Debates of 13 Nov 2018

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:05 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:05 a.m.
Hon Members, we would take item listed as 2 -- Correction of Votes and Proceedings and the Official Report.
Hon Members, we have the Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 9th November, 2018 for correction.
Hon Members, any corrections?
Page 1…8
rose
Mr Speaker 10:05 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Alhaji Fuseini 10:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am sorry to take you back to page 7.
Mr Speaker 10:05 a.m.
All right, you may proceed.
Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 10:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, on page 8, I am recorded on entry 23 as being absent. However, I was present in this House and indeed, I had even attended a committee meeting, which is recorded on pages 16 and 17. I was therefore at your Committee's meeting up to 1.10 p. m., when the Sitting adjourned.
Mr Speaker 10:05 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Member. It would be corrected accordingly.
rose
Mrs Owusu-Ekuful 10:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, I would want to move for the suspension of Sitting, in view of the fact that both caucuses are currently unavailable.
Mr Speaker 10:05 a.m.
Hon Member, I cannot hear you.
Mrs Owusu-Ekuful 10:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to move for the suspension of Sitting, in view of the fact that both caucuses --
Mr Speaker 10:05 a.m.
Hon Member, you may want to consider matters of suspension later.
rose
Mr Speaker 10:05 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Chireh 10:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member acting in the stead of the Hon Majority Leader should allow us to finish with the correction of the Official Report before saying what she wishes to say.
Mr Speaker 10:05 a.m.
Hon Members, any corrections on the Official Report?
  • [No correction was made to the Official Report of Thursday, 1st November, 2018.]
    • Mr Speaker 10:05 a.m.
    Hon Members, we have an official communication from the President.
    ANNOUNCEMENTS 10:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker 10:05 a.m.
    There are no Statements to be made so we would move to Commencement of Public Business.
    Mrs Owusu-Ekuful 10:05 a.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 10:05 a.m.
    Just a moment, Hon Member.
    Is Hon Annoh-Dompreh in the House? Hon Annoh-Dompreh, are you inclined towards making your Statement? I am sorry there was a Statement to be made.
    Mr Patrick Y. Boamah 10:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, he is in the caucus meeting. He is not in the Chamber at the moment.
    Mr Speaker 10:05 a.m.
    If Hon Annoh-Dompreh is not in the Chamber, is Hon Abena Durowaa in the House?
    Ms Abena Durowaa Mensah 10:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, please, I am here.
    Mr Speaker 10:05 a.m.
    Very well. Hon Member, you may proceed with your Statement.
    STATEMENTS 10:05 a.m.
    Ms Abena Durowaa Mensah (NPP -- Assin North) 10:05 a.m.
    Thank you Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to be heard on this growing phenomenon of street begging, especially on the streets of capital cities and the disturbing use of children in this activity.
    Mr Speaker, some years ago, begging in Ghana was rare. Now, begging, especially in the capital cities is happening on every street corner and every pavement in the central business districts, particularly Accra, Kumasi and Tamale.
    Mr Speaker, although begging is illegal and can lead to prosecution of both the beggar and the giver, (The Beggars and Destitute Act of 1969(NLCD 392) which criminalises the act of begging and giving to beggars, I still would not have made this Statement calling for stricter enforcement of the law, if the use of children had been kept out of the begging enterprise.
    Mr Speaker, begging in Ghana has become a “lucrative” enterprise where the entrepreneurs sit either in their homes or under shades created close to street corners and send children right onto the streets to extract money from car owners and passengers, using the natural sympathy that flows for vulnerable children as a weapon for money making.
    Mr Speaker, the typical Ghanaian culture accommodates physically-chal- lenged people begging for alms and actually encourages the giving of alms to the poor.
    However, the attempt by some citizens, and now foreigners, to commercialise this cultural orientation of Ghanaians, and worse of all employ the services of children in the act is worrying, unacceptable and unconscionable.
    I respectfully call on this House to debate this phenomenon and help push for the creation of a comprehensive policy that could give protection to children on our streets, sanction parents in this exploitation business and help sanitise life on our streets.
    Some of the hazards encountered by the children in the begging business include:
    Rape and sexual abuse.
    Victims of road traffic accidents.
    Exposure to vices of drug abuse.
    Poor health outcomes from dehy- dration, poor food sources and absence of sanitary facilities.
    The State would spend more in the future to take care of these children who will grow without any formal education.
    Mr Speaker, the cities, and by extension the citizens suffer some negative effects as well.
    The children urinate on the streets and use the drains as toilet facilities.
    Road users, drivers and pedestrians experience interruption of their business activities; and they
    Create an unsafe driving environ- ment where accidents are more likely to occur.
    Mr Speaker, the number of children being pushed onto the streets keep increasing by the day, with those of Sahelian origin (fair skinned beggars) leading the charge.
    On 25th of May 2018, the Accra Metropolitan Assembly in collaboration with the La Dadekotopon Municipal Assembly embarked on an exercise to rid the streets of beggars.
    Children as well as adults were arrested and sent away to detention centres. Within days, the children found their way back onto the streets. The Metropolitan and Municipal Assemblies have gone on a silent mode.
    Mr Speaker, the time to discuss this issue is now. Either we debate it now and get a comprehensive and sustainable
    policy or risk being flooded with beggars on the streets, at the mosques, in churches and even on the precincts of Parliament.
    It is worrying to have physically challenged people begging on the streets instead of getting some skills to be self sufficient.
    It is even more worrying, and in fact, depressing to see children who are the future of the country being pushed onto the streets to be used as tools for evoking sympathy which thus produces money for irresponsible parents turned begging entrepreneurs.
    I thank you for the opportunity.
    Mr Speaker 10:05 a.m.
    Thank you very much Hon Member for this well prepared timeous Statement with all these material particulars.
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Mr Patrick Y. Boamah (NPP -- Okaikoi Central) 10:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much, for the opportunity to contribute to this very important Statement ably made by my Colleague, the Hon Member for Assin North.
    Mr Speaker, it is worrying lately when you find able men and women around the street corners of this country begging for all sorts of things with the force that it requires. We all understand the situation in this country, and it has never been the culture of the Ghanaian to be in the street corner begging.
    Mr Speaker, this calls for serious reforms in the legislation that abhors beggars and destitutes, which is regulated by N.L.C.D 392 of 1969. Under section 1 of the legislation, with your permission, I quote:
    Mr Speaker 10:25 a.m.
    Thank you very much Hon Member for your very brilliant contribution.
    Dr Clement A. Apaak (NDC -- Builsa South) 10:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much for granting me permission to comment on the Statement ably made by my Hon Colleague on the other Side.
    Mr Speaker, as a man of God yourself, you would agree with me that begging is not a new phenomena as far as our humanity is concerned.
    I believe that even in the years of the holy books of Moses and in religion, references have been made to begging and beggars. However, the concern here has to do with the magnitude and intent, the participants and the type of risk that they are exposed to. It is within this context that I wholeheartedly agree with what has been stated and the solutions proposed.
    Mr Speaker, it is the truth that while we are aware of beggars and the begging culture, it is on the ascendency, and a number of factors can be adduced to justify it, including the influx of foreigners into our country who see this as perhaps the most basic way of sustaining themselves.
    Mr Speaker, there is also the disturbing trend which was stated that some have actually made this into an enterprise and business, where they recruit other persons with one form of disability or the other. They go to different parts of the country and bring very young children, or they simply do it themselves.
    Mr Speaker, the dangers involved are so many that we cannot enumerate all of them, but what I would highlight is the level of aggression that we are beginning to witness from some of these beggars.
    Everyone would agree that stops at all the major intersections in this capital would certainly always attract somebody who would come and knock at the windshield of your car or your door, seeking for you to dispense with one amount or the other.
    In doing so, I have noticed that some of them have become so aggressive that they even rain insults on you when you fail to part with a coin or two. This definitely is not the type of begging that we know of in the holy books of various religions, where we are encouraged to help the less fortunate. This is almost like an attack, and that is my worry.
    While we worry about the rape, the possible accidents, getting involved in drugs and other anti-social behaviour, we must also worry about the fact that there is a component to this enterprise that is going to become a danger to our personal security and our survival.
    Mr Speaker, I dare say that there is a group which is mostly made up of teenagers who also come to beg. Their strategy is to include a service that you do not even require of them, by cleaning the windshield of your car. After that they seek you to part with something, and if you do not do that, they adopt a very aggressive attitude.
    Mr Speaker, on most occasions, you can clearly see from the manners and demeanour of most of these young adults and teenagers that they are under one influence or the other.
    Mr Speaker, that is very dangerous for us, so I totally agree with the maker of the Statement, that we must take another look at this issue and deal with it.
    For those who legitimately fall below the poverty line and are incapable of fending for themselves through recog- nised economic means, the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection, Social Welfare, the Ministry of Em- ployment and Labour Relations and other State institutions could come in to help them so that we can segregate those who legitimately need help from those who are
    Mr Speaker 10:25 a.m.
    Thank you very much Hon Member, for this good contribution.
    Mr Emmanuel Gilbert Nii Narh Nartey (NPP -- Ablekuma Central) 10:25 a.m.
    Thank you Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, let me use this opportunity to thank the maker of the Statement this morning.
    Mr Speaker, personally, I see this begging business as a security threat to us as a nation. I am a victim in the sense that when you come to my constituency, we have a large number of people sleeping in front of people's stores, and in the morning they go onto the streets to beg.
    The question I ask myself is, how do these people get into this country? What is the responsibility of Ghana Immigration Service and Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration? What are they doing about it?
    Mr Speaker, apart from them going on the streets during the day to beg for money, in the evening, we see most of them taking their baths, throwing rubbish in our gutters and creating a lot of problems in the major streets of Accra.
    Recently, the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection started arresting some of these children on the streets. Just about a week or two later, we found them back on the streets, and the question you ask yourself is, what has happened to all the resources that were put together to ensure that these things were done?
    About a month ago, the Accra Metropolitan Assembly decided to do a similar exercise on the Circle-Obetsebi Road and the Airport Roundabout, through the High Street.
    Mr Speaker, this morning on my way to Parliament, I saw a lot of these people back on the streets. What is the responsibility of the stakeholders whose responsibility it is to ensure that these people are off the street?
    I agree with Hon Dr Apaak by saying that the institutions that are responsible need to arrest these people and deal with them accordingly, other than that we would be coming to this House, making Statements and contributing to the Statements, and we would not get to the end or bottom of it.
    It is a serious issue and we need to deal with it. Some are also victims. People take advantage of the young ladies and rape them in addition. If you go to the
    Central Police Station, we have a lot of these women coming to complain that they are being raped, especially those who always sleep at the Sikkens factory at Agbogbloshie.
    All these issues are matters of concern. It is a security threat to us, and some also come with their husbands and their wives, all at the expense of the taxpayer's money in this country.
    I am told that some come by air, others come by road. What about those who come by road, where are the immigration officers at the borders? Who brings them into this country?
    Mr Speaker, I believe the authorities have to sit up and make sure that we arrest some of these people and deal with them accordingly.
    Thank you Mr Speaker.
    10. 35 a. m.
    Mr Speaker 10:25 a.m.
    Thank you very much Hon Member.
    Hon Yieleh Chireh?
    Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh (NDC-- Wa West) 10:25 a.m.
    Thank you Mr Speaker. First of all, I am grateful that the maker of the Statement identified a number of issues that we need to tackle. She was calling for stricter law and enforcement and I agree with her on that.
    Mr Speaker, but over the years, governments have tried to resolve this problem. We recognised the problem and creates institutions to solve the problem.
    Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection as a result, is thinking
    about how we could help those who are vulnerable in our society; children, women and people with disabilities.
    Now there need to be a clear policy, and I believe this policy would help identify the issues clearly. Some of my Hon Colleagues are calling for proper research. You cannot bring out a policy to deal with an issue when there is no research backing it. And I believe that they have done so.
    The proposals for a social protection policy, which would protect beggars, children and all these other people that we are talking about today need to be fast- tracked.
    Indeed, beyond the policy, we need legislation, and this legislation should look at the Beggars and Destitutes Act. This is because that decree was a long time passed decree, it identified the issues but the institutions were not properly identified.
    If you look at the issue of begging on the streets, it is a very complex issue. Many of the people who have spoken before me have already raised them. To some, it is a business so, they get a disabled person or sometimes they fake a disablity stand at vantage points to beg.
    If we had done a thorough research of finding out who those begging are, we would realise that they are the same people. In the morning, they bring them very early in cars to sit at the place; they do all kinds of things there. So if we identify such people, the root cause could be tackled; who are those important people who are doing this?
    As for the begging, do not let us relate it only to those who are affected by matters in their own countries and have sought refuge in our country. To some, it was
    Mr Speaker 10:25 a.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon Yieleh Chireh for your usual elucidation.
    Yes, Hon Dr Boye?
    Dr Bernard Okoe Boye (NPP-- Ledzokuku) 10:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am most grateful for the opportunity. I am very happy that this morning, we have started the debate on the exploitation of children in this begging phenomenon.
    Mr Speaker, the country has put in place certain social interventions to help keep children in school. We have the capitation grant; we also have the school feeding programme. But, it is our duty to ensure that all children are allowed to be beneficiaries of these programmes.
    We have to stand up and speak for those who are being abused by their parents.
    Mr Speaker, I am usually oriented to giving to the poor because I have compassion just like your good Self. But I get very worried and sad when I see children who do not have any physical deformity but are being used as sympathy tools to extract money from Ghanaians, and most of the time, if not all the time, these moneys go to able-bodied parents.
    Mr Speaker, they do not only get money from the streets, they also pick a lot of vices. That is where they learn some of the survival skills that include stealing, robbery, thuggery, the aggression and all those things that one needs to survive on our streets.
    Mr Speaker, it is very important for Hon Members of this House to realise that if we do not do anything about this particular situation, it could only get worse. The solution to some of these problems also gets complicated as those involved in the activities become entrenched. And that is why I believe that this is the right time to talk about this particular phenomenon.
    Mr Speaker, it is not only in the interest of those who are on the streets to talk about this particular issues. It is in the interest of those in this House, those who are not on the streets but are in classrooms learning; it is in the interest of those who are well positioned to make sure that these children are protected and taken out of the streets.
    This is because that is the incubation chamber for raising the armed robbers who would knock on your door in the night when you have struggled and suffered to get a better position.
    Mr Speaker, I was very sad some few weeks ago when I drove past the Octagon Complex in the Central District of Accra. I met this young girl of about four years who was looking at me.
    In fact, she was starring both directions and I was wondering what she wanted to do. Right in traffic, I saw this girl go down, looking on sideways and just found a way of urinating on the street.
    Once a child is on the street, and that is where they live, we must know that they would find their toilet facilities on the street; they would find their refuse bins on the streets. That would be their house. And I believe the time has come for all the stakeholders to get up and do something about the situation.
    Mr Speaker, we have the Beggars and Destitutes Act of 1969 (NLCD 392) and the Hon Member who made the Statement made reference to it. If in the face of a law, we have a lot of people breaching it in a flagrant manner, what it tells us is that the law is impotent.
    Any law that is impotent deserves two things; either it is repealed or amended, and I am happy to say that this is the right place to look at those two options.
    I conclude by saying that as representatives of the people, one of the least things we could do to show compassion is to speak to those who find themselves in vulnerable positions.
    Thank you very much for the opportunity.
    Mr Speaker 10:25 a.m.
    Thank you very much, Dr Boye.
    Leadership, any contributions at this stage?
    Minister for Communications (Mrs Ursula G. Owusu-Ekuful) (MP) 10:25 a.m.
    Thank you Mr Speaker.
    I would like to make a small contribution to the Statement. I must commend the Hon Member for Assin North for making this Statement which has highlighted a very pertinent social issue which is currently prevailing on our streets.
    What is instructive to me is that in paragraph three of her Statement, she indicated that she would not have made the Statement calling for stricter enforcement of the law if the use of children had been kept out of the begging enterprise. Her focus is on reducing the child exploitation aspect of the begging phenomenon on our streets.
    Mr Speaker, the Children's Act states clearly that any child begging or accompanying someone to beg or solicit alms on the streets is a child in need of care and protection. It enjoins our District Assemblies and the Department of Social Welfare, to take urgent action to remove that child from the dangers that he or she is exposed to on the streets.
    So we have the legal framework to ensure the protection of our children from exploitation and abuse on our streets. It also indicates clearly that those children should be placed in the care of adults who would protect them. In my opinion, if we encourage the practice of fostering and adoption in this country, it would reduce that menace.
    The District Assemblies are also enjoined to set up child panels which would investigate these incidents and take corrective measures against them. The only criterion that the law enjoins all of us to consider is what is in the best interest of the child.
    It certainly cannot be in the best interest of the child to be used as a tool for begging or soliciting arms from other people on the streets. It cannot be in the best interest of the child to be left to fend for him or herself on the streets, to wash, defecate and make a living for himself on the streets.
    The law enjoins all of us as responsible adults, to take steps to enforce it, and we are to report about any such child exposed to such dangers to the appropriate authorities.
    I am happy that the budget season is eminently upon us, and the Department of Social Welfare, which is also one of the agencies enjoined with the protection of children at risk and in need of care and protection, would come before this august House again, to seek budgetary allocation to enable them undertake their respon- responsibilities and obligations under the law.
    Mr Speaker, I urge all of us, in view of these issues which the Department is mandated to take care of, to equip them suitably to enable them do the work that they are supposed to do, to protect our children who are the future leaders of this country, from the many dangers that they are exposed to.
    They are exposed to sexual exploi- tation, rape, and defilement and they are used as tools of the trade of various people. They are exposed to child labour practices which are all not in their best interest. The law urges all of us as lawmakers to act to ensure that they are protected.
    Every Member of this august House is a member of a District Assembly. It is our duty to ensure that the District Assemblies lived up to their task, the child panels are set up, to focus on the
    protection of our children and ensure that we can raise them in a manner conducive to their optimum growth.
    Mr Speaker 10:25 a.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon Minister, for your very fine contribution.
    Minority Leadership?
    Alhaji Inusah Abdulai B. Fuseini (NDC -- Tamale Central) 10:25 a.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this very important Statement. I would like to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude to Hon Abena Durowaa Mensah for bringing this matter to the House.
    Mr Speaker, begging exists every- where. The kind of begging that happens within West Africa and particularly in this country is a blight on our consciences. These people who have fallen off the social safety net and cannot make ends meet, want to see how we can restore their faith in humanity.
    There is no gainsaying that Ghanaians are known to be God-fearing. I have had occasions to listen to many people who have come into this country and have said that they understand why we do not fight. You would go to an official ceremony which would start with an opening prayer and end with a closing prayer. Then the speeches would end with “God bless us all”.
    They believe that is the foundation of our compassion and humanity. As a result, many people from other West African countries have identified that we are compassionate people. So they have flocked into this country to exploit the sympathy and empathy that we have for people who have fallen off the social safety net.
    They do so in ways that are sometimes very nauseating. You would find children who otherwise should be in school, who we all know are the future leaders on the streets. When they begin collecting money, their interest in pursuing education wanes.
    This is because at that level, no matter how little they are given, they are all right with the amount, and they think that if life would be so, they need not go to school.
    Mr Speaker, added to the numerous problems of littering our streets -- they urinate everywhere, defecate anywhere and throw garbage anywhere. They litter the streets. More condemnable is that they even assault us on the roads.
    Just identify any traffic intersection where there is a regulatory mechanism such as a traffic light. When your vehicle stops, they assault you, bang on your window or car for you to drop something in their bowls.
    It appears to be a social phenomenon, but we must confront it. Other countries have done it, and the country that comes to mind immediately is Rwanda. Yes, they are surrounded by countries where there are beggars on the streets, but they cannot dare beg on the streets of Rwanda. So it can be done.
    I am happy that the Hon Member who made the Statement referred to the law. We can enforce the law.
    Most of these people who are on the streets are non-indigenes so they could be arrested and deported. This is because the activities they engage in are incon- sistent with our national expressions.
    Mr Speaker 10:55 a.m.
    Thank you very much Hon Member.
    Majority Leadership, any contribution?

    Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu: Mr Speaker, everything has been said.

    Mr Speaker This important Statement is hereby referred to the Committee on Gender and Children to further examine it and report to this House as soon as practicable.

    Hon Members, there is another Statement by the Hon Member for Cape Coast North who is also the Hon Deputy Minister for Education; Hon Barbara Asher Ayisi.

    Tehnical and Vocational Education (TVET) National Skills Competition

    Deputy Minister for Education (Ms Barbara Asher Ayisi)(MP): Mr Speaker, I rise to make a Statement on the Floor of Parliament on Technical and Vocational Education and Training in Ghana, and in particular, a very important event being organised in furtherance of Government's effort to promote and sustain TVET in Ghana.

    Mr Speaker, data from Ghana's Ministry of Employment and Labour Relations suggests that less than 10 per cent of graduates gain employment in the first year of completing school, while it may take up to 10 years for a batch of university graduates to be absorbed into the world of work.

    Key among the reasons for this is the lack of employable skills of most graduates, as the country's educational system is more theoretical than practical and not oriented to the world of work or needs of industry nor society.

    The ability of TVET to change this trend is undoubted. This is because TVET relies on skills to transform the country's resources into the basic needs of life.

    TVET has to contribute to sustainable development, by empowering individuals, organisations, enterprises, communities and fostering employment, decent work and lifelong learning so as to promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth and competitiveness, social equity and environmental sustainability, which we want to institutionalise in our educational system.

    Mr Speaker, it is in this vein that I am delighted to announce to this House that the Ministry of Education, through the Council for Technical and Vocational Education and Training (COTVET), is organising the first ever national skills competition to inspire world-class excellence in skills development and introduce the youth to a variety of skilled careers.

    The national skills competition started on the 9th November, 2018, and will end on 12th November, 2018, at the Trade Fair Centre here in Accra. The theme for this maiden competition is “Skills for Jobs and National Development”, and Government intends to make the competition a biennial affair.

    Mr Speaker, the national skills competition will be held every two years but will be alternating with the international competitions. This will enable Ghana to select the best to represent the country and compete at the world skills level.

    Through the national skills competi- tion, we will be improving the skills and standards of our young people as they compete among themselves locally. This competition will go a long way to help bring out enormous talents and get industry attention on what can be done in the country at the TVET level.

    The first ever national skills competition will bring together 78 finalists from the southern and northern zones to compete in six main sectors: Construction and Building Technology, Creative Arts and Fashion, Information and Commu- nication Technology, Manufacturing and Engineering Technology, Social and Personal Service and Transport and Logistics.

    In the Construction and Building Technology sector, contestants will compete in skill areas: construction work and brick laying, electrical installation, and wood construction or furniture design. In the Creative Arts and Fashion sector, contestants will compete in fashion technology and graphic design tech- nology.

    In the Information Communication and Technology sector, contestants will compete in information technology software solutions for business.

    In the Manufacturing and Engineering Technology sector, contestants will compete in welding construction, metal works and mechatronics. In the Social and Personal Services sector, contestants will compete in baking and cooking (catering) and beauty therapy and hairdressing (cosmetology).

    Finally, in the Transportation and Logistics sector, contestants will compete in auto body repair, auto spraying and automobile technology.

    Mr Speaker, participation in the skills competition is opened to all categories of youth from diverse backgrounds in both the formal and informal sectors across all levels on the educational ladder. Future competitions will make it even broader.
    Mr Ras Mubarak (NDC -- Kumbungu) 11:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am very grateful.
    Mr Speaker, I believe this Statement could not have come at a better time, especially when there is a lot of discussion in respect of education in our country.
    Mr Speaker, we have become largely a consumer country -- there is hardly any effort to create or make anything in our country, and that poses a real danger and threat. The significance of technical and vocational training clearly cannot be underestimated.
    I believe that if we are really interested in tackling the issue of joblessness in our country, then we ought to pay a lot of attention to vocational and technical training.
    I also think that there has to be a lot of incentives to institutions, particularly institutions of higher learning, so that they can take in a lot more students who are interested in technical and vocational training.
    Currently, if you look at our curriculum in the various institutions of higher learning, so many people with Master of Business Administration (MBAs), law degrees, degrees in administration and the rest of it, there are hardly people who undergo training to make things in our country, and that is the thrust of the problem and we are faced with joblessness. Just about everything in the country is imported from abroad.
    Mr Speaker, in the 1970s, Ghana used to be at the same level with Turkey -- I was still alive by then -- [Laughter]. Today, Turkey is high up there with a very strong economy simply because they have placed a lot of emphasis on vocational and technical education.
    I remember vividly President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo adopting the German model of technical and vocational training. I think we need to revisit that so that a lot of resources would be dedicated to that area.
    I also think we need to encourage parents and guardians that this culture and attitude of forcing our children to become who we are-- in that if I am a lawyer then necessarily, my children
    should to be lawyers, and if I am a medical doctor, then my children necessarily would have to be doctors does not really help.
    We should allow the children to be children and take up courses that they are interested in.
    We should also provide some incentives to the schools. I believe if we made up our mind as a country, had an agreement that is bipartisan, irrespective of which government is in office, that we would place a lot more premium on vocational and technical education, it would augur very well for us.
    Mr Speaker 11:05 a.m.
    Hon Member, I thank you very much for your rich contribution.
    Ms Joyce Adwoa Akoh Dei (NPP -- Bosome-Freho) 11:05 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to add my voice to this very useful Statement by the Hon Deputy Minister for Education.
    Vocational training is very important. The emphasis on education from this Government is very good. But in Ghana, what I have realised and what we do not have is career advisers.
    In other countries, at the secondary school level, career advisers go the schools and advise the children on what to do and what is best for them. They look at the talents and quality of the children; some people are academics, others are artisans.
    Mr Speaker, sometimes, somebody might be an artist but the parents might want him or her to be a doctor, lawyer or something else. But I feel if we engage in career advisers who go the secondary schools and see these children, we would be able to channel them to the right places for them to get the best out of life.
    Ms Laadi Ayii Ayamba (NDC -- Pusiga) 11:15 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Statement that was made by my Hon Colleague and Deputy Minister for Education, Ms Asher Ayisi.
    Mr Speaker, the issue of education is a very big issue that we have been grappling with. I believe that there is a lot to be done. At the end of the day, education, we know, leads to every successful individual getting a job, having something to do or going into the job market.
    Unfortunately, Mr Speaker, in this part of the world, the issue of skills training
    has become a problem. Skill acquisition actually leads to vocational work, but when we look at our curricula, we are more into the theoretical aspect of teaching and learning, which is not the best for us because we are a developing nation.
    Mr Speaker, the best way to go is to look at the vocational aspect which is practical, because that is where we could acquire skills to enable individuals to come up with their own businesses, or become entrepreneurs and take up their own jobs and not look for white collar jobs.
    Mr Speaker, but what do we see? Our educational system actually makes those who want to do the handiwork, for lack of a better work -- seamstresses, carpenters, and masons, et cetera, we look at them as if they are nothing to write home about. In actual fact, they are those who could take up the chunk of jobs that would have eased the problem of joblessness in our country.
    Mr Speaker, if we are able to ensure that right from the beginning of education, teaching and learning is not just a matter of Mathematics, English and Science, but that people who are also interested and would be involved in other fields like farming, carpentry, masonry, et cetera, should be supported from day one.
    There should be some kind of orientation to ensure that those who have these skills and are interested should be groomed so that they can grow.
    Mr Speaker, in our system today, one must pass in either Mathematics, Science or English. If one does not have credit in Mathematics, for instance, five or six or better still, four, three, two or one, then you are nobody.
    Meanwhile, we have people who are not into Mathematics, English or Science,
    but could really use their hands to work and come up with a whole lot. That would help us in a very long way.
    Mr Speaker, if this is to be done, it would not be that teachers should teach. We should have the professional teachers to teach vocational and technical subjects. Vocational work is not for every other individual to teach.
    Mr Speaker, we have what we used to refer to as Home Science which became Home Economics. Today, when we go to our Junior High Schools (JHS), you would realise that there is nothing like that.
    So, the child only tries to get into Home Economics as a secondary matter, because maybe, the person is going to Senior High School (SHS) and does not have any other area to study in. Such person goes ahead to do Home Economics. When the person gets in there, he or she then grapples with issues because there is no foundation.
    So, we need to start from the beginning and ensure that people get the basic skills in education so that at the end of the day, they are able to learn and really work as expected. I believe this would create a very good job market and reduce lack of jobs which we are all struggling to solve.
    Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon Member.
    Is there any other Hon Member on my right?
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Mr William Agyapong Quaittoo (NPP -- Akyem Oda) 11:15 a.m.
    I thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to add my voice to the Statement on the Floor.
    Mr Speaker, in 1975 when the Junior Secondary School (JSS) system was rolled out, the idea was to inculcate in students technical skills. So, at that time, if one attended JSS, compulsorily, one was made to read two technical subjects.
    Mr Speaker, I am glad to say that I am one of such products because I went to Bitim JSS in Tamale in 1979, where compulsorily I read masonry and carpentry. We studied had about five technical subjects in that school. Out of this five, definitely, a student had to do two. So, at that tender age, I was taught some skills in carpentry as well as masonry.
    If at that time that was where one's potential was, one could pick it up and of course, go to the technical school and then to polytechnic. But what did not promote this TVET education at that time was the fact that, after JSS, if one completes a technical school, the person could just end up at polytechnic, and that would be the end of your technical education.
    So, most parents advised their children to rather go through the secondary school and end up in the university, continue with the master's programme and of course to PhD programme.
    Mr Speaker, we have now seen the need to continue with these subjects to a very high level. So, when the Bill for converting some polytechnics into technical universities came to this House, I supported it wholeheartedly.
    This is because after graduating, I had seen a director who worked with USAID, an Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO). He had completed a polytechnic and was able to do his Masters and PhD. I worked under this person.
    Mr Speaker, I did not find that in Ghana. So, when this Bill came to this House, I thought that it was good and we could also copy it and do same. I am glad that
    Mr William Agyapong Quaittoo (NPP -- Akyem Oda) 11:25 a.m.
    this Government has gone back to take TVET very seriously in the sense that, for instance, if we ask those who do our tiling or masonry work for us to give us estimates, they would look at it and guess, maybe, ten bags of cement would do.
    They would ask you to buy 20 boxes of tiles, meanwhile the room size is there and we have the length and breadth of the room. The tiles have their measurements and if these people are well trained, they could just look at the measurement of the tiles and the room size and tell us the number of tiles and bags of cement.
    Oftentimes, when I hire these people, I would have to do the calculation myself because, of course, I have that mathematical background. So to say that people should just go and read these technical subjects without mathematics as espoused by one of the contributors to this Statement is wrong.
    They must have that basic knowledge of mathematics to learn those skills and when they come out, they would be able to give accurate estimates.
    Mr Speaker, sometimes, most of the people who are made to learn these skills are the drop-outs, excuse my language, but we require very excellent people in those areas. That is why we keep hiring the Chinese and nationals of other countries to follow up when they give us loans to execute the projects.
    Meanwhile, we claim we have engineers here. Apart from the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, there was no university established to train people with these skills.
    Mr Speaker, when we talk about SHSs, apart from the very best school in Ghana, Ghana Secondary Technical School (GSTS), Takoradi, where I attended and maybe, Mfantsipim School, which have technical aspects attached to the science that they do --
    If we go to GSTS, Mfantsipim School and a few schools around, they have a course that combines Mathematics, Physics, Electronic Engineering and Technical Drawing. Products of these course combinations end up going to KNUST to read Building Technology and some aspects of Civil Engineering.

