Debates of 9 Jul 2013

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:50 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:50 a.m.
  • [No correction was made to the Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 5th July, 2013]
    • Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    We do not have any Official Report for correction. So, we move to the Commencement of Public Business.
    Dr Benjamin B. Kunbuor 10:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we will take item 4 on the Order Paper.
    Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, have you addressed the concerns raised on the floor?
    Dr Kunbuor 10:50 a.m.
    Sorry, Mr Speaker, I was busy --
    Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    I asked whether you have addressed the concerns raised on the floor of the House with regard to item number 4 on the Order Paper.
    Dr Kunbuor 10:50 a.m.
    That is so, Mr Speaker. This morning, we concluded on it.
    Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    Very well.
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 11 a.m.
    STAGE 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
    Hon Members, we were on clause 1 last week.
    Clause 1 --
    Chairman of the Committee (Mr James K. Avedzi) 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, subclause (1), lines 1 and 2, delete “Communication” and insert “Communications” and in line 4, delete “communication” and insert “communi- cations” and do same wherever “comm- unication” appears in the Bill.
    Mr Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to make sure that it corresponds with the Act, which is being amended because the Act is “Communi- cations Service Tax Act, 2008 (Act 754)”. So we are amending this to ensure that we have the amendment agree with the Act.
    Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
    Hon Members, this is a straightforward amendment because the Act being amended mentioned “communi- cations”. So, that is the import of the amendment and I will put the Question, unless somebody has a contrary view.
    Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, for consistency, I was just looking at the last but one line in clause
    1(1).
    Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
    Which clause are you referring to?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, subclause 1, lines 3 and 4. We are just adding the letter “s” to “communication” to reflect both the Long Title and the Short Title. I was just asking that on the same wing, could we then look at the use of the words “service” and “services” in lines 3 and 4?
    Mr Avedzi 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think I agree with the Minority Leader, that for consistency, we need to amend the --
    Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
    Hon Members, in actual fact, this is a drafting issue; it is not really an amendment properly so-called. So, I direct the draftspersons to realign the clause with the Electronic Communi- cations Act accordingly.
    Table Office, have you captured my directive?
    Still on clause 1 --
    Mr Joseph B. A. Danquah 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1 , subclause (2), paragraph (b), delete.
    Mr Speaker, the entire amendment will read 11 a.m.
    ”the charges payable on electronic communications service received by users from sources outside this country.”
    Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
    Let us listen to him and then I would call you, Hon Member for Old Tafo.
    Mr Danquah 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the basis for the proposed deletion of this clause is very simple. We were told at the Committee hearing that the essence of this clause was predominantly to bring it in line on an equal playing field among the competitors, especially when we were receiving services from outside the country as opposed to those who were buying the services in the country. This is especially with regard to the ISPs and therefore, this was going to equalise the playing field.
    However, Mr Speaker, listening through the argument, it becomes very clear that this is a competition issue and it should not be used, or we should not
    go through the tax system to correct whatever imbalances there are or that exist in the market place. Therefore, it should be one that should be left to the National Communications Authority (NCA) and in terms of advising the operators and ensuring that there is an equal playing field.
    Especially, if for instance, one is an operator and one is given a preferable or preferential rates to one's own service providers or ISPs or cafes, then the NCA should ensure that you offer the same rates to those who are not one's own operators or café owners. In that sense, the NCA can correct such imbalances in the market place. We should therefore, not bring such a law or such taxes in the law at this stage. This is the main reason for calling for the deletion of this clause.
    Dr Anthony A. Osei 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have no difficulty with the amendment but what we have now does not read “users.” It was amended earlier by substituting “users” for “service provider”. So, it is that that he is deleting but not the one with the “users.”
    Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
    He is deleting the entire subclause (2) (b)?
    Dr A. A. Osei 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the entire clause he read has already been amended. What he read is the original. I do not know if you get me.
    The last time it was amended by replacing “users” with “service provider” by the acting Chairman of the Committee. When he got up, he read this original clause and I am saying that that clause does not exist.
    Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
    No! But he is dealing with the Bill.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am talking about the subclause (2)(b). He read -- [Pause.] -- [An Hon Member: -- “It was deferred; no decision was taken.]
    Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
    We never put any Question on it; it was at that stage that I deferred the Consideration of the Bill, so that further consultations could take place.
    Hon Vice Chairman or Chairman, have you taken over?
    Mr Avedzi 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, exactly so. I have taken over -- [Laughter.]
    Mr Speaker, I think we agree with the amendment proposed by the Hon Member, that clause 1, subclause (2)(b) should be deleted. Mr Speaker, I support the amendment.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I need your guidance here. In the Memorandum, paragraphs (1), (2) (,3), 4; there is a clear policy that is being articulated -- [Interruption]
    Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
    The House has agreed with that clause in the Bill. It is as simple as that. The House, as a House, disagreed with that clause in the Bill. That is what it means.
    Dr Matthew O. Prempeh 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, before you put the Question, it has an effect on clause 2, subclause 2(3) because clause 1, subclause 2(b) refers to electronic communications service and then when we go to clause 2, “persons liable -- [Interruption]
    Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Hon Members, they have filed some amendments in clause 2, so, when we get there, you can draw the House's attention to it.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clause 1 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Clause 2 -- Section 2 of Act 754 amended.
    Mr Danquah 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, subclause (2), delete.
    Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Almost consequential.
    Mr Danquah 11:10 a.m.
    Yes. It follows from the clause 1 (2) (b).
    Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Hon Members, this amendment is consequential to the earlier one already moved by the Hon Member for AkimAbuakwa North.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Subclause (2) of clause 2 accordingly deleted from the Bill.
    Hon Chairman, your amendment is a drafting issue.
    Mr Avedzi 11:10 a.m.
    It is a drafting issue.
    Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    I so direct.
    Hon Member for Manhyia South, you were going to raise some concern. Has it been taken care of by the amendment that has been moved by the Hon Member for Akim Abuakwa North?
    Dr Prempeh 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have been given too many Order Papers and I do not know which one we are talking about.
    Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Hon Members, we are on clause 2; which of them has clause 2? I have two Order Papers -- the original Order Paper and an Addendum. The Original Order Paper has clauses 1 and 2 amendments --
    Dr Kunbuor 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, actually, one is an Addendum that redrafts the one in the main Order Paper. So, I wanted to catch Mr Speaker's eye to apply that we move to the Addendum on that item.
    Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Yes. Let me put the Question on clause 2 first, then when we get there, we draw the House's attention to it.
    Dr Prempeh 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment has nothing to do with what is in clause 2 that I was raising. Mr Speaker, after clause 1, the persons liable to the tax, like the Hon Majority Leader was saying the last time, is what is in clause 2. And if we have deleted clause 1 (2) (b), then the reference made in clause 2 (2) (iii) cannot be applicable in this law, in the original Bill.
    If we have deleted all the charges payable in electronic communications service, then reference to that parent Act 775 and its subsequent legislation cannot be part of this Bill.
    Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    I do not get the point that you are making. Hon Member, we are at the Consideration Stage of the Bill. Are you moving an amendment?
    Dr Prempeh 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, before, maybe, as an oversight, we get into the problem when we have finished, I am asking that the amendment that was done, the -- “delete 1(2)(b)” -- if 1 (2)(b) is what is in the original Bill, then that is the only reference to Electronic Communi- cations Service. [Pause.]
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 2 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Dr Kunbuor 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we could move to the Addendum.
    Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    So, it means that the amendment with regard to the new clause as advertised on the original Order Paper is being abandoned? Is that the meaning?
    Dr Kunbuor 11:10 a.m.
    That is so, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, we now move to the Addendum Order Paper.
    Hon Member for Suhum --
    Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, new clause, add the following new clause:
    “Section 14 of Act 754
    The principal enactment is amended in section 14 by the substitution for subsection (4)--
    “(4) (a) The Minister in collaboration with the Minister responsible for Communications --
    (i) shall establish a monitoring mechanism to verify the actual revenue that accrues to service providers for the purpose of computing taxes due the Government under this Act;
    (ii) shall be given physical access to the physical network nodes of the service providers' network at an equivalent point in the network where the network providers' billing systems are connected; and
    (iii) shall ensure that a common platform is used for the purposes of monitoring revenues under this Act as well as revenues accruing from levies under the Electronic Communications (Amendment) Act 2009, (Act
    786).
    Mr Avedzi 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the proposed amendment as has been explained by the Hon Member. It is to institute a mechanism that would monitor the revenue that is due to Government based on the tax we are imposing there, so that the telecom service providers can allow government to have access to their systems in order to monitor the taxes due Government.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the amendment except that the (b) part seems so punitive and I am wondering if we should not look at it. Mr Speaker, 5 per cent of gross revenues from the telecom companies is a gargantuan sum. I am sure it is even bigger than the taxes we are even paying to the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA).
    So, I am wondering if the sponsor of this amendment could tell us why he is going to the gross revenue. It is a very huge sum. Five per cent of 5 billion plus is a huge sum. Not being a lawyer, I am not
    sure if there is any sanction in this country that will come close to this except for the death penalty. So, Mr Speaker, I would want the sponsor to convince me why they are imposing such a huge sum. And I think it should be monitored. But within 30 days, to pay 5 per cent of the gross revenue, not net revenue-- this is a very huge penalty that I am sure if anyone of them pays, that would be the end of their business.
    I know we would want to deter them but this is too serious. And I think that we should, as a House, look at the sanctions very closely. I am not aware if the Commissioner General can tell us if any company in this country has ever paid such a huge sum. I am sure we will be happy collecting it but we should be very, very careful.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the appropriate language that we have been using in these matters is “consultation” and not “collaboration”. So, if we could have “The Minister in consultation with the Minister responsible for Communication” instead of saying “the Minister in collaboration”. I think it should be “consultation.” And then we bring “shall” up in the opening construction.
    Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    But who grants the licence? It is the National Communications Authority (NCA). One applies to the NCA for a licence, so, they can revoke same. If in applying, one uses the process of involving the Ministry, then it can then go that one can use the same mechanism in its revocation.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am just saying that the “collaboration”
    Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    What constitutes “collaboration”?
    Let us take the issues one after the other. The issue raised by the Hon Member for Old Tafo is in terms of the five per cent. So, I would want us to take them one after the other and we go back to see whether there should be “consultation” or “collaboration”.
    Hon Member for Suhum, the Hon Member for Old Tafo thinks the five per cent of the annual gross revenue of the last audited financial statement of the service provider is on the high side. What do you say to that?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe penalties, as I was taught this morning, has one of two uses. It is either as a revenue collection mechanism or it is a deterrent mechanism. Mr Speaker, in this sense, it is supposed to serve as deterrent and that is why --
    Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    Having worked in the communication industry, do you have an idea of what that five per cent will amount to, generally, the range -- just a raw idea?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the service providers are enjoined by law to pay --
    Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    The principle is being accepted but I think that it is the amount that people have a problem with. This is because you have just mentioned five per
    cent without giving us any guide for the House to know that it is either on the high side or on the low side. Now that somebody is saying it is on the high side, do you have any figure in mind based on your own personal knowledge of the industry?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the smallest operator has less than 200,000 subscribers and the biggest operator has more than 12 million subscribers. So, it is going to be very difficult. If one says one million dollars, it may not be a big sum to the bigger operator. He may choose not and just continue paying the penalty. But if one says one million, that smaller operator may just go out of business. That was why I felt it will be better to tie it to --
    Mr Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    Why do you not just give a range depending on the --
    Mr Opare-Ansah 11:20 a.m.
    Also, if one looks at what is supposed to accrue to Government over time, it is in about that range for the period that they will not allow Government to properly monitor them, including whatever they might be hiding. If one looks at the statistics of previous collection, it is about that range. We have six per cent of that revenue as Communi- cations Service Tax (CST). So, if they do not allow Government -- It is the gross revenue that we are charging six per cent on as CST anyway, and this is five per cent of that gross revenue.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not have any object to a penalty being imposed. But a penalty must, one, be certain. It must not be based on revenue. It must be certain. It is just like saying that if one is guilty of a traffic offence and one is using a Mercedes Benz S Class, then that should be the amount payable. It should be certain. That is my point.
    So, if the Hon Member has a certain figure, he must state it.
    Mr Speaker, and two, if one marries subclause (b) with subclause (d) of the proposed amendment, then it creates quite a problem. If there is going to be a penalty, then I presume that the penalty should be payable only after the person or the service provider has failed to satisfy the High Court that it has reasonable grounds for failing or refusing to permit the introduction of any equipment.
    So, I believe that we should just have a look at it -- one has seven days within which to do that. Meanwhile, it says that, if after the first 30 days -- meanwhile, if after the first 30 days, the High Court has not yet even determined one's suit-- So, I believe, yes, there is the need for deterrence, but for penalty, it should be the revocation of the licence. So, after the first 30 days -- Unless of course, he thinks that punitive sanctions are not enough deterrent. But if they are, why is it that after the first 30 days, they have to get the licence revoked? So, I believe that the time limit itself -- the 30 days will not be enough.
    Then, another point is that “any service provider who fails”-- I believe it should be “who refuses” and not “fails” -- So, while I agree in principle with the Hon Member who proposed the amendment, I believe that we need to think through the processes before. I do not know -- this matter being a policy matter, I believe we would have had immense assistance from the Minister responsible for Communi-cations.
    It is not merely a money Bill because with its introduction -- with this amendment -- we are dealing with major policy and the Minister should, probably, come and advise us, so that we know our way clear.
    Dr Kunbuor 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we had been discussing this matter and the manner in which the proposed amendment was called, is based on so many considera- tions. The deterrent effect which the Hon Member for Sekondi has indicated, shows that it should be certain in terms of, perhaps, penalty units. But the difficulty is that if one looked at the providers' sizes and turnovers, the gap between the lowest and the highest can be so big that if one were to use penalty units, one will automatically just wipe most out of them of the business.
    Because it is based on the contingency, a future situation, we cannot go back to the normal tax rendition in which the amount of tax evaded will be what one could use as the basis. So, we had a discussion with the Hon Member; it got to a point that perhaps, just one or two big providers might be at the real heavy end of this return.
    But if deterrence is to mean anything, it simply shows that if one is standing by a cliff and one knows how deep it is, one does not stay around or do things that will let one go down the cliff. But we do appreciate the concerns and it is because of the futuristic nature of this particular thing that we cannot put a figure on it. That is actually the challenge.
    Dr Matthew O. Prempeh 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am going to raise three issues on this, I think, sophisticated deterrent of five per cent.
    Mr Speaker, in those economies which I would describe as sophisticated tax economies, percentages are used for even ordinary penalties. I had the time to engage one of the tax experts at Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and she said
    Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarak Muntaka 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, earlier, when our Senior Hon Colleague, Hon Papa Owusu-Ankomah was making his comment, he said that it was not also very specific. I just wanted to draw his attention to the statement that said, and Mr Speaker, with your indulgence I beg to read:
    “Penalty of five per cent of annual gross revenue of the last audited financial statement.”
    I thought that stated and showed specifically what he is talking about. I do not know whether that takes care of the non-specific nature that he was talking about. I do not know whether he has seen that, and that was what I wanted to draw his attention to.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am just talking about the philosophy behind penalties in Ghana; that is all. The Hon Member for Manhyia South said that in Norway -- Well, in terms of Ghana, when you are imposing a penalty, it is not based on percentages of revenue. This one then becomes a crime, so to speak. So, if probably, he thinks that in terms of our penalty, we should be moving towards that, fine. But when you --
    Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Hon Members, the point being made by the Hon Member who moved the amendment is that, we have very big service providers and very small ones. Therefore, if you use a specific figure, it would wipe out the profit and everything of the very small ones. That is the mischief he is trying to cure by this proposal, that it should be a percentage of their gross profit:
    In any case, the constitutional guideline, really, is in article 19(11) of the 1992 Constitution, which states that --
    “No person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and the penalty for it is prescribed in a written law.”
    The question is that, is the penalty sufficiently prescribed in the law that we are making? If the answer is “Yes”, then we have passed the constitutional litmus test. But I would want to hear from one or two Hon Members. Otherwise, let me go back and take care of all the other clauses and come back to it. That is also another way.
    We shall defer it, then I take all the clauses. This is because there are no other amendments to the rest of the clauses, then we come back to this amendment. The Hon Member for Sekondi also raised the issue of using “refuses” instead of “fails”. But I also know that, in certain legislations, they use the two -- “fails” or “refuses”. Then we can come back and interrogate this particular amendment and refine it because the principle is acceptable to both sides of the House.
    But how to fine-tune it is the challenge now. So, let me put the Question on all the clauses and then we come back to this one, if it is acceptable to the House.
    Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I guess I would withdraw the one that I proposed -- the substitution of --
    Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    I would want to defer
    -- 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to delete that one.
    Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
    But Mr Speaker, it is the “shall” -- moving the “shall” upwards, that is for clause 4(a). But it is a drafting thing that could be handled by them. But we would come back.
    Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    All right. Then let me put the Question on all the clauses, then we come back to that one.
    So, Hon Members, we are deferring the new clause standing in the name of the Hon Member for Suhum, so that we can put the Question on the other clauses where there are no amendments against them, then we come back and deal with it.
    Clauses 3 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Hon Members, we go back to the new clause, so that we take comments and -- What I intend doing is that we should take them one by one. So, I would start with clause 4(a).
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, as I said, it is a minor one. I think we can leave it to the draftpersons -- lifting up the word “shall” to line two of clause 4(a).
    Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Number. (i)?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, “shall” appears --
    Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Is it (i) or (ii)?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
    It is (ii) and (iii). Those should be lifted to line 2 of clause 4 (a), to follow after “Communi- cations”.
    Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Very well. I so direct. It is a drafting issue -- re-arrangement, really.
    rose
    Mr Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Your amendment -- The “shall” -- We are now bringing the “shall” first. That one is a drafting issue, so I have directed the draftsperson. It is not really an amendment.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the other one relates to (ii). I am not too sure of what is meant by that construction. Clause 4 (a) provides that Minister, and I guess it is the Minister responsible for Finance in collaboration with the Minister responsible for Communications shall be given physical access.
    First of all, I do not know who that construction sits. Then two, it is the physical access --
    “The two Ministers shall be given physical access to the physical network nodes.”
    Mr Speaker, do they necessarily have to be the persons to do the work? In respect of that construction --
    “that the Minister responsible for Finance and the Minister res- ponsible for Communications shall be given physical access to the physical nodes of the service providers' network . . .”
    I have a little worry about that.
    Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Hon Member for Suhum, it appears now the amendment is standing in your name. Why even the Ministers? This is a technical matter not --
    Mr Opare-Ansah 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, what we could do, is to have their agents instead of the Hon Ministers themselves.
    Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    I should think so because the National Communications Authority that is virtually in charge, so, why not the National Communications Authority?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, because of the inter-Ministerial linkages, one part Communications, one part Finance. That is why there is the need for that collaboration. It is a revenue matter and
    Mr Opare-Ansah 11:40 a.m.


