Debates of 9 Jun 2015

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS noon
ANNOUNCEMENTS noon
Mr Speaker noon
Hon Members, I am in receipt of a communication from the Hon Member for Talensi, Hon Robert Mosore, informing the House of his resignation as a Member of Parliament.
Hon Members, the Hon Member called on me yesterday to formally inform me of his current status as the Tongo Rana and Paramount Chief of the Tongo Traditional Area.
We had a very fruitful discussion together with the Hon Majority Leader and indeed, the Hon Deputy Minority Leader and at this stage, I can only wish him well in his new endeavour.
Hon Members, thank you very much.
Hon Deputy Minority Leader?
Mr Dominic Bingab Aduna Nitiwul noon
Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
Mr Speaker, Hon Members would recall that on Friday, Mr Speaker announced, he had received a letter from the Hon Robert Mosore, now, Tongo Rana that he would be leaving this House because he has assumed a new title, he has entered the noble profession of chiefs.
Mr Speaker noon
Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Alban S. K. Bagbin noon
Thank you Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, I stand to add my voice to Parliament's joy. I must say, that, for the first time, an Hon Member of this Honourable House has been given the honour of becoming the Paramount Chief of a traditional area in this country.

Mr Speaker, the Hon Member for Talensi is called Robert Nachinab Doameng Mosore. Nachibab means, he is a chief of the youth. So, you can see that,

from birth, Jah had blessed him. No wonder, he is not just the chief of the youth but of a whole paramount area called Tongo, the Tongo Traditional Council. Indeed, he has been enskined and he is the paramount chief.

Mr Speaker, we believe that it is appropriate that we give the Hon Member or I should say now, former Hon Member an opportunity for him to be present here for us to take that occasion to eulogise, not just him, but the honour that has been given us by our people.

He had the opportunity through election to come and serve his people and his people feel that throughout his life, the way he has been groomed and moulded, it is fitting and proper for him to come to be the Paramount Chief. So, they went through the custom by nominating him, by selecting him, and by enskining him. So, it is not just the vote of the people but it is-- Even the elders have proved that he is worthy to be a leader.

