Debates of 17 Jul 2013

MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
PRAYERS noon
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT noon
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Hon Members, Correction of the Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 16th July, 2013.
Page 1 … 7,
Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah noon
Mr Speaker, yesterday I was in attendance and you can find proof on page 11.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Which page is that?
Mr Opare-Ansah noon
Mr Speaker, page 7. I have been marked as absent but I was present yesterday.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
All right. Table Office to take note.
Page 8 …. 12--
Wg. Cdr. Francis K. Anaman (retd): Mr Speaker, page 12, number 3(v), the name there should read … “Air Cdre. Dery (retd)”. The way it is written, one cannot even pronounce it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
All right. Table Office, please, take note.

Any more correction on page 12?
Ms Ursula G. Owusu noon
Mr Speaker, page 12, number 3 -- In Attendance -- (vi), the name is “Mr Victor Tandoh”, not “Tawoah”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
Please, the necessary correction be effected.
Page 13, 14--
Mr Isaac K. Asiamah noon
Mr Speaker, page 15 on the Committee on Mines Energy, Attendance, there is a name at number (iii); I do not know whether there is anything like “Mr Evelyn A. Sarpong”. I do not think a man is called “Evelyn” in our country. I think it is rather “Mrs” or “Ms”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker noon
I would like the Table Office to verify and if there is any error, to correct it accordingly.

Hon Members, the Votes and Proceedings, as corrected, are adopted as the true record of proceedings for Tuesday, 16th July, 2013.

Hon Members, there is one Official Report for Thursday, 11th July, 2013.

Are there any corrections?
Mr Isaac Osei noon
Mr Speaker, on column 1580, last paragraph, in the middle of the paragraph, we have “He was the first African in charge of sociological service” -- it is “surveys”, not “service.”
Mr Speaker, in column 1582, paragraph 2, line 5, the quotation from Prof Busia, in the middle, should read: “unless you have a large capacity”, not “the large capacity”.
I thank you.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
The correction will be effected.

In the absence of any other correction, the Official Report for Thursday, 11th July, 2013, as corrected, is hereby adopted as a true reflection of the proceedings for that day.

Hon Members, Statements. Two Statements have been allowed. To save time, after each Statement, we will take two contributions from either side, so that we can have time for some other programmes that have been slated for today.
STATEMENTS 12:10 p.m.
Mr Hennric D. Yeboah (NPP -- Afigya Sekyere East) 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to make the Statement.
The issue of safety and security of students living in private hostels on various university campuses is one of the major headaches of parents across Ghana.
Nowadays, the increase in numbers in terms of university admissions is aggravating the problem. While admission numbers are increasing, almost every university, especially the public ones, are not able to meet all the accommodation needs of their growing populations of students.
This has caused the influx of private hostel systems on various university campuses in Ghana. Consequently, most of the private hostels are located in distant areas away from major university facilities
such as lecture halls and libraries. As a result, students are bound to leave and return to their hostels very late in the night, thereby causing much safety and security threats to students. The situation has given rise to widespread theft, assaults, rape and armed robberies at various private hostels on university campuses.
Unfortunately, currently in Ghana, very little attention is given to the security and safety of students living in these private hostels by the university authorities, management of private hostels and the State (the Ministry of Education and the Ghana Education Service).
Similar incidents on Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) campus made the university authorities to threaten and blacklist registered private hostels which fail to provide adequate security for students residing in their hostels or guarantee their safety.
One incident from the KNUST was officially published in the Thursday, November 15, 2012 edition of The Ghanaian Times newspaper. In this report, Professor William Otoo Ellis, the Vice- Chancellor hinted that due to the seemingly intractable problem of inadequate accommodation on campus, a sizeable number of the university's students currently live off campus in a large portfolio of private hostels dotted on the fringes of the university campus which exposes the students to extreme safety and security threats.
However, besides the incident from KNUST, a host of similar ones have and are happening on other campuses (for example the University of Ghana, the University for Development Studies, the University of Cape Coast, et cetera, which are not officially brought to the public
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Thank you very much.
We will take a minimum of two each.
Mr Kwame Anyimadu-Antwi (NDC -- Asante Akim Central) 12:10 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to associate myself with the Statement.
I would pick it from the level, that it is not only in the private hostels that we need the security for students. As a lecturer from the university, I have been a witness to robbers trooping unto various campuses and stealing from students. I have been a witness to a situation where at gunpoints and at knifepoints, outsiders have snatched telephones from students on campus.
I have even been a witness to the situation where a university guard had been caught as a thief, stealing from students and had been prosecuted and sentenced to jail.
An Hon Member 12:10 p.m.
Do not mind them.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Can we have some order?
Hon Member, proceed. Order! Order!
Please, go ahead.
MrAnyimadu-Antwi 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what is more serious, what is very serious, as was said by Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain, is that when foreigners enter into the United Kingdom, they come with all sorts of habits.
This is happening in our various campuses. The foreign students that are admitted on the campuses are introducing foreign cultures on these campuses, inclusive of occultism. This is being practised by some of our students, to the extent that at midnight, students on campuses, parade on campuses, naked. [Interruption.] This has been brought to the attention of the university authorities and committees have been set up to actually go into this.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon Member, is it on a point of order?
Mr Akandor 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to be curious here. I would want to know actually what the Hon Member does during the night that he sees the nakedness of the female.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
I cannot hear you.
Mr Akandor 12:20 p.m.
During the night, what does he do that he goes by seeing the nakedness of the women? [Laughter.]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
Hon Member, please, proceed.
Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am grateful.
Since the intervention has been treated with contempt, I will proceed.
Mr Benjamin K. Kpodo (NDC -- Ho Central) 12:20 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to associate myself with the Statement made by the Hon Member.
The issue is that campus security should be included in the concerns being raised by my Hon Colleagues. It is true that many students live outside campus. You do not expect the university authorities to organise security, following students from the private hostels to the library. But on campus, the university authorities can organise security for them.
The private hostels, especially medium-size ones, have security personnel guarding them. But the problem or the challenge is that between
Mr Kofi Okyere-Agyekum (NPP -- Fanteakwa South) 12:20 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to say a few words about the security situation on university campuses.
I would want to associate myself with the comments made by the Hon Member, but in doing so, I think I cannot agree with the suggestions made by the Hon Member
who spoke last. I believe that the security of students who have been admitted to the university is the responsibility of the university authorities. It is their responsibility to ensure that the students who have been entrusted into their hands are safe.
I think they can do this by making sure that they set the minimum standards of security for the private hostel operators and ensure that they enforce those minimum standards. They can also improve the security by, maybe, an efficient system of transportation between the university facilities and the private hostel operators.
But I also think that, gone are the days when the issue of insecurity on university campus was unheard of. The fact that we are now having to deal with insecurity on university campus, probably, is a reflection of the general insecurity in the community and in the country, and we have to look at the thing holistically.
I believe that talking about the security of students, probably, we also should think about the security of even Hon Members of Parliament while they are here, and in their homes. I think that we are not very secure in our homes as Hon Members of Parliament. So, we should look at security as a whole, holistically, so that we can address the problem.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
The last contribution.
Mr George K. Arthur (NDC -- Amenfi Central) 12:30 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to associate myself with the Statement.
Mr Speaker, what I see is that, most of these private hostels do not have any security fence around them, so, you always see stalkers and teasers passing by. People selling, children playing football and strangers to the facility, they all go there because the places do not have any security fence. That is one of the major problems that pose a threat to these facilities.
Secondly, because the owners of these facilities want to make profit, they do not care who they employ. So, most of their staff are the untrained type, people who do not know anything about management of such facilities. So, their only concern is about their rent or the pay. They ask you and if your charge is good, then they employ you without going deep to find out even if you are properly literate.
Mr Speaker, thirdly, most of them do not have rules and regulations guiding the conduct of students who stay in the hostel, so, they do anything that they want without having any guidelines to follow.
Mr Speaker, identification of members of the hostel is another problem. Most of them just come and rent, whether they are students, whether they are from elsewhere, the owners care less about these people. So, the only interest of these owners is the money they would get from the people who come to rent.
So, even within the hostel, you would see that most members do not even know one another. Unlike the government institutions where we have a common hostel, games, entertainments, sports and the rest, which enables members of the hostel to know one another, the private hostels do not do anything like that. So, hardly does someone even know that this
Mr George K. Arthur (NDC -- Amenfi Central) 12:30 p.m.


is a member of the hostel or that person is not a member of the hostel.

