Debates of 12 Oct 2017

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 12:05 p.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Hon Members, correction of Votes and Proceedings and the Official Report.
  • [No correction was made to the Official Report of Friday, 6 th October, 2017]
    • Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Are we ready to go on with item numbered 3 -- Urgent Question?
    Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Is the Hon Minister for Agriculture here?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Deputy Minister is in the House to represent his Hon Minister, subject to the indulgence of my Hon Colleagues, and of course --
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Minister for Agriculture, you may take the seat. The Question stands in the name of the Hon Member for Builsa North.
    ORAL ANSWERS TO URGENT 12:15 p.m.
    QUESTION 12:15 p.m.
    MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Agalga 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the dam in question is an existing dam which was breached as a result of torrential rains in the year 2016.
    Therefore, the follow-up question to the Hon Minister is that, when would it be rehabilitated? My understanding of the ‘One Village, One Dam' policy is that new dams would be constructed by Government in all the villages and towns in northern Ghana.
    Mr Speaker, could he throw more light on this subject?
    Dr Bambangi 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we do not throw or ignore our old clothing when we have new clothing. So, with “the One Village, One Dam” programme, we are going to also repair existing dams that can be of good use to our people in northern Ghana as well as the savannah zones.
    So, it is part of that programme and we are hoping to capture it in the 2018 Budget and then we would tackle these dams. So, we would construct new dams but we would also repair existing dams that can be of use to our people.
    Mr Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon Member?
    Mr Agalga 12:15 p.m.
    So --
    Mr Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Have you finished?
    Mr Agalga 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Deputy Minister said that the project would be captured in the 2018 Budget. Can he give us an indication whether Seniensi, or to be more specific, the suburb of Seniensi known as Kasa and its environs would further benefit from the ‘One Village, One Dam' policy even after the rehabilitation of the breached Kasa dam.
    Dr Bambangi 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not have details whether another dam has been proposed for Seniensi-Kasa, but I know that as regards this dam, we are prepared to repair it under the programme in the year 2018.
    Mr Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon Member, are you done? This is a constituency specific Question. So -- Hon Member, do you intend to ask another question?
    Mr Agalga 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, except that --
    Mr Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Hon Member, there would be no exceptions, if you have finished, please, take your seat.
    That brings us to the end of Question time.
    Thank you, Hon Deputy Minister, for coming to the House to attend to our Questions. You are at liberty to leave.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am aware that the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs is still engaged in some consultations on their Report.
    Mr Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    The Report is not here?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect to the Office of the Special Prosecutor Bill. So, the Report cannot be ready now.
    Mr Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    Item numbered 6 -- First Reading of Bills.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect, subject to your indulgence, I would want to lay the document on behalf of the Hon Minister for Finance.
    Mr Speaker 12:15 p.m.
    You may.
    MOTIONS 12:15 p.m.
    BILLS -- FIRST READING 12:15 p.m.
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION STAGE 12:25 p.m.
  • [Resumption of Consideration from 11/10/17.]
    • Mr Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, clause 4 --
    Clause 4 -- Governing body of the Authority
    Mr Rockson-Nelson E. K. Dafea- mekpor 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have the consent of --
    Mr Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    You would want to move on behalf of the --
    Mr Dafeamekpor 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is so.
    Mr Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Thank you very much. That is very dutiful.
    Please, proceed.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (1), paragraph (a), delete “nominated by the President”.
    Mr Speaker, the reason is that, the “nominated by the President” is considered to be implied. So, it is not necessary for it to be reflected in the Bill like that.
    Mr Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    So, should we delete “nominated by the President”?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes.
    Mr Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    So that the whole construction would be --
    Mr Dafeamekpor 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so that it would be the Chairperson --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to oppose the amendment being proposed. The reason is that there are two sections where the President is invited to make nominations; in 4 (a) and 4(1)(h) --
    “six persons with professional expertise nominated by the President at least two of whom are women.”
    Mr Speaker, I thought that maybe, the principle being espoused here is that the President should not be given any role in the nomination of the members. Mr Speaker, but when we come to subclause (h), there is no proposal, which means that it is just a sporadic amendment that is being filed and cannot be supported on any principle.
    Mr Speaker, for that reason alone, I believe we have to jettison the amendment and move on.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the amendment being proposed is not a sporadic one because we are saying that the governing body of the Authority is a Board consisting of a chairperson.
    Mr Speaker, we are saying that the additional phraseology “nominated by the President”, with all due respect, is not necessary at all. We do not have to say that the chairperson should be nominated by the President.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the point I made was that if he wants to move that amendment then conse- quentially and going by the principle that
    he wants to espouse, then he should have come to clause (6) to propose a similar amendment.
    To the extent that we did not do that, I am saying that it cannot be cocooned in any principle and that is why I referred to it as a sporadic one. This is because we do so in subclause (1) (a) and refuse to do same in (h). If you are saying to us that it is implied, then why are you not applying the same principle in (h)?
    Mr Speaker, that is why I am saying that we could easily go on without this. This is because if it is implied -- he is saying that it is implied and if it is put there for the avoidance of doubt, does it kill a fly? It does not. Mr Speaker, so, I believe we could move on without this amendment.
    Mr Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon Members, we know that this body is being set up as a developmental tool. Its workings must be in tandem with the policy and direction of the President of the time at any given time, and not just any particular President and someone must hold responsibility for the doings, successes and failures of the Authority.
    If we have someone who has a completely different vision and working to the failure of this, then how do we hold any particular President accountable for what happens during his tenure? So, no matter which particular President it is, if he is to do the nomination, it should be in tandem with the vision of that body or institution.
    We have had such confusion in this country even to the presidency level; between the President and the Vice President -- leading to all manner of nostalgia. We do not want that for development purposes.

    Hon Member, so, if you would not withdraw it then I would put the Question. I hope that Hon Members could see the simple direction. We cannot let an Authority be there and then we tie the hands of the man or woman holistically responsible for development -- not for any particular President but every President.

    So that we could hold a particular President responsible and say to him that your policies are not working, so, make them work. That would not be the day that Parliament would now say that we did not do you well because we gave you this and tied your hands behind you. Let us be realistic and move on with this matter. I would put the Question.

    Hon Member, you may withdraw if you want to.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am willing to withdraw the amendment but just to bring to the attention of the House that the Board in itself is a body corporate, so, we do not have to say that if the activities of the Authority failed then we would have to go after the President. No. It is a body corporate which is responsible for its actions.
    Mr Speaker, I am only saying that as part of the principles governing amendments in this House, when amendments are carried, they are sometimes done consequentially. So, if we would have to effect an amendment in (h) then it could be done consequentially.
    Mr Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Very well.
    I would then put the Question.
    Question put and amendment negatived.
    Clause 4 (ii) -- Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Hon Chairman, you would apologise before you go on.
    Chairman of the Committee (Mr Kwame Anyimadu-Antwi) 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am very sorry for keeping you waiting.
    Mr Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Please go on.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (1), paragraph (c), line 1, after “representative” insert “each”, and also delete “in the Northern Development Zone” and in line 2, before “Regional” insert “respective”.
    Mr Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    So that the rendition would be? It helps Hon Members to appreciate the totality of the clause.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so that the new rendition would read:
    “(c) one representative each of traditional authorities nominated by the respective Regional Houses of Chiefs in the Northern Development Zone.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (1), paragraph (c), delete and insert the following:
    “one representative each from the Regional Houses of Chiefs within the Northern Development Zone on rotational basis”.
    Mr Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, indicate clearly what is being deleted, and in effect, what is being substituted. It helps Hon Members --
    rose
    Mr Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment that has been proposed by the Hon Chairman of the Committee would imply that they would no longer have one representative. They would have three representatives.
    The purpose of the amendment that the Hon Minority Leader is moving through the Hon Defeamekpor is that they still should have the three representatives, but it should be rotational. How are they going to rotate it?
    Mr Speaker, maybe, what they meant was that it should be one representative from the Regional Houses of Chiefs within the Northern Development Zone on rotational basis. If they had said so, that would have still restricted it to one, except that it should be rotational. But now, we are going to have three. So, how are we going to have the three?
    Mr Speaker, with that amendment in itself, there is a problem with the construction. It does not really make any
    grammatical sense. So, I think the better arrangement for the Hon Member is to drop it. This is because, the intent is already covered by what the Hon Chairman has done.
    Mr Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Chairman?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am sure if the Hon Minority Leader's attention had been drawn to the fact that an amendment had been made -- Earlier, the proposal was one representative from the traditional authorities.
    With that one, the rotational basis would have applied, but we have changed it now to three representatives in the respective Regional Houses of Chiefs. Therefore, there would not be the need for the rotational basis. So in my opinion, the amendment must fall.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in this circumstance, I would abandon the amendment on behalf of the Hon Minority Leader. I would abandon this particular amendment as proposed.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let him declare to us that he is withdrawing, and not abandoning it.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment is withdrawn accordingly.
    Mr Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    The proposed amend- ment is withdrawn accordingly.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (1), paragraph (d), line 1, delete “of” and insert “responsible for”.
    So, the new rendition would be:
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (1), add the following new paragraph:
    “(e) “one person from the Ministry responsible for Special Development Initiatives”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Clause 4 -- Further amendment which stands in the name of the Hon Minority Leader.
    rose
    Mr Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, paragraph (e) that we have just considered, I would want the Hon Chairman to consider whether he would not want to add “nominated by the coalition of Civil Society Organisations in the Northern Development Zone” at the end of that construction. The person should be nominated by the coalition of Civil Society Organisations in the Northern Development Zone.
    Mr Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, if it is a fresh issue --
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I associate myself with the proposal. As regards the one person from the Civil Society Organisations in the Northern Development Zone, we should add “nominated by a coalition of Civil Society Organisation”, and would be appointed by the President.
    Mr Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Any views on that?
    Mr Mahama Ayariga 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think there would be a difficulty getting the Civil Society Organisations themselves to nominate. How are we going to ensure that? Is it going to be that they would have a congress of which all of them are members and annually or periodically they would meet to elect? So, we might have a problem where some civil society groups would come up and say they are not party to the process that led to --
    But if we say “a person from civil society”, it leaves the President who has the appointing authority to scout around civil societies and find somebody who is obviously a civil society member and whose contributions could be useful to the work of the Authority, and appoint that person.
    Otherwise, because there is no umbrella organisation that is defined by law -- There are organisations, but by law, they are not established, that anybody could say because this organisation is established by law as the umbrella of civil societies and organisations, they could meet and nominate somebody.
    Mr Speaker, I think the rendition is a safer one than the one that says “a person nominated by civil society organisation”. This is because there will be a problem for civil society organisations to meet and nominate somebody. The object is to find somebody within civil society organisation who can be useful to the work of the Authority. But because there is no formal law establishing a civil society organisation -- an umbrella organisation --
    Mr Speaker, if we say, “…nominated by civil society organisations” and I have
    my small non-governmental organisation in my village, and somebody is nominated and I am in Bawku, I can get up one early morning and say that I was not part of the process and by law, it says, the civil society must nominate that person, and I was not part of that process. So, that would create a legitimate problem for the nominee.
    Mr Speaker, let us leave the current rendition, so that the President will look around and find somebody, obviously, within civil society and put him or her there, so that we can move on.
    Mr Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    I think we can make progress by abandoning that pathway. We would go to item numbered (vi).
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect, the civil society organisations are very vociferous in protecting their turf. In many of the pieces of legislation that we have crafted, we have made provision for that.
    Mr Speaker, indeed, when it came to making presentations before the Committee in the referrals, they all appeared under the cloak of the Coalition of Civil Society Organisations.
    But I agree that it would make the work of the President easier if we do not have that construction, except that I believe very soon, people would rise up to say that the President entered their territory, and if they had been involved in the decision making, they know the experts in their field and they would have suggested A, B or C. That is the only reason.
    Mr Speaker, if we believe that to make the work of the President easier, we should leave the construction as it is, I have no fixation about that at all.
    Mr Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    I would advise that we abandon this pathway, so that if it is necessary, we would look at it further at the Second Consideration Stage, by that time, consultations would have been made. I fully appreciate one fact: there is proliferation of NGOs.
    As we are talking now, they are registering about ten (10) in the regions. We do not hurt ourselves, unless we have really thought it out again.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee, take us on your pathway.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:45 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Speaker, I pray that the amendment is withdrawn.

    May I with your permission, move on to the next item?

    Mr Speaker, there is an amendment in the name of Hon Haruna Iddrisu before the next proposed amendment, but that one could be withdrawn? I would explain why it should be withdrawn. This is because it is a 13-member committee and we want to maintain that.

    The amendment proposed therefore will be:

    Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (1),paragraph (h), line 1, delete “six” and insert “three” and line 2, delete “two of whom are” and insert “one of whom is”

    So, the new rendition would be:

    “…three persons with professional expertise nominated by the President at least one of whom is a woman.”

