Debates of 13 Nov 2013

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:20 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon Members, Cor- rection of the Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 12th November, 2013.
Page 1… 12 --
Mr Albert Abongo 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, page 7, item 7, it should read; “The Hon Minister for Defence”, not “Minister for Minister”.
Mr Speaker 10:20 a.m.
We have there “Min- ister for Minister”. Table Office should take note.

Hon Members, the Votes and Proceed- ings of Tuesday, 12th November, 2013 as corrected, are hereby adopted as the true record of proceedings.

Question time -- We have the Hon Minister for Food and Agriculture to an- swer Questions from Hon Members.

Hon Member for Kintampo North?
Mr Kwasi Agyemang Gyan-Tutu 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member for Kin- tampo North has indicated to me that, he would not be around within this period. He is not in the Chamber yet, so I would like to seek your indulgence to ask the Question on his behalf.
Mr Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon Member, that is not a sufficient ground to ask the Question for the Hon Member. The rules are very clear, it is not whether he is in the Chamber yet or not.
Alhaji Mubarak M. Muntaka 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, our Colleague called that he had some domestic challenge with one of his children. So, he told me that, he has asked his Colleague to ask the Question on his behalf, with your indulgence. Mr Speak- er, I would be very grateful if you could take the excuse and allow him to ask the Question.
Nii Amasah Namoale: Mr Speaker, the Hon Member told me he is indisposed and something has happened -- [Inter- ruption] -- therefore, has asked me to ask the Question on his behalf. So if -- [Interruption.]
Mr Ignatius B. Awuah 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am at a loss as to what is happening now. This is because, we are getting three different explanations for the Hon Mem- ber not being in the Chamber and I do not know which one we are going to take. [Laughter.]
Mr Speaker 10:20 a.m.
We have only two.
Mr Awuah 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we have one from Hon Gyan-Tutu --
Mr Speaker 10:20 a.m.
He said the Hon Mem- ber is not yet in the House, and I said that is not sufficient grounds under our rules to ask the Question.
Dr Benjamin B. Kunbuor 10:20 a.m.
Mr
Speaker, I have taken note of the contra- dictions in this matter, and I would like to crave your indulgence for the Question to be asked while I take personal responsibil- ity to ascertain and inform Mr Speaker of the exact position. This is because, it is not an acceptable state of affairs on the floor.
Mr Dominic B. A. Nitiwul 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would have thought that once a Leader has spoken, that suffices for now. This is because normally, it is the Leader- ship you would want to hear from and take decision. So, once the Leader has spoken, I would have thought that, that should be the end of the story. Otherwise, they would take away the power of their own Leadership which is not good for them.
So, maybe, I would accept what he has proposed and of course, once he has taken personal responsibility, the matter should end there, so that we can ask the Question Mr Speaker, with your indulgence.
Mr Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Hon Member, you may ask the Question on behalf of the Hon Member for Kintampo North.
Mr Gyan-Tutu 10:20 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUES- 10:20 a.m.
TIONS 10:20 a.m.
Minister for Food and Agriculture (Mr Clement K. Humado) 10:20 a.m.
Mr Speak- er, with your permission, may I just take a minute to explain my absence the last time when the Question was called. This is because, when I came back, I read the Hansard and followed the discussion. Mr
Speaker, I would like to take just a minute before I go to the substantive Question.
Mr Speaker, actually, I wrote to inform Parliament on the 24th October, 2013 and it was received on 28th October, 2013. So, I did ask permission but I think there was some complication somewhere in the communication and I believe that, that was why Mr Speaker was not aware that I had asked permission. If there were any inconveniences, I would want to apo- lo-gise for that.
Mr Speaker 10:20 a.m.
Very well. I think we have accepted it. If you read the Hansard carefully, we did not take to -- Other Hon Members said if the Hon Minister is not there, what about his Deputies? Those were some of the issues that cropped up. So, it is only a matter of handling the af- fairs of the Ministry in such a way that, if there is a Question to be answered, and the substantive Minister is not available, one of his Deputies could come and respond to the Question on behalf of the substantive Minister.
Anyway, you can proceed now.
Mr Humado 10:20 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Minister for Agriculture (Mr Clem- ent Kofi Humado) 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Sta- tus Report on the New Longoro Irrigation Scheme is as follows:
Project background
The New Longoro Irrigation Scheme is one of the twenty-six schemes which re- ceived funding for development from the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the Government of Ghana under the Small Scale Irrigation Development Project (SSIDP). The SSIDP was implemented between 2000 and 2009.
Mr Gyan-Tutu 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister has explained that, there are 3,360 beneficiaries to the programme. For now, as we speak, we have 300 acres and we have only about 20 acres under cultivation. What is happening to the farmers who are beneficiaries but are not benefiting as of now?
Mr Humado 10:30 a.m.
By the Answer that we have stated, it would mean that, some of the beneficiaries have less than an acre. But as I said, where the beneficiaries are currently,farming has not been developed. So, it means that they themselves moved to site to start doing something on their own, pending the actual development of the irrigable area.
Mr Gyan-Tutu 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I am done.
Alhaji Ibrahim Dey Abubakari 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my question is related to this area. The Hon Minister said despite the undeveloped nature of the land, some farmers are there. Are the farmers there legally or illegally? Are they playing galamsey on the land, and will there be any consequences when they decided to allocate the land?
Mr Speaker 10:30 a.m.
What do you mean by playing galamsey on the land?
Alhaji Abubakari 10:30 a.m.
Because he said that the land is not developed and in other words, are they legally on the land, Mr Speaker?
Mr Humado 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the land in Question is land that belongs to the com- munities in the New Longoro area. The Ministry is only intervening to construct a dam and develop the irrigable area. So, in my opinion, it is their land and I believe there is no illegality to its use at the moment.
Mr Ignatious Baffour Awuah 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to know from the Hon Minister how much has been spent at the 90 per cent completion point and the 10 per cent works left. How much would it cost to fully complete the project?
Mr Humado 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not have the figures immediately, but since it is of interest to my Colleague, I believe I