Mr Speaker, some of the members of the hostel too have adopted the habit of engaging people who are not part of the hostel. They are family members; they are friends. If a brother or a sister is coming from the village and has no place to stay, they would just call you to come and sleep with them at the hostel, without having to go through the normal process of identifying yourself to the porters.

They just come and lodge with them; so, it is very hard -- [Interruption] -- for them to know who is a real member of the hostel.

All these problems, collectively, pose a big threat to the hostels. I think if owners of such hostels are advised or they have to go through proper management procedures before they are allowed to run them, or even if the university can call all of them, have a meeting with them and give them a guideline or procedure that they have to follow before they are allowed to operate these hostels, it is going to be very helpful.

Lastly, Mr Speaker, most of these hostels are just ordinary buildings meant for normal renting. They see, maybe, a school or university has come around, they would just sack the tenants and then convert the whole place into a hostel because the rent is very attractive as compared to other kinds of buildings. So, that is another issue.

When you go there and you would see an old woman who has inherited a property, who would just come and tell them that my son or my daughter is coming from abroad, so, she would sack the people from the house and then convert the place into a hostel. Sometimes, even the washrooms and those things are non-available. They have to convert one

or two rooms before they can get all those things. I think these are the things that pose a major threat to these hostels.

Mr Speaker, with these few words, I thank you for the opportunity.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
Thank you very much.
That brings us to the end of contributions to the first Statement.
There is a second Statement which stands in the name of Hon (Mrs) Mavis Hawa Koomson. The title is “Menace of floods in the Awutu-Senya East Consti- tuency”.
Is she available?
Please, go ahead.
Menace of Floods in Awutu- Senya East Constituency
Mrs Mavis H. Koomson (NPP -- Awutu-Senya East) 12:30 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to make this Statement on the menace of floods in the Awutu-Senya East and its environs.
Mr Speaker, Kasoa, in Hausa Language, means a market or a place where people meet to transact business in goods and services.
Mr Speaker, Kasoa is the fastest growing town in Ghana. This fast growth could be attributed to the relatively low price of land and the existence of infrastructural facilities as well as comparatively low rates of rent. Such favourable conditions enable Kasoa to attract an estimated average of 40 households weekly.
This influx has brought in its wake a high demand for all types of social amenities which lag behind the massive population growth. This explains why Kasoa is now described as an “overgrown village”. The greatest threat to this community is inadequate drainage systems.
Mr Speaker, most parts of Kasoa are low-lying and as such are prone to floods during rainfall, regardless of how moderate the downpour may be. The mere sight of clouds gathering is enough to alert people in areas like CP, Kpometey, Opeikuma, New Town, Zongo, Wualantie, prompting them to pray to God to stall the rains. The case is worse for communities along the Okludu stream.
Mr Speaker, anyone touring the flood- prone areas after a downpour will end up being emotionally torn apart. Women and children are almost always the worst affected victims. In most cases, lives are lost and electrocution is very common. Property damage becomes the order of the day. There are situations where flood levels rise so high that people are seen taking refuge on rooftops. In extreme instances, people have to engage swimmers who use canoes for rescue missions.
Mr Speaker, the unavailability of drainage facilities with the relevant carrying capacity to empty run-off waters has further complicated issues. The main drainage system needs appropriate desilting and restructuring. There are occasions where houses built on water ways are issued with warning notices for demolition but which are never effected at the peril of the larger society.
This situation has been blamed on lack of political will by the Municipal Assembly to carry out the exercise. There are situations where culverts are constructed at locations far away from the actual channel of run-off waters for reasons best known to the contractors and the Municipal Authority. These further enhance flooding.
In the meantime, property owners keep complaining about the payment of levies, taxes and rates while not receiving commensurate benefits.
Mr Speaker, the National Disaster Management Organisation (NADMO) is doing some work but their effort has not been good enough as flood cases keep rising. Besides, they do not have adequate logistics like vehicles, canoes, life jackets, tents and others to enable them carry out their life saving mandate. In some cases, they respond to distress calls very late or do not show up at all.
Mr Speaker, any encounter with residents at Kasoa and almost all other communities in Awutu-Senya brings to the fore concerns about floods and flood control. This year, the floods have become ritualistic, and have brought in their wake another ritual of cholera and other waterborne diseases.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, may I, on behalf of my constituents, call on Government and specifically, the Ministry of Water Resources, Works and Housing, and the Department of Urban Roads to attend to the drainage needs of the people of Awutu-Senya East with the greatest degree of urgency.
Once again, thank you, Mr Speaker, for your indulgence.
Alhaji Seidu Amadu (NDC -- Yapei/ Kusawgu) 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I share the sentiments of the Hon Member who made the Statement.
Mr Speaker, by law, every Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assembly is a statutory town planning area.
Unfortunately, in this country, because of the disregard for laws, most of our Assembly areas are not planned, which gives way for haphazard development and that is how come that when there are floods, they affect virtually all the commu- nities -- because of the unplanned nature of the developments we have there.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Yes, any contribution from the Minority?
Mr William Kwasi Sabi (NPP -- Dormaa East) 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to add a few comments to the Statement the Hon Member made.
Mr Speaker, flooding is more severe and the occurrence of it is more frequent in the cities and the big towns that we have in Ghana. Incidentally, these are the areas where we have our professionals in civil works. Almost all the Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies have these professionals attached to them. Most of the time, you see people putting up buildings.
What we see the inscription reading “produce permit”, others do not have these inscriptions but we do not see the drainage systems and other amenities that are supposed to be put in place in order to reduce or stop the occurrence of flooding. The question is, does it mean that those who have permits, the authorities are satisfied with the kind of
structures they put up, how they put them and even where they put them? If they are satisfied with this, what measures are being put in place or have been put in place before they are given such permits.
So, there is the need for the Institute of Engineers, the Metropolitan and District Assemblies to also take note of all these important requirements that have to be provided before permits are granted, so that whoever is putting up any building is also sure that these drainage systems have been provided, and with that we will be able to reduce the incidence of flooding.
With these few words, I associate myself with the Statement.
Thank you.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Any more contributions from the Majority side? No.
We go to the Minority side, any more? No!
All right. This brings us to the end of contributions to the second Statement.
Dr Benjamin B. Kunbuor 12:40 p.m.
Thank you,
Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, if we could take item number 4.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
On the original Order Paper -- right?
Dr Kunbuor 12:40 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Very well. Item number 4 (a) by the Minister for Transport.
Dr Kunbuor 12:40 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Minister for Transport is not available but she has asked the Minister for Roads and Highways to lay the Paper on her behalf. So, I will like to crave your indulgence for the Minister --
Maj. Derek Oduro (retd) -- rose --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Hon Member, may I know why you are up?
Maj. Oduro (retd): Mr Speaker, I would want to come under prestigious privilege to come out with my observation and that falls under public business.
Mr Speaker, yesterday, it was advertised that a Private Member's Motion was to come into effect today. It is no longer there; it has been taken out and we want to find out.
We were expecting to see it, maybe, at the provisional for tomorrow. It has not appeared on today's Order Paper for tomorrow. We want to find out why it has been taken out and when it is coming.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Yes, Hon Ayorkor Botchwey, I remember your name was part of it?
Ms Shirley A. Botchwey 12:40 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker. This is to deal with the Motion that I filed about three weeks ago. It was on the Business Statement for this week and yesterday, it was on the Provisional Order Paper. Unfortunately, today, there is nothing on today's Order Paper about it.
Mr Speaker, on Friday, when I raised the matter, the Rt Hon Speaker informed me that as per the powers invested in him, he had changed the wording of my original Motion.
My original Motion basically was to express concern about the recent spate of fire outbreaks, especially at markets and other workplaces and calling on the President to urgently set up a commission of enquiry to probe the causes and effects of these fire outbreaks and propose ways and means of dealing with the situation with a view to preventing such occurrences.
Ms Shirley A. Botchwey 12:40 p.m.


