Debates of 25 Mar 2014

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:45 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Hon Members, Correc- tion of Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 21st March, 2014.
Mr Kwame Govers Agbodza 10:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, on page 6, I have been marked absent without permission. The truth is that I have been absent from Tuesday, 18th to Friday, 21st March, 2014 with permission.
Mr Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Did you fill the Leave of Absence Form?
Mr Agbodza 10:45 a.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Very well.
Alhaji Amadu B. Sorogho 10:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have realised that my name has been added to those absent from the House. Unfortunately, I was on an official assignment. I filled the forms which were rightly approved. So, I do not know why I should be marked absent. I should have been marked absent with permission because I took permission. I was in Tamale on an official as signment -- [Interruption.] -- I filled the forms and my Chief Whip approved it and it was
Mr Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Your Whip does not approve.
Alhaji Sorogho 10:45 a.m.
He recommended it for your approval.
Mr Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Absolutely; we will crosscheck.
Page 9 --
Ms Grace Addo 10:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, on Friday, I was present. We were here with our British Women Members of Parlia- ment counterparts but I have been marked absent.
Mr Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Very well.

Hon Members, the Votes and Pro- ceedings of Friday, 21st March, 2014, as corrected, are hereby adopted as the true record of proceedings.

Hon Members, we do not have any Official Report for today, so we move on to item number 3 on the Order Paper -- Questions.

Hon Members, we have the Hon Minis- ter for Water Resources, Works and Hous- ing in the House to respond to Questions from Hon Members.

Question number 48 stands in the name of the Hon Member for Asante Akim Central --
Mr Patrick Y. Boamah 10:45 a.m.
Mr Speak- er, the Hon Kwame Anyimadu-Antwi is indisposed and he has asked me, with your permission to ask the Question on his behalf.
Mr Speaker 10:45 a.m.
Very well.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUES- 10:55 a.m.
TIONS 10:55 a.m.
MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURC- 10:55 a.m.
ES, WORKS AND HOUSING 10:55 a.m.
Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing (Alhaji Collins Dauda) (MP) 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Konongo Water Supply Project is part of the three kilometres water supply project which in- volves the expansion of the water systems serving Kumawu, Konongo and Kwahu Ridge. The project is being funded with a US$236 million loan facility from Bank Hapoalim of Israel and the Government of Ghana and is being implemented by Tahal Consulting Engineers of Israel.
The Konongo Water Supply Project will be completed in June 2016
Mr Boamah 10:55 a.m.
Hon Minister, can you brief the House on the remaining works -- [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Address the Chair.
Mr Boamah 10:55 a.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, I would want to ask the Hon Minister about the works that are outstanding and what percentage of work has been completed.
Alhaji Dauda 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, work done so far is as follows:
We have done six kilometres out of 21 kilometres of distribution pipelines. We have also laid two kilometres out of the
eight kilometres transmission pipeline. We have also cleared the site for the con- struction of the intake.
Mr Speaker, the outstanding works
include off river reservoir; the raw water pipeline; the water treatment plant of a capacity of 4.5 million gallons of water a day; the distribution network; part of the transmission line upgrade for the Konon- go town and the newly-elevated water tank at Wiawso; and rehabilitation of existing elevated water tanks at Agogo and Juaso.
We also would rehabilitate the district offices and the residential units at Kon- ongo. We would also do 10 standpipes in Konongo.
These are the outstanding works.
I thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister, in his Answer, indicates to us that the Konongo Water Supply Project is part of the three kilo- metres Water Supply project. Now, he has indicated to us that the capacity of the plant is 4.5 million gallons of water a day.
May the Hon Minister tell us what the population size? This is because he should know the acceptable per capita usage of water. What is the population that it is intended to serve?
Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon Minister, what is the per capita usage at the time the project was conceived?
Alhaji Dauda 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would require notice to be able to provide this.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speak- er, would the Hon Minister tell us the population that it is intended to serve -- the population of the catchment area of the project?
Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon Minority Leader, if you are asking of population, it is not supplementary but if you are asking of the per capita intake, then you relate it to the water project. The population per se is not -- [Interruption] -- but the two must be linked to the project, then it is --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speak-
Alhaji Dauda 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not have the figure immediately available and therefore, I would require notice to be able to provide the House with this information.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speak- er, what is the cost component of the Konongo Water Supply System? Since he has indicated that it is part of a bigger picture, what is the component?
Alhaji Dauda 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I do know that the total cost of the three projects is US$236 million and for each project, there is a cost component. I probably would have to ask for time to be able to accurately provide this information, so that I do not mislead this House.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speak- er, there are three questions that I have posed to the Hon Minister; he is asking for notice on any of the three. This ques- tion relates to a particular project and I thought coming to this House, the basic information should be at the fingertips of the Hon Minister.
Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.
Hon Minority Leader, your last statement was more of a state- ment than a question.
Mr Mahama Ayariga 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker,
I would want to find out from the Hon Minister whether these projects were approved by this House and whether or not the records in the project proposals contain the cost of the various projects that constitutes the three different projects.
Alhaji Dauda 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, certainly, that is the case. This is because it is a loan. So, this House approved it and therefore, there should be records of the cost com- ponents in this House.
Dr Matthew O. Prempeh 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speak-
er, the Hon Member who asked the Ques- tion wanted to know when the expansion of the Konongo Water Project would be completed. This means, there is already a water system available in Konongo. How much is the new expansion? How much water is going to be delivered per the new expansion?
Alhaji Dauda 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I indicated that this project would deliver 4.5 million gallons of water per day for Konongo and its catchment area.
Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.
The next Question stands in the name of the Hon Member for Effiduase Asokore -- Question num- ber 49.
Boreholes, reservoir tanks and pipelines in Effiduase town
(Rehabilitation)
Q.49. Mr Frank Boakye Agyen asked the Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing whether there were plans by the Ministry to rehabilitate the boreholes, reservoir tanks and pipelines that supplied water to Effiduase town, and if so, what steps were being taken in that direction?
Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing (Alhaji Collins Dauda) 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the source of water for Effi- duase Asokore is ground water from five (5) boreholes, one (1) in Effiduase and four (4) in Asokore. The boreholes pump water simultaneously into the distribution networks and elevated water tanks (EWT) at Effiduase and Asokore respectively.
The ground water abstraction as the raw water source for the Effiduase Asokore water supply system is not sustainable.
In 2013, two (2) additional boreholes were drilled to support the existing water supply. However, the yields were inade- quate to allow for mechanisation of the two boreholes.
There is the need therefore, to have an alternative source from surface water. Initially, it was proposed that water should
be transmitted from Kumasi to feed the Effiduase Asokore water supply system. However, with the ongoing 3Ks project at Kumawu, which is nearer to Effiduase (a distance of about 15km) than Kumasi, Ghana Water Company Limited (GWCL) will transmit water from the Kumawu water system, which is currently under construction to feed the Effiduase Asokore water supply system.
Mr Agyen 10:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Question is three-pronged -- boreholes, reservoir tanks and pipelines. The Hon Minister gave an Answer with regard to the bore- holes. He did not touch on the reservoir tanks and pipelines. Meanwhile, the tanks at Effiduase are rusty and cannot take any water. In the meantime, the people must drink water. What steps is the Ministry taking to amend that situation?
Alhaji Dauda 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the proposal to transmit water from Kumawu to Effiduase would take into account the rusty tanks and the pipelines as well. So, we are going to do a comprehensive work in Effiduase Asokore to ensure that the people have water in these communities.
Mr Agyen 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Answer did not take into consideration the tanks and the pipelines. Is the Hon Minister assuring this House that, since the people must drink water anyway, steps shall be taken to immediately reverse the rusty nature of the tanks and the pipelines which cannot allow water to pass through at all?
Alhaji Dauda 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have in- dicated that we would get water from Ku- mawu to Effiduase Asokore, and certainly, that involves a lot of work. We would have to send a team to survey the place and come up with the project cost and then we
would look for funding. It may either be from the budget or internally generated funds (IGFs). If we find that the cost can- not be absorbed under the budget or IGFs, we probably would seek external funding to be able to do this project.
Mr Agyen 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, from the An- swer given by the Hon Minister two weeks ago, with regard to the Kumawu Water Supply Project and from the Answer given now, the earliest time Effiduase Asokore can get good water cannot be earlier than 2017, from my own estimation. But the issue is, as of now, what steps are being taken with regard to the unusable pipelines and the reservoir tanks? This is because if these two facilities are repaired and made good for use, the future supply of water from Kumawu would be easier.
So, now, are there any indications that the Ministry intends to rehabilitate those two items I have mentioned, pending good quality supply of water from Kumawu in the future?
Mr Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Hon Minister, with regard to the pipelines and the reservoir, any immediate intervention?
Alhaji Dauda 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the prob- lem of Effiduase Asokore is not really the issue of the pipelines and the overhead tanks, but rather it is about the ground water that is being abstracted to supply water for the community. That is found to be unsustainable and that is what we are trying to work on, getting surface water from Kumawu to supply Asokore and Effiduase. If we repair the tank, lay new pipelines and we do not have a sustainable source of water for treatment; we would still not be able to supply water to all the people of Effiduase and Asokore. So, the first and most important point we need to address, is the source of water.
Mr David Oppon-Kusi 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker,

