Debates of 17 Jul 2018

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 11:49 a.m.
ANNOUNCEMENT 11:49 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:49 a.m.
Hon Members, as part of 25 years of parliamentary democracy in the Fourth Republic, we had the Research and Information Week Celebration inaugurated this morning.
That is where a number of us are coming from, as part and parcel of our activities. This is for the consumption of members of the gallery. It was relayed earlier and I trust that you received the information.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 11:49 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:49 a.m.
Hon Members, correction of Votes and Proceedings and the Official Report. Item numbered 2, Votes and Proceedings of Monday, 16th July, 2018.
Mr Daniel Kwesi Ashiamah 11:49 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my name is Daniel Kwesi Ashiamah. Yesterday, I was in the Chamber but I have been marked absent.
Mr Speaker 11:49 a.m.
While you were here yesterday?
Mr Ashiamah 11:49 a.m.
I was here yesterday.
Mr Speaker 11:49 a.m.
Thank you.
Page 9…21
Mr Kwame Governs Agbodza 11:49 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, I would like to ask the Question on behalf of my Hon Colleague.
Mr Speaker 11:49 a.m.
Please proceed.
URGENT QUESTIONS 11:49 a.m.
Minister for Health (Dr Kwaku Agyeman-Manu) 11:49 a.m.
Mr Speaker, on 30th March, 2018 the Eastern Regional Health Directorate notified the Ghana Health Service Headquarters of unusual deaths in Asuogyaman District as a result of complications of injections reportedly administered at the New Senchi Health Centre.
Following the report, the Director General informed the Minister who sent a high-powered delegation led by a Deputy Minister to Senchi to meet the family of the deceased and the affected and also assess the situation at the health center
and the VRA hospital, Akosombo, where the affected were on admission.
The health workers involved were arrested and detained on the preliminary charge of murder. They were subsequently granted bail by the Koforidua high court as investigation continues. The Ministry is awaiting the outcome of the Police investigation for further action.
The Ministry of Health conducted multi-agency and multi-disciplinary investigation into the course and have since put in measures to avert its reoccurrence.
Mr Agbodza 11:49 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we thank the Hon Minister and the Ministry for the swift action taken to conduct the investigation. We would wait for the outcome of the investigation and hope the Hon Minister would brief this House on what it would be.
rose
Mr Speaker 11:49 a.m.
Hon Minister, nothing is expected of you now. The Hon Member only said that he was waiting to see what the outcome would be. After that, of course, relevant steps would be taken.
Mr Speaker 11:59 a.m.
Question numbered 425, which stands in the name of the Hon Member for Kumbungu.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 11:59 a.m.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH 11:59 a.m.
Minister for Health (Mr Kwaku Agyeman-Manu) 11:59 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Health has no plans to bring an amendment in relation to the Coroners Act, 1960 (Act 18).
This is because the Ministry of Health was neither the promoter of Act 18, nor is it the implementater of same situated within the Ministry of Health.
The implementation of Act 18 is the province of the Office of the Attorney- General and Ministry of Justice. Mr Speaker, on the matter related to the people's faith, which require that loved ones be buried within 24 hours after death, the most appropriate authority to interrogate it is the Ministry of Chieftaincy and Religious Affairs.
However, Mr Speaker, upon prompting by this Question, the Ministry of Health will refer the matter to the Attorney- General's Department and the Ministry of Health will collaborate with them for further interrogation.
Alternatively, Mr Speaker, the Hon Member could re-direct this Question to the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney- General's Office for a holistic approach.
Mr Ras Mubarak 11:59 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the issue is a health related one and insofar as the situation of delays in the release of bodies affect a section of the Ghanaian populace, I would want to know what specific recommendations the Ministry would make to fructify or ameliorate the situation.
Mr Agyeman-Manu 11:59 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, I would want my Hon Colleague to go over the question so that I could capture it properly.
Mr R. Mubarak 11:59 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I asked specifically about recommendations that would help to fructify or ameliorate the situation where there are delays of the release of bodies to loved ones.
Mr Agyeman-Manu 11:59 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have already indicated that I would collaborate with the Hon Attorney General and Minister for Justice to see how best we could interrogate this matter.
I would not be able to give assurances, but I would do all within my remit to see how fast this matter can be moved.
Mr R. Mubarak 11:59 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to know from the Hon Minister for Health whether it is a problem of the unavailability of pathologists in many of the districts and regions that results in delays in the release of bodies.
Mr Agyeman-Manu 11:59 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Health has actually identified the shortage of pathologists within the system.
In my own constituency, when there are cases that are referred for autopsy, pathologists come from Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital to do it; and quite a number of district hospitals have that same challenge.
Mr Speaker, we are working as a Ministry to see how young people could be attracted to specialise in that area for the numbers to be augmented in support of autopsy in a very quick manner.
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 11:59 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in the Hon Minister's Answer -- I am a Muslim and many other Muslims are jealous in
death, when a Muslim passes on. -- A timely burial consistent with their faith and non-pathological examination of the body -- This is because we strongly believe that a flawless diagnosis at autopsy is impossible, therefore, we do not believe in post-mortem.
Mr Speaker, I would want to know whether the Hon Minister for Health would recommend a review of the Coroners Act to respect this faith.
Mr Agyeman-Manu 11:59 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I indicated in the Answer that this is more within the province of our religion and when it comes to faith matters, there is the Hon Minister for Chieftaincy and Religious Affairs who would have to interrogate this.
Mr Speaker, so I would want to crave your indulgence to probably direct that this matter should go to the Hon Minister for Chieftaincy and Religious Affairs.
Mr Iddrisu 11:59 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to know whether the Hon Minister for Health could assure this House that he would collaborate with the Hon Attorney- General and Minister for Justice and the Minister for Chieftaincy and Religious Affairs?
Mr Speaker, we all go to the mortuary. Last month, I was at Korle-bu Teaching Hospital and the pathologist, Mr Dankyi insisted that he wanted to cut the body to examine it and to find out why the person died. My faith says, “it should be left to me and God''.
Mr Speaker, at the hospital there is no representative of the Hon Minister for Chieftaincy and Religious Affairs, but the health workers. I would want the Hon Minister for Health to assure this House.
Mr Agyeman-Manu 11:59 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I indicated clearly in the Answer that upon the prompting by this Question, I would refer the matter to the Hon Attorney- General and Minister for Justice and collaborate with her to interrogate this matter.
If she does so and gives a recommendation, that would be her opinion and decision; but when she calls me to do anything that would constitute collaboration, I would not hide away from that.
Mr Speaker 11:59 a.m.
Hon Minister for Health, thank you very much for attending to the House and answering our Questions.
You are respectfully discharged.
Yes, Hon Minister for Sanitation and Water Resources?
Hon Member for Nabdam, please, ask your Question which is numbered 400.
MINISTRY OF SANITATION AND 11:59 a.m.
WATER RESOURCES 11:59 a.m.
Minister for Sanitation and Water Resources (Mr Joseph Kofi Ada) 11:59 a.m.
Mr Speaker, Pelungu Township is one of the small communities in the Nabdam District in the Upper East Region with an estimated population of 2,200.
Mr Speaker, currently, Pelungu has a total of seven functional Boreholes fitted
with hand pumps of which five are located at the centre of Pelungu township which is within the reach of most of the inhabitants.
The other two boreholes are strategically located to serve other areas of the community. The community is therefore fully served with potable water based on the 300 person's per borehole guidelines.
The Ministry, Mr Speaker, has no knowledge of a proposed Small Town Water System for Pelungu Township in the Nabdam District at this stage.
However, the Ministry is open to modernising and expanding water supply systems to ensure that potable water is available to all parts of the community, and so we would consider such, on the based availability of funding.
Mr Speaker 12:09 p.m.
Any follow-up, please?
Dr Nawaane 12:09 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in fact, the population the Hon Minister claims is that of Pelungu appears to be on the lower side, because the senior high school there has a population of about 800 students. It is a market centre, so there is always a feed-in of people coming to trade and going back.
Mr Speaker, indeed, Royal Aid, a Non- Governmental Agency, started a community water system and somewhere along the line, it was accessed that what they were coming to do was very small, and so they abandoned the project. It is this project that I am referring to. I would like to know whether the Government would take it over.
Mr Speaker, would the Hon Minister therefore assure me that he would do a follow-up on this community water project?
Mr Adda 12:09 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this has not come to our attention. As my Hon Colleague has made me aware, we would follow up on it. If it is something that we could afford to finance under Government of Ghana budget, we would do so.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 12:09 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Nkwanta North?
Strategies and Plans towards clearing Garbage
(Agbogbloshie - Abossey Okai - Makola No. 2 Market)
*401. Mr John Kwabena Bless Oti asked the Minister for Sanitation and Water Resources the Ministry's strategies and plans towards clearing the various garbage heaps on the Agbogbloshie - Abossey Okai main road, and the Makola No. 2 Market.
Mr Adda 12:09 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Agbogbloshie- Abosey Okai main road and the Makola No.2 Market areas are considered as major markets in Accra. Waste generated daily by these markets is in excess of 100 metric tonnes which is collected regularly by the Accra Metropolitan Assembly.
Mr Speaker, the recent accumulation of refuse heaps along the Agbogbloshie- Abosey Okai main road and the Makola No.2 Market were as a result of the closure of the Nsumia Landfilled Site located in the Nsawam-Adoagyiri Municipality off the Accra-Nsawam highway, whilst the Kpone Landfill Site near Tema had also not been in full operation.
Mr Speaker, as I speak, most of the various heaps of refuse are being cleared because the Ministry took the necessary steps to have the landfill sites fully operational. Furthermore, appropriate
strategies and plans are currently being put in place to forestall its re-occurrence.
Mr Oti 12:09 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was once an assembly member of that area. What we did was to organise clean-up exercises every weekend, especially on Saturdays.
Mr Speaker, as it stands now, things are getting out of hands. I would want to find out from the Hon Minister, since the President made us aware that he would make sure that Accra would be the cleanest city in Africa, what specific measures are they putting in place to ensure that they rid the place of garbage?
Mr Adda 12:09 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Government has instituted medium to long term action plan under which equipment is being procured for the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA) to be able to regulate the waste regularly.
We have also opened up landfill sites on which waste would be disposed of when it is collected. These arrangements and many more are in the books under the Government's arrangements.
Mr Oti 12:09 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am still not clear about what the Hon Minister has said. As it stands now, for the past three months nothing has happened on that road. If you go there now, you would be shocked that this is in the middle of Accra. So, what immediate steps would the Hon Minister take to ensure that the place is clean?
Mr Adda 12:09 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the statement of my Hon Colleague is factually incorrect. Indeed, for the past several months, evacuation has taken place and I am personally aware of an irresponsible waste collector who has dumped waste there and he was arrested under my instructions to make sure we collect the waste from that location.
AMA is doing its best in the collection. But as a market, waste is generated every day, so it keeps piling up. That was why I said that government has allocated resources to acquire adequate equipment for AMA to be able to support the service providers to evacuate the waste regularly.
In addition, the landfill as well as that material recovery and transfer stations are planned in the shortest possible time.
Mr Oti 12:09 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what I want the Hon Minister to understand is that, since he has assured and made the House aware that they are in the process of awarding to a waste management company to maintain the area, I would want him to know that I will follow up, because I am much concerned. I said earlier, I have been an assembly member of the area and I have the interest of the city at heart.
Mr Speaker 12:09 p.m.
Hon Member --
Mr Oti 12:09 p.m.
I would follow up to ensure that the right things are done.
Mr Speaker 12:09 p.m.
Hon Member for Nkwanta, you are out of order. [Laughter.] All he said should be expunged. You are not making a statement. Everything that was said after should be expunged from the records. So, you were not helping yourself if you wanted to be heard.
Yes, Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
Mr James Klutse Avedzi 12:09 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I would want to find out from the Hon Minister when the equipment that he spoke about would be available to support companies that collect the waste. In his answer, he said that the Government is procuring some equipment to support the companies.
Mr Adda 12:09 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as it stands now, approval has been obtained from the Procurement Authority and the process is being undertaken.
Tendering is ongoing and we are hopeful that in the next month or two, we would do the valuation and award the contracts. My guess is that in about three months, we should see the equipment being imported into the country.
Mr Speaker 12:19 p.m.
Hon Members, Question *402 -- Hon Member for Hohoe?