    It is these few people that we find outside heading various big organi- sations in terms of technical knowledge; they are just a few in the system. All the others that they have to hire to support them are people who ended in technical schools and have to go for some formal hands-on training. It is not the best.

    Mr Speaker, I am very happy that the Ministry of Education is now attaching some importance and seriousness to technical training. As the Hon Deputy Minister in charge made this Statement, I would want to believe that she would take this idea very seriously and develop it to the very top level that we all expect.

    We do not have to leave any stone unturned. We need to make the needed investment because I do not agree that foreigners come into this country to take these jobs from us. Do we not have people who would manage these drawings and execute the various big projects that we see in town?

    When we move around to see the skyscrapers being built, we would never find one black person in charge; they are

    always white -- either a Chinese or somebody else is in charge. We do not find Ghanaians in charge.

    Meanwhile, it is our money, we have gone for a loan, but someone else comes from outside to execute the contract for us. We need to be serious as a country. We need to make sure that the moneys that we take as loans from outside the country remain in this country.

    They should not give us the loans, follow-up to execute the jobs and take the money back into their country. This could only be stopped if we take technical education very seriously.

    Mr Speaker, thank you so much for giving me the time.
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon First Deputy Speaker and then the Hon Leaders would conclude.
    Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu (NPP-- Bekwai) 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, originally, I was not interested in making a comment, but something has just hit me.
    I wish to draw the attention of the Hon Deputy Minister that we are training people technically, but we have not defined our standards. That is one of the things I observed when I was in the industry. We employ people and would want things to be done according to a standard, which is not defined.
    Mr Speaker, so I would want to urge the Hon Deputy Minister to, in this training, link with the Agency responsible for setting standards to determine the standard for setting a door in Ghana.
    In this country, to lock a door one has bought, one needs to support it with one's
    shoulder. We have beds that make so much noise that we are better off lying on a mattress on the floor, or a dinning chair would last only three weeks. People bring in other things that look beautiful, but we have no standard to measure that against.
    We have an Agency that is responsible for that. I wish to urge the Ministry to link their technical training to agreed and defined standards, so that the training would prepare people to meet the standards, and they would be useful to the country.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you.
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon First Deputy Speaker.
    Minority Leadership, any contribution?
    Mr Mahama Ayariga (NDC -- Bawku Central) 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
    Mr Speaker, permit me to join Hon Colleagues to commend the Hon Deputy Minister for bringing such an important matter to this House to be discussed this morning.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that very few things are as important as the question of how we have treated technical and vocational education in our country. Indeed, many of our problems could easily have been resolved if we got it right in the area of technical and vocational education.
    I recall my days as an Hon Deputy Minister. It came to a time when global unemployment figures were very high, even for the developed countries.
    Interestingly however, very few number of countries such as Austria, Germany and others around that region experienced very low unemployment figures.
    Mr Mahama Ayariga (NDC -- Bawku Central) 11:35 a.m.
    I visited them and asked why everybody experienced high unemploy- ment figures but they experienced very low unemployment figures.
    They indicated that their success laid in their system of technical and vocational education, so almost everybody had work to do. That impacted on their unemploy- ment figures. So, one of the ways that we could easily deal with this problem of unemployment is imparting skills -- not just in any form, but good skills.
    Mr Speaker, I was really surprised. For those who have not built houses before, in Accra and most cities, when one wants to build, very often, one finds out that the very competent hands that one would employ would end up invariably not being Ghanaians.
    They would either be Togolese, Beninois, Ivorians or others from the sub- region, who do very beautiful work. When we engage our people, they would plaster but the building would look a certain way. They would lay bricks and it would be crooked; when one says that the wall is crooked, they would say that they would correct it when they come to plastering.
    They forget that it costs money to correct it when they plaster. So, we have a serious deficit when it comes to the skill sets of our technicians and therefore, we need to address that. Otherwise, even the basic jobs that we create in the housing and the infrastructure sectors would be taken away by foreigners in our country.
    Mr Speaker, the key question and problem with technical and vocational education is financing. It costs much more to provide technical and vocational training than grammar training to a school
    child. Our Budget Statements do not account for this.
    That is why our technical and vocational institutions are collapsing and not doing well as we expect them. We should just look at the Budget Statement. We do not make adequate budgetary allocation to technical institutes. So, they cannot provide the kind of training that is required.
    It is not that they do not know or have the technical standards; they just do not have the resources to impart that level of skill set to the pupils. So, we should follow-up the commitment with adequate financing, so that the technical institutes could do a good job to train them.
    One other issue is stigmatisation and Hon Laadi Ayamba mentioned that issue. Even if we look at how we recruit people into our technical institutes, the universities and the grammar schools, the message we send to the children is that the not-too intelligent should go into technical and vocational education.
    The brilliant ones should go into grammar and humanity programmes. That message alone discourages parents from encouraging their children to take up technical and vocational education. That is a major drawback.
    The system should not send a message to the children that technical and vocational education is meant for children who are not doing well, but rather grammar education is meant for children who are very intelligent. That discourages children from opting for technical and vocational education.
    I have seen the Austrian model, which finds a way to direct children to the two streams, even at the age of 11 years. The job market and the remuneration system
    also sends that message. In the formal sector, we find out that management tends to earn higher, sometimes, than people in the technical sector. It is not the same in Europe./ formal sector, we find out that management tends to earn higher, sometimes, than people in the technical sector. It is not the same in Europe.
    In Germany and Austria, one may find the chef in hotel may earn far more than the manager of the hotel because people come to the hotel because of the food and not because of the manager. So the remuneration system itself must send a clear signal, that we would pay for competence and good skills.
    Mr Speaker, it is not true that technical and vocational education is not taking place. A lot of it takes place in the informal sector. If we look at the education pyramid, we have huge enrolment at the basic level; about 80 per cent of children go to basic schools.

    Mr Speaker, by the time we count the percentage at the university, we would find out that less than 10 per cent have arrived at the university. In fact, it used to be about seven per cent.

    Mr Speaker, what happened to the other 80 per cent who started with this seven per cent at the basic level? They have all joined the informal sector or dropped out of any form of -- I mean, nobody really drops out of any form of education or training -- it could be just farming or something of that sort, but they are all in the informal sector.

    So, what our educational system must do is to find a way of engaging with the informal sector; go to Kantamanto, the industrial clusters and you will see that they are a big educational institutions and all the children are living and being trained
    Mr Speaker 11:35 a.m.
    Thank you very much Hon Member, for making this very rich contribution to the debate.
    Hon Majority Leadership?
    Ms Sarah Adjoa Safo (NPP -- Dome/ Kwabenya) 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
    I rise to commend the maker of the Statement, Hon Barbara Asher Ayisi, for this very important Statement on the Floor.
    Mr Speaker, I add my voice to Hon Colleagues who have advocated and said that this policy is a step in the right direction, especially as we dream of moving this country from a middle income to an industrialised nation.
    We are told that it takes about 10 per cent of our graduates about 10 years to actually find jobs in the job market. This statistic points to one fact that indeed, whatever training we are giving to our youth does not actually meet the job market requirements.
    I believe that as a country, we focus so much on theoretical rather than practical education. We have students from the university who study engineering and other technical fields but have not put their hands on an engine before.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that even with the formal education in TVET, we should blend it up with practical training during their study in the university. That is what we find in Germany, Finland and North Korea. You can never have an engineer who has passed through the university without undergoing the practical aspect of the engineering in a factory before passing out, but we have it in our country.
    We have civil engineers who have actually not done any practical work in civil engineering before they complete.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that as we focus on TVET, we should also have in mind that it is the way of dealing with our unemployment issues as a country. If we have a vision of industrialisation, then the question is, as we build these factories, do we have the required human resource to fill in these industrialisation agenda?
    That is why I commend the Hon Deputy Minister for making this Statement, in that we are blending the two to make sure that we are not just feeding on and creating empty industries, but indeed, we have the technical men and women to fill these industries.
    Mr Speaker, on the world's top 20 countries that are very recognised when it comes to TVET education, this collation
    was done by the New Jersey Medicine World's Top 20 Countries and they based their data on global education report These are countries that they have listed at being at the apex when it comes to TVET education;
    1. South Korea, 2. Finland, 3. Japan, 4. Hong Kong, 5.Russia, 6. China,7. Netherlands, 8. Israel, 9. Estonia,10. Singapore, 11. Latvia, 12. Kazastan 13. Canada, 14. Norway, 15. New Zealand, 16. United States of America, 17. Ireland, 18. Sweden, 19. United Kingdom and 20. Denmark.

    Mr Speaker, so we ought to have a priority as a country even for post- graduate education in technical education. Many Ghanaians, when they have even migrated from the tertiary institutions here and want to further their education, there is this broad mentality about good universities around the world without focusing on the speciality of the person.

    Mr Speaker, let us see how the United Kingdom is rated with the TVET education. The UK is rated at 19, but when it comes to the humanities we would not find them at 19 or the United States at number 16.

    Mr Speaker, so as we give scholarships to our students to further their education, I believe that the Ministry should also table out universities that are carrying out post-graduate education in TVET for our children to be able to choose the right universities and the right courses before they leave our shores.

    Mr Speaker, other than that, and with the agitation that we should invest resources in TVET education, we might be investing, but investing wrongly such

    that someone who wants to further his or her education in maybe engineering would prefer to go to the UK, because generally, everybody thinks that the UK is good when it comes to education, but forgetting that with technical education it would have been better to go to North Korea or Finland.

    Mr Speaker, I believe that as we launch this campaign, the Ministry should also look at these priorities for our students who intend to further their education.

    Mr Speaker, in ending my presentation, I believe that as a country, if we stop the habit of looking down on the informal sector, we would move forward faster. A carpenter who was trained at the back of a ‘chop bar' and someone who has gone through formal education, we could see the difference or parity that exists when it comes to how the society looks at them.

    But there ought to be a blend of both so that we find a way to merge them into the formal sector. I have seen products from China and the inscriptions and instructions on those products are not written in English. So, every Chinese citizen could actually read what ought to be done to set up something.

    Mr Speaker, I know that many Hon Members of Parliament have had the experience of travelling abroad and they know that when it comes to fixing things at home, people are expected to have some basic skill.

    A person would buy a television stand from a shop, and nobody would fix it for the person because there is a manuel attached to it. So, a person goes home, reads it and then would fix it.

    Mr Speaker, this is an indication in those Western countries that emphasis needs to be placed on people to be able to do things for themselves.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Thank you very much.
    Hon Deputy Minister, would you want to have a word in response by virtue of your position.
    Ms Ayisi 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
    I am very happy that this House is very passionate about TVET, and in fact, some other Hon Members would have loved to make contributions. So, I know that since the President himself and all of us are passionate about it, we would move TVET to another level and together, move Ghana from its present dispensation to Ghana beyond aid.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Thank you very much.
    This important matter is further referred to the Committee on Education for further examination and relevant recommenda- tions.
    Indeed, the lack of middle-level skills is the bane of our overall development in Ghana and the lack of employment which we are all generally concerned about.
    In fact, all our provisions for local content would be meaningless unless we satisfy this sector of our economy and development.
    I would want to draw the attention of the National Accreditation Authority, with regard to the establishment of institutions; all the private universities are virtually liberal education facilities while we all know that the real needs lie in technical education.
    Even if we come to ICT, there is something which I recall as most unfortunate -- from those doing degrees, diplomas, technical certificates and so on, there is no official categorisation in Ghana as to what it means when a young person says that he is studying ICT.
    It has virtually become a place for people who are virtually not doing
    anything. What are the levels? These things need a national policy and regularisation for all of us to move forward.
    In fact, I would like the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Education, the Hon Ranking Member and the Hon Deputy Minister for Education who made this important Statement to meet with me at 2.00 p.m. tomorrow. We would contact the Embassies of Germany and India -- these are well established.
    You know that the Indians helped us to establish the Technical College for ICT and the Advanced Information Tech- nology Institute -- Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence, and the Germans also helped us to establish the national centre for technical education in Kokomlemle.
    We would need to re-visit that and have the Committee on Education to visit these two places. I would say that this would not be a matter of “future” “future”. We are capable of arranging this immediately so that they would bring something back from their visit and exploration, for us to do something about this important matter.
    Hon Deputy Minister, I thank you very much for this rich Statement. These are the things that we must do in Parliament so that it would be known and seen by our countrymen, that we are also at the forefront of the governance and the development process. This is imperative and we cannot fail our people.
    Hon Members, this brings us to the end of Statements.
    Hon Members, at the Commencement of Public Business; Item numbered 4 -- Presentation of Papers. Item listed as number 4(a) by the Hon Minister for Finance.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister for Finance is engaged this morning in the process of finalising the ultimate document to be submitted to Parliament on Thursday, but he has sent the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance to be with us to do this enterprise. I exited and came back to notice that she herself has also exited, I believe for a good course.
    Mr Speaker, in that regard, subject to your indulgence and that of my Hon Colleagues, I would want to perform this task on behalf of the Hon Finance Minister.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, it has long been said in this House that the gap, sometimes, which does not allow for the presentation of such Papers by the appropriate Hon Ministers, is the absence of an Hon Minister responsible for Parliamentary Affairs.
    I believe that for a long time, this was one of the reasons for the certification of the Hon Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, so that in future, I am of the view that the Hon Majority Leader, once he is also an Hon Minister of State, can represent an Hon Minister in the presentation of Papers. I would like that to be clear, so that we can always make a way for it.
    Hon Members, we have talked about this matter for more than a decade and we all know that this is one of the issues that have been well raised in this House.
    rose
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Members, when I see an Hon Member like the Hon Ayariga nodding, then I know that I am on the right track.
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Mr Ayariga 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree entirely with you that in the scheme of things, to have the Leader of Government Business in Parliament, also serving as an Hon Minister, provides that strategic linkage.
    Mr Speaker, I recall my own days as an Hon Minister of State. Sometimes, an Hon Minister's schedule can be so hectic. So, for an Hon Minister to leave such tight schedules and come to the House just to bow for a Paper to be laid, which is not really a substantive Business can be very time consuming and disruptive of other equally important assignments.
    Mr Speaker, therefore, when we have the Hon Minister for Parliamentary Affairs filling in that role of just laying Papers so that -- in situations where substantive Business is to be done, of course, there, we would expect that the Hon Minister in charge would be present to conduct such substantive Business.
    Mr Speaker, even though I know we would love to see our Hon Ministers every morning because it provides us with the appropriate platform for lobbying and pushing for projects in our constituencies and our communities, so there could be no better way of expressing this wisdom than the way that you have done it this morning.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon Ayariga.
    In the circumstances, the Hon Majority Leader and Hon Minister for Parliamentary Affairs would be allowed to lay these Papers, and then we would make progress in all these matters.
    Hon Members, therefore, as we visibly do not see the Hon Minister in charge here and we all know what is before us in terms of the Budget Statement, I would be very
    glad if the Hon Majority Leader and Minister for Parliamentary Affairs lays the following Papers on his behalf.
    We would therefore move on to Paper (a) (i), by the Hon Majority Leader and Minister for Parliamentary Affairs.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to first express gratitude for that very erudite ruling. That is how it should be, except to say that when an Hon Minister is called upon to lay a Paper, the import is not just to rise up and bow.
    In some circumstances, the Hon Minister may be required to provide a short explanation. When we have scant time in the laying of the Paper, he may be required to provide some reasoning for the laying of the document.
    Mr Speaker, unfortunately, for whatever reason, I believe there was a mix up in the print of our own Standing Orders. Indeed, Standing Order 75 provides; and with your permission I beg to quote, it says:
    “As soon as sufficient copies of a Paper for distribution to Members have been received in the Office of the Clerk notice of the presentation of that Paper may be placed on the Order Paper, and as soon as Mr Speaker announces “Papers for Presentation” the Paper shall be deemed to have been laid on the Table.”
    Mr Speaker, the relevant provision is in Standing Order 75 (2), which says 11:45 a.m.
    “If so desired by the person presenting a Paper, a short explanatory statement may be made by him upon its presentation.”
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, it says if what?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it says “if so desired by the person presenting a Paper…”
    Mr Speaker, in other jurisdictions, the wording is different. It is captured as “if so desired by a Member…” In that case, the person presenting the Paper, in that case the Hon Minister, would provide a short explanatory statement upon request.
    That is what obtains in the Standing Orders of many of the jurisdictions. Unfortunately, as I said, there is a U-turn in our Standing Orders. It is intended to correct it.
    Mr Speaker, on that note, I would want to seize the situation to lay the Paper on behalf of the Hon Minister for Finance.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Member, let me make this very clear. Standing Order 75(2) says:
    “if so desired by the Person who is presenting the Paper”.
    So, that privilege squarely lies in his or her bosom. My ruling therefore is that, it is in order for the Hon Majority Leader, who is also an Hon Minister of State to present the Paper on the Hon Minister's behalf. If his ministership is withdrawn, then it goes with that exclusive privilege to present Papers.
    Hon Members, this is because the Hon Majority Leader is also a Minister of State, and the Standing Order says: “if he, the presenter, so desires”. That is why I wanted a repetition of that part of the Standing Order, which I am very well acquainted with.
    It says if the person “so desires”, then that person may make a small statement as part of the presentation, by simply saying: “and in doing so, Mr Speaker…”, then he continues to make the presentation.
    rose
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Member, this being an area of a few exploits may we have your conclusion?
    Mr Ras Mubarak 11:45 a.m.
    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, I believe your ruling on this is steeped in a lot of wisdom and experience, especially so, when the Standing Orders does not say categorically or mentions a Minister presenting a Paper.
    So as you have ruled, if the Hon Majority Leader, who is the Leader of the House would be guided by the ruling of Mr Speaker, then I believe that this is something that would help the House in advancing its Business.
    Mr Speaker, this is because as explained by Hon Ayariga, there are moments when Hon Ministers are caught up in a lot of issues, but the Hon Majority Leader, who is the Leader of the House could definitely stand in, especially when the Standing Orders say in Order 75(1) and with your permission I quote that,
    “As soon as sufficient copies of a Paper for distribution to Members have been received in the Office of the Clerk notice of the presentation of that Paper may be placed on the Order Paper, and as soon as Mr Speaker announces “Papers for Presentation” the Paper shall be deemed to have been laid on the Table.”
    Mr Speaker, if we look at Standing Order 75(2) it says
    “if so desired by the person presenting a Paper...”

