Debates of 3 Apr 2019

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:16 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:16 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:16 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 2nd April, 2019.
Page 1…11 --
rose
Mr Speaker 10:16 a.m.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Iddrisu 10:16 a.m.
Mr Speaker, you were in the Chair. I am sure for page 11, without asking for royalties, I qualify to be a co-sponsor of the amendment to the clause on page 11. When the Hon Majority Leader moved for the composition of the Board, indeed, we helped him half it from eleven (11) members to nine (9) members with your guidance. So, the Table Office should take note.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 10:16 a.m.
Thank you very much, that is correct.
Page 11 -- 37 --
Hon Members, the Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 2nd April, 2019, as corrected is hereby adopted as true record of proceedings.
Mr Speaker 10:16 a.m.
Hon Members, we have Official Report of Friday, 1st March, 2019. Any corrections?
Mr Speaker 10:16 a.m.
Hon Members, Statements.
There is a Statement by the Hon Member for Afram Plains North, Ms Betty Nana Efua Krosbi Mensah, on “Alleged Child Slavery on the Volta Lake.”
Yes, Hon Member?
STATEMENTS 10:26 a.m.
Ms Betty N.E. K. Mensah (NDC -- Afram Plains North) 10:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity given me to make a Statement to address the continuous misrepresentation on the situation of ‘child slavery' on the Volta Lake by media houses and NGOs.
Mr Speaker, this has become necessary after the Cable News Network (CNN) on March 1, 2019 aired a video report titled, ‘Freeing the child slaves of Lake Volta', which followed a succession of similar misrepresentations and publications
by several other media platforms alleging the existence of pervasive child trafficking and child slavery in fishing communities along the Volta Lake.
Mr Speaker, in April 2018, I had the honour of partnering and supporting two academics to do a critical study of the situation of child slavery on the Volta Lake.
We carried out extensive interviews with members of the Volta Lake communities and made some critical findings that were contrary to most of the reportage peddled around for a long time now.
I deem it critical to make a profound Statement to bring to the notice of the House that, ‘child slavery' is a complex social issue which needs careful analysis rather than the exaggerations we have so far witnessed.
Mr Speaker, the allegations of child trafficking and child slavery, which are mostly made by western- based NGOs and funded journalists with the help of local affiliates, reflect a limited understanding of the live realities on islands and communities along the lake.
Fishing is one of the few guaranteed avenues of subsistence for islanders and residents of communities along the Volta Lake, and children are rightly taught fishing skills by their parents. While I recognise there can be excesses, we cannot box up
everything to give a false repre- sentation just to boost funding potentials.
Mr Speaker, the Volta Lake also serves many important functions for these communities. Virtually, all economic and social activities take place on and around the Volta Lake. It is not only the main source of employment, but it is also the highway which connects islands, playgrounds for children, a marketplace, et cetera.
It is, therefore, not unusual to find children fishing, commuting by boat to other islands or simply playing with their peers and siblings on the Volta Lake. Outsiders or those unfamiliar with this fundamental social set-up can wrongly translate the sight of a child in a boat with an adult as a child being exploited or forced to work.
I acknowledge that not all children on the islands and riverine live or work with their biological parents. However, this is not because of rampant sale or trafficking of children, as CNN and others have suggested.
The extended family system is still highly valued in Ghana as it remains integral to the social welfare system. It is, therefore, entirely normal to find children living with non-biological parents or guardians who can offer them educational, apprenticeship and other developmental opportunities.
Mr Speaker, a conspicuously ignored aspect of this practice in the CNN and other reportage of this issue is that many children and youth become self-sufficient fishermen in
Ms Betty N.E. K. Mensah (NDC -- Afram Plains North) 10:26 a.m.


adulthood through these arrangements and, in turn, also train other children and youth.

This form of fosterage and tutelage can be fraught with complications, particularly surrounding the mode of remuneration for child apprentices.

In 2017, for example, 674,000 children in state care in the United States were abused. Mr Speaker, I cite this number not to point a finger to other countries, but to challenge the tendency by journalists, NGOs, and other commentators to be selective in their reportage on same issues when it comes to the situation of Africa.

The language employed by NGOs and journalists when reporting on child rights problems in rich powerful nations is usually more tempered and considerate.

Mr Speaker, I challenge CNN's ‘Freeing the child slaves of Lake Volta' and any other actor alleging “pervasive” child trafficking and child- slavery in communities along the Volta Lake to provide independent evidence to corroborate these claims.

These cases should be described or defined at best as “child labour” and are deliberately being distorted to tell stories of “child slavery” and “child trafficking”, feeding into stereotypes of supposed primitiveness and back- wardness of African communities.

Mr Speaker, the only semi- independent large scale study of children's involvement in work on the

Volta Lake, which was conducted by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in 2013, is emphatic that the claims of child enslavement are exaggerated.

The ILO study confirms, as we also acknowledge, that aspects of children's work on the Lake take place under dangerous and exploitative conditions. This is clearly a problem that has to be addressed. However, the study did not find any evidence of children involved in servitude or enslavement, contrary to the persistent claims by some NGOs and journalists.

Mr Speaker, let me emphasise that the media and journalists have a responsibility to provide a balanced account to their audience. It is, therefore, unfortunate that the views of community residents and leaders are often excluded from these reports. As a result, their efforts to address the problem are ignored or undermined.

Mr Speaker, over the past decade, a number of government social intervention programmes, such as Free Compulsory Basic Universal Education (FCUBE), Free School Uniforms for Schools, School Feeding Programme, Livelihood Empower- ment Against Poverty (LFAP) and many more have been implemented in Ghana in an attempt to address social problems like those faced by children on islands and riverine communities of the Volta Lake.

However, these programmes have failed to yield the needed results on the island communities due to wrong

targeting and politicisation of those policies.

Mr Speaker, it will interest you to know that we have over 500 communities in and around the Volta Lake without basic social amenities such as electrification, safe means of transport, educational infrastructure, quality health facilities, potable drinking water and many more. How do we expect these people, my people, to make meaningful contributions to themselves and the country at large?

Mr Speaker, while we grumble about the situation these people find themselves in, it is safe to argue that people living in these island communities have a lot of potentials that need our collective attention.

A specific case of Master Sewodor Toklo is worth mentioning. Mr Speaker, Toklo who was going fishing with his father after school comes from one of the Island communities. He has successfully completed the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology with First Class Honours and currently, on a full scholarship studying in Russia. I have no doubt in my mind that when these people are provided with the relevant social amenities, we will have hundreds of the likes of Toklo coming out of these island communities.

Mr Speaker, to conclude, I want to commend you for showing leadership in taking steps in addressing critical social issues such as child

labour and child abuse cases in affected constituencies.

May I also commend the efforts of the two academics in the persons of Dr Samuel Okyere, a lecturer of Sociology and Criminology at the University of Nottingham, UK and Dr Kwame Agyeman, a lecturer in International Human Rights Law at Lancaster University in Ghana, who took time out of their busy schedules to come down to the constituency and spent some few days to undertake the research.

I also commend the International Justice Mission for their readiness to collaborate with Government and Members of Parliament to find a lasting solution to the few reported cases of trafficking in our communities.

Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity!
Mr Speaker 10:36 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Member for Afram Plains North. We must commend this very well researched Statement that should go as a reference point in the Hansard.
Yes, Hon Dr Boye?
Dr Bernard O. Boye (NPP -- Ledzokuku) 10:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am most grateful for the opportunity to add my thoughts to this very well researched Statement as you hinted.
Mr Speaker, I am very glad that my Hon Colleague has presented the
Dr Bernard O. Boye (NPP -- Ledzokuku) 10:36 a.m.


side from the constituency, and largely, the side of this nation.

Mr Speaker, since the airing of the documentary of child slavery on the Volta Lake in Afram Plains, we have had a lot of responses and feedback from concerned and well-meaning Ghanaians.

The fact remains that we have some children who are under 18 years who find themselves actively engaged in the fishing industry. The fact also remains that some of these children are not actually biological kinsmen of the business owners or practitioners.

What might not be a fact is to create the impression that the practice is absolute and that every child we see has been procured outside the community to come and do fishing.

Mr Speaker, I appreciate the fact that it is a complex social problem, but no matter how complex it is, to find solutions, it ought to be demystified and broken down. I appreciate the fact that some Non- Governmental Organisations (NGOs) become more relevant and are able to attract some funding when they make cases like this.

I am also very much aware that some NGOs actually put their efforts in this particular expositions so as to aid the Government or the country to find solutions to them. But it is very important to mention that the two are not mutually exclusive. We can have people who want to be in business,

as well as have people who want to be relevant, but the most important thing is for us to be careful not to be distracted. Our job is to focus on the problem and try to find solutions, and I believe that is the most important thing.

As for the ramifications of having children in the fishing industry at an early age, I believe that they are obvious; health issues. Most of these children, because of their exposure to water deep down the floors of the Lake, when you identify them, they have lung issues, some of them have chronic respiratory problems and some of them even grow up to have psychiatric problems because of the challenges they face when they go under the ocean floor.

Mr Speaker, we have a situation where a media house like CNN, an international media house, decides to do such a documentary that went very far and wide, but unfortunately, did not take the side of the country that was involved, and for that matter, Ghana. I am very happy that we got the opportunity to state our side of the story.

I would like to take the opportunity to commend the Government, through the Hon Minister for Information, for stating clearly our side of the story, and the facts as they are and also to commend the Hon Member of Parliament for giving us the inside information.

Mr Speaker, I would want to conclude by mentioning that when someone makes an allegation or

states a case against you and you believe it is not truly the situation, it is not enough to say that they should produce the evidence.

If the claim is left unchecked, that can have a very damaging effect on your reputation; it is also incumbent on you to produce the evidence you have. And I am happy that the Hon Member who made the Statement made reference to some researchers who have done some work.

Let us spend our energy in producing these research materials, and also, more importantly, be humble enough to accept the fact that we still have some kind of kids -- however not absolute or significant, who unfortunately find themselves in this practice.

Some of the kids are with their parents, so the case can be made that they are learning the family trade like some of us did; my grandparents and uncles were in the fishing industry. I have also been to the lake and the seashore before, but there is evidence that I also attended school.

If we can churn out these facts that most of them, if not all of them, are schooling and sometimes find themselves helping parents, maybe, that might even be a better case. But honestly, we wish children under 18 years should be in the classrooms.

That should be our position as a country. They should go to school and not find themselves in the business of

supporting families. Maybe, they might remain in the support and not come to classrooms at all.

Mr Speaker, with these few words, I commend the Hon Member who made the Statement.
Dr Clement A. Apaak (NDC — Builsa South) 10:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much for granting me the opportunity to comment on a very touchy and emotional Statement.
Mr Speaker, indeed, most of us were taken aback when we became aware of the documentary as far as the claim which has been ably refuted by my Hon Colleague, the Hon Member of Parliament, in the said constituency, is concerned.
But I believe we can begin the process of trying to decipher or better understand the situation, if we can have a proper understanding of the definitions of what we mean by child labour and child slavery.
Mr Speaker, my understanding of slavery is when a person is the legal property of another and is therefore forced to obey the said owner. On the other hand, child labour, in my understanding, is the employment of a child in an industry or a business. But we cannot have this conversation without taking due cognisance of our cultures and traditions.
Mr Speaker, if I may ask, do we have any school in Ghana where young men who want to become fisher folks in the future have to attend? Certainly not.
Dr Clement A. Apaak (NDC — Builsa South) 10:36 a.m.


So, while we are looking at this, it is very important that we also recognise that while persons from different cultures may have a different understanding about the manner and ways in which we transmit knowledge and skills to generations to come, that should not be misunderstood to suggest that there is child labour, and child trafficking, and indeed, child slavery.

Mr Speaker, I am intimately aware that, in 2017, a complaint was made to the Police with regard to 144 children with the claim that they were trafficked and are under child slavery. Investigations so far have concluded that out of the 144 children, 140 of them were actually doing what they were doing as part of their family endeavour and the sustenance of their family.

Mr Speaker, as we speak, is it the case that, for instance, if I had remained in my village of Dominga, perhaps, married ten wives and had multiple kids and my ten year old son accompanied me to the farm to carry some firewood home, would that be considered as child slavery?

So this issue is not as simple and basic as others who do not come from our cultural context may view it. But we have the responsibility to make sure that they understand why we do things the way we do.

That when one accompanies his or her parents to engage in the activities that they have to undertake to sustain

themselves, that cannot be considered to be child slavery.

Mr Speaker, with these few words, I want to commend the Hon Member who made the Statement and I believe that we have every responsibility to let the world understand our side of the story.
Ms Abena D. Mensah (NPP — Assin North) 10:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity you have given me. I would also use this opportunity to thank my Hon Colleague for the Statement she just made.
Mr Speaker, I would wish to make a brief comment on the Statement. What I believe is that, the report that was brought out concerning the so- called children who were exploited, as alleged, on the Volta Lake was a bit blown out of proportion. I believe that even if something like that was going on, the number that was brought up is too huge, and notwithstanding, I still know and believe that in the whole of Ghana, child slavery is still ongoing.

Mr Speaker, as I was going home around 7.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. yesterday, I met a child around the age of ten selling bread. When I questioned him, he told me that he was helping his mother to sell because she was not well. At that time of the day, when this child was supposed to be at home learning, he was selling bread in traffic and on the streets. This child could be exposed to the danger of being knocked down by vehicles.

Mr Speaker, we all believe that our system of upbringing includes training our children to do household chores and to help the family in the home, but that does not mean that they should be overused. It does not also mean that they should be used to do things that are beyond them.

Mr Speaker, I know of a child who, some years back, was exploited by her stepmother. This child did all the household chores; after school, she would work from 6.00 p.m. to about 12.00 midnight before she would be allowed to sleep while the other children in the family did not sleep that time.

This and other stories that we all know of are forms of child slavery which I believe we all have to work assiduously towards taking out of the system completely.

Mr Speaker, I thank you so much for this opportunity.
Mr Speaker 10:46 a.m.
Hon Members, one interesting thing that is worthy of notice is how ‘labour' is inter- changeably used with ‘slavery'. Slavery connotes ownership; transfer of the ownership of the human being like a chattel.
I do not know why they could not understand simple English, just because the matter concerns Africans. It is seriously worthy of condemnation and non-acceptance.
Yes, who concludes for the Minority Side so that we go to the
tribute in memory of Hon Lee Ocran. We have two very important Statements this morning.
Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 10:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker, let me thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Statement on Child Slavery on the Volta Lake. I would also commend the Hon Member who made the Statement and Hon Colleagues who contributed to same.
Mr Speaker, the Member who made the Statement, Hon Betty Mensah, in the title to the Statement is also contributing to the very fact that you have alluded to -- situation of child slavery -- that would amount to an admission of child slavery.
Mr Speaker 10:46 a.m.
Please, Hon Minority Leader, the owner of the Statement was careful enough to add, “Alleged”, so it read, “Alleged child slavery” which was very well noted.
Mr Iddrisu 10:46 a.m.
Mr Speaker, so I would commend her for the Statement.
Mr Speaker, as you may be aware, very recently, the House of Commons, UK, sent a team to this Parliament to understudy what they call modern slavery. Leadership engaged with them and just as you rightly pointed out, we indicated to them that the choice of words was offensive for our purposes as a country.
Yes, there is child labour and human trafficking, and maybe, abuses of children who are working but ought
Mr Iddrisu 10:46 a.m.


not to be working, but certainly, not child slavery.

Mr Speaker, the Hon Apaak and Hon Abena Durowaa Mensah have added to it and to point out what appears to be the cultural dimensions to the involvement of Ghanaian children in fishing, cocoa farming and other agricultural activities which are done in addition to schooling.

Growing up, I used to follow my uncle to the farm at a very tender age. Was I a child slave to the farm? Certainly not. I was to learn the art of farming.

Mr Speaker, even though statistics suggest that there are worrying numbers of abuse of children in agriculture, mining and cocoa farming, we have done well as a country.

That is why the Domestic Violence and Victims Support Unit (DOVVSU) was set up. We have passed important legislations including the Human Trafficking Act, 2005 (Act 694). What is lacking is what is called the domestic workers regulation within labour.