Ms Helen Adjoa Ntoso 12:19 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I seek your permission to ask this Question on behalf of Hon Dr Bernice A. Heloo, Hon Member of Parliament for Hohoe.
Mr Speaker 12:19 p.m.
You may; please, proceed.
Perennial Water Problem in Hohoe and Surrounding Areas
*402. Ms Helen A. Ntoso (on behalf of) Dr (Mrs) Bernice Adiku Heloo asked the Minister for Sanitation and Water Resources what steps the Ministry was taking to resolve the perennial water problem in Hohoe and surrounding areas.
Mr Adda 12:19 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the existing water treatment plant with an installed capacity of 400,000 gallons per day produces on average, 360,000 Gallons each day. However, it is estimated that, the current water demand for Hohoe and its surrounding areas is 1.6 MGD, creating a supply gap of 1.24 MGD.
Mr Speaker, to ensure that the people of Hohoe and its surrounding areas continue to enjoy potable water, Ghana
Ms Ntoso 12:19 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in the Answer of the Hon Minister, he said that the process would be completed by the end of this year.
May I know from the Hon Minister whether the process includes the award of the contract?
Mr Adda 12:19 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the process involves the procurement of the resources or the funding. At this stage, it does not include the award of the contract.
Ms Ntoso 12:19 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to know from the Hon Minister -- because he said the process is to identify the contract. Could he be specific when exactly the contract for this project would be awarded?
Mr Speaker 12:19 p.m.
Please, repeat the question.
Ms Ntoso 12:19 p.m.
Mr Speaker, he said that the process involves the identification of the investor. I would like to know from him when his Ministry would complete this process and award the contract. I would want to know the specific date, month or period for the award of the contract for this particular project.
Mr Speaker 12:19 p.m.
Do you mean it as against the end of the year? Do you want something more specific than the end of the year?
Ms Ntoso 12:19 p.m.
Mr Speaker, his Answer to the Question was that by the end of the year, the process for identifying the investor would be completed. But I would want to know from him when the contract would be awarded.
Mr Adda 12:19 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as much as we would like to do it relatively quickly, I cannot assure my Hon Colleague when exactly we could award the contract. It all depends on the funding. Different procurement sources could be pursued depending on who brings the funds.
It could be sole sourcing, restricted tendering or open tender. At this stage, I cannot assure my Hon Colleague; it would depend on the sort of funding we procure.
Ms Ntoso 12:19 p.m.
Mr Speaker, since he says they would source for funds --
Mr Speaker 12:19 p.m.
Hon Member, please, your last supplementary question.
Ms Ntoso 12:19 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am alright because he said they would source for funds.
Mr Speaker 12:19 p.m.
Are you satisfied?
Ms Ntoso 12:19 p.m.
Yes, please.
Mr Speaker 12:19 p.m.
Thank you very much. Hon Members, that ends Question time.
Hon Minister, thank you for attending to the House and answering our Ques- tions. You are respectfully discharged.
Item listed 4 on the Order Paper -- Statements.
A Statement on Public Private Partnerships in Healthcare Delivery: A Solution to Health Delivery Crisis in Ghana by the Hon Member for Binduri.
STATEMENTS 12:19 p.m.
Dr Robert Baba Kuganab-Lem (NDC -- Binduri) 12:19 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to present this Statement.
Mr Speaker, Sustainable Development Goal 3 mandates governments to particularly reduce maternal mortality, prevent deaths of new-borns and children under five years, end epidemics and reduce by one-third preventive mortality for non-communicable diseases.
Sadly, Mr Speaker, the health delivery system today is on its knees, and these indicators are getting worse. Some immediate steps need to be taken to resuscitate the system.
Recent happenings are very embar- rassing for us as a nation. It appears there is lack of support to our fellow citizens in their most vulnerable state of need.
Mr Speaker, I propose three strategies to achieve this 12:19 p.m.
i. Bail-out sum of money.
ii. Retooling the health service system
iii. Public private partnership
Mr Speaker, an amount of US$ 2 million should be made available to all Teaching Hospitals, US$1 million each to Regional Hospital and US$250,000 to each District Hospital. This gives us a sum of US$80,750,000. The lives that will be served by this intervention cannot be quantified in monetary terms.
This bailout amount, Mr Speaker, would be used to create emergency facilities, renovate some spaces to cater for emergency cases and /or serve as treatment centres.
Monies owed health institutions by the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) should be paid to them immediately, and monies denied them by the capping system should also be refunded.
Mr Speaker, while doing this for the next six months of the year 2018, I propose that the next Budget Statement of 2019 should see not less than 15 per cent of the annual budget as espoused in the Abuja Declaration for which we are signatories. This will help the health sector to retool itself and make it fit for purpose.
Thirdly, Mr Speaker, for the medium to long term, it is imperative for the government to seriously consider Public Private Partnership (PPP) to enhance health care delivery. Government should partner private sector investors in the funding, construction and operation of health facilities across the country.
Mr Speaker, PPP in the construction of ultra-modern hospitals is useful to resolving the issue of unemployment. It takes decades to raise funds to support the construction of fully equipped hospitals.
Mr Speaker 12:29 p.m.
Thank you very much. We have agreed to take one from each Side and then the Hon Minister would make a comment.
Hon Minister, do you want to start or --
rose
Mr Speaker 12:29 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member? Please, a brief one.
Dr Nawaane (NDC -- Nabdam) 12:29 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you. Firstly, I would like to thank the Hon Member who made the Statement, Dr Kuganab-Lem for this all important Statement on Public Private Partnership in health care.
Mr Speaker 12:29 p.m.
Order! Hon Members, the background sound is too much.
Dr Nawaane 12:29 p.m.
Mr Speaker, indeed, in Ghana the state we have attained requires that it is not only the Government that can invest in the health sector but there is the need for the private sector to also put in a lot of money. Currently, the cooperation between the private and the Government sectors is quite minimal.
Mr Speaker, if you take a situation in some districts, there are a lot of private health facilities that should have assisted the Government sector to run child welfare, maternal clinics or the preventive sector of health care; but what do we see? We see that all these organisations or the private sector is left out in this all important area.
If you take a situation like the area of employment, we see a lot of health professionals at the Ministry looking for jobs. Indeed, we are all aware that the private sector also requires staff and we really have a lot of staffing problems.
What I do not know is whether the private and Government sectors cannot collaborate such that some of these staff are also posted to the private sector.
This is because it is already occurring in the mission hospitals where the Government posts health professionals there. Why can we not identify very good hospitals in the private sector, collaborate
with them and post some of the health professionals to them?
The problem with some of the health professionals is that even if they are posted to the private sector, and at one time they want to be transferred to the Government sector, they are going to start afresh. So, right away, they would want to start from the Government sector.
Mr Speaker, if we could have some form of arrangement such that if one could start from the private sector and in continuity move to the Government sector and still be -- If one has five years' experience in the private sector, they could be promoted as they move to the Government sector and still have their promotion going on.
I believe that we will have some of them who would agree to start with the private sector. Of course, this ensures job mobility.
If one comes to the private sector and wants to go back to the Government sector, there are always problems as one cannot continue with the grade that he or she should have had if they had started with the Government sector.
equipped
Mr Speaker 12:29 p.m.
Hon Member, you will conclude.
Dr Nawaane 12:29 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes. The private sector is not usually well-equipped and if it could have that assistance of the loans that they give to the Government sector such that they could also get adequate equipment, I believe that this would help the private sector in a very long way.
I hope that in future, just as the Government is working with the mission hospitals, we should be able to have the Government sit down with the private sector and work with them by making necessary arrangements to ensure that they also carry their load.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
Mr Speaker 12:29 p.m.
Hon Minister, we agreed here that there would be only one person from each side of the House so that we continue with our programme.
Minister for Health (Mr Agyeman- Manu) 12:29 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to thank my Hon Colleague who actually made the Statement and I am very happy that he has also identified the challenges within the health system as part of a national issue that we should discuss passionately for the health of ourselves and people.
Mr Speaker, the Ministry itself has identified the policy direction, that he is actually making the Statement for us to move into. First, along the global circles, by the pronouncement and declaration by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and its partners for universal health coverage, Mr Speaker, it has been identified worldwide and not only in our country, that systems would not be adequate to actually support the achievements of the universal health coverage.
We have declarations in Africa where governments should actually allocate some good percentage, as he has suggested, to health issues, but they have never worked because of the meagre resources we have always had.
All the suggestions he made as to how much should be allocated to health would be very appreciated if they could come in. But if we look at the fiscal tables that we
Mr Speaker 12:39 p.m.
Hom Members, it is hereby directed that the Hon Minister as well as the Hon Member who made the Statement, who is also an eminent medical practitioner, and the Committee on Health should look into this new trend of Public Private Partnership in health delivery and make a Report to this Honourable House within the next one month.
Hon Members, we have a Personal Statement on Japan Floods to be made by the Chairman of the Ghana-Japan Parliamentary Friendship League.
Floods in Japan
Chairman of the Ghana-Japan Parliamentary Friendship Association (Mr Seth Kwame Acheampong) (NPP -- Mpraeso): I am deeply saddened by the effects of the torrential rains that have hit our amiable nation, Japan.
The unfortunate natural disaster has taken a toll on all persons solicitous about Japan. Even as we sit behind our televisions and internet to view the affliction our Japanese brothers and sisters are facing, we cannot help but feel heartbroken as we share in their grief and agony.
From the reports gathered, torrential rains forcibly caused rivers to burst their banks, which thereby precipitated large scale floods and landslide, and therefore caused what is now described as their worst flood disaster since 1983.
Sadly, it has come to our attention that many lives have been lost due to this tragic natural disaster. High counts of citizens have been reported missing and separated from their respective families and I can only imagine the sorrow in the hearts of the bereaved.
Images have depicted destruction and significant loss of properties that the State took years to acquire and built in order to ease the daily livelihood and upkeep of her people.
The Ghana-Japan Parliamentary Friendship League, however, would like to use this opportunity to greatly commend Prime Minister Shinzo Abe for putting other international activities on hold and to coordinate closely with the local government in an effort to unite and move swiftly to deliver the necessary supplies to the disaster victims through the rapid provision of emergency centres that have been set up to bring civilians to safety.
We applaud the Japan police, the fire departments and military personnel for combining efforts to rescue most victims, both in urban and remote areas from this horrendous situation, but more impor- tantly to encourage them to continue working harder in unity, so as to achieve faster and affirmative results to avert any more predicaments, seeing that rains have stopped but flood remains.
Our sincere prayers go to Japan, especially the south western island of Kyushu, Shikoku, Hiroshima, through to the central area of Japan and other gravely affected areas. We as Ghanaians stand with them and mourn with them in this time of tragedy and we urge residents to proceed with the utmost vigilance due to the precarious nature of the situation.
I would want to take this opportunity on behalf of the Ghana-Japan Friendship League to extend our deepest commiserations to the families of the bereaved and wish speedy recovery to all the wounded and afflicted. Our thoughts and prayers are with Japan in this dark moment and may the souls of the departed rest in peace.
Minister for Roads and Highways (Mr Kwasi Amoako-Attah) (MP) 12:49 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank you.
Mr Speaker, while I associate myself with the Statement made eloquently by the Hon Member for Mpraeso, Hon Seth Kwame Acheampong, I wish to state that I am deeply touched by this particular Statement, not only as a Hon Member of this august House and not only as a Ghanaian, but more importantly, as a member of the Ghana-Japan Parliamentary Friendship League through which I had the opportunity to visit Japan with Hon Seth Kwame Acheampong just two months ago.
Mr Speaker, disaster could strike at anytime and anywhere without prior notice. Therefore, disaster is an act of God and wherever it happens, all men of goodwill must associate themselves with the victims and express their sympathy to them.
Mr Speaker, disaster knows no bound, race or colour. Therefore, all human beings are at risk and at all times we must take steps to ensure that we prevent such acts of God.
Mr Speaker, Ghana in particular has had long standing bilateral relationship with Japan which spans a period of nine decades; right from the early 1920s when Dr Noguchi visited our country.
A lot of things have been done and are being done in our country by the people of Japan in memory of the great
doctor, Dr Noguchi who unfortunately died in our country in the early 1920's.
Mr Speaker, Japan has been doing a lot for Ghana because of the aforementioned bilateral relations that has been firmly established between the two sister countries. Japan has a warm and hospitable people, and they have extended this kind friendship and kindness to our country in a number of ways.
In the area of health and in the area of education, Japan has been of tremendous help to our country. In particular, I have come to realise this, because I am privileged to be the country's current Minister for Roads and Highways.
The kind of help that Japan has given to our country in that sector and other infrastructural areas is commendable.

