Debates of 25 Mar 2019

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:17 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:17 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:17 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 22nd March, 2019.
Page 1…10 --
rose
Mr Yiadom-Boachie 10:17 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I sought permission last Friday, but I have been marked as absent without permission on page 8, number 32.
Mr Speaker 10:17 a.m.
Thank you very much.
Page 10…11 --
rose
Alhaji Muntaka 10:17 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am sorry to take you back to page 8.
I equally sought permission not to be here on Friday, but I have been marked as absent without permission.
Mr Speaker 10:17 a.m.
It will be corrected accordingly.
Page 13-25 --
rose
Mr Speaker 10:17 a.m.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:17 a.m.
Mr Speaker, two Hon Colleagues have raised issues relating to them having sought permission not to be in the House yet, they find their names in the list of Hon Members who were absent without permission.
Mr Speaker, I believe the principle involved is fundamental. If Hon Members write to your Office to seek permission not to be present in the House for one reason or the other, should it not be the case that there should be a formal response from your Office?
I know that it is not in all cases that you may approve, but because communication does not flow to the other direction, Hon Members assume that once they submit a leave of absence, it would be granted, and they leave whereas, maybe, you might not have granted permission for them to leave.
Mr Speaker, I we should consider having a flow from the other side of
the Hon Members in order to confirm your assent to Hon Members' absence from the House.
Mr Speaker, perish the thought, if you do not grant permission for an Hon Member to travel or to be absent from the Chamber, yet is absent from the Chamber and anything should happen to him, then Parliament cannot be held liable. The Hon Member would have done so at his own peril.
So, I believe that it is important that we develop a scheme where when you grant Hon Members permission to be absent from the Chamber, formal communication would be done so, the Clerks-at-the-Table should also be seized of the fact.
Otherwise, we could have a rather unhealthy development where it would be difficult not to hold for the Hon Member whose permission you might not have granted, but which communication was also not done to him, and he or she assumes and then travels, and then something happens, and Parliament would be held to account.
Mr Speaker, I believe that going forward, we should improve upon the system.
Thank you very much.
rose
Mr Speaker 10:17 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Alhaji Muntaka 10:17 a.m.
Mr Speaker, whereas I agree with the Hon Majority Leader about the principle that he espoused, we then have to develop the mechanism. Currently, our practice is that, once an Hon Member writes, whether it is approved or not, it does not go back to him or her, so he or she would not get to know. It is on few occasions that it comes back to the Whips when they require further and better particulars.
Mr Speaker, we need to develop a channel that is quick. For example, on Friday, our Hon Colleague, Albert Alalzuuga, Hon Member for Garu was in the Chamber when he heard of the accident that occurred around Kintampo. Majority of the occupants of the vehicles were his constituents. He had to leave the Chamber. He had to call that he was running out but I said that he should just get his Special Assistant to fill the leave of absence form, so that I could approve it for him.
In that instance, it becomes so difficult if we do not develop a channel that is quick for an Hon Member to know that he has been granted permission to go or not to.
Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Majority Leader. By merely filling the form and assuming that once it is done, Mr Speaker is obliged to approve it is not sufficient. We have not developed our practice such that Hon Members would get the feedback.
Alhaji Muntaka 10:17 a.m.


I agree perfectly with the Hon Majority Leader that Leadership may have to look at how to develop it such that it can meet the expectations of all of us.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 10:27 a.m.
Thank you.
This can be discussed further among the Hon Leaders outside the Chamber.
Hon Members, the Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 22nd March, 2019 as corrected is hereby adopted as the true record of proceedings.
Hon Members, the Official Report of Thursday, 21st February, 2019.
Hon Members, any corrections?

Hon Members, item numbered 3 -- Statements.

Is Hon Dr Twum-Nuamah in the House?

He is not in the House.

There is a Statement by Hon Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa on the cyclone which struck Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe.
STATEMENTS 10:27 a.m.
Mr Samuel O. Ablakwa (NDC -- North Tongu) 10:27 a.m.
Mr Speaker, may I register my gratitude for the opportunity to make this Statement.
Mr Speaker, these are harrowing times for our brothers and sisters in south-eastern Africa, our continent and indeed all of humanity. Cyclone Idai made landfall last Thursday into Friday (14th-15th March, 2019) on the coast of Southeast Africa, striking Mozambique, Malawi and Zim- babwe.
According to experts; like hurri- canes and typhoons, a cyclone is a low-pressure circular storm system with winds greater than 74 miles per hour, each termed according to where it forms.
Mr Speaker, the United Nations (UN) already described Cyclone Idai as one of the world's worst weather related -- disasters in the southern hemisphere. Analysts say that 1.7 million people were in the path of the cyclone.
So far more than 500 people have been confirmed dead by the UN with fears that the death toll will rise. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced in what has become an international humani- tarian nightmare.
Herve Verhoosel, a spokesman for the United Nations World Food
Programme (WFP) said in an interview that the agency's workers had described seeing “water and water for miles and miles — flooding so severe it resembled an inland ocean where homes and towns had stood”. The' situation remained dire, he said, for potentially hundreds of thousands of people in need of food, clean water and evacuation.
Mr Speaker, President Filipe Nyusi of Mozambique stated in a televised address that the cyclone had killed more than 200 people in his country. In Zimbabwe, state news media reported that more than 100 people had died.
Earlier, Mr Nyusi had reportedly said he feared that as many as 1,000 people could be found dead in Mozambique as he has seen many bodies floating on hooded roads during his official tours.
In Beira, one of Mozambique's major port cities, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies reported:
“It seems that 90 per cent of the area is completely destroyed.” They added:
“The situation is terrible. The scale of devastation is enormous. Communication lines have been completely cut and roads have been destroyed. Some affected communities are not accessible.''
Mr Speaker, the WFP aerial assessment of the Buzi Valley, west of Beria and along the Buzi River revealed “entire village wiped out.” United Nations Children's Education Fund (UNICEF) has also estimated that 260,000 children were affected in Mozambique, many losing homes, schools and access to hospitals.
Mr Speaker, this humanitarian crisis of monstrous proportions happening right here in our own continent demands the solidarity of this House and our entire country including the Executive branch. Ghana ought to retain our enviable reputation as a country that stands up to be counted when tragedies of this nature unfold.
Indeed, there are many occasions that we have offered moral and inspirational leadership to the world. That was the case when we actively extended support to Pan African movements across the continent during the struggle against colonialism more than six decades ago; we are also fondly remembered for our support to Guinea during that sister nation's financial distress in the 1960s and our bold interventions in the fight against apartheid is well documented right from the 1987-88 battle of Cuito Cuanavale.
In this Fourth Republic, we have been hailed for our support to Japan in the aftermath of devastating earthquakes in the 1990s; our $3 million donation to Haiti in 2010 following calamitous earthquakes and quite recently, our 2014 exemplary Ebola rescue mission.

Mr Speaker, may we always be reminded of the great and Worthy example we have been to many in the comity of nations with the hope that this reputation will spur us on never to give up on sharing the little we have with the world. Let us remember that timeless dictum from Mother Teresa: “If you can't feed a hundred people, feed just one.”

Mr Speaker, though aid workers and volunteers for more support; may we from the bottom of our hearts acknowledge the assistance of many amazing generous citizens around the world.

We should also highlight the UN which has allocated US$20 million from its Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF), the African Union's US$$350,000; the European Union which has donated 3.5 million Euros and nations such as Tanzania, South Africa, Namibia, Angola, United Kingdom, China, United States of America and the United Arab Emirates for their timely acts of generosity.

Mr Speaker, in reflecting on Cyclone Idai, it is imperative to consider the reality of climate change and how it threatens our very existence. Skepticism should now give way to urgent concrete action by all of us so we can save this planet.

Mr Speaker, we must also ponder over our inability as a continent to invest in forecasting technology which is available elsewhere and used for

early warnings and evacuations to safety in order to prevent such large scale catastrophe.
Mr Speaker, it is the Rev. Martin Luther King Jnr. who famously remarked 10:27 a.m.
“Life's most persistent and urgent question is, “what are you doing for others?
I therefore plead Mr Speaker, that this House goes beyond solidarity with mere words, though I do not discount soothing words in times like this. I propose most humbly, if it pleases you Mr Speaker, that we all as Hon Members of Parliament make voluntary donations in cash or in kind which we should put together and donate to our fellow' Africans in Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe who are in dire need of our urgent assistance.
I trust that under the able leadership of our kind-hearted and renowned Rev. Minister and Speaker of the House, whom I must add has positively impacted many including my humble Self, this proposed gesture would be done beautifully to inspire all including the people we represent in this august House.
May the Good Lord accept the souls of the departed and may He preserve all those affected.
Africa shall rise!
I thank you, Mr Speaker most sincerely.
Mr Speaker 10:27 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Okudzeto Ablakwa for this marvellous effort.
Hon Members, we would take one contributor from each Side.
Hon Leaders, you may assist.
Mr Kwame Govers Agbodza (NDC -- Adaklu) 10:27 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Statement ably made by my Colleague, the Hon Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa.
Mr Speaker, adverse weather conditions are becoming issues that must attract the attention of the world. It is no longer situated on one continent alone. It is not lost on us that few years ago, the issues of adverse weather affecting places in America, even Europe and the others took a lot of lives.
Mr Speaker, it is true that the Hon member who made of the Statement drew the attention of the world, especially this House to the fact that there are still people in our world that still do not believe that human beings can, or actually do contribute to what we experience today.
Mr Speaker, in our own part of the world, including my own constituency, it is not difficult. When people are advised as to why they should be careful with the way they treat the environment -- [Interruption] Science has proven that the haphazard
cutting down of vegetation trees and other things could contribute to the changes in the weather around us. It is scarier when leaders of the world, who should lead us to understand and take mitigating measures, actually deny the existence of climate change.
Mr Speaker, we therefore call upon countries like the United States of America's (USA) Government to make it a point not to lose their enviable place as world leaders in terms of climate change, and the fight against it. I appreciate the fact that states in the US do acknowledge the effects of climate change, and have taken steps to address that.
Mr Speaker, it also leads us to address the issue of how rising population can be accommodated without necessarily undermining our own existence. What happened in Malawi, Zimbabwe and other places can happen in this country. It is one thing installing the capability to detect adverse weather coming in, and another getting prepared to protect one's people against it.
It is unlikely that we can stop these things from happening, but as a country and a continent, maybe we should get ready to understand that these things may take a longer time to be stopped. While we work towards a sustainable way of living -- the way we build, and conduct our agriculture and everything else -- we should be prepared that one day, things like this may happen.
Mr Speaker 10:27 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Member.
Dr Kojo Appiah-Kubi (NPP -- Atwima Kwanwoma) 10:27 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to the Statement ably made by the Hon Ablakwa on the cyclone that occurred in the southern part of Africa.
Mr Speaker, looking at the cyclones and disasters that occur in the whole world, Ghana seems to be fortunate that such natural disasters are not so rampant and severe in our part of the world.
But then, the question that we would need to ask ourselves is, what are the causes, and why are they so rampant these days? What do we need to do to prevent such occurrences, and even if they occur, what do we need to do to minimise the impact on our economic and social lives?
Mr Speaker, experts have attributed these cyclones and increase in temperatures to climate change. Indeed, climate change is real, it is happening, and Ghanaians need to take into consideration the effects. We do not need to look very far. We should just visit our coastal areas, which are not far away from here, and we could see so many towns and communities that are being washed away.
Mr Speaker, one could see the level of the sea that has increased so tremendously over the past few years.
It is indeed real, and we would need to put, not only measures in place, but be concerned as to why and what we can contribute to prevent this increase in temperatures, and to prevent climate change and its negative consequences on Ghana.
Mr Speaker, while we console the people of southern Africa, Ghanaians must be well aware, and as the proverb goes, “se gya to wo nua abodwese mu a, na w'asa nsuo asi wo de ho.” -- [interruption] To wit, when something very bad happens to your neighbour --
Mr Speaker 10:27 a.m.
Which means that when you speak in a language other than English in this honourable House, you must translate. -- [Laughter] so says our rules.
Dr Appiah-Kubi 10:27 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is indeed very heart-warming that the --
Mr Speaker 10:27 a.m.
Hon Member, you have not translated what you said.
Dr Appiah-Kubi 10:27 a.m.
Mr Speaker, what I actually wanted to put across is that what Ghana needs to do is -- [Interruptions]—
Some Hon Members 10:27 a.m.
Translate it.
Mr Speaker 10:47 a.m.
Hon Member, are you with us here?
Dr Appiah-Kubi 10:47 a.m.
Mr Speaker, What it means is that when the beard of your neighbour catches fire, you need to fetch water and put it near yours.
Mr Speaker, once again, while we console our neighbours in southern Africa, I would like us to begin to put in place responses -- how we can respond to such disasters in order to prevent and ameliorate the negative effects on the people's economic and social life.
Mr Speaker, with these few words, I thank you for the opportunity.
Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 10:47 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity and to commend the Hon member who made the Statement, Hon Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, for bringing to fore the developments in Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe, and the events of 14th to 16th March 2019, on the cyclone.
Mr Speaker, as he quoted, just for emphasis, Martin Luther King who says 10:47 a.m.
“Life's most persistent and urgent question is: What are you doing for others?”
What is it that Ghana can do by way of humanitarian support and intervention for the affected countries and for the people affected by the cyclone?
Mr Speaker, he also brought to the fore Ghana's own preparedness to
respond to such emergencies. In the unfortunate event that we do have such occurrence, what would we be able to do?
He raised the issue that in the past, between 2010 and 2014, the country Ghana was very generous in supporting countries that were affected by other natural disasters.
The other matter he has referenced is the support that has been received so far from the UN and AU. This House, apart from doing something on our own as Parliament and as Hon Members of Parliament, as he has indicated, should get the Executive, particularly the Hon Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional integration and the President to see what support we can give to those sister countries.
Mr Speaker, I support the Hon member who made the Statement and commend him. To conclude, on weather surveillance in Ghana, the Ghana Meteorological Agency (Gmet) which is under the Ministry of Communication, even for airport weather support still has difficulties making projections, and they rely heavily on data from other sources. We should have our own primary data to be able to deal with this.
We should commend so far the efforts of the WFP and the UN itself, and those other countries that have extended support to those countries.
Mr Speaker, once again, I thank the Hon member who made the
Statement, and his call for action must be one to which we should respond timeously and give them our generous support in order to see them out of the crises.
Mr Speaker 10:47 a.m.
Majority Leader- ship?
Majority Leader (Mr Osei Kyei- Mensah-Bonsu) 10:47 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I also beg to support the Statement made by our Colleague, Hon Okudzeto Ablakwa, in respect of the tragedy that has befallen the three countries to the south east of our continent.
Mr Speaker, the cyclone which started from the east and passed over portions of India before getting to the east of Africa to cause such devastation, caused some devastation in India before passing over the Indian Ocean and gathering strength once again to enter the African continent.
Mr Speaker, in India, some of the incidents appeared a bit laughable when they happened. A tornado caused the raining of fish in India, and people could not understand how it happened, that the strength of it was such that it was able to lift fish in the sea and transport them several kilometres to dump them on land.
It was over 100 kilometres before they were dumped in the midst of rains on land, and it was such a scene that people, in spite of themselves were struggling to gather the fish, even though they themselves, had suffered
such predicament and some of the houses had collapsed.
To them, it was a quarter loaf still better than nothing, so while they wailed, they still gathered the fish, because they could not understand the phenomenon that had yielded fish in the rainstorms that happened in India.
It entered Mozambique and Zimbabwe, and the devastation is immeasurable. Several houses collapsed in the twinkle of an eye, and some collapsed on those who occupied the structures at the time.
As my Hon Colleague indicated, numbers have been given, but it is anticipated that they would climb up more than three or four fold, and that is why we should also be watchful about the kind of structures that we allow to be put up, especially in the hinterlands.
I shudder to think of what would happen in Ghana if these things happened in the hinterland, where we still have wattle and daub structures with thatch as roofs in this age and time of our national development.
Mr Speaker, because we are not too firm on these issues that we perhaps consider as petty, which have serious effects on agricultural productivity, we are not able to foretell three or six months ahead whether there would be a famine or not, and often times when they come out to tell us that it would rain, it does not rain at all.
Majority Leader (Mr Osei Kyei- Mensah-Bonsu) 10:47 a.m.


