Debates of 6 Nov 2013

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 11:25 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 11:25 a.m.
  • [No correction was made to the Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 5th November, 2013.]
    • Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Statements -- Hon Members, I have admitted one Statement standing in the name of the Hon Member for Effutu.
    Hon Member, you have the floor.
    STATEMENTS 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Alexander K. Afenyo-Markins (NPP -- Effutu) 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am ex- ceedingly grateful to you for the opportu- nity to make a Statement on the floor of the House.
    Mr Speaker, Winneba, the capital of my constituency, experienced a fire outbreak at its central market in July, this year. For the second time, another fire incident has taken place, this time, it gutted no other place than the Municipal Government Hospital. It started at about 10.00 p.m. on Monday, the 28th of October and swept

    through the Pharmacy and the Stores De- partment of the hospital.

    Mr Speaker, it took personnel from the Ghana National Fire Service over four hours to put out the fire.

    Mr Speaker, although there were no casualties, the health of the people of Win- neba and its environs is in jeopardy. This is because the hospital caters for about 400 to 500 patients daily and due to the effect of the fire, it would be impossible for the hospital to effectively discharge its medical duties.

    Mr Speaker, the medical equipment lost included, but not limited to surgical, med- ical, office and laboratory consum-ables and the total cost of the damage is esti- mated at over GH¢2 million, according to the Medical Superintendent at the hospital, Dr George Prah.

    Mr Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to urge the Government to consider an urgent replacement of all med- ical apparatus, gadgets and drugs to ensure a smooth remobilisation of resources to attend to the medical needs of our people.

    I further humbly call on corporate Ghana to support the hospital to repair and replace damaged items at the facility.

    Finally, Mr Speaker, I suggest that Government should take steps to insure all government facilities nationwide, so that any such future occurrence would not become a burden on public funds, since fire outbreaks are not predictable and inevitable considering recent experiences in the country.

    Mr Speaker, I thank you. Mr Joseph Y. Chireh (NDC -- Wa

    West): Mr Speaker, this Statement as

    indicated by my good Friend is a sad one, in the sense that we have a difficulty getting medical equipment, we have diffi- culties with staffing and motivating staff to work to their level. So, if you have fire destroying these things, one can only say that we need to look at the security of our hospitals and health facilities in terms of all the risks that would be involved.

    We have been calling for insurance to cover these institutions and this cannot be any more urgent than now. Over the past few months, we have all seen and heard how fire had destroyed markets. Now, it is getting close to where, if you are burnt somewhere, you are supposed to go to, and that is why I would urge that the Ministry of Health should look at this particular problem and bring relief to the area.

    A very beautiful trauma hospital has been opened there and it is supposed to be supported by this. But if the patients are diverting to that same trauma hospital, which is a specialised hospital, to take care of accident cases, we would have a difficulty. So, if anything can be done to support the rehabilitation, particularly, the pharmacy where the fire started, it would be appreciated.

    We know that in the pharmacy, we have very volatile chemicals, sometimes stored there and that is why every day before they close, they must ensure that the place is properly secured.

    I would urge that anything that can be done to let all health institutions and facilities continually check their systems -- because it is very expensive to install new machinery, equipment and the rest of them. If one fire does this, you cannot tell when next it would happen. That is why I would urge that strict measures be issued out by the Director-General of the Ghana Health Service to all its facilities.

    This also does not exclude the private

    sector facilities. This House has passed an Act which requires continuous inspection of health facilities, such that all those that did not meet the criteria are brought to book. Unfortunately, there has not been an establishment of the Board to take on these provisions of the Act.

    This is the time for us to urge the Min- istry of Health to expedite action on how to establish the Board, so that this health facilities Act is fully implemented to save Government and the people of Ghana many cedis in terms of what is going on.

    Daniel Nii Kwartei Titus-Glover (NPP--Tema East): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

    Mr Speaker, I rise to associate myself with the Statement made by my Hon Colleague. This is the second time this year that an accident has happened in his constituency. If he would recall, he made a Statement on the floor at that time, about tidal waves that destroyed canoes and other fishing gear in his constituency. As a Colleague from the coastal belt, we have a similar experience --
    Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Hon Member, I hope you are not going to hijack the Statement. -- [Laughter.]
    Nii Kwartei Titus-Glover: Mr Speak- er, I am not going there, I can assure you.
    Unfortunately, he woke up one day and realised that fire had gutted the Gov- ernment Hospital in Winneba. We know the importance of health delivery in our country; and in these difficult times, I can see what his constituents may be going through.
    I would want to implore the Minister for Health, who left this House yesterday, that an emergency team should be sent to the constituency. This is because the lives of his people are under threat, and I
    Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.


    believe that the Hon Minister would be able to immediately support the people to save their lives.

    He made mention of corporate Ghana, and I am sure, Mr Speaker, these are the areas where we need the private sector as well. There are certain areas where you see these private institutions investing their moneys, but I think that the lives of human beings are important. For that matter, I would implore these private institutions, not only those in Winneba, but those who are here in Accra to come to the aid of the people of Effutu and its environs as part of their corporate social responsibility.