So, Mr Speaker, with your kind permission, and I am sure it is the joy of Hon Colleagues that he be given that opportunity to come at the appropriate time for us to say more words about how honoured and happy we are with this development.
Mr Speaker noon
Leadership should accordingly arrange with him when it would be appropriate for the former Hon Member to be in the House so that the necessary courtesies can be arranged to duly honour him.
Secondly, the Clerk to Parliament should send the necessary communica- tion to the Electoral Commission on the matter.
Leadership, if that can be done in bringing the Paramount Chief to the House, I am prepared to relax the rules and if that can be done as early as possible before we are caught in bye-election issues.
So, Leadership should get in touch with the former Hon Member.
Mr First Deputy Speaker to take the Chair.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 12:10 p.m.
Mr Speaker 12:10 p.m.
Hon Members, let us proceed with the Correction of Votes and Proceedings. Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 5th June, 2015.
  • [No correction was made to the Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 5th June, 2015.]
    • FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:11 p.m.
    Hon Members, we have two Official Reports. The first one is dated Tuesday, 2nd June,
    2015.
    Any corrections?
    Dr Anthony A. Osei 12:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, column 748, last but one paragraph, third line; the word should be “prediction” not “predication”. Column 750, last paragraph, third line from the bottom. The acronym should be PIAC not PIAD.
    Thank you.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:11 p.m.
    Very well. Hansard Department, please take note.
    Mr Alexander K. Afenyo-Markin 12:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, column 751, in the statement attributed to me, the reference is to Section 7 (3) (a) and (b) of Act 815, not section 73.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:11 p.m.
    Very well. Hansard Department please take note.
    Any more corrections?
    In the absence of any further corrections, the Official Report dated Tuesday, 2nd June, 2015 as corrected is hereby adopted as the true record of proceedings.
    Official Report for Wednesday, 3rd June, 2015,
    Any corrections?
    Mr Ebenezer O. Terlabi 12:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, maybe, I have to see the Hansard Department for correction of the whole sentence because the statement I made was that until recently --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:11 p.m.
    Please, refer us to the column and paragraph.
    Mr Terlabi 12:11 p.m.
    Column 870.
    “Mr Speaker, what I am saying is that we have a renowned university; Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) which until recently when faculties were merged to form colleges during the collegiate system, we had less than 12 faculties . . .”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:11 p.m.
    Very well.
    I hope the Hansard Department has taken note.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not following my Good Friend the lecturer. He said he wanted to see the Hansard Department -- [Interruption.] He cannot do that; he has to do it in front of us.
    MrTerlabi 12:11 p.m.
    Yes, that is what I have just done.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:11 p.m.
    But there is no correction that he has made. [Interruptions.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:11 p.m.
    Hon Member, you are usurping my positon. I have asked him to go ahead, he has gone ahead and indicated where the correction is. So, Hansard Department, please take note.
    Please. Let us know what your correction is, that is what he is asking.
    Mr Terlabi 12:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the statement I made was that the renowned university, KNUST which until recently merged faculties to form the collegiate system, had less than 12 faculties. Therefore, if the Hon Member is saying that we need 12 faculties to get a university recognised as an international university, that is not correct and that was what I said.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:11 p.m.
    When you read what is there, it is not the same.
    MrAfenyo-Markin 12:11 p.m.
    With the greatest respect -- Mr Speaker has recognised me --
    Mr Terlabi 12:11 p.m.
    Are you correcting me? [Interruption.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:11 p.m.
    Order! Order!
    Hon Member, I thought you were through with your correction so that I would give him the floor to also respond.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are following our Hon Colleague the lecturer and professor. He is trying to make some corrections but unfortunately, we are guided by these small writings here in the Official Report,
    “Correction of errors of substance may be made only on the floor of the House with the permission of the Speaker . . .”
    You are so permitted but Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, what he is saying is not too clear. We need to understand the -- [Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I am on my feet and his microphone is on. So, I want to follow exactly what he is saying so that we would know the exact correction he is trying to effect. That is my humble request.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:11 p.m.
    Hon Members, I would plead that we pay rapt attention to what he is saying. Could you go over your correction?
    Mr Terlabi 12:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what I have here is that;
    “. . . (KNUST) which until recently when faculties were merged to form colleges during the collegiate system…”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:11 p.m.
    Order! Order!
    Hon Member, I follow the correction that you are seeking to push through and I urge that the Hansard Department takes note.
    Mr Osei Bonsu Amoah 12:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, column 882, third paragraph, second line. The sentence begins,
    “Mr Speaker, the Hon Colleague is implying that when the university sited in Donkorkrom…”
    It should be, “when the university is sited in Donkorkrom”. The word “is” is missing.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:11 p.m.
    Yes, any further corrections?
    Mr Joe Ghartey 12:11 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought as I hesitate to make this correction -- Wednesday, 3rd June, 2015.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:11 p.m.
    Sorry, I cannot hear you.
    Mr Joe Ghartey 12:11 p.m.
    I said that the correction that I want to make is in the last paragraph of column 835 of Wednesday, 3rd June, 2015. I said;
    “People are looking at us, and in Ghanaian society everybody is young -- One must be lucky…”
    I did not say “inclined”,