I was told that an aircraft that yesterday lifted from Accra to Kumasi could not land in Kumasi. It had to return to Accra. That is something that should have been seen that maybe, in thirty minutes, the storm would get to Kumasi, and that a plane should not head towards there.

Mr Speaker, even this one could not be predicted, so what is it that we are talking about bemoaning what tragedy that has befallen our African brothers and sisters in other countries, when we are not able to take care of ourselves?

We need to be much more serious. We have to raise our level of performance in these areas, otherwise we do not want to witness what happened recently in Ethiopia. If it is a heavy storm, it could cause the dropping of an airplane, especially given the light weight of the planes that we use internally.

If the storm is heavy, it could down the plane, and if our weather experts cannot foretell that danger is looming, that could be disastrous to us.

Mr Speaker, I myself on three occasions have been lifted up to Kumasi and we could not land. We had to come back to Accra. On one occasion when we got to Accra it was still very stormy, and an attempt was made to go to Togo and land in Lomé. It is scary, and, as somebody said, you might not be afraid ; but sometimes, you fear a little. We must up our level of performance. It is

about security, and we must be careful. We should not allow a tragedy to befall us before we start to put money into the acquisition of these facilities.

Mr Speaker, let us, while bemoaning the tragedy that has befallen our colleague citizens of Africa elsewhere, use this occasion to do serious introspection into our own performance, so that we would avoid tragedy.
Mr Speaker 10:57 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Majority Leader, for your contribution.
Hon Members, I direct that the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs together with the Hon Ranking Member of the Committee and their other Hon Colleagues should urgently meet soon after this, consider the matter holistically and make recommendations by Wednesday, as to what they think Parliament, as an institution, should do and what we can recommend to the nation as a whole to do in the circumstance.
It is very appropriate that we give our brothers and sisters in these countries a minute's silence.
Mr Speaker 10:57 a.m.
Hon Members, it appears that the world is in a state of difficulty. We have a Statement on the rise of terrorism by Hon Ben Abdallah Banda.
New Zealand Attacks and the Rise of Terrorism
Mr Ben Abdallah Banda (NPP -- Offinso South) 10:57 a.m.
Mr Speaker, on 15th March, 2019, one Mr Brenton Harrison Tarrant, an Australian citizen, attacked two mosques in Christ church city, New Zealand and gruesomely shot and killed 50 Muslims and wounded several others.
It is believed that a few minutes before the attack, the assailant had posted a 74 manifesto document on the social media and emailed same to the office of the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Ms Jacinda Ardern in which he disclosed his diabolical intent and referred to foreign nationals in New Zealand as “foreign invaders”.
Mr Speaker, one could detect, clearly, the implacable hatred and the enormous callousness awakened in the killer as he live-streamed his killing spree on Facebook.
Mr Speaker, the 15th March, 2019 was, indeed, unprecedentedly tragic for New Zealand, and the Prime Minister referred to it as one of its darkest days:
Mr Speaker, this dastardly act did not only throw Christchurch and the whole of New Zealand into severe grief and mourning, but it sought to callously bereave about 507amilies and send about 15 countries whose nationals were victims crying and wailing.
Mr Speaker, in the so called manifesto of the said murderer this was what he said, among other things:
“the origins of my language is European, my culture is European, my political beliefs are European, my philoso- phical beliefs are European, my identity is European and most importantly my blood is European”.
Mr Speaker, the above quote is nothing but a white supremacist, anti- immigrant and extremist language.
In the wake of the New Zealand attack, the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, exhibited great leadership by her poise, steely resolve, sympathy, empathy and, most importantly, her language of inclusiveness and diversity.
Mr Speaker, it is not a surprise that the Prime Minister has been internationally acclaimed and praised as a very great leader.
Mr Speaker, the issue of radi- calisation, populism, xenophobia, extremism and terrorism is speedily gaining currency and dangerously eating into the global fabric.
The United Nations, in its Resolution 2396 of 21st December, 2017, asserted that terrorism poses a threat to the international arena, and collective efforts are required on national, regional and international levels to deal with same. International hate speeches and crimes are also on the rise.
Mr Speaker 10:57 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Member, for bringing this Statement to our attention.
Yes, Hon Member?
Alhaji I. A.B. Fuseini (NDC -- Tamale Central) 11:07 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to the Statement that was ably made by Hon Ben Abdallah Banda, who is the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs.
Mr Speaker, clearly, on 15th of March 2019, New Zealand witnessed extreme levels of violence
and intolerance, which shattered the peace of the otherwise small island community. The people who were attacked were Muslims who were communing with their Maker in peace, in submission, in worship and in a calling up to their creator for their own personal salvation. Their crime was simply that they were Muslims and not Europeans.
Mr Speaker, according to the warped thinking of the terrorists, they did not belong to New Zealand but fortunately, the Prime Minister of New Zealand' Ms Jacinda Ardern, said that they belonged to New Zealand. She recognised the diversity of New Zealand, and recognised that New Zealand as an island community admitted many people who run to them for refuge.
Mr Speaker, interrogating even the warped thinking of the terrorist, one would ask what Europeans are doing in New Zealand or Australia because New Zealand and Australia are not original habitats of Europeans.
This goes to say that all of us are immigrants; everybody is an immigrant. If we consider the biblical teachings of Adam and Eve who were the only people created, but now the world is populated with more than 7 billion people, we could come to the conclusion that all of us probably, migrated from the Garden of Eden to where we are today. So, who is an immigrant?
Mr Speaker, the attack clearly exposes that intolerance in whatever form should not be tolerated because it leads to violence, and we have seen examples of in Rwanda, Burundi and Ivory Coast. Simple and extreme levels of intolerance have led to devastating consequences.
Clearly, it cannot be tolerated, and that is why we, as Ghanaians, must also not tolerate intolerance. Political intolerance should not be allowed to take fertile grounds in this country because it could have dire conse- quences on us.
Mr Speaker, our motto as a people is, “Freedom and Justice”. ‘'Freedom'' leads to liberty, which allows one to choose whichever political party one would want to belong to. Liberty, allows one to choose which religion to belong to and conduct affairs in such a way as is consistent with the laws of this country. All of us must endeavour to be tolerant of one another.
Mr Speaker, Ms Jacinda Ardern responded to this catastrophic event with maturity. At 38 years, she clearly showed the world glimpses of her leadership -- combining wisdom with courage, preaching inclusiveness and extending sympathy and empathy to those whose families were affected.
I would want to extend my sincere condolences to the families of those who suffered this devastating terrorist attack in New Zealand. I also pat the back of the people in the Government of New Zealand for the show of singleness of purpose and unity in
Alhaji I. A.B. Fuseini (NDC -- Tamale Central) 11:07 a.m.


action in the condemnation of an otherwise callous act of one terrorist.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity.
Mr Speaker 11:07 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Member, and may the words continue to be few, please. Hon Leaders jot points, and I agree with them that very often we find contributors overdoing those who made the Statements.
Mr Ziblim Iddi (NPP -- Gushegu) 11:07 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, I would try to be brief.
I would want to commend the Hon Member who made the Statement and extend my condolences to the families of those who lost their lives in New Zealand.
Mr Speaker, terrorism should and must be condemned in whatever shape or form that it comes to us. What happened in New Zealand has demonstrated that technology, in its wave, has even made terrorism the deadliest cause of human life.
The chilling account of the streaming of the event as it unfolded facilitated by technology, is something we should take seriously. Over the years in history, we have seen terrorism in various forms, and it was easy for people to say that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter; yes, because liberators were described as terrorists.
Mr Speaker 11:07 a.m.
Thank you, Hon Member, particularly, for your brevity.
Leadership, any contributions?
Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 11:17 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank you very much.
I would want to commend the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamen- tary Affairs, Hon Ben Abdallah for bringing the matter of terrorism and the New Zealand massacre and attack, which compelled Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to describe 15th March, 2019 as one of New Zealand's darkest days in history, and to call for the establishment of a Royal Commission.
Mr Speaker, I am particularly interested in the terms of reference of the Commission as we commend the very coordinated Government response to the attack and massacre,
when the Commission has been tasked to look at what should have been done to prevent the attack, and to quote the words of the Prime Minister, “we are particularly interested in what should have been done to prevent the attack”.
Mr Speaker, it happened on a Friday, which is noted. For the mandatory Zuhr prayer for every Muslim. Nonetheless, as the maker of the Statement has described, we should isolate cautiously that this is an action of and to probably choose my words well, the insanity of a white supremacist. Even though it possess danger. Because religion remains an emotive issue, we should thank the Government and leadership of New Zealand, and the Muslims.
Indeed, even subsequently in their Parliament, extraordinary things happen just to keep the country together and to demonstrate respect for the right to practise Islam by Muslims in New Zealand and all other parts of the world. That is also commendable.
Mr Speaker, it is my prayer that no Muslim wakes up to say that he or she wants to retaliate this action elsewhere in the world. That is the gravest threat; some other person in some part of the world would look for an opportunity for what may be a reprisal response to an attack on Muslims. I pray that does not happen.
Mr Speaker, the maker of the Statement also shared with us some statistics on the growing threat of
Majority Leader (Mr Osei Kyei- Mensah-Bonsu) 11:17 a.m.
Mr Speaker, let me also associate myself with the Statement made by the Hon Offinso South.
Mr Speaker, most humans believe in life after death, and that belief system is grounded in religion. That explains why over 90 per cent of humanity are at heart, believers in the concept of life after death.
Mr Speaker, once upon a time, the communists in this world did not believe in religion. It is why two strong men of the communist structure, Karl Max and Lenin, both asserted strongly that religion is the opium of the masses. Yet, with the collapse of communism, indications are that citizens in these erstwhile communist countries show
up strongly, their bottled-up beliefs in one form of religion or the other.
So, if a person descends on people who are religious and have congregated to worship their creator or are prostrate before their creator in solemn supplication and are unarmed and naked before their maker to gun them down in cold blood, then that person, certainly, should have his or her head critically examined.
Mr Speaker, the very preamble of our Constitution stresses the association of Ghanaians with our maker. It is the reason our Constitution begins, and I beg to quote:
“IN THE NAME OF THE
ALMIGHTY GOD We the People of Ghana,”
Mr Speaker, among other things, it says, and I beg quote 11:17 a.m.
“AND IN SOLEMN declara- tion and affirmation of our commitment to; Freedom, Justice, Probity and Account- ability;
The protection and preservation of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms, Unity and Stability for our Nation;
DO HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT 11:17 a.m.
AND GIVE TO OURSELVES 11:17 a.m.
rose
Mr Speaker 11:27 a.m.
Hon First Deputy Speaker?
Mr First Deputy Speaker (Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu) 11:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a very short contribution to the Statement by my Hon Friend, the Hon Member for Offinso South.
Mr Speaker, the week passed was a week of calamities. In our own country Ghana, several lives were lost in very tragic accidents. Within Africa, several lives have been lost through severe weather conditions. Else- where, earlier in the month, some religious extremists have caused mayhem shooting several people in the
name of a religion or a culture, which they think is superior to that of others, such that if others are permitted to live in their country and practice a different faith, religion or culture, they would dilute the extremist's own religion.
Mr Speaker, I would take this opportunity to send a word of condolence to the families of the accident victims in our own country, Ghana. But the question that really bothers me is those whom the rest of us have described as religious extremists who claim to kill other people in the name of God.
Which god are they serving? The God in whose name those atrocities are committed. Is that the teachings of the God we trust, believe and purport to serve?
The little religion I have studied and practised says that the greatest of all is to love one another. Indeed, for the Christian, it says to love your neighbour as yourself. If a neighbour is practising another religion, does he cease to be your neighbour?
So, why can I, in the name of Christianity, paganism or traditional religion, take a gun and shoot Hon Muntaka, just two doors away from me, because he does not practice my faith? His faith is in that same God I believe and trust in. On whose instructions am I working? Who am I seeking to please? Is that what Christianity teaches us; is that what Islam teaches its practitioners?
If religion is about God, then I believe that nobody who believes in God should visit any act of violence on another because his or her approach to reaching his God is different from the other. I have read about a Christian bishop who says that service of God is not by Christianity, Islam or by any faith; God is bigger than all religions.
We all believe in God except that we propose to try to find God through a means that we have accepted as the practice. Why that should be a basis for killing somebody who chooses another means is very difficult to understand.
Mr Speaker, my suggestion is that on should consider the person sitting or kneeling in the other service room as his or her own son. If one is a Muslim and your own son choses to be a Christian, would he or she take a gun and shoot him? If one is a Christian and his or her son choses to be a Buddhist, would he or she go and kill him? Incidentally, the fight appears to be between Christians and Muslims.