can provide that figure as soon as possible.
Mr Kwame Asafu-Adjei 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to know from the Hon Min- ister how much was paid to this non-per- formance contractor between 2002 and 2007. Secondly, what is the commitment for northern rural growth programme -- what is the commitment that they would be able to perform? Performance means, in other words, they being able to do this irrigation job.
Mr Humado 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think I will start from the easiest one, to the last one.
The Northern Rural Growth Pro- gramme (NRGP) is also funded by the African Development Bank (AfDB) just as the SSIDP was. So, arrangements were made for NRGP to take over all that has been outstanding in the SSIDP. My last visit to the steering committee of the NRGP shows that, they have taken the bull by the horns and they are in the process of engaging another contractor to a bidding process.
I am very sure that, this would be han- dled effectively by the NRGP. As to the payments I referred to earlier, I would provide this as soon as possible, if the Hon Member would permit.
Mr Mathias Kwame Ntow 10:30 a.m.
Mr Speaker, from the answer given by the Hon Minister, you could see that a greater amount of money has been committed to this project and he said it is 90 per cent complete. May I know when the 10 per cent would be finished so that the people in that area could have the full benefit of that project?
Mr Humado 10:40 a.m.
We have been informed that budgetary provisions have been made in the 2014 Budget for the Northern Rural Growth Programme (NRGP) and we ex-
pect the bidding process and awards to be completed by March next year. So, hope- fully, by the end of the year, that is 2014, these projects would have been completed.
Mr Frank Annoh-Dompreh 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am aware that, the Accra Plains, for instance, is one of the few areas sup- ported by or earmarked by the African De- velopment Bank (AfDB). Now a cursory investigation, conducted revealed that, the past one decade, almost all State of the Nation Addresses read in this House --
Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Hon Member, are you talking about New Longroro or Accra Plains?
Mr Annoh-Dompreh 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with your indulgence --
Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Please ask your ques- tion.
Mr Annoh-Dompreh 10:40 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker, I will go straight to the question.
What is happening is that, that area, Mr Speaker, was also supported by the AfDB. My question is simple: what are the spe- cific plans by the Ministry to develop the Accra Plains in terms of irrigation?
Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Hon Member, that is not a supplementary question.
rose
Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
After the Hon Member,
Hon Adwoa Safo.
AlhajiMohammed-Mubarak Mun- taka 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister, in the Answers that he gave on page 13, under the heading “Project Background”, with your indulgence, I beg to quote:
“The New Longoro Irrigation Scheme is one of the twenty-six…” I would want to find out from the Hon Minister whether
the other twenty-five had been completed, or they have also suffered the same fate like this one which is only 90 per cent complete.
Mr Humado 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, out of the twenty-six, about twenty of them have been completed and the remaining six are at various stages of completion. And all these have been taken over by the Northern Rural Growth Programme to be completed by the end of next year.
Ms Sarah Adwoa Safo 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon Minister, what legal action was taken against the non- performing contractor and whether in the contract, indeed, there was any provision for breach of contract and undue delay for performances? If there were such clauses in the contract, was any legal action taken against the non-performing contractor?
Mr Humado 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, indeed the contract specifies penalties to be exacted on non-performance. But in this particular case, the project experienced other problems apart from the contractor's capacity to perform. So, apart from the monies that were paid and the retentions that were being held, no other action was taken because, the value of work done was commensurate to what was paid at the time. Other issues in the contracting environment were responsible for the stoppage of the contract.
As I explained, the project itself ended, so that project was not in the position to advance any monies again for it to be con- tinued. Those were the other extenuating circumstances that made us to transfer the responsibility to a new project called the NRGP.
Dr Anthony A. Osei 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, on page 15 of the Hon Ministers' Answer and, with your permission, I beg to quote;
“The Northern Rural Growth Pro- gramme (NRGP) has been mandat-
ed by African Development Bank (AfDB) to complete all outstanding works on New Longoro Scheme and some other SSIDP…”.
Mr Speaker, before I ask my question, I would like to believe that, being a Ghana Government project, the ADB cannot mandate, especially, services of approval by Parliament. So, I would want to ask the Hon Minister, is it that the Government has sought approval for funding from NRGP for this project, and not the other way round?
Mr Humado 10:40 a.m.
The Hon Member is right. It is Government that has sought the assistance of the AfDB to transfer all out- standing jobs to the NRDP to undertake. So, I think that is the position.
Mr Noah Ben Azure 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, when you look at the beneficiaries, out of 360, you have 299 males and 61 females. I would want to know what criterion was used. When you look at it, there are crops like vegetables and rice, and I think wom- en should be encouraged when it comes to cultivation of these crops. So, I would want to encourage -- and to find out.
Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
What is your question?
Mr Azure 10:40 a.m.
My question is, what is
the criterion used for these beneficiaries of which 299 are males and 61 females.
Mr Clement Humadu 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, as I said, normally, it is when we complete the development of the irrigable area, measure and the acreage known, then we commence the process of distribution to beneficiaries. But now, the beneficiaries themselves have moved there, so we had no control of the gender aspect of those who are managing to use the land. I be- lieve that issue would be addressed when the scheme is properly developed and allocation is done.
Mr Samuel Ayeh-Paye 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister said the project is being funded by the AfDB and the Government of Ghana.
Can the Hon Minister tell the House how much has gone into it, in terms of per- centage of GoG funding, and how much the AfDB has also put into the project?
Mr Humado 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker, as I said early on, I do not have those details now, but since it is of interest to Hon Members, I will endeavour to provide specific details. I have an idea of percentages, but I do not want to risk-- I would provide that information as soon as possible.
Mr Simon Edem Asimah 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speak- er, the contract to the first contractor was awarded in 2002 and terminated in 2007. My question is, why did it take such a long time for this contract to be terminated and what were the criteria used in selecting the first contractor?
Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
I am not too sure; because he should have laid sufficient foundation as to what the contract period was. If he had laid sufficient — You came to the conclusion that it took so long a time without knowing how long the contractor was supposed to execute the project.
Mr Asimah 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if you look at the second paragraph, towards the end, he said:
“The contract for the construction of the scheme was signed with UNIQUESCO Ltd on September 22, 2002 and work began immedi- ately. The contract was terminated on June 26, 2007 due to non-per- formance.”
So, you can say that it took almost four
years —
Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Yes, but do you know how long the contract was supposed to be executed? That is the point. You should lay sufficient foundation before you ask the question.
Mr Asimah 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the contract was awarded in 2002 and terminated -- [Interruption.] All right, so, my foun- dation is that, how long was the contract supposed to be executed and what were the criteria used in selecting the contractor?
Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Hon Minister, how long?
The initial contract that was terminated in 2007, awarded in 2002, how long was this supposed to be?
Mr Humado 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am not sure about the duration of the contract but I would want to plead that I can provide that additional information as soon as possible.
Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Hon Deputy Minority Whip, I thought you have asked your question?
Mr Awuah 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, there is a small clarification which I need.
Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Very well.
Mr Awuah 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in an answer to the question on gender composition of the beneficiaries, the Hon Minister said, it is when they finish with the project that they would know who to occupy the land and the gender composition. I would want him to reconcile that statement with the statement he has on the second paragraph of page 13, and I beg to quote:
“The New Longoro Scheme is locat- ed in the Kintampo North District of the Brong Ahafo Region. It has an area of 300 acres for 360 bene- ficiaries...”
Which means that, this is the concept. So, how does he reconcile the concept with the Answer he just gave us?
Mr Humado 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Answer I gave earlier was on the assumption that we are not sure. Even though the 300 acres is stated, at project completion, we are not sure whether it would still be the same 300 acres. We could go more than the 300 acres depending upon field con- ditions. That is why I said that when the project is completed and the full irrigable area has been developed, we would know how to allocate the developed area to the beneficiaries of the programme.
Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Hon Members, that brings us to the —
Mr Moses Anim — rose —
Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Sorry, Hon Member.
Mr Moses Anim 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we are being told that in the 2013 wet season, 40 acres of land was cropped with okra, maize and rice. The crops are yet to be harvested. Is it the okra that are yet to be harvested or the maize?
Mr Humado 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, actually, Hon Members will agree with me that, this Question was asked a long time ago. When I was asked to respond to it, I had to update it to the best of my knowledge. I believe that, by the end of the major season, those two crops would have been harvested.
Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
Yes, Hon Minority Lead- er, last question if you would want to, ask.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am sorry I could not come earlier so, I do not know whether the question that I intend asking has been asked already.
The Hon Minister indicated that in 2012 wet season, the area was flooded so
no planting was done. But he indicates that, they had taken time, resource and pain to do land development, that is, to have sufficient gradient to allow for the flow of water on the land.
How then does it end up that the place becomes flooded, when you have spent so much resource to ensure sufficient grading and the relevant gradient to be encom- passed in the contouring of that place?
Mr Humado 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader himself said that he was a little late and not sure whether that issue had been addressed. Mr Speaker, It was actually addressed.
What I said was that, the 90 per cent of work completed was on the headworks. The construction of the dam. What is left now is the development of the irrigable area where the necessary contouring would be done, where canals and laterals would be constructed but that has not been done.That is why when these people, in the absence of the facilities moved to site, they did not have the full benefits of water control structures to farm. Until that is done, they would have difficulty with their farming.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.
Mr Speaker, any irrigated facility comes with addi- tional cost. It is not like the natural lands because as he said, it involves in this case, the grading of the land, filling and also cutting places to ensure that there is good flow of water. Quite apart from that, with the embankment of the water, the channelling to the facility and so on involves a lot of cost.
Do you believe that involving 360 peo- ple on a 300- acre facility would ensure economic production, since everybody is going to produce, on the average, no less than one acre? How economic is this, given the fact that, the usage of the facility involves so much?
Mr Humado 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the design of this scheme is based upon gravity. So, once the headworks have been done, the availability of water to the various fields would just be by opening the weir and then water moves on to the field.
Yes, that comes at a cost. Also, the plots that would be allocated to the farmers would be used mostly for vegetable pro- duction, especially in the dry season where prices are likely to be more favourable.
I believe that all these things were fac- tored into the design and implementation of the scheme and we would monitor de- velopments when the project is completed to establish the actual situation.
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon Members, that brings us to the end of Question time.
Hon Minister for Food and Agriculture, we are very grateful to you for attending upon the House to respond to Questions from Hon Members.
We thank you very much.
Hon Majority Leader -- At the Com- mencement of Public Business.
Dr Kunbuor 11 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we would take item 5 on the Order Paper.
Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
Hon Members, we would take five minutes suspension and return to consider the Bill.
11.03 a.m. -- Sitting suspended.
11.15 a.m. -- Sitting resumed.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION STAGE 11 a.m.
  • [Resumption of debate from 12-11- 2013]
    • Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
    Chairman of the Com- mittee, have you resolved the issues with clause 30?
    Mr James K. Avedzi 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, yesterday, we met in my office to look at it. We came up with a provision as captured on the Order Paper. So if you permit me, I would move it and see the reaction.
    Clause 30 --
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30, subclause (13), delete and insert the following:
    “A person who makes a claim for refund which that person is not en- titled to under this section, commits an offence and is liable to a fine equal to the original claim, a hun- dred per cent penalty plus interest.”
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am a bit confused about the intent behind this amendment. Is it that we would want it to be a crime? If we would want it to be a crime, then it must follow a conviction upon which the person would pay a fine or in the alternative, failure to pay the fine, a term of imprisonment. If it is a penalty, then we should just adopt the words in the original rendition. So it may be --
    “A person who makes a claim for refund to which that person is not entitled under this section, he shall be liable for a penalty.”
    That is what it means. Then you are not necessarily criminalising it. This is because in this Bill, where the intention is to criminalise, it is stated clearly, so let us clarify it. Do we want to make it a crime?
    If you look at clause 38, for instance --
    “A person who issues a false tax invoice…commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine … or to a term of impris-
    Mr Avedzi 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, actually, the intent is not to make it a crime. We want to make it in the form of a penalty which should be done administratively. That is the intent.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if that is the intent, then I would move an amendment to capture the intention of the Committee and it would read as follows:
    “A person who makes a claim for refund to which that person is not entitled under this section is liable to a penalty equal to the original claim -- a hundred per cent”
    I do not know --[Interruption] -- Yes, if the sense is to recover the amount and then impose a penalty of a hundred per cent together with interest on the original sum -- [Interruption] -- I see.
    Mr Speaker, if that is the way, then we can accept it in principle and then move ahead.
    “It is to impose a penalty which is equal to the original sum and interest, plus a hundred per cent of the original sum.
    Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, do you see the point being canvassed by the Hon Member for Sekondi? So we are clear that we are not creating an offence?
    Mr Avedzi 11 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker. Based on the explanation he has given and the new amendment proposed, we are taking out the creation of the offence and the fine;
    but the intent is still that, we are going to collect the original sum --
    Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, what is left to be decided upon is the penal- ty. So the penalty is the original claim, plus a hundred per cent penalty, plus an interest --
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11 a.m.
    Then it must be double the original sum together with interest.
    Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
    Yes, is that it? I would want to get that aspect very clear.
    So let me get the penalty before I put the Question.
    Hon Member for Sekondi and the Hon Chairman, can you get that one for me?
    Dr Matthew O. Prempeh 11 a.m.
    Mr Speak- er, the penalty is not double the original sum because the person is already liable to pay the original sum but penalty is a hundred per cent of the original sum.
    When you say “double penalty”, it means the penalty is twice the original sum but this is not twice -- [Interruption] --The interest is factored in if you listened to the discussions that have gone on over athe week, so that the Government or the revenue authorities do not lose the value of the original sum.
    Mr Speaker, you have given an analogy that, if somebody evades or is supposed to pay a thousand cedis today and the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) finds out in five years' time that he had evaded the payment of that thousand Ghana cedis, a thousand Ghana cedis in five years' time is not the same value as a thousand Ghana cedis today. And that is the interest that we are talking about -- to capture the original sum.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we take the further amendment of the Hon
    Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
    That resolves the matter; so double the amount of the refund paid, plus interest.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 30 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 38 --
    MrAvedzi 11 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 38, delete and insert the following:
    “A person who issues a false tax invoice or sales receipt or fails to issue a tax invoice or sales receipt as required under this Act for taxable goods supplied or taxable services rendered, commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine equal to the sum of money lost, a hundred per cent penalty plus interest or a term of imprisonment of not less than six months and not more than five years or to both.”
    Mr Ben A. Banda 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I need clarification with respect to the imposi- tion of the fine which is not expressed in penalty units; and also to find out whether clause 38 does not conflict with the Fines Act, 2000.
    With your permission if I may read.
    Section 1 says that:
    “Where in any enactment provision is made for the imposition of a fine as a penalty for the contravention of any provision in the enactment, the amount of the fine shall be expressed in terms of a number of penalty units.”
    The emphasis is on the “penalty Units.” But in this particular case, the provision says that, the person is liable on summary conviction to a fine equal to the sum of money lost”.
    Mr Speaker, how much is the sum of the money lost and how is it expressed in penalty units to bring it in tandem with the Fines Act, 2000? That is where I have a problem.
    Dr Prempeh 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought we explained this to the Hon Member clearly yesterday, and we even asked him to tell us, if somebody owes or evades up to GH¢1 million, how it would be expressed. We do not know how it would be in penalty units.
    Mr Speaker, we should not start think- ing that, this is a law we are passing, and this is punishment under the VAT Act.
    This is what the Parliament of Ghana has decided to do, and it does not conflict with other things that are not stated. What he just read is for general offences that are not particularlly stated anywhere. This VAT Bill states punishment --
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon Member, what you are doing now, is it an enactment? Are we enacting a law?
    Dr Prempeh 11:25 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    And how do you express the penalty unit?
    Dr Prempeh 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not want to bring you into the debate, but if you recall, on the debate about the Ap- propriation Act and the Statutory Funds that came to this House, when part of the Appropriations Act was taking a portion of the Statutory Funds for other govern- ment things that were not stated under the statutory funds, Mr Speaker, who at that time “chaired and presided”, said that the Appropriation Act is an Act of its own. And if Appropriation Act states that an amount of money of the statutory funds should be given --
    Mr Speaker, the Budget would be read very soon and the pronouncements that are coming from the Chair would reflect -- So we have to be very careful.
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon Member, the Hon Member for Offinso South raised a legal point based on an Act that this same House has passed. How do we resolve it? If there is any difficulty, let us say so, that, there is a challenge, and that we cannot express it in penalty units because we do not know the amount of money involved, therefore, this should be an -- Then we know the kind of language we would use to couch it, because this is a latter legislation.
    There is an earlier legislation binding this House to express it in a certain form. But if you have a certain challenge, then we may have to draw attention to that earlier legislation and depart from it.
    Ms Adwoa Safo 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the enactment that the Hon Member for Of- finso South just referred to was actually introduced into the debate yesterday by my goodself. Upon further research and investigation, I am told that the content
    is exactly the same as in defining penalty units and what it should represent in any enactment if reference is made to it. This Act has actually been amended by the Interpretation Act, 2009, but the import of what is here is the same. So if the Table Office can provide --
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Do you have the Inter- pretation Act with you?
    Ms Safo 11:25 a.m.
    I do not have it, but I am trying to get it on --
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon Member, you are making submission and you must have the law with you when you are making such a legal submission.
    Ms Safo 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I very much agree with you; I am on it. It is now on my I-Pad. I do not want to mislead the House, This Act, if the Table Office would assist, was introduced yesterday by my goodself; the content is the same, with the Interpretation Act, they amend it; but the content and import is exactly the same. I will provide you with it, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Haruna Iddrisu 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am cautious in catching your attention, given that, the premise of my argument was to be referenced to the very Interpre- tation Act my Hon Colleague has referred to, and in particular, Mr Speaker, to still refer to the Interpretation Act that many of the issues informing our debate must particularly be exciting and encouraging. This is because in the same Interpretation Act, we are now being advised that Par- liamentary debates are not a reference for purposes of interpretation tomorrow.
    So every comment, every remark, every suggestion and any policy decisions that we come to, tomorrow would form the basis, if some other arm of Government feels that Parliament did not exercise a particular right appropriately. I think that it is important that references are made
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon Members, I have the Interpretation Act with me here. My attention has not been drawn to the par- ticular section that has amended the one the Hon Member for Offinso South has adverted to this morning. But section 26 -- Fines expressed as penalty unit. It states:
    “Section 26: The imposition of a fine as a penalty for contravention of provision in the enactment shall be expressed in terms of a number of penalty units.
    Section 27: For the purposes of section 26, one penalty unit is equivalent to the amount of cedis specified in the Section Schedule.
    The Attorney-General may by legislative instrument amend the Schedule.”
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, my under- standing, not of the Interpretation Act, but of the intendment of this, is to recover the original sum, impose a penalty and make sure that the value is not lost. I do not think that, you can find the exact equivalent of the penalty units that would match this. If we do so, it would be to the disadvantage of the person being penalised. If that is all right, then it is all right because we have to exceed it to assure --
    The calculations that would have to go into computing this sum may not be known ahead of time. It depends on what the interest rate might be and so on and so forth. So this may not fit in exactly and what you may want to guide us on is, in
    the light of how we can change this and then we can move on.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think at this stage, the House is con- fusing itself, seriously confusing itself. When we are dealing with the Bill, we must deal with the Bill as a whole and we should understand that there is a difference between a penalty and a fine. What this clause seeks to do is to create a criminal offence for purposes of recovery. It is a penalty and it is provided for in clause 21 (9) of the Bill and Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to read:
    “A person who --
    (a) issues a false tax invoice or sales receipt;
    (b) uses a false taxpayer identifi- ca-tion number; or
    (c) fails to issue a tax invoice or sales receipt as required under sub-section (1) or (3) is liable to pay a penalty of an amount not exceeding GH¢500 or three times the amount of tax involved, which is higher.”
    What this seeks to do is to lock the fine and the penalty together.
    But in the original Bill, the proposers have ensured that we recover the amount involved by penalty. Then, there is also a crime created in another clause. This is what happens if we do not try to deal with a Bill, as a whole because what we seek to do has been done better in the Bill.
    Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Yes, so the problem is coming from the Committee, not from the Bill.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:35 a.m.
    Yes.
    Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Yes, because the Bill expresses it in penalty units, the problem comes from the amendment filed by the Committee.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, what we ought to understand -- We are not draftspersons and when we propose an amendment, we always have to bear that in mind. It is unfortunate that we do not see the draftspersons here. Mr Speaker, a penalty is different from a fine. In the Bill, provision is made for penalties and provision is also made for convictions where it is stated to be a crime.
    While we ought to maintain this -- I am an Hon Member of the Committee, Mr Speaker, I must confess, even though I did not participate in considering this particular Bill. While it is being separated, we as a Committee, have tried to confuse the two, to lump them together and it can never work because a crime is a crime -- It has a fine as a consequence.
    A penalty is something that is recovered administratively. One does not need to go to court. And I am saying that what they seek to do is what has been done with orig- inally under clause 21. That is the point.
    So, this amendment, as far as I am
    concerned, it is really unnecessary. But I am told that clause 21 has been amended. If that is so, then before the Third Reading, we ought to come back to it and correct it.
    Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Hon Members, I think that this is a matter of law and it is very clear and I am persuaded by the submis- sion by the Hon Member for Sekondi.
    Mr Osei B. Amoah 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we look at the Value Added Tax Act, 1998 (Act 546) it has as Part XII -- “Offences and Penalty”, And under “Offences and

    Penalty” we have section 57 -- “Failure to issue tax invoice” -- That is the same offence that has been placed under clause 38 -- “Failure to issue tax invoice”.

