
    Dr Kunbour 12:50 p.m.
    Yes, I am on a point of order.
    Indeed, this categorisation of special rates is not selective. It is actually informed by the nature of the occupations that use these items and that is why that is permitted. For instance, if the Hon Member were asking for exemption rates in relation to nets, we know that nets are capable of use in fishing for commercial and non-commercial purposes. But an outboard motor is certainly going to be used for commercial navigation activity.
    Fertilizer is used by peasant farmers who just want an improved yield to see -- [Interruption] -- They just want an improved yield to see without any recourse to commercial activities. So, it is not selective and it is not discriminatory.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:50 p.m.
    Thank you.
    Dr Yakubu Alhassan 12:50 p.m.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr Speaker, it is always the case that when agriculture is being discussed, some element of ridicule is introduced into it. The facts are as follows:
    Government has never passed on the entire price of outboard motors to fishers. It has always been sold to them at discounted prices. So, it is a subsidy that fishers enjoy.
    Number two: I have seen the former Hon Minister for Food and Agriculture when the Fisheries Department was under the Ministry, presenting outboard motors to fishers and it was not at the Regional
    Dr Prempeh 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member for Ajumako and Deputy Minister for Finance says that they took away fertilizer because there was a certain subsidy on fertilizer. So, they did not see why if it is a policy on fertilizer, they should still bring it here. Mr Speaker, like the Hon Deputy Minister for Food and Agriculture said, in this country, Government policy has always been not to pass 100 per cent cost of outboard motors to fishermen. So, if there is a subsidy and it is good for farmers, it is good for fishermen. [Hear! Hear!]
    Mr Speaker, in 2004 and again, in 2009, the Ministry of Energy as a Government policy brought enough, a lot of compact fluorescent tubes, energy-saving bulbs into this country, because the US$10 million worth of energy-saving bulbs were equivalent to about 200 mW -- [Hear! Hear!] 192 -- Which is a serious policy that we even had to encourage.
    Mr Speaker, the danger in what we are doing here, is being lost on us. The Ministry of Finance alone goes to sit in its Ministry of Finance and proposes these levies without consultation across board. The Ministry of Communication was not consulted, the Ministry of Food Agriculture was not consulted, and the Ministry of Energy and Petroleum was not consulted. How can you give with

    Mr Speaker, it is not only that, dairy and milk machinery, book-binding machinery -- [Interruption] --Weaving and knitting machinery, electric trans- formers -- Yes, it is only the Electricity Company of Ghana (ECG) that buys transformers, so why put the levy anyway? If it is only ECG, why put the levy?

    Mr Speaker, this is dangerous; it is dangerous; it is dangerous; it is a way of the Ministry of Finance taking over the affairs of this country for the interest of the financial people and not for the interest of ordinary Ghanaians.
    Dr Kunbuor 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want us to get back to the fact that we are at the Consideration Stage and there are special rules that apply to the various clauses. It looks like we are getting back to Second Reading in which policy issues are being raised and we might sacrifice the line-by-line clause reading of this particular Bill. So, I just want Mr Speaker to guide us on this matter.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the difficulty is that, the Hon Deputy Minister is not making it clear to us what the policy is. Mr Speaker, the amendment seeks to delete an original policy, which was to tax fertilizers; that is what the Bill says. So, the Ministry is now saying that they have changed their minds. In fact, that is not what was first presented.
    Mr Speaker, it is the Committee that is telling us that it excludes fertilizers. But the original Bill from the Ministry did not proffer that argument. So, now, we are not sure what the Minister wanted to do,
    because here, you are saying that it includes fertilizers on Schedule No. It is the Committee that saw wisdom and decided to offer a recommendation; it is not the Ministry. So, as a policy matter, what was the Minister seeking to do when it brought the 1 per cent on fertilizers as policy matter, since this is coming from the Ministry?
    So, that is where we are having problems and that is why people are saying that if you can see the logic there as has been said by the Committee --
    Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would read 1:10 p.m.
    “It believes that the proposed levy would increase the cost of fertilizers and ultimately lead to an increased food cost.”
    What my Hon Colleagues are saying is that if you do not extend it to the first category, the same logic applies because imposing 1 per cent levy on outboard motors would lead to the cost of fish and therefore, affect the farmers. That is where you have to make it clear. We want to support you, but right now, we are not sure which side of the fence you are on. So, make it clear to us. Are you for fishermen or not?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Before we get to the Hon Deputy Minister for his response, the Hon Majority Leader?
    Dr Kunbuor 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is precisely why I was talking about the procedure. The fact that fertilizer has become an issue at this stage of considering the Bill is because we are dealing with it line-by-line; it is at the Consideration Stage. The time this matter should have been raised was the Second Reading where the policy matters and
    objectives were being discussed. At the Consideration Stage of a Bill, you have reached a schedule and people are coming under Consideration Stage to say “I want to make an amendment”. The Committee itself says it would make the amendments. It is not because necessarily of the policy.
    The Consideration Stage at which this matter and amendment are coming is the proper place. But if we take it back to the policy objectives and those other issues, then it is not clear why this amendment is coming.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, at the Consideration Stage, we have rules but we do not have hard and fast rules. That is why the Mace is tilted; that is why a Member can speak on more than one occasion. The Committee has moved an amendment in respect of fertilizers with certain reasoning and I am saying that by parity of reasoning, it should be extended to outboard motors.
    That is what I am doing and that is why I moved the amendment, and I was then asking if you are talking about food production, fishers also produce food albeit in the form of fish. So, I would want to move a further amendment to it and I have done it. And I was arguing and then Mr Speaker, you deferred to the Majority Leader; he is rather proceeding on a path which is offensive to the rules. So, he should allow me to finish.
    So, Mr Speaker, if we are talking about saving the work of those who produce food, then I am also moving that we further amend the amendment proposed by the Chair of the Committee, so that excepting fertilizers is extended to outboard motors, fishing nets, et cetera, et cetera.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    I think you made that point and I ask for a response from the Chairman of the Committee and the Hon Deputy Minister who opposed your further amendment. So, probably, if we cannot get it in one form of an amendment, we would probably have to separate the proposed amendments, so that we see the way forward.
    Mr Benjamin K. Kpodo 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in addition to the opposition to the amendment being proposed by our senior Hon Member for Sekondi, I would want to clarify a particular point. If there is any confusion in the mind of anybody regarding the policy on fertilizers, certainly, it is not the Ministry of Finance.
    This is because the Minister was present at the meeting when we were dealing with these issues clause by clause, and he agree that we should delete the number (2) which appears in the Schedule. So, you cannot say that the Minister for Finance was confused; not at all.
    Dr Owusu Afriyie Akoto 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to draw the House's attention to something very fundamental. We are looking at increasing the levy on major items of agricultural inputs, which has implications not only for agricultural producers, our farmers and our fishers, but also the consumers of food in this country. What this is going to do, is to increase food prices.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Order! Order!
    Hon Member, you have the floor.
    Dr Akoto 1:10 p.m.
    So, Mr Speaker, why would anybody instead of encouraging our fishermen to use more outboard motors,

    would they want to increase the tax to discourage the usage of outboard motors? We know the livestock situation in this country. Mr Speaker, the last ten years, imports of meat, poultry and other such products have been skyrocketing through the roof because local production has been collapsing. Instead of providing financial and economic incentives for them to produce more, we are going to tax them by this levy.

    Mr Speaker, I think this is a misguided policy and we should do everything to remove these items from the list.
    Alhaji Muntaka 1:10 p.m.
    On point of order.
    Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague from Kwadaso is grossly misleading this House. For him to state that we are discouraging the use of outboard motors [Interruption.] Nowhere in this Bill -- Whether in the Memorandum or elsewhere is it stated that it is to discourage the use of outboard motors. Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague should know -- I am just drawing his attention to this fact -- That he may have to make his case, but for fertilizers, it is solely used for farming.
    But outboard motors are used for other things other than only fishing. So, he cannot put them on the same level. Mr Speaker, so, he should address the issue and stop saying that there is a deliberate attempt to discourage the use of outboard motors. Nobody has stated so, Mr Speaker. So, he should take it on board.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    All right. Thank you.