Indeed, for me, Christianity is only used as a façade; it is the clash of cultures trying to suggest that one group is of a better people and that is clear in the purported manifesto of the gentleman who caused the atrocities.
Mr Speaker 11:37 a.m.
I thank you very much, Hon First Deputy Speaker, for your very placatory contribution. Now, when we look at the statement by this sadist, everything is European.
My immediate reaction to this matter was whether the person would talk about Christianity which would have been sad but he talked about European all the way.
He talked about European culture, political beliefs and philosophy. I do not know which philosophy that is - European beliefs and identity and European blood. I do not know how European blood looks like from other blood whether it is from Mongolia or Africa but these are some of the sad things of people who are prejudiced to the marrow.
This should rather serve as lessons and as things which should never show their face in this country of ours, whether ethnic, religious or whatever shape. We should learn to live with higher values as a people.
We would give the unfortunate people so killed because with this tendency, even a number of Africans on a visit can be so attacked and killed because they are black. It is enough because this is Europeanism by some individual and it should make us all very careful whenever we are also outside our jurisdiction.
Shall we give a minutes silence to the victims?
All Hon Members -- rose --
Mr Speaker 11:37 a.m.
May the souls of these unfortunate victims rest in perfect peace. Amen.
All Hon Members: Amen!
Mr Speaker 11:37 a.m.
Hon Members, before we take our last Statement, may I, please, vary the order of Business and go to the Order Paper Addendum before us for the Presentation and First Reading of Bills by the Hon Minister for Transport.
Is he in the House?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if you may and the House would grant me, I would want to lay the document on behalf of the Hon Minister who has had to go to Kintampo.
Mr Speaker 11:37 a.m.
Very well, Hon Majority Leader.
BILLS -- FIRST READING 11:37 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:37 a.m.
Hon Members, we have a Statement by the Hon Member for Berekum East on World Tuberculosis Day.
Hon Member?
STATEMENTS 11:37 a.m.
Dr Kwabena Twum-Nuamah (NPP-Berekum East) 11:37 a.m.
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity.
Mr Speaker, yesterday Sunday, 24th March, 2019 marked “World Tuberculosis Day” and it is to commemorate the discovery of the Tuberculosis (TB) germ, Mycobac- terium Tuberculosis, by Dr. Robert Koch about one hundred (100) years ago. The day is set aside every year
to highlight the challenges of TB control and to mobilise communities and stakeholders to join in the fight against TB.
The theme for this years' commemoration is “It is Time! Find the People Living with TB” and it suggests it is time to stop the rhetorics and help find people who are coughing but do not know what their condition is all about. The theme for this year is designed for countries to adopt relevant context-specific priority areas to end TB and to communicate for stakeholders to act decisively.
Mr Speaker, TB is considered one of the top ten (10) leading killer diseases the world over. Merriam- Webster defines Tuberculosis as an infectious bacterial disease charac- terised by the growth of nodules (tubercles) in the tissues, especially the lungs. TB can easily be spread from one person to another since the bacteria that causes the disease, spreads through microscopic droplets released into the air when an infected person coughs or sneezes.
Ghana joined the rest of the world to commemorate “World Tuber- culosis Day” by launching the national TB campaign among other activities which began on Friday, 22nd March, 2019. Ghana chosen its own theme, dubbed, “It's time to act to end TB in Ghana”.
The Ministry of Health, the Ghana Health Service and for that matter the Government is counting on all of us to join hands in the fight against TB and to help end the epidemic in Ghana.
Dr Kwabena Twum-Nuamah (NPP-Berekum East) 11:47 a.m.


Mr Speaker, TB is easy to cure but fatal to ignore and the role of Parliament is very critical in the fight against the epidemic.

It is for Parliament's role and other reasons including advocacy for focus on TB that the Parliamentary TB Caucus was formed and inaugurated in August 2018 by the Hon First Deputy Speaker, Mr Joseph Osei- Owusu on behalf of the Rt. Hon Speaker of Parliament, Prof. Michael Aaron Oquay.

Some have even opined that Parliament should lead the National response to end TB because of its mandate. Honourable Members are therefore encouraged to join the Caucus so that together, we can spearhead the fight towards the elimination of TB in Ghana.

Mr Speaker, it is worth mentioning that in Ghana, although there is no reliable data on the actual number of cases of the epidemic, it has been established that over thirty-thousand (30,000) people with TB have not been diagnosed and many more could

be suffering from the disease without knowing.

Should we fail to find those with TB without diagnosis, each of them will infect about fifteen (15) other people with the disease every year and that is 15 times 30,000, which brings the number of new cases of the epidemic every year to 450,000. Within a decade, about 4.5 million Ghanaians would have been infected and this is a very serious and frightening trend.

The alarming nature of the statistics is one of the reasons for raising awareness on the epidemic and for calling on all and sundry to provide support in one way or the other to end it entirely.

Statistics from World Bank shows that there has been a reduction in TB cases in Ghana since 2000, but the rate at which it reduces is low and hence measures must be put in place to enhance its reduction.

Some raw figures of TB incidence from 2013 to 2017 have been tabulated as follows:

A Table showing TB Incidence Recorded from 2013 to 2017
Mr Speaker 11:47 a.m.
Hon Member, thank you very much for this well -- researched Statement.
While the contributions go on, the Hon First Deputy Speaker would take the Chair.
Dr Sebastian N. Sandaare (NDC -- Daffiama-Bussie-Issa) 11:47 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to the Statement on World Tuberculosis Day as presented by the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Health.
Mr Speaker, as he has rightly stated, about 152,000 people are living with TB in Ghana added to the estimated 30,000 people who are not captured or known by our healthcare officers. Mr Speaker, also worrying is the emergence of the multidrug resistant TB that is in Ghana.
This means that we have not even been able to eliminate the common TB that we know and it has been compounded with TB that is resistant to the drugs that we have. This makes it a complex situation at hand and not only in Ghana but globally.
Mr Speaker, we have these patients in every community and every constituency so it means that as Hon Members of Parliament we all have TB patients in our constituencies.
Mr Speaker, either a person is infected or the person is affected. We are all exposed because when we go to our various communities we interact with these people and we are in danger because we could also be infected. Mr Speaker, that is why I agree with the theme that it is time for us to act now to end TB in Ghana and globally.
Mr Speaker, TB affects produc- tivity and as the Hon Member who made the Statement stated, TB patients suffer poverty and households become poor especially when the breadwinner is infected with TB.
Mr Speaker, it largely affects the economy of this country, therefore if Ghana would have to develop and move from a middle income to a high income country, then it means that we would have to make efforts to eliminate TB in this country.
Therefore, I would join the Hon Member who made the Statement to also appeal that we show strong political will that would increase financial resources to manage TB and to also improve research on TB activities in this country. Mr Speaker, we also have to educate the public on the causes of TB and the factors that increase its transmission.
Mr Speaker, you would realise that our behaviours and healthcare approach facilitates TB transmission. We find people in buses who would cough or sneeze and use their hands to clean their noses and then later give handshakes. It happens in churches and it even happens in Parliament;
Mr Yaw Frimpong Addo (NPP -- Manso Adubia) 11:57 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for permitting me to comment on the Statement ably made
by the Chairman of the Committee on Health, Hon Dr Nuamah.
Mr Speaker, looking at the theme for this year's TB commemoration, “It is Time! Find the People Living with TB,” at least, I have been in this House for the past six years and every year that a Statement is made on the epidemic, these issues are enume- rated and trumpeted. But it looks as if we have not been taking any action on it.
Mr Speaker, I have had close working collaboration with the National Tuberculosis Control Programme and the National AIDS Commission. There is a direct link between HIV/AIDS and TB. What TB does is, it pushes a lot of HIV/ AIDS patients to their early graves, because their system becomes so compromised that the virus that causes AIDS is able to destroy and deteriorate the human body so fast that they die faster.
Mr Speaker, the statistics presented are so frightening that 450,000 are infected every year without knowing. It is called the silent killer; they do not even know that they have TB. And because of the nature of the spread, when you are sitting beside anybody who coughs or sneezes, you would think that it is a normal viral infection. They do not cover their mouths and noses. Unknowingly, a person may be infected by the bacteria. So, what do we do?
Mr Yaw Frimpong Addo (NPP -- Manso Adubia) 11:57 a.m.


Over the years, we have been hammering on the statistics. All the activities of the National Tuberculosis Control Programme, as far as I know, are funded by donor agencies. It is good that the Hon Member who made the Statement is the Chairman of the Committee on Health.

The Parliamentary Caucus on TB should take up this crusade; the Government of the day and for that matter, any government that comes - should take this matter very seriously. If in ten (10) years, 4.5 million people would be infected. That is beside those getting treatment -- This number is those who are not known, because they have not been checked anywhere to be diagnosed.

So, we are appealing to the Committee to work with the Ministry of Health to make sure that Government finds money to institute programmes because we need public education. I believe that public education must be done in the schools, markets, churches and in our homes. We should educate our children to cover their mouths and noses whenever they are coughing or sneezing.

Mr Speaker, if we do not take immediate steps to stem the tide, I cannot imagine there would be anybody in this country who would not be infected in about 20 years time. It is up to us as Parliament to impress on the Hon Minister for Health, and for that matter, the Hon Minister for Finance to make sure that there is

budgetary allocation for the TB Control Programme.

This must also be extended to the Ghana AIDS Commission, because the two diseases go together. If they are able to get enough funding and the greater awareness campaign is undertaken, we are sure that we can reduce the infection rate that is so frightening to the barest minimum.

Mr Speaker, to give meaning to the theme “It is Time! Find the People Living with TB”, when we find them, they can be cured. The good thing is that TB can be cured, unlike HIV/ AIDS which they say can just be treated.

So, if TB can be cured, then we should identify the people with the infection and get them treated and cured. If we are able to do that, we shall reduce the number that is infecting the greater population to the barest minimum.

Mr Speaker, with these few words, I thank you very much for the opportunity.
MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Yes, Hon Yieleh Chireh?
Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh (NDC -- Wa West) 11:58 a.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I think that the issue about TB is a very serious matter and we ought to take it seriously.
One of the issues that was raised was about the Parliamentary TB Caucus -- I would want Hon Members not to relegate it to the Committee on Health alone.
Indeed, if we look at those who form the Parliamentary TB Caucus, it was in Spain that members of the International Parliamentary Union (IPU) saw and noted the incidence of TB to be very serious in the sub- Saharan countries. Therefore, they decided that the Caucus should be formed and attention drawn to it and also create the awareness, so that people who are politically conscious will take up the campaign.
Mr Speaker, I heard some of us talk about the Committee on Health working jointly with the Ministry of Health. No! Parliament, and those of us who go to our constituencies -- It is difficult to identify and diagnose those who have TB. That is a serious matter that we should take into consideration.
Fortunately, the treatment for TB is free. In the past, the treatment process was very long, the patient was given several different types of medications, and the patient could be on them for more than a year.
Fortunately, new research has brought about more efficacious medicines that can take less than a year for treatment. So, if we identify those infected, diagnose them properly and treat them, then we have saved the problem.
I believe that what Hon Members of Parliament need to do is to constantly put it in our interactions with our constituents, and let people be aware as already indicated in some of the comments. The link between HIV/AIDS and TB is so close. Sometimes, when people die, it is difficult to tell the cause. But of course, we know that HIV/AIDS is not a disease, but a condition that has reduced a person's resistance. It then enables TB to be the killer.
Let us also make sure that we campaign effectively. Hygiene is the biggest solution to the matter. If people are hygienic if they have a neat environment where they sleep, and not congested, then we can be sure we would eliminate it.
Indeed, those in the mining areas have small rooms where they stay together and they tend to, indeed, spread TB faster. That is why all of us, including those in the mining areas, must take this matter seriously and let us all fight TB. We cannot leave people behind, because if they are left behind, we would end up becoming victims.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:07 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Dr Mark Kurt Naawane (NDC -- Nabdam) 12:07 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
On the 24th March 1882, Robert Kock announced that he had discovered the bacterium that causes tuberculosis. Mr Speaker, 137 years down the line, tuberculosis remains a formidable disease that is able to destroy practically all organs and cells in the body.
Mr Speaker, as we speak now, about 4,500 people die daily, and if we do the calculation, it means that we are having about 1,000,620 people die in a year. That is too much for a disease that we have been able to discover the bacteria that causes it and we are able to diagnose it so easily.
We have the drugs that can cure it and yet look at the figures that come out with the disease in a year. 1,000,620 people die yearly from tuberculosis and we have got about 30,000 people who fall ill of this disease every day.
Mr Speaker, this tells us that there is something that we probably need to do more than just prescribing the drugs. This is because we have been able to discover that it is related to the standard of living of people. It is related to poverty and so our fight against tuberculosis should not only be limited to drug therapy or the usage of drugs but the fight against poverty and ghettos.
There is overcrowding in the prisons and our settlements. Settlements are so close to each other that we cannot get air to pass through
our windows into our rooms. So we are not fighting against tuberculosis.
Mr Speaker, these days, as my Hon Colleague mentioned, there is multidrug resistance of tuberculosis variants around and the current drugs we are using are not working for some people, so, we need to work on that.
Now, we also have a typical presentation of this sickness. In my 25 or 26 years of practice, I have had the opportunity to meet people who would not come with the cough that we talk about or weight loss that we talk about.
Their first presentation would be what we call pericardial infusion, which is water around the heart, and when we go further and investigate, we realise that it is also tuberculosis. There are other people who would come and are not able to walk at all.
They are lying down. We call it paraplegia, which is both legs cannot walk. Then we look into it and investigate further and realise that it is tuberculosis of the spine, but we would see that the person has got paralysis or even stroke.
That is where the thinking might go to, but upon further investigation, it is realised that it is tuberculosis of the spine that has caused the patient not to be able to walk and the patient has lied down for those number of years. So we really need to put our acts together and look at all these variants that are now beginning to show up
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:07 p.m.
Does the Leadership wish to comment on this one?
Very well.
Hon Majority Leader, at the Commencement of Public Business, what is your pleasure?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:07 p.m.
Mr Speaker, let us deal with item numbered 4(a) (ii).
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:07 p.m.
Hon Member, Presentation of Papers, item numbered 4(a) (ii), by the Hon Minister for Finance.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:07 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister is engaged and he has sent the Hon Deputy Minister to come and do it. Now, the Hon Deputy Minister also has to attend a committee meeting, so he sought leave to go and attend that meeting. For that reason, I want to stand in for the Hon Minister and lay the document on behalf of the Minister.
Mr Speaker, we cannot do item numbered 4(a) (i) because we need to tidy it up. So I would do the item numbered 4(a) (ii).
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 12:07 p.m.
Mr Speaker, understandably, I saw the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance confer with the Hon Minister and Leader of Government Business, except that he says item numbered 4(a) (ii). Now, he himself has introduced tidying up of item numbered 4(a) (i). We would be interested in knowing what he wants to tidy up -- what has been brought? “Request for waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT/GETFund
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 12:07 p.m.


Levy, Import NHIL, ECOWAS Levy, AU Levy, EXIM Levy, on plant, machinery and equipment or parts as tax incentives to support the implementation of the One District One Factory (1D1F) Programme.”