    Unfortunately, it appears that in the Bill, there is no part for “Offences and Penalty” and this does not show whether it falls under “Offences and Penalty”. But I do not see the need for the kind of amend- ment that we are trying to introduce under clause 38 and that appears to be causing a lot of confusion.

    I think the best thing is to stick to “offences and penalties” and to specify that the failure to issue tax invoice is an offence as provided under the original Act, Act 546. That is what it should be; otherwise, we would be going round and confusing ourselves as to whether one is a fine and the other is a penalty and that is an offence .

    The Act 546 makes it an offence and the penalty is provided. I do not see why we should shift and introduce amendments that will confuse the whole House.
    Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Hon Members, once again, the Hon Member for Sekondi has raised a very important point and he has been supported by the Hon Member for Akwapim South.
    Let me draw your attention again to section 26 of the Interpretation Act -- Fines expressed as penalty units --
    “The imposition of a fine as a penalty for the contravention of a provision in the enactment shall be expressed in terms of a number of penalty units.”
    This is what the Interpretation Act tells, us. The question then is, under clause 38, are we creating a fine? If the answer is yes, then it must be expressed in penalty units. That is the point the Hon Member for Sekondi made.
    Mr Terkpeh 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the clauses seem to be addressing two issues. If one fails to issue a tax invoice -- And an invoice being very key, the whole of the VAT rests on the issue of an invoice which is also what is used to claim the input tax credits and refunds.
    Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Hon Minister, the point is, how do we express it? That is the issue.
    Mr Terkpeh 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if I may - -So that is an offence. The fact that one or another taxpayer fails to issue, they have committed an offence which can be expressed in penalty units.
    However, the loss of revenue involved may not be the same for the two offences. My failure to issue an offence may result in loss of revenue of GH¢200. The other person's failure to issue may result in about two, three million Ghana cedis.
    Therefore, the second part seems to be expressing the severity of the offence. Therefore, to put the same penalty units for the two offences will not recover ade- quately as the heading states -- “Recovery of due tax, interest and other liabilities”.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member for Akwapim South made a point. Of course, this particular Bill does not conform to the original Act. But my point is that under clause 21 (9) -- [Hon Member: It has been amended.] -- I do not know about that. Why? Please, if it has been amended, then of course, at the appropriate time we may have to go back to it, because that is what has created this problem.
    This is because one cannot put an ad- ministrative penalty and a fine together. What the original Bill did was to separate the two.
    Probably the Hon Minister's absence,
    has also contributed to this confusion because I read it and it states;
    A person who fails to issue a tax invoice or sales receipt as required under subsec- tion (1) or (3) is liable to pay a penalty of an amount not exceeding GH¢500 or three times the amount of tax involved that address the recovery of the amount involved. And then clause 38 deals with the criminal offence.

    Of course, I have not been following it. Mr Speaker, unfortunately, I have not paid much attention to it; I have been going in and out. But the fact is that we have not concluded the consideration of this Bill, and this has come to our attention. We may flag it so that before the Third Reading, we ask that this particular clause 21 goes through another Consideration Stage then, we effect the requisite amendment.
    Dr Kunbuor 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, when I read this amendment, I equally had the same challenges that the Hon Member for Se- kondi and the Hon Member for Akwapim South have raised. The first is that, there is no clear explanation whatsoever, in the Memorandum to the Bill on why we de- parted to the time-tested format of always collecting all offences and putting them under a particular heading.
    This is because a heading becomes an issue of Interpretation. So, when one runs into difficulty with article 19 (11) of the Constitution, which requires that a person cannot be convicted of a crime that is not defined, and one is now faced with the challenge of the definition, one would use the head of offences as a way of getting a clear definition.
    But as things stand now, one is not sure
    whether indeed, it is actually an offence from the way the amendment has come.
    In the original Bill, it specifically men- tions clause 21 and clause 21 specifies particular acts which contain the essential ingredients and definition of the offence. If we remove that and say; “under this act” we will be coming across more than one clause that deals with failure to issue invoices. So do we seek to actually crimi- nalise all those other things that have been provided in other clauses? That is why when we are rushing to make an amend- ment, we need to be careful.
    It is with this information that article 21 has been amended, and that has indeed, introduced this problem, I will invite that we proceed, revisit it at a Second Con- sideration Stage, then take up the entire issue of bringing it back under an offences section. Then any other recovery methods of a civil or other nature, we put it in the body of the legislation so that the two are made very distinct. If not, we will even be offending article 19 (11) of the Constitu- tion in relation to how offences should be structured in an Act.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is good that today, the lawyers are paying atten- tion because we did this about a week or so ago and we all made a mistake. It is not just the Committee because now it is before the House. I recommend that we step this down and go back at the appro- priate time do -- This is because we took the last part of clause 21 and brought it to clause 38 which we should not have done.
    We have all these lawyers here. They are not paying attention -- Hon Majority Leader. So now, I am glad that they are paying attention. So we can step this down and at the appropriate time do the proper amendment.
    Mr Joe Ghartey 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, this current discussion raises very interesting
    issues. The reason why I think that even though I know it will still -- I know that I need to contribute because it raises a fundamental question which can be seen in a number of our laws. An example is the Companies Act. There are several provisions in the Companies Act that says that, if you do not do this, you are liable to pay X amount as penalty unit. For ex- ample, section 10 says that; a company limited by guarantee cannot be involved in business and then, there is a penalty unit proposition of directors and so on if they do not do what they are supposed to do. The question is that, this creates a criminal office. Is it a criminal offence or what is the nature of that offence?
    My answer is no, because in the Company's Act, for example, where they intend to create a criminal offence, they specifically say so.
    For example, where a person gives false information when an offer is being made to the public in terms of prospectors, when the Company's Act intends to create a criminal offence, it says so because if we consider these offences, as criminal offences then, we are confronted with article 19 of the Constitution and we are confronted with proving it in a court of law, with that very high standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
    I heard the Hon Member for Sekondi say, and I agree with him that these pen- alty units are recovered administratively. They are not recovered by way of a legal process that requires proof beyond rea- sonable doubt. So we should bear that in mind. We should not think that the fact that it is an offence means it is a criminal offence.
    It is a statutory offence and it is recov- ered by way of penalty units and we do not
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Members, we have the Bill. Clause 38 creates a criminal of- fence. There is no doubt at all about that. The amendment also creates a criminal offence because it says; “after summary conviction” and summary conviction is only known to the Criminal Procedure Code. It is also a criminal offence.
    The issue, in my view, is whether it should be expressed in penalty units, or not; that is the fundamental issue and that is the point the Hon Member for Offinso South has raised. In my view, let us then decide as a House, whether we want to create a criminal offence or we do not want to create a criminal offence, or we just want a penalty.
    If it is a criminal offence which after conviction we have to do certain things, then, it becomes a criminal offence and then how we have to express it is very clear under the law. So it is for us to know what we want to do under clause 38. And if you want us to flag it, I will allow you to flag it and let the House go back and find out whether we want to make it a penalty or a criminal offence.
    But once it is a criminal offence, we must express it in a certain form. If you want to do both, then, you have to break the two. You cannot do the two together because there are standards for each and every one, both for the administrative as you pointed out -- If it is criminal, there is the proof beyond reasonable doubt. If it is penalty it is another matter.
    Mr Ghartey 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I could not agree more. It is that difference that we should be mindful of and so perhaps we should know what we want to do and
    perhaps it will be wise to stand it down while we consider which of the two cat- egories of offences, whether statutory of criminal offence, we want to create for that particular situation.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think it is very clear what was intended. We need to go back and do a further amendment to clause 21 and keep it as it is and keep clause 38 if we need to refer to the orig- inal Bill. We know how to do that, so we can move ahead.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Last comment.
    Dr Kunbuor 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, actually, it is important that we have this at the back of our minds. Tax statutes are particularly unique and they are structured in a very unique manner. It is only in tax legislation that we have three methods. We go for the civil one, we go for the outright crimes and we go for non-legal recovery mechanisms. These are the three essentials in every tax.
    So we would have the civil procedure which we can use to recover, then we have the one by which we will punish and fine on conviction, and we have the one that we can use extra judicial means to recover. So it is because we are putting the crime and then the extra judicial ones together that is why we have this problem; and I say, let us separate them.
    If we go to the income tax, we will see the same structure that is there.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Members, I will defer the Question on this amendment. Let those in charge of the Bill come out and tell us exactly what they want to do and in doing so, they should be guarded by other enactments including the Inter- pretation Act.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speak- er, I am going to urge the Hon Majority Leader to ensure that the Governments' draftsperson has his representatives here.
    This is so important. We are lawmakers and we come from diverse backgrounds. Sometimes when we talk, they will tell us that you think we are lawyers, but this is not for lawyers, it is for everybody. And that is true. But technically, this requires some expertise. We are not experts here so the Hon Majority Leader should please, ensure that the Government's draftsperson is here, so that he can adequately advise us.
    Dr Prempeh 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the prob- lem is even bigger than the Government's draftsperson being here because some of the legal brains here are far advanced than the draftsperson who qualified two years ago.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Member, please, you cannot attack people on the floor of the House just like that. Withdraw.
    Dr Prempeh 11:45 a.m.
    No, I am not attacking.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    You said they are far advanced so it means that they do not have the far advanced legal brains? The draftsperson? The language --
    Dr Prempeh 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, you did not even listen. I am withdrawing. I am say- ing that the lawyers here are far advanced in age. [Laughter.]
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    As for ‘age', I do not have problem with that, but if you use ‘brain' I have a problem.
    Dr Prempeh 11:55 a.m.
    And they are senior in the Law School and there are even Attor- ney-Generals here.
    But Mr Speaker, the issue is that there have been so many amendments and my position is that, when we get to the Sec- ond Consideration Stage, the whole thing should be put on the Order Paper. This is
    because there are different things that we have done in this House that do not add up, especially the numbering. As people talk about clause 21, clause 21 would not exist as clause 21 when we do not do that. So, please, urge the Table Office to give us that before --
    Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon Members, I have decided to defer this matter. But let me hear from the Hon Minority Leader before I do so.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speak- er, as you said, I do not intend to further litigate it, except to bring to the attention of the small group that may be considering it. Mr Speaker, the original clause 38 seems to deal with just one strand of clause 20 (9) because it deals with clause 20 (9) (b). Now, by way of further improvement, we have added clause 20 (9) (a) to that.
    What is missing from that is the clause 20 (9) (b), “a person who uses a false tax- payer identification number”. [Interrup- tion.] That is what I am saying. Clause 29 (9) (b). That is the point that I am raising that, we seem to have captured clause 20 (9) (a) and (c) but (b) seems to be missing. So, if they can consider that.
    Mr Speaker, finally, the clause 30 that we have just dealt with, when they have this construction “a hundred per cent penalty” they meant double the amount. It seems to me that it is the same sense that has been captured here; the hundred per cent penalty. It seems to me that it is the double of the amount that should be captured.
    So, to have the symmetry, can we look at how they captured the clause 30 that we just dealt with, and how we captured the clause 38.
    But as I said, Mr Speaker has stood it down so we can do the reconciliation.
    Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon Members, clause 38 is deferred accordingly.
    Clause 40; Chairman, have you re- solved the issue?
    Mr Avedzi 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 40, we agreed that the issue of jurisdiction in the amendment covered both the geographical and the competence.
    So, I beg to move, that clause 40 sub- clause (1), concluding paragraph, delete and insert the following:
    “the Commissioner-General may obtain an order from the Court having jurisdiction in respect of that person for the closure of one or more of business premises of that person for the period and subject to the orders stated in the Court order.”
    Mr Speaker, I so move.
    Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Why are you leaving the discretion to the court? This is about revenue, why do you not give a time line to the court? You have the power to do so, because it talks about revenue to the State and I believe that is why they have given a time period in the Bill? You are opening it up. Hon Chairman, you know that our attitude towards revenue is different.
    Mr Avedzi 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the original Bill, there was a time limit for a period of between 3 to 30 calendar days. Mr Speaker, the debate on the floor indicated that, we should not give time limit for this, but rather leave it to the determination of the court, so the Committee having dis- cussed it further decided on this particular amendment.
    Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon Ranking Member, why do we not give it to them because we are talking about revenue to the State?
    So, these matters, if we leave them, they can take years and over. The State needs revenue, that is why in the original Bill, they have tried to give a cap or they have tried to --
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the argument for this amendment actually came from the policy-makers and not the Committee and we bought into it. This is because, we were told that, once it goes to the court, the court would determine it.
    Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Yes, but this House can give time limit to the court --
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think we should defer to the policy-maker be- cause they have the time period and they persuaded us to buy into that with that.
    Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    The Bill which was in- troduced into the House has a time period.
    Hon Minister?
    Mr Terkpeh 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the original Bill, the Commissioner-General obtains the order from the court in the first place, and within that, the court prescribes, depending on the frequency with which the offence is committed. So, I believe that, even the original order of the court, would say that, they could state the peri- od. To make the period for closing itself a subject matter for the court again, it is like going to the court twice.
    I think the Commissioner-General, at this point -- This is because this is a re- peated offence. I believe that at this point, the Commissioner-General should have enough evidence to show to the Judge, for the Judge to make a judgement as to the -- This is because this is not a onetime event, this is referring to” repeatedly contravenes”. So, I would tend to agree
    with you, Mr Speaker, that we maintain the original.
    If for any reason, the Commission- er-General feels that he may need an extended period, he could then go back to the court. But our experience shows that usually, within this period, the taxpayer comes to settle or come, for some amica- ble agreement because, it involves loss of profit to the taxpayer.
    Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    But Hon Chairman, there is another one. Why are you using “the Court” instead of “a Court' in the original Bill?
    Has “the Court” been defined in the Bill? I ask that because the original Bill talks about “a Court” and you are using “the Court” which means that you are referring to a particular court.
    Mr Avedzi 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think it should be “a Court” not “the Court”.
    Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Hon Members, I just want to find out why the amendment from “a Court” to “the Court”.
    Mr Avedzi 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it should be “a Court having jurisdiction in respect of that person…” It should be “a Court”.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am all for this cap. But what happens if for instance, this contravention is cleared two days immediately after it is declared? What do we do? Do we still keep the thing closed even though he has actually rectified these things? So, I think the cap should be up to when these things are resolved and not necessarily one month. If after one month, he has not resolved it, do we have to open it?
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have to look at the original Bill carefully. The impression that was created by the former Attorney-General was that, the way it is couched, it appears that after the court gives the judgment the Commissioner -General determines on its own. That is what was brought to our attention by the former Commissioner- General. So this rendition is-- it is determined by what the court says and not the Commission- er-General.
    The original one appears that the Com- missioner -General, as soon as he gets the order, even if the court says ten days, he goes forcefully to close it. So we are trying to cure something there. That is the argument that we provided here.This one is determined by what the court says; if the court says a day, it is a day, the court would determine that and not the Commissioner -General.
    Mr Seth Terkpeh 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I see the period as operational --The Commis- sioner-General, having secured the court order, would serve you notice to come and pay, even if he physically comes to lock, it comes with notice.
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon Member, when the Commissioner-General cannot go to the court, the court in making the order, would look between the 3 and 30 days -- that is the important point. We are giving a period to the court, so based on the facts of the case, the court may decide whether 3 days is the minimum or the maximum is 30 days. That would be based on the