    This is not an issue that we should drag. The Standing Orders does not mention it categorically, even though we know that this is in relation to sector Ministers.

    It should not take anything, if the Leader of the House would step in and do the presentation of the Paper, so that business of the House can move on.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Finally on this, I would call on the Hon Yieleh Chireh.
    Mr Chireh 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
    I am very surprised that the Hon Majority Leader who used to urge the previous Government to make the Majority Leader a Minister of State so that Business of the House would proceed speedily -- He argued that because he, now attends Cabinet meetings as the Hon Minister for Parliamentary Affairs.
    So it is presumed that he should have participated in the discussion of most of these documents that come here at the Cabinet level. Therefore, this argument about asking the Hon Minister himself to give anything that he wished to add is a matter I do not want to agree with.
    He also said that we were spending too much time demanding Ministers to be present and also to lay Papers. He is now here, and fortunately, Mr Speaker has agreed that he is the master of the game. Why is he resisting; what is he resisting?
    He should not explain anything. He should lay the Papers and we would go ahead.
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon Yieleh Chireh. It cuts both ways, and from that we have come to a clear
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would do just that. It looks like some of my Hon Colleagues were not really following the trend of the issue I raised. I said it is important that we establish this fact. That is why I commended you for the erudite ruling you have given.
    This is because, I was urging that the Majority Leaders should be responsible for this in the absence of the substantive Ministers. If they are indeed leaders of Government Business, they should be in Cabinet to understand, and when called upon to offer some short explanation, they could do that when they come to lay the documents.
    Mr Speaker, it is not just any Minister who the Majority Leader, looking over his shoulders, would sight to do the laying on behalf of the substantive Minister. Because that person may not even be aware of the issues at stake. That is the point that I am making.
    Mr Speaker, I am saying that it falls within the remit of the Hon Majority Leader so to do, and I would do so accordingly, except that I wanted my Hon Colleagues to follow the trend. They would not follow.
    Mr Speaker, I do so.
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Thank you very much.
    PAPERS 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Item numbered 4(b).
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I know they have done some considerations of this. What I cannot vouch for is whether or not the Report is ready for laying, because the Finance Committee Chairman is not here and the other Members are also not here. I believe we can stand this down for the time being. If they come and they are ready with it, we could lay it.
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Are we not in the position to proceed with that now?
    Very well.
    Hon Majority Leader, are we in the position to proceed with item numbered 5, which leads to item numbered 6?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is to be led by the Finance Committee, and they are not here. So we can now proceed to item numbered 8 -- the Consideration Stage of the Right to Information Bill.
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon First Deputy Speaker, if you may, please, get ready to take the Chair.
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION STAGE 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    I hope the Hon Chairman is ready, and that we are at clause 23.
    Chairman of the Committee (Mr Ben Abdallah Banda) 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is rightly so.
    Clause 23 -- Information that cannot be found or not in existence
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 23, headnote, delete “cannot be found or” and insert “is”.
    Mr Speaker, the headnote would read 12:15 p.m.
    “Information that is not in existence”.
    Mr Speaker, we are deleting “cannot be found” and seeking to replace same with “is”. The reason is that we are obligating every information officer in every public institution to try as much as possible to furnish every applicant with information.
    We do not want a situation where the information officer would be given an excuse to the extent that the information cannot be found, despite any practical steps taken.
    Mr Speaker, to the extent that that public institution has the information, the information officer is obliged to find the information for the applicant, unless the information does not exist, which would be discussed pretty soon. If the information exists, the information officer must find the information for the applicant.
    The information Officer is not expected to give the excuse that he cannot give the information because he cannot find the information.
    We may be creating a situation where information officers would be giving excuses that they cannot trace the
    information, and for which reason a person's application cannot be granted.
    Mr Speaker, we do not want that phenomenon or situation to occur. It is this reasoning that is informing the amendment we are seeking to effect.
    Mr Chireh 12:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Chairman is seeking to delete from the headnotes “information that cannot be found” and say “it is not in existence”, and he has gone to give explanations that suggest that when information is not in existence, we should not encourage it; it should always be in existence.
    Mr Speaker, it is also possible that indeed, the information does not exist; I cannot tell exactly but a part of this Bill says that first you must create the information data for someone to request. If it is not there, it is not there, and I believe the Hon Chairman needs to further explain his position, because there are situations where the information really does not exist.
    MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr Frist Deputy Speaker 12:16 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, you are advised to provide further and better particulars.
    Mr Banda 12:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you read the whole of clause 23, it gives two scenarios. The first one is when the information cannot be found and the second one is when the information does not exist.
    In respect of where the information cannot be found, it pre-supposes that the information is there, except that the information officer cannot find or trace the information at that material moment, despite all practical steps taken.
    The second leg of clause 23 is saying that if the information does not exist, it means that the information cannot be located within that public institution.
    Mr Speaker, we are seeking to delete the first leg where the information officer would tell the applicant that they cannot trace the information, for which reason the application would be refused.
    The reason for this deletion is that we do not want any information officer to refuse an application on the basis that although the information is there, he cannot trace it and therefore the application is refused.
    Mr Speaker, if this situation should be the case, we would have instances where applicants would be sending applications and information officers would be refusing their applications with the mere excuse that because they cannot find the information, the application cannot be processed.
    Mr Speaker, it is also possible that the information may be there, but because the information officer, for reasons known to himself does not want to grant the application, he would intentionally tell the applicant that the information cannot be traced.
    The applicant would not be in a position to ascertain whether what the information officer is saying is true or not. So we are deleting that aspect.
    So for any application that is sent to a public officer, the information officer is obliged to look for the information and furnish the applicant with the information, unless the information does not exist; as the second leg of clause 23 is suggesting. If the information does not exist, it means
    that the information is not in that public institution.
    Mr Speaker, this is the reason that is informing the amendment we are seeking to effect. I do not know whether Hon Yieleh Chireh still wants further and better particulars.
    Mr Chireh 12:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the argument he is making is funny. First, the headnote alone would not say -- In his own suggestion, there are two legs to this amendment, one where the information does not exist.
    Now he wants us to delete from the headnote the information that cannot be found or not in existence, so we should now delete “cannot be found” and insert “is”. So when you delete that is, it would now read “information that not in existence”.
    If we leave it like that and he is asking the same information officer to provide that information, it does not make sense.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:16 p.m.
    Hon Member, it makes sense to me. It says there are two options in the current one; the information is there but I cannot find it, so I refuse, or the information is not there.
    He wants to remove the information is there but I cannot find it, so there is no opportunity for you to say you cannot find it so you have refused. If it is there, you must find it.
    So I think subsequent amendments in the main clauses should reflect that there is only one occasion in which the information is not in existence. That is the basis, unless I am confused.
    Hon Chairman, am I right?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:16 p.m.
    The proposed amendment is delete “that cannot be found or”. So it would become “information is not in existence”. That becomes the new heading.
    Mr Chireh 12:16 p.m.
    Yes, information that is not in existence -- information that is in existence -- that is why I am saying it is a contradiction, because if information is not in existence, the two scenarios cannot come.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:16 p.m.
    No, you are saying that -- if I get your point, then we should include in the deletion “that”, so that it would be “information is not in existence”, or change it to “non-existent information”.
    Mr Chireh 12:16 p.m.
    If you do that -- but then once you do that, there cannot be the two scenarios he was proposing. Once the information is not in existence, you cannot do anything about it, but he is saying that you should not give the opportunity to the information officer to give this reason, and it is also -- we do not trust public officials, that is why we are saying this, but the draftspersons put this there so that the two scenarios can be looked at.
    I am saying that if you do not have the information at all, you cannot force the information officer to provide some, and it is data you must create.
    Some of the arguments that are being made against this Bill is the fact that we are passing a Bill, but we do not know whether we have already existing information with these institutions.
    So if you now delete and make it as “information that is not in existence”, then there are no scenarios at all.
    Subsequently, it means you are deleting the whole clause and I do not think that is the case. Let us stand it down and look at the amendment properly.
    12. 25 p. m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:16 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Keta?
    Mr Richard Mawuli Kwaku Quashigah 12:16 p.m.
    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. At a point, I thought I understood the Hon Chairman very well but on hindsight, I have come to the conclusion that it would be needful for it to remain: ‘information that cannot be found or not in existence' in the sense that it is possible that there may be some clue somewhere, that this institution has that information which might have warranted the one seeking the information to pursue it.
    If we take it out, let us say, for instance, I get the sense that there is this information there as a result of a happening or an event on a particular date but the details of it is what I am looking for, and when I come to them and they tell me they do not have the information, it should leave doubt in my mind.
    For this, I think that it should remain, so that in the process, we could explain that this information was there, but as a result of certain happenings, we currently could not find it or we have lost it.
    I believe that would be more prudent than taking it off completely. -- [Inter- ruption.]-- yes, but what I am saying is that if for instance, there is an indication that that information is supposed to be there and then the person comes to you
    and the information officer says that they could not find it then there should be some reasons so that the individual could leave satisfied that of course, that institution was supposed to have the information but as a result of A, B, C and D, they currently do not have it or they have lost it.
    Mr Speaker, if I am permitted, I would like to read subclause (a) as being prompted by the Hon Majority Leader. It says:
    “It is in the possession of the public institution but cannot be found”.
    And it could so happen. For instance, when you go to the Ghana Broadcasting Corporation (GBC), there were certain information that they had but as a result of some fire outbreak, they lost that information.
    So it would be incumbent on the information officer to explain to the one seeking the information why they currently do not have the information.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:16 p.m.
    Yes, the Hon available Leader?
    Mr Mahama Ayariga 12:16 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe your explanation is apt. There are two scenarios; one, where the information cannot be found for whatever reason, and the second situation is where it does not exist.
    The fear is that public institutions would use the excuse of ‘cannot be found' as a basis to deny people access to the information and the Hon Chairman is seeking to have perhaps, a strict liability arrangement where the public institution
    is strictly liable and responsible for making the information available once it exists. Once it exists, every step must be taken to ensure that the information is made available.
    Then, we would maintain the situation where the information does not exist. I believe that is what the Hon Chairman is seeking to do and I believe it is self- explanatory.
    Hon Quashigah's situation falls into a situation where the information does not exist. If GBC had the document but there was a fire outbreak and it got gutted, it does not exist. So the explanation is that the information does not exist.
    This falls into the second category, which is the information no longer exist, which is being maintained. And that is your explanation.
    But if the information could be obtained from some other institution or agency, it means the information exists. You are simply going there to obtain the information and you could present it and also update your own records so that you would now possess the information which was gutted by fire.
    I believe the Hon Chairman's amendment is apt because we want to create a strict situation where public officers must provide information once it exists. Every effort must be made to assemble the information and make it available.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:16 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Bolgatanga East?
    Dr Dominic Akuritinga Ayine 12:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe if I get the drift of the Hon Chairman's amendment, it is supposed to cure a situation where
    Dr Dominic Akuritinga Ayine 12:16 p.m.


    “cannot be found” would be used as an excuse by public officers to not provide information.

    But I believe in thinking deeply about the amendment, it could also be the case that the ‘information does not exist' could also be the basis for public officers saying that they would not provide information. They could also use that as an excuse.

    Mr Speaker, my proposal is that let us strengthen the amendment by obligating the public officers to provide reasonable grounds why the information could not be found. In other words, the amendment should relate to a situation where the public officer has a legal or statutory obligation to explain why the information could be found.

    This is because we are trying to cure the mischief, but we are also going to the extreme where it is even possible for them to just willingly say that the information does not exist and they could not provide it.