Mr Speaker, we would be interested because we would be invoking article 174 of the Constitution, which requires a person or authority. Who is that person or authority to whom we are granting this waiver?

It also comes as an affront to Government's policy that it wants to close in tax exemption and its generous grant, which is causing leakages to the State both in the President's State of the Nation Address; the Minister for Finance's first Budget Statement and others. So in article 174 of the Constitution, it cannot just be a blank cheque -- take and go and grant exemption to 1D1F.

Mr Speaker, I will remind you, particularly when he is tidying up article 174(2) of the Constitution and the obligation it imposes on Parliament. But he is an Hon Minister so he can lay the Paper on behalf of the Hon Minister for Finance.

If he wants to lay item numbered 4(a) (i) too, he should tidy it up and lay it, but this Parliament must take the words of the President as he delivers them to us very seriously. Tax exemption is reported by the World

Bank and the IMF to be 1.6 per cent of GDP and therefore, we would not be as generous.

We support the principle of 1D1F, but for that open cheque of tax exemption to any person, we must know the person and authority and what the person wants to do and more importantly a certain amount. We just cannot approve tax exemptions.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:07 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, you may lay the Paper on behalf of the Minister for Finance.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I gave an indication to you that we are not doing item numbered 4 (a); I said that it needs to be tidied up before it is presented. So, in that regard, there is nothing before us, yet, the Hon Minority Leader is running commentary on nothingness. I have said that the thing is not before us, and he heard me loud and clear.
Mr Speaker, when the application has been granted, the Hon Minority Leader rather runs commentary on a void situation. What is that?
An Hon Member 12:17 p.m.
Tell him he wants to do it for arguments sake. -- [Laughter] --
Mr Speaker, therefore, item numbered 4 (a) (i) will not be laid. I would do so for item numbered 4(a) (ii).
PAPERS 12:17 p.m.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:17 p.m.
Mr Speaker, item numbered 4 (b) is not ready, but with 4 (c), the Hon Chairman has just indicated to me that there are a few things that they would need to do on their Report. So, it cannot be laid, in which case we may go on to the item listed as 5.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:17 p.m.
Very well, we would move on to item numbered 5 -- Chartered Institute of Bankers (Ghana) Bill, 2018 at the Consideration Stage.
[Pause] --
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 12:17 p.m.
STAGE 12:17 p.m.
  • [Continuation of debate from 21/ 03/19]
    • Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:17 p.m.
    Hon Members, on clause 18, the Question was waiting to be put. What is the pleasure of the Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Hon Members, on clause 18, the records here says: “amendment proposed -- Question to be put.”
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, what is your pleasure?
    [Interruptions] --
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:17 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Ahiafor?
    Mr Ahiafor 12:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 18 was under debate and with your leave, I beg to propose that clause 18 (2) comes under a substantive heading, “Disqualification”.
    Mr Speaker, the reason is that clauses (17) and 18 (1) deals with qualification, and clause18 (2) clearly deals with disqualification under
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:17 p.m.
    Hon Members, that is the proposal. Hon Chairman of the Committee, what is your view?
    Chairman of the committee (Mr Stevens Siaka) 12:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is our collective --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:17 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, the proposal is to put in a sub-heading, “Disqualification”.
    Hon Ahiafor, is that it? You proposed that we put the word “Disqualification” after clause 18 (1), so that clause 18 (2) would stand alone as clause 19.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:17 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there were two legs to the resolution of the problem. Clause (17) is “Qualification for registration as a chartered banker”, then clause (18) is “Qualification for registration as a member of the Institute” So, we cannot just have the word “Disquali- fication” for a new clause (19). It should be “Disqualification from
    registration as member of the Institute or as a chartered banker”, that is, if we would want it appropriately expressed. So that is for the headnote.
    Mr Speaker, the other leg that we considered was to have left clause 18 (2) as it is, and delete just the words “a chartered banker or”, so that, that disqualification would affect only clause (18).
    Mr Speaker, again when we come to clause 17 ( c), we would need just a little bit of tidying up to let it reflect that a person is not qualified to be registered as a chartered banker, if that person falls foul to the provision contained in clause 18 (2).
    Mr Speaker, that is also another leg, but if we would want to go the way my Hon Colleague is proposing, then the headnote cannot just be the word “Disqualification.”
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:17 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Tamale Central?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that in order to clarify what the Hon Majority Leader has said, we should delete from clause 18 (2), the phrase; “ a chartered banker or”, and that provision would be covered by clause 17 (c).
    Mr Speaker, the amendment being proposed does not seem to be supported by the Constitution, because if it is disqualification, we just insert the phrase, “Disqualification of
    Mr Speaker, article 94 (1) says, which with your permission I quote 12:17 p.m.
    “Subject to the provisions of this article, a person shall not be qualified to be a member of parliament unless…”
    So it did not talk about disqualification, it talks about qualification. In the provisions of the Constitution, it introduces the negative. “shall not” is still a qualification, but it is in the negative in the provision of the law.
    Again, if we look at article 94 (2), it says, and with your permission I quote, “a person shall not be qualified…”, but in the marginal notes, it talks about qualification, and not disqualification.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to support the second leg of the amendment of the Hon Majority Leader to delete from clause 18(2) the words “chartered banker or”, so that the provision reads:
    “a person is not qualified to be registered as a member of the Institute if that person has been…”,
    because “chartered banker” has already been captured under clause 17 (c).
    Mr Chireh 12:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I had my reservations about this because I was not here when it was discussed, and the Question was just to be put. having listened to the one proposing the amendment, we do not need to split this particular clause into two, because the idea is qualification, One either qualifies or does not, but we do not have to insert another one to mean disqualification, no.
    Even in the Constitution, it is qualification, and one either qualifies or he does not, we do not split it and add another headnote making it two clauses. I support these other ones that they talked about in terms of “a chartered Banker or” It is about the membership of the institute and therefore, the issue of chartered banker should not come in.
    Mr Ahiafor 12:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I proposed the amendment, and having listened to the counter views, I would like to abandon it so that we can go with what has been proposed by the Hon Majority Leader. We would have the same effect at the end of the day.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:27 p.m.
    Very well. So Hon Majority Leader, can you articulate your proposed amendment so that we can take a decision on it?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I said that we do not need to split clause 18 into two parts, but it continues, except that in subclause
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:27 p.m.
    So the proposed amendment is to delete clause 18 (2) lines 1 and 2, “a chartered banker or”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Iddrisu 12:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I can understand clause 18(2), but for clarity, some additional words have been provided.
    When you read clause 18 (2)(b) particularly, it reads:
    “Declared by a certified psy- chiatrist and adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind”.
    It is too elaborate, and as a guide, if you read article 94 of the Constitution, you would see a person of unsound mind or a criminal lunatic, and then you would see provisions related to it.
    Mr Chireh 12:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the argument is that, this one tells the procedure. Even if you go to the court and ask the court to declare somebody of unsound mind, the court has to invite a psychiatrist to the court.
    So it does not really offend what is in the Constitution. It spells out better the procedure in this law, that one cannot just see somebody and say the courts should declare him to be of unsound mind. The psychiatrist is the one that the court would order to examine him and bring the report, based on which it would do that.
    Ms Safo 12:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that we should stick to the language that has been used in the Constitution, because how it has been drafted now takes us through the processes of determining whether one is of unsound mind, which is usually in court where a psychiatrist or medical doctor specialised in that area is called as an expert witness to determine whether someone who claims to be a lunatic or of unsound mind is of unsound mind.
    I think whether that declaration is that of the court or that of the expert witness, in this case, the psychiatrist, if we draft it the way it is, we might create that confusion, but if we stick to the wording in the Constitution which says in article 94;
    “(2) A person shall not be qualified to be a Member of Parliament if he --
    (b) Has been adjudged or otherwise declared --
    (ii) to be of unsound mind or is detained as a criminal lunatic under any law in force in Ghana…”
    Mr Speaker, the realm of who determines who is of unsound mind would be shelved to the processes that one has to go through in court in determining that, which is usually by calling an expert witness.
    So Mr Speaker, to be safer and clearer and not create any ambiguity as to who makes the declaration, whether it is the court or expert witness we would be safe in using the wording in the Constitution.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are talking about the same thing. The Constitution says “adjudged”. Adjudged by who? A court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise declared? Declared by who? A certified psychiatrist? That is what the Constitution says.
    What this provision has done is to add flesh. When we say “adjudged” in article 94, one can only be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise declared. You can only be otherwise declared by a certified psychiatrist. That is what the Constitution says.
    So what this law has done is to provide flesh to the bones. The mere bones in the Constitution have now been clothed. That is what the law has done.
    Mr Chireh 12:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I know that there are constitutionalists in this House who insist that we should take what the Constitution says, but the Constitution is a summary document
    and it just gives us what can be summarised.
    When we are enacting a law, we must detail out a little more to clarify the issues, but if for everything we go and copy the Constitution, it means we are asking the draftpersons to go and sit down and use the Constitution. Wherever the thing appears, they should copy it like that.
    The context would be different and that is why I think that once the proposal has been abandoned -- [Interruption] the Hon Deputy Majority Leader wants to resurrect a dead horse. It is not good.
    Mr Iddrisu 12:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I now want to yield to superior argument, and that is why I stated that clause 18 (2) has provided more clarity and elaboration of what is in the Constitution. To that extent, I abandon my opposition and you could put the Question on clause 18.
    Mr Siaka 12:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18 (2) (d), line 2, delete the word “guilty” and insert “liable”.
    The word “guilty” is considered to be harsh and we believe that the standard of proof in criminal trials is beyond reasonable doubt. However, when we take “liable”, legally, it means responsible or answerable. So we believe that would be better than “guilty”.
    Mr Chireh 12:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you look at the Statute Review Commissioner's work in the green books, the word “guilty” in our Criminal Code was changed to “liable” and I believe that we should support this. It is not appropriate to always talk about “guilty”. The person is liable and the proof then comes in.
    If we look at the work of the Statute Review Commissioner, he changed all the wordings. Wherever it is said someone is “guilty of an offence”, it was changed to “liable”. I support the amendment.
    Ms Safo 12:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I tend to disagree with the proposed amendment. My reason is that we should address our minds to what clause 18 (2) talks about. It talks about when one would be disqualified. So, we are talking about disqualifica- tion.
    Mr Speaker, liability to an offence, whether one is liable is not necessarily proof that he is guilty. The mere fact
    that one is liable, should not be the grounds to disqualify anybody. It is only when a determination has been done as to whether one is guilty of the offence relating to dishonesty or misconduct that one can be disqualified.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment is out of place. In this case, we are talking about disqualification, and guilt of the person has to be proved before they are disqualified. It is not just merely proffering a charge on the person without taking him through the processes to prove his guilt and that is used as a ground for disqualification. I think that it is not right.
    Mr Iddrisu 12:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Chairman's amendment. There is a world of difference between criminal guilt and a civil wrong, and not keeping faith with professional etiquette. If within the institution of a particular profession, one is found liable of professional misconduct, it may not necessarily be the guilt of a court, even though within the organisation --
    It is the first rule. Every institution has a way of managing its grievances and the wrongs to professional value. That is not the same as the Hon Deputy Majority Leader's emphasis. If we used the word “guilt”, we may as well encourage persons affected by this professional misconduct to insist on a court ruling that they are guilty of such professional misconduct. But this is not envisaged under this rule.
    For example, one would go to conduct the surgery on a pregnant woman and then, maybe, inadver- tently, he leaves a syringe in her womb. That would be professional misconduct. In Ghana, we may not have pushed it to the level where the person is held to be criminally liable to establish guilt.
    So for this purpose and consistent with what the Statute Review Commissioner and what Hon Chireh said, substituting “guilt” for “liable”, would be better and more elegant. We are not talking about guilt. If we use “guilt”, Hon Deputy Majority Leader, where do you prove it but in the court? -- [Interruption.] No, a disciplinary process is liability; you are liable.
    Mr Speaker, if you go against Parliament's Code of Conduct, are you guilty? Let us even look in the Constitution, on matters relating to contempt. When Parliament even takes a decision, one may further want to proceed on it. I believe that the Hon Chairman's amendment is sound and we should support it.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman's amendment should not be supported. I also think that the way the provision is crafted poses problems. The disciplinary Committee would be a trial of fact. The facts for which the disciplinary committee would preside over, are listed in the Fourth Schedule.
    So what the disciplinary committee would do at the end would be to determine, as a matter of fact, whether there has been a breach of the matters listed in Schedule Four.
    So I propose a further amendment by the deletion of the words, “of that body to be guilty of” and substitute it with “to have been engaged in” to read:
    “A person is not qualified to be registered as a member of the Institute if that person has been…
    “(d) whilst a member of another professional body, found by the disciplinary committee of that body to have engaged in profes- sional misconduct as specified…”
    They are matters of fact and not of law. Has the person done one thing or the other? That is what the disciplinary committee would determine. If he is a member of another professional body, that fact would be established by that member through communication from that body. So, it is a matter of fact and not of law.
    The phrase “of that body to be guilty” should not be the case; it should be “to have engaged in professional misconduct as specified in the Fourth Schedule”.
    Mr Speaker, if you look at Schedule Four, all the matters of professional misconduct have been listed.
    Mr Banda 12:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have tried to overstretch words. In any case, words are interpreted within the context of a provision. The use of “guilty”, much as it is mostly associated with courts, does not convert the professional body into a court.
    Mr Speaker, the word “guilty” would be interpreted within the context of clause 18(2)(d). The word “guilty'' only means liable for a wrong doing. “Liability'' or “liable'' also means having done something wrong. “To have engaged in'' as the Hon Ranking Member of the Committee proposed, would also be interpreted within the context to mean the same thing.
    Whether it is “guilty'' “liable'' or “to have engaged in'', at the end of the day, the words would not be interpreted and taken in isolation. They would be interpreted and taken together with the reminder of the words.
    We should not stretch ourselves by trying to insert the word “guilty'' with “liability'' or ‘'to have engaged in'' because the substance and the essence is the same.
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 12:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rose earlier to agree with Hon Fuseini that in clause 18(2)(d), we replace “to be guilty of'' with “to have engaged in'', but to further propose an amendment. In his proposed amendment, he left out “of
    that body''. This is because we are dealing with another professional body and so,
    “whilst a member of another professional body found by the disciplinary committee of that body...''
    The Hon Member left “of that body'', and I believe we should because we are not dealing with the current professional body. So, I agree with the Hon Member's amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:47 p.m.
    Let us read what is in the Bill again whether we have any doubt.
    “whilst a member of another professional body found by the disciplinary committee of that body to be guilty of professional misconduct as specified in the Fourth Schedule''.
    What is missing in that?
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 12:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member left out “of that body'' when he proposed his new amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:47 p.m.
    Frankly, the two words look the same. A synonym for the word “liable'' is “guilty'' and a synonym for the word “guilty'', “liable''. So this discussion is much ado about nothing. They mean the same and we should not waste any more time on this.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, having arrived at that conclusion, you would ask him to
    withdraw his amendment because that is what is currently on the Floor.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:47 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Education Committee, the two words mean the same thing, and so there is no point in deleting one and replacing it with the other. Moving forward, may I propose that you withdraw your proposed amendment?
    Mr Siaka 12:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have abandoned my amendment now that legal brains are at work. [Laughter.]
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 18 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:47 p.m.
    Clause 21. There was a proposed new paragraph.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was on my feet before you put the Question on clause 18.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:47 p.m.
    Oh really?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:47 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    I do not know, but now that we have gone back to take inspiration from the Constitution, whether it would not be prudent to look at the construct of clause 18(2)(b) because it includes at the end, “if a person is detained as a criminal lunatic'' We
    could add that piece to it so that it would read:
    “declared by a certified psychiatrist and adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind or is detained as a criminal lunatic''.
    That is the language of the Constitution and I do not know whether we may not add that. If it is not useful, we may drop it, but it is part of that construct in the Constitution.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:47 p.m.
    Yes, available Hon Leader?
    Mr Chireh 12:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I oppose vehemently this addition because he has brought in court processes. When someone is declared a criminal lunatic, it is different from this process we are going through. [Interruption]. He knows it and because he believes in the Constitution, he wants it to be added. No, it is not appropriate in this context.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:47 p.m.
    Do you mean you do not believe in the Constitution which brought you here?
    Mr Chireh 12:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if I do not believe in the Constitution, I would not be sitting in the Chamber as an Hon Member of Parliament. Should we copy everything from the Constitution? That was what I meant.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:47 p.m.
    You said it is because he believes in the Constitution as if you do not.
    Mr Ayariga 12:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I see an effort to stretch all the grounds for disqualification to be an Hon Member of Parliament to apply to be a member of the Chartered Institute of Bankers (Ghana).
    This may well be good and I do not have any objection to that, except to also draw attention to the fact that even in the case of Parliament, after a certain period after conviction and serving a sentence, one would
    become eligible again to context to come to Parliament.
    Are we condemning everybody who has ever been found guilty from just becoming a member of the Institute or there are provisions that make provision for reprieve after a certain period? Otherwise, we would be imposing very onerous standards for an Institute when even for Parliament the standards are mitigated by the passage of time.
    I have scanned through the Bill and do not see any provision for mitigation after a certain period as it is in the Constitution and I wonder if the Hon Chairman and the Committee would not consider a similar provision since we are not at pains to extend all the disqualifications for Hon Members of Parliament to apply to eligibility to be a member of the Institute.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:47 p.m.
    In my view, I do not think that that extension may be necessary that you have to take a decision whether you would want to add “detained as a criminal lunatic''. To be disqualified as a professional, you only need to show that you are of unsound mind.
    The person detained for being a criminal is because he or she is one trial for criminal offence and if he or she is convicted and it is an offence which involves dishonesty, he or she would be disqualified, but often, when a person commits, usually murder and it is determined that he or she is not of a proper mind to be tried, that is where he or she is detained as a criminal lunatic.
    I wonder whether we want that in the determination of our professional body by a quasi-judicial body.
    Mr Ayariga 12:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we stretch the provisions relating to declaration by certified psychiatrists as a basis for disqualification, -- if a certified psychiatrist has not declared a person as being of unsound mind, and the person goes to court on trial and raises a defence on the basis of which he or she is declared a criminal lunatic, he or she would definitely fall in the category of persons who ought to have been declared to be of unsound mind.
    Therefore he or she should suffer the same disqualification as a person who has been certified by a psychiatrist to disqualify him or her from being a member of the Institute. In this case, he himself has raised the defence; he himself says that he is mentally unfit to stand trial.
    So we do not even need a psychiatrist to make a declaration. In that instance, he should be part of the category as somebody who has been certified by a psychiatrist to be of unsound mind.
    Mr Chireh 12:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think your guidance in this matter was very appropriate. It is not the person who is charged before the court who says he or she is unfit to be tried. No, it is still the process of an expert witness that would come to that conclusion.
    The person has committed an offence and has been tried, but should they sentence him or her as a normal person or as a criminal lunatic?
    We know that the process is that they would first find the person guilty, and find out whether the person was of sound mind at the time he or she committed the offence. They would then refer the person to the appropriate experts. When they come back, the judge would be forced by the law to say, for instance, that the person is a criminal lunatic and should be imprisoned as such.
    Mr Speaker, so you are right. If we want to stretch it and add it, that is fine; but the argument my Hon Colleague make is not related to this matter at all.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:57 p.m.
    Clause 18 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Hon Members, item numbered 5(ii).
    Mr Siaka 12:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 21, headnote, delete “registration” — [Interrup- tion.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:57 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, I assume that you have finished clauses 19 and 20 already.
    Clauses 19 and 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:57 p.m.