in the Hon Minister's Answer, with regard to funding, he refers to a possible use of IGFS. Could he explain the kind of IGFS he is referring to in this case?
Alhaji Dauda 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am refer- ring to internally generated funds of the Ghana Water Company Limited.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speak- er, the Hon Minister states in paragraph (2) of his Answer that, and with your permission, I beg to quote:
“The ground water abstraction as the raw water source for the Effiduase Asokore water supply system, is not sustainable.”
Mr Speaker, I applaud the Hon Minister for this statement of fact. Is he aware that down south, no huge aquifers have been discovered? For that matter, the resort to huge abstraction of water, that is from underground, is ultimately going to lead to serious crustal instability in the com- munities. Is the Ministry aware of that?
Alhaji Dauda 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, indeed, I
need education on this particular subject.
Mr Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Hon Members, that brings us to the end of Question time.
Hon Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing, we thank you very much for attending upon the House to respond to Questions from Hon Members.
Hon Members, I have admitted one commemorative Statement which stands in the name of the Hon Member for Man- hyia South.
Hon Member, you have the floor.
STATEMENTS 11:05 a.m.
Dr Matthew O. Prempeh (NPP -- Manhyia South) 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, 24th March, 2014 has been declared World Tuberculosis (TB) Day, and it is com- memorated to climax worldwide year long educational campaigns to educate the public on Tuberculosis and to put it back on the priority agenda list of governments, policy makers and stakeholders.
In Ghana, it was celebrated under the theme: “Reaching the missed TB cases: The untold story of the Ghanaian TB patient.”
In the 1900s, TB was the greatest killer in the Gold Coast (killing half of its victims: 50 per cent mortality) and still remains a silent killer today. About seven per cent mortality.
From 1929-30, Acting Governor T. S. Thomas, O.B.E., for the first time ever, invested in TB control by approving a budget of £29,550 to build a half block for TB patients in Gold Coast Hospital, the present day Korle-Bu Teaching Hos- pital. This followed several unsuccessful attempts to secure funding during the tenure of Sir Gordon Guggisberg.
The many missed TB cases are esti- mated to be twice the 4,000 projected by World Health Organisation (WHO), and are currently to be found among the vulnerable populations, children, women, persons living with HIV and in the prisons. A recent study undertaken by the Nation- al Tuberculosis Programme (NTP) has revealed that there are a lot more missed TB cases among the elderly males in the general population.
There is no doubt that the nation has made progress in TB control.
The quality of care for TB patients has improved year on year. The country now boasts of a TB treatment success above the global target of 86 per cent. seven out of 10 regions achieved their treatment success
targets. Among other successes are:
An enviable system of ensuring support to patients and those affect- ed and families to achieve cure, is widely acknowledged in the country and beyond.
TB commodities by way of TB medicines, diagnostics and reagents are current, state of the art and the country has not experienced stock out for many years.
The programme has acquired new technologies to help detect some of the cases that are normally missed, using older technologies.
Stakeholders' involvement in TB care and control has been compli- mentary and impressive.
The country is positioning herself to reach out to find the missed TB cases using digital x-ray imagery. This is almost ready and waiting for the final approval from the Ministry of Finance.
Infrastructure to diagnose and man- age multi-drug resistance TB has been developed.
A system for managing childhood TB is in place.
The true burden of TB in the country will be declared with all certainty by the end of the year. However, initial analysis points to a much higher burden than pre- viously thought.
Though the burden is high, the trend shows that the TB epidemic can be halted and reversed. The highest TB prevalences occur in the older age groups and less in the economic productive age group.
The implication for more than twice the TB prevalences (disease burden) is an indication that double the resources
needed for TB care and control would be needed from now on.
Therefore, the threat to gains made since post-independence is at an all-time high risk of retrogressing. The reason is that today, with our status as a lower in- come middle country, there are significant cut backs on resources to control TB.
Let us all therefore, join hands to mo- bilise and call for zero TB deaths, zero TB infections and zero TB suffering.
Tuberculosis elimination. Yes, we can.
Mr Joseph Y. Chireh (NDC -- Wa West) 11:15 a.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speak- er, for giving me the opportunity to support the Statement made by my Friend, the Hon Member of Parliament for Manhyia South.
It is very apt because only yesterday we celebrated the day and this day draws attention to all of us about the problem of Tuberculosis (TB). As we observe, TB is under control because the first thing we have to take note of is that its treatment is free.
We do not need to pay for it and therefore, anybody who suspects he has TB can go and do a test and be given a treatment. We know TB has always been characterised as the disease of the poor, a disease of the poor in the sense that it is the vulnerable people, those who live in private places and those who are in very deplorable living conditions who manifest it all the more. TB again, is not just about the lungs, and how one coughs. One can have TB in any part of the body and there- fore, it is important one looks out for the symptoms early and make sure that they get the treatment as quickly as possible.
It is also important for all of us to create awareness of this disease. The awareness creation is for people to know that TB can
Mr Kweku A. Kwarteng (NPP -- Obuasi West) 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my con- tribution to the Statement will be on the reporting on interventions to reduce Tuberculosis. I would like to draw the House's attention to the announcement by Government that an amount of US$19 million was to be donated by Global Fund and the fight against TB was one of the reasons for the grant. We expected that in subsequent reports in the Budget Statement, this House would have been given some report on whether this funding did materialise and how the funds have been used.
Unfortunately, we did not see it in the subsequent budget until the 2014 Budget Statement when we were told that there was a review to see how the fight against TB had been going and that by the close of the year, we would be given some advice.
Mr Speaker, I think this is improper. In order to support the fight against TB as a House, it is important that resources earmarked for the purposes of fighting TB are properly reported on.
This is the only way we would know whether we should offer more support or review existing interventions. So, my view is that, we ought to improve our own reporting on interventions to reduce TB.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
Hon Members, that brings us to the end --
Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarak Mun- taka (NDC -- Asawase) 11:15 a.m.
Sorry, Mr Speaker. I could not catch your eye earlier before you almost brought it to an end.
This is a very important Statement and I must congratulate my Hon Colleagues for bringing it up once again.
The challenge with TB is the rate at which the causal agents keep changing and putting us into a bigger challenge. Each time a medication is almost successful in treating it completely, there are some traits which redevelop and create a challenge.
With the intervention of the Global Fund over the past decade, we are almost winning the war but it is important that annually -- like today, we raise the issues and conscientise ourselves. This is because it is one of the deadliest diseases that have affected, especially sub Saharan Africa for sometime now.
What makes it even more serious, is the nature of its spread. If one is not careful and not aware of it, it can really create a big problem, not only for us as a society, but even for our economies because of the need for us to be able to sustain and work very hard to support our economy.
Mr Speaker, it is important to say that the Hon Member who made the Statement could not have made it better by raising
the issue today. I hope that all Ghanaians listening to us, especially the Ghana Health Service and the Ministry of Health will continue their effort to ensure that we reduce the number of persons affected by this deadly disease to the barest minimum, if not eliminate it completely. As my Hon Colleague from Obuasi earlier mentioned, we need to also pay much attention to the resource that is allocated to that area.
Mr Speaker, usually, it does not come through the normal budget, the chunk of it comes as a donor support. Usually, we get Parliament and for that matter, the Select Committee on Health not having the full information of details of how the programmes are being run --
Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
But what prevents the House from getting brief from the Ministry?
Alhaji Muntaka 11:15 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that is what I was just going to say. For the past two or three years, the Committee has been very proactive and has been meeting the global health fund managers to be updated.
I would want to encourage the Com- mittee to be doing more of that frequently. Sometimes it is just once a year but I think considering the nature of the disease, the Committee and for that matter, the House need to be meeting the managers more frequently, maybe, even twice or thrice a year, just to be updated with every detail of how the resource is being used.
On this note, Mr Speaker, I congrat- ulate the Hon Member who made the Statement and also say that this House has given deserved attention to this deadly dis- ease. I hope we would continue to remind ourselves of its debilitating effects.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity.
Alhaji Muntaka 11:25 a.m.


istically, the figure is about double that figure. They should tell us the figure is in the region of anywhere between 8,000 and 10,000 in Ghana. How much are we spending on each one of them? If we are able to eradicate the disease, how much savings would we be making and to liber- ate such amounts to deliver other facilities to our suffering citizens?