    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Kwame Governs Agbodza 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not have a problem with the proposed amendment, but the word “professional” is too broad in that sense. So, I was waiting for the term proposed by the Hon Minority Leader. He made a proposal to replace “professional” with “development.”
    I thought that would have tied in nicely with what the Hon Chairman is proposing, so that we use the word “professional” in place of “development”-- [Interruption] -- but then, we need to tie it to something, because if it is “professional” there are so many professions. [Interruption.]
    Mr Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Hon Member, you would want, if anything at all, that we must focus on people who are involved in development, not professionals per se, which expression will cover so many broader areas?
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, at the Committee level, we have considered this. We thought that “professional” will be appropriate, because it might be necessary to appoint an accountant, a lawyer or any other professional who will be serving under the development Authority.
    So, we did not want to limit ourselves to development. If we did that, it would prevent other professionals from being appointed. If we make it “development”, it would be too restrictive, that is why we should leave it as “professional”.
    Mr Frank Annoh-Dompreh 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to find out from the Hon Chairman of the Committee, on the same paragraph (h), which is about reducing the number from six to three, of whom one should be a woman.
    Mr Speaker, is it the reason of just reducing the number? Is it arbitrary or there are some other reasons that we are not aware of? Could the Hon Chairman educate us on that?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Chairman, at the Committee, the proposal was that we should have a 13-member committee. We had raised the number of traditional representatives to three (3) instead of one (1), and we have also added one person from the Ministry of Special Development Initiatives. So, we still wanted to maintain 13 and that was why we reduced the number from six to three.
    Mr Agbodza 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the Hon Chairman has helped us a bit. Since he said they might be engaging all sorts of professionals, then we should tie it down to, maybe, “the relevant professional expertise”, then it becomes more relevant.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Relevant professional expertise.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would consider that proposal.
    Mr Ayariga 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to draw attention to the number. If we even reduce the President's nominees by three, we will still have a total number of 13 members of the Board. Given the logistical issues involved in convening and resourcing a Board, do we want to have a Board as big as 13 members?

    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    I will put the Question on the Hon Chairman's amendment as of now.
    Hon Chairman, can you read it out, so that we will make progress?
    -- Order!
    Yes, Hon Chairman, your Hon Colleague will raise a point and then we will proceed.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, considering the recent amendment carried in respect of paragraph (h) to mean “relevant professional expertise,” in my humble opinion, I believe it should be “relevant expertise” so that we take the word “professional” out.
    Mr Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon Member, what expression would you want to be applied, please?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the phrase “relevant expertise”, so that we abandon the word “professional” in framing of the sentence.
    Mr Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    So, the same should stand, except “relevant professional expertise” -- Hon Member, you should please capture your rendition, so that if the Hon Chairman agrees, then we would put the Question.
    Mr Agbodza 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would now be:
    “three persons with relevant expertise nominated by the President”. So the phrase should be “relevant expertise.”
    Mr Speaker, the argument is that, not all people who are going to be engaged may necessarily have expertise in something, but they may be relevant to whatever they may have been asked to do.
    Mr Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, any objection, so that I can put the Question?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, I am not very comfortable with the proposal that was recently made. This is because with the phrase “relevant professional expertise”, I believe we can look at whatever is relevant to developmental authority. They are professionals; whether the person is a technocrat or whatever, he remains a professional, so, I propose that we maintain that.
    Mr Speaker, therefore, the new rendition would be 12:55 p.m.
    “three persons with relevant professional expertise, nominated by the President, at least one of whom is a woman”.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Ayariga 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in our original composition, we would still have had thirteen members, two of whom must be women, by virtue of the rendition of the last subclause 6. [Inteeruption.] I am saying that the total composition of the Board, assuming that fortunately, there is no woman from the institutional representation --
    Mr Speaker, I mean that if we are not fortunate to have --That is how I intended to sound, not “fortunately” as in if there is no woman representation. But if we are not fortunate to have a woman representation from the institutions, at the end of the day, by virtue of the President's
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, Ghana is very sensitive to gender issues, but I do not think that we would want to make laws to actually promote the superiority of women over men.
    Mr Speaker, as we have in clause 4 now, it is possible that we can have all of the thirteen-member committee being women --
    Mr Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, does the present proposal guarantee a minimum of two women? Does it? What we are talking about here is guarantee so does it?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker that is so, and therefore, I am not comfortable with this amendment.
    Mr Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon Ayariga, does it guarantee?
    Mr Ayariga 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, his amendment, if carried, would not guarantee a minimum of two women. It would not.
    Mr Speaker, we should have a look at the institutions. As we speak, if we say that the House of Chiefs should send nominations, I do not know of a woman member of the House of Chiefs who would represent them. So, these institutions are not likely to have women representation, but this original rendition guarantees a minimum of two women.
    Mr Speaker, I am saying that if we change the rendition, there would be no minimum of two women. We would be happy if all the institutions send women. We are not seeking to promote the superiority of women here, but we all know the problem that we have in this Chamber.
    Mr Speaker, the issue is that the original intention is to guarantee a certain minimum. I am saying that by our amendments here, we would be defeating the original intention. This is because by calibrating, we have not changed the overall numbers, but we have changed the overall minimum guarantee for women. That is what I am saying we should avoid, because that was not the original intention.
    Mr Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman, whatever you propose must guarantee a minimum of two women.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if at least, one of whom must be a woman, we could have the three to be women. So, as we have it, it guarantees the fact that women representation should be on that. Apart from that, with all the other subclauses, we could have women representation on them anyway.
    Mr Speaker, originally, we had six, and then we said at least two of them should be women. Now, it is reduced to three, and we say that at least, one of whom must be a woman. That means that even the three could be women. So, I am very certain that it guarantees women representation here.
    Mr Ayariga 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that the Hon Chairman of the Committee should look at the base. The base is the entire composition of the Board.
    The original proposal, no matter the sources, would have given us a Board made up of thirteen members, and the original proposal intended that out of these thirteen members, there should be a minimum guarantee that two of them would be women, then we decided to rearrange the sources of nominations, but we have not increased the number and have not reduced the number of the Board -- it is still thirteen.
    Mr Speaker, this last amendment that the Hon Chairman is proposing would reduce the guarantee that we are assuring women that they would have a minimum of two to a minimum of one, and I am saying that that is to the disadvantage of women because we have not reduced the overall size of the Board, and yet we are reducing the overall guarantee that there would be two women on the Board.
    Mr Speaker, so, he should not use the President's nominations as his base. If we use that one as the base we would get it wrong. It is not the President's nomination that I believe is the base.
    Mr Speaker, the base is the entire composition of the Board, which is thirteen persons. So if thirteen persons is in the original proposal, with the guarantee of two women, if we have recalibrated it and it is still thirteen, then we should still maintain the original guarantee to women that they would have a minimum of two. That is the argument.
    rose
    Mr Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Afenyo- Markin?
    Mr Speaker 1:05 a.m.
    Hon Ayariga, you may continue. This is very important.
    Mr Ayariga 1:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister brought us a Bill and in it, he proposed a Board and his intention is that, the Board should have a minimum number of two women. That is the intention as captured in the original Bill, that there should be a minimum number of two women. He proposed to achieve that through the President's nominations.
    Somehow, we decided to cut down the President's nomination. In cutting down the President's nomination, we do not reduce the entire composition of the Board; we maintained the same Board.
    Apart from the President's nomina- tions, there is no other mechanism by which we can achieve the objective of the original framer of this Bill by ensuring the minimum number of two. This is because we cannot guarantee the Houses of Chiefs and the Ministries themselves would send us women; we cannot guarantee that the civil society persons would be women. We cannot guarantee any of those.
    So, the only way, Mr Speaker, that we can guarantee that women would have a minimum of two, is to insist that even the three that we have left for the President to nominate, two must still be women. That is the only mechanism that guarantees
    women their two compulsory minimum representation.
    That is my position. But he is the Hon Chairman. That side of the House pushes Government Business. If they insist that women should not have the kind of representation that I believe they should have, then Mr Speaker, it is up to them.
    Mr Speaker 1:05 a.m.
    The situation must be such that, at the end of the day, a minimum of two women should be guaranteed and this should be done by the crafting mechanism we adopt. It is a simple matter; there is no debate about it.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker --
    Mr Speaker 1:05 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, please, hold on a moment.
    Mr Speaker 1:05 a.m.
    We cannot restrict the women representation to two. The guarantee here is that, there would be a minimum of two. No matter what, at the end of the day, we would want to guarantee women representation to two. A civil society organisation may bring a woman; another may bring a woman. In fact, the majority may be women but an Act is an Act.
    The purpose is to guarantee minimum of two women no matter what. So let us use appropriate engineering and proceed with the matter. If we would want the President's nomination to cover that, then we should say so and then guarantee it.
    Dr Donkor 1:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, when we met as a Committee, this issue cropped up. When we raised the issue, the Hon Minister responsible, who is a woman, said that her Ministry, in putting the Board together, would look at the overall numbers of nominations.
    That was why we agreed that then we should not tie the President to a minimum of two. This is because the Hon Minister assured us when the issue was raised, that it was not going to be just one woman.
    Mr Speaker 1:05 a.m.
    So, Hon Member, shall we still leave the President to nominate three if we so desire but ensure that in making his nominations, he would ensure that there are at least two women on the Board?
    Dr Donkor 1:05 a.m.
    Yes, so that it is not just his nomination. In looking at the overall composition, there should be at least two women, so that if the Ministry for Special Initiatives or the Ministry of Finance nominates a woman, then the President's hand need not be tied again to two women.
    1. 15 p.m.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, I do not know where the principle of having at least two women nominated by the President is being imported from.
    We are vesting discretionary powers in the President. As article 296 provides, we expect the President to be fair and candid in the nomination and appoint- ment; unless we do not want to ascribe those qualities to our President. Mr Speaker, that is the first one.
    To the extent that this would not be fatal, which is, if we said that at least, two of them should be women, it would not be fatal or injurious to what we are doing. To that extent only would I accept that. But the importation of the principle that willy-nilly, we should have two women, I do not see where it is coming from.
    Mr Speaker, notwithstanding that, I felt what Hon Members were going to draw attention to is the fact that, the President would not even nominate three people. The President would nominate four people. The Chairperson would be nominated by the President so we have four.
    So, if we are saying that the nomina- tion of the Chief Executive Officer, makes five. So we are saying that out of the five being nominated by the President, at least two should be women, that is a point.
    So, I thought they were going to string it from that angle but thus far, they have not even talked about that. That is why I am saying that this is not fatal. So, I agree
    —
    Mr Speaker 1:05 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, please, give us a rendition which incorporates this good idea that those nominated by the President must include at least two women, so that and we make progress.
    But believe you me, I would be very glad if this is well captured by Hansard. In this Honourable House, we are not going to assume that anybody with Executive Authority would act with fairness, be candid, and be objective.
    If we look at the Hansard of this Honourable House by way of the Legislative Assembly proceedings, it was said by some Hon Members, how do you think a good man like Nkrumah would ever misuse the Preventive Detective Act (PDA) and therefore, pass it and so on.
    We are going to be ruled by law and not by any man. Let us get that very clear. So do not let us extol anybody in this Honourable House when we come to making laws for the people of Ghana. If it is the era of affirmative action, let us ensure that the law would bite and it would take care of that need.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, just to conclude on the point I was making that, the imposition of the number two on the President was predicated on the fact that the President was going to make six nominations, that is the predicate, now that the President is not making six nominations in each but rather three, that predicate really becomes worn out.
    Notwithstanding, as I have said, if in view of where we are, the circumstances of the times we yield to the gender
    engineers, and make it two, I do not worry. Perhaps, we need a new construction there, that there should be three persons with relevant professional expertise nominated by the President.
    Then we can have a separate clause to ensure that, when we have said that the members of the Board shall be appointed by the President acting in accordance with article 70 of the Constitution, we then make a proviso, that in making the nomination, at least two of the members should be women. So, that would be a separate subclause.
    But we cannot tie it there, otherwise, we would be trying to tie the hands of the President. But I understand the principle that Hon Ayariga has espoused.
    Mr Speaker 1:05 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, for the sake of certainty, capture that mainly in the terms. We want to see the law so that we would then put the Question.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the Hon Chairman would indulge me, maybe, I would have to yield to him first.
    Mr Speaker 1:05 a.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, are you clear?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Majority Leader that, it is not going to be a straightforward issue. We have to come out with a new clause which would now look at the overall nomination by the President.
    Mr Speaker 1:05 a.m.
    Now the House is talking about it so, capture the mood of the House and do the job.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we could stand that down—
    Mr Speaker 1:05 a.m.
    Very good, I would stand that down, consult and bring us the rendition before we rise.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:05 a.m.
    Thank you Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 1:05 a.m.
    Move on to clause (viii).
    Hon Chairman?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the next amendment stands in the name of the Hon Minority Leader.
    Mr Haruna Iddrisu 1:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence. The Hon Nelson Dafeamekpor who was, and still is I am sure with your permission, has my permission. I may not be able to stay through because of some major party meeting at the National Headquarters of the party.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, subclause (3), delete
    Mr Speaker, article 70 of the Constitution vests the power of appointment of chairpersons and members of governing boards in the President. Mr Speaker, though it is a Northern Development Authority Bill, it lies within the President as a reasonable President, to mould those who would speed up his process.
    So, Mr Speaker, I do not believe that we should tie the hands of the President in saying that, he must have regard to fair representation in the Northern Zone. Even in the body of who would be a member, we have already categorised it that some of them, including traditional rulers would have representation.
    Mr Speaker, if it takes the President to know somebody in Greater Accra, who wants the good of the President and wants the good of the North to lead the process, let us leave it in the hands of the President.
    But to tie the President's hands that, in appointing a member of the Board, he should have regard to fair representation does not sit well. Mr Speaker, we have already defined who would serve on the Board.
    So, I beg to move that, we delete subclause (3) to respect the President as a reasonable person, and that in exercising his judgement, he would be fair as expected of him, and he would be candid. There is a constitutional requirement of him but not to tie him to the people in the Northern Zone.
    Mr Speaker, there is evidence that, there are people from the North who may not want the good of the North. It happens sometimes. Or who may not understand the issues the way a southerner may appreciate the issues. So, we should leave it open.