    Yes, Hon Member, continue with your contribution.
    Dr Akoto 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, indeed, anybody with Ordinary Level knowledge -- He is not even listening to me, Mr Speaker. The man makes a wild statement and I am trying to counteract him and he is not even listening. -- The point I am
    making is that anybody with a very basic knowledge of economics will know that if one increased prices, the demand of that goes down. The same way, if one increased the price of outboard motors, the usage of outboard motors will go down.
    Mr Speaker, we are not only talking about diary milking machinery, but we are also talking about agricultural implements. We want to increase agriculture produc- tivity. We want to increase the application of agricultural technology, yet we are increasing levies on prices of farm implements and fertilizers. What kind of policy is this, Mr Speaker?
    I would strongly support the Hon Member for Sekondi, Hon Papa Owusu- Ankomah to say that, we have to urgently revisit the Schedule I, so that we review it to ensure that our farmers and our fishers are encouraged to apply more technology to improve their productivity in this country of agriculture rather than discourage it.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance has indicated to us in this House the purpose of this Bill. It is about Government trying to bridge some funding gap. I believe the argument by my Hon Colleagues is that, this really goes against encouraging industry to grow, which is a cornerstone of Government.
    Also, as far as inputs -- the equipment and machinery that they have referred to are concerned, it is going to have a negative event on the users. I think that is the point being raised by my Hon Colleagues.
    As for the intervention of the Hon Majority Chief Whip that outboard motors in Ghana -- So many of them -- A huge proportion of them are used for other things. Mr Speaker, it is neither here nor there. This is because Mr Speaker, in the same way, we all know that fertilizer could also be used for other things other than fertilizing the soil, like bomb making. -- [Some Hon Members: Bomb?] Yes.
    Mr Speaker, the former Hon Majority Leader is saying it is not that type. What is the content in fertilizer that is used for bomb making? Mr Speaker, he does not even know and he is saying that it is not that type. Mr Speaker, let us not go there.
    I think that Government has made clear, their intention -- And we do know that the Committee is not proffering any amendment in respect of Schedules 1 and 3. We have made the point, if nobody is listening to that and Government, for purposes of raking in funds, is purposed to do that, let them go ahead; as simple as that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Yes, the last contribution from the Hon Member for Pru East.
    Dr Kwabena Donkor (NDC -- Pru East) 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the issue of outboard motors that is being raised in this House should be seen in context. The subsidy on premix far more compensates for the duty on outboard motors. I represent a revering constituency, and for us, outboard motors are major source of not just fishing but transportation in bringing foodstuffs to markets. Therefore, I am very sensitive about outboard motors.
    But we have a situation where already, the subsidy on premix which is meant to be used exclusively by outboard motors should temporarily compensate for
    whatever duties. But it is also important that to send a signal, this House may consider a notational reduction on duty of outboard motors, so that it reinforces this Government's policy decision that agriculture should be supported to the tilt.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, I think we have enough debate on this issue. As matters stand now, we have the original proposed amendment moved by the Hon Chairman of the Committee. The Hon Member for Sekondi sought to further amend the original proposed amendment, but we do not appear to have a consensus. So, I would first put the Question with regard to the Hon Member for Sekondi, further proposed amendment.
    If the stand of the House is that, it be allowed, then we come back to the proposed amendment by the Hon Chairman of the Committee. If the House feels that it should not be part of the amendment, then again, we come back to the original amendment, then we move on.
    So, I am first going to put the Question as to the further amendment by the Hon Member for Sekondi regarding the inclusion of some more items -- outboard motors, fishing gears, et cetera.
    Question put and amendment negatived.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Now, we come back to the original proposed amendment by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought under our rules once Hon Member for Sekondi's proposed amendment did not pass, automatically, that of the Hon Chairman of the Committee passes. So, there is no need to specifically --
    Mr Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    It is for the avoidance of doubt.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, since we are in the arena of -- For the avoidance of doubt, I would want the House to take note that when you put the Question on the amendment proposed by the Hon Member for Sekondi in respect of exempting the levy on outboard motors, fishing gears and related items, our side, the side of the Minority, voted in support of the proposed amendment.
    Mr Speaker, it is important that this House takes such notice for the avoidance of doubt.
    Dr Kunbuor 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, since this is the time of taking notice of the pattern of voting of Hon Members, I would want the House too to take special notice that, the entire Committee including Hon Members on the other side recommended the issue of fertilizers with no objection whatsoever. And that on the floor here, when an issue of outboard motors was raised by one Hon Member -- We should take notice of it.
    I would want us to take a special notice of the fact that on the issue of fertilizers, it was a consensus of the House. But on the issue of the outboard motors, it is not the consensus of the House.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    All right. Hon Members, if I allow this debate to proceed, it would be degenerating into fist- cuffs. I want us to end it there.
    For the avoidance of doubt, both sides have given their rendition.
    Let us move to the next item, (ii), The Schedule.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect, we have in this House today, the Hon Bagbin, who, as Chairman of the Committee on Legal, Constitutional and Parliamentary Affairs of this House, indicated that when a committee presents to this House a report of the committee, even the Chairman of the committee who signed the Report can dissociate himself from the report.
    This is the Bagbin theory in this House and I would want the Hon Majority Leader to take note.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, that is why I indicated that let us end it here. I do not want us to go any further as far as this line of debate is concerned. But since he has mentioned your name, Hon Bagbin, if you would want to make a comment.
    Mr Bagbin 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Bagbin's theory is not exactly what he stated. The Bagbin's theory which was propounded on this floor and Mr Speaker ruled on it, was that, if one is a member of a committee, and the committee takes a decision at the committee level, the member is not thereby prohibited from raising the matter on the floor, which is different from the position taken by the committee. That is the theory -- [Interruption.] Not the Chairman. I was not the Chairman at that time.
    I was a member of the Committee and I disagreed on an issue during the Committee discussion and followed up to the floor to raise that issue and then the Chairman said I was a member and so I could not have raised an objection to a report that I was supposed to be part of. So, that was the theory. And the late Rt. Hon Justice D. F. Annan ruled in my favour. That is the Bagbin's theory.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr Essilfie 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, The Schedule -- Item S/No. 3 “Descrip- tion” line 3, after “27” insert. “and fertilizers listed under Chapter 31”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    What is the reason?
    Mr Essilfie 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the reason is just what we discussed about excluding fertilizers from the levy. And since item (3) only talks about petroleum products, we wanted to make the amendment to bring that to that particular Schedule and make it part of the items that are to be excluded.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Thank you. I will put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    The Schedule as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    The Long Title --
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think there is a consequential amendment in the Long Title because, we used point of importation and we have now changed it to point of entry but the Hon Chairman
    has not proffered that amendment yet. In line 2, I think the “importation” should be “entry” so that it would be consistent with the changes we made earlier in clause 1. It should be consequential, but I want the Hon Chairman's attention.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, Long Title, line 2, delete “importation” and insert “entry”.
    Mr Essilfie 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    The Long Title as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    This brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just a minor point. What we have done would automatically affect the language that was used in the Memorandum. I believe the draftpersons then would take note of that, so that it affects it consequentially.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Point well made. The Table Office is directed that the draftpersons take account of that.
    Dr Kunbuor 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we could take item 20.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Item 20 -- Motion.
    BILLS -- THIRD READING 1:40 p.m.
    Dr Kunbuor 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we could take item 22 on the Order Paper.
    BILLS -- SECOND READING 1:40 p.m.
    Minister for Finance) 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that the National Fiscal Stabili- sation Levy Bill, 2013 be now read a Second time.
    Mr Speaker, the object of the Bill is to re-impose the National Fiscal Stabilisation Levy for a period of 18 months to raise funds for fiscal stabilisation of the economy.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
    Question proposed.
    Vice Chairman of the Committee (Mr Gabriel K. Essilfie) (on behalf of the
    Chairman): Mr Speaker, I support the Motion. In doing so, I present your Committee's Report.