    facts of each case.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that, this amendment has been proposed because of a certain understand- ing that Committee Members may have had of the original rendition. My under- standing of the original rendition is that, where a person immediately contravenes the sections, the Commission-General would then go to a court for an order to close the business, and the court would then say that, alright, close the business for a specified period.
    But I think they thought that oh, the Commissioner-General could go to court and just say that I want an order to close, and the court would say that al right, close the business and the Commissioner-Gen- eral would then go and arbitrarily say that I am closing it for 29 days, no. I do not think that is the intention of this clause at this stage.
    So probably, the Hon Chairman may withdraw the amendment -- [Interrup- tion] -- I would not say it is bogus except that, they wanted to be very clear to make it express, as to who has the power to specify the date but from what I have seen, it is the court -- the court does not do things in isolation. How can the court say that, I would give you another and that would satisfy you -- [Interruption.]
    Mr Avedzi 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, a new rendition,
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:05 p.m.
    I agree, except the in- clusion of the amendment proposed by Mr Speaker. I think it should read “the court” and not “a court”.
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon Members, when we
    use a definite article, it means the Bill has been referred to a specific court.
    Ms Sarah Safo 12:05 p.m.
    Thank you very much Mr Speaker, I think to some extent, I agree with Hon Dr Osei. If you look at the rendition in the original Act, it talks about obtaining an order of ‘a court' having jurisdiction.Then here, it is talking about obtaining an order from ‘the court' having jurisdiction in respect of a person.
    So in “respect of a person” kind of gives that jurisdiction to a specific court and Mr Speaker, you are very much aware that, there are specialised courts now in the Fast Track Courts. So with this rendition, I think it should remain this way.
    Respectfully, Mr Speaker.
    Dr Kunbuor 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when we are dealing with legislation that must keep consistency with the Constitution, we have to fall back on the Constitution. The Constitution specifically defines what the word “court” means and that anytime you use the word “court”, it means “a court of competent jurisdiction”.
    Immediately you move to “the court” you are anticipating that you would go and define that particular law and once it is not defined and they are not even, when we are not clear in our minds whether we are going to designate a particular court which would be -- let us rely on what the Constitution says court means.
    The Constitution is very clear by not saying court means “the court”. It says “a court of competent jurisdiction”. Do we have any justifiable reason for departing from the structuring of this definition in the Constitution?
    Papa OwusuAnkomah 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “if it is not broke, do not fix it.” Often times, we seek to make some amendments and we end up confusing ourselves. I do not see -- [Interruptions]--I said sometimes, I am not saying always. -- [Interruptions] It is not “offentimes” but
    “sometimes” -- Mr Speaker, if you look at the original rendition, it says “obtaining an order of a court having jurisdiction” that should be enough.We must bear in mind that, even within Accra, there may be many courts having jurisdiction.
    If we use the definite article, we are referring to a particular court that has been designated in this Bill where I looked [In- terruption]--at the interpretation section and there is no definition of “court”. Why then would we want to use the definite article instead of the other -- So Mr Speaker, I believe that, let us leave it as it is; let it be “a court”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my worry is on another matter. It is on the same clause. The amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman of the Committee says Commissioner-General may obtain an order -- we are now saying ‘from a court having jurisdiction”. What else, where a person repeatedly engages in this contra- vention, can the Commissioner- General do? He cannot do any other thing than go to court.
    If that is the case, and the Commission- er-General has no other option then the operative word should be “shall” and not “may”.That the Commissioner-General “shall obtain an order” and not “may ob- tain an order”. In each case, other options are opened to him. But I think that, in this case, no other options are opened to the Commissioner- General.
    Mr Speaker, in the original con- struc-tion, the provisions state,
    “the Commissioner-General may after obtaining an order of a court having jurisdiction in respect of that person, forcibly close one or more businesses”.
    The use of the word “may” there, re- ally relates to the forcible closure and not obtaining the court order, which is taken in that construction as a giving.
    So Mr Speaker, I would suggest that we rather delete the word “may” in line (1) and insert “shall”.
    Mr Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon Member, what is the difference between what is in the Bill and what you are proposing to do now? I want to find out from the Honourable House; especially listening to the Hon Minority Leader and the point made by the Hon Member for Sekondi. What are we fixing?
    Dr Kunbuor 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that was why you were guiding the Hon Minority Leader that we should take one item at a time. We are now caught up in the type of double job. I think the matter of a “court” has been clarified and agreed upon as an amendment. But the permissiveness and compulsive nature of “may” and “shall” should not be introduced at this point.
    There is something again peculiar about tax. Tax, you use both the stick and the carrot, in fact, you rarely use the stick but only when the carrot fails.
    You should invariably -- because of the cost of connection not resorting to punitive methods for tax. Otherwise, you are invariably driving away voluntary compliance. So you see, most of these tax things, they allow some discretion for the particular public officer to decide whether in the circumstances and in terms of the wider tax plan, do we go penal or do we not? I think “may” would be more appropriate in this particular situation.
    Mr Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon Members, based on all these points being made, what is the difference. Is it not better for the House to maintain the original rendition in the Bill?
    Hon Member, let me hear from you.
    Ms Ursula G. Owusu 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I respectfully disagree with the Hon Majori-
    Ms Ursula G. Owusu 12:15 p.m.


    ty Leader on this. I think the House should take a serious view of the laxity which we have attached to the enforcement of our tax legislation so far. That has made it possible for most people to refuse to abide by their tax obligations under the law.

    If we are serious about enforcing com- pliance with tax legislation in this country, we can learn from other jurisdictions, where even the mere threat of possible sanctions and imprisonment, because of failure to comply with the tax legislation, enforces compliance with the law.

    We have had a regime which is too lax and that has encouraged people to rather decide not to obey the legislation and to act with impunity. The discretion granted to those who are enforcing the law has also given them the right to either lean hard on one person as against the other, depending on, maybe, the look of the person's nose.

    If we want every Ghanaian to see filing of tax returns and application of the law as a serious matter, this House ought to make it mandatory for everyone and the Commissioner-General to also see it as a duty and obligation to apply the law without fear or favour.

    I would go with your suggestion that we make it mandatory rather than discre- tionary in this matter.
    Dr Kunbuor 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am sorry to rise on a point of order. There is a rea- son why over six Budgets, to the best of my knowledge, tax amnesties are always granted. Your current tax policy position is that, you should even compound tax crimes and grant tax amnesties. There is a policy consideration why that is done.
    How many other crimes, apart from tax crimes have been compounded in this country? That is why I am indicating that, there is a policy framework and this pol- icy framework is insisting that when you
    are dealing with tax matters, you do not immediately as a first step resort to using the stick and that is why I am saying so.
    The second point is that, if you read the Bill before this House, which is the Tax Administration Bill, because the Hon Minority Leader raised an issue of repeated circumstance. You would find it in that Bill, which is now going to be the generic tax Administration Bill covering all tax regimes in which provision is made for repeated default and the conse-quences that are associated with it.
    So all those matters would be dealt with. But because this is one specific tax regime, you would provide for it and then when you get your generic tax admini-stration regime, it would cater for that particular position.
    Mr Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon Members, we are at the Consideration Stage. So we are dealing with a particular clause. My understanding of the point made by the Hon Minority Leader is that, the “may” there is qualifying the forcible closure. If I get him right, he made a very important point that, you need to do that after you get court order.
    So, you have no choice but to go to court to get an order. If that is the case, then what is the essence of the amendment we have here? As for the court, you would go to court when you get the order wheth- er it is disclosure or not, that is where the discretion comes in.
    Hon Members, I would want you to advert your minds to the rendition in the original Bill and the new amendment. See whether based on the discussion on the floor, so far, whether we should maintain what is in the original Bill or whether we should go by the amendment.
    This is because, if you closely look at it, I think that -- I do not want you to
    say I am taking part in the debate but the sense of the House is clear and the policy consideration here is very clear. “If it is not broke, why are we fixing it”? I would take two Hon Members more on this matter and I would hear from the Minister for Finance and I would put the Question or defer the issue.
    Mr Mahama Ayariga 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think you are very much on point. This is because after going round, we obviously have come back to the original rendition of the Bill and like you rightly indicated, it is clear that, from the debate that has taken place, we intend to say what is in the original rendition of the Bill. If that is the case, then let us stick to what is there.
    The only issue now, in my opinion, is whether or not the original rendition should be amended to now read “shall” instead of “may”. If that issue is resolved, I think that we should maintain the original rendition of the Bill.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not think that solves the problem. The original rendition keeps reminding us “may forci- bly” and the word “forcibly closed” was being objected to in the original rendition, in the last but one line. And people did not want the Commissioner-General to forcibly close. That is why the amendment was being offered.
    If you look at all the conditions that must be satisfied, for example a, b, c, d, e, the Commissioner-General ought to do some homework to see if anyone of them applies. If it says “shall”, I am sure the Commissioner-General would be going to court every day. I do not think he would want to impose -- and as the Hon Majority Leader said, if you use some discretion, because it says; “Where a person repeat- edly contravenes” already there is a track
    record and then you give him room to see what else is missing.
    But if you use the word “shall”, I think we would have overburdened the Commissioner-General and that is not the intent. Tax collection would become more expensive than what we are going to get. So I think that --
    Dr Kunbuor 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have a point of information on this matter which I think would clarify this issue. The more compelling reason why we should not use the word “shall”, in relation to going to court, is that, invariably, a professional lawyer would go to court. On the rules of ethics of the Ghana Bar Association, it is specifically said to be a professional misconduct, where it has become clear that this matter ought not to be litigated and the lawyer goes to litigate it.
    It is in the ethics, so you go to court based on instructions received and legal advice. Now, the Commissioner-General goes to instruct his lawyer and the lawyer is telling him that, based on A, B, C, D, the best approach is not to go to court but it says “shall”. How are you going to deal with a situation like that? I said that there are all sorts of considerations because the Commissioner-General should be more interested -- Let us not use the incom- petence of a Commissioner-General as a basis of the law.
    Mr Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon Members, let me draw your attention to the two amend- ments once more. The “may” there means different things in the two amendments as explained by the Hon Minority Leader.
    The “may” in the earlier rendition is different from the “may” in the original Bill. As for the court, as has been pointed out, you have to go to court to get an order so that one is the “shall”. If you have that
    Mr Speaker 12:25 p.m.


    “shall” there of going to court, to get the order before you can close, there should not be any debate there, at all.