Mr Speaker, we would have to implore the Hon Minister for Gender, Children and Social Protection and the Hon Minister for Employment and Labour Relations to come back to this House, for us to regulate domestic workers in Ghana because that is where much of the abuses are occasioned. There is law for it.

Mr Speaker, I recall that in my last days at the Ministry of Employment and Labour Relations, I forwarded the same regulation to Cabinet and to Parliament. We should action that into law.

Mr Speaker, I would want to commend the Hon Member who made the Statement. We need champions of her type and many others to become champions of fighting child abuse in many of these endeavours.

Mr Speaker, she was specific on what happens on the Volta Lake. We would encourage her to carry on more research as a diligent MP from that area.

As I said, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) has some statistics on Ghana, but much of it, like the team from House of Commons, Westminster, UK -- we do not have modern slavery in Ghana. We find those words abusive and insulting to our culture and the training of young children.

What we do know exists in Ghana are packets of abuses of children who are working but ought not to be working. The solution lies in Free Compulsory Universal Basic Education (FCUBE), and Free Senior High School (FSHS) for us to encourage children to take full advantage of.

The more they are in the classroom, the less they find space in order to do some of these works.
Mr Speaker 10:46 a.m.
Yes, Majority Leadership?
Mr Matthew Nyindam (NPP -- Kpandai) 10:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to also contribute to the Statement ably made by our Hon Colleague MP from Afram Plains North on this subject matter, child- slavery and child trafficking.
Mr Speaker, I would want to agree largely with comments made by Hon Colleagues on this Floor, that culturally, we are beginning to mix up things. I believe sincerely that if we take the 275 MPs that we have today, some were either trained by their parents to be farmers and others, fishermen.
At the end of the day, if formal education does not give one the bread and butter that one looks for, that apprenticeship should support one to have a good living.
Mr Speaker, if one takes his cameras today to the Volta Lake, one would find children who assist their parents in fishing. I would not call that child slavery or child labour. It is not everybody who is born into a family that is capable of supporting such children fully with resources from their parents.
Some children support their parents in diverse ways. Child
apprenticeship should not be seen as child labour.
Mr Speaker, yes, we would admit that, in some few cases, some of these children are abused. We must all condemn the abuse but the spin that the international community puts on this kind of assistance or training of our children to take up after us as child labour or child trafficking, Mr Speaker, I beg to differ.

I believe that what the Hon Members and the Hon Minority Leader have said, if there are laws that have to be invoked to protect children that are abused, then as a House and nation, we must all try as much as possible to support it.

We must also encourage children not to lazy around. If one decides to go to the farm with his or her child but they decline, is that child labour? I do not think so. Everybody would not have the opportunity to go to school and achieve what we have achieved. For that matter, I commend the Hon Member who made the Statement.

Mr Speaker, I urge her to continue to let all of us know the realities on the ground. These international communities have much developed systems compared to ours, for which reason when they see a child paddling a canoe and diving into our waterbodies to catch fish, they are surprised and think that is child labour. It is not; it is apprenticeship.
Mr Matthew Nyindam (NPP -- Kpandai) 10:56 a.m.


The way international communities are developed, they would not see some of these things, so it looks strange. It is in this sense that they would have to do proper research before they come out to condemn or otherwise.

Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to add my voice to the Statement. I thank the Hon Colleague who ably made the Statement.
Mr Speaker 10:56 a.m.
Thank you very much.
In fact, it is the general view of this Honourable House that those who use such words as “modern slavery”, et cetera, must be very careful of the nomenclature that they seek to impose upon us, as if it is a dying effort to expiate themselves of the slavery they put us through.
Those who care so much for Ghana and the Ghanaian child, for that matter, should make positive contributions to our Free SHS scheme in cash and in kind, as it will go a longer way in promoting the rights of children rather than these misconceptions.
Hon Member, thank you very much for this well researched Statement.
Hon Emmanuel Armah-Kofi Buah will make a Statement in the memory of the late Hon Lee Ocran.
Tribute in memory of Hon Lee Ocran
Mr Emmanuel A.K. Buah (NDC -- Ellembelle) 10:56 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.
Mr Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to pay tribute to the late Hon Lee Tandoh Ocran, whose sudden death occurred on Thursday 21st February, 2019.
The late Hon Lee Ocran was a former Hon Member of Parliament and Hon Minister of State.
I have personally lost a mentor, a friend and an icon for the development of the Western Region and, indeed, Ghana.
My Speaker, the late Lee Ocran's association with the governance of this country dates back to the Third Republic when he was the Hon Deputy Minister for the Western Region and later as the Hon Deputy Minister of Trade. On return from exile in the mid 1980s, he became the CEO of Pepsi Cola and served as the longest CEO of Pepsi Cola, Ghana.
When Ghana returned to civilian rule, he joined the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and became a very active player of the party rising at a later stage to be the party's Vice Chairman.
He was the Hon Deputy Minister for Science and Environment during the Rawlings Civilian Administration. Under the late President Mills, he was
made Ghana's High Commissioner to South Africa and later as Ghana's Minister for Education. Under President John Mahama, he was appointed as the Board Chairman of the Volta River Authority (VRA), and I vividly recall how nervous I was in announcing his appointment at the time.
The reason was simple -- How do I supervise this giant who, in fact, became the Hon Deputy Minister for Energy when quite frankly, he was the Deputy Minister of the Western Region when I was still in the elementary school?
Mr Speaker, I am happy to note that he was so dedicated and professional that he made it so easy to work with him, and his achievements at VRA speak volumes. His dedication and hard work was always on display in all the positions he held.
As the Vice Chairman of the NDC, he is credited for his steadfast commitment to the ideals of social democracy on his role in ensuring that those ideals are reflected in the NDC's Manifesto and governance.
The Late Hon Lee Ocran, a native of Nawule in the Jomoro District of the Western Region, became associated with the Parliament of Ghana on the 7th of January, 2005, having won the Elections on 7th December, 2004 to represent the good people of Jomoro. Although a one term Hon Member of Parliament, he dutifully served the good people
of Jomoro and the nation till his tenure ended on the 6th of January, 2009.
In Parliament, he served on the Business Committee, the Committee on Roads and Transport and the Committee on Health where he served as the Ranking Member. As a Member of Parliament, Hon Lee Ocran was very active both at Committee and at Plenary, and always emphasised national unity as a necessary ingredient for building strong democracy.
Contributing to a Statement on International Women's Day in this House, he said and Mr Speaker,
with your permission, I quote:
“... In the former Eastern Europe during the Soviet era, 8th March was a public holiday in all socialist countries. It was a day when women were honoured, women were appreciated, presents and flowers were given to women by their menfolk. We in Ghana today do not give any prominence to this day. I wonder how many ordinary women even know of this day.
I wish to call on our women leaders to try to propagate the day so that we the men would be encouraged on this day to honour our women... for the support that they give us at home”. [Vol. 55, no.21] [Column 1083]
Mr Speaker, speaking on women in another debate on a Statement on Female Genital Mutilation, this is what he stated.”
Mr Emmanuel A.K. Buah (NDC -- Ellembelle) 11:06 a.m.


As an indigene, he was very passionate whenever he had the opportunity to speak on the developmental challenges confronting the nation and the Western Region in particular. He, like other Hon Colleagues from the Western Region had always impressed upon Government to implement measures to address the infrastructural gaps in the Western Region.

Thus, being motivated by some of the development initiatives in the harbour and railway sectors of the Region as alluded to by the then Hon Minister for Harbours and Railways and at that particular period, this is what the late Hon Lee Ocran had to say:

“Mr Speaker, I have been motivated to rise and speak to the Statement made by the Honourable Minister for Harbours and Railways. I am motivated because as a Western Region person, railways is part of my life. In fact life in Sekondi/ Takoradi revolves around the harbour and railways... With the decline of railways, economic activities in Sekondi in particular have declined tremendously and Sekondi is almost a ghost town.

He was a true State functionary who was not just concerned about the socio-economic and infrastructural development of Ghana. He also related to issues on global threats to the development of our country, including environmental pollution, desertification, climate change and global warming.

Contributing to the debate on climate change in the House, he observed as follows:

“ ... Global warming is a topical issue of our times... Global warming goes far. About 10 years or 15 years ago, the Inter- Governmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to look at the issue of greenhouse emission and global warming. If you look at the arctic area, the snow is melting, and with the snow melting, those of us living along the coastline are really in danger because it can lead to flooding”.

Hon Lee Ocran continued to deepen ties with Parliament when he later served as a Minister of State responsible for Education. His prompt attendance upon the House and its Committees, and the very friendly manner in which he related to both Colleague MPs and staff of

the Parliamentary Service could still be recalled with some nostalgia.

The courtesies he extended to Parliamentary delegations to South Africa, where he later had the opportunity to serve the nation as High Commissioner, provided yet another opportunity for him to continue with his warm relationships with his Colleague Hon MPs in his previous life as an Hon Member of Parliament.

He was, indeed, a very jovial and affable character, which attributes enabled him to endear himself to all persons who came into close contact with him. He was a man who spoke bluntly what he believed was right or represented the truth.

He was a reasonable combination of tradition and flexibility. His mind spanned issues with ease. Admittedly, he was a very simple personality with a unique sense of humour and he was very approachable.

As I mourn his sudden departure to glory, I, on behalf of Parliament, extend a heartfelt condolence to the widow, children and the bereaved family.

May the soul of the late Hon Lee Ocran and the souls of all the faithfully departed rest in perfect peace in the bosom of the Lord. Amen!
Mr Speaker 11:06 a.m.
Hon Member, thank you very much for this well- made Statement.
Hon K. T. Hammond.
Mr Kobina T. Hammond (NPP -- Adansi-Asokwa) 11:06 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
It is a rather sad occasion that we have to pay tribute to a very good Friend of ours. Mr Speaker, in the days gone by, there were some formidable and strong boys on this Side of the House, and Hon Lee Ocran was one of them.
Mr Speaker 11:06 a.m.
There are still boys on both Sides of the House.
Mr Hammond 11:06 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, strong boys but stronger boys.
Mr Speaker, Hon Lee Ocran did not distinguish between Hon Members of a specific divide. At least, at the time that I knew him, he did not recognise those who were here. Incidentally in those days, I sat at the back here but these days, I sit here.
I sat here and Hon Lee Ocran would recognise us as Hon Members of this House and not as Members of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) or Nation Democratic Congress (NDC). There was not one person who came into contact with him without an impression made on the person. He was plainly affable.
Mr Speaker, he was also fairly cheeky. I think that with all that has been said by the Hon Member for Ellembelle, he has not mentioned that. It keeps ringing in my head. Mr Speaker, it was really sad for some of us when I think that the CPP
Mr Hammond 11:06 a.m.


candidate then, Hon Samia Yaba Nkrumah, toppled him but it did not add to our numbers; some of us thought that his presence on this Side contributed to the soldiers of this House. Mr Speaker, we did not enjoy it, but that is politics and that was how it ended.

Again, we were happy that his political life was not truncated because of the untimely demolition work that was done on him by Hon Yaba Nkrumah.

When the party to which he belonged came back into Government, they made sure that he still contributed to the development of this country by making him a High Commissioner, and he was sent to South Africa to operate from there. I think that it was from South Africa that he made -- Mr Speaker, I am not very sure about that, so I would leave that for the time being.

Mr Speaker, I would go to the most controversial point which he and I laughed, argued and did everything about. Incidentally, the two people who were involved at the time are in this House as I speak now. It was the occasion of 19th or 20th June, 2007 when -- it was very memorable, and I recall it vividly as if it happened yesterday; it has become a mantra.

Mr Speaker, it was when the then Hon Minister for Energy and myself, as the then Hon Deputy Minister for Energy, came to this House to announce to the world that Ghana has for the first time --
Mr Speaker 11:06 a.m.
Hon Hammond, do you want to traverse that pathway?
Mr Hammond 11:06 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would know how to handle it.
Mr Speaker 11:06 a.m.
Please take a cue.
Mr Hammond 11:06 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I do take a cue.
Mr Speaker 11:06 a.m.
Then please proceed without --
Mr Hammond 11:06 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I know that bad things are not said about the dead, so I would not --
Mr Speaker 11:06 a.m.
Hon Member, advise yourself.
Mr Hammond 11:06 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
Mr Speaker, it was on that occasion that when the announcement was made, Mr Lee Ocran got up and --
Mr Speaker 11:06 a.m.
Hon Member, say something else.
Mr Hammond 11:06 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am not quite sure that I understand the direction that I am supposed to take.
Mr Speaker 11:06 a.m.
Ask the Hon Member next to you.
Mr Hammond 11:06 a.m.
Mr Speaker, in that case, may I end my contribution here.
Thank you.
Mr Speaker 11:06 a.m.
Thank you very much.
Hon Yieleh Chireh.
Mr Joseph Y. Chireh (NDC -- Wa West) 11:16 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me the permission to pay tribute to a colleague in many ways.
Hon Lee Ocran was a memorable person, as everybody has indicated. He was very frank and when he had any views, he expressed them in a way not to annoy anybody but to explain himself.
I remember when I visited South Africa as the Hon Minister for Health and he was the High Commissioner there, I asked him why he insisted for the Manifesto of the NDC to have a onetime premium.
Mr Speaker, he explained that this was something he believed in and he convinced the Committee to put it inside and that if I wanted, we should exchange positions and he would come to implement it. Mr Speaker, I laughed over it but that was what he meant.
Mr Speaker, if we look at his political history and his commitment to serve Ghana, he was a very humble person who agreed at every point to have a clear idea about where he wanted Ghana to be. He spoke
passionately about the development of the Western Region, and he always emphasised the fact that the Western Region produced a lot of the resources for Ghana, and I agreed with him in many ways.
As a person, he agreed that no matter the age of any person -- because at the time, we always argued. I was much younger than he was, yet he agreed with me if I made a point.

But he also disagreed with me when I went away from his direction. That is how humans should be; sincere, honest and wanting to make a difference. I believe the late Lee Ocran did his duty to mother Ghana.

His background, as we all know, was a very humble one, but he rose to the highest position in this country. The National Democratic Congress (NDC) has lost one of its able members; one who could raise funds. I remember when he had the ailment, he had to raise funds for others, and he continued to support the Korle- Bu Teaching Hospital in many ways.

This was a man who did not only think about himself but others and how they too should live long as he wanted to live. Unfortunately, he has been called.