    Introduction
    The National Fiscal Stabilisation Levy Bill was presented to Parliament by the Hon Minister for Finance and read for the First time on Friday, 28th June, 2013. The Bill was referred to the Finance Committee for consideration and report in accordance with article 174 (1) of the 1992 Constitution and Order 169 of the Standing Orders of the House.
    Mr Speaker further directed the Committee to determine whether the Bill is of urgent nature to be taken through all the three stages of passage in a day in accordance with article 106 (13) of the
    Constitution and Order 119 of the Standing Orders of the House.
    Pursuant to the referral, the Committee met with the Hon Minister for Finance, Mr. Seth E. Terkpeh, the Deputy Ministers for Finance, Mr. George Kweku Ricketts - Hagan and Mr. Cassiel Ato Forson, officials from the Ministry of Finance, Attorney-General's Department and the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) and considered the referral.
    The Committee is grateful to the Hon Minister, Deputy Ministers and officials from the Ministry, Attorney-General's Department and GRA for the assistance during the deliberations.
    Reference
    The Committee referred to the following additional documents during its deliberations:
    The 1992 Constitution of Ghana.
    The Standing Orders of the Parlia- ment of Ghana.
    The Ghana Revenue Authority Act, 2009 (Act 791).
    Internal Revenue Act, 2000 (Act
    592).
    Communications Service Tax Act, 2008 (Act 754).
    Background
    The Government of Ghana, in an attempt to ensure fiscal stability, introduced the National Fiscal Stabili- sation Act, 2009 (Act 785) in the second half of 2009 to raise funds for national development. Act 785 was repealed in late 2011 following recovery/stability of the economy. However, the implementation of
    the single spine salary scheme among others, have led to budget overruns in many sectors of the economy. Expenditure on the single spine salary scheme also threatens to crowd out investment in critical sectors of the economy. There is therefore, the need to re-impose the levy to help generate revenues to support the shortfalls in the budget.
    Purpose of the Bill
    The Bill seeks to re-impose the National Fiscal Stabilisation Levy for a period of eighteen months to raise funds for fiscal stabilisation of the economy.
    Provisions of the Bill
    The Bill is divided into eleven clauses as follows:
    Clause 1 imposes a National Fiscal Stabilisation Levy of 5 per cent on the profit before tax of the companies and institutions specified in the schedule.
    Clause 2 deals with the scope of application of the Levy.
    Clause 3 provides that the levy payable is not an allowable deduction under the Internal Revenue Act, 2000 (Act 592).
    Clause 4 limits the application of the levy to the profit before tax for 2013 and 2014 years of assessment.
    Clause 5 mandates the Commissioner General of GRA to prepare a provisional assessment in respect of the companies and institutions liable to pay the tax.
    Clauses 6 and 7 respectively deal with the time for the payment of the levy and the powers of the Ghana Revenue Authority to collect the Levy.
    Mr Sampson Ahi 1:50 p.m.
    On a point of order.
    Mr Speaker, my Hon Friend is portraying that it is only the telecommunication companies that are being imposed - but he has a copy of the Bill and it includes banks, non-- bank financial institutions, insurance companies et cetera. The way he is emphasising on the telecommunication companies in referring to the Bill -- the way he is talking about this Bill, he is just misleading the House.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it looks like when people have assumed the position of Whips, they choose to talk the way they want to talk -- [Interruption.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    No, no, Hon Member, I think the language is rather harsh. Can you withdraw it?
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, but he is right now --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Please, withdraw it.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I withdraw it. Mr Speaker, but it is clear that he has not been paying attention to what I am saying and we should not allow that to happen: he is sitting on a front bench. I thought he would be listening --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Please, go ahead and make your submission.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am going ahead, so, he should sit down. I never said it is the only company.
    An Hon Member 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Ahi, are you a Whip?
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:50 p.m.
    I never said it is the only company --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Ahi, what is the point?
    Mr Ahi 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is not the first time my Hon Colleague has spoken this way to me. He should know that I am a Member of Parliament as he is, and so, what I did -- I raised the issue within the Standing Orders of this House -- [Interruptions.] So, please, I am only saying that he is misleading the House -- the way he is going, he is only indicating that the tax is being levied on the telecommunications only.
    So, for him to tell me that I just speak anyhow, it is not enough to say that he withdraws; he has to apologise to me -- [Interruptions] -- Mr Speaker, I expect him to apologise to me.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Dr Osei, I believe that if you render an apology, it would not be too far-fetched, yes.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, first of all, I said a Deputy Whip, he is not a Deputy Whip right now. He is a Minister. So,
    why is he assuming the position? I made reference to Deputy Whips. He is not a Deputy Whip, so, why is he complaining?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Member, you made reference to people in the House [Interruptions] -- in a portion of your presentation, which I think is not in good taste. So, if you could just render an apology.
    Mr Ahi 1:50 p.m.
    Who is the Deputy Whip who has spoken here?
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:50 p.m.
    He is not a Deputy Whip.
    MrAhi 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, can he tell us the Deputy Whip who has just spoken? He was responding to what I said. And so, I am surprised that he is saying this.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    All right. Hon Ahi, please, resume your seat.
    Hon Dr Osei, I would want you to just apologise, so that we can make some progress, all right. Withdraw that portion of your statement and apologise and let us make progress.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not have any difficulty. “But Mr Speaker, in this House, this is what he was doing” - - is that proper behaviour -- he was using his left hand; that is improper behaviour. If he wants me to apologise, he should not be doing what he is doing, like I am doing now. [Interruptions.] He was using his left hand in pointing at me. We do not do that in this House. I will tell him what he was doing; he was using his left hand in pointing to me.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Member, let us deal with his objection first. After that, yours can be taken on board. So, please, render your apology and then we can take on board the use of the left hand.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I apologise to the Whips -- [Laughter].
    Mr Speaker, I am offended by anybody who is talking to me, using the left finger and pointing in my direction. Mr Speaker, it is a man's left finger -- I do not want to go there. He should withdraw the left- finger and use the right-finger -- [Laughter].
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    He has withdrawn it. Let us move on, Hon Dr Osei.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want him to get it clear what I was saying, and he should get it in good faith. The focus -- [Interruption.]
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Minister, are you rising on a point of order?
    Alhaji Dauda 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in this House, our Standing Orders provide that if you use unparliamentary language, you are asked to withdraw it and apologise in some cases. Mr Speaker, I do not think that the use of the left or right hand offends any Orders of the House. Therefore, I need your guidance on that, whether we are always required to use the right hand or left hand in this House. I need direction on that.
    Papa Owusu Ankomah 1:50 p.m.
    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, there may be certain conduct which may not be specifically proscribed under our Standing Orders. Having regard to our culture, there are certain things that we generally accept.
    For instance, there is nothing in our Standing Orders to say that you cannot stand on your table or jump around, but it does not accord good order and
    decorum. It is in that context that I believe the Hon Member for Old Tafo was saying. I do not think, Mr Speaker, this invitation is really necessary for you to give guidance. I know, with your vast experience, you avoid -- I am just taking a pen -- [Interruptions] -- Yes, that is why. Yes, it could be; that is all.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Members, I think that Hon Ahi has already apologised and withdrawn. Yes, let us let sleeping dogs lie. I do not think we need to push it any further.
    Dr Kunbuor 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just in case this matter recurs, we also do know as a matter of fact that the Hon Sampson Ahi is left-handed --
    Some Hon Members 1:50 p.m.
    He is not!
    Mr Ahi 1:50 p.m.
    Yes, I am!
    Dr Kunbuor 1:50 p.m.
    I am telling you that, it is indeed, the case, particularly when he is in full flight and he is making his submissions -- [Interruptions] -- and so, just because it will recur, I would want that this should also go on the record. Hon Ahi is here and he can indicate his personal circum-stances.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Members, let us go back to the meat of the matter.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just for the records, I know the Hon Ahi is not left-handed. He is right-handed. I know that -- [Interruptions] -- I know that he suffered some injury and for that reason, the right hand is not very active. You know that, but he is not left-handed.
    But Mr Speaker, it is important to make this statement because, for instance, I myself, would detest the use of the left hand and in particular a left finger of a right-handed person, for example, my good Brother and Friend -- [Interruptions] --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Members, I thank you very much.