    yet this is a technical industry also. So, we would want to be sure the NCA is sure of what is being done is also -- It is their agents, so, the Hon Minister in colla- boration with the Hon Minister responsible for Communications and we can start that clause with “or the agents shall be given physical access.”
    Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    If you know the name of the agent, why do you not just mention the agency?
    Mr Avedzi 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the purpose of this amendment actually, is about revenue. Once it is about revenue, it is the Hon Minister for Finance who is responsible. The Minister for Finance, in collaboration with the Minister for Communications. In my view, it does not mean that they will have physical access but their agents. They will definitely use their agents.
    If it is a technical issue, they will use their agents to have access to it in order to determine what quantum of revenue is accruing to government.
    Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    It should be done under the authority of the two Ministers.
    Mr Avedzi 11:40 a.m.
    Yes. So, I think that this should be alright.
    Dr Kunbuor 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the difficulty was also that, in the case of the Minister for Finance, you could see clearly that the Commissioner General has that power to have physical access to any premises for purposes of tax. But we are not sure whether the Communications Minister has a similar agent. So, we just thought that we could bring it together and give that agency arrangements too to the Minister for Communications to add to the existing agency of the Ministry of Finance to do the --
    Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    But do we need to repeat “physical”.
    Dr Kunbuor 11:40 a.m.
    That is drafting.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I could give you a virtual access to a physical network by creating some File Transport and Protocol FTP site where I dump the information and then you can access it through the internet.
    Mr Apeaker 11:40 a.m.
    Yes, I agree but it also means whether the access has a technical definition in law, which means, the physical.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, physical access to this Chamber means that you can walk into the Chamber. It is exactly that sense --
    Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    But access to the Chamber also means that you can walk to the Chamber. This is because if you use the word “access” to a place, it means the “physical access.” So, we have to find out from the draftsperson whether it excludes physical but for--
    Mr Opare-Ansah 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the industry, if I say, I want access to your computer, I could be outside Ghana and I will have a vir tual access to your computer. I will come to the computer and work on it all right and I have access to it. But that is not the access you want. You want physical access.
    Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    For the avoidance of doubt, you want to put it beyond doubt.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you look at the original Act, there is already a provision there in section 14 (4) which gives them the power to monitor but they are not getting that physical access. What the operators do, is to collect the information and give it to you and say we have given you access. So, it is very important they get physical access.
    Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, I want to put the Question on clause 4 (a).
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, my worry is conscripting the two Ministers to do that physically. I am not worried about the physical access. I am talking about the two people. Now, I think he has qualified it or they are agents and I think that will be alright.
    Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    When they even use the Ministers once, there is evidence that they are acting under their authority and that should be enough. Once there is evidence that they are acting on their authority, that is enough.
    Hon Members, the clause 4 (a).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Clause 4 (b) -- Hon Member for Sekondi.
    Oh, sorry. It is because the Hon Member for Sekondi has raised an issue with “fail” and ‘refused' that is why I called him first.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to raise another issue with clause 4 (b) --
    Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    Then let me hear the Hon Member for Sekondi, then I will get back to you. Why do you not use “fail” or “refuses”?
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:40 a.m.
    I believe it should be “refuses” because “fails” connotes your obligation to do something which you have not done. “Refuses “ means something that there is more wilfulness in refusing.
    Mr Speaker 11:40 a.m.
    But now that the law is there --
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:50 a.m.
    Yes, it is “refuses”. From the submissions made by the Hon Member for Suhum, I believe that it is the “refuses” that he is talking about and not “failure”. It is “refuses”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, by way of adding to what he has said, I think “refusal” connotes wilful intent not to do that. “Failure” may not necessarily mean that and because we are talking about penalties, I guess we should be careful.
    Dr Kunbuor 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is a normal criminal situation and there are two senses in which you can imply. Before you can establish that somebody has actually failed, it also implies that a mental situation of some sort which is the mens rea which has to be also proved in all crimes generally.
    So, there is the general one and then the specific of wilfulness. In all offences, you can roll the two together for emphasis or you can leave it to be implied that you cannot say that the person has actually failed when you can establish the mens rea. So, I think this is the context in which it is being done.
    Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Hon Member for Suhum, who is moving the amendment for “refuses”?
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, well, I believe “refuses” may be most appropriate in this matter. But you can make it “fails” or “refuses”. But I do not think that failure really is something that we are talking about here. It is “refusal”; a refusal to give access -- [Interruption.] I am sure the Hon Member for Suhum has agreed to my amendment?
    Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Hon Members, the new clause standing in the name of the Hon Member for Suhum is further amended with regard to the word “fails” being substituted for “refuses”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I --
    Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    I am not putting the Question on the whole clause. It is only on that line.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, on clause 4 (b) is what --
    Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    We are only on line 1. My question that I put is only on line 1.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you look at clause 4 (b) and (d) together, it appears there is a compulsion on the part of the High Court to take a decision within 30 days.
    Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    No! We are saying we are --
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am looking at clause 4 (b), but it has implications for clause 4 (d). In clause 4 (d), after the first 30 days, that is why the fine comes. But clause 4 (d) tells you to go to the High Court within 7 days. If I go to the High Court and the High Court takes 60 days, I would have been penalised, indeed, something that is not right. Or at least, it implies compelling the High Court to take a decision and we need to look at that.
    Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Absolutely. I think that is the understanding.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, but do we have the power to compel the High Court?
    Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Jurisdiction itself is conferred by statute, so, the law itself, which we are making now, is putting certain obligation on the court. So, the court knows that they have to take certain decisions within a certain period.
    Mr Asamoah Ofosu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think there should be a further amendment to clause 4 (b), and that is deleting “any” and substituting it therefore, with “a”. It should be:
    “A service provider who refuses…”
    And not any service provider. This is because, “service provider” has been defined.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Prof. George Yaw Gyan-Baffour 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, mine is about this penalty unit. I think there is even a more fundamental reason what the amendment, as it stands now, should stand beside the reason given by the author.
    Mr Speaker, there are certain industries where technological changes are very, very rapid, therefore, revenues keep changing and coming in, in heaps and bounds. In such industries, if you give them penalty units, it becomes absolute in a very short period and we may have to come back always to make an amendment.
    So, if even in the law, it is penalty units that we use, in certain industries,
    especially with highly technological industry like this, we should not be using those penalty units which become within a week or two -- If this industry uses penalty units, we have to come back here in a year's time to really change it and amend it. I think based on that, we should be selective which industry we are dealing with and not necessarily to put a flat thing on using penalty units.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the light of the observations made, I do not intend to move any amendment relating to the penalty. Safe to say that, penalty units are supposed to be perpetual. Indeed, when you say 100 penalty units, it is tied to a certain figure and it appreciates over time when, as it were, there is inflation, et cetera. But I understand him; I do not feel too strongly about it.
    Mr Robert N. D. Mosore 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the proposal of this amendment and I think that the option is with the service provider to go for a penalty or not. In that, it merely asks the service provider to provide access in the absence of which he may be penalised. So, the option lies with the service provider to go in for a penalty or not.
    I think that the percentage as proposed is quite universal in so many areas. In that, it covers, when you increase your gross revenue or when you have a reduction. So, I am inclined to support the percentage as suggested by my Hon Colleague, the Hon Member for Suhum.
    Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Hon Members, I will put the Question on clause 4 (b).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 4 (d) --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, since we spoke in clause 4 (a) of a specific Minister, would it not be more --
    Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    I saw it. It should be consequential then.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker; instead of saying “Government and its agents”.
    Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Hon Members, do you get the point the Hon Minority Leader is making? We used the two Ministers, so, we are saying it should be consequential. We used “Ministers” there and we are using “Government” in clause 4 (d).
    Mr Avedzi 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, so we should change that one to “Ministries of Finance and Communications”?
    Mr Speaker, in addition to that instead of --
    Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    It is really a drafting issue, so, I will give the directive, so that it will capture the Ministers referred to in that section.
    Mr Avedzi 11:50 a.m.
    Yes. Mr Speaker, clause 4 (d), in addition to that, once we have amended clause 4 (b) --
    Mr Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Hon Members, let me ask you this question. We used the word “demonstrate”, how is he going to demonstrate it?
    Hon Member for Suhum, you used the word “demonstrate” before a High Court.
    Mr Opare-Ansah noon
    Precisely, Mr Speaker. If you look at (c ), it is talking about a number of things that the equipment should not be able to do. So, if it is the claim of any service provider -- Mr Speaker, it would not be a simple matter of proving. These are saying that some equipment will be intrusive into the network; they can listen in to your conversation; they can read your text messages if they are connected there. So, the idea is that, demonstrate to the court that indeed, if that piece of equipment is attached to your network --
    Mr Speaker noon
    Then we need to recast the amendment because, in effect, what you are saying is that, if that equipment will have the effect of achieving (c ), then the person should petition the High Court.
    Mr Opare-Ansah noon
    Mr Speaker, if you look at the last phrase, it is there.
    Mr Speaker noon
    It is there.
    Mr Opare-Ansah noon
    Yes.
    Mr Avedzi noon
    Mr Speaker, in (b ), we have to also amend the “any” in line 1.
    Mr Speaker noon
    It is consequential. I so direct. Wherever you see “any” starting the paragraph, it should be “a”.
    Mr Avedzi noon
    And Mr Speaker, in line 5 “demonstrate”-- we should add ‘s' to read “demonstrates”.
    Mr Patrick Yaw Boamah noon
    Mr Speaker, (d) on the same “demonstration”-- I think the reasoning behind it is for somebody who objects to it to bring an application before it to a High Court to show why he is objecting to it. So, I think it must be a bit clear as to the objector bringing up an application before a High Court to
    demonstrate why he or she objects to. So, the intention is on the provider originating something he or she objects to. That, I believe, is the reason behind this provision.
    Mr Speaker noon
    Yes, but is it clear? That is the question -- when you are creating an offence, it should be very clear. Is it clear?
    Mr Boamah noon
    Yes, Mr Speaker, to some extent.
    Mr Speaker noon
    So, should it be to some extent or to --
    MrBoamah noon
    Mr Speaker, I believe --
    Mr Speaker noon
    No! We have got the import but the rendition there, I do not know whether we can improve it a bit. Let me give you some time to look at it.
    Mr Alban S.K. Bagbin noon
    Mr Speaker, I think we need a draftsperson to clarify the clause because I do not think that the issue is objection to the introduction. I think the issue is, maybe, the provider is claiming that the introduction is going beyond what is permitted by the law --
    Mr Speaker noon
    Yes. It is going to offend paragraph (c ).
    Mr Bagbin noon
    Exactly.
    Mr Speaker noon
    Yes.
    MrBagbin noon
    But when you say “somebody who has an objection to the introduction” that is addressing some- thing different -- [Interruptions].
    Mr Speaker noon
    So, somebody who does not believe that the introduction will offend paragraph (c ) --
    Mr Bagbin noon
    It is not the introduction that is offending the (c ). It is just that the introduction is going beyond what is permitted by the law. So, it is a claim that has to be proved, not “demonstrate” -- demonstrating before the court. They are not technical people where you go with your equipment and try to demonstrate before them. But you have to prove your claim. You have to lead evidence before the court, to prove that the introduction of this equipment is going beyond what is permitted by the law.
    So, the terms used there is not objection. I think you are claiming that this thing is going beyond-- and before court, you prove that claim. So, we need the draftsperson to go and redraft that clause. As it is now, Mr Speaker, I will plead that we stand it down for this redrafting to be done before you put the Question.
    Mr Speaker noon
    How soon will that be? This is because as you are very much aware, this Bill has been on the Order Paper for a very long time.
    Hon Members, it is being suggested that we redraft the Bill, paragraph (d), so as to defer (d). Hon Member for Suhum, the amendment stands in your name. The principle is accepted by the House.
    Mr Opare-Ansah noon
    Mr Speaker, I think I agree with substituting the “proof” for “demonstration”. This is because, proving will certainly include some element of demonstration and then we can leave the rest of it for the draftspersons to clean up-- I meant if they want to re- arrange it to get the proper sense of what should be captured.
    But the idea is for the service provider that claims that this equipment will offend subsection (c) to prove so. That is the whole idea there and to do so, within the stipulated time lines.
    Mr Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Bagbin, have you got a rendition?
    Mr Bagbin 12:10 p.m.
    Not yet. Mr Speaker, I am just working on it, so that I will assist my Friend to redraft it.
    Mr Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, let us move to the Long Title.
    The Long Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Member for Suhum, the Hon Bagbin says he wants to get in consultation with you for us to get a rendition.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, once we are waiting for the two to put our heads together, I am just looking at clause 4 (b), that we have agreed to.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister for Finance is here with us; this Bill has been introduced and we are looking at monthly payment of taxes. We are saying that, if a person or a service provider defaults, then we should go and look at his audited account for the previous year and by way of penalty, extract 5 per cent of the annual gross revenue.
    Mr Speaker, it appears too punitive, not knowing what may occasion a default. There could be genuine reasons for a default but then we will have to know what is the expectation of Government for this rake in. And if you juxtapose that with the annual gross revenue and decide to attack it and say that 5 per cent of this