    So Hon Members, I have listened to you, do we use the original rendition in the Bill or we go by the amendment? In my view, that is the only question and I want to put my Question. I think that we have belaboured this point.

    Hon Dr Prempeh, you come in.
    Dr Prempeh 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the House had already agreed to some amendment to this Bill and one was the removal of the word “forcible”. Mr Speaker, if you read the original Bill, the last part of the Bill which I protested -- that was why it was stood down. It was saying that, the Commissioner-General after going to obtain the court order, then may close a business for 3 to 30 days.
    My issue at that time was that, if the court has given an order, the Commission- er-General then cannot say 3 to 30 days if the order of the court has not been fulfilled. That was why the 3 to 30 days was also removed from the Bill. If you read the original Bill, that discretion that is being given to the Commissioner- General was not commensurate to what the court has decided. That is why the Committee, when it was stood down, decided that they would —
    Mr Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon Member, you are taking us back.
    Dr Prempeh 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is dif- ferent—the original Bill is different from what the Committee is now suggesting and we do not agree to what is in the original Bill.
    Mr Terkpeh 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have addressed my views on the going to court a second time already, so I think that is known. Mr Speaker, if we read clause 40
    in context, even where “forcibly” is used in clause 40 (1), it goes on further in clause 40 (2) to state as follows:
    “For the purposes of subsection (1), the Commissioner General may use reasonable force and police assistance …”.
    So that itself states that, the Commis- sioner-General may not just use the force anyhow. This is my humble opinion. It has been the practice that, most of the time, where tax officials or the Commis- sioner-General thinks that they would need assistance in carrying out this particular—
    Mr Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon Minister, if you delete the word “forcibly” in the original rendition, would it cause any harm to the amendments?
    Mr Terkpeh 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it would not, so there is —
    Mr Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Then why do you not remove it so that we put the Question on the original rendition?
    Mr Terkpeh 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is all right with me. I wanted to address the issue of “may” also while I am on my feet. I think that the word “may” should be re- tained with all due respect to — in that, we are talking about closure of one or more businesses of the tax payer. You may have one registered taxpayer but that taxpayer may have subsidiaries and branches and it may not be all the taxpayer's businesses that would be involved in that offence.
    So the exercise of discretion year would not compel the taxpayer to close if he says “shall” then we would be closing — I think this is the context in which some discretion should be allowed. This is because, you are referring to quite a number of business operations of the taxpayer in this instance.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speak- er, if we are going to retain the original construction, then the “may” there is ac-
    ceptable. If it is the original construction that Mr Speaker is going to urge us to vote on, then the “may” there is understanda- ble. This is because, as I said, the “may” in that construction relates to the closure and not obtaining the court order; he is more or less compelled to go to court to engage in this.
    So, we are only saying that, if it relates to the amendment, then, the word “may” would have to be replaced with “shall”. If we are going back, then the “may” is correct.
    Mr Terkpeh 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I made a contribution considering that, we had al- ready discussed the deletion, the possible deletion of going back to the court the sec- ond time. This means that the original— but if I may also address another concern of the Hon Minority Leader, sub-section 3 also states that
    “For the purposes of this section, a repeated contravention means a con- travention that is committed within one year after receipt by the person of a written warning …”.
    So the warnings and even the Commis- sioner- General sending people to talk to the taxpayer are some of the options which would have been available to the taxpayer and which would be explained in much detail when we take the Tax Administra- tion Act that these things are progressive. So I wanted to just bring that also to the attention of the House.
    Dr A. A Osei 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move delete “forcibly” and insert Sub- ject to the earlier amendments --[Inter- ruptions.] Clause 40 — Yes, I am going back to the original subject to the minor amendments that were made
    “… the Commissioner-General may after obtaining an order of a court having jurisdiction in respect of the person …”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 40 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr Avedzi 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 44 -- Definition of “auc- tioneer”, line 2, delete “includes” and insert “involves” and further delete “an auctioneer”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read as follows 12:35 p.m.
    “Auctioneer means a person en- gaged in a taxable activity that involves the supply of goods by auction as an agent for or on behalf of another person.”
    Dr Kunbuor 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I guess that we have to take a closer look at the amendment that is proposed and if we do not read it closely, my position would be that, it should be “includes” and not “involves”.
    Mr Speaker, I am saying that because, when one goes back, what an auctioneer is, involves many things but they are tell- ing you that, that type of activity that is taxable involves (a), (b), (c ), (d) outlined in clause 5. So if we use the meaning of “auctioneer” here, to limit it again to what it involves in taxable activity then, we are not really defining “auctioneer” for purposes of the Act.
    So yes, clause 5 would continue to
    Dr Kunbuor 12:35 p.m.


    have the word “involves” what amounts to taxable activity, but the meaning of “auctioneer” should remain as “includes”, which means, the involving activities and more. That is the anticipation here.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, I think we have an Auction Sales Act. I am just won- dering, does that define auctioneer; and if we look at that, does it help us in anyway?
    Dr Kunbuor 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is in the context of that that I assumed that there is no indication here to make any radical changes to what obtains there. If we look at what the auctioneer is supposed to be involved in, in that particular piece of leg- islation and the regulation, it goes beyond taxable activity. This is what I am saying.
    It goes beyond taxable activity, unless we are creating a completely new legal auctioneer in this statute, then we would have to say so. But if it is assumed that it is that activity, they are only taking out “taxable activity,” but it is more than that.
    Mr Avedzi 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the opinion of the Committee is that, for the purposes of this Act and for the purposes of the VAT, “an auctioneer is the one who is engaged in the taxable activity.”
    So the work of the auctioneer here involves the supply of taxable activity and he is doing that as an agent for, or on behalf of another person. We are actually not looking at the definition of the entire word “auctioneer”, but for the purposes of this, he must be involved in the supply of a taxable activity under the definition of VAT. That is the opinion of the Com- mittee and that is why we are making this amendment.
    Dr Kunbuor 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let them
    take it back to what taxable activity means, the definition of taxable activity and you would see that the word “involves” comes up again. That is what I am talking about. Let them read what amounts to taxable activity and you would see that the word “involves” comes in.
    “Clause 5 -- “For the purposes of this Act, a “taxable activity” means an activity which is carried on by a person (a) in the country, or (b) partly in the country.
    Whether or not for pecuniary profit, that involves or is intended to involve, …”
    So you see, you already have what tax- able activity here is. It has already been captured. Then, when we come back to this definition and we say “it involves”, we are having a difficulty there with the clarity of the meaning.
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in this Act, I believe that all clauses, unless specifically intended, should be expansive rather than limited. Wherever we use “includes”, it means that where there is a doubt, there could be others. So this expression substituting “includes” with “involves” rather limits it. So I believe the Hon Chairman ought to withdraw this amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice, let us hear your opinion.
    Dr Dominic A. Ayine 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker asked a question initially, whether or not there is a definition for “auctioneer” under the Auction Sales Law but there is no such definition, except that, in section 5 of the law, that is the Auction Sales Act, it pro- vides for the qualification of an auctioneer.
    So I think that this Bill should make a reference to that provision relating to the qualifications of an auctioneer because of
    the fact that, for a person to act as an auc- tioneer in the context of tax law, the person must qualify as an auctioneer under the Auction Sales Law. But the law itself in the Interpretation section does not define the term “auctioneer.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    So Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Dep- uty Minister for Justice, should we use “includes” or “involves?”
    Dr Ayine 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the view point that we should use “includes”. That is the view that has been expressed by Hon Papa Owusu-Ankomah and the Leader of the House and I think that should be the prevailing view.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Hassa -- Hon Ayariga? [Laughter.]
    Mr Ayariga 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think I need to have some lunch with you on this matter. Maybe, you are foreseeing certain things.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, I did not hear that statement. It is a very dangerous statement to make as a Minister. Very dangerous, so I did not hear.
    Mr Ayariga 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think Hon Papa Owusu-Ankomah raised some issue about definition and whether it should be expansive or it should be restrictive. But Mr Speaker, I think when we get to the definition section of a Bill, that is where we need greater certainty, that is not where we are further leaving some room for people to determine what is included and what is not, included because, here we are defining.
    Therefore, if in the Bill we have some doubt about something and we come to the definition and in the definition there is no level of certainty on what is captured, then it creates problems for us. If that is
    what is informing his arguments, then we should air it on the side of being definite about what is entailed rather than further leaving it open for us to say “it includes.” It should be certain, it involves (x), (y), (z). So this is being definite.
    Dr Kunbuor 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am sure there is a very big world of difference between concise and being definite. We need to get a clearer idea. I think what he is talking about is whether we should be moving towards a concise definition or not, but a concise definition does not nec- essarily mean a closer or tighter meaning.
    It is sometimes a better way of cap- tioning it when it is loose because of the uncertainties that are involved in it. That is why I am saying that, for the purposes of this, we should not be looking at con- ciseness; we should also be looking at the definiteness as he has indicated and there is a lot of reason for that.
    Ms Safo 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that in constructing and in drafting there are conventional words that we use. If it is limited or restrictive, then we use the word “means”, then we are defining it. “means” is the conventional or the traditional word that is used.
    When you intend to make it wider, then you use “includes”.
    So in this context, as Hon Papa Owusu- Ankomah said, we should use “includes”. But for Hon Ayariga to say that “includes” means “everything”, the rules of Interpre- tation does not allow that. We have the ejusdem generis rule that tells you that, words preceding the definition would take the “includes” -- other words that follow the “includes” would take colour and meaning from the preceding words.
    So, for him to say that “includes” means “everything” or that we are being too wide in terms of its interpretation, I think I disagree. So, in this context, the word should be “includes”.

    If we intend to define and make it re- strictive, then the proper word is “means” and not “involve.”

    Thank you Mr Speaker.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think in defining auctioneer, in the first place, you do not supply goods in an auction. The reason we do auction or the main purpose of auction is to sell. So, “the sale of goods by auction,” not “the supply of goods by auction.” That is number one.
    Number two -- the choice between “includes” and “involves”. If you say “include”, you may be doing something else which is outside that sale of goods under auction. Is that included here? or. But if you say “involve” then you restrict it to the auction activity, which is actually a sale activity and not a supply activity.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speak- er, I believe there is nothing wrong with the construction that you have there, that is, as proposed by the Committee. That a taxable activity that involves the supply of goods.
    Mr Speaker, I say so because we are talking about the imposition of tax and we would rather take it from clause 1 of the Bill, which, to answer Hon Prof. Gyan-Baffour, is clear that, we are talking about the supply of goods or the supply of services. It is one of two things that we are dealing with in the Bill. That is why we are not talking about the sale of goods. Otherwise, we may perhaps even add dis- posal -- sale and disposal of goods. But we are talking about the supply of goods and the supply of services in this Bill.
    Having said that, Mr Speaker, now we are talking about that activity. Already, we know what taxable activity is and taxable activity as the Hon Majority Leader indi- cated, includes -- No; what I am saying is
    taxable activity itself, which has been used in this, is defined and it says, taxable activ- ity includes et cetera. And we are talking about taxable activity which includes so and so involving the supply of goods.
    I think the word “involve” would not detract from what you have there. Rather, if we say “includes”, use includes in the subclause (2), it would rather be over flogging it and in my view, it would even not be only superfluous, but tautologous. So Mr Speaker, I think --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, you used only two -- please add another one -- superfluous, tautologous and the third one is --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:45 p.m.
    It would be an overkill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Thank you.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:45 p.m.
    So Mr Speaker, let us deal with this as obtains in it. I think it is correct because, “taxable activity” has already been defined to in- clude so many things. You would not say that taxable activity that includes so many things further includes.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    You know, Hon Members, if I get the sense of the House, the House seems to be divided on this issue. There are very strong argu- ments for; there are very strong arguments against. So, I will put the Question.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speak- er, I believe the Hon Majority Leader, having listened to me, is now convinced and persuaded that, it should rather be “involved”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    One thing that worries me is that, one of the warriors of the other side, Hon Papa Owusu-Ankomah -- you waited for him to leave before you spoke. But if he has convinced you and you withdraw from your position, it would make my work
    easier, Hon Majority Leader.
    Dr Kunbuor 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you see, it might not hurt, but I am very uncom- fortable with questions of interpretation when the same word is repeated in a three-cross-referral arrangement.
    Let us look at it here, what we have here is trying to define an auctioneer and in that, we are indicating what it means in the Interpretation Section. Then when one goes to the Interpretation Section and they refer you back to clause 5. When you come to clause 5, it says, this is what “taxable activity” means and in that mean- ing it says “it involves” -- [Interruption] -- yes. Read clause 5 very closely, it says:
    “For purposes of this Act, a taxable activity means . . .”
    As Hon Safo was saying, this is what the Act said. Then in the meaning, it is saying that --

    Wait, I am coming. If you come to clause 5 (2), it says --

    “Without limiting subsection (1), a taxable activity includes --

    (a) an activity of . . .”

    Precisely. So why have you decided to use “involve” here and “include” there? It is because the word “involve” has already been used in the definition of a taxable activity. So, you would want to amplify it; and you are saying “in addition to what it involves, it includes this”. That is why I am telling you to be careful about the way you are repeating the words.