    Hon Members, having regard to the time, I direct that proceedings go beyond the stipulated time under our Standing Orders.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the issue that we are talking about, even though my good Friend did not understand the import, it is something to look at. There is that perception, I know -- We first brought this stabilisation levy but when it is perceived, Government ought to look at it and talk to the industry. I think talking helps because if there is a perception that, that industry is being attacked, we know their importance to this nation.
    It is true that as a result of severe shortfalls in revenue generation, Government finds it almost critical to bring these measures in spite of their social democratic principles. You see, if I am burdened already like the former Member of Parliament for Bole Bamboi said, 25 per cent income tax, 15 per cent VAT, that is 40 per cent already; 5 per cent National Stabilisation Levy, that is 50 per cent; 6 per cent interconnection tax -- that is 56 per cent!
    Mr Joseph B. A. Danquah 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, our Hon Colleague is misleading the House. Of course, 15 per cent VAT is not borne by the operators, it is borne by the users. So, in calculating the tax, we should not add it to it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Hon Member, can you start winding up?
    Dr Kunbour 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want us to put it on record and in the proper perspective that, these levies and taxes that are actually emerging from the Budget and Economic Policy Framework are counter-balanced by a number of tax relief measures in that same budget. So, when you bring a cumulative of what is taxed without putting it within the context of the tax relief that is granted, it does not present a fair view of the level of fiscal exposure of the normal citizen.
    Dr A. A. Osei 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am confused; I get a point of order here in the debate. Mr Speaker, he wants us to follow procedure, so as a Majority Leader, I urge him, when it gets to his time, he should debate but point of order on a point of order or a point of debate-- Mr Speaker, I crave your indulgence.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Hon Member, I pray that you just address the issues that they have raised.
    Dr A. A. Osei 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is why I am surprised that he is having a point of order.
    Mr Speaker, ultimately, the consumer is going to bear the brunt of these taxes. Mr Speaker, in any case, on this particular industry, there is no countervailing measure in the budget. I can tell him that there is not; that is why I am bringing it to his attention. The personal income tax relief does not affect them.
    There is no relief, so to say, that it is a proper -- Mr Speaker, the truth, we know, the Government has admitted it; it is not a secret. Bank of Ghana said there is a severe shortfall. The Hon Minister for Finance, the day after, said that I agree with you.
    Mr Speaker, on Metro TV, an Hon Deputy Minister said 2 p.m.
    “The shortfall is so bad the Ministers have not been paid their gratuity”-- a Deputy Minister who is also a Member of Parliament (MP). In fact, we are told that some Ministers, because gratuity has not been paid --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Hon Member, please, concentrate on your submission.
    Dr A. A. Osei 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am talking about the impact of taxes.
    Mr Speaker, on the matter of the Auditor-General's Report, I am saying that if the Government can plug the leakages and make GH¢2 billion, for example, as was reported, you will not need to tax. So, I am urging the Government this is the easiest way.
    But already, Mr Speaker, if you knew that there was a severe shortfall in the first quarter, it tells you that profits are going down. Further taxation would be passed on to higher prices for the consumer.
    So, I am urging the Government to tread carefully because ultimately, maybe, you are looking for higher revenue, but may end up, according to the Laffer theory, with less revenue. It is important that we look at it. If you look at what the Committee is saying here, any higher tax is likely to adversely affect business.
    You yourself are admitting that higher taxes affect business but 5 per cent is reasonable and you have looked up in the future and said 18 months. Why do you not first look at 12 months? By 2014, it is going to affect their investment plans, that is why I urge you to look at it carefully. Most of them have planned already.
    Now, it is clear, in my view, that they are going to be a bit hesitant. I do not think they would want that because they are going to throw all their plans and more
    importantly, the effect on consumer prices. Mr Speaker, ultimately, this would be passed on to you and me.
    Inflation is already in the last (3) months has been in double digits. This is likely to be pushed further. So, we ought to be very careful that the short-term objective of acquiring lots of revenue, they may end up being defeated and I think that the Government should look at it closely and see if this is something that they still would want to pursue.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Thank you very much.
    Hon Members, I would like to put the Question.
    Mr William O. Boafo (NPP -- Akwapim North) 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have made some three observations and I would like to bring them to the notice of the House.
    Mr Speaker, the first one is about the duration of the Act. The opening sentence to the Memorandum states that it will be in force for 18 months; there is nothing in the Bill to indicate that it is of such limited period. Mr Speaker, under section 19 of the Interpretation Act, we have provision relating to the duration of enactments and if it is to expire within a certain period, there is the need for its indication in the Bill and it also provides certainty to those who will be affected to enable them plan very well.
    Secondly, Mr Speaker, the Commis- sioner General is enabled to make provisional assessment. I do not find in the Bill any provision which will enable persons who are over-assessed to get their money back. The Chairman or the Hon Minister would explain.
    Mr Speaker, the last one is about the amendment. The Hon Minister is allowed to amend the Schedule by Legislative Instrument (L.I.). Mr Speaker, we are talking
    Mr William O. Boafo (NPP -- Akwapim North) 2 p.m.


    in terms of money and we know how many days the L.I. has to spend in this Chamber before it takes effect. I am just asking the Majority Leader whether there is no other means of amending the Schedule apart from an LI, so that we can get the money quickly into the coffers.

    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Very well. I believe, at the Consideration Stage, we will take on board all these suggestions.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    The National Fiscal Stabilisation Levy Bill, 2013 was accordingly read a Second time.
    Dr Kunbour 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, item number
    24.
    BILL -- CONSIDERATION STAGE 2 p.m.
    Chairman of Committee) 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I see an amendment under the Schedule for (i), items 6, 7, and 8 with my name there as having proposed these amendments, maybe, at the Committee level. I do not recall -- I am representing the Chairman of the Committee; I am the Vice Chairman of the Committee.
    The Committee did not propose this; so, whoever made this proposal is the one who has to talk to it and be able to explain.
    Mr Speaker, on that note, I am withdrawing that amendment for (i) under the Schedule for 6, 7 and 8 as on the Order Paper.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    So, now, you agree that it was proposed by you; so that you would be in the position to withdraw?
    Mr Essilfie 2:10 p.m.
    No!
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Just for the records.
    Mr Essilfie 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we did not propose that. So, whoever in their own fine way brought it in there, should speak to the matter.
    Mr Danquah 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on this matter, at the Committee meeting, the Hon Minister was of the view that Parliament has the authority to add unto the list and amend the Schedule and therefore, we brought out these companies and these sectors. That is how these companies were added unto it. Actually, the shipping companies even included the maritime and airport terminal operators.
    Dr A. A. Osei 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he is not a member of the Committee; he cannot purport to speak for the Committee. No! Mr Speaker, a member of the Committee is here; he went there and now, he is purporting to speak for us. Mr Speaker, this is not proper. This is from the Committee.
    Mr Kofi Frimpong 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am a member of the Committee; I stood up and you did not call me.
    Mr Speaker, I was there when this amendment was proposed by the Minister after deliberation by us all, and the Minister asked us to include it in the amendments. Mr Speaker, some companies were left out and it was decided that these companies -- GCNET, mining services, shipping companies, including airports and terminals operators and whatnot should be included.
    So, if the Chairman is saying, Mr Speaker, -- [Interruptions.] I am not contravening any Standing Order, so nobody can stand on a point of order -- nobody. -- [Laughter.] If the Chairman is saying --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    You are taking over the job of the Speaker.
    Dr Kunbuor 2:10 p.m.
    He is, indeed, breaching almost all the Standing Orders because we must take one thing at a time.
    An issue has been raised about the authorship and ownership of this amendment and I have been advised that this has not taken place but there are members of the Committee who might be interested.
    So, if the Chairman has withdrawn and a Member feels strongly, you can bring the amendment in your name, then we can deal with it. But the Chairman of the Committee is not the author of this amendment -- as first, a member of the Committee and as somebody who has done the background crosschecking for the business of this House.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon Frimpong, can you conclude?