Apart from that, Mr Speaker, the Japanese Government through the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) has extended a concessionary loan of JPY112 billion to finance the Volivo Bridge for which sod would be cut in no distant future.

This is a country that is undergoing this kind of disaster, and the least Ghanaians as a people could do is to show solidarity with them and register our sadness, our regret and our sympathy to them.

Mr Speaker, despite all these, and in the midst of these difficulties and hardships, I am encouraged that the

Japanese people have exercised great courage and fortitude and are confronting this disaster headlong, particularly their police, military and such allied bodies have come together to fight and to rescue all the victims.

It should be a shining example to us. We must build our institutions, and we must resource them so that, may God forbid, should any of such thing happen to us, our Police, Military and National Disaster Management Organisation would be able to confront the situation.

Mr Speaker, as I end my contribution, let me also take this opportunity to extend to my constituents, whom I am told yesterday suffered a major rainstorm which affected about five or six towns in my constituency and are in the same mood
-- 12:49 p.m.
Mr Speaker 12:49 p.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Minister.
Item numbered 6, Presentation of Papers. The following Papers are to be presented by the Hon Minister for Finance.
rose
Mr Speaker 12:49 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Avedzi 12:49 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we have one contribution to make from our side. We agreed to take one contribution each from each side. Nobody from our side
contributed to the Statement. We agreed on one each; have we not agreed on one each?
rose
Mr Speaker 12:49 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:49 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is indeed true that at the pre-Sitting meeting, we said after the delivery of the Statement there would be a contributor each from either side. That is the truth, but in your own wisdom, you have decided to shut the door. So, I was going to go along with that.
This is because, I was just telling the Hon Deputy Minority Leader that on occasions, we said two each from either side. And with the two each, three would come from the other side and one from here.
With Statements, I do not think it is anything that we should argue about. However, if the Hon former Minister for Roads and Highways insists, you could yield to him for some two to three minutes.
Mr Speaker 12:49 p.m.
Former Minister for Roads and Highways, Hon Fusieni?
Alhaji Inusah A. B. Fuseini (NDC -- Tamale Central) 12:49 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, it is precisely because of the diplomatic nuances of this particular disaster that our side of the House --
Mr Speaker 12:49 p.m.
Hon Member, make your contribution.
Alhaji Fuseini 12:49 p.m.
Very well.
Mr Speaker, in fact, situations of this nature that happen far away in other countries evoke in us the humanity we are made of as human beings and compel
Mr Speaker 12:59 p.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Fuseini.
At the Commencement of Public Business, item listed number 6, Presentation of Papers.
Hon Minister for Finance?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:59 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister for Finance would be represented by the Hon Deputy Minister, because he has been summoned by the President. So the Hon Deputy Minister would hold the fort for him.
Mr Speaker 12:59 p.m.
Thank you very much, we all know what is happening there. One of our own, the Hon Deputy Minister, may proceed.
PAPERS 12:59 p.m.
Mr Speaker 12:59 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, any indication, please?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:59 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we would take item numbered 7.
Mr Speaker 12:59 p.m.
Item numbered 7, Motion. This was moved on Friday, 13th July, 2018.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:59 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are yet to put the Question.
Mr Speaker 12:59 p.m.
This is what I am saying.
MOTION 12:59 p.m.
  • [Resumption of debate from 13/07/ 2018]
    • Mr Haruna Iddrisu 12:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the only reason the Question was not put on Friday was that we did not have the numbers --
    Mr Speaker 12:59 p.m.
    Hon Members Order!
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:59 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was saying that the only reason the Question was not put on Friday was because we did not have the numbers, and the Hon First Deputy Speaker who was presiding was informed by the Clerks-at- the-Table that we had 137 Members in the House.
    That meant that we were short of the number to take the decision by just one person, so we had to re-schedule the voting.
    Mr Speaker, today I believe we have the numbers to take the decision, so the Standing Order that the Hon Minority Leader is drawing our attention to, we are not there. If the Question is put and he wants further and better particulars, that could be the resort, but we are not there yet.
    Mr Speaker, where we are, we have the numbers and we can put the Question.
    Mr Speaker 12:59 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, is it the case that we do not have the numbers to take a decision and is it the case that on this occasion we would definitely need to have a division ab initio?
    Mr Iddrisu 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader is right, but it was subsequent to my request that be a headcount on this matter. It is true that the Hon First Deputy Speaker was in the Chair on your behalf. It is true that he did not have the minimum requirement and that is why I said I am looking at the combined effect of Standing Orders 109 and 113.
    Mr Speaker, it is true that he did not have the minimum requirement and that is why I said I am looking at the combined effect of Standing Order, 109 and 113.
    Mr Speaker, it is in your hands as it is discretionary. But as I have said, we would want the President to constitute a Council for the University.
    We would want to signal him that he must take a prompt action on this matter or a review of the law; the easiest is constituting the Council. So his advisors
    would advise him that when they came to Parliament, they were cautioned.
    Mr Speaker, we asked for a headcount on Friday so we are in your hands now.
    Mr Speaker, strongly, our Side was of the view that there was a breach of the law in terms of Bunso, Somanya, Donkorkrom and what the law provided in section 3.
    I thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with where we are now, we are not going to open up this debate again. We have finished with the debate and the Question is to be put. Thereafter, if there is anything, we would discuss it.
    Mr Speaker, for now, what you are required to do is to put the Question.
    Mr Speaker 1:09 p.m.
    Hon Members, at this moment, there is no indication whatsoever that this Honourable House does not have the relevant numbers to take a decision on this matter.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Some Hon Members 1:09 p.m.
    No! No! [Interruption.]
    Mr Speaker 1:09 p.m.
    Hon Members, let us go step by step as per our own rules. I have said several times that a cacophony of ‘‘Noes'' does not amount to voting ‘‘No''. Nevertheless, if you would want to go to the next stage, I am all ears.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you have done what is appropriate. We are mindful that there is a Majority party in this country. We are very mindful of that, except their presence in this House.
    Mr Speaker, may I now invoke Standing Order 113 and ask for a division and a headcount.
    Mr Speaker 1:09 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, are you asking for a division?
    Mr Iddrisu 1:09 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 1:09 p.m.
    Hon Member, that is a very simple matter. [Pause.]
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader is right to call for a headcount. However, this is a House of rules.
    Mr Speaker, can I refer them to Standing Order 113 (2). It reads 1:09 p.m.
    “A Member may call for headcount or division if the opinion of Mr. Speaker on the voice vote is challenged.”
    So he ought to rise to challenge the voice vote first before he calls for headcount; this is simple procedure that they should know. That request has no proper foundation.
    They can be throwing up their hands in the air. They should come properly. We have passed that stage and what you have said stands. I request the Hon Minority Leader to follow the procedure.
    I thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I refuse to be misled by the Hon Majority Leader. [Laughter]. I do so because he has, in his hurry mood, moved to Standing Order 113 (2). May I bring him to Standing Order 113 (1). It reads:
    “When the Question has been put by Mr. Speaker at the conclusion of the debate, the votes shall be taken by voices “Aye” and “No”, provided that Mr. Speaker may in his discretion …”
    Mr Speaker, it says “may”.
    Mr Speaker, let us get the words that follow 1:09 p.m.
    “… in his discretion instead of declaring the result…” So, the Hon Majority Leader was misleading me. Even before you declared the results, he said it is not yet time and that I should wait.
    Mr Speaker, even before you declared the results, I was right when I invoked Standing Order 113. When I stood up, I said the combined effect of Standing Order 109 and 113 — We can confirm from the Hansard.
    Mr Speaker 1:09 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, save your breath a bit. [Laughter] At this stage, what do you want?
    Mr Iddrisu 1:09 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want a headcount or a division. [Interruption.]
    Mr Speaker, I am challenging the voice vote and I am calling for a headcount and a division on this.
    Bonsu — rose
    Mr Speaker 1:09 p.m.
    I deliberately asked.
    Hon Majority Leader, make your comments and I would give the final directive.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:19 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this, indeed, is a House of rules. Let us limit ourselves to the provisions of Standing Order 113(1). It reads:
    “When the Question has been put by Mr Speaker at the conclusion of the debate, the votes shall be taken by voices “Aye” and “No,” provided that Mr Speaker may in his discretion instead of declaring the result on the voice votes call for a headcount.”
    Mr Speaker, that rests with you. After it, you may not depend on a voice vote; you may call for a headcount. You did not call for a headcount, you went in for the Question which you put and you have declared the result. The sequel is in Standing Order 113(2). Mr Speaker, let Hon Members learn the rules. Standing Order 113(2) provides:
    “A Member may call for headcount or division if the opinion of Mr Speaker on the voice vote is challenged”
    So, first of all, the Hon Member would rise to challenge it -- [Interruptions.] -- He did not challenge it and then, he called for a headcount and when his application to the Court has had to be thrown out, Mr Speaker, he comes out to say that, “I want to re-file”. He should come tomorrow and re-file his application.
    Mr Speaker, I believe you could do without it. Mr Speaker, let us make progress. The Hon Minority Leader knows that he is on a very wrong and slippery ground. Mr Speaker, let us move on.
    Mr Speaker 1:19 p.m.
    The Clerks-at-the-Table would take steps for a headcount. [Hear! Hear!]
    Mr Speaker 1:29 a.m.
    Hon Members, those who say “aye”, should get up and be counted.
    Mr Speaker 1:29 a.m.
    Order! order!
    Mr Speaker 1:29 a.m.
    You may please be seated.
    Those who say “noe”, stand up and be counted.
    Mr Speaker 1:29 a.m.
    Please be seated.
    Question put and the House was counted.
    AYES -- 125
    ABSTENTION — 75
    NOES -- 75
    Resolved accordingly.
    Mr Speaker 1:29 a.m.
    Order, order!
    Item numbered 8 — Resolution.
    Mr Speaker 1:29 a.m.
    Order; order!
    RESOLUTION 1:29 a.m.
    Minister for Finance) 1:29 a.m.
    WHEREAS by the provisions of article 181 of the Constitution and sections 55 and 56 of the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921), the terms and conditions of all government borrowings shall be laid before Parliament and shall not come into operation unless the terms and conditions are approved by a resolution of Parliament in accordance with article 181 of the Constitution;
    PURSUANT to the provisions of the said article 181 of the Constitution and sections 55 and 56 of the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921), at the request of the Government of the Republic Ghana acting through the Minister responsible for Finance, there has been laid before Parliament the terms and conditions of a Loan Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana and the Export-Import Bank of Korea for an amount in Korean Won not exceeding the equivalent of Ninety Million United States Dollars (US$90,000,000.00) to finance the Establishment of the University of Environment and Sustainable Development (UESD), Bunso Campus Project.
    THIS HONOURABLE HOUSE 1:29 a.m.
    HEREBY RESOLVES AS 1:29 a.m.
    Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Resolved accordingly.
    Mr Speaker 1:39 p.m.
    Hon Members, item numbered 9 — Motion.
    Chairman of the Committee?
    Dr Kwabena Twum-Nuamah 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would want to defer it to tomorrow because the Report is not yet ready.
    Mr Speaker 1:39 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, what are we doing with regard to item numbered 9?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am informed that the Report has not been
    circulated yet and so we cannot do the item listed as 9.
    Mr Speaker 1:39 p.m.
    Any indication?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman of the Committee told me that we could take it tomorrow.
    Mr Speaker 1:39 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Majority Leader, shall we move to item numbered 12 then?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would plead that Sitting be suspended now in view of your own engagements which is supposed to be at 2 o'clock. Sitting could be suspended up to 3 o'clock and we would come to continue with the consideration of the Right to Information Bill, 2018.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to move that in the circumstance, this House be suspended till 3 o'clock.
    Mr Speaker 1:39 p.m.
    Hon Members, considering the state of Business before the House and the time, I direct that Sitting continue beyond the prescribed hours and we shall rise briefly and resume work at 3 o'clock.
    The Hon Second Deputy Speaker would take the Chair at that time.
    Thank you.
    1.44 p.m. -- Sitting suspended.
    4.44 p.m. - Sitting resumed.
    MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:39 p.m.
    Hon Members, who is the available Hon Majority Leader?
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:39 p.m.
    I know you as the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs. [Laughter]
    Is it the pleasure of the House that we go straight to item numbered 12 on the Order Paper, which is the Consideration Stage of the Right to Information Bill,
    2018?
    Mr Banda 1:39 p.m.
    Rightly so, Mr Speaker.
    The Hon Deputy Majority Leader has just walked in.
    Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was about to complain that the Majority side is not interested in doing their own work. They gave us 3 o'clock to resume; let us look at the time that they have now come in. What is this? [Laughter]
    Ms Sarah Adwoa Safo 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that Hon Yieleh Chireh is my father and he knows it. He would, probably, want to consult with his Hon Leader on this matter.
    Mr Speaker, the Majority had been waiting; but your good Hon Self, the Hon Deputy Minority Leader and I were in a small meeting. That is why we -- [Interruption.] They know and that was why I said he should consult his Hon Leader before he makes pronouncements. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:39 p.m.
    Actually, there was a meeting for your common good, so I understand the belated appearance of the Leadership.
    Let us go straight away to Business.
    The Right to Information Bill, 2018, at the Consideration Stage.
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION STAGE 1:39 p.m.
  • [Resumption of debate from 16/07/ 2018.]
    • Ms Safo 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman of the Committee would take clause 3.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:39 p.m.
    Hon Members, today, let us try to really proceed on this Bill. We are always back to clauses 2 and 3, where we seem to be stuck. So this time around, I would try to curtail the interventions. Sometimes, we say the same things over and over again.
    Ms Safo 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so. There has been some winnowing earlier, and I believe that we would move a bit faster than usual since most of the clauses have been discussed at the winnowing level already.
    Mr Banda 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3 subclause (2), paragraph (e), line1, delete “place” and insert “telephone number, fax, e-mail, postal address and any other contact detail of the information unit” and in line 3, delete “found or made available” and insert “accessed”
    The new rendition would, therefore, read:
    “the telephone number, fax, e-mail, postal address and any other contact details of the information unit which is accessible under this Act or any other enactment…”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:39 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, you are calling for the deletion of “place in a public institution where”. What you read deletes “in the public institution where information”.
    Alhaji Inusah Fuseini 1:39 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the advertisement on the Order Paper is wrong. Clause 3(2)(e) should read:
    “the name or any other contact details of the information officer or other designated officer to whom a request for access to information may be made.”
    Clause 3(2)(d) should read:
    “the telephone number, fax, e-mail, postal address and any other contact details of the information unit of the public institution where a request for access may be made.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:39 p.m.
    Hon Ranking Member, there is no amendment to subclause (2)(d) before us.
    Alhaji Fuseini 4:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree entirely that there is no motion.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:54 p.m.
    So, let us restrict ourselves to the amendment that has been moved which is subclause 2(e).
    Hon Ranking Member, are you still on your feet?
    Mr Chireh 4:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we are to follow the Hon Chairman's amendment, instead of “place”, it will read as follows:
    ‘telephone number --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:54 p.m.
    Sorry, are we deleting paragraph (d)?
    Mr Chireh 4:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no. That is why I am saying the “place” will be;
    “the telephone number, fax, e-mail, postal address and any other contact details of the information unit, in the public institution where information which is accessible under this Act or any other enactment, can be accessed.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:54 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, in effect, that is what your amendment is about, but it was when you read it that you omitted some other words and I was just drawing your attention to that.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    We move to the next amendment which stands in the name of the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr Banda 4:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is an amendment to paragraph (d) which came out of the winnowing, though that proposed amendment is not advertised.
    If you would be gracious enough to grant me leave, I would want to move that amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:54 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, are you sure that is the last amendment to clause 3 so that I could exercise my discretion in granting the leave? If not, you would move on and later on come back to it.
    Mr Banda 4:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is another amendment immediately after the one we just dealt with by which we are seeking to add a new clause.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:54 p.m.
    Yes, I have seen what is on the Order Paper. I mean, what is in your might.
    Mr Banda 4:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:54 p.m.
    All right. I would grant you the leave to move that, then we can go back to the Order Paper and then move on.
    Mr Banda 4:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move that,
    “the name, telephone number and other contact details of the information officer or a designated officer of the public institution where a request for access to information may be made''
    Mr Speaker, so what we are trying to do is to spell out the name, address and other contact details of the information officer or a designated information officer. Just as we did in respect of paragraph (e), which spells out the address and other contact details of the information unit, we seek to have both the address of the information officer and the information unit so that anybody applying for information may not have any difficulty in tracking the address if he does not get the address of the information officer. That applicant may have the address of the information unit.
    It is intended to facilitate, as it were, access to information. That is the rationale behind this proposed amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:54 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, so what are you deleting in paragraph (d) and what are you inserting?
    Mr Banda 4:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you will grant me leave, I would delete the whole of paragraph (e) and insert a new paragraph in order to make the reading as simple as possible.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:54 p.m.
    I do not have the text of what we want to insert. So, it is difficult for me to grant you the leave to delete the whole paragraph and insert something that I do not have before me now. Maybe --
    Mr Banda 4:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we have to delete some of the words and insert — it would make the proposed amendment a bit clumsy. So, I would seek your leave to delete the whole of paragraph (e) and insert a new paragraph.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:54 p.m.
    I have a difficulty there. Let me listen to the Hon Member for Wa West before I come to you, Hon Deputy Majority Leader.
    Mr Chireh 4:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what you are saying and what I believe we should do is to take the advertised amendment while the insertion that the Hon Chairman wants to make -- let us get the draft of the insertion to the Rt Hon Speaker.
    We could consider the one that has been advertised which we could all read. When you do so, it will be easier for him to allow a vote on it.
    Ms Safo 4:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am in total support of the proposal made by the Hon Member for Wa West. In the meantime, as the Hon Chairman tries to draft the new paragraph (d), we could consider that as flagged as he consults with the Table Office to get you the new draft for the new paragraph --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:54 p.m.
    Once that is not before me, let us just move to --
    Ms Safo 4:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, then we could flag it and move to the Clause 3 (ii).
    Mr Banda 4:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, add the following new subclauses:
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:54 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, do we generate or create information?
    Mr Banda 4:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:54 p.m.
    We generate information. I do not know about creation of information.