On this occasion, we can only ask the family to bear this loss with fortitude, and for all of us to remember him and pray that the Lord Jesus Christ that he worshiped receives him.
Mr Speaker 11:16 a.m.
Thank you very much.
Leadership, if you would give me some nominations so that we can conclude this and move to the next item.
Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 11:16 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to the tribute and eulogy of Ambassador Lee Ocran. He served this country as an Hon Member of Parliament, Ambassador and Hon Minister of State.
Mr Speaker, I join Hon Armah- Kofi Buah and many others in conveying our deepest condolences and sympathy to Mrs Sati Ocran and the rest of the family.
Indeed, the NDC has lost a stalwart in the Western Region and Ghana, as a State, has also lost a humble, affable and frank gentleman.
Mr Speaker, I worked with the late Hon Lee Ocran when the NDC, as a political party, constituted a Manifesto Committee. Characteristic of him, anytime he saw my generation, even though I was in that Parliament with him, Hon K. T. Hammond and your
good Rt Hon Self, he would say “You these small boys, come here”.
Mr Speaker, he was a consummate social democrat. The NDC, as an amalgam of persons with diverse backgrounds, included some capitalists from the United Party (UP) tradition who were within the party, the Convention People's Party (CPP) and the People's National Convention (PNC) and had challenges with ideas and whose idea would dominate at what time.
Mr Speaker, he reminded the NDC not to lose its ideals and values, as a social democratic party. His view was that it was the only way the NDC could distinguish itself from the centre of the right political Side on my Opposite. He wanted that manifested in every policy action of the NDC Government.
Sometimes, he reminded the President whether what they did promoted the social ideals of the NDC, like the one Hon Yieleh Chireh has referred to. He believed that we should open the National Health Insurance Scheme up for universal coverage. He believed that the premium was useful.
Mr Speaker, at some points, political parties in Ghana might suffer what the late Lee Ocran described as a crisis of identity. Where is our real philosophy, as parties, in seeking to meet the aspirations of the people?
Mr Speaker, when former President Mahama was inaugurated, I looked for somebody within the NDC who had an understanding of
the Ghanaian private sector to chair the then EDIF, now Ghana Exim Banks. I went to consult the President, who said he was taking Mr Ocran to the Volta River Authority (VRA).
Let his death inspire us to strengthen our institutions. He was particularly concerned about the Government's indebtedness to the VRA, which weakened their balance sheet and did not allow them to deliver on their mandate. He was also the Vice Chairman of the NDC.
Mr Speaker, if we go to column 1222 of the 2005 Hansard, when Hon Baah Wiredu presented the Budget Statement, the late Hon Lee Ocran rose to contribute, and I beg to quote:
“Mr Speaker, I would want to contribute to this Motion more as a Ghanaian than a politician.”
That was the patriotism in him. A patriotic citizen of Ghana who appreciated the role he needed to play.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, it was the late Lee Ocran's conviction and belief that there was no reason the Western Region should suffer deprivation, given its contribution in terms of natural resources to the development of the country.
Whether it is oil or cocoa, that was what God has done for the Region. He fairly believed that Ghana, as a State, was not doing enough for that Region.
Mr Speaker, with these few words, may I commend Hon Armah- Kofi Buah. Mr Speaker, I know you are engaged in personal efforts together with Leadership to see what the State could do to give him a befitting funeral.
May his soul and that of others rest in perfect peace!
Mr Speaker 11:16 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Minority Leader.
Majority Leadership?
Mr Kwasi Ameyaw-Cheremeh 11:16 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with your leave, we would want to cede to the Hon Minister for Aviation.
Mr Speaker 11:16 a.m.
Hon Minister for Aviation?
Minister for Aviation (Mr Joseph K. Adda) (MP) 11:16 a.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to pay tribute to our departed Colleague. In my case, he is my Senior Colleague, and to express condolence to his family and the NDC.
Mr Speaker, I first heard of the late Hon Lee Ocran as the youngest Hon Minister of State in the Administration of the late H. E. (Dr) Hilla Limann, and I, more or less, observed him through the years.
I note him to have been a very active social person and highly political, participating actively in many political activities whether in the NDC, PNC or NPP here in the House.
Minister for Aviation (Mr Joseph K. Adda) (MP) 11:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I met him personally
when I came to this House as the Hon Member of Parliament for Navrongo. I asked him what the experience was to have been the youngest Hon Minister.
He then shared his experience openly to me, and offered to be my personal advisor because he said I was too young to be an Hon Minister in President Kufuor's Administration. Therefore, he needed to share his experience, having been in H. E. (Dr) Limann's Government.
We had very fruitful exchanges, but what I noticed so much about him was that he was open, frank and, to my estimation, undiplomatic. So, I was very surprised when he was appointed the High Commissioner to South Africa, and I wondered how he could handle that position.
Of course, he was a matured politician, and I know he balanced the situation very well, being frank and knowing how to be smooth in the way he conducted himself.
Mr Speaker, in Parliament again, he was very active at Committee meetings and here in the Chamber. He shared openly the ideas that he had on all issues, and offered freely to be part of any activity that would bring value to the House.

Mr Speaker, a very interesting exchange I had with him on this Floor is what you have cautioned us not to

talk about, but we engaged ourselves after the Sitting in the House on whether the oil find was the right thing. Of course, he admitted outside the House what he did not say in the Chamber, admitting that it was good for the nation but he obviously could not agree to that in the Chamber.

Mr Speaker, at all levels, he contributed his quota immensely to the development of the nation. What I have noticed that we should all keep tab of is that the late Hon Lee Ocran spent his life in politics.

He shared a lot as a young man and grew up to be a senior in politics. The saddest thing is not just the loss to the family and the Party, but the fact that he has passed away without documenting all his experiences.

So, Mr Speaker, I would conclude by urging all Hon Colleagues in this House and all politicians who have left the House to try and keep a record of all their experiences, so that future generations could also learn from them.

Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity, and may his soul rest in peace.
Mr Speaker 11:26 a.m.
Hon Minister, thank you very much.
Shall we have one minute's silence in honour of our late Hon Colleague?
Mr Speaker 11:26 a.m.
May the soul of our late Hon Lee Ocran and all other faithfully departed rest in peace; amen.
Hon Members: Amen!
Mr Speaker 11:26 a.m.
Hon Members, that brings an end to Statements.
At the Commencement of Public Business, item listed 4, Presentation of Papers.
Hon Minister for Finance, item numbered 4 (a)?
Mr Ameyaw-Cheremeh 11:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister for Finance is not in the House, and we would crave your indulgence to allow the Hon Minister for Aviation to lay the Paper on his behalf, if our Hon Colleagues on the other Side would indulge us in that respect.
Mr Iddrisu 11:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, one can understand why the Hon Minister for Finance may not be immediately available in this House.
The Vice President and Chairman of the Economic Management Team is addressing the country on matters relating to debt, and therefore, the Paper on --
Mr Speaker 11:26 a.m.
Matters relating to what?
Mr Iddrisu 11:26 a.m.
Matters relating to the Paper that would be laid on his behalf, public debt, so the Hon Minister for Aviation has capacity. We would not question that. I am saying that --
Mr Speaker 11:26 a.m.
Hon Member, is the conference on debt?
Mr Iddrisu 11:26 a.m.
And many other issues.
Mr Speaker 11:26 a.m.
Are you not misleading this Honourable House?
Mr Iddrisu 11:26 a.m.
Not at all, Mr Speaker. I monitored one of his paragraphs, it was dedicated to 58 per cent --
Mr Speaker 11:26 a.m.
One paragraph was on debt, and there may be a thousand paragraphs; so do not give us a nomenclature that is out of tune.
Mr Iddrisu 11:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, I said debt and many other economic issues.
Mr Speaker 11:26 a.m.
It is enough that he is addressing a press conference, so please proceed.
Mr Iddrisu 11:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I just accepted the excuse that he is not here, so the Hon Minister for Aviation could stand in his stead, and that he is justifiably absent to support the Vice President.
PAPERS 11:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:26 a.m.
Item numbered 4 (b) -- By the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah 11:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, items numbered 4 (b) (i) and (ii) are both not ready.
Mr Speaker 11:26 a.m.
Hon Chairman, can you give us an idea about the difficulty?
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Committee met on these two tax waivers. The Cabinet Memorandum and the Parliamentary Memorandum had different figures, so we asked the Hon Minister for Finance to go back and rectify it; either he goes back to get a Cabinet Memorandum that reconciles with his Parliamentary Memorandum, or submits a new Parliamentary Memorandum that is the same as the Cabinet Memorandum.
So, the Committee has met and considered these, but those two discrepancies remain, and that is why we are unable to present the Report.
Mr Speaker 11:26 a.m.
Thank you very much; you are being very thorough.
Item numbered 4 (c), Hon Chairman of the Committee on Defence and Interior?
Mr Ameyaw-Cheremeh 11:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that Report is not ready, so we may stand down item numbered 4 (c).
Mr Speaker 11:26 a.m.
Is item numbered 4 (d) ready?
Mr Ameyaw-Cheremeh 11:26 a.m.
The same applies to item numbered 4 (d), so we can move to item numbered 4 (e).
Mr Speaker 11:26 a.m.
Item numbered 4 (e), Hon Chairman of the Committee?
By the Chairman of the Committee --
Report of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Par- liamentary Affairs on the Petition by Professional Law Students Seeking Review of the Results of the 2017/ 2018 New Professional Law Course Examinations.
Mr Speaker 11:26 a.m.
Hon Majority Chief Whip, where do we move to?
Mr Ameyaw-Cheremeh 11:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if we may take item numbered 9; it is a procedural Motion.
Mr Speaker 11:26 a.m.
Item listed 9.
MOTIONS 11:26 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Ben A. Banda) 11:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 80(1) which require that no motion shall be debated until at least forty-eight hours have elapsed between the date on which notice of the motion is given and the date on which the motion is moved, the motion for the adoption of the Report of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parlia-
mentary Affairs on the Petition by Professional Law Students Seeking Review of the Results of the 2017/ 2018 New Professional Law Course Examinations may be moved today.
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 11:26 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
Question put and Motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
Report of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and
Parliamentary Affairs on the Petition by Professional Law
Students
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Ben A. Banda) 11:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that this Honourable House adopts the Report of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs on the Petition by Professional Law Students Seeking Review of the Results of the 2017/2018 New Professional Law Course Examinations.
Mr Speaker, in doing so, I present your Committee's Report.

Introduction

On Tuesday, 5th March, 2019, a group of Professional Law Students of the Ghana School of Law submitted a Petition to the Rt. Hon Speaker, in which they sought a review of the results of the 2017/2018

New Professional Law Course Examinations.

Mr Speaker subsequently referred the Petition to the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs for consideration and report.

Deliberations

In considering the Petition, the Committee met with Executives of the Professional Law Students, Lecturers of the Ghana School of Law (GSL) and the General Legal Council

(GLC).

Reference Documents

The Committee referred to the under-listed documents during its deliberations:

i. The 1992 Constitution;

ii. The Standing Orders of Parliament;

iii. The Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32);

iv. The Legal Profession (Pro- fessionaland Post-Call Law Course) Regulations, 2018 (LI

2355);

v. The Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill, 2018;

vi. Subject Manuals Approved by the GSL for the New Professional Law Course;
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Ben A. Banda) 11:36 a.m.


vii. Draft Concept Paper pre- pared by a Senior Lecturer of the GSL proposing for the introduction of a Qualifying Certificate for Legal Execu- tives (QCLE); and

viii. Proposal for drafting a Bill to establish Council for Professional Education.

Background Information

The General Legal Council (GLC) is the statutory body responsible for Ghana's legal education (Section 1 of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act

32).

The GLC delivers its training mandate through the Ghana School of Law (GSL), which has its main campus at Makola, Accra. The GSL also has campuses at the Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA), Accra and at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Kumasi.

Prior to 2014, professional legal education was structured and delivered over a two year period, comprising Part I (one year) and Part II (one year). Under the Professional Law Course, students were taught six subjects in Part I, and five subjects in Part II.

Lecturers of the GSL taught all the subjects, set and marked scripts for the two sets of examinations conducted by the School.

Regarding examinations, students wrote two sets of examinations, one at the end of Part I and another examination at the end of Part II.

At the end of the Part I examinations, candidates who passed all the six courses progressed to Part II of the Course. Those who failed in only one subject were referred in those papers but were allowed to progress to Part II and later wrote supplementary examinations.

Those who failed two or more papers in Part I had to repeat the entire Part I course. At the end of the Part II examinations, students who passed all papers were called to the Bar, while those referred in one paper had to wait and write supplementary examinations to be possibly called to the Bar at the mini call.

However, in 2015, the two year professional law course was re-structured, including a reduction in the duration of the Course to a one year period.

The New Professional Law Course is run in two (2) semesters. As part of the restructuring, an Independent Examination Board was established administratively by the GLC (now the Independent Examinations Committee established under LI 2355) to take over the examination function of the lecturers of GSL. This confined the lecturers to only the teaching of prescribed subjects.

Under the new system, students write two separate examinations, at the end of each semester. The results

for the first semester examinations are released simultaneously with the results of the second semester examinations.

The two examinations are treated cumulatively, and candidates who pass all the papers proceed to undertake the mandatory internship to be called to the Bar subsequently.

Those who fail in not more than two papers get referred in those papers and become eligible to write supplementary examinations. Those who fail in more than two papers of each semester are required to repeat the entire one year course.

Review of Professional Law Course Examination Results Recorded Between 2014 And 2018

An analysis of official results of the professional law examinations reveal an exponential drop in the performance of students under the New Professional Law Course which started in 2016.

Prior to the introduction of the new professional course, the average performance of students in the professional examinations stood around 70 per cent but that reduced sharply under the new professional law course to about 15 per cent.

The following Tables show the performance of professional law students from 2013 to 2018.

SPACE FOR TABLE 1(A) PAGE 3 --11.36 A.M

SPACE FOR TABLE 1(B) PAGE 4 --11.36 A.M
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Ben A. Banda) 11:36 a.m.


SPACE FOR TABLE 2(A) PAGE 4 --11.36 A.M

SPACE FOR TABLE 2(B) PAGE 4 --11.36 A.M

SPACE FOR TABLE 3(A) PAGE 5 --11.36 A.M

SPACE FOR TABLE 3(B) PAGE 5 --11.36 A.M

SPACE FOR TABLE 4 PAGE 5 --11.36 A.M

SPACE FOR TABLE 5 PAGE 5 --11.36 A.M
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Ben A. Banda) 11:36 a.m.


Summary of the Professional Law Students' Petition

In the Petition, the professional law students expressed grief and disappointment over the mass failure recorded in the 2018 New Professional Law Course Examinations conducted by the IEC in June and October 2018.

They emphasised that the factors which caused the mass failure go beyond poor performance of students. They partly attributed the mass failure to factors such as questions set outside the approved syllabus, disconnect between lecturers and the IEC and defects in the marking, recording and tallying of examination results.

They further complained about late release of results, high cost of remarking and difficulties encountered in the implementation of the repeat policy under LI 2355.

Based on the above issues, the professional law students sought the intervention of the House to review the results of the 2017/2018 New Professional Law Course Examinations as follows:

i. annul questions set outside approved syllabus and remark remaining questions over 100 per cent;

ii. reduce the cost of remarking from GH¢3,000 to GH¢500;

iii.re-open the period for remarking;

iv. ensure timely release of results of the remarking to coincide with this year's Call to the Bar; and

v. review the repeat policy under Regulation 14 of LI 2355.

Response by Lecturers of GSL

The lecturers of the GSL essentially concurred with the submissions of the professional law students.

They also maintained that, though they have on many occasions requested the IEC to furnish them with copies of its Examiners' Report and marking schemes, none of these critical documents have been given.

They further stated that the remarking fee of GH¢3,000 was too high and ought to be reduced drastically. They recalled that the GSL used to charge remarking of GH¢300 in 2015 before the IEC took over.

They again noted that the current failures may partly be traceable to the reduction of professional course from two years to one year, comprising the 1st semester (about eight months) and the 2nd semester which is offered within two and a half months and the late release of results as well as non- release of marking schemes by the

IEC.

They disclosed that in 2015, two lecturers submitted two proposals for the consideration of the GLC to respond to the increasing number of students seeking admission to the GSL. According to the law lecturers, the proposals comprised a multi- campus concept and creation of a Professional Law Council but the GLC seemed to have been implementing the proposals selectively.

They revealed that, prior to the current system with the IEC, the average performance of professional law students stood at 68 per cent but that has since dipped to about 15 per cent in the last two years.

They suspected that the IEC have not been releasing the professional law results timeously because the Examinations Committee have been overwhelmed by the large numbers.

To buttress their suspicion, they recounted the case of a student who failed a paper with 23 per cent, but a remarking turned that mark to 76 per cent. In that regard, they proposed that the IEC should adopt a residential marking system, under which the IEC would lodge in a facility for about three weeks to mark all the papers.

The lecturers expressed grave concern over the lack of co- ordination between them and members of the IEC. This has led to the establishment of a bilateral committee comprising members of the IEC and the Faculty of the GSL to address the issue.

Response by GLC

Mr Tony Forson, the President of GBA, informed the Committee that the GLC had established a Monitoring and Evaluation Committee to investigate allegations made by the students and that Committee had been given up to 25th March, 2019 to submit its report to the Council for action.

Mr Tony Forson also informed the Committee that the Monitoring and Evaluation Committee established by the GLC in 2018 to investigate similar allegations had submitted its report to the Council and read portions in that report.

He further noted that the GLC and the lecturers of the GSL were currently cooperating very well and believed that most of the issues being raised by the stakeholders were in the process of being resolved.