    It is also very clumsy for drafting pur- poses. When you do not intend the same

    effect, you use the same words.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speak- er, I was saying that, if you could listen further to the Hon Deputy Attorney-Gen- eral and the Hon Minister for Information, I believe we are on the same wavelength.
    The Hon Majority Leader now admits that it would not do any harm to it. So, I guess we have made some progress, but you can listen to the Hon Deputy Attor- ney-General and we can seal it.
    Dr Dominic A. Ayine 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have been in consultation with the Hon Minister for Finance and I do not see why we are splitting hairs over the definition of “auctioneer”. In order to simplify matters, we should define it with reference to the Auction Sales Act, by saying that an auc- tioneer under this Act or in the Bill is in reference to a person qualified under the Auction Sales Act as an auctioneer.
    We are not in the House defining a taxable activity. We are here looking at the definition of an auctioneer so I do not see why we are splitting hairs.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    If I could get a comment from the Hon Major- ity Leader, the Hon Minority Leader, then I the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    We are now being asked to define it with reference to the Auction Sales Act.
    Hon Minority Leader, when I look at what is here, even though it seems at first glance that, we would want to define an auctioneer, when you read the whole clause, it seems to be defining what that activity is, rather than what an auctioneer is.
    What is the activity that an auctioneer is undertaking in those circumstances? That is why Prof. Gyan-Baffour said that even the supply of goods and so on creates further confusion.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.


    I do not know. I see that both the Hon Minority Leader and the Hon Majority Leader are doing further consultations.

    Hon Minority Leader --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speak- er, this definition is specific to this Bill that is being crafted; and I do not know whether the one that the Hon Member is referring to covers the agent for or on behalf of another person, it is; the last line. So, it is specific to this Bill so let us leave it as it is, subject to the amendment. I think it suits the purpose for this Bill so we should not complicate it by introducing or importing from another territory into this one; I do not think so.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the Hon Deputy Attorney-General knows how this has been defined in the law that he is referring to, he should inform the House and move the Motion. Somebody has to look at this law and refer it to the other law, before he understands what an auctioneer is. So, if he knows it, or if he has the law or the Clerks-at-the-Table can look for it, that interpretation should be here.
    Mr Mahama Ayariga 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it would be important for us in trying to resolve this issue, to go back to where auctioneer is mentioned. I have gone back to clause 12, subclause (3); that is where there is a reference to the auctioneer in the context of the supply of goods, and that is what is being defined in the interpretation clause. So, if you read clause 12, sub- clause (3) it says that:
    “A supply of goods by auction is for the purposes of this Act treated as a supply of goods by the auctioneer for consideration in the cause or fur-
    therance of a taxable activity carried on by the auctioneer…”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon Member, Please. say it in simple language.
    What activity are they talking about?
    Mr Ayariga 12:55 p.m.
    A taxable activity of an auctioneer. So, even though taxable ac- tivity has been defined, they have created a situation where they find the taxable ac- tivity of an auctioneer as a special category which has to be defined. We now go to that definition to see whether it is an auctioneer being defined or a taxable activity of an auctioneer that is being defined. In which Mr Speaker -- [Interruption]
    Dr Kunbuor 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is precisely what I was indicating, that the auctioneer does other things than only taxable activities. So, they would define “taxable activity” using the right words as involving a, b, c. But when you come to talk about the auctioneer, because he does only taxable activity, it includes it, in addition to that. Otherwise then you are creating a completely different auctioneer as known in law. That is my worry; except it is not the auctioneer that is known in law.
    If it is the auctioneer we all know in law, he is not involved in only taxable activity; he is also involved in other activities. So, you are now going to say that, this auctioneer is this and that; and it includes this. Which now narrows it down to the ‘involves' in clause 5 to make it the type of peculiar activity you want to tax of the auctioneer, but not all the activities.
    So, with the delimitation here, which they use the word “involve” it is actually to delimit what is taxable and the Hon Member for Wenchi knows that in tax law, you must have a charge; if there is none, there is no tax imposed. So, the way they
    have structured it, is to create the type of activity that they can apply the charge. That is the basic principle of tax law. I am saying that, when you come to this definition and bring “involves in”, you would have a problem of a spread-out into other activities that you are bringing the auctioneer in a taxable activity which might not be. It would be other activities of the auctioneer; this is what I am saying.
    So, when we use the word “include” in the definition, you then come to what you would want to deal with; you say “it involves”, which is right; then you have already bounded the activity that you want to tax. This is the argument I am raising. If it were any other section, I would not ar- gue with it, but this is the charging section which goes to the root of interpretation in tax matters. And the taxing section of every tax that is due has to be very clear and unambiguous.
    That is why I would want to know what activity is taxable activity, that we would want to tax under VAT.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Major- ity Leader, on this interpretation section, should we be seeking to interpret or define what an auctioneer is, or we should be seeking to define what taxable activity of an auctioneer is? This is because, when you look at what an auctioneer is, it is known under another law. But the auction- eer is involved in several activities; that is my understanding. One of those activities is taxable under this Act.
    So, should we not be seeking to define what is the taxable activity of an auction- eer rather than what an auctioneer is, Hon Minister?
    Dr Kunbuor 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that has been done. It is because there is even a
    definition of an auctioneer in the Bill; that is why we are debating it. If there were no definition, and it was assumed that general law would apply to auctioneer, so be it. But I was worried when they were seeking to define it and I thought they intended it to mean something different from what you and I know. That is what has been worrying me and so if you are creating a VAT auctioneer situation, say so. But if you would want to take the general auctioneer concept and bring it into this, to create the activity that has to be taxed, then you have to clarify it.
    Mr Seth Terkpeh 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in answer to your question, the auctioneer, for the purposes of clause 12, you would recall that when we did section 10, it had to be split into the normal supplies and spe- cial supply for the purposes of the rules. The auctioneer happens to be involved in one of those special categories, and that is why in clause 12, the auctioneer is added to the agents.
    So, here, the auctioneer may be per- forming supplies on his or her own behalf but also as an agent. That is the relevance of clause 12. In the course of performing those supplies, either by himself or as an agent, the definition says that, to the extent that he is involved in taxable supplies then he must -- All other issues in clause 12, subclause (3) as the Hon Minister read it early on, merely state what a taxable sup- ply is; because for something to be taxable supply, it must be done for consideration in furtherance of the business -- So that is just repeating what constitutes a taxable supply.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon Minister, do we need this interpretation then? If what a taxable supply is, was dealt with in clause 10, it was done so again in clause 12, and we know what an auctioneer is, under the law. Do we need this definition, and what is the purpose of
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.


    this in the Interpretation Act?
    Mr Terkpeh 12:55 p.m.
    We need it in the context of the VAT law, which is dealing with tax- able supply and the extent to which that auctioneer is involved in a special supply.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    I agree with you, but you just told us that, is a spe- cial supply, and when we look at clauses 10 and 12, we see that. So, do we need it again in clause 44? If I am interpreting what special supply is, would I look at clause 44 or look at clauses 10 and 12? And if I would look at clauses 10 and 12, if they are more expansive than 44, then why do we have clause 44? That is the question being asked.
    I believe the Ranking Member would want to help you.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:05 p.m.
    The Hon Minister for Information made reference to it. Clause 12 is the first clause we had mentioned the word “auctioneer” not in clause 10. In clause 10, they used words like “sale”, “barter” and “disposition” but that is for supply of goods. Because it is mentioned in clause 12 for the first time, we have to define it, otherwise one would take it in the general sense.
    The Hon Minister is saying that he would want it in this specific sense, that is why he is saying it involves the supply of goods.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Let me put the Question.
    Dr Kunbuor 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is pre- cisely -- If one sees how we have used “auctioneer”, it is used as an alternative to an agent. Why do they choose to define the “auctioneer” and not the “agent”? So, the intention is that “agent” will remain as it is
    understood in the law of agency. But they want to give “auctioneer” a completely different meaning. That is why they have brought it into the interpretation section and that is why I have a difficulty.
    Otherwise, they should have also defined “agent” because the two are alter- natives. That is why I would want it to be clear. They would want to do something with the “auctioneer” and this “auction- eer” is both a noun and an adjective. One has to be careful which of these we are dealing with.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    I thought you had expansive powers as the Leader to ask for matters to be reconsid- ered.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:05 p.m.
    What the Hon Majority Leader said, was that, we should not have kept the word “agent” in clause 12 -- that is what we should not have done -- and rather focus on the “auctioneer”, then our problem will be solved.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    No, that is not what he said.
    Dr Kunbuor 1:05 p.m.
    I said once you have used both “agent” and “auctioneer”.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:05 p.m.
    I am inferring from what he said, that following from what you said, clause 12 should be supplied by an “auctioneer” because it is a special service we are offering there; not any other agent. We are making reference to “auctioneer”.
    So, I am saying that on hindsight, we should be focusing on the word “auction- eer”, not on “agent” because that is special service we are offering. If it is not that, there will be no need to define it.
    Dr Kunbuor 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker will know that even the “auctioneer” is a type of agent. In some circumstances he is a bailiff. That is why I have the difficulty because of the way it has been structured.
    My idea is that, there must be something unique about this “auctioneer” that they would want to define. But if it is the activity as a taxable activity, it has to be captured differently, unless it is unique that they would want to define it.
    Mr Avedzi 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the issue is about defining who is an “auctioneer” in the context of the law. We all know the meaning of “auctioneer”. But an “auctioneer” submits supply of so many things or whose work involves or include many items, most of which are not taxable under this law. So, for the purpose of this law, we are limiting that definition to that “auctioneer” whose activity involves taxable activity which has been defined in the law in clause 5.
    So, the “auctioneer” here is doing this as an agent but his work involves the supply of taxable activity. So, if we define “auctioneer” in general terms, it would also include that “auctioneer” whose activity involves the supply of taxable activity. But for the purposes of this law, it is limited to only that “auctioneer” whose activity is involved in taxable activity.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    If I understand you Hon Chairman, you are saying that, if we are not careful, we will subject all the activities of auctioneers to tax. So, you are seeking to limit that to taxable activities?
    Mr Avedzi 1:05 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    In that case, can we just define that activity in- stead of seeking -- That is what we are seeking to do -- to define that activity?
    Mr Avedzi 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that activity has been defined in the law -- I think at clause 5. So, the auctioneer whose activity involves --
    Dr Kunbuor 1:05 p.m.
    On a point of order.
    The argument we are raising here is that they have used two words; “agent” or “auctioneer.” And they went ahead to define “auctioneer” because they are say- ing that they would want all its activities not to come as chargeable. What about the “agent” that they have not defined? Does it mean all the activities of an agent will fall under it? Why? So, define “agent”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, to directly reply to what the Hon Majority Leader is saying - the clause 12(2) re- sponds adequately to the question that he raised. That subsection (1) does not apply to the supply of services of an agent. So, we are talking about the supply of goods. It will apply to the supply of goods, not the supply of services by an agent. So, that responds to what he is saying.
    The definition of the “auctioneer” includes the supply of goods. And if one goes further “… or an agent for and on behalf of another person”. Right? This is because in that case, the auctioneer will be acting as an agent. So, in the supply of goods, that is covered-- In the supply of services, it is not because it does not apply.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon Members --
    Dr Kunbuor 1:05 p.m.
    That difficulty is there because, when one uses the words “agent” and “auctioneer”, the auctioneer himself, for some purposes, unless the “agent” is defined, is an agent.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, on that note, I would defer this because there are strong views on both sides. All the views make sense, so to speak, and I am not in the position of a judge to give a judgement. All I do is to put the Question.
    The direction is that you should all go back and reconsider whether or not we
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.


    should use “involve” rather than “include” and whether or not we should even define “auctioneer” or we should define the “taxable activity of an auctioneer” or, as the Hon Majority Leader said, since “auc- tioneer” and “agent” are used in the same sentence, if we are defining “auctioneer”, we should also define “agent”.

    We should bear in mind what has been said, that we are careful not to subject all the activities of an auctioneer, by lack of definition, to taxation under VAT.