    annual gross revenue should come, just juxtapose the two-- Mr Speaker, that is the point.

    We are talking about failure or refusal; what occasioned it. That is what I am saying. We should be very equitable in this; we cannot say that you have refused to pay, let us say, GH¢1 million but we looked at your annual return and we have seen that last year, your gross revenue was GH¢1 billion, so, pay 5 per cent of your gross revenue for last year. Mr Speaker, in my view, it is outrageous.
    Mr Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, you may have a case but I have already put the Question. I have not put the Question on the entire new clause, so, maybe --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I know how you have been very flexible and charitable at Consideration Stage. That is why I am making this application, that if it is found worthy of reconsideration, we could attend to it because the figure involved could be something else.
    Dr Kunbuor 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, since I did not move the amendment, all I can say is that, I am more interested in the principle of deterrence. What figure satisfies that deterrence is not really a matter I am interested in. So, if it can be reduced to even one per cent and they think that it is still sufficiently deterrent across board for all the providers, I do not have a problem with it. We only want to give a posture of deterrence, to say, this is the red line and you do not cross it.
    As for the rest of the figures, I do not have a problem with it. But the Hon Member who made the amendment should be able to accommodate it and if he is minded to accommodate it, there is no problem.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think in this case, it is the Hon Minister who should be able to advise us on this. The purport of this is really on deterrence; I agree.
    Mr Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    It is not so much on revenue but deterrence; that is what we are being told in the House.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    So, let us look at that.
    Mr Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Minority Chief Whip, then after that, Hon Member for Abuakwa North.
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought I heard you say Minority Chief Whip.
    Mr Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Majority Chief Whip.
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:10 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, as the Minority Leader rightly mentioned, I would want to draw his attention to deterrence, not about revenue. If we do not put it up enough, it will be simple; I will just refuse and I will go and pay, if it is pittance. And the issue is not about revenue; the issue is that, it should be so punitive enough that you will not want to get there.
    Since the issue is not to collect the revenue, if you do not bring it up enough and say, one per cent, and the one per cent to the big companies does not mean anything, they will refuse and always pay. So, I think that we need to keep it at the 5 per cent, so that people will not even dare opt for the penalty.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Danquah 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, since you have opened up for reconsideration or for a few comments --
    Mr Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Actually, I am opening up, so that the mover of the amendment and the Hon Member for Nadowli/Kaleo will do their work.
    Mr Danquah 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is a historical background to this and as the mover of the amendment rightly put, when you look into the old law under section 14 (4), the reason the monitoring is not being done, there is a basis for it. That is why they want to make it very punitive, so that no one will deny the revenue agencies or their representatives the access. Hence, the deterrence of that 5 per cent.
    What is happening today is that, all they are doing is just the declaration. So, we would want to have a means of monitoring the invoicing table and tracking the invoicing table. Therefore, if we do not make it so punitive or so deterrent, there will be no desire on their part to allow such a thing to be done. So, let us keep it at that level of deterrence, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, do we put the Question today on this issue or we defer it? Today? Very well. If it will take a long time, we will move on to the next Bill, so that whenever they are ready, they can always come back and put the Question on the new subclause.
    Dr Kunbuor 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I will take a cue but I will actually be guided that the matter be taken today because the history of this particular amendment started with urgency and so, at every stage, no matter the --
    Mr Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Member for Old Tafo.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on the matter that Hon Alhaji Muntaka just talked about, I am not persuaded by the principle
    of deterrence, because they have not told us why 5 per cent is really that punitive. So, I ask, then why do you not make it 50 per cent if that is all you care about? There must be a reason.
    Mr Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    The reason they have explained is that, they use 5 per cent, so that it will be relative to the size of the company.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Communications Service Tax itself is 6 per cent and they are putting 5 per cent. They should tell us that 5 per cent is punitive because of a, b, c, d-- not all of us know the annual turnover. So, if it is only deterrence, then make it --
    Mr Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Member, I have asked the mover of the amendment to explain all these and he has provided answers to it.
    Hon Member for Nadowli/Kaleo, have you got the new rendition?
    Mr Bagbin 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are proposing a new rendition to read as follows:
    “A service provider who has an objection to the introduction of any equipment to a physical node of its network shall within 7 days of receipt of a request from the Minister or its appointed agents shall prove before a High Court the reasons for such an objection.”
    But we were trying to amplify the reasons to go into details.
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    You see, in your earlier submission, you made a very important point that it was not about the introduction of the equipment.
    Mr Bagbin 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he has come to explain --
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    You see, you made a very important point that it was not about the introduction but it was because it was going to offend paragraph (c).
    Mr Bagbin 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he has come to explain to me, that is the Hon Member for Suhum (Mr Opare-Ansah), that the experience so far is that the operators are able to tell by the nature of the equipment that one is going to use to attach to the nodes of their network, that it would go beyond what is permitted by the law. The nature of the equipment that --
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Even before the equipment gets there?
    Mr Bagbin 12:20 p.m.
    Even before the introduc- tion and so, they have been objecting to the use of those equipment. And so, we are saying that we should not just leave the objection there. Once they apply to introduce the equipment and one is of the view that it would offend clause 6, then within seven days, one should put that before the High Court and prove one's case.
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Very well. We have got the intention of the amendment on clause (4)(d). So, I would put the Question. If there is any further clarification, I would leave it to the draftsperson to do but the intention of the House is very clear.
    Mr Bagbin 12:20 p.m.
    That is so, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Members, I will now put the Question on the entire new clause.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    New clause as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Dr Akoto Osei 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you may want to bring the draftsperson's attention to clause 4(c ), the last but one line.
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    With regard to?
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:20 p.m.
    “Data,” It should be “data” not “date.”
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    All right.
    Table Office to take note.
    Yes, that brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage of the Communi- cations Service Tax (Amendment) Bill,
    2013.
    Hon Members, we go back to the original Order Paper and item 5 -- Minister for Finance.
    BILLS -- THIRD READING 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Members, item 6 on the Order Paper-- the First Deputy Speaker to take the Chair.
    MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon Majority Chief Whip?
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on the main Order Paper, item 6, we would want to continue from where we stopped the last time, which was clause 25, so that those which were left could be looked at.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    All right. Hon Members, we would deal with clause
    26.
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 12:25 p.m.
    STAGE 12:25 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Yes, Hon J. B. Danquah -- [Pause.] Hon Member, we are dealing with clause 26 and the amendment stands in your name.
    Mr Joseph B. A. Danquah 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there are a lot of proposed amendments to clause 26 in the name of the Chairman, so I think he has to come before I do.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Alhaji Amadu B. Sorogho 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, subclause (1), paragraph (b), line 2, delete “more” and substitute “less”.
    The import of that clause is that, if we do not have more than 25, we cannot -- But the way it has been captured, the word “less” best describes it. So, we just delete “more” and insert “less.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Alhaji Sorogho 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, subclause (1), paragraph (d), line 2, delete “mobile”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon Members, can we have some quiet in the Chamber? Hon Members, let us have some quiet.
    Yes, go ahead.
    Alhaji Sorogho 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what I said was that, there is the possibility that scratch cards may include landlines. So, if we put “mobile” there, we are restricting ourselves. So, just “telecommunications”, whether it is landline scratch cards or whether it is mobile or any service that relates to that, it is captured. So, that is also a straightforward amendment.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am sorry to take us back to clause 26(b); the amendment that was moved by the Chair. Mr Speaker, I am not too sure about the import of the amendment that has been moved by the Chair --
    “A person who is not a citizen or an enterprise which is not wholly owned by citizens shall not invest or participate in the operation of the taxi or car hire service in an enterprise that has a fleet of not less than twenty-five vehicles.”
    Mr Speaker, what is the import of this? Let the Hon Chairman reconsider the sense in what he has done.
    Alhaji Sorogho 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, even though you have already taken the vote on that, I would still want to go back and read the whole portion, so that we can understand it better.
    Alhaji Sorogho 12:30 p.m.


    “A person who is not a citizen or an enterprise which is not wholly owned by citizens shall not invest or participate in the sale of goods or provision of services in the market, petty-trading or hawking or selling of goods in a store at any place.

    (b) Shall not invest in the operation of taxi or car hire service in an enterprise that has a fleet of not less than…”

    It should be 25 or more. If you do not have 25 or more, you cannot operate. That is the meaning. You must have more than 25 to be able to register and operate. That is what we intend to bring out, so -- Now, he says that it is not correct, so, I do not understand him.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon Members, I think the Question has already been put, so, we will proceed.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect, let us take the sentence again --
    “A person who is not a citizen or an enterprise which is not wholly owned by citizens shall not invest or participate in the operation of taxi or car hire service in an enterprise that has a fleet of not less than twenty-five.”
    What it means is that the fleet should be more than 25 right? [Interruption.] So, what is here means that the fleet is more than 25. You are saying that the person cannot invest in that. Even if the fleet is not less than 25, that is, above 25, he cannot invest. Yes, read it.
    Mr Haruna Iddrisu 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect, whatever it is that the Hon Minority Leader has, you put the Question to it and it was agreed to. He may respect our procedures and come back to it.
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we can go this way and then clear the ambiguity. Mr Speaker, if you are going flexibility at the Consideration Stage, we can say, take off the “not” and then keep the “more”; so that it would give us--
    “The operation of taxi or car hire service in an enterprise that has a fleet of more than 25 vehicles . . .”
    It would give us the same.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon Members, we have already put the Question but I would suggest that the Hon Minority Leader would have to confer with the Chairman and his team to see if we have to come back to it subsequently after your discussions.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect, I guess we can close this. You see, if you introduce “less”, the word “not” should not be there; because that is where you cannot go. You cannot say that the -- [Interruption] -- yes. That is what it means. You are saying that you cannot invest in an enterprise that has a pool of cars of less than 25; you cannot come. So, what we have done is wrong.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Hon Members, that is why I am directing that, let us move forward; but then, we will still leave a window open. The Hon Minority Leader will sort it out with the Hon Chairman and his team and then if it becomes necessary for us to come back to it, we would do so; so, we can make some progress.
    Mr Joe Baidoe-Ansah 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, now that you are asking that they meet over it, I would want to introduce something.
    I believe that it is better to put monetary value on that rather than number of vehicles. This is because Mr Speaker, if you have someone bringing in, maybe, 10 Rolls-Royces, the value would be more than 25 cars and we are talking of car rental here.
    So, maybe, we should be looking at putting monetary value than talking about fleet. If we talk about “Tico” vehicle, 25 of them mean nothing. So, maybe, the direction we are going is not the way we should be going. We should be looking at putting monetary value just like we did in investment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Point well taken but I believe that you can discuss it further with the Chairman of the Committee and his team and let us see how we can make some progress.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just was trying to clarify the situation that -- the Hon Minority Leader, if you look at it carefully, there is a “not” up there and a “not” down here. So, it makes it a plus. It makes it such that we can do that. But to avoid any semantic problem, I think what he is proposing will be a better one without the “not” and “not”; yes -- “less than” and not “not” and “not”.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought the amendment was that --
    “A person who is not a citizen or an enterprise which is not wholly owned by citizens shall not invest or participate in the operation of taxi or car hire service in an enterprise that has a fleet of less . . .”
    I thought that was the amendment he moved -- [Interruption] -- It should be less; it should be less. I am sorry; then I was operating under a mistake. I mean, “not more” is “less” -- [Laughter.]
    Alhaji Sorogho 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am happy that we all understand where we want to go and where we want to go is that, we do not want foreigners to come and bring one taxi, two taxis and say they are operating. So, we would meet and do the right thing. I think the “not” should be off, so that “not less than twenty-five” --[Interruption] -- “less than twenty- five” --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Is that the sense of the House? Fine. Then in that case, I would put the Question again.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Now, can we move on to the next one, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Alhaji Sorogho 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move -- [Interruption.]
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Akoto Osei --
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think there is an amendment before the one he wants to move now -- subclause (1), xiv -- he should do that before we go on.
    Alhaji Sorogho 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, subclause (1) add the following new paragraphs:
    (e) production of exercise books and other basic stationery; and
    Alhaji Sorogho 12:40 p.m.


    (g) internal distribution and retail of finished pharmaceutical pro- ducts.”