Observations and Recommen- dations

The Committee made the following observations during its deliberations:

Questions falling outside approved subject manuals

The Committee took the view that once subject manuals were approved by the GLC and given to the professional law students, the IEC was expected to set the examination questions within the scope of those manuals. In that regard, the Committee urges the GLC to expedite its inquiry into the allegations and rectify any
Mr Bernard Ahiafor (NDC -- Akatsi South) 11:36 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to second the Motion ably moved by the Hon Chairman of the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee, on the Motion numbered 10 on today's Order Paper, and in doing so, to contribute to the Committee's Report.
Mr Speaker, as a matter of fact, we met with the students, the lecturers and the General Legal Council, and the issues relating to the performance these days of the law students are very enormous.
Mr Speaker, it turned out that lecturers, who taught the students, were not the ones who set their questions and marked their scripts. The General Legal Council has put in place an independent examination body that would set questions after the lecturers have given their lectures to the students, and then the independent examination body marks the questions.
Mr Speaker, the complaints of the students are to the effect that most of the questions given to them to answer are set outside the manual or the syllabus given to them, meanwhile, the lecturers use the manual in teaching them. As such, lecturers do not even have access to the marking scheme of the independent examination body,
to be able to even train the students towards answering the questions appropriately.
Mr Speaker, there were a lot of issues relating to the marking of the scripts by the independent examination body. Sometimes, students apply for re-marking, and for instance, a paper that graded a student 36 per cent, the re-marking would grade that same student over 70 per cent. So, clearly, there were issues with the marking of the scripts of the students.
Under normal circumstances, if one is marked less than 30 per cent, there is no way, ordinarily, if there is no problem with the marking of the script, the re-marking would result in that same student's mark going beyond 70 per cent. So, clearly, there is a problem.
Mr Speaker, the lecturers also raised concerns that they are the ones teaching the students; they know what they teach them from the manual, and so a situation where the questions are set and they do not even have the opportunity to have a hand in the way and manner the questions are set creates a problem for them, let alone not having a hand in the way the scripts are marked.
So, they believed that the massive failure of the students could be attributed to some of these things, rather than the performance of the students. There is therefore the need to do an overhauling of the entire system.
Mr Speaker, we tried to hear from the independent examination body, and the allegation was that before the introduction of the independent examination body, lecturers were accused of favouritism, and as a result, the General Legal Council took away that particular function of setting questions and marking the examination papers away from them, which has resulted into some of the problems that confront the General Legal Council and the Ghana School of Law, for that matter.
Mr Speaker, they are also confronted with the huge numbers that they would have to deal with, because the number of students who are writing the examination are so huge, as compared to the normal or the usual way that some of us went through.
The course is two years; we have professional Part I, and professional Part II. What is done in professional Part I would now be done in one semester, and then the professional Part II would be done in the second semester.
Mr Speaker, students would now have to do a lot within a very short period. So, they considered that the period within which a two-year course would have to be handled within in a year has also created a problem for teaching and learning, and has resulted in the massive failure of students.
Mr Speaker, with these few words, I urge the House to adopt the Committee's Report so that when the
recommendation is implemented, I believe strongly that the problem, if not eliminated completely, would be reduced.
I thank you for giving me the opportunity.
Question proposed.
Mr Speaker 11:46 p.m.
There are five Hon Members standing. May I know who wants to contribute? [Laughter.]
Mr Kobina T. Hammond (NPP -- Adansi Asokwa) 11:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, this Report is really a sad reflection on the legal education in this country at the moment.
Mr Speaker, you would recall your days when you taught us all the subjects at the university -- processes of writing, setting questions and marking questions, of course and releasing of results. Mr Speaker, we have got to acknowledge that there is really a difficulty in the legal education system in the country at the moment.
In the days where 90 students would have gone through the Law Faculty at the University of Ghana (UG) and they proceeded from there to the Law School at Makola are long gone; it has expired. Those days completely belong to history.
Mr Speaker, as my other Hon Colleagues have indicated, particularly, the young man, the Hon Member who just spoke -- the system is near to breaking point --
Mr Hammond 11:46 p.m.
What is his worry? I said he is a young man. [Laughter.] Mr Speaker, they would have to calm down a bit and recognise the system for what it is worth. When was he --
Mr Speaker 11:46 p.m.
Yes, Hon Buah?
Some Hon Members 11:46 p.m.
Kofi Buah why?
Mr Buah 11:46 p.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity. The Hon Member --
Mr Speaker 11:46 p.m.
If you mention his name without “Honourable”, you would be in contempt so please take note. [Laughter.] Those who are making sounds to the contrary must be careful.
Hon Armah-Kofi Buah?
Mr Buah 11:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe you pointed out earlier. The Hon Member should know -- he has been here long enough that he should address the Hon Member by his name. If he does not know it, he should not call him “the young man”.
Mr Speaker 11:46 p.m.
Or by his constituency or simply say the Hon Member who just spoke.
Mr Buah 11:46 p.m.
Or his learned Friend.
Mr Kwame Govers Agbodza 11:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, he is 17 years at the Bar.
Mr Hammond 11:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am not sure where he faults me. “The Hon Member who just spoke” is not an affront to him. Mr Speaker, 17 years is talking to close to 30 years at the Bar. What is the point? [Laughter.] I have been here long enough to know that Hon Buah has not been called to the Bar.
Mr Speaker 11:46 p.m.
Hon Hammond, it is home and abroad.
Mr Hammond 11:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was going to that. We have not quite come to that. [Laughter.]
Mr Speaker, in the days where we had 90 students moving from there to a the Law School and the system that we have now, we are getting to breaking point. There is so much proliferation in the education system that it is basically getting to a cataclysmic end.
Mr Speaker, if we are not careful, legal education in Ghana might get to a nether that would be difficult for the system to speak of the proud old days when legal education was legal education.
Mr Speaker, you would hear about all sorts of institutions now setting up law courses. Even those that were meant to teach science, engineering, agriculture and others now have faculties of law. It is breaking down the system. The numbers have simply overwhelmed the system, but when you look at the Report that has been presented, you tend to be a little bit sympathetic.
Mr Speaker, you talked about me studying both home and abroad. I see that the duration has been reduced from the original two years. When we went to Gray's Inn in London, our course was one year; we did law school for one year.
So, the duration itself is not alien, but we have to compare the structures, the system in place, the books and the facilities. That was the place where one literally had access to whatever he wanted at any material time.
Mr Speaker, I appreciate that students go through hell to get their notes and books together so, maybe, there is a real issue as to whether one year period is really right and that we do not have to go back to the question of the two years.
The worry though is, why failure at the marking level should become a parliamentary issue? In those days at Legon and all other universities, when students had to do what was called September conference, when they were referred, these matters were settled on campus, but we seem to involve Parliament not in the question of passing Legislative Instruments (L.I) or substantive Acts, but in the simple administrative matters of the professional institution.
Mr Speaker, I have the difficulty that I expressed but I also have sympathies for the students. One is that, it would appear that now if a student asks for remarking, we are
told that he has to pay a whopping
GH¢3,000. 00
Some of us never had remarking when we were at school, but I do not recall any faculty asking for money for remarking. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I do not recall that. That in itself is not very good. I do not know about that. It definitely has to be reviewed.
Mr Speaker, critically, on the matter of the setting of the questions and the marking of the answers, when you taught us, you set your questions and we could predict what you would ask us. We had hints because you gave out tips and so, we were prepared for the questions that you would set.
Mr Speaker, we are now told that the students are taught by a certain set of lecturers and then the scripts are taken away to independent markers. They sit on them, mark the scripts with their own marking schemes -- whether presented by those who taught them.
Mr Speaker, I believe that dichotomy creates both psychological and mental effects on the students. It does not help them. That again should go because it is unfair.
I am not so sure about the pass rate and the failures because, obviously, there is no distinction between those who passed and those who failed. The persons who marked the papers applied the text to all of them so, in my view, that is not really the issue.
Mr Speaker 11:46 p.m.
Hon Hammond, before you were admitted to the English Bar, you did not know those who marked your papers and those who set the questions for the Gray's Inn Court Examinations, they never marked.
Mr Hammond 11:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you know almost all these things. I am just being charitable in this context.
Mr Speaker 11:46 p.m.
But that is what you went through.
Mr Hammond 11:46 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in order that I am not accused of being so brofolised about Gray's Inn, I would not want to extrapolate all the experiences out there onto our system. It might not be fair, but you are entirely right.
Out there, these things operate seamlessly. There is no difficulty at all. Those who teach, set the questions or mark them are all beyond reproach, but here we are, there is a difficulty.
Mr Speaker, I talked about the Legon experience where either your Teaching Assistant was asked to mark certain sections, but effectively, we could predict what questions you
would ask us. We grouped together and knew Prof Oquaye would ask this question, so ditto ditto, we would go and chew, pour and pass. [Laughter.] It is difficult now.
11. 56 a. m.
The last time an L. I. was brought to this House, we went through it and I think that has been passed. I believe what we should do now is to ask the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice to liaise with the relevant stakeholders and get—the Bill is here; whether it would pass the test that we would go through, I am not so sure.
Mr Speaker, but I think it is time that the Legal, Constitutional and Parliamentary Affairs Committee sat on the matter now, report to this House and if there are any amendments, we go through to sort this matter out. It has been going on for far too long; we should sort this matter out.
Everybody in Ghana now wants to be a lawyer; it is not fair. They are just making our trade— sooner or later, we would not be getting jobs because of --[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, that was on the lighter side, but let us get the Bill here and deal with the difficult part of it.
Those students who have failed, I think they could always go back. We would impress on them to re-mark. They would have to either do it for free or at a fairly reduced fee and get these things sorted out. If they fail again, then, nobody could complain about the marking scheme.
Mr Speaker, these are my concerns.
Thank you very much.
Mr Speaker 11:46 p.m.
Thank you very much, Hon K. T. Hammond.
Dr Robert B. Kuganab-Lem (NDC - Binduri) 11:46 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute the Report from your Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs on the Petition by Professional Law Students seeking review of the results of the 2017/2018 New Professional Law Course Examination.
Mr Speaker, my Senior Colleagues have said a lot but I would like to emphasise my submission on bullet points 4.4, 4.7 and 7.7 of your Committee's Report.
Mr Speaker, the problem started from bullet 4.4 where lecturers of the Ghana School of Law taught all the subjects, set and marked scripts for the two sets of examinations. Fast- forward to bullet point 4.7, an Independent Examination Board was established and this confined the lecturers to only the teaching of the prescribed subjects.
Mr Speaker, when we come to bullet point 7.7, the last four lines; a student had called for a remarking, he failed the paper with 23 per cent but the remarking yielded 76 per cent. Mr Speaker, this is serious. Your good self, having been an examiner before, knows that, there is no reason why
somebody could fail a paper with 23 per cent and when it was remarked, the person passed with 76 per cent. 76 per cent is an “A” in those days for university students.
Mr Speaker, so I think that this is where the problem is. We should not be massaging and pampering people in authority and power who are quite irresponsible. This paper was not marked; the student had to pay money to get his paper remarked.
We have all been students before; it is not every student who could pay this remarking fee. Even if it is GH¢500.00, they cannot get it. The one who caused this trouble goes scot-free. He did not mark the paper yet he still has a job.
Mr Speaker, I think if he is a right- thinking Ghanaian, he would have said to himself mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, to wit, I blame myself; and bow out of the job of being an examiner at the Ghana Professional Law Examinations Council.
He should bow out of his job. We, in this country, cannot move forward if those who are put in positions of responsibility behave in this manner and we massage their activities.
Mr Speaker 11:46 p.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Member for your contribution.
Leadership, any comments? You may yield to your members.
Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 12:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, let me thank you for the opportunity. I am guided
by the Rt. Hon Speaker, even though one would have wished that one more additional opportunity was given.
Mr Speaker, let me thank the Hon Chairman of the Committee and his team for a good work done, and to thank you personally. Indeed, when the students appeared before this House, it was your kind directive to the Clerk to Parliament to be assisted by the two Leaders to take ownership of the Petition, which you subsequently referred to the Committee to work on and report.
Mr Speaker, if we analyse the Committee's Report and its recommendations, particularly, in page 10 of 10, Mr Speaker, my first observation would be, for this House to request that the Hon Attorney- General and Minister for Justice convenes a national conference on the future of legal education and professional education so that as a country, we could take stock of how far we have come.
Mr Speaker, once we are practising multi-party constitutional democracy, and we continue to recognise that rights and freedoms must be respected, the bulk of the work would be done by lawyers and the country needs more lawyers. Mr Speaker, we need more young people trained as lawyers to serve our country in many respects.
Mr Speaker, part of the Committee's recommendations is on re-sit. Let me refer you to the paragraph that talks about questions falling outside approved subject
manuals. Why should that happen? If I prepared for Family Law, let it be Family Law; do not take me to the world of Property Law as part of the examination. I am trained; I have gone through a particular manual for some purpose.
Mr Speaker, I understand that some of the changes to the questions emanated from issues of integrity of leakages or suspected leakages culminating in questions being changed overnight and then, students become victims of it. Who is responsible? We need to know.

Mr Speaker, the Committee took a view that once subject manuals were approved by the GLC and given to the professional law students, the IEC was expected to set the examination questions within the scope of those manuals.

We should not tolerate questions outside those manuals, and even if they attempt those questions, what about the attitude of the examiner?

Mr Speaker, I am told further that some of the examiners are practising lawyers who have been at the Bar for about 20 years or 30 years and their standards assume that the students are already practising lawyers.

No, these are students of law who want support to come and support governance and legal education. They cannot be given the same standards

and expected to perform at the same level as the examiners.

May I also respectfully refer to paragraph 9.4 on the “Repeat Policy.”

“The Committee observed that the implementation of the repeat policy under Regulation 14 of LI 2355 has produced some undesirable outcomes and need to be reviewed.”

Mr Speaker, so who will review that particular L. I.? That is where this particular Parliament must come in and that is why when these L. I.s come here, we must be diligent and thorough. We passed the L. I. but we now say that it has produced undesirable results which means we share in the blame. When they petitioned and drew our attention, those concerns were ignored.

Unlike the previous policy which treated the Part I and Part II results separately, the current policy accumulates the First Semester and Second Semester results to determine whether a student would be repeated. Yes, we know Law is a jealous and respected profession but other professions have resits for up to 10 years.

Why must we say that with Law, you can only resit two or three times? It is a bad policy and must be reviewed. We should give them the opportunity, particularly so that we have evidence that from 23 per cent, somebody got 75 per cent. So, he or
Mr Speaker 12:06 p.m.
Hon Minority Leader, I can tell you authoritatively that you cannot sit your medical examinations for more than three times. Please go on.
Mr Iddrisu 12:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I thought medicine was about life but Law is about human rights and freedoms. [Laughter.] Mr Speaker, with the medical profession, I agree with you, the standard is weightier and it should be so because with the least risk, there would be loss of life.
Mr Speaker 12:06 p.m.
Law and Medicine are twins. [Laughter.]
Mr Iddrisu 12:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am guided. I am just saying that we can add one more year for the purpose of resit from what currently prevails.
Paragraph 9.7 is instructive:
“Review of LI 2355
The Committee urges the GLC to initiate processes for the review of the Legal Profession (Professional and Post-Call Law Course) Regulations, 2018 (LI 2355) to provide for the following:
i. procedure for the selection of examiners;
ii. procedure for the appoint- ment of members of the IEC; and. . .”
They seek more transparency. So, I share the conclusions of the Committee and strongly think that we should review the L. I. The Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice must work because the quality of law affects the quality of outcomes of what we seek in court. Whether they are civil or criminal remedies, it would emerge in the quality.
Mr Speaker, the students should be properly advised that nobody anywhere in the world expects 100 per cent pass in any professional examination, and this Parliament would not encourage wanting everybody to pass.
There are limitations and restrictions which are all to maintain quality. Therefore, while their concerns are legitimate, the GLC must review the appropriateness or otherwise of all examination questions and take same into account when arriving at a final decision.
Re-marking should be done by lecturers and the procedure for selecting examiners who are not lecturers should be published, so that the students know. The GLC should find a way to address the plight of the over 500 victims of the reform who have been repeated and whose numbers exceed that of the current students.
How can we have 500 persons who are willing to be lawyers and we want all of them to go? They would
become dangerous pocket lawyers if they are not given the opportunity, so we should give them the opportunity.
Mr Speaker, with these comments, I share the recommendations of the Committee and urge the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice to liaise with the Judicial Council, so that we can have a national conversation on the future of legal education and the GSL.
Mr Speaker 12:06 p.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Minority Leader.
Majority Leadership?
Mr Ameyaw-Cheremeh 12:06 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Majority Leadership yields to Hon Patrick Boamah.
Mr Patrick Y. Boamah (NPP -- Okaikoi Central) 12:06 p.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to the Report on the Petition by the Professional Law Students seeking a review of the results of the 2017/2018 new professional law course.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader has touched on a lot of important nerves bordering on legal education. This document is the root cause of all the problems confronting legal education in this country. May I refer you to Regulation 12 of L. I. 2355 on the appointment of Independent Examinations Com- mittee (IEC) about the GLC; Mr Speaker, with your kind permission, I read:
“The Council shall appoint an independent examinations Committee for the school. A person is qualified to be appointed by the Council as a member of the IEC if that person is
(a) a justice of the Superior Courts of Judicature or a retired Justice of the Superior Court of Judicature
(b) a Lawyer of not less than 10 years standing at the Bar
(c) a legal academic who is at least of the level of a Senior Lecturer
(d) a member of the Institute of Chartered Accoun- tants”
Mr Speaker, if a Justice of the Supreme Court, High Court or Court of Appeal is asked by the GLC to mark scripts of students who have not sat under his or her feet and who he or she has not examined through interim assessments (IA) and continuous assessment, yet at the end of the period, is given their scripts to mark, that person who stands in this category would place those students at a certain level which, in my view, would not be very fair.
What kind of lawyers do we seek to produce? It is not about quantity as Hon K. T. Hammond alluded to. We can have a lot of lawyers but we are looking for quality lawyers. I believe some of the students may be
Mr Patrick Y. Boamah (NPP -- Okaikoi Central) 12:16 p.m.