    With these few words, I am so grateful.
    Mr Theophilus Tetteh Chaie (NDC -- Ablekuma Central) 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to join my Hon Colleagues in terms of the unfortunate incident that occurred at the Winneba Government Hospital. For some time now, we have been complaining of fire here, fire there, fire everywhere and as a people, we are not able to bring this fire situations under control. But in my view, Mr Speaker, as a country, especially, in our Government in- stitutions, people do not just want to work.
    I believe that in our various State institutions, we have what we call “main- tenance departments”, and what is the essence of the maintenance departments? They are to ensure that all the things that need to be done to ensure that facilities that have been put in place work effectively and efficiently, but nobody cares. This is because it is a State institutions. If you move into some of these institutions, you would realise that air conditioners are falling off, the electrical wiring is old and nobody cares. At the end of the day, the State loses a lot of resources.
    Today, the Winneba Government Hospital has lost drugs, equipment and what have you. We only come to make Statements on the issue and nobody cares. It is about time that people we have given responsibilities to in our various institu- tions were held accountable for some of these losses. We should hold ourselves accountable and if that is done, some of these things would be nipped in the bud.
    Look at our private institutions, they are working efficiently and effectively. Why is it not happening in our public institutions? These are questions we need to ask ourselves and at the end of the day, we would be able to nip some of these things in the bud.
    Mr Speaker, with these few words, I thank you very much.
    Ms Sarah Adwoa Safo (NPP -- Dome/Kwabenya) 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to associate myself with the Statement made by the Hon Member.
    Mr Speaker, as has already been said by earlier contributors, the recent outbreak of fires all over the place is becoming worrying. Maybe, as a country, it is time, that we paused, take a minute to reconsider our maintenance culture.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member who made the Statement has enumerated to the entire House, that an entire hospital got burnt. What the causes are, up to date, nobody has been able to tell the country. I believe that as a country, if we take maintenance seriously, we can curb some of these problems, so that it does not get to the worst stage. When most of our hospitals are built, are just left the way they are years and years and years on.
    Mr Speaker, as a House, it has hap- pened to one Hon Member; it could happen to me. Indeed, it has happened to my market women in Dome; and a
    woman who got burnt with three of her children in a kiosk in my constituency. My condolence goes to the whole family and to everybody who has lost someone during the recent fire outbreaks.
    Mr Speaker, I would urge all the ap- propriate agencies, the Ghana National Fire Service, the Ministry involved and Members of Parliament, to also educate our people on rescue techniques that could curb fire outbreaks before they destroy life and property. Again, as a country, we ought to reconsider our maintenance culture to maintain our structures, edifices and things that belong to the State, so that losses during fire outbreaks would not cost us financially as a country.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Alhaji Mohammad-Mubarak Mun- taka (NDC -- Asawase) 11:35 a.m.
    Thank you very much Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to associate myself with the Statement ably made by my Hon Colleague from Effutu Constituency, and to say it was a most unfortunate thing that should happen to no other facility than a hospital. Mr Speaker, if you look at what happened at Winneba, I believe it might have happened to many other facilities not only for public but private.
    Mr Speaker, we all know that in this country, there are laws and rules govern- ing buildings. Even the building permits need to be examined by the Fire Service Department or the Ghana National Fire Service as an institution. But, Mr Speaker, unfor- tunately, most of the builders in our country ignore the aspect of the fire safety component and the buildings are put up. So, sometimes, when the fire starts as a smoke, you do not get a signal until it is blown into a full fire that destroys almost every item within its catchment.
    Mr Speaker, let me say that for hospi- tals, especially government facilities, we must ensure that before the structures are handed over, at least, the fire detectors are installed just to give signals. We know that alone cannot prevent the fire from happening but it gives a signal.
    The attitude of most of these govern- ment institutions -- I believe, the Minister for Health and for that matter, the Ghana Health Service need to be up and doing. This is because many of them, whom today work under the National Health Service, generate a lot of resources, which they call “internally generated funds”. But when even a plug is spoiled, they keep waiting for the Central Government to come and fix it, when in actual sense, the resources that they hold can more than fix the small problem.
    So, it then graduates from being a very small problem that could even be maintained or replaced into a bigger one. You go to a hospital and you would be shocked to see wires running all over and you would wonder whether those who are managing these facilities have seen the exposure that those electrical wires could expose the general public to.
    Mr Speaker, like my Hon Colleague rightly said, I would want to urge that every effort be made as soon as possible to help rehabilitate the burnt structure at Winneba.
    The Ghana Health Service must do everything that it can to ensure that in their operational rounds, they do not just go inspecting the human resource and how they are working but they would add the component of how the structure is working. And when it requires very little resources, at least, they could give instructions for the internally generated funds to be used to fix it. As a country, we should make a conscious effort to ensure that buildings have fire detectors before they can be allowed to operate.
    Mr Speaker, with these comments, I would want to thank my Hon Colleague for drawing our attention to the issue of the Winneba Government General Hospital.
    MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    The next person is Hon Ayorkor Botchwey.
    Ms Shirley A. Botchwey (NPP -- An- yaa/Sowutuom 11:45 a.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to associate myself with the Statement ably made by the Hon Member for Effutu on the fire outbreak in his constituency, specifically the Winneba Government Hospital.
    Mr Speaker, this is a very unfortunate incident, adding to the many fire outbreaks that we have all experienced in our con- stituencies in the last few years; very unfortunate.
    Mr Speaker, if you would recall, a few months ago, I tabled a Motion requesting that His Excellency the President sets up a commission of enquiry to look into the many fire outbreaks in this country. Unfortunately, this Motion was not al- lowed by the Rt. Hon Speaker. One of the reasons that were given was that, we had experts at the time who were in the process of investigating the fire outbreaks. Two experts had come in from the United States of America.
    Unfortunately, today, as we speak, the report -- We are told that the experts had finished with the report and yet it has not been made available to Ghanaians. Yet each and every day, we have fire out- breaks. We need to know what exactly the report says.
    I would also like to use this opportu- nity again, Mr Speaker, for your office to re-consider your decision not to allow
    that Motion to be put forward in this House --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Mem- ber, I hope you are not using this platform to lobby the Office of the Speaker to review its decision. I believe it was made clear at that time, that you could file a Motion to that effect. So, can we make some progress?
    Ms Botchwey 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, but the recent fire outbreaks just go to reiterate the need for us to have a very comprehensive commission of enquiry, bringing together all stakeholders to look into them -- and of course, we are told that the report by the two American experts is ready. Can the nation know what exactly is in the report? Maybe, Mr Speaker, if we get to know what the experts have said, there would not be the need to set up any such thing.
    But for now, maybe, Mr Speaker, I am using this opportunity in contributing to also ask your office to reconsider that Motion.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Thank you very much.
    This brings us to the end of the State- ment and contributions.
    We move on to the next item on the Order Paper: presentation of Papers --
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader.
    Mr Alfred K. Agbesi 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, before the next item, the Hon Member who made the Statement has made a very good suggestion and I beg to quote:
    “…I suggest that Government should take steps to insure all gov- ernment facilities nation- wide…”.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that, that sug- gestion should be taken on board by the authorities concerned, if it is possible for Government to insure all government facilities nationwide to avert the happen- ings of this nature.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you for that.
    Mr Speaker, the next item, “The following Papers to be presented”. Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader is out of the premises and I would want to seek your permission, with the indulgence of the House, to lay the Papers on his behalf.
    Mr Dominic B. A. Nitiwul 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, ordinarily, I would not have a problem with my Hon Colleague on the other side of the House stepping in for the Majority Leader -- but that is where the problem is -- When we say “the Major- ity Leader and Minister for Government Business in Parliament”, is the Deputy a Deputy Minister? Be it as it may, we are caught up in this situation. So, the Hon Member can do it for now.
    PAPERS 11:45 a.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Members, Value Added Tax Bill, at the Consideration Stage.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 11:55 a.m.
    STAGE 11:55 a.m.
  • [Resumption of debate from 05-11- 2013.]
    • Mr James K. Avedzi 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the clause 10, subclause 18, which was deferred yesterday, we have done the con- sultation and the position is that, it should stand as it is in the proposed amendment.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10 delete and insert the following 11:55 a.m.
    “Disposition of taxable activity
    18. (1) Subject to subsection (2), where
    (a) the supply was charged with tax at the rate of zero per cent in terms of the Second Schedule; and
    (b) the goods and services com- prising a taxable activity were acquired by the recipient wholly or partly for a purpose other than for consumption, use, or supply in the course of making taxable supplies, the acquisition of the taxable activity is a supply by the recipient in the course or fur- therance of a taxable activity carried on by the recipient to the extent that the goods and services com-prising, use, or supply in the course of mak- ing taxable supplies.
    (2) Subsection (1) does not apply where that part of the taxable activity referred to
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Ranking Member.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not disagree with my Hon Chairman but he said they had done some consultation. I do not know where and when it was done. I do not disagree with what he has said but to say that they had done — nobody has talked to me. So, I am not sure, unless he wants me to take it that --
    Mr Avedzi 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the consul- ta-tion I am talking about is not with the Hon Ranking Member. I did the consul- tation with the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) and in the process, the Hon Mi- nority Leader was also present. That is what I mean by that. Unfortunately, he was not there, so, he was not part of the consulta-tion.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader is not the Ranking Member of the Committee, so he cannot arrogate my responsibilities to my Hon
    Minority Leader. He needs to seek my permission.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon Member, your point is well taken. Hon Chairman, you have to take note of that. Nobody wants to get his position whittled away by any such process.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 10 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 13 -- Taxable supply.
    Mr Avedzi 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 13, line 3, before “part” delete “a” in line 4, and after “of”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition will now read 11:55 a.m.
    “Except as otherwise provided in this Act or Regulation, a taxable supply is a supply of goods or ser- vices made by a taxable person
    Mr Avedzi 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 14, Headnotes, delete and insert “Payment of tax on importation of goods or services”.
    Mr Speaker, the purpose of this amend- ment is to make it clearer. The clause is referring to payment of tax on importation of goods and services. The way it stands, “taxable import” does not make it clear, so the purpose is to make it clearer.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Avedzi 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 14, subclause (1), line 1, after “Regulation” add “under this Act”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition reads 11:55 a.m.
    “except as otherwise provided in this Act or Regulations under this Act”.
    The way it stands here,we will not know under which Act of that Regulation is referred to. So to make it clearer, the Regulation referred to here is “Regulation under this Act”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Avedzi 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 14, line 3, delete “the har- monised system and”.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in my notes and in his notes, it looks like clause 14 (1)(a)(i) was supposed to have been de- leted. I do not know if the Hon Chairman can confirm that as an amendment.
    Mr Avedzi 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 14 (1) (a)(i)—
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 14 (1)(a)(i), in our notes, it appears that an amendment was proposed to delete.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, what is your response?
    Mr Avedzi 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, my notes did not tell me it should be deleted.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman of the Committee should remember we suggested that the Com- mis-sioner-General “shall make arrange- ments” because it is not him that is going to make the arrangements and we both seem to have that anyway; he can check back and make a note, so that we can confirm it later on.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Yes, we should move on. So, we were dealing with the third proposed amendment for clause 14.
    Mr Avedzi 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, let us step down the proposed amendment. This is because I need to verify which particular one he is referring to because it is not too clear. So, if we can move to the next one -- we will come back to clause 14.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Very well. We move on to clause 15.
    Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Chireh 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you
    look at the advertisements, there are no amendments for a number of them; so if you could call them together, it will move faster.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Very well. We will advise ourselves. But for the purposes of caution, I would want to take them one after the other.
    We have clauses 16, 17 and 18; there are no proposed amendments.
    Hon Chairman —
    Mr Avedzi 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is a