    “One must be lucky…that you could grow old. Some of us would not reach her age and we would pass away.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, in the absence of any further corrections, I direct that the Official Report for Wednesday, 3rd June, 2015, as corrected be adopted as the true record of proceedings.
    Hon Members, there is no Statement. At the Commencement of Public Business.
    Yes, Hon Majority Chief Whip, Presentation of Papers?
    Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarak Muntaka 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, can we kindly take items numbered 4 and 5?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Item numbered 4, by the Chairman of the Committee. Is the Hon Chairman available?
    PAPERS 12:20 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Item numbered 5 -- Motion, by the Hon Minister for Finance.
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your indulgence and that of the House, I would want to seek permission for the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance, Hon Ato Forson who is our Colleague, to do that on behalf of the Hon Minister who is participating in the Economic Manage- ment Team Meeting which is currently going on.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Very well. Hon Deputy Minister for Finance?
    BILLS -- THIRD READING 12:20 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Chief Whip?
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, could we kindly take item numbere 7 on the Order Paper?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Item numbered 7, Minerals and Mining (Amendment) Bill, 2014 at the Considera- tion Stage.
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 12:20 p.m.
    STAGE 12:20 p.m.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just want to crave your indulgence. This is a very important Bill. I remember the last time, the Hon Minister came here with a team ready for us but we were not ready -- [Interruption.]
    He came with the team but now I do not see the team nor the Hon Minister. If there is a reason why the Hon Minister is unable to be here -- This is because he told us it was important, and that was why he himself came. Hon Avoka can attest to it. I am wondering if there is an explanation, we should know.
    Some of us came because he told us it was important, but I do not see him, and nobody is offering any explanation on the absence of the Hon Minister, who was my senior in school. I would want to know where the Hon Minister is.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Hon Members, I remember seeing the Hon Minister in the Chamber on two different occasions in connection with this issue.
    Yes, Hon Deputy Majority Whip?
    Mr Ibrahim Ahmed 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, precisely, that is what I was going to say. The Hon Minister was here on two different occasions, and on both occasions he sat here till we closed. But today, his able Deputy is here to stand in for him, and I do not see the problem my Hon Senior Colleague has with that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    The question he is asking is, may we know why the Hon Minister is not able to attend to the House today?
    Mr Kwabena M. Akandoh 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister is out of the jurisdiction on a national assignment.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have the assurance from the Deputy that when there are issues of policy that require significant changes, he has the authority, that is what he is saying -- [Interruption.] -- We would want to make sure that he would be able to do that. I do not know why he is rushing to answer when Mr Speaker has not called him.
    He should give us the assurance that on matters of policy, he has the authority to effect those changes so that we can proceed. This is because some of us came here because of what the Hon Minister told us.
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague knows very well that the Bill is our property, and we have a technical person to support the Deputy Minister. Obviously, when it gets to a bridge that is difficult to cross, we would always find a way of standing them down if we think that the Hon Deputy Minister or the technical person is not able to give some details. I can assure you that our Hon Colleague, the Hon Deputy Minister who is here is well briefed on matters, and he would do the best that he can to assist us anytime there are challenges with regard to what we are doing.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to seek the indulgence of my Hon Colleagues to allow us to make some progress. If we are having challenges, we would be able to know what to do.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we do not want to invoke Standing Order 48 of our own rules that is why we need such assurances.
    Mr Speaker, we know that in this House, we go by our own rules and the necessary respect must be accorded this House. The practice has been that, when an Hon Minister is unable to attend to any business of this House, Leadership on the Majority side gives the necessary
    information and states the reasons for the Hon Minister's absence.
    A situation where the Hon Speaker is not in the known and Hon Members are not informed and suddenly the Hon Deputy Minister gives explanation as to why an Hon Minister is unable to attend to a business of this House, I think is in a very bad taste.
    Mr Speaker, Leadership must take this matter up with the Ministry, so that in future, it would not take the Hon Deputy Minister to come to the floor to just inform Mr Speaker that the Hon Minister is unable to come because he is doing something out of the jurisdiction when there is no evidence to that effect.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:20 p.m.
    Well, may I hear from the Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Cletus Avoka 12:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as you rightly observed, the substantive Minister has been here on two occasions to assist us pilot the Bill. The Hon Minister's presence is to assist the House in case there is need. But this Report is the baby of the Committee of this august House, led by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    As the Hon Majority Chief Whip puts it succinctly,we normally have the presence of the Hon Minister or his Deputy, so if there is an issue of policy that we are stranded with, they would be able to assist us. But it is not obligatory that unless an Hon Minister is in the Chamber, we cannot take a Bill. There is no provision in the Standing Orders that says that.It is only a practice that during the course of it, if we have any challenges the Hon Minister might step in and assist us.
    So, we should not make it something that is a condition precedent that if the sector Minister is not here then this House is disabled from executing Business.
    Mr Cletus Avoka 12:20 p.m.