    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Any other contribution? Give the President a free hand to appoint from wherever.
    Mr Patrick Y. Boamah 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to disagree with the amendment moved by the Hon Minority Leader.
    Mr Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    So, your position is that there is no need for the amendment.
    Question put and ammedment agreed to.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the next amendment would have to fall because, the entire subclause (3) has fallen. This is because the next amendment was to amend subclause (3), line 2.
    To that extent, the next proposed amendment would fall, and I would move on to clause 5. So, I would wait for you to put the Question on clause 4.
    Mr Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Chairman, I do not get you.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what I said was that, the next proposed amendment was to amend subclause (3),
    line 2, but subclause (3) has been deleted by the amendment we just made. Therefore, there would be no need to go on with the amendment. If the entire subclause has fallen, then I do not have to.
    So, I would withdraw the next amendment.
    Mr Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Therefore, you would abandon it.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment in item numbered 9 (vii) has been carried. In effect, there is nothing -- [Interruption.]
    Mr Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon Member, that is what was deferred. There should be a proposed formulation because that could make us put the Question to the entire clause. Then we would make absolute progress without coming back.
    Hon Chairman, have you got a rendition?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would make an attempt. We could have a new subclause 3 to read as follows:
    “The President in exercising his powers in appointing members of the Board, shall ensure that at least two of the members of the Board are women.”
    Mr Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    “. . . in exercising his powers of appointment under this law shall exercise…”.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:25 p.m.
    Very well, Mr Speaker.
    “The President in exercising his powers of appointment under this law shall ensure, that there shall be at least two women on the Board.”
    Mr Speaker, I think that the Hon Majority Leader would want to help me, and I shall yield.
    Mr Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, this is the raw draft. You may help in the rendition.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the point I made to him was that the exercise of the powers of appointment by the President does not really ensue from the Act. It ensues from article 70.
    So, I said that, in that regard, he must subject that construction to article 70 of the Constitution.
    Mr Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, how do we put this amendment? I thought you started the process of helping us to have a formulation?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    “The President in exercising his powers of appointment under this law, and subject to article 70 of the Constitution, shall ensure that at least two of the members of the Board are women.”
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Clause 4 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 5 -- Functions of the Board.
    Mr Rockson-Nelson Etse Kwami Dafeamekpor (on behalf of Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, subclause (2), paragraph (d), line 1, after “implement” insert “recommendations” and in line 2, delete “frame for action”
    Mr Speaker, this is because in the Report of the Auditor-General, it is the recommendations that are implemented.
    So, the new rendition would be:
    “implement recommendations of the Auditor-General within the specified time”;
    Mr Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, please, can you read the entire resultant rendition? After this amendment, how would the new rendition read?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read as follows;
    “implement recommendations of the Auditor-General within the speci- ified time;”
    Mr Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Members, the proposed amendment is for the consideration of the House.
    rose
    Mr Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Ayariga?
    Mr Ayariga 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I can understand that the object of Hon Haruna Iddrisu's proposed amendment is to be more specific -- that in a Report, usually, it is the recommendations that are the subject of action.
    So, the word “report” could be replaced with the word “recommendation” -- but with the words “within the specified time frame”, whose time frame would it be?
    rose rose
    Mr Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, do you support the proposed amendment?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker --
    Mr Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    No, Hon Member, I would come back to you. Let Hon Humado also make his contribution.
    Mr Humado 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I could also see the sense in the amendment; but if the amendment is done the way it is proposed, the word “of” would be missing after the word “recommendation”.
    Mr Speaker, insertion of the word “recommendations” after the word “implement” is not enough. It should be “recommendations of”, and that is the only way that it could fit into the clause.
    rose
    Mr Agbodza 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, normally, in the Auditor-General's Report, there are actionable things that need to be done, and I know that, when the Reports are
    presented to Parliament, whatever we do, they go back to do verification, and whatever they find becomes part of the following year's Report.
    I believe that, if we just leave it as “recommendations as required”, it would imply that the Auditor-General would continue to do whatever he is supposed to do by law.
    So, we would not need to put anything like “time frame” because that would be no more relevant; that would have been done by themselves.
    So, the rendition would end with “recommendations as required”.
    Mr Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, “as required”, which would give room to manoeuvre and take appropriate steps as is deemed fit. That is the idea.
    Hon Member, please reformulate the new rendition, so that the Hon Chairman would give his comment and we proceed. By the time you finish with your rendition, he would get the same view as yours.
    [Pause] --
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, subclause (2), paragraph (f), line 1, delete “and strategies”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 1:35 p.m.
    “conduct reviews of its policies as determined by the Minister”.
    Mr Speaker, the Committee was of the view that when it comes to “strategies”, it is more administrative in nature, therefore that should not be the function of the Board. The Committee was of the view that the words “and strategies” must be deleted.
    Mr Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    The proposed amend- ment is for the consideration of the House.
    rose
    Mr Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, do you have a contribution on the present proposed amendment?
    Dr Donkor 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the real driving force of the amendment lies in the fact that the “Minister” does not determine strategy. Hon Ministers determine policy, and that is why we would want to delete the words “and strategies”.
    rose
    Mr Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Mr Annoh-Dompreh 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would be very happy if the Hon Chairman of the Committee could educate me on why the Board would not be able to review strategies and rather consign it to an administrative body. I believe the Board could and should be allowed to review strategies of the administrative body.
    Mr Speaker, I am not in agreement with the deletion of the words “and strategies”. I believe they should be maintained.
    Mr Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, what do you say about that?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Committee was of the view that, policy issues belong to the Ministry, but formulation of strategies must be left with the Chief Executive Officer to conduct the day to day affairs. That was why we thought that, we must take that out from the Board and give it to the Chief Executive Officer.
    Mr Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Is it because it is more of a day to day management? Is that your view point?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes. We thought that is administrative, and that we should leave it to the Chief Executive.
    Ms Safo 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I tend to agree with the Hon Member for Nsawam- Adoagyiri to the extent that the emphasis in this provision — clause 5, subclause 1 (f) “ is on the Board reviewing the policies and strategies of the Authority”.
    So, if we add the latter part of it as determined by the Hon Minister, that is where Hon Dr Kwabena Donkor has an issue that is indeed sustainable.
    It is that the Hon Minister determines policies and not administration or strategies. That is in line with the proposed amendment by the Hon Chairman.
    Mr Speaker, I would further propose that since the emphasis is on the Authority of the Board to review policies and strategies of the Authority, the latter part as determined by the Hon Minister, should be deleted, so that the new rendition would read as follows:
    “The Board shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, conduct reviews of its policies and strategies of the Authority.”
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 1:45 p.m.
    “Conduct reviews of its policies and strategies”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, have you come to some conclusion on item numbered (x) on page 5 of the Order Paper? If so, we can put the Question on the entire clause 5.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition in respect of the amendment as proposed in item numbered (x) on page 5 of the Order Paper would be:
    “to implement the recommendations of the Auditor-General and take the necessary actions as required.”
    Mr Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon members, “and act thereon” or “and take the necessary action” — not “as required” again.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “and take the necessary action.” — I yield.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 5 as variously amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 7 — Tenure of office of members of the Board.
    Mr Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    There is no listed amendment.

    Hon Chairman, where are you taking us to?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 7(1), the words in line (2) be deleted — that is:
    “but a member shall not be appointed for more than two terms.”
    That is the proposed amendment, and I wanted to see the reason behind that.
    Mr Speaker, clause 7(1) says 1:45 p.m.
    “A member of the Board shall hold office for a period of four years and is eligible for re-appointment, but a member shall not be appointed for more than two terms”.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the reason is that, we may lose people who must have served in that capacity as a result of experience. If after eight years and the person is mandatorily removed, we may lose his institutional memory and experience. If the person is effective and capable in his delivery, he should be able to continue to be appointed — [Interruption.]
    Mr Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Members, are we attentive to what he said?
    There is a serious conversation going on at the back, and the Hon Members are not even aware of the fact that, I am drawing every attention to them.
    Hon Members, let us go on seriously with the Business of this Honourable House.
    Question put and amendment nega- tived.
    Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 8 — Meetings of members of the Board.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, subclause (3), line 2, after “Board” delete all the words up to the end of the subclause.
    Mr Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon Member, please, read out those words. What are the words to be deleted?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we should carry out this amendment, that subclause would not be intelligible. Therefore, I suggest that the amendment must fall. [Interruption.] That is subclause 3. [Pause.]
    Mr Agbodza 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the amendment is appropriate. If we give the opportunity to the Board at any meeting to determine what a quorum is, one can imagine. If the people who are supposed to attend the meeting for some reasons do not attend, then the others at the meeting can decide that three of them are enough to form a quorum and go ahead with it. I believe that is a wrong thing.
    So, the proposal to leave the review at the Board, which would mean that the quorum at a meeting of the Board is seven members, should be like that. To say that, “or a greater number as determined” gives
    a window of discretion to the Board, which is a bit problematic.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, I agree with the amendment proposed to delete all the words up to the end. That is, after ‘Board' in line 2. The reason is, that it would be left to the Board to determine the seriousness or otherwise of any particular matter to decide to raise or limit the quorate number.
    If a decision is taken by a Board at a meeting and then it is later observed that, given the seriousness of the matter it must be reviewed, they could do that. That would not relate to the quorate number taking the decision. Once we establish that the quorate number is seven, we can work with it. That is the working quorate number. If a decision is taken, it could be subject to review by the Board at the next meeting.
    So, Mr Speaker, I believe we do not need these words after the word, ‘Board'.
    Mr Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon Members, I will put the Question. [Interruption.]
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am sorry. The subclause 3(2), after ‘Board', if we should delete all the words --
    If I may get the new rendition, I would be grateful. If it is line 3 after “Board” --
    Mr Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, I do not get you. Does that touch on what we are doing right now? I was just going to ask whether the amendment must stand part of the Bill.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, please, be specific because I do not know whether you are taking us back now or you are just reiterating the present.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am comfortable now. We may proceed.
    Mr Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Mr Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, subclause (4), line 2, after “Board” insert “other than the Chief Executive”
    So, Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be:
    “The Chairperson shall preside at meetings of the Board and in the absence of the Chairperson, a member of the Board other than the Chief Executive elected by the members present from among their number shall preside.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Clause 8 as variously amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon Members, just for the avoidance of doubt, clause 6 is ordered to stand part of the Bill without any amendment.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, I wanted to draw the attention of the Hon Chairman of the Committee to clause 6(3).
    And with your permission, I beg to quote:
    “A member of the Board who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) commits an offence and is liable on
    summary conviction to a fine of not less than one hundred penalty units and not more than two hundred and fifty penalty units.”