    Clause 21 — Suspension of registration.
    Mr Siaka 12:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move that clause 21, headnote, delete “registration” and insert “membership”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:57 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, it is not advertised, but it is proposed that we amend the headnote by deleting “registration” and inserting “membership”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Siaka 12:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that clause 21, line 1, delete “registration” and insert “member- ship”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:57 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, the proposed amendment is to delete “registration”, after “the”, insert “membership”.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the couching of the provision does not support what the Hon Chairman proposed.
    I agree that Suspension of membership was probably taken in a haste. Clause 21 says, and I beg to quote:
    “The Council may suspend the registration of a member of the Institute where
    (a) an offence in relation to that member is being investigated;”
    So, at that point, we are suspending the registration; it is a registration process, unless we are saying that what we intend to achieve is that the person is already a member and an allegation has been made, so we suspend membership. But these are two different things.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:57 p.m.
    What is the effect of suspending registration?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the provision, as couched here, is in the process of registration:
    “The Council may suspend the registration of a member of the Institute where
    (a) an offence in relation to that member is being investigated;”
    So the offence has not been investigated and he or she is found culpable, liable or guilty.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:57 p.m.
    What is the effect of suspending registration? Does the person remain a member entitled to all the rights, and to practice as a member?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 12:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when the process is concluded and there is an offence, then they would suspend the membership; but when he is in the process of registration, they do not suspend.
    Mr Speaker, my attention is being drawn to clause 20. Let me please read it very well.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:57 p.m.
    I have read it. I think the question is that, for instance, you have now become a member and if for any reason you are under investigation, do we suspend your registration? [Interruption.] That is right.
    The amendment the Hon Chairman proposed does not put out what we want to achieve clearly. So, we would delete “the registration of” to read “The Council may suspend a member of the Institute”. . .
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so in line 1, we would delete “the registration of”, and we do not introduce “membership”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:07 p.m.
    Yes. “The Council may suspend the registration of…”
    So we would delete “the registration of” in line 1, and we do not introduce “membership”. Then “The Council may suspend a member of the Institute where”, and then subclauses (a), (b) and (c) would follow.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:07 p.m.
    So, the proposed amendment is to delete “the registration of” in line 1 of clause
    21.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kpodo 1:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this proposed amendment needs to be clarified. Are we suspending the member “from the Institute” or “of the Institute”? I believe the “of” there is based on the fact that they are talking of registration or membership; but we are now taking him from the Institute.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:07 p.m.
    It should read: “The Council may suspend a member of the Institute” or “a member from the Institute”.
    Hon Member, kindly remind me of your name?
    Dr Sebastian Sandaare 1:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am Sebastian Sandaare.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:07 p.m.
    Very well.
    Yes, Hon Sandaare?
    Dr Sandaare 1:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, I believe it is “a member of the Institute” -- it talks about belongingness.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Member who just spoke, that it should be “a member of the Institute”. This is because if we look at clause 20, a certificate would
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:07 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, any more amendments to clause 21?
    Mr Siaka 1:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 21 (b), before “misconduct”, insert “professional”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:07 p.m.
    Hon Member, sorry; I did not get you.
    Clause 21 (b) reads:
    “allegations of misconduct have been made against the member.”
    Mr Siaka 1:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are amending it so that it would read:
    “(b) allegations of professional misconduct have been made against the member”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:07 p.m.
    Hon Member for Tamale Central, the proposed amendment is that you insert “professional” between “of” and “misconduct”.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, having captured it better, I support the amendment. [Laughter.]
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:07 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, any more proposed amendments to clause 21?
    Mr Siaka 1:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is all.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:07 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, that is not all. You have an advertised amendment.
    Mr Siaka 1:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 21, add the following new paragraphs:
    “(e) the member is not in good standing for a period excee- ding three years;
    (f) the member fails to pay the prescribed fees for a period exceeding three years.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:07 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, what is the difference between the two?
    Mr Richard Acheampong 1:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the headnote to clause 21 is “Suspension of membership”. The Hon Chairman proposed an amendment to insert new paragraphs (e) and (f). Clause 21 reads:
    “The Council may suspend the membership of a member of the Institute where
    (e) the member is not in good standing for a period exceeding three years”.
    Mr Speaker, what are we talking about here? What offence has the person committed, so that we suspend his membership in good standing. It is not explanatory enough. The paragraph (f) is clearer:
    “the member fails to pay the prescribed fees for a period exceeding three years.”
    In paragraph (e):
    “the member is not in good standing for a period exceeding three years”.
    For doing what? So, either the Hon Chairman would do a further explanation or I will further propose that:
    “a member is not in good standing for a period exceeding three years for non-payment of annual dues”.
    Then we would be clear in our minds on the kind of offence that would attract this kind of punishment, or we abandon paragraph (e) outright.
    Mr Siaka 1:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, proba- bly, the Hon Member would want me to throw more light on it. Paragraph (e):
    “the member is not in good standing for a period exceeding three years”.
    It means that somebody who is regarded as a member in good standing has complied with all their explicit obligations without any sanctions or suspension. That is the explanation for this insertion.
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 1:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am most grateful.
    Mr Speaker, even though we are not there yet, if we look at the clause in 24(1)(e) it says:
    “has failed to pay the prescribed fees for a period determined by the Council”.
    If we come back to clause 21(d), it reads:
    “the member has contravened a provision of this Act.”
    If we read these two paragraph together, the amendments proposed would not be necessary. We would not need to consider these two amendments -- paragraph (e) and (f) as proposed.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:07 p.m.
    Let me listen to Hon Kpodo.
    Mr Kpodo 1:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I also think that the amendment in paragraph (e) is unclear or unnecessary. If we read the paragraph (a) to (d), which are already in the Bill, paragraph (c) for instance says:
    “a false declaration was made in an application…”
    Mr Kpodo 1:07 p.m.


    Should this be sustained for three years before the person qualifies for suspension?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:07 p.m.
    Where is that three year --
    Mr Kpodo 1:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is there:
    “(e) the member is not in good standing for a period exceeding three years”.
    So anything that occasions one not being a member in good standing takes one out. So, why should we sustain it for --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:07 p.m.
    Hon Member, “false declaration” stands alone, so talk about the other ones.
    Mr Kpodo 1:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is generally not clear what exactly is meant by that provision. If we want to focus on not paying dues or subscription for three years, I think paragraph (f) takes care of that. So, what paragragh (e) seeks to do is not clear. Is it a question of continuing professional education or what? That was the reason my Hon Colleague said that it should be further explained or abandoned.
    Mr Mahama Ayariga 1:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the amendment could be sustained. There are two things that I see the amendment tries to introduce;
    it wants to say that, if a person is not in good standing for three years, the Council may suspend that person, and basically that is what has been proposed. The way to perfect this is to go to the interpretation clause and define what it means for one not to be in good standing.
    Mr Speaker, if we go to the clause, it deals with fit and proper persons. It defines “fit” and “proper” persons, but it does not define members not in good standing. The Hon Chairman of the Committee could introduce an amendment in the interpretation clause defining what it means for one not to be in good standing.
    That could provide clarity. We could say, a person not in good standing is one who has not paid his dues for a given financial year of membership of the Institute, and after three years of not paying, the Council may suspend that person.
    Mr Speaker, the second leg of the amendment deals with failing to pay prescribed fees for a period exceeding three years. That probably needs some clarification because I have tried to scan through the Bill, and I have seen “prescribed fees” mentioned somewhere, but then “fees” is mentioned elsewhere.
    Mr Speaker, when we go to the interpretation clause, it talks about fees including annual subscriptions. So, maybe, there should be some clarity on what he means by “prescribed fees”, and whether it
    refers to when one commits an offence and appears before a disciplinary committee which decides that one should be liable to pay a certain amount of money. Is that prescribed fees? Is it the annual dues that one is required to pay that is termed as subscription? What exactly do we mean by “prescribed fees”?
    Mr Speaker, if we interpret the two; “being in good standing” and the “prescribed fees”, we should be able to sustain the amendment that he has introduced.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:17 p.m.
    Let me listen to the agriculture man; Hon Quaittoo.
    Mr Quaittoo 1:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I tend to side with the last Hon member who spoke because if we introduce that clause, then we should have a definition for what we mean by a member not in good standing; probably, a detailed definition from the Institute itself.
    Mr Speaker, if we come to clause 21(f), for instance, and use, “the” before, “prescribed”, it states “if the member fails to pay the prescribed fees…”; would we have only one prescribed fee all the time?
    Maybe, that word should go off so that we have, “if the member fails to pay prescribed fees…” because fees could come at any time. The presence of that word, “the” means that they
    would have some prescribed fees, and that would be all.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would take Hon Quaittoo's second leg as an improvement on what Hon Ayariga has said because we have not seen prescribed fees anywhere in this Bill, until the emergence of “prescribed fees” in the proposed amendment. So, not having already spoken about prescribed fees, we cannot use a definite article to qualify it.
    Mr Speaker, the problem and confusion would be solved if an attempt is made to define the two terms because “prescribed fees” is definitely different from “annual subscription fees”. If we make an attempt, those two amendments could stand.
    Mr Speaker, on a more substantial proposal, clause 21(c) has no place where it is because we have already provided in clause 21(b) for allegations of professional misconduct and professional misconduct includes providing false information to seek admission for membership. It is already there. [Interruption.] It is in the interpretation section. [Interruption.] The Fourth Schedule is there.
    Mr Speaker, I just thought that [Interruption.] clause 21(c) is not before -- That was what I talked about and the Hon First Deputy Speaker corrected us. [Pause.] The Hon First Deputy Speaker drew our attention to clause 20, which said that we had --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:17 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee, if you want to maintain this proposed amendment, then we may have to provide definitions for these two.
    Mr Siaka 1:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so, we would maintain it and provide the definitions as requested.
    Mr Banda 1:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that clause 21 (f) will not be necessary because “to be in good standing” is a term of art. We know, as lawyers, “members in good standing” are those who have paid their fees.
    The expression “to be in good standing” means that one has performed one's statutory obligations, which could include payment of prescribed fees so that if one has not paid his or her prescribed fees, it means that he or she is not in good standing.
    Mr Speaker, so clause 21(f) could be subsumed under clause 21 (e) but the way clause 21(e) has been crafted, it makes it too open-ended. I completely agree with Hon Ayariga, Hon Member for Bawku Central, that we should provide further and better particulars for clause 21(e) by giving a definition for it under the interpretation section.
    Mr Speaker, therefore, my conclusion is that we should maintain clause 21(e), and delete clause 21(f) because it is redundant and irrelevant. It could be subsumed under clause 21(e). [Interruption.] No, it is not irrelevant, but it is redundant and so it could come under clause 21 (e).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:17 p.m.
    Hon Member, did you meet, “otiose” at the School of Law? I learned it from the Director of the School of Law then. [Laughter.] He said something was “otiose”; so clause 21(f) is “otiose”.
    Yes, available Leader?
    Mr Chireh 1:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, first, let me confess that I have not been part of the Consideration Stage, but the Chartered Institute of Bankers (Ghana) Bill, 2018, that we are considering is a copy and paste arrangement. In 2016, we passed the Chartered Institute of Taxation Act, 2016 (Act 916) and, indeed, if we look at section 23, which deals with suspension of registration, it is the same thing as has been repeated here.
    Mr Speaker, now, we could only be guided because the people who are in this profession and want us to charter them need to tell us what the practice now is otherwise, we would change everything.
    In fact, if we look at all the amendments that have been made in relation to what we passed for the Chartered Institute of Taxation's Act of 2016, (Act 916), it was just copied
    word for word; but if the banker has a different way from what they are currently doing --

    They currently have rules; they were registered as private institutes and, therefore, if they guide us, it would be better; otherwise, we would just be contradicting ourselves.