Mr Speaker, again, the Statement has owned up to something which I believe we should consider serious. The fact that having attained a middle-income status, there is a severe cut back on resource availability to combat the menace of TB.

Mr Speaker, there is a cut back because it is considered that once we have attained middle-income status, it should reflect in the lifestyles of our citizenry and that is why the cut back is engendered. If we assess ourselves as a middle-income country and come to the realisation that we are taking some steps back in terms of standard of living of our people, then there is something wrong with us. This is be- cause it should naturally lead to qualitative improvement in the standard of living and the quality of life of our people.

Unfortunately, we seem to be going back and that is why we need to reflect seriously on this. As I said, I think what would move us forward is to set for our- selves realistic targets and then that being the case, I guess it would translate into the reality of life of our people.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.
Alhaji Muntaka 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think the Hon Minority Leader's contribution is brilliant and I listened attentively.
Mr Speaker, one important point that I think that the Hon Minority Leader mis- led this House on, is to say that when it
comes to the health of the people, we are retrogressing. There is no evidence in this country that supports that. Yes, there are so many areas of challenge but if you look at every one of them, we have made yearly progress.
We would have wished that we would have done better but to say that we are retrogressing, there is no evidence in this country today whether from Ghana Health Service or the Ministry of Health that supports his position. I agree that we have a challenge that we must all confront and be able to make progress. But to say we are retrogressing, I am sorry that there is no evidence to support that. The Hon Minority Leader knows that for a fact we should rather be doing well but we are not retrogressing.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speak-
er, I do not intend to respond to the cheer-leaders at the background but to the issue raised by my Hon Colleague from Asawase.
Mr Speaker, he said to us that he lis- tened attentively to what I said. I am not too sure he listened attentively to what I said. Mr Speaker, because those words that he is ascribing to me, I never said so. I made a statement about the general standard of living of Ghanaians. He is limiting his intervention to health; I talked about the general standard of living and every measure would indicate to him.
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon Members, that brings us to the end of Statements.
At the commencement of Public Busi- ness -- Hon Majority Chief Whip?
Alhaji Muntaka 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we are posed to take item number 5 on the Order Paper.
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Item number five,
-- Motions?
Mr Chireh 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Motion is standing in my name but I would prefer to continue with the debate on the Motion that was moved by the Hon Majority Leader and seconded by the Hon Member for --
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon Chairman of the Health Committee on Health, I thought that the last time that this Motion was moved on the floor, the general agreement -- and my directive was that, Leadership should meet and come with a compro- mised Motion. My understanding is that, the third Motion at page three of the Order Paper is the compromised one.
But if on the floor of the House, you have something to the contrary, I will give time to the Leadership to come to look at it again and advise the Chair. This is because I would want to take this Motion latest tomorrow. If that is what you are saying, I would want Leadership to advise me. If the Hon Member is now saying what he is saying, then on what basis did his name appear on the Order Paper at page two? It appears as if somebody forced the Motion on him and I would consult the Table Office why they did that.
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:25 a.m.
Mr Speak- er, I must say that the turn of events has taken me aback a little. This is because I had extensive discussions with the Hon Member for Wa West, and indeed, it was over a cup of tea -- [Laughter.]
Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
Hon Member for Se- kondi, is it necessary to add “cup of tea?” [Laughter.]
Papa Owusu-Ankomah 11:35 a.m.
Yes, I need to add that to show how cordial the dis- cussion was. I do not intend disclosing
the content but really I thought after the discussion, the Hon Member assured me that whatever — we had a very frank chat. I mean there are a lot of personal reserva- tions but after we had discussed this, he assured me that on Tuesday, despite the strong reservations that he had expressed to me, he would move the Motion.
So, I was thinking that if he had changed his mind, even though I am a backbencher, having regard to the rela- tionship we have, he would have hinted —
Alhaji Muntaka 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I be- lieve that your comment that we should go and look at it again, we have had an extensive discussion on it. Unfortunately, the last meeting we had, even though we could not come to a consensus, later, the Hon Deputy Minority Leader and myself -- he came back to me with some position that was agreeable earlier. Unfortunate- ly, when I got in touch with Hon Yieleh Chireh, he expressed some reservations, but we talked --
Mr Speaker, my concern now is that, we were talking about four weeks, then the four weeks would have still be while we are Sitting. My attention has just been drawn to the fact that in four weeks time, we would not be Sitting.
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Hon Majority Chief Whip, if you are moving it and the four weeks is another matter, that should be a different issue that the House as a Par- liament can look at. I believe that it is a very relevant point you are making but we are not yet there. What you want is, is there a compromised Motion? If there is a compromised Motion, why is the Hon Member for Wa West not ready to move it, which stands in his name on the Order Paper; and that is why I want Leadership to go and resolve the issue and advise the Chair.
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.


Hon Members, these Bills have been on the Order Paper for a long time and we have not been able to dispose of them. Can we move to them while Leadership comes back to advise the Chair today on this same matter?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have seen the Hon Member for Wa West trying to get up. I would want to believe that he has changed his mind. This is because we have not been in the Chamber for some time, but today, when we met, we had some discussions. I thought the Hon Member had agreed to move it. I think this should not be any matter that should call for any splitting of hairs. So, I should think that the Hon Member, who is the Chairman of the Committee on Health can still move the Motion. But if he decides not to move it, there are two co-sponsors, the other has not reneged, he has not said he is not going to move it.
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Hon Minority Leader, the essence of this Motion is because it is a compromise.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, precisely.
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
You know if the House has identified challenges with Capitation as being piloted in the Ashanti Region and we want to address it, then we need to. This is because, what it means is that, once it is not compromised, then votes would be taken and there are consequences and I thought that we wanted to address those challenges and that is the most important aspect of the compromised Motion.
So, that is why I thought that we could do further consultation but advise me, so that we could get back to it if need be -- once we take a special Anti-Money Laundering Bill which has appeared on
the Order Paper for a long time.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I know the Hon Yieleh Chireh, I know him very well. I know he is capable of changing his mind at any particular time and I know on this occasion, he has already changed his mind, so —
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Hon Member for Wa West.
Mr Chireh 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have not changed my mind. [Laughter] If there was only one Motion on the Order Paper, it would have given the indication that there was consensus. All these three Motions that are here shows that there is no consensus. I agree that we all met —
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
These were the two Motions that we had and we decided to have the compromised Motion. What it would mean is that, once we agree that this is a compromised Motion, the other ones, applications would be made for the other two Motions to be withdrawn at the appropriate time.
Leadership, what is the status now?
Hon Deputy Minority Leader, I do not want us to waste too much time on this matter.
Mr Dominic B. A. Nitiwul 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speak- er, because you gave an earlier direction, that is why we are constrained the way we should go. It was clear that the under- standing was that the original Motions were moved but were not withdrawn. So, it is obvious that they would still be on the Order Paper.
We agreed that he would move the Motion, the Hon Dr Richard Anane would second it and then the first Motion would be withdrawn by Hon Dr Anane, because Hon Kunbuor was not there, somebody would withdraw the Motion on his behalf, then he would move the third Motion.
It is the third Motion that is the com- promised Motion you are thinking —the others will be withdrawn but because they were moved and were not withdrawn, they needed to be withdrawn. They needed to be stated, so that they can be withdrawn. That is why they are on the Order Paper, nothing else.
Mr Speaker, we are not being fair to Leadership. You gave an order; Leader- ship drafted the Motion; we all agreed; we claimed we did not know who would move it because there was an agreement. We went behind the scenes and we all agreed who should move the Motion. On Friday, the Motion was called, it was just because he was not around, so this idea of moving or not moving should not have been the issue any longer, I think that, for the sake of Mother Ghana, he should move it. As I said, he is not moving the Motion for himself, he is moving the Motion for the nation. He should move the Motion, it would be seconded and then we will have this thing resolved. It is not about him or Dr Anane.
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Hon Members, I am saying that this should not be a problem because if it is really a compromise, if the Hon Yieleh Chireh is not in a position to move it, other Hon Members can move it. So, those are the things I want Leader- ship to go and resolve and advise me on. Meanwhile, let us make progress.
The Anti-Money Laundering Bill has been on the Order Paper for a long time. Let us make progress, then the Chair can be advised at the appropriate time after due consultation.
Hon Majority Leader, can we take the Anti-Money Laundering Bill?
Dr Benjamin B. Kunbuor 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speak- er, that is so.
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
The Anti-Money Laun- dering Bill has been on the Order Paper for a long time.
Dr Kunbuor 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, item number 7.
Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
Hon Members, item 7, Anti-Money Laundering (Amendment) Bill, 2013 at the Consideration Stage.
Dr Kunbuor 11:35 a.m.
Mr Speaker, there have been some consultation and brief in rela- tion to the Committee membership and the absence of the Chairman. But given this absence, I would like to crave your indulgence to get one of the members of the Committee to move the amendments that stand in the name of the Committee.
Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
The Clerk has advised me that, the Vice Chairman of the Committee is around. Very well.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 11:45 a.m.
STAGE 11:45 a.m.
  • [Resumption of debate from 19-02- 2014]
    • Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Clause 8 -- “Section 24 of Act 749 amended” -- [Pause]
    Vice Chairman, can you refresh my memory if you were here?
    rose
    Mr J. Y. Chireh 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, there was renumbering of the clauses. So, it is