    Since we have gone beyond that, I am just drawing the attention of the Committee that, they should have a second look at it. Perhaps, we can do that during the Second Consideration Stage.
    Mr Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Very well.
    Indeed, that is what can be done at this stage. During a Second Consideration Stage, they may bring this up. Meanwhile, let us make progress.
    Hon Members, item numbered 9 (xv) on the Order Paper. [Interruption.] Very well, I was just going to mention it.
    Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 10 -- Establishment of Committees
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, subclause (1), line 2, delete “or non-members or both” and insert “and non-members”
    So, the new rendition would be:
    “(1) The Board may establish committees consisting of members of the Board and non- members to perform a function of the Board.”
    Mr Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon Members, the proposed amendment is for consideration.
    rose
    Mr Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon Ayariga?
    Mr Ayariga 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is my considered view that, a further amendment to the Hon Chairman of the Committee's proposed amendment is needed.
    Mr Speaker, should it not be;
    “The Board may establish com- mittees consisting of persons who are not members or to both persons”
    Is that not more elegant rendition than what we have?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what he is saying is the same thing. It would have the same effect and when we say;
    “…members of the Board and non- members”
    It means that we can have persons who are not members of the Board to form a Committee. So, it means the same thing. The new rendition would read;
    “The Board may establish committees consisting of members of the Board and non-members to perform a function of a Board”
    Ms Safo 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do agree with the proposed amendment by the Hon Chairman. My only challenge is the omission of the word, “or both”.
    The proposed amendment is that, the committees would consist of members and non-members but the interpretation I am
    getting here is that, the draftspersons of the Bill had in mind that, there would be situations where we could have a member and a non-member at the same time and that is why they made provision for both.
    So, we cannot totally abandon the word “both” but we, can use the word ‘and' in between the members and the non-members still maintain, “or both”. This is because the two situations might happen at the same time.
    Mr Collins Owusu Amankwah 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is a follow-up to what Hon Afenyo-Markin proposed as regards;
    “The Board may co-opt a person…”
    Mr Speaker, I am of the considered view that it be left open; which and what type of person? A person of expertise, or the Board can co-opt any member or friend to a meeting.
    Mr Speaker, I think that it should be left open.
    Dr Donkor 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Boards do establish committees and indeed, we can take the Petroleum Commission Act passed by this House as an example.
    The Commission is enjoined by law to establish a local content committee. Members of the local content committee, which is a sub-committee of the Board, are not all Board members, except that it is always chaired by a Board member.
    So, this provision allows the Authority, particularly, with its strategic objective of developing a whole zone, to bring in outside expertise to its committees. Therefore, they become non-members of Board committees.
    A Board committee would always have a Board member on the committee which is the practice in terms of good management practices.
    So, the rendition as the Hon Chairman has put it, I believe is the best.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what is being done here; the proposal from the Committee would imply that, whatever committee that is established by the Board, must necessarily have a Board member.
    Even though in defining the mem- bership, we said that the President in making the appointment, should consider persons with the relevant professional competencies before appointing them. It is not possible to have persons with relevant expertise in every matter serving on the committee. That is why we usually make provision for the composition of a committee that would not, perhaps, have Board members.
    The point remains that, whatever decisions that are made by that committee would still have to come to the Board for adoption, if we would like, for ratification.
    So, there is a template for this in all the pieces of legislation that we have done. Indeed, I would refer to the Chartered Institute of Taxation Act, 2016 Act 916;
    The provision for the Establishment of committees in section 8(1);
    “The Council may establish committees consisting members of the Council or non-members or both to perform a function”
    It is a standard rendition, so, I wonder why we should want to re-invent the wheel. So, please, let us cling to what is contained in the Bill for reasons of consistency and move on.
    Mr Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    In fact, it is always safer to go by these established practices. We would save ourselves a lot of troubles.
    Hon Member, unless you are departing from this pathway, let the Hon Chairman comment and then we accept it and proceed.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in that case, I withdraw the proposed amendment.
    Mr Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    No.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what we had thought of at the Committee level was that --
    Mr Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Can we ask of the assistance of the Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I did not hear you.
    Mr Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Can we ask of the assistance of the Hon Majority Leader and then we make quick progress.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the point I just made --
    Mr Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    The rendition as per the established practice. Kindly read the rendition for us as per the established practice which you referred to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the original should hold.
    “The Board may establish committees consisting of members of the Board or non-members or both, to perform a function of the Board.”
    Mr Speaker, that is the original construction and I plead with the Hon Chairman that he should drop his amendment to enable what is contained in the original Bill to hold.
    Mr Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, do you agree to that?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is why I am saying that I intend to withdraw the amendment.
    Mr Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    And resort to the original rendition?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, but before that, I would want us to be very clear on this; what the Committee had agreed on was that, at any point in time when a sub-committee of the Board is established, there must be a Board member of the committee to chair. Mr Speaker, so, if we look at the next proposed amendment, we intend to say that
    “A committee of the Board shall be chaired by a member of the Board.”
    Mr Speaker, that is why we would want to drop the words “or non-members or both” so that we would not have a committee of the Board that would exclusively be non-members. That is the proposal, and if as a House, we would want to go by that, then, we would need to drop those words and the new rendition should be:
    “The Board may establish committees consisting of members of the Board and non-members to perform a function of the Board.”
    Mr Speaker, that is the proposal, so, if we understand it that way, then the amendment must hold.
    Mr Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    And in the process you would capture the -- in fact, it is established that it shall have a member of
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition of clause 10 (1) would be:
    “The Board may establish com- mittees consisting of members of the Board and non-members to perform a function of the Board.”
    Mr Speaker, subclause 2 states that clause 9 applies to a member of a committee of the Board.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that we could have a way around this. If we maintained clause 10 (1) as the original because we want to involve more professionals, specialists, experts and so on, then, we could maintain clause 10 (1).
    Then the new clause 10 (2) that they are introducing would provide that
    “Despite subsection 1 of clause 10, a committee of the Board shall be chaired by a member of the Board”.
    Mr Speaker, that would put it beyond doubt.
    Mr Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Hon Members, I would put the Question on that.
    Hon Chairman, are you withdrawing the amendment?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no. What I proposed was that, if we maintain the amendment, then the next amendment; clause 10 (2), would be
    “A committee of the Board shall be chaired by a member of the Board.”
    So, clause 10 (1) must read:
    “The Board may establish com- mittees consisting of members of the Board and non-members to perform a function of the Board.”
    Mr Speaker, the moment we bring “or both”, we would have a committee that would consist exclusively of non- members.
    Mr Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    We cannot have a committee which comprises exclusively non-members. We do not need that and it is not done. Those who do Company Law would tell you that, that would be ceding the authority of the Board. You do not cede it to others totally but you could let others come and help you.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that, the sense of the House is to have the new rendition for clause 10 (1):
    “The Board may establish com- mittees consisting of members of the Board or non-members to perform a function of the Board.”
    Mr Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    If you say “members of the Board and non-members”, it is different from saying “members of the Board or non-members”. The latter would give the implication that, non-members alone per se could be given functions but which is not done. The member of the Board would go and report back to the Board.
    The intention is to seek the assistance of others but not to cede, that is, abandon the duty of the Board. We called you to come and help us but not to hand it over to you. That is the essence of the Company Law general provision.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the fear that you are expressing would be cured by the new subclause (2) which would then read as follows:
    “Despite subclause (1), a committee of the Board shall be chaired by a member of the Board.”
    Mr Speaker, so, respectfully, it would cure the fear that you are expressing.
    Mr Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, proceed.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that the next amendment would cure that but we do not have to create the problem before we cure it.
    Mr Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Exactly.
    Order!
    Please, listen carefully to the Hon Chairman:
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so, if we maintain:
    “The Board may establish committees consisting of members of the Board and non-members to perform a function of the Board.”
    We could put the amendment in the next clause and it would be consistent with the first one.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to propose that, with clause 10 (1), the new rendition should be 2:15 p.m.
    “The Board may establish com- mittees consisting of members of the Board and non-members to perform a function of the Board.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, please, proceed with subclause 2.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, add the following new subclause:
    “(2) A committee of the Board shall be chaired by a member of the Board”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 10, subclause 3, to read as follows:
    “(3) Clause 9 applies to a member of a committee of the Board.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 10 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Hon Members, at this juncture, we shall take a break for one hour. We shall resume Sitting at 3.30 p.m.
    Thank you very much for your cooperation. I believe we have made good progress and we shall continue to make a conclusive project on this issue.
    2.27 p.m. -- Sitting suspended.
    4.20 p.m. - Sitting resumed.
    Mr Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Hon Members, clause 12. There is an amendment that stands in the name of the Hon Minority Leader?
    Clause 12 -- Ministerial directives
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12, line 1, after “give” insert “policy”
    Mr Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Hon Member, kindly read out what it will be and then we will follow; just say what we should delete.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition will be:
    The Minister may give policy directives or matters of policy to the Board and the Board shall comply for the avoidance of doubt.
    Mr Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member is a bearer of message from the Hon Minority Leader, but he must be advised to bear good messages.
    Mr Speaker, what he seeks to do -- I believe the Hon Minority Leader, perhaps, did not have the benefit of reading the entire complement of that clause.
    It provides that, and Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to read:
    “The Minister may give directives on matters of policy.”
    So, if he says, “the Minister may give policy directives on matters of policy”, that rather is tautologous.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that it is not necessary for him to move the amendment. So, let us make progress by having the amendment withdrawn by the Hon. member.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, as much as I agree with the Hon Majority Leader's position, I spoke with the Hon Minority Leader and he said that, it is for the avoidance of doubt.
    Mr Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    So, instead of “…give directives”, we should say “…give policy directives.”
    Is that what you want to say?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:25 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker. He wants “policy” to qualify the “directives” first. [Interruption.] I want “policy” to qualify the “directives.” [Interruption.]
    Mr Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Order!
    Hon Members, do not turn it into a conversation.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:25 a.m.
    Very well, Mr Speaker
    .
    Mr Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Do we want ‘policy
    direction' or we want direction?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the word as it reflects in the sentence here is “directives.”
    Mr Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    All right. Now, will that include -- If it is not qualified by “policy”, it means the Hon Minister can give any directive and that is even more embracing. That is really an octopus provision. If he says employ this one, it will be done. Is that what we want? “Policy” qualifies the “directives” and we cannot therefore give just any directives but those that are in conformity with real public policy or policy of Government.
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Dr Donkor 2:25 a.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    This is standard rendition in a number of our laws. The Hon Minister gives directives on matters of policy. It is already stated. So, I would advise that the Hon Minority Leader withdraws that.
    Mr Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Hon Members, we would want to be very careful so as to establish a certain consistency in laws brought before the House.
    An example is what is being provided -- the issue of the Taxation Act. The Hon Minister may give directives to the Council on matters of policy and the Council shall comply.
    In fact, in future, we must adopt these simple ones and you will see that it is not on matters of policy. Otherwise, the Hon Minister may well go and sit over there. So, on matters of policy --
    Hon Chairman, if you can just adopt this, so that we would make progress.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am waiting for the proposed amendment to be withdrawn.
    Mr Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Hon Member, I have read it. May the amendment be withdrawn.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:25 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker. I am minded to withdraw the proposed amendment.
    Mr Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Thank you very much.
    The amendment is accordingly withdrawn.
    Questions put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 13 -- Appointment of Chief Executive Officer
    Mr Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    An amendment in the name of Hon Haruna Iddrisu.
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 13, add the following new subclause:
    “The President shall appoint
    (i) a Deputy Chief Executive responsible for Administration; and
    (ii) a Deputy Chief Executive responsible for Operations.”
    Mr Speaker, the reason is that, it has emerged that in State Parastatals, where originally Parliament failed to create Deputy Chief Executive positions, the Executive found it expedient to do so. So, it is appropriate that, for example, with the State Insurance Company (SIC) Life, the National Service Scheme and the National Health Insurance, the Executive have seen it fit to create Deputy Chief Executives positions for some of these agencies.
    Mr Speaker, so we consider it expedient to legislate and create these positions as a matter of law, so that we do not leave discretion in the hands of the Executive so that they are properly governed by statute.
    Mr Speaker, indeed, one of your Bills that is being considered, which is the Office of the Special Prosecutor, there is --
    Very well.
    So, Mr Speaker, the reasons have been given as to why we think we are of the humble opinion that it would be expedient for this Deputy Chief Executive position
    -- 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Hon Member, please proceed.
    Dr Donkor 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, for corporate governance, particularly in an era where we want to move our parastatals from pure quangos into semi commercial entities, we should leave room for Boards to take responsibility for organograms and some appointments.
    The trend in the profession -- Mr Speaker, I am a fellow of the Chartered Management Institute of the United Kingdom-- the trend in the profession is to let Boards take responsibility for a lot more governance issues.
    Mr Speaker, if we create too many positions by law, it diminishes the role and responsibilities of various Boards. So, I would kindly suggest that the creation of Deputy Chief Executives and others should be the responsibility of various Boards, if they deem it fit. However, legislating this creates its own management problems.
    Mr Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Mr Boamah 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
    Mr Speaker, if we look at clause 16 -- “Appointment of other staff”, the apprehension of the Hon Minority Leader is settled under clause 16 (1), which says:
    “The President shall, in accordance with article 195 of the Constitution, appoint for the Authority other employees that are necessary for the proper and efficient conduct of its function”.
    Mr Speaker, clause 17 also supports our case that we should not legislate on some of those things.
    Mr Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    So, should we wait to cross the bridge when we get to it and not be so anticipatory? It can be easily provided for. So, I would put the
    Question, unless the Hon Deputy Chairman of the Committee would want to withdraw the amendment.
    Please, I would want the mover to speak.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would not withdraw the amendment.
    Mr Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    You will not withdraw the amendment, so, I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment negatived.
    Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 14 -- Functions of the Chief Executive Officer
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 14, subclause (1), line 3, after “of” insert “his”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 2:25 a.m.
    “The Chief Executive Officer is responsible for the day to day administration of the affairs of the Authority and is answerable to the Board for the performance of his functions under this Act.”
    Mr Speaker, it is the word “his” that is missing.
    Mr Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Very well.
    So, it would be: “performance of his functions under this Act”.
    Yes, Hon Chairman?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, save that the drafting style these days would want to avoid the use of “his” or pronouns
    as much as possible, they do not use it at all. That is why I believe the amendment should follow; pronouns are not introduced in legislations these days.
    Mr Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Very often, people go round it by saying; “of all functions,” then it does not sound funny to people, but actually, it is not necessary.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, quite apart from what the Hon Chairman has said, we are not even talking about the functions of the Chief Executive Officer in this instance. They are not the functions of the Chief Executive Officer. We are referring to the functions of the Authority, so it cannot be, “of his functions”.
    Mr Speaker, the Chief Executive Officer is responsible for the day to day administration of the affairs of the Authority, and he is answerable to the Board for the performance of the functions of the Authority under this Act. That is what it means.
    Mr Speaker, the functions of the Authority and of the Board have been defined. No functions have been ascribed to the Chief Executive Officer, so, in this case, we are referring to the day to day performance of those functions as established in this Act. So, it is not about the functions of the Chief Executive Officer.
    Mr Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    In fact, that respon- sibility may cover what his accountant or other officials have done. That is why very often, we also see in legislations, the phrase; “of all functions”. But if we remove the “or”, it would still be alright.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if I may be heard, I would refer you to the controlling sub-headline: “the functions of the Chief Executive Officer”.
    Mr Speaker, that is the sub-heading of this clause and so it cannot be correct, with all due respect, that the functions we speak of are those of the Board and not of the Chief Executive Officer.
    Mr Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Well, that was why I did not dwell on the personal issues.
    Shall we be advised as to the omnibus of all functions and then make progress?