    Mr Banda 5:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if that is the consensus, then I would seek your leave to delete “create” and insert “generate”.
    Ms Safo 5:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am in support of the proposed amendment except to say that in subclause 3(b) which reads, “establish information unit …”, the indefinite article “an” is missing.
    I believe that it should “establish an information unit headed by an officer who
    shall facilitate access to information.” Mr Speaker, the repetition of “information officer” -- we are really talking about an officer who would head that unit.
    Mr Speaker, I am proposing that there should be “an” after the word “establish”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:04 p.m.
    I have noted that down.
    So it would read:
    “A public institution shall establish an information unit …”
    Ms Safo 5:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so.
    Alhaji Fuseini 5:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, is the indefinite article “an” an adjective? I believe that it was a typographical error. And there is another typographical error with the word “aceess”. It should read “access”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:04 p.m.
    Yes, I have noted that.
    Alhaji Fuseini 5:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that was the sense. We wanted to make it clearer, even though clause 19 is almost the same, we wanted to make it clearer that, that unit must be headed by an information officer.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:04 p.m.
    Hon Members, I would put the Question but before I do that, let me draw your attention to the real wording so that we would note that in the Votes and Proceedings.
    “Subclause (3) A public institution shall
    (a) generate, process, maintain and preserve information which is accurate and authentic;
    (b) establish an information unit headed by an information officer who shall facilitate access to information”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:04 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, have you got the text of the amendment to clause 3 that you initially drew our attention to in clause 3?
    Hon Chairman, do you have the text now?
    Mr Banda 5:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am still in the process of putting it together, but I would finish it in about two or three minutes.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:04 p.m.
    So, should we move to clause 4?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:04 p.m.
    All right. Then I would not put the Question on the whole of clause 3.
    We would move to clause 4 and the first amendment is in the name of the Hon Member for Adentan.
    Clause 4 -- Provision of guidelines for manual.
    Mr Banda 5:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we dealt with this and the Hon Member in whose name the amendment stands has asked me to withdraw same.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:04 p.m.
    So, do we take it that you are speaking for and on behalf of the Hon Member?
    We do not want to move forward for him to come and say later that you did not have his authority.
    Mr Banda 5:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have his express permission to have this --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:04 p.m.
    You have his authority to withdraw the proposed amendment?
    Mr Banda 5:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:04 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would move to item numbered (iv) and it is in the name of the Hon Minority Leader.
    Alhaji Fuseini 5:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, indeed, the amendment listed as (iv) in the name of the Hon Haruna Iddrisu is substantially the same as the amendment which was taken earlier.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:04 p.m.
    The Hon Minority Leader is available and he has the amendment in his name.
    Mr Iddrisu 5:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your leave, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:04 p.m.
    Hon Members, I do think that we need to put the Question on the whole of clause 4 again. This is because we have already put the Question and adopted it and they are now proposing amendments to it, but they have withdrawn those proposed amendments. Do I have to put the Question again?
    We did that the other day and I noted it in my Bill.
    Mr Chireh 5:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we did that but the way we are going about it, it would not harm anything if you put the Question again.
    Mr Iddrisu 5:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, headnote, delete “and” and insert “or office”.
    Mr Speaker, further to that, I would seek your leave to move a further amendment that it should read, “Office of the President and Office of the Vice President.”
    Mr Speaker, it is all under the Office of the President and we have an Executive President who would sometimes delegate some of his authority under the Constitution to the Vice President.
    So, “Information from the Presidency” would be an ideal headnote if I could amend it further. We could not segregate between the President and the Vice President.
    Mr Speaker, even as we go along with the exempt information from the Office of the President, today, there are many institutions under the Office of the President: Ghana Aids Commission, the Ghana Investment Promotion Centre and many other institutions.
    Mr Speaker, I do not think that our intention is that information from those offices must be exempt.
    I do not think so because if we look at Government Machinery today, there are a whole list of institutions which enjoy the
    comfort that they are under the Presidency, and if we exempt all of them, then we would not be doing justice to this Bill and we would not be doing justice to the right of the public to have information about the performance of those institutions.
    I would further want to amend it. “Information from the Office of the President” is enough as a headnote.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:14 p.m.
    Yes, let me start from the rear.
    Mr Rockson-Nelson E. K. Dafeamekpor 5:14 p.m.
    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
    I am in full support of the further proposal made by the Hon Minority Leader. Indeed, if this is carried, it means that we must also redefine the “Office of the President” in the interpretation clause to reflect this amendment.
    As the Hon Minority Leader said, if we exempt information at the Ghana AIDS Commission, for instance, we are hurting ourselves.
    At the office of the Ministry of Special Initiatives, somebody might want to apply for information or request for information on some of the projects that they are undertaking in his or her constituency or district. By the nature of the clause, as it is, we are saying they are exempted and the information could not be accessed.
    On these grounds, I therefore support the further amendment by my Hon Leader as well as the further amendment to redefine it in the interpretation clause.
    Mr Chireh 5:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my first comment would be that the Hon Minority Leader was moving for amendment to the
    headnote. If you look at it, he was suggesting that it should be “information from the Office of the President or of the Vice President”.
    We ought to have taken that decision before moving to the substantive one. With the substantive one, I am not convinced by the argument. This is because the Presidency is a common term we have been using but there are separate offices.
    They are sworn in as Vice-President and sworn in as President, and they operate separate offices, as we know, even though they may be located in the same premises.
    Therefore, if you want to deal with this matter, we have to be careful that we are talking only about things relating to the Vice-President's Office or things relating to the President's Office.
    But if we say Presidency or make it look like it covers everybody, all the Ministers working there would claim that same exemption.
    I do not think it should be so. We have to separate these two offices and treat them as the two highest offices of the land. That is why they are exempted.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 5:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, building from that, at the Consideration Stage, we decided to narrow the information that we intend to exempt to “Information for the President or the Vice President”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:14 p.m.
    Do we have separate information for the Vice President?
    Alhaji I. A.B. Fuseini 5:14 p.m.
    Yes. When the information is intended for the
    consideration of the President or it is intended for the consideration of the Vice President but not his office.
    We came to that conclusion because even Microfinance and Small Loans Centre (MASLOC), which is very remote by distance from the Office of the President, operates under the Office of the President. We thought that we should narrow the exemption to information that flows from the clause 5 (1) (a) to read:
    “5. (1) Information is exempt from disclosure --
    (a) Where we have it is prepared for submission”.
    We thought that when the information is on its way to the President or Vice President for consideration, it ought to be exempted.
    So, I am moving a further amendment that the headnote be further amended by the deletion of “from” and the insertion of “for”, and the deletion of “Office of the” and after “President and of”, the insertion of “or”.
    The new rendition would be:
    “Information for the President or the Vice-President”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:14 p.m.
    Yes, let me get clarification from the Hon Chairman.
    Mr Banda 5:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is rightly so because there are some classes of information that go to the Vice President and others that go to the President. So for the sake of this Bill, to subsume the Office of the Vice President under the Office of the President, the impression is created that every information that goes to the Jubilee House goes to the President, but in practical terms, that is not the case.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:14 p.m.
    Hon Members, it is now clear, and --
    Yes, Hon Member.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 5:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.
    With all due respect, I am struggling to understand my Hon Chairman on this matter.
    At the Office of the President, every single information is treated as confidential. The President being an Executive President can decide that every single information must be for his consumption; he would then minute it to whichever officer is appointed to handle that particular matter.
    So if we are saying that the truer intention of this House is to exempt information meant for the consumption of the President, practically, we are saying that we cannot access any information from the Presidency.
    We have enacted laws in this House with a very clear intention, but the implementers outside are putting a different interpretation and they have become a matter for litigation.
    So we cannot simply say that it is only information meant for the consumption of the President or the Vice President that should be exempted.
    We must be very clear in our minds which information meant for the President we are seeking to exempt, otherwise the implementers would tell us that -- For instance, if somebody wants to know the full list of staff at the Presidency, they would tell you that this file particularly is meant for the consumption of the President, so it is exempted.
    We would be running into litigation.
    So we must avert our minds to it. We just enacted the National Identification Authority (Amendment) Act. The omnibus clause that we put in the law to take care of other sources of information has become a subject of litigation.
    I am not wrong, so I am saying we must take a cue from some of these things and be very clear as to which information exactly we speak of in this matter.
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 5:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague uses the phrase “for the consumption of the President”. Indeed, the intendment is that information that is going to the President for his processing should be exempt. After the President processed it, it becomes public information.
    But before that, if the President has not even assessed the information, he has not looked at it, why do you have to leak it out as information that is accessible to the public?
    So, it is the processing bit that the emphasis is on. Therefore, once the information is going to the President -- That is why the 4 is there -- “ are not from”. Once it is getting to the President and it has not gotten to the President yet, you cannot leak that information to the public.
    So, let it get to the President. Once it is processed, the information can now be accessible to the public.
    Mr Bernard Ahiafor 5:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we can be guided by some provisions in the Constitution, particularly, articles 57 and 60.
    Article 57 states;
    “There shall be a President of the Republic of Ghana who shall be the Head of State…”
    Article 60 says;
    “There shall be a Vice-President of Ghana who shall perform such functions…”
    So clearly, a constitutional provision is talking about President, but not the Office of the President. So if the amendment being proposed by the Hon Ranking Member is taking the office out of it and saying information for the President or the Vice-President, it would be in line with the Constitution, and I support the amendment proposed by the Hon Ranking Member.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:24 p.m.
    We are now considering the Headnote, not yet the body, and I think the proposed amendment is to delete “from the office of” and the words “and of”. So the Headnote would now read; “information for the President or the Vice-President”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:24 p.m.
    Now we move on to the substantive clause, clause
    5.
    Mr Banda 5:24 p.m.
    Mr Speak, I beg to move, subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 2, delete “Office of President”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:24 p.m.
    Delete “Office of the”. There is one “the” at the end of line 1.
    Mr Banda 5:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the proposed amendment, subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 2, delete “Office of the President, or”. That is what it is in the proposed amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:24 p.m.
    The item is numbered (vi).
    Mr Banda 5:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:24 p.m.
    So read what you have submitted.
    Mr Banda 5:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what I have in (vi) is subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 2, delete “Office of the President, or” and insert “the President or the Vice-President for consideration”.
    So the new rendition reads; “if it is prepared for submission or has been submitted to the President or the Vice- President for consideration”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:24 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, you have to look at your proposed amendment again, but I think the Hon Ranking Member was up to assist you, if you are minded to give him the opportunity.
    Hon Ranking Member?
    Alhaji Fuseini 5:24 p.m.
    [Inaudible]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:24 p.m.
    May you live long -- [Laughter]
    Alhaji Fuseini 5:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in fact, I am foretelling something.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that even though the amendment is -- I believe that is Mr Djietror's advice from the Table Office, that we delete “ Office of the President, or” entirely and then insert “ the President or the Vice-President for consideration”.
    So it reads; “if it is prepared for submission or has been submitted to the President or the Vice-President for
    consideration” except that I have a further amendment to delete “if” in clause 5 (1) (a) and (b) --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:24 p.m.
    Please, let us deal with (a).
    Alhaji Fuseini 5:24 p.m.
    My amendment would affect (b) as well.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:24 p.m.
    Yes, but the amendment is on (a), so let us take that first.
    Alhaji Fuseini 5:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, very well.
    Clause 5 (1), “the information is exempt from disclosure if it is prepared for submission or has been submitted to the President or Vice-President for consideration”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:34 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
    Ms Safo 5:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move that, instead of the word ‘if', we should use the word ‘where' and move the ‘where' up to subclause 5(1) so that we do not have to repeat ‘where' in subclauses (a) and (b).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:34 a.m.
    Hon Members, I get the sense that the correct rendition should read as follows:
    “Information is exempt from disclosure where the information—
    (a) is prepared for submission or has been submitted to the President or the Vice President for consideration.”
    It means that if the information is not submitted for consideration, then it is not exempt. Is that the case?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 5:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am rather in support of the amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman and I oppose the further amendment proposed by the Hon Deputy Majority Leader.
    Mr Speaker, this is because the amendment as proposed by the Hon Chairman in the matter dovetails with the drafting language we have adopted so far.
    But I see that the further amendment of inserting a ‘where' up there, is in dissonance with the drafting language we have adopted so far. So, I would plead with the Hon Deputy Majority Leader to rather side with the proposal by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:34 a.m.
    Hon Members, I do not see the dissonance in the use of the word, “where” because we are not saying ‘where the information'. We cannot say, “where it…” so, we said, “where the information…”.
    So, the proposed amendment is, subclause (1), add, ‘information is exempt where the information (a) is prepared…'. So, we delete “if it” from subclause (a). So, it would read:
    “Information is exempt from disclosure where the information
    (a) is prepared for submission or has been submitted to the President or the Vice President for consideration”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:34 a.m.
    Item numbered (vii).
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:34 a.m.
    Yes, any point of order?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 5:34 a.m.
    Indeed, it is so, Mr Speaker. I am seeking clarification in the matter. Per the amendment we just carried, does the word “or” survive? There is an “or” in clause 5(1)(a).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:34 a.m.
    We deleted “Office of the President or” and inserted the President or the Vice President for consideration'. If you look at the amendment at item numbered (vi).
    Mr Dafeamekpor 5:34 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:34 a.m.
    So, that is why we have —
    Mr Chireh 5:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we look at the amendment we moved, we only dealt with the subclause (a). So, I thought that we should just take the two subclauses together or we now take the vote on “where the information contains…” which is the subclause (b). We did not vote on that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:34 a.m.
    There is another proposed amendment to that clause 5 (1)(b) which is item numbered (viii). What we did was to combine (vi) and (vii).
    Mr Chireh 5:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, what we did was re-drafting, and in effect, the re- drafting says that:
    “Information is exempt where the information
    (a) is prepared for submission or has been submitted to the President or the Vice President for consideration';
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:34 a.m.
    We have not moved subclause (b).
    Mr Chireh 5:34 a.m.
    That is why I am saying that because we have re-drafted, instead of the first one which said, “if it is”, now it was collapsed by the Hon Deputy Majority Leader into this form. So, if we need to do so, there has to be two votes or we combine the two and take one vote.
    We have already voted on the subclause (a), so I am saying let us just take the vote on subclause (b).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:34 a.m.
    The Hon Chairman has not moved the Motion on subclause (b). So, I was calling on him to move the Motion on subclause (b), which is at item numbered (viii) and then I could put the Question on sublause (b), too.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Banda 5:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5(1)(b) —
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:34 a.m.
    Do the rendition on sublause (b) first before you go to the subparagraph (i).
    Mr Banda 5:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, they go together.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:34 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, I am drawing your attention to delete the “if it”.
    Mr Banda 5:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I seek your leave to delete and insert “the information” in paragraph 5(1)(b).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:44 a.m.
    There is no insertion. That is the reason the Hon Member for Wa West wanted us to combine them. However, because you had proposed an amendment to subclause (b), I wanted you to take it along with that amendment.
    Mr Banda 5:44 a.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Speaker, let me make my last attempt.
    “Information is exempt from disclosure
    (b) where the information contains matters…”
    So, it means we are deleting “if it”. So, it would read:
    “where the information contains matters the disclosure of which would reveal information concerning opinion, advice, deliberation, recommendations, minutes…”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:44 a.m.
    Hon Members, the Motion is that clause 5 (1), paragraph (b) delete “if it”.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 5:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the present amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman of the Committee. However, I would like to seek clarification. In clause 5(1)(a), we redrafted up to where we have “submitted to the President or the Vice President for consideration.”
    In that sentence, there is an “or”. This is because that is one range of information that could be exempted. Now, we are moving to a second range of information
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:44 a.m.
    We deleted it.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 5:44 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, but in these circumstances, it has to survive. After “…the Vice President for consideration”, there would be a comma before “or”, then “where the information contains matters”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:44 a.m.
    The Hon Member is right, the “or” must stay.
    Ms Safo 5:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the proposed amendment that we leave the “or” that appears after subclause (a), so that the two could be read disjunctively.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:44 a.m.
    We would now go to clause 5(1)(b), where the Hon Chairman moved the Motion that we delete “if it”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:44 a.m.
    Further proposed amendments to clause 5 (1) (b), Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:44 a.m.
    The Hon Chairman has not moved the amendment yet, or is there a point of order?
    Mr Agbodza 5:44 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, just some guidance. What we just did, does that mean that if there is information on its way to probably Parliament or any government
    agency, somebody could demand to see that information?