    Mr Speaker, I appreciate the concern by Hon Members, but we have taken the Hon Deputy Minister and the Minister through, and I am confident and want to assure the House that the Hon Deputy Minister is capable of stepping in for the Minister. If there is the need for any policy intervention to be made, I will assure my Hon Colleagues in the House.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I know my Senior Hon Colleague is not taking it the wrong way. In fact, we are concerned, in deference to the Minister, you and I know that he was here twice, so, we are showing concern. We are not saying that it is a condition precedent, no. We thought that because he has assured us and has himself come two times, we wanted to assure you that we want this Bill passed today.
    We know that under our Standing Orders, this is not a condition precedent, except, if we run into a lacuna and then begin to punch holes into certain issues, you might see that it may trouble you. So please, be assured. We are deeply respectful to the Minister and that is why we are showing our concerns.
    Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarak Muntaka 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as I applied earlier, I will be very grateful if all of us could try and cooperate for us to make some progress. There have been instances where Ministers themselves have been here and we get to a place where we have to stand down to go and make further consultation.
    Mr Speaker, I am giving the assurance that, once we start, and we have challenges, we are capable of doing what we ought to do to be able to overcome, but for now, I can give the assurance that,
    the Hon Deputy Minister will be able to assist us to be able to make progress. I will be grateful if we could start to make some progress.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:30 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, clause 1.
    Clause 1—Section 25 of Act 703 Amended.
    Chairman of the Committee (Mr Cletus A. Avoka) 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1 -- under “Royalties”, line 4, after “rate” insert “of five per cent”
    Mr Speaker, if we look at the original Bill, it will now read, with your kind permission I beg to quote:
    “A holder of a mining lease, restricted mining lease or small scale mining lease shall, in respect of minerals obtained from its mining operations, pay royalty to the Republic at the rate of 5 per cent and in the manner that may be prescribed”.
    Mr Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to make a specific provision of five per cent as payment for a rate. The idea is that, if we leave it there as suggested by the Bill, for the Minister to use his discretion through a Legislative Instrument (L.I) to fix the rate, it might undermine the business in the mining sector.
    The rate should be specific, so that people in that industry will know that they are paying a royalty of five per cent and therefore, they will prepare and budget for it. But to leave it at the whims and discretion of the Minister might undermine business confidence, because there must be certainty in the business that they do.
    Mr Speaker, the Committee in its wisdom and in consultation with our stakeholders agreed that, we should amend this one so that the rate is fixed by
    law. Any time that the Minister thinks it should be changed, then he has to come back to the House and change it, otherwise, at the end of the day, the Minister might be stepping in, or taking over the shoes of this august House to be fixing rates and the rest of them that we have not approved. That is why we think it is important that we have this specific five per cent established in the law, so that the mining companies and all other people will have it at the back of their minds that this year, they are paying the rate of five per cent and there is some certainty and confidence in the business. That is why this amendment is proffered.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I quite agree with my senior Hon Colleague about too much discretion to the Minister. It might be helpful to the House, if the Committee tells us why they chose five per cent, and not any other percentage. Is there a historical precedence for this? Why not 10 or 20 per cent? It would be helpful if the Hon Chairman could give us the rationale for the five per cent.
    Mr Avoka 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the five per cent has been in existence all along, except that the Ministry now wants to have it in an L.I so that they will come back in the future with an L.I and fix the five per cent or any other percentage that they would want. Otherwise, what they have been paying until this amendment Bill came, has been five per cent, and in consultation with the Ministry and the stakeholders, they think that the five per cent is acceptable at this stage.
    Mr Joe Ghartey 12:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is a very interesting position being offered this House by the Chairman of the Committee and supported by Hon Dr A. A. Osei. It is interesting because, it raises fundamental issues relating to investment policy.
    Mr Speaker, the question has always been -- first of all, there are those who argue on the side of certainty, that one of the good attributes of any law that seeks to attract foreign investment is that, it should be certain. So, we have been given the certainty argument. It is a good argument, but it is not the only argument, and we must ask ourselves that, what went into the thinking of the proposers of the Bill?
    Why did they decide that, they should not, as it were, put the rate in the Bill, but give that power to the Minister, which is not an absolute discretion because when one brings an L.I, one would have to bring it to Parliament, and Parliament, by two- thirds majority, can shoot down the L. I.- - the Minister, working with Parliament to determine the rate.
    Mr Speaker, the answer is very simple. It is because of the nature of the business. Prices in the mining sector rise and fall, and so, what one is taking from the people as royalty can have an impact on the ability of people to even do business. So when the price is too low, one may decide for example, to change the rate of royalty.
    There are many reasons why one decides on a particular rate of royalty. One can even decide on the rate of royalty as a disincentive-taxation can even be used to dissuade people from going into a particular area of business.
    Mr Speaker, much as I appreciate the argument made by the Chairman of the Committee, I will plead that we should look at the other arguments as well. We should look at the reasons the rate was not put into the Bill, and we should also be confident, or comforted by the fact that it is in an L.I, which does not give the Minister absolute power. It is subject to Parliament.
    The Minister has to bring the rate to Parliament, and Parliament must, as a matter of necessity vote, as it were, by two-thirds majority, decide that we are not agreeing to this rate.
    Mr Avoka 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by the Second Deputy Speaker, but if you will grant me the permission, I will refer the honourable House to Act 794 -- Minerals and Mining (Amendment) Act, 2010. In that Act, the royalty was fixed at five per cent so there is an enabling Act that prescribed at 5 per cent. It is the new Bill that is now amending this Act, to make it possible to take it out of the law and allow the Minister, at any convenient time, to come by an L.I to fix the rate.
    Mr Speaker, with your kind permission, I beg to read.
    “Royalties
    25. A holder of a mining lease, restricted mining lease or small scale mining license shall pay royalty in respect of minerals obtained from its mining operations to the Republic at the rate of 5 per cent of the total revenue earned from minerals obtained by the holder.”
    Mr Speaker, so, per the law, the rate is five per cent. It is now that they are bringing a new Bill to amend this law, so that it is not in any Act of Parliament, but it will be allowed in the future, to come by way of an L.I, to fix the rate, and we said that, that is uncertain.
    Mr Speaker, the people in that industry are uncomfortable with this provision the Ministry conceived and that is the reason we came by this amendment without any counter amendment from any other fellow.
    So it is already in the law that it is five per cent and the Minister seeks to amend this Act 794 that was passed in 2010 by this august House so that it becomes relative to them to come anytime they want to fix the rate, no business will accommodate this type of arrangement. We already have challenges in the mining industry.
    The mining sector already has its own challenges, and to add further challenges and uncertainties to the mining industry will be detrimental to the sector and to the economy of this country. That is the reason we think that the five per cent is a certainty and is known by everybody, they can budget at the beginning, the middle or end of every year and we all accept that.
    The Minister does not object to it and that is the reason the amendment is coming against the Bill. But the old law which they sought to amend is five per
    Mr Avoka 12:40 p.m.