    Does “of all functions” create any problem?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, if you look at the Bills that we have crafted, it would sit very well with the language. It is the functions of the Authority that the Chief Executive Officer is charged to perform on a day to day basis. That is why I said that, it did not relate to a “him” or “her”; it relates to the performance of the functions of the Authority.
    Mr Speaker 4:40 p.m.
    Will “all functions” cover everything and be understood?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we say “all functions,” we have functions of the Authority and the Board. If we say “all functions” --
    Mr Speaker 4:40 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, kindly give us a rendition and let us move on.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I tried to explain to my Hon Colleague that the functions that are spoken of here are that of the Authority. If we leave it as it is -- Mr Speaker, that is the language that we have employed in the crafting of all Bills. It relates to the functions of the Authority, so we better leave it as it is.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the original rendition is explanatory enough. I do not think my Hon Colleague would have to introduce any new --
    Mr Speaker 4:40 p.m.
    Please, read what is already written there which you believe we should keep.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:40 p.m.
    It provides:
    “The Chief Executive Officer is responsible ...”
    Mr Speaker, clause 13 (1) provides 4:40 p.m.
    “The President shall in accordance with article 195 of the Constitution appoint a Chief Executive Officer for the Authority.”
    So, if I have to further improve --
    Mr Speaker 4:40 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, can I ask so that you help us? We would want to have the rendition gender neutral so that we do not introduce “his” and “her”.
    Hon Majority Leader, you may go on then. I have not finished, but you may go on.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, I said that the gender issue does not even arise in the first place because, these are the functions of the Authority so, if we want to be very explicit, one could say:
    “The Chief Executive Officer is responsible for the day to day administration of the affairs of the Authority and is answerable to the Board for the performance of functions of the Authority under this Act.”
    That indeed is the intent of clause 14
    (1).
    Mr Dafeamekpor 4:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that may be the intent but let us look at subclause (2). [Interruption.] No, hold on, let us look at subclause (2).
    Mr Speaker, it says 4:40 p.m.
    “The Chief Executive Officer may delegate a function to an officer of the Authority who is not below the rank of a Director but shall not be relieved of ultimate responsibility for the performance of the delegated function.”
    Mr Speaker, if the Chief Executive Officer does not have a function, how would he delegate it? [Interruption.] Please, that matters.
    Mr Speaker, I insist that the function vis-à-vis the controlling headnote refers to the functions of the Chief Executive Officer. So, we only urge that we do the needful to reflect the true intent of this House so that tomorrow, nobody goes to court to litigate over what would become section 14 in respect of ‘functions'.
    Mr Speaker 4:40 p.m.
    Have you finished? Any other views?
    Mr Agbodza 4:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on page 7 of the Bill, the functions of the Board are outlined there so it is not possible that this particular clause would refer to the functions of the Board again. This is because the functions of the Board are already outlined in another clause.
    So, I believe this headnote, “Functions of the Chief Executive Officer” talks about the functions of the Chief Executive Officer and nothing else. I do not believe the headnote misleads us.
    I believe the proposed amendment is in place. That is why it says:
    “The Chief Executive Office is responsible for the day to day administration of the affairs of the Authority and is answerable to the Board for the performance of his functions under this Act.”
    Of course, the Board is not responsible for the day to day running of the Authority; the Chief Executive Officer is responsible for those.
    If the new drafting technique says that it should be gender neutral, we should not use “his” or “hers”; we can understand that. But I believe apart from that, this clause does not talk about the functions of the Board so we can say -- [Interruption.] These functions are for the Chief Executive Officer. I believe we can take out “his”. If that is the case, we can drop the amendment.
    Mr Speaker 4:40 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, the Hon Member says you should drop the amendment.
    Is the Hon Member who moved the amendment agreeable?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 4:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we withdraw the proposed amendment.
    Mr Speaker 4:40 p.m.
    Thank you.
    If the amendment is withdrawn, then we just proceed.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 4:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so, the clause as it would stand, because we have withdrawn it.
    Mr Speaker 4:40 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, amendment listed xx on the Order Paper.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 4:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 14, subclause (2), line 3, delete “from” and insert “of”
    So, the new rendition would be:
    “The Chief Executive Officer may delegate a function to an officer of the Authority who is not below the rank of a Director but shall not be relieved of ultimate responsibility for the performance of the delegated function.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 14 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 15 -- Secretary to the Board
    Mr Dafeamekpor 4:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 15, subclause (2), paragraph (b), delete.
    Mr Speaker 4:40 p.m.
    What is the resultant effect?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 4:40 p.m.
    The resultant effect, Mr Speaker, would be that clause 15 (2) would carry no subclause (b).
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 4:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is an omnibus clause that adds to what the Secretary may do, so, I do not see why we have to do away with it. We cannot anticipate everything that the Secretary may be empowered to do or would do for the effective performance of the Authority. I believe the omnibus clause is necessary and it must be retained.
    Mr Speaker 4:40 p.m.
    Do you support the amendment?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 4:40 p.m.
    No, Mr Speaker, I do not.
    Mr Boamah 4:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do support the amendment subject to this little amendment that I beg to propose; that the Secretary to the Board shall perform such other functions that the Board may in writing direct.
    Mr Speaker, I also beg to further move that we delete “as the Chief Executive Officer may in writing delegate”.
    My reason is that, the Secretary is responsible to the Board. The Board appointed the Secretary, not the Chief Executive Officer. And the Secretary is not subject to the direction and control of the Chief Executive Officer. So, that distinction has to be clearly made.
    Mr Speaker 4:50 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if subclause (b) is deleted, it would restrict the role of the Secretary to just arranging business for the meetings and causing minutes of the proceedings of the meetings of the Board to be recorded. Causing the minutes to be recorded may even mean that, he or she as the Secretary may not be the person directly in charge of taking down minutes.
    So, the question is, what is going to be the role of the Secretary apart from arranging the business for meetings? Is that the reason for appointing a Secretary? The Board may direct the secretary to do other things. So, it is important that we leave it.
    I would want to associate myself with the further amendment proposed by the Hon Member for Okaikoi Central that we should not subject the Secretary to the Chief Executive Officer. So, we may delete that one. The rendition would be:
    “…perform such other function that the Board may in writing, direct.”
    So, we end there.
    Mr Speaker 4:50 a.m.
    Is that clear?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 4:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the further amendment being proposed to the earlier one.
    Mr Speaker 4:50 a.m.
    And for the avoidance of any doubt, if the Hon Majority Leader would repeat that rendition for guidance so that the Hansard can have it captured.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, “perform such other functions that the Board may in writing direct”. Delete all the words after ‘direct'.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 15 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 16 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Speaker 4:50 a.m.
    Clause 19?
    Clause 19 -- Funds of the Authority.
    Mr Speaker 4:50 a.m.
    The proposed amendment stands in the name of Hon Haruna Iddrisu.
    Mr Dafeamekpor (On behalf of Haruna Iddrisu) 4:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, paragraph (b), line 1, delete “from” and insert “allocated for”, and in line 2, delete “Project” and insert “Programme”
    Mr Speaker 4:50 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Mr Kennedy Nyarko Osei 4:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am against the amendment. I say so because, resources must be evenly distributed. We have three Authorities, so if you say we should allocate six per cent,
    two to each, we should limit ourselves to moneys approved by Parliament.
    I think that should be the rendition. So, I am opposed to the amendment proposed.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 4:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the present amendment is being proposed due to the fact that the source of funding for these Authorities would become very critical for the efficient functioning of their duties. It is important that, by legislation, we determine the primary source of funding.
    Mr Speaker, because we have two other sister Bills, we can, as a matter of consequence let this reflect in the other Bills so that we have a primary consistent source of funding for these Authorities. This is because the object of these Bills state clearly that, they are to speed up the developmental processes in these various Zones.
    Departing from the status-quo, and how do we ensure that? It would be because, we would have a regular source of funding. Otherwise, if we rely on donor funding and all that, we would be doing business as usual. We would fall in the situation of the Savannah Accelerated Development Authority (SADA).
    It is important that, we depart from the situation of SADA and seek for annual permanent funding source for their activities. This is the reason we are proposing this amendment.
    The percentage may be a problem, I agree, but there has to be a permanent source of funding for them to be able to carry out their functions.
    Humbly submitted, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 4:50 a.m.
    What is the statistical basis for two per cent being stated so categorically?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 4:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are of the humble opinion that, two per cent of the Annual Budget Funding Amount
    (ABFA) --
    Mr Speaker 4:50 a.m.
    What is the statistical basis for it?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 4:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I cannot stand here and give you the statistical basis.
    Mr Speaker 4:50 a.m.
    That is why it is dangerous. I would put the Question.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is important because, he shows some concern for financing the Development Authority. He proposes two per cent of the ABFA. He says that, in his considered opinion, that would be a permanent source of funding for the Authority.
    There cannot be any permanence about that. This is because, we know that the resource that we have, that is oil, could get exhausted. So, what is permanent about that? That is the first point.
    Secondly, I know that, this provision exists in the SADA Act but it was never applied. Notwithstanding, that was when we had only one Development Authority. Now, we are going to have three, so if we should begin with two for one, by necessary implication, we should have the same applied to the others. Here he is, unable to tell us the quantum that he wants.