SPACE FOR TABLE 5

called to the Bar, only to be Administrators, Researchers, Practitioners or Lecturers or could venture into various areas using the legal profession.

The cost of legal education lately is a bit too high. The stress and volume of work that students have to endure is also a bit too much. We have to take a critical look at this L. I. again.

Mr Speaker, not to pamper the students, but most of them work lately. They are engaged in a lot of activities. Some of them are gainfully employed and like the Hon Minority Leader said, Law is a jealous profession. One's attention cannot be divided with this voluminous profession.

The kind of material that students have to read, analyse and summarise within three hours to answer a question

is just too much for them to toy around by going to the office, skipping lectures, having lecture notes recorded for listening. It is not the same as being in the classroom.

We have to be fair to you, that the profession requires them to spend a lot of time in the classroom. They must dedicate themself to the profession. That is why at the end of the day, they would want to be called a learned person.

It is not by chance; they would have to struggle through and ensure that once they are called a learned person, they would have gone through the seriousness of the programme.

Mr Speaker, if you turn to page 6 of the Report on table 5, that is where the problem is. It is disheartening, to say the least. The table reads:

Mr Speaker, but looking at the Recommendations of the Committee on paragraph 10.3 of the Report, the Committee stated that it has planned to engage all stakeholders in the legal education sector to consider the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill, 2018 which has been laid in the House and currently before the Committee.

Mr Speaker, you can only ask for this document to be revoked and a properly written and structured L. I. relaid before this House. That would be the solution to the problem that we are discussing.

The L. I. gives the IEC or the Board of Legal Education the power to fix and charge certain fees as stated in the L. I., Regulation 27.

They have been given certain powers by this House whether it is onerous or not, it is this Parliament that ushered this Regulation and complied with the 21-day constitutional provision and it has been implemented. So, we also have some challenges when it comes to scrutinising some of these L. I.s that come to this Parliament.

Mr Speaker, law reform is being advocated. The students also have a role to play, because you received them with open hands and a good heart as a father.

Yes, this House would debate and make recommendations, but the rest lies with the General Legal Council to listen to your recommendation and

advise. We think it is a good course. We are with the country to produce quality and serious lawyers through proper --

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 12:16 p.m.
On that note, I would put the Question --
rose
Mr Speaker 12:16 p.m.
Yes, Hon First Deputy Speaker would make a contribution.
Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu (NPP -- Bekwai) 12:16 p.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to make a short contribution to the Report.
Mr Speaker, many years ago, when I was admitted to the Law Faculty, one of the lecturers said that, “You must note that you are admitted to the Bar; you do not pass to become a Lawyer.” That was the kind of concept we were made to understand.
It is not so much about one's academic competence, but if the person satisfies the law profession, then he or she will be admitted to the Bar.
Today, we have gone to the extent that we challenge decisions -- and the Constitution gives us the power to do that, and I think that should guide us in all matters relating to what rules we pass and the decisions we come to.
Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu (NPP -- Bekwai) 12:26 p.m.


Mr Speaker, if you compare the results up to 2017, before the IEC took over, you would wonder what has happened. Is it that the lecturers are suddenly underperforming or they are suddenly admitting dumb students?

Mr Speaker, the Hon Member for Okaikoi Central referred to the powers the L. I. gives to the IEC. I wonder how the Council selects members of the IEC. I think those are areas which we would want to know; transparency in the system of selection is important.

If I want to be a lecturer, even though the qualifications are available, there is a procedure for applying and obtaining -- you must go through the system. But if I want to become a member of the IEC, how do I become a member? Sitting back, how would I know that the person who has been admitted to that body has the requisite experience and expertise to set and mark questions? These are matters this House should be interested in.

That is not to challenge or doubt the integrity of those who are managing the process, but transparency is critical to assure us that we are doing the right thing and we have no reason to complain.

Mr Speaker, indeed, the lecturers are also, in many instances, very senior Lawyers and Judges: Court of Appeal Judges, Supreme Court Judges, and High Court Judges whose experience in the law and practice is not in doubt.

So, how come suddenly their students are performing poorly in the examinations?

Mr Speaker, what stands out in the Report is the lack of collaboration between the body teaching the law students and the body which sets the examination questions and marks them. I believe it is a matter we must pay attention to. How do we do that?

The GLC, I am advised, was represented by the president of the Ghana Bar Association at the Committee and he assured that the previous year's complaints are being investigated. I wonder how long it would take to investigate and implement changes such that the students felt sufficiently frustrated to come to the Rt Hon Speaker with a petition. How fast are we working on the problems?

I would suggest that, as the Committee has recommended, there should be a system of collaborating between the teaching body and the examining body, so that there is no complaint that the students were given questions outside what they were taught.

Indeed, in the 2018 examination, the law students of Accra boycotted one paper, but the law students in Kumasi wrote that paper. The students of Accra were given another set of questions, which was different from what the students in Kumasi wrote. So, can we say that they were assessed on the same standard? That disparity should not happen.

Mr Speaker, because the students in Accra said the questions were outside what they were taught, they refused to write the paper, but the students at KNUST wrote the paper. These discrepancies, in a way, undermine the credibility and the standard of test which the students are subjected to.

Mr Speaker, there are other practical challenges. The Report reflects one issue in which after re- marking, there is a vast difference between the marks a student got and the marks he had earlier been given.

I am aware of a situation where it is not just marks but the tabulation of marks. It turned out that, for a particular student who petitioned, one whole paper was not added to his marks. So, he fell way below the pass mark.

Who is responsible for doing that? Who does the tabulation? Is it the independent examination body? When they finish marking, where do the papers go for tabulation? These are all areas where we must be sure that as much as possible, errors that could affect a student's performance and results do not occur and if any, very minimal.

Mr Speaker, the number of students is also a real problem. At the time that we were admitted to the Law Faculty, we were 120 and we were told that only 60 of us would go to the Ghana School of Law. So, we

knew from day one that for the 120 that had started in the first year, after the first year, only 60 would continue.

After the first year examinations, the first 40 were admitted to do LLB and the next 20 were admitted to do BA because they said the Ghana School of Law could not take more than 60 students, but a few who had repeated in other classes joined in, in the course of the year.

Currently, the criteria appears to be “take as many as you can'' -- and there are so many law faculties. The National Accreditation Board has no collaboration with the Board of Legal Education and the General Legal Council which are responsible for the law school and the legal training --

That is one part of the challenges. Too many people are admitted at the beginning, which makes a very wide entrance and narrow exit, so there would always be a clog at the end and that should be looked at again.

Mr Speaker, again, from the Report, every examiner marks 521 scripts. Are we sure that, that same person would give the same quality of attention to all the papers equally? The number of students itself is a big challenge, so they should look at how many students they want a year -- [Interruption.] Hon Opare-Ansah, you are out of order. [Laughter.]

They should define from the beginning how many law students they want to graduate in a year. That should be programmed over a period, so that it would define at the entry
Mr Joseph Osei-Owusu (NPP -- Bekwai) 12:26 p.m.


level, how many law students would be admitted.

Currently, it has become a money game. If a person sets up a school and people are willing to pay, then the person gets his or her accreditation. Some schools run as many as three streams, and if we do not check this, the outcome would not be palatable and we would have these challenges.

Mr Speaker, finally, just to buttress the point made by the Hon Member for Okaikoi Central, about students and their attention. A year ago, I invited one of the Deans of the Law Faculty to my office for a long discussion when the challenges came out and his contention was that many of those who complain do not attend lectures.

They have friends who collect notes for them, they have recordings and also rely on past questions.

Indeed, at the Appointments Committee, the two Supreme Court Judges who appeared before us who are also lecturers; Justice Nene Amegatcher and Justice Nii Ashie Kotey raised the same matter that it appeared that many of the people who want to be Lawyers now are also busily doing other things. Therefore, the time they devote to the study of the law is always minimal.

As the Hon Minority Leader said, the law profession is a very jealous one which requires one's total attention. That is why a person is not

permitted to practice law alongside any other profession.

If a person is a doctor, he or she cannot practice law; if a person is a Reverend Minister, he or she cannot practice law -- he or she has to choose one over the other. It is the same thing with the study. A person is required to be a student, and in that case, his or her total devotion and attention is required.

Those who complain must also examine themselves. How much time do they devote to the study of the course? All stakeholders who have a role to play must also examine themselves and look at how it could be dealt with.

Mr Speaker, I would want to urge Hon Members to support the Motion and also urge the General Legal Council to take into consideration the recommendations made by the Committee to ensure that we have peace at the level of the Ghana Law School.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity.

Question put and Motion agreed to.
Mr Speaker 12:26 p.m.
This House urges the General Legal Council to duly consider the recommendations of the Committee as endorsed by the House towards expeditious resolution of the Motion on hand.
In this regard, I further direct that a copy of the Official Report on
today's proceedings be transmitted to the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, the Chairperson and the members of the General Legal Council, the Directors of the Ghana School of Law, together with the lecturers as well as the IEC for appropriate action.
Hon Majority Leader, what is the next step?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:26 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we would take the item numbered 5 on the Order Paper.
Mr Speaker 12:26 p.m.
Hon Members, item listed 5 -- Motion -- By the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Mines and Energy?
MOTIONS 12:26 p.m.
GOIL 12:36 p.m.
  • [SPACE FOR TABLE RATE OF RETURN/EXPLORATION & DEV PAGE 7 -- 12.36 P.M.]
    • Mr Mutawakilu Adam (NDC — Damongo) 12:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion. In doing so, your Committee considered the Agree- ment and one issue we had to consider
    was the technical, financial and professional competence of the contractor, and it was evident that it was not disputable.
    ExxonMobil, as a contractor, is a world class oil company, therefore, it has the capability to undertake exploration in the shallow, deep and ultra-deep waters. So that was not under dispute.
    Mr Speaker, we also realised that the exploration period falls within the Petroleum Exploration and Production Act (Act 919). The minimum exploration period covered is six years and the maximum is seven. The Act 919 provided a maximum of seven years, so it was within the exploration period. That is the period within which a discovery can be made, so it was in line.
    However, we detected few roles that were given to GNPC instead of the Petroleum Commission. For example, when it came to issues of metering, the Agreement gave that role to GNPC contrary to Section 3(d)(i) of the Petroleum Commission Act 815, of 2011.
    We also realised that when it comes to health, safety and environment, Petroleum Commission is mandated under Act 919 to do that. The Ministry admitted that this is an omission, but the Committee realised that it was not material enough to warrant a withdrawal. Therefore, the Ministry admitted that in the final agreement that would be signed, all these corrections would be imputed.
    Mr Speaker, as indicated by the Chairman, we also realised that there were a lot of tax waivers given to ExxonMobil, be it, capital allowance that the Income Tax Law, which says that losses can be carried forward for five years, but in this Agreement, it was ten years.
    There were issues in respect of foreign exchange transactions and withholding tax. However, the Ministry explained that irrespective of this tax exemption, the project is still viable and Government could still make between 65 and 80 per cent in respect of that.
    Mr Speaker, the Committee realised that irrespective of the tax waivers, we needed to know the quantum of tax waivers that is supposed to be given in line with the Public Financial Management Act, and the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance assured the Committee that it should be captured in the Report —
    Mr Speaker 12:36 p.m.
    Hon Members, the background sound is rather much. This is a very important debate.
    Mr Adam 12:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance admitted that by convention, the agreement is submitted to Parliament and then, finally, the fiscal impact assessment would be submitted later, and so the Committee felt that it was appropriate to move forward and approve the Agreement.
    I, therefore, call on the House to approve this Agreement, while we wait for the fiscal impact assessment to be submitted to this House.
    Question proposed.
    Mr Speaker 12:36 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would have four contributors from each Side; three Hon Members and one Leader. There would be strictly five minutes each for Hon Members and ten minutes for Leaders.
    Mr Emmanuel A. K. Buah (NDC — Ellembelle) 12:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity. Let me thank the Committee on Mines and Energy for this Report. This Petroleum Agreement has really come a long way, and as it has been rightly captured, we began this negotiation in December 2014, all the way to 2015. The key basic agreements were reached in 2015.
    Mr Speaker, the key factor that held this Agreement from coming to this House at that time had to do with demands by ExxonMobil that were complicated by the new Income Tax Law. The Committee has, indeed, captured that concern even today. The Committee expressed concern about the number of tax reliefs and waivers that have been agreed in this Agreement.
    Mr Speaker, I think it is very important. Not too long ago, we were in this House talking about the huge tax waivers and the exemptions and their impact on our finances. The Hon Minister for Finance has assured the

    Committee that he will come to this House for us to subject the benefits that we are going to derive, vis-à-vis the tax relief that we are giving ExxonMobil, especially by extending this relief from five years to ten years, and other reliefs sought by them.

    I think that is very important. I believe we need to really subject that to a better scrutiny before the ratification of this Agreement.

    Mr Speaker, another important point worthy of note in this Agreement has to do with the competencies of the company, ExxonMobil. There is no doubt that ExxonMobil has been around. It is the world's largest oil exploration company. They have deep water experience but what we should be very interested in is the legacy ExxonMobil leaves for us.

    Mr Speaker, are we positioning ourselves in this negotiation to make sure that at the end of their work in Ghana, we would have gained the expertise and technology to basically get our national oil company to explore and find oil all by itself? That is very important.

    Mr Speaker, if we look into this Agreement, the training and technology allowance -- US$2 million for training and US$7 million for technology -- the reference is made to GNPC. I think that has been clarified but it is important we bring that back again. This House has been

    very consistent in letting the Ministry of Energy know that, with the Petroleum Commission in place, it is the regulator and that it has the responsibility to lead our effort in bringing up our technology, and in training to make sure Ghanaians are ready.

    Mr Speaker, although we make reference to GNPC, we have already negotiated a transition, where the Petroleum Commission would be the one doing this work. The Ministry of Energy should be advised to ensure that the Petroleum Commission is empowered to lead this effort while working with GNPC in the transitional period. It is very important they build that capacity.

    Mr Speaker, secondly, we have to note and advise that when we have US$7 million in technology, it is not free money to be used on other things like corporate social responsibility.

    It is important that we invest that money, indeed, in technology, because if we look into the Agreement again, other Agreements that would come would tell us that, as a country, we continue to have 10 per cent and 15 per cent carried left, right and centre as pertains in this Agreement.