    Mr Frimpong 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when the acting Chairman said he was withdrawing it, he did not want to own up the amendment. Mr Speaker, it was wrong on his part. So, I would want to own it. It is a proposal made at the Committee level and I beg to move, the Schedule, page 7, add the following new paragraphs:
    “6.Inspection and valuation comp- anies including …”
    All right,. Going on, I may want to delete number 6. [Interruptions.] Oh! Do not confuse me. [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon Member, please, concentrate on your submission.
    Mr Frimpong 2:10 p.m.
    I would not be distracted.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Let us be clear, what kind of amendment you are proposing.
    Mr Frimpong 2:10 p.m.
    The amendment I am proposing is that, number 6 on page 8 -- numbers 6, 7 and 8 should be included in the list of companies that should be added to the tax list in the Schedule, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    All right, Can you give your reasons for the proposed amendment?
    Mr Frimpong 2:10 p.m.
    My reason is that, after mentioning a lot of companies, the Committee saw there were some sectors that were making a lot of profit and were not included in the list. So, we had to bring them in for Government to rake in more money and when the money is raked -- [Interruption.]
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon Alhaji Collins Dauda, is it on a point of order?
    Alhaji Dauda 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am on a point of order.
    My Hon Colleague is misleading the House when he said that these issues were discussed at the Committee level and a position was taken. I guess the position in the House now is that, the Committee does not propose to make these amend- ments and that you gave direction that if he wanted to make the amendment, he should make it.
    Alhaji Dauda 2:10 p.m.


    Therefore the reference he is making to the decision at the Committee is my source of worry because at the Committee, no such decisions were taken. I appreciate the fact that all these concerns were raised at the Committee level but no decisions were taken. And indeed, the Finance Minister rejected the inclusion of these agencies to be taxed. That was the position; so, if he has any interest, he should argue his case without making reference to the Committee because I was there and no such decision was taken.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, since this matter is becoming conten- tious -- that is what transpired at the Committee level -- Mr Speaker, may I demand that we resort to Standing Order 198 which will settle the matter. This will settle the matter. When the Minister was talking a few minutes ago, I saw the Deputy Minister signalling to him that there was an exemption of one. He is saying that no such thing transpired there, no agreement.
    The Deputy Minister was signalling to him that there was one that was agreed to. Mr Speaker, clearly, there is some dispute. Let us avail ourselves of Standing Order 198 (3).
    “The Clerk of a Committee . . .” -- and we are informed there was a Clerk at the Committee --
    “… shall record the minutes of proceedings and all proceedings upon consideration of any report or Bill in the Committee and upon every amendment proposed to such report or Bill together with a note of any decision taken by the Committee and the names of all Members voting therein”.
    Mr Speaker, I demand that we be served with that report and that it will help us to resolve this matter.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    I think you will add 3, if you go down a little?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is the 3 that I read.
    Dr Kunbuor 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have not even reached the stage in which Standing Order 198 ought to be evoked. I am a member of the Committee and what I am saying is that there is no major idea that they are saying that the Committee did not discuss this matter, which the minutes of the Committee would reveal.
    The issue is whether the Committee reached a position that an amendment should be done. Why I think it is a slippery road to go under 198 is that, you are not only going to be asking for whether this was done but that there is evidence further that they said there should be an amendment. That is what I am saying and I know as a matter of fact because I have been briefed adequately on this matter.
    That there were discussions in which these matters were raised and the only exception that was taken was mining and even with the idea of mining, it was left to an individual member of the Committee who could bring the amendment.
    That was the position and the guidance that I was given on this matter and I did not think that the matter is foreclosed. If we really want to pursue this amendment, it can simply be adopted but there was no position reached that it was going to be an amendment put in there by the Chairman of the Committee. That is the context in which I think we should not go down to Standing Order 198.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to differ from the position taken by the Hon Majority Leader. Mr Speaker, this proposed amendment was included in the Order Paper by the Table Office, officers of this Parliament in the name of the Chairman of the Committee. Mr Speaker, I do not want us to call the integrity of the Table Office into question. It could be a mistake, but if it were a mistake, then it would be a very grievous one and we ought not to presume that for the Table Office. We ought to preserve the integrity.
    The Chairman has come to say that there was no such decision. The Hon Majority Leader, who is a member of the Committee but who obviously did not attend the meeting says he has been briefed; by whom, he does not say, but presumably, by the Vice Chairman who is acting as the Chairman.
    This must have been given to the Table Office by the Clerk to the Committee. So, if the Vice Chairman gets up on the floor of the House to make a positive statement that this was not an agreement reached at the Committee, then it throws into serious question the conduct of the Committee's meeting.
    Obviously, there is a doubt, and if there is a doubt, the best way to resolve this doubt is to resort to the minutes which are more or less a verbatim -- or let us say, just like the Votes and Proceedings. I would not want us to go through that route because we have always had a problem with minutes. I have raised it several times but if the Majority Leader is now going to say that well, we should take the Chairman's word for it and then another Member would adopt it, I do not intend to agree.
    The Chairman may say that on second thought, he thinks that he is not going to move the amendment. He is at liberty to do so even though that can be contested. But to get up on the floor and say that it was not agreed -- if you look at the amendment, it is a very well considered amendment. It just could not have happened by a mistake or error.
    So, let the Majority Leader help the House by using his skills; he always has something to say and he should wriggle himself out of this corner because -- [Interruption] -- Oh yes, he is an intellectual worm.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Before I hear from the Majority Leader, I would like to hear from Hon J. B. Danquah.
    Dr Kunbuor 2:20 p.m.
    I would want Leadership to handle this matter. In fact, the Hon Member for Sekondi, if he had allowed me to open up on this matter -- When we saw it on the Order Paper, I did hold consul-tations. It was at that point I asked how it got onto the Order Paper and the understanding was that the Committee was going to move it through the Chairman.
    But once they could not agree whether it should be limited to mining or to others, the Hon J. B. Danquah, he said, he would adopt it when the matter comes to the floor of the House and move it as the person who held very strong views. This might be parliamentary administration but we do not have to come all the time and indicate the levels of consultations we have had on this matter.
    So, my position was that, it would be withdrawn in the name of the Chairman and then the Hon Member who had a very strong position on it would adopt it and move the Motion and we move on from there.
    Dr Kunbuor 2:20 p.m.


    There was a second Hon Member who said he would come with an amendment Motion even to the Motion of the Hon J. B. Danquah to limit it to mining. So, when I indicated that it should be withdrawn, it was the first step to clear the ground to enable Hon J. B. Danquah who was almost on his feet but did not catch Mr Speaker's eye and this matter would have been resolved. This is because a more senior Member of the House was also on his feet and preference was given to him. Otherwise, it would have been unnecessary.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Hon J. B. Danquah?
    Mr Danquah 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I yield to the leader.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    I would want you to confirm or deny what has just been said about you regarding this particular proposal.
    Mr Danquah 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is the case.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when I made my intervention, the Majority Leader rose and said that we were not there yet for anybody to request for minutes to be produced-- He now sees the wisdom in what I said.
    Mr Speaker, this House should not come to rest on adequate briefings to the Majority Leader by whoever. Mr Speaker, it cannot be done that way. The evidence should be the minutes recorded and then the Chairman would perhaps, not rise to say that this did not even come before the Committee, and another person to say that well it came but we did not come to
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, please, address the Chair and ignore the asides.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want him to address his mind to it, that is why I am looking straight at his face, so that next time he would not pretend this was not said in the House. I
    am saying this on the floor of the House. Let us insist that the committees do what is right.
    Mr Speaker, before I sit down, I notice my Colleague and Friend wants to really interject himself. May I sit down and allow him to make his intervention? Maybe, a point of order, I do not know, or a point of information.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, I am giving some direction. I think that Hon J. B. Danquah should own the proposed amendment, move it and then we can make some progress.
    The point you have made about the minutes is well said. I think that we need to take it up seriously, so that if there is any such dispute in the future, we can easily resolve it. But as matters stand now, I would plead with Hon Kofi Frimpong to give way to Hon J, B. Danquah to own it and move it, so that we can make some progress.