    That being the case, I believe that the amendment should be --
    Mr Speaker 4:50 a.m.
    I think that the direction is clear.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:50 a.m.
    Let us all take on board the sentiment that he seeks to bring on board that we need to really resource the Development Authorities. I think that is the issue that he wants to bring to the fore and all of us should be concerned.
    Question put and amendment negatived.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 4:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, paragraph (b), line 1, delete “from” and insert “allocated for”, and in line 2, delete “Project” and insert “Programme”.
    The new rendition would read:
    “The funds of the authority shall include moneys allocated for the Infrastructure for Poverty Eradi- cation Programme”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 4:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, paragraph (i), before “internally” insert “any other”.
    The new rendition would read:
    “The funds of the Authority shall include:
    (i) any other internally generated funds of the Authority.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 4:50 a.m.
    There is a further amendment to clause 19.
    The proposed amendment stands in the name of four Hon Members of Parliament.
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 4:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19 -- Add the following new paragraph:
    “(j) levies on non-petroleum imports to be approved by Parliament.”
    It is just an insertion. The reason is that --
    Mr Speaker 4:50 a.m.
    Add to the sources of revenue?
    Mr S. Mahama 4:50 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker. The reason is that --
    Mr Speaker 4:50 a.m.
    It says, “non-petroleum imports to be approved by Parliament.”
    I think that it is clear. You are adding levies on non-petroleum products. That is the proposal.
    Mr S. Mahama 4:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to give an explanation to that.
    As some Hon Members rightly mentioned, a dedicated source of funding for the authority would be very vital for its survival. So, this clause was inserted in the Savannah Accelerated Development Authority (SADA) Act 805.
    If you look at “Sources of funds of the Authority”, Section 18 (h) says:
    “levies on non-petroleum imports as may be approved by Parliament”.
    In my opinion and that of my other Hon Colleagues who have promoted this amendment, we think that, we should bring back this clause to the new Bill and Parliament might, as we wish, approve it.
    Mr Speaker 4:50 a.m.
    Hon Member, are you speaking about the proposed amendment numbered (xxv)?
    Mr Speaker 4:50 a.m.
    Hon Member, are you speaking on the proposed amendment of item numbered 9 (xxv)?
    Mr Speaker 4:50 a.m.
    Please, take your seat.
    Dr Donkor 4:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is taken from the SADA Act but no levies were ever brought to Parliament under the SADA Act. Should we continue to put this in legislation and create room for a future levy? Is that the intention?
    If that is the intention, then let us keep it and create room for a future levy. A Government might decide to bring a levy or not. It being in the law per se would not create the levy.
    So, I would suggest that we go with the amendment, but let the Government of the day decide whether it would want to bring the levy to Parliament or not. Let us create the shell.
    Thank you Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 4:50 a.m.
    Any other contributions?
    Question put and amendment nega- tived.
    Clause 19 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 22 -- Borrowing powers
    Mr Dafeamekpor 5:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, subclause (2), line 1, after “Minister” insert “in consultation with the Minister”.
    Mr Speaker 5:10 a.m.
    Hon Member, for which reasons?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 5:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is a normal rendition in laws or sections in our laws of this nature that, we have to do so in consultation with the Hon Minister for Finance.
    Mr Speaker 5:10 a.m.
    Hon Members, any contributions in that regard?
    Mr Speaker, if we have it as 5:10 a.m.
    “The Authority may, with the approval of the Minister responsible for Finance borrow, by way of overdraft or otherwise, sums that it may require to meet its current obligations or to perform its functions” --
    I do not see the ambiguity in it, Perhaps, it is for the superfluousness of it, if the amendment which is intended to be introduced is carried -- but as it is, there is no problem.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 5:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not have the various sections in memory, but if we go through most of our Public Financial Acts, we would realise it.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 5:10 a.m.
    “The Authority may, with the approval of the Minister-- so this refers to the sector Minister in consultation with the Minister responsible for Finance borrow …”
    Mr Speaker, this is a normal drafting clause that has been used in all the various Public Sector Acts. So, it would be proper and in consonance with your directive that we must be consistent. We cannot do this without consultation with the Hon Minister for Finance.
    The “Minister” as it is here, refers to the sector Minister. So, it could be the Hon Minister for Agriculture and with regard to the consultation, it has to be done with the Hon Minister responsible for Finance.
    Mr Speaker, my learned Brother Hon Afenyo-Markin must have a second look at the rendition of that particular clause in issue again.
    Mr Speaker 5:10 a.m.
    Hon Members, let us know one thing. Practically speaking, these borrowings or any other such matters must be in line with an overall Government policy and it must be subject to a certain coordination. Otherwise, before we know, financial commitments have been made which may take things haywire.
    So, this kind of consultation with the Hon Minister would be in the overall interest of the development of the nation. In short, as we often say, nobody can sit in one corner and do his or her own thing. So, let us think of it carefully.
    In the real interest of development and the nation as a whole, the Hon Minister for Finance may have a say directly and it only talks about consultation and not even approval. If he is not consulted and does not know, there could be difficult times when it cannot be paid and it would become another big problem. So, as for the word “consultation” actually, it is quite flexible and acceptable.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 22 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 23 -- Exemption from taxes, duties, fees and other charges.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 5:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 23, subclause (1), lines 1 and 2, delete “duties, fees, and other charges”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 5:10 a.m.
    “The Authority is exempt from the payment of taxes”.
    rose
    Mr Speaker 5:10 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Mr O. B. Amoah 5:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like the Hon Chairman of the Committee to explain why “duties and other charges” should be deleted.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to refer to section 35 of the University of Environment
    and Sustainable Development Act, 2015 and with your permission, I beg to quote:
    “The University is exempt from the payment of taxes, duties and other charges that the Minister res- ponsible for Finance may determine with the prior approval of Parliament”.
    Mr Speaker, so, it was something that we did here and this is as recent as 2015. So, if we are changing it, I would want to know what has informed the proposed amendment. We would need to be consistent with what we do.
    Mr Speaker 5:10 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 5:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, the Committee was of the view that, exemption from the payment of taxes was all right, but waiver or variation of duties, fees and other charges should be with the approval of Parliament.
    Mr Speaker, if we look at the next subclause, it reads 5:10 a.m.
    “Subject to article 174 of the Constitution, the Minister res- ponsible for Finance may with the approval of Parliament grant a waiver or variation of tax to the Authority”.
    Mr Speaker, we thought that “duties, fees and other charges” needs the approval of Parliament. So, if there are fees and duties they must be brought to Parliament, and we thought we did not have the power to actually grant such exemptions.
    Mr O. B. Amoah 5:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, indeed, if we refer to the section 35 that I just
    referred to, it is very clear; we put all of them together and say that,
    “The Minister responsible for Finance may determine with the prior approval of Parliament…”
    It combines the subclauses (1) and (2) and it is neater.
    That is what I believe we should do, than to separate it this way and say that the first part is ‘exempt from taxes' and the second part is ‘a waiver and variation to the Authority'. I do not think it is that compact. We should stick to some of these things that we have debated over and agreed on.
    Mr Speaker 5:20 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, do you want to abandon this?
    Mr O. B. Amoah 5:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in my opinion, the new rendition should be:
    “The Authority is exempt from the payment of taxes, duties, and other charges that the Minister res- ponsible for Finance may determine with the prior approval of Par- liament.”
    Mr Speaker 5:20 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, does that capture your view better?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 5:20 p.m.
    Mr Chairman, it looks as if the subclauses (1) and (2) are fused together with the amendment that is made by Hon O. B. Amoah, and I would associate myself with that amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 5:20 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, amend- ment itemised as (xxix) on page 8 of the Order Paper.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 5:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it looks as if I would withdraw this. We have joined the subclauses (1) and (2), therefore this amendment must be withdrawn.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 5:20 p.m.
    Clause 23 -- subclause (2), lines 2 and 3, delete “or variation of tax to” and insert “of duties, fees and other charges payable by”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 5:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 23, subclause (3), delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 23 as variously amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 24 — Accounts and audit.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 5:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 24, subclause (3), line 3, delete “the Minister” and insert “Parliament”.
    Mr Speaker, the rationale is that, audited reports of these Authorities should be brought to this House and not submitted to the Minister.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment cannot be allowed to stand. It talks about the final destination of the audit reports; those reports which come to Parliament. What we have here says he should forward a copy of the audit report. It is not the original.
    The original would come to Parliament. This is a copy that is going to be served on the Minister. So, I believe the point that the Hon Member is making is defeated by the construction itself.
    So, the final report would come to Parliament. It is only a copy that is to be given to the Minister. If he understands it that way, then I guess he may have to drop his amendment.
    Mr Speaker 5:20 p.m.
    Is it possible to marry the two?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 5:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if that is the true intent of this construction, then I am minded to withdraw this proposed amendment.
    Mr Alexander Kodwo Kom Abban 5:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that the submission of audited reports to Parliament is itself a constitutional injunction on the Auditor- General already. So, I believe the intendment is as was articulated by the Hon Majority Leader. So, this amendment should not be allowed.

    Clause 24 - 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 26 — Annual reports and other reports
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 5:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, subclause (2), paragraph (b), delete and insert the following:
    “(b) a performance report”
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 5:20 p.m.
    “The annual report shall include-
    (b) a performance report”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 5:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, subclause (2), paragraph (c), delete.
    Mr Speaker 5:20 p.m.
    So that?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 5:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is superfluous.
    Mr Speaker 5:20 p.m.
    And the new rendition would be?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 5:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with the greatest of respect, we thought the subclause (c) was redundant when we have stated a performance report. That is why we want to do away with the entire paragraph (c).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 5:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, subclause (2), paragraph (c), delete.
    The proposal is to delete the entire subclause (e) because it is already taken care of by other clauses.
    I thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 5:30 p.m.
    I will put the Question --
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, subclause (e) relates to subclauses (c) and (d). We have dealt with subclause (c) but subclause (e) is recommendations for improving the Authority based on subclauses (c) and (d). If we are not deleting subclause (d), then we cannot delete the entirety of subclause (e).
    So, I guess in that case, we can only delete the subclause (c) which is
    Dr Donkor 5:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, a performance report today includes the content of subclause (d) and that is why we said it should be deleted.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the issue is, they are not calling for the deletion of subclause (d). That is the issue I am raising with the Hon Chairman of the Committee. If we are deleting subclause (d), then we would call for the deletion of subclause (e). But to the extent that we are not deleting subclause (d), we cannot delete the entirety of subclause (e).
    Mr Speaker 5:30 p.m.
    So, which rendition do you suggest we maintain?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on account of the reasoning that the Hon Chairman of the Committee has given, that a performance report would take care of subclause (c), then it would mean that, that aspect would also be covered under the recommendations for improving the Authority based on subclause (c).
    What is not factored in here is subclause (d) and if subclause (d) is not part of the performance report, then subclause (e) cannot be deleted unless he wants to tell us that subclause (d) is part of the performance report. If subclause (d) is part, then he must call for the deletion of subclause (d) as well.
    Mr Agbodza 5:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe a performance report will necessarily have considered items listed under subclause (d). So, I would suggest to the Hon Chairman of the Committee to consider proposing the deletion of subclause (d) then we can comfortably go to subclause (e).
    Mr Speaker 5:30 p.m.
    Therefore, where do you stand now?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 5:30 p.m.
    So, Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be:
    “The annual report shall include;
    (a) The report of the Auditor- General;
    (b) The performance report;”
    Then we can have the subclause (f) to be subclause (c).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 5:30 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee, finally.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 5:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, subclause (2), paragraph (f), sub-paragraph (iv), delete and insert the following:
    “the cost of projects executed by the Authority; and”.
    So, Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be:
    “A report on the finances of the Authority specifying
    (iv) the cost of projects executed by the Authority; and”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 26 as variously amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 27 -- Incentives for private sector
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 5:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 27, headnote, delete “for private sector”.
    So, the new rendition for the headnote will be:
    “Incentives”.
    Mr Agbodza 5:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wish the Hon Chairman of the Committee would be more clear about this. Who is the incentive for? Is it investors? [Interruption.]
    So, if it is for investors, why do we not just say ‘investors'?
    Mr Speaker 5:30 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, a suggestion is being made to you. What is your observation?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 5:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe it is worth considering. I believe if we make it, “Incentives for Investors” that would be clearer.
    Mr Speaker 5:30 p.m.
    Does that bring more clarity? [Interruption.]
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we look at subclause (c), and with your permission, I beg to quote:
    “facilitation of the acquisition of loans by an indigenous entity which locates its operations in the rural community within the Northern Development Zone”.
    It may not relate to the investor but some other body that is doing the facilitation. So, just limiting it to incentives, I guess, would be appropriate. In fact, it
    would be more appropriate than confining it to only investors.
    Mr Speaker 5:40 a.m.
    That brings clarity; is that not so, Hon Chairman?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 5:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the sense of the House is to leave the headnote as “Incentives”. I so propose.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 5:40 a.m.
    Hon Chairman? [Pause.] -- We are still on clause 28.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 5:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, may I pray that clause 27 be flagged so that I do further consultation? I would come back to that. This is because --
    Mr Speaker 5:40 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, are you taking us back to clause 27?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 5:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are still on clause 27; but as advertised, the next item, which is xxxvii on the Order Paper, talks about subclause (4) and there is a mistake there. So, I would want to rectify the mistake before I go on.
    Mr Speaker 5:40 a.m.
    Very well. Go on.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, to draw the attention of the Hon Chairman of the Committee, I think that it relates to the opening of clause 27(1); there is a mix-up.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 5:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 27(1), line 1, after “Authority”, delete “shall grant and extend incentives for” and insert “may extend support to”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 5:40 a.m.
    “The Authority may extend support to private sector and other philanthropic investments in the Northern Development Zone…”
    Mr Speaker 5:40 a.m.
    “May extend support”.?
    Mr Agbodza 5:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with him, but just to say that, it could read:
    “… may extend support to both private and public sector…”
    So, whether it is a local Non- Governmental Organisation or whatever, they would all be captured under philanthropy. So, instead of saying “private sector, public sector”, we just say “may extend support to both private and public sectors”
    Mr Speaker 5:40 a.m.
    Thank you.
    “… may extend support to both public and private sector…”
    Mr Boamah 5:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not too clear with this amendment -- “may extend support to private and public sector…”
    We are establishing a public institution and it goes without saying that, they have to, by law, extend support to other public institutions. So, that is catered for by law.
    My problem is with the use of “philanthropic investments”. Is it other “non-profit making organisation or any philanthropic investment”?
    I think that we must use the right words there -- “non-profit making organization” -- to capture every entity that comes to support the Authority.
    Mr Speaker, that is my view.
    Mr Speaker 5:40 a.m.
    What about the word, “philanthropic”?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the inclusion of the public sector or the public institutions. This is because when we go back to clause 3, in defining the functions, we made a distinction between facilitating private sector development. Then we also came down to clause 3(m) where we spoke about their co-operation with key statutory institutions.
    So, when we come to clause 27 -- the provision of incentives, they may as well extend same to both private and public institutions.
    So, I believe it is not that the Hon Chairman has made that proposal.
    Mr Speaker 5:40 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, final rendition?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 5:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that the new rendition of clause 27(1) be:
    “The Authority may extend support to private sector, public sector and other philanthropic investments in the Northern Development Zone in co-operation with other public agencies so as to promote acce- lerated economic and social development and institute measures for the protection of the private sector in the Northern Development Zone.”
    Mr Speaker 5:40 a.m.
    When you say “public, private and other philanthropic…”, you have not listed any philanthropic investments. How can we say otherwise of that same category? That interpretation, the lawyers call sui generis.
    There is none like that earlier, so, how do you suddenly come to that? I hope you are with me. You said “public, private and other philanthropic”. You may rather say “philanthropic”, but not the word “other”. This is because those you had earlier introduced had nothing to do with philanthropic organisations.
    Hon Member, I hope you are with me. You said “public, private” -- you may say “philanthropic and other institutions”, but you cannot say “and other philanthropic”. It is as if to say that those you had mentioned earlier are philanthropic, but they are not of the same type.
    If they are either private or public, we all understand; but now you introduce another one, “philanthropic” as if to say those earlier mentioned are “philanthropic”. They are not.
    If you follow me, that is very clear.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 5:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that the new rendition should read as follows:
    “The Authority may extend support to private sector, public sector and philanthropic investments in the Northern Development Zone in co- operation with other public agencies.”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to further propose an amendment as follows that “line 2, after “Zone”, insert “alone or” before “in co-operation”.
    “The Authority may extend support to the private sector, public sector and philanthropic investments in the Northern Development Zone in co-operation with other public agencies”