    the clause 7 on page 8 --
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Very well. So, just to refresh our memory, the clause 8 that they have called is actually clause 7 in the original Bill? Very well.
    Yes, Hon Vice Chairman of the Com- mittee --
    Hon Member for Manhyia South, do you have a point of order?
    Dr Prempeh 11:45 a.m.
    Yes.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Against the Chair?
    Dr Prempeh 11:45 a.m.
    Never! It is not pos- sible.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Nobody is speaking, so --
    Dr Prempeh 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have a point, not a point of order.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Against who?
    Dr Prempeh 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have a point, never a point of order.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Manhyia South --
    Dr Prempeh 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the An- ti-Money Laundering Bill is a very impor- tant Bill -- very important, considering issues that are pertinent to the country as we speak. And Mr Speaker, conspicuously absent is the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. Absent also are the Hon Chairman of the Committee, and the Hon Ranking Member of the Committee. This Bill stands in the --
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Member, it is a very important point you have made. I have had discussions with Leadership of the House on this matter. This Bill has been on the Order Paper for a very long time. Fortunately, most of the amendments stand in the name of the Committee. Therefore, the Committee should be able to move the amendments.
    Secondly, the Bill is not the property of the House and we have to make progress.
    Dr Prempeh 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I totally agree with you. But Mr Speaker, you know how committees have worked. The reasons these amendments are being proffered and the discussions that were ongoing as regards to the FIC and other things -- if under your direction, if you say we should go on -- but there are serious --
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Members, if there are issues that deal with policy and we think we need the Ministry of Justice or the Attorney-General to be here, we will defer it and deal with it accordingly at the appropriate time.
    Dr Kunbour 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, you cer- tainly have acknowledged the importance of the issue that he is raising. But against that, we normally have very senior Hon Members of Committees and any Hon Member of the Committee who thinks that a particular amendment is not going well, he is entitled -- Once it is even before the House, any Hon Member can deal with it.
    I am saying a senior member of the Committee -- [Interruption] -- Oh! We know them -- [Interruption] -- We know them. We know them in terms of performance and dedication to the Com- mittee's work.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Members, the Hon Ranking Member of the Committee is now available -- [Interruption] -- The Hon Ranking Member of the Committee is now available -- [Laughter] --
    Yes, Hon Osei-Owusu --
    Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if I may be advised what the issue on the floor.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    The Hon Member for Manhyia South made a point that you were not around and therefore, the matter should be deferred. Now that you are
    around, I have to announce to the House that you are in.
    Mr Osei-Owusu 11:45 a.m.
    Very well, Mr Speaker. I am here; except that I am not sure that I am permitted to lead Govern- ment Business from this side of the House. But the Hon Vice Chairman is there and you are there too. So, you would be able to assist the House.
    Mr Nitiwul 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, you brought a new principle of directing us that we should go on and when we hit a rock, maybe, we would see how the boat would turn. Is that not the principle?
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    No! My point is that, if we come to a point where there is an issue of a major policy within the Bill and there is the need to defer it, we may defer it for the attention of the Hon Attorney-General or his Deputy.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speak- er, I agree.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    What I am saying only relates to this Bill, it should not be taken as a general rule.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is happy news. It is very important to observe that we can go on and when we hit a road block, if it relates to a major policy, then we would certainly call the appropriate quarters.
    Mr Speaker, that is very instructive --
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    In relation to this Bill --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:45 a.m.
    Even that, it is very, very instructive.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Members, let us make progress now.
    Have you moved the amendment? Please, move the amendment.
    Mr Loh 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, delete the Headnote “Duration for keeping records” and substitute “Re- cord Keeping”.
    So, the new rendition Mr Speaker, will read “Record Keeping” instead of “Dura- tion for keeping records”.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    I am not getting your second part of the amendment that says “Subsection delete “(5)” and substitute
    “(4)”.
    Mr Loh 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is so -- [Interruption]
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    As for the record keep- ing, it is a straightforward amendment; that is the headnote; it is clear.
    Mr Loh 11:45 a.m.
    That is so.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    But the second leg of the amendment was because all of them have been put together. I do not know why the two have been put together. This is because they are two separate Questions and I thought that the head note should be taken separately from the subsections (4) and (5). So, I do not know why the amendment has been filed that way. If you agree with me, let us change the headnote, then we come back to the other aspects of your amendment. This is because they are two separate Questions.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Loh 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move Clause 8 -- subclause (5), line 1, after “subsection” delete “(5)” and substitute
    “(4)”
    So, the new rendition would be: -
    “Despite subsection (4), ultimate responsibility to comply with the requirement of this section shall not be delegated and remains at all times with the accountable institution that relied on the appointed person.”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speak- er, I was going to propose amendments relating to certain provisions before the “(5)”. Since he has done it --
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Would it affect the cur- rent one? If it would not affect it, then I can put the Question on this one.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:45 a.m.
    No!
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    All right. Then I will put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speak- er, earlier, I made some observations relating to the construction applied in the Bill. You would see the use of enormous verbosity in the construction of clauses in the Bill. For instance, clause 24 (i), the second line reads; “An accountable institution shall keep books and records of their customers.” Now, here, we have “with respect to their customers.” Why not say we are keeping records of your customers?
    Mr Speaker, it runs through; I do not know why we have opted for this construc- tion in this particular Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Yes, I have seen it. But it also means the same thing. So, can we do it, so that when we come back to clause (3), we can take some of these. It is more of a drafting issue that we can take a general look at it.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speak- er, that is your direction. But beyond that, if you look at clause (3), it reads:” The books and records shall be maintained for a period of not less than five years.” Mr Speaker, the headnotes relate to the ‘keeping of records'. So, I think for consistency sake, we rather substitute the words: “kept” for “maintained” -- that: “The books and records shall be kept for a
    period of not less than five years.”
    Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Vice Chairman, any objection? I do not see the difference between “maintained” and “kept.” There is nothing wrong with it.[Interruption.]
    Ranking Member, did you get the sug- gestion coming from the Hon Minority Leader? Subsection (3), he says we should delete “maintained” and use “kept.” Look at (7), which is now (8) -- at page (8), clause 24, subsection (3): “The books and records shall be maintained”; he said shall be “kept” so that it would be in tune with the headnotes.
    Mr Osei-Owusu 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if for consistency it is so done, it may be helpful.
    Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Very well. Have you moved it? Move it and let me put the Question.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speak- er, I accordingly move.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Loh 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, subclause (6), line 2, after “shall” insert “within seven days”
    Mr Speaker, it would read 11:55 a.m.
    “An ac- countable institution that appoints a person to keep records on behalf of the accountable institution shall, within seven days, inform the centre of the appointment in writing.”
    Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    Why are you choosing seven days; can you explain it to the House?
    Mr Loh 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that it is to limit the period within which --
    Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
    And is the seven days
    reasonable?
    Mr Loh 11:55 a.m.
    In the Committee's opinion, yes Mr Speaker.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 8 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 9 -- Section 28 of Act 749 amended.
    Mr Loh 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9, subcaluse (2), line 2, delete “to the Centre”
    Mr Speaker, so, the new rendition would be 11:55 a.m.
    “An entity or person shall provide the information requested by the Centre.” Then you delete “the Centre.” So, it would read: “...within the time limit set and in the forms prescribed by the Centre.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 9 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 10 -- Section 29 of Act 749 amended.
    Mr Loh 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, subclause (1), lines 7 and 8, de- lete “without delay” and substitute “within twenty-four hours”.
    So, lines (7) and (8) would read: “The official of the supervisory body or revenue agency shall within 24 hours submit a report to the Centre.”
    Mr MahamaAyariga 11:55 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I understand the import of that amendment, to request that expeditious action should be taken with regard to reporting. But
    when you provide such a very stringent requirement, assuming that at the closing hours of Friday, they discover that and the other agencies may not be reachable within 24 hours of Friday, 5.00 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when you have such a very strict legislation, it becomes difficult. So, while you may include a time frame, you should also create room for the report to be submitted within a reasonable time. But if you insist, it has to be 24 hours. Mr Speaker, it creates problems.
    Mr Chireh 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the amendment should be supported. But the concern he is expressing is a matter of interpretation. It depends on the exigency. The Interpretation Act is very clear what constitutes the time. Week days, holidays excluded, therefore, 24 hours is within the period that is a normal working day.
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Is it clear in the Bill to that effect?
    Hon Members, let us also make law --
    I know that in this era, a lot of things can happen within the shortest possible time, especially in the era of money-launder- ing. But at the same time, we should not also make laws that would be difficult to comply with. I think that that is the import of the submission by the Hon Minister for Information and Media Relations.
    In the original Bill, they used the words “without delay”. Now, you are saying “within twenty-four hours”.
    Mr Chireh 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the “without delay”, as you noticed that the Committee is arguing, has no definite period.
    If one says “without delay” and the person said: “Look I have got this informa- tion” and two days later, that is what I have done. That is without delay. That is why they are specifying now -- for a particular
    Mr Loh 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with the greatest