    Mr Kofi Frimpong 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I will resume my seat. But before I do that, I would want this one to be on record, that these amendments that are coming were discussed at the Committee meeting. So, if somebody went to pray somewhere along the line and he was not present when these things were discussed, he cannot come and tell us that he was here and that thing was not spoken about and that we cannot talk about it.
    Mr Speaker, we --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    All right. Hon Frimpong, well said, the point is well taken.
    Can we let Hon J. B. Danquah have the floor?
    Mr Danquah 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to bring these amendments to the floor of the House. Mr Speaker, it is very important that as we bring this Stabilisation Levy, we widen the net and not all the time go to the same companies and continuously milk the same cow year on year on.
    I remember the Question was put to the Minister for Finance, why do we go to the insurance companies, the telecom companies, the financial institutions or the banks and the answer was, oh, the last time they were the same companies that we did.
    We did it during President Kufuor's era; we are doing it on and on. Therefore, we want to widen the net and in widening it, some of these companies make so much money more than even the insurance companies that are listed here or some of the Ghanaian or indigenous banks.
    Moreso, a lot of these financial institutions do not get the benefit of some of the things that we do when there are big monies to be made, like the raising of funds for COCOBOD or raising of the 1 billion dollar bonds. We always tend to look at the foreign banks but when we want the taxes, then we go to the indigenous Ghanaian banks--
    Therefore, we felt the need to widen the net by adding these sectors -- the inspection and valuation companies, the mining services -- [Interruption] -- the Hon Minister was of the view that the mining sector has been taxed enough and therefore, we should not add the mining companies. But this is the mining services; they are different from mining companies.
    Mr Danquah 2:30 p.m.


    Therefore, there is a distinct difference when we talk about mining services and when we talk about mining companies. When you go to the mines, yes, Ashanti Goldfield Company (AGC) might be a mining company, but Norman is a mining services company that is doing the services. Or AMS -- Australia Mining Services might be doing the mining services but it is very different.

    Mr Speaker, we also talked about the shipping companies. Unfortunately, the Clerk missed my handwriting but it was the shipping companies and maritime and airport terminal operators. “Shipping companies and maritime and airport terminal operators.”

    Mr Speaker, this sector makes so much money and therefore, we felt the need that if we were tackling ordinary non-banking institutions like the Susu Company in my district, then there is no reason we could not increase and widen the net to include the maritime and airport terminal operators and the shipping companies who were making so much in terms of foreign exchange revenue.

    With these few words, Mr Speaker, these were the arguments by which and through which this list was added to the Schedule.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Thank you very much.
    Having got this background, I would now like us to start from the beginning. You know, we start with the Long Title or possibly we come to that as the last item but we should go clause by clause and when we get to the Schedule, then he can move his proposed amendment. Once we have all understood the background to the appea ra n ce of t h is proposed amendment on the Order Paper-- I hope Hon Members agree with me. Let us go clause by clause.
    Clause 1 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 5 -- Assessment of levy pay- able
    Mr W. O. Boafo 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to make an amendment to clause 5 by an addition of a new subclause. Mr Speaker, the amendment being proposed is to enable any company or institution which is over assessed under a provisional assessment by the Commissioner General to apply for a refund of the difference within a specified period.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Hon Member, I would prefer that you set out the proposed amendment and after that, you give your reasons.
    Mr Boafo 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment is as follows:
    “Where any company or institution is over-assessed under a provi- sional assessment by the Commis- sioner, the company or institution may request the Commissioner for a refund of the difference within the period of 21 days from the date of the receipt of the demand.”
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader --
    Dr Kunbuor 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that amendment cannot be sustained as a matter of tax law. A provisional assess- ment is an assessment that is done on the best judgment rule. You cannot make a refund of a provisional assessment until the assessment is final. It is after you have finalised the assessment that you can find out whether the provisional assessment has been over-assessed.
    But Mr Speaker, from my experience, the provisional assessment is done in such a way that it is always lower than what will be the final assessment. So, the provisional assessment provided in Act 592, being a term of art, if you were to put it that a refund is capable of being made under provisional assessment, it would be technically incorrect.
    It is only under VAT where your input system and refund system will admit of that type of arrangement but on income tax, it is not a possibility that you can be refunded money based on a provisional assessment. It is when the assessment is finalised that you can then tell that the provisional assessment figure was higher than the final assessment. So, technically, in tax administration, it cannot be done. And I will advise that we should not put this into the legislation.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Boafo, how do you react?
    Mr Boafo 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment is being made on the presumption that the over-assessment will be realised after the final assessment. So, what he is saying, I do not understand it. I am not saying that the money should be refunded at any time at all. The over-assessment would be realised after the final assessment. So, his argument is predicated on the fact that the over-assessment is not necessary because it should depend upon the final assessment. But that is precisely what I am saying.
    Dr Kunbuor 2:30 p.m.
    I would want to clarify. That is precisely what I am saying; that when you have a provisional assessment and then they are finalising your final assessment, by the time they let it out, you will be informed after the final assessment that we have found that you
    have over-paid a tax of this nature or that you have underpaid based on the provisional assessment and we are asking you to pay an additional assessment. That is how the administration is done.
    So, automatically, under 5 (9), you will be notified that you have over paid your tax and Hon Members who have asked for tax clearance certificates would have received those types of notices in the assessment that you have actually over paid the tax and they might even negotiate with you whether to carry it forward to the next assessment year or not. So, it would automatically be refunded if you require it.
    Mr Chireh 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would beg my Hon Friend to drop the amendment because who is to determine the over assessments; is it the one who is being taxed? No! Anybody who is assessed to pay tax would have to go and challenge the basis of the assessment and at that point, the correct thing would be done.
    But if you have paid and you did not have the evidence to show at the point you were paying, now, you gather evidence, you can only go and continue with the debate there. But it is not appropriate for us to put it here because who is to determine it?
    In fact, if you propose such an amendment, it would also involve proposing how it should be done. And as the Leader has already indicated, in tax payment, they assess you, you agree with the assessment or you do not agree. So, I do not think that it is necessary. I would beg him to drop the request.
    Mr Boafo 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the argument by both the Majority Leader and the Hon Hon Member for Wa West (Mr Chireh) are all based on the extension of the
    Mr Boafo 2:40 p.m.


    provisions in the Internal Revenue Act, about how refunds are made in respect of provisional assessment. But that provision in the Internal Revenue (Amendment Act) has not been extended by way of specific provision to the Bill that we are considering. Mr Speaker, I would concede that it could either be an administrative or operational exercise. So, I would drop the amendment.

    Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 6 -- 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the time for payment -- I am wondering how it has been captured 6 (1) -- Mr Speaker, I am just looking at the language:
    “The levy assessed for a year of assessment is payable quarterly and is due on 31st March, 30th June, 30th September, 31st December of that year”.
    I am just looking at the language.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    It looks like it is a quarterly kind of payment.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:40 p.m.
    Yes, I know. The issue I am raising is how it has been captured. Can it be paid on 30th March for instance? It can be paid on 30th March. But if you say it is due on the last day of the month -- [Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I resume my seat on this.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    So, now, let us move on to the Schedule.
    Mr Boafo 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to propose a new clause which relates to the duration of the Act. “This Act shall
    be in force for a period of 18 months from the date of its commencement”. It would be in line with the opening paragraph of the Memorandum.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee? [Pause.] Hon Chairman, please, pay attention; there is a proposed amendment. Please, go over it Mr Boafo.
    Mr Boafo 2:40 p.m.
    By the addition of a new clause to indicate the duration of the Bill or the enactment. Headnote -- Duration of the Act: “This Act shall be in force for a period of 18 months from the date of its commencement” -- to be in line with the opening paragraph of the Memorandum.
    Dr Kunbuor 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you read clause 6 carefully, particularly subclause (2), the combined effect of subclause (1) and subclause (2), you would see that it cumulatively builds up into it. [Interrup- tion.] Yes, and clause 4.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Hon Boafo, you get the point THAT is being made?
    The point being made is to the effect that it has been taken into account, the issue you are raising.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you read clause (4) and with your permission, let me quote. It says:
    “The levy is paying in respect of the profits before tax for the 2013 and 2014 years of assessment.”