The Rt Hon Speaker amended my Motion to read as follows:

“ That this Honourable House expresses concern about the recent spate of fire outbreaks, especially at markets and other workplaces and call on Government to brief this House on the outcome of ongoing investigations”.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member, are you on a point of order?
Mr Joe K. Gidisu 12:50 p.m.
On a point of order.
Mr Speaker, I thought by doing that, the Hon Member is virtually speaking to the Motion. Mr Speaker she is out of order and should be brought to order.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Thank you very much.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader.
Dr Kunbour 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I guess that the issue that was raised by the Hon Member was clear. Just to indicate clearly why the particular Motion is not on the business for today.
The answer is simple. In substance, the Member who had filed the Motion, thought that it had been truncated or changed substantially, that it was no more reflective of the Motion and it was withdrawn by the Hon Member.
This is the information that the House needs to know.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, may I find out, how was the withdrawal done? Was it in written form?
Ms Botchwey 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker -- [Interruption.]
Dr Kunbour 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker will remember that this matter was raised on the floor of the House and then Rt Hon Speaker referred to the appropriate Standing Order that enjoins him to be able to make some changes in relation to a Motion that is filed by an Hon Member; and In discussion with the Hon Member, if the Hon Member felt that those changes will defeat the purpose of the Motion, the Member is entitled to withdraw it.
I am aware, and I have been advised on this matter, that the Hon Member has actually had discussions with the Rt Hon Speaker on this matter.
Ms Botchwey 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is not true. I have not had any discussions -- Apart from what transpired on the floor of the House on Friday, I have not had any discussion with Rt Hon Speaker.
Secondly, I felt that I should have been informed when the Rt Hon Speaker decided that he was going to review or revise my Motion. I should have been informed, which is what the Rt Hon Speaker said on Friday by the Clerks-at- the-Table. This did not happen. What was withdrawn by Hon Patrick Boamah was Rt Hon Speaker's revised Motion and not my original Motion.
The Rt Hon Speaker's revised Motion does not have the same import on my Motion that I filed. So, we do have a problem here; I have not had any conversation with Mr Speaker but I was told that one of the Clerks, Mr Djietror, was the one who should have contacted me but he did not.
Dr Kunbour 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this is a matter of procedure, guided by our Standing Orders. If Mr Speaker will draw the Hon Members attention to Standing Order 79 (4), this is what it says and with your permission, I beg to quote:
“Every notice shall be submitted to Mr Speaker who shall direct that it be printed in its original terms or with such amendments as he shall direct, or that it be returned to the Member submitting it as being inadmissible.”
So, whatever circumstances it is, there are a number of considerations that Mr Speaker can take and it should be implied that perhaps, the statement is inadmissible in the form in which the Hon Member filed it. There is no indication here about the circumstances under which Mr Speaker can exercise such discretion.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, listening to the Hon Majority Leader in his first intervention, he indicated that the Speaker had done some consultations with the people who had filed the Motion. I think that is supposed to be the spirit, if the Speaker, after looking at the terms of a Motion, of a Question or of a Statement, he wants to suggest some amendments, then the proposers ought to be engaged.
As we have been told, this was not done and if the Speaker on his own had to amend it and the people proposing the Motion will then also have to own the amendment as proposed by the Speaker, then what ought to be done is for that engagement to take place in the first place. If it does not take place, and the Speaker then proposes his amendment for the proposers to sponsor that Motion, they would not own it, and that becomes difficult.
Mr Speaker, I guess, further to what the Hon Majority Leader has read, Standing Order 128, in respect of amendments to Bills, the rules are clear,
that if you propose an amendment, it should be relevant to the substance of the matter. You cannot propose an amendment to a Motion that we should go to Kumasi and then you propose an amendment to say that we should go to Aflao. It will be inconsistent -- Deputy Attorney-General! you cannot say “ah” -- You should understand the principle of amendment. Standing Order 128(4a) provides, they must be relevant to the subject matter and the subject matter is saying that this is how it should be done.
The amendment is saying that the “Hon Minister should come and brief us”. Mr Speaker, the principles involved is different. A Statement made by a Member or a Minister is not subject to debate. A Motion is, so, you cannot say that I am proposing a Motion and you will not allow the Motion but a Statement should come from a Minister which should be subject to a debate.
Let us not forget that serious accusations have been made in respect of suspects, that suspects may even be political opponents. This is coming from a person of no mean standing than the President of this Republic. So, if it is said, and that person is not even saying that it should be a parliamentary inquisition, he says, let us still give the opportunity to the President --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, I remember the President said he was suspecting arson but he did not indicate any political issue.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I accept what you have said but beyond what the President said, the National Chairman of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) Party had made this categorical statement. Mr Speaker, these are serious matters. So, we are saying that it should be debated. Further to that -- [Interruption.]
An Hon Member -- rose --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
Young man, what do you want to say? [Laughter.]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, please, address the Chair.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there are two different routes that the Motions are proposing to us. I think the Hon Members who proposed the Motion are not even saying that the President should be taken out of this. In setting up a commission of enquiry, it will still be left with the President to do that but we are talking about an independent commission to go into this. Mr Speaker, the two cannot be the same.
According to what the Hon Majority Leader, we are being told that what the Speaker did is in accord with Standing Order 79 (4) by proposing the amendment. I have indicated to him, that it should conform to Standing Order 128. Mr Speaker, that is it; we should -- the Hon Majority Leader says, no-- recognise that our Hon Speaker is not a Member of Parliament; he cannot fasion out anything for Members of Parliament to pilot in this House. He should understand that.
Mr Speaker, we should know the limits of a Speaker, a Presiding Officer in these matters. He cannot have any unfettered rights to do as he pleases in this respect. It cannot be right -- [Interruption] -- Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader wants to deal with it I would come back and deal with what he wants to say.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Very well. The point is well made, Hon Minority Leader.
All I would say is that, the Rt Hon Speaker has given a ruling on this matter. I was in the Chamber myself when he gave his ruling.
If Members or any particular Member is dissatisfied with that ruling, I believe that the rules permit him or her to file a Motion.
I think this should end the matter.
Dr Kunbuor 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I guess that in relation to the rules of this House, it is important that we do things properly, and it is more important that we substantiate our arguments with the appropriate and accurate Standing Orders.
What I have been indicating, which should not even be a matter to be discussed behind the Rt Hon Speaker is that, it is not fair for us to be discussing a matter like this in his absence. What is significant is that there is a lot of meaning and logic in actually providing for Motions in relation to Bills in a different section of the Standing Orders from all Motions generally.
So, for the Hon Member to go and draw a parrel, legally, from how a Motion can be moved in relation to a Bill and apply that to Motions generally under Order 78, beats my imagination.
These Standing Orders are supposed to be interpreted and interpreted legally. You do not go and interpret things just because we assume that, that is the best way to go about it.
So, I am saying that there is no relevance whatsoever, between Order 128, which deals with Motions with specific reference to Bills and Order 79, which deals with amendments to Motions generally. The two are completely different and that cannot be a basis for us to argue.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, I think I have given my ruling, so, I do not want us to continue debating this issue. I have given my ruling and that ends the matter. Let us understand that the Speaker has already given a ruling on this matter, so, if anybody is dissatisfied, he can file a Motion. That is it.
Please, let us make some progress.
Hon Members, we move on to item 4(a) on the Order Paper.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with respect, there are two Motions of very serious national concern that were filed. The other one related to the reported arrest and detention in the United States of America in relation to drug peddling offences of the Managing Director of Sohin Security Check Limited, whose company has been in charge of airport security, and which company, has recently been relieved of their contract and that we have further enquiry into this.
Mr Speaker, again, this is a matter of crucial importance to this country. Why can we not debate, and it has been more than three weeks -- [Interruption] -- Mr Speaker, with respect, can we have any indication about the status of the second one as well -- [Interruption.]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Order! Order!
Dr Kunbuor 1 p.m.
Well, as Leadership, I certainly should not have been making this enquiry from the Hon Minority Leader. [Interruption.] I am saying as Leadership, I should not have been making this enquiry on the floor of the House.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
All right. Thank you very much.
Probably, it has not reached him. Is that right?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, for the records, I have not seen any communication. The Clerk-at-the-Table called to inform me of a meeting this morning involving the Majority Leader, myself and the Speaker. But we looked at the schedule and realised that it was going to be difficult.
The Clerk then proposed tomorrow morning; I said to him that tomorrow, we would have the Business Committee meeting, so, perhaps, if we can have the meeting midday or perhaps, midday today; that would be alright with us. But I have no incline about what he is talking about. That is for the records.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
All right. So, now that it is settled, you would be meeting over the issue?
Mr Joe K. Gidisu 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to do some reflections -- [Interruption] -- The Hon Minority Leader, when they were on this side, a Member of Parliament was incarcerated in the United States of America on a more serious note of drug trafficking but surprisingly, the issue did not arise in terms of a debate or a Motion -- [Interruption] -- So, Mr Speaker, it is quite mind-boggling, when they would want to rattle issues which should not assume the proportion that they now pretend to raise.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
All right. Hon Member, I think this is a specific issue and we have sorted it out. The two of them would meet and then we move forward. I do not want us to go back into history. We are dealing with a specific issue and let us concentrate on that.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, with respect, I think we are not pretending to raise any issue, as the Hon Member said. He is a senior Colleague and I thought that he would know better in these matters. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker, we are not pretending. Indeed, a Motion has been filed and there is no pretence about that.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.