    respect, as you rightly put it, within 24 hours, a lot can happen, particularly when it comes to the issue of money laundering.
    Mr Speaker, money laundering may be done mostly from bank to bank. We as- sume that, during weekend, the banks are not working, so, the person would not even be there to be able to bring the information. That is why we decided that --
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Is there any sanction in the Bill where the person does not operate within the 24 hours? Is there any sanction? What happens if one does not comply within the 24 hours?
    Mr Loh 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not think there is any sanction.
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Very well. I will put the
    Question. But let us be thinking about it and if at the Second Consideration Stage or at a later stage, we want to change our minds, we can do so, so that we make progress.
    Hon Members, I will put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Loh 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, subclause (4), line 2, after “shall” insert “within seven days”.
    So, it reads:
    “A person to whom a request is made by the Centre under subsec- tion (3) shall within seven days comply with the request.”
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    I will put the Question on the amended clause 10 --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on subclause(2) (b) -- if the Committee may have a second look at that. It reads:
    “(2) The report shall --
    (a) state the suspicion of the super- visory body or revenue agency or of the official of the supervisory body or revenue agency; and
    (b) provide information and records in respect of the suspicion that the Centre may reasonably re- quire.”
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon Second Deputy Speaker to take the Chair.
  • [MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER IN THE CHAIR.]
    • Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:09 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would think that at that stage, the infor- mation that should be provided would relate to the suspicion of that body and maybe, not necessarily what the Centre requires. This is because, if one reads section 29(1), it states:
    “Where a supervisory body or revenue agency or any official of a supervisory body or revenue agency discovers, in the course of its responsibilities, facts that may be related to money laundering, terrorism financing ...” they shall -- Now, we are saying “within twenty-four hours” - submit a report to the Centre.
    The Report will be a report of the in- formation that they have chanced upon.
    So, I would think that it should rather read -- “provide information and records in respect of the suspicion that the body might have chanced upon”, not necessarily relating to what the Centre requires.
    Mr Loh 12:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that I understand the sense in which the Hon Minority Leader is making the suggestion. So, we may have to re-word that whole paragraph (b) to take care of it. This is because indeed, if somebody is supposed to provide the information, then it is that information that should be transmited to the Centre and not what the Centre requires.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:09 p.m.
    So, what are you proposing -- that we defer Con- sideration or what is it?
    Mr Ayariga 12:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not think there is a problem with this issue. This is because it talks about suspicion by a body and that we should report suspicion to the Centre. Now, when one reports sub- mission to a Centre, it may require some additional information from one, based on which they can take a decision whether prima facie, there is a basis to conduct investigation or to take some action in relation to that.
    So, it is what is required of one. One is simply to present to them some suspicion based on some preliminary information that one has. But they may also require that one can add them -- X, Y documents or that one gives them the bank correspond- ence of the person -- that is additional information that they may require.
    So, I think that, this is dealing with a situation where they will request of one, additional information to enable them take a decision on one's suspicion. I do not think there is a problem with that rendition.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:09 p.m.
    Mr Speak- er, on the contrary, there is a problem. This is because subclause (2) flows from subclause (1). If the Hon Minister reads it carefully, subclause (2) flows from subclause (1) and subclause (1) says:
    “Where a supervisory body or revenue agency or any official of a supervisory body or revenue agency discovers ...”
    The discovery is just bumping into some facts, which then engenders the suspicion. Now, it says when one has that -- and, do not forget that we have not included that one should transmit a report to the Centre. So, at that stage, it is one's suspicion based on the facts available to one that one transmits to the Centre.
    I think the Hon Minister now gets the
    import of what I said.
    Mr Chireh 12:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am finding it very difficult to follow the argument of the Hon Minority Leader. This is because it is what the Centre is requesting and not what the person suddenly discovers or the Agency discovers in the course of the work. So, I really do not see how this rendition in subclause (4), which has been amended, would be affected by any of the things he is saying.
    I think that it should stand. But if he has a concern that we are not all getting, he should get us in another form. But as it is now, it is directly related to subclause (3) and not necessarily subclauses (1) and (2).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:09 p.m.
    Well, Hon Members, I believe that the original posi- tion was “without delay” which appeared to be rather nebulous. Therefore, the amendment seeks to give it some element of certainty -- “within twenty-four hours”. So, let us look at it from that perspective.
    Mr Chireh 12:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have past there -- we are now on subclause (4).
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:09 p.m.
    Mr Speak-
    Mr Chireh 12:15 p.m.
    I am saying that the question of “within twenty-four hours” was put.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
    Yes, but at subclause (2) and not subclause (4).
    Mr Chireh 12:15 p.m.
    Yes! that is because the Speaker was not here when the Question was put for the 24 hours. So, whatever subsequently we are saying is on sub- clause (2); no problem. It is because he was making references to subclause (1).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Very well. So, we are looking at subclause (2)(a). Is that right?
    Mr Loh 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the Hon Minority Leader is proposing a new rendition that is not captured on the Order Paper.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    In that case, can we get the Minority Leader to propose his amendment and then we look at it?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speak- er, my amendment is simply this, that for sub-clause (b), it should be:
    “The Report shall provide infor- ma-tion and records in respect of the suspicions of the body to the Centre.”
    As simple as that; we are talking about the supervisory body or revenue agency, or an official of a supervisory body. What- ever they chance upon, is what they must transmit to the Centre. Subsequent to that, if the Centre requires further information, they would call for that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Vice Chairman, do you have any objection to the proposed amendment?
    Mr Loh 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, can we flag that, so that we can go back to the Attorney-General -- This is because I understand it to relate to clause (3). But from the Minority Leader's point, we may need to look at whether there is really a need to re-word that completely.
    Mr Ayariga 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we can deal with this here, because if you read sub- clause (2), I think I get the import of what the Minority Leader is suggesting, that it is the agency that is making the suspicion and the agency is required to submit a report to the Centre. The report has two components; one, it has the component that says that we suspect (x), (y), (z).
    The second component of it should be that, we have this information that leads us reasonably to come to a conclusion that such an offence is either being committed or likely to be committed.
    I also read from that clause that the proponents of the Bill would require that in addition to just saying that you suspect, that you provide additional information to enable the Centre also take a decision. So, we can amend it to capture the import of the Bill. I think we can bring - “pro- vide information and records reasonably required in respect of the suspicion to the Centre.” Something like that would capture what the proponents of the Bill are seeking to do.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    All right. Let us get back to the Minority Lead- er.
    Hon Minority Leader, I want you to go over your proposed amendment another time, so that we take a close look at it.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speak- er, I was engaged in some matter with the Hon Member for Akropong, but I got the tail of the submission by the Minister responsible for Information and Media
    Relations.
    Mr Speaker, I said that flowing from Clause 29(1), the body that chances upon the facts or suspicions must encapsulate it in a report and transmit it to the Centre.
    Now, if the Centre requires additional information, they would still come back to that body. But at that stage, they are re- porting to the Centre about the suspicions, what they consider as facts that have come before them.
    Now, subclause (2), add this, that “The report shall contain information and records in respect of the suspicion that the Centre may reasonably require.” I am saying that at that stage, it is on the body that chances upon the facts for them to transmit, if you like, the raw suspicions to the Centre. If the Centre requires addition- al information, they would call on, them to provide additional information, which is why I have said that for subclause (b), we do not need “as the Centre may reasonably require,” -- we should delete that. That is what I am saying.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    All right, So, the amendment, if it should be carried, we will put it this way:
    “Provide information and records in respect of the suspicion.”
    Mr Ayariga 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, do not rule out the possibility of the reporting agency being part of a conspiracy to basically pre- tend, that the incident was reported but to report it in such a way that they do not trig- ger any action by the Centre. And so, the arrangement is to require that in addition to just reporting and providing information, you would provide every information that is reasonably required. You can select the information and provide them in such a way that it would not engender any action being taken -- [Interruption]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    But Hon Minister, look at the next subclause, it says:
    “The Centre may in relation to any report or information that the Centre receives, obtain …”
    So, the Centre has the opportunity of asking for further and better particulars, if the need arises.
    Mr Ayariga 12:15 p.m.
    Yes. But Mr Speaker, you would notice that earlier, we were working on the issue of time and that it must be almost instantaneous, within 24 hours et cetera. They may come back. But in this age, when transactions are electronic and within a few seconds, the whole money can be wired and transferred elsewhere, it would be difficult for you to take any real action to deal with the problem.
    I think that right from the beginning, the person presenting the report should in addition to just presenting it, provide every single information that is in the possession of that person and which is reasonably re- quired. That is the whole idea. So, I think we should move “reasonably required” to “provide information and records reason- ably required in respect of the suspicion to the Centre.”
    An amendment like that will carry the import of what the proponents of this Bill intend to achieve.
    Dr Kunbuor 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I guess that we need to be a bit cautious about the drafting niceties that are here. You see, when we use a term like “reasonably re- quired” we know reasonableness is a very technical term of art when it is actually -- [Interruption] -- Yes. But for purposes of law, it is a term of art and there are a lot of tests on the reasonableness that can be applied here.
    So, I guess that they have actually used this rendition to make sure that we address the issue; because one, a suspicion is a general statement that I believe that “A” is involved in money laundering. That is
    Dr Kunbuor 12:15 p.m.