    So, it is clear which years it refers to. If you go ahead to put some limitation on the application of the law, then if somebody does not pay within that time, I do not know whether it would not provide room for them to escape the net. This is clear that it does not affect any other years apart from 2013 and 2014; so, I think it is alright as it stays.
    Dr Kunbuor 2:50 p.m.
    In fact, the danger about it is that, if you put 18 months from the effective dates, it means it is going to go into a number of budget cycles which might not reflect your revenue reality and expectations at that time. So, the way we have it would make it clearer.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Hon Boafo, how say you?
    Mr Boafo 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my lone voice cannot withstand the sense of the House.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    So, now, let us move on to the Schedule and I would like to invite Hon J. B. Danquah to move his proposed amendment.
    The Schedule --
    Mr Joseph B. Danquah 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, add a new paragraph: “inspection and valuation companies” delete “including GCNet”, (7) “mining services”, (8) “shipping companies and maritime and airport terminal operators”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    I believe your background gave the reasons, so, we do not need to belabour it?
    Alhaji Muntaka 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the amendment proposed by our Hon Colleague, except to suggest to him to consider further amendments. This is because “mining services” is “mining support services”. And then the “shipping companies”, if he would accept that we make it “shipping lines”. Then we would add paragraph 9 as “cargo and container terminal operators” to capture all those that he has been talking about. [Interruption.] That is, the shipping lines.
    I thought the “shipping lines” covered the vessels. [Interruption.] I thought they used one term to cover all of them?
    So, if I can take it again. I support the amendment but I am seeking for a further amendment and that paragraph 7, instead of “mining services” it should be “mining support services”. That is their actual name. And then when it comes to paragraph 8, instead of “shipping companies” we make it “shipping lines”, so that we would have paragraph 9 as “cargo and container terminal operators” so that it will take care of those at the airports and harbours.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Can you go over your proposal?
    Alhaji Muntaka 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support his amendment but I am seeking his indulgence to further amend but that we do not really have a name called “mining services”. What we have is “mining support services”. Then the paragraph 8, where he said “shipping companies”-- Those shipping companies are those with the vessels, that is, the shipping lines. And then you have those who have the container terminal operators, but it is both at the ports and airports.
    Those at the airports are termed as “cargo operators” and those at the harbour are termed “container terminal operators”. So, if we can broaden that one to make it paragraph 8 -- Shipping lines, and then paragraph 9, you have “cargo and container terminal operators” to make sure that it is broad enough to capture all those categories.
    Mr Danquah 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I understand where my Hon Colleague is coming from. But the reason we are calling it “maritime and airport terminal” is that it encompasses maritime and airport terminal operators. The moment you go “cargo handling” or “cargo” -- you will narrow it. So, that is why we called it -- I think the Hon Minister responsible for Aviation would -- [Interruption.] Yes.
    Dr A. A. Osei 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just need clarification. The freight forwarding group, which category would they fall under? They are conspicuously missing and therefore, I seek your indulgence to add them as the 10 th paragraph. [Interruption.] Freight forwarding -- [Interruption.] Why? “No, no.” That is my amendment.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would beg your indulgence, if you could put the Questions on those of them that we have agreed on and then when we come to the last one, and then we would work on those other ones. So, if you can begin with paragraph 6, then we move to paragraph 7 and so on -- In that chronology and if we have difficulties, then we would know how to deal with them.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not really understand. I thought we were taking that particular amendment in addition to what we already have in the Schedule, so that it comes as one item.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I know. But if we went through it one after the other, I think we would make further progress.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    All right.
    Alhaji Muntaka 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am equally with him. This is because we are at the Schedule, once there is no contention on paragraph 6, for example, where it says: “Inspection and Valuation Companies including GCNET -- [An Hon Member: Deleted.] All right. He has deleted that one.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    He has deleted “including GCNET”.
    Alhaji Muntaka 2:50 p.m.
    “Including GCNET”, so that it would be “Inspection and Valuation Companies'. So, we would take
    that one and then we would come to the second one -- “Mining Support Services”. We would take it and then we come to -- in that order, so that it becomes easier to follow.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    All right. Let us go that way. We would take it paragraph by paragraph.
    Alhaji Dauda 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, for clarity, I think the issue about the ‘mining support services' -- [An Hon Member: We are not yet there.] We are not yet there?
    Alhaji Muntaka 2:50 p.m.
    Yes, we would want to take the first one. We want to take the first one first, and then we come to --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Yes, we are taking them paragraph by paragraph, so, when we get there --
    Alhaji Dauda 2:50 p.m.
    When we get there?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Yes, when we get there.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Yes. Paragraph 6 -- Inspection and Valuation Companies. I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Paragraph 7 -- Mining Support Services -- the inclusion of the word “Support”.
    Alhaji Dauda 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we leave it as “Mining Support Services” we may not be able to tax anybody. Rather, we should be clear about what we want -- “Companies providing mining support services”. If we leave at “Mining Support Services”, we have not done anything. You would not catch anybody. It should be “Companies providing mining support -- [Interruption.]
    Mr Danquah 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not have any problem with that kind of amendment.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the heading of the Schedule is “Companies and institutions liable to pay National Fiscal Stabilisation Levy”.
    Alhaji Dauda 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he is right. But we have “Insurance Companies”, “Non-banking financial institutions”, “Telecommunication companies”.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2:50 p.m.
    So, Mr Speaker, it does not matter whether you qualify it or not.
    Alhaji Dauda 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is just for emphasis.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    I think we would go by what Hon Collins Dauda is saying.
    Alhaji Muntaka 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, instead of saying “Companies providing”, we could say “Providers of mining support services”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    What about “Mining Support Services Providers”?
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Paragraph 8 -- Shipping lines --
    An Hon Member 2:50 p.m.
    It is more than that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    It is more than that? All right.
    Mr Danquah 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the rendition was “Shipping lines, maritime and airport terminal operators”.
    Mr Chireh 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you have put the Question on the “Mining Support Services”. If you do that, you are charging a tax; you must charge somebody, a company. In fact, it does not detract from anything. If you do not add it, it would be difficult to go round trying to tax mining support services. Is it when somebody is supporting services that you would go and charge? So, we should add the “company”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Finally, we settled on “Providers of Mining Support Services”.
    Mr Chireh 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no, no. If you say “providers”, tax must be exact. If I go and get some toroko and I want to push something uphill, am I a provider? No! It would be difficult to get that tax. It must be companies.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Hon Member, what about firms that are not limited liability companies -- Enterprises -- for example? Would that capture it?
    I would have thought that “Providers” would just cover everything.
    Dr Kunbuor 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, because it is a question of collection and adminis- tration, I think “Companies” would specifically target the subject of the tax, so that we are not left in limbo because clause 9 is saying that you would use the administrative framework of Act 592 to collect it.
    If you look at Act 592, they have categorised the individual, partnership, corporate entities, unincorporated individual. So, we must put it under one of those categories to make it easier for collection, except we are not going to use Act 592. So, it will not do any harm if we add “Companies” to the “mining services”.
    Mr Speaker 3 p.m.
    So “Companies provid- ing mining support services.” All right? So, let us go back and let me put the Question.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, by extension of reasoning, paragraph 5 provides for “Breweries”. What do we mean by “Breweries”?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    : Hon Minority Leader, we will cross the bridge when we get there. We have gone past that one.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought the heading was there -- “Companies and Institutions Liable to pay National Fiscal Stabilisation Levy”.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wanted a little clarification regarding the amendment proposed by the Hon Member for Abuakwa North (Mr J. B. Danquah) with regard to the Airport Terminal Operators. Does it include the operators of the passenger terminal or was it just looking at the operators of the cargo terminal?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Hon J. B. Danquah, what do you say?
    Mr Danquah 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it covers both passenger and cargo. Is that very clear, Hon Colleague?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    : When it has to do with maritime, are you also talking about passengers?
    Mr Danquah 3 p.m.
    We are talking about Maritime and Airport Terminal Operators. So, the airport is also covered. The airport has both the cargo terminals and then the passenger terminals. So, the fees that accrue to these operators will be subjected to the extra stabilisation levy.
