Debates of 11 Jul 2018

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 11:45 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
Hon Members, correction of Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 10th July, 2018.
Page 1, … 3 --
rose
Mr Albert Akuka Alalzuuga 11:45 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was in Parliament yesterday, but I noticed that I have been captured as absent.
Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
Thank you, Hon Member.
Page 3…12 --
rose
Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
On page 12, when the Chairman of the Committee moved the amendments under the headnote, ‘Appointment of other staff', there was a fourth item, which had
Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if I recall correctly, we dropped the post we created; ‘ADR officers' and replaced it with ‘other relevant staff.' That is what happened.
Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
Thank you very much. It is well noted.
Chairman of the Committee, are you satisfied?
Mr Ben Abdallah Banda 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is true that yesterday, because of the
controversy that ensued, we dropped ‘paralegals', but we maintained ADR officers and ‘other relevant officers'.
Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
Hon Minority Leader, are you satisfied? Thank you, we will proceed. Therefore, there is no correction to be made.
Page 13…16 -
rose
Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Yaw Buaben Asamoa 11:45 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Clause 21, the definition of “paralegal” was also dropped consequential to dropping it earlier. Rather than add a new interpretation, it was not put in at all.
Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee, are you satisfied? Is that the state of the matter?
Mr Banda 11:45 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is in there. The proposed amendment was withdrawn by your leave.
Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Page 17 - 28
Hon Members, the Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday 11th July, 2018 as corrected be hereby admitted as the true record of proceedings.
Item listed number 3.
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with respect to “Interpretation”, I proposed for two matters to be interpreted. I do not see them here. We proffered some interpretation to “legal aid”. It was an amendment that was proposed. That was done but it is not here.
There was one other that I proposed that I do not see. We interpreted “Board” but it is also not here.
Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Are we in a position to proceed with Questions?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:55 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the information that I was looking for, the definition of “Board” and “legal aid”, is contained on page 15 of the Votes and Proceedings. Unfortunately, the Votes and Proceedings that I had did not have page 15. That really explains it.
The Votes and Proceedings that I had was defective. It did not have page 15 but the one that has been brought to me captures it adequately.
Mr Speaker 11:55 a.m.
Are we in a position to proceed now with Questions?
Hon Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration, you may please take the chair.
Question 3(a) stands in the name of the Hon Member for Builsa South.
ORAL ANSWERS TO URGENT 11:55 a.m.
QUESTIONS 11:55 a.m.
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS 11:55 a.m.
AND REGIONAL INTEGRATION 11:55 a.m.
Dr Apaak 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in responding to the Question, the Hon Minister pointed out what she believes is a contradiction between the figures provided by IOM in Ghana and its Geneva Office.
Indeed, I am grateful that she has offered to crosscheck and verify, and she has indicated the action that the Ministry would take if the figures are confirmed with regard to what has been indicated.
Mr Speaker, my question is this; are there any arrangements to enhance surveillance and security regarding the routes that are used by persons who traffic and or motivate young men and women from Ghana to migrate to Libya, as a stopping and a launching pad to enter Europe?
Ms Botchwey 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the transit countries, in this case, Niamey in Niger; some go through Burkina Faso, and the
Niamey route takes them through Libya and they would have to cross the Sahara. When it comes to Niger, it is easy for us to partner the Government through ECOWAS, to make sure that they are surveilled on the route.
But when it gets to the desert, that becomes another matter. But it is for that reason that we have established Consulates both in Niamey and Tripoli so that we could monitor the movements.
But it is very difficult to do so unless you are in partnership with the Government of the transit countries along the route.
Mr Speaker, but I believe it is something that is being done through ECOWAS, but we need to do a lot more, since now we are looking at the whole issue of migration holistically.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Dr Apaak 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this would be my last follow-up question. I would want to know from the Hon Minister what efforts we, as a nation, are making through her Ministry to educate Ghanaians, particularly young men and women, regarding the dangers they stand to face should they make themselves vulnerable to traffickers to embark on this rather treacherous journey?
Ms Botchwey 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, we now have a presence in Niamey and Tripoli, and we are working closely with the Ghanaian communities, especially, the leadership of the Ghanaian Associations because we have Ghanaian Associations in both countries to sensitise them.
Mr Speaker, unfortunately, what the migrants do not do is to make us aware that they are there. Usually, when we leave

the shores of Ghana, anywhere we find ourselves, we must register to at least, let the mission know that we are there. If there are no missions, we have Honorary Consuls in most countries, where we do not have physical presence.

Mr Speaker, unfortunately, this is not the case. It is difficult because most of the migrants go underground when they get to these countries.

What we should do is rather to do the sensitisation internally, so that we make them aware of the dangers that they would face along the routes in their quest to get to Europe.

Mr Speaker, I believe in answering this Question here, it is throwing more light on the matter and also ensuring that awareness is created.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Minister, for attending to the House and answering our Question. You are respectfully discharged.
Hon Minister for Health, you may please take the relevant seat.
Hon Member for Asuogyaman, you may ask your Question.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH 12:05 p.m.
Minister for Health (Mr Kwaku Agyeman-Manu) 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, since I got notice to come and answer this Question urgently, I have put machinery in motion to try to give me the status of the situation.
Mr Speaker, after the incident, we would remember that the Police picked up two people from the facility, and I also set up a small committee within the Ghana Health Service enclave to try to collaborate with the Police, to let us look at the criminal aspect of it and our own disciplinary proceedings.
Mr Speaker, I am trying to get information into that. The committee does not seem to have collaborated adequately with the Police to give me information. So, I would beg to come back, probably, on Friday, 13th July, 2018, to answer this Question asked by my Hon Colleague.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Hon Member, the Hon Minister says information is being gathered.
And Hon Minister, you are inclined towards asking to come back on Friday?
Mr Agyeman-Manu 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in the circumstance, because of the urgency, I would try to push myself to see if I could make it on Friday. But if you would kindly grant me sometime next week, I would be very comfortable.
Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Hon Minister, would Tuesday, 17th July, 2018, be convenient for you?
Mr Agyeman-Manu 12:05 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
Just so that it would be thorough and reliable.
Mr Ampem 12:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that is fair. We could wait until Tuesday.
Mr Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Hon Minister, thank you very much for coming to the House to apprise us of the situation. I would expect you on Tuesday.
Mr Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Yes, the Hon Minister has one Question to answer.
Question number 425, Hon Member for Kumbungu?
Mr Ras Mubarak 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am very grateful for the opportunity.
Mr Speaker, before I ask my Question, I would request for your guidance. Answers have not been provided for my ordinary Question and I wonder whether you could provide guidance.
Mr Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Is there no Answer to your Question?
Mr Ras Mubarak 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, no, there is no Answer to my Question.
Mr Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Hon Minister for Health, have you provided us with Answer to the Question starred 425?
Mr Kwaku Agyeman-Manu 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, because of the Urgent Question that I was coming to answer, I believe my Directors got a bit confused and thought this was also an Urgent Question.
Mr Speaker, I got the Answer that could have answered it as an Urgent Question, but I realised that it should have been published. I have passed on the Answer to the Table Office and the Clerk is working on it now.
Mr Speaker 12:15 p.m.
Hon Member, you may agree to have the Answer on Tuesday or if you can proceed without an advertised Answer. The pleasure is yours.
Mr Ras Mubarak 12:15 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would wait until Tuesday, so that the Hon Minister for Health would appear before the House to Answer the Question.
Mr Speaker, I am most grateful.
Mr Speaker 12:15 p.m.
I am advised the Answer is actually in the process of being typed right now.
Hon Minister for Health, you are discharged, though you may continue to sit where you are.
Hon Members, item listed 5 — Statements.
There is a Statement which stands in the name of Hon Dr Bernard Okoe Boye on ‘'World Population Day''.
STATEMENTS 12:15 p.m.
Dr Bernard Okoe Boye (NPP -- Ledzokuku) 12:15 p.m.
I am most grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity given me to make a Statement on this day, the 11th of July, 2018, a day set aside to observe World Population Day, and in the process raise awareness on global population issues.

The day was chosen and approved by the governing council of the United Nations Development Programme in 1989.

Mr Speaker, 2018 marks the 50th Anniversary of a conference that focused on family planning. In 1968, the International Conference on Human Rights was held. For the first time ever, family planning was affirmed to be a human right.

The Tehran Proclamation adopted during the conference states that it is a basic right of parents to be able to decide on the number and spacing of their children.

Hon Speaker, millions of women globally and in Ghana in particular, do not have access to family planning services.

Mr Speaker, family planning is defined as the practice of controlling the number of children one has and the intervals between their births, via birth control methods which is a key factor in reducing poverty and facilitating economic emancipation of vulnerable individuals and developing nations.

This is the very reason why the 2018 World Population Day celebration focuses on family planning.

Mr Speaker, a family that is not planned gives birth to a country that looks unplanned. The reason is simple, if the population size is accidental, based on the charity of nature, then our economies would struggle to support a population size borne out of spontaneity rather than careful orchestration.

Mr Speaker, socio-economic progress is not the only identifiable benefit of family planning. Family planning patronage would reduce maternal deaths, infant
Dr Abdul-Rashid Pelpuo (NDC -— Wa Central) 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, a few days ago, the Population Caucus in Parliament met in Koforidua, and part of the reason why we went there was to look at Ghana's population. The Statement which was made by my able friend captures some of the major issues that were discussed.
Mr Speaker, before I continue, I would want to thank him for bringing this up, especially on this very auspicious day, the day when we are celebrating World
Population Day and looking at how population impacts development in Ghana.
Mr Speaker, population is a critical component of development. Anybody who cannot see the difference; the direct diametrical relation between population and development would not be doing a country any good at all.
This is because population predetermines the capacity of the country to produce, it predetermines the capacity of the country to ensure that it provides adequately for the sustainability of the country and its people.
To have quality population is a critical element of how planning is done in any country.
Mr Speaker, at the moment, Ghana is looking at the demographic dividends that we can drive as a result of our increasing population growth.
Mr Speaker, we presently grow at a rate of 2.5 per cent, which is almost the same as the average world population growth.
For us in Ghana, we think it is too much. Given the kind of population we have, looking at the base of the pyramid and the fact that most of the young people who are dependent are in the middle and in majority, the good news is that, we would continue the fight to enlighten fellow Ghanaians.
The awareness about population growth and its relation with our wellbeing is catching up with many Ghanaians.
Some statistics were given and those statistics proved that families are beginning to become conscious about population growth in Ghana. Hitherto, large numbers that used to characterise Ghanaian families are becoming a thing of the past. But it does not take away the
Ms Naana Eyiah (NPP -- Gomoa Central) 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I rise to contribute to the Statement on World Population Day.
Mr Speaker, family planning is so crucial to spacing of children and it is for this reason that the methods of contraception are available in our hospitals. These drugs are inexpensive and are heavily subsidised by the Government in cooperation with donor agencies.
Mr Speaker, the following are some types of contraceptives, their prices and the period of protection against pregnancy when given to women;
1. Depo Provera Injection, which is only GH¢5.00 and it lasts for three months.
2. Intra Uterine Device (IUD) is GH¢20.00 and it lasts for ten years.
3. JADEL (Implant in the arm) is GH¢20.00 and it lasts for five years.
4. Pills for a month is GH¢2.00 and it lasts for a whole month of 30 days.
Mr Speaker, with these affordable rates for contraceptives, it is proper that women and females, generally, exercise the right to plan their families.
Ms Linda Obenewaa Akweley Ocloo (NDC -- Shai-Osudoku) 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important Statement - World Population Day which focusses on family planning.
Mr Speaker, in the year 1960, Ghana had a population of 6.5 million people. Between 1960 and 1992, the population increased from 6.5 to 15.49 million people. As I speak today, Ghana's population stands at 29.5 million people; almost twice the figure 26 years ago.
Mr Speaker, if we do not take action on family planning, we might be forced by law to determine the number of children we should have. The time to act is now.
Ms Mercy Adu-Gyamfi (NPP -- Akwatia) 12:25 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I rise to commend the Hon Member who made the Statement and to also state that family planning is a right and not a privilege.
Mr Speaker, some women do say that the use of the pills and injections for preventing pregnancy comes with side effects such as weight gain, dizziness and irregular menstrual bleeding.
These things do happen in some women but the good news is that if one particular method gives you challenges, a visit to your doctor or nurse can lead to
the change of method applied. Other options can suit those women well without problems.
Mr Speaker, it is not the number of children one has that would determine how secure one's future will be. It is the quality of care and support one gives them that matters. Let us plan our family and space our children for a better quality of life.
Alhaji Inusah Abdulai B. Fuseini (NDC -- Tamale Central) 12:35 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to contribute to this important Statement.
Mr Speaker, there is no gainsaying that the wellbeing of a population is directly linked to its wealth, and that where a population is large and the wealth base of a country is small, the people will live in poverty and penury. That places the responsibility on us to manage how we expand as a people.
Mr Speaker, that is why we must commend the Hon Member who made the Statement, for reminding us that we have a responsibility to plan within our families. When we plan within our families, we are invariably planning the country.
Mr Speaker, many methods have been devised, but listening to the Hon Member who made the Statement, I wonder whether it would not be prudent to start going back to look at how our ancestors managed the population.
Dipo rite was not only a cultural celebration. It was an initiation rite which shows that only ladies or girls who had been initiated could engage in sexual
Alhaji Inusah Abdulai B. Fuseini (NDC -- Tamale Central) 12:35 p.m.


intercourse. This was because, our ancestors knew that no girl would become pregnant if she does not engage in sexual practice. That was actually a way of planning our society.

Mr Speaker, in the Upper West Region, we have the Bagre, where men who had grown up to be responsible and useful citizens within communities were initiated. They could then marry.

I am happy I was a student of Mr Speaker. Today, we have introduced western methods of preventing preg- nancies and that is directly linked to the promiscuity that we now observe.

That has a consequence on population explosion because persons who would not lend themselves to the prescribed methods of prevention because they have been told that this is a liberal society and one could engage in preventive sex, engage in those activities which lead to child births that are not planned.

Mr Speaker, my advocacy this morning is that, just as we have now found a way to incorporate the traditional practice of mediation and reconciliation and chris- tened it, Alternative Dispute Resolution, so must we must find a way to sieve our cultural practices.

After all, many people in this country have not had the benefit of school but they still hold fast to this cultural practices. It is not everything of our cultural practices that are bad.

If we sieve the good from the bad from our cultural practices and complement it with the western methods of prevention, we might be able to apply the brakes on the population explosion that we are witnessing now.

Big countries like China, India and presently, Nigeria, have capitalised on the population even though there are serious issues because it serves as a market if the country is prosperous.

But Mr Speaker, we are not yet prosperous and because of that we must manage the way we grow as a country.