    proposed amendment for clause 17; so the clause 14 which I asked to be stepped down is rather for clause 17.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Do I un- der-stand you to be saying that with regard to clause 14, there are only two proposed amendments?
    Mr Avedzi 12:05 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker. Clause 14 should be only two proposed amend- ments. The third one should read clause
    17.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    All right. In that case, we would take clauses 16 and 18.
    Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 17 --
    Mr Avedzi 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 17, line 3, delete “the Har- monised System and.” Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read:
    “An import of goods is an exempt import if the goods are exempt under the First Schedule or classified as an exempt import in conformity with customs tariff schedule also known as the Harmonised System.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Avedzi 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I propose that we go back to clause 14 and take the vote on it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Thank you very much.
    Clause 17 as amended ordeered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 18 -- Relief of supply.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I need your guidance.
    Can the Minister do anything else but use Legislative Instrument (L.I.)? It says “the Minister may by L.I . . .” What else can he use to do the regulation? “The Minister shall make regulations” That is the only way he can do it; so, I do not know why we say “the Minister may by L.I.”
    It is redundant; so, with the Chair- man's permission, I propose “the Min- ister may make regulations” and delete “by Legislative Instrument”. He cannot do it by any other instrument, so -- [In- terrup-tion] -- “May make.” There is a discretion on “may”. But it says “by Legislative Instrument.” What other way can the Minister make regulations? It is only through an L.I.; so, it is redundant. Delete “by Legislative Instrument”. So, it would read “the Minister may make regulations . . .”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon Chair- man, what is your response?
    Mr Avedzi 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not think it would change the intent of the clause. So, let us go ahead.
    Mr Chireh 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the amendment because it is superfluous to be adding “by Legislative Instrument.” If a Minister is to make regulations, it is necessarily by L.I. So, why do we say it again? He has made the document bulky. So, if he is making the amendment, I urge all of you to support it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    All right. Since the Chairman has no objection, I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 18 as amended ordered to stand part of of the Bill.
    Clause 19 -- Time of supply.
    Mr Avedzi 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, subclause (5), paragraph (b), line 5 after “date” add “on which payment is due or received or that the in- voice is issued whichever date is earlier.”
    Mr Speaker, this amendment is actual- ly to re-arrange that particular clause well. So, if you look at the Bill, the sub-clauses (c) and (d) under clause 5 have now been collapsed into one sentence, just to make it clearer.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Avedzi 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, subclause (5), paragraph (c) , delete.
    Mr Speaker, the purpose is that we have already taken care of that under the earlier proposed amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Avedzi 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, subclause (5), paragraph (d), delete.
    Mr Speaker, it is the same as the earlier one.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Avedzi 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, subclause (8), line 2, delete “ancillary” and insert “incidental”
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 12:05 p.m.
    “Where the supply of goods or ser- vices is incidental to another supply, the time of supply of the incidental supply shall be considered to be the same as the time of supply of the main goods or services.”
    Mr Speaker, the word “ancillary” does not make it fit into the sentence. So, once
    “incidental” was made reference to the line 1, we are repeating “incidental” to make it more appropriate.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Avedzi 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, subclause (13), re-num- ber as “14”.
    Mr Speaker, we are changing the po- sition of subclause (13) to subclause (14).
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is a consequential amendment in subclause 13 that we would want to take care of, “by Legislative Instrument”. So, if the draftspersons would take care of that -- [Interruption] -- Clause 13, we should be removing “by Legislative Instrument” on the basis of an earlier decision; so, we should just take care of it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon Chair- man, are you in agreement? All right.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Avedzi 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, subclause (14), re-num- ber as “(13)”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 19 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 21 - Issue of tax invoice or sales receipt
    Mr Avedzi 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 21, subclause (9), closing phrase, line 1, before “liable” insert “in
    Ms Adjoa Sarfo 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want further clarification.
    Is the terminology “currency units” or “currency points”? I know it is “cur- rency units” and so, if we could amend it accordingly.
    Mr Avedzi 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the term was provided to the Committee by lawyers and here, the lawyers are also saying it is “units”. So, I am confused which one to accept.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon Chair- man, can we refer it to the draftspersons?
    Mr Avedzi 12:15 p.m.
    Yes, let us refer it to the draftspersons, so that they use the appro- priate term.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 21 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon Members, I direct that the issue whether it should be “currency points” or “cur- rency units” should be dealt with by the draftspersons.
    We move on to clause 22 --
    Clause 22 -- Place of supply
    Mr Avedzi 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22 subclause (4), paragraph
    (b), lines 1 and 2, delete “or accountant” and insert “accountant or other profes- sionals”.
    Mr Speaker, the purpose of the amend- ment is not to limit the category of pro- fessionals covered under this, to only ac- countants, but other professionals as well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Avedzi 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, subclause (9), delete and in- sert the following:
    “The place of supply of a right to services is the same as the place for the supply of the services made by the supplier of the right to the recipient of the right whether the right is exercised. (10) For the pur- poses of subsection (9), a right to services includes any right, option or priority with respect to the supply of services and an interest derived from a right to services.”
    Mr Speaker, the purpose of this amend 12:15 p.m.
    None

    “The place of supply of a right to services is the same as that in which the supply of the services would be treated if made by the supplier.”