    The only reason this is happening is that we do not have the technology. We need to start working to get to that point.

    Mr Speaker, another critical point in this Agreement has to do with the issue of local content and participation. On page 11, the

    Agreement talks about what we are required to do; it says the contractor and its subcontractors are required to acquire materials, equipment, machinery and consumer goods produced in Ghana by indigenous Ghanaian companies.

    Mr Speaker, you would realise that we are not even close to making sure we could build that capacity to produce these things. We are talking about development on the average of US$5 billion. Often, because of the lack of provision of these equipment, this huge amount of money goes outside.

    We tried in the last ENI Ghana Exploration and Production Limited Agreement to make sure that, for example, Ghanaians could have a piece of the FPSO that was being built. In the end, out of over US$7 billion, I believe the amount we got for Ghanaians was less than US$1 billion.

    Mr Speaker, having made this point, again, it is important that we move to ensure that these critical issues that I have raised are incorporated in the Agreement.

    Mr Speaker, on that note, I ask Hon Members to ratify the Agreement.
    Mr Kobina T. Hammond (NPP--Adanse-Asokwa) 12:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you very much. I would be fairly brief because --
    Mr Speaker 12:46 p.m.
    Hon George Mireku Duker? Hon Majority Leader, I have your list; Mr George Mireku Duker.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe you called the Hon Duker but he moved the Motion on behalf of the substantive Chairman. So you may allow the Hon K. T. Hammond to speak now.
    Mr Speaker 12:46 p.m.
    Hon K. T. Hammond, you would proceed.
    Mr Hammond 12:46 p.m.
    I thank you, Mr Speaker.
    I had said that I would be fairly brief and that is because this Report is a brilliant one. The fiscal and technical elements in the Agreement are fairly solid.
    One would expect companies with the calibre of ExxonMobil to come to this country again under the leadership of a party called New Patriotic Party (NPP).
    Mr Speaker, the other day, I heard the Hon Adongo suggest that there have been lots of oil discoveries. Where is a gallon of oil which stands in the name of the current President, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo? He forgets that oil from the 17th of June, 2007 up to what we have today have all been under the leadership of the NPP Administration.
    Mr Hammond 12:46 p.m.


    Mr Speaker, with the amount of fiscal and technical inputs into the Report that we have presented, we can assure this House and country that, come next three years or so, he would see the personal signature of the President of Ghana who represents the NPP --
    rose
    Mr Speaker 12:46 p.m.
    Hon Member, do you rise on a point of order or correction?
    Mr Edward A. Bawa 12:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is important to state the records as they are. Discoveries of oil in Ghana have not all been under the NPP Administration. You do know that post Jubilee oil discovery alone, we had over 21 discoveries announced in this country. Therefore -- [Uproar]
    Mr Speaker 12:46 p.m.
    Order, Hon Members!
    Mr Bawa 12:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is important that when my Senior Colleague is making a submission on the Floor of the House, he captures it as facts. That is all that I want to draw his attention to. [Hear! Hear!]
    Mr Speaker 12:46 p.m.
    Hon Hammond, if you would emphasise the justification for the approval of these contracts, particularly, it would be very useful for your five minutes.
    Mr Hammond 12:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you. The point I simply tried to

    We put it in the record. He has argued but the facts are there.
    Mr Speaker 12:46 p.m.
    Hon Member, you would conclude --
    Mr Hammond 12:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, simply, I would want to put that on record, and also say that we have some challenges reading the Agreement as originally presented. There were bits about the legal status of foreign exchange and the waivers that have been discussed.
    Mr Speaker, these days and times when people rush to the Supreme Court for the nullification of Agreements, it would be prudent and in the interest of every party involved that the Hon Minister for Finance quickly comes to grips with it, and in consonance with the letter that is written to the House, come to the House to sort this this matter out so everybody has their sanity.
    We do not want to have a case where after approval of an excellent Agreement like this, we would have bits of edges that we have not quite really sorted out.
    Mr Speaker, these are really the bits and pieces that I want to bring up; but on that point, I would say that all the oil in this country have been the result of the NPP Government.
    [Hear! Hear!] I have been saying it and I know the facts.
    Mr Speaker 12:56 p.m.
    Hon Member for Damongo, you have five minutes.
    rose
    Mr Speaker 12:56 p.m.
    Very well, Hon Ato Forson?
    Mr Cassiel A.B. Forson (NDC -- Ajumako/Enyan/Essiam) 12:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Motion.
    In doing so, I draw the House's attention to a number of issues that I have seen in the Petroleum Agreement and in the Memorandum that was laid before Parliament. Mr Speaker, it surprises me to see that the Memorandum to Parliament and the Petroleum Agreement itself tries to claim tax exemption through the back door. This is contrary to article 174(1) and (2) of the Constitution.
    Again, if we look at Section 100 of the Public Financial Management Act, (Act 921), this Honourable House is expected to have the fiscal impact analysis. Unfortunately, the Memorandum before us excludes the fiscal impact analysis.
    Mr Speaker, I do not think that this Agreement should be approved in this state. I call on this Honourable House to oppose this Agreement and for the
    Hon Minister for Energy to withdraw it. Let me take us through the details before us.
    On page 9 of the Memorandum before us, we will notice “additional oil entitlement”. For the records, additional oil entitlement is what tax practitioners call resource or economic rent tax. It is normally imposed on extractions where we get abnormal profits or additional profits in excess of what is expected.
    Mr Speaker, in extractions like mining in Australia, for instance, they call it windfall tax. Unfortunately, this is an area that we fail, as a country, and with what I see here, we are even failing the more.
    If we are to compare page 9 of the Memorandum before us, we would notice that Ghana would not benefit from the return on investment threshold on Exxon Mobil, only after the oil company gets 15 per cent additional return on investment.
    Mr Speaker, contrary to that, in the past, the Government of Ghana gets up to five to 10 per cent; an example is the Eni Block. With the ENI Block, the Government of Ghana gets 10 per cent anytime the return on investments exceeds 12.5 per cent, but in this case, we are saying that we would wait for Exxon Mobil to get 10 per cent before we get 15 per cent.
    Unfortunately, this continues until we get 20 per cent before that threshold will increase by 15 per cent. It is not good enough, and I do not know what went into the negotiations.
    Mr Cassiel A.B. Forson (NDC -- Ajumako/Enyan/Essiam) 12:56 p.m.


    I believe that the negotiators did not do this country any good. Unfortunately, this country would lose on the back of the economic rent tax that we get.

    Mr Speaker, it is not only that; I would go to page 11. Here, we would notice, “Losses Carry Forward”. Act 896, the Income Tax Act, 2015, says that we can carry forward petroleum extractions losses for five years. Unfortunately, this Petroleum Agreement calls on the Government of Ghana to carry forward losses for 10 good years, which is not good enough.

    It does not stop there, as it says that the capital allowances that should be charged for the year, this Administration actually asks us to extend it indefinitely according to the memorandum before us.

    Again, the Income Tax Act says that withholding taxes should be charged at eight per cent. This memorandum tells us that for Exxon Mobil, the withholding taxes on dividends should be reduced to zero. So, it means that when they pay dividends, it will not attract any withholding tax. That is not acceptable.

    Mr Speaker, the dangerous part is that we have here “Withholding Tax on services for sub-contractors”. Unfortunately, our laws say that resident sub-contractors are to withhold an amount of 7.5 per cent

    and non-residents are to withhold 15 per cent.

    Unfortunately, this Agreement actually asks us to reduce the withholding tax from the 15 per cent for non-residents to five per cent; a give-away of 10 percentage points for non-residents and another give-away of 2.5 percentage points for residents.

    Mr Speaker, this Petroleum Agreement seeks to erode our tax base, and I am surprised that the Hon Minister for Finance is happily seated here about this matter. We cannot continue on this path, as a country, as we lose too much revenue and it cannot be allowed to stand.

    If we look at the comparative analysis I have done for some of the oil blocks that we have passed, we have the Deepwater Tano and West Cape Three Points (DWCTP), and Heliconia Energy Ghana Limited.

    For instance, the finance cost could only be carried forward five years under DWCTP and Heliconia. Unfortunately, for the Exxon Mobil Agreement, we would carry forward finance cost for 10 good years, and this is not acceptable.

    Mr Speaker, again, for losses carried forward for DWCTP and Heliconia, we have only asked them to carry forward these losses for five years but unfortunately, it is 10 years.

    In conclusion, the Government of Ghana would not get a better deal with this one. Other companies, per the Agreement that this Honourable

    House has passed, are far better than this one. As it stands now, I call on this House to reject this Agreement in this state; it is contrary to article 174 of the Constitution and Section 100 of the PFMA Act.

    This is not good enough and unfortunately, we would set a wrong precedent. If we are not careful, future companies will use this one as a benchmark and ask for the same. In the end, it is the Government of Ghana that will lose. I am not happy with the negotiators, they should go and do a better job.
    Mr Speaker 12:56 p.m.
    Thank you very much.
    Hon Dr Samuel Nuamah?
    Dr Samuel K. Nuamah (NPP - -Kwadaso) 12:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to also contribute towards the Motion.
    Mr Speaker 12:56 p.m.
    You have five minutes.
    Dr Nuamah 12:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the name is Samiu Kodwo Nuamah and not Samuel.
    Mr Speaker 12:56 p.m.
    Hon Member, what is the name?
    Dr Nuamah 12:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the name is Samiu.
    Mr Speaker 12:56 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Samiu?
    Dr Nuamah 12:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in doing so, I would like to highlight a few points. Exxon Mobil --
    Mr Speaker 12:56 p.m.
    Hon Member, are you seated at your right place? For insisting on your name, you must make sure that you sit at the right place so that your name too will show. Now, the world knows you by something else.
    Dr Nuamah 1:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am finally at my right place.
    Exxon Mobil is a great giant in the oil and gas market, and every country will find itself very lucky to have such a company to operate in its oil and gas fields.
    Mr Speaker, first of all, I will commend the previous Administration for starting the negotiation as it is boldly captured in paragraph 4.2.4 of the Report, and with your permission, I read:

    “The parties first negotiated the key fiscal terms and work programme, and signed the MoU on 30th April, 2015 between the Government of Ghana, Ghana National Petroleum Corporation, ExxonMobil Exploration and Production Limited.”

    As the President of the nation has promised that he would not let all projects started by the previous
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe there is a difficulty as to who should have the turn to
    speak. Mr Speaker, the problem is that you identified and, indeed, named two persons from the other Side at the same time.
    So it is important that for a balance, you should call Hon Darko-Mensah; after him, you would call the Hon Minority Leader.
    Mr Speaker 1:06 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Kwabena O. Darko-Mensah (NPP -- Takoradi) 1:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to add my voice to this beautiful Report ably presented by the Committee on Mines and Energy.
    Mr Speaker, if we take page 10 of the Report, the second paragraph after the table reads:
    “Overall, Ghana is expected to derive approximately 65 per cent -- 84 per cent of the net oil depending on the profitability of the project.”
    Mr Speaker, clearly, it shows that at the extreme end, we are expecting the contractor to gain only 15 per cent. I do not believe that anybody comes into this country to make only 15 per cent of the money, and that is why the expenditure part of the Petroleum Agreement and the fiscal regimes that we give are the areas that we need to look at critically.
    Mr Speaker, page 12 of the Report talks about dividends withholding tax and service withholding tax.
    The contractor is virtually asking that we should make allowance for the non-payment of dividends by shareholders because, naturally, they believe that the affiliate in Ghana is separate from the shareholding.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that this is a very important and positive clause that has been requested. This is because as a country that seeks to engender private participation in the economy, I believe tax incentives are a major key component. Therefore, I believe that the Committee's recommendation that we hold on to the eight per cent withholding tax is proper.
    Mr Speaker, after all, withholding taxes are not final taxes because under normal circumstances, after going through accounting, those amounts of money are supposed to be refunded, provided final taxes have been paid. So I believe that this matter should not be belaboured.
    Mr Speaker, one other issue that we have to look at is local content. Mr Speaker, if we take page 11 --
    rose
    Mr Speaker 1:06 p.m.
    Hon Member, hold on.
    Mr Forson 1:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    I come on a point of order. The Hon Member for Takoradi is trying to say that withholding taxes are not final taxes. I beg to differ in the sense that dividend withholding tax is a final tax because it is not payment on account.
    Mr Speaker, withholding tax for non 1:06 p.m.
    None

    Mr Speaker, he should not go to areas that he does not know. This is the Income Tax Act and I am a tax practitioner, so I know what I am talking about. He should not go to areas that he does not know because these are final taxes and not taxes on account. Let us speak to the facts and ensure that we deal with the right thing.
    Mr Darko-Mensah 1:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that he should have defined it for all of us to know where he is coming from. Withholding taxes are not final taxes. I am also a business man and I pay taxes, so I know what it is. I am also a practitioner.
    Mr Speaker, if we take local content, the Government talks about the use of GOIL Offshore Ghana Limited as the local partner for this project. We all know that 70 per cent
    of GOIL is owned by Ghana; therefore, if we talk about real local content as ordinary Ghanaians and private sector participating, then it is only 30 per cent of the five per cent.
    Clearly, this is not a big deal because we already have GNPC, which is a national company, that always partners with the contractors to do these businesses.
    I believe that going forward, Ghana would have to find new ways of raising new giants to partner with these contractors when they come into the country to develop our oil and gas resources.
    Mr Speaker, furthermore, they also talked about the issue of local content, and the issue about GOIL exposing itself so much to this project. I believe that apart from GOIL, and getting a national Ghanaian company to do so, we also have to look at the issue of local content.
    This is because if we take article 35 (2) of the Constitution, it is clear that, for instance, where we even site out national companies or major corporations in the development or extraction of our resources, the headquarters should be in these areas. It is expected that this would boost the image and the participation of these local areas in the development of resources in this country.
    I believe that when we look at these projects next time, we should look at such empowerments so that more Ghanaians would participate in these projects.
    Mr Speaker, finally, the table on page 10 talks about terms that were given to Kosmos Energy, Tullow, Hess, Eni and ExxonMobil.

    Mr Speaker, if we look at the comparison, we would realise that it is not very different. I believe that next time, the Committee may have to do some extra work by giving us some of the terms in other countries, so that we are sure that we actually get so much for this country; or we only use the terms that we initially believed were weaker as a comparison to what we are doing.

    In doing so, I believe Ghana could have a global outlook in the negotiation, and make sure that we get a better deal.

    This is because I know that in Uganda and other places, they do better than we do currently as a country. Next time, I think we should look at these areas.

    Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.
    Mr Speaker 1:16 p.m.
    Thank you very much.
    Minority Leadership.
    Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 1:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let me thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Motion on this important Petroleum Agreement among the GoG, GNPC, Exxonmobil and GOIL Offshore Ghana Limited.
    Mr Speaker, in doing so, may I respectfully refer you to page 12 paragraph 9.5 of your Committee's Report.
    Even though my English Language is a kulikuli school English, it may be better than the Achimotan one sometimes. It reads, and I beg to quote:
    “The Committee observed that contrary to sections (17), (18), (19) and (20) of the Foreign Exchange Act, 2006 (Act 723), …. Transfers based on certain prevailing economic circum- stances, the Agreement has immuned the Contractor ...”
    What English language is “the Agreement has immuned the Contractor”? I have a difficulty with “immuned”. What immunity is here? There is no tax immunity; there could be tax exemption.
    Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 1:16 p.m.


    Therefore, the Hon Chairman should take note of it. I am not sure the import of the word he wants there is “immuned”. Mr Speaker, it is just right that we substitute “immune” for “exemption”,

    In paragraph 9.6 -- Role of Petroleum Commission. Again, it reads:

    “The Petroleum Commission Act, 2011 (Act 821) vested the regulation …”

    Hon Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu is interested in grammar. Has he seen the English there - “vested the regulation”. Mr Speaker, that is also my observation.

    Mr Speaker, petroleum resources are non-renewable resources of our country, and we have learnt from best practices from Norway, Nigeria and from other countries.

    As I said the other day, what the people of Ghana are interested in is optimum, judicious and prudent management of the petroleum resources to their benefit. The people of Ghana are not interested in who has discovered oil in that quantity, but who has used it so well to benefit them.