    I believe that we should rather strengthen the amendment by putting on them an obligation to explain why the information cannot be found.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:16 p.m.
    Hon Member for Gomoa West?
    Mr Alexander Kodwo Kom Abban 12:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, taking it from where Hon Dr Ayine left off, the strengthening that he is looking for already exists in the clause. If we read the whole clause, we would realise that the strengthening he is looking for is there.
    Mr Speaker, but I believe that at Committee sitting, we agreed that we do not want to create any situation where the
    information officer may just come and use the first clause to say that, ‘we cannot give you the information'. And the only reason is that it cannot be found.
    What we want is that, at all cost, if the information exists, it must be produced. And that is why we want to do away with subclause (a) so that we only have ‘does not exist' as the only condition which would get the information officer to say that, ‘we cannot provide it for you because it does not exist'. So that would be the only option that would exist.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we should go by the amendment that we have proposed.
    Mr Agbodza 12:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, could we cure this by creating an offence, whereby if an information officer deliberately decides not to provide information and uses -- [Interruption]-- I am just trying to find out if it is there. If it is there, then, I do not see where the fear is.
    If an information officer knows information exists but deliberately says that the information does not exist, based on that, you could not have it and it could be proven that the information exists in his or her bosom, I believe if there is an offence clause, then it takes over and that cures the problem.
    Hon Chairman, if that offence clause exists, I believe you could read it out so that Hon Colleagues could have comfort in the fact that it is not going to be a simple case of an information officer deliberately saying, ‘I would not give the information' and the case ends there.
    Is there a sanction if it could be proven that the information does exist within his or her bosom?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader, I would hear you last before I come back to the Hon Chairman.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the direction that you provided really should satisfy all who have some shreds of doubt. Hon Quashigah related to the case of Ghana Broadcasting Corporation (GBC) for instance, whose archives were gutted by fire.
    In that regard, if a person seeks information, that information is not in your possession in the first place, and so it does not apply.
    However, information could exist outside the realm of GBC. It is possible that perhaps, copies of some transcript have been deposited with the National Archives, so they are then obliged to produce it though it may not be in their custody. If somebody comes looking for that information, they are obligated by this to look for it. If it does not exist anywhere in the country, it does not exist. If it exists, it might not necessarily be within the confines of GBC.
    Mr Speaker, Parliament's official record is captured as the Official Report or Hansard. Parliament is a continuum. A person walks here looking for information relating to a particular day in the life of the Parliament of 1957 or 1958. Parliament should produce that record, but Parliament might not have possession of it.
    So they cannot produce the Hansard. However, that Hansard might exist in the National Archives. We have to look for it and if we are able to find it, that is fine, if
    not, we are not under any obligation and could tell the person that it does not exist.
    Mr Speaker, I told a story some time back, that one day, close to the West African Examination Council (WAEC) in Kumasi, I called a groundnut seller who had wrapped the groundnut with a 958 edition of the Hansard.
    So I asked her where she got it from and she said it was in her house. It was pre-1992, so I asked her to bring them. I paid her some money and she left the groundnut, went and brought me stacks of the Hansards from 1958, 1959 and 1960.
    Mr Speaker, it was so voluminous. I sent her to my house for newspapers that I did not need. It was a barter trade between the lady and I. So perhaps they might exist in the custody of some people. Parliament should then endeavour to see if we could trace any such records. If we cannot and it does not exist, then it does not exist.
    I believe that the amendment proposed by the Committee is most apt and we should go by that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, if you want to say something more, I would hear you before I put the Question.
    Mr Banda 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member wanted to find out if there is any provision that criminalises intentional refusal to give information.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, we have not gotten there. Let us deal with your proposed amendment to delete “cannot be found or”. It has been proposed that a new rendition would probably be better.
    Mr Banda 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the value is the same.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Chireh, I want to put the Question. Yes, let me hear you.
    Mr Chireh 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we change the headnote, I do not have a problem with it, but the moment we change it and delete subclause (1 and subclause (4), then there is a contradiction between the headnote and subclause (2) and subclause (3) which would remain. So the Hon Chairman should address his mind to the subsequent action he would take.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not sure that the entirety of clause 23 (1) should be deleted. What we are concerned with is clause 23(1)(a) which should be deleted. Then, if he thinks that we could further amend the headnote to read “non-existent information”, that could be done.
    This is because here, we are not dealing with exempt information but information that is open to access but which cannot be made available because it does not exist. That is the issue that the Committee is talking about. It is not about exempt information. So we need clause 23(1) as amended to be there.
    Mr Quashigah 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just to add on to what Hon Chireh alluded to. If you look at clause 23(2), it says, “The notice shall state the steps taken to find the document or determine its existence.” One
    wonders why that should be maintained after we have indicated in clear terms that the information does not exist.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Members, the whole of clause 23(1) is not to be deleted, only clause 23(1)(a): “is in the possession of the public institution but cannot be found, or” is to be deleted. Clause 23(1) (b), “does not exist”, would remain. So all the subclauses would relate to clause 23(1) (b) now.
    So let us address our minds to it. We are not deleting it all. If you look at the proposed amendment to subclause (1), paragraph (a), delete, but there is paragraph (b) which would remain.
    Mr Quashigah 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I need a little education. My thinking is that if we leave clause 23(1)(b), “does not exist” and then come to clause 23(2); “The notice shall state the steps taken -”
    All right, I understand now. Thank you.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is only consequential. It then means that we do not even have to bring (1). It would be just one and it would flow. So when we get to “information” in line 3, then we break it up to subclause (a) or (b).
    However, because we are only deleting subclause (a) and leaving subclause (b), it would mean that clause 23(1) would have to continue.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Very well, let us deal with the headnote first. I was going to put the Question on the headnote.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman's amendment is that we delete those intervening words and then it would read, “information that is not in existence”. There was a proposal to further amend it to “non-existent information”. Which one are we taking?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    I asked the Hon Chairman and he said the value is the same. So it does not matter to him.
    Yes, Hon Member for Keta?
    Mr Quashigah 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have been talking about elegance, so what if it is amended to read “information not in existence”?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, it has been suggested that in drafting, especially the headnote, fewer words are better. So, “non-existent” information'' is shorter and precise.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 23, subclause (1), paragraph (a), delete.
    Mr Speaker, the reason for the deletion has already been proffered so I do not need to belabour the point.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 23, subclause (4), delete
    Mr Speaker, we seek to delete clause 23(4) because it flows from clause 23(1) (a), and if clause 23(1)(a) has been deleted, it goes without saying that it should also be deleted.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Now, I will put the Question on the entire clause 23 --Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Banda 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is just a consequential amendment with respect to the closing phrase of clause 23(1). In line 1, we seek to delete ‘'or the designated officer '' which comes after ‘'the information officer''. This is because ‘'information officer'' has already been defined.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 23 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 24 -- Payment of deposit
    Mr Banda 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 24, delete.
    Mr Speaker, we seek to delete this clause because it makes payment of deposit a requirement for accessing information and the Committee felt that it would be a hindrance to the right to access information.
    Mr Speaker, money may be paid only at the point where the application is granted.
    When the application is granted and there is the need for the applicant to pay some money, depending on the nature of the application, same would be stated.
    To make it a precondition for an applicant to make a deposit before that person's application is processed would fetter the right of citizens or persons to have access to information.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    So, have you applied for payment to be made after the grant of the application or after processing application?
    Mr Banda 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes. There is a provision in the Bill that deals with payment of the fee at the point where the application has been processed and same is to be granted.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    I hold a different view, but this is --
    Yes, Hon Member for Adaklu?
    Mr Agbodza 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I can understand the principles under which the Hon Chairman of the Committee wants to delete the entire clause 24.
    Is it not possible that somebody could request a certain kind of information that could cost the State to provide and at the time of providing the information, that person would say he or she is no longer interested in the information. I have not said that paying a deposit is a good thing, but at the point where a person needs to pay for it, what happens if the person requests for information and a cost is incurred but the person says he or she is not interested in the information?
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman of the Committee should bear that in mind when we get to where a person has to pay. Whether there would be any sanction for people who request information willingly and then decide later that they do not need it.
    That is my only concern because the deposit would probably say that a person would not back off when the information is prepared for him or her, and at the time of completion, he or she would say that he or she is not interested.
    This is because not every information involves just printing on an A4 sheet. Some require preparation which may have some cost to it.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the whole application made by the Hon Chairman of the Committee to delete clause 24 stems from the headnote which is ‘'payment of deposit''.
    We believe that if we make it a condition for accessing information, it could be a fetter. Application for information would be made by the applicant for information that its taxes have already been generated.
    Mr Speaker, in an earlier provision, we said that the only payment that the applicant would make would be access payment. That is if he or she would want the information in a certain form and then if the information is available, it would be produced in that form.
    A cost of the production would be assessed and the applicant would pay for the information.
    So, it is not paying for an application fee, but it is paying for the cost of production and that is why we want this clause to be deleted. If it is not deleted, it would be like a precondition to access information and we do not want it that way.
    Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu: Mr Speaker, earlier in clause 18, it was said that:
    ‘'An application to access information held by a public institution shall be made to the public institution''.
    Then we agreed that it should be accompanied by a prescribed fee. The prescribed fee would be determined by that particular institution. Of course, they would take into consideration what is required to be done to provide the information.
    So if beyond that we would want to say that a person is required to pay another deposit, that indeed, could be problematic where the Constitution guarantees a right to information.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the Committee that clause 24 should be deleted. People think that Parliament would want to put impediments in the way of the citizens to access information. Clearly and demonstrably, Parliament shows that we do not intend to erect any barriers at all.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    I hope that Parliament would assure us that there is a budget sufficient to manage office. I say this because we believe in pretending that Government is a Father Christmas without showing the source of money for it to operate as Father Christmas.
    In the end, we would set up an office which cannot operate because we have no resources.
    Hon Members, I think that people must pay for that information. The information is yours but it takes money to keep it and maintain it in a way that you can apply for, and that should be borne by those applying for it. I have my problem with this Father Christmas business.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Banda 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, even to allay the fears of the Hon Leader, clause 18(1) (f) has been deleted.
    Mr Speaker, payment should not be a condition at all; but just like the Hon Ranking Member said, the applicant would have to pay something when he wants the information given in a certain form.
    That would obviously have some financial implications. But if the applicant just wants the information -- to have a look at the information or to read the information, the applicant ought not pay anything.
    Mr Speaker, but if the applicant wants the information reproduced in a certain form, or probably photocopied, that photocopy would cost the institution.
    The law says that the applicant must pay for that. But as for processing, trying to locate the information among others, that does not cost any money and it should not cost the public.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, I do not agree with you, that it does not cost money. If Parliament decides to setup a properly organised information sector, you would have to mobilise, organise and set up the structures. I have an experience because I did that at the Driver Vehicle Licensing Authority
    (DVLA).
    Hon Members, Public Records and Archieves Administration Department (PRAAD) came in to set up a totally new system of information for us and it cost DVLA money. Government did not have the money and so I put a fee on it.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I recall that when we were dealing with the clause 18 last week, the debate was that the application requesting for the information should not be accompanied by evidence of payment or whatever prescribed fee. But it should be at the time that the application is accessed and the nature of the information -- [Interruption]
    We can have a situation where two simple applications would come but the nature of the information being sought by one application may be so voluminous. So it is then that the agency would assess and advise the applicant as to how much the applicant should pay for that.
    The second one would be a very simple application, sometimes such that it may not warrant any payment at all. But if we say that the two applications should all be accompanied by evidence of payment, as the Hon Ranking Member said, we are using an economic basis to access the
    information and once the person is not capable of paying that money, it becomes a bar.
    Mr Speaker, that is the reason we are thinking that in consonance with the constitutional framework, the person should have the right to access the information.
    The nature of the information he would want to access would determine how much administrative charges he should pay to have that information. These were some of the reasoning when we debated clause 18 and eventually deleted paragraph (e).
    So I believe it is the same thinking and philosophy behind this one, So I am in support of the proposition that we should delete clause 24.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    There is no alternative proposal.
    Yes, Hon Member for Bolgatanga East?
    Dr Ayine 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in line with the point that you made about budgetary cost to public institutions, I think that we should be careful with respect to clause
    24.
    Mr Speaker, if we had a situation where there is a Legislative Instrument that specifies the fees to be paid in order to access information, it should be possible within the confines of that Instrument and the fee regime to request for deposits to be paid for various classes of information.
    This is because at the end of the day, Mr Speaker, as you rightly pointed out, it would cost pubic institutions some money in order to provide information, including the cost of processing and even the human resource time that is spent in locating the information is a cost to the
    institution. There is an opportunity cost to that.
    Mr Speaker, so I would rather say that let us maintain clause 24, and in making provision for regulation, we provide for a Legislative Instrument which would specify fees for various categories of information and then the deposit that is required under clause 24 would come within the ambit of that in the fee regime.
    We are doing this as the Chairman himself pointed out the last time that we had a debate on this matter. But we are looking at best practices in other jurisdictions, and the Chairman even cited the year 2000 English Freedom of Information Act.
    That Act has a fee regime that even requires that where it is very excessive to provide the information, that should constitute a basis of denial of access to the information. But that does not mean that the English do not enjoy the right to information. So I believe we have to tread very cautiously.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you very much.
    Mr Quashigah 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as much as I tend to appreciate the case made by Hon Ayine, I tend to support the Chairman's position as it was espoused lucidly by the Hon Ranking Member, the Minority Leader and Hon Dafeamekpor.
    Mr Speaker, it is clear that in clause 18 (f), it talks about “be accompanied with the prescribed fee” --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    The clause 18(f) was deleted and so it does not exist in the Bill anymore.
    Mr Quashigah 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the clause 18(f) is deleted then it weakens my position.
    Mr Speaker, but Hon Ayine talked about the human resource effort that may be injected in looking out for the information. I believe that obviously, it would be the work of the information officer and that is what he is paid for. So that should not even arise at all.
    Dr Kwaku Afriyie 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am inclined to agree with Hon Ayine. We have come a long way as a country and we must put value on services.
    The fundamental problem is the access to information; that does not mean that we should not design a system which will as far as possible vitiate some of the financial costs. I believe that he put up a very candid argument and I am inclined to support his position.
    Therefore, I do not support the Hon Chairman of the Committee's position that clause 24 should be deleted.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you.
    Mr Banda 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, every good right to information law does not use an economic factor as a basis to deny information.
    Mr Speaker, we are also cognisant of some right to information laws in some other jurisdictions.
    If we take that of Kenya which is rated as one of the best, for instance, In fact, it is among the first 15 countries in the world that have the best Right to Information Law -- fee payment is not a condition for submission of an application. I believe the same thing applies to the Right to Information Law of India.

    Mr Speaker, we are guided by these democracies which have very good information laws. We are not saying that there should not be any fee payment regime. It exists in the Bill but to make it a precondition is where the Committee had a problem.

    To say that a deposit must be paid before one's application is processed, failure for which one's application would be refused, indirectly or directly is a denial of the right to access information which runs contrary to the Constitution. Mr Speaker, on the basis of this, it should be deleted.

    In some countries, the first 20 pages that would be produced or reproduced for the applicant is free. Without the payment of any application fee, one could access the first 20 pages of the information photocopied for you for free. So I have taken a cue from the Chair but with the greatest of respect, I still believe that we would have to delete clause 24.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Very well, Hon Members, I have heard enough. I would put the Question --
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Does the Hon Majority Leader want to make any contribution?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, not really, except that I do not really appreciate the last point made by the Hon Chairman of the Committee. The language of the Constitution is clear to all of us. Article 21(f) provides and I beg to read:
    “(1) All persons shall have the right to --
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just wish to assure the Hon Majority Leader that the reason we deleted clause 18(1) (f) is precisely because of the prescribed fee. The application has been received, the production cost of the information has not been assessed, and so what fee is one paying? [Interruption.]
    Mr Speaker, Fees and Charges Act of 2009 (Act 793) would kick in but we do not want that to be a fetter because the information itself has actually been generated by the money of the applicant.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    That is a very presumptuous argument.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, because the person is a taxpayer. It is the taxes owed by the citizens that are generated -- [Interruption]. Do you not pay tax? Your tax is deducted at source.
    Mr Speaker, moreover, we deleted clause 18 (1) (f) because an applicant must just be interested in seeing the information and reading it at source. If an applicant wants to have sight of an information, he or she could sit in a library, read the information, make whatever notes he or she wants, and leave.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Hon Member for Suhum, do you want to address me or you would want to engage in your private conversation?
    Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the rationale for seeking to delete clause 24 is the same as what we had for deleting clause 18(1)(f). It is to avoid the situation where applicants have to pay for the cost before even any attempt has been made by the institution to prepare to deliver the information.
    Mr Speaker, deleting clause 18(1)(f) and clause 24 would not mean that applicants would not pay for the information. In fact, with your permission, I would read clause 78 (1):
    “An applicant seeking access to information under this Act, shall pay the fee or charge approved by Parliament in accordance with the Fees and Charges (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 2009 (Act 793).”
    Clearly, the Bill anticipates that when it comes into force, applicants may have to pay some charges as to be determined by Parliament through our fees and charges legislation.
    Mr Speaker, what we are trying to avoid is to say that while we are sending the application, it has to be accompanied by some payments, and then in the case of clause 24, you would have to make some deposit before the institution even looks at providing the information for you. That is what we are trying to avoid here.
    In clause 78, it is clear that when the information is ready and before it is provided to the applicant, there is an opportunity for the institution to make a charge on it.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:05 p.m.
    Let me listen to a new voice.
    Mr Suhuyini A. Sayibu 1:05 p.m.
    I thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity. The right to information among other rights should be considered a human right issue. I believe that whatever would become a hindrance in the enjoyment of one's human right on the basis of economy or ability to pay should not be encouraged.
    Mr Speaker, so I believe that if we want citizens to enjoy their right to information, it should not be on the basis of one's ability to pay. That is why the thought of even the payment of a fee, be it application or cost of production of the information requested, does not sit well with me when it comes to the need for us to make that right universal.
    Once we introduce the element of fees, it would lead to a situation where people would be hindered by their economic circumstances to demand information that may, in the long run, lead to saving their lives.
    Mr Speaker, I do not believe that the argument that clause 24 be sustained or kept in the Bill supports the call for us to make human rights universal.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    I would hear both of you, but let me start from the Hon Member for Bolgatanga East.
    Dr Dominic A. Ayine 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you very much.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to go back to the argument that was ably made by the Hon Majority Leader when he said that the right is subject to such laws and regulations as are necessary in a democratic society.
    In all democracies - the Hon Chairman has cited India. In the United States of America (USA), the Freedom of Information Act provides that where the cost of processing is in excess of US$25.00 from any Federal Agency, then there has to be an assessment of the cost and a deposit shall be paid. Does it mean that in the USA, the right to information is hindered?
    Mr Speaker, in terms of its internal logic, clause 24 provides not the seeds of its own destruction, but its own salvation. I beg to quote:
    “(1) Where the cost of providing the information is likely to exceed the amount of the application fee…”
    In other words, there is an assumption that there would be a specified application fee. Once the application fee is specified
    and the person who requested the information wants to impose a huge cost on the provision of that information because of the demand that is made, then it is at that point that an assessment would be made and a request for the payment of the deposit would be done.
    Mr Speaker, let us give a practical example. As Hon Opare-Ansah said, if Parliament specifies that the fee for the information is GH¢50.00, but in order to comply with the request the public agency would have to incur a cost of GH¢1,000.00.
    What it means is that the information officer could request that at least, GH¢500.00 deposit is paid before the information is processed and delivered, and the remaining balance would be paid.