    cent. So it is not that they think, or is it the Committee alone that has imagined the five per cent, it is already a percentage that has been fixed by this House and the Minister seeks to amend that and come by a Legislative Instrument (L.I).

    I invite Hon Members to appreciate this to salvage the mining industry by maintaining that the royalties be five per cent and fixed in law.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:40 p.m.
    Very well, let us try to get the sense of the House.
    Yes, Hon Member for Old Tafo?
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the Chairman of the Committee. -- But you see, royalty is a special form of tax and the beneficiaries are Ghanaians. It should not be subject to the business cycle. It must be certain to the people of Ghana that irrespective of where the business is, especially in this area, we should ensure that we are certain that our people will get this amount. In fact, my surprise is that, it is not even higher and that is the reason I asked where the five per cent was?
    I think we know the history of what has happened in Ghana in the Mining sector and we should be seeking to get more for our people. If the Chairman does not mind, I would want to amend it to 10 per cent. Given what has happened in Ghana we ought to get as much for our people. If the investor cannot stand the business cycle, he must take the risk and not the people of Ghana. Even though mining is a special investment, that is the more reason we have to be certain about royalties. Profit can fluctuate but, royalties cannot and the people of Ghana must benefit -- [Interruption] Yes.
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I heard the argument being championed by the Chairman of the Committee.
    Whereas I agree that we need to have some certainty, I would have definitely preferred the proposal from the sponsors of the Bill. The reason being that because of the fluctuating nature of most of the commodities under the Minerals Act that we are discussing, sometimes business gets so bad that Ministers want to be able to do something.If we put it in the Act like it is in the existing Act, it becomes restrictive because we all know that the steps taken to get an Act back to Parliament is a very lengthy one.
    But it is easier when it is with a Regulation. Maybe that was the reason he wanted to do it through a Regulation.
    Mr Speaker, having said that, I still believe we are capable of curing both sides but I must say that the five per cent is woefully inadequate.
    We should not be cowed by people who want to invest in our country saying that they want it low. I believe the Committee, having travelled a number of countries have seen that royalties are now near 7.5 per cent. So, I do not know why we want to use five per cent. But to be able to create balance, I would rather prefer that maybe the Chairman comes with a further amendment to say not less than five per cent and then the Regulation can always come with some higher suggestion.
    So it means that the five per cent is the bedrock below which the country would not accept regardless of the nature of the business. But the Regulation periodically could suggest whether it should be higher as 10 per cent, 15 per cent or more but to leave it at a fixed five per cent, I would want the Chairman of the Committee to reconsider that the five per cent is woefully inadequate. We need to be thinking about how to even reclaim those lands and most of the places that these activities have been carried on.
    Mr Joseph Y. Chireh 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, first of all, the proposal by the Committee to add “of five per cent” [Interruption] No, I did not say -- I have been reading your amendment, why are you interrupting me? You said “of five per cent”? First of all, the issue was, why is it that the people who proposed the Bill did not put it there and you decided to put the five per cent there? That was part of my Friend the Hon Second Deputy Speaker's argument. But if you are proposing five per cent, did you consult the stakeholders to agree on the five per cent? If they have agreed, then the amendment that is being further proposed may not be appropriate.
    But if it is that the Committee on its own decided to propose five per cent, why did you propose five per cent and not ten
    per cent? Is there any bar to that? As for the principle that he is saying, the other confusion is when he mentioned the Act we are amending, it mentions five per cent. Is it because of that he does not want the contradiction of a different figure so that we should be clear that what we are passing is not going to contradict what is already a law, even in the way it is? This is what I would want the Chairman to clarify before we take the decision on this.
    Ms Sarah Adjoa Safo 12:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the issue about whether or not to peg the percentage at five per cent and whether we are going to give the Minister a discretion to increase it as and when as proposed by Hon Muntaka, I think that if we move to that end, we would be treading on dangerous grounds. That is why he pegged it at five per cent, being the least percentage and allowing the Minister the room to increase it as and when.
    I think the Committee would have to look at it again. I am not in favour of that proposal or that amendment being that inasmuch as a lot of environmental issues and damage goes on with the activity of mining, and whether indeed the State is getting the right royalties for all this damage that goes on and whether the people themselves are benefiting, I think that if we gave wide discretionary powers to the Minister, it becomes subjective.
    The determination of when he is supposed to collect five per cent from one mining company or the other, we are opening doors for possible favouritism here and there and all that and abuse of his office as a Member of Parliament.
    I think the Constitution is so clear on the discretionary powers that we give to public officials. So, inasmuch as there is an earlier enactment which the Chairman did not state but he said there is an earlier
    enactment that states five per cent, he would want to let us follow his argument and let us know exactly the earlier Act that pegs it at five per cent.
    That notwithstanding, this is a new amendment that has come before the House. So, if even the earlier amendment pegged it at five per cent and the House or the Committee, in taking a lot of factors into consideration, thinks that the five per cent might be too small depending on who is looking at it or it might not even be adequate and ought to be increased or decreased, I believe that it should be coming from the Ministry, and the Committee should do a little more work on it.
    As to giving the Hon Minister that discretionary power to increase it as and when he deems fit, I believe that as a House we need to look at it again.
    I thank you for the opportunity.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    The debate is becoming interesting. We would listen to everybody.
    Mr Alban S. K. Bagbin 12:50 p.m.
    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.The essence of this Bill is to rectify a situation that was occasioned by the passage of the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006; Act 703. What is that situation? That Act fixed five per cent as the basis for the calculation of royalties.
    We all acknowledge the market situation of these commodities and the fact that they have constant fluctuations; we have realised that the gains that we are making as a country are not in
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Damongo; and after that Hon Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration?
    Mr Mutawakilu Adam 12:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, while the Committee met the various stakeholders to take a decision, they left it to the Hon Minister to bring the Regulations, we also reflected on article 268 of the Constitution which mandates the Ministry to submit to Parliament contract agreements for ratification.Up to date, none of that has been submitted; meanwhile, the constitution mandates us.
    So, if we do not take time and we leave it to them to bring regulations, it could take some time and the value for time is very important.Therefore, bringing certainty by fixing the rate was very relevant and as a result, we consulted the various stakeholders and came out with this five per cent
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:50 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration?
    Ms Hannah Serwaa Tetteh 12:50 p.m.
    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I would like to support the amendment that is proposed by the Committee. My reason for doing so is as follows:
    Mr Speaker, royalties are a payment to the state but it is not all that we expect from the mining industry. When somebody invests in the minerals and mining sector, the first thing that we expect, apart from being able to put in place plant and capital to extract the minerals, we are to ensure that they comply with our environmental laws and regulations. That comes with a cost and it is obligatory upon our institutions to put in place effective monitoring mechanisms to ensure that the people do what they were committed to do at the time they were given the licence.
    We must also recognise that when a business is established in a particular community, it becomes a source of employment for the community and provides an opportunity for other service providers to also locate around the area and plan their own livelihoods.