    In 2016, this was what we passed but we are changing everything this year. Mr Speaker, I would want to emphasise that in that one, we had:

    “(d) the member is not in good standing for a period excee- ding three years;

    (e) that member fails to pay the prescribed fees for a period exceeding three years or the member has contravened a provision of this Act”.

    Mr Speaker, what is the practice now with the Institute? We have a Bankers Institute if it is not in line and he wants us to vary it, it is alright. As I said, when we were passing all those Bills, we had to look at the Institute of Chartered Accountants and we passed them along the same lines.

    So, the bankers ought to tell us what their practice is so that we would domesticate it and put it into the law; but if they do not have and they want us to charter them, then we would have to take the precedent that we have set.

    Mr Speaker, that is what I wanted to draw our attention to.
    Mr Siaka 1:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, con- sidering what the Hon Member has just said, the fact that the Chartered Institute of Taxation said this yesterday does not mean that when we are in an era of new thinking we should not bring up new proposals. Mr Speaker, that is why as we go forward, dynamism comes in and we try to meet circumstances, hence, these changes.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:27 p.m.
    Very well.
    So what are we doing with clause 21 (f). I agree with the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs that once we have defined what is “good standing”, it would cover clause 21 (f).
    Hon Chairman, so if you would agree, then we would drop the proposed clause 21(f) and then I would put the Question on clause 21 (e).
    Mr Siaka 1:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am thinking aloud -- I am relating “a member of good standing” and the “payment of prescribed fees” to the Ghana Bar Association. Mr Speaker, every year the Ghana Bar Association publishes members of good standing and they take into account the payment of dues. But there are other members of good standing who are not published by the Ghana Bar
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:27 p.m.
    They are not of good standing.
    I sit here and last year, I did not pay my dues; so when the list came out, my name was not there. Now, I do not benefit from any right that is enjoyable by a member of good standing, and that is different from my right to practice which is based on my licence.
    So, membership is different from right to practice, which is based on paying solicitors' fees; but if I paid my solicitors' fees now, it would be linked to paying my Bar dues. If I go there and I do not pay my dues, they would not accept it; I would have to add that.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what I want to say is that, the fact that you have not paid your Bar dues, for which your name did not appear in the publication of members of good standing, does not mean that you cannot practice.
    To the Ghana Bar Association, you are not of good standing; but to the Judiciary, you are of good standing. So, there could be a distinction between a member of good standing and a member of good standing who has not paid dues.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:27 p.m.
    Hon Member, you do not have support in the House.
    Hon Ranking Member.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “good standing” is good standing, and I agree with you except that what has been provided here is “prescribed”. Mr Speaker, but all those contributing use “annual fees or dues”. Are we saying that the dues are the prescribed?
    Just as Hon Ayariga suggested, which has also been improved upon by the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, I think that if we maintain paragraph(e) and define “good standing” to include paragraph (f), then we would have solved the problem.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:27 p.m.
    Hon Members, the proposed paragraph (f) would be withdrawn. So, I would put the Question on the proposed new paragraph, which is (e).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 21 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 23 -- Register
    Mr Siaka 1:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 23, subclause (7), line
    2, delete “two daily newspaper” and insert “one daily newspaper” and in line 3, at the end, add “and on the website of the Institute”
    Mr Speaker, the reason is that two daily newspapers and the fact that a website would be added would make it more costly. When we add the website, the wider circulation would be obvious and one daily newspaper would solve the cost elements. This is the reason for the deletion of “two daily newspapers”, and the insertion of “one daily newspaper” in addition to the website.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:27 p.m.
    So, the new rendition would be:
    “The Council shall publish annually the list of members of the Institute in the gazette and at least one daily newspaper of national circulation and on the website”.
    Is that it?
    Hon Member for Bawku Central.
    Mr Ayariga 1:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, sometimes, we legislate to create business. So, if we say two daily newspapers, then it would be paying for adverts in two newspapers. If we say only one newspaper, then it means that only one newspaper would do business.
    Mr Speaker, being a former Hon Minister for Information and knowing how the newspaper industry is
    struggling now, I would urge that we legislate to create some businesses for the media. So we should maintain the two newspapers because sometimes one newspaper would have very limited readers.
    Let us maintain the two daily newspapers because I do not see the difficulty that it would create to compel them to publish in two newspapers and create business for two media houses.
    Mr Siaka 1:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Hon Ayariga is right, but the rationale behind it is the cost because it is not free and people would use their dues to pay.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:27 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, do not answer yet. Listen to other views and then -- [Interrup- tion.] Hon Member for Daboya.
    Mr S. Mahama 1:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, apart from creating business, we should not forget that we are also dealing with rural banks. So, when we say Chartered Institute of Bankers, it is not just Standard Chartered Bank or Barclays Bank; we are also talking about Odotobri Rural Bank, which is hiding somewhere.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:37 p.m.
    Where is Odotobri Rural Bank?
    Mr S. Mahama 1:37 p.m.
    In the Ashanti Region, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:37 p.m.
    Where? Which town -- ? [Laughter.]
    It is at Gyakobu, which is the headquarters of Odotobri Consti- tuency, Hon Gyamfi's Constituency. It has a branch at Bekwai. It is very popular.
    Mr S. Mahama 1:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I know it is one of the well-performing rural banks in the country.
    Mr Speaker, my point is this, apart from creating business for news- papers as espoused by Hon Ayariga, we are also talking about membership of the Institute of Bankers coming from the rural banks and not just the city banks, so circulation should be wide enough to reach every corner of the country.
    So the likelihood of two news- papers getting to all corners of the country is much higher than one. Talking about websites, how many of them even have access to the internet? Of course, it is a futuristic thing, which is good for the law, but let us maintain the two newspapers and have the website in addition to that.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we should not allow the consideration of cost to limit the choice, because we are talking of one newspaper of national circulation. We are not talking of one national newspaper. We are talking of the daily national circulation, so that can stretch from the Daily Guide to the Daily Graphic, to the
    Ghanaian Times and to the Democrat, so why do we limit the choice? If we say one daily newspaper of national circulation and that person does not want that newspaper, he would not read it.
    So let us leave it at two newspapers, so that we give people choices.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:37 p.m.
    Hon Member for Keta, I have not heard your voice in a long while.
    Mr Quashigah 1:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just to buttress the point raised by Hon Fuseini, even looking at newspapers in Ghana today, we cannot say that the national dailies are those that are mostly read by the target audience or the public, because if you take the most circulated newspapers in Ghana today, you may have Daily Graphic, which is also dwindling gradually in terms of readership.