    We should be realistic; we are looking at media houses that would make requests for information. It may be the case that the cattle herder is an exception to the rule; but basically, this is what would happen.

    So, I strongly urge the House that we maintain clause 24 as part of the regime.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Hon Member for Adaklu.
    Mr Kwame Governs Agbodza 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we should step down this particular clause and think a bit deeply about it.
    Mr Speaker, all the arguments about rights to this or that [Interruption] -- We take loans in this House to build roads;
    but to pass on the Tema Motorway, one needs to pay a toll.
    So, should somebody say that it is the person's right to drive on the motorway because it is a property of the Government? [Interruption.] It is not a choice; that is the only way to Tema. [Interruption.]
    Mr Speaker, there is a right to shelter, but nobody gets a free house. I think that we are overstretching this thing to mean that a right to -- [Interruption.] No, I am not against -- I am referring to --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    The toll booths are not in the middle. [Laughter.]
    Mr Agbodza 1:15 p.m.
    The toll booths start at the beginning and in the end.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    It is an offence to be on motorway without paying the toll; many people do not know that. The people who join in from branch routes commit an offence. So, it means that even though there is a right to use the road, one cannot use it without paying the appropriate fee.
    Hon Member, conclude your argument.
    Mr Agbodza 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, based on what the Hon Majority Leader and Dr Ayine have said, maybe, we should step this particular clause down and think a bit deeply about it. Even if we need to tweak clause 18 a bit to make the whole thing read together, just like you have said, we should not be in a rush to pass something that cannot be implemented.
    To think that right to information means that -- [Interruption] - If somebody requests for information and we just realise that he is blind so he needs it in
    braille, what does that mean? We have to put it in a format that he could read; it would come at a cost.
    To somebody who is stretching this argument, why should he pay for it because it is an information from the Government?
    That was why I said that the rendition may be too simplistic; we should make it reflect what it is. Otherwise, we would set up this Act and when one goes to the office, one would be told that they do not have money to buy electricity so their computers cannot work or they do not have A4 paper, so they cannot print it. Mr Speaker, that would not be what this Bill intends to address.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Hon Members, I think that we are going beyond the intendment. The argument now is, should an applicant pay an application fee or should the fee be paid at the end?
    That is what it appears to be now. [Interruption.] I have read clause 78, but I have issues with it. Should we determine whether there should be a deposit for the application to be processed or it should be paid at the end of the process? That is the question we would have to determine now.
    Dr Robert B. Kuganab-Lem 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is cost to information, and we assume that the cost would just be easy because data is freely available.
    There are some databases that require high cost. We have to make sure -- one may get information that is free but cheap and it would not help. So whoever searches for information may have to pay to collect quality information.
    Dr Robert B. Kuganab-Lem 1:15 p.m.


    I believe that if we pay at the end, it would be very helpful because the one searching for the information may not know the total cost at the beginning.

    Therefore, it is nice that the information officer briefs the one that seeks the information from time to time, and he gets to understand the cost that he incurs for the material to be produced for him.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Now, the argument should be on whether it should be at the beginning or at the end. I would hear from each one on both Sides and then put the Question. I would want to hear new voices.
    Hon Member for Daboya?
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am most grateful.
    Mr Speaker, I am strongly in favour of the amendment to delete the entire clause 24. The reasons are that the headnote says, “Payment of deposit”. We do not even know what information would be generated in terms of access, and we are also talking about a deposit before making that information available.
    Secondly, clause 78 is very clear. The headnote says, “Fees and charges of public institution” and this is in respect of the information to be accessed”.
    So, once clause 78 has made provision for the department or the agency that would generate the information to charge a fee based on assessing the type of information that would be given to the person, there is no point in maintaining clause 24.
    There is a difference between genera- ting the information and having access to
    it. The information is already generated by public money. Indeed, Government institutions in charge of that information have already used public money to generate it and the public now accesses the information.
    So once clause 78 has made a clear provision for fees and charges that are to be accessed on the basis of who requests for the information, there is no point in leaving clause 24. We can conveniently take away clause 24, and clause 78 would take care of the fees and charges so to be assessed.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Does anybody think that clause 24 should be maintained? I have heard two arguments already.
    Mr Alexander R. Hotordze 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am of the view that if they are to pay upfront, it is likely to scare away people. So the ideal thing is that let the person come and see the effort involved in generating the information for him or her so that when payment is slapped, the person will understand it better.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Then you have stolen into the time I wanted to give to those who think otherwise.
    Mr Chireh 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that it should not be deleted. The reason is simple; as some of my Hon Colleagues have already indicated, some will require money to get the information for the one who has applied for it.
    So, again, what we should note is that the deposit cannot exceed what is prescribed in clause 78, no. It is only a part of whatever will be charged in clause
    78.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Very well.
    I think I have heard all the arguments and I would want to put the Question now.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 24 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 25 -- Extension of time to deal with an application
    Mr Banda 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 25, subclause (1), opening phrase, line 1, delete “An information officer” and insert “The head of the institution” .
    Mr Speaker, the rendition therefore reads 1:25 p.m.
    “The head of the institution may extend the time provided for dealing with the application for a further period if…”
    The reason is that, if the information officer needs an extension of time because he or she must act within a certain stipulated period and if the period expires and he wants additional time, it is the head of the institution that should grant the extension of time but not the information officer that would grant him or her extension of time.
    Mr Speaker, that is the sole reason we are seeking to delete “Information officer” and substitute it for “The head of the institution”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Item numbered (vi) is in the name of the Hon Minority Leader. Has he instructed anybody to move it on his behalf?
    Yes, Hon Member for South Dayi?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have the permission of the Hon Minority Leader to move this amendment on his behalf.
    Mr Speaker, so, if I have your permission, may I go ahead?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Yes, please go ahead.
    Dr Zanetor Agyeman-Rawlings 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with regards to the change from “quantity” to “volumes”, once it becomes “volumes” the “a” in paragraph (a) must be removed because that will only be for singular. So, it either becomes a large volume which is not the proposed amendment or large volumes.
    So it will read:
    “for large volumes of information”
    Mr Speaker, sorry, that was a further amendment.
    Mr Chireh 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that regarding the information we are dealing with, the use of “volume” is not appropriate because we have different types of information and not measured in volumes.
    So, I think that “large quantity”, “quantity” then is generic and can apply because if somebody is asking for a cassette or disk of information or something, it is not volume, it is the quantity.
    Mr Speaker, so, I believe it is better to leave it at “quantity” rather than speak of “volume”. “Volume” will not apply to some aspects to some information that we are seeking.
    Mr Ras Mubarak 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in making the language elegant, I will beg to disagree with my Hon Senior Colleague. Information lately in respect of new language will come with the word “volume”.
    So, we have volumes of information but not quantity and for purposes of consistency and elegance in the language, I believe that “volume” would be most appropriate.
    Mr Joseph Cudjoe 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that I am addressing everybody's mind to the fact that information has been measured over the period with volume. Books and cassettes have been labelled “volume 1, volume 2”. It is the way information is measured in terms of size and dating.
    Mr Quashigah 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is true that when we talk about information, we always make reference to “volumes of information”.
    The reason being that it is not countable but in recent times, information these days come in silos. So, if they come in silos, then we could actually make allusion to its numeracy or being able to count them.
    Mr Speaker, but the fact is that information is generally referred to in volumes and they stand out elegantly when we refer to it as volumes of information instead of quantities of information.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon Member for Tamale North.
    Mr Suhuyini Alhassan Sayibu 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wish to also support the call for the word “quantity” to be replaced, but I beg to make a further amendment. From my checks especially if we are concerned about the elegance of language and the appropriate terms for the measurement of information.
    Mr Speaker, then it would be “units” of information where we would have large units of information. Mr Speaker, this is the standard measurement for information in technology today. Information is measured in units; terabyte and so on.
    They come in units and not volumes or quantities. So in my view, if we want the right terminology for the measurement of information then the word should be “units”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon Member for Sefwi Wiaso.
    Dr Kwaku Afriyie 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are making laws and if we are to order them in terms of hierarchy then I believe that elegance should be the last thing that we should be thinking about.

    Mr Speaker, so, this makes “quantity” even more appropriate than “volume”. Mr Speaker, “volume” is a bit laborious here.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Let me hear Hon Acheampong and then I would listen to the Hon Member for Suhum.
    Mr Richard Acheampong 1:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am inclined to support the word “quantity” because a person may request for information in the form of braille, Compact Disc (CD) or cassette. So, if -- [Interruption] -- a recorded information.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:25 p.m.
    Hon Acheampong, address the Speaker.
    Mr R. Acheampong 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in this case if it is on a CD we cannot talk about volumes, but quantity. So, I believe that we should maintain the word “quantity” and it would serve many purpose than to limit it to “volumes”.
    If the information is in a braille form we would not say volumes -- the printer prints in volumes but the actual information would be in quantities. So I am inclined to support the word “quantity” than “volume” because of different information that people might request from the information officer.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wish to add my voice to the proposal by the Hon Minority Leader to change the word “quantity” to “volume”.
    Mr Speaker, we are talking about information but not how it has been stored; whether it has been stored as byte, bits or written on paper is not what is in contention here.
    It is the information and when I listened to the Hon Member for Wa West and his argument that when a person comes and is requesting for cassettes -- Mr Speaker, then he is talking about the medium on which information has been stored and that is where we would talk about its quantity.
    Mr Speaker, but we are talking about information no matter how it has been stored and for that matter it is volume. If we look at the second line, we would get a hint of the usage of it as the large number of records and these records could be stored anywhere or anyhow, and in any format on any medium. So we could only talk about large volumes of it.
    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that every word we employ in this legislation is in context and if we look at the meaning of volume in context then we are talking about information retrieval and it is stored in volumes.
    These volumes could be stored on devices such as a floppy disk, a CD Rom, a cloud or any other form of storing data.
    So, it is the information that is to be retrieved that we speak of and so it has to be volume; large volumes or small volumes. It cannot necessarily be the quantity or quantum. The particular application could be in respect of retrieving or accessing a very large volume of information and that could be produced.
    We just passed the hurdle where what must happen before the production should be done, but we speak of whether it is information that is in respect of a very small or big thing and it has to be in volumes and not the quantity, quantum or units as others have advocated.
    Mr William Agyapong Quaittoo 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, technically and scientifically, if we say “volume” then it is measurable. It is length multiplied by breadth and height and it is measured in centimetre cube, decimetre cube or metre cube. Information cannot be measured in terms of this volume.

    If we say volume, then it is specific and measured in metre cube or decimetre cube thereof. So, we cannot measure information in that category. Personally, every figure is measured in quantity and

    this quantity is what my Hon Brother said that it is in units; whether kilobyte, bytes and so on.

    Mr Speaker, so, the word “quantum” or “quantity” would be better than using “volume” because volume would connote decimetre cube and so on.