    the suspicion.

    Now, to actually provide the informa- tion that are reasonable in relation to the suspicion, would be that, money of this “X” amount has been moved into bank “A” and so, this is the information that is provided, and that there is no indication whatsoever that this money came from good sources or that there is the reasonable suspicion that the money would have come from illegal activities.

    So, the “reasonable” here would now be telling us that it does not mean that any- thing that is not even tangential to this sus- picion should be part of the information.

    There is a connection between the in- formation that would be provided and the suspicion. So, we narrow down the par- ticulars of what exactly we want the Centre to receive and I think the words are well chosen, because if we take that together with clause (3) as you have said, --

    “The Centre may in relation to any report or information…”

    So, you would see that the three of them here put it together a bit more neatly. I suspect that explains why the Committee did not really come out with a proposal to change the rendition as it is.
    Mr Chireh 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, unfortunate- ly, I do not agree with my Hon Leader on this note. If you look at subclauses 1 and 2, they say that the report should be made within 24 hours and that report is what they are referring to in 2 -- “The report shall, provide information and records in respect of that suspicion.” If you look at it, we should not qualify it because in the third subclause and even the fourth sub- clause, it is further amplified there.
    So, what we need to do is, in this report, the word has certainly come to the notice of that agency that they are reporting. We do not need to qualify the information here. But after they have received that information, subsequently, they can then
    require and since it is within the same clause, I think that we would have covered the ground.
    We should agree with the amendment proposed by the Minority Leader and stop at “suspicion” because it relates to the sudden discovery in (1) and the report is referring to the sudden discovery that you are to report in 24 hours.
    Mr W. O. Boafo 12:25 p.m.
    I believe the ex- planation which was offered by the Hon Majority Leader is very understandable. That is the need for using “reasonable” as a measure of test. My problem here is -- and that is the worry of the Hon Minority Leader, that it is being made subjective to satisfy what the Centre considers to be reasonable and without providing any criteria or yardstick, it is a problem for the supervisory body and other officials.
    So, if we want to guide the report, then that “reasonable” which is on line 2, should come to line 1 and then “reasonable information”, so that we have “in addition to whatever grounds they have in their re- port, they should also provide reasonable, information which will assist the Centre.” But to leave it as it is now --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    I under- stand you to be on the same side with the Hon Minister for Information and Media Relations, that we do not delete it com- pletely but we bring it forward as part of line 1, so that the question of reasonability will still be there. Do I follow you? Am I right?
    Mr Boafo 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you follow
    me and I hope you are following me to the extent that we stop at “suspicion”?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Yes. We stop at “suspicion” but we bring “reasona- bility” up, earlier than the “suspicion”. Do you get me? So, can we get it formulated, so that we look at the amendment?
    Yes, Hon Boafo, can you help us with that?
    Mr Boafo 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the rendition
    will be:
    “Provide reasonable information and records in respect of the sus- picion.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    So, we are alright with your proposal. Can we hear you then?
    Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, listening to all of them, I think the best thing to do is to insert in (b):
    “Provide all relevant information and records in respect of the sus- picion.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Can you go over it? I did not follow you.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:25 p.m.
    “Provide all rele- vant information and records in respect of the suspicion.”
    Dr Kunbuor 12:25 p.m.
    It is indeed, the case that information might be relevant but not necessarily reasonable. That is the text I believe they are trying to deal with because it is not all relevant matters that are reason- able. This is because all these, again, will also be subject to other laws and security considerations. So, it is not the relevance that is important but whether in addition to being relevant, it is reasonable.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you are requesting from this body who has made a determination that there is some suspicion concerning a transaction and you are saying that any fact or record which is relevant to that suspicion must be submitte. So, where is the reasonability coming in here?
    Dr Kunbuor 12:25 p.m.
    “Reasonability” here has to do with even the ease of getting that information. Let me give an example. Im- agine that you enter into a bilateral treaty with another country in which there are non-disclosure clauses in that particular agreement. What will happen that will
    prevent you from not disclosing might be relevant but there is the reasonable text that would say that because of the act of State doctoring, you cannot be expected to make that disclosure without breaching that type of treaty.
    That is one of the typical examples of where relevance is not necessarily capable of being made available.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon Mem- bers, let us look at the amendment as now proposed by Hon Boafo as a build-up on what the Minority Leader initiated, so that we can put the Question.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speak- er, I believe where we are now, we can put the Question This is because if we allow ourselves to conjoin with the Majority Leader in his forays into doctrinal issues, I believe we would not leave here. At this stage, Consideration Stage, we are not opening ourselves to policies again. We are talking about the relevant provisions.
    I agree with him that it is not everything that is relevant that may be reasonable but commutatively, it is not everything that is reasonable that may also be relevant.
    Dr Kunbuor 12:25 p.m.
    I can agree with you but you know the problem of this country. All that we are doing is doctrinaire. They all have foundations in one doctrine or the other. So, let us not let it look like, as for Ghana, anything goes. We also have standards and you measure those standards by the existing doctrine.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon Mem- bers, I will put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Loh 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
    clause 10, subclause (4), line 2, after “shall” insert “within seven days”.
    The new rendition would be:
    Mr Loh 12:25 p.m.