I thank you very much.
Mr Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Fuseini. The last contribution?
rose
Mr Speaker 12:35 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Akyem Abuakwa North?
Ms Gifty Twum-Ampofo (NPP -- Abuakwa North) 12:35 p.m.
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity. I am very grateful to the Hon Member who made the Statement on World's Population Day.
Population growth, to a very large extent, is woman dependent because a woman directly bears the children. Most of the family planning methods are also used by women.
Mr Speaker, you would agree with me that when we are able to maintain girls in the classroom for a longer period, we delay the stages at which they give birth and for that reason, we manage our population.
For this reason, I would entreat all of us to educate our folks to also educate our girls to live a healthy sexual life.
Mr Speaker, I would appeal to the Ministry of Education to allocate more funds to the Girl-Child Unit of the Ghana Education Service to facilitate and also do advocacy to educate the girl-child.
Again, I would also want to appeal to the Curriculum Development Unit of the Ministry of Education, to put more resources into reproductive health education; such that as we keep girls in school for a longer period, they are taken through healthy reproductive life education to know the choices to make.
As they continue their secondary education and even tertiary, the time to give birth would delay. Once it delays, the cycle of reproduction is delayed.
Mr Speaker, fortunately, previous Governments had improved maternal healthcare. In Ghana, maternal healthcare is free. However, the cost of family planning methods, even though highly subsidised, are not free.
For this reason, when we improve reproductive health education, free maternal care and family planning methods, we are sure that we would help to reduce our population size and we would give birth to individuals we could take care of.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member who made this Statement has made our day and all of us should contribute to bring our population, not very down, but to quality level.
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity.
Mr Speaker 12:35 p.m.
I thank you very much. Minority leadership?
Mr Ahmed Ibrahim (NDC-- Banda) 12:45 p.m.
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity given me.
To begin with, I must commend the Hon Member who made the Statement for bringing the attention of the whole world to this issue. Population issues border on development.
Therefore, if there is an increase in population, it may not necessarily be bad. How we put the increase in population into good use is what could benefit the nation.
Much as we talk about family planning and the negative vices that come as a result of increase in population, we must take a cue from what the world's most populous countries have used their populations for.
I was very happy when an Hon Member who contributed mentioned countries like China, India and Nigeria. The good old books which gave the responsibility of reproduction to man also gave additional responsibility to man; that we must educate our children that we bring into this world.
Mr Speaker, Ghana's population could be described as youthful. Mention is made of how our forefathers used to nurture their children in such a way that they were able to do away with teenage pregnancies and the likes.
Mr Speaker, today, how many hours do children spend with their parents? It is against this background that when we compare children who take their education very seriously, grow up to be very responsible citizens and are able to limit the number of children they bring into this world.
Therefore, if Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is regarded archaic and we always preach that it should be done away with, dipo -- some Christians may say, that these are old and outmoded cultural
Mr Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader- ship, any contribution?
Ms Safo 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would respectfully yield to the Hon Member for Hemang Lower Denkyira Constituency.
Mr Bright Wireko-Brobby (NPP-- Hemang Lower Denkyira) 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank you and the Hon Deputy Majority Leader for the opportunity given me.
I would also commend the Hon Member who made the Statement. Indeed, it is very timely that our attention has been brought to reflect generally on population.
Indeed, like Hon Members who earlier spoke alluded to, Ghana, Kenya and Norway hovered around six or 6.5 million in population around their Indepen- dence. Today, Norway is around seven million people, but Ghana and Kenya are around 30 to 40 million people.
We must all be mindful of this and look at the quality of life that we would want to live. Indeed, it is about the quality of life. To do this, we cannot detach the issue of
culture from birth control or population growth.
We are in a country where in some parts when one gives birth to the tenth child, one is hailed. In some places, a ram is slaughtered for the person. It therefore becomes very difficult for people to even chip in some advice about our population growth.
The Ministry of Chieftaincy and Religious Affairs for instance, must take some of these things up and do a lot of orientation and sensitisation for us to change our ways, and ensure that we have a quality way of controlling our population. We could then all enjoy the resources that the country has.
Mr Speaker, I would not want to end my speech without touching on the Free Senior High School policy that has been introduced. [Interruption.] Indeed, the period now hovers averagely around 10 -- [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Order, order.
Mr Wireko-Brobby 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, these days, we would find nine, 10 and 11 year olds menstruating. If we do not get systems in place to ensure that they have quality education that would prolong the time that they would give birth, what shall we do? That is why the Free Senior High School policy comes in handy. [Inter- ruption.]
Mr Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Order!
Mr Wireko-Brobby 12:45 p.m.
We are to keep our young girls in school, so that they would probably complete Senior High School at the ages of 18 or 19 years.
Some of these are measures that have been put in place to ensure that we have quality births, so that at the age of 18 and 20 years, when somebody now gives birth, the body is very much matured and can ensure we have quality people in our country.
Mr Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Thank you very much.
That ends Statements time.
Hon Members, At the Commencement of Public Business; item listed 6, Presentation of Papers.
Dr Mark Assiby-Yeboah 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there are two Papers to be laid; items numbered 6(a) and 6(b).
Mr Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Items numbered 6(a) and 6(b) -- Hon Chairman of the Committee.
PAPERS 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Hon Members, item numbered 7, Motion; the learned Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. [Pause.]
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, before we take item numbered 7, I would want to plead that we allow the Hon Deputy Minister to move the Motion in place of the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.
The Hon Deputy Minister has been with us all this while in respect of the Legal Aid Commission Bill, 2017.
Mr Speaker 12:45 p.m.
Thank you very much. Yes, Hon Member?
Mr A. Ibrahim 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would ordinarily not object to this, but like the Hon Majority Leader rightly said, throughout the Consideration Stage of this Legal Aid Commission Bill, the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice herself has not been here but it has been the Hon Deputy Minister all throughout.
So we were expecting that, at least, the Motion for the Third Reading, the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice herself should come and move the Motion so that the Hansard will capture her name as having been part of this.
Mr Speaker, it cannot be that all the Official Reports capture the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and then the Third Reading, the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice and so I do not know whether it is either out of her engagement in other activities or it may be that she does not want her name to be associated with the Legal Aid Commission Bill, but she attends Cabinet meetings.
So out of courtesy to the House, I think if the Hon Majority Leader would bear with me, that the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice would come.
Sometimes, when they come, they appreciate the barometer within the Chamber, and I expect that the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice herself comes and moves this Motion.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:45 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the House knows the “Attorney-General” and the House does not know any person referred to as the “Attainee General” - [Laughter.]
Mr Speaker, with respect to my Hon Colleague, there is a very important assignment that she is conducting and I would plead with Hon Colleagues that we allow the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice to hold the mantle as he has done and discharged and indeed, acquitted himself creditably before us to do this.
Unfortunately for us, there is no cause for any Second Consideration and so, this becomes ritualistic. I would plead with my Hon Colleagues to allow smooth passage of this.
Mr Speaker 12:55 p.m.
Thank you very much. Hon First Deputy Minority Whip himself says -- Hon Member, are you on your feet or --? If you want to make a submission, I would let you before I -- All right.
The Hon First Deputy Minority Whip himself says, it is the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice who has shepherded this Bill in all stages and I would respectfully ask him to let the shepherd crown his efforts with this final one.
Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice, you may move the Motion.
BILLS -- THIRD READING 12:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker 12:55 p.m.
Item numbered 8. The Hon First Deputy Speaker, will take the Chair.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION STAGE 12:55 p.m.
Mr Banda 12:55 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, headnote, delete “official”.
Mr Speaker, the headnote reads 12:55 p.m.
‘‘Access to information''. The reason is that the Constitution grants right to information and there is no adjective to qualify the information according to the Constitution, article 21(1) which says that:
“All persons shall have the right to --
(f) information, subject to such qualifications and laws as are necessary in a democratic society;”
Mr Speaker, we are of the view that the language as provided in the Constitution be transported into the Bill, so that no person would then have the discretion to decide what is official information and what is not. This is the reason behind the proposed amendment.
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
We need to know the exact amendment the Hon Chairman is proffering. Is it the headnote in clause 1 or the group headnote because both would have to be amended?
So we would need to know exactly what the Hon Chairman is doing. Mr Speaker, because when I thought that he was relating to the headnote, he rather related it to the group headnote. So we need to know which one he is doing now.
Mr Speaker 1:05 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just to support the Hon Majority Leader, the Hon Chairman must move it in respect of the two; both the group headnote and the headnote.
Once we make reference to article 18 (2) then it should be “Access to information” -- we do not need to qualify it as official and it should run through; we would qualify it, except for purposes of national security which is captured in 18 (2). Mr Speaker that should be the way to go.
Thank you.
Mr Speaker 1:05 p.m.
Item numbered (ii).
Mr Banda 1:05 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, subclause (1), lines 1 and 2, delete “qualifications and laws that are necessary in a democratic society” and insert “the provisions of this Act”.
Mr Speaker, so the new rendition reads 1:05 p.m.
“A person has the right to information, subject to the provisions of this Act.”
Mr Speaker, the reason is that though qualifications and laws that are necessary in a democratic state are captured in the Constitution, we were of the view that that clause is too open ended and we would be burdened with the difficulty of having to define what is meant by “laws that are necessary in a democratic society”.
Mr Speaker, the exemptions and qualifications that are being spoken about are all captured in this Bill. So to say that a person has the right to information, subject to the provisions of this Act suffices to the extent that any exemptions and qualifications are all stipulated or provided for within the Bill and it would be enough.
Mr Speaker, that is why this proposed amendment is being proffered.
Mr Speaker, before I sit down, in my own opinion and not that of the Committee, I would want to proffer a further amendment, if it would be acceptable.
Mr Speaker, it reads 1:05 p.m.
“A person has the right to information subject to the Constitution and the provisions of this Act.”
Mr Speaker, this is my personal opinion so that if there is any provision in the Constitution that allows disclosure of information or exempts disclosure of information -- to the extent that the Constitution --
  • [MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER IN THE CHAIR.]
    • Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:10 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, let us not belabour this point because every law we make in this House is subject to the Constitution, so we may not need to provide for that.
    Alhaji Inusah Abdulai B. Fuseini 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am very constrained because I am rising in opposition to the amendment proffered by the Hon Chairman and my Hon Leader.
    Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment seeks to limit the ambit of the law. They are subjecting the enjoyment of that right to this Act and that is a total limitation.
    The constitutional phrase “subject to qualifications and laws that are necessary in a democratic society” was not put there for nothing. We must read article 21(1)(f) together with article 33(5). Mr Speaker, article 33(5) says that:
    “The rights, duties, declarations and guarantees relating to the
    fundamental human rights and freedoms specifically mentioned in this Chapter shall not be regarded as excluding others not specifically mentioned which are considered to be inherent in a democracy intended to secure the freedom and dignity of man.”
    Mr Speaker, and article 21 is part of the fundamental human rights.

    Mr Speaker, my Hon Friend, the Hon Majority Leader, is saying that I am not --

    Mr Speaker, if we say that we are subjecting it to this Act then it means that we are closing the door and I am afraid that could be a subject matter of litigation in court.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the proposed amendment but I note that the Hon Chairman has improved the amendment further by saying that “subject to the Constitution and to the provisions of this Act”. Mr Speaker, that cures the fear of Hon Fuseini.
    Mr Speaker, article 11 of the Consti- tution defines the hierarchy of the laws and it says the laws of Ghana shall comprise this Constitution, the Grundnorm, an Act of Parliament is second to it.
    Mr Speaker, if we read article 18 well that is what Hon Fuseini is using, he should appreciate that article 18 establishes the right to information with limitations. Mr Speaker, I beg to quote article 18 (2):
    “No person shall be subjected to interference with the privacy of his home, property, correspondence or communication except in accor- dance with law and as may be necessary in a free and democratic society for public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the protection of health …”.
    Mr Speaker, so it means that the enjoyment of the right to information would be limited to the extent that it relates to these matters that are further listed. So what the Hon Chairman has proposed, and I support is that, subject to the Constitution and the provisions of this Act, a person has a right to information and which right to information he would enjoy pursuant to the Constitution.

    No. So Hon Chairman has subjected it to the Constitution and the provisions of the Act.

    Mr Speaker, in any case, ordinarily, the Hon Chairman did not need to add “subject to the Constitution” because---
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    In fact, I asked him to drop that and he dropped it. That part has been dropped. Now, the argument is brought up when you say “subject to this Act”. It restricts the freedom. That is what I would want to hear arguments on.
    Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the provision as it exists in the Bill already provides for qualifications under laws as are necessary in a democratic society.
    Mr Speaker, you know that in various pieces of legislations, we sometimes limit the flow of information; the State Secrecy Act, Mining Act and some other laws.
    So, it is better to go with the generality in terms of laws that are necessary rather than just restricting it to this particular law.
    Mr Speaker, this is my view.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Yes, I am listening to Hon Members. The proposal is that we should restrict the access to freedom by only what is provided for in this Constitution.
    In effect, what it says is that, if any piece of information is not declared as exempt in this Act, one has access to it. That is all that is subject to this law. One is entitled to have any other thing. In my view, it does not restrict us.
    The Hon Chairman's argument was that if you say laws as are necessary in a democratic society, it is so wide that sometimes it is difficult to define, and if
    you are not careful, somebody would argue that trokosi was necessary for managing the community or the custom that was happening, and in that respect, they are entitled to have the Minister for Tourism, Arts and Culture to provide all the information on trokosi practices and so on.
    So you would want to limit yourself to this one, which has been provided in the law. Which one would give us more access, and which one would restrict us?
    Mr Asamoa 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I recall that the thinking behind the proposed amendment subject to this Act was to focus our minds on what was accessible and not leave it to chance.
    If you say “subject to qualifications and laws that are necessary” without specifying those qualifications and laws, the tendency would be that all manner of obscure laws and qualifications would be dreamed up to prevent access to information, which is why if you have a whole law seeking to enable access to information, then you must focus on that law, and get seekers after information comfortable within the frame of that law and not leave their access to various opportunities for other undefined laws, for other undefined qualifications to move in and be used to restrict their access because of that phrase which is so opened-ended.
    And so, Mr Speaker, I believe it is actually better. It enhances access, defines access much well; it qualifies the area of information available and does not admit any ambiguity. I believe that is why we wanted to go for this amendment. It is a far better provision than the existing one.
    Mr Kojo Oppong-Nkrumah 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am of the view that the draft, as it is in the Bill now is fine. The reason is
    that today, there are laws that actually provide exemptions on their own. As was mentioned, there is a State Secret Act and other laws that provide exemptions.
    If we do not leave this as it is and we purport to now say that it is only subject to this Act, because this is later in time, what we would be doing would be to literally amend or nullify or outlaw all of those other pieces of legislations that already exist.
    Secondly, whatever possible future legislation there would be to purport to limit the access to information, first of all, would not be inconsistent with the Constitution would be brought to this House, but it would have to reflect or go by the various things we are talking about. If there is any mischief there, it can also be cured.
    Respectfully, Mr Speaker, in my view, the current provision that stands in the draft is fine.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    In fact. That is the intendment. The intendment is that, this is the only Act that would regulate access to information. The Constitution has granted the access and it says Parliament may make laws to regulate the access by way of determining which one is not available to a person as a citizen.
    So what we are required to do here is to examine the entire gamut, and if there is any necessary or any information we think should be exempt, that is not here, we should put it here. Otherwise, we intend that this should be the final one.
    Hon Chairman, am I wrong?
    Let me hear the Ranking Member, and I would come here.
    Speak to the microphone, please.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:15 p.m.
    Guide us because article 21(1)(f) which is the wording of the Bill says:
    “All persons have the right to
    (f) information, subject to such qualifications and laws as are necessary in a democratic society.”
    I have read it together with article 33, and my view is that, if you read it together with article 33, it is expansive.
    However, Mr Speaker, going by your interpretation that if you actually say it is rather expansive in this Act, can we then argue that by inference, this Act seeks to amend the Constitution by expanding the ambit?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Hon Member for Okaikoi Central?
    Mr Patrick Boamah 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am supporting the retention of the proposed clause 1, subclause (1), and I posit my argument on the preamble to the Constitution which reads:
    “IN EXERCISE of our natural and inalienable right to establish a framework of government which shall secure for ourselves and posterity the blessings of liberty, equality of opportunity and pros- perity;”
    And it goes down.
    “The protection and preservation of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms, Unity and Stability for our Nation”.
    It is hereby enshrined in our Consti- tution.
    Mr Patrick Boamah 1:15 p.m.


    Mr Speaker, my argument is that we must always have in mind that this Constitution has set certain limits and barriers to certain information; first is on national security.

    There are certain information that one cannot secure without the consent of the State security agencies, which is governed by the State Law, Securities and Intelligence Act.