    Mr Speaker, the amendment would have to go through another amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Let us deal with them one after the other. Let us deal with paragraph (e) first.
    Alhaji Sorogho 12:40 p.m.
    Then Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, subclause (1), add the following new paragraphs:
    “(e) production of exercise books and other basic stationery.”
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I oppose this proposed amendment. I have discussed my reasons with the Hon Chairman and the Hon Ranking Member. We already have foreigners who have established factories for the production of exercise books. If we pass this proposed amendment, are we saying that they will have to let go their factories?
    If I do not know at all, I know Vista 2000 that is producing exercise books and they have invested in this country for a very long period of time. And there is another one called Fine Print. Mr Speaker, when we do that and we are talking about investment promotion -- we need to be a bit careful.
    It is true that we want to protect some areas for our people, especially retailing. But to talk about production and having in mind others that are already in the system, I think the Hon Chairman and the Committee needs to look at this proposed amendment. I do not think it is proper.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman, how do you respond to the issue that he has raised?
    Alhaji Sorogho 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Committee met and we came out with this. But I think the Hon Majority Chief Whip met us this morning -- my Hon Ranking Member and myself -- and put this across. Mr Speaker, if it is the wish of the House, I do not have any problem. But the point that others were making was that, we cannot make a law for it to take retroactive effect. So, for that matter, those who are already in existence will not be affected by this law.
    Because of the “Repeals and Savings”, it is also saying that after three years, when this law comes into force, one would have to take steps to close his business if one falls into it. So, in effect, it is definitely going to affect it. That is where the problem is. But I do not have any problem if we take it out so long as it does not affect any Ghanaian negatively.
    Ms Hannah Tetteh 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do appreciate the concern raised by the Hon Majority Chief Whip but I beg to differ. I really do not think that this is a big deal.
    Mr Speaker, the point is this; yes, there may be companies that have invested in this sector. The important thing is to make sure that in this Bill, before it is finally passed, existing investments are protected. So that it is quite clearly stated that indeed -- and this is not meant to affect people who have already taken the investment decision based on represen- tations we have made in previous legislations.
    But when you look at the technology involved in the printing of exercising books, essentially, people are importing paper, they are getting machines to fold the papers to particular sizes, put covers on them and then sell them to our kids and students as exercise books. It is not sophisticated rocket science. And it is not a business that is too high in terms of the
    capital required for investment, for people who have small businesses to begin to start this way to develop businesses for themselves.
    So, I take on board the point entirely that we do not want to create the impression that we are going backwards to disenfranchise people and we must protect against that in the legislation.
    But I think that for businesses that are so simple and so easy and in terms of investment, do not require that much capital investment; there should be space created for the Ghanaian small entrepreneur to also create businesses and jobs.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think I share the concern of the Hon Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration. I agree with her perfectly.
    Of course, the Hon Majority Chief Whip actually consulted this morning, but we could not finish with the discussion. So, I have not given him my position.
    My position is that, yes, we have to find a way to protect those who are already in it. Initially, people were saying that if you pass a law, it has no retroactive effect and therefore, it protects them but I think it does not. So, we have to be clever and put it in here to protect them. That is number one.
    Number two -- I share the same view that those industr ies where the technologies are simple, we should allow as much as possible our people to get in there. Protectionism has its own advantages and disadvantages. But where the technology is very, very low, we have to protect our people to get in there.
    So, Mr Speaker, I think that, yes, we have to pass it based on this, but again, it has some protection for those who are already in operation.
    Mr H. Iddrisu 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in principle, we need to support our own Ghanaian businesses and in particular, when it comes to production of exercise books and other basic stationery.
    But Mr Speaker, in looking at it, let me indulge you and refer you to clause 43(5), just to guide us. When we get there, we would have to fine-tune it to protect this particular insertion that we are bringing.
    Mr Speaker, clause 43 is on “Repeals and Savings”. Mr Speaker, let me just read
    43 (5) --
    “A joint venture or an enterprise which on the date of coming into force of this Act has been registered under the Ghana Investment Promotion Centre Act, 1994 (Act 478) and which intends to continue to operate shall within three years after the commencement of this Act comply with the participation by citizens and minimum capital requirements under this Act or cease operations after the expiry of the three years.”
    So, in principle, production of exercise books and stationery can be supported. But it means that when we get clause 43, we must fine-tune it to protect the kind of additions that we are making. Other than that, we would be saying that if we do not open it up for Ghanaian investment, you must fold up; your business must come to terminal end. I do not think that that will be an investment promotion drive. Just for guidance.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in principle, I do not have a problem except that if the Hon Chairman can define what “basic stationery” is. It is not in the interpretation; I have no idea what basic stationery is.
    Alhaji Sorogho 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think we would define what “basic stationery” is. From here, I would even liaise with him and then we will all come together and see how we can get there. But we would define “basic stationery” so that it takes care of your concerns.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    So, do I have the sense of the House that paragraph (e) as originally presented would have to be deleted and then as the Hon Minister has indicated, we later fine- tune clause 43, so that it takes care of the concerns raised by Hon Members?
    Dr Kwabena Donkor 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in taking clause 43, I would want some clarification. How does this new law affect petroleum Agreements signed? How does-- it affect mining operations which come under the Mining Act, et cetera, recognising that for the first time --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Hon Member, can you hold your breath? When we get there, the issue would be addres- sed.
    Alhaji Sorogho 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, subclause (1), add the following new paragraphs:
    “(g) retail of finished pharmaceutical products”
    Mr Speaker, the reason is that, if we are not able to stop foreigners from importing finished pharmaceutical products, it will be difficult for us to say
    that he cannot distribute. Here, when we talk of distribution, it is moving the items from, for example, their warehouse in Accra into a warehouse in Kumasi -- a distribu- tion from one warehouse to another. But to the end user, which we call the retail, we are saying that no foreigner can enter there.
    It should be the preserve of Ghanaians. So, that is the amendment that we are moving at.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Members, any comments?
    Nii Kwartei Daniel Titus-Glover: Mr Speaker, how do we monitor from one warehouse to another?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    That is the reason for the amendment.
    Nii Kwartei Titus-Glover: Yes, Mr Speaker. But the point is that our own people -- I heard the beautiful submission made by the Hon Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration.
    Clause 26 in itself --exclusively for our own Ghanaian people. Mr Speaker, it is about capacity, whether the Ghanaian has the capacity to do that importation, the warehousing, the distribution or not. That is the angle that we want to come from. Why should Ghanaians struggle? Businesses that are meant for our own people -- That was the challenge that we had a few months ago, where the Chinese and the Indians and all these people were struggling with our people.
    But the question is, does the Ghanaian have that capacity? And my answer is, yes, they do. So, why? Why do we deny our people?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Hon Member, it looks like you are supporting the argument.
    Nii Kwartei Titus-Glover: Mr Speaker, I am supporting it, but the point is that the opening up for the foreigners is my challenge. The distribution from the warehouse -- who is going to monitor it? Ghanaian businesses have been denied that opportunity.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    All right. Hon Chairman, can you respond?
    Alhaji Sorogho 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he is the Hon Deputy Ranking Member of the Committee and we have been working together. But I think that initially, he would bear with me that the issue had to do with the importation of finished pharmaceutical products. That one, it came out clearly that there were so many laws, both international law, WHO, WTO, and so many, even though there are contrary views. So, the Committee -- [Interruption.] No! He has an amendment that he is proposing -- you are bringing that back? So, I would prefer that he holds on.
    Mr Danquah 12:50 p.m.
    On a point of order.
    Mr Speaker, my Hon Friend and Chairman said “WHO law”. There is nothing called “WHO law”.
    Mr H. Iddrisu 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in cons- truing or reading clause 26 as we were guided, it would read that --
    “A person who is not a citizen or an enterprise which is not wholly owned by citizens shall not invest or participate in the retail of finished pharmaceutical products.”
    That is what the Hon Chairman is proposing. It has our support.
    Mr Speaker, we have gone through -- [Interruption.] That is what the Hon Chairman proposed. Yes, he did. He is moving the internal distribution, like the example he gave, that from the warehouse, there is movement of the products which are still part of the distribution process. But what Government intends to do with
    this amendment is to reserve the retail of finished pharmaceutical products for only Ghanaians or Ghanaian enterprises.
    Mr Speaker, if you would permit me to respond to the Hon Deputy Ranking Member for the Committee on Trade and Industry, who, in his argument, brought in the word “importation”. We went through winnowing and the original provision was that we should say that --
    “Importation, internal distribution and retail of finished pharmaceutical products must be exclusively reserved for Ghanaians.”
    Our argument, which remains same is that, under our WTO protocols, you cannot restrict the importation of drugs only to citizens of your country. And we were guided by other former Hon Ministers for Health, that for instance, if a Global Fund or the World Health Organisation, for any reason, was supporting Government in the procure- ment of drugs, you would not satisfy the requirements if you so provided that only your citizens could bring in that particular drug. And we think that as critical as drugs are, you cannot at this point --
    Mr Speaker, for the guidance of our Hon Colleague, there is clause 26(2) which says that --
    “The Minister in consultation with the Board may by legislative instrument amend the list of enterprises reserved for citizens and enterprises wholly owned by citizens.”
    So, going into the future, the Board, in consultation with the Hon Minister, can expand the list. So, we think that we should support the Hon Chairman's amendment accordingly.
    I thank you.
    Mr Emmanuel K. Agyarko 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, point of information.
    Mr Emmanuel K. Agyarko 12:50 p.m.


    The Hon Minister for Trade and Industry speaks about Gates Foundation giving money to this country. Indeed -- [Interruption.] Global Fund. Indeed, Mr Speaker, for your information, Global Fund is vir tually supported by Gates Foundation.

    But let me use ‘Global Fund'. If Global Fund gives money to this country, it is a government procurement and it has nothing to do with private persons. It is a government procurement and therefore, the reference that the Hon Minister made is not well situated in the context of what he said.

    He is talking about limiting imports to Ghanaians. Mr Speaker, I think that an amendment is coming and therefore, it might be hasty to do it now. But just for information, if Global Fund gives money to this country, it comes directly to Government and that importation is done by the procurement department of the Ministry of Health.

    It is only for information.
    Dr Kunbuor 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I guess that we need to clarify the issue of Global Fund. At least, having been a Board member of Global Fund, I do understand.
    They vary the preconditions after every session when the allocations are done. And one of the major issues that cut across all the arrangements countries have with them is that, in the particular case of pharmaceutical products, the company must be WHO pre-qualified.
    I am yet to be updated, whether in the pharmaceutical industry in Ghana there is a WHO pre-qualified company. There is a difference between being an agent for a WHO pre-qualified company and being pre-qualified. In fact, as at the time I was
    in the Ministry, there was only one pharmaceutical company in Algeria, in the whole of Africa, that was WHO pre- qualified.

    That is why I am saying that beyond the WTO arrangements, you must be very careful about even your protectionist policies. They can end up being counter productive, and that is why that opening clause that allows this to be expanded in the future is a leeway for us to meet our international obligations and still be able to get the inflows.

    The second thing, I am sure the Hon Member who is well versed in that area can attest to. You all know the track record of fake drugs between national and global pharmaceutical companies in terms of ratio. If I remember, I did see one report, I am sure, at that time, the Hon Member had done -- and increasingly, it was those downstream which were more involved in these.

    It is like the mona therapy and generic drugs. All these arguments have gone. So, to protect your population from this insidious situation, will require that let us not begin to apply the brakes in the manner in which we want to apply it.
    Ms Tetteh 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to support the amendment as proposed by the Chairman and my reason being, I am aware of some of the backgrounds to this particular amendment. There were issues with some pharmaceutical companies in Ghana indicating that they had previously
    been agents for larger pharmaceutical companies that were producers of particular products. They had developed the market for them; they had been able to expand the acceptance of those products and then they had subsequently gone into agreement with other distributors essentially taking advantage of the network they had done.
    Therefore, the rationale as I understand it for this amendment, is to ensure that when you have a Ghanaian business within this country that has spent time and efforts in developing a certain segment of market share for a particular product, then in that case, it should not be the case that once that has been done, then they should be able to take it out from their purview and give it to somebody else to now take over the distribution of that product.
    This is because, essentially, it is not just a matter of taking the product and selling it. It is also convincing customers to accept that this is a product they want to work with.
    But Mr Speaker, we should not forget that the whole process of distribution of products of any manufacturer from the start of delivery from “X” factory to the final consumer, is a process in which the person who is manufacturing the products, is interested. This is because ultimately, it would affect the acceptability or otherwise of its product.
    So, therefore, to say that when it comes to the importation of products, they should not be in a position to determine who imports the product to prevent the kind of distinction that my Hon Colleague was referring to, where sometimes drugs are adulterated and faked and that they are not in the position to monitor the
    process of the distribution of the product, will be unfair, and indeed, would be counter productive. This is because you might find that, in retaliation to that not only do we have a situation where other manufacturing companies outside of Ghana, may be Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) begin to take retaliatory measures against our Ghanaian companies that are in the process of beginning to build their manufacturing capacity.
    This is because we do have businesses in Ghana that are building their manufacturing capacity working towards World Health Organisation (WHO) pre- qualification, indeed, have their markets for their products within ECOWAS and therefore, would be affected negatively if something like this was to start.
    Then you also have a situation where you might find yourself, or some of our businesses might find themselves in a situation where simply to avoid all of this that we have elaborated and debated on and passed, they can set up some part of the manufacturing process here, which then would entitle them to distribute their own products. After all, they are not bringing in finished products.
    So, let us not pretend that in passing an amendment that says that we are giving the importation, distribution and retailing to Ghanaians, we are creating a situation where people who have invested in the development of a product and have manufactured a product have no choice but to deal with Ghanaians. I think we should take a more expansive view, therefore, to limit, by the way this amendment does and to say that indeed, it should be exclusively for Ghanaians to retail the products.
    What we are saying is that, when it gets to the market, it can only get to the
    Ms Tetteh 1 p.m.


    market through a Ghanaian entrepreneur. However, we are not going to interfere with the process in such a way that ultimately, it could be to our disadvantage.