    This is clumsy. But the amendment would make it clearer than it is in the Bill. It is to make the intent clearer; that is why we are proposing this amendment.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, some clar- ification from the Hon Chairman.
    The way it is now, I am not sure what the amendment is trying to say. There is a bit of confusion there.
    It says (10); which one is (10)? Which
    (10) are we talking about here? [Interrup- tion.] It is part of (9). So, when you just amend (9), then you have to stop some- where and replace it. If you want to have a (10), then introduce the (10) as well, so that it becomes clearer. It is confusing as it stands now.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman, how do you respond?
    Mr Avedzi 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the clause 22(9) is sub-divided into two; so, the (10) here is actually coming in as another clause. The (9) actually ends at “exer- cised.” So, let us take that one first, then we move to the (10), which will be a continuation of the (9).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    All right.
    Hon Chairman, can you please, take us through clause 22?
    Mr Avedzi 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, subclause (9), delete and insert the following:
    “The place of supply of a right to services is the same as the place for the supply of the services made by the supplier of the right to the recipient of the right whether the right is exercised.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Avedzi 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, add a new subclause as follows: “(10) For the purposes of subsection (9), a right to services includes any right, option or priority with respect to the supply of services and an interest derived from a right to services.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    I believe the new subclause is (10), right? All right.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Avedzi 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, “clause 22, subclause (12), line 1, delete “card”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be --
    “The place of supply of a top-up or similar product is the place where the product is supplied.”
    Mr Avedzi 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this was debated at length at the Committee level whether we should maintain “card” to read “a top-up.” And if we say a “top-up card,” what do we mean by that? Is it for the airtime top-up card or what? So, we thought that we should delete the “card” to make it just “a top-up” so that if one is topping up, it would not necessarily be in a form of a card.
    You can buy a card and top-up or you can use any other system by probably directly debiting your account and your airtime is loaded. So, we thought that we could make it “a top-up” instead of “top up card.”
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought we agreed that instead of doing that, we could say: “the place of the supply of a recharge card” as opposed to leaving it at “top-up.” For “top-up” I am not sure, but I have it here that we have “recharge card”. I do not know if he would recall that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon Member, would that take into account the reason he gave for deleting the word: “card”?
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:25 p.m.
    Yes, because we do not know what is “a top- up.” “Recharge” is familiar in the industry, but for “top-up” of food -- I am not sure; but I thought we had that discussion.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, how do you respond to that?
    Mr Avedzi 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think it was the same kind of debate at the Committee level and my understanding at the end was that we agreed on the “top-up.” But if that would create misinterpretation, then we could use the two -- “top-up” or “recharge” card, so that it makes it clearer.
    Mr Nitiwul 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is no- where or anything called “top- up card.” There is nothing like that; it is just street jargon that people use. But if you go on the card itself, you would see “recharge card.” That is the word that is there. But in the street jargon, they would say “top- up card,” but on the card itself, you would see “recharge card,” because you are recharging the units.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon Mem- ber, you rose? Was it on the same issue? Go ahead, you have the floor.
    Ms Safo 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I had a similar issue with the “top-up.” From the expla- nation the Chairman gave, he was trying to say that people can top-up with cards or there are other ways of topping up. So, if we restrict it to only “recharge cards”, that is only one form of recharging, even though there are other forms of recharging. So, to bring the issue to an end “top-up” is not good drafting language. But if we could say: “recharge card or any other means of recharge,” then it would cover that other situation where he wants to use “top-up.”
    Mr Avedzi 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not

    have any issue about the new proposal. But if we put the two together and make it clearer, I would accept that. But the “top- up” or “recharge card” --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    What about the issue that “top- up” appears to be colloquial?
    Mr Avedzi 12:25 p.m.
    So, we should delete the “top- up” completely and say: “a recharge card or a similar product.” “Similar prod- uct” takes care of the second leg of the amendment.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, subclause (12), line (1), delete “top-up” and insert “recharge.” So, the new rendi- tion should be:
    “The place of supply of a recharge card or similar product is the place where the product is supplied”.
    Ms Safo 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, I am still not comfortable with the “similar product.” If it could read: “recharge card or any other mode of recharge”, then you are making it more precise”; “Similar product,” is a bit out of context and it opens a floodgate for several interpreta- tions.
    Mr Avedzi 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the Hon Member could explain that further. What does she mean by “it opens up a flood- gate”? Is it because we say: “a similar product”? A “similar product” could not be a physical product but a programme where the telecommunication operators have a product by which their subscribers' phones could be recharged.
    As I said early on, by way of linking your bank account -- where your bank account can be debited and your phone is recharged. It is a product. So, it is a similar product. And that also explains that there is a similar way of recharging your card. But the Hon Member is against using the word “product.” I think that is also a product which could be developed by the
    operators by which credits can be loaded on the phones.
    Mr Patrick Y. Boamah 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is a legal language that we are all battling with. When you are interpreting statutes, the canons require certain rules for interpreting them. So, if you say “rechargeable cards”, it should take its meaning from what you are talking about. So “rechargeable cards or any other mode construed --” Mr Speaker, it is “ejusdem generis”. That is how we would want it to be.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon Mem- ber, do you not think that the rendition here takes care of the issue we are raising? We are talking about a similar product.
    Ms Safo 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as my Hon Col- league has explained, “similar products” -- unless we intend to define “similar products” in the interpretation section. Otherwise, the word would be given their meaning; and ordinarily, similar products of what? But the word that precedes the “similar product” -- we are talking about “recharge”. But the Hon Member was battling with issues where there are other modes of transfers of recharge -- through your phone or bank card.
    So, the word here is “recharge.” If we have spoken about “recharge” the word preceding it would take its meaning from “recharge,” which is another mode of re- charging. But to say a “similar product”, it is way out of context and in interpretation again, it would open a floodgate for several interpretations.
    Mr Avedzi 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let me give one example of a similar product. There are some telecommunication operators who by virtue of loading a certain amount of airtime, would give you more minutes to make calls. It is loading your account with the airtime with a similar product.
    If you load Gh¢10.00 of airtime, you get five extra. It is a similar product; but it is not in a form of a card that you are going to buy.
    What the Hon Member is talking about, is a similar way of recharging; it is the same thing; the product covers everything.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Members, if we cannot arrive at a con- sensus, could we defer that bit, for further discussions, so that maybe, tomorrow, we can take that into account, and make some progress.
    So, Hon Members, I will not put the Question relating to the various amend- ments to clause 22, since we have deferred this aspect of it--
    So, we would move on to clause 23.