    Mr Speaker, the challenge with the mining sector is that we have tended not to implement our own responsibilities properly and after that we complain about the fact that we are losing in the mining sector more than we are gaining.
    Are we saying that our environmental impact regulations are deficient? I do not believe so. I believe the challenge is that even what we have, we are not able to properly monitor.
    Now, on the issue of revenue that should accrue to the state, we are capable of bringing legislation to this House to amend the percentage of royalties, if we so choose. When we have a Legislative
    Instrument brought before this House, essentially, Mr Speaker, what we are looking at is to see whether the Hon Minister is acting in accordance with the powers that are conferred on him by the principal Act.At least, that is my understanding of how we deal with subsidiary legislation.
    We are not going through a process of amending the legislation clause by clause according to whether we agree with it or not, because they are seen to be subsidiary legislations. It is not a process that goes through a debate.
    Yes, it is true that if one is not happy with it, two-thirds of the House can decide to set it aside. But we are looking to see whether it is in compliance. We do not go into all the details. Maybe, they do that at the committee level but it is not brought to the floor of the House for that kind of debate because that is not what is entailed in subsidiary legislation.
    So, it can come back to this House if we so choose to further amend the Bill; if we think that for one reason or the other, given the cycle that prevails in the commodities sector, we should be increasing or decreasing the royalties rate.
    I agree with the Hon Majority Leader entirely when he says that countries have not developed based only on revenues obtained from the extraction of commodities. That is the reason why we have a conversation about beneficiation and value addition.
    But in order for beneficiation and value addition to happen, the basic cost of the operation on which one is extracting the minerals and the process in which one is engaged in that business has to be properly administered by the state and we have to have clarity in the relationship amongst the Distr ict Assemblies, Traditional Authorities, Government, the Minerals' Commission and all the other stakeholders involved.
    Mr Speaker, in sum, I think that certainty is important. I do not think that this House defeats any of its objectives of protecting the interests of Ghanaians, if we bring certainty into this Bill.
    I think that ultimately, it would be for the benefit of this country and should the need arise to change the rate we could still come back to this House to amend the legislation.
    After all, every year when we pass the Budget Statement, there are consequential amendments to Financial Bills, which we pass as a matter of course. This is to give effect to the Budget Statement, we need to do that. We do not consider it an imposition on the House when we have to do that.
    So, if in the particular instance of minerals and mining we now have to bring an amendment Bill to increase the percentage rates of royalties, why would that be a problem?
    So, Mr Speaker, once again, I support the position of the Committee and hope we can vote in favour of it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, having heard from quite a number of Hon Members of Parliament, I would direct that we defer the further consideration of this clause for winno- wing to take place.
    I would plead with Hon Members to as much as possible assist the Committee by attending the winnowing process so that at the end of the day we would arrive at some kind of consensus.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, that is the reason why there should be the winnowing, so that you would have the opportunity there to explain things to Hon Members and non- Members who would attend the winnowing. This is because we have gone on for quite some time now in debating this particular amendment.
    Hon Chairman, what do you say?
    Mr Avoka 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the practice about winnowing is that, when people find other amendments as opposed to what the Committee proposed and they do not agree then that is where the issue of winnowing comes in. But if there is a debate on the floor of the House, and Hon Members would definitely have to express various concerns here and there, I am wondering whether that calls for winnowing.
    If I am able to explain some of the concerns raised by our Hon Colleagues, you may not find it useful to direct what you have directed. With the greatest respect, some of my Hon Colleagues may even change their minds with regard to the concerns raised.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Hon Member for Old Tafo?
    Dr A.A. Osei 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the beginning, when I asked of the whereabouts of the Hon Minister for Lands and Natural Resources, Hon Members thought I was being mischie- vous. This is precisely why I thought he should have been here.
    Mr Speaker, the Committee must look carefully. The explanatory memorandum is very clear. This Bill seeks to do only one thing as the Hon Majority Leader said; it is to allow for the regulations.
    Now, their amendment throws this somewhere. In fact, read the Long Title of the Bill which says, “To provide the regulations…”; that amendment throws this completely off. Is that what the Ministry wants to do? It went through Cabinet and so forth and so on.
    There is a fundamental issue that cannot be solved here. That is why I agree with the Hon First Deputy Speaker here that we should defer it. This is because if we accept the amendment, then everything in this explanatory memoran- dum, excuse me to say, is garbage. We have changed the object of the Bill completely. I do not think that is what we want to do. If that is what we want to do, then let us come back with a new explanatory memorandum and so forth and so on. But this circuitous way of amending the explanatory memorandum is not acceptable. Essentially, we are amending the explanatory memorandum if we accept their amendment.
    So, I think that we should let cool hearts prevail, and the Committee should go and think through this carefully. This is because their amendment changes the object of this Bill completely and in a fundamental way. I am not sure that is what we seek to do. This is so, so that a new Bill would come that sets off the issue properly.
    This Bill seeks to change the Regulations, that is the object. How could we change the explanatory memorandum of the Bill with such an amendment? That is what the Committee seeks to do. I think that they should sit back and look at that change very carefully. This is because one cannot amend the explanatory memoran- dum the way they are going about it.
    Mr Avoka 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect to my Hon Colleague, he is misleading the House. It appears he has not had the opportunity of reading the entire Bill. So, he has taken one item and he is misleading the House.
    Mr Speaker, the fundamental provision in this Bill is that we would want to make provision to deal with foreigners who are involved in galamsey operations in the country. There is a provision in the Bill like that. They are involved in illegal mining, and we want to tighten the law to prevent foreigners from doing illegal mining in the country.
    Certainly, there is a provision in this Bill that says that any instruments, material or objects that they use in mining would be confiscated to the State. There is no law, as of now, giving the police or any authority in the country the opportunity to confiscate the material or equipment that they use to mine. This law is intended to make that provision so that we could now confiscate any equipment that they use to do illegal mining.
    So, it is not just about royalties. In any case, we are not bound -- If we say that we accept the amendment then we have defeated the explanatory memorandum.
    Any explanatory memorandum that an Hon Minister brings with a Bill, then we must accept it. Is that what he is saying? He is certainly misleading the House.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, I think that the way things are going, it would be better for us to defer this matter as I directed early on, so that we could go through the process of winnowing. At the winnowing stage, all these arguments can come up, and then we would see the way forward.
    Hon Members, we would now move to clause 2.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought we were going to defer the whole process. This is because, Mr Speaker, there are policy issues here, and I could not catch your eye earlier. I was going to refer my Hon senior Colleague to article 106 (2) (a) of the Constitution, which talks about the relevance of Explanatory Memoranda.
    Mr Speaker, with your leave, it provides as follows 1 p.m.
    106(2)(a) “No bill, other than such a bill! As is referred to in paragraph (a) of article 108 of this Constitution, shall be introduced in Parliament unless --
    It is accompanied by an explanatory memorandum setting out in detail the policy and principles of the bill, the defects of the existing law, the remedies proposed to deal with those defects and the necessity for its introduction;”
    So Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, we have an explanatory memorandum accompanying this Bill. It is not expected that, in going ahead with the Bill, there would be any form of deviation. The Constitution so sets it out clearly.What Hon Akoto Osei and the Hon Majority Leader tried to put across was that, whatever we are seeking to do must be consistent with the explanatory memorandum of this Bill.

