Debates of 10 Feb 2015

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:40 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:40 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 6th February, 2015.
  • [No correction was made to the Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 6th February, 2015.]
    • Mr Fritz Baffour 10:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, at column 68, second paragraph;
    “Ghana is a nation because, people such as Dr J.B. Danquah fought for the course…..”
    The word should be “cause” instead of “course”.
    Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
    Very well.
    Any other correction?
    Hon Members, the Official Report of Wednesday, 4 th February, 2015 as corrected, is adopted as the true record of proceedings.
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader — At the Commencement of Public Business.
    Mr Alfred K. Agbesi 10:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your permission, if we could vary the Order of Business to take item number 5.
    Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect to the Chair, I am not too sure that I can make tail or head of what you have told us.
    Mr Speaker 10:40 a.m.
    The point was that, we have resolved all the issues; listening to the Hon Minister for Employment and Labour Relations,they have been resolved. The only issue that was not resolved was no longer the issue of the number, whether the number exceeded the 19 indicated in the Constitution.
    The only issue that was not resolved on the floor of the House, to quote you directly, was “who is in and who is out?” That relates to the former Ministry of
    Petroleum and Energy. That was the only issue that was not resolved.
    So, once we look at that issue, the question is whether it exceeded the 19, and that is a constitutional matter. The rest, once it has not exceeded the 18, there is no constitutional issue again for us to discuss at all. As of now, from the information I have, it is eighteen.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, so, as of now, who are the members of Cabinet?
    Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    Yes, I have the list as of now and I will make it available to you.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.
    All right. As of now, it is 18 and not 19?
    Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    Yes, it is 18 as of now.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.
    And not 19?
    Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    Not 19.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.
    Good.
    Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    I will make the list available to you.
    It is 18 as of now.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.
    Very well. [Pause.]
    Mr Speaker, I got an --
    Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    An application has been made by the Hon Deputy Majority Leader to vary the Order of Business for us to take item number 5 on the Order Paper. So, that is a very straightforward matter, if it can be taken.
    Bonsu — rose
    Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Kyei-Mensah- Bonsu?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, as I said, I got up earlier and unfortunately, I did not catch your eye. An attribution has been made to me in the Official Report of Tuesday, 3 rd February, 2015 and I thought that they needed to correct the record.
    At Column 16, the Hon First Deputy Speaker said something and that has been attributed to me. So, I thought that they would correct it. It was the Hon First Deputy Speaker who said “Clause 18 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill” and that indeed, did not come from me.
    Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    Is it a typographical or grammatical error, or one of substance?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is an attribution; a statement has been made and it has been attributed to me and I am saying it rather came from the Hon First Deputy Speaker who was presiding.
    Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    Very well.
    Clerks-at-the-Table to take note accordingly.
    Hon Members, the Deputy Majority Leader has made an application to vary the Order of Business in line with our Standing Orders and move to item number 5 on the Order Paper.
    Hon Members, item number 5 on the Order Paper -- Motions.
    Hon Minister for Employment and Labour Relations?
    Bonsu — rose
    Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    It is for the consideration --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.
    Precisely -- [Laughter.]
    Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    Of the House.
    But you see, the point is that, you cannot pass it through a second Consideration Stage because you have to arrest -- When I called the Hon Member, that was the time you should have arrested and moved that it should pass through a second Consideration Stage. But now that he has moved the Motion and it is duly seconded by the Hon Member for Wa West, it becomes problematic under our rules.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the point is, I rose but I did not catch your eye -- [Laughter] -- and you can have a very strict Speaker with respect to the Chair. [Laughter.]
    Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    I will be very charitable on this occasion -- [Laughter] -- for very good reasons.
    Yes, Hon Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not really intend to run this through a second Consideration Stage. My only worry is that, because there were so many amendments, one would have loved to see maybe, the document and then we can go through the Third Reading. This is
    because, once we do it, this House is estopped from further looking at it. We have had occasions where when such things happened, it became difficult to bring them back. That is my worry.
    Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    Hon Member for Wa West?
    Mr Y. Chireh 10:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, normally, after we have finished with the Bill, it is the Clerk to Parliament who will go through and certify that it is the accurate representation of what Parliament did. So, at that level, if there is any need for consultation, that will be done. But as it is now, I think the concerns that he has, may be legitimate. However, we need to look at what is the final product before it even goes for further work.
    Thank you.
    Mr Speaker 10:50 a.m.
    Hon Members, what I will do is that, after this, there is a process behind the scene which is normally not taken on the floor of the House. I will speak to the Clerk to Parliament to get in touch with the Hon Minority Leader on that matter. But as far as the floor is concerned, we have finished with the Bill.
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker to take the Chair.
    Mr Agbesi 10:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your permission, we would want to go to item number 13 on the Customs Bill, 2014.
    Mr Speaker 11 a.m.
    The Customs Bill, 2014 at the Consideration Stage?
    Hon Members, this morning, in consultation with the Leadership, we have decided to take the Customs Bill. This is because I have been informed that the Finance Committee that is in charge of the Bill in the House will be going for another assignment at about 1.00 o'clock. So, we decided to vary the order of business, so that we do some work on the Consi- deration Stage. After that, we go back to other items on the Order Paper.
    So, those Hon Members who have business to do must be around because after the Consideration Stage is suspended, we may go to other items on the Order Paper and it is important to inform them. Because I know the attitude of the House when it comes to Consideration Stage of Bills.
    MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 11:02 a.m.
    STAGE 11:02 a.m.
  • [Resumption of debate from 18/11/ 2014]
    • Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:02 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr James K. Avedzi 11:02 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 91 -- paragraph (c), delete “re-warehouse” and insert “ex- warehouse”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition will read 11:02 a.m.
    “A person shall pay duty on warehouse goods that are entered for use within the country based on
    (a) the Cost, Insurance and Freight value in convertible currency,
    (b) the rate of duty; and
    (c) the rate of exchange at the time of ex-warehousing”
    And not re-warehousing.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 91 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 93 -- Auction goods
    Mr Avedzi 11:02 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 93, subclause (1), line 1, delete “maybe” and insert “may be”
    Mr Speaker, the first “maybe” is joined. So, the amendment is just to separate the “may” from the “be”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Mr Avedzi 11:02 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 93, subclause (2), line 1, delete “is subject to the payment of” and insert “includes the”
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition will read 11:02 a.m.
    “The price at which goods are sold at an auction sale includes the custom duty.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Avedzi 11:02 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 93, subclause (3), line 1, delete “duty for”.
    The new rendition will read:
    “The value of the goods auctioned is”
    And not “the value of duty for…”.
    So, the new rendition will read;
    “The value of the goods auctioned is”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:02 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am worried about the proposal offered by the Chairman of the Committee in respect of clause 93 (2). That was why I was trying to consider:
    (2) “The price at which goods are sold at an auction sale includes custom duty.”
    Mr Speaker, I appreciate the issue that he is raising, that it should include the declared or the valued customs duty. If it is left like this unqualified, I am afraid, it may be subject to abuse. So, I think we should find a way to include certain words which would enable us know that it is the declared or maybe, the officially certified customs duty; right?
    So, the price should necessarily include that. This construction that you offer us, that one does not really stand out and if it does not, it may be subject to abuse. I do not know how we would deal with it.
    This is because we would want to avoid the situation where certain goods are sold below even the duties that were early on imposed on them. That is what we want to avoid by what you are saying. But I am saying that in that case, it should be better constructed.
    Mr Avedzi 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the clause here is referring to the price at which the goods are actioned. Now, the Commissioner-General will take into account the duty on those goods. The Commissioner-General or Government will not want to lose the duty on those goods.
    So, if we are going to auction those particular goods, the price must include the duty on the goods. If you read from clause 93(1); “Goods may be auctioned under the direction of the Commissioner- General” and the price at which it is auctioned includes the duty on that goods.
    When you go to clause 93(3), it gives you the value.
    So, if you read from clause 93(2), the 93(3) will tell you the value of the goods auctioned, is actually the price realised at the sale or the value estimated by the proper officer, whichever is greater.
    In that case, because the Commissioner- General is trying not to lose the duty that would have been realised if the owner of the goods were to clear the goods, the Commissioner-General would not lose the duty. That is why the proper officer will value the goods. And if the actual value of the goods and the one that is valued by the proper officer, taking into account the duty payable on the goods, the greater one is what the goods will be auctioned.
    So, if you read the clause 93 (2), you have to read clause 93 (3) and that will complete the whole sentence.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, I hope you are alright with the explanation?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, as I said, I understand the principle but I am worried about the construction. It does not make it stand out. For instance, if maybe, the goods entered the warehouse and they attracted some price for them. What should be done in the circumstance?
    And in clause 91, you have stated that,
    “A person shall pay duty on warehoused goods that are entered for use within the country...”
    Sometimes they go to the warehouse and attract warehouse charges and it gets to a point that the person is unable to do that. Would you then say that he should just pay the duty? And I am saying to him that with even that, what duty is he talking about?
    Is the duty that has been weighted by the certified officer; right? It is not any duty at all and that is why I am saying that this construction in clause 93 does not appear to be too sharp to capture and it may be subject to abuse. If we can further enrich it to let it capture what is supposed to be done, I have no objection to it.
    Mr Avedzi 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the clause 91 that he referred to, is actually dealing with a different thing altogether. That is the “duty payable”. But the clause 93 is talking about the “value of the auctioned goods”; how much do we sell the goods when it is being auctioned and what constitutes the price? That is clause 93.
    It is saying that, when the Commissioner- General gives the directive that the goods should be auctioned, the price at which the goods should be auctioned or sold, should include the duty payable on that goods. That is clause 93(2).
    Mr Speaker, clause 93(3) says that the value of the goods to be auctioned that would be determined. Then the price realised from the sale of the goods or the
    value estimated by the proper officer or whichever is greater, is the price at which the goods would be sold.
    So, if the price of the goods is GH¢10 and the proper officer determines the goods and says it should be GH¢12 because there must be duty payable which should be included, the price at which the goods should be auctioned should be GH¢12 but not GH¢10. That is what clause 93 is talking about completely.
    But if we could propose how we should construct the rendition because the Committee thinks that the price at which the goods are sold at an auction is subject to payment of custom duty. That was the original rendition in the Bill. But the Committee thinks that, the better way to capture it is that the price at which the goods are sold at auction includes the duty on that goods. If there is a better one that we think we can look at, we can bring it up today. But the Committee thinks that, this is a better way to capture it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Chairman, once we are at it, I believe that the proper officer's estimation would take place before the sale. So, why do not we let that come before the sale itself. This is because, you estimate, carry out the sale and then when there is this discrepancy between what was estimated and what was realised, we would make whichever is greater, apply.
    Mr Avedzi 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I followed the argument but you have to read the entire clause 93 as one. The clause 93 is saying that, the goods may be auctioned under the direction of the Commissioner- General. Now, if the Commissioner- General determines that the goods should be auctioned, then let us go and look at the price at which we would auction it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe even as you have said, there is another problem there. The value of the goods auctioned and the value estimated by the proper officer are the same.
    Mr Speaker, I do not understand. I think what is intended -- is in the original construction, “the value of duty for goods auctioned.” Then you came out and deleted that, and I know you have to delete that. Where you should place it should rather include; “The value of the goods for the auction is the price which includes the duty”; for subsections (a) and (b) of clause 93 (3) would be the estimated value by the proper officer. Otherwise, how can you say this? [Interruptions] -- Clause 93,(3) subsection (a) is wrong.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, could you use the microphone? I did not hear what you said.
    Mr Avedzi 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was just telling the Hon Minority Leader that if he is making reference to the duty that has been captured under clause 93(2) that the price at which goods are sold at an auction includes custom duty.
    Now, the clause 93 (3) is saying that, if the value of goods auctioned is the price realised at the sale or the value estimated by the proper officer, whichever is greater.
    I go back and explain the same way that if we are auctioning this paper and we realise through the auction that it is GH¢10, but the price which was determined by the proper officer is GH¢12, it is the GH¢12 that we would carry. Which means that if the auction is realising GH¢10, we would not accept the GH¢10.We would look at the proper officer's price as the yardstick.
    If the value is higher than that of the proper officer's determination, we accept the value. But if it is lower than the proper officer's determination, we would accept the proper officer's determination. This is the point that clause 93(3) is talking about.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:10 a.m.
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
    Mr Agbesi 11:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if I should understand the Chairman, the subsection 3 (a) and 3 (b) all include the duty. So, to start with, there is the duty. So, when you take subsection 3(a), the duty element is there and when you take subsection 3(b), the duty element is also there. So, that is the starting point. For the proper officer, he must take into consideration the duty and also, the price realised includes the duty. So, whatever it is, the two sub- sections include the duty.
    So, I understand the Chairman to mean that the price includes the duty to start with.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    Hon Members, could we make some progress then?
    Mr Chireh 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think two words which we have to look at and clearly understand, would be the “value” and “price”. As for the “value”, it is something that somebody would determine but the “price” is what is being sold.
    As the Chairman is explaining, if you want to auction, it requires people to, mention figures and when the gavel falls on it, then -- But if we do not understand it to mean that the price is the one which would first include the duty and also the value that would have been estimated.
    I think as it is captured now, it carries clearly what it should be. Early on, there was some confusion about the “duty” and -- but it has been cleared. I think it is much better the way it has been put now.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would not proceed further, because I think the point I am raising should be very clear. If you are saying to us that the value of the goods auctioned is the price realised at the sale; that is one. Or the value estimated by the proper officer. Which one is higher? Let us assume that the proper officer says that, the goods should sell at maybe, GH¢100,000 together with the duty and everything, maybe, it works up to GH¢50,000. You go to the auction and the highest price you are realising is GH¢60,000; you are telling us that because the proper officer says it is GH¢100,000 -- whichever is higher.