    So, we would defer it and move on.
    Mr Avedzi 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 44 -- Definition of “betting”, line 2, delete “doubtful” and insert “uncertain”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition is 1:05 p.m.
    ‘betting' means an arrangement to risk money or another valuable thing on an event which has uncertain result.”
    Mr Speaker, the amendment is seeking to make it clearer that, if one is placing a bet, one does not know the outcome or that activity of that event. So, we are not certain of that event; instead of saying the event is doubtful.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would respectfully plead with my Hon Colleague that, that definition is really a dare-devil definition of betting. It means an arrangement to risk money. It is too bare-faced. I guess he means it is an ar- rangement that involves risking money. But to say that one is going to risk mon- ey-- I guess it is not really on.
    But it should be an arrangement which involves risking money or the risk of money. But to say “to risk money” is really not on.
    Mr Avedzi 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, our amend- ment is to change “doubtful” to “uncer- tain.” If the Minority Leader has a dif- ferent amendment to propose, he should propose that one. So first, he should let us finish with the Committee's amendment and then he comes with his.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Hon
    Minority Leader, I am not a “betting” man but should I put the Question or you would want to say something?
    I asked for the dictionary; I must con-
    fess that I do not know the definition of “betting”, What is the normal definition of “betting”? Is there a classical definition or there is a special definition in tax law? If I take the Advanced Oxford Dictionary, the definition that I see would not be the same, but some how be similar. Or “betting” is being given as a technical term here and I have asked the Clerk to bring me the dictionary.
    I will just read what the dictionary says about “betting” because I understand the Minority is not very comfortable with the “risk money”. Prof Gyan-Baffour is also protesting from his chair.
    Hon Akoto --
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect, perhaps if you can take the cur- rent amendment and if there are further amendments we could return to it. Be- cause, there is only one small amendment changing “doubtful” to “uncertainty”. If Hon Members have opposed that it is different, but we are going into something that has not been proposed yet, so if we do that we will lose track. They can come back and offer further amendment.
    The question is, this amendment, are we --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Thank you.
    But I think I also have the obligation to provide direction, and this time, I see direction from the Oxford Advance Dic- tionary, Special Pride Edition, 6th Edition and it defines “betting” as “The act of risking money”. Then it says “et cetera on the unknown result of an event”.
    It defines it as the act of risking money on the unknown result of an event” and I believe it is in this light that the Chairman is taking away “doubtful” and inserting “uncertain” because there is an unknown result. But should it be “risk money” or “risking money”? I agree with Hon Akoto Osei but if we could just look at the two and just take it once.
    This is a friendly amendment.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speak- er, I would further propose an amendment that, ‘betting' means an arrangement that involves risking money” and I guess the unknown in this context would be better than “uncertain”.
    Mr Samuel Atta Akyea 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    I also propose an amendment that nobody bets with the aim of risking money, but rather, you bet with an understanding to make money with the risk component because the result is doubtful or uncertain. So, if you would want to really project -- I do not know whether my client is somebody who loves betting -- None of us will bet --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    We are
    all Hon Members, whether they are your clients --
    Mr Akyea 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I apologise.
    My Hon Colleague who is also my cli- ent, Hon Akoto Osei, Dr -- I do not know his level of bet, ting but when people bet, they have an understanding to --
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my lawyer
    is getting to a very technical statistical area and I would want to caution. This
    is not law. The word “risk”, whether you make money or lose money is implied, that is why the word “risk” is used. So, the question is not whether you go in to make money. You do not know, that is why there are probabilities attached to it. To say that you are going to make money is not definitely correct. You do not know the probabilities, but you put a risk, you calculate it and take it.
    So, saying that we all bet to make money, I am not sure -- He is not betting to get -- He does not know the risk. It is a question of probabilities, so you do not know whether you will win money or lose money. Because there are associated probabilities, that is why the word “risk” is used. It is a very technical term.
    Mr Akyea 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not
    believe this is a technical term, because insofar as we have understanding of what betting is, we are saying it is an attempt to make money but with the risk component, with uncertain results; that is what it is.
    But immediately you introduce an arrangement to risk money, as if that is the aim of those who bet. They have an aim to make money, but that activity has a risk component, and the result is uncertain. That will give us a better understanding of betting, because I do not think that is the aim of those who bet.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    If the Chairman will not be adverse to it, the Minority Leader's friendly amendment answers your question, and if you could say the whole friendly amendment and see whether --
    Hon Minister, do you have something to say?
    Mr Terkpeh 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, most
    businesses aim to make money. What we are defining here is merely the activity “betting” which involves an element of risk. It is not imputing that the person is seeking to make money or otherwise. In fact, the entire VAT is about businesses that is why it must be in furtherance of a business which is to make money.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    I could not agree with him more.
    Minority Leader, could you tell us your friendly amendment and if it is agreed, then we put the Question and move on.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speak-
    er, I suggested this construction that ‘bet- ting' means an arrangement that involves risking money or another valuable thing on an event which has uncertain result.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Avedzi 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 44, definition of “consider- ation”, paragraph (a), line 1, before “kind” insert “in”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 1:15 p.m.
    ‘Consideration' in relation to a supply of goods or services and an import of services, includes:
    a) the total amount in money or in kind paid or payable for the supply by any person, directly or indirectly.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Chair- man, you said paragraph (a) of clause 44, line 1 -- Line 1 is where the seller or lessor is a bank or other financial …”
    Mr Avedzi 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, under “consideration”, definition of “consideration” on page 44 of the Bill.
    (a), line 1, before “kind” insert “in” .
    So it will read: “in kind. . .”
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Avedzi 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 44, add the following new
    definition:
    “‘currency point' has the same meaning as provided for in section 165(4) of the Internal Revenue Ser- vice Act, 2000 (Act 592).”
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I need
    your guidance.
    On this part, at the last adjourned date, the impression was given that the word “currency points” should be “currency units”. The Clerk was supposed to check on this for us to see if that is the appro- priate words.
    Mr Avedzi 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Chairman, I think it was rather, if it is “penalty”, it is “units” and if it is “currency”, it is “points”. So, we have “penalty units”, “currency points”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Thank you for the clarification.
    I will put the Question --
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before you put the Question-- I am not so sure. I think it looks very awkward when we are trying to define something which is defined in another law, then we say that we should refer to that law. Why do we not quote it here?
    Mr Avedzi 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Chairman, this is the best way the Committee thinks that we should refer to it. But if the Hon Member thinks that we should quote it, he should bring it and we would quote it. But we suggested that we made reference to that law -- [Interruption.]
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 1:25 p.m.
    But if you do not know it, why do you refer to it?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon Prof. Gyan-Baffour --
    Mr Avedzi 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we know, that is why we are making reference to it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    The
    Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Dep- uty Minister for Justice is here. I must confess that this cross-referencing of laws create their own difficulty. I support Prof. Gyan-Baffour's approach; that, if it is pos- sible, and if it is not too long, then if you quote it within a law, it makes it simpler than to refer to another law. So, anybody who starts reading the Value Added Tax Act must have with him also the Internal Revenue Act.
    Hon Atta Akyea, I would want your view on the matter for purpose of inter- pretation, as law pratictioner.
    Mr Akyea 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, sometimes, we should make it very easy and read- able. That is the purpose of legislation. Sometimes, the definitions that we import, if they do not sit well with what we are attempting to do and make in context, it does not help. But if it is so clear and it has been defined already in another law, then we can bring it to bear on the one that we are trying to pass. I believe that makes it very harmonious.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    We would ask the Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice for his view.
    Dr Ayine 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my view is that it is better to do cross-referencing because we do not want a situation where Parlia- ment is seen to be speaking with different voices, at different times, depending on the legislation that is being passed. So, there is a need for coherence in the way we enact legislation. I do not think that it is good for us to define a term in one Act differently from what has been defined in one statute that bears on the same point.
    I think that the cross-referencing -- and this is standard in the common law world. Cross-referencing of legislation is a better approach when it comes to the definition of terms. So, I think cross-referencing