With respect to the issue that he drew, Mr Speaker, it came rightly to this House and we had, appropriately so, a by- election in respect of that constituency. So, for him to say that the matter did not come before Parliament, Mr Speaker, I shudder to think about his own understanding of what happened at the time.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Hon Members, this brings us to the close of contributions as far as that issue is concerned.
Dr Kunbuor 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want us to go to the business, but just to correct an error in relation to the previous Member of Parliament.
In fact, the issue that was before this House then was the status of the Member of Parliament and whether he was incarcerated and whether he remained a Member of Parliament.
It took three Sittings of this House before the matter was taken. I remember that very vividly and I know the circumstances. I would want us to get the records straight.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
All right.
Hon Members, I have directed that this matter be brought to a close.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am closing, I am not revisiting. But we are saying that this Motion has been filed over three weeks ago. Mr Speaker, three weeks involves at least, 12 Sitting days. Three Sittings are three days. Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader, I believe, knows the meaning of a “Sitting”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
Shall we make some progress, Hon Majority Leader? This time, we are not going back on these issues, please.
Let us make progress; we have closed the chapter.
Dr Kunbuor 1:10 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker, certainly. That is so, respectfully, Mr Speaker, but all that I would want to do - - [Interruption] -- is that, in fact, there is a definition in our Standing Orders of a “Sitting” and I am not even going to read it.
But I am saying that, a “Sitting” actually includes a period during which Parliament is Sitting continuously and then adjournment; and a period during which it is in committee.

Mr Speaker, on a more serious note, I would like to crave your indulgence to ask the Hon Minister for Roads and Highways to lay the Paper on item 4 on behalf of the Hon Minister for Transport, who unavoidably, is not available.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, after the storm, the dust must settle. So, the person to lay it, we are prepared for that person.
PAPERS 1:10 p.m.
Dr Kunbuor 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, item 4(b).
Sorry, Mr Speaker, my attention was drawn to a matter in relation to this, so, we would take item 4(c) and get clarifications because of the peculiar circumstances of this Committee. We are
still waiting for Mr Speaker's direction on this matter. He is the Chairman of this Committee.
But the processes normally is that, one of the Hon Leaders will normally lay this item after Mr Speaker has indicated --
So, we would take item 4 (c) --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Yes, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs --
Mr Emmanuel K. Bandua 1:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Report is not ready; we will lay it tomorrow.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
Very well.
Hon Majority Leader --
Dr Kunbuor 1:10 p.m.
Item 5.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION STAGE 1:10 p.m.
  • [Resumption of debate from 11-07- 2013]
    • Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Item 5 has to do with the Ghana Investment Promotion Centre Bill, 2013 -- At the Consideration Stage.
    But Hon Members, before we proceed, I would like to draw attention to the fact that when it came to clause 43, there was an amendment which was withdrawn and accordingly, nothing was done about it. So, I do not know what the position is, whether I should put the Question or the Committee has anything to do with clause
    43.
    Alhaji Amadu B. Sorogho 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg your leave, that we go back to clause
    27 which was also not completed, so that we complete that one and then finish with it with clause 43.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    All right. That is accepted. So, let us start with clause 27, whatever is outstanding.
    There is a proposed amendment by Hon J. B. Danquah --
    Clause 27 --
    Mr J. B. A. Danquah 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if I look at the Addendum to today's Order Paper, there is an amendment which seeks to cure the problem that existed. So, I would like to step down or withdraw my amendment, so that we look at the new one that the Hon Chairman would be bringing under the Addendum.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Thank you very much.
    So, that proposed amendment is withdrawn.
    Now Hon Chairman --
    Alhaji Sorogho 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 27, subclause (6), delete, and substitute the folowing:
    “the minimum foreign capital requirement of this section shall not apply to the foreign spouse of a citizen of Ghana to the extent that
    (a) the foreign spouse is or has been married to a citizen of Ghana for a minimum period of five years continuously or holds an inde- finite resident permit prior to the registration of an enterprise;
    (b) the marriage has been duly verified as having been validly conducted; and
    (c) the foreign spouse is ordinarily resident in Ghana.”
    Then we add (d) --
    Alhaji Sorogho 1:10 p.m.


    (d) “a citizen of Ghana who loses his citizenship of Ghana by reason of his assumption of the citizenship of a foreign country shall not be required to comply with the minimum capital requirement of this section”.

    Mr Speaker, this is to treat the Ghanaian who also falls into the same trap equally, so that we are not seen as giving the foreign spouses more rights than the Ghanaian who may also face the same problem in a foreign country.

    The (d) is not there. It is a new one that I am proposing. I am taking my time to read it:

    (d) “a citizen of Ghana who loses his citizenship of Ghana by reason of his assumption of the citizenship of a foreign country shall not be required to comply with the minimum capital requirement of this section”.

    The reason is that, if we are extending this to a foreign spouse, what about the Ghanaian, who also has the citizenship of another country and, comes back to Ghana and wants to invest? Are we also going to force that person? He would be treated like a foreigner and we think that it is not fair.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    All right Hon Members, can we take it stage by stage? Let us deal with the first part of it, which is clause 27 (6) (a), then we can move to (b), (c) and (d). Hon Chairman, can we deal with them in that manner?
    Alhaji Sorogho 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 27 (6) (a) --
    “The minimum foreign capital requirement of this section shall not apply to the foreign spouse of a citizen of Ghana to the extent that:
    (a) the foreign spouse has been married to a citizen of Ghana for a minimum period of five years continuously or holds an indefinite resident permit prior to the registration of an enter- prise”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not know whether what is on the Order Paper is what the Hon Chairman is reading because what I have on mine appears to be a bit different. The last but one line, he read, “prior to the time of registration”; what is here is “at the time of registration”. The two are different. So, what is he talking about?
    Then the first line -- “The foreign spouse is or has been married to a citizen of Ghana”.
    Mr Speaker, he chose to read -- “The foreign spouse has been married to a citizen of Ghana” and deleted the “is or” from that.
    I know that because I also wanted to ask questions about that. If the person is married to a Ghanaian, perhaps, we may decide to do away with the five years minimum requirement. If he has been married, that is another matter altogether; so, if he can look at it and let us have the correct rendition of his proposal.
    Alhaji Sorogho 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Minority Leader is right. The first one was what was captured, but when it went to the draftspersons, they came out and said that it is better captured this way. But if it is the wish of the House, since we all know and understand the import, that it better be “it” or “has been” then Mr Speaker, I will restore it to that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Before we go on, again, if you look at the last line, the last word, what is there is “investment”. But when you were presenting it, you presented “enterprise”. Is it also part of the proposal from the draftspersons?
    Dr Dominic A. Ayine 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think I side with the Hon Minority Leader on this one, because the original language, which was proposed at Committee level was supposed to take care of two different scenarios. For instance, a person has been married to a Ghanaian citizen. Or let me put it this way: The person may be married to a Ghanaian citizen now, but either that the spouse dies or the person is divorced from the spouse. The original language was supposed to take care of the scenario where the person for instance, becomes a widow and she is still entitled to exemption granted by law. So, I think that the original language should be restored with due respect.
    Mr Peter W. Pepera 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would rather take it the other way as the new rendition, as said by the Hon Chairman of the Committee, is rather correct. This is because the one printed in the Order Paper, if you actually read it meticulously, is not correct English. And I think that is probably why it was amended by the draftspersons because they are obviously very highly skilled in the English Language.
    However, having said that, I do get the import of what the Hon Deputy Attorney- General and Deputy Minister for Justice is trying to say. But the question is, if you are married and the Ghanaian dies, I do think that the spouse should be entitled, if the person is resident in Ghana and it is no fault of the spouse who died.
    Ms Ursula Owusu 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am wondering if the new rendition being sought as being married, what safeguards