    So, it should suggest to you that in the estimation of the proper officer, if it should be GH¢100,000, then it should be GH¢100,000. That should be accepted. That is the meaning of this.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, if I understand them, what they are saying is that, of the two, whichever at the end of the day would be higher, is what would be accepted as the price.
    Mr Avedzi 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the proper officer determines that the value, which includes the duty is GH¢50,000 and when they are auctioning, they realise GH¢60,000, then it is the GH¢60,000 that they would take because, that is higher than the value determined or estimated by the proper officer. But if he estimated GH¢50,000 and at the auction they are realising GH¢40,000, they will not accept the GH¢40,000. They will limit it to the
    GH¢50,000.
    That is the meaning of clause 93 (3). Which means that we are using the proper officer's estimation as the yardstick -- the benchmark. If it goes beyond the benchmark, we will accept it but if he falls below the benchmark, we will accept the benchmark. That is the point.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, if I might give you some insight into this auctioning process. It is possible for some connivance to take place at the auction. I believe such measures are meant to guard against that kind of conduct. So, the proper officer, giving us an estimate, if we get a price higher than what the proper officer gave us, we will take it. That is the rationale behind it.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you say the price is realised at the sale -- “the price realised at the sale” -- what does it mean? The sale process has concluded and this price has come out; this is what it means. The process of the --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    I do not understand you.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
    The process of the sale has concluded, and this is the price that has come out. The price that has been yielded. So, how do you say that the value of the goods auctioned is the price realised at the sale? That is the point I am making. He did not really understand the point I was making.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    I am now beginning to understand you. It means that, if it is the price realised at the sale, then it has reached finality sort of. But I do not think that is the intention.
    So, once the sale is ongoing, you get the last bidder making a certain offer and if that offer is lower than the proper officer's estimate, we do not accept it. In other words, the process would not have been concluded. So, we have the right to say that we do not accept this because the estimate is higher than that one.
    Or do we get the draft people to couch it in a way that will deal with this concern raised?
    Hon Minority Leader, I hope you are with me.
    We can get the draftsperson to deal with it, so that the air is cleared.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
    So Mr Speaker, I felt that simplicita, we could state, that the value for the goods auctioned is the value estimated by the proper officer or a higher price. Then we leave the other one because that one does not make sense to me at all. That is because the value determined by the proper officer should be deemed as the minimum. That is what it means. That was why I was saying that I could not make sense out of that construction.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    So, in effect, Hon Members, Hon Chairman and Hon Deputy Minister, he is now using some wording that appears to be more
    acceptable, that is the “minimum”. The proper officer's estimate should be the minimum; anything below that is not acceptable and anything above it, is acceptable.
    So, can we have a rendition of this amendment which will take care of --
    Mr Avedzi 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that if the current rendition is not clear enough, we can look at the proposed amendment. You said the value estimated by the proper officer could be the benchmark and that anything above that would be accepted. But if it is below that, we would not accept it. So, Mr Speaker, if I can propose that the subclause 3 should read the “the value of the goods auctioned is not less than the value estimated by the proper officer”.
    So, in that case, if it is more than the proper officer's own, we would accept it but if it is less than that, we would not accept it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:20 a.m.
    Thank you very much.
    Hon Members, I will put the Question with regard to the proposed amendment and the further amendment.
    Mr Avedzi 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 93, subclause (3), delete and replace with the following
    “the value of the goods auctioned is not less than the value estimated by the proper officer”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, undoubtedly, that is a better construction and I support it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clause 93 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill

    Clause 95 -- Transit
    Mr Avedzi 11:30 a.m.
    I beg to move, clause 95, subclause (7), lines 1 and 2, delete
    “necessary, impose the prescribed penalty” and insert “there is a contravention of a provision of this Act, the proper officer may detain the goods”
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 11:30 a.m.
    “. . . A proper officer may inspect goods in transit and where there is a contravention of the provision of this Act, the proper officer may detain the goods”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    rose
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in clause 95 (1) (d) we have:
    “under the postal system, in accordance with the acts of the Universal Postal Union” …
    We have “act” with the lower case “a”. Would the Hon Chairman explain? Is he referring to the general laws of the
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Hon Member, use the microphone, so that what you are saying would be captured by the Hansard Department?
    Mr Avedzi 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the “act” being referred to is not any legislation. But if the Hon Minority Leader thinks that it is a legislation, he should come with the proper amendment, then we would look at it.
    I think it is:
    … “under the postal system, in accordance with the acts of the Universal Postal Union where the goods are carried by or for holder of the rights and obligations under the acts;”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the two mean different things. The first “act”;
    “under the postal system, in accordance with the acts of the Universal Postal Union where the goods are carried by or for holder of the rights and obligations under the acts;”
    We are talking about two different things. The first “acts”, I would want to believe relates to “activities”, but the second one relates to laws. So, we should look at how to construct it properly.
    Mr Avedzi 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we can move to the next one.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    I did not hear you.
    Mr Avedzi 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, let us defer it. I would want to consult, so that we can move to the next clause.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, clause 95 accordingly deferred.