    Mr Speaker, they are trying to confuse me. We are looking at the future. It is also possible that even Daily Graphic would lose readership to, perhaps, Democrat in some time to come, and this obviously would create a problem, and so I would think that the “national circulation” must be taken out. A newspaper of wide circulation would definitely cure the problem. Thank you.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:37 p.m.
    Then we may have to define “wide”, if we add “wide circulation”, otherwise you leave it at the discretion of the person taking the decision. But I think of national circulation, as you have already shown, the statistics shows that the Daily Guide is second to the Daily Graphic. At least there are some indices. However, I think “wide” is too discretionary.
    Mr Kpodo 1:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the intention of the law is not to make everybody read whatever publication is out, so whether national or wide circulation, what is important is that an effort has been made for people who wish to read to have access.
    So I think what is there is appropriate. We do not need to make it 10 newspapers. Even if it is advertised in 10 newspapers and people do not want to read, they would not read so what is here is alright.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:37 p.m.
    Very well. Hon Chairman of the committee, they prefer the existing two, so we would maintain the two and add “and of the website of the institute”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 23 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 24 -- Striking off name from the register
    Mr Siaka 1:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 24, subclause (1), line 1, delete “may” and insert “shall”.
    Mr Speaker, we are doing so because we do not want to give room for discretionary powers, so “may” is to be used. It is so flexible, so that the person decides to pick and choose. But if it is obligatory, “shall”, there would not be any room for a pick and choose exercise.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Siaka 1:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, Clause 24, subclause (4), paragraph (a), sub-paragraph (ii), delete and insert the following:
    “the applicant or any of its significant shareholders has been convicted of a crime involving a financial transaction in any jurisdiction within the past ten years;”
    We have debated this, “guilty and reliable” and it has resurfaced.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:37 p.m.
    They mean the same thing.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Siaka 1:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 24, subclause (1), paragraph (b), lines 1 and 2, delete “a period determined by the Council” and insert “a consecutive period of five years”.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:47 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move a minor amendment to clause 24(1)(c). I think that the terminology we have been using is non-qualification like non- eligibility. So, clause 24 (1) (c) should rather read:
    “…if the Council is satisfied that that person (c) is not qualified under this Act.”
    It is not “disqualified”, so we should delete “disqualified” and insert “not qualified”.
    Mr Quaittoo 1:47 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, with that clause, I still have a problem with the definite article “the” preceding “prescribed fees”. The amendment was to --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 a.m.
    Hon Member, are you raising a different matter?
    Mr Quaittoo 1:47 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am dealing with clause 24(1)(b).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 a.m.
    We seek to put the Question on clause 24(1)(c), when we finish that, I would come to you.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 a.m.
    Now, Hon Member for Akim Oda, I would hear your proposed amendment.
    Mr Quaittoo 1:47 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, as I raised the last time when we were looking at clause 21, I have a challenge with the definite article “the” preceding “prescribed” in clause 24 (1)(b). I think that it should be deleted.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 a.m.
    You have a challenge with what?
    Mr Quaittoo 1:47 a.m.
    I have a challenge with, “has failed to pay the prescribed fees”. It should read, “has failed to pay prescribed fees” because fees would come several times and not once.
    Mr Chireh 1:47 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the definite article there is because it is prescribed, so it is definitely known and not something not known. That is why it is “the prescribed fees”. We must have prescribed a fee.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:47 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I exited momentarily, so when you came to considering clause 22, I was not here. I remember discussing at the winnowing Committee that clause 22 (4) --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 a.m.
    Could we finish putting the Question on the entire clause 24?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:47 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am on clause 24.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 a.m.
    Very well. You referred to clause 22, so I was confused.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:47 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 22 (4) reads:
    “Where the Council cancels a registration, the name of the person whose registration has been cancelled shall be removed from the register.”
    That is the striking of the name from the register and I thought that really belonged to clause 24, after subclause (c) because we are removing the name of that person from the register. I do not know how we would deal with it since the Question has been put on clause 22.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 a.m.
    Well, if the text is alright, I would direct that the draftspersons look at clauses 22 and 24 and arrange a proper location.
    Mr Banda 1:47 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am just trying to think out loud. A few minutes ago, we inserted “shall” and deleted “may” in clause 24 (1) but you would realise that at the end of clause 24 (1) is a group of words: “is satisfied that that person”. Satisfaction is subjective and it connotes some sort of discretion and that is the way I am looking at it. I was thinking that it cannot be made mandatory and also purport to give some kind of --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 a.m.
    Yes, there is a process for reaching the satisfaction and once you have
    reached the satisfaction, take this action. The same Council would go through the process and if they are satisfied that the person is deserving of being struck out of the register, they would take that action.
    Mr Chireh 1:47 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, you are right. The point is that if you satisfy this, you have no option but to go ahead. That was why they said “if” and made a list.
    So, if any of these is satisfied, one cannot say “may”, otherwise if any of these are breached as we are indicating, and we now say “the person may”, it means that some of them could be breached and the person would say because they “may”, they could decide not to. That is why once it is satisfied, it “shall”. So long as the conditions are satisfied, you do not have a choice.
    Mr Ayariga 1:47 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs' argument is a very sound one. Because the Council shall strike off the name of a person from the register if that person is unfit to practise the profession of banking because that person has been found guilty of professional misconduct.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 a.m.
    If the Council is satisfied -- you jumped that.
    Mr Ayariga 1:47 a.m.
    I am trying to let the House appreciate how it would read if we took out “is satisfied”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 a.m.
    Why should we take that out, is it there?
    Mr Ayariga 1:47 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, his argument is that we intend to make it very strict, that when it is established that a person is unfit to practise the profession of banking because that person has been found guilty of professional misconduct, then it should not be left to the satisfaction of the Council again. Clause 24(1)(a) says if that person:
    “is unfit to practise the profession of banking because that person has been found guilty of professional misconduct”.
    So, if he or she has been found guilty of professional misconduct, why should it be left to the satisfaction of Council? Once it has been established that one is guilty of professional misconduct, the natural and logical consequence is that the Council should strike out the person's name from the register. It should not be left to the satisfaction of Council.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:47 a.m.
    How do you satisfy yourself that he or she is guilty? You must go through a process. If somebody makes an allegation, you should investigate the allegation to confirm that it is true. once you have confirmed that it is true, then your discretion is finished, and you are obliged to take the person off the register.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:47 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, Hon Ayariga ended up supporting the Hon Chairman's
    position. In any event, he was talking like a yesterday man because we have amended the provision that he is talking about. He should look at his Order Paper because what he quoted no longer exists.
    He should read it because what is there is no longer what is in clause 24(1). Mr Speaker, clause 24(1) (a) would now be:
    “…has been found guilty of professional misconduct as specified in the Fourth Schedule''.
    So the quote he laboriously discharged no longer exists. Apart from that, the gravamen of the argument was that they should not have any discretion once the professional misconduct has been established and that is why the word “may'' should be replaced with the word “shall'' -- [Interruption.] He is nodding, so it means that he has accepted it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:57 p.m.
    I am sure he did not pay attention to the amendment that was made earlier.
    Mr Ayariga 1:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yesterday, this House did not Sit. [Laughter.]
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 24 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:57 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.
    Clasue 25 -- Representation to the Council and appeal
    Mr Siaka 1:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (2), line 2, delete “twenty- one” and insert “fourteen”.
    Mr Speaker, we do not want to encourage the situation where it would take too long before a decision comes out. So, 14 days is considered to be reasonable enough for decision- making.
    The new rendition would be:
    ‘'The Council shall communicate a decision in writing to the member within fourteen days of taking the decision''.
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Clause 25 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 27 -- Appointment of Chief Executive Officer
    Mr Siaka 1:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, subclause (2), line 1, delete “person” and insert “chartered banker”.
    Mr Speaker, we want somebody with a background knowledge and not any other person. The charcoal seller is a person; a school teacher is a person; a pastor is a person and an Hon Member of Parliament is a person. However, whether the person has that requisite qualification, that is why we would want to limit it to a “chartered banker''.
    Mr Quashigah 1:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we delete “the person'' and replace it with “chartered banker,” I wonder if the “chartered banker'' would not be presumed as one who has knowledge or experience in financial matters.
    If we mean management gover- nance, it is yes, but it said “and financial matters relevant to banking as Chief Executive Officer”. I would assume that if the person is a chartered banker, he or she would have experience or knowledge in financial matters which are relevant to banking.
    Mr Kpodo 1:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when we delete “person'' and replace it with “a chartered banker'', we are restricting the kind of person who could be appointed to manage the Institute.
    There are people who may not be chartered bankers but would have great expertise in managing the Institute and they could take advantage of that rather than to say that by all means the Chief Executive Officer should be a chartered banker. Although they could keep
    Mr Ayariga 1:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to support Hon Kpodo's position. It is like legislating about hospital and saying that the administrator of the hospital should be a doctor. A person does not need to be a doctor before he or she could be an administrator of a hospital. For example, the Presbyterian Hospital in Bawku is not administered by a doctor. I used to call him doctor until he called me aside one day and told me he was not a doctor. That is what the Presbyterian Church does.
    The short title of clause 28 is “Functions of the Chief Executive Officer'' and subclause (1) says that:
    “The Chief Executive Officer is responsible for the day-to-day administration of the affairs of the Institute.''
    If it is just the day-to-day administration of the Institute, what has that got to do with a person being a chartered banker? A chartered banker should rather be available to do professional work. Somebody who is a professional with skills and competencies in administration should be eligible to also apply for the position of an administrator.
    If, in addition, the person is already a chartered banker, that is an added advantage which could be considered at the interview level, but if a person has all the other
    qualifications -- competent to manage an institution -- but is not a chartered banker, by this arrangement we seek to restrict him or her.
    Those of us in this House who are not all chartered bankers would not restrict our capacity to obtain such jobs when we are no longer Hon Members of Parliament. We should not agree to have the restriction being imposed by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr S. Mahama 1:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I disagree with Hon Ayariga. This is a specialised professional Institution just like the legal profession, so it is different if it is compared with administrating a public institution. There could be an administrator who manages a hospital, but as far as this belongs to a professional body, it must be managed by their own.
    We cannot say that the legal profession should be managed by a chartered accountant or the institution of engineers be managed by a chartered accountant or a banker. So there is a reason this proposal was made. It is because they want their own to manage the Intuition and that is why this amendment is most appropriate.
    We should support this amend- ment and add that if the person has other qualities like managerial skills, that would be added qualities; but as long as it belongs to their profession, let us remain within the remit of their profession and let their own manage it.
    Mr Quashigah 1:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to make a further amendment. Instead of “chartered banker'', it could be substituted with “a Member'' as it is captured in the Chartered Institute of Taxation Act. So that it would read:
    “The Council shall appoint a member with experience in management, governance and financial matters relevant to banking as the Chief Executive Officer of the Institute''.
    Ms Safo 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I tend to agree with Hon Ayariga and disagree with the proposed amendment by the Hon Chairman of the Committee by deleting the word “person” and restricting it to “chartered banker”. I think that the day-to-day administration of the Institute should not be restricted to practitioners of the Institute only.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that many a time, that is what happens in practice, but we do not legislate it. If we take the Universities, for instance, the Vice Chancellors and all the rest turn up to be lecturers or professors in the same University who come up to be Vice Chancellors and all that. But it is not legislated.
    It should be an open opportunity for anybody who falls within the category or level of experience that is being required; having skills in management, corporate governance and financial matters. And it might not be restricted to only chartered bankers.
    There are chartered marketers, managers and administrators. So, when we restrict it to only chartered bankers, then I think we would restrict it to only minded people in the profession, which I think is not managing the profession itself but it is the institutional being that the person would manage.
    If the person holds a degree in Administration or a Master's Degree and can see to the day-to-day administration of the Institute, then that person should qualify and not necessarily be a chartered banker from the Chartered Institute of Bankers.
    I think that, in practice, yes, but in reality we see that they end up being the same people who end up there, but not legislating it per se. I think it is too discriminatory.
    Mr Speaker, I have a further amendment to clause 27(2) where we used the word “governance”. I think we should qualify it to read “corporate governance”. Because if we talk about governance, it is general; it is what we do here; the politics of it, the governance of the nation and all that. I think in this respect, we are specifically referring to corporate governance so if we qualify it, it would be more --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:07 p.m.
    Why not institutional governance but corporate governance? I think governance is sufficient because then any other arrangement that makes the organisation or the institute function effectively is governance.
    Mr Joseph Mensah 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, though I seem to agree with the amendment by the Hon Chairman, I think we have to remove the word, “chartered”, because in the banking institutions, there are a lot of people there who are accountants, econo- mists and have risen to the high positions and they understand banking but do not have any chartered banking background.
    And so I think that instead of “chartered”, the word should be “banker” because if we restrict it to only chartered bankers, then we would be cutting all those who invariably have not written a chartered programme and by virtue of that, they cannot be the Chief Executive Officer.
    It is true that as a specialised institution, they should get somebody who has banking knowledge. But the banker is alright and not a chartered
    banker. Because econo-mists, accountants and even engineers have risen up to higher positions in the banking institutions.
    Mr Kpodo 2:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think we have advanced sufficient arguments for the Bill in its form as it is now to stay. I would like to add that there are several instances where we do not have to rely on a professional member to head the administration of the organisation.
    The Hon Member cited the case of the hospital. But there are other institutions like the Universities, where the head of the University is a Professor and when they are recruiting the leader of the University, they advertise and make it clear that they want a professor.
    But when it comes to a Registrar who heads the administrative aspect of the institution, they do not ask for a professor. It can be anybody who has the expertise, the managerial ability to run the organisation.
    The emphasis is on being a banker. A banker may be a straight professional cash manager who would be doing his work, but he may lack other expertise for the management of the enterprise. So we are not saying they should not appoint bankers; no, that is not the intention of our Side of the argument. We are saying that they should not restrict whoever can be appointed there. “A person” is alright.
    If we find a banker, good, but if we find someone who is not a chartered banker but has the expertise to manage the institute, so be it. I think that is the issue and there are several instances available to back this position.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member for Ho Central says that there are several instances to back this. The only examples he cites would be the hospitals and the Universities. Hon Yieleh Chireh told the House that in the universities and the hospitals, we have several categories of professionals.
    Where we have these institutes such as the Chartered Institute of Accountants, Chartered Institute of Certified Accountants, Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Chartered Institute of Marketing, essentially, one would have to be a chartered marketer, chartered accountant or a chartered certified accountant to help these institutes.
    It is impossible. We should go ahead with the amendment proposed that to head the Chartered Institute of Bankers (Ghana), of essence, one would have to be a chartered banker.
    Some Hon Members -- rose —
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:17 p.m.
    Hon Members, you have all spoken. I will give the proposer of the amendment one more opportunity and then I would put the Question.
    Mr Ayariga 2:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in this case, the governing body of the Institute is a Council and its Chairperson is a chartered banker who is a member elected by his peers to be the Chairperson. The Vice Chairperson is also elected among members to be the Vice Chairperson and other members elected. Then we have a representative of the Ministry of Education, among others.
    Mr Speaker, so, this is the governing Council; of necessity, they must come from the stock of chartered bankers. I have heard arguments here that in the case of the hospital, there are other professionals and there are other categories in the case of the university but it is the same in the case of the Institute.
    So, if you look at the qualification for enrollment in clause 15, it mentions so many categories of people who are not chartered bankers. An Institute is not just made up of chartered bankers. The Institute, like any other organisation would have cleaners, accounting staff, director of personnel, watchmen, drivers et cetera. It would have the normal administrative apparatus that an organisation would have.
    The work there is not necessarily banking and that is the reason it is alright for any qualified person with sufficient experience to be eligible. If a person happens to also be a chartered banker, that is alright. In all the other cases that have been mentioned, if we look at the legislation,
    we would not see that it legislates that the chief executive officer must be of that stock. It would not.
    Mr Speaker, if those recruiting find out that several people are qualified, but one of them happens to also be a chartered banker, that gives him or her an added advantage. That is why we have said that we do not legislate that kind of thing because we would have set a very bad precedence and in future, every organisation would say that the chief executive officer must come from their stock.
    Yet, administration is not the same thing as being a chartered banker and we are dealing with a chief executive here to administer the Institute.
    Some Members — rose —
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:17 p.m.
    Hon Quaittoo would speak first. Hon K. T. Hammond, you have been out and I wonder if you heard what we have said. I will come to you after I have listened to Hon Quaittoo.
    Mr Quaittoo 2:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you go back and there is a clause defining who a member can then be, I think that for us not to be biased, it is only appropriate not to legislate that only a chartered banker can be the chief executive officer.
    In my view, any member who qualifies to be a member of the Institute should also qualify to be a chief executive officer of that Institute. So, we should not legislate for only a chartered banker. Any member of that Institute should be allowed.
    Mr K. T. Hammond 2:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I listened to the Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee make that point. In all fairness, I think he put it straight to the Hon Member for Wa West. He asked if it would be right in certain circumstances to appoint a pharmacist to that position. If not legally required, I think it makes a lot of sense to have somebody who understands what they deal with.
    Mr Speaker, let us use our own profession. If we have a chief executive officer of the Ghana Legal Council or the Ghana Bar Association who does not understand what we are talking about, he would be at sea when it comes to discussing the specific detail that concerns the institution that we are troubled about. The person must have an iota or a scintilla of the idea of what we are talking about.
    Mr Speaker, I intend to support what the Hon Member said. Let us legislate because it would not cost us anything that we should have a chief executive officer who is a member--
    Why do we keep talking about alumnus? It is because we would want a people with certain specific background and they know what they are talking of. For instance, they could say we would want a headmaster who was a member of this school. It is all because of the historical background and institutional memory. It makes a lot of sense to actually decide.
    Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee, decide that we should have somebody who has the
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:17 p.m.
    Hon Members, I will put the Question to delete “person” and insert “chartered banker” in clause 27 (2), line 1.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:17 p.m.
    Hon Member, is it a further amendment to clause 27?
    Mr Ahiafor 2:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before you put the Question on the entire clause, I am looking at the governing Council at clause 4. The Chief Executive Officer is a member of the governing Council. Then there is a provision in clause 4(2) which reads:
    “The members of the Council shall be appointed by the President in accordance with article 70 of the Constitution.”
    Mr Speaker, however, if we go to clause 27, it says that the Council shall appoint the Chief Executive Officer. There appears to be some conflict between the two clauses. Clause 27 says the council shall appoint the Chief Executive Officer. However, clause 4 which the Chief Executive Officer is a member says that it is the President who has the authority to appoint in line with article 70 of the Constitution. So, I believe we need to be consistent.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:17 p.m.
    Hon Member, I thought that you would comment on the matter the Hon Ahiafor raised. As for this one, we have said that we would want a chartered accountant with experience in management.
    Mr Speaker, I understand what has happened is that we have voted on the proposed amendment to delete “person” and insert “chartered banker”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:17 p.m.
    And how would that --
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I propose a further amendment to delete “relevant to banking” because a chartered banker's knowledge in management, governance and financial matters will definitely be related to banking. It appears to be tautology.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:17 p.m.
    We cannot assume that.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is redundant.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:27 p.m.
    Hon Member, we cannot assume that his knowledge would definitely be related; that would be speculative.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, first of all, we may have a chartered banker who may not have the requisite experience. Experience comes by practice, so his having the knowledge may not necessarily translate into experience. That is the first leg.
    Mr Speaker, the issue raised by the Hon Member for Akatsi South is relevant. We may have to look at that and have a reconstruct as:
    “The Council shall nominate for appointment…”
    because the appointment ultimately would be done by the President. [Pause] --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:27 p.m.
    Hon Members, the proposed amendment is, instead of, “the Council shall appoint”, it should be, “the Council shall nominate for appointment a chartered banker”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:27 p.m.
    Yes,
    Mr Speaker, it should read 2:27 p.m.


    “The Council shall nominate for appointment a chartered banker with experience...”