    I know but I am just seeking guidance because we are passing a law. Somebody said that --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:44 a.m.
    Hon Member, the clause deals with the President and Vice President. As we go to clause 6, you would see information relating to Cabinet. Clause 7 deals with information dealing with law enforcement and public safety.
    So, there are other clauses. When we get to the end and there is no clause dealing with the area you are talking about, you could propose an amendment.
    Mr Samuel Atta-Mills 5:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, who would make the determination that information going to the President should be exempted?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:44 a.m.
    There is no issue for determination there.
    Mr Atta-Mills 5:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, on clause 5 (1) which says “where the information contains matters the disclosure of which would reveal information concerning opinion…” who would make that determination?
    Is it the President who would make that determination or someone else? Otherwise, any President could say certain information should be exempted.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:44 a.m.
    The Chairman has not moved the amendment yet, or is there another point of order or further clarification?
    Mr Chireh 5:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, he asked who makes that determination.
    The determination is if you write for information concerning -- If you know somebody has petitioned the President or Vice President on something which seeks some action to be taken, and you want that information to be given to you, the person would refer you to the law and say that they cannot give you the information because it is for the President to determine and he has not yet done so.
    It is for the President to take action but he has not done so. So, it is the officer, who after he or she has generated this information, would tell you that it is exempt.
    He is exempting it because it is for the consideration of the President. It is that determination that we are talking about. It is not the President who determines.
    However, if there is information or petition to the President, and you approach the officer in charge of the information, he would tell you no because the President is yet to consider it. That is the determination we are talking about.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:44 a.m.
    Yes, so you are just confirming that it is the person generating the information. That is what he is saying.
    The person might be an officer, general or director. So, it is the person generating the information who would make the determination.
    Mr Banda 5:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5 subclause (1), paragraph (b), subparagraph (i), line 1, delete “in the Office” and insert “on the part” and in line 2, delete “of”
    So, the new rendition would read: ‘
    (i) undermine the deliberative process on the part of the President'. We are deleting “in the Office” in clause 5 (1) (b) (i) in line 1 and we are inserting “on the part”. In line 2, we are deleting “of”.
    Mr Speaker, so clause 5 (1) would read 5:54 p.m.
    “Information is exempt from disclosure
    (b) where the information contains matters for disclosure of which would reveal information concerning opinion, advice,
    deliberation, recommendations, minutes or consultations made or given to the President or the Vice-President and is likely to
    (i) undermine the deliberative process on the part of the President or the Vice- President by inhibiting a free and frank provision of advice or exchange of views;”.
    Mr Speaker, subsequently or pretty soon we would be deleting “by inhibiting” but because we have not gotten there yet, I would read the provision as a whole,
    It would read:
    “undermine the deliberative process on the part of the President or the Vice-President”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:54 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, I believe your next proposed amendment deals with the same paragraph. I am surprised you did not combine them. You are also calling on us to delete “by inhibiting the free and frank provision of advice”; is that it?
    Mr Banda 5:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:54 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, you would then move the two amendments together and then we discuss the subcluase.
    Mr Banda 5:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, subclause (1), paragraph (b), sub- paragraph (i), lines 2 to 4, delete “by
    inhibiting the free and frank provision of advice or exchange of views”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would then read 5:54 p.m.
    “Information is exempt from disclosure where
    (b) the information contains matters the disclosure of which would reveal information concerning opinion, advice, deliberation, recommendations, minutes or consultations made or given to the President or the Vice- President and is likely to
    (i) undermine the deliberative process on the part of the President or the Vice- President.”
    Mr Speaker, I thank you.
    Dr Kwaku Afriyie 5:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause (b) is either moot if you take into consideration subclause (a), or if it is not a moot point, then the question raised by the Hon Samuel Atta-Mills is relevant as far as subclause (b) is concerned. Who makes the determination?
    Mr Speaker, if any information prepared for submission to the President or the Vice President for consideration is then exempt from disclosure, then it means that alone is considered; then it means subclause (b) is not too relevant. But if we insist that the contents are relevant, then there must be a determination.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:54 p.m.
    I thought we have gone beyond that.
    Hon Member, you said the determina- tion is by the one generating the information. If you request from the man
    Dr Afriyie 5:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, then I would say my submission is that we should keep it simple by deleting the whole of subcluase (b) and keep subclause (a). It is because it answers it.
    My submission is that, if even the very process of submitting something to the President does not make anybody have the locus to demand for a disclosure, then it means it covers everything because the content then becomes irrelevant.
    You cannot say that because I suspect that it contains this, I am forcing you to disclose. This is because the very process itself is saying that if that submission is intended for the President or the Vice President, one is not eligible to disclose anything.
    Mr Banda 5:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that we need to read the whole provision in order to be able to get the sense of it.
    It is not because the information is destined for the Office of the President or the Vice President that is making the information exempt.
    It is because the disclosure is likely to undermine the deliberative process on the part of the President. Every exemption clause has what we call -- the disclosure must occasion a prejudice or a harm in order to make it exempt.
    If the information does not occasion a harm or a prejudice, that information is not exempt. That is the reason there is a qualifier under clause 5 (1)(b) which says, “and is likely to undermine”. So, one must read 5(1)(a)(b) and (i) together in order to understand what the provision is saying.
    Mr Speaker, so we cannot delete clause (b) and leave (a) to stand alone. So, subclause (b) is very important and must be read in conjunction with subclause (a) to get the sense of what the exemption clause says.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:54 p.m.
    Hon Members, let me listen to the Hon Ranking Member.
    Alhaji Fuseini 6:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the provision is very relevant. The subclause (a) is very broad. We seek to legislate the enjoyment of a right under article 21 (1) and we must not put fetters on the way.
    We must not make it difficult for people to access information. That is why at any turn of the Bill, we try to narrow the exemptions, so that citizens could have access to information.
    So, subclause (b) seeks to say that minutes, opinions, advice, deliberation or anything, which may be disclosed, could
    be prepared for the President or the Vice President, except where it would undermine the deliberative process.
    So, the text there is that one could be entitled to that, provided one could show that the information would not undermine any deliberative process.
    We want citizens to enjoy their rights, so we do not want the Executive or any office to be given wild powers to say that an information is exempt when it would not, at least, cause any harm. That is why we have put limitations on the provisions.
    Mr Ebenezer O. Terlabi 6:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 5(1) (a) --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:04 p.m.
    We have finished with clause 5(1)(a); we are now at clause 5(1)(b)(i).
    Mr Terlabi 6:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on clause 5(1)(a), information is exempt from disclosure where it is prepared for submission or it has been submitted to the President. That is different from paragraph (b), which qualifies the Vice President. Paragraph (b) qualifies where the disclosure would affect deliberation, opinion et cetera.
    The first one states clearly that any information that is submitted to the President or the Vice President is exempt, whether it would affect opinions et cetera; that is blanket. So, the others that would affect opinions would also be submitted to the President.
    Why do we have paragraph (b)? Paragraph (a) should just stand in for — [Interruption.] If paragraph (a) means that anything that goes to the President is exempt whether it would affect a decision or not, then why paragraph (b)? It does not matter.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:04 p.m.
    There is a difference. Paragraph (a) deals with information that is prepared for submission. It means that it has not yet been submitted, or it is exempt when it has been submitted. Paragraph (b) talks about information that is with a person and has not been submitted.
    It is not for submission; it is information that is likely to reveal the source of advice or opinion. Where the information contains matters, the disclosure of which would reveal information concerning opinions which has not been submitted, but in it there is some information that an advice of this nature comes from a particular person to the President and they do not want to reveal --
    As we preside here, the right procedure is that when you get advice from technical people in giving a ruling, we do not disclose that this ruling was as a result of advice obtained from a particular person. So, there is some difference.
    Mr Terlabi 6:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that information is with the President or the Vice President.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:04 p.m.
    No, it is not with the President or the Vice President; it is with the one that generates, holds or preserves the information. This is because we have talked about generation, protection and preservation. It does not prevent you from raising an issue and proceeding to court.
    We would get to provisions on that. One could go to court on the refusal to be given that information; it is unlawful. And the court would go through it and interpret.
    Alhaji I. Fuseini 6:04 p.m.
    I would want to see whether I could help bring out the difference.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:04 p.m.
    Hon Members, once they are exempt clauses, we must be very careful the way we draft them. That is why I am granting a lot of room for discussion.
    Mr Rockson-Nelson E. Dafeamekpor 6:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the seeming confusion is with the controlling headline. We are dealing with information within the Presidency. Clause 5(1) is the controlling clause. Clause 5(1)(a) gives the first range of information submitted to the President or the Vice President for consideration, and are supposed to be exempted. It also gives another range of information.