    Clause 96 -- Transhipment
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Hon Members, there is no advertised amendment to this clause.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Ms Safo 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am sorry that I have to take you back to clause 95 (7).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    We have actually deferred the consideration of clause 95.
    Ms Safo 11:30 a.m.
    Very well, Mr Speaker.
    I would want to draw your attention to something, so that when we come back we would consider it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Very well.
    Ms Safo 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the construction where there is the insertion “there is a contravention …” there is a repetition of the phrase, “the proper officer”. Yet at the beginning of that
    clause, it states “A proper officer”. To repeat it, is a duplication.
    What I am suggesting is that, once we insert and with your permission, I beg to read:
    “A proper officer may inspect goods …”
    And the proposed amendment is that, we insert:
    “there is a contravention of the provision of this Act”, then it repeats, “the proper officer may detain the goods”
    I am further proposing that once “A proper officer” is at the beginning of the sentence, he is the person who bears the responsibility to detain the goods. So, the latter part where we repeat the “the proper officer may detain the goods” “the proper officer” should go, so that it would read:
    “A proper officer may inspect goods where there is a contravention of the provisions of this Act, detain the goods”.
    So that “the proper officer” will not be repeated in the sentence.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, please, take note, since we have deferred the consideration of clause 95, so that when we get back to it, all these issues can be considered.
    So, Hon Members, on clause 96, there is no advertised amendment and therefore, I will put the .
    Clause 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Hon Members, Mr Second Deputy Speaker is to take the Chair.
    Clause 97 -- Exports
    Mr Avedzi 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 97, subclause (5), paragraph (a), delete “including” and insert “excluding”
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 11:30 a.m.
    “the value of goods that are exported are the cost to the purchaser abroad excluding freights”.
    It should not be “including freights”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    rose
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 97 (1) has this construction:
    “For purposes of this section exports occur where goods are placed on board an aircraft or ship for consignment to a place outside the country”.
    Then clause 97 (2) says:
    “In the case of overland exportation, exports occur where the declaration is passed for that purpose and the goods cross the boundaries of the country.”
    Mr Speaker, I am not too sure of what is meant by that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    You are not too sure of what?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
    I am not too sure of what is meant by subclause (2). In the first instance, we have spoken about the medium of ferrying the goods outside the country, which is either by ship or
    aircraft. Why can we not state the same for overland export, because we are talking about road transport or maybe, rail transport as well? But the construction there does not bring that one out. I am not too sure what is meant by that in clause 97 (2)?
    11. 40 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Yes, Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Avedzi 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the 97 (1) made reference to export of goods by an aircraft or a ship. So,
    “For the purposes of this section, exports occur where goods are placed on board an aircraft or ship for consignment to a place outside the country.”
    That is for airlifting or through the sea.
    Now, the subclause (2) is referring to land where roads or any other means of transport is used -- saying that in the case of overland exportation, exporting from here to Togo. It reads:
    “In the case of overland exportation, export occurs when the declaration is passed for that purpose and the goods cross the boundaries of the country.”
    The reason we did this was that, when one gets to the border, they do not export most of the time using vehicles to cart the goods. There is something we call “deka, deka”, which means they carry the goods one-on-one on their heads across the border. It is also an export. It is leaving the boundaries of this country. So, the two could not be done by airlifting or shipping. It could be used by road, head, or whatever means. So, once it crosses the boundaries of this country, it is an export. That is why the subclause (2) is referring to overland exportation by that means.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, head porterage. These days, perhaps, one would be talking about bicycles and motorcycles, and so on. But I was saying that he should define the principal medium of ferrying the goods across the border, which is, maybe, by rail, road and water, and then we could include these others as ancillaries.
    But, why does he mention the two principal media: “by ship”, “by aircraft”? He could also be talking about even canoes and boats but he did not talk about them.
    So, I am saying that we could concentrate or maybe, isolate “some principal means of transport” and add others. Right?
    Mr Avedzi 11:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it would be very difficult to use or determine the means of transport when one is exporting overland. In the case of exporting outside by means of aircraft or ship, we do not have many airports. Even if we have many airports, we have the structures in place, that once you are exporting through the means of aircraft, we will know.
    We have the seaports; there are structures in place that when one is exporting through the Tema Port or the Takoradi Port, we could get the person. But in the case of the overland, there are many exit points to the entire country, that it would be difficult to know and to determine that one is exporting by means of motorbike or bicycle or whatever.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:30 a.m.
    Hon Members, the Hon Second Deputy Speaker will take over the Chair.
    MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr Avedzi 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is why the law is saying that once the goods leave the boundaries of this country, it is an
    export. We want to export overland and it has been passed for that. One can use head to carry the goods, bicycles, motorbike, donkeys, vehicle or canoe. Once we pass that the person is exporting, we cannot determine the means by which the exportation is done overland. That is why we are saying that once it crosses the boundaries of this country, it is assumed to be an export.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, my worry about what the Hon Chairman is trying to do is that the Bill defines export and:
    “export, means the act of taking out or causing to be taken out any goods from the country.”
    Now, by sea, 97 (1) is saying that one exports when he uses the medium of an aircraft or ship.
    We know these days, fishermen who go to catch fish, using canoes and boats, cross to neighbouring countries and sell their goods. They are exporting as well. Is it being said that once one does not use a ship or an aircraft, one has not involved oneself in any exports? One is exporting. So, that is my worry.
    When we come to the overland exportation, I thought that we should make the point clearer than we have done. So, in respect of even subclause (1), there are still some gaps, unless we have a way to define “ship” to include boats and canoes, otherwise, we will be in trouble.
    Mr Avedzi 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is a definition for conveyance and it includes boats and the rest. If you go to the definition of “Conveyance”, you would see that boats and those things have been captured under “conveyance”. But the point that the Hon Minority Leader is raising in this case -- [Interruption.]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, point of information.
    What he is saying is not even borne out of what we have before us.
    “‘Conveyances, means a ship, aircraft or vehicle”.
    Look at the meaning of “conveyance”.
    Mr Avedzi 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in reference to the point of the Hon Minority Leader with regard to the fishermen, if you read the subclause (2) carefully, it says that:
    “In the case of overland expor- tation, exports occur where the declaration is passed for that purpose…”
    So, if a fisherman goes to sea and decides to cross the boundaries of this country to sell, that is smuggling. That is not what we are referring to here. It must be passed for that purpose, that one is exporting. And when one uses his canoes to cross the boundaries, it is an export. So, the point he is raising is basically a different thing altogether. It is not what we are referring to here.
    We are referring to exportation by overland and we are saying that once we declare the goods are being exported by overland, it is only when they cross the boundaries of this country.
    So, if one has a quantity of goods that he wants to send to Togo and they have been entered and have been passed for that purpose, he can decide to carry them by any means and once they cross the boundaries of Ghana to Togo, it is an export. So, what he referred to is smuggling.
    Mr Kwasi Amoako-Attah 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the problem is solved if we advert our minds to the interpretation column in page 104 under Ship:
    “‘Ship, means floating craft of every description …”
    That it includes boats and canoes. So, the Hon Minority Leader's concern is addressed by this. And that is what I would want him to advert his mind to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    So, we can make progess.
    Mr Keyi-Mensah-Bonsu 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I said that if the definition of “ship” includes boats and canoes, then it would be covered. Then he went on saying that those people engaging in smuggling, and so -- Then he drew our attention to “conveyance”, which was not there.
    Mr Speaker, I think the definition of “ship” covers the issue that I raised, and I think we can go on.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Thank you.
    Mr Avedzi 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we even amended the definition for “conveyance”. So, if you read page 100, the new rendition would be:
    “conveyance, includes a ship, aircraft or vehicle”;
    It is not “means, ship”, so --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Hon Members, can we make progress?
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, let us make progress. That has been resolved. So, there is no amendment --
    Mr Avedzi 11:50 a.m.
    So, Mr Speaker, if you could put the Question on the clause 97?
    Mr Speaker, I need to go to the next amendment. We have done one. We did the 97 (5). So, I will move the next one, at item (xiii).
    Mr Avedzi 11:50 a.m.
    Yes.
    Mr Avedzi 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 97, subclause (5), paragraph (d), delete “accruing up to the point” and insert same before “where” in line 1 of concluding phrase.
    Mr Speaker, the purpose is to realign the point to read 11:50 a.m.
    “(d) all other costs, profits, charges and expenses and duties, accruing to the point where the goods are deposited on board the exporting conveyance and the place of departure from the country”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 97 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 99 -- Prohibited imports
    Mr Avedzi 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 99 -- subclause (1), line 2, delete “the goods are”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 11:50 a.m.
    “A person shall not import folded woven goods into the country unless…”
    Ms Safo 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I propose that after “unless” there should be a semi- colon.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Could you speak up, please?
    Ms Safo 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am saying that after deleting “the goods are”, the sentence would end at “unless”, and there should be a semi-colon before the subclauses (a), (b) and (c).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Do you agree with it or you do not agree with it?
    Ms Safo 11:50 a.m.
    I agree with the amendment. But I am saying to further amend it, after “unless” the sentence does not end there; there are subclauses (a), (b) and (c). But for drafting purposes, there should be a semi-colon to show that there are other subclauses there.
    I so propose.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    Or a colon, because if you look at (a) -- after (a) it is a semi-colon.
    At the end of (a), there is a semi-colon. So, there should be a colon, not a semi- colon.
    But thank you all the same. I am sure the draftspersons would take it into account.
    Ms Safo 11:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    I said; “thank you”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 11:50 a.m.
    I suggest that the draftspersons take into account the suggestion made by Hon Adwoa Safo.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Avedzi noon
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 99, subclause (1), paragraph (a), before “folded” insert “the goods are”.
    Mr Speaker, this is in line with the earlier one; just that we are removing “the goods are” from the opening sentence and

    bringing it before the beginning of paragraph (a). So, the paragraph (a) would read:

    “(a) the goods are folded in folds of not less than one metre or thirty nine inches in length .”

    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Avedzi noon
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 99, subclause (7) --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker noon
    Hon Chairman, clause 99 has no subclause (7), unless I am holding a different document.
    Hon Minority Leader, is there a subclause (7)?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
    Mr Speaker, there is no subclause (7).
    Mr Avedzi noon
    The subclause (7) should read subclause (2).
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 99 ,subclause (2), lines 1 and 2, delete “metres” and insert “metres and centimetres” and in line 2, delete “customs” and insert “custom”.
    The new rendition would read:
    “Words, figures, marks or abbreviation of the words metres and centimetres which according to common usage or the customs of the trade are commonly taken to indicate the measure of folded woven goods may be used in marking the folded woven goods.”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
    Mr Speaker, the Chairman is confusing himself and the entire House.
    I beg to read from clause 99 (1) (a):
    “A person shall not import folded woven goods into the country unless…”
    He said we should bring “the goods are” down to clause 99 (1) (a):
    “…..unless the goods are folded in folds of not less than one metre or thirty-nine inches in length”.
    Then subclause 1(b):
    “each piece is marked with the number of metres and inches”.
    He said that going down to subclause 2, we should now apply ourselves to metres -- and what is he saying centimetre?
    So, what is this? Mr Speaker, we should be consistent. If we do not want to use metres, centimetres translate into inches. So, if he wants to use metres, then of course, he should apply himself to feet. If he wants to talk about centimetres, he should talk about inches as well.
    So, let us be consistent, so that we have the flow. Otherwise, with this gaggling, he would confuse himself and the construction in the Bill. Let us be very consistent. He should start from clause 99 (1) (a)and come down.
    Mr Avedzi noon
    Mr Speaker, the clause 99 (1) (a) says that:
    “A person shall not import folded woven goods into the country unless the goods:
    (a) are folded in folds of not less than one metre or thirty-nine inches in length;
    (b) each piece is marked with the number of metres and inches; and
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker noon
    I will put the Question.
    Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu noon
    Mr Speaker, I still think that if we are talking about metres, we should also add maybe -- “inches” or “metres” if we have to be consistent, which according to the common usage or -- The Chairman says now that it should be “custom of the trade”. Is it “custom of the trade” or “customs of the trade”? [Interruption.]
    Mr Speaker, to save ourselves, because we are dealing with customs and excise as a unit, then perhaps, we are talking about the conventions and practices. Let us make the distinction, otherwise -- Mr Speaker, -- [Interruption.] Instead of the “custom” or “customs” -- Mr Speaker, it should be under the practices or the conventions -- [Laughter.]
    Mr Avedzi noon
    Mr Speaker, if the use of the word “custom” within the Customs Bill or Customs Act would be confusing,
    then we need to charge the word “custom” to “the practices of the trade”. So, the new rendition will read:
    “Words, figures, marks or abbrevia- tion of the words metres and centimetres which according to the common usage or the practices of the trade.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker noon
    Chairman of the Committee, thank you.
    Hon Papa Owusu-Ankomah?
    I was wondering whether in law, we say “custom of the trade” or “practices of the trade”. What is the legal phraseology we usually use? Or we should leave it to the draftspersons to --
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah noon
    Mr Speaker, I must apologise. I was not following the debate. Except to say that, I do not know whether customs and practices are interchangeable. I believe that customs and practices are used in the same manner. We do not use customs as against practices. It should be “customs and practices of the trade.”
    Mr Benjamin K. Kpodo noon
    Mr Speaker, we should maintain the word “custom”. The definition here is, “accepted or habitual practice”. This is according to the Advance English Dictionary. It is different from “custom”. Now, any attempt to change it would take away the true meaning of the word as it has been used in the Bill. So, I think that we should go back and maintain the word “custom” without “s” which means “accepted or habitual practice”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Adwoa Safo and then Hon Yieleh Chireh.
    Ms Sarah A. Safo 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, the Hon Member said that the source of his definition is the dictionary. But I do not see the dictionary in front of him. How do we know that the Hon Member is not misleading this House?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Papa Owusu-Ankomah?
    Papa Owusu-Ankomah 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am looking at words defined.
    I have these words, and they say;
    “(1.) “Noun (customs) -- accepted or a habitual practice.
    Usage/usance.”
    “(2.) A specific practice of long standing. Money collected under a tariff; customs, customs duty in post, but an accepted or a habitual practice.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Thank you.
    Mr Chireh 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, precisely, because of what the Hon Member said word for word, I think that the amendment that the Minority Leader is making is appropriate. It describes the practice of that particular trade and therefore, whether it is habitual, once he is proposing the word “practice”, we should accept it.
    The other one would have been to ignore the “custom” altogether because it is the usage of the trade. When you also look at it, you could just do away with the “custom”. But I think his suggestion of “practice” is better because it is practice within that trade.