    Clause 23 -- Value of taxable supply
    Mr Avedzi 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 23, subclause (1), paragraph (a), line (3), delete “other than” and insert “excluding”.
    The new rendition will be:
    “Where the supply is for monetary consideration, is the amount of the consideration with the addition of all duties and taxes excluding the tax”
    And not --
    “other than” the tax.
    Mr Speaker, the purpose is to make it clearer for the tax purposes.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Avedzi 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 23, subclause (1), paragraph (b), line (1), delete “money” and insert “monetary”.
    Mr Speaker, it will read 12:35 p.m.
    “Where the supply is not for mone- tary consideration”
    Rather than -- “money consider- ation”.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Avedzi 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 23, subclause (3), line (3), delete “amount that, in the opinion of” and insert “value determined by” and in lines 4 and 5, delete “is the open market value of the supply”.
    The new rendition will then be:
    “Where the open market value of a taxable supply cannot be determined under this section, the open market value of the supply is the value determined by the Commission- er-General, having regard to all the circumstances of the supply.”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just re-entered.
    Maybe, the Hon Chairman would explain to me why the omission of “in respect of similar supply”. This is because we are talking about one item where the open market value of a taxable supply can- not be determined. The other leg relates to a similar supply. It seems he has omitted that by this amendment he is proposing. But I think it is relevant.
    Mr Avedzi 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader is right. That leg “or a similar supply” should not be deleted. So, the new rendition will then read:
    “Where the open market value of a taxable supply cannot be deter- mined under this section, the open market value of the supply is the value determined by the Commis- sioner-General having regard to all
    the circumstances of the supply or a similar supply.”
    I beg to move.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 23 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Clause 24?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    again, I have not been around for quite a while, so, I am trying to follow what they are doing and occasionally, I am making my own interventions. I noticed how long clause 23 is. In similar situations, we have broken them down and that has really made sense.
    I do not know whether we could not have a similar application in respect of clause 23. I have not read through but I think if we had determined to do that, I guess we would have done a better job than what obtains here -- 17 subclauses. I would think that we will run ourselves into problems.
    Mr Avedzi 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the reason for the breakdown of the earlier clauses 6 and 10 was that, we realised that despite the length of the clauses or the number of sub-clauses, they were related to different kinds of subjects. So, we broke them down into various sections to make them clearer.
    But for this one, it is relating to the “value of taxable supply” which is only one topic, which follows up to the 17 subclauses. That is why we did not break this one down. Even though we have up to 17 subclauses, they relate to only one subject which is the “value of taxable supply”. That is why we did not break these ones down.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Minority Leader, are you satisfied with the explanation?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, convinced but not persuaded. But I would drop the gauntlet.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    All right.
    Thank you very much.
    I have already put the Question. Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the
    Bill.
    Clause 25 -- Adjustments
    Mr Avedzi 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 25, subclause (8), delete “commits an offence where that person” and insert “who”.
    The new rendition will be:
    “A person who
    (a) fails to provide a required tax credit …”
    It does not sound well, according to the Committee, so, we are saying we should have a simple phrase that reads: “A per- son who” and that is the purpose for the amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Avedzi 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 25, subclause (8) add the following phrase after paragraph (b):
    “is in addition to the penalty in sec- tion 38, liable to a penalty of three times that amount of tax involved or two hundred and fifty currency points, whichever is greater.”
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition thus says 12:35 p.m.
    “A person who
    (b) provides a tax credit note or a tax debit note otherwise than as required by this section is in addition to the penalty in section 38, liable to a penalty of three times that amount of tax involved or two hundred and fifty currency points, whichever is greater.”
    Mr Speaker, the purpose of this is to make it more punitive for people; if the punishment is not enough, people will continue to flout the law. So, we make it more punitive, that is why we are adding this.
    Mr Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Hon Members, before I put the Question, I believe it is quite consequential, the currency units and the currency points will be taken up by the draftspersons.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Avedzi 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 25, subclause (9), delete.
    Mr Speaker, we are deleting this be- cause we have already added the intent of that to subclause (8), as we did earlier. So, subclause (9) becomes redundant and we are deleting it.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 25 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 26 -- Bad debts
    Mr Avedzi 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26 -- Headnotes, delete and insert “Adjustment on account of bad debts”.
    Mr Speaker, we want the Headnotes to capture the intent of the clauses and

    sub-clauses we have, that it covers ad- justments that are made on account of bad debts. So, we have just made it clearer.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clause 26 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 28 -- Deductible input tax.
    Mr Avedzi 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 28, subclause (7), lines 2 and 3, delete “any person in” and in line 4, after “nature” insert “by any person”.
    The new rendition will read:
    “A taxable person does not qualify for deductible input tax on fees or subscriptions paid by the person in respect of membership of a club, association or society of exporting social or recreational nature by any person”.
    The purpose is to make it clearer.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 28 subclause (4) (b), I have a note dealing with the period of six months. Did we not have an amendment there, just to be sure? We do not? We have three months here; that is why.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 28 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 30 -- Refund or credit for ex- cess tax paid.
    Mr Avedzi 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30, subclause (5), line 3, delete “Commissioner General” and insert “Commissioner-General”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Avedzi 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30, subclause (11), line 1, delete “any documents required to be submitted with” and in line 3, delete “specified by the Commissioner-General”.
    The new rendition will be:
    “In addition to a refund claim form, the Commissioner-General may direct the claimants to submit other documents”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Avedzi 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30, add the following new subclause after subclause (11):
    “(12) The Commissioner-General may specify the manner in which docu- ments under subsection (11) may be submitted.”
    Mr Speaker, you would realise that we have deleted documents in the early one, so, we are bringing it back to make it clearer than as we put two together in subclause 11. So, we are creating a new subclause, which should read (12), that the Commissioner-General specifies the manner in which the documents should be submitted.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Avedzi 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30, subclause (13), delete:
    “A person who improperly claims a refund under this section is liable for a penalty equal to double the amount of the refund claimed.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon Ranking Member, you said you had an issue with this particular one.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speak- er, this clearly establishes a sanction in respect of any breach relating to the re- funds or credit for excess tax paid. If we are deleting it, how do we introduce any sanction regime in respect of that breach?
    Mr Avedzi 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we can step down clause 30, so that we do a further consultation. This is because I am not getting it clear, if that was the position at the Committee level.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Very well.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have a question for the Chairman.
    In my notes, subsection (9), there was a proposed amendment. I do not know if you recall that.
    I have it here, that:
    “For the purposes of this section, a taxable person applying for a refund shall make available to the Commis- sioner-General . . .”
    Then, the next line also, instead of “to- gether with”, we have “and the relevant tax invoice”. That is what I have in my notes.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Well, Hon Chairman, I would want to direct that you take note of what he has said, so that you crosscheck if that was the position at the Committee meeting.
    Meanwhile, since you have requested that we defer the further consideration of

    clause 30, I accordingly direct that we do that. So, the next one would be clause 31.

    Clauses 31 and 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 33 -- Payment of tax on import of services.
    Mr Avedzi 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 33 -- subclause (1), line 2, delete “(3)” and insert “(1) (c)”.
    Mr Speaker, so the new rendition will read 12:55 p.m.
    “Where tax is payable on an import of services, other than as provided under subsection (1) (c) of section
    11”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Avedzi 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 33 -- subclause (3), line 2, before “two” insert “the Gazette and”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition will be 12:55 p.m.
    “Except as otherwise provided in this Act, a form prescribed by the Commissioner-General is en- force-able when published in the Gazette and two daily newspapers of national circulation.”
    Mr Speaker, we are adding Gazette publication in addition to the newspaper publication.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 33 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 34 and 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Augustine C. Ntim 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is an observation which I have made
    Mr Avedzi 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member who is raising the point, I have been watching him critically. Even when you put the Question, he does not respond.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon Mem- bers, I direct that the bell be rung in the next ten minutes. Considering the issues that he has raised --
    Mr Ntim 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, ideally, I should have raised a quorum to draw your attention to that but because of --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    You are not raising an issue of quorum?
    Mr Ntim 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am only drawing your attention, that the Majority side should be serious. They should be very serious. I have taken the trouble to count --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Very well. Your point is well taken.
    Can we make some progress?
    Hon Members, shall we move on?
    We have dealt with clauses 34 and 35. Now, we move on to clause 36.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speak-
    er, I would want some information from the Chair because in respect of clause 34, I
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman, how do you respond?
    Mr Avedzi 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am looking at the headnotes which talk about “assess- ment of tax and correction of return” -- that when the Commissioner-General has a reason to believe that a person will become liable, a person other than taxable person supplies goods, a taxable person supplies goods or services, a taxable person fails to submit a tax return, a return is incorrect or subsection (21) of section 6 applies, the Commissioner-General, based on the information available, may -- it is based on the information available.
    So, the information available to the