    It is yet to be submitted to the President. It is within the establishment. So, clearly, it is true that the first range of material or information that are exempted are materially different from the second range. So, I support the position of the Hon Ranking Member.
    Mr Speaker 6:04 p.m.
    I would now read the rendition, so that I can put the Question.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:04 p.m.
    Hon Member --
    Mr Terlabi 6:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the explanation we have just been given is what we are to go by -- that everybody works for the President -- then which information could be given out and which could be considered as affecting a decision or a deliberation at the Presidency?
    The District or Municipal Chief Executives (MCE) or (DCE) could say this decision would affect a certain decision that is going to be taken by the President as well as the Municipal Chief Executive (MCE). Must every single thing go to court? No, we may not have that time to go to court.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:14 p.m.
    Now, when you move to clause 5(2) it reads:
    “Information which contains factual or statistical data and does not disclose information concerning a deliberation or decision of the Office of the President or of the Vice President is not exempt information.”
    Those are facts, statistical data and not an issue of opinion, advice. It is not one
    Mr Ablakwa 6:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is another concern I have on clause 5(1) (a) which talks of where the information prepared for submission or is submitted to the Office of the President, or the Vice President.
    Mr Speaker, I want to find out if we want to leave it like this or add some time limit to prevent abuse so that --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:14 p.m.
    Not in this clause but other clauses.
    Mr Ablakwa 6:14 p.m.
    All right.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:14 p.m.
    Those things will come in. Hon Members, when we put a Question on a clause, we should not be taken back because you have a doubt as to -- Maybe, you can propose further consideration to the clause later on.
    So, the proposed amendment in clause 5(1) (b) is not to delete in line 1, “if it”, on which we have already put the Question but to delete; “in the Office of” in item (i) and insert “on the part of”. In lines 2, 3 and 4, delete: “by inhibiting the free and frank provision of advice or exchange of views”.
    Hon Ranking Member, apart from being on your feet, you were also on your hand.
    Alhaji Fuseini 6:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I realised that by my feet, I could not arrest the question and so I had to raise my hand as well.
    Mr Speaker, in clause 5(1) (b) (i) after “or” delete “of”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:14 p.m.
    So: on the part of, “of the President or the Vice President”, there is a repetition of “of”. You are right.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:14 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, we are now at item (x) of page 9 of the Order Paper.
    Mr Banda 6:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, subclause (2), delete all the words after “data” up to the end of the subclause and insert “is not exempt”.
    The new rendition reads:
    “Information which contains factual or statistical data is not exempt”.
    I will seek your leave to add “information” to “is not exempt”. So, it will read:
    “Information which contains factual or statistical data is not exempt information”.
    Mr Speaker, this is because in the preceding provisions, we have indicated that information bordering opinions, minutes, advice, and deliberations are exempt.
    So, there is no need to repeat same under sub-clause 2 and that is why we seek to delete “not disclose information concerning a deliberation or decision of the Office of the President or of the Vice President” and make it simple: “informa- tion which contains factual or statistical data is not exempt information”
    Mr Dafeamekpor 6:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have been trying to catch your eye for some time until the Hon Chairman moved his amendment.
    Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance in this matter. There is no advertised amendment to clause 5(1) (b) (ii) and I wish to seek your leave to propose an amendment to the word; “prejudice”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:14 p.m.
    Hon Member, what did you say? Clause 5(1) (b) (ii). Yes?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 6:14 p.m.
    I seek your leave to propose an amendment that the word: “prejudice” be deleted and we insert the word; “damage” as in “damage national security”.
    This is because we are legislating regarding a Constitutional right to access information and when we use the word, “prejudice”, to me, the standard is of a lower threshold than when we use the word “damage”.
    My fear is that when we leave the words as “prejudice national security”, any information officer, whose responsibility it is to degenerate information of this nature, can simply say that an information prejudices national security.
    Mr Speaker, so on that grounds, he or she will not accede to one's request, but when the information is likely to cause damage to national security, it is of a higher threshold and I believe that, because this is of a constitutional right, we must have recourse to the higher threshold unless that the information can cause damage to national security, it ought not to be exempted.
    That is why I seek your leave, that because the amendment I am proposing is not advertised --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:14 p.m.
    Hon Member, I refuse the leave. Let us go on to the amendment on the Floor. If you want to submit that for further consideration, you may do so at the Table Office.
    They will put it on the Order Paper and maybe, tomorrow, we can go through it. We need to move ahead today.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 6:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, very well. I take a cue.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:24 p.m.
    So, if there is still cleaning up to be done -- But I just want to draw your attention that the word: “prejudice” is a term of art in security. The word “damage” is not.
    You know how you have to determine the issue of damage or damages. It is for you to consider and come back properly tomorrow.
    So, let us consider the amendment on the Floor.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:24 p.m.
    So, clause 5, subclause (2) would now read: “Information which contains factual or statistical data is not exempt information.”
    Mr Iddrisu 6:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it appears that my amendment has been taken care of by the very amendment to which you have put the Question.
    If you look at 5 (1) (a) and (b), my amendment was to say that “notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1)…”, even though I hear that the language is to say “despite the provisions of subsection (1), information which contains factual or statistical data
    is not exempt information” is only for the abundance of caution.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that the way the Hon Chairman has put it renders mine moot.
    Mr Speaker, so with your leave I beg to withdraw the proposed amendment so that you could put the Question.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:24 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would go to item numbered (xii).
    Mr Banda 6:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that the same thing applies to my proposed amendment --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:24 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would move to item numbered (xiii), which stands in the name of the Hon Member for Suhum but he is not available so we would move on.
    Clause 5 as variously amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 6 -- Information relating to Cabinet
    Mr Banda 6:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 6, subclause (1), paragraph (c), subparagraph (iii), lines 1 to 3, delete “by inhibiting the free and frank provision of advice or exchange of views.”
    Mr Speaker, so the new rendition would read 6:24 p.m.
    “Information is exempt from disclosure” --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:24 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, I thought that you were going to capture the earlier renditions that you gave so that we could do away with the “if it” and so on.
    Mr Banda 6:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so; but I thought that I should deal with this one first.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:24 p.m.
    But you have to do it at the controlling clause first; that is clause 6 (i), then it could flow through.
    Mr Banda 6:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your leave, if I may amend the preamble provision to read: “Information is exempt from disclosure (a) where the information is prepared”.
    Mr Speaker, so we seek to delete “if it” so that it reads 6:24 p.m.
    “Information is exempt from disclosure where the information is prepared for submission to Cabinet or submitted to Cabinet for consideration or
    …”
    Mr Speaker, again, I would seek your leave to delete --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:24 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, let me put the Question on clause 6 (1) (a).
    Mr Iddrisu 6:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if your good self and the Hon Chairman is amenable, the controlling clause, instead of dealing with the “if it”, we could say that “Information is exempt from disclosure provided...” then we delete the “if” throughout.
    So, that it would read: “Information is exempt from disclosure...”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:24 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, at clause 5 we inserted “where the information” -- that is a better
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:24 p.m.