    So, “custom of the trade” is rather not too convenient for this purpose. I think that it should be “the usages and practices of the trade”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader -- Hon Agbesi?
    Chairman of the Committee, I hope you are listening.
    Mr Agbesi 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the definition, which Hon Papa Owusu - Ankomah has also agreed to.
    If you say, “according to common usage” or “accepted or habitual practice or usage”, it is precisely what the subclause (1) portrays. It says “accepted or habitual usage”, and that is exactly what is happening. So, I agree to the rendition being rendered by the Hon Chairman, that the word “custom” should be maintained.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, I believe that the debate is whether we should use the word “custom” or “practice”.
    Mr Agbesi 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, custom is custom --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    The debate is whether we should use the word “custom” as in the proposed amendment or we should use the word; “practice”, as proposed by the Hon Minority Leader. I believe that is where we are.
    Hon Minority Leader, I think that if we go forward, could we leave it to the draftsperson? This is because I am sure this is not the first time that “custom of a trade”or “practice of a trade” is being used in our law. So, it should be consistent with what they used.
    From the definitions we have read from the dictionaries, “custom” and “practice” can be used interchangeably.
    Hon Chairman, should we leave it to the draftspersons, and move the amendment in the manner as “custom” or “practice”, so that the draftsperson could choose?
    Mr Avedzi 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think it is the draftsperson who brought this to us. So, if we think that it is something that we should vote on, then we can vote on it. If we would want to change it, we can change it here, and vote on it.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 99 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I said I realised that you were purposed not to recognise me. This is because I stood up on many occasions, you looked in my direction and overlooked me.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    I did not hear you, Hon Minority Leader.
    You realised that I refused to recognise you? God forbid!
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    God forbid!
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wanted to support the issue that the Hon Chairman raised. Nobody was quarreling with the meaning of “customs,” it is the context that we were talking about.
    But having said so, I wanted to propose that the use of the words, or abbreviation of the words, where it situates, is incorrect.
    It should rather follow after “words” in subclause (2), so that we shall have “words or abbreviation of the words”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Where is that, please?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 99 (2). What we have just dealt with.
    We have “words, figures, marks or abbreviation of the words”. The “abbreviation of the words”. The “abbreviation of the words” should follow after the “words”. So, it should be “words or abbreviation of the words, figures, marks, metres…”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    Thank you very much.
    We direct the draftsperson accor- dingly, and the direction is that the phrase, “abbreviation of the words” must follow the word; “words”.
    Clause 100 -- Penalty for breach of sections 98 and 99
    Mr Avedzi 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 100, subclause (1), line 3, after “three” insert “hundred per cent of”
    Mr Speaker, so the rendition would still read;
    “not more than hundred per cent of the duty payable on the goods”, and not “three times the duty payable on the goods.”
    Mr Speaker, we would want to be consistent with what we were doing from the beginning, by changing all “three times” to three hundred per cent”.
    Mr Speaker, I so move.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Avedzi 12:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 100, subclause (3), delete and insert the following:
    “(3) A penalty provided for in sub- sections (1) and (2) does not apply to a person who imports or holds folded woven goods.
    a. Where the folded woven goods are shorter than indicated by the mark upon them by not more than
    (i) 10.26 centimetres in a piece marked 9.144 metres or under;
    (ii) 12.70 centimetres in a piece marked above 9.144 metres and up to 21.03 metres;
    (iii) 17.78 centimetres in a piece marked 21.03 metres and up to 32.92 metres;
    (iv) 22.86 centimetres in a piece marked above 32.92 metres and up 42.98 metres; or
    (v) 47.72 centimetres in a piece marked above 42.98 metres; or”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:10 p.m.
    I will put the Question on clause 100 --
    Yes, Hon Minority Leader? I do not want to be accused of not seeing you. I am monitoring your movements, any shift in your movement in the chair, then I will quickly -- So, I saw you; you shifted from one leg to another.

    Clause 100 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was signalling the Chairman of the Finance Committee in respect of clause 99 (4) (c).
    The “goods” that has been described -- “Indian baft.” Mr Speaker, I know indian baft is just one of what is referred to as “grey baft.” If it is grey baft that we want to talk about, why should we single out the “indian baft”?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of Committee, the Hon Minority Leader says “grey baft” we know, but “indian baft” we do not know and I agree with him.
    Mr Avedzi 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the practi- tioners in this case, the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) have certified the “indian baft” not “grey baft” in general.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Is it the same thing?
    Mr Avedzi 12:20 p.m.
    It is not the same thing, it is “baft” but this is the “indian baft”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    All right. I think we have already put the Question on Clause 100.
    Clause 101 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 102 --
    Mr Emmanuel A. Gyamfi 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am sorry to bring you back to Clause 101. If you go to subsection (1)
    “A proper officer may request an importer of a package supposed to contain folded woven goods”.
    Mr Emmanuel A. Gyamfi 12:20 p.m.