    the law -- for instance, if we would want to define “auctioneer” and we have the “Auction Sales Act” that defines what an auctioneer or who an auctioneer is, there is no point defining an auctioneer differently in the Value Added Tax Act.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    So, I think that you are suggesting that we keep it as such?
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Avedzi 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 44, add the following new definition:
    “‘employment' means a contract of service whether express or implied and if express, whether in writing or oral and includes:
    (a) the position of an individual in the employment of another person; or
    (b) the holding of or acting in any office or position entitling the holder to a fixed ascer- tain-able remuneration other than an office or a position as a director of a company or a manager of a body of persons or as a partner in a partner-ship.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, we have been told a second ago by the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice, that cross-referencing is part of the common law, and when something is defined in one place, it should not be defined again. On “employment”, there is a whole law on employment. The Labour Act defines what “employment” is, so why do we seek to define it here? We cannot approbate and reprobate; we must take one consistent position.
    Dr Ayine 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with you entirely. There is a standard common law definition of “employment.” Here, we are dealing with a contract of service. The question I would want to pose is whether or not contract for services are also subject to VAT? So, if we are defining “employ- ment” here as a contract of service, then it means that we are by necessary impli- cation, excluding contract for services.
    Mr Speaker, I do not know if I have complicated the issue.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    The quiet response of the House shows that you have made it more complicated. If you could please explain it in simple language so that simple people like me can under- stand, Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice.
    Dr Ayine 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the definition here, sought to be included in the Bill, makes a reference to a contract of service. For instance, somebody who is employed in the Public Service and has been given a contract which clearly defines the terms and conditions of the employment -- However, there is a distinction between that, and say, a consultancy contract which is a contract for services. I do know that as a matter of practice, both are subject to taxation. So, why are we defining “em- ployment” here to mean only contract for employment and not contract of services?
    MrTerkpeh 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I cannot find the section immediately, but in VAT, a contract for employment as opposed to a contract for services is not subject to VAT. I am looking for the section, but when one is in employment, he does not pay VAT
    because it is incorporated in the cost build up, so whatever may be sold becomes a taxable activity..
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon Minister for Finance, if I am employed in Parliament, I do not pay VAT on my salary. So, in this case, what is the “employment” in this case? What do you seek to tax? Is it a consultancy or one of employment? What is subject to VAT? That is what I believe we would want to understand.
    Mr Terkpeh 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I take it that the definition of “employment” is for the purpose of clarifying that a contract of em- ployment which is not taxable is different from a contract of service. So, Mr Speaker, to use your example, if somebody, as we normally say, outsources -- If a business were to be outsourced to perform similar functions, not as the Speaker but other functions for the Parliamentary Service, a service as cleaning, that contract would be subject to VAT. But your services as the Speaker or an Hon Member would not be subject to VAT, even in the business context.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Sorry, I am not engaging in the debate but just to ask you again --
    So would you call that one of consul- tancy “employment”?
    Hon Minority, Leader, would you call it employment, if you outsource your cleaning service to people or even the audio service? Would you call it employ- ment? Employment has its own defini- tion and we are talking about “contract for services”. So should we not define “contract for services” rather than define employment? I do not know whether I am also getting a bit confused. I do not know whether you can assist me.
    Mr Terkpeh 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are get- ting into whether a person should register as a taxable person by virtue of rendering business and issues like the threshold and
    others. So he has to reference the law but the fact that a person is involved in a tax- able activity initially makes him eligible, except if he has one to Parliament only and not to other public sector institutions, therefore the totality of the taxable activity does not amount to -- He is exempted; he is below the threshold.
    But the fact that one is involved in a taxable activity, one is required to register, except where the law provides otherwise. But that is quite different from your be- ing perpetually employed by Parliament. You will be rendering a similar service. Or better still, Mr Speaker, if Parliament were to employ a cleaner as opposed to outsourcing, the wages for that cleaner would not be subject to VAT.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe your initial question to the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice was, is there any definition of employment else where that he can cross reference? But he moved away from that. Is it there or it is not there? If it is there, let us use that because, the definition here seems to be trying to reinvent the wheel, unlimiting the focus of employment. Is it about a generic em- ployment or it is just an employment that relates to this Bill?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Minister, if you do not mind, I will let the Hon Deputy Minority Leader make the point while you consult.
    Mr Nitiwul 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the draftspersons would obviously have a rea- son for giving the meaning of employment as “contract of service”, not “for service”. This is because “of service” is usually as- sociated with long-term employment but
    “for service” is normally between business to business ventures or all those things. So we may have to read the whole clause and get the real understanding.
    What is it that they are looking at? Is the employment related to, maybe, a con- tractor and his client or it is related to just ordinary persons that get employed? Then we would be able to know whether it is “contract of service” or “for service”. If it has to do with just employment, human beings, then the “of service” is the correct one. But if it will include business ven- tures, business to business, then we will have to expand it.
    Dr Ayine 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have read the Bill and I do not see why we are even attempting to define “employment”. Terms are defined in legislation because there is the need to clarify their meaning in the interpretation section of legislation. Usually, when the term is defined, it is because it has been employed in the sub- stantive part of the legislation.
    We did not bring this Bill here with “employment” defined from the Attor- ney-General's Department. Someone pro- poses to define “employment” here and my question is, why are we doing that? And why are we defining “employment” as a “contract of service” and not a “contract for services”? Maybe, I did not make myself clear at the first instance.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon and Deputy Minister for Justice, and Deputy Attorney-General, thank you very much.
    That was the point. When you sit here, your hands are tied and you cannot speak so when I am giving you cues, I am very grateful that now, you have responded.
    The question, Hon Chairman, is why are we even defining “employment”? The draftspersons of the Bill say that they do not intend us to define “employment”. The
    Mr Nitiwul 1:35 p.m.
    I believe that the whole thing has to do with taxable activities. As far as both contracts, contract of service, which is basically employment-based, and contract for service, which has to do with even businesses are taxable activities, I may rather want to side with the Hon Dep- uty Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice. We may have to re-look at the original rendition and then maybe, go back to it or take it off al- together.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    There
    is no original rendition, this is a new addition.
    Mr Avedzi 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that we are providing the definition of “employment” to distinguish it from con- tracts for service which actually is taxable. The “contract of service” here, which is a long -term contract, is not taxable; but “contract for service” which is for a short period is taxable.
    So by providing this definition, it becomes clearer that if you are in “con- tract of service”, you are exempted; you are not taxable. But if it is “contract for service”, whatever service you provide, you have to charge the VAT on it in order for Government to collect that money. I think that is the reason we are defining “employment” to distinguish it from “contract for service”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, this is in reference to what clauses are in the Bill? I believe that when we are always interpreting --
    Mr Avedzi 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are look- ing for it but we cannot find it. We will
    definitely get it so if we can stand it down? [Laughter.] We will get back to that later.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Thank you, Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Let us look at (ix).
    Mr Avedzi 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 44, definition of “finance lease”, paragraph (a), line 2, delete. “or”.
    So the rendition will then be --
    “‘finance lease' in relation to goods means a lease of goods where;
    (a) the lease term exceeds 75 per cent of the expected life of the goods;
    (b) The lessee has an option to purchase the goods for a fixed or determinable price at the expira- tion of the lease”.
    So we are just removing the “or” to make it clearer.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Once again, if I may ask somebody to assist us.
    There are two “or” there. The first -- “finance lease means… -- After (a) there is an “or”, after (b) there is an “or”. You are removing the “or” for (a) but you are keeping the “or”; for (b). When you look at that on page 44 -- “finance lease.
    (a) “the lease term exceeds 75 per cent of the expected life of the goods; or (b) lessee has an op- tion to purchase the goods for a fixed or determinable price at the expiration of the lease; or (c) the estimated residue value . . .”
    And you say you are removing the first “or' but you are keeping the second “or”. because there is no amendment for the second “or” so why are you removing the “or” if I may ask?
    Dr Ayine 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, reference to what I said earlier, regarding the need for us to cross reference, we have a Finance Lease Act which defines a “finance lease”. It says, and I beg to quote :
    “'Finance Lease, and I beg to quote means a written agreement between two parties whereby one of the par- ties known as the lessor undertakes to lease to the lessee for the latter's use only and against payment of mutually agreed lease rentals over a specified non-cancelable period either the lessor's own already acquired assets or an asset that the lessor agrees to acquire from a third party known as the supplier chosen and specified by the lessee so that the lessor shall retain full title to the asset during the period of the lease and under which subject to agreement by the lessor the lessee may exercise an option to purchase the asset outright after the period of the lease at a price we agreed upon by the parties.”
    Now, you can see that this is radically different from what is being proferred here in the Bill.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, for the purposes of this VAT, we cannot have the same general definition that you stated. It would not apply, so we have to be specific here. That is the sense in which it is being defined.
    Look at it; it says: “…in relation to goods”. It is not the general definition so I agree with you in part but in this one we have to have something that is unique to this Act. It cannot be in any general term.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if that is the case, then the definition should be with respect to this Act; otherwise,
    there will be two definitions in our laws and I think that will not be — So it has to be limited to this Act only.
    Mr Avedzi 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is why we are defining the “finance lease” in this Act.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Thank you.
    Mr Avedzi 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in terms of this Act, this is the meaning of “finance lease”, we do not take any other definition.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    I think you have answered the question.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think in relation to the Act, really, it re- lates to the supply of goods. The “finance lease” relates to the supply of goods so I think we should further qualify that -- Finance lease, in relation to the supply of goods, means ‘a lease of goods” and so on and so forth. This is because we are talking about these two things, the supply of goods and the supply of services.
    Mr Avedzi 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not be- lieve that it makes reference to the supply of goods. It said the “finance lease” is in relation to goods; it is the goods and not the supply of the goods. So if it is supply of goods, it does not come out with the clear meaning. But if it said the finance lease, in relation to goods is the Lease of goods where the lease term exceeds 75 per cent of the expected life of the goods; not the expected life of the supply of the goods. So if we make it ‘supply of goods', it does not come out clearly; it is goods, ‘not supply of goods'.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speak- er, I think we are talking about the same thing and if the Hon Chairman would understand what I mean; it goes back to the purpose of this Act. We are relating it to the imposition of tax and we categorize it into two segments, that is, ‘supply of
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, one minute. Hon Minority Leader, do you agree with the amendment, opposing it or you are proposing a counter amendment? What is your position?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not opposing it. What I am saying is that, we should further qualify it, it should relate to the ‘supply of goods' but I am not against the amendment proposed.
    Mr Terkpeh 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the sub- stance, in particular, the exercising of an auction to buy under finance leases as opposed to operating leases is also captured in the Finance Lease Act. The only difference I see, therefore, is the 75 per cent and 25 per cent restrictions. I consulted with my technical team but we cannot get a particular reason those caps have been placed and whether this also relates to income tax because we deal with finance lease also uniquely when it comes to the income tax.
    They are presumed to be —We can get depreciation and others as opposed to operating leases. This is not my function but I will prevail on either your goodself
    or the Hon Chairman to request that we reconcile this section properly with the Finance Lease Act and come back. This is because I see the difference being in only the cap; the term exceeds 75 per cent. The 75 per cent of furnishing may not be the same as 75 per cent of a vehicle or some other assets which is leased.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    I thank you.
    Hon Chairman, I do not think you op- pose that so, we will step it down as well to reconcile it with the Finance Lease Act.
    Do you want to change the decision to step it down?
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, be- cause the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice just told us that they are the sponsors of this Bill. They should tell us why they put 75 per cent.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Thank you very much.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, they cannot have it both ways.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon Ranking Member.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so we want to know.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, we step down amendment (ix) —
    Mr Avedzi 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, (viii).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    It is (ix).
    Mr Avedzi 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we step down (ix).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    We have stepped down (viii) already. We step down (ix) as well.
    Mr Avedzi 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we want to go back to the (viii) this is because I have seen where the reference to employment is, why employment was made in the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Before you go back there, it is almost 1.50 p.m. so I would want an indication from Leader- ship. Are we going beyond 2.00 o'clock or we should — So that we know how many more amendments we are taking.
    Dr Kunbuor 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the ex- tended Sitting was not anticipated so no arrangements were specially made for it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    So I will just take this employment question, (viii) and then that ends page 3 of the Order Paper. So I end with this last point that you are making.
    Mr Avedzi 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 44, add the following new definition:
    “‘employment' means a contract of service whether express or implied and if express, whether in writing or oral and includes:
    (a) the position of an individual in the employment of another person; or
    (b) the holding of or acting in any office or position entitling the holder to a fixed ascer- tain-able remuneration other than an office or a position as a director of a company or a manager of a body of persons or as a partner in a partner-ship.”
    Mr Speaker, in the new amendment definition for employment, reference was made to employment on page 14 of the Bill; that is, clause 10 (11). It reads --
    “A supply of services by an em- ployee to an employer by reason of that employee's employment is not a supply for Value Added Tax purposes.”
    That is the purpose of the definition we have provided in the interpretation column.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    So Hon Chairman, we would continue the stepping down. But my understanding is that in ordinary English, it means that if you are employed, for example, in Parliament, that employment does not attract VAT. So what you seek to do is to define what seems to be in the nature of employment but attracts VAT.
    The direction I give is that, you cannot, with respect, then be defining ‘employ- ment'; you can be defining ‘contract of service'.
    I stand corrected because employment -- What you just read to us, says that:
    “A supply of services by an em- ployee to an employer by reason of that employee's employment is not a supply for Value Added Tax purposes.”
    In simple language, if Parliament employs me, my salary does not attract VAT. But there are what seems to be in the nature of employment, contract for services that attract VAT. So what should we be defining? Should we be defining “employment” or “contract for service”?
    Hon Majority Leader, should we still be defining employment? This is because (viii) , which sought to define employment, was brought before us and we deferred it because we asked the Hon Chairman of the Committee to tell us where employ-ment was referred to in the main Bill. The Hon Chairman read to us clause 10 (11) on page 14 of the Bill which says that:
    Dr Kunbuor 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I followed the debate while I was briefly away and it also did occur to me where this need to define employment is coming from, given the highly contested nature of the concept, I guess that they should pick the particular taxable activity they want to exempt and then exempt it. Then if we think it would bring some lack of clarity, we take it to the interpretation and say this is what we mean.
    That would be a neater way of address- ing it because these “contract of service” and “contract for services” comes up in income tax and the meaning that they are importing here is very different from the one that is in the Income Tax Act.There has to be consistency in terms of the na- ture of the activity which could have been collected under income tax if we did not have VAT anyway. So we must have some consistency in the meaning.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, are you ready then? I am not going to put the Question on it but --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speak- er, really, the definition that is being prof- fered here, relates specifically to the use of that word in the Bill. So the definition should be context-specific which is what the interpretation column seeks to do. So I really do not find anything wrong with it.
    Otherwise, Mr Speaker, if we go by the proposal by the Hon Deputy Attor- ney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice then, in any Bill, we would not
    have an interpretation section. This is because, most of these things that we do exist in other Acts. So we only say that in this Bill, it means this, refer to that. But the whole purpose of crafting this Bill is to make it simpler; that if we take a Bill, we are able to go through and understand.
    One of the reasons of consolidating these things is to have a piece of legislation in hand and be able to understand when we take that piece of legislation -- [Inter- ruption.] It is the trend and so with respect to you, this would be throwing us back to those days when we take a Bill and we would be cross-referencing to maybe 20 documents at the same time. It does not help anybody.
    The purpose for the current trend is to make a document simpler and I believe the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice would have to agree, not that he must -- He would have to agree with us that that is the modern trend.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    But Hon Minority Leader, if I were not here, if I were Sitting on the floor, I would take a point of order against you because you said it does not help anybody. It helps lawyers -- [Laughter] -- Lawyers have to cross-reference; it helps lawyers.
    But Hon Members, having regard to the state of Business in the House, I direct that, Sitting be held outside the prescribed period in accordance with Standing Order 40 (3) just for the purposes of concluding this debate on this amendment.
    So, I would have the Minister for Finance for one minute, Prof. Gyan-Baf- four for one minute, then, I would bring proceedings to an end.
    Mr Seth Terkpeh 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the issue is one of “contract of service” and “contract for services”. “Contract for services” means the person acts as an employer himself or herself, as somebody
    providing service and that is catered for under “supply of services”. So ordinarily, the person would have to register if it were for “contract for services”.
    “Contract of service” means the person is an employee which is what the law seeks to clarify, and does not attract VAT. Oth- erwise, all of us as employees would have to register for VAT and file VAT returns. But if it is the employer, yes. The same distinction applies in income tax, in that, if a person is in a contract of service as an employee, the employer withholds taxes under Pay As You Earn (PAYE) service. If the person renders services, then the person would file his or her own returns and declare either corporate income tax or personal income tax.
    So the application of the concept ap- plies in both cases. Pardon me, I was not here; but what I see therefore is to clarify what constitutes contract of service which is being exempted. This is because if we go to sub-clause (b), it says that:
    “The holding or acting in any office or position entitles the holder to a fixed ascertainable remuneration other than . . .”
    Then it goes into other exceptions where, for example, a director is not or- dinarily an employee. So, I believe the main purpose of this, for the avoidance of doubt, is to define what is a “contract of service” which is the activity that is being exempted.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    So Hon Minister, if the main question is to define “contract of service”, then why are we defining “employment”? Why are we not defining “contract of service”?
    Mr Terkpeh 1:55 p.m.
    It is because “contract of service” -- [Interruption]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    I be-
    lieve I have an answer.
    Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speak- er, “contract of service” has not been men- tioned in the Bill so it cannot be defined.
    But while we are at that, Mr Speaker, I think the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice, when we came to the issue of “auctioneer”, said it has been first used in the Bill under section 12 and that is where he took his inspira- tion from. But because we are not going back to it and we have stood it down, let me refer him to section 6 (14) and (15), that is where “auctioneer” was first used in the Bill.
    Dr Kunbuor 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I guess that the classification and the difficulty we are having -- There are two types of receipts here. In the traditional setting, when re- ceipt is normally a contract for a service, which is employment income -- if I un- derstand it that way -- which they collect under income tax and they do not want a similar tax to be collected -- So would it be difficult, if we put it as employment in- come instead of this distinction between a contract income and a contract for services except it is limited or rather too broad? I guess that they just want to exempt this to show that what one pays in the PAYE should not be the subject of VAT, while the contract for services receipts would be the subject of VAT.
    So if it can be changed to “employment
    Income” that makes it easier, and then we leave it at that. We can then use the gen- eral tenets of employment to deal with it, except there is a reason we would want to put it in a category of a contract of service.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon Majority Leader; thank you, Hon Members.
    The House has been exceptionally quiet today because I think people have
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.


    Once again, thank you very much, Hon Members.

    Personally, I have thoroughly enjoyed today's Sitting.

    I hereby direct that the House be ad- journed to tomorrow at 10 o'clock in the forenoon or so soon thereafter; when we may assemble for the purposes of doing Business of the House and of Ghana.

    Thank you very much.
    ADJOURNMENT 2:05 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 2.08 p.m. till Thursday, 14th November, 2013 at 10.00 a.m.
    • Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Sorry, I am not engaging in the debate but just to ask you again. So would you call that one of consultancy “employment”? Hon Minority Leader, would you call it employment if you outsource your clean- ing service to people or even the audio service? Would you call it employment? Employment has its own definition and we are talking about “contract for services”.
    So should we not define “contract for services” rather than define employment? I do not know whether I am also getting a bit confused. I do not know whether you can assist me.
    Mr Terkpeh 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are get- ting into whether a person should register as a taxable person by virtue of rendering business and issues like the threshold and others. So he has to reference the law but the fact that a person is involved in a tax- able activity initially makes him eligible except if he has one to Parliament only and not to other public sector institutions and therefore the totality of the taxable activity
    Mr Terkpeh 1:35 p.m.


    SPACE FOR BEGORO &

    OTHERS - PAGE 5 - 8.00P.M.
    SPACE FOR TABLE - PAGE 1:35 p.m.
    SPACE FOR TABLE - PAGE 1:35 p.m.
    SPACE FOR APPENDIX - 1:35 p.m.