    drafting than what you are proposing. So, we are inserting “where the information” so that we delete the “if it” from (a) and (b).

    I would put the Question on the first one.
    Mr Alexander Kwamena Afenyo- Markin 6:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, per the rendition, “the information is exempt from disclosure where the information” -- That is the controlling clause. But if we come to (a), we repeat “the information”. We already have it there so why do we not --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:24 p.m.
    We are not repeating it in (a).
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 6:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, then with what you read earlier it appears so.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:24 p.m.
    “Where the information” is part of the opening of clause 6 (1), not the (a) -- It reads:
    “6 (1) Information is exempt from disclosure where the information
    (a) is prepared.”
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 6:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, is it the case that what you just read is all part of the controlling clause?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:24 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 6:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, then may we hear you again on the new rendition?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:24 p.m.
    Controlling sentence of clause 6 (1): “Information is exempt from disclosure where the information...” and then we delete “if it” from (a), (b) and (c).
    We are now dealing with clause 6 (1) (a) and I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 6:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your leave, I would amend clause 6(1) (b) by the deletion of “if” and “it” and between “is” and “official” delete “an” so that it reads:
    “(b) where the information is official information from Cabinet not published or released to the public.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:34 p.m.
    Which information from Cabinet is not official? Is there any information from Cabinet that is not official?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 6:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we deleted “official”. So, I thought he would delete “official”.
    Dr Kwaku Afriyie 6:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, wise cracks in Cabinet are not official.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:34 p.m.
    Sorry?
    Dr Kwaku Afriyie 6:34 p.m.
    Wise cracks, jokes or whatever. [Laughter.]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:34 p.m.
    But is that coming from Cabinet? It might be coming from an individual and not from Cabinet.
    Dr Kwaku Afriyie 6:34 p.m.
    All right.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:34 p.m.
    Cabinet is a collective position. The decision taken there is what we are talking about.
    Ms Safo 6:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the Hon Ranking Member elaborated on what we have done earlier by the deletion of the word “official”.
    To make progress, I am further proposing to the amendment that has been proposed by the Hon Chairman that in clause 6, subclause (1), paragraph (b), instead of deleting only “an”, we delete “an official” so that the new rendition would read:
    “6. (1) Information is exempt from disclosure --
    (a) where the information is information from Cabinet not published or released to the public”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:34 p.m.
    Why do we have to repeat the word “information”? It should be:
    “where the information is from Cabinet not published or released to the public”.
    You do not have to repeat the word “information”.
    The proposed amendment is:
    “6. (1) Information is exempt from disclosure --
    (a) where the information is from Cabinet not published or released to the public”.
    Now, could somebody tell me the differences between publication and
    releasing to public? I do not know. What is the difference?
    Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Iddrisu 6:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, precisely the Question you have posed, and to add to it, what happens between the flow of information from Cabinet to Parliament?
    If all these matters like value for money, procurements and others would be information coming from Cabinet to Parliament and the public may be desirous of knowing more about it, what happens to it? Would information from Cabinet to Parliament be exempt and why would it be exempt?
    This is because this is the House of transparency and accountability and this is where citizens can reach out to us to probe more questions about any transaction of government.
    I am adding to your Question about public. Then, what happens to Parliament since for this purpose, Parliament becomes a representative of the public? Why are we exempting information that we say is not published or released to the public? What if it is released to Parliament? [Interruption.] At what stage? --
    Absolutely, so, I am arguing that Parliament is public -- And so what happens? This is because Parliament does not appear --
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 6:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the intendment of the provision is to still safeguard information emanating from Cabinet not intended for public consumption either by publication or by release.
    However, Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader's intervention has drawn my attention to recent happenings in this
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 6:34 p.m.
    House where we were considering the Military Cooperation Agreement between Ghana and the United States of Amerian, and the issue was, at what point was the Agreement made public?

    As for that, I get the sense, because until the information comes here, it ought to be exempt from disclosure. I get the sense that way; but at what point does it become a public document? That is my issue.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:34 p.m.
    When information is submitted from any institution or office to the Clerk to Parliament or the Speaker, it is not published. It is when it is laid in the House that it is considered as publication.
    However, there is still a problem with that clause, and we need to look critically at it. The clause says:
    “6. (1) Information is exempt from disclosure
    (b) where the information is from Cabinet not published or released to the public”.
    Is it that it is not published or meant for public consumption? What is the meaning?
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:34 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Appiah-Kubi?
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 6:34 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Information that is not released to the general public is information about which a decision has not yet been taken. So long as a decision has not been taken, it remains a private information of the Cabinet.
    We can probably reformulate the rendition by saying:
    “6. (1) Information is exempt from disclosure
    (c) where the information is of a Cabinet memorandum in relation to which a decision has not been taken”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:34 p.m.
    Hon Member, where are you? [Laughter.]
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 6:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am at clause 6, subclause (1) (b). Is that not what we are discussing?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:34 p.m.
    Well, I do not see “Cabinet memorandum” and the rest.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 6:44 p.m.
    But what sort of information are we then discussing? It can only be a memorandum of a Cabinet about which a decision has not yet been taken.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:44 p.m.
    Not necessarily.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 6:44 p.m.
    What else?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:44 p.m.
    Cabinet?
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 6:44 p.m.
    Yes, Cabinet Memorandum.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:44 p.m.
    But not all information from Cabinet are in the form of memoranda.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 6:44 p.m.
    Then it is meant for public consumption so it must be released. But so long as a decision has not yet been taken, it means that it is not meant for public consumption. That is how I see it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:44 p.m.
    Yes, so speak to the Motion and let us see the amendment you are making, because this one is just general commentary you are making.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 6:44 p.m.
    The rendition that I am suggesting is:
    ‘‘Information is exempt from disclosure if the information is of a Cabinet Memorandum in relation to which a decision has not yet been taken”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe if we read clause 6 (1) (b), the application of the word “not or” in tandem, the reason would come out.
    It is like saying if it is official information from Cabinet, which is neither published nor released to the public; but we know that we do not use “neither nor” in drafting, which is why it is stated “ not published or released”.
    So, we should read it together, and if we do, the rationale would come out. Mr Speaker, that is how it is supposed to be.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:44 p.m.
    I just asked the question for clarification as to publication and releasing to the public. Does releasing to the public not constitute publication?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if it is published, you can say that it has been gazetted from the Cabinet. Or as our rules provide:
    “official publication” means any publication produced by or under the authority or with the sanction of any ministry, department or, organisation….”
    So Mr Speaker, that is the publication we are talking about. If a matter is introduced in Parliament --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:44 p.m.
    Read the definition again.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:44 p.m.
    Official publication, it is not merely --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:44 p.m.
    Yes, official publication.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:44 p.m.
    Yes, I am saying that it means “any publication produced by or under the authority or with the sanction of any ministry, department or organisation…”
    So I am saying that “publish” in this context is akin to our definition of publication in the rules.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:44 p.m.
    There is a proposed amendment to delete the word “official” from the Bill.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, because we are taking a cue from the Constitution, it relates to right to information and not right to official information. I believe that is the distinction.
    Mr Richard M.K.Quashigah 6:44 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, I believe clause 6 (1) (b), “information from Cabinet not published or released to the public” -- “not
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was just drawing the attention of my Hon Colleague, the Hon Member of Parliament for Keta, to the fact that some information could come to Parliament, representatives of the public, which may not be published.
    For instance, if a matter should come to us for us to consider under a certificate of urgency, let us say it is a Bill, it is not published. It is for us.
    Even though we represent the public, it may still be confidential to the extent that the Committee would go and consider it and after the Committee has made a determination, then it would be published.
    Mr Speaker, there are matters that also border national security, which may come to Parliament. The Speaker would refer to the Committee on Defence and Interior, and some jurisdictions would be told to keep the Report until after some time has elapsed.
    In that case, it comes to Parliament, but it is still not published, so there is a world of distinction.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:44 p.m.
    Hon Members, we may need to clarify that paragraph, maybe, by inserting “not contained in a publication or released to the public”. This is because we are talking about an official publication, but when we say “not published” and then say “released to the public”, that is not too clear.
    But when we are talking about official publication, where an institution usually releases some information in the forms of publications -- [Interruption.] With this one, we are talking about Cabinet, and Cabinet has some published documents.
    If that information is not contained in that kind of document -- just general information that is released. For example, sometimes after a Cabinet meeting, the Hon Minister for Information is authorised to release some information to the public.
    That is different from the official publication; that document is usually an authentic source of information from Cabinet.
    So I thought we should add “not contained in a publication or released to the public”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:44 p.m.
    It is exactly not the same -- [Laughter.] When you say “not published” -- As for publication, it can be in any form. But when you say “released to the public” -- Again, when you release something to the public, what is it? It is published.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just wanted to reinforce the point that you made; Cabinet. Cabinet meets, decisions are taken relating to certain sectors, but maybe a Minister of Information is asked to condense the discussions and put it out there.That
    publication is under the seal or the authority of the President and it is an official publication.
    So, Mr Speaker, I get the sense in what you want to propose, but I believe in this case, with respect, the value is the same if we leave it as it is.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:54 p.m.
    What is the sense of the House so that I could put the Question?
    Yes, Hon Ranking Member?
    Alhaji Fuseini 6:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when we read the two words together, they mean different things at different times. Mr Speaker, in Cabinet, a decision could be taken, intended for Cabinet members only. That decision is neither published, nor is it released to the public.
    So, when that decision is taken in Cabinet and it is intended only for the consumption of Cabinet, it is not published. So you cannot put in an application to access that information. Or that information is not intended to be released to the public; you cannot put in an application for it.
    Mr Speaker, I see the difference, and to be able to assist, I will cite the case of the American invasion or attack on Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. It was a decision; the decision was made but it was not published.
    It was when the action took place — The decision was taken but you could not access that information. But when the information was released to the public after the event, it became available. So, we must look at the distinction carefully.
    And from my experience as a former Cabinet Minister - your good self knows that decisions could be taken in Cabinet and you are told that only those in Cabinet must know. [Interruption.] Yes, and that is it. It is not published.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:54 p.m.
    Hon Members, there are words preceding what we are trying to amend and the words talk about information “from”. It is from Cabinet to where? It is information from. What he talked about is information in Cabinet but this one talks about information from Cabinet. That is different from information in Cabinet.
    Yes, let me listen to the Hon Chairman.
    Alhaji Fuseini 6:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he just drew my attention to happenings in Cabinet. Sometimes they would give you the documents and they would give you fifteen minutes to look through the document and after that they would send somebody around to take all the documents back. It is not published and you may not even remember the document.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:54 p.m.
    That information is in Cabinet; it is not from Cabinet.
    Alhaji Fuseini 6:54 p.m.
    I believe that we should amend it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:54 p.m.
    We are talking about information from Cabinet, not information in Cabinet.
    Yes, Hon Chairman, let us listen you.
    Mr Banda 6:54 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the sense of the provision is captured. To say that information has been published is to mean that the information has been made available to the public. That is what publication means.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:54 p.m.
    You are from the old school.
    Mr Banda 6:54 p.m.
    That is the meaning of the publication of information. This is because, impliedly, you say the informa- tion has been published—
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:54 p.m.
    In a printed form?
    Mr Banda 6:54 p.m.
    Yes, it is printed ---[Interruption]----
    So, Mr Speaker, publication means making the information available to the public. So, in my view, Mr Speaker, there is nothing wrong with the provision because it seeks to say that any information emanating from Cabinet which has not been published -- Or we could also say, “information in Cabinet which has not been published”.
    Mr Speaker, the net effect of it is that the information has not been made available to the public. In my opinion, that is all that, this provision seeks to say. So, “released to the public” also means that, it has been made available to the public. Mr Speaker, that is the intendment of the provision.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:54 p.m.
    So, there is a further amendment to the paragraph by deleting “from” and inserting “in”.

