Mr Speaker, with respect tothis particular issue, I would like tounderscore one point, that there is nointention on the part of Government toinsult Parliament, as the Hon RankingMember insinuated. Government isseeking to capture the spirit of article 181(5), which is that, if there is an agreementthat does not in reality constitute a chargeon the Consolidated Fund, that is, it isnot a loan, then it falls outside the ambitof article 181 (5). It is only those international, economicor business transactions that constitutea charge on the Consolidated Fund thatshould be treated as loans, so actually,the provision here in the Bill captures thespirit of article 181 (5). Having said that, I agree with Hon PapaOwusu-Ankomah, that in the attempt tomodify article 181 (5), we have not givenourselves the opportunity tocomprehensively deal with what theframers of the Constitution gaveParliament the power to do, and which theSupreme Court has asked Parliament todo, and for two or three years nowParliament has not been able to do it. That is, give the opportunity TO USfor us to be able to state categorically inan Act of Parliament the type ofinternational economic agreement thatmust not come before this House as if theywere loans under article 181 of theConstitution. So Mr Speaker, I do support the viewthat this Clause is narrow and does notgive us the kind of opportunity that theConstitution gives us, so --
clause 74(1) can stand alone. Whetherwe put it here or not, that is the currentpractice. Is it not better to put it in thelaw? Take advantage of this law and put itthere? So I thought we should take clause 74(1) by itself and then take clause 74 (2) byitself.