    Secondly, this House vetted the Hon Minister for National Security in camera. It was for a reason because there are certain information that the Appointments Committee could not have asked or secured from the Minister for National Security --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    I am sorry, I did not get that point. You said we did what to the Hon Minister for National Security in camera? Vetting? No, we did it in the open.
    Mr Boamah 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, very well, but this same Constitution guarantees the protection of State security, for which we must make the necessary enquiries. Those information would have to be given to the right persons.
    We should not for the sake of passing this legislation open ourselves up so that every other information would be out there in the public domain just because we think we must have the right to information.
    Mr Speaker, we have to protect the acquisition of State information and other official information, for which we must leave this particular provision right there
    and intact. We do not have to delete or make any amendments to this provision. I believe it must stay as it is now.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    I am supporting the position of the Hon Chairman with respect to the first amendment that he made.
    The rendition therefore would be; “a person has a right to information subject to the provisions of this Act”.
    Mr Speaker, the Deputy Minister for Information, Hon Oppong-Nkrumah mentioned that there are other limitations that are provided for in other Statutes. But in going through the Bill, we have considered almost every known exemption under this, including the privileges that are given to lawyers and clients.
    Almost everything is provided and that is why the Committee is of the opinion that if we provide this amendment, then any known thing that we are thinking of that may come in future is provided for. Earlier, what we had in the Bill was the wording of the Constitution, which we anticipated that we would expand it and make a law.
    Now there is this Bill and we have codified whatever we have anticipated into this, so I believe that if we say “subject to the provisions of this Act”, that must be enough.
    Mr Speaker, again, we are saying that the public must have access to information. If we give too many exemptions to the access to the information, then we must as well not grant the right that we are talking about here.
    Mr Speaker, therefore I believe the proposed amendment is apt and we should limit ourselves to that.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague has said it all. May I refer you further to the provisions contained in the Right to Information Bill?
    Mr Speaker, you would appreciate that for instance, in clause 5, we have information from the Office of the President and Vice President; clause 7, information relating to law enforcement and public safety; clause 6, information relating to Cabinet, economic and other interests.
    So the anticipated limitations in articles 18 and 21 are all provided for in this Act. That is what makes the Hon Chairman's amendment more acceptable, that subject to the provisions of this Act — It means that all that is contemplated for in articles 21 and 18, subject to public safety, public morality and health are in this Act.
    Mr Speaker, I could go on and on. It says “information is exempt”. So in this Act, where it is anticipated that you should not make a disclosure, you are exempt from it. I strongly believe that the right to information is going to be enforced by the provision made under this Act and that would make it even broader.
    So I believe we should support the Hon Chairman's amendment. What I am wondering is whether the Hon Chairman would accept a further amendment, wherever we say “right to information”, it should be “right of access”.
    I have studied some four jurisdictions which I have with me, and it is always not “right to information”, but “right of access to information”. It is just a suggestion.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Let me hear the Hon Deputy Majority Leader, she has not spoken on this yet.
    Ms Sarah Adwoa Safo 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
    Mr Speaker, I am in total support of the proposed amendment by the Hon Chairman of the Committee to the extent that, in a democratic society, we rather substitute the provisions of this Act.
    Mr Speaker, this clause is obviously being lifted from the Constitution that has earlier been enumerated, article 21(f), that is where the terminology “in a democratic society” is used.
    Mr Speaker, if we talk about the hierarchy of legislations, the Constitution is at the apex. It is the fundamental law of the land, so it legislates in generality.
    So if the words “in a democratic society” are used in the Constitution, it is because it would have general application for the whole nation.
    That means all communities, all societies and all ethnic groups. But we are moving it into an Act of Parliament, and in the Bill before us, we are legislating or broadening the general framework that has been provided us in the Constitution.
    So, to again say “in a democratic society” in the Bill is giving it a wider and general interpretation. To restrict it to what we are actually legislating on, which is the right to information, which foundation is article 21(f) of the Constitution — I believe the Hon Chairman's proposal in giving that right to persons in respect of that right within the context of this Bill --
    I believe the proposed amendment that it should be within the provision of this Act is most appropriate, so I am in support of that proposed amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon Member for Suhum, I would listen to you, then I would come to the Hon Minister and the former Minister.
    Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah 1:35 a.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, we are legislating so we must be very cautious. The very first provision of the piece of legislation that we are trying to enact is going to be in conflict with the Constitution, so if somebody wanted to proceed to court and decided to challenge the constitutionality or otherwise of this provision that we are discussing, which one do we think the Judges at the Supreme Court would rule in favour of?
    That the information he is seeking should be subject to the provisions of laws as in a democratic society, or as we are trying to restrict here, to just the provisions of this Act?
    Mr Speaker, clearly, the Constitution holds superior, and so to better anchor all the other provisions of this law, we cannot depart from that provision that the Constitution has given us, because that is what is going to anchor the rest of the provisions of this Act.
    Mr Speaker, look at our own Standing Orders. Wherever there is a clear provision in the Constitution for Parliament to do or enjoy something or to cause something to be done, we take exactly the provision in the Constitution, and thereafter make our own provisions.
    Mr Speaker, secondly, it is clear from the provision the framers of the Constitution have in article 21(1)(f) that, there exists the situation where we would have these provisions in several laws. That is why they have used the word “laws”.
    In the Constitution where it is intended that Parliament will enact a single Act to do something or provide for some situation, “law” is used in its singular
    sense. We would see, “Parliament may by law do “a”, “b” and “c”. This one says “laws”, so we cannot, by any stretch of imagination, try to say that beyond the current law we are enacting, no other law can provide some restriction on access.
    Then we should go further, somewhere within the Bill or the law, to repeal anything that exists in any other law; but we are not going to do that. So clearly, things that stand in other pieces of legislations would continue to be in force.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Agalga?
    Mr James Agalga 1:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to support the further amendment proposed by the Hon Minority Leader that we should substitute “right to access information” for “right to information”.
    Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Minority Leader's proposed amendment because --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 a.m.
    Hon Member, I believe that is a further amendment. We can do that when we are settled on this one, whether we would want to restrict it to this Act or we would want to repeat the words of the Constitution. In that case, if we want to repeat the words of the Constitution, then that may not be necessary, because it would be “right to information subject …”.
    But if we are making the law, then we can decide whether we would use “access to information” or “right to information”. So, let us settle this one and then we would come back to that proposed amendment.
    Mr Agalga 1:35 a.m.
    Very well. Mr Speaker, can I have the Floor on the proposed amendment?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 a.m.
    If you want to, go ahead.
    Mr Agalga 1:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader also made the point that the exceptions provided for under the Constitution have all been captured in the Act.
    So, if that argument is anything to go by, there is consistency in that respect. If there is consistency, because the Act has captured all the exceptions provided for under the Constitution, it would not be fatal to add or accept the proposed amendment.
    This is because in that sense, it would not subtract or add to what is already contained in the Constitution.
    Mr Kojo Oppong-Nkrumah 1:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would just want to say two quick things. The first one is the variation of Hon Opare-Ansah's argument, that the Constitution itself envisages that we can have Parliament enact more than one law to provide restrictions.
    Parliament seeks, if we take this amendment, to say that after this one we can have no other laws. The Constitution says we have the right to information subject to laws.
    If we say that this is now subject to this law, then what we are saying is that, moving on, we cannot have access to information outside the exemptions provided in this Bill.
    Mr Speaker, article 135; with your permission, I beg to quote:
    “The Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether an official document shall not be produced in court because its production or the disclosure of its contents will be prejudicial to the security of the State or will be injurious to the public interest.”
    The Supreme Court even has power to determine what sort of information is made available or not.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 a.m.
    The Supreme Court has the power to interpret everything, including the law we are making.
    Mr Oppong-Nkrumah 1:35 a.m.
    That is why I believe we should stick with the current rendition.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Adentan?
    Mr Buaben Asamoa 1:35 a.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Contrary to the tenure of the debate that article 21(1)(f) offers a broader situation. It is a claw-back clause. Article 21(1)(1) claws back what is being given. It says:
    “21(1)(f) … subject to such qualifi- cations and laws...”
    This means that other laws can be passed to restrict access to information. The Constitution says that we can pass other laws to restrict access to Information. But we are saying that means it would constrict the space for information.
    Therefore, we want certainty which is that, this Act provides for access to information; it gives categories of information that can be accessed and the means for access. Therefore, it creates certainty of space.
    One cannot go beyond this Act and pass other laws restricting access to information. So in effect, if my Hon senior Colleague from Suhum would accept that leaving that clause in there rather means that Parliament is enabling the constriction
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 a.m.
    Hon Member, if the Constitution says so, why not?
    Mr Buaben Asamoa 1:35 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is our duty to expand and enhance the provisions of the Constitution when we are making laws.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 a.m.
    Not expand the Constitution or enhance it; we do not have that mandate.
    Mr Buaben Asamoa 1:35 a.m.
    No, Mr Speaker. We are enhancing and it is consequential to that provision. We cannot lift constitutional provisions and direct them into Acts.
    Of what effect will they be? We need to better express the Constitution, if we are crafting laws consequential to constitutional provisions.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:35 a.m.
    I just wanted us to be clear, that once we restrict it to the Act, we rather leave a wider room for the application of the right to information. If we repeat the constitutional
    provision, then there is no closure. At any point in time that there is opportunity to restrict the space, so long as something can be conceived, which in the minds of the authority is necessary for democratic society, we can add to it. These are the two positions we are holding.
    In the last Parliament, we worked extensively on this Bill - the Hon Second Deputy Speaker and I. The principle which underpinned what we did was that in the first place, the information in the hands of public officers belong to the citizens, and they are entitled to have access to it at any time.
    The only qualification is when it would affect the security of the State, it would endanger other individuals and so on. That is why our position was that the constitutional provision is too wide, because it can be applied to do anything. If that is what the Constitution says, that is what we have to do.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the construction that we are struggling over reads:
    “A person has the right to infor- mation subject to qualifications and laws that are necessary in a democratic society.”
    Now, the opening phrase is that a person has the right to information; every person has the right to information. That information, however, is subject to qualifications and laws that are necessary in a democratic society.
    Mr Speaker, those ones are captured in article 18 (2). Those qualifications and laws may relate to laws that are:
    “… necessary in a free and democratic society for public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the protection of health or morals, for the prevention of disorder or crime or for the protection of the rights or freedoms of others.”
    Those are the qualifications and laws that may be necessary to restrict the right to information. Who crafts those laws? It is Parliament that crafts those laws and provides the regulation to those restrictions.
    Mr Speaker, what we are attempting to do, the Right to Information Bill, then fulfils what exemptions or qualifications are captured in this Bill. Mr Speaker, they are captured in this Bill and Parliament has the authority to do that, which is what we are doing.
    Mr Speaker, so when it is said that we should leave it, that one does not even stand alone. The full complement of the laws that are necessary in a democratic society is what we see in article 18(2). As I said, it is for Parliament to do this.
    Mr Speaker, an Act or a Bill that Parliament deals with cannot be contrary to the Constitution and that really would relate to article 1(2) which says:
    “This Constitution shall be the supreme law of Ghana and any other law found to be inconsistent with any provision of this Constitution shall, to the extent of the incon- sistency, be void.”
    So, the qualifications and restrictions that we are providing in this Bill should sit well within the Constitution. And to the extent that it does so, Mr Speaker, I do
    not see anything wrong with that. So, I agree entirely with what the Committee - People ascribe what is being done with the Hon Chairman of the Committee. It is not the Hon Chairman of the Committee; it is the Committee that has proposed this to us, that that is the position we should adopt.
    An Hon Member 1:45 p.m.
    And to plenary.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:45 p.m.
    It is subject to the approval of plenary, but plenary cannot do anything that is inconsistent with the Constitution anyway.
    Mr Speaker, to the extent that nobody has argued that what the Committee has proposed is inconsistent with the Constitution, I do believe that we should allow whatever proposal that has come from the Committee to hold.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    What is the way forward? We have to take a decision one way or the other --
    Mr Samuel Abdulai Jabanyite 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in my opinion, we should let it stand as it is, because if you read it carefully, what it seeks to tell us is that one has the right to request for information, but it should be based on certain conditions upon which, when they are met, then it can be given.
    So the remaining part of the sentence spells out those conditions which somebody satisfies before he is given. That is why if you look at articles 18 and
    Mr Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to support the views expressed by the Hon Chairman of the Committee and what has been canvassed by the Hon Majority Leader and the Hon Deputy Minister for Information which has also been strongly submitted by the Hon Member for Suhum.
    Mr Speaker, the fact of the matter -- [Interruption] Hon Opare-Ansah is deleted from my initial list of those in the camp I belong to. [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Please continue.
    Mr Ablakwa 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I submit that we should go along with clause 1(1) as has been provided, that:
    “A person has the right to infor- mation, subject to qualifi- cations and laws that are necessary in a democratic society.”
    Mr Speaker, article 21(f) of the Constitution states exactly what is in the Bill and we do not have any wiggle room. We cannot depart from what the Constitution says. We do not have any option in this matter.
    Mr Speaker, having heard the concerns of those who say that this is a claw back, and that we should have a progressive
    mindset to open up the space, my view is that we have an opportunity to take a second look at the exempt information.
    As we work on the Bill, that mindset can be brought to bear, so that we can have a Right to Information Bill which is more progressive and expansive, and which does not seek to close the democratic space.
    I do not think it is clause 1 that really limits us, but it is how we go about the entire Bill, especially with the exempt information when we get there.
    If we have limited or narrow exemp- tions, then we would have a Right to Information Bill which would stand the test of time and governance experts would commend us for a good job done.
    Mr Speaker, I do not think that at this point, we should be sensitive or frightened about how clause 1 has been couched.
    As for that, it is just a reproduction of what is in the Constitution which we do not really have a choice. This is because the Constitution is supreme in the hierarchy of laws as we all know. We do not have a choice in that matter.
    Mr Speaker, my view is that let us leave it as it is. But when we get to exempt information, we should make sure that all of the ideas that we have now about having a piece of legislation which would not narrow the space or be counter productive --
    When we get there, we will limit the exemptions and make sure that we have a Right to Information Bill which would serve the purpose that we would want it to serve. That is my view.
    1. 55 p. m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Very well, I have heard enough. I am going to put the Question on the Hon Chairman of the Committee's amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Item numbered 8(iii) -- Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Iddrisu 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was persuading you because there is no advertised amendment in my name in respect of it.
    Mr Speaker, I still strongly believe that the right to information, as a right, is created by the Constitution, but this Bill is to give meaning to the enjoyment of the right to information. Therefore it should be “right of access”.
    I have been perusing other countries' --[Interruption]-- that is why I said, I am indulging Mr Speaker, if he would tolerate me. “A person has the right of access to information” clause 1(1). After that insert the words, “of access”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, please hold on.
    Hon Members, having regard to the state of Business of the House, I direct that we Sit outside the regular Sitting hours.
    Hon Minority Leader, please continue.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    The Hon Minority Leader was on his feet.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was indulging you. Maybe I should come back. In clause 1(1), after ‘right', insert the word, “access”.
    Mr Speaker, even if we look at the Act, the right to information is a creation of the Constitution. What this Act seeks to do is to grant access to information. So, it should read:
    “A person has the right of access to information.”

    Mr Speaker, I have looked at Canada's Act. It is called, The Access to Information Act of Canada. Therefore, it is not just the right to information, but the right to access the information.

    Mr Speaker, we could even go through the Explanatory Memorandum, and the small headnotes we have deleted.

    So, I so submit.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader started on a very wrong note, even though he landed well. -- [Laughter.]
    Mr Speaker, this right is the right to access information, and not the right of access to information. You have the right to access it, not right of access to information. The two are different. - [Interruption.] That is why I am saying that when he was landing—
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, kindly spell your “access” or “access”, so that we are satisfied with the amendment you are proposing.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “right of access”. The access is a noun. The right ‘of “access”, that “access” is a noun. The right to “access” is a verb and that is what is intended by the Constitution. You have a right to information. You have a right to access it.
    Mr Speaker, if we say “right of access to information”, the access -- [Interruptions]-- precisely. “Right to access information” that is what you mean, and not “right of access to information”. Do you get it?
    Mr Iddrisu 1:45 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:45 p.m.
    So, rise and concur.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Inusah?
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not know which Bill the Hon Majority Leader is reading? Which Bill he is holding? --[Laughter]-- The Right to Information Bill, 2018; I suppose that is what he is holding.
    Mr Speaker, we have seen the contents of the Bill; on Arrangement of sections, section 1 is “Right of access to official information”. — [Interruptions.] And then the Headnote.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader is very right. We are not talking about that “right”, we are talking about access to information. That is why the General Headnote says, “Access to official Information” and then the Headnote says, ‘Right of access to official information'. — [Interruptions.] Well, no one has amended it yet.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Inusah, one word, the same spelling, pronounced differently and you want to say they mean different things?
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no, ‘access' (noun) is different from “access”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    “Access” as I understand— is spelt a-s-s-e-s-s. But what we have here is a-c-c-e-s-s. So, where is the confusion?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the confusion is the adverb, “of” or “to”. That is the confusion. And I support my Leader because when we look at the arrangement of sections, it says, “Right of access”.
    The Hon Chairman, in amending the Headnote said “right of access. And he is now saying that to make the clause 1 consistent with the Headnote; “A person has the right of access to information”. That is what he is suggesting.
    If we want a further amendment, we could proffer that further amendment. But saying that we should make clause 1 consistent with the Headnote, and the Headnote is, “Right of access to official information'.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when we say we have to access information, we have a right to procure information or a right to demand. Now, the right of access to information is that, now you want to create the path to procure the information. So you have the right to that path; or process. That is not it.
    The Constitution says that we have right to information. It must come in handy, we have the right to information and that is the right to access information, not the right to the path.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Inusah, Navrongo or Tamale? -- [Laughter]-- Mr Speaker, when I said Navrongo or Tamale, I meant Navrongo Secondary School or Tamale Secondary School.
    2. 05 p. m.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Member, kindly resume your seat. When he finishes—
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is the obvious intendment of the Bill; you have a right to access information, not right of access to information.
    The two are different; there is a distinction — in fact, a distinction with difference. Even though the word is spelt the same, it has different meanings and different connotations.
    Mr Quashigah 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that largely, this is an issue of syntax and semantics. But again, as the Hon Majority Leader said, there is a distinction between the two. “Right of access” is an entitlement, and it tells us that the individual has that entitlement to the information.
    But then, “right to access”, which is an action phrase, tells us that the individual must now have processes to be able to access the information. So, indeed, though the two are different in meaning, they all are relevant to the subject matter.
    This is because, first of all, the individual must be recognised to have that entitlement. Then secondly, we must create the procedure for the individual to be able to have the information.
    Thank you Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Members, do you see how we are battling with the meaning, whether it is a verb or noun? Should we introduce this confusion into the Act?
    Who does not understand when it says a person has right to information? Who does not understand this? Would we not achieve the same purpose?
    So why introduce this confusion? I believe we should maintain the clause as it is. That is my view.
    Mr Agalga 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we leave it the way it is, we would run into problems. This is because in this country, we have a written Constitution and in it is enshrined the right to information.
    Mr Speaker, we would need to distinguish those countries with written Constitutions from countries like the United Kingdom (U.K). When the U.K Parliament enacted something similar to what we are doing now, they used different phraseology, so theirs is ‘'freedom of information''.
    In that sense, Parliament created the right, but we cannot sit here and pretend that we are the ones who now seek to create the right. The right is already in existence. What we seek to do is to create the mechanism for the enjoyment of that right.
    Mr Speaker, I said the Hon Majority Leader's attempt to distinguish between the words ‘‘access'' as a verb and “access” as a noun --
    That even compounds the problem. I have checked from the Oxford English Dictionary and the proper phrase to use is ‘‘access to''.
    If we restrict ourselves to the word ‘'access'' simpliciter then we open ourselves for various definitions et cetera. If we use the phrase ‘‘access to'', it means one and only one thing.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Member, the provision here already is; ‘'a person has the right to information, subject to provision of this Act''. What is ambiguous about this such that we must introduce a confusion about the word ‘'access''?
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Yes, Hon former Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice?
    Dr Ayine 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have been listening to the debate and I thought I would hear an argument that said the substantive content of the right would be altered by the language that we adopt.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with you entirely - - the right to information is the right to information. As Hon Agalga said, the reason we are enacting this law is simply to provide the procedural mechanism to access the right.
    Mr Speaker, I do not see why we should belabour the point because of linguistic consistency - some Hon Members want us to be consistent.
    Mr Speaker, you know that I have been associated with this Bill for a long time, so I believe the current rendition is better.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Members, let us continue.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, move clause 1, item numbered (iii) on the Order Paper. I have ruled that what is there is sufficient, so let us proceed.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Member, the proposed amendment has been defeated without a vote, let us proceed. It has been abandoned by the proponent --
    Mr Banda 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, subclause (2), delete.
    Mr Speaker, the reason is that, the right to apply for the information is well stipulated under clause 18. Apart from that, there are certain classes of information that a person need not apply for.
    For instance, in clause 2, it says that the Government has the responsibly to make a proactive disclosure. Clause 3 also puts a responsibility on every public institution to make a proactive disclosure.
    Mr Speaker, with respect to clauses 2 and 3, a person does not have to apply for information before it is given. But clause 1(2) appears to be restrictive and that is why we seek to delete it. This is because, clause 18 takes care of that and clauses 2 and 3 also make enough provision for proactive disclosure.
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Mr Banda 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, subclause (3), delete “does not have to give” and insert “may apply for information without giving”
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 1:45 p.m.
    ‘'A person may apply for infor- mation without giving a reason…''
    Mr Speaker, the reason is a person has the right to apply for information without giving any reason. If we were to maintain this rendition, what it would mean is that an information officer who receives an application seeking for information would then have to decide whether the reason contained in the application is valid or not before the person would exercise his discretion on whether to grant the application or not.
    Mr Speaker, we do not want to give any person the discretion to determine the validity or otherwise of an application seeking information before same is granted. That is why we seek to delete this.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
    Ms Safo 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my little challenge is the use of the word ‘'may'' in the new proposed amendment. ‘'The option'' -- [Interruption.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader, ‘'the option'' is for the application and not for the reason.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for North Tongu?
    Mr Ablakwa 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am sorry I may be dragging matters, but could we hear the rendition again? This is because I heard ‘'a reason''.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    A person may apply for information without giving a reason for the application''. Hon Chairman of the Committee, am I right?
    Mr Ablakwa 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought we could take out the article, so that it would be ‘'without giving reason''.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Hon Member, if it is taken out, then the word reasons must be used. The rendition is a reason''.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clause 1 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2 -- Responsibility of Government to provide information on governance
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Hon Members, the first proposed amendment stands in the name of the Hon Member for Suhum, Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah.
    Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, subclause 2, line 2, after “person” add “through:
    (a) the annual budget statement and economic policy of Government;
    (b) the presidential messages to Parliament at the beginning of a session of Parliament and upon dissolution of Parliament on the state of the nation;
    Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah 2:15 p.m.


    (c) annual reports of various MDAs presented to Parliament;

    (d) other pieces of information which Parliament may by law require from Government;

    (e) the release of other pieces of information that the government may consider necessary through the National Commission for Civic Education and the Infor- mation Services Department of the Ministry responsible for Information; and

    (f) Other publications that the government may deem appropriate.”