    Mr Speaker, if you go to the Interpretation section , an “officer” has been defined. So, we do not have “a proper officer.” I proposed an amendment that the words “ proper” should be deleted and be substituted with “an officer” which has been defined in the Interpretation section. We do not have “A proper officer.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Member, we have already taken this. The Hon Member was on his feet but I did not recognise him. He is suggesting that instead of “a proper officer” it should be “officer”. This is because “officer” is what he has defined; there is nothing in the Bill as “a proper officer”. An officer is an officer.
    What is your view on that matter?
    Mr Avedzi 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that “A proper officer” is determined in the Bill. He should read what “A proper officer” means. Everybody is an officer, I am an officer; you are also an officer. But in the language of Customs, “A proper officer” is somebody who is authorisd by the Commissioner-General to perform a duty.
    Mr Gyamfi 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, an officer is an officer; we do not have “A proper officer”. Mr Speaker, “A proper officer” has not been defined.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Member, can I refer you to page 103, please?
    Mr Gyamfi 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “officer” means a person employed by the Ghana Revenue Authority” --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Sorry. Hon Member, look at page 103.
    Mr Gyamfi 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, page 102 --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    No! Page 103.
    Mr Avedzi 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, a “proper officer” is defined in page 103 “A proper office” means --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, please, let us take it step by step. You are right in the sense that “officer” has been defined but “proper officer” has also been defined at page 103. I thought you were going to raise the question on “supposed”. But I am not supposed to debate. So, I do not know what “supposed” means in this; “…an importer of a package supposed to contain …” I have a problem with the word “supposed” but I am not supposed to comment. So, I will not comment; we can proceed.
    Anyway, thank you Hon Member. I have already put the Question. So, this was an extra ordinary consideration. We have already gone through to clause 101, so I will put the Question.
    Am I correct? I am on clause 102.
    Clause 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 103 -- Application of section 98 to 101
    Mr Avedzi 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 103, subclause (3), delete and insert the following:
    “Application
    103. This part does not
    (1) exempt a person from a suit or other proceedings which may be brought against that person; or
    (2) affect any provision of Trade Marks Act, 2004 (Act 664), except so far as that Act relates to trade
    descriptions, as to the measure only of folded goods woven goods within the scope and meaning of this Part”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 103 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 104 -- Refund and remission
    Mr Avedzi 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 104, subclause (7), delete and insert the following:
    “(7) The Commissioner-General may remit or refund the duty due or paid on goods where
    (a) the goods are lost by accident
    -- 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Avedzi 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 113, subclause (5), line 5, delete “times” and insert “hundred per cent of”
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition will read,
    “…not more than three hundred per cent of the amount of duty payable on the goods.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I must confess that I have not had enough time to peruse this Bill. But as we went along, I noticed a few things. That is why I am worried at the pace at which we are moving. We just dealt with clause 103 and the Chairman called for the deletion of subclause (3) and the insertion of what was proposed, captured at page 9 of today's Order Paper.
    Mr Speaker, subclause (2), “application”, reads 12:20 p.m.
    “This part does not affect any provision of the Trade Marks Act, 2004 (Act 664), except so far that Act relates to trade…”
    Mr Speaker, I think it is a bit confusing and I thought that the better rendition should be, “except in so far as the Act” not “that Act” because we are talking about the Trade Marks, Act, 2004. So, “except in so far as the Act”, Trade Marks Act in this case, “relates to trade description” and so on and so forth. That should be the better way to capture it. But maybe, the draftspersons will take it up.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, even when you look at the original rendition, “This does not affect any provision of the Trade Marks Act, 2004”. When you look at the amendment, it says, “affects any provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 2004.” The word “the” is even absent.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you are very observant. That should even come before what I proposed --
    “. . . affect any provision of the Trade Marks Act, 2004 Act 664, except in so far as the Act relates to trade descriptions as to the measure only of folded goods, woven goods. . . ”
    Again, there is a problem there, whether it should be “folded goods” or “woven goods.” There should be a conjunct. “Folded goods” or “woven goods” within the scope and meaning of this part. The whole thing is --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, the old rendition reads, “folded woven goods” but the new one reads, “folded goods, woven goods”. Is there a difference between “folded goods” and “woven goods” or it is the printer's devil?
    Mr Avedzi 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, these are woven goods that were folded.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    So, it should be “folded woven goods”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    So, the “goods” in the proposed amendment is wrong. The first “goods”.
    Mr Avedzi 12:20 p.m.
    The first “goods” should not be there. It should be “folded woven goods”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Also if we can also take into account,
    “affect any provision of the Trade Marks Act, 2004 (Act 664) except in so far as that Act relates to trade descriptions as to the measure only of folded woven goods.”
    Mr Avedzi 12:20 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    But I cannot say it, so, you say it.
    Mr Avedzi 12:20 p.m.
    The Hon Minority Leader is coming up with the amendment. He can propose it and I will look at it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Minority Leader, we have agreed in the spirit of friendship to go back. So, if you can give us a rendition, the draftsperson will take care of it.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it should read:
    “. . . affect any provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 2004 (Act 664)”.
    So, there should be a line between “of” and “trade”, there should be “the” inserted. Then line two, between “except” and “so”, we should insert “in”. In the same line two, “that” should be deleted and in its place, we insert “they”. In line 3 at the end, we should delete “goods”. So, it will read:
    “. . . affect any provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 2004 (Act 664) except in so far as the Act relates to trade description as to the measure only of folded woven goods within the scope and meaning of this part”.
    Mr Speaker, “the folded woven goods” would then be in tandem with what has been captured in clause 99.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Does “the Act” in the second line refer to the Trade Marks Act, 2004 (Act 664) or an activity?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it refers to the Trade Marks Act, 2004 (Act 664). That is why we are proposing that, the word, “that” should read “the” -- “of the trade Marks Act”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Since we have already taken it, I will direct the draftsperson to take into account these friendly interventions that are unanimously agreed to by the House, made by the Minority Leader, with the active cooperation and assistance of the Chairman of the Committee.
    Hon K. T. Hammond, are you on your feet?
    Mr Kobina T. Hammond 12:20 p.m.
    No, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Chair- man of the Committee, we have finished with clause 104. We just did up to clause 112. So, we are on clause 113. We have finished with clause 113. So, we are on clause 114 now.
    Clauses 114 to 116 --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect, we should go back again to clause 103. It seems to me that the word “Act” - Mr Speaker, you asked me what it referred to and I said I guessed it referred to the Trade Marks Act, 2004. I think the “Act” there really refers to activities just like we did with the customs. So, if you reflect, we may, perhaps, come to realise that it rather relates to activities. So, it will read:,
    “. . . affects any provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 2004 (Act 664), except insofar as that Act relates to trade descriptions …”
    I am beginning to think that that is the import of that word “Act”. So, if the Chairman can, maybe, reflect on that. It does not appear that it really relates to a law but an activity. Mr Chairman, so, if you can reflect on that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Yieleh Chireh?
    Mr Chireh 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I tried to follow what the Hon Minority Leader said but it was difficult except that if you look at subclause (2) of the amendment, there are two words there that need to be separated by “and”, -- “folded” and “woven” goods. This is because folded goods are different from woven goods; they are not the same; so --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would refer my Hon Colleague to clause 99, that is where the description of “folded woven goods” -- [inaudible.]
    Mr Chireh 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what I am saying is that if he wants to describe the goods and he says “folded woven goods”, that is fine. He cannot say “folded goods”, “woven goods” -- That is what I am saying.
    This amendment he has proposed, I really do not follow the issue because the that “Act” refers to the Trademark Act and there should not be any confusion what he is referring to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Hon Members, I think that if there are any more -- [Pause]
    Hon Members, I think that clause 113 is a well flogged clause and if there are any more suggestions, we should take them to the second Consideration Stage. So, we should make progress.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clauses 114 to 116 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Hon Members, I was advised that you have set for yourselves a time limit of quarter to 1:00 p.m. and unless my eyesight is bad, I believe that it is a quarter to 1:00 p.m.

    Should we bring the Consideration Stage to a close?

    We should go to one 120? Up to 120 as of time or 120 as of clause?

    Clause 120? All right.

    Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my understanding is that you have put the Question on clause 116.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Clause 116? Yes, I did.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we can go back to it, with respect.
    Clause (116) (1) says,
    “An officer, when on duty, may patrol and pass freely along and over any part of the country.”
    Yes, an officer on duty may patrol -- why do we say “an officer when on duty…?” An officer on duty would do that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Draftspersons, let us look at this suggestion, instead of “an officer, when on duty,” we should look at the possibility of “an officer on duty.”
    I thought that you were going to mention “pass freely along and over”, that is, officers who have hovercrafts. But then
    I corrected myself; maybe, they would be sitting in helicopters. So, they would be patrolling over but that is --
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    You do not have to answer that -- All right.
    Mr Avedzi 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, an Hon Member wanted to know, for us to restrict “a proper officer” to “an officer”. In the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA), everybody is an officer. So, a person may be an officer, but that person may not be on duty, but that person can go round to a duty post. should that person be allowed to patrol round?
    So, that is why it says, “Might be an officer, when on duty...” A staff of GRA, by designation, I am an officer but because that person may not be on duty, that person should not be allowed to patrol round. It is only when that officer is on duty that he is mandated to patrol round. That is why the point is relevant in this context.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee, it is an interesting point you have made because a police officer is an officer whether he is on duty.
    He is a police officer and he has the powers of a police officer. He can arrest, if a police sees a crime being committed. He does not have to be on duty before -- Yes! But you are saying that with regard to customs officers, we are restricting some of their powers to when they are on duty.
    At least, the power to patrol is when he is on duty. When he is on duty, then he can patrol along or over the whole of the country of Ghana. He can be in the air or on the ground. All right.
    Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that on this spirited defence-- really, if the Chairman of the Committee insists on what he is saying, then I would suggest to him that the proper rendition then would be “proper officer”. This is because an officer in the interpretation, means, a person employed by the GRA. We did not say an officer, we said an officer on duty. If we want to make that distinction, which I think is a distinction without difference, then we should rather go for “proper officer” because “proper officer” is defined to mean, “an officer, whose right or duty it is to exact the performance of or to perform the act referred to.”
    In that case, we should go in for that, for consistency sake. I think that an officer charged with the responsibility is an officer on duty. Otherwise, we should go in for “proper officer”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    But Hon Minority Leader, if we go in for “proper officer” there then, what about clauses 113, 114, 115 and all the other places where “officer” has been mentioned? Then why do we need an officer and why do we not just choose “proper officer” all the way through?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that was what I wanted to show to him, that in this case, we can just restrict ourselves to “an officer on duty.” I think that it would bear his own sentiments.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Minority Leader, I think you have raised an interesting point and I would plead with the Chairman of the Committee and your good self to consider it. Like I gave the analogy of the police officer, a police officer is a police officer but now, there seems to be a distinction from the definition, as I had seen that a customs officer is a customs officer but he must be properly designated to do something
    and that definition is a “proper officer.” When you look at clause 116, (2), it seems it goes to absolve the person from legal action if he does that.
    So, it seems to suggest that unless he is a “proper officer,” stricto sensu, he cannot even do that. Look at clause 116
    (2).
    Chairman of the Committee, should we just proceed and then you will think about this thing, if you think that this is the way it has to go?
    I think at this stage, we should think about that, whether we want two categories of officers -- a “proper officer” and “an officer”. I think I read in the newspapers a few days ago, that for example, Immigration Officers or Customs Officers are going to be carrying weapons.
    Do we want that situation where a customs officer cannot take action because he is not a “proper officer”? Is that what we are seeking to create? I do not know.
    Mr Avedzi 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the issue is actually about the “officer on duty” patrolling and then passing freely over any part of the country.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    But an officer on duty, Mr Chairman, is a proper officer.
    Mr Avedzi 12:50 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    A “proper officer” means that;
    “an officer whose right of duty it is to exact the performance or to perform the act referred to”
    So, an officer who has to be on duty is a proper officer. An officer who is not on duty is just an officer simplicita. The Hon Minority Leader is asking why do you not
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.


    say “proper officer” instead of “officer”? But if he says that for clause 116, then I also ask the Hon Minority Leader, what about 114, 113, and 115? So, does it mean that we must say “proper officer” in every case?

    Hon Yieleh Chireh, we will end here while they consider it.
    Mr Chireh 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if he has looked at the definition that has been given for “officer” as anybody employed by the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA), then the “proper officer” in this case has something to do with the customs duty. But clause 116 talks about any officer who has been employed by the GRA and who, from time to time, is put on duty. That is why we do not need to define and put it there as “proper officer”, because the ruling words there are “duty, may patrol”.
    So, an officer having been given this -- we do not need to change the position to mean a “proper officer”; any officer. But this one about customs has to do with where he is and what duties -- If you look at the context in which the “proper officer” was defined, it is somebody who would have to give the value of something, somebody who would determine what the customs would be, unlike any officer of the GRA who is under Customs performing his duties anywhere else and can be assigned to any duty.
    If you also look at it in terms of the fact that the Customs have some paramilitary function, then clause 116 clearly shows that it should be what it is and not given a “proper officer” definition.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Thank you, Hon Yieleh Chireh. Yes?
    Mr A. Gyamfi 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that was why I rose earlier to check on this “proper
    officer” and “an officer”. When one is an officer, one is given a specific responsibility. So, for us to have a “proper officer” who is in charge of a particular assignment and then an officer who is an officer of the GRA, in my view, it is very confusing and we should try as much as possible to avoid this.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Hon Members, we will not arrive at a decision on this. We will seek direction from the Chairman. But let me just say that the reason we allow such an in-depth discussion of these matters is because of the Interpretation Act we passed here.
    Under the new Interpretation Act, when the courts are interpreting an Act, they will take into consideration our debates. That is why we allow so much discussion on this issue. So, before the Hon Minority Leader comes in, I will call my Hon Friend who rose earlier -- Or have you abandoned your intervention?
    Mr Benjamin K. Kpodo 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rose earlier to explain what the term “proper officer” would mean in the GRA set up. There are various levels at which officers are ranked. One may be allowed to approve things up to GH¢1,000.00; another up to GH¢2,000.00; and another to a higher amount. If we do not specify who a “proper officer” is at a particular time, somebody who does not have authority to perform a higher duty would perform that duty and that is not proper in the context of the law.
    That is why we need to define who a “proper officer” to perform a specific duty is and that is what the law seeks to clarify. The definition of “proper officer” is very clear in the Act and it is different from any other officer on duty.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Thank you very much.
    Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that we are congregating around a common cause and I believe for clause 116, we could do with the following:
    “An officer, when on duty, may patrol and pass freely along and over any part of the country.”
    Mr Speaker, I so move.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    On that basis, we will make progress.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the import of what I have said is that we delete “when” so that it would read “an officer on duty”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Hon Chairman?
    Mr Avedzi 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is alright.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    So, I will put the Question again on clause 116 because it was part of the wholesale Question that I put.
    I will direct the draftsperson to take into account the suggestion made by the Hon Minority Leader and agreed to by the Chairman of the Committee.
    Chairman of Committee, I think this brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just a little matter in respect of the same clause 116.
    There has been a double counting -- clause 116 (2), the second (2) should be (3). It should be 116 (3) and not 116 (2). The greater matter is, we cannot have a clause reading like this;
    “An officer is not liable to prose- cution or legal action for doing so.”
    What does it mean?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    It means that he is not liable. [Laughter.] That is what it means.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we should have a proper --
    “An officer is not liable to prosecution or legal action for doing so.”
    It is incomplete. It should have reference to the Act supra, that is in respect of (2) above. So, it should have a better construction. It cannot just stand alone like that --
    “An officer is not liable to prosecution or legal action for doing so.”
    For doing what? We should expand it to let it reflect what is contained in (2). I guess Hon Yieleh Chireh could offer some relief in this because the second (2) refers to commissions expressed in 116 (2).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    I have not heard any response and I think we will look at that.
    I agree with the number but what you said about the second part, we will look at it tomorrow.

    That brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage for today.