    Mr Speaker, I would want to quote from a source. I have with me here, the Fiscal Consolidation to Accelerate

    Growth and Support Inclusive Development. Ghana Public Expen- diture Review published by the World Bank Group on 8th May, 2017. This paragraph is significant for our purpose, and I beg to quote:

    “A.16 The rise of the oil sector will deliver a large but temporary increase in public revenue. The oil sector is expected to generate an additional US$23 billion in public revenue between 2016 and 2036. Oil revenues are projected to peak in 2023 and decline thereafter, with production ceasing entirely by

    2036”.

    Mr Speaker, I emphasise “ceasing by 2036”. So Ghana, as a country, should watch it. The oil resources are likely to deplete by end of 2036, according to the World Bank.

    “However, these revenue projections are highly sensitive to trends in international commodity markets, and if oil prices fail to recover, Ghana's total public oil revenue could fall by more than half.”

    Mr Speaker, I cannot go on. That is why I called for prudent use of our oil resources. It is estimated that we would earn an additional US$23 billion. I have said that Government could commit itself to raise infrastructure from the Takoradi

    He should bring his words. In this way, even if, as a country, we commit US$5 billion, we would know that this was used for railway development for the benefit of our country.

    Mr Speaker, may I now come to your Committee's Report. I would demand that we are assured that it would come to this House. Hon Ato Forson referred to Section 100 of the Public Financial Management Act, 2016, which requires that any proposal or legislation coming to this House -- I am referring to paragraph 9.10 on page 15 of the Committee Report -- Exemptions and waivers.

    Mr Speaker, Parliament is the only authority that is vested with the power to grant a tax waiver under article 174 of the Constitution. We are not to grant a blank cheque of a tax waiver. We are to grant a tax waiver of a certain minimum amount to benefit a certain contractor.

    So if it is ExxonMobil and we would want to give them an amount of tax waiver, we should let Parliament do it; but not to just come with wholesale clause -- Exemptions and waivers.

    Mr Speaker, the World Bank again predicts that tax exemptions alone cause the State 1.6 per cent of GDP. That is why the Hon Minister for Finance has introduced a Tax Exemptions Bill in the House, yet he walks this in breach rather than in honour.

    When he says we should grant exemptions and waivers, no amount is provided for which period, equipment, and what the waivers are being granted for, it is nil.

    All is that the Committee expressed concern about the number of tax reliefs agreed to under this Agreement. If there are waivers, where are they? If there are exemptions, how many are they?
    Mr Speaker, let me quote the Committee Report and make a demand 1:16 p.m.
    “…we would be submitted to Parliament for approval prior to the execution of the Agreement.”
    So, we demand that prior to the execution of the Agreement, the exemption regimes with full complements be brought to this august House to exercise our appropriate mandate under article 174 of the constitution.
    Mr Speaker, Hon Ato Forson and my Hon Colleague, the new Regional

    Minister, spoke to the matter on withholding tax. What withholding tax does is that it gives the Government an opportunity to have some access to money for some immediate operational expenses.

    So if we come to a paragraph and it says that the contractor, therefore, requests for lower service withholding tax, it is a giveaway. We are saying that Ghana, as a State, is not given a full share.

    Then my Senior Hon Colleague, both at law and in Parliament -- I am not too sure in Parliament, even though he has decided to grey at a faster rate -- Hon K. T. Hammond. He must know the world of difference between exploration and production. In this Agreement, we are not talking about production yet.

    Now, we are talking about they investing US$20 million in exploration and that if there is a discovery, Ghana would be entitled to carry interest at 10 or five per cent.
    Mr Hammond 1:16 p.m.
    On a point of order.
    Mr Speaker, he said “my senior at law and Parliament”. Then he said he was not sure of that of Parliament. I was here before he came. He was little --he continues to be my little younger brother and a fan of mine.
    He has liked me from day one when he came here. I was sitting here.
    What is it that he doubts? I have been his senior in both respects. I would want to put that on record.
    Mr Speaker 1:16 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, please conclude.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he does not need to add a “little younger”. Even in age and in the grey, he is ahead of me -- [Laughter.]
    Mr Speaker, to conclude, may I refer you to page 9 -- “In addition, an amount of two million united states dollars (US$2,000,000.00) would be paid as Training Allowance”, even though we are told that the Government did a good negotiation. If you go down, we talk of US$7 million for technology support. That could be enhanced.
    Mr Speaker, we also further demand, and I refer to the Committee's Report, an MoU that was signed by the Ministry somewhere in 2017. On page 4, I beg to quote:
    “Accordingly, the GNT and ExxonMobil met in Accra from 23rd to 27th October, 2017 and negotiated the issues raised by ExxonMobil. The GNT took the position that, as a sign of good faith…”
    An MoU was signed. This House is not privy to the MoU. Next time, we should be better guided. What informs our decision is the MoU, yet we do not have access to it. How could we do a proper fiscal, the carbon assessment of the hydro- carbon benefit of this in oil and gas?
    Mr Speaker, whether it is beneficial or not, it is heartwarming to know that GOIL is a local partner. So least, to begin with, I have done my search at the Registrar-General's Department, and I am still following through to see who the corporate owner of GOIL Offshore is. I would still continue that due diligence. It warms my heart that it is local. That means that local content should be respected.
    Mr Speaker, the Ministry must demand corporate social res- ponsibility. We should see institutions like STAR Ghana, which is in governance, supporting.
    So, Mr Speaker, finally, we demand that the tax exemption and waivers regime be broad. We demand that respect be demonstrated to the laws of Ghana and the authority of Parliament under article 174 of the Constitution.
    With those conditional comments, I support the Motion.
    Mr Speaker 1:26 p.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon Minority Leader.
    Hon Majority Leadership?
    Majority Leader (Mr Osei Kyei- Mensah-Bonsu) 1:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to the Motion.
    Mr Speaker, I must admit that we should all be in this together.We should ensure that sequel to the Acts that we have passed in this House, the Petroleum Revenue Management Act and, indeed, the Public Financial Management Act, would do what is right for this country.
    Issues have been raised relating to the tax reliefs that have been granted to ExxonMobil. In particular, we have been referred to the dividend withholding tax, the service withholding tax and the capital gains and outs.
    Mr Speaker, the Committee, in its wisdom, has indeed related to these, and I am surprised that Committee members would come to the House and attempt to make capital out of this.
    For the laws of carry forward or capital allowances, we are told that even though the Committee itself made this observation, the conclusion at the Committee level was that, considering the significant capital outlay and the risk associated with this particular deep water exploration and exploitation in the contract area, it is conceivable that some costs may remain unrecovered beyond the fifth year.
    Majority Leader (Mr Osei Kyei- Mensah-Bonsu) 1:26 p.m.


    It is for that reason that the Committee agreed that then it could be extended to 10 years. What I am not too sure of is that the Committee has a bit short-changed this House, in the sense that we are talking about possibilities. Maybe, we should have had a scenario informing this House that this, indeed, is how it would end.

    They themselves may not have the technical competence, but they should have engaged experts to, perhaps, better inform this House as to the way forward. That is what we do not do in this House, and I keep lamenting this situation.

    Parliament itself tends to shoot itself in the foot. When we do not avail ourselves of these possibilities, we come back to the House to lament our situation. This is a very important document. If it is possible, even beyond approving of this to relate to it, perhaps, it may suit us well as a House and representatives of the country if we conduct further studies into this.

    Mr Speaker, the dividend withholding tax, again, the Committee was informed that the contractor would not receive foreign tax credit in the United States of America where its headquarters is for a dividend withholding tax on dividends paid to his shareholders because of the absence of a double taxation Agreement between USA and Ghana, and that indeed is how it was explained. Whether the Committee

    was persuaded by the force of the argument, they did not reflect same in the Report.

    So, Mr Speaker, I think that when we assign responsibility to the Committee, they should be much more thorough. This is convincing; but whether it is persuasive enough, they have not taken us to that path, and I think it is the Committee that could be held accountable.

    Mr Speaker, the service withholding tax is a mere credit and debit scenario because when we allow for such, yes, it would ultimately shoot up their profit margin, and then the tax on the profit would certainly -- Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague is shaking his head.

    Mr Speaker, I am quoting from the Report, and that is why I am faulting the Committee because they say to us that with respect to the service tax -- Mr Speaker, let me quote:

    “It was noted that the Service Withholding Tax rates under the Income tax Act 2015, (Act 869) are 7.5 % and 15% for residents and non-residents respectively. Section 31 of Act 869 requires all inter-affiliate transactions to be conducted at arm's length… the Contractor is therefore requesting for lower Service Withholding tax rate of five percent (5%) for non-residents instead of the fifteen percent (15%) and that inter-affiliate transactions be exempted from such Service Withholding Tax rate when provided at cost.

    Invariably, the reduction in project cost arising from the lower Service Withholding tax of five percent (5%) for non- residents will result in higher profit that will be taxed at the corporate tax of thirty-five percent (35%)”.

    Mr Speaker, that is why I say in this regard that, it is a debit and credit arrangement. So ultimately, by their information to us, they seem to suggest to us that the nation would not lose, and that is why I am saying that the Committee's --
    Mr Forson 1:26 p.m.
    On a point of order.
    Mr Speaker, I was privileged to be part of the Committee's deliberation at the second time because we decided to join the Committees.
    Mr Speaker, at that Committee meeting, I pointed it out to the Hon Chairman and the Committee members that the statement is factually incorrect.
    Mr Speaker, if we look at Section 8 of Act 896, general deductibility principles, there is an exclusion; taxes payable, dividends payable and withholding taxes are not excluded as part of deductions, so it cannot reduce the profit.
    It is payment to a sub-contractor, so if we are to withhold taxes, we cannot use that to reduce profit. So applying 35 per cent on it does not necessarily mean that we would get higher taxes; no, that is not the position.
    So, Mr Speaker, I beg to say that the statement must be deleted from the Committee's Report. It is factually inaccurate, and I raised that issue.
    1: 36 p. m.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this really is a point of debate, and it is an inverse rationalisation.
    Mr Speaker, by what they are informing us about, they are now scaling here, and up-scaling in the profit margin. What is wrong with that? The Hon Member may say that it breaches the law, and I agree with him, but as to the ultimate results, it may be the same, and that is the point that the Committee is informing us of.
    If the Hon Member disagrees, then he may disagree outside the Committee's remit. That is why I say that it is an inverse specialisation.
    Mr Speaker, having said that, there are matters that must come before us again. This has to do with one of the issues that one of my Hon Colleagues, the Hon Ato Forson, related to.
    This is because by this Agreement, it may then appear that Parliament now is using this to, as it were, close the door to the resort to our own approved Income Tax Law, and I would plead that in that regard, the Hon Minister comes with a complete set to justify what we are doing today.
    Mr Speaker, other than that, strictly speaking and technically, we
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:26 p.m.


    cannot use the approval of this to, as it were, close our eyes over what the requirement is in the income tax regime.

    So, they are required to come to Parliament to seek prior approval for this. I believe that, ultimately, that is what the Hon Member is saying, and we must be ad idem on this.

    Mr Speaker, as to the net results and so on, I may disagree with the Hon Member's understanding of it, and that is not the import of it, but at the heart of it, it is important for them because we would need to give prior approval.

    In respect of the relevant article that the Hon Member quoted in the Constitution in article 174, particularly, article 174 (2), they are required to come back to this House. This is as simple as that.

    Mr Speaker, I believe that on this note, we could approve of the Motion and subsequently, take the Resolution that ensues.

    Mr Speaker, I thank you very much for the space granted.

    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 1:26 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would now take the Resolution, by the Hon Minister for Energy.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I left the Hon Minister responsible for Energy at a location, and he was engaged in some serious activity. In that regard, I would entreat us to indulge the Hon Deputy Minister to hold the fort for the Hon Minister in moving the Motion to approve of the Resolution.
    Mr Iddrisu 1:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, at least, I see two Hon Deputy Ministers for Energy, Dr Amin, and our Hon Colleague, Hon Cudjoe. Since the Hon Majority Leader would not disclose the location -- [Interruption.]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Deputy Minister, who has charge for this responsibility -- [Interruption.] The Hon Minority Leader knows him as Dr Amin Anita.
    Mr Speaker 1:26 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Minister, you may proceed.
    Dr Mohammed A. Anta 1:26 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, before I move, I would like to --
    Mr Speaker 1:26 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Minister, you should move the Motion before you “I”. [Laughter.]
    Hon Minister, you may move and then --
    rose
    Mr Speaker 1:26 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, usually, the Hon Minister, if he had been here -- or in this case, his Hon Deputy Minister may be provided with a little space to, perhaps, relate to some of the issues raised by Hon Colleagues. I believe that is the opportunity that the Hon Deputy Minister is seeking.
    Mr Speaker 1:26 p.m.
    Yes, but it should be after he has moved the Motion.
    RESOLUTIONS 1:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker 1:26 p.m.
    Hon Member, at this juncture, I would advise that we should be careful about re-opening the debate on a Motion already adopted by this House, in terms of such detail. Otherwise, another Hon Member may also be tempted to argue about matters that relate to the tax regime, which, of course, our law does not make any differentiation of. It did not
    say that if it is oceanic exploration, then we must do this or do that. So, I would advise that we move with caution at this stage.
    Dr Anta 1:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I humbly take a cue.
    Mr Speaker 1:26 p.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon Deputy Minister.
    Hon Members, who would second the Motion?
    Mr George M. Duker 1:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
    Mr Speaker 1:26 p.m.
    Thank you very much.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Resolved accordingly.
    Mr Speaker 1:26 p.m.
    Hon Members, the Hon First Deputy Speaker would take the Chair at this stage. In view of the time and in view of the Business still ahead of us, I direct that Sitting be stretched beyond the regular hours.
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader, what next?
    Ms Safo 1:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, item numbered 7.
    Mr Speaker 1:46 p.m.
    Item numbered 7 -- Motion. Chairman of the Finance Committee?
    MOTIONS 1:46 p.m.
    Chairman of the Committee (Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah) 1:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That this Honourable House adopts the Report of the Finance Committee on the Loan Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Ghana (represented by the Ministry of Finance) and Kreditanstalt Fur Wiederaufbau (KFW), Frankfurt am Main, of Germany for an amount of nineteen million, six hundred and ninety thousand euros (€19,690,000) to finance the Outgrower and Value Chain Fund (OVCF) -- Phase III.
    Mr Speaker, in doing so, I present your Committee's Report.
    Introduction
    The request for approval of the Loan Agreement between the Government oi the Republic of Ghana and Kreditanstalt Fur Wiederaufbau (KFW), Frankfurt am Main, of Germany for an amount of nineteen million, six hundred and ninety thousand euros (€19,690,000.00) to finance the Out grower and Value Chain Fund (OVCF) -- Phase III was presented to the House on Monday, 25 th March, 2019 in accordance with article 181 of the 1992 Constitution.
    Mr Speaker referred the request to the Finance Committee for con- sideration and report in accordance

    with Order 169 of the Standing Orders of the House.

    The Committee was assisted in its deliberations by a Deputy Minister for Food and Agriculture, Hon Kennedy Osei Nyarko, and officials from the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Food and Agriculture.

    The Committee is grateful to the Deputy Minister and officials for attending upon it to assist in the deliberations.

    Reference

    The Committee referred to the following documents in its deliberations:

    The 1992 Constitution of Ghana;

    The Public Financial Mana- gement Act, 2016 (Act 921); and

    The Standing Orders of the Parliament of Ghana.

    Background

    The Agricultural Sector is charac- terised by high transaction costs, high systematic risks, more volatile cash flows and higher vulnerability due to high incidences and depth of poverty among farmers.

    While a large majority of poor households in Ghana are directly linked to agriculture in many ways, rural finance and, in particular,
    Chairman of the Committee (Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah) 1:46 p.m.


    sector. The facility is designed to fill a gap in agriculture financing owing to the growing need for innovation financing in the Agricultural Sector. The overall goal is to improve the income of the target groups, especially small-scale farmers.