    Mr Speaker, when you look at the clause as stated, and I beg to read it with your permission:

    “The Government shall make available to the public, general information on governance without application from a specific person.”

    Mr Speaker, the Bill does not specify how this would be done, and so it leaves it quite ambiguous. There are already existing channels through which Government does this periodically. So, I have put those on a list and also added an omnibus clause in subclause (f) of my amendment to facilitate that process.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Banda 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just to draw the attention of the Hon Member for Suhum, that there is no subclause (2) in the Bill. He is amending subclause (2), so, if he can -- Is he inserting or amending subclause (2)?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Very well. So you were talking about “clause 2, after “person” insert “through”?
    Hon Member, you are also providing the means by which Government would provide general information.
    Mr Asamoa 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to oppose the amendment proposed by my elder Brother from Suhum but I share his concern.
    Mr Speaker, his concern is that, it does not give the parameters of general information. He also said that there are already means and channels of general information. So what he sought to do is to list them.
    Mr Speaker, my fear is that in listing, they would leave out very essential lines. This being a piece of legislation, the danger then would be that everybody would focus on the list and the others which are left out would then get away with not doing what is right.
    Mr Speaker, so the subsequent amend- ment proposed actually points us in the direction of the current structure which provides for collection of general information.
    What we are dealing with here is a search engine. We cannot attempt to legislate the collection and management of information in this Act. What we have is a search engine -- access to the information that is already available.
    Therefore, in attempting to design a framework for managing the information here, we may fall short of what we need to do. That is the reason why we must link this law to the existing law that actually deals with the collection, processing and management of information. This Act should simply be a key to that information.
    Mr Speaker, therefore, to the extent that the amendment attempts to set out the sources and channels of information, I believe it may short-change us and I am opposed to that on those terms.
    I thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Ablakwa 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am most grateful.
    Mr Speaker, I also rise to oppose the proposed amendment. If one looks critically at the proposals, for example, the Presidential Message to Parliament; there is a constitutional provision that deals with that -- article 67 of the Constitution deals with that. On Budget Statement, there is a constitutional provision that deals with that. Why do we need to repeat that?
    Mr Speaker, if you look at subclause (e), it says 2:15 p.m.
    “the release of other pieces of information that the Government may consider necessary through the National Commission for Civic Education and the Information Services Department of the Ministry responsible for Information;”
    There have been times in this Fourth Republic where the Ministry of Infor- mation did not exist. It was up-sealed under Ministry of Communications.
    There could be a President who would decide that he does not even want a Ministry of Communications or Information. We would then have passed a legislation that has a specified and stipulated Ministry as it is now in this rendition.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we have adequate provisions in the Constitution -- article 67 and others that deal with a number of these vehicles that Hon Opare-Ansah has proposed.
    So, I honestly do not see what harm is caused if we leave clause 2 as it is. Save to say that I was going to propose, that instead of “shall”, it should be a “may”. That:
    ‘The Government may make avai- lable to the public, general information on Government without application from a specific person.'
    Mr Speaker, if you look at subclause (e), it says 2:15 p.m.


    This is because it is really discretional; one cannot compel Government to provide information to do with governance and all of those things.

    Mr Speaker, so I was going to propose that we should just amend the “shall” to “may” so that we do not create problems for our Government. We should then leave it as it is because all these proposals -- annual report -- we have laws that deal with it.

    The Presidential Messages to Par- liament has article 67 of the Constitution dealing with that; State of the Nation Address, the Budget Statement -- we have articles in the Constitution that deals with all of those vehicles. So I do not believe any harm is caused if we leave clause 2 as it is.

    Mr Speaker, I am grateful.
    Mr Patrick Yaw Boamah 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to propose a further amendment to clause 2. The gravamen of my application is routed in article 295 which defines “government”, and I beg to quote:
    “government” means' any authority by which the executive authority of Ghana is duly exercised.
    Mr Speaker, my view and under- understanding of this Bill is not restricted to the Executive Arm of Government.
    So right to information or access to information must be extended to all other State agencies, for which my proposed amendment to the heading should be. “Responsibility of Government and other State Agencies to provide information on governance.”
    Mr Kwame Anyimadu-Antwi 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought the Hon Member for Okaikoi would let us deal with the amendments that have been proposed, and if there is a further amendment --
    Mr Speaker, with respect, I associate myself with the Hon Member for Adentan in opposing the amendment of the Hon Member for Suhum.
    Mr Speaker, I also appreciate his in- depth research and what he had provided. But to the extent that the proposal he had given, itself, introduces an omnibus clause, is telling this House that we cannot legislate on all. So if we are going to leave it open ended, why do we not leave it as it is?
    Mr Speaker, he had introduced sub- clause (f) which says 2:15 p.m.
    “Other publications that the Govern- ment may deem appropriate”.
    So there are other publications that we should anticipate. It means that we cannot anticipate everything under the sun here, and that is the reason we do not have to go into this and must leave it as we have it here.
    ment that was proposed by my Hon Colleague on the other Side, Hon Ablakwa, I am opposed to that amendment because
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Hon Member, let us take them one after the other. There is a proposed amendment on the Floor. Let us deal with that.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Hon Member for Wa West was on his feet first. I would come to you after that, please.
    Mr Chireh 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I believe that this proposed amendment is not necessary at this stage. If we go through the Bill, we would see various institutions that we should seek information from and their obligations to supply same.
    The information is also categorised and that is why we have those which cannot be provided.
    So if we now specify -- unfortunately, the things that he specified are public knowledge. People do not worry about our Budget Statement because it is published and everybody has it.
    In fact, the problem about this law is that there is opaqueness with those who undertake activities with respect to governance. People do not know what has happened; it is not statements that the President comes to make and everyone sees him that we must publish. No!
    Rather, we should look at the Bill clearly. The general provision under clause 2 is sufficient and it is a command to Government to do all these things. But those ones are already in the public domain.
    Even as a Member of Parliament, if one gets up to ask a question which is likely to be in an Annual Report, one is told he
    or she cannot ask it. With these questions that we talk about, people seek information to find out how contracts were awarded. It is not about Budget Statements because they are public.
    I believe if we begin from this one, it is not good. So I oppose your amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Hon Member, whose amendment do you oppose?
    Mr Chireh 2:25 p.m.
    I oppose his amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Who? Because you are addressing me. [Laughter.]
    Mr Chireh 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I could not address you like that while I was pointing my finger this way at Hon Opare-Ansah. [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    All right.
    Mr Chireh 2:25 p.m.
    So Mr Speaker, I beg you, nobody should support him. [Laughter.]
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that what we do when we get to this stage is methodism. We go metho- dically.
    I appreciate the amendment proposed by the Hon Opare-Ansah, but we have made it clear that there is no subclause (2) of clause 2. If he insists to do so, then he should let us know that the amendment he proposed, which is a gamut of new clauses, should be under clause 2.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Hon Member, he has already done that.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:25 p.m.
    All right, I am guided, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    The last word would come from the proponent of the amendment.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank the very last speaker, the Hon Member for Tamale Central.
    Mr Speaker, he actually made the point I tried to make here. I urge him to re-read the headnote of clause 2. It is about responsibility of Government to provide information on governance. He has
    mentioned all the things he did because I listed them. How else would he have known what goes into what Government is supposed to provide without one applying. That is the essence of the amendment that I have proposed.
    The clause, as it stands, imposes a major obligation in the, “shall” used. I believe that is the reason the Hon Member for North Tongu suggested that we change it to, “may”.
    If we change it to “may”, then immediately, the proposal I made drops off entirely. There is a compulsion on Government to do something without telling us what to do or how to do it. That is why I made that proposal.
    Question put and amendment negatived.
    Mr Asamoa 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, insert a new subclause (2), as follows:
    “General Information shall be collected, processed and managed in accordance with the Public Records and Archives Adminis- tration Act, 1997, (Act 535).”
    Indeed, what my senior Colleague, the Hon Member for Suhum proposed to do is what this proposed amendment would do much more efficiently. Mr Speaker, I call this the warehouse provision because before we could access information, it must be available in consumable forms.
    Like I said before, this law is a search engine. It enables us access to the information but the information must be there. Now, the State has the Public Records and Archives Administration Act 1997, Act 535 which prescribes how public information, general information, and
    public records are supposed to be collected, processed and stored so that one could access that information as a constitutional right.
    So Mr Speaker, to strengthen the current clause 2, which states that one could access the general information without application, we need to point to the warehouse. We need to stabilise the source and make sure that the information is there to be accessed.
    Therefore, we are reinforcing the responsibility of Government to ensure that the information is mobilised, collected, processed and stored according to law as it exists under Public Records and Archives Administration Act 1997, (Act 535).
    Mr Speaker, this is to add to and reinforce clause 2, as proposed in order to ensure that the information we seek to access is available to us by way of expression in a warehouse, which is the Government's repository.
    I thank you, Mr Speaker.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Hon Members - [Laughter] - Hon Clement Apaak has not spoken. So I would hear him.
    Dr Clement A. Apaak 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to oppose the amendment proposed. While the intentions of the proponent of this amendment may be genuine, we must be cognisant of the fact that we are currently encumbered by multiple bureaucracies. So, to propose that we amend the clause to indicate what he
    described as a warehouse under the Public Records and Archives Administration Act, 1997 would certainly, in many ways, defeat the very purpose for which this august House is looking at working on this and passing the Bill into law.
    On that ground, I feel that it would not serve the best interest and intentions of the originators of this Bill to grant the proposed amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, I would want to understand your -- how do you say it defeats the purpose? This is because this amendment, if I understand it, says that the Government should package the information it is required to provide and keep them as it would be done by the Public Records and Archives Administration Department (PRAAD), which already exits.
    Dr Apaak 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are looking at time and urgency. We are aware of the bureaucracies that we currently face. So by making this part of a law, which would require an entity to organise and mobilise to make that information available, it definitely has the potential of being abused. That is the point I sought to make.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Very well.
    Yes, Hon Member for Daboya?
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am the available Hon Leader. [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Hon available Leader is recognised.
    Mr S. Mahama 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am most grateful.
    I rise to fully and strongly support the proposed amendment made by Hon Yaw Buaben Asamoa. Indeed, the gravamen of this Bill is about repository of information

    and records. We could talk about access a million times, but if we do not know where to even fetch that information, it is useless.

    There is already an Act that provides the nature and the way records are to be kept. So, this proposed amendment only seeks to tell us where to access that information. Therefore, it is apt.

    Mr Speaker, rightly so, if we look specifically at section 2(a) of the Public Records and Archives Administration Act, 1997, (Act 535), it states and I beg to quote:

    “For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section the Department shall
    -- 2:35 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    I have a personal experience with PRAAD setting up the systems. When I joined the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA),
    one of my biggest challenges was the application for information on vehicles that had long been out of use. The records were jumbled up.
    So we brought them in, they set them up year by year, put them in boxes and programmed everything on a computer. So we could sit here and give the vehicle registration number, and it tells us the box, stack number as well as its number in the box; within five minutes, one could access the information.
    So it made it easy for people looking for information from us to access it.
    That is all that this amendment seeks to do; we should organise information by relying on that Act.
    Ms Safo 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just as you have rightly stated, where other legislations with the same subject matter exist and it could facilitate whatever creation of right or responsibility another Bill seeks to do, drafting rules do not frown on that. There is always room for cross referencing.
    Mr Speaker, except to say that the Hon Member may probably come with a further amendment on a subject, who the obligation would be imposed on, to make it clearer.
    This is because as it stands now, it says, “General information shall be collected…” By who? So if we create the subject or whoever that responsibility would be placed on, then it would make it neater. When it is not done, that person could be held liable.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Quashigah 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as much as I agree with the amendment, I still have a little challenge with that because subclause (2) is very specific. It says:
    “The Government shall make available to the public, general information on governance without application from a specific person.”
    When we come to the amendment, it starts with “General information”, which gives the impression --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, assist us. Propose an amendment to clarify it.
    Mr Quashigah 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, subclause (2), delete “General Information” and insert “Government shall collect, process and manage information in accordance with the Public Records and Archives Administration Act, 1997, (Act 535), because the emphasis is on the Government.
    Thank you.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    All right, but because it is somebody's amendment, we would want to seek his permission.
    Hon Yaw Buaben Asamoa, if your proposed amendment is further amended this way, would you have a problem with that?
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, are you also proposing a further amendment?
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 2:35 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    I would ask you to hold on.
    Mr Asamoa 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my initial assumption was that the Government was responsible because the subject of
    subclause (2) is the Government; but because it was a subclause to clause 2, I assumed that the subject had been covered previously.
    I would not mind repeating “Govern- ment” or “public institutions” in the amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    You could make reference to clause 2(1) because we are proposing a subclause (2) and say, “For the purposes of subclause (1), information shall be processed and managed in accordance with …”
    Hon Member, was that what you wanted to propose?
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that was exactly what I wanted to amend; “For the purposes of subclause (1), public institutions shall collect, process and manage general information in accordance with …”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Hon Ranking Member, we would want to deal with the Government as the Executive arm first before we come to the public institutions under clause 3.
    Mr Asamoa 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe your rendition was perfect. I would go with your rendition.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am in support of the further amendment proposed by Hon Quashigah to the matter before us because the law provides that within one year, upon coming into effect, public institutions would make infor- mation available regarding their organisational structure, their core business and all that they do.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, that would be available but for now, we are providing for general information and so let us deal with the general provisions and we can take them in specifics.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is why I am in support of the Hon Quashigah's proposal that we should take out the “general” because his rendition took out the “general”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Yes, we have agreed to that.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so I am in support of that amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    I made further proposal that instead of using “Government” -- because it has been used in clause 2. So you just follow it up and say that; “for the purposes of clause 1, information shall be” -- and that is in reference to clause 2(1).
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, then I support your position because it would actually be in consonance with the definition as enunciated by my Hon Brother in article 295 as to the meaning ascribed to “government” in the Consti- tution.
    Ms Safo 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I further propose that instead of having clause 2 (1) and (2), we could break it down into clause 2(a) and (b) so that clause 2 would start with:
    “The Government shall --
    Then paragraph (a), we would go to Hon Buaben Asamoa's proposed amendment which would read:
    (a) collect, process and manage in accordance with the Public Records and Archives Admi- nistration Act, 1997, (Act
    535)”.
    Mr Speaker, then we come to paragraph (b) which is the original 2:45 p.m.
    (b) make available to the public, general information on gover- nance without application from a specific person”.
    So that is what I propose, that the “Government” will stand on its own and then we have paragraphs (a) and (b).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    I believe we can leave it to the drafters if we are agreeable to the text.
    Mr Samuel O. Ablakwa 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I can appreciate the rationale and where the Hon Yaw Buaben Asamoa's proposal is coming from. I have gone through Act 535 and the Public Records and Archives Administration Act, 1997, (Act 535).
    Mr Speaker, having read this, my fear is that this Act is almost obsolete and it will roll back the progress we want to make. For example, if you look at section 13 of Act 535 -- “ARCHIVES AND OTHER
    REPOSITORIES; ACCESS TO PUBLIC
    RECORDS”.
    Mr Speaker, section 13(1) states 2:45 p.m.
    “ There shall be stored for preservation in the National Archives under the Department such public records of sufficient historical or other value as justify their continued preser- vation by the Council.
    (2) The Director may on the advice of the Advisory Committee and with the approval of the Council, designate any place other than the National Archives or other archival repository under his control, as a place of deposit for specified public records where he is satisfied that --
    (a) the place provides suitable facilities for the preservation and safekeeping of public records of permanent value, and access for their consul- tation by the public; …”
    So, whereas, clause 2 is more omnibus and talking about:
    “The Government shall make available to the public, general information on governance without application from a specific person”.
    Mr Speaker, Act 535 has a lot of fetters and it is also obsolete. In this modern era of storing information, we are talking about clouds, information communication technology (ICT) and we now have a National Data Centre, Act 535 did not envisage all of that.
    If you go through this Act, several sections talk about physical locations, address and so on. So now, I am saying that we are passing a modern law, let us not go and tie ourselves to an Act which has become obsolete.
    Act 535 is well intentioned and it is good to have public officials properly manage information and so on, but this Act has to be amended and improved to be brought to the modern era. It is too obsolete and I would want to plead.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Nigerians have a proverb which says; ‘he who does not believe in God, there is no need persuading him with Jesus'.
    Mr Speaker, I thought that you were going to listen to those of us who were opposed to this amendment before we carry on further amendments.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    I did not know there were others who were opposed to it.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, very well. I associate myself with the Hon Okudjeto Ablakwa.
    In addition to what he has said respectfully, what I would want to say is that, if you look at article 11 of our Constitution, the sources of law are clearly listed at article 1 --
    Inasmuch as the Constitution appre- ciates enactments made by this Parliament as a source of law, it also appreciates the existing law under article 1(b) and (d) and Act 535 is part of the existing law that is also recognised.
    Now, someone is performing the functions of the request that has been put under Act 535. Here, my Hon Colleague seeks to actually assimilate part of this Act 535 to be made part of this Bill and it does not tell us who is responsible.
    Mr Speaker, I do not think that we need to disturb what has been said and we are even going to create confusion between who is in-charge of the public archives
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    The Public Archives and Records says that public officials must organise information in that manner. It does not say, public archives should go and organise it.
    So, the conflict does not arise at all. It is just the manner and procedure as to how we should organise information.
    The only part that the Hon Ablakwa adds on is that, in today's terms, we do not need to organise hard papers; we may capture the same data and hold it electronically.
    I do not see how that detracts from this because this is just about organising information. So how do we want to hold information so that people could access it? That is all that matters.
    Hon Chairman, I have not heard you in a long while.
    Mr Banda 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, most of the time, I would want to listen to submissions on the Floor before I take a decision.
    Mr Speaker, much as the principle behind the proposed amendment is good, I believe that the general trend is that a responsibility is put on the public institution.
    We create a responsibility because if somebody applies for information and the
    information is not available, or the information has not been put in a form which could be accessed, then the information cannot be granted.
    But the general trend is that every public institution has a responsibility to create the information, keep the information and maintain the information in a form that every person seeking the information could access it.
    Mr Speaker, if you take the Access to Information Act of Kenya, for our guidance, the heading reads: “Every public entity shall keep and maintain records that are accurate.”
    So first of all you would realise that an obligation is being created and that obligation is being put on a specific public entity or institution because that is very important.
    Mr Speaker, likewise, if you take the African Union (AU) model on the Right to Information, it also makes it mandatory that every information holder must create and keep the information in a manner that can be accessed.
    Therefore I am of the humble opinion that much as the principle is good, we must first of all create the responsibility.
    To my mind, the location of the proposed amendment under clause 2 is not its rightful place, because the clause says that the government must provide the information.
    One needs not apply for that information. So straight away, that information is given and so we do not have to apply for it.
    If we need to incorporate the proposed amendment by my Hon Friend, then we must first of all create the responsibility
    and incorporate same and find a proper place for it under clause 3 because it is clause 3 that deals with the responsibility of public institutions in respect of access; so that when we find a proper place for it under clause 3, then every public institution would be fixed with the responsibility to create the information, maintain the information in a manner that could be accessed by any applicant who seeks information.
    Mr Speaker, otherwise, strictly speaking, I do not have any objection.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, I agree with you. The principle is understood; we need to create and maintain information. With your suggestion that it should be part of clause 2, we would find the appropriate place, draft it appropriately and locate it.
    Hon Member for Adentan, either you withdraw your proposed amendment or we would vote on it. You may withdraw and propose it again for an appropriate place or we would put the vote on it.
    Mr Asamoa 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you would indulge me, I would be grateful if it would be flagged so that the Committee would look at it again and redraft or put it in another part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    So, would you withdraw it?
    Mr Asamoa 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, advise us.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, do you want that flagged so that the entire clause 2 would be flagged? Hon Chairman, because your argument now is that it is not properly located.
    The principle is understood, that it is not properly located, so if he withdraws, then we could conclude with clause 2 and
    when we are dealing with clause 3, then we would take a decision on that.
    Mr Banda 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I said that we have to find a place for it under clause 3 because clause 2 is not its proper place. The reason we should flag it is that, in case we meet and subsequently decide that instead of clause 3, clause 2 is in its proper place, then it would be too late.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Very well.
    The Question on clause 2 has been deferred.
    Hon Member for Klottey Korle?
    Dr Zanetor Agyeman-Rawlings 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with regards to same, my concern was the fact that the Constitution does not specify how the budget should be prepared. It just tells us when, but when the Budget Statement comes, it is given to us in the correct format with all the information and the order that is required and so on.
    So, why do we need to specify here that information ought to be put in a particular way when historically, we have seen that without specifying, we would not have had the information presented to us in a proper format?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    We would discuss that when we get to it, but it is about keeping it. In whatever form that it is presented, it must be kept in such a way that it would be accessible.
    I am deferring the Question on clause 2, and I am suspending Sitting until 4.00 p.m. When we resume, the Hon Second Deputy Speaker would take the Chair.
    Hon Members, thank you.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.