    Commissioner-General can tell him to do (a) or (b). So, we should not have “shall” there. The information available to the Commissioner-General may make an as- sessment or may not make an assessment. That is my understanding.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon Mi- nority Leader, are you satisfied?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no.
    Mr Speaker, unfortunately, I have not been around for quite a while. But look at the clauses that we have dealt with earlier in respect of a “taxable person”, “a taxable activity” and then the one relating to reg- istration. Mr Speaker, it is an obligation. Once a taxable person engages in a taxable activity, and that is whether or not the person himself -- So, at several places, we have related to taxable activity. That is, if the person himself does not want to do it.
    Upon assessment, the Commission- er-General is obligated to register that person. So, he should not have any dis- cretion here with these conditions. Once he assures himself that based on the infor- mation available in respect of these ones, then he shall make an assessment.
    Mr Agbesi 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, reading clause 34 (1) (a)(b) (c) (d) (e) and (f) and the obli- gation contained therein, I would want to agree with the Hon Minority Leader that there should not be any discretion in the matter. It should be “shall”. For instance, paragraph (d):
    “a taxable person fails to submit a tax return . . .”
    He has failed to submit it and:
    “(e) a return is incorrect . . .”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    I did not want to descend into the arena of debate but it looks like the Commissioner-Gen- eral is being asked to look at certain bits and pieces of information on the basis of which he or she will take a decision. So, if you do not give him that leeway, it is as if we are making it impossible for him to exercise his discretion.
    Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speak- er, the need to use “shall” becomes more imperative when one reads clause 34 (1) itself. It says:
    “Where the Commissioner-General has reason to believe . . .”
    So, even from the beginning, he has reason to believe that the person may de- fault, the person may do that. Therefore, if he has reason to believe, then we should make sure that he actually goes the extra mile, takes the step, the discretion in this case. Once he has reason to believe, that discretion has already been exercised, the reason given him, which makes him believe that the person may default, in which case, then he must take the steps to ensure that --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    If he has reason to believe, based on information available.
    Mr Osei-Owusu 1:05 p.m.
    That is right. Based on the information, he is convinced that the person may be breaching or default- ing. The person may be supplying or is not a taxable person and so on. He has now formed the opinion that the person may be in the way of depriving Ghana of some tax revenue. In that case, he should --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    All right.

    Hon Chairman, how do you respond.
    Mr Avedzi 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my thinking is that, if the information available to the Commissioner-General does not suggest that there should be any assessment and we put “shall” there, what happens in that situation? If the information available to the Commissioner-General does not prove that the person is liable or has made a supply or fails to submit the return or the return is even incorrect and the rest, why should he automatically make an assess- ment? So, I think that the “may” should be there, because we are talking about assessment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon Min- ister, do you have any comment to make on this issue?
    Mr Terkpeh 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would prevail on the House to retain “may” be- cause at this instance, we are dealing with “assessment”. This is the instance at which either the taxpayer -- the taxpayer at first instance, is to self-assess and he may not have done certain things, in some cases, serious; in other cases, it may be the result of some oversight.
    Mr Speaker, if one reads further, one would see that the Bill at subclause (5) actually makes room for the taxpayer to appeal. We are also dealing with the Commissioner-General, in this instance, in a wider context; because we are dealing with the situation where somebody may be acting on behalf of the Commission- er-General because these are tax office functions.
    So, before even some of these decisions rise to the level of the Commissioner-Gen- eral himself, it may
    Mr Isaac Osei 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to know from the Hon Minister whether it is possible to arrive at a tax assessment of zero -- with the quantum zero. Is it possible that at the end of the assessment, one comes up with a zero and say that the person is not liable to pay tax?
    Mr Terkpeh 1:05 p.m.
    It is possible, particularly with VAT where we are setting the input VAT against the output VAT. It is likely that the outcome will be zero, one or two. It could be coincidence; but it is possible because we are looking at -- In this case, VAT assessments are based on input VAT and I am offsetting it against the output VAT I collected. It is possible that the two will be the same.
    Mr Isaac Osei 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if that is so, then what is wrong with making it obligatory, instead of giving that discretion which “may” actually implies?
    Mr Terkpeh 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the discretion is more with respect to the material information that will be made available to the Commissioner-General. In which case, it is really material in fairness to the taxpayer whether the obligation is one or a million --the Commissioner-Gen- eral is required to deal fairly with every taxpayer irrespective of the amount. So, we are looking at the Commissioner-Gen- eral looking at the circumstances of the situation.
    Information would have been provided by his officers as well as by the taxpayer and he is looking at it. He has been given advice and he is making a decision; and he is looking at a number of -- So, the quantum is not really the issue here, as the judgment which the Commissioner-Gen- eral is exercising.
    Ms Safo 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I tend to
    agree with the Hon Member for Bekwai. In that, the word should not be permissive “may” but mandatory. When “may” is used, it gives the Commissioner-General the options to act. But in this case, there are conditions precedent in the preceding section which he ought to satisfy himself with in gathering that information. So, once that information is gathered, then it becomes mandatory on him to do the assessment. When “may” is used in most sections, then the discretion is open.
    But in this case, when you look at the preceding sections, there are conditions precedent upon which the Commission- er-General will have to satisfy himself with in gathering the information. So, once the leeway is given him and he is certain that somebody is not paying that tax that he ought to pay, then it becomes mandatory on him to do the assessment.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:15 p.m.
    The crux of the mat- ter here is the information that is available to him. That is the crux; if it turns out that the information available to him makes his reasons wrong, why should we compel him to do an assessment? So, on the basis of the information that he gathers, he may find that his staff may have misled him or the taxpayer had given some information which was hidden somewhere, for which there is no need for assessment. So, that is the crux of it -- the information available.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Hon Ranking Member, I cannot agree with you more. This particular clause has been put to Members and they have already given their views. I thought it was healthy for us to engage in this kind of debate. So, we have dealt with that clause; Members have accepted it and I have already indicated. It was after that the Hon Minority Leader brought this up.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speak- er, the reason I raised that was, that provi- sion does not automate the estimation of tax payable. It does not automate it. It is just to compel the Commissioner-General to make an assessment. That is the initial thing. If you come to (4), it is -- “The Commissioner-General may, based on the information available, estimate the tax payable by a person for the purposes of making an assessment.”
    That is a different thing. So, it does not automate the payment of tax. It is just for purposes of assessment. And the argu- ment submitted by the Hon Minister for Finance, in my view, is in respect of (4), not the closing of (1). That is my difficulty.
    But he is the sponsor. If he thinks that we can leave it as that, well, I would not want to further litigate it. But I think that really, the Commissioner-General should be compelled to make an assessment in respect of (1); (4) then will follow: “The Commissioner-General may, based on the information available, estimate the tax payable by the . . .” But the first leg is just to assess.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Yes, the last contribution.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with re- spect to my Leader, in case of the first one, let us read it carefully. He is making an assessment of the amount of tax payable. Now, let us read the next one. “the esti-
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    All right.
    Thank you very much.
    Hon Members, we move on to clause
    36.
    Clause 36 -- Recovery from recipient of a supply
    Mr Avedzi 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 36, subclause (2), para- graph (a), after “tax” insert “interest and penalty”.
    “The Commissioner-General shall serve notice of an assessment un- der subsection (1) on the recipient specifying
    (a) the tax interest and penalty paya- ble by the taxpayer”.
    There is an omission of “interest” and
    “penalty” so, we are including that.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Avedzi 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 36, subclause (5), after
    Dr Matthew O. Prempeh 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speak-
    er, I wanted the Hon Chairman to explain why after “tax” of the just amended clause, he brought “interest and penalty”; but when you go to (4), that is what (4) is supposed to do. And now, you are amend- ing (5), the opening sentence to do what?
    Mr Avedzi 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the (4) is saying that the subsection (i) does not preclude the Commissioner-General from recovering the tax interest and penalty due from taxable persons making the supply. That is the more reason we were even including the “interest” and the “penalty” in (1). This is because the Com- missioner-General in (1) will be making an assessment on tax payable alone, the dates of the tax due, the time, place and the manner of objection, without talking about the interest and the penalty. But when you come to (4), we are saying that the subsection (1) does not preclude the Commissioner-General from demanding the tax and the interest. That is why we are even bringing that one back to the (a).
    Dr Prempeh 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, exactly so. Subsection (4) is saying that in calculating the liability in (1), “the Com- missioner-General shall have the right to think about interest”. Now, you have gone to (1) to add the section (4) that is here to the (1). So, what is (4) doing? Because now, your new (1) will read “the tax, in- terest and penalty”. And when you come to (4), it does not preclude because you have already stated it in (1).
    Mr Avedzi 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the (1) is saying “the Commissioner-General shall serve notice of an assessment under sub- section (1) on the recipient specifying
    (a) the tax, the interest and the penalty”.
    The (4) is talking about the recovery of the tax. So, there are two different things,
    Dr Prempeh 1:15 p.m.
    They are not different.
    “The Commissioner-General shall serve notice of an assessment un- der subsection (1) on the recipient specifying
    (a) the tax payable”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon Mem- bers, as much as possible, let us try to be vigilant. We have dealt with this clause, put it to the vote and we are moving on. What I am saying is, as much as possible, let us be alive; so that as soon as a particu- lar clause is being dealt with, if you have a point such as this, you could make it, so that we consider it in totality.
    Dr Prempeh 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, why I am bringing it is that, he has not dealt with the (4). From (1), they went to (5) as a Committee; and I am saying that the Commissioner-General is just serving notice of an assessment. The Commis- sioner-General is not even saying that your assessment has shown that maybe, you have not paid; there are penalties and interest, so (1) should remain.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Your point might be well made. But what I am saying, is, let us be alive to our duties while we are here.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, (4) is re- covery and as he said, it is different from assessment. There is nothing here that says that “even though I am serving you the notice, I will not do an assessment”. There is nothing that says that; so, he cannot say that we have excluded that.
    Dr Prempeh 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I said that you have added penalties and interest to (a) taxable and payable. I am saying that the opening statement is talking about serving notice of an assessment. When you are serving notice of assessment and you have not finished, you are already telling the person that “I am going to assess you for interest and penalty”; we do not do that. It is after your assessment, if there is a need for recovery, which is in (4), that you give the power to the Commissioner-General, that if you are going to recover, recover interest and penalties.
    Mr Avedzi 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I disagree with the Hon Member. You are making an assessment, it does not mean that you cannot talk about interest and penalties. That is why the timing of the assessment comes in.
    In that assessment, you determine that the taxable person has defaulted and there- fore, the tax has already accrued interest; so, you do not make an assessment on only tax. You make an assessment if there is the possibility of interest and penalty, then you include it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    All right.
    Hon Members, we bring this to a close. I do not know if I have put the Question with regard to clause 36 as variously amended. Have I?
    Some Hon Members 1:25 p.m.
    No!
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    No?
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 36 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Clause 37.
    Hon Members, we are targeting clause 40. When we get to it, we will close.
    Clause 37 -- Value Added Tax refund account.
    Mr Avedzi 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 37, subclause (1), line 1, delete “may” and insert “shall”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition reads 1:25 p.m.
    “The Minister shall with the approv- al with Parliament...”
    We are making it mandatory that the Min- ister can only set aside a percentage of the tax for purposes of VAT refund without passing through Parliament.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 37 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 38 -- Failure to issue tax in- voice.
    Mr Avedzi 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 38, line 1, after “who”, in- sert “issues a false, uses a false taxpayer identification or”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition reads 1:25 p.m.
    A person who issues a false, uses
    a false taxpayer identification or fails to issue a tax invoice or sales receipt as required under section 21 for taxable goods supplied or taxable services rendered, commits an offence.
    Dr Prempeh 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to bring the Hon Chairman's atten- tion to two facts. [Interruption.]
    The 100 penalty units that we are leav- ing there is too low. It is too low a penalty to be imposed on people who would want to defraud the State in gargantuan terms and I even wonder if we should even go to a percentage -- attempt to bring in a per- centage to recover. This is a flat tax. One hundred (100) penalties for somebody, who has issued an invoice that is costing millions of Ghana cedis.
    What is (100) penalty units, when one penalty unit is about GH¢120? In VAT terms, this is GH¢12. So, 100 penalty units is 1,200 and these big dealers who go through these things, they are millions of cedis that we are talking about. So, when they default and are taken to court, they charge 1,200, the person has gone, meanwhile, the person was supposed to pay GH¢2 million or something.
    So, in this circumstance, we should come up with a better penalty to prevent people from doing these things, not 100 penalty units. That is all I am saying and we should think about it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman, how do you respond?
    Mr Avedzi 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that failure to issue the tax invoice does not mean that if it is determined -- the appro- priate tax would not be paid. You will pay the appropriate tax but this is in addition to what he should pay as a penalty. That is what I think. Your position is that —
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon Member, what he is saying is that, it is not