    Mr Speaker, so, I do not support “volume”. It should be “quantity”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Members, let me share what I picked from the internet.
    Quantity is the amount or number of a material or abstract thing not usually estimated by spatial measurement. The synonyms are amount, number, total, aggregate, sum, quota, group, size, mass, weight, volume, bulk, load, consignment, expanse, extent, --
    It means that quantity and volume are the same and so I would put the Question.
    Dr Afriyie 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this argument is raising very fundamental questions. In this world, we are in a state of flux, between Newtonian mechanics and Quantum physics and this is what is arising here. Quantum physics is gradually --
    Mr Speaker, the advent of computer speed has abolished the -- transitive verbs have even been wiped out virtually. This argument is very fundamental and I would opt for quantity in spite of its irrelevance. Mr Speaker, I would vouch for quantity.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Members, I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Hon Members item numbered vii. Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Banda 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 25, subclause (2), line 1, delete “fourteen” and insert “seven”.
    Mr Speaker, we are only seeking to shorten the period within which the extension of time should be granted. The original rendition is “fourteen” but we felt the fourteen days were too long a period for which reason it should be shortened to seven days. This is the sole reason we are making this amendment.
    Mr Mubarak 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, is the application in respect of working days or just seven days? That is the clarity I wanted to be provided.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    It is not working days; it is seven calendar days or fourteen calendar days.
    Yes, Hon Member for Wa West?
    Mr Chireh 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Interpretation Act defines days, and it says; when you say “a day”, it means “working day”.
    In the Interpretation Act, when you say “day”, it means “working day”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, between fourteen days and seven days, if it is seven days, going by the Interpretation Act, it would work to about two calendar weeks; a little less than two weeks. [Pause]
    Hon Yieleh Chireh, it appears that your interpretation is not borne out by the Act. Section 44(7) of the Interpretation Act says, for days, if not five days, you do not count Saturdays and Sundays. But if it exceeds five days, you count them. In this case, seven days would be seven calendar days.
    Hon Chairman, is that what we want; seven calendar days?
    Mr Banda 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, exactly so.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Item numbered viii, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Banda 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 25, subclause (2), line 2, after “made”, delete all the words up to the end of the sub-clause.
    Mr Speaker, we are seeking to delete all the words after “made” up to the end of the “clause”. What those words are seeking to do is to give the head of the institution the power to grant further extension of time. We do not want double extensions of time.
    The first extension of time that would be granted under clause 25(1) would suffice. Otherwise Mr Speaker, appli- cations would be unduly and excessively delayed under the cover of extensions of time.
    Mr Speaker, that is the reason we are seeking to effect this proposed amend- ment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Ho?
    Mr Bedzrah 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support this amendment. Information that one request for should be timeous. Giving additional extension of time would derail the request for the extension. So, I support the Hon Chairman's amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 25, subclause (3), opening phrase, line 2, delete “thirty” and insert “seven”.
    Mr Speaker, the intention is to shorten the time period. The original rendition is thirty days.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Now, I would put the Question on the entire clause 25?
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Suhum?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before you put the Question, I wanted us to reconsider clause 25(1) where we were seeking to amend an information officer to a head of the institution.
    In my view, it should be the institution because in clause 18, the application is made to the institution. So, it should be the institution that may extend the time.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    That amendment has been made for the head for of the institution.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is what I am seeking to amend to the institution rather than --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Not to the head of the institution but the institution?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, if we specify the head, and the head for some reason is not available, it will hold the
    process. If we say the institution, anybody in the institution may be delegated to undertake it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Who in the institution; the cleaner or the secretary to the chief executive?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the application in clause 18 is sent to the institution.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    But it is the head of the institution who would take the decision. We did not limit it to the chief executive; so anybody acting at the point in time as the head is capable of taking a decision.
    Mr Bedzrah 1:45 p.m.
    Yes, you are right, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    I have not recognised you -- [Laughter.]
    Hon Members, I would put the Question on the entire clause 25.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am still agitated by the issue raised by the Hon Member for Suhum. After the application has been made to the institution, the person to work on the information is the information officer.
    After working on it, if a need arises for time to be extended, it is the information officer who should deal with it. Why are we saying that now it should be the head of the institution?
    No application has been made to the head of the institution unless maybe the Chairman could show me where the head has to make a pronouncement.
    Mr Speaker, otherwise, if you look at clause 22, at the decision on application, it is the information officer who makes it. And I do not see anywhere that the head of the institution comes in.
    I just would want us to be very clear in our mind what we are doing so that we do not create any ambiguities.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Member for Wa West?
    Mr Chireh 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment that he is seeking to make do to save the institution, when you say institution - even if you say institution, in fact you can leave it there, and if it is the institution, would the institution act? No, it is somebody who must act. At that point, it must always be somebody, and that person is the Head.
    Indeed, even if you make the appli- cation to the institution, it is the Head of the institution that would refer it to the Information Officer.
    What we are saying in effect is that in the case that the Information Officer needs extension of time, he must then consult the institution head, who must give that extension, and not he himself, otherwise you are clothing the Information Officer with the power to say the person should come in two weeks, but the head should know that there is a problem.
    That is why we are saying that it should be the dead instead of the officer again.
    Mr Quashigah 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I share the position of Hon Opare-Ansah, in that there have been instances where we have made references to the public institution, and in this instance, even if you say the public institution, the public institution as an institution may not act. It is a human being who would act.
    The public officer obviously may require superior directions as to the extension of time.
    So if we say public institution, yes, the public officer would be the person who would probably take the information and go to the Head of the institution to seek directions.
    Personally, to say the head of the public institution is in one way perpetuating a certain bureaucracy that we want to avoid. So I share the position of Hon Opare- Ansah.
    The position of the Hon Majority Leader also holds sway, but we have had earlier provisions in which we changed the Information Officer to public institutions, and so I would imagine that if you say public institution, you are indirectly making reference to whoever would give the information, because in this context you are looking at it from an omnibus perspective, bearing in mind that there is an officer who would follow through with that action.
    Mr Banda 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we should say that the application should go to the public institution, that would be nebulous, because the public institution is huge.
    It includes the head of the institution, the Information Officer and other staff, but we are fixing a particular person with an obligation, and that person must be identified.
    Mr Banda 1:55 p.m.
    That person is the Information Officer, because it is the Information Officer who has the right or power to make a determination on the application, so if the applicant is appealing against a decision, the applicant is not appealing against the decision of the public institution, but against the decision of the Information Officer.
    Mr Speaker, secondly, the reason why we are saying that the Information Officer cannot grant himself extension of time is that the head of the institution must be a check on the Information Officer.

    No, Mr Speaker, what we are saying is that the head of the institution must be in the known, that the period given to the Information Officer to grant the application has expired, so the Information Officer is seeking for extension of time based on a legitimate reason or ground.