    “The person to whom a request is made by the Centre under sub- section 3 shall within seven days comply with the request.”
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have been trying to catch your eye for a long time. I would want to crave your indul- gence. I know you have ruled earlier that we should go on without the Attor- ney-General (AG). But if you see where we are heading and this is a Bill by the AG, I think it is a very serious mater.
    We should think about such an impor- tant legislation. The “mover” of the Bill is not here. We are having these difficulties and we cannot even get the benefit of their advice. I think Parliament should recon- sider that decision. It is not the best for us.
    It is being sponsored by the AG. No representative of the AG is here. [Inter- ruption.] No representative is on the floor. They do not have audience. Let us be serious. This is not a simple legislation.
    I think we should reconsider as Mem- bers of Parliament that yes, they must be here to advise us appropriately. Let us not come back six months later and say we could have -- It is not a good image for ourselves.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon Mem- ber, I believe what you are saying makes a lot of sense but in the same breath, from information received, the delay in pushing through these amendments is affecting the country negatively --internationally.
    So, while we know that we need their presence and while we also know that we are not going to conclude the whole thing today and if possible, we will continue tomorrow, and they have assured us of their presence tomorrow, let us go ahead. If we have any problems, we can defer those issues to tomorrow when they will be around to help us resolve them.
    Dr Kunbuor 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so far,
    we have not come across the rock yet in terms of policy. But I guess that there are a number of people here who are compe- tent in relation to the official policy on this matter, who can guide us should we get there. But I can agree with the Hon Member that yes, for the drafting and technical elements, we could actually be debating these things because we do not know what informed the draftspersons to render them in a particular way.
    So, to that extent, I can agree with him. But let us make some progress and then when we run into some problem, we would address it at that time.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not have any difficulty. I think that the way that some people in the Executive treat this Parliament, we should take ourselves se- rious. If they are talking about a deadline, they ought to be here. There is a Minister, there is a Deputy Minister; treating us as if anything goes, is not helpful to this Legis- lature. The Chairman of the Committee is not here, the Attorney-General and Min- ister for Justice is not here; people would look at us and ask, what are we doing? I think we ought to take that -- That is where I am coming from.
    If it is relevant to them, they would do anything to be here. I do not want to go on a different route because of what the Speaker has said. But I could have easily gone on that route. We are rising this week and it is important to them and they are physically not here. [Interruption.] I think if the Majority Chief Whip speaks, I will go that route. He should keep doing that; I will go on that route. He does not want me to go on that route: he knows that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Very well, Hon Member.
    Mr Chireh 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am plead- ing with the Hon Member. I am pleading with him because before the Rt Hon Speaker left -- he raised all these issues,
    but also impressed upon the House that with the presence of the Vice Chairman and the Ranking Member and that, the Committee had come to a consensus on these matters, we should go ahead.
    So, I plead with him that we should go ahead. If there is any policy issue which requires the Attorney-General and Min- ister for Justice to come and answer, we would then -- I beg him; he should not go the other way that he is looking. I saw that he was holding the Standing Orders. I beg him.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon Members, I will like the Vice Chairman to go over the last amendment that he just read out.
    Mr Loh 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, subclause (4), line 2, after “shall” insert “within seven days”.
    Mr Speaker, so, the new rendition will be 12:25 p.m.
    “A person to whom a request is made by the Centre under sub-sec- tion (3) shall within seven days comply with the request”.
    Mr Boafo 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, normally, when we give time limit for doing some- thing, we try to curtail it. I thought the Vice Chairman would say “within seven days after receipt of the request.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Very well. Can you propose that as a further amendment to the amendment, so that we make progress?
    Mr Boafo 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, further amend- ment will render the subclause as follows:
    “A person to whom a request is made by the Centre under subsec- tion (3) shall comply with the re- quest within seven days after receipt of the request”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon Vice Chairman, are you alright with it?
    Mr Loh 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is alright, save that if we agree to this new amendment, then it should be consequential. This is because we have dealt with “within seven days” in the previous amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    All right. I believe I can give directive that the draftspersons take note of it and that it is consequential.
    Mr Loh 12:25 p.m.
    Very well, Mr Speaker.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Boafo 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your permission and flexibility, I would like to go back to subclause (3), line 2.
    Mr Speaker, there is an expression there which I am not very familiar with, that is after “obtain” and before “otherwise”, we have “where not”. I am not very familiar with this drafting language. I hope Hon Yieleh Chireh is also not familiar with that language and the Hon Majority Leader is also not familiar with it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    But can we direct the draftspersons to look at it?
    Mr Boafo 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am familiar with the expression except “as otherwise provided” or “except --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon Boafo, I follow your point, but what I want to say is that, let us refer it to the draftspersons, let them look at it and use best practices to remedy the situation.
    Mr Boafo 12:25 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Can we move on then?
    Mr Boafo 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, can we make a suggestion to the draftspersons?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Boafo 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that we delete “where not otherwise” and insert “except as otherwise not provided”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Very well. It is accordingly directed.
    Hon Vice Chairman, can you move on?
    Mr Loh 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am still not clear with the Hon Member for Akro- pong's new rendition; if he can go over for me to follow.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    It is a question of drafting and I have directed that the draftspersons should look at it and do that, which is best for us.
    Mr Loh 12:35 p.m.
    Very well, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    So, let us move on to the next proposed amendment.
    Hon Members, clause 11 --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speak- er, with respect, if we can put the Question on the previous one; the one that we have just amended.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    I am sorry. Hon Members, before we move on -- So, I will put the Question with regard to clause 10.
    Clause 10 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 11 -- Section 30 of Act 749 amended.
    Mr Loh 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 11 -- subclause (4), paragraph (b), line 1, delete “illegal” and substitute “unlawful”.
    So, the paragraph (b) will now read:
    “To dissuade a client from engaging in unlawful activity”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Can you give us the rationale behind the amend- ment?
    Mr Loh 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is just for clarity. Mr Speaker, “illegal” and “unlaw- ful” because we are dealing with a matter that is heavily regulated by law; you have to operate within the law. So; “unlawful” seems more predisposed to carrying out the idea behind the clause.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Very well. I will put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Yes, Vice Chairman?
    Mr Loh 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amend- ment stands in the name Hon Alexander Afenyo-Markin. I do not know if he is here.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Is he in the Chamber?
    Mr Loh 12:45 p.m.
    No, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    So, what do we do?
    Dr Kunbuor 12:45 p.m.
    Well, Mr Speaker, we do not seem to have anybody with the power of attorney on this matter.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Very well. If he has not asked anybody to move it on his behalf --
    Dr Kunbuor 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, unless somebody really can speak to the ration- ale, otherwise, moving it sometimes can be quite difficult. But if anybody can give us the rationale, then we can take it. Otherwise, you filed your amendment but you were not available to move it. So --
    Mr. Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:45 p.m.
    While we search for the appropriate person with the power of attorney from the Hon Alexander Afenyo-Markin, I guess we can look at other aspects of the one that we are dealing with. Mr Speaker, (3) has two subclauses. We have (a) and (c), why is there no (b) or should (c) rather read (b) or is there something missing?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    I believe (c) should read (b) and I will direct that the draftspersons take a look at it and do that, which is right.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you are certain from your Committee that there is no missing link, (c ) then should become (b).
    Mr Loh 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we agree. That is correct.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Very well. So, what are we doing? We are deferring Hon Markin Afenyo proposed amendment?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speak- er, another point before we come there. I think we have discovered the person with the power of attorney. So, I will come there but Mr Speaker, 30 (1) -- A person or an accountable institution that knows or reasonably suspects”. Mr Speaker, is that the construction? The person has cause to
    suspect. I think not reasonably suspect. It cannot be reasonably suspect?
    Mr Loh 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is proper. That is the normal legal language -- Reason- ably suspect.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    So, you agree with what he is saying?
    Dr Kunbuor 12:45 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker. This has always been the rendition because levels of mens rea that is required here. The first mens rea is actual and the other one is implied. So, when you know that intent is already established but beyond that, when you reasonably also suspect, it might not be that express but based on reasonable suspicion.
    That is the second level of the mens rea and that is how it has always been ren- dered. In our Criminal Act, you will see the various forms of intent that are outlined.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    So, we let it stand?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speak- er, the reason I am saying so is, you see, we should tie this with what we have been doing. Now, if you go back to the 29 that we dealt with, it talks about a supervisory body, revenue agency -- official of a supervisory body or revenue agency -- Whoever chancing upon some facts, there is no qualification there.
    That is why I am saying that we should not bring this one there. If the person or accountable institution knows or suspects, then they make available the information. That is what I am saying, for consistency sake.
    Mr Ayariga 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what the Minority Leader is saying is reasonably accurate, in the sense that, if you say some- body has reasonable cause to suspect, that is what in criminal jurisprudence, we will say reasonable suspicion. This is because
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Minister is mixing up two things. That was the first leg. I am suggesting now that we are talking about suspicious transaction report and I am saying, let us link this up with what we did in 29, where we said anybody who suspects an activity to be tainted, shall submit a report to the Cen- tre. We are not talking about reasonable suspicions and so on and so forth.
    So, I am saying that if we tie the two together, we do not need to qualify this because it is embedded in the request or what the Centre itself has been established to look out for. Should you chance upon some information, you suspect that it is in connection with terrorists property, pro- ceeds of money laundering and so on; it is for you to transmit the report to the Centre.
    So, we are talking about an individual or an accountable institution. I am saying, tie it with what we did in 29, where we did not qualify it. We said, once you chance upon it -- the raw information, transmit, it. That is what I am saying.
    Dr Kunbuor 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I guess that this is a matter that we cannot be having a debate about. The reasonableness test here is linked to suspicion. That is why it is not linked to the knowledge. So, if you know, you do not have to give it a standard. But if it is a suspicion, it should not be wild of fertile minds, that you just sleep and you do not sleep well and you wake up and you say I suspect that this is what