    deterrent enough. He agrees with you but he thinks that it could be more punitive.
    Dr Prempeh 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, not only that. This is a specific penalty that is being imposed under this subsection and now, you have qualified it by saying that we should even include “issues a false or uses a false taxpayer identification”. You have even broadened it now and you have given such a small penalty. Maybe, you should consult. We should consult with them on why we do not think about — I could come up with something but the experts are there.
    The 100 penalty units at 1,200 for somebody who has issued a false invoice covering millions of cedis -- This is a specific penalty unless you are taking the penalty from here and we are going to a different section of penalties, so that you include it as a broad category. But this is not deterrent enough at all. Maybe, we can vote or stand it down for further consultation on that.
    Please, I am pleading.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon Mem- bers, I will defer this issue. We could visit it on a subsequent date, so that it will give the Committee time to look into it.
    So, we will move on to clause 39.
    Clause 39 -- Evasion of tax payments.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we need not come back to it, you may have to look at the construction of the amendment that he even proffered; the first one.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Chair- man, please, take note. All right.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when he said, after “who” insert “issues a false or uses a false taxpayer identifi-
    ca-tion”, you mean the two to refer to false taxpayer identification. So, the construc-tion should have been “issues or uses a false taxpayer identification”. So, just take note and when we come there —
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    So, we move on to clause 39. There is no pro- posed amendment to clause 39.
    Dr Prempeh 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when we
    get to clause 39,
    “… is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than three times the tax being evaded or to a term of imprisonment of not more than five years or both.”
    This is punitive. But the clause 38 is obviously not.
    This distinguishes from what the Chairman was saying, that --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, your point is well made. Do not worry.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speak- er, I notice that in respect of the sanctions that are being prescribed, we have in all cases, the construction, “of not more than.” Mr Speaker, I believe it should be “not less than.” If he is saying that it should be not more than, for instance, three times the tax being evaded, it could be one quarter of the tax being evaded or half of it and Mr Speaker, how deterrent is that? If we leave it to the discretion of the judge, it rather should be “not less than.” But if we say that the person after evading a tax to a certain quantum can pay, maybe, ten per cent of it, it is laughable.
    Mr Speaker, I notice that you are laugh- ing; it is laughable.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Yes, it appears as if we are giving too much lee- way to the trial judge. Maybe, it should be
    not less than a certain amount, so that we are sure that at least, there is a minimum degree of punishment.
    But Mr Chairman, how do you see it?
    Mr Avedzi 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that we can look at it and see what should be the appropriate sanction that we should put in the law.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    So, should we defer that one too?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speak- er, may I suggest -- we have the Deputy Majority Leader here. Mr Speaker, he is the Acting Majority Leader. And may I remind this House that he has once in his life served as a Tribunal Chairman; he can lead us on this path -- [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, you are out of order.
    Do not respond, Hon Deputy Majority Leader.
    MrAgbesi 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on the issue of penalty, a judge must always have discretion. There are offences which are specifically stated, that if you do this -- murder, robbery, even now robbery has got some sort of discretion for the judge, looking at the system. So, payment of tax must also have some sort of discretion for the judge to look at. But it is good that we should state it that if you go here, this is the punishment. It is good; I agree with him that we should do that one.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    The judge would still have his or her discretion, but there is a minimum we are asking by way of penalty.
    Clause 40 -- Power to seal off prem- ises.
    Mr Avedzi 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 40, subclause (1), paragraph (d), after “32” delete “or” and insert “and”
    So, it would read “Sections 32 and 33,” not “32 or 33.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    MrAvedzi 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
    clause 40, subclause (1), paragraph (e), after “32” delete “or” and insert “and”.
    It is just as we did previously.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speak- er, I am just asking the Hon Chairman why in subclause (d), it should be “and sections 32 and 33” Is he saying that if one breaches subclause (32) standing alone, unless one goes further to commit a breach in respect of subclause (33), one does not commit any offence?
    Mr Avedzi 1:35 p.m.
    No! Mr Speaker, that is not the intention. The intention rather is either of the two. But if we make it “or” -- [Interruption.]
    MrKyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if what he has told us is right, then that really is why it should be “or”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman, I think that it makes a lot of sense.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think we debated a lot, but we went back to the original. We kept the original. So, there should not be any amendment.
    Mr Avedzi 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amend- ment proposed in clause 40 has been withdrawn in the case of subclause (1), paragraphs (d) and (e).
    sum and it is over 30 days, can the person say that the Commissioner can close it for up to 30 days and where we are on day 31, I am going to open my shop? If he has not paid --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    All right, Can we hear from the Ranking Member?
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, a Com- missioner-General has received a court order, we should not compel him to forcibly close somebody's store, that is why it is “may”. If we compel him, then he would be going about automatically forcibly closing people's shops. So, the “may” is a discretion. “May forcibly --” [Interruption] -- No! I am qualifying the “may” with the “forcibly.”
    Once there is a court judgment, he would close it. But the question is, how does he do it? Is it forcibly or not? Do we want to compel him to forcibly close every shop? That is what we are saying here; otherwise, he would forcibly close every shop.
    It is not proper.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speak- er, first of all, the Commissioner-General goes to court to obtain an order to close the business. So, once the court gives the ruling, he has no other discretion than to close it.
    So, I may agree with Dr Prempeh that they may delete the word “forcibly”. But then it should be that --
    “The Commissioner-General shall, after obtaining an order of court, having jurisdiction in respect of the person, close one or more busi- ness premises of that person for a period.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    All right. So, we do not have any outstanding amendment to clause 40. Is that right?
    Dr Prempeh 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before you put the Question, the last line under sub-clause (1):
    “The Commissioner may after ob- taining an order of the court having jurisdiction in respect of the person forcibly close one or more business premises of that person for a period of between three and thirty calendar days.”
    Mr Speaker, the use of the word “forci- bly” is really not necessary in this legisla- tion. We are not in an era of bugabuga; it is not necessary. And I wonder why we are restricting the Commissioner for a period of three to 30 days if the court has given instruction.
    So, are we saying that even if the court gives instruction and it closes, it is only up to 30 days? I think the court would give instruction to close until one has satisfied the conditions prior to the closure; it has to remain closed.