    No, I propose that after the “Northern Development Zone” we insert “alone or.” This may mean that, they could extend the support to these identified bodies alone or in co-operation with other public Agencies.
    Mr Boamah 5:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am also confused. The clause is asking the Authority to grant and extend incentives from the private sector, public sector and philanthropic investments in the Northern Development Zone in co-operation with other public Agencies so as to promote accelerated economic and social development and institute measures for the protection of the private sector in the Northern Development Zone.
    Mr Speaker, my question is how we could grant incentives to the public sector to protect private entities within the Northern Zone. It does not add up.
    Secondly, an individual could be a philanthropist, but other non-profit making organisations may make so much money and may want to support such a laudable idea by the President.
    So, if we grant incentives to the private sector, public sector and philanthropic investors, then I believe and strongly argue that, non-profit making orga- nisations who drill boreholes, construct hospitals and other social amenities within those belts must be catered for in this provision.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to submit that non- profit making organisations must be included in the granting of incentives within the provisions of this clause.
    Mr Speaker 5:50 a.m.
    For which matter it is formulation which we shall do as follows -- [Pause] -- that is what is not forthcoming sometimes.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that to deal with the issue introduced by the Hon Member for Okaikoi Central -- that clause is a bit clumsy. I guess that we may have to take out those words:
    “and institute measures for the protection of the private sector in the Northern Development Zone”.
    We will then bring it down to a different subsection. Mr Speaker, so that we end at
    “in co-operation with other public agencies so as to promote accelerated economic and social developments.”
    So, that would be the end of that first leg, and then we capture the following;
    “The Authority shall institute measures for the protection of the private sector in the Northern Development Zone”,
    in a different subsection.
    Question put and the amendment agreed to.

    Clause 27 as variously amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 28 -- Public consultation and notice.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 5:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 28, subclause (1), line 1, delete “may” and insert “shall” and also after “consultation” insert “in all regional capitals”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 5:50 a.m.
    “The Authority shall hold public consultations within the Northern Development Zone relating to a major project that the Authority plans to implement and may take into account comments received from the consultations in all regional capitals in making the final implementation decisions.”
    Mr Dafeamekpor 5:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am in support of the proposed amendment except to further propose that, it should read, “shall not in not less than seven days.” Mr Speaker, the “in” is missing.
    Mr Speaker 5:50 a.m.
    Not less than?
    A Hon Member: What? We are at clause 28 (1).
    Mr Dafeamekpor 5:50 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, very well.
    Mr Speaker 6 a.m.
    Could consultation be done with dispatch?
    Hon O. B. Amoah?
    Mr O. B. Amoah 6 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the Hon Member eventually agreed with what is in the rendition in the proposed amendment.
    Indeed, it says, for any major project, there should be consultation. Yes, consultation should be mandatory because it is a major project. Nowhere in the modern world would one undertake a major project without doing public consultation. So, it is mandatory; but when one consults, he is not bound to take everything that has been proposed during the public consultation. That is why we have “may”.
    So, I agree with the Hon Chairman of the Committee, that indeed, what he has proposed as amendment is what should stay. Nobody is tying the hands of the Authority. If one undertakes to carry out a major project, there should be public consultation; he should not have any discretion. In modern projects, it never happens that way. We should agree that there should be consultations; but when one consults --
    Mr Speaker, indeed, the Hon Member says he concedes. So, I rest my case.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 6 a.m.
    We have finished both amendments listed on clause 27. I would put the Question on the entire clause. Is that not so?
    Hon Chairman, are you jumping high or I am not with you? You are putting up your hands. Where are we, then?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are at the amendment listed as xl at page 9 on the Order Paper. That is the next amendment to be proposed. We just finished with the amendment listed as xxxix. So, the next amendment is listed as xl.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 28, subclause (2), line 2, delete “shall” and insert “shall, not less than seven days before the date of the public consultation,”
    So, the new rendition would be:
    “(2) Before the Authority holds public consultations, the Authority shall not less than seven days before the date of the public consultation publish in the Gazette and at least one daily newspaper of national circulation a notice containing the details of the project and the assessment by the Authority of the social and economic benefits of the project.”
    Mr Speaker 6 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it looks like the Hon Chairman is jumping the amendment proposed on page 9, item numbered xxxix. [Interruption.] There is a second; unfortunately, it appears to be a typographical error.
    It relates to “may” in line 3, whether “may” should not be deleted for it to be substituted by “shall”.
    Mr Speaker 6 a.m.
    Hon Chairman?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 28, subclause (1), line 1, delete “may” and insert “shall”
    The new rendition would then be:
    Mr Speaker 6 a.m.
    That is clear.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 6 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, you may continue.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 28, subclause (2), line 2, delete “shall” and insert “shall, not less than seven days before the date of the public consultation,”
    The new rendition would be:
    “(2) Before the Authority holds public consultations, the Authority shall, not less than seven days before the date of the public consultation, publish in the Gazette and at least one daily newspaper of national circulation a notice containing the details of the project and the assessment by the Authority of the social and economic benefits of the project.”
    Mr Dafeamakpor 6 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the present amendment and seek for a further amendment in respect of the “in”. So, it should read:
    “… shall in not less than seven days…”
    The “in” is missing. That is the usual rendition even in our procedural laws; the
    Constitutional Instrument (C.I. 47) and all that. It should be “in not less than seven days”.
    Mr Speaker 6 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, could you just incorporate “in not less than seven days”?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is worth considering the “in”.
    So, it should read “… shall in not less than seven days publish…”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 28 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 29 -- Offences and penalties.
    Mr Speaker 6 a.m.
    The amendment to clause 29 stands in the name of Hon Haruna Iddrisu.
    Mr Dafeamakpor 6 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 29, delete

    It is not necessary to legislate regarding these offences. It is superfluous; the already existing laws proscribe these actions and activities. They already exist under our laws. It is not necessary for this House.
    Mr Speaker 6:10 p.m.
    Hon Member, for the avoidance of doubt and the good old adage that, “Too many fish, never spoiled the soup”? Why would we want to worry ourselves?
    Hon Member, would you want to abandon that?
    Yes, Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
    Ms Safo 6:10 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, I apologise for taking you back. The Hon Member who was on his feet --
    Mr Speaker 6:10 p.m.
    It is in relation to this clause?
    Ms Safo 6:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have gone past it. It is a wrong insertion that he made, and I would want to draw your attention to it. He said we should insert “in”.
    Mr Speaker 6:10 p.m.
    Please, we have something on hand, so, please, can we get rid of it? So that we come to something that is not part of what we are discussing now?
    Ms Safo 6:10 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Speaker 6:10 p.m.
    At the Consideration Stage, if we are to go forward and backwards, we would be lost. So, let us at least get rid of the clause we are handling, and then we can go to something else. That is the way.
    Ms Safo 6:10 p.m.
    Rightly so, Mr Speaker, I will take it at the Second Consideration Stage.
    Thank you.
    Mr Speaker 6:10 p.m.
    Hon Member, where exactly were you?

    Hon Member, do you intend to abandon the proposed amendment at this stage? Let it be there for good effect.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 6:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I will not withdraw the amendment I proposed under clause 29.
    Mr Speaker 6:10 p.m.
    I will put the Question.
    Question put and amendment negatived.
    Clause 29 as variously ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the next amendment stands in the name of the Hon Minority Leader.
    Clause 30 -- Guidelines
    Mr Speaker 6:10 p.m.
    Clause 30 -- Yes, Hon Member?
    Mr Dafeamekpor (On behalf of Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 6:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30, delete.
    Mr Speaker 6:10 p.m.
    Hon Member, go on. Why do you seem to be more interested in those who want to distract you? [Laughter.]
    Mr Dafeamekpor 6:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am being heckled unnecessarily.
    Mr Speaker 6:10 p.m.
    You are not being heckled. Go on.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 6:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the rationale -- I agree with the position of the primary sponsor of this amendment. The Regulation that will be drafted to govern the operations of the Authority could handle some of these things.
    It is not necessary that we legislate over such activities. It must be left in the hands of the Authority to do so through the Regulations that they will issue to govern their -- humbly submitted.
    Mr O. B. Amoah 6:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I oppose the proposed amendment. Even though some of us believe that, guidelines could be abused, especially by the Board, due to the fact that guidelines are published internally vis-a-vis Regulations and even notices, I do not think we should delete the entire provision.
    Mr Speaker, I would propose that we stick to just the first paragraph. With your permission, I beg to read:
    “The Board shall, in consultation with the Minister, publish guidelines in respect of operational procedure that the Board considers ne- cessary.”
    Then we stop at that point. There is no need listing all the other things, otherwise, we may end up straying into Regulations. Once we have provision for Regulations, we should keep some of these for Regulations and then restrict the guidelines to only the operational procedure that the Board considers necessary.
    Mr Speaker, to that extent, I think we should keep the first paragraph, but for the rest, they are superfluous and subject to abuse, especially, where we come to subsection (2), where it says; and I quote with your permission:
    “Without limiting subsection (1), the Board shall publish guidelines on...”
    Paragraph (a) to paragraph (h).
    Mr Speaker, most of these things will go under regulations. If we bring them under guidelines, they will be shielded away from Parliament; when Parliament is
    supposed to be in the known when it comes to regulations.
    Mr Speaker, to that extent, I believe that should be the situation.
    Mr Speaker 6:10 p.m.
    The Hon Member who moved that amendment, do you agree to this media res situation?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 6:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the circumstances, yes. I agree to the further amendment that the Hon Member has proposed.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 30 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 31 -- Regulations
    Mr Speaker 6:10 p.m.
    There is no listed amendment.
    Mr O. B. Amoah 6:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker --
    Mr Speaker 6:10 p.m.
    Would you want to make an amendment to clause 31?
    Yes, Hon O. B. Amoah?
    Mr O. B. Amoah 6:10 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Clause 31 -- Mr Speaker, I beg to move and with your permission, I beg to read:
    “The Minister may, on the advice of the Board, by a legislative instrument, make Regulations generally for the effective implementation of this Act.”
    Mr Speaker, I propose that given the history of the making of Regulations in this country -- typically, where the Executive goes to sleep after such

    Mr Speaker, the National Development Planning Commission (NDPC) Act was passed in 1994, and the Regulations to the Act were passed in 2016. From 1994, we had the Regulations in 2016. It is because of this, that this House, in various Bills, has proposed that there should be a limit to the period within which regulations should be passed.

    Mr Speaker, a typical one was the Youth Employment Agency (YEA) Act, where this House stated that within six months, Regulations should be made. The Regulations were brought to this House for us to pass them.

    Mr Speaker, beyond that, I have in my hand the Minerals Development Fund Act, 2016, and this is what we have under “Regulations”.

    Mr Speaker, it says in section 26 that, the Minister shall, on the advice of the Board within one year after the coming into force of this Act, by legislative Instrument, make regulations to prescribe generally for the effective implementation of this Act.

    Mr Speaker, I believe we should adopt this section and insist that within one year, the Authority should bring regulations to this House for us to give approval to it. Otherwise, they may go to sleep and it may take us twenty-four years, as it happened under the National Develop- ment Planning Commission.