    3.02 p.m. -- Sitting suspended.

    5.13 p.m. -- Sitting resumed.
    MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Hon Members, I am reliably informed that we are at the Consideration Stage of the Right to Information Bill, 2018.
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION STAGE 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, we are waiting on you.
    Mr Banda 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we dealt with clause 2 and deferred a proposed amendment proffered by Hon Buaben Asamoa. So, we did not take a vote on clause 2.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    All right. We are on clause 3.
    Clause 3 -- Responsibility of public institutions in respect of access
    Mr Banda 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, first have an amendment proposed by the Hon Minority Leader at page 4 of the Order Paper.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I had to exit when we were still considering subclause (1) of clause 1, to join the Rt Hon Speaker to meet a delegation that had come to see him.
    My information is that in respect of subclause (2) of clause (1), the Hon Chairman, on behalf of the Committee
    called for its deletion, which provides that the right to information may be exercised through an application made in accor- dance with clause 18.
    Mr Speaker, I was just having a conversation with the Hon Chairman of the Committee, that if they deleted subclause (2), subclause (3) would be left hanging.
    The operative word is not -- He was trying to persuade me about why they deleted same, among which reasons he cited subclause (2), which provides that the Government shall make available to the public general information on governance without application from a specific person.
    I said to him that that is complementary to subclause 2. And subclause 2 is establishing the access, in other words the route, or if you like, the process of subclauses (2) and (3) of clause 1.
    The Question has been put on that. I was just telling the Hon Chairman that we need to have a reconsideration of that if it becomes necessary. That is if the rule cannot be relaxed to accommodate, we might have to take that at the Second Consideration Stage because we necessarily would have to have that.
    Then, subclause (3) would then come as an adjunct of subclause (3). We cannot have subclause (3) without having subclause (2).
    Mr Speaker, as I said, this is to sound that it might become necessary to have a Second Consideration on that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Since we are masters of our own rules, and we have not gone far, could we relax further and go back to clause 1 subclause (2) instead of waiting to go through the Second Consideration Stage? What is the pleasure of the House?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I hear a chorus of “Hear! Hear!” With that, you can relax the rules.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:23 p.m.
    If that is it, I would grant you leave. The leave is granted for you to move for further amendment of clause 1.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, first, the Hon Chairman, on behalf of the Committee, proposed that:
    “The right to information may be exercised through an application made in accordance with section
    18.”
    The Hon Chairman called for the deletion of subclause 2 of clause 1.
    I understand he won the day. I am saying to us that if there is no subclause (2), there cannot be a subclause (3) because subclause (3) says that a person does not have to give a reason for the application.
    Which application? The application is the one that has been mentioned in subclause (2) as the route to access the information.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to propose that subclause 2 is necessary. It cannot be deleted.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:23 p.m.
    The Hon Majority Leader has moved for the restoration of clause 1 subclause (2) which meant that the initial Motion to delete it is what he is contesting, that while we have put the Question, he is now calling for us to restore clause 1, subclause (2).
    Yes, Hon Member for Suhum?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 5:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just to remind the Hon Majority Leader that after the deletion, subclause (3) was sub-
    sequently amended. It does not actually read the way it is currently sitting in the Bill.
    It now reads:
    “A person may apply for infor- mation without giving a reason for the application.”
    It now does not depend on subclause (2). It is able to stand on its own.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:23 p.m.
    Respec- tively, subclause (3) can stand on its own, but --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:23 p.m.
    I am sorry, Hon Majority Leader, let me get the rendition. It says:
    “A person may apply for infor- mation without giving a reason.”
    Mr Opare-Ansah 5:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is on page 4 of the Order Paper; “A person may apply for information without giving a reason for the application”.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 5:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the Hon Majority Leader is asking for the return to clause 1(2)of the Bill and I tend to agree with him.
    Even though my voice was not heard, I asked the Hon Chairman why we were deleting clause 1(2). I agree with him because clause 1 is about access to information, and clause 1 is seeking to set out how a person can have access to that information.
    So in my view, clause 1(2) is important, because it says that the right may be accessed through an application made in accordance with clause 18.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:23 p.m.
    Hon Members, clause 1, in my view, is limiting the right of the access to only official information.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 5:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have amended the general headnote and the headnote to clause 1, by deleting “official”, so it is “access to information”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:23 p.m.
    So the general headnote is “Access to Infor- mation”, and the subnote is “right of access to information”. Is it not rather “right to access information”?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you should have entered this Chamber earlier. It is specifically the issue that I raised. So the subheading should be “access to information”, then the headnote of clause 1 should be “right to access information”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:23 p.m.
    Hon Member for Suhum? I hope you are not going to contest the issue of longevity.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 5:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not want to leave here before my time. [Laughter.]
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader started this fight, he could not see it through, and he left the Chamber.
    The Hon First Deputy Speaker then suggested, and subsequently ruled, that to cut matters short, we should simply say, “right to information” because a long debate ensued here about “access to”, “access of”, and then the debate about whether “access” is a noun or a verb. So he asked what we lose or gain by simply saying “access to information”. So we took out the “access”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:23 p.m.
    So the decision the House took was “right to information”.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 5:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, a long debate ensued as regards an amendment that was proposed by the Hon Minority Leader to insert “of access” after “right” in clause 1(1), and we said that -- well, some of us supported it because we thought that was consistent with the headnote, but after debate, it was agreed that it still makes sense if clause 1(1) remained as it is in the Bill.
    Mr Speaker, that is what happened. It is true that the Hon Majority Leader argued vociferously, that the headnote should read “right to access information”. His attempt to delete “of” and insert “to” was defeated by the House.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:23 p.m.
    Well, the Table Office would have captured the decisions that were taken by the House, so I do not think we need to litigate this any further.
    The Table Office would direct us on to the decisions that we are taking, and I am sure it would be captured in tomorrow's
    Votes and Proceedings, but because we need that as a guide to the subsequent discussions, I would ask them to tell us the decisions that were taken by the House before we proceed. Before they do that, the Hon Majority Leader would have a point.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:23 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with the group headnote, “access to official information”, what the House did was to delete “official”, so that it reads “access to information”.
    If you come to the headnote of clause 1 and 2, “right of access to official information”, they deleted “ official”, so now it reads “right of access to information”, and I suggested that we are not granting right of access, but we are granting right to access.
    The Hon Speaker did not put the Question on that one. That was not done, even though I was insistent, and I had to leave the Chamber. I was invited by the Rt Hon Speaker to assist him, and I left with the Hon Minority Leader to assist him to meet a delegation.
    So Mr Speaker, I believe it is most appropriate to have a second look at the headnote. It is “right to access information”, not “right of access to information”.
    Mr Speaker, and I saw that even from afar. You saw the light, and the light should illuminate this House.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:23 p.m.
    Yes, that is the right rendition. It is a right to access information, not a right of access to information. But, Hon Member, before I listen to the Hon Chairman, do you disagree?
    Ms Laadi Ayii Ayamba 5:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there are two words here, and it looks like we are using them interchangeably, meanwhile they have different meanings.
    To access; to get, to be able to acquire, to have the opportunity to ask for it. You can access information.
    But to “assess” information is different. [Interruption.] Then it should come clear because from the pronunciation -- In the argument early on, these same spellings came about.
    Mr Speaker, it is access to information. It is only “official” that if we say we are deleting, I have no problem. But whether we delete it or not, it is “Right to access information” or “Right to access official information”. Whichever way, I have no problem but I want us to be certain, that it is “access to information”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:33 p.m.
    So you support the position taken by the Hon Majority Leader which I had just articulated?
    Ms Ayamba 5:33 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Banda 5:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we concede that the headnote should read “Right to access information” because clause 1(1) even says:
    “A person has the right to infor- mation, subject to qualifications and laws that are necessary in a democratic society.”
    So Mr Speaker, we do not need to belabour the point -- “Right to access information”. That ought to be the rendition.
    Mr Banda 5:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the afternoon, we amended the general headnote -- “Access to Official Information”. We deleted “official” and it read “Access to Information”. Then in the headnote, we deleted “official” but left “access”.
    Now, the Hon Majority Leader has proposed a rendition which I believe is better than the current one in the Bill. If we go by the Hon Majority Leader's rendition, it would read “Right to access information”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:33 p.m.
    I generated that debate but I just wanted to be sure that the Question was not put in the same way. Now that it has been clarified, I will now proceed to put the Question on the headnote to clause 1.
    Dr Kojo Appiah-Kubi 5:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this law, which we are trying to enact, has been enacted by several countries and there is a standard that we can probably follow.
    Several countries which have done this have used “Right to information” Others qualified it and that is what I have perused on the internet. Others qualified it to be “Right of access to information”.
    Mr Speaker, I have here that of Sri Lanka, Canada, the United Kingdom and several other countries and they all have it as “Right to information”. There is even an international body which looks at these Bills.
    That international body is even called Right to Information. That is probably the acronym which is widely used.
    Mr Speaker, for the sake of consistency, I believe we can also stick to that instead of trying to change the goal post in our case, because I do not see any difference between what our Hon Leader has put across and what we currently have in the Bill.
    We are trying to see whether this one could be a noun or a verb. That is what I see.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:33 p.m.
    Hon Member, there is a difference and you have just, in your articulation and submission, pointed out the difference so, let us go by the right one which is “Right to information”.
    I will put the Question on the headnote to clause 1. What we finally agreed to is that the headnote should read, “Right to access information” because of the main headnote which is “Access to infor- mation”. So now, the subnote is “Right to access information”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:33 p.m.
    Now, we move to clause 1(2) and there is an amendment there moved by the Hon Majority Leader for us to restore the original clause which is:
    “The right to access information may be exercised through an application made in accordance with section 18.”
    Mr Asamoa 5:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we accept that further amendment to restore it, this is because it is a goal post to clause 18. It is a directional sign to clause 18 and it shows straight away what one has to do to access the information where you find application procedures. [Interruption.]
    Mr Speaker, I am being intimidated by the Hon Member for Suhum.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:33 p.m.
    Well, I did not hear what the Hon Member for Suhum said to intimidate you so how do you expect me to intervene in this matter? [Laughter.]
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:33 p.m.
    This new amendment that has been accepted by you would have consequential effect on subclause (3). I am told that with subclause (3), an amendment was moved and it was re-worded to read:
    “A person may apply for infor- mation without giving a reason for the application.”
    Is that all right?
    Some Hon Members 5:33 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:33 p.m.
    So we do not need to tamper with that.
    Clause 1 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:33 p.m.
    There is nothing on clause 2 since you deferred consideration of it. I am sure you have not agreed on the proposed amendment by the Hon Member and so, we now move to clause 3.
    Clause 3 -- Responsibility of public institution in respect of access
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:33 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, I cannot see the Hon Minority Leader here, and there is nobody standing for and on his behalf so -- [Interruption.] You just arrived.
    Hon Minority Leader, clause 3. You have a proposed amendment there?
    Mr Iddrisu 5:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so. I am finding my feet. I just --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:33 p.m.
    I thought you were on your feet?
    5. 43 p.m.
    Mr Iddrisu 5:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, I am.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, subclause (1), line 2, after “and” insert “subsequently”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:33 p.m.
    Hon Members, the new rendition would read:
    “A public institution shall, within twelve months from the date of coming into force of this Act and subsequently, every twelve months after that date, compile and publish an up to date information in the form of a manual.
    Mr Asamoa 5:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with utmost respect to the Hon Minority Leader, since the Leaders have a certain level of credibility that I may not have, if we insert ‘subsequently', it is already taken care of by the ‘after that' and ‘further on' in the sentence.
    So it would mean that we may have to delete the ‘after that' in favour of ‘subsequently'. Otherwise, we do not need the ‘subsequently' because ‘after that' takes adequate care of what the amendment seeks to do.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Iddrisu 5:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the proposal was for a better reading of it. So, if the Committee and your goodself feel strongly that— ‘public institutions shall,
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:33 p.m.
    Hon Member for Adentan, the “after that date” is referring to the date that the Act comes into force. That is the date that clause is referring to.
    The first line talks about “within twelve months from the date of the coming into force of this Act”. So every twelve months after that date. So the ‘subsequently' is not referring to the same thing.
    Mr Asamoa 5:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is indeed seeking to establish the repetitiveness of it; every twelve months. That is what the “subsequently” seeks to do. But, “every twelve months after that date” is also a sign-post to repetitiveness, that when the Act comes into force within twelve months, the material must be compiled.
    And every twelve months after that date of the initial compilation, the compilation must be re-done. So unless maybe, we want to be more elegant and say, thereafter -- So I would rather we reshape the proposal to “thereafter”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:33 p.m.
    Well, in the modern age, we have moved away from the use of such colloquial English. ‘Thereafter' is no longer used in drafting.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 5:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the sense that the Hon Minority Leader is proposing the amendment is seeking to cure a repetition. It says that “within the first twelve months after coming into force of this Act”, you compile and publish.
    Then it says that every twelve months after that date; the date that the Act comes into force, you compile and publish, using a conjunction. So you are going to start again. We have said that within the first twelve months, we should compile and publish. So every twelve months after that date.
    This includes the first date that you have compiled and published. That is what it is saying, it does not make— I do not believe that was the sense that was intended to be captured.
    But for the decision not to go colloquial, and indeed, the Hon Majority Leader believes that it is still fashionable to go colloquial, except that we want to make laws readable. That is why ‘thereafter' means subsequent to the publication.
    That is why the Hon Minority Leader is suggesting that, subsequent to the first publication or every twelve months after the first publication, we compile and publish. That is the sense that this provision seeks to capture.
    We do the first publication within twelve months of coming into force and then, every twelve months after coming into force. So, it is subsequently.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:53 p.m.
    Well, it is your decision so, I would put the Question on the proposed amendment and what you decide would be the letter.
    But clearly, the spirit would be got from the Hansard; the Official Report. From the discussions that you are holding, the spirit could be gleaned from it.
    So let me put the Question; if not, we would need to bring English teachers here to guide us.
    Question put and amendment negatived.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:53 p.m.
    Now, we move to— could we first listen to the Hon Member for Suhum? This is because his proposed amendment is calling for the deletion of paragraph (c). Let us listen to him before we listen to the Hon Chairman.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 5:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment listed (ix) has a paragraph (b) before paragraph (c). If you would indulge me, I would take that one first.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:53 p.m.
    Alright. Item number (ix) is dealing with (b) which comes before (c).
    Hon Member, you are right; you may proceed.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 5:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, subclause (2) paragraph (b) line 1, delete “classes” and insert “pieces”.
    Mr Speaker, the Bill reads 5:53 p.m.
    “(b) a list of the various classes of information…”
    Mr Speaker, that sounds like there is some classification of information but nowhere in the Bill do we see any classification of information.
    So I felt that the usage of the word “pieces” is a more generic term and that should be used instead of the word “classes” which suggests that we have done some classification of the types of information that we have.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:53 p.m.
    Hon Member, is it not talking about classi- fication? With information, there are various classifications that we have on information but you are talking about “pieces of information” which is different.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 5:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with you that we can have ‘classes of information'. But in the Bill or in laws elsewhere, I do not know where we can point to ‘classes of information' which is specified in legislation to which this Bill can relate to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 2 -- Responsibility of government to provide information on governance. Clause 2 says:
    “The Government shall make available to the public, general information on governance without application from a specific person.”
    So at that stage, we know that there is something called “general information” -- that is one category of information. There may be specific information on some matters. So there is that categorisation.
    Mr Speaker, we are not on clause 4 yet, but clause 4 is on provision of guidelines for manual. This is because clause 3 is on a preparation of manual. The clause 4 says:

    “The Minister shall, in consultation with the Public Services Com- mission, issue guidelines for the preparation under section 3 of the manual by a public institution.”