    If the Committee now wants to, with respect, come with an amendment, which in itself is a deviation from the import of the Bill, Mr Speaker, we cannot accept it.

    Unfortunately, the Hon Minister is not here. In fact, we have not heard from the Hon Deputy Minister to know whether or not the Ministry agrees to the position taken by the Committee.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    Hon Member, you are going back to the issue I have already deferred.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1 p.m.
    Very well, Mr Speaker, I thought I could draw your attention to that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1 p.m.
    So, I do not think there is any point in that. We are looking at clause 2.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, could we consider clause 2?
    Clause 2 -- Section 99 of Act 703 amended.
    Mr Avoka 1 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, subclause (1), delete and insert the following:
    “A person who sells or buys minerals without a licence granted under this Act or any other enactment commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not less than five thousand penalty units and not more than twenty thousand penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not less than three and not more than five years or to both.”
    Mr Speaker, the purpose of the amendment is to provide minimum and
    maximum sentences. If you look at the original rendition, it only provided for the ceiling. In terms of the money, it is the highest. There is no provision for the lowest. In terms of imprisonment, it is the highest, there is nothing provided for the lowest.
    If you have some type of judge or magistrate, when they say “not above 20 penalty units”, it is not above so they could just make five penalty units and be satisfied.
    So the purpose of this Bill is to ensure that we have a minimum penalty and also a maximum penalty and in that way the judge has the discretion to deal with any issue between the minimum, and the maximum and that would satisfy the framers of the law and the State rather than just leaving it at the ceiling or the topmost without a base at the lower level.
    That would be subject to abuse and we want to avoid any abuse, that is why this amendment has been proposed.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Effutu?
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect, I need a little clarification. The amendment seeks to make a person criminally liable when he buys minerals without a licence.
    May I know, whether upon conviction, that which the person has purchased would remain his bona fide property or it would become subject of any confiscation proceedings?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Avoka 1:10 p.m.
    It is certainly the property of the State so upon conviction or after conviction, it reverts to the State and not the criminal; certainly not.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Wa West and after that, Hon Member for Dome-Kwabenya.
    Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman of the Committee and I think that the House should adopt it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    I thought that you were going to address the issue that he raised.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, can you address the issue that he raised?
    Mr Avoka 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let me address it. With the greatest respect, it is misplaced. He has not studied the entire Bill so he is taking the clause in isolation.
    Mr Speaker, if you look at clause 2 (5), of the Bill, it says that and with your kind permission, I beg to quote:
    “Where a person is arrested for an offence under subsection (3) or (4), any equipment used in or associated with the commission of the offence and any product derived from the commission of the offence shall, regardless of the ownership of the equipment or product, be seized and kept in the custody of the police.”
    So, it would be seized and kept in custody and then after prosecution the court would make direct consequential --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    I think it solves it.
    Mr Avoka 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you look at clause (6):
    “ A court which convicts a person for an offence under subsection (2), (3) or (4) shall in addition to the penalty that it may impose, order the forfeiture of any equipment or product seized under subsection (5) to the State”.
    Mr Avoka 1:10 p.m.


    You should read the Bill in its entirety; you do not take one clause and then mislead the House and waste our time.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, keep your cool, please, keep your cool.
    Hon Member for Dome-Kwebenya?
    Ms Sarah Adwoa Safo 1:10 p.m.
    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
    I believe the Hon Chairman is a bit cooled now.
    Mr Speaker, I have a different observa- tion and it is an observation that I have made with the current amendment that is being proposed. Mr Speaker, I would like to take it from line 1 and I beg to read:
    “A person who sells or buys minerals without a licence granted under this Act or any other enactment…”
    Mr Speaker, I would want to find out from the Hon Chairman, whether other licences granted under other enactments are also acceptable. This is because the Hon Chairman said that anybody who buys or sells without a licence is giving room for persons to either go for license under this Act or any other Act. Mr Speaker I think that we are creating a lot of room for buyers and sellers in the acquisition of their licence.
    But if the Hon Chairman can educate us who were not at the Committee level, which other enactment will give one person a licence other than a licence that is given under this Act? We must make the law within the ambit of this law. But by extending it to other enactments, it means that the person can decide to fall
    out of this law, because his licence was not secured under this enactment and that could create future problems for us.
    So, Hon Chairman, with the greatest of respect, could you let us know other licences that are legitimate or legal which are not obtained under this Act? Again, if it is from another enactment, is it still a valid licence?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman, can you address that issue for us?
    Mr Avoka 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank the Hon Member.
    If we look at Act 703 of 2006, it has wide provisions of some of these things. The issue in this amendment is to make sure we have a minimum sentence and a maximum sentence in terms of payment or refund and in terms of incarceration; that is the import of this amendment.
    As the Hon Member said, there are other enactments which we can fall on for a facility of this nature. So, the gravamen of this amendment is to have a certain minimum rate of sentence in terms of a fine and imprisonment and a maximum one, unlike what we have in the Bill now where they have only provided for the upper ceiling without the lower ceiling. That is the purpose of this amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Bagbin 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have no problem with the purpose of the proposed amendment which is to regulate the exercise of the discretion of the Judges.
    But Mr Speaker, I need some explanation on two issues. The Hon Member of Parliament for Effutu raised an
    issue and the Hon Chairman in response read clause 2 (5) and (6). Now, both subclauses 5 and 6 do not deal with clause 2 (1). They deal with clause 2, 3 and 4.
    The clause we are dealing with now is clause 2 (1), where they seek to delete the whole clause and insert a new clause. In the insertion of the new clause they seek to vary the language of the proposed Bill and to regulate the discretion by giving a minimum term and a maximum term. We need to get clauses 2 (5) and (6) to cover clause 2 (1) because it does not mention clause 2 (1).
    The second point is that when this House passed the Penalty Units Act, there is a correlation between the fine and the term of imprisonment. And so, here, they proposed using “five”but they have increased it. They are still using the same term of imprisonment. I just want a guidance whether they have cross- checked from the Penalty Units Act to see whether it is in conformity with this.
    This is because now the proposed Bill says and Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to quote:
    “… a fine of not more than three thousand penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not more than five years or to both.”
    But their proposed amendment says and Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to quote:
    “… to a fine of not less than five thousand penalty units and not more than twenty thousand penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not less than three and not more than five years …”
    So, there is a problem there. They will need to look at the Penalty Units Act and
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 a.m.
    Let me please, get back to the Hon Chairman of the Committee. Two issues are raised as well as the one raised by the Hon Member for Dome-Kwabenya.
    Can we get some response from you, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Avoka 1:20 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker. With regard to the issue -- Let me take the last one about the penalty units in correlation with the terms of imprisonment. I have not consulted the Penalty Units Act so I do not want to challenge that. But as a matter of principle and practice, which we have known all along, sometimes we make a huge fine and make a short custodial sentence.
    The objection is that we would want the fellow to pay the fine instead of making a long custodial sentence. That objective is also there. This is three years' imprisonment and then five years.
    The Committee in its wisdom together with the stakeholders thought that it was enough deterrent to detain somebody for either a minimum of three years or a maximum of five years. Indeed, that is the gap; it is a minimum term and a maximum term. Nothing prevents the judge from adopting the minimum term. One could have a minimum term of three years and a maximum of twenty years. He could give a three year term and that would still be the ambit of the law.
    There is not an obligation saying that if the penalty unit is between three years and twenty years, the judge must go to the twenty years, eighteen years or fifteen
    Mr Avoka 1:20 a.m.


    years. The judge could decide to limit himself to the three years, four years or five years.