    If that minimum period of five years has to be proved and that satisfies this requirement, then it could be a way of determining that it would not be abused. The insistence that the foreign spouse be ordinarily resident in Ghana for the entire period, so the (c) could also probably be amended to take consideration of that fact as well.
    Alhaji Sorogho 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is just not one condition; the person must satisfy all the conditions before. After continuously being a wife or a husband to a Ghanaian, the marriage should have been duly verified as having been validly conducted before; it is just not one. Then the foreign spouse is ordinarily resident in Ghana; even here, you have to say “ordinary” because since it is still a foreigner, you cannot say he cannot go and come back.
    The reason behind this is that, there are some of them who are still having a lot advantages in terms of remittances that come back to help the family. So, if the person cannot travel, even if you a Ghanaian, you cannot say that you cannot travel; you would go out and you would come in. He must be ordinarily resident in Ghana.
    I think these safeguards are enough to take care of anybody who would wish to just come to Ghana and get marriage because he wants to enjoy this facility.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    Otherwise, we have not sorted out the issue as to ‘is' and whatever. The earlier rendition of “is” or “has been.” Hon Member, could you let us just sort out that one and then we make some progress? Where do we stand?
    Mr Sorogho 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice is saying that, the “is” or “has been,” it does not take away anything from it; it rather adds. So we would take that one and maintain that.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, even there, there is still some degree of unclarity, if you say that the foreign spouse is or has been married to a citizen of Ghana for a minimum period of five years continuously. Mr Speaker, if you take off the conjunct of “or” what you mean is that, the foreign spouse is married to a citizen of Ghana for a minimum period of five years, continuously. Is that the intendment? That is the first leg; is that the intendment?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    And if I may add, the second part that -- has been married to so, so and so for a continuous period of five years, wherein lies the distinction, what is the reason; is it one, in a situation where you have a divorce and yet before the divorce, you had been married to the spouse for that kind of period?
    Alhaji Sorogho 1:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Committee deliberated a lot on this and the understanding was that, number one, you should be a wife or a husband at the time that this Act comes into force and that before you can register an enterprise, you should have been continuously married to the Ghanaian for a minimum of five years.
    So, it means that, if I got married last year, I did not qualify if this law comes into effect tomorrow, that is because I have not been with the Ghanaian wife for a minimum of five years.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 p.m.
    What about the person who used to be married to a Ghanaian for that minimum period of five years, but as at the time of the application, stands divorced? Do you follow me?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I spoke about clarity or otherwise of that construction because it is so much intermingled with so many things.
    Mr Speaker, let me refer us to article 94 (1) (b) of the Constitution, in respect of qualification and eligibility of persons contesting for seats in Parliament:
    “ . . . a person shall not be qualified to be a member of parliament unless
    -- 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Ken O. Agyapong 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have a problem with the whole clause 27 (6). We are forgetting that one can be married and have children with a spouse who is a citizen of this country and die before five years. Then what happens? So, why the time limit?
    I am drawing your attention to something. That one can marry and have a child within a year or two and who will be a citizen of this country by birth because one parent is a citizen of this country.
    It can happen that he will die before the five years. Since one's child is a citizen of this country, the spouse who is a foreigner is entitled to register a company or invest. So, we have to be careful the way we word this.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the Hon Chairman, in trying to give an explanation, said and if I am wrong, he can correct me, that the Committee was only looking at subsisting relationships. Otherwise, what the Hon Minority Leader is suggesting, with your permission, is that we should be reading it as: “the foreign spouse is married to a citizen of Ghana or …” it is where the “or” Is that creates the problem.
    This is because, as Mr Speaker said, if they were married to somebody six years ago and they divorced, why should they not be entitled to the same thing? I have a different opinion about giving benefits when the person is not a citizen. But it is a different matter. If you look at the title, it says, “enterprises eligible for foreign participation” -- you want to give some benefit to a foreign spouse.
    Let them become citizens. Citizenship has its benefits and its negative part. If they are here for five years and they do not want to be, that is the problem.
    But the way he is interpreting it for the Committee, the language does not come out that way. So, where he puts the “or” is going to be important and I am suggesting that he puts it “after” to capture what he wants, even though I disagree with him.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Yes, the last two contributions before I get back to the Hon Chairman for his collective response.
    Alhaji Amadu 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am looking at paragraph (c), normally, when one defines a certain thing to be “ordinarily” then one has to put some period to it -- Aggregate of which must come to a particular number of years. So, if one says somebody is an “ordinarily resident”, what period is one talking about? Like it is defined in the Constitution, if it is ten years, then there must be an aggregate stay of five years.
    Then, in that case, one becomes ordinarily resident. But if it is left hanging, I do not think that it is really proper.
    The first part is talking about “permanent”. It means one has to be in a permanent relationship for five years.
    The second part is talking about “ordinarily resident” -- So, one can be “ordinarily resident”, either wthin a period of 15 years, there must be an aggregate stay amounting to five years. So, we need to look at that “ordinarily resident” clause, so that we put a definite time period to it for one to qualify to be ordinarily resident.
    Mr Kobina T. Hammond 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have a fundamental difficulty with the whole of that paragraph -- The clause 27 (6) right to the end of it.
    Mr Speaker, the question of -- I would want to actually deal with the paragraphs (b) and (c) before I come to paragraph (a).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    All right, I would like the Hon Chairman to respond to all the issues raised by Hon Members unless of course, you want to offer some explanation, otherwise, the issues will be too many for the Hon Chairman to handle.
    You want to address some of the issues raised?
    Mr George K. Aboagye 1:40 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Alhaji Sorogho 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I will but I would want my Hon Ranking Member to make his comments before I come in. If you would permit that.
    Mr Aboagye 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the issue of citizenship and investment is a very sour and sensitive one. I can give a simple clarification even now in Ghana. A man comes in from a foreign country, marries for six months and he begins to invests and then uses the lady's name to register a business and within a year or so, they divorce.
    Now, one traces the investor and it is difficult to identify the value of the relationship. Now, if one goes for the

    Now, as the case is, when we go to foreign countries and we are bound by time, in terms of our residency and therefore, enjoying facilities of those countries -- a green card, resident's permit or other things like that, are all linked to privileges and opportunities in those countries, even to the extent of school fees that one pays. I am sure my Hon Colleague at the other side is fully aware and must have gone through this whole kind of rigmarole.

    In the same vein, in Ghana, we want to regulate the use of our citizenship privileges as well as the benefits that will accrue to an investor under -- Five years is a good time to know whether the person is a bona fide husband or wife. Yes, we have to know whether you came here to do business and therefore, took advantage of the citizenship privileges or you came here to live a normal life, stay with a woman and in the process, want to invest -- [Interruption] -- Woman or man, whichever way.

    So, Mr Speaker, I think the time limit is very much well advised and also it creates an impression of comfort for the authorities in the country. And there are privileges that are being waived--given to an investor. Those include, tax waivers and customs duty exemptions and so on.

    These are revenues that could have accrued to the State and because of the privileges under the Investment Act, they are waived for the purposes of business. So, I think that the five years is a good guide whether you want to be here to live the life of a Ghanaian and to be part of our

    system. Or that you are coming here to marry for six months and then leave the woman, perhaps, with a child, and not bother or leave the man and also take the investment away and so on and so forth.

    There have been cases where we have not been very successful in trying to deal with them through the courts mainly because of citizenship issues.