    Mr Speaker, what I am saying is that, it is not only delete “may” and insert “shall”. The last sentence, “for a period of three to thirty days” is not right. If a court has given a decision to recover a certain sum of money, if the person has not paid the full
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Deputy Speaker --
    Mr Ghartey 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I feel rather concerned about this entire power given to the Commissioner-General. Mr Speaker, as we are well aware, after you take a decision or a judgment of the court in all other matters, what happens is that, it is the court which has the power to enforce their order. So, the court is your agent for the purposes of enforcing the order.
    There is a process and procedure for the court to enforce its order by the bailiffs of the courts and so on: And even the process of enforcement, if there are problems with that enforcement, our legal jurisprudence is rich as to what persons can do, if their rights are abused in the process of enforc- ing law and order.
    The difficulty I have with this provision is that we are seeking to give that power to the Commissioner-General; we are turning him into a bailiff. This is because, Mr Speaker, if we end by saying that, for example,
    “…may after obtaining the order of the court having jurisdiction, the Commissioner-General may obtain an order of the court for the closure of the business.”
    Then that closure is not the duty of
    the Commissioner-General; it is now the duty of the court. The bailiff of the court enforces their decision because the decision is not a decision of the Com- missioner-General. If we wanted the Commissioner-General to have power, then we need not go to court. We could have said that, immediately the Commis- sioner-General recognises or it comes to his notice that one has defaulted, then he could forcibly close the shop.
    But we are saying that he needs the intervention of the courts. So, do not let us truncate the intervention of that body that we have all agreed stands between us and our rights -- the courts. So, after they have finished, then it is the bailiff that enforces it.
    Mr Speaker, secondly, I also agree with those who have a concern about this 30- day period. This is because it seems that by this 30-day period -- between three and 30 days, we are indeed, restricting the power of the court to give an order for only 30 days. This is because after 30 days, as it stands, it would automatically elapse -- a lawyer goes to court and says that,” My Lord, it says 3 to 30 days; this is the 31st day, then the court cannot do anything.
    The purpose of the closure is because a person has defaulted; that is the purpose of the closure. In any event, where the law seeks to limit or tie the hands of the court, so that they cannot make an order in perpetuity, what the courts do is that, what the lawmaker has usually done -- [Interruption] -- It is unfortunate that I cannot say “Order!” because now, I am just on the floor but I would be grateful if -- [Interruption.}
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Mem- bers, can we have some order.
    Hon Second Deputy Speaker, you have the floor.
    Mr Ghartey 1:45 p.m.
    Thank you very much, Mr First Deputy Speaker -- thank you for protecting me.
    Mr Speaker, we know, for example, the Economic and Organised Crime Office Act, what it does is that, it creates a situa- tion which is akin to the interim injunction which is taken without notice and then it will bring both on notice. So, this limited period is given to a person where another party does not have notice. So, if this order is taken on notice, then all the information before the court -- and the court should not be limited to period --
    Mr Speaker, the court should be given the power to be able, for example, give consequential orders such as paying by instalments. So, we should not seek to take all the jurisdiction from the court. We should end, in my view, after -- “The Commissioner-General may go to court to obtain an order from the court for the closure of the business” or how we want to term it.
    Then it is the Commissioner-General who goes to court and tells the court that Mr “A” has not paid his tax, the business should be closed. The court can close the business, but at the same time, bearing in mind that it is not the desire of the Commissioner-General nor the courts to kill people's businesses.
    They can say that, for example, they should pay by instalments or do this or that. Let us allow that discretion rather than this strict formalistic guillotine law-making that appears in section 40.
    That is my respectful view, Mr Speaker, and thank you very much for protecting me.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, I will direct that we defer this particular clause for the concerns raised to be taken into consideration, so that we come out with a law which would be more effective and take care of all the interests that have been raised.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Members, let us move on to the last one -- [Interruption] -- No! There is no pro- posed amendment to clause 41; why do we not take it? Clauses 41 and 42, why do we not look at those ones?
    Clause 41 -- Tax inclusive pricing.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would plead with you. Once you have applied a critical lens even to those clauses that have no advertised amend-ments, you would see a few things. So, I would plead that let us rest at clause 40 and then have time to look at those others and if we come with any --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Very well. We would go by that.
    Hon Members, I direct that the Consid- eration Stage comes to a close at this time.
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader, can you lead us?
    Mr Alfred K. Agbesi 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, res- pectfully, I beg to move, that this House do adjourn to tomorrow at 10.00 o'clock in the forenoon.
    Mr Dominic B. A. Nitiwul 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speak- er, I beg to second the Motion.
    Thank you.
    ADJOURNMENT 1:45 p.m.
    SPACE FOR APPENDIX - 1:45 p.m.
    SPACE FOR TABLE - PAGE 1:45 p.m.
    SPACE FOR TABLE - PAGE 1:45 p.m.
    SPACE FOR APPENDIX - 1:45 p.m.