    Yes, Deputy Majority Leader?
    Mr Avedzi 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we can go back to item number 4, laying of Papers.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Yes, item number 4, Presentation of Papers.
    Mr Avedzi 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your permission and the indulgence of my Hon Colleague, may I lay the Paper on behalf of the Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Yes, item numbered 4, Presentation of Papers.
    PAPERS 1 p.m.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    The Public Accounts Committee knows that, like every other committee, when a Paper is referred to them, they would have to consider it and come with a report. I would say so for the avoidance of doubt.
    Item 4 (a) (v).
    By Mr James K. Avedzi (On behalf of the Hon Majority Leader) --
    (v) Report of the Auditor-General on the Public Accounts of Ghana (Ministries, Departments and other Agencies of the Central Government) for the year ended 31st December, 2013.
    (vi) Report of the Auditor-General on the Public Accounts of Ghana (Public Boards, Corporations and other statutory institutions) for the year ended 31st December,
    2013.
    Referred to the Public Accounts Committee.
    By Mr James K. Avedzi (on behalf of the Hon Majority Leader) --
    (vii) Annual Report of the National Commission for Civic Education for the year, 2013.
    Referred to the Special Budget Committee.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this one is just a small change but for record purposes, item 4 (a), the Paper was to be laid by “the Hon Majority Leader and Leader of the House”. Actually, it is Hon Majority Leader and the Leader of the House and so, that error must be rectified.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Prof. Gyan-Baffour is an author, and when authors are speaking, we have to treat it with respect. He has an eye for details and I take that into consideration -- What he is saying is that by the “Majority Leader and Leader of the House”. When one looks at 4 (a), what is in bold is “by the Majority Leader and Leader of the House.”
    It should be “Majority Leader and Leader of the House”. And I am saying that Prof. Gyan-Baffour is an author. So, when an author speaks, one would have to treat it with some care because of the details that go into authorship of a book.
    Mr Avedzi 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, item 4 (b), by the Hon Minister for Food and Agriculture.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to seek your permission and indulgence of my Hon Colleagues for the Hon Deputy Minister for Food and Agriculture to lay the Paper on behalf of the Hon Minister.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Let me just ask a question. First, it is by my permission and so, if I refuse it, then we cannot progress.
    But the more serious issue is that -- the practice in government, when one Minister is not there, another Minister acts. In that case, I have no problem. I like the Hon Deputy Minister. But why do we not let another Hon Minister do it? However, permission is granted as we think about that.
    By the Deputy Minister for Food and Agriculture (Dr Ahmed Y. Alhassan) (on behalf of the Minister for Food and Agriculture) --
    Agricultural Sector Annual Progress Report of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture for the year ended 31st December, 2013.
    Referred to the Committee on Food, Agricultural and Cocoa Affairs.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, still on the issue that was raised by the Hon Member for Wenchi, the Hon Majority Leader, in laying this Report, does so in his capacity as the Leader of the House and not as the Majority Leader.
    Mr Speaker, in crafting laws, if a matter relates to, say, agriculture, we say the Minister responsible for Food and Agriculture or the Minister responsible for Finance, even though we may have a Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
    Mr Agbesi 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in this House, we have the Hon Majority Leader and Leader of the House; the Majority Leader is the Leader of the House. I do not see any problem with these two things. He doubles as the Hon Majority Leader and the Leader of the House. So, if a Paper is to be laid by him, he is described as such, that he is the Hon Majority Leader and the Leader of the House.
    I do not think that this is something we should be debating over. In any case, the Paper is duly laid by the Hon Majority Leader and Leader of the House. I do not see any problem with these words.
    Mr Speaker, in any case, at this stage, I would want to move, that the House do adjourn till tomorrow, Wednesday at 10.00 in the forenoon.
    Mr Alexander Kwamina Afenyo- Markin 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, a matter was raised by the Hon Minority Leader and it requires—Whatever it is, it is an application he made, with respect, but he sought to give his own views and then he proceeded to move for an adjournment. I am confused.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    All
    right—
    Hon Minority Leader, the House has been moved for adjournment. I know that you have already made an application. What is your pleasure?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought that in the performance of this function, the Hon Majority Leader played his role as the Leader of the House. I thought that we did not need the description of “Majority Leader” in this context. Otherwise, the Hon Majority Leader, in our circumstance, also has another hat, the hat of the Leader of Government Business.
    Would you say that; “By the Hon Majority Leader, Leader of the House and Leader of Government Business”? But those are his roles.
    That is why I am saying that in the performance of this act, the function as specified under the title, he is doing so in his capacity not as Majority Leader and Leader of Government Business, but as Leader of the House. That is the application that I sought to make.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Thank you.
    Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I noticed that you want to hurry us out of the House and sensing that from you, I would obediently second the Motion—
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Oh! No!
    Hon Minority Leader, today, you have ascribed things to me that I do not know of. As far as the first matter is concerned, my view was strictly to abide by the Lord's Prayer which says that I should not be led into temptation.
    I did not want to be led into the temptation of discussing that issue. This is because I know there are strong views on it in the House, and I would want to stay out of it for the time being—Majority
    Leader, Leader of the House, Leader of Government Business; I think you are right, but I do not intend to rule on it.
    The Motion has been moved and ably seconded.
    I want to assure you that there is no sense on my part. I am your humble servant and if you ask me to sit here till 8:00 in the evening, I would be prepared to sit. But I was advised that it was rather you who was in a hurry to go for a committee meeting. You have very important matters to adhere to.
    That is why I was trying to move the House to adjourn in your favour. But if you say we should stay behind, no problem. I am willing to stay behind, or I should take the Motion?
    Before I take the Motion, I want to draw your attention to Standing Order 70 (1), which says;
    “Mr Speaker may make Statements on any matter of interest to the House.”
    I believe that Mr Speaker, in this circumstance, means First Deputy Speaker as well as Second Deputy Speaker, and I want to bring the attention of the House to the fact that one of our Hon Colleagues, to be precise, Hon Prof. Gyan-Baffour has written a book titled, “Strategic Management—Concept and Analysis”, which he is launching this afternoon. He has been gracious enough to give me a copy of his book.
    Hon Members, I think it is a laudable thing. The book is about strategic management of organisations and strategic management as an art of decision- making.
    I will ask him what time it is being launched, so that we use the opportunity to invite all of you to be there.
    Yes, Prof. Gyan-Baffour, what time and where is it being launched?
    Prof Gyan-Baffour 1:10 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this honour.
    It would be launched at 4.00 p.m. at the British Council Hall.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Thank you and I am sure that I speak for the House, if I congratulate him on a good job done. I am sure that it would help many of us to also be inspired to follow his footsteps by writing.
    Mr David Tetteh Assumeng —rose —
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Hon Member, do you want to say something?
    Mr Assumeng 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to know how much the book is going for—[Laughter.]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    I thought you were going to congratulate him?
    Mr Assumeng 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, definitely I should add my voice —
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    I think Hon Dr Hanna Bisiw too wants to say something?
    Mr Assumeng 1:10 p.m.
    I should know how much it is going for and I would also—
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    I have seen Hon Dr Hanna Bisiw and I feel it in my spirit that she has something to say to Prof. Gyan-Baffour.
    Dr Hanna Bisiw 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the only thing that I would just want to say is, congratulations. Professor, you have made us proud. We would try to be there
    —
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    And last but not least, we will give the last words
    to Hon Afenyo-Markin and I will put the Question — Say something, Hon Afenyo- Markin.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am in a very sad mood but having this opportunity — My Municipal Chief Executive (MCE) passed on—He was a great man—The MCE for Efutu; your own constituency but may his soul rest in perfect peace.
    Mr Speaker, at the appropriate time, we would find words to express all the great things that he did for mother Ghana and Winneba in particular.
    Mr Speaker, of course, I would try to participate—I would be there. We are here as young men and I believe my Hon Colleagues, some young ones there are ready to learn and so, if we get such an encouraging book from him — we would try and take it. We pray that more of our seniors — with their experience --
    Experience matters—You have written several books and I know that you are working hard on one and so, to say that we are learning at your feat. It is not an understatement. We congratulate him and commend him for that effort.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, I will put the Question. The Motion has been moved and seconded, that this House stands adjourned till tomorrow at 10.00 in the forenoon.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    ADJOURNMENT 1:10 p.m.