    Mr Woyome 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, then in this case, we should be looking at airlines. [Some Hon Members: No!] No, because per your submission, if you are considering passengers for the airport, the terminal operators definitely are airlines.
    Alhaji Dauda 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, a terminal operator is a company engaged to provide terminal services. In Ghana, at the Kotoka International Airport , we have Aviance that provides terminal services and engages other smaller companies to do other things. So, that is what is being referred to in the amendment proposed and -- [Interruption.]
    Mr Opare-Ansah 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is exactly my point. Aviance provides cargo terminal services not passenger terminal services. Ghana Airport Company provides that service and it is this House which makes the law that gives them the power to collect the Airport Tax a portion of which goes for -- And now, we are saying that we are going to levy them.
    Alhaji Dauda 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Aviance does not provide cargo services; they deal with passengers, and I am not aware of a company dealing with cargo terminal at the Airport.
    Dr A. A. Osei 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, who operates the airport terminal for us passengers -- the VVIP Lounge, who operates it? Ghana Airport Company. So, if he says passenger operators -- No! Airport Company operates where we live and we do not want to tax them.
    Alhaji Dauda 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the VVIP services provided there is provided by Protocol. It is not provided by the Ghana Airport Company. That is for your information.
    Dr A. A. Osei 3 p.m.
    They are in charge of buildings. The protocol people work in there. The Airport Company is in charge of the passenger terminal. [Inerruption.]
    Alhaji Dauda 3 p.m.
    And I am saying that the company that is charged, contracted to provide those services is Aviance. I am not aware of cargo as part of their contract.
    Mr Speaker, that is one of the reasons at the Committee level, some of us were hesitant. Even determining who should be taxed has become a problem here and therefore, you impose a tax and it is difficult to administer the tax. That is why I thought that we should think through the institutions that we are putting on, otherwise, we will have this tax on paper and we cannot earn anything.
    That is my difficulty and therefore, this airport thing, cargo thing, we should take it out.
    Dr A. A. Osei 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am surprised at the former Minister for Roads and Highways. Aviance provides cargo services; that is what we want to tax, but passenger terminal is managed by the Ghana Airport Company Limited. We do not want to tax them. He included passenger operators and that is where we are being careful. We cannot tax Airport Company.
    We have made laws to seed our Airport Tax to them, then we go and tax them, again . So, if we are looking at the Aviance that we define, that is where we want to go to.
    Mr Kofi Frimpong 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I disagree with Dr Akoto Osei when he said that the services provided to the passengers is only by Ghana Airport Company. When you see the gangway that is attached to the aircraft, it is Aviance.[An Hon Member: That is an advertisement] No! It is not an advertisement.
    It is Aviance So, it is Aviance that is operating at the passenger terminal point and not the Ghana Airport Company. We know the Ghana Airport Company --
    Mr Opare-Ansah 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to help my Hon Colleague.
    As part of providing the terminal services at the Airport, the Ghana Airport Company has contracted a security company that provides security services at the Airport. Would you say that they are the operators of the terminal services at the Airport? This is because you see them wearing a different company's uniform, they are at the car park, there is somebody there collecting tolls at the car park, are they the operators of the terminal?
    It is the Ghana Airport Company that is mandated by law to operate the passenger terminal in this country. If you see Aviance stairways at the Airport, it does not mean they are the operators of the terminal
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    All right. Thank you very much.
    Alhaji Muntaka 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just to help all of us avoid the confusion that we are not sure whether that includes Ghana Airport Company, why do we not follow the sentence with “with the exception of maybe, Ghana Airport Company” so that it becomes “Maritime and Airport Terminal operated excluding Ghana Airport Company”? So that we are sure we are not talking about the operation of the Ghana Airport Company as a way of avoiding the confusion.
    Alhaji Dauda 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Ghana Airport Company is the managers of the Airport and takes responsibility of all the activities that take place at the Airport. But for some aspects of its operations, they contract it out to a private company to do for it. For instance, the passenger services, that is provided by Aviance. If you want to impose a tax and you are not clear who you are imposing the tax on,
    Mr Danquah 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am very sure.
    Alhaji Dauda 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he is not sure. He is certainly not sure. You will realise that Hon Members are the ones canvassing arguments to support his position. This is because he is not sure; we should not allow him to mislead the House into making a law that will remain on paper where we cannot get the results that we want.
    So, I think that we should agree to take that aspect out -- [Interruption] -- the Airport aspect, we can take it out. At the maritime level, at the sea port, it is very clear who we are targeting. But the Airport, we have doubt. He is unable to justify it.
    Mr Ayariga 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have just crosschecked from the Airport and they are saying that Aviance actually does manage the passengers' cargo and that the buses that take the passengers to the aircraft and back and all the others, Aviance is actually responsible for that.
    But there is also the aspect about ground handling of cargo. They are also involved and other companies are also involved. [Interruption.] So, the “operators” is correct because they are private operators who have been contracted by Ghana Airport Company to provide those services.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Stabilisation Levy is on profits before tax. The Hon Minister is telling us the target rake in is GH¢88 million. Now, the amendment the Hon Member is proffering is to add to the basket. The Hon Minister is saying that he is comfortable, so, I do not see the beef of the Hon Mmeber. [Interruption.] I do not want to hear the argument that he has made.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister is responsible. He is saying that this is for a specified period and he has told us that it is 18 months, and for the 18 months, he says he is targeting to receive GH¢88 million. I do not know why the Hon Member is burdening himself when the Hon Minister says that with what he has suggested, he will get the GH¢88 million that he wants. So, what is the Hon Member's worry?
    Mr Speaker, I would request my Hon Colleague, Hon J. B. Danquah, if the Hon Minister himself is satisfied that he will get that amount, let us leave it as simple as that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Hon J. B. Danquah, let us hear from you.
    Mr Danquah 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think my Leader, as I made the argument, why we needed to widen the net and deepen the net and not to overburden the same sector -- Actually, when we talk about non- banking institutions, where we are talking about some of the susu companies which are not even making a million dollars in profits, while some of these companies are making tens of millions of dollars in profit -- And the Hon Minister himself proffers that Parliament has the authority to add, so, we should add.
    So, Mr Speaker, I think I still stand by these amendments and all the things that I am proposing in this amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Let us get the rendition from you. What is the rendition?
    Mr Danquah 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it states:
    “. . .is shipping lines and maritime and airport terminal operators”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    All right. Hon Members, I think we need to make some progress. Let me put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    The Schedule as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    The Long Title -- An Act to impose a special levy to be known as the National Fiscal Stabilisation Levy on specified companies and institutions in order to raise revenue for fiscal stabilisation of the economy and to provide for related matters.
    Mr Essilfie 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, Long Title -- Line, 2 and 3, delete “in order”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    The Long Title as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, this brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage of the National Fiscal Stabilisation Levy Bill.
    Alhaji Muntaka 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Motion
    26.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Hon Majority Chief Whip, you are referring to item 26. Is that right?
    Alhaji Muntaka 3:10 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    BILLS -- THIRD READING 3:20 p.m.
    Alhaji Muntaka 3:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we were of the view that we could do one more because it is a very light one, none controversial, if it could be done -- Motion numbered 28, with the indulgence of my Hon Colleagues.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    What is the sense of the House? Do we go ahead?
    Some Hon Members 3:20 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    Now, item 28 on the Order Paper -- Deputy Minister for Finance.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker with respect, some of us are not properly constituted as we sit here and we need to apply the relevant doses. Unfortunately, persons not connected with the transaction of Business in the House today, have availed themselves of some resources which were meant people transacting business in the House today.
    For which reason, Mr Speaker, I may want to suggest that we avail ourselves the opportunity to enrich our physical constitution and come to it tomorrow.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    I am inclined to agree with you. Today, we started on time and therefore, we have been here for quite sometime. So, accordingly, the House is adjourned till tomorrow at 10.00 in the forenoon.
    Thank you very much.
    ADJOURNMENT 3:20 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 3.24 p.m. till Thursday, 4th July, 2013 at 10.00 a.m.