    Mr Speaker, so the various classi- fications or categorisation of information may be contained in clause 3.
    Dr A. A. Osei 5:53 p.m.
    No.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:53 p.m.
    Why, no?
    Dr A. A. Osei 5:53 p.m.
    You are stretching it.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:53 p.m.
    Why am I stretching it? We must stretch -- [Laughter].
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:53 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, you would please address the Chair.
    Hon Members, we have general information, confidential information, secret information and we have exempt information -- there are classes of information.
    Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation?
    Dr A. A. Osei 5:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader said it ‘might' contain classes; we are not talking about ‘might'. Can anyone show me in this Bill where we talked about exempt information, secret information, confidential information? [Interruption.]
    How many classes of information do we have, the Hon Member should tell me?
    We do not have enough classes of information because they are not exhaustive. They are only surmising that
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:53 p.m.
    Hon Member, clause 5 talks about “Exempt Information”. Clause 13 also talks about “Exempt Information” and clause 12 also talks about it. If you go through the Bill, you would come across these terms being used.
    Mr Iddrisu 5:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to oppose the amendment of the Hon Member for Suhum and probably persuade him to abandon it because confidential information from the United States of America (USA) system has classes.
    Ten or twenty years ago, what the Americans probably considered as secret and confidential as a class of information is not the same thing as how they treated the same information in 2015 or 2016.
    Mr Speaker, there are classes of information; there cannot be pieces of information. We are guided by legislations throughout the world. How elegant can it be that in a legislation you put “pieces” -- pieces of what -- chocolate? No!
    We cannot have ‘pieces of infor- mation'. Maybe, it would have even been better if the Hon Member had said “categories” but not pieces.
    Mr Speaker, but there are classes of information. Indeed, in the USA after the Nixon's scandal, pursuant to some of these freedom of information was declassifica-tion of certain classified information. It is done. Even the other international societies --
    Mr Speaker, at some point in Ghana today, we may consider some official information secret; it may not be so in three
    to five years to come. So maybe if the Hon Member for Suhum would change it for “categories”, it would be more elegant.
    Some Hon Members 5:53 p.m.
    — rose --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:53 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, I have seen your lieutenants behind you and they are not yielding. So let us listen to them first.
    Hon Minister?
    Dr A. A. Osei 5:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought the Hon Minority Leader would just say that the word “categories” is better. But he went on to the USA and said “classified” and “class” -- these two words are not the same. So he should not go to America; he should let us stay here in Ghana.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:53 p.m.
    Let us now listen to the Hon Majority Leader.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I proposed to my Hon Colleague that in place of “pieces”, he could use “cate- gories”. Except that going to clause 3(c), we may have to reconcile what we provide there. Clause 3(c) talks about types of information. He may not succeed in deleting clause 3(c).
    Mr Speaker, I am saying that if we use “categories of information” in clause 3(b), then in clause 3(c) that is if we retain it, it should also read “categories of information” for purposes of consistency.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move further amendment to the amendment proposed by the Hon Member for Suhum --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, let us get the sense of the House first. I am not familiar with “categories of information”; I am familiar with “class of information”.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with you that we can only use “classes of information”.
    Mr Speaker, information relating to the Office of the President or the Vice President is a class of information. Information relating to Cabinet is a class of information. [Interruption.] A class is different --
    They are the same -- it is not “category”; it is class. We are looking at information in classes and we are saying that information affecting international relations is of a different class. That is the reason they say ‘various classes'.
    It is actually different from clause 3(c). Clause 3(b) is different from clause 3(c). In fact, the words were chosen carefully and that is the reason we have not amended it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    Hon Members, let us listen to the Hon Member for Adentan.
    Mr Asamoa 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Bill uses “class” in clause 83 (1). It says:
    “Information classified as exempt information”.
    So the Bill presumes [Interruption.] -- Yes, it is in classes. So it is classified as “exempt information”. It is not classified as “secret” the way the Americans would do theirs.
    That is not the one I am referring to. This Bill says the “information is classified as exempt”. It describes the exemption as a classification under clause 83(1). I believe we are comfortable with “classes of information”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    What do we refer to when we talk about trade secrets?
    Is it a “class of information”? I believe it is.
    Mr Banda 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we are not talking about pieces of information. This rendition is in conformity with best practice. We may have pieces of information belonging to a class. That is not what we are referring to.
    Pieces of information may be mis- leading because they may belong to one school of thought. But we are referring to different classes of information. The information are of different types.
    Mr Speaker, for instance, we may have information relating to law enforcement and public safety. That is a class of information. It is not a piece of information. It is a class on its own.
    Beneath the information relating to law enforcement and public safety, we would have pieces of information in that class. It is a subset of the class of information.
    Mr Speaker, again, we may have information affecting international relations and we may have pieces of information in that class of information.
    So Mr Speaker, we are not talking about pieces of information at all. What we are talking about is classes of information, so if the Hon Member may withdraw his proposed amendment for us to make progress.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I listened to the Hon Chairman of the Committee and the Hon Member for Adentan on especially his reference to clause 83(1).
    Let us situate this very well. If we listen to what the Hon Majority Leader said, in clause 2, where it talks about Government shall make available some information, he mentioned that; so that is one class of information. Then all those exemptions that have been created are also exempt information which fall into another class of information.
    When we come to clause 3, we are asking the entities to publish -- I do not think it is their intention that they should publish the exempt information. The things we may want them to publish belong to just one category or class of information as you put it.
    So we could not be purporting that they publish classes of information. Indeed, the classifications we have given are general information from Government, which we have already dealt with in clause 2, and then the exempt information which starts from clause 5.
    Now, in clause 3, we are telling the public institutions to publish a certain class or category or type of information, so it cannot be classes of information. That is the basis upon which I proposed my amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    Hmmm, the Hon Member has put up a very strong defence to his position. Looking at the thrust of the clause starting from clause 3 (1), is it the intention that we want all the classes of information including confi- dential, secret and exempt ones to be published? That is the issue he has raised.
    Who now concedes?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let me attempt to provide some information on this and perhaps, we shall see whether what we are doing is right or perhaps we could expand it. It does appear that the draftspersons borrowed the provisions contained under clause 3 from the Canadian law.
    That provides for a description of all classes of records of information under the control of each Government institu- tion; but in our case, we have prepared those by or under the control of each public institution.
    Really, we just borrowed from the Canadians and we have reconfigured. That is where we have the problem. What is contained there is a description of all the classes of records of information under the control of each Government's institution to facilitate the exercise of the right of access under the Act.
    We are confusing ourselves because the extract that we have done is perhaps not comprehensive enough.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    May we also get a guide from the African Model Law. There is a model law approved by the Heads of State of Africa and the Hon Chairman of the Committee should have a copy.
    Mr Asamoa 6:03 p.m.
    Going first to the African Model Law, clause 26 talks about classified information, it says, and I beg to quote:
    “Information is not exempt from access under this Act merely on the basis of its classification status.”
    So, it also depends on classification. Classification status means that it would be classified as either general information freely available -- [Interruption] -- We would take classes.
    Mr Speaker, to further address the question in clause 3, we would publish in a manual that we hold classified information which is exempt. It does not mean we would publish the exempt information.
    We could publish the fact that we hold exempt information but we are not required to publish that information itself under clause 3.
    Clause 3 is only giving us headlines; that we hold this and that -- If one comes to me, he could access this but not that. So, I am happy the Hon Majority Leader says we could take classes.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    Hon Member for Suhum, are you convinced to withdraw your proposed amendment?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, consider it withdrawn.
    Amendment withdrawn by leave of the House.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:13 p.m.
    So we may now go on to your second proposed amendment of subclause 2(c).
    So, that amendment has been with- drawn.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 6:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, subclause (2), paragraph (c) delete.
    Mr Speaker, by the way, Hon Members should check the versions of the Bill that they have in their custody. I have seen an Hon Member holding a 2016 Bill, and he is confusing himself and missing notes. [Laughter.] He just had his answer.
    Mr Speaker, the relevant paragraph says 6:13 p.m.
    “a list of types of information that may be accessed or inspected free of charge or subject to a fee, and the deposit required or the fee or charge payable in respect of an access to information as specified under section 69;”
    Mr Speaker, there are three types of information here. One, those that the entities would charge; two, those that there would be application for direct access; and three, the issue of a deposit.
    When we go to clause 78, it has already made provision for the determination of these charges by Parliament. Subse- quently, this becomes public information. [Interruption.] I am talking about item numbered 8(x) -- deletion of subclause 2(c).
    This would become public information, and the Bill frowns upon further requests and releases of information that is already public in some other sections.
    Then again, in the matter of the deposit, when we get there, I would move for us to delete the payment of deposits entirely. Indeed, if we listened to the argument that came up during the debate on the principles of the Bill, I believe the House was highly opposed to the payment of any kind of deposit in respect of the acquisition of information.
    In totality, I do not see what is left to enable paragraph (c) to stand. This is because, the fees and charges would be published as part of the annual Fees and Charges Regulations when the Subsidiary Legislation Committee passes it in Parliament.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 6:13 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to oppose the amendment. This Bill seeks to make information already in our public libraries available.
    The manual would publish that an information is already available in the library, so one does not need to pay to access that information. If it is mentioned that it is available at the national archives, one does not need to pay to access that information.
    That is what is being said. If one does not know and puts in an application, it would be a waste of time.
    The manual should be published to show the type of information that is already available. It is access to information; it is because the information is not available to the public that we are giving people a right to access it.
    So if the Government has already published the information and it is available in the library, one does not need to put in an application. One would just walk to the library and access the information.
    Mr Speaker, clause 3(2)(c) says that 6:13 p.m.
    “a list of the types of information that may be accessed or inspected free of charge…”.
    If the information can be accessed free of charge, one does not need to apply. [Interruption.] No, one needs to apply; it is free of charge.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Colleague --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    I thought we would listen to the Hon Chairman before we come back to you?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 6:03 p.m.
    I would just want to correct the impression that he --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    You are correcting -- yes --
    Mr Opare-Ansah 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he should not confuse “free of charge” to mean that one does not need to apply. There are several applications that would go to public institutions for which the information would still be provided for free of charge.
    The category of information which one does not need to apply for was dealt with in clause 2, where the Government is required by law to provide those pieces of information without an application.
    Here, we are dealing with information for which one would apply for; some for which one would pay for and others that would be free of charge. That is what it is. Some would be through direct access from the Commission. Those are the three categories that have been stated there.
    I had said that for those that one has to pay for, the Fees and Charges Regulation would contain the information anyway. So why do we ask the institution to publish this when this Bill says that whenever information is already available publicly there is no need to even ask for it?
    Mr Banda 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the essence of the manual is to list information that is in the bosom of the institution. This starts from clause 3(2)(b).
    Clause 3(2)(c) only says that certain information may be inspected free of charge and some other information may be inspected at a fee. Clause 3(2)(c) only puts the potential applicant on notice that when one applies for an information, it is free.
    So the person who applies for the information is already put on notice that the institution per the manual says that a class of information could be inspected free of charge.
    It makes access to information convenient, simple and easy. It also says that there is however, another class of information that one would have to inspect at a fee. That is all that clause 3(2)(c) tries to say.
    The Hon Member for Suhum raised the issue of deposit. If he had read item numbered 8(viii), which is on clause 3, we seek to delete the payment of deposits as a basis to access information. So, that issue would be taken care of when we come to item numbered 8(viii), which is on clause
    3.
    Mr Speaker, so it is not out of place to leave clause 3(2)(c) in the Bill. It makes access to information easy, and the applicant is already aware that an institution says that an information could be inspected at no fee, but there is another type of information that one is to pay a fee if one seeks to have it. So this information is very important and must be maintained.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the intendment of the manual is to facilitate the exercise of the right to access information. So with respect to my Hon Colleague from Suhum, we need to retain clause 3(c).
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:03 p.m.


    I would think that I have read the Canadian Act and there, they refer to a description instead of the list in clause 3(c). I believe there, the description is better. It says:

    “a description of the types of information that may be accessed or inspected free of charge or subject to a fee, and the deposit required or the fee or charge payable in respect of an access to information as specified under section 69;”

    Mr Speaker, there is no need for that “an” there and so we are talking about the description. If you want to be consistent;

    “a description of the classes of information that may be accessed and inspected…”

    Secondly, clause 2 provides that:

    “The Government shall make available to the public, general information on governance without application from a specific person”.

    Mr Speaker, that which is even to be made free would be contained in a manual. Who is the Government? It is the various Ministries, Departments and Agencies. They are required to produce that and it will reflect in the manual. That manual would serve all purposes, providing the general information and also specific information.

    So I believe that paragraph (c) would have to be retained and I would want to plead with the Committee to further amend the “list” there and also, “the types” because we are still talking about the classes of information.

    “A description of the classes of information that may be accessed or inspected free of charge…”

    In line 3, we delete “an” before access.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    I totally agree that clause 3 is actually trying to operationalise clause 2. How is Govern- ment going to provide information on governance? That is part of that. I thought what one could raise on clause 3(2)(c) is the use of the word “types”.
    Clause 3(2)(b) talks about “classes of information” and (c) is about “types of information”. It is now not “class of information” or “classes of information”. So, there is the introduction of various terminologies.
    Hon Chairman, I was drawing your attention to the use of the word, “types of information” instead of “classes of information” in (c). Is that meant to be different from the “classes of infor- mation?”
    Mr Banda 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, for the sake of consistency, it should be “classes”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    So we should move the amendment in that respect but I am sure by this time, the Hon Member for Suhum has been prevailed upon to accept that that subclause is necessary and should not be deleted. Is that the case?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you have rightly read the mood of the House.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    Do you agree?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you have rightly read the mood of the House.

    Thank you very much.

    So, we now move the amendment to delete the word, “types” and insert “classes”. Hon Chairman, you may do so, I am not to move it.
    Mr Banda 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the word, “types” captured in clause 3(2)(c) be deleted and “classes” inserted.
    So, it reads:
    “A description of the classes of information that may be accessed
    …”
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not see the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, but I am worried because in clause 3(2)(b), we see: “a list of the various classes of information…” and in clause 3(2)(c), immediately following that, we see: “a list of the types of information that may be accessed or inspected free…”
    Mr Speaker, that suggests that the sponsors of the Bill are talking about different information and it cannot be the same --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    That is what we want to be convinced about.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes. So, I thought that the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice could come --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    Yes, what are the different classes and types?
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the draftsperson of the Bill cannot change the words immediately after using them. He must have been thinking of something else and I think that the sponsors should have been around to guide us.
    This is because I still believe that as the Hon Chairman initially said, within a class of information, we have pieces of information, and these pieces of information would qualify as the types of information.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    Not necessarily.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 6:03 p.m.
    Very well. So, that is how I am thinking, that the sponsors of the Bill deliberately chose the word, “types” and not “classes” in paragraph (c).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    The word “types” has been used in the Bill several times and so, there may be some reason they are not using “class” but “types”. There is no guidance; it is just the use of the words, “class” and “types”.
    Yes, Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation?
    Dr A. A. Osei 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not sure why the Hon Chairman in paragraph (c) has moved to amend “list” to “description”. The two are not the same, so do we want the “list” or the “description''? Maybe, he wants both but we cannot just amend it, or then we would lose out on the “list”.
    So we cannot just change the “list” to “description”. In my view, he would want the “list” first and then maybe, later on, if they would want the ‘‘description'' --. Certainly, he wants the “list”.
    Mr Banda 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would want to maintain the “list”— “A list of the various classes …”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    Yes, that is for consistency but do we maintain the “types”? Would you want to continue with the amendment you have moved or withdraw it? Then we would leave it at “types”.
    You may need to seek clarification from the sponsors of the Bill as to the difference between classes and types of information there are. It is not only in this clause but in other clauses of the Bill, they use different terminologies; “classes” and “types”. But there is no definition of those terminologies in the Bill.
    Mr Banda 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that paragraph (b) talks about ‘list of classes of information' and (c) further goes to give better particulars of (b) by stating which classes of information may be inspected free of charge and which other classes may be inspected at a fee.
    Mr Speaker, so in order to understand subclause (c), I believe that we need to read the whole of clause 2 before we could understand if subclause (c) refers to types or to classes.
    Mr Speaker, but I am of the humble opinion that subclause (c) is still referring to subclause (b) because subclause (b) says “classes of information”.
    Mr Speaker, subclause (b) does not say whether these classes of information may be given at a fee or not, but subclause (c) goes further to expatiate on (b) by saying that there are certain classes of information that may be inspected at a fee and others free of charge.
    Mr Speaker, so I believe that “types” should be deleted and “classes” inserted in order to maintain the consistency.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    We are not too sure about the “consistency” because when you move to clause 89(1) (b), you would see the same terminology, “type of information”.
    So, if the intention is to refer to only classes of information, then why the use of the word “type” when you are even talking about the Legislative Instrument? It means that there is another information that is classified as “type”.
    Maybe it would be a subset of class. I am not sure but there may be no harm caused by getting back to the draftspersons for clarification.
    Hon Member for Adentan, let us hear you.
    Mr Asamoa 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, your last sentence was spot on. While my Hon Chairman was speaking, it got through to me that indeed, “types” would be subsets of “classes” just as it was previously enunciated. Mr Speaker, so --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    So, we could flag that for further consideration tomorrow, but take the proposed amendment of the Hon Chairman of the Committee, which is item numbered (viii).
    So the further consideration of clause 3(1)(c) with regard to the proposed amendment to “Types” is deferred.
    Hon Chairman, we could take the proposed amendment to the same clause which is item numbered (viii).
    Mr Banda 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3 subclause (2), paragraph (c), lines 1 and 2, delete “and the deposit required or the fee or charge”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 6:03 p.m.
    “The list of the types of information that may be accessed or inspected free of charge or subject to a fee payable in respect of an access to information as specified under section 69.”
    Mr Speaker, I beg to seek your leave to propose a further amendment in order to make its reading simpler. Mr Speaker, it would read:
    “A list of the types of information that may be accessed or inspected free of charge or subject to a fee payable in respect of access to information.”
    Mr Speaker, so that “as specified under section 69” would be deleted yet the meaning would be understood. Mr Speaker, we are talking about types of information that may be accessed free of charge or subject to a fee payable in respect of access to information.
    So, the deletion of “as specified under section 69” would not do any damage to the meaning of clause 3(2)(c).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, in the edition of the Bill that I have, what you are proposing is in lines 2 and 3 and not lines 1 and 2. Maybe yours is different.
    Mr Banda 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is correct. It is in lines 2 and 3, and so I beg to seek your leave to amend “lines 1 and 2” to read “lines 2 and 3”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    Hon Members, the Hon Chairman seeks to delete from lines 2 and 3, “and the deposit required or the fee or charge”, and further delete the word “an”.
    So it would read:
    “A list of the types of information that may be accessed or inspected free of charge or subject to a fee payable in respect of access to information as specified under section 69.”