    Mr Speaker, it is on this basis that we are saying that the extension of time should be granted to the Information Officer by the Head of the institution, but not the Information Officer granting himself extension of time.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon Members, having regard to the state of Business of the House, I direct that the House Sits outside the regular Sitting hours.
    Hon Leader, would you like to respond?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the issue that I am raising has to do with the laid down procedure.
    There is nowhere in the Bill where the head of the institution is introduced to make a pronouncement on such issues. We are just jutting this in and that is my worry.
    Mr Speaker, if you look at clause 18 and 19, the person who receives the request on behalf of the institution is the Information Officer, and he or she is charged to work on it. Here in clause 25, respectfully, there is no appeal. No appeal has been filed.
    The Information Officer working on it realises that given the huge nature of the volume of information that is required, he needs some time beyond the prescribed period. So he tells the person that given this, he has to extend the time by perhaps one week or whatever period they agree on.
    That is what is at stake, and if you are saying that it should go to the Head of the institution, then we should create that avenue first. Here, it just says that the Head of the institution may extend. Where in the Bill have we introduced the Head of the institution? That is my only worry.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, are you following his argument? I have heard his argument? I do not think there is a problem.
    This is the administrative arrangements for the Information Officer on his own to determine that he cannot provide the information within the time period, but he has no power to extend the time himself, so he would go to his boss for permission to extend the time period within which he must provide the information.
    I do not see where the break is, but Hon Chairman, maybe you could explain further.
    Mr Banda 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in fact, it is the same wavelength that we are speaking on.
    I thought that clause 25 is self- explanatory, because all that it is saying is that the Information Officer does not have the power to extend the time period. It is the Head of the institution, but I quite also understand the point raised by the Hon Majority Leader.
    Mr Speaker, all that he is saying is that, there must be perhaps a preamble to introduce the Head of the institution giving him the power to make the extension of time. But I believe that clause 25 would still take care of his concern, because it pre-supposes that the Information Officer is not clothed with the power to make an extension of time.
    So I believe that there is no cause for alarm.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon Member for Suhum? I would listen to the last one.
    2. 05 p. m.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just to add to the clarification he sought to give, if you go to clause 22 for instance, in 22 (4), where the public institution decides to refuse access. From clause 22 (1) through clause 22 (3), it talks about the decision on the application by the information officer. But when it gets to a point where it talks about refusal of access or not granting the access— then it talks about the institution.
    It is on the same leg that we are saying that when it comes to taking decision on extension of time, let us use the institution. The institution with its own internal mechanisms, would have a work around —
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    You see that when it comes to refusal to grant application, it is the Information Officer acting on behalf of the institution. The application is made to the institution but all the processes is by the information officer.
    Am I right? Now, he has not been able to provide the service within the period he has to, you want his superior to be the one to determine how many more days you are allowed. I believe the linkages from clause 22 upwards links up. So I would put the Question on clause 25 as variously amended.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 25 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Clause 26?
    Clause 26 -- Refusal to process
    Mr Banda 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, subclause (1), lines 2 and 3, delete “the public institution has by notice demanded payment of a deposit in relation to the application, and” and further in line 4, delete “deposit” and insert “prescribed processing fee for reproduction of information”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition reads 1:55 p.m.
    “A public institution may refuse to continue to process an application where the applicant has not paid the prescribed processing fee for reproduction of information”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Very well. Hon Members, I hope all of you are following the discussion.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Item numbered (xi) by the Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Banda 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are now on clause 27.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    There are two proposed amendments on clause 26 --[Pause]-- All right, items numbered (x) and (xi) are the same.
    Very well, so, I would put the Question on clause 26 first.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just to ask the Hon Chairman, in clause 26 (2), which word is preferable, is it ‘a public institution that refuses to continue…. or a public institution which refuses to continue? I guess those of them who have done some legal drafting would come in to assist. Hon Alhassan and Hon Yieleh Chireh may come in to assist.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    What is your position, do you prefer ‘which or ‘that'?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that in the context, it rather should be that.
    Mr Mahama Shaibu 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Cavendish language would use ‘that'.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Clause 26 (2), is it a public institution that refuses or a public institution which refuses?
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Did you also do the drafting course? We are not doing English language here; we are doing drafting --[Laughter.]
    Mr Quashigah 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have taught modern English and I cannot be intimidated by the Hon Majority Leader in this instance.
    Mr Speaker, whether it is that or which, it means the same thing. But largely, I believe that the way it stands, when we maintain it, it does not change anything really. And this is more elegant compared to that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Now, elegance is taking precedence in drafting.
    Hon Members, I would put the Question on clause 26.
    Question put and amendment —
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, is it ‘that' or ‘which'?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    You did not propose an amendment; you asked a question.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker I beg to propose — [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    And the discussion shows that it makes no difference.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no, it does.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Then, guide us; what is the difference, in this instance, between ‘which' and ‘that'?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are talking about a public institution and as you do know, where we use the indefinite article, the next is to use the definite article to qualify that institution that we are talking about.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Well, move your Motion and let us debate it.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 26(2), line 1, delete ‘which' and insert ‘that'.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 26 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Clause 27?
    Clause 27 -- Inability to process.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Banda 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 27, delete.
    Mr Speaker, we are deleting clause 27 because it has the element of inability to process because of the issue of deposits. That is one reason.
    Mr Speaker, the second reason is that clause 26(2) and (3) have taken care to a large extent of clause 27(1). So, we believe that clause 27 is redundant.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Clause 28?
    Clause 27 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 28 -- Refusal of access
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of Committee?
    Mr Banda 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 28, subclause (1), paragraph (a), after “vexatious” add “and state the reason for which the public institution is of the opinion that the application is manifestly frivolous of vexatious; or”.
    Mr Speaker, upon a second look at the whole of clause 28, I believe this proposed amendment is not necessary. This is because when you read clause 28 (2), it obligates the Information Officer to state the reason why he refused the appli- cation. So that if the refusal is based on the fact that the application is frivolous or vexatious, the Information Officer must state the reason.
    So the addition of the words, “and state the reason for which” is not necessary. I would abandon same.
    Mr Banda 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 28 subclause (1), delete paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f).
    Mr Speaker, we seek to delete paragraph (c) because the information is available for inspection. So, it cannot be the basis for refusal. We seek to delete paragraph (d) for the same reason because the information is available for inspection free of charge.
    So there is no basis for refusal. We also seek to delete paragraph (f) for the same reason because the information forms part of library material.
    So if the applicant brings the application for access to information, that should not be the basis for refusal. The Information Officer could refer the applicant to the appropriate place where the information could be found.
    In any case, the information is public, so the applicant could have access to it. So we think that all these paragraphs are not necessary.
    Dr Zanetor Agyeman-Rawlings 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not in favour of this particular amendment because this in a way saves cost by initially informing the public that these are the reasons for which this particular information would not be processed.
    Otherwise, you would have the person go through the process of making the application, only to be informed after the process has begun that this cannot be proceeded with. So I am not in agreement with the amendment proposed to have these deleted.
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am in favour of paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f) being deleted. The reason is that you are looking for information that is not available. Once the information is available, why do you go asking public officers to give it to you?
    So in the library or wherever, once the information is available, there is no reason legislating it. That is the reason paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f) should be taken away completely from clause 28 because the information is available.
    Mr Chireh 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support Hon Agyeman-Rawlings for opposing the amendment. We should oppose it because as she indicated, when you make a law, it is notice to the public. If we leave them out and I, from Wa West, travel all the way to Accra to make an application and you tell me that because it is in the library -- Which library, whose library?
    However, if it is in this law, the person would take notice and ask the basic question if they could get it in any library. Then anybody who could offer this information would do so. He would not need any application because it is notice. So they have to be made and I heard all of you --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Hon Member for Wa West, I think that is the more reason it should be deleted from here. This is because it is refusal of access and that is what we are legislating. Now, if you travel from Wa West and you are told that the information is available at the library so you have been refused --
    This law says that no, if you know it is at the library, go and get it for him or show him where he could get it. However, if you say because of that I have refused to assist the applicant, then you have not helped him. That is why we are removing
    these from being the reason for refusing the application.
    Alhaji I. A. B. Fuseini 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, because the information is already available in public places, it removes your right to refuse. So, you cannot refuse to grant access to something which is available.
    The information is in the library, so you cannot refuse to grant access. It is printed and distributed, so you cannot refuse to grant access, and that is what this clause is trying to say. To say that the Information Officer has power to refuse is to give him power which he obviously does not have.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I appreciate the principle underpinning the proposal by the Committee to delete these. I believe we should look at the structure. It is not as if we are saying that because information is available, we would refuse access.
    What it means is that we are saying that we are closing the door on you because the information is available elsewhere. However, if you look at our rules, Standing Order 67 on Questions -- which is also a vehicle for us Members of Parliament (MP), to access information. Standing Order 67(1)(h) provides;
    “a Question shall not be asked the answer to which is readily available in official publications”.
    That is the principle and that is why I say we should look at how we structure it. It is the structure that we should refer to and I appreciate the principle. If we are saying that one would not have to formerly request information that is available, that is a different thing.
    So I think that we should look at the structure, but the principle is understood.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the position of the Committee because if you read carefully and look at the principle in that clause, it is not that they want to refuse you access. It is that the information exists elsewhere and you would have to access it differently.
    So we might want to look at making a provision under clause 29, manner of access, where a provision would be given for information that is readily available in any of these places.
    Where it is in clause 28, under “refusal of access”, just as the Hon Member from Tamale Central said, if it is public information and can be found in libraries and other places, then you cannot refuse anybody access. They might have applied to the wrong place for access.
    So we have to situate it properly under “manner of access”, so that if such a request came to the notice of an institution and it is about them and they know that the information is already available elsewhere, the manner of accessing that could be by pointing the applicant in the right direction.
    Mr Bedzra 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to help my Hon Senior Colleague by saying that the subtitle is ‘‘refusal of access''. If there is an information in the library, the information officer cannot refuse a person. So, if we could use ‘‘refusal of access'' as the subtitle, it would be appreciated. That amendment has to be accepted.
    Dr Kuganab-Lem 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, when we talk about information, it could be available, but not adequate. We have asked questions in this Parliament and we have received answers. Whether the answer fully answers what Hon Members asked cannot be guaranteed.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    I believe that is not an issue. If one gets an information that is provided and it is not sufficient one could ask for further information if they exist and it would be provided, but first a person would get what he or she asked for.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 28 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu: Mr Speaker, as it is, the general public may not know that because information is available elsewhere they cannot then walk to any place to demand for that particular information because it exists in an official publication. How do we capture that? I believe that is at the heart of the issue that I raised.
    Mr Speaker, I agree that it should be deleted from clause 28, but how should it be captured? I believe there should be a way to capture it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, we would deal with ‘‘manner of access'' in clause 29. So, if it is not adequate, you may propose amendments to cover that.
    Clause 29 -- Manner of access.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Hon Member for Akim Oda, what is your problem?
    Mr Quaittoo 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to seek permission to move the proposed amendment on behalf of Ms Nana Dokua Asiamah-Adjei.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Very well.
    Mr William Agyapong Quaittoo (on behalf of Ms Nana Dokua Asiamah- Adjei) 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 29, subclause (1), paragraph (a), sub- paragraph (i), line1, after “reasonable” insert “access and”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 2:25 a.m.
    (a) by giving the applicant
    (i) a reasonable access and opportunity to inspect the information, or''.
    Mr Speaker, the reason is that, a person may be given an opportunity to inspect an information on a computer for instance, but the person gets unto the computer and it has a password -- that is not a reasonable access.
    The access must be provided and that is why the Hon Member seeks to add the words ‘‘access and opportunity''. It could also be ‘‘opportunity and access''.
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am opposed to this amendment. The word ‘‘access'' has already been used after the headnote. It says and I beg to quote:
    ‘‘Access to information may be given to an applicant
    (a) by giving the applicant
    (i) a reasonable opportunity to inspect the information,…''
    Mr Speaker, why should the word ‘‘access'' be repeated? It is not necessary and does not make it elegant in drafting.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    It started with the words “access to information may be given'' by the following methods and the first one is that, once a person is given the opportunity to inspect the information it is access. If a copy is made for the person, the person has been given access.
    The proposed amendment may not be appropriate.
    Hon Members, any other contribution on this amendment?
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, what do you think?
    Mr Banda 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member is right because the word ‘‘access'' has already been captured and so there is no need for it to be repeated.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Hon Member for Suhum do you want to contribute to this one?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2:25 a.m.
    No, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Quaittoo 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe it is appropriate that it is stepped down.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Very well. It is accepted.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    The next amendment is also in the name of the Hon Nana Dokua Asiamah-Adjei.
    Yes, Hon Member for Akim Oda?
    Mr William Agyapong Quaittoo (on behalf of Ms Nana Dokua Asiamah- Adjei) 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 29, subclause (1) paragraph (c), line 2, before “document” delete “the” and insert “a”.
    Mr Amoatey 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I respectfully wish to oppose the amendment in the sense that the document which is being discussed in this one is a particular document; a definite document.
    It is not an indefinite document and therefore the amendment would make it amendable to any document at all, but reference is made to a particular document and therefore the definite article is correct.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, what do you think? The proposed amendment is to delete the article ‘'the'' and insert article ‘'a''.
    (c) ‘‘by giving the applicant the written transcript of the words recorded in the document, in the case of information in which words are recorded in a manner in which they are capable of being reproduced in the form of sound,''
    Mr Banda 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am torn between the two arguments, but I appear to be swayed by the proposed amendment in the sense that in clause 29, in the preceding provisions, there is no mention of the word ‘‘document '' at all.
    Dr Kuganab-Lem 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to oppose the proposal of the Hon Chairman. This is because preceding that we have “… transcript of the words…” The words come from a document and so a particular -- [Interruption.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Hon Member, please address me.
    Dr Kuganab-Lem 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, preceding that, “…a written transcript of the words…” -- the words came from what -- [Interruption] -- it does not matter.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 a.m.
    Please, do not argue with him; make your point.
    Dr Kuganab-Lem 2:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, recorded in the document -- the translation came from a document. So, you are referring to the document.
    Mr Speaker, if we would want to go by what they are saying, then we would have to remove “the words” and say ‘transcript of words recorded in the document in the case of information …'
    So, the second “the” takes the place of the first “the” and we cannot remove the second without the first. The words came from a document and that is what this is referring to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Hon Member for Suhum, I will now hear you.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the amendment should be supported.
    Indeed, as the Hon Chairman of the Committee alluded to, there is no previous usage of document to make it definite for us to say “the document”. As for “the words” and where it came from, it could have come from a sound track.
    Indeed, if you proceed further down, you would see that these words being transcribed are coming from a source of sound because that whole provision is about the transcription of sound sources into documents. So, the words used there are not words in a document; they are words in sound bites or tracts.
    Mr Chireh 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member who just spoke was referring to sound as in such document. Document includes that -- all the things they are talking about. A document includes the tract and the rest of the things otherwise what we are saying in effect is that, once the words came from somewhere as the Hon Member for Binduri is saying, it means a particular document --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Which particular document has been referred to --
    Mr Chireh 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it was the words. If you look at --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    The words of which document?
    Mr Chireh 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 29 (1) (d) reads:
    “by giving the applicant a written transcript of the words…”
    So, if you had said “words”, there would not have been a problem.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Yes. But it says the words of a document; which means it refers to any document. When we use “the”, it means we must have mentioned a particular document which does not appear here.
    Very well; I will put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    The next proposed amendment stands in the name of Hon Opare-Ansah.
    Mr Banda — rose --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Hon Opare- Ansah, you would hold on. The Hon Chairman of the Committee is on his feet. Let me listen to him.
    Mr Banda 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was just conferring with the Hon Opare-Ansah to take into consideration the subsequent amendment. I would want to know whether his proposed amendment on the Order Paper would take care of the subsequent proposed amendment.
    Mr Speaker, if that is the case, we have no objection.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    So, you are inviting the House to confer and probably marry the two proposed amendments.
    Mr Banda 2:35 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 29, subclause (1) paragraph (f) delete and insert:
    “(f) in any other form, electronic, magnetic, optical or otherwise, including computer printouts, various computer storage devices and web portals.”
    In subsequent amendment, clause 29 subclause (1), delete paragraphs (f), line 2, delete “diskette” and insert “pen drive” and also delete “downloading” and insert “download link” .
    Mr Speaker, the amendment being proposed thus take into consideration all the time listed in the subsequent amendment of item (xviii) which stands in the name of the Hon Chairman of the Committee. For instance, diskette and pen drive are all computer storage devices.
    They were also seeking to change “downloading” to “download link”; all these are web portals which is a more generic term than a download link. This is because in reality, you may have information sitting on a web portal which cannot be downloaded but it is still information. So, web portal serves a broader purpose than the download link.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the phraseology here would serve us better than what currently sits in the book.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, you would probably advise us whether his proposal would take care of yours. If it is sufficient to cover all the things you have in mind.
    Mr Banda 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, honestly speaking, when it comes to issues of information technology, I defer to the Hon Opare-Ansah because he has a lot of knowledge --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Very well. So, those who are information technology savvy would assist us.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Hon Richard Acheampong, are you information technology savvy? [Laughter] Your constituency and mine are not too close to information technology. [Laughter.]
    Yes, let me hear you.
    Mr R. Acheampong 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you are right. But I would just want to give him more education as to what influenced his decision to make this proposed amendment. This is because clause 29(1)(b) is almost the same as the new subclause (f) he is proposing; that is where my confusion is.
    It is because if you read clause 29(1) (b), it is talking about the visual images in the case of information from which sounds or visual images are capable of being reproduced, whether or not with the aid of another device.
    Mr Speaker, he is talking about a magnetic, optical or otherwise including computer printout. So, if one talks about magnetic it is the same images that you are talking of because it scans the document, gives you the image and feeds the image to a computer before the person can print it out.
    So, it is the same thing subclause (b) is talking about. Unless maybe the Hon Member has another information to give else subclause (b) would take care of the new subclause (f) he is proposing.
    I thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 29(1)(b) is totally different from what I am proposing. Clause 29 (1) (b) says:
    “by making arrangements for the applicant to hear the sounds or view the visual images, in the case of
    information from which sounds or visual images are capable of being reproduced, whether or not with the aid of another device”.
    So it is totally different.
    Mr Speaker, it is not only computers that are used for projections. When the Hon Member was a child, he would remember those people who used to come to his house with a device that they would put some films inside and he would watch while people sing on it -- pinhole camera. That technology is also there and it is a visual aid but not a computer.
    Mr Speaker, even with projectors, he should remember we used to have projection slides which one would put on a slide and watch it on the wall; that is not a computer but a visual aid and it helps you. That is the kind of thing that clause 29(1)(b) is talking about.
    What I am proposing in clause 29(1)(f) talks about storage devices. We have, magnetic storage devices like diskettes and, more recently, pen drives. Then we have optical storage devices like compact discs read-only memory (CD-ROMs) and web portals and clouds.
    Mr Speaker, those are the things I am talking about in clause 29(1)(f). So, they are totally different.
    Mr Bedzrah 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the amendment proposed by my Hon Colleague. If we look at clause 29(1)(f) in the original Bill, it states that, “in any form, electronic or otherwise, including computer print-outs, diskettes, computer discs and downloading”. What is downloading?
    Hon Opare-Ansah made it even more elegant by adding, “web portals” and “storage devices”. These are computer languages so I believe we should all accept them. He has even simplified it for us. We do not even use diskettes any longer. Do we? [Interruption] -- We do not!
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    But some information may be stored on them that we may have to access.
    Mr Bedzrah 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, and that is why we need to use all the languages that we have in modern technology. “Electronic” could be downloaded or saved on a diskette.
    So, it covers that. Then, “magnetic, optical and otherwise, including computer print-outs, various computer storage devices and web portals”. So, I support the amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Very well, so, I would put the Question.
    Mr Amoatey 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I seek your leave to make a slight amendment to the Hon Opare-Ansah's amendment.
    Mr Speaker, “print-outs” is used in his amendment. I propose we use “print-out” rather than “print-outs”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    In that case, all the others should be “storage device”, “portal” instead of the plural.
    Mr Amoatey 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “storage devices” means the different forms of storage devices. That is allowed.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    What about “portals”? [Interruption.] It is the same; different portals? [Interruption.]
    Very well.
    Dr Mrs Bernice Adiku Heloo 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wonder why we would want to delete, “diskette”. Some people still use it. [Interruption.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Is that covered in, “computer storage devices”? [Interruption]
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, a diskette is a computer storage device. I suspect she wrote her university project and thesis on a diskette -- [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Her materials are still stored on her diskette. [Laughter.]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the issues are clear, so, you can put the Question. I was wondering, having stated in the opening, “in any other form” or if we like, “in any other accessible form”, whether we even needed all these inclusions.
    We are taken care of if we just state, “in any other accessible form” or “in any other form”. We do not even need to go the whole hog. However, because I have seen several heads nod to it, let us not go back. Put the Question --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Yes, there are many whose constituencies are from afar like mine. So -- [Laughter]---
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, once we state, “in any other form”, it includes everything imaginable and unimaginable.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Hon Member, I would want to put the Question unless you are adding something new.
    Mr Ras Mubarak 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, just a short one. Looking at the fact that it is law we are making, tomorrow, a lot of these things may be outdated. So I beg to
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Hon Members, I believe what is here is sufficient. It takes care of the future.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, in view of this, would you still want to move your amendment numbered (xviii)?
    Mr Banda 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no, I would abandon it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Thank you very much. We would go to item numbered (xix).
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 29 subclause (2), paragraph (b) add a new sub-paragraph:
    “(i) the cost of providing the information in the required form has not been explicitly provided for as per section 78 and no equivalent provision can be found for costing purposes.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Hon Member, justify your proposed amend- ment because I do not understand.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the provision in the Bill itself in clause 29 (2) says:
    “Where a request for access to information has been made in a
    particular form, access to infor- mation --
    (a) shall be given in that form, or
    (b) may be refused if…”
    The conditions under which it may be refused is stated. I am proposing that we add a new sub-paragraph to paragraph (b) which states,
    “(iv) the cost of providing the information in the required form has not been explicitly provided for as per section 78 and no equivalent provision can be found for costing purposes.”
    Mr Speaker, in clause 78, we are saying that we would provide fees and charges to cover this. Then, this is a situation where they try to refuse access to information for reasons. We do not want the institution to become capricious and start acting on their own stead.
    So, if they cannot find an express provision -- and this is the thinking that, in future, certain requests may come for which they cannot find an already prescribed fee. That being the case, that could be one of the grounds on which they would temporarily refuse access and make sure that the subsequent review of their fees and charges would have that covered.
    Otherwise, they would start charging their own fees. It is safe, if they cannot find an equivalent charge to apply. That is the provision.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:45 p.m.
    Before I open it up, I would want to understand you. Are you saying that the information is available; you are capable of providing the information in the form the person wants it but because a specific means to
    determine the fee has not been provided the information should not be supplied.
    That is the summary of this one?
    Mr Chireh 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I oppose the amendment. This amounts to indirect deposit collection and it should not be encouraged. [Laughter.] We should leave that one and apply clause 78 to guide everything. If it becomes necessary, we could always amend the law; but we cannot legislate for things that we are not sure of.
    Mr S. Mahama 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it also defeats the purpose for which one looks for the information. Therefore, we cannot assume that a particular form should be catered for under clause 78. Clause 78 is clear, the headnote is “Fees and charges for public institutions”.
    It would be put there, whether it is Form A or B; that would be prescribed. This proposed amendment would defeat the purpose for which access is granted. Mr Speaker, I oppose it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Agbodza 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the provi- sions in subclause (2)(b)(ii) and (iii) are adequate to cater for almost everything that we could imagine. I do not think that my Hon Colleague's additional Sub- paragraph would make any difference. It would not enhance the opportunity of getting the information if it is available.
    So I would encourage my Hon Col- league to abandon this one; sub- paragraphs (ii) and (iii) are adequate. It takes care of everything.
    Question put and amendment nega- tived.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    The proposed amendment was too capricious to be left there. [Laughter.]
    Hon Chairman, the last proposed amendment to clause 29?
    Mr Alexander Kodwo Kom Abban 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your leave, I would like to stand in for the Hon Chairman, who has just stepped out.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Yes, move the amendment.
    Mr Abban (on behalf of the
    Chairman): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 29, subclause (2), subparagraph (i), delete.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, why do you want that one deleted?
    Mr Banda 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the reason is that if we look at the construct of subclause (2)(i), it is very nebulous. It would admit itself of many interpretations. It does not mean anything to say that it is likely to unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public institution. So, it is proposed that it be deleted.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not too sure of what subclause (2)(b)(ii) means -- access to information need to be refused if it is likely to be detrimental to the preservation of the information.
    Which information are we talking about? Is it the information that is sought or the store of information from which the applicant has submitted an application? Which information are we talking about?
    Mr Banda 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that
    where the applicant seeks to have the information reproduced in a certain form, which is likely to endanger the preser- vation of the stored information -- the information is stored in a certain form, but the applicant wants the information in a different form.
    This provision says that if the form in which the applicant wants the information would endanger the preservation of that information, the application would be refused.
    If he wants it in a certain form that would endanger the preservation of the information as stored in that form, then the information would be refused. If the information is destroyed, that information cannot be accessed anymore.
    Mr Chireh 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if that is the argument, then we should rather delete that one which is so particular and leave subparagraph (iii) because it virtually says the same thing. If we look at the preservation -- we cannot store or preserve information for no other use other than for people to access it.
    So, if by giving out the information it destroys the whole information, then we do not have the information; but the person who needs it at that time should be given access.
    So, I think that the issue should be that if it is in the form of subparagraph that says, “Having regard to the physical nature of the information it is not appropriate to grant access in that form…”, so that we can change the form.
    Mr Speaker, but to say that after the information has been given it cannot be preserved, who are we preserving it for? Maybe, I am the only person looking for that information; but technology should resolve the matter.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    It has to do with protecting the nature or sanctity of a particular information. There are certain books in the library that if we attempt to photocopy now everything would crumble.
    So if you insist on getting photo- copies, I cannot give them to you; but you could read them there. That is the nature of the -- it should be clear. It is the form of access that would be denied, it is not access to the information. It is the form in which you want it.
    Hon Members, I intended to close at 3.00 p.m. It is 3.00 p.m., so I would put the Question on this one.
    Mr Quashigah 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the specific issue that was raised by the Hon Majority Leader had to do with subparagraph (ii), which we think should be deleted. It reads, “it is likely to be detrimental to the preservation of the information; or…”
    Mr Speaker, from the explanation given by the Hon Chairman, subparagraph (iii) obviously takes care of subclause (ii); except my understanding of it is wrong.
    Mr Agbodza 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not think that we need to delete it. Like you rightly said, there may be historic documents that are even protected. They are stored in a vacuum, so one is not supposed to physically touch it.
    If one says one wants a photocopy, we cannot break the casing and take it to a photocopier for it to be done. So, apart from the fact that one may destroy the item, the form in which one wants it cannot be given to the person.
    Subclauses (ii) and (iii) are relevant. I think that we should not [Interruption.] No, they are slightly different.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    Hon Members, we are not talking about different things. Let us move forward.
    Clause 29 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Hon Members, it is five minutes past 3.00 p.m. and I intend to bring proceedings to a close.
    Yes, Hon Chairman?
    Very well.
    That brings us to the end of Consideration of the Right to Information Bill, 2018.
    Mr Banda 3:05 p.m.
    [Inaudible] --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    Whatever is there, we can do it tomorrow.
    ADJOURNMENT 3:05 p.m.