    It is for that reason that I rise to support the amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Hon Members, if I get the sense of this House, we are saying that foreign companies are not banned from importing, but as soon as it gets to Ghana, when the question of retail comes up, it should be restricted to Ghanaians? Do you get it? I think this is the sense of it.
    Mr Emmanuel K. Agyarko 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity. I would not support this amendment. But like I said, I would reserve my comments later. But I am a little worried about information before this House.
    I would want to state very clearly that we must make a very clear distinction between -- I do respect the position of the former Minister for Health, but I would want to state very clearly, that if GAVI Alliance gives money for vaccines, we necessarily must go to a WHO approved facility for it. There is no facility like this in Ghana, probably; in Africa, in Tunisia or Morocco; there may be one but not in for vaccines. That one is a government import; it is the processes consummated by the Procurement Department of the Ministry of Health.
    I think we must make a clear distinction between this one and what the Ghanaian businessman wants to do. The Ghanaian businessman has the right to -- in India, they call them Schedule M. So, long as the factory has passed the Indian Regulatory Schedule, any Ghanaian businessman can go there and procure.
    Mr Speaker, I really think that we should not confuse the issues. At the moment, the information before this House that is leading this business of -- let us not limit the import. It is confusing and it is not like that.
    Mr Speaker, GAVI Alliance gives us money. Global Fund gives us money. It is Global Fund to Government business and they must go to a WHO approved facility and buy a WHO -- In fact, apart from the facility the product must even be approved.
    So, if this is the basis for wanting to take out the import, Mr Speaker, in reality, that is not the case and I would humbly and respectfully add that I have been on top of this. For seven years, I was Chief Executive of the Foods and Drugs Board, so, I would respectfully say that, I speak from a position of knowledge. Mr Speaker, we must make the distinction very clear.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    It is because of your experience that we are listening to you. But my question is, to what extent, does that affect what we are dealing with now? Do you get my point? To what extent? You have said that later in the process, you have some points to raise.
    I believe that we will just bid our time. When it gets to that point, you will make those points clear. But in the meantime, we are only talking about foreigners being allowed to import but not to get involved in retail.
    Dr Kunbuor 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I certainly do respect the Hon Member's years of knowledge in this matter. But the pharmaceutical aspect of it is a completely different arrangement. This is because he says Global Fund gives money to Ghana; what does giving money to Ghana mean? It is structured under an initiative whether
    GAVI, Global Fund or not and this is based on an understanding. It is not that they just get up and say; Ghana, come and take money and go and buy Malaria drugs.”
    The second point that he has to take note of, is, he should look at the percentage, the ratio between annual Government of Ghana (GoG) allocation for importation of pharmaceuticals as a ratio of what you get from these agencies. Your appropriation annually to buy pharmaceutical products is almost negligible. So, over 70 per cent of your pharmaceutical products come through these various arrangements that you have had and it is not just a simple choice.
    That is a different arrangement from a private person who decides that he is bringing in his pharmaceutical products. There is a difference between the two. You do not just go to Global Fund and you do not send anything to Global Fund, but because they like your name or face or country, they say, “Take money”. You do a country report, and the country report must satisfy the requirements of Global Fund.
    They must come and carry out the nature of the particular pharmaceutical product you need in relation to Malaria, Tuberculosis and HIV. It is not just pharmaceutical and that is why I am indicating that, let us be very careful about this issue.
    I am all out in leaving the entire retail trade, hundred per cent to Ghanaians. And if the importer knows that he cannot retail, we have not done anything to short- change our people.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    I think this issue was for the Hon Member to give us some information which he has done. So, subsequently, when the other issues come up, we will listen to his contribution.
    Dr Prempeh 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the sense of the House is to take “importation” out, that is for the House to decide. I was looking forward to hearing the arguments for those who are saying we should take “importation” out.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Leader of the House is perfectly correct, likewise my Hon Friend who is the former Chief Executive Officer of the Food and Drugs Authority. Mr Speaker, why? When we say import and we say restrict the import to a Ghanaian, if Ghana Government is going to import from GAVI or World Health Organisation (WHO) approved, that is not the issue.
    Mr Speaker, I would say that is not the issue, even the Ghanaian, who is going to import, would not import from Ghana, he is going outside to import. Mr Speaker, whether it is Ghana Government through its protocols or WHO or individuals, that is not the issue. It is a Ghana citizen or Ghana Government.
    So, if the House wants to take away “importation” -- but the arguments so far proffered for taking out “importation” do not exist. This is because whether Ghana Government or individual citizens bring in finished pharmaceutical products into the country, if we say import, Ghana Government can import, it is Ghanaian and ordinary Ghanaians can import. The essence of it is to prevent a foreigner, Mr Speaker, and that is the key thing.
    I would give you three examples of industries. Tata products, like the Hon Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration said, was developed and accepted by a Ghanaian company. Now, the Indians have brought their own into it to sell Tata products. Mr Speaker, Jaguar -- they are coming.

    Mr Speaker, Hon Hackman Owusu- Agyemang, former Member of Parliament for New Juaben North, he developed Ghanaian taste for pampers, what has happened?

    They have taken it and given it to an Indian to come and sell in this country. That was the essence of what we are talking about.

    Mr Speaker, a lot of Ghanaian pharmaceutical companies which have developed the product in this country, registered it through the Food and Drugs Authority, are now coming themselves after the market has matured. That is the issue. If the sense of the House is to take out “importation”, let us take it out. I do not have a problem. But the arguments advanced in the Hansard do not exist.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in respect of clause 26, we are talking about a person who is not a citizen and what do we mean by a “citizen”? I think that it is rather “citizen” that must be defined. We have rather “Ghanaian” that has been defined to mean:
    “Ghanaian means a citizen of Ghana or company, partnership or association or body (whether corporate or unincorporated) the majority capital or financial interest of which is owned by citizens of Ghana and includes the State and a statutory corporation.”

    This is because clause 26 says these things could be done by a citizen. What do we mean by a “citizen”? That is what I am saying that we rather should interpret “citizen”.

    But having said that, Mr Speaker, I have a little worry about the clause 26(g). This is because the original started like this:

    “. . . internal distribution and retail”

    Now, we have deleted “internal distribution and …” We are talking about retail; is it the internal retail that we are talking about or any retail at all? That is the thing that we should concern ourselves with.

    The point I am making is that, in that case, the fellow is not exempted. So, he could do the retail in a semi-finished product. [Interruption.] Yes, that is what you are saying. Why do you say, no? This is because he can then do that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, I think it is a point worth considering because we are now describing the product as finished and therefore, these regulations would apply. But if it is semi-finished, what happens?
    Alhaji Sorogho 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if it is semi-finished, it is still a raw material. It is coming and you will add value. Whatever the value is, you would still have to add value for it to become finished. That one, it is in Ghana. But we are talking of finished pharmaceutical products that are imported from outside Ghana. These are two different things. If we say that then we cannot even do anything.
    Mr Speaker, DANGOTE Cement, they import the raw cement power and when they come here, they put it into bags and they call it raw materials. Somebody brings the actual cement in a bag, that is finished cement. So, these are two different issues.
    Mr Speaker, I understand the import of his contribution. But anything which is not finished, is not finished. Something that goes straight to the end user where he can use it without adding value, is what we are talking about. It is a clear thing.
    Mr H. Iddrisu 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we have heard various arguments including the one which has just been raised by the Hon Minority Leader. We would have extreme difficulty defining “citizen” under this particular Act. It is a matter that the Constitution itself has dealt with. But the idea of this provision as the Hon Member himself has recognised is to reserve certain businesses for Ghanaians as a way of promoting indigenous Ghanaian business growth and Ghanaian contribution to the development of our economy.
    Mr Speaker, today, as we speak, there exist in Ghana manufacturing companies, foreign owned, locally owned, some joint ventures. Some of them are engaged in the manufacture of finished pharma- ceutical products. All that the Hon Majority Leader said in support of the Chairman's argument, which we have heard is that, reserve the retail of finished pharmaceutical products for Ghanaians.
    Let it be done only by Ghanaians, so that even if foreigners import drugs into this country, the retailing of that business must be the exclusive reserve of Ghanaians.
    Mr Speaker, many of the companies that already exist in Ghana and we are supporting even our own manufacturing company -- [Interruption] -- We have Danadams; we have Ernest Pharma- ceutical, we have M&G Pharmaceutical Company -- many of them intend tomorrow to export their products. We must avoid action that would invite retaliatory measures that we are told that you cannot also send your product to another foreign country unless citizens of that country brought it in.
    Some day, in the foreseeable future, clause 26 provides that the Minister in consultation with the Board can expand the list. We can work up to the future but for now, let us have a consensus on reserving just retail of finished pharma- ceutical products for Ghanaians, not raw materials in the form of unfinished products.
    Ms Tetteh 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just wanted to make the point that I am not aware that there is any pharmaceutical company that is manufacturing in Ghana, that essentially develops the raw materials for the manufacturing of the pharmaceutical products here in Ghana.
    They import semi-processed products and then they go through the process of it as if it were blending, packaging et cetera. So, you have a situation where - - there is one company that I know they were close to it but as at the time I was leaving office as Minister for Trade and Industry, I was not aware they have done so.
    Indeed, when you look across the whole manufacturing spectrum, apart from agricultural products that are grown in Ghana and may be wood products that also are products of Ghana, because of our forest resources, there is very little
    Ms Tetteh 1:20 p.m.


    manufacturing that takes place without some form of unfinished products being imported into the country undergoing further processing and then packaging and then sold in our markets.

    So, when we cross into the area of unfinished products, when you start talking about semi processed products and we do not begin to create a ban as it were or a limitation that only applies to Ghanaians, we may be going -- even in the pharmaceutical sector into dangerous territory. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I think that the point that Hon Members want to protect, indeed, Ghanaians who have developed businesses, should be able to benefit from those businesses. I agree with him entirely.

    This is because it is not fair for somebody to invest in establishing a market for his products and to have that taken away from them. But the defect that we want to cure, we should not go in to over kill and then create a problem for other Ghanaian businesses in future.