    6. 20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker 6:10 p.m.
    Precautionary measure.
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 6:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to oppose the amendment proposed by the Hon O. B. Amoah.
    Mr Speaker, if we read clause 31, it states 6:10 p.m.
    “the Minister may, on the advice of the Board…”
    Mr Speaker, the word used there is “may”. In the previous legislation that he stated, the word used was “shall,” meaning that it is mandatory on the part of the Hon Minister in those legislations to come out with a regulation, but here, the word used is “may”.
    Mr Speaker, when we use the word “may”, and we tie the Hon Minister to a particular period within which the regulation is supposed to be made, then it is better we change the word “may” to “shall” so that it would then be mandatory on the part of the Hon Minister to do it within the stated period.
    Mr Speaker, looking at the rendition as it is, it is giving the opportunity to the Hon Minister to either make the regulation or not to make the regulation. So if the Hon Minister is being given the opportunity to either make the regulation or not, we cannot tie the Hon Minister to a stated period within which the regulation is supposed to be used.
    Mr Speaker 6:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, that which may or may not --
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if I marry the concerns that have been given, we would have to agree on the “shall”.
    Therefore, it should read and with your permission, I quote:
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:10 p.m.


    “The Minister shall on the advice of the Board by a legislative instrument within one year make Regulations generally for the effective implementation of this Act.”
    Mr Speaker 6:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, I would put the Question.
    Those who have contrary views should rather rise on their feet, and they would be called instead of sitting and saying no.
    rose
    Mr Speaker 6:10 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
    Ms Safo 6:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with the amendment that was proposed by the Hon Chairman, the “one year” comes before the phrase: “make regulations”, but I believe that it should rather come after, where it would be captured as: “make regulations within one year…” then the rest of the sentence would follow. It should not be before the “make the regulation”.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the new rendition reads 6:10 p.m.
    “The Minister shall on the advice of the Board by legislative instrument make Regulations within one year for the effective implementation of this Act.”
    Mr Speaker 6:10 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to find out from the Hon Deputy Majority Leader, if what she is saying is different from this:
    “The Minister shall on the advice of the Board and within one year after the coming into force of this
    Act by legislative instrument make regulations to prescribe generally for the effective implementation of this Act.”
    Mr Speaker, I so move.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 31 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 32 -- Interpretation
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32, interpretation of “annual allocation”, line 3, delete “Central Government” and insert “Parliament”.
    Mr Speaker, the reason behind this is that we all know what we mean by “Central Government”. We do not need to belabour on that.
    Mr Speaker 6:10 p.m.
    The proposed amendment is for the consideration of the House.
    Hon Members, I would put the Question then.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32 -- interpretation, we propose that in line three --
    Mr Speaker, this is an earlier amendment which I should have moved before the amendment I have just moved, which is that, we delete “Central Government” and insert “Parliament”, where we have the annual allocation in line three.
    Mr Speaker, under “annual allocation, “the “Central Government” should be deleted. So, the new rendition would be:
    “Annual allocation” means the amount of money allocated to each
    Constituency in the Northern Development zone as approved by Parliament”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Anyimadu-Antwi: Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32 -- interpretation of “Central Government”, delete.
    Mr Speaker 6:10 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to know whether “Central Government” has been used anywhere in the Bill. I would want to know this from the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I had earlier proposed that we drop the definition of “Central Government”, because everybody knows what “Central Government” is, that is why the Committee was of the view that, we do not need to define “Central Government” here.
    Mr Speaker 6:10 p.m.
    Central Government is right. If we agree that it is so, then we may as well drop it as not needing any interpretation, wherever it may appear. That is what the Hon Chairman is essentially saying.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not even see “Central Government” used anywhere in the Bill. “Government” has been used but not “Central Government”.
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    So “Government” and it is no difficulty. The amendment is that we delete “Central Government”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32 -- interpretation of “donors”, line 2, delete “which have development as their core function” and insert “and any other development partners”.
    So, the new rendition would be:
    “'donors” include governmental and non-governmental organisations and any other development partners.”
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    It is quite clear. I will put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32 -- interpretation of “Infrastructure for Poverty Eradication Project”, line 1, delete “Project” and insert “Programme”.
    So, it would read: “Infrastructure for Poverty Eradication Programme”. Mr Speaker, the Committee realised that, it is a Programme and not a Project.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32 -- interpretation of “Minister” delete “Minister assigned responsibility” and insert “the Minister responsible”.
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    Then do not raise non- serious ones.
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    Let it be noted. The draftsperson should take note of these accordingly, so that there would be consistency.
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    Those matters of drafting where it would be plural or singular, we have often in this House left it to the draftsperson to ensure consistency in the law.
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    I will put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, you may continue with clause 32.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32 -- interpretation of “National Planning Commission”, delete.
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    Hon Members, it is very obvious. I will put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32 -- interpretation of “public resources”, delete.
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    So that?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would want to delete “public resources” with “mean public revenue including revenue acquired through donation, bequest ...” All those things must be deleted.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    Clause 32 -- final amendment.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 32 -- interpretation of “risk finance instrument”, line 1, delete “means” and insert “includes”.
    The new rendition would be:
    “'risk finance instrument” includes instruments in the nature of shares, bonds and derivatives;”
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    “Includes” “include” and all those allied issues. [Laughter.] We are not going to sit here and re-examine every phrase again and see which ones are “include” and “includes”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, do we have something else left there?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:30 p.m.
    No, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    Very well.
    Clause 32 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 33. There is no listed amendment. Any from the Floor of the House?
    Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 34 -- Transitional provisions.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 34, subclause (1), delete and insert the following:
    “The rights, obligations and liabilities of the Savannah Accelerated Development Authority established under the Savannah Accelerated Development Authority Act of 2010 (Act 805) are hereby transferred to the Central Government”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    Further under clause 34.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 6:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 34, subclause (2), lines 4 and 5, delete “subsist between the Authority established under this Act” and insert “be deemed as between the Central Government”.
    6. 40 p. m.
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    As opposed to local governments, which is District Assem- blies. [Laughter.]
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    Central Government for the avoidance of doubt cannot do any harm.
    Hon Members, it is for the consideration of the House, let us go.
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Mr O. B. Amoah 6:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is interesting because in the Constitution, article 295; states, and I quote with your permission:
    “'government' means any authority by which the executive authority of Ghana is duly exercised.”
    There is nothing like ‘Central Government'. It is just Government and the Constitution has defined it but I do not know why we should add ‘central' to it. We should go by what the Constitution has defined. And the Constitution has defined Government very well and clearly.
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    What does it say once more?
    Mr O. B. Amoah 6:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, once more, I am saying that the 1992 Constitution under article 295 has defined Government and it says; with your permission:
    “Government' means any authority by which the executive authority of Ghana is duly exercised.”
    Mr O. B. Amoah 6:30 p.m.


    It does not distinguish central govern- ment and local government. Government here is the executive authority.
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    Any authority, it does not say the authority.
    Mr O. B. Amoah 6:30 p.m.
    It says any authority by which the executive authority of Ghana is duly exercised.
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    Very good.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clause 34 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    Long Title?
    Long Title —An Act to establish a Northern Development Authority to Provide the Framework for the Accelerated Economic and Social Development of the Northern Deve- lopment Zone and the Related Matters.
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 6:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg your leave to withdraw the amendment proposed as (liii).
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    Is it withdrawn?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 6:30 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    Thank you.
    The Long Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader, this is the time when you may draw attention to --
    Ms Safo 6:30 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    There was an ‘in' that was inserted by Hon Dafeamekpor. Mr Speaker, the Hon Member was actually insisting that we insert ‘in' in between shall and ‘not less than'. But Mr Speaker, if we insert the ‘in' there, the new rendition would read;
    “Before the Authority holds public consultations, the Authority shall not ‘in'…”
    So, the ‘in' should not come after the ‘shall', it should be after the — the ‘in' is not—Mr Speaker, I am actually lost for it.
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader, we would have the occasion for you to look at this and then consider it at the Second Consideration Stage.
    Ms Safo 6:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the ‘in' was not well positioned and that is the import I wanted to draw your attention to.
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    If you are very clear in your mind what exactly you want, you may go on.
    Ms Safo 6:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I take your direction that we take it at Second Consideration Stage.
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    No, I am saying that, let us be honest with ourselves. It has taken you sometime. So, in order that what you want to say may be clear, you would have an occasion fully to do that but if you think you have sorted yourself out now, please go ahead.
    Ms Safo 6:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would take it at the second Consideration Stage.
    Thank you.
    Mr Speaker 6:30 p.m.
    We have had a very busy day, I must congratulate Hon Members for your patience and your hardwork.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so that we are able to complete the subclause (28) of clause 28, what the Hon Colleague was saying that, the Committee was proposing that we have a new subclause to read;
    “Before the Authority holds public consultations, the Authority shall not less than seven days before the date of the public consultations published in the Gazette and at least one daily newspaper of national circulation a notice containing the details of the project and the assessment by the Authority of the social and economic benefits of the project”.
    Now, our Hon Colleague then inserted ‘in' after the ‘shall' to make it then read;
    “Before the Authority holds public consultations, the Authority shall in not less than seven days before the date of the public consultations published in the Gazette and at least one daily newspaper of national circulation a notice containing the details of the project and the assessment by the Authority of the social and economic benefits of the project”.
    Mr Speaker, so, the difference is in the placement of the “in”. Which one is appropriate? That is the issue that the Hon Deputy Majority Leader is raising, that we
    do not need “in” to be inserted. That is the import of what the Hon Majority Leader is saying.
    Mr Speaker 6:50 p.m.
    I am not clear in my mind, with all honesty. That is why I said this could be raised after thought and formulation. You might have a good idea but you must also formulate it for the House.
    Hon Majority Leader, I have not even got what you said. However, if you think that we could still make progress with it as you were saying, please, go ahead.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are in your hands.
    Mr Speaker 6:50 p.m.
    To do what? [Laughter.]
    I am being honest. I have not got it. Whatever it is that you want us to consider, put it in a direct form and then we consider it.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the “in” that was introduced should not be there. So, the amendment that was moved by the Hon Chairman is the most appropriate one.
    All that the Hon Deputy Majority Leader was saying was that “in” should not be there. This is because if you should delete the median construction, it would read thus:
    “Before the Authority holds public consultations, the Authority shall not less than seven days before the date”.

    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member who complained about heckling is also heckling. That was the issue that was brought by the Hon Deputy Majority
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:50 p.m.


    Leader. I think that, given how fatigued Hon Members are, we could leave it, go, think through and maybe, come and take it through a Second Consideration Stage.
    Mr Speaker 6:50 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, this is exactly what I said. You are a very experienced person and it took you some time to try to formulate. This is the very purpose of the Second Consideration Stage. If you have not got it fully, I thought it would be in the interest of the House as a whole to take some time to formulate.
    Hon Members, let us watch certain remonstrations because it adds to the dignity of the House.
    Mr Speaker 6:50 p.m.
    In coming properly, you do not need to come by way of any special application or Motion. Before the Third Reading, you may freely just say you want to have a Second Consideration Stage for an important matter. That is all.
    By that time, the Hon Member is supposed to have formulated clearly, what he or she intends to be added or subtracted, so that you do not stand and appear to be uncertain. That is all.
    We need no Motion to adjourn, but Hon Majority Leader, just in case you have something to tell us?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as you said, we do not need a Motion, the time reads close to 7.00 p.m. However, I would like to say that what the Hon Deputy Majority Leader --
    Mr Speaker 6:50 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, you are not to say anything about the Consideration Stage, so, I would end that.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am just responding to what my Hon Colleague said. There are two of them. The Hon Deputy Majority Leader did not submit an application for a Second Consideration Stage. She did not, in which case the Hon Member could raise Standing Order 130.
    Let him educate himself that it is not only Standing Order 130 that applies to the passage of a Bill through a Second Consideration Stage. Let him apply his mind to Standing Order 131.
    Mr Speaker, I am not inviting the House to go through a Second Consideration
    Stage. We are tired and I guess we could take a deserved rest and take an adjournment till tomorrow at 12.00 o'clock noon.
    Mr Speaker 6:50 p.m.
    That brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage.
    Hon Majority Leader, in view of the nature of business before the House, what time would you recommend that we Sit tomorrow?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, given the programme that we have defined for ourselves, including in particular, the Board meeting and given the fact also that we have done a tremendous job on concluding the Consideration Stage, I would beg of us that, we still meet at 12.00 noon tomorrow.
    Mr Speaker 6:50 p.m.
    We would keep to 12.00 o'clock?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:50 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 6:50 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, this House stands adjourned till tomorrow at 12.00 noon.
    Thank you very much.
    ADJOURNMENT 6:50 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 7.00 p.m. till Friday, 13th October, 2017 at 12.00 noon.