    Hon Members, does this provision deal with information that is before Cabinet and

    not published? This is because “information in Cabinet or at Cabinet” is usually not the terminology. But it is information before Cabinet -- So the clause would now read:

    “Information is exempt from disclosure (b) where the information is before Cabinet not published or released to the public”.

    This is because we are trying to differentiate between “publication” and “released to the public” although, in my view, they are the same value.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I appreciate the sense in this latter proposal except that, if a matter is before Parliament, for instance, it is being considered by Parliament. If it is before Cabinet, it is being considered by Cabinet.
    Once business on it has been finished and perhaps it has been lodged in the archives, it is no longer before Cabinet. Yet, those pieces of information may not be released or be published.
    That is why I thought that “information at Cabinet or in Cabinet” is better than “information before Cabinet”. “Information before Cabinet” is for consideration. Once you have dispatched business with it, it is no longer before Parliament or Cabinet.
    So, I would rather go for “in Cabinet” or “at Cabinet”. The “at Cabinet” is at the Cabinet level or the level of Parliament.
    Mr Speaker, I would rather go for the earlier proposal, either “in Cabinet” or “at Cabinet” but certainly not “before Cabinet”.
    Mr Speaker, I would rather go for the earlier proposal, either “in Cabinet” or “at Cabinet” but certainly not “before Cabinet”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:04 p.m.
    I have not read or heard “information at Cabinet”. I know of “information before Cabinet”, which means that it is for consideration. You are right, but when you say “at Cabinet” and you want to distinguish that it is not for consideration, I find it difficult to get the sense in it.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there are various places in your own Standing Orders which employ the word “at”. For example, “members attending at Parliament” and “matters at Parliament”. There are many places in the Standing Orders where we have such construc-tion.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:04 p.m.
    Look at the verb, “attending”. That is why “at” is there.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is a matter of grammatical gymnastics.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:04 p.m.
    We say “the Paper is before Parliament; we do not say “the Paper is at Parliament”.
    Mr Quashigah 7:04 p.m.
    Hon Leader, thank you so much --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:04 p.m.
    Hon Member, I am the Second Deputy Speaker, and not the Leader when I am in this Chair. I was the Hon Majority Leader some years ago. Now, I am the Second Deputy Speaker.
    Mr Quashigah 7:04 p.m.
    Apologies, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, looking at the proposal from the Hon Majority Leader, subjecting it to an interpretation could appear right. So, would the suggestion “before Cabinet” also in another vein sounds right?
    If it is at Cabinet, in my view, it could be that deliberations on it have been concluded, it is still at Cabinet and has not been released in any other quarters. If it is before Cabinet, it could mean that it is subject to deliberation. So, Cabinet is yet to deliberate on it. It is before Cabinet for deliberation.
    It could also be at Cabinet at the point where deliberations have concluded but has not been released to any other person. So, the document is still within the domain of Cabinet; it is at Cabinet level. So I believe the two would have different meanings.
    Mr Iddrisu 7:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we should distinguish between “information at Cabinet” or “within Cabinet” and “information from Cabinet” to the public and probably to this House.
    It is not for nothing that we have what we call Cabinet Oath and Oath of Secrecy. We must admit that in this particular provision, we are watering down the right of access to information in Cabinet and from Cabinet to the public.
    When our democracy evolves and becomes stronger, I am sure that we might someday, in the foreseeable future, say that matters at Cabinet -- so long as we operate this Constitution -- their secrecy has to be religiously protected.
    Mr Speaker, given your experience, you have been a Cabinet Minister before. There are matters which are referred to Committees back and forth to guide a decision or deliberation. At that point, we cannot say that the information is being published or released to the public.
    So, we are saying that information relating to Cabinet would be exempt from disclosure so long as Cabinet exhausts its obligations and responsibilities relative
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:04 p.m.
    We are just trying to decide whether to use the words “at Cabinet” or “before Cabinet”. That is the issue.
    Mr Kwabena Ohemeng-Tinyase 7:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, looking at the two words before us now, I propose that we use the word “with”, to carry the notion that the information on the proposal discussed is still with Parliament or Cabinet.
    In this case, “with Cabinet” means it has not been released in any form or by any means to the general public.
    So, the information or decisions taken are still with Cabinet. Therefore, one does not have the right --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:04 p.m.
    Hon Member, I have not heard of that phraseology. I know about information
    that is still “at Cabinet” or that is “before Cabinet”. I do not know about “information with Cabinet”.
    Mr Ohemeng-Tinyase 7:04 p.m.
    The word “with” could carry it there and it is before it.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect to my Hon Colleague, that word he is drafting is unfriendly. It is not known to the draftpersons, so let us deal with either “at” or “in”.
    Mr Speaker, you could put the Question on either “in” or “at” and we would make progress.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:04 p.m.
    Either “at” or “before”?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:04 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, not “before”. We have already dealt with
    -- 7:04 p.m.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:04 p.m.
    “at Cabinet” or “in Cabinet”?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:04 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, “in Cabinet” or “at Cabinet” level.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:04 p.m.
    I would put the Question on “at” and then if it is rejected, we would go to the next.
    Hon Members, the proposed amendment is to delete from clause 6, subclause 1, paragraph (b), these words: “if it is an official information from” and insert “at”.
    The whole subclause would read:
    “(1) Information is exempt from disclosure
    (b) where the information is at Cabinet, not published or released to the public”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:14 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, there is still a number of proposed amendments to clause 6.
    Mr Banda 7:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 6 -- subclause (1), paragraph (c), subparagraph (iii), lines 1 to 3, delete “by inhibiting the free and frank provision of advice or exchange of views”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition reads 7:14 p.m.
    “6. (1) Information is exempt from disclosure where
    (c) the information contains matters the disclosure of which would reveal information concerning opinion, advice, deliberation, recommendation, minutes or consultations made and is likely to
    (iii) undermine the deliberative process in Cabinet.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 7:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 6 -- sub-clause (2), delete all the words after “data” up to the end of the subclause and insert “is not exempt information”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 7:14 p.m.
    “Information which contains factual or statistical data is not exempt information”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:14 p.m.
    Hon Members, we did the same thing in clause
    5(2). It is the same rendition that the Hon Chairman is proposing for clause 6 (2).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    There is still a proposed amendment to clause 6 standing as (xvi).
    Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Banda 7:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would seek your leave to withdraw the proposed amendment captured as (xvi).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:14 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, leave is granted.

    Clause 6 as variously amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Hon Majority Leader, any indication?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just returned and I do not want you to provide further and better particulars about whoever is suffering from the diminishing returns. [Laughter.]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:14 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, the response from the House is now in monotones. Clearly, from the Chair, one can glean that there is diminishing returns. It now being 7.20 p.m., I have got the sense of the House that the House should call it a day. Is that the sense of the House?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when the Chair requests, whether what

    you said is the sense of the House, the response certainly cannot be -- [Hear! Hear!] It should be “Aye”. [Laughter.]

    Mr Speaker, but I agree with you that we have done considerably well today and so we can take an adjournment and continue tomorrow.
    Alhaji Fuseini 7:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought that when you asked the question as to whether that was the sense of the House, that was an invitation to either agree or disagree with you.
    I waited for the Hon Majority Leader to either agree or disagree. But it seems that the Hon Majority Leader has agreed that you have adequately judged and assessed the sense of the House.
    So, we are entirely in your hands, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree that we are exhausted and we must leave here to have some rest.
    Mr Speaker, but I just would want to provide some information. When Mr Speaker requests to adjourn the House, often times, we see that immediately you
    make the proclamation or pronouncement, Hon Members rise.
    That is not how it is done. We should sit for Mr Speaker to rise before we rise. That is how it should be.
    Otherwise, if Hon Members rise before the Speaker, it is made to appear as if we would want to hurry the Speaker out and that cannot be. In deference to the Chair, Mr Speaker must rise and then we all rise in unison. That is how it should be.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:14 p.m.
    Hon Members, this brings us to the end of Consideration Stage.
    Hon Members, Mr Speaker does not request for the adjournment of the House; he adjourns the House.
    Mr Speaker can try to get the sense of the House whether it is the view of the House that it be adjourned. He does not request for adjournment.
    ADJOURNMENT 7:14 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 7.24 p.m. till Wednesday, 18th July, 2018 at 10.00 a.m.