    Mr Speaker, that is the point that I am trying to make.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Let us defer to the Second Deputy Speaker, after that we can proceed.
    Mr Joe Ghartey 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, two quick contributions.
    The Minority Leader said citizenship should be defined rather than -- I think the Minister for Trade and Industry has told us that “citizenship” is in the Constitution. But there is also a reason why it was “Ghanaian” which was defined. Because the principle of company law is that a company takes the nationality of the country it is incorporated in.
    So, it has been an integral part of foreign direct investments -- the laws relating to foreign direct investments that the view of incorporation is lifted and the company which is operating under a law on foreign direct investment, what a Ghanaian means is defined. And so, when you even look at the history of our previous laws dealing with investment, you would see that we have come to a position where now the majority capital and financial interests must be owned by Ghanaians.
    It used to be the case that even minority ownership by Ghanaians may be possible for the company to be defined as Ghanaian. So, it is important that this provision is here and it is explained in this way rather than the other way round. I also hear quite a number of Hon Members, including the Minister for Trade and Industry buttressing their arguments by relying on clause 26 (2), which seems to give us some leeway because we are told that the Minister, by Legislative Instrument (L.I.), can amend the list of enterprises reserved for citizens.
    I have a little difficulty and maybe at the Second Consideration Stage, we shall bring it forward, being that, I find it difficult to see how they can, by an L.I., amend an Act of Parliament. So, perhaps, as we are looking at it, we should not seek refuge there because in reality, that will not eventually offer us any refuge in the way that it is couched presently.
    In spite of that Mr Speaker, I support the amendment as it is captured.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am the Ranking Member of this Committee, but I have been persuaded by arguments that are going round in the House. I was particularly persuaded by the former Minister for Trade and Industry; she looks like a Trade Minister even now that
    she is in the Foreign Ministry; so people refer to her as the Trade and Industry Minister. But the Foreign Ministry-- when it comes to clause 26 (e), production of exercise books, there is clause 43 that actually allows those who are already in operation to continually continue ad infinitum and that we should amend it to ensure that those investments in those areas are not really affected by that.
    If that is true and that we can do that in this law, then I do not see any reason we should not actually put importation here, so that we actually allow it. And those who are already in importation and are foreigners, can continue ad infinitum. But when we met the Ghanaian side of the equation, their concern is not about those who are already in but the influx, the people who are rather coming in right now.
    So, if that is the case, then let us make it a law, reserving it to Ghanaians but making sure that those who have already invested in it are not affected by that law. If that can be done, I think I would go in for the importation as well as the distribution.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Hon Members, I think this has been the line of argument all along. I do not think we need to go any further because we are saying that there is a provision being made for Ghanaians to deal with retail. We are not shutting the door to foreigners from importing. Then there is this other clause which will protect those already in the business before the commencement of this law.
    So, I think we have taken care of all these concerns raised. I think we should make some progress. Can we therefore, put the Question? The rendition as presented by the Chairman of the Committee, that is we are dealing with item (g ) -- item (g).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Papa Owusu-Ankomah 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am sorry if I am taking you back. But I notice that we have (e ) and (g ). I do not know whether you have already introduced some amendments on it.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:30 p.m.
    No! We have not; it is a new amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Thank you for drawing our attention. I think the Table Office should take note and effect the correction. I hear it is a typographical error.
    Alhaji Sorogho 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the next amendment does not stand in my name; it stands in the name of Hon Mensah Woyome.
    Mr Mensah K. Woyome 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, subclause (1), add the following new paragraph:
    “(c ) freight forwarding and clearing”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Hon Member, in order to make the following more understandable, can you read the full rendition if it should be allowed?
    Mr Woyome 1:30 p.m.
    Unfortunately, I do not have the full rendition. Yes, Mr Speaker, that “a person who is not a citizen or an enterprise which is not wholly owned by citizens shall not invest or participate in freight forwarding and clearing.”
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am sorry to -- it is not exactly a point of order. But I know that we have another amendment standing in the name of Hon Kofi Brako on freight forwarding and customs house agency. I am wondering whether we cannot try and reconcile the
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 1:30 p.m.


    two. If you look at clause 26 (g) on page 8 (2), we have “procurement and internal retail and distr ibution of finished pharmaceutical products” by Hon J. B. Danquah. I am sure he is abandoning it or something -- [Interruptions.] No, no, I am saying that we have already dealt with clause 26 (g), “internal distribution and retail of finished pharmaceutical products”.

    So, assuming the House accepts it, does mean that this is also going to be another head, “Procurement and internal retail and distr ibution of finished pharmaceutical products”? I am just suggesting that where some of these amendments seem to be close together, we try and see if we cannot reconcile them before we come to the floor of the House, instead of going through this whole process that we would be repeating ourselves on unnecessary issues.
    Mr Woyome 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, actually, I have had discussions with my Colleague, Hon Kofi Brako and we are flowing in the same line and we want to probably move this jointly under the circumstances, so that we would want to add as he has written “freight forwarding and customs house agency”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Hon J. B. Danquah, is that correct? Who is the mover of the other one? Is that correct that you want to move it jointly?
    Mr Brako 1:30 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, that is correct.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    That will save us time. So, now, go ahead and give your reasons for those amendments.
    Alhaji Bashir Fuseini Alhassan 1:30 p.m.
    -- rose --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Are you up on a point of order?
    Alhaji B. F. Alhassan 1:30 p.m.
    Yes. Mr Speaker, there are two amendments proposed. And they are materially different. One says, “freight forwarding and clearing”; the other one says, “freight forwarding and customs house agency”. One must be withdrawn. He has not withdrawn it, he should withdraw it. Mr Speaker, if they intend to move them together, they must withdraw one because they are different. Which one are they withdrawing?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    He has abandoned his in preference for one by his Colleague on the other side.
    Alhaji B. F. Alhassan 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, sorry, I did not hear him say he has abandoned it.
    Dr Kunbuor 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is because of the nature of the proceedings. He was actually in the process of moving his amendment when the Hon Member for Sekondi raised an issue that this could be consolidated in a way.
    So, he had actually not finished moving the amendment. If he has to actually abandon the amendment, it must be said so expressly. --[Interruption] --
    I am also here and I am saying that I would want the Hon Member to withdraw his amendment expressly and we can proceed, because we are dealing with official records.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Very well, I thought I heard him do so but for the avoidance of doubt, Hon Member, will you please, go ahead and withdraw it?
    Mr Woyome 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I withdraw my proposal that we add “freight forwarding and clearing” and in support of “freight forwarding and customs house agency” as moved by Hon Kofi Brako.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Hon Brako, can you now have the floor to move your proposed amendment?
    Mr Brako 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, subclause (1), add the following new paragraph:
    “(e) freight forwarding and customs house agency”.
    Mr Speaker, I do this based upon the fact that, customs house agency has already been reserved for Ghanaian citizens by a Legislative Instrument (L.I.) 1178 of 1978. Mr Speaker, the activities under clause 26 are purely reserved for citizens of Ghana. I am therefore, introducing this amendment to deepen the status of GIPC as a one-stop shop.
    Mr Speaker, I am doing this because currently, a lot of foreigners are now venturing into this industry. GIPC as I see, this Bill is a Bill of one-stop shop by introducing this particular amendment into it. My hope and my desire are that if any individual or a foreigner decides to invest in this country, his attention would be called to the fact that customs house agency and freight forwarding are reserved for Ghanaian citizens.
    Alhaji Sorogho 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to beg that he withdraws and drops the amendment. Mr Speaker, already, I have had extensive discussions with him this morning. And Mr Speaker, SMCD -- [Interruptions.] Oh, please, please, please.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, if you oppose his amendment, just make your point. At the end of the day, whether he will withdraw it or not, will be up to him.
    Alhaji Sorogho 1:30 p.m.
    I am making my point.
    Mr Speaker, SMCD 188-- There is already a law that bans what he is saying; it has already been taken care of in the law. This morning, when we met; he said that he wanted it to be re-emphasised in
    the GIPC Bill and I asked why? “Already, he said it was not being enforced and I said, the mere fact that it goes with the GIPC, does not mean that it would be enforced. So, there is a problem of enforcement and so, we must find ways and means of enforcing it and not to make another law. Yes, there is a law.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, can you read out the rendition in SMCD and then can you be sure that, that one has not been repealed? We have to be sure that it has not been repealed and that it is still in force. But you read out what it says.
    Alhaji Sorogho 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the arrangements are as follows:
    “Be it enacted by the Supreme Military Council as follows:
    (i) Customs house agency to be licensed. No person shall engage in the business of customs house agency unless that person has been granted a licence by the Controller of Customs and Excise or an officer authorised in that behalf in accordance with regulations made under this Decree”.
    I think Hon Papa Owusu-Ankomah is very much aware of this law. He came and we had the discussion and he said, yes, the law is there; it is true but he wanted it to be re-emphasised in the other law and I did not see why we should do that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    But Hon Chairman, if I heard you right -- [Interruptions.] Please, order, order, order!
    If I heard you right, it says; you cannot engage in it until you are licensed but it does not restrict it to Ghanaian citizens; that is it.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect to the Chairman, we have to be very careful. The Chairman should not assume the authority of barring Members from making an amendment. He is going to refer to an L.I. we want it in an Act. That is what the Hon Member is seeking to do but as the Chairman, I have talked to him all day.
    He is an Hon Member and he does not kowtow to the whims of the Chairman. He has the right to speak for himself and you are talking about a Legislative Instrument. We want it as part of this Act. What he read was the license.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    All right. Hon Member, point well made.

    Hon Members, please, address the Chair.
    Mr H. Iddrisu 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my atten- tion was drawn to this proposed amendment by our Hon Colleague and Hon Woyome on this side. I facilitated a meeting between the GIPC and the Ghana Revenue Authority.

    The Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) says that they issue the licence and that their attention had not been drawn to the fact that this particular provision of the law was not being enforced and that once it has been brought to their attention, they would be proactive in doing it.

    But we do not have a problem reserving the principle exclusively for Ghanaians except that on the advice of GRA, they think it is their responsibility to do it.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the Minister for Trade and Industry does not have any problem with it, then I believe we should support the amendment. Ghana Investment Promotion Centre (GIPC) is not an enforcement agency. But if there was a lot of rumpus about foreigners doing business in Ghana contrary to the GIPC law, it was the Ministry of Trade and Industry that was being pressurised to ensure that this thing was not done.
    However, if GRA -- We are dealing with Communications Service Tax and so forth, GRA is the agency responsible for collecting the tax, et cetera. but it is not the agency responsible for licensing.
    When this amendment is introduced into this law, it would then make it clear so that even when one wants to register a company, that is the customs house agent for freight forwarding, it is clear on the face of the law that foreigners or non- Ghanaians are not involved; simple. But to say that because they have to be licensed, they would have to be registered before they are licensed; the fact that one registers does not mean that one can be licensed to operate.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think we should be certain whether the Decree that the Chairman quoted from, has not been repealed. Mr Speaker, clearly it has been repealed -- [Interruption] -- It is not there. The amendment to the Customs Act, 1993, what he quoted, is not there.
    This is the current one that he spoke about -- [Interruption] -- He did not quote PNDCL; he quoted SMC Decree 188. That is what he quoted -- [Interruption] -- Do not pretend, Mr Chairman; that is what you quoted to this House -- [Interruption.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, please, address the Chair.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is what we should concern ourselves with.
    In any event, if we are consolidating this into this new Act, what is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with it. So, if we agree to the principle as the Minister himself has agreed to, let it find expression here and I guess we can move on.
    Mr Joe Ghartey 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what is the purpose of this Bill? Among other things, this Bill clearly seeks to specify the areas of law reserved for Ghanaians. Mr Speaker, one of the characteristics of a good investment Act is that it creates certainty. If I am a foreigner seeking to invest in Ghana, I look at one Act and then I know what I can do and what I cannot do. Indeed, there are other areas that are in other laws which are restricted to Ghanaians, for example, fishing.
    When you look at the Fishing Act for trawlers and so on, it is restricted to Ghanaians. And so, in my view, not only this amendment -- I support this amendment; but any other law and at the Second Consideration Stage, we would be seeking to consolidate our law relating to investment, so that if I am a foreigner coming to invest in Ghana, there is certainty.
    Just now, if a foreigner instructs a lawyer that he wants to invest in Ghana, his nature of business-- Is this L.I. which several of us were not even aware of, we may find the situation where we incorporate at the companies registry and when one gets to the GIPC, they themselves may know or may not know. And in the course of doing business, one is then told that there is an L.I. that stops them from doing that.
    In any event, Mr Speaker, if the GIPC Act which is a superior law sets out the areas that are restricted for Ghanaians, then what is the effect of this L.I. if we do not elevate it and insert it into the new Act?
    So, Mr Speaker, I think that this question about whether GRA is the responsible agency for regulating customs or not, is neither here nor there. There are several businesses, as the Hon Member for Sekondi said, if one comes into the communications sector, you would be regulated by the National Communications Authority (NCA). There are several sectors that one would be regulated by other authorities. This Act is not a regulation Act.
    Dr Kunbuor 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I find myself heavily constrained to join this debate because of the way the issues are going.
    It is, in my view, for me, very interesting that in a highly liberalised economy, a number of the essential ingredients of economic liberalism and even neo-liberalism is being crucified at this particular point and I am happy. The only thing I am worried about is that, we should make sure that we do not sterilise particular economic enclaves.
    It is a good thing to protect an area of the industry for citizens but we must be sure that, that particular area would indeed, be taken up and the entire space would be occupied and it would perform. If it is the mere fact of simply sterilising it and it remains there, it is bound to create distortions in other related sectors of the economy. That is why I think that we should look at it in a holistic manner.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    All right.
    Hon Members, Hon Markin and then after that we come to the Hon Minister for Trade and Industries.
    Several Hon Members -- rose --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    We have very little time left now but I want to feel the sense of the House before we make any decision.