    I am told that you have taken out “as specified under section 69”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    Section 69 deals with direct access and you do not want it to be a pointer to section 69?
    Mr Banda 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:03 p.m.
    All right.
    It means that the proposed amendment is affecting lines 2, 3 and 4. In line 2, we are deleting “and the deposit”; in line 3 we are deleting “required or the fee or charge” and “an” and in line 4, we are deleting “as specified under section 69”.
    So the new rendition is:
    “A list of the types of information that may be accessed or inspected free of charge or subject to a fee payable in respect of access to information.”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the Hon Chairman is calling for the deletion of the words “as specified under section 69”, because section 69 does not really talk about any payment of fees and charges prescribed under section
    78.
    Is it the case that we do not want to subject it to section 78 because it comes under section 78 but not section 69?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:43 p.m.
    Well, there would be a difficulty if we subject it to section 78. Section 78 deals with only the fees and charges. But under the (c), there are some that are free. And so it is better maybe to stop without pointing to any particular clause.
    This is because it says “accessed or inspected free of charge”, and section 78 does not talk about that. It only talks about the fees and charges.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is because the reference to section 69 is in respect of the fees or charges payable. That is why they subjected it to section 69, but it is not under section 69.
    The fees and charges are provided for under section 78. I asked whether it may not be necessary to subject it to section 78. If in the wisdom of the Committee, they think it is not necessary, so be it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:43 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, what is the position of the Committee on this matter? You have had a better opportunity to interact with the sponsors, civil society and other stakeholders.
    Yes, Hon Member for Suhum?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 6:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the reference to section 69 in this particular paragraph has to do with the direct access of information through another process under section 69.
    One can go directly to the Commission and ask for certain types of information if certain conditions pertain, and one may still have to pay for those.
    That is what this captures, that the types of information which one can apply for directly through the Commission, bypassing the internal processes and the review process of public institutions, would still have to be paid for.
    That is the heart of the list which that bit of phrase refers to. It is not saying that the fees and charges are under section 69. It is the types of information.
    If you read it carefully, you would see that:
    “. . . or charge payable in respect of an access to information as specified under section 69.”
    There are certain access to information specified under clause 69. So the fee or charge payable under that particular type is what is being referred to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:43 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman?
    Mr Banda 6:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 69 is not applicable because it only talks about application to the Commission, and it does not relate to payment or non-payment of fee at all. So, clause 69 is not applicable.
    However, I would have wished that we remained non-committal without specifi- cally referring to any provision, but if the Hon Leader insists that we should, we would go by our proposed amendment by the deletion of --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:43 p.m.
    I actually would also advise we go by your proposed amendment.
    Let me put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:43 p.m.
    Now we have a further amendment to clause 3 as item numbered 8 (xi) on page 5 of the Order Paper. That is proposed by the Hon Member for Suhum.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 6:43 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.

    You see the Hon Majority Leader is very interested?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:43 p.m.
    Is the Hon Majority Leader heckling you or do you have his support to move the proposed amendment?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 6:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he is interested in the score line of the World Cup match between England and Croatia, which is at half time now and England is leading by one goal to nil.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:43 p.m.
    Is that part of the Right to Information Bill, 2018? [Laughter.]
    Mr Opare-Ansah 6:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is information. [Laughter.] I am giving you access to information for free.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:43 p.m.
    What would be the intent of that information?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 6:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
    clause 3, add the following new subclauses:
    (1) A public institution shall ensure that there exist processes and procedures for the debriefing of its officers for the purposes of recording and storing of infor- mation in their personal possession.
    (2) A public institution shall ensure the periodic debriefing, re- cording and storage of infor- mation from its officers in accordance with the processes and procedures stated in the preceding sub-section above.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:43 p.m.
    Convince us why we should add the new clause.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 6:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, several times when we try to access information on various institutions, you would realise that just as the Bill seems to anticipate, I believe that the access we seek or the information we want resides with the institution.
    We only get there to find individuals who sit on those pieces of information. Sometimes the information is unrecorded and it sits in their heads.
    This amendment seeks to ensure that every public institution puts in pro- cedures and processes to ensure that such information held by its officers are properly recorded and stored to make for ease of access.
    It is also to ensure that periodically, all such officers are debriefed and the information that is debriefed from them is recorded and stored. That is the effect of this amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:43 p.m.
    Yes?
    Mr Oppong-Nkrumah 6:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, an earlier effort I made to file an amendment was not successful. In fact, I hoped to file and move an amendment before this addition which deals with clause 3, subclause (2), paragraph (d) of the Bill. I was wondering if you would indulge me to move it on my feet.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:53 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we can finish the amendment proposed by the Hon Member for Suhum, and thereafter, come back to what the Hon Member for Ofoase-Ayirebi, the Deputy Minister for Information is proposing.
    Mr Speaker, what we are dealing with in clause 3 has to do with publication, that is publication by government institutions. What he is providing, which is the processes and procedures, including briefing and debriefing, would better be captured in the Regulation and certainly not here.
    Mr Speaker, that is publication; all that we have there. That responsibility is in respect of publication. What we are talking about, the briefing and debriefing, of course, would facilitate the access to information, but that really relates to the procedure. In my view, it would be better captured in the Regulations.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:53 p.m.
    Apart from that this exercise of debriefing, how authentic would the information be from these persons who are being debriefed? And they are going to be recorded and stored as part of information for public consumption? People may go into wild fabrications of stories.
    Anyway, Hon Member for Tamale Central?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:53 p.m.
    Well, for your information, the Hon Member is very much interested in security matters, that is why he is very secure in his consti- tuency. [Laughter.]
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 6:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this particular amendment he is suggesting is an internal arrangement. We are not concerned with organising the internal procedures of public institutions.
    This Bill is interested in granting access to individuals to access infor- mation, and how public institutions would go about making that information available. But how they would organise their internal arrangements to make the information available is not the subject matter of this Bill.
    Mr Speaker, when we talked about archives, we said that, indeed, during the stakeholder engagements -- That is why we supported Hon Buaben Asamoa, on the Public Records and Archives Adminis- tration Division (PRAAD), when he said that the enjoyment of the whole right is hinged on the availability of information, and that if we create that right and the information is not available, that right can never be enjoyed.
    That is what we were told, and it is true. Even in this Parliament, our attention was drawn to our Hansards and official records in the corridors, and that if we do not create a storage facility to ensure that individuals can access the information, that right might never be enjoyed.
    That is why we supported the amend- ment, because it appears to us that PRAAD already had a mechanism for storing information.
    We are not concerned with how they organised within their internal arrange- ments.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:53 p.m.
    Let me put the Question, but let me listen to the Hon Minister, and then later the Hon Chairman.
    Dr Anthony Akoto Osei 6:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would just like to ask the Hon Ranking Member, how does one have access to information with persons who are at the institutions without being interested in how the information is out?
    For example, if I am in the Ministry of Finance, and every time you want information, they tell you to see Dr Osei, that information is public information, but it is not written.
    When you go to the Ministries and they say so and so is not there, but he has access to that information which you need, how do you get access to that?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:53 p.m.
    I think that one is addressed by -- [Interruption.]
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 6:53 p.m.
    The Bill says that we should designate an information officer.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:53 p.m.
    It is part of the Bill, so we would go to that place. Let me listen to the Hon Chairman.
    Mr Banda 6:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are opposed to the proposed amendment, because we cannot legislate processes and procedures and incorporate same in the Bill. At best, it must find expression in a Regulation.
    Mr Speaker, what is being proposed is similar to what Hon Buaben Asamoa proposed in the morning, which was flagged.
    There appears to be a similarity between what Hon Buaben Asamoa proposed and what the Hon Member for Suhum is also proposing, but there is one thing that we all agree on.
    We agree that there must be somebody responsible for creating, keeping, organising and maintaining information in a public institution. That is understood.
    Mr Speaker, that is why in the morning, when Hon Buaben wanted to move his proposed amendment, a debate ensued and it was subsequently decided that we should flag it and have a better rendition of his proposed amendment in order to capture a responsibility imposed on a person within the public institution to create, maintain, organise and store the information.
    So Mr Speaker, in a nutshell, all that I am saying is that, this proposed amendment is out of place. At best, it may find expression in a Regulation.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:53 p.m.
    Hon Member, would you be interested in withdrawing, or I should put the Question?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 6:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I take a cue from the Hon Chairman. I agree that we could do further work on the proposal.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:53 p.m.
    So, the amendment has been withdrawn. I would put the Question on the whole of clause
    3.
    Mr Kojo Oppong-Nkrumah 6:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if it pleases you and the House, I would like to move an amendment to
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:03 p.m.
    Hon Members, do not just dismiss his proposal because you can see at the end “or”. So, it talks about the unit and you are talking about a designated person. So, they are two:
    “the name of the unit, telephone number, fax, e-mail, postal address and any other contact details of the unit”.
    And then you say:
    “or a designated officer of the public institution to whom a request for access may be made.”
    It is like we are making two --
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:03 p.m.
    Hon Member for Tamale Central, you seemed to disagree?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 7:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are talking about an information officer and not an office. Mr Speaker, this is about the enjoyment of a right. So we must fix persons with responsibilities. When a person goes to ask for information, there should be an information officer.
    If there is no information officer, the public institution must designate some- body as an information officer. That is why the two words are used.
    All public institutions must have information officers, but if they do not have, somebody must be designated and fixed with the responsibility of making information available. But if one goes to the office and applies and they say, enye m'asem, to wit, “I am not responsible”, how does he access the information?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:03 p.m.
    Hon Member, the issue that Hon Oppong- Nkrumah raised is that, if we have somebody designated as the information officer, or we have an information officer, that is an individual. When a person gets to the institution and that individual is not available, what does he do?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 7:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is why the two words are used. Any time the schedule information officer is not available, an officer would be designated.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:03 p.m.
    No, that is not what you said. You said where they do not have an information officer, they should designate somebody, and so, it is either or. It is not that both should exist.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 7:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is exactly what I am saying.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:03 p.m.
    But we are saying that when a person goes there and that individual is not there, what should the person seeking information do?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 7:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we are adding an office, it is a different thing. If the Information officer makes a decision, his decision is subject to appeal, not the office.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:03 p.m.
    We have not reached where you are going.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 7:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, all public institutions must have information officers. If a public institution does not have an information officer, one is designated. The same thing, if a public institution has an information officer and he is not available, a person would be designated.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:03 p.m.
    That is not the issue. The issue that is raised is that we have public institution “A”, and they have somebody called information officer. So that information officer's particulars are all kept and the public has access to that information.
    Now, they want information on the institution, they get there and that officer is not available. He is not at work. What should the person do? That is the issue that the Hon Member has raised.
    Mr Iddrisu 7:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe strongly that the proposed amendment is needless. Mr Speaker, may I refer you to
    clause 3(2)(a)? We are dealing with responsibility of public institutions in respect of access and it is about the publication of a manual.
    Mr Speaker, clause 3(2)(a) deals with a list of Departments or Agencies under that public institution and a description of the organisational structure and responsi- bilities of each public institution that includes an information unit.
    So clause 3(2)(a) captures the concern the Hon Member has raised. Let us look at it properly.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:03 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, I do not get it that clause 3(2)(a) captures the concerns he has raised.
    Mr Iddrisu 7:03 p.m.
    All right.
    Ms Safo 7:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to support the proposed amendment by the Hon Deputy Minister for Information. Mr Speaker, just as you said, even the rendition that we have in clause 3(2)(d), as it stands now, “officer” has appeared twice. In one breath, it talks about the unit and in another, it talks about the office which is a position.
    Mr Speaker, I support the amendment because the Ministry of Information now encourages that all State Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MOA) should have information units within, where information would directly flow to their Ministry and keep them abreast of all that happens in that MDA. I believe it is a good initiative.
    Mr Speaker, I am comparing this to the Public Procurement Act and the procurement practice. When we started, we created the position of Procurement Officer. Mr Speaker, you would go to certain institutions and they would have one person who deals with procurement.
    Ms Safo 7:03 p.m.


    Time and over again, the Auditor- General gave reports in its annual Reports that most of the times, the Procurement Officers were not at post and so, procurement was done anyhow.

    Mr Speaker, we moved from creating that office called Procurement Officer to having Procurement Units in every MDA of Government. Mr Speaker, with that unit, we are not dealing with just a position or an individual; we are dealing with employees who are experts in procure- ment.

    Mr Speaker, by necessary implication, the proposed amendment by the Hon Deputy Minister for Information, where we create units within public institutions and we do not deal with persons or just positions, should be accepted by the House.

    When it is vacant, what happens? When the person is not available, what happens? There should be people in that unit to work to offer that information. By that way, we would be enhancing that right to access information.
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 7:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I strongly oppose the amendment pro- posed by the Hon Deputy Minister for Information. Mr Speaker, it would appear that we are reading “officer” to mean an individual but it can also mean a position and not an individual.
    And so, when we create “officer”, it means that there is a designated person. So it does not mean that when one person is not there, there would not be another to take care of that.
    And so, if you read:
    “the name, the telephone number, fax, e-mail, postal address and any other contact details of the information officer of the public institution or a designated officer of the public institution to whom a request for access may be made.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:03 p.m.
    Hon Member, you are stretching the meaning of “officer” to a limit that is completely not intended by the Bill.
    Read clause 75 where there is a creation of that position; an office. They are referring to a person; they are not referring to an office.
    Again, if you read the clause dealing with the application; that is— there is a clause dealing with the application and the application is to clause 18. Yes, the application is to the public institution, it is not to an individual.
    Now, the issue that is being raised is that, when you apply to the public institution, there is somebody there who should handle the application. That person is either an information officer or somebody designated to handle the application.
    Now, the issue that the Hon Member raised is that, in the absence of the information officer or the person designated to handle the application, what should the applicant do? If the person is gone on leave or gives the usual excuses that the public servants, including all of us have been giving -- So he is trying to add the unit.
    The people in the unit could handle it because the officer is not available.
    Mr Iddrisu 7:13 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, Table Office, Clerks-at-the-Table is an office. But what
    —?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:13 a.m.
    Yes, but they do not say Table Officer, they say Table Office. So it is an officer.
    Mr Iddrisu 7:13 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes. But read subclause (d) well. It takes care of the unit and a designated officer. It says:
    “the name, telephone number, fax, e-mail, postal address and any other contact details of the information officer of the public institution or a designated officer of the public institution”. . .”
    We would be repeating ourselves if we —
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:13 a.m.
    Yes, so, both are referring to an individual.
    Mr Iddrisu 7:13 a.m.
    So, an information unit, and then, when we get to clause 75, what then happens to the creation of information officers? We have created information unit, so let us be guided.
    It then means that before the creation of information officers, we would have created information unit before we get officers to fill that bureaucratic position.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:13 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe without any shred of doubt, the intention of the Bill is to have a point person who shall receive applications. [Interruption.]
    Mr Speaker, the Canadian Act, from which we borrowed so much, the subclause (d) says:
    “An address of an appropriate officer for each Government
    institution to whom request for access to records under this Act shall be sent.”
    Mr Speaker, we borrowed a lot from this but for our purposes, we may decide to create a unit. But I am saying that the original intent is to have a point person.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:13 a.m.
    We are not doing away with the appointment of the person; we are adding to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:13 a.m.
    Yes, so, I am saying that by what he wants to do, he wants to create a unit; an outfit within that Governmental institution to have, maybe, an arrowhead who would still be an information officer. But we would have a whole unit.
    Mr Speaker, I have no fixation, but I am only explaining to them that the intendment of the Bill is different. But if for purposes of protecting the integrity of that office, we need to create a whole unit, well, fair and fine. I have no fixation.
    Mr Banda 7:13 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that we are all speaking on the same wave length. It is understood that we must have an information officer. But the information officer must operate from a unit or from a place called information unit.
    This is because, the information officer must have an office and what is the name of the office? The office is called information unit.
    So, anybody seeking information from an institution, to the extent that an office has been designated as an information unit, that person would not find any difficulty in tracing the office of that information officer.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:13 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, the details we are looking for in clause 2(d) are real details. If you are submitting an application, now, you would want to know where to direct the application.
    If you are to direct the application to Mr so, so and so, that is the name; the telephone number of the person, the fax, e-mail and the postal address of the person and any other contact details of that person.
    Now, that person is not there, and he has the information with him. Whoever is designated — those are his particulars that you have used. As I sit here, I have my name, my postal address and my everything; they are mine.
    The institution may acquire them and pay for them for me, but I move with them. So there must be some other information on the unit so that the applicant could go there; in the absence of the officer, the unit should be able to handle your application.
    That is the issue being raised. So we need further information on this in terms of particulars of addresses and the rest; not only the person.
    Mr Banda 7:13 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that is captured under subclause 2(e) as:
    “the place in the public institution where information which is accessi- ble under this Act or any other enactment, can be found and made available”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:13 a.m.
    And how do you get that information to that place?
    Mr Banda 7:13 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, so apart from detailing out the name, telephone number, fax number, e-mail and so on and so forth, the manual must also capture the place within the public institution and the nomenclature that we are giving to the place. This is what the Hon Deputy Minister for Information refers to as the Information Unit.
    Mr Speaker, so that is well captured under clause 3(2) (e). So it would indicate the place in the public institution or the office in the public institution or the information unit.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:13 a.m.
    Hon Member, a place is not the same as a unit. A place means a place; we have the Ministry of Health but the Malaria Unit is not in the Ministry but around TUC in Accra. So that is the place and that is not the unit.
    What is the sense of the House?
    Mr Iddrisu 7:13 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, after clause 3 -- after battling Information Unit and information --
    Mr Speaker, I believe the remit of clause 3, as it stands in the Bill, is elegant enough. I have listened to you and the Hon Member sponsoring the amendment of the Information Unit. It is not to suggest that when you go to that office, you would communicate with somebody.
    You would definitely communicate to a designated officer. Which unit in the country exists on its own? Is there any bureaucratic institution that exists on its own? So it is both captured and so, the Hon Member should read clause 3 holistically.
    There are subclauses (d), (e) and (g); there is one ‘designated officer' and there is another ‘a place' which is the Information Unit where you can access the information.
    I thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Dr A. A. Osei 7:13 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the place that is in subclause (e) does not have a telephone number. It is the place that the Hon Chairman referred to that has its telephone number captured.
    Mr Speaker, it is important to capture the telephone number of the unit so that it is not personal to the officer. That is the point. So the Hon Chairman of the Committee should concede that sub- clause (e) does not answer the question.
    I believe we should step this down and close, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:13 a.m.
    I thought we have exhausted the debate and that I should put the Question.
    Let us take the contribution of the Hon Member for Tamale Central after which I would put the Question.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 7:23 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not know where we want to put the unit. Clause 18, together with clause 3 solves the problem. Nobody is going to apply for information directly to the Information Officer.
    Mr Speaker, clause 18(1) says 7:23 a.m.
    “An application to access infor- mation held by a public institution shall --

    One is writing to the Ministry of Finance for information and you think that he or she should write to the Information Officer?