    Mr Speaker, I thank you very much.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Thank you very much. Let us hear from the Hon Ranking Member.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Committee took cognisance of the fact that this provision can lead to abuses, so whatever that we have tried to do here, was to avoid the possibility of others taking advantage of the situation.
    So, at each stage, the words chosen there were chosen to avoid the possibility of -- For instance, the five years -- Somebody coming in, just marrying in a month or two, gets whatever privileges that he gets from it and then disappears, not married again. That is why we wanted a stable family where at least, you have married for five years. That was the main reason behind that.
    But I also agree with Hon Members that there are certain people too who are very genuine. But then, if you take away the “five years”, that would also help them. But we are very much concerned about the abuses and therefore, if there is any way that we can ensure that there would be no abuse of the provision, that would be fair.
    So, when you look at paragraphs (b) and (c), they are all attempts to try and avoid those abuses. That is all that the concern was. So, as it pleases the House, if we take “five years” away and we think there would be no abuses, fine. But we still think that these things can create problems.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Let us hear from the Hon Chairman, otherwise, we would be bundling up too many issues. Let us hear from the Hon Chairman and then, we would come back to you.
    Alhaji Sorogho 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that I would plead with my Hon Colleagues to go along with this amendment, especially where we realise that similar issues may be confronting our brothers and sisters. We have taken care of that by proposing a new clause 7 that would take care of that.
    Mr Speaker, I think five years, was carefully thought through. We think that if you come and you are serious and you want to do investment, you just do not come and go round our women or men, whichever the case may be, take advantage and then find a way out of taking our money back to your country.
    We think that however -- five years, should be enough to produce something that -- a Ghanaian out of that and somebody -- [Interruption.] Children, I mean. It could be here or there.
    The fear raised by my Brother, Hon Ken Agyapong is -- we cannot just say six months because he is aware that if you give six months, somebody would come and Ghanaians, ourselves, some of us, not everybody, would want to just say: “Look, you just take me as your husband or your wife just to allow you to satisfy this because I think I would get this or that”.
    So, we think that five years is enough for the two of them to stay together and not only limiting it to that, you come down and then satisfy the other conditions.
    Mr Speaker, I would plead with my Hon Colleagues that we let this amendment pass through.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Agyapong and then Hon K. T. Hammond. After that, I would put the Question.
    Mr Agyapong 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think we should learn from other countries as well. When you take the Addendum Order Paper, you would see the investment or the enterprise is US$1 million. I would want to give my Hon Colleagues an example.
    In Canada, as I speak today, if you are able to produce from your bank statement that you have US$500,000 -- From Vietnam, China anywhere and you go to Canada with your statement of $500,000, you are given a citizenship. How much more US$1 million? So, we have to tread cautiously. Honestly, I am being frank with him.
    Again, I still insist that if I have a child in a relationship and two or three years later, I am not a permanent resident and the marriage collapses, what happens to the child? We should think of the child who is a citizen of this country. So, if I have a child with a citizen and now, the citizen is dead, because of the child, I should be able to do the investment of US$1 million. This is my argument.
    So, I am even saying that US$1 million, with the size of our economy, is even too high. So, if somebody is coming in with US$1 million and you are giving restrictions of five years permanent residence -- In short, we can say “permanent resident”. For the avoidance of confusion and everything, Mr Speaker, I am suggesting that we can say “permanent resident”.
    I have permanent residence in America. I am not a citizen but I can do any investment over there with no restrictions.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    Yes, Hon K. T. Hammond and then --
    Mr Hammond 1:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am sorry that I am coming back to the point.
    Mr Speaker, if you have had the benefit of the advantages and facilities that some of us have had from other lands, it would be unfair -- And when I say “other lands”, diaspora and whatever, it would be unfair to put these conditions in there.
    When it is accepted that we go back to the “ordinarily resident”, I am ordinarily resident, and that is defined within the parameters of the law. So, it is ordinary resident, legally and everything and I am married, that is the specific condition. I am married and it is accepted that I am married and there are all sorts of rules and evidence to show that I am legally married.
    If I am legally married to this Ghanaian and I am ordinarily resident here, I am asking, why do you have to keep me in that limbo for five years before I have this exemption which I would be entitled to in five years? Why?
    So, in the interim, Mr Speaker, what do I do? I have to become a carpenter; I have to become whatever; -- What do I have to become before I last for five years, when in reality, I have some money I want to invest -- Farmer -- what kind of farming? My interest, really, is to invest. I have got some money but there is this requirement that shackles me because I am not yet five years.
    The five years thing, Mr Speaker, is not good for foreign residents who have come to reside legally here and who have money to contribute to our economy.
    We should delete it, make it “ordinarily resident” --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:40 p.m.
    All right. Your point is well made.
    Dr Joe Baidoe-Ansah 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to support the idea of having people with permanent residence. In that case, we would open it up also to someone -- Let us say, if your brother is in Germany and has assumed a German citizenship, he cannot have dual citizenship, so, he is not allowed to be a Ghanaian.
    So, you can have a brother who would not be allowed to invest as a result of this clause. But then, that brother could get permanent residence as a result of being your brother and your mother being his mother.
    So, if we are opening up, we should open up both to spouses and also Ghanaians who have actually lost their Ghanaian citizenship as a result of marrying somewhere. That is where I would agree with you, so that we leave these spouses completely.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Members, although I said we should restrict our contributions to clause 27 (6) (a), it looks like we have gone through the whole of subclause 6, so, I would like to put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Alhaji Sorogho 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 27, after subclause (6) (a) (b) and (c), the next one is (7) and not (d).
    So it would read:
    “A citizen of Ghana who loses his citizenship of Ghana by reason of his assumption of the citizenship of a foreign country shall not be required to comply with the minimum capital requirement of this section”.