    So, I have not consulted the Penalty Units Act on this issue but my contention is that we discussed and deliberated on this issue and realised that the objective is to make the provision for “three years” and “five years”. We thought that those are deterring enough and satisfactory enough as far as this provision is concerned. That is the issue.

    On the other one about the clause 2 (1), we can incorporate clause 2 (1) as part of clause 5 or clause 6 to be holistic. We can do so.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 a.m.
    I think so too.
    Hon O. B. Amoah?
    Mr Osei B. Amoah 1:20 a.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    I have two issues that I would want the Hon Chairman to address. In the Bill and indeed, in the parent Act, that is Act 703, the phrase “without a valid authority granted under this Act” is used but in his amendment he has omitted that. Is there any reason for that? That is the first issue.
    Mr Avoka 1:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I did not follow him. I do not know what --
    Mr O. B. Amoah 1:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, what I am saying is that the Hon Chairman proposed an amendment and in the amendment he said and with your permission, I beg to quote:
    “A person who sells or buys minerals without a licence granted under this Act …”
    Mr Avoka 1:20 a.m.
    Which clause?
    Mr O. B. Amoah 1:20 a.m.
    Clause 2.
    But if you go to the Bill, it says and Mr Speaker, I beg to quote:
    “A person who sells or buys minerals without a licence granted under section 97 or 104 or without a valid authority granted …”
    If you look at the parent Act, that expression, “without a valid authority granted” is also present. I want to know why he has omitted it in his proposed amendment. That is the first issue. Is there any reason for the removal of that phrase, “valid authority granted”?
    Secondly, I would want to know whether the Hon Chairman has looked at the parent Act, under “Offences”. Indeed, even under “Regulations 110, section 110 (5) which says and Mr Speaker, I beg to quote:
    “Despite the Statutory Instrument Act 1959 number 52, which Act has been repealed anyway by the Interpretation Act, regulations made under this Act may impose a penalty not exceeding the cedi equivalent of ten thousand US$10,000.”
    Anyway, this Act has been repealed under the Interpretation Act. I would want to know whether he has looked at that and whether they conform with the penalty he is describing here as a proposed amendment?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman?
    Mr Avoka 1:20 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is exactly the reason we have proposed this amendment. If you look at the original Bill it says that and Mr Speaker, I beg to quote:
    “A person who sells or buys minerals without a licence granted under section 97 or 104 or without a valid authority …”
    So, there are two issues or two authorities involved. There is a licence issue here and there is also an issue of the validity of authority here. We thought that was subject to abuse. That is why at the stakeholders meeting, we agreed that we should limit ourselves to the license granted. So, that is why the amendment proposes that:
    “A person who sells or buys minerals without a licence under this Act …”
    So, everybody is certain. If we say “valid authority” it is ambiguous. What is valid authority? Under which law?
    So, we are talking about licences under this Act and that is why we decided to depart from the bane and then propose this one, which was accepted at the stakeholders' meeting and by the Ministry.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 a.m.
    As a point of interest, the Hon Member for Dome- Kwabenya referred us to the portion which says that, “Under this Act or any other enactment …” And she tried to find out if we had in existence any other enactment which granted this kind of licence, which would go for a valid licence in dealing with this issue.
    Mr Avoka 1:20 a.m.
    That is why I referred to Act 703 of 2006 as the other enactment that deals with this subject matter.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:20 a.m.
    Hon Members, it looks like we are getting to the same conclusion. We need to get back to the drawing board and deal with a few things like the issue raised by the Hon Majority Leader, which would have to be included in this proposed amendment and so on and so forth.
    I think that we would have to defer this one too. In deferring this one, I propose that we bring the Consideration Stage to a close for now. So, that maybe tomorrow or the day thereafter, after the winnowing process, we could re-visit these clauses that we have deferred.
    Hon Majority Leader, there is a plea that you assist the Committee in the winnowing process as much as possible. We know how tight you are, but if you could assist the Committee, we would be very grateful.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Alban S. K. Bagbin 1:30 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    I definitely would make myself available to contribute my quota during the winnowing.
    But I am told that we have done item 5. We are on item 7, which we thought was the main Business for today. But in view of the very good arguments coming from both Sides of the House, I think that your directive that we should do winnowing, as it is so-called, would be done.
    I believe that the next item, which is item 8, would have to be deferred and if it is the pleasure of the House, I would want to beg to move, that we take an adjourn- ment till tomorrow.
    Mr Speaker, if it is the pleasure of the House, then I beg to move, that this House do adjourn till tomorrow at 10.00 o'clock in the forenoon, when we shall reconvene to continue with the Business of the House.
    Mr Daniel Botwe 1:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:30 p.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon Members.
    Before I put the Question, I would like to remind Hon Members that item 6 on the Order Paper,”Nuclear Regulatory Authority Bill, 2015" does not have any
    amendment filed by Hon Members. Please, take a look at it, if you would do your best to file amendments.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    ADJOURNMENT 1:30 p.m.
  • The House was accordingly adjourned at 1.33 p.m. till Wednesday, 10th June, 2015 at 10.00 a.m.