    is happening.
    There must be a test that should guide your suspicion. That is why the reasona- bleness is used here and it is because they have used this thing in a double way, the one that is actual knowledge and the one that is suspicion, they have qualified the nature of that suspicion and I think it has been rendered like that in almost all legal documents. It is a technical thing which we cannot take away from the draftspersons.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    But apart from that, that is probably the reason we have -- If you look further down at 29 (2) (b), you remember the question of reasonability was raised and that has been taken into account. So, I believe it serves that purpose.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    I am just talking about consistency and that is why I said, let us juxtapose 29 with what we are doing in 30. Clause 29 talks about the report stating the suspicions. Why not say the “reasonable suspicion”. I am just saying that we should be consistent in the application of language because --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Very well. Can we get the draftspersons to have a look at it.
    Hon Minority Leader --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:45 p.m.
    I am say- ing that if we are qualifying it, then we better do the same thing there.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    You see Hon Boafo's amendment which we took on board talks about reasonability and I thought that should take care of it. But if for any reason, we are not too sure of it, let us refer it to the draftspersons, so that they look at the issue of consistency.
    Mr Boafo 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you were re-
    ferring to my amendment. My amendment was in respect of a verb to qualify a noun and here, it is an adverb to qualify a --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Now, we are going to semantics. What I am saying is that, we should leave it with the draft- spersons for them to take the necessary decisions that will let them fall in line.
    Mr Boafo 12:45 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Speaker, before we move on, I have an observation to make under clause 30 (1). Mr Speaker, the expression does not flow the way I normally find it. “A person or an accountable institution that knows or reasonably suspects that a property is (1) terrorists property, (2) the proceeds of money laundering or (3) is of financing of proliferation...” -- Then the next line, “proliferation of weapons of mass destruc- tion or is of any other serious offence.”
    Mr Speaker, my problem is lines 3 and 4 and it is in respect “of” the expression of which are used to precede line 3 -- of financing and in line (4) of any other se- rious offence.
    Mr Speaker, left alone, I would suggest that line 3 after “or” we delete “of” and insert “for” and then line 4, after “or” we “delete “of” and insert “intended for” so that the new rendition would be as follows:
    “A person or an accountable in- stitution that knows or reason- ably suspects that a property is terrorist property, the proceeds of money-laundering or financing of prolifera-tion of weapons of mass destruction or intended for any other serious offence.”
    Mr Speaker, this is my submission.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon Vice Chairman, what do you say?
    Mr Loh 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I tried to get the sense of the Hon Member's suggestion
    but I am also wondering if you can say “proceeds for financing of”. That also does not seem to sit well with me because there is some consistency in the use of the “of” rather.
    Mr Chireh 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with what the Hon Member is saying and it is because the things have not been itemised. They should really have been itemised and put in roman numerals, so you will know what it is. In the case the Hon Member is talking about, it is the resources of fi- nancing for, the word “for” instead of “of” and then also “intended”. So, it makes it clearer and I think that even if the amend- ment is carried, the draftspersons should make sure that they itemise them properly to bring out the sense of the provision. I support his amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    I think your suggestion holds good, so, we would after putting the Question and getting it carried, direct that the draftspersons take care of it by itemising it.
    Mr Boafo 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when the Vice Chairman got up on his feet, he said he was trying to make sense of what I said. I do not understand why he said that. Was I speaking nonsense?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon Member, I do not think that was what he meant. What he meant was that he was trying to understand the point that you were making.
    Shall we put the Question then?
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    I direct that the draftspersons do take into account the possibility of itemising the matters raised in that particular amendment, so that it would fall in line.
    Mr Loh 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want your direction because we have not taken the whole of clause 11. The one that stands in the name of Hon Afenyo-Mar- kin is outstanding. So, I am not too sure whether you can put the Question on the whole clause.
    Mr Frist Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    No! I am not putting the Question on the whole of clause 11. I am putting the Question in respect of this amendment which has been taken.
    As for Hon Afenyo-Markin's proposed amendment, the best we can do would be to defer it. If tomorrow, he is not available, then we would take a final decision, so we can move on. We have finished with clause 11, the outstanding issue being Hon Afenyo-Markin's proposed amendment. So, we would move on to clause 12 then.
    Clause 12 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 15 -- Section 36 of Act 749 amended.
    Mr Loh 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, subclause (1), lines 1 and 2, delete “refrain from proceeding” and sub- stitute “not proceed” and in line 2, delete “or involve proceeds of”.
    So, it will read:
    “An accountable institution shall not proceed with a transaction which the accountable institution knows or suspects to be related to money laundering, terrorism financing, fi- nancing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or other serious offences until the accountable in- stitution reports its suspicion to the Centre under section 30”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Loh 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15 subclause (2), line 4, delete “business” and substitute “working”.
    That line would read:
    “…the suspension of a transaction for a period not exceeding seven working days”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15 subclause (4), line 1, delete “refrain from proceeding” and substitute “failure to discontinue”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Do we have any more with regard to clause 15?
    Mr George Loh 12:55 p.m.
    I think it is conse- quential.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, subclause (5), line 2, delete “business” and substitute “working”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 15 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 18 -- Section 39 of Act 749 amended.
    Mr Loh 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18, subclause (2), paragraph (c), line 5, delete “revealed” and substitute “disclosed”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Loh 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18, subclause (2), paragraph (e), line 1, delete “refrain from proceeding” and substitute “discontinue”.
    Mr Speaker, so, you will have the new
    one that says:
    “fail to discontinue with a transac- tion when so required pursuant to section 30 (1) and section 36 (1) or fails to comply with an order by the Centre under section 36 (2).
    Mr Chireh 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before we move to subclause (2), in the Committee's own recommendation, you have two (hs) in terms of the paragraphs and they said they should do the renumbering. So, one (h) and the other ones (i), (j), (k) —
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    It means there are two (hs), so we should—
    I direct the draftspersons to take note of it and deal with it accordingly.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with the amendment being proposed by the Vice Chairman of the Committee, instead of having the “refrain from” he is seeking to insert “discontinue”. “Refrain from” means you will not start at all, but “discon- tinue” means you can start and then stop at a point. So, I wonder why he is substituting that for “refrain from.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman, how do you respond?
    Mr Loh 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, to proceed, is to move on with something. So, to refrain from it, is to actually back track or stop it. To discontinue, I think that it makes perfect replacement for that word and it makes it more —
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, a readable use can also be, not to start at all.
    Mr Loh 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, agreed but that is what —
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, dis- continue means you have started because it is broader. Refrain from is broader than —
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon Ma- jority Leader?
    Dr Kunbuor 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this one is supposed to be addressing the type of matters in which you would have initiated a matter and then you decide that it must be abandoned. So, you will discontinue. But if you say you refrain from proceedings, that does not prevent you from coming back to continue or to proceed.
    I think the intent here is that they want it to be abandoned at that particular stage. Yes, it can start and you will abandon it. But they do not want to say you should refrain from proceeding.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Boafo 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would make an observation because you have put the Question. To be consistent, we use not to proceed to it in the earlier paragraph, in substitution for “refrain from proceeding”. I do not know why you decided to change it, for consistency and drafting elegance.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Very well. I direct that the draftspersons take note of it for consistency sake, carry it out.
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Clause 18 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 19 -- Section 40 Act 74 (9) amended.
    Mr Loh 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, subclause (6), line 1, after “country” delete “where” and substitute “in which”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition reads 1:05 p.m.
    “Where the laws of the country in which the branch or majority owned subsidiary is situated prevent com- pliance with these obligations”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 19 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 20 -- 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 22 --
    Mr Loh 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, definition of “account”, line 1, delete “facility or”.
    Mr Speaker, so it reads 1:05 p.m.
    “Account means any arrangement by which an accountable institution accepts deposits of funds and other property”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Loh 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, definition of “account”, para- graph (d), line 1, delete “or arrangement”.
    Mr Speaker, so that also will render as 1:05 p.m.
    “Supplies and facility for a safety deposit box or any other form of such deposits”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Loh 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, definition of “competent au- thority”, paragraph (d), line 1, delete “the Customs Division of”.
    Mr Speaker, so, we will have instead of “the Customs Division of “the Ghana Rev- enue Authority”, we will have the “Ghana Revenue Authority” as the new rendition.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Loh 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, 22, add the following new definition:
    ‘“United Nations Consolidated List, means the list' or persons and entities designated under the United Nations sanctions regimes relating to terrorism and the financing of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction”.
    Mr Speaker, so, we will add the new
    definition.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Loh 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, definition of “weapons of mass destrucstion”, line 1, delete “weapons” and substitute “weapon”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 22 as amended ordered to stand
    part of the Bill. Clause 23 -- First Schedule to Act 749
    amended.
    Mr Loh 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, First Schedule opening phrase, delete “institutions include” and substitute “in- stitution includes”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Loh 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the subsequent clauses stand in the name of Hon Alex- ander Afenyo-Markin and he is not here. So, maybe, since we have one already deferred, I suggest that we defer this one as well.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Very well; we are deferring it to tomorrow. But please, Hon Members who are available, notify him that if tomorrow he is not avail- able, we will be compelled to completely strike out the proposed amendments.
    This brings us to the end of Conside- ra-tion Stage.
    Dr Benjamin Bewa-Nyog Kunbuor 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the light of the circum- stances, I beg to move, that the House do adjourn to Wednesday, the 26th of March, 2014 at 10 o'clock in the forenoon.
    Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
    ADJOURNMENT 1:15 p.m.
    SPACE FOR APPENDIX II - 1:15 p.m.
    SPACE FOR TABLE - PAGE 1:15 p.m.
    SPACE FOR TABLE - PAGE 1:15 p.m.
    SPACE FOR APPENDIX - 1:15 p.m.