    It is just to take care of what Hon Baidoe-Ansah has just said, so that it also takes care of our brothers who may also find themselves--
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    So, it is now subclause 7 and not (d).
    Alhaji Sorogho 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if I may read --
    “A citizen of Ghana who loses his citizenship of Ghana by reason of his assumption of the citizenship of a foreign country shall not be required to comply with the minimum capital requirement of this section”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    I think the intent is quite clear, so that a Ghanaian who has lost his citizenship as a result of taking on the citizenship of another country, will not be affected by this exercise. Then that person would no longer be a citizen of Ghana, technically.
    Mr Pepera 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to say that, that particular clause 7, applies only to citizens who were born citizens of Ghana rather than the foreigners who naturalize as citizens and then continue, that is, citizens by birth.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, how do you respond to that? He is talking about restricting it to citizens who were Ghanaians by birth and not people who have acquired citizenship and subsequently lost it.
    Alhaji Sorogho 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think I will go by that. I think it makes a very good reason. “Ghanaians by birth”.
    Mr Baidoe-Ansah 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think I will still go back to the issue of having
    permanent residence because if your brother was a Ghanaian citizen, that is why you are giving your brother that privilege. What happens to your brother's son who has never been a Ghanaian before? Can your brother's son not -- That is why I am saying that your brother 's son qualifies to get permanent residence, so why do you not avoid all these by saying that anyone with a permanent residence, is allowed to enjoy that?
    Other than that, you will be going and trying to explain “brother's son, spouse” -- No! It takes a while for one to get a permanent residence in this country. So, why not extend it to anyone who will have permanent residence? --[Interruption.] No! What are we afraid of?
    Alhaji Sorogho 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the first place, I do not know what my senior Brother means by “brother's son”. I think there is a name for “my brother's son”, so I thought that he should have just referred to it. He says “my brother's son”. Who is that person to me? What is the relationship of my brother's son to me? [Interruption.] My nephew.
    Mr Baidoe-Ansah 1:50 p.m.
    Well, in English, we will say “nephew” but in my language, there is no word for it.
    Alhaji Sorogho 1:50 p.m.
    All right. I do not even agree to what you are saying, in your language, even though --
    Mr Speaker, I think for now, if we open that Pandora box, it will never end. My brother's son's son, what happens to him? So, let us end where we are. My brother's son's son, what happens to him?
    So, please, I think that for now, we want to end at my “brother” and not my “brother's son”. And my brother's son inherits the father. So, whatever that my brother's son can inherit, he inherits the father.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    It is not uniform, you know? It is depending on the type of inheritance.
    Mr Isaac Osei 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman referred to some box; perhaps, he could repeat it for our attention.
    Alhaji Sorogho 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I said “Pandora box”. [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon Members, I will put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Alhaji Sorogho 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 43 was also deferred and after series of meetings, the new -- [Interruption.]
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there are other things on clause 27 and we are jumping on to clause 43.
    Alhaji Sorogho 1:50 p.m.
    You are right.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Can we now --
    Hon Members, I do not think provision has been made for an extended Sitting. But I would like to direct that looking at the time factor, we sit beyond the stipulated time for not more than 30 minutes, so that we can see if --
    Hon Majority Leader.
    Dr Kunbuor 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we could take the Addendum. Let us take item 1 first, Presentation of Papers then subsequently --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    We have clause 27 still on the Addendum, so, let us go through that.
    The first one is in the name of the Chairman of the Committee.
    Alhaji Sorogho 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 27, subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 2, delete “fifty” and insert “two hundred” and in line 6, delete “thirty” and insert “ten”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Alhaji Sorogho 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 27, subclause (2), delete and insert, the following:
    “(2) A person who is not a citizen may engage in a trading enterprise if that person invests in the enterprise, not less than one million United States dollars in cash or goods relevant to the investments.
    (3) For the purpose of this section, “trading” includes the purchasing and selling of imported goods”.
    Dr A. A. Osei 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the Hon Chairman should take his time to convince us a bit. The earlier proposal that he abandoned pegged that figure at US$5 million. The Committee has sought to bring it down to US$1 million. I think Hon Ken Agyapong raised an issue and I think we ought to look at that.
    For our economy, if Canada, US$500,000 appears to be acceptable, we should be considering it. This is because we want to attract investment and anywhere -- Not in Ghana -- Anywhere, US$500,000 is a lot of money.
    I know other countries that pegged it around US$500,000. I think US$1 million may be a bit too much, but half a million is quite substantial in any nation. So, if the Committee does not mind, I am proposing to drop it down to US$500,000.
    Alhaji Sorogho 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 27, subclause (3), delete.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    What is the rationale behind it?
    Alhaji Sorogho 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is against the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) under our commitment. It was against the schedule of commitment which was signed by Ghana, that our attention was brought to and a copy was brought to us. So, we could not go against GATT Agreement, which is an Inter- national Treaty that we have already signed and entered into.
    Mr Kofi Frimpong 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman is mentioning a certain Agreement which was early on signed. Mr Speaker, to be able to convince me in
    particular, I would want him to read the GATT Agreement which was ratified by Ghana, to convince all other Hon Members who are here.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    All right. Let us listen to the rendition in that Agreement.
    Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice, can you read it out?
    Dr Ayine 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Agreement that we are referring to is not the GATT, but the General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS). In January, 1995, Ghana became an original member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and under the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO, there was a concept known as the “Single Undertaken Concept” in respect of all multilateral agreements.
    In other words, if you acceded to the WTO at its inception, you accepted all the binding commitments under the multilateral Agreements and the GATS is one of them.
    Under the GATS, there are four modes of service supply. There is what is known as the “Cross Border Supply” which is the first mode. For instance, if a Lawyer in America supplies legal services to a client in Ghana. Then, there is what is known as “Consumption Abroad”.
    A tourist from America comes to Ghana to consume tourism services. Then there is a mode three, which is establishment of commercial presence. A bank in America comes to Ghana to establish a branch in Ghana and operates and provides banking services.
    The fourth one is presence of natural persons. So, a plumber in America comes to Ghana to fix your plumbing works in your house.
    Now, under each one of them, we were supposed to commit ourselves to certain minimum standards of treatment; one was market access and then the other one was national treatment. In terms of market access, Ghana committed herself to providing unlimited market access in transport services.
    In fact, under the schedule of commitments of Ghana, we mentioned international transport and freight and passengers, which means that under the schedule, we cannot limit access to freight forwarding services as far as the GATS is concerned --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    I under- stand you completely, but Hon Frimpong wants you to read the relevant portion.
    Dr Kunbuor 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I guess that Hon Frimpong is satisfied now. Otherwise, I thought he had a proposal that he thought was contrary to this, so that we can make progress.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    All right. I will direct that Hon Frimpong gets in touch with the Hon Deputy Attorney- General and Deputy Minister for Justice to look at the rendition, so that later, we can look at it and see if there is any --
    Mr Isaac Osei 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice has the relevant provision in the General Agreement on Trade and Services, I think he could read it, if he is holding it there. He has gone to explain the background to it and the relationship with the main WTO Agree-
    ment, but if he has the relevant section, I think he should just read it and I think everything else would come to rest.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Well, I further direct that he makes a copy available to the Table Office, so that any Hon Member who is interested in checking on it -- I know as a fact that there is that provision, but probably, Hon Members want to satisfy themselves, and I do not want to restrict or prevent Hon Members from satisfying themselves.
    I, therefore, direct that the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice makes a copy available to the Table Office, so that anybody who is interested can verify.
    Hon Member, are you ready with it? All right.
    Dr Ayine 2:10 p.m.
    I am reading from the legal text, the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, this is the official World Trade Organisation (WTO) text and article xvi is on market access and it talks about specific commitments. Clause 1 says --
    “With respect to market access through the modes of supply identified in article 1, each member shall accord services and service suppliers of any other member country, treatment not less favourable than that provided for under the terms, limitations and conditions agreed and specified in this schedule.”
    That is the schedule that I referred to earlier. Then also there is article xvii, which deals with national treatment and it says--