    Nii Kwartei Titus-Glover: Mr Speaker, having listened to the Hon Majority Leader, I am very confident and sure that the freight forwarders and the customs house agents are not afraid of competition. Globalization and its political allies, does not mean that our own people must be restricted and not protected.

    Mr Speaker, I hold in my hands, the eligibility criteria of the United States of America of who becomes a customs broker and I beg to quote, with your permission:

    “1. He must be a United States citizen of at least 21 years old

    2. He must not be a current Federal Government employee.

    3. He must possess a good moral character.”

    Now, when you go to India, Mr Speaker, the applicant must be a citizen -- [Interruption] -- Registration of Customs House Agent in India.
    Dr Prempeh 1:50 p.m.
    None

    Nii Kwartei Titus-Glover: We are here in this country, Mr Speaker, the clause 26 -- Whatever has been adduced in this plenary -- how do we protect our own? And we are saying that there is the need for us to have the preservation for the Ghanaian agent. So, what are we talking about?
    Dr Prempeh 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on a point of order.
    I am surprised my Hon Colleague quotes from India so profusely and adds the United States of America to buttress his point. What about the Legislative Instrument (L.I. of 1978)? Why does he not quote it? Since 1978 -- he should say that one and stop America and India.
    Nii Kwartei Titus-Glover: I was coming to that. The L.I. 1178 of 1978, clause 4 and with your permission, I beg to quote:

    shall be granted to any persons unless he is --

    1. A citizen of Ghana;

    2. Not less than 21 years of age.

    3. A good character and business integrity certified by any association of custom house agents”.

    So, Mr Speaker, that is not exactly what we are doing. So, I would appeal to the Hon Chairman that he should allow us to make an input and cleverly listen to the Hon Second Deputy Speaker. We want to lift it from the L.I. into an Act of Parliament, so that anyone who picks this document, would understand that this is a preserve for the Ghanaian people.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Members, as much as possible, if a point has been raised by one Hon Member or the other, let us not repeat it. As I said, we have very little time.
    So, I will direct that we sit beyond the stipulated time, but then for only 15 minutes outside of the stipulated time because no arrangements have been made, I am informed.
    Alhaji Muntaka 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I oppose this amendment. Mr Speaker, my reasons for opposing this amendment are that --
    1. It is already in an existing L.I;
    2. Mr Speaker, the impression that it may create -- an impression that we the Parliament of this country are more or less, not in favour of foreigners participating.
    Mr Speaker, Ghana is a leading country in Africa that is championing integration. We talk about integration of West Africa; we talk about integration of Africa. And I would want us to be careful because we have signed so many treaties in line with these. We already have it in a Regulation, and Mr Speaker, as you may know, it is much easier to make changes in a Regulation than when it is in an Act.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to beg my Hon Colleagues who are proposing the amendment, that while this amendment is in an existing Regulation, let us leave it at that level. Let us not try to put it in an Act because we may have it more difficult, if it is in an Act, to change it than if it is in a Regulation.
    So, Mr Speaker, I oppose this amendment.
    Alhaji B. F. Alhassan 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment must be opposed. It must be opposed because if we open the floodgates for such amendments, then
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Order! Order!
    Now, Hon Member, please, address the Chair; yes, go ahead.
    Alhaji B. F. Alhassan 1:50 p.m.
    And there are many such businesses that are exclusively preserved for Ghanaians under the parent legislation of those businesses. So, Mr Speaker, I hear about this being under Legislative Instrument. But Mr Speaker, the Legislative Instrument does not have a life of its own; it is founded on a parent law. And that law is SMC Decree 188, in particular, section 7.
    Mr Speaker, why should we not include this? Look at clause 26. Mr Speaker, clause 26 is sub-titled “Entry, admission and protection of investment”.

    Mr Speaker, let us look at the draftpersons, within their contemplation, what they were looking for --

    But we have to look at the historical antecedents. What was the law anti- cipating? The law anticipates the involvement of a great number of Ghanaians and Ghana has the respon-

    sibility to provide employment for its citizens. And so, if a great number of Ghanaians would enter into a business and that business can be invaded by foreigners, it ought to be protected. That was the intendment of the law.

    Mr Speaker, two -- The operation of taxis -- [Interruption] -- The operation of taxis, a great number of Ghanaians are involved in it.

    Three -- The operation of a beauty salon -- Mr Speaker, it cannot be within the contemplation of anybody than the operation of a beauty salon can be open to the encroachment of other persons.

    Mr Speaker, the fifth one, by the inclusion and the ingenuity of my Hon Brother, the Hon Minister for Trade and Industry, when he was the Hon Minister for Communications, he insisted that the printing of mobile phone cards must be done locally by Ghanaians to create employment.

    Mr Speaker, how many people are in freight forwarding services in this country? [Interruption.] Yes. So, the evidence must be here for us to know which particular kinds of people are we protecting.

    My problem is that if we open the floodgates -- Mr Speaker, if we open the floodgates of restricting the involvement, we would be creating a restricted corridor for people and creating wreck-seeking -- What is happening now is symbolic of wreck-seeking. People who have businesses are trying to protect those businesses and that should not be entertained in this house.
    Mr George Aboagye 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have here in the parent Act, two issues -- Registration and also the SMC Decree Licensing. Now, what I see is that for
    some of us, Registration is the issue, to be registered with GIPC. And then also there is a standing Regulation that requires that the clearing agents be licensed by the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA).
    Now the issue, as far as I am concerned, is that Maersk and the big players are not necessarily the ones that are doing the clearing --[Interruption] -- It is the Ghanaian --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Hon Members, please, let us listen to him, so that we could also contribute meaning- fully. Please, let us have some order.
    It is the Ghanaian operators at the ports who provide this service. Now, the concern being expressed here is that there are Chinese and other foreigners who bring in their own clearing agents to do the clearing for their goods as well.
    Now, there is also the issue of retaliation. We have Ghanaians in Germany, Nigeria and other places who are in the same businesses in those countries. Now, are we ready to experience this kind of retaliation should we close this door to foreigners? So, these are issues we should consider in all this.
    As far as I am concerned, we could apply the Regulation to the licensing, and added to this Act, we can make a Regulation that will specify who qualifies to operate in this area and leave it open for investment promotion purposes. This is because if we put this sort of information or material in the Act, it could be counter- productive. This is my opinion.
    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    Mr Dominic B.A. Nitiwul 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it was the same reaction I had with regard to both the Hon Minister and my Friend, the former Chief Executive. Mr Speaker, they admit, in one breath that it is in the parent Act, then they argue again that if we put it here, it will lead to a problem. What is their argument?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Hon Member, they are saying that it is in a Legislative Instrument (L.I.).
    Mr Nitiwul 2 p.m.
    No! He argues that the L.I. is driven from the parent Act and that parent Act has not been repealed. And they argue that if we transfer it to the encompassing law, which has to do with investment, then it is bad. What is their argument then? Mr Speaker, is it about putting it here that is their problem or it is about the Act itself that limits it to Ghanaians that is their problem? Has the Act been repealed? No! So, what are they arguing about?
    Mr Speaker, it is repetitive. Let us put it in there and let everybody who looks at the Act know that if one is a foreigner, this is what one can do and this is what one cannot do. It is as simple as that. The Act has not been repealed. Otherwise, they should bring that Act and let us repeal it if they are against the fact that it should be opened to foreigners.
    In any case, which Ghanaian in China is allowed to do freight forwarding? Which Ghanaian? Let us be factual with ourselves.
    Prof . Gyan-Baffour 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the mood of the House is that we really need to think through this clause very, very well. So, I would suggest that maybe, we defer it until tomorrow.
    Mr Speaker, the main rationale why I am saying that, is, it looks like we are using the law to actually come out with the policy on investment rather than using
    Mr H. Iddrisu 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am utterly surprised the Hon Ranking Member would make a statement to the effect that the Memorandum accompanying this Bill does not provide clarity on the policy direction for the review of Act 478, it does. And I may refer him to the first three or four paragraphs of the Act. Under Act 478, certain businesses, particularly domestic small scale businesses were reserved as a
    way of our own people contributing to the alleviation of poverty and contributing to the economic development of our country in that vein.
    Mr Speaker, this Bill does not seek to come for -- What I would put in a polite way -- “A takeover of businesses” exclusively reserved for Ghanaians. Not at all. That is not the intention. This Bill is intended to position the Ghana Investment Promotion Centre as the Centre respon- sible for encouraging and promoting investment in our country.
    I emphasise at the Second Reading Stage that in this respect, we are talking about Foreign Direct Investment and Domestic Investment. Therefore, we should work in a way that stimulates the investment.
    Mr Speaker, on the issue before hand, I initially indicated that to the extent that it was to create businesses for Ghanaians, I had no objection. Mr Speaker, but may I refer you to Customs House Agents Licensing Decree 1978 (SMCD 188). Mr Speaker, in the definition column, I refer you to “business of custom” -- And I am providing basis to strongly oppose the addition and inclusion of what my Hon Colleague suggested. It says:
    “Custom business means the preparation, signing and presenting of documents with respect to the imports and exports of goods under this Decree.”
    Now, section 26 says that “a person who is not a Ghanaian shall not invest in or participate in …” - For instance -- And I urge the Hon Ranking Member to observe this -- The GcNet operation is a custom related business -- Single window. Destination inspection -- Single window. They are all custom related. Now, one cannot say that a person cannot
    invest in that infrastructure because tomorrow, we would need an investment to improve the single window infrastructure and other issues. That is why I would remain opposed to it and probably, seek further clarification from higher authority on it. But policy wise, custom- related business, one cannot say that only Ghanaians can be engaged in that particular issue.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have a point of information. I think the amendment being proposed does not relate to the “business of custom” which is what he is interpreting. Mr Speaker, they are talking about “custom house agency” and let the Hon Minister advert his mind to it.
    That one, the limitation has been provided and it means any person to whom a licence has been granted under this Decree to transact business of custom on behalf of another person. That exactly is their destination. What he read is not what he seeks.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Hon Members, I would like to give some direction. In the ensuing debate that has been generated, I would direct that this matter be deferred. The Committee should do some winnowing and then we get back to the Chamber and we look at the way forward.
    This is because I think that it has generated a lot of debate; we need to look at the details of issues and the Hon
    Minister himself has indicated that he needs to confer and get back to us. So, that is the direction of the Chair.
    Mr H. Iddrisu 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am compelled just to respond to the Hon Minority Leader, so that next time he would listen to himself. Mr Speaker, I am going to his definition:
    “Custom House Agent means any person to whom a licence has been granted under this Decree to transact business of custom”.
    Therefore, my referral to the definition is as relevant yesterday as it will be relevant tomorrow -- Transact business of custom. And I am saying that the business of custom goes beyond freight forwarders and custom agents. It goes to affect other important institutions.
    But I would agree that we defer this and make progress, so that we do further consultation.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Hon Members, I do not want to protract this debate.
    Hon Members, this brings us to the end of Consideration Stage for today.
    The House stands adjourned till tomorrow at 10.00 o'clock in the forenoon.
    Thank you.
    ADJOURNMENT 2 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 2:11 p.m. till Wednesday, 10th July, 2013 at 10.00 a.m.