    Mr Speaker, we do not need to create --

    An application to access information shall be dealt with, or by the information officer of the public institution.

    Mr Speaker, it means that when one applies to the head of the public institution, let us say you want information from Parliament, you would apply to the Clerk to Parliament. The Clerk to Parliament would refer your application to the Public Affairs Unit or the Information Officer.

    So the person would not need to apply to the head of the Public Affairs Unit. He is applying to the Clerk to Parliament as the head. That is what we do and that is what this law is seeking to do.
    Mr Speaker, clause 18(1) says 7:23 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, reading this law, like the Hon Majority Leader said, we must have the sense -- it is about how to enjoy a right. The law is trying to fix duties and responsibilities so that we could hold persons responsible.

    Mr Speaker, there is nothing wrong with this position. In fact, the Hon Chairman wanted to contain the amendment by suggesting that we could find space for it in Hon Buaben Asamoa's amendment which I supported. But not the way it is being brought.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:23 a.m.
    Hon Members, we should try not to establish bureaucracy that would be very difficult to implement.
    But at the same time, if we agree to the submission of the Hon Member for Tamale Central, that all the applications would be going to the head of the institution, the head may have an additional task and that could delay the processing of the applications.
    If one applies to the head of the institution and the head is gone on official trip, the application would stay there until his return.
    It means that it cannot be processed. So we are trying as much as possible to make direct access and make it easier for applicants to access the information quicker.
    Now when you go to the issue of timelines, you would see it is being reduced to about seven days and all those things -- Your application is lying there because the head of the institution is not there.
    That is the reason why we should try to go beyond just one individual, give options so that it could be directed to the unit and to a person.
    The unit definitely would have a number of persons. They may not have only one information officer; they may have a deputy to the Information Officer. The deputy could handle it.
    So in the unit, they would have officials there to process applications. But if we would have to leave it with the head of the institution, then we are going to have these bureaucratic bottlenecks again.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 7:23 a.m.
    — rose --
    Dr Sandaare — rose --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:23 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Suhum, after that, I have seen the Hon Member for Daffiama/Bussie/ Issa. The medical officer would want to have a bite. [Laughter.]
    Mr Opare-Ansah 7:23 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you read clause 18 through to clause 20 and a little bit further, it is clear; the headnote there is “Procedure for Access”. It talks about application to access information.
    Clause 19 talks about “Person to deal with application” and clause 20 talks about “Transfer of application”.
    Mr Speaker, ordinarily, when you read clause 18, you would get the impression that the intention is to apply to the head of the institution but that is not so. That is the reason in clause 19; it is telling us who would deal with the application.
    And in clause 20, Mr Speaker, the clause 20(1)(b), line 3 states:
    “…the information officer or the designated officer to whom the application is made...”.
    So, the application is made to the information officer and not the head of the institution. That is why when we read all those, it is clear that they are asking you to provide the contact details of that person in section 3, because that is the intendment of the framers, that this is the person to whom you would be addressing your application to.
    That is why in clause 19 they are telling the public who would be dealing with this particular application. It is important that we all accept the proposal as being put forward for amendment by the Hon Deputy Minister for Information.
    Dr Sebastian N. Sandaare 7:33 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity.
    I would want to support the position taken by the Hon Member for Tamale Central based on the practical experience I had when I was a District Medical Director.
    Normally, to have easier access to information, it was better to apply through the head of the institution. We could always have the head of an institution who would direct the information officer to provide the information that is needed.
    If we apply to an information officer or a unit straightaway, they would still have to go back to the head of that institution for direction before they act and that delays the process, but there would always be a head of an institution.
    Even if they are not there, somebody would act in that capacity. That is my position.
    Mr Henry Quartey 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not a lawyer but practically, I would associate this with the Police Adminis- tration, for instance, we have the Inspector General of Police (IGP) who is the head. But in case there is a homicide and the IGP is out of the country, we have the Criminal Investigations Department (CID), headed by the Director of CID. In his absence, cases could be handled by that unit without necessarily waiting for -- [Interruption] -- The CID is a unit under the Ghana Police Service.
    We have the Motor Traffic and Transport Department (MTTD) under the Police Service.
    So, Mr Speaker, the unit has to be created and an officer put in charge.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    I would now put the Question on the whole of clause 3. [Interruption.]
    I am told we deferred something in clause 3.
    Mr Asamoa 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the deferred part of the proposed amendment to clause 2, it was determined that it may impact clause 3. Therefore, the draft- persons may have to look at it.
    Mr Asamoa 7:33 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    Yes, we did not arrive at a conclusion whether it is “types”, “classes” or “categories”. So, I would defer putting the Question on the whole of clause 3.
    Clause 4 -- Provision of guidelines for manual
    Mr Asamoa 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, line 1, delete “Public Services Commission” and insert “Office of the Head of Civil Service”.
    Mr Speaker, the Office of the Head of Civil Service has direct responsibility for the creation and management of public records through its officers within the various public institutions.
    The Public Services Commission's core function is administration of human resources. Therefore this function would be out of the way for --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    Hon Member, are we dealing with the Public Service as a whole or the Office of the Head of Civil Service?
    Mr Asamoa 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I take inspiration from the Public Records and Archives Administration Act, Act 535 which fixes responsibility for the generation of public records in all public institutions.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    Even before they get to the archives, could one access them or not?
    Mr Asamoa 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    The clause talks about public institutions. When one deals with the Head of Civil Service, he deals with only the Civil Service --
    No! His amendment talks about, “Office of the Head of Civil Service”. That deals with only Civil Service but the Public Service is larger than the Civil Service. In fact, the Civil Service is a subset of the Public Service. The conditions are different.
    I am just giving some guidance.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Minority Leader, do you want us to go into the Constitution?
    Mr Iddrisu 7:33 p.m.
    Rightly so, Mr Speaker, and to strengthen your hand in your guidance.
    Under article 190, with your permission I quote:
    “190 (1) The Public Services of Ghana shall include --
    (a) the Civil Service” and others”.
    Therefore, he cannot limit us to the Civil Service when we have the Public Service which would have the Civil Service as part of it.
    Mr Speaker, we are talking about guidelines for the production of a manual which would affect many other institutions, such as what is contemplated in article 190.
    So Mr Speaker, if the Hon Member does not mind, he may want to reconsider his amendment. I do not see why we would want to substitute, “Public Services
    Commission” for “Office of the Head of Civil Service”.
    I thank you.
    Mr Asamoa 7:33 p.m.
    I am being prevented from moving the amendment.
    Mr Speaker, taking a cue from you, I am very willing to withdraw, subject to this final argument. It is not about leadership of the various services or a hierarchy of services, it is about advice, and the most appropriate organ or location for that advice.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    I totally agree with you, but you are talking about the Hon Minister seeking advice.
    When we limit it to only the Civil Service and you go to article 190, it means that the Hon Minister cannot seek advice from the other components of the Public Service. It would only bother the head of the Civil Service. He is not the head of even the Statistical Service.
    Mr Asamoa 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is because they have the speciality and responsibility of organising and sorting out records best practice-wise. So their methodologies would reflect in the other services, which would not have their own systems and methodologies.
    We are looking at a composite and best practice standardised across Govern- ments. That institution has the best practice. So it is their best practice that is standardised across the other services.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:33 p.m.
    No, there is nothing like that.
    Mr Asamoa 7:33 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I withdraw. [Laughter.]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:43 p.m.
    Hon Members, I need to regulate the debate so that we can move faster than we are doing, else, we would need one year or more to pass this Bill.
    There is no perfect law anywhere. Let us try to get this Bill through. It is so urgently needed by the country. So please, let us limit the interventions.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought that rather, clause 4, and I beg to quote:
    “The Minister shall, in consultation with the Public Services Commission…”
    The Hon Minister may have to consult a personality, and we are talking, perhaps, about the Chairman of the Public Services Commission and not the entire Com- mission.
    “The Minister shall, in consultation with the Chairman of the Public Services Commission, issue guide- lines…”
    The Hon Minister would not be obligated.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:43 p.m.
    We do not want to give that power to an individual. We want to give the power to the whole Commission, so that it is just not one individual that would be consulted. To use your own words, the person could through -- [Laughter.]
    So we should leave it to the Com- mission; there would be no whims and caprices here. [Laughter.] That is why we would want it to be the institution and not an individual.
    Mr Banda 7:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, line 2, after “Commission, insert “and the Right to Information Commission established under section 42”.
    Mr Speaker, so the new rendition would be 7:43 p.m.
    “The Minister shall, in consultation with the Public Services Commission, and the Right to Information Commission established under section 42 of the Act issue guidelines for the preparation under section 3 of the manual by a public institution”.
    Mr Speaker, we seek to include the Right to Information Commission so far as the preparation and the issuance of the guidelines are concerned. This is because, the responsibility and the object of the Right to Information Commission are well- spelt out under clauses 43, 45, and 46 of the Bill.
    We think it is proper that in issuing guidelines for the preparation of the manual, the Right to Information Commission is also consulted. This is the rationale behind this proposed amend- ment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:43 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, read article 190(1)(d). I think the Right to Information Commission falls under that article. They all come under the canopy of the Public Services Com- mission (PSC). So, we do not need to amend to add “the Right to Information Commission”. It is there in article 190(1) (d):
    “The Public Services of Ghana shall include on shall include --
    (d) …as Parliament may by law prescribe.”
    So the Right to Information Com- mission is already covered under that, and they would all come under the Public Services Commission. The Public Services Commission, in drafting the guidelines, would definitely consult a component within the Commission before it comes out. So I do not think we need to add that.
    Mr Banda 7:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect, I think that article 194 of the Constitution sets out the composition of the Public Services Commission.
    I understand this to mean that if we have to delete “Right to Information Commission” from my amendment on clause 4, the Public Services Commission may decide to issue the guidelines without consulting the Right to Information Commission, because article 194 circumscribes the composition of the Public Services Commission, which does not include the Right to Information Commission.
    So the discretion would be left to them whether to consult them or not.
    Mr Speaker, we are inserting this out of the abundance of caution because the function, the powers and the res- ponsibility of the Right to Information Commission are central to the operationalisation of the right to information.
    So anything concerning the right to information is to the extent that the Right to Information Commission is the independent institution, which has the oversight responsibility, must be consulted in the preparation and issuance of guidelines.
    It is on this basis that we are saying that yes, the Right to Information Commission comes under article 190, but the composition of the Public Services Commission is different.
    It does not include the Right to Information Commission. It is out of the abundance of caution that we are saying that the Public Services Commission has that responsibility, but it must consult the Right to Information Commission.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:43 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, what is the contemplation of article 190(1)(d)? Does it not contemplate adding on new members to the Commission? When a new commission is created, we add to the membership of the Public Services Commission. It becomes a member of the Public Services Commission.
    Anyway, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:43 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I appreciate the issue raised by the Hon Chairman of the Committee, except to remind us that because the Right to Information Commission is inferior to the PSC, we cannot place the two at the same level.
    So if you want to retain the two of them, then we would have to say that the Hon Minister will have to consult the Right to Information Commission, through the PSC, and to me, it would be really in tendentious.
    So you have to drop one because the two of them cannot be at the same level.
    Mr Iddrisu 7:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am co- sponsoring so I am interested in the fate of the Hon Chairman's proposed amendment.
    We should get it right that the “Provision of guidelines for manual”; we are saying that:
    “The Hon Minister shall, in consultation with the Public Services Commission,”
    Mr Speaker, assuming Parliament wants to issue guidelines and we want the PSC to play a role, what the Hon Chairman's proposal is and which I support -- because it will affect my submission of an amendment, it is that, in issuing the guidelines, it should not be the unilateral action of the PSC, but that, those consulting the Right to Information Commission.
    This is because this is a matter concerning -- You are to issue guidelines about me as an institution and it is only proper that you relate to me. So that is the essence of his amendment. My difficulty
    -- 7:53 p.m.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:53 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, the danger is that, it means we will keep specifying in all our laws that the PSC has to consult its component member. By article 190, the Right to Information Commission is a member of the PSC.
    Well, we are all applying the law and not interpreting the Constitution because we do not have that mandate.
    I see that the Hon Chairman is vehemently opposed to it and so let me listen to him before I come to you; Hon Ranking Member and Member for Suhum.
    Mr Secnd Deputy Speaker 7:53 p.m.
    Read article 194 (2)(b).
    Mr Banda 7:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it states:
    “such other members as Parliament may, subject to article 70 of this Constitution, by law prescribe.”
    Mr Speaker, so it means that before --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:53 p.m.
    Read that in conjunction with article 190(1)(d). What is your understanding?
    Mr Banda 7:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, article 190(1) (d) says that the public services could be added on by the creation of Parliament.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:53 p.m.
    Have you seen the use of the words: “by law prescribe” running through both?
    Mr Banda 7:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes but before the Right to Information Commission can become part of the PSC, it must be expressly stated in the law -- [Laughter.]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:53 p.m.
    Well, there you go.
    Yes Hon Ranking Member, before I come to the Hon Minority Leader.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 7:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman has a point but the interpretation of the law is not as -- probably, because he has a point, he wants to interpret the law to suit that point.
    Mr Speaker, we are creating a body, and why we amended by insertion was subject to the Right to Information Commission, was simple. You have a general body; the PSC and then we have specialised body; the Right to Information Commission.
    We were of the view that where a provision talks about the general body and a specialised body, we should make efforts for the voice of the specialised body to be incorporated into the formulation of the guidelines.
    That is our view and that is what the Hon Majority Leader supports, but obviously, logically, you cannot consult the head and come back and consult the subset. That is the problem, because if there is a conflict, how do you dissolve it? That is the problem.
    Mr Speaker, so, I believe either we leave it at PSC or we delete PSC and insert in its place, the Right to Information Commission.
    This is because the Hon Minister, in formulating guidelines, could then consult the Right to Information Commission to be established under section 42 and that would solve the problem.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 7:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let us advert our minds to the provisions of the Bill contained in clause 80 (1) which reads:
    “The Commission has oversight responsibility for this Act, and may for that purpose, issue written guidelines to public institutions and relevant private bodies.”
    Mr Speaker, if you relate this to the Commission in the interpretation, it is described as the Right to Information Commission and when you relate this back to clause 4, which we are currently considering, then it is not too clear who really has any responsibility to issue guidelines to public institutions.
    Whether it is the Minister consulting the PSC and we are trying to add on the Right to Information Commission, or it is the Right to Information Commission in clause 80 (1).
    On that note, I can see that we are fatigued and the football match is going into extra time.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:53 p.m.
    I totally agree with you and I was worried that we were giving this to the Hon Minister --
    Mr Opare-Ansah 7:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, is the agreement about the football match or the -- ? [Laughter.]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:53 p.m.
    The match we are playing on the Floor of Parliament and not in Russia.
    I believe the attempt of all friends of the Right to Information Bill has been that we take away that “Commission” from the oversight of the Government, Minister and so on. We are trying to insulate the Right to Information Commission.
    We are usually fond of using the words “independently” but in practice, they are not, they have some autonomy. So I thought that it is the Right to Information Commission that should be issuing guidelines and not the Minister.
    Hon Chairman, the time I chaired the Committee, I got that sense from the
    deliberations of the stakeholders. I do not know how come we are now putting it under a Minister?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:53 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Regulations will be issued by a Minister but certainly, not Guidelines.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:53 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in that regard, I would crave the indulgence of the Chair that we take an adjournment to further reflect on this matter, and the subsequent provisions and to also appeal to the standing Committee on winnowing to have subsequent engagements to winnow the various provisions.
    That would help us move faster than we are doing.
    Mr Speaker, I am not too sure whether we would be able to do that tomorrow morning, because of the engagement we have tomorrow morning. So, I believe we could possibly do they in the evening and unfortunately, there is Cabinet meeting tomorrow.
    Mr Speaker, well, we shall create space for ourselves; either on Friday or perhaps next week.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 8:03 p.m.
    Unless, we are coming tomorrow at 8.00 o'clock.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:03 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is a meeting which has been programmed for us at 8.00 o'clock in the morning. So it would be difficult to create space, but let me appeal for us to take an adjournment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:03 p.m.
    Let us finish with clause 4 and take an adjournment. But the sense of the House is that we should delete “Minister” and insert “the Right to Information Com- mission shall in consultation with the Public Services Commission issue guidelines for the preparation under section 3 of the manual by a public institution.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 4 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:03 p.m.
    Hon Members, the die is cast -- [Laughter.]
    I need to commend Hon Members for staying till after 8.00 p.m., and for the hard work. This brings us to the end of Consideration Stage of the Right to Information Bill, 2018, for today.
    The House is adjourned.
    ADJOURNMENT 8:03 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 8.06 p.m. till Thursday, 12th July, 2018, at 10.00 a.m.