    “In the sectors inscribed in this schedule and subject to any conditions and qualifications set out therein, each member shall accord to services and service suppliers of any other Member in respect of all measures affecting the supply of services, treatment not less favourable than that which it accords to its own like services and service suppliers.”
    Mr Danquah 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was rising on a point of order.
    Mr Speaker, the clause 27, subclauses 3, 4 and 5, which the Chairman is moving for deletion are not the basis for which we are getting this information from the Deputy Attorney-General. It has no reference to these subclauses that the Chairman is rightly moving. So, the correction or the statement that the Deputy Attorney-General is making bears very little relevance to these amendments that are being deleted.
    Dr Kunbuor 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, actually, the real issue is this. When we actually subscribed to it and then we made the specific Ghanaian commitments, those commitments went to figures and thresholds, very specific. So, if we wanted to adjust and increase them, we needed to go back to renegotiate the commitments and it would be initiated as the changed national commitments of Ghana.
    If you do not do the renegotiation, you cannot unilaterally go and change the figures. But we agreed to those amendments initially. This is because we had not looked closely at the specific national commitments in the schedule that Ghana had undertaken. So, when we went through them -- [Interruptions] -- it is parliamentary business. When we went through them we saw that the easiest
    way to make progress, is to go back to the amendment as they stand now and if it is a policy, to subsequently increase the thresholds, then we come properly and the Ministry would do its appropriate negotiation and then we would take that on board. But in terms of our international obligations as it stands now, we are bound by our own commitments we made as a nation.
    This is the real issue that is there. So, we can revisit this issue in terms of the national interest but in terms of our current international obligation -- and people should not confuse the GATS with the GATT. They are two completely different arrangements. One subsequently was not ratified but one was subsequently ratified by this House.
    Mr Haruna Iddrisu 2:10 p.m.
    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
    When the Hon Isaac Osei, my good in- law took the floor, I expected -- [Interruptions] -- Yes, my in-law; yes, my in-law appropriately, my in-law, my in- law.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon Member, may I find out who is suffering -- [Laughter.]
    Mr H. Iddrisu 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are happier -- [Laughter.]
    Mr Speaker, I expected him, with his knowledge of the industry to have shared with the Hon Kofi Frimpong; but I believe that is what he is doing now.
    Mr Speaker, in respect of clause 27, there is a commitment that we have under the World Trade Organisation under the General Agreement on Tariff, to which we agreed to a minimum in terms of our dealings with other countries. And in setting the minimum capital requirement, and more importantly, wanting to have 30 per cent equity, may offend some of those commitments.
    We intend in future to renegotiate those commitments and probably, come back to this House. But in order to keep pace with that particular requirement, we will therefore, have to do the necessary amendment which the Chairman is needing.
    I thank you.
    Prof. George Y. Gyan-Baffour 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the reason these amendments are being proposed is very simple. Clause 27, the original one too has been amended. Subclause (2) has been amended and has been deleted. All these things were relating to the original ones. So, it is consequential and there should not have been any argument on that. So, that is the main issue, Mr Speaker.
    Dr A. A. Osei 2:10 p.m.
    May I know why we are limiting it to goods but not goods and services?
    Alhaji Sorogho 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, services include so many other things -- mining, the hospitality and several things. So, for now because there are other laws which regulate those sectors and we are talking about trading, we decided to limit ourselves to trading.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    I think the Hon Minister has an intervention; let us hear him.
    Dr A. A. Osei 2:10 p.m.
    He said “imported goods” and I am saying --[interruptions] -- Why do we exclude “services”?
    Mr H. Iddrisu 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just to have the debate -- yesterday, we had this example. Kempiski Hotel may be a hotel that is being constructed to provide service. Assuming that you require a Ghanaian to put down 30 per cent, that naturally may be problematic and difficult for that Ghanaian. So, in order to satisfy both sides, we thought that we should
    limit ourselves in terms of trading to goods and not services.
    Mr Danquah 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree to what the Minister is saying but because now, we have amended it in such a way that there is no 30 per cent and we have brought in a new rendition under the clause 27(2), then we should add the services as previously stated in the Bill.
    This is because we can let it read as --
    “for the purpose of this section trading includes the purchasing and selling of imported goods and services”.
    Now, it does not affect what the Minister was saying regarding the level of equity participation. It does not affect it now, so, we are safe by adding the “services” to it.
    Dr Ayine 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with all due respect, if we add “services” and we put a value on the services that may be provided, that again, goes back to the non-compliance with our market access obligation under article xvi of GATS.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Clause 27, subclause (4).
    Alhaji Sorogho 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (4), delete.
    They are all consequential. They all follow as a result of the new clause which has been introduced to replace the first one. But clause 27(5)-- I would want to take Mr Speaker's leave because there is a typographical error which was not recognised. It is not to be deleted, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Let me put the Question with regard to subclause (4).
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, subclause (5).
    Alhaji Sorogho 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that subclause (5), should read as follows “an enterprise referred to sub section 2 shall employ at least, 10 skilled Ghanaians”.
    Ms Sarah Adwoa Safo 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, I would want to get direction from the Chair, whether we are having an extended Sitting -- [Interruptions] -- I am coming under Order 41 -- [Interruptions].
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Order! Order!
    Hon Member, I have directed that we will go beyond the Sitting period for not more than 30 minutes. So, let us move on.
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, early on, with regard to sub- clauses (3) and (4), I said that they remain part of the Bill since they have been deleted -- they do not remain part of the Bill. Right.
    Alhaji Sorogho 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 27, subclsuse (6), delete.
    Mr Speaker, delete completely because it is captured under clause 27 (3).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice has raised issues relating to the inclusion of “services”. Mr Speaker, if you go to the Interpretation section, we have defined “enterprise” and we have included “enterprise” in this section. Now, “enterprise” as defined, it means “an industry, project undertaking or business or an expansion of that industry or undertaking projejct or that
    business or any part of that industry undertaking, project or business other than the exploration and extraction of the petroleum and other minerals”. We have deleted just that last leg.
    Mr Speaker, again, look at ‘“foreign capital, it means convertible currency, plant, machinery, equipments, spare parts, raw materials and other business assets other than goodwill that enters the country without an initial disbursement of the foreign exchange of this country and that are intended for the production of goods and services . . .”
    So, Mr Speaker, now that we are introducing this element, we may then have to go into all these areas and effect the relevant amendments, otherwise, we impose on ourselves some unanticipated problems.
    Mr Aboagye 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I hope we are looking at the same thing. In the amendment, we specifically referred to “trading enterprise” so, the “enterprise” was qualified here.
    Alhaji Sorogho 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the definition in the Interpretation column, “enterprise” stands on its own. But we are referring to the two coming together as a trading enterprise. And so, since we have already taken the vote on that, Mr Speaker, there is still a window for this to be introduced at a Second Consideration Stage, if it is so necessary that we bring it.
    So, for now, we will liaise with the Minority Leader , to see if there is the need for us to improve upon the Bill, we will still be ready to do that.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 27 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Alhaji Sorogho 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 43, subclause (5), delete and insert:
    “ . . . a joint venture or an enterprise which has been registered under the Ghana Investment Promotion Centre Act, 1994, Act 478, before the commencement of this Act shall be considered to have been registered under this Act notwithstanding the provision of section 27 (1) sub- clause (a) of this Act”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    I think it is very clear.
    Dr A. A. Osei 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am sorry; it may be clear to you but it is not very clear to me and that is why it should have been advertised, so that we can read it properly. The Chairman has to give us the reasons for bringing this change and it is not here. So, we are lost.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Hon Minister, can you give us the background to this?
    Mr H. Iddrisu 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to support the Hon Chairman of the Committee and to urge Hon Colleagues to support it. It appears even con-- sequentialy to the amendments which have been done to clause 27, that initially, the thinking was to have a minimum of 30 per cent requirement, which has been taken off.
    If Hon Anthony Akoto Osei will recall, even when we discussed the amendments as to the production of exercise books and those which were related to importation of pharmaceuticals, we said that the House would have to take a re-think of the provisions of clause 43 (5) because it provided some provisions which said Mr Speaker, three years after this Act, which in his own argument at that time, had the import of the potential retroactivity which offends article 107 of the 1992 Constitu- tion.
    So, we are keeping it at pace to a suggestion he made earlier that this legislation Mr Speaker, some foreign enterprises would have acquired accrued interest, having operated in this country and the passage of the legislation should not inure to their disadvantage.
    For instance, are you saying that pharmaceutical companies which were in this country operating, subsequent to us saying that retail of pharmaceuticals is now restricted to Ghanaians three years after the passage of this law, will cease to acquire the interest that they have invested in this country? So, it is to protect already existing investment that this particular provision is being made.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:20 p.m.
    Do you have any amendment?
    Dr A. A. Osei 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not have any difficulty but when you get up and read the amendment, it is not in front of us. I agree that, we agreed that, we should reconsider that, so I do not have any difficulty with this explanation.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, may I find out from the Hon Chairman, how long is that amendment because I was not really following.
    Alhaji Sorogho 2:20 p.m.
    It is just one paragraph.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:20 p.m.
    I mean, how many lines on the paper?
    Alhaji Sorogho 2:20 p.m.
    Four lines and that is why I had to seek leave of Mr Speaker, to move this particular one.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is my difficulty because Order 129 (c) provides; that:
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Very well. It is good our attention has been drawn to that provision. But I think I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 43 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr William O. Boafo 2:30 p.m.
    I am sorry; Mr Speaker should have recognised me earlier.
    Mr Speaker, it is not any serious objection or observation. The only thing is that now, we do not use the word “notwith-standing”. It is in the rendition
    that he gave. I would suggest that the amendment starts from that particular sentence that “despite the provisions of section … a joint venture --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Very well. I will direct the Table Office to let the draftspersons take care of that issue.
    Hon Members, this brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage of the Ghana Investment Promotion Centre Bill,
    2013.
    Would the Mace be put upright?
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Dr Kunbuor 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we could take item 1 on the Addendum Order Paper.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Yes, the Minister for Finance?
    Dr Kunbuor 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we had agreed with the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance to lay the Paper because the Minister is attending to very important matters of interest to this House. So, I ask for your leave for him to lay the Paper on his behalf.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe if the Minister responsible for Finance is unavailable, the Majority Leader and Minister responsible for Government Business in Parliament should have the capacity to do this on behalf of Government. He does not even have to look over his shoulders. He did not have to do that; he should have the capacity to do that -- [Hear! Hear!]
    Dr Kunbuor 2:30 p.m.
    Yes, thank you very much. Actually, it was not my shoulders I was looking at. I was looking ahead at the other side. If it is about my shoulders, that was sufficiently covered but I could not anticipate what could come from looking forward.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he has the leave of the House to do that.
    PAPERS 2:30 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    Well. Hon Majority Leader?
    Dr Kunbuor 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the House is in your hands.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:30 p.m.
    We are only two minutes outside the 30 minutes. The House is accordingly adjourned till tomorrow at 10.00 o'clock in the forenoon.
    Dr Kunbuor 2:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let us ask for your leave in relation to a very special matter that would be coming. So, we would want to crave your indulgence that the House suspends Sitting to enable some businesses to take place.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    All right. Thank you very much.
    The House is accordingly suspended for those matters to be dealt with.
    Hon Members, I direct that the House moves into Closed Sitting. So, let the Clerks-at-the-Table excuse us as well as the gallery should be cleared.
    Hon Majority Leader, we either let one of the Clerks remain to take minutes or we get somebody else to take minutes. What is the consensus?
    Dr Kunbuor 2:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we were expecting that the Clerk to Parliament would be here.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    The Clerk to Parliament?
    Dr Kunbuor 2:40 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    If he is not through with the interviews being conducted.
    2.44 p.m. -- Sitting suspended.
    3.45 p.m. -- Sitting resumed.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:40 p.m.
    Sitting has resumed, I accordingly direct that the House be adjourned till tomorrow at 10 o'clock in the forenoon.
    Thank you.
    ADJOURNMENT 2:40 p.m.