    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clause 27 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:27 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Kpodo?
    Mr Kpodo 2:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, under normal practice, the President does not appoint Chief Executive Officers for institutions; it is the governing bodies which do so. I am of the opinion that, in order to cure the problem that we have detected, why do we not remove, “the Chief Executive Officer” in clause 4(1)(i) from those who should be appointed by the President.
    Then, when the Council later on appoints a Chief Executive Officer, we can add that he becomes a member or secretary to the Council, so that we would not put the burden on the President to appoint a chief executive officer for the Institute. I think we can consider it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:27 p.m.
    Hon Member, is it so that he becomes an ex-officio member of the Board? [Interruption.] Do you mean the
    Chief Executive Officer is appointed by the Board but he is an ex-officio member of the Board rather than being appointed by the President?
    Yes, Hon Members, the proposed amendment is that we remove the Chief Executive Officer from the appointees of the President of the Board and the Council or Board would then appoint him.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we can maintain the proposal that the Council nominates for appointment; the appointment must be done by the President because he is part of the governing body. What happens within the environment of the universities is that the Vice Chancellor is sworn in by the President as part of the governing Council.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:27 p.m.
    Is he appointed by the President or by the Council?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he is nominated by the Council, but for purposes of swearing in of the University Councils which he is a part of, it is the President who does so. That is how it is done with the governing boards of the universities.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:27 p.m.
    Hon Kpodo, you were at the university for a while --
    Mr Kpodo 2:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the reason I made that proposal is that, normally, chief executive officers or managing directors, as we call them, go through a rigorous process of appointment. There is a search and people submit their applications and they are interviewed and brought to the Council for appointment.
    I have been there before. As finance officer, registrar et cetera we are key performers on the Council but we are not full members. When it comes to voting, we do not have the rights. That is why I agree with your earlier designation that it is a non- voting member or ex-officio member of the Council but they perform key roles.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:27 p.m.
    What about the Vice Chancellor himself?
    Mr Kpodo 2:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the President cannot sit down and watch the search and interview process
    before appointing. That is the responsibility of the Governing Board or the Council of the Institute. It is their responsibility to appoint somebody and those are the processes they go through before they name somebody as Chief Executive Officer.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:27 p.m.
    When they name that person, the President appoints him. Is that right?
    Mr Kpodo 2:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the President will not appoint the Chief Executive. No! He would appoint the Chairman of the Governing Board or Council. It is the responsibility of the Council to appoint the Chief Executive Officer.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:27 p.m.
    Is it different from saying that he shall be nominated by the Council and appointed by the President?
    Mr Kpodo 2:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, then that takes away the responsibility of the Board of getting the Chief Executive Officer to work under it. There are situations where people have been put in key positions directly by the President and they do not even want to report to their sector Ministers because the President appointed them.
    But there is somebody who is in charge of governing the institution and that is the Council.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 p.m.
    In this case, the suggestion is that the person would go through the same selection process as if he has been nominated as the Vice Chancellor and after that the President would appoint the person as part of the University Council. I think that would do.
    Alhaji Fuseini 2:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the observation of Hon Kpodo and your concluding remarks on how to insulate a Chief Executive officer from partisan manipulation is actually steeped in good governance because the Chief Executive is answerable to the Council.

    Mr Speaker, the problem is that when he is made a member of the Board, it is pari passu with other members of the Board but he is answerable to the Board.

    Mr Speaker, indeed, when we did the Companies Code, we came across this and that is why I supported the amendment of the Hon Majority Leader to say that the Council shall nominate and the President appoints because that was how we overcame the difficulty in good governance of the Board or Council appointing the Chief Executive officer.

    Mr Speaker, by corporate practice, it is the Council that appoints the Chief Executive officer. That is actually good governance because the Chief Executive must report to the Board.

    Mr Speaker, the recent case at the Ghana Cylinder Manufacturing Company demonstrates exactly what we are talking about.

    The Chief Executive officer of the Ghana Cylinder Manufacturing Company refused to report to the Board because she felt she was appointed by the same appointing authority that appointed the members of the Board. [Interruption.] Were you the only person who was not in Ghana? I have not mentioned anybody's name. [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 p.m.
    Hon Member, I believe that the amendments that you have made are sufficient.
    Alhaji Fuseini 2:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is sufficient, but that is the worry that we must begin to think about.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 p.m.
    We were on clause 28.
    Hon Member for Akim Oda?
    Mr Quaittoo 2:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, a while ago, Hon Chireh mentioned that the Bill we are considering now is a copycat of the Chartered Institute of Taxation Act and of course, that is
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 p.m.
    Hon Member, I am on clause 28 and there is no advertised amendment. Unless there is a proposed amendment, I would put the Question.
    Mr Nortsu-Kotoe 2:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on clause 28(2), if we look at the functions of the Chief Executive Officer, there was a proposed amendment that we should delete paragraph 2(a) and (b) and then we proposed a new clause. We thought that the Chief Executive Officer cannot be the secretary to the Council because of his functions. This was a decision that we took at the Committee meeting.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 p.m.
    So what is the proposed amendment?
    Mr Quaittoo 2:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we had it but it was not advertised and it should be done.
    Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment is that clause 2 should be deleted and the following should be inserted:
    “The Chief Executive Officer shall review and make appropriate recommendations to the Council in respect of the annual business plan and budget for the Institute.”
    Mr Speaker, this is what was duly captured in our deliberations and report but it was not advertised. This is the proposed amendment on clause
    28.
    Mr Nortsu-Kotoe 2:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, at the winnowing session, we also realised that that proposed amendment to replace clause (2) -- clause 27(3) states:
    “The Chief Executive Officer shall hold office on the terms and conditions specified in the letter of appointment.
    Clause 28(1) also talks about the functions he would perform and so there is no need to put it there as a new provision. It should be deleted entirely so that a new clause which talks about the secretary to the Council would read:
    “The Council shall designate a serving Officer of the Institute as secretary to the Council”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 p.m.
    But the terms and conditions are different from functions. The terms and conditions that you are talking about are the conditions of service and we have dealt with clause 27.
    Clause 28 (1) is talking about functions and you suggest that we should delete the entire clause 28 and propose new functions as proposed by the Hon Member for Akim Oda. They are on the same Committee and they have proposed that they agreed on something.
    Mr Nortsu-Kotoe 2:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, at the winnowing, we agreed to abandon that proposed amendment and delete sub clause (2) entirely but not to be replaced with any amendment. That was what we agreed on.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 p.m.
    All right. So, is the proposed amendment to delete clause 28 (2)?
    Mr Nortsu-Kotoe 2:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:37 p.m.
    Where is the Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Hon Kpodo?
    Mr Kpodo 2:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wonder what harm subclause (2) does to the Bill? It is one of the several duties that the Chief Executive Officer would perform. Although he may personally not take the minutes, he would normally appoint a senior staff
    to do that. As long as it does not do any harm to the law, it may not be necessary to delete it. I think that we should keep it.
    Mr S. Mahama 2:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that it does a lot of harm to keep it. In recent laws that we have passed, we have tried to move away from making the Chief Executive Officer also a Secretary to the Board because of the enormous amount of work that he already has to do and adding the work of secretaryship.
    Mr Speaker, so, if you look at the recent laws that we passed, we decoupled the two. I am sure that they took a cue from those ones that the Chief Executive Officer cannot also function as a Secretary to the Board because of the nature of his work.
    So, if we take subclause (2) out completely, it does not change or harm anything.
    Mr Ahiafor 2:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, having regard to clause 28(3), I do not think there would be difficulty if we maintain clause 28(2). I say so because the clause 28(3) says the Chief Executive Officer may delegate a function to an officer of the institute but is not relieved of the ultimate responsibility for the performance of the delegated function.
    So it does not mean that the Chief Executive Officer would have to be the one to take down the minutes. He can delegate that particular function
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I know that in recent times, that has been the nature and character of the Bills that we have been drafting, but there is a fundamental issue.
    If one delegates a responsibility to another person, and he sits in the room himself, how can it be said that he has delegated the responsibility? One is required to perform a function, and for want of time or space he delegate your responsibility to somebody else. How then can he sit at that meeting and be present? In what capacity?
    If you are supposed to be the Secretary to the Board, and you say that you have delegated the responsibility to somebody to come and perform that function, and yet you maintain your position and sit in the room --
    Mr Speaker, within the Parliamentary Service Board (PSB) for instance, the Clerk is supposed to be the secretary. For the function of taking minutes, the Clerk would then propose somebody else to do it. It is something that happens. I am just raising it; that is how it is done?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:47 p.m.
    When it comes to decision making, the Chief Executive Officer takes
    part, but when it comes to recording -- I have sat at several boards where the Chief Executive officer is also the secretary, and he would bring recorders who would record the proceedings, but he is responsible at the end of the day for whatever comes out. He would sign as the Secretary to the Board and he would present minutes to the Board.
    So it happens. On National Road Safety Commission Board and a few other boards that I have sat on, that is what happens.
    Mr Chireh 2:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, you are right. Where we talk about appointing a secretary or designating an officer, anybody who is secretary to a board does not have to take minutes. Somebody has to record the minutes, but he has to proofread it to conform to what standard they have. He is answerable, because once he is a Chief Executive Officer and he is also Secretary to the Council, it means that he has to implement the decisions. So if the minutes are not correct, the person is held responsible.
    It is not a substantive position. It is something that he can do if the person has secretarial skills. There are professionals like that, so you get the person in there, but you are still the one responsible, and he takes full responsibility for whatever happens.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in fact, I take over from where the last Hon Member who spoke left off. It is exactly what the Hon Majority Leader talked about, that the Clerk in meetings of the PSB
    appoints a recorder, not a secretary, and his duty is to record the minutes.
    So in this case, if he is the secretary, he cannot appoint a secretary. If the Clerk is a secretary to the PSB, he cannot by his own appoint a secretary. If the law makes the Clerk the secretary to the Parliamentary Service Board, he will lack the authority to appoint a secretary. So anybody that he designates as a secretary is only a recorder in the eyes of the law, because he is not a secretary. That is why he keeps records of minutes.
    I agree that appointing a recorder is not delegating the functions, because immediately one delegates the functions, it is because he is unavailable to perform them. So when you are in the meeting, you cannot delegate; you can only appoint a recorder, and probably, clause 23(3) does not speak to a recorder.
    Mr Speaker, we had this issue again in the latest law that we drafted -- the Company Law. By law, the Secretary to the Board is actually the Chief Executive Officer, but he cannot take part in deliberations and also be recording, because he is a Board member. So how do we go round this thing?
    So we said that the way to go is probably for the secretary to appoint a recorder. I do not know how we would want to capture it here.
    Mr Speaker, on a more serious note, are we establishing a public
    institution by the creation of the Chartered Institute of Bankers (Ghana)? Are we saying that the Council members would be paid from the Consolidated Fund? Are we not establishing a regulatory body for the purpose of regulating banking practice in this country? And do we need the President to appoint the members of the Council because it is a regulatory body? [Interruption.] Do we need to?
    This is a body to regulate bankers. Why would we be paying them, because bankers include private institutions as well. Why would the State be paying the Council members for regulating the activities of banking practice in this country?
    Mr Speaker, I fail to get the connection, because that is what we are doing. Why should it be a public office? They are to be appointed pursuant to article 195 of the Constitution. [Interruption.] But they would be appointed by the President.
    Mr Speaker, I agree that we should create this body, but I think that it must be self-financing. Bankers must be able to pay members of the Council, and bankers must be empowered to appoint the Council members and dismiss them when they so wish. [Interruption.] That is another matter. It is true.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have two quick points. First, the Hon Member for Tamale Central said that if it is a delegated function, then the person must not be present.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2:57 a.m.


    The fact that the Chief Executive Officer is physically present in a meeting does not mean that he has the time available to him to take a record of the proceedings of the meeting, and that is why he can still delegate and be physically present.

    Mr Speaker, secondly, I just want to remind Hon Members that I have heard you quote copiously from the Chartered Institute of Taxation Act. If you were to review the Fees and Charges Act we passed last year, you would realise that in the Schedule, the Chartered Institute of Taxation is one of the institutes that this House wants to regulate their fees and charges thereof.

    The creation of this body is a constitutional matter, and the Constitution requires Parliament to make laws to regulate professional bodies. There is nothing wrong with what we are doing.
    Mr Siaka 2:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in a bid to support the Hon Ranking Member, we do not want to overburden the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). We want him to concentrate on his core mandate. In doing so, we would want to delete clause 28 (2).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaittoo 2:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, at the Committee level, we made another proposal, so if we are to delete clause 28 (2), that proposal we made would have to be considered by the House. That proposal reads as follows:
    “The Chief Executive Officer shall review and make appro- priate recommendations to the Council in respect of the annual business plan and budget for the Institute.”
    This is a new function that we sought to add to the CEO's position.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:57 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, may I propose that because this is not a short one, you properly formulate it and have it captured on the Order Paper to be considered tomorrow or the day after, so that it can be subjected to proper scrutiny.
    In that case, I would not put the Question on clause 28. Hon Chairman, is that right? I would suspend the Question on clause 28.
    Hon Majority Leader, it is 3 p.m.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe it is five minutes to 3 p. m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:57 a.m.
    By my watches, it is 3p.m.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, there is no advertised amendment to clause 29.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:57 a.m.
    Very well, I would put the Question on clause 29.
    Clause 29 -- Appointment of other staff
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:57 a.m.
    There is a suggestion that clause 29 might have further amendments.
    Mr Siaka 2:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 29, I have some amendments that the Council shall designate a serving officer as Secretary to the Council. [Pause.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:57 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, I think that I should end because your mind is not made up on what you want to do. The advisor to the Committee is still trying to persuade Hon Members.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the Committee was not proactive enough to remind us that what they proposed to delete in clause 28 was to be covered under clause 29. That is why we spent so much time haggling over this.
    The Hon Chairman should have advised appropriately, but he exited the Chamber and came back, so I guess along the line we got missing. That being the case, I believe we could take the two and delete clause 28 (2), and then have this insertion for clause 29 and that would be all.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:57 a.m.
    No, but there is a proposed insertion that
    I think is long and, probably, contentious which I have suggested they formulate, so that it can be captured on the Order Paper for us to discuss further. That is on clause 28, but I do not know whether the insertion proposed for clause 29 could fit in, so that we take it.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in that case, I would suggest that we break at clause 28 and continue tomorrow. I thought that we would be able to finish this Bill today but I know there are so many people who have conspired to subvert the efforts for today; including the Hon Member for Wa West. So we would hold it for the time being and continue from clause 28 tomorrow.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:57 a.m.
    Why? Are you going to add to the subversion agenda or because I am closing for today and do not need a Motion?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not have to subvert your authority, and I respect it fully. I only want to say that because Hon Quaittoo has suggested and you have recognised a proposed amendment to clause 28, it would be an appropriate point to stop, so that tomorrow, we could deal with it and continue.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:57 a.m.
    They also filed a proposed amendment to clause 29, so that we could --
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:57 a.m.
    Hon Quaittoo, I am about to adjourn proceedings, what is it?
    Mr Quaittoo 2:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to withdraw the amendment I proposed to clause 28 because I hear that they had winnowing which I was not part of.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:57 a.m.
    Very well.
    [Amendment withdrawn by leave of the House].
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 28 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:57 a.m.
    That brings us to the end of the Consideration Stage of the Chartered Institute of Bankers (Ghana) Bill, 2018, for today.
    At this juncture, the House is adjourned till Tuesday, 26th March, 2019, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon.
    ADJOURNMENT 2:57 a.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 3.06 p. m. till Tuesday, 26th March, 2019, at 10.00 a. m.