    The Fund provides loans to commercially viable value-chains and, especially out-grower schemes. The Fund favours the concept of out- growers farming which is based on defined contractual relations between the out-growers, a technical operator (i.e processor, trader, et cetera and a financial operator (i.e participating bank) which provides access to services, inputs and funding.

    The investment realised through the OVCF directly contributes to the improvement of the quality and/or the quantity of production in selected value chains. Some value chains which will benefit under the Fund include oil palm, rubber, mangoes, cocoa rehabilitation and maintenance, pineapple, rice, maize, orange, sweet potato, leasing of agricultural equipment (tractors, et cetera) citrus, livestock (e.g. poultry), aquaculture/ tilapia.

    The project is administered by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture through a Fund Management Team (FMT) which would be responsible for the day-to-day management of the

    OVCF.
    MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    Observations
    Grant
    The Committee observed that under this loan agreement, KfW would make a Grant contribution of €2.0 million. It was explained that this money would be used to cater for the Fund Management Team's expenses, build capacity of all stakeholders and other related expenses incurred during the management for the project.
    Expected Impact
    The Committee noted that the project would help farmers who often do not have access to credit from financial institutions because of their high credit risk position and the prevailing market interest rates, to now have access to credit at a lower rate.
    It is expected that the access to credit would lead to growth in the Agricultural Sector and thereby lead to structural transformation of Ghana's economy.
    It is also expected that the growth in agriculture would have a ripple effect on the rest of the Sectors of the economy.
    Commodities supported by the Fund
    The Committee was informed that currently, the Fund supports eight main crops; namely rubber, oil palm, rice, pineapple, maize-soya-sorghum, cassava-gari, cocoa and maize for poultry.
    To date, a total of eighteen million, two hundred and thirteen thousand, eight hundred and eighty-eight Ghana cedis, fifteen pesewas (GH¢18, 213,888.15) is expected as matured loans from the various support to the various commodities.
    The recovered funds would be re- invested to support the Out-grower Schemes. Attached, as Appendix 1, is a table showing the loans that have so far been approved for the eight (8) commodities.
    The Committee was also informed that in view of the successes of Phase I and Phase II, the Fund has received a number of applications. Currently, the Fund has pipeline applications to the tune of €11,762,339.48 as shown in Appendix 2. These applications are being processed for approval to fully commit the €23 million approved under Phase II.
    Another batch of pipeline application to the tune of €27,600,000.00 is to be considered for approval and funding under Phase III as shown in Appendix
    3.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:52 p.m.
    The Committee observed that currently interest rate on credit to the Out-grower Schemes stands at eighteen (18) percent per annum. This is lower than the prevailing interest rate from the commercial banks.
    Rate of Recovery
    The Committee was informed that the rate of recovery for all the credit given out was one hundred (100) percent. It was explained that the credit facility is advanced to the participating banks who intend lend it to the Out-grower Schemes. When the repayment is due, the banks pay upfront to the Fund.
    Fiscal Impact
    The Ministry informed the Committee that in compliance with Section 100 of the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921), a fiscal impact assessment was conducted. It came to the fore that the project was factored into Government's Medium Term Debt Strategy.
    The project's fiscal impact has also been incorporated in the 2019 Budget and forms part of the anticipated Project Loan disbursement amount of GH¢4.3 Million.
    Conclusion
    The Committee, having carefully examined the referral, is of the view

    that the financing is necessary to support Government's efforts to support the Agricultural Sector. Further, the financing for the project is a concessionary facility with favourable terms and conditions.

    The Committee, therefore, recom- mends to the House to adopt its Report and approve the request for approval of the Loan Agreement between the Government of the

    Republic of Ghana and Kreditanstalt Fur Wiederaufbau (KFW), Frankfurt am Main, of Germany for an amount of nineteen million, six hundred and ninety thousand euros (€19, 690,000.00) to finance the Out grower and Value Chain Fund (OVCF) -- Phase III in accordance with article 181 of the 1992 Constitution, Section 56 of the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921) and Order 169 of the Standing Orders of the Parliament of Ghana.

    Respectfully submitted.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, quite clearly, this is one giant effort to address the hurdle of access to credit by our farmers. The intention is to assist our farmers to have credit so that they can improve upon their agricultural activities.
    The whole deal involves a grant of €2 million which would be added to the loan of €19 million which would then avail us to about €23 million. I hope that the beneficiaries would live up to expectation.
    Mr Speaker, the arrangement enables the Government to avoid the risk that is associated with giving out loans. The arrangement is so neatly done that banks and other institutions are responsible for taking the money and giving it to the beneficiaries.
    The banks which are intermediary players would pay this upfront in the Government's escrow account dedicated towards the refund of the loan to the lender.
    Mr Speaker, the problem that arises is that if the beneficiaries do not pay to the banks after the banks have made bulk payments to the Govern-

    ment Fund, then we give room for non-performing loans accruing against the banks instead of being strong.

    1. 56 p. m.

    So, it is incumbent upon the banks which are on-lending the funds to farmers or to beneficiaries in general, to strengthen their credit departments, which would be tasked to ensure that those who are benefiting from these loans do really pay back.

    They should not treat it in the way other loans have been given out and people consider such facilities as gifts. This would kill the Fund since it is expected to be a revolving fund.

    Mr Speaker, the Report clearly states that this loan falls within the 2019 Budget Statement for pro- grammed loans and projects. But we have the figure there in the Budget Statement as about US$4.3millon for foreign sourced loans.

    It is necessary for us to update this House on how much we have so far taken against that provision which was approved by this House. It appears that we are on a spree because we have borrowed so much. We could confirm that what we have borrowed is now far in excess of what has been approved in the 2019 Budget Statement.

    We have US$ 3billion from external sources; we have sold about US$1billion bonds from the domestic market. And when we do the addition, we would find that we have already exceeded almost GH(€19,15billion facility that has

    been approved on page 204 of this year's Budget Statement. So, we need to update the House from the beginning of the year up to date on how much we have borrowed as against what has been approved.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
    What did you find at the Committee? That is what you are supposed to do and advise us. At the Committee level, you are supposed to ask these questions and brief the rest of us who cannot meet with the technical people. So, you do not come and ask us those questions. [Laughter.]
    Mr Kpodo 1:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is a request after the—
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
    Very well. Kindly finish with the Report then, later, your request would be considered.
    Mr Kpodo 1:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am responding to what is in paragraph 6.6; the fiscal impact. That we should update this House about what has been borrowed against the US$4.1billion that has been approved in the Budget Statement. It is in the Budget Statement; page 204.
    We should update the House; I am just asking that we do something which would get the House aware of what we have been approving each day in this House as loans against projects.
    `
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:52 p.m.
    On a point
    of order. Mr Speaker, according to the Public Financial Management Act,
    2016, Act 921, the Hon Minister for Finance is to prepare an annual public debt management report to this House. As a matter of fact, in today's Order Paper, item numbered 4 (a), the Annual Public Debt Management Report for 2018 has been laid and referred to the Finance Committee. This is the requirement of the Hon Minister that he presents this Report to the House annually.
    Now, he suggests that on a daily or monthly basis, the Hon Minister comes here to update us on loans taken. This Report, submitted to the House today, would capture all borrowings for the year 2018.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
    Hon Member, could you now return to the Report?
    Mr Kpodo 1:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think it is the same law that says that whenever we are taking any loan, we should report on the fiscal impact on the entire Budget Statement. So, are we being—
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
    It is not the same as asking --
    Mr Kpodo 1:52 p.m.
    It is the Committee which itself—
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
    Kindly return to the Report, please.
    Mr Kpodo 1:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am speaking to the Report, that it has a positive effect on the total amount that has been approved for borrowing. But I think that on a regular basis, we should update the House.

    Mr Speaker, on a lighter note, this loan is to be repaid in 40 years, not five years. So, I think my Hon Chairman should address his mind to the description of a medium term of debt strategy. He should be talking about very long-term debt strategy because this goes beyond five years.

    However, I urge Hon Members of the House to support the Motion so that we could assist our farmers to improve upon their farming activities by taking this loan of €19, 690,000.00 to finance the Out- grower and Value Chain Fund Phase

    III.

    I thank you, Mr Speaker.

    Question proposed.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:52 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Annoh-Dompreh?
    Mr Frank Annoh-Dompreh (NPP -- Nsawam-Adoagyiri) 1:52 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for your kindness. I rise to support the Motion for the approval of the said amount.
    Mr Speaker, let me say that this is one of the few Agreements that really touches my heart as an individual and as an agriculturist. I am particularly impressed by your Committee's Report; Appendix 1 as the Committee and the Report carefully select some important crops to be financed.
    I could not have agreed more with the Committee because it could not have been an absolute support for all farmers. I thought that initially it was an effort to zero in on non-traditional
    Mr Frank Annoh-Dompreh (NPP -- Nsawam-Adoagyiri) 2:06 a.m.
    Ordinarily, I think that these are some of the functions that the Agriculture Development Bank (ADB) should play. But I doff my hat for Government for such an important decision to carefully zero in on this area. It is gratifying to know that the Bank of Ghana would release bulk sums of money to various banks.
    I see Wenchi Rural Bank amongst other financial institutions. The impression I get is that, indeed, the reach-out would be to the benefits of the ordinary farmer who lives in the countryside, and that should be the strategy to reach out to the real farmers who need such facilities.
    Mr Speaker, I recall when we were approving the Agreement for Compact I, which amongst other things sought to develop the agriculture sector, though the capacity of our farmers and the number of institutions who were relevant, I think this is so important considering the fact that it is going out there to help with the Out- grower scheme feeding into the overarching plan of Government on one district, one factory (1D1F). This would help facilitate the production of the needed raw materials which would feed our industries for production and processing.
    Mr Speaker, we know and we cannot pretend about the fact that our farmers have always been bedevilled with the problems and challenges of accessing funding. With Ghana being
    an agrarian area, this is one of our strengths that has remained untapped.
    So, I support the Out grower Scheme; Hon Members from both Sides of the House should glorify this Agreement: They should give all the necessary support and ensure its passage. Value Chain Funds; we could not have had anything better than this.

    Mr Speaker, in our country, the value chain, especially in the agricultural sector, has always posed a challenge where along the value chain, critical sections have gone down the drain. Our inability to tap, develop and harness the value chain of various production lines in the agricultural sector has always been a problem for us.

    If we look at the contribution of agriculture to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth in our country over the years, since the dawn of independence, this is one of the Agreements, I think, that if we threw ourselves to and worked strictly to the tenets of the provisions of the Agreement and ensured that the real farmers who are in need and live in the countryside benefit from, it would inure to the benefit of this country ultimately.

    So it is a welcome news, and I am particularly excited about it and think it is something that we all have to throw our support behind.
    Mr Richard Acheampong (NDC -- Bia East) 2:06 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to support your Committee's Report.
    Looking at the amount of €19,690,000 involved, that is before the House for consideration, which has a grant element of about 62 per cent, I think that it is a very good arrangement that we need to support, so that our farmers could also be supported.
    Mr Speaker, some of the reasons advanced at the Committee level have to do with the high rate risk position and the prevailing market interest rate and even lack of collateral securities on the part of the farmers when they go to the banks to access credit facilities. So, when they come in a group, the bank stands as an agent of Government so that the bank would take the loan from Government and advance this facility to the farmers.
    This would enable the bank to pay to Government and then do the proper assessment while looking at the capacity and viability of the project that would be undertaken by the farmers, so the bank advances the facility to these farmers. In this case, the defaulting rate would not be on Government but rather on the bank to pursue the farmers, so that they can do the correct thing.
    I think it is a laudable arrangement, however, some people take undue advantage. We have several instances with the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
    Mr Richard Acheampong (NDC -- Bia East) 2:06 a.m.


    and Microfinance and Small Loans Centre (MASLOC) facilities. When it comes to the selection of farmers, some would benefit but at the end of the day, they refuse to pay to the banks because they think that their Government is in power.

    This becomes a non-performing facility for some of the banks which affects their profit base. In this case, we would urge the financial institutions to at least do a proper assessment and make sure that the right farmers would benefit from this facility.

    Mr Speaker, the target group for Phase II of the project was 6,421 but they were able to reach out to 4,610 farmers; therefore, there is a gap of 1,811 farmers. There were 1,811 farmers who were not captured under this programme, meaning that we have more to do so that many vulnerable farmers can be targeted.

    I hear it is for commercial purposes, but if you look at the cocoa set-up, we are distributing 3,000 bags of fertilizer for 1,000 farmers. In effect, each farmer is taking home three bags of fertilizer. How can this be classified as a commercial farming activity? I think we can do more so that the commercial base would be higher.

    Mr Speaker, we are talking about out-growers. We have the Komenda Sugar Factory sitting idle. Why can we not bring some policies, so that we could support and make sure that the out-growers for the Komenda Sugar Factory's sugarcane aspect could be

    harnessed. This would enable the 1.2 billion import of sugar --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:06 a.m.
    Hon Member, hold on. We have been working illegally. Having regard to the state of Business of the House, I direct that the House Sits outside the regular Sitting hours.
    You may continue, Hon Member.
    Mr R. Acheampong 2:06 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, this would enable us to reduce the 1.2 billion import bill of sugar annually, to have some stability with the depreciation of our currency, the cedi, and the challenges that we are having with the economy. Going forward, the Ministry of Agriculture should look into this, to benefit all of us.
    Mr Speaker, they talked about the market of the produce. We are trying to support the farmers but at the end of the day, if we do not create the enabling market for them, they would produce all right but would have nowhere to sell the produce.
    If they are not able to identify the right market to sell their produce, they cannot pay back the loan and at the end of the day, those farmers waiting to get the second tranche of it would also not benefit from this facility. We, therefore, need to identify the market and give proper education to the farmers to sell their produce and make some gains on the facility we are giving to them.
    There is something we need to watch. Government would on-lend this facility to the banks at a rate and the banks would also add their margin, looking at their risk factors, among others. If we are not careful, they can take the loan at say five per cent from Government and end up with their own rates at 32 per cent or 33 per cent to the farmers.
    So, at this rate, the farmers would not be able to pay back the loan. It would become expensive for them to even pay for the principal, let alone the interest element. So, the Ministry should also put in place a monitoring team to make sure that the farmers are not short-changed.
    Mr Speaker, I see cocoa rehabilitation programme under this facility. The Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) is doing the same thing with cocoa farmers, so I see some kind of duplication here. We could liaise with COCOBOD, so that what we are doing would not duplicate the very thing they are supporting the cocoa farmers with, to cut down the agent fees for replanting.
    We are going to take loans to give to the farmers for the same purpose, so I think we can have a balance and try to give the money to other crops like maize, orange, sweet potato and other agricultural produce. This would benefit other farmers for our good.
    With these few observations, I think that your Committee did a very good job and went through all the other documents. The facility would also benefit the farmers, but one thing I want to conclude on is the fact that some rural banks and financial institutions also had the willingness to also disburse this facility. However, looking at the criteria, they were not qualified to disburse the facility.
    So, we urge other financial institutions to up their game, put their houses in order, especially when it comes to corporate governance and other institutional mechanisms they would put in place, so that they can also have access to this facility and lend to their farmers.
    These are some of the liquidities that we need to support our banks with, so that they can also stay afloat to make sure that financial services are delivered to our people.
    Thank you very much for this opportunity.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:06 a.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee on Food, Agriculture and Cocoa Affairs, you have the last bite, then I would come to Leaders.
    Mr Kwame Asafu-Adjei (NPP -- Nsuta-Kwamang Beposo) 2:06 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to commend your Finance Committee for a good work done. I have gone through the document and all questions needed to be asked have been appropriately responded to.
    Mr Kwame Asafu-Adjei (NPP -- Nsuta-Kwamang Beposo) 2:16 p.m.
    To me, credit is one of the most potent instruments for alleviating poverty and this can only be done if it is viable, sustainable, effective, if appropriately delivered by pro- grammes that are well designed and implemented.
    The question we would all like to ask is, is the OVCF programme well designed? The answer is “yes”. We should also ask if the OVCF programme is well implemented and the answer is also, “yes”.
    The answers are given on page 3 of the Report in the last paragraph of the Background and with your kind permission Mr Speaker, I would like to read:
    In order to make OVCF operational, Government sourced and the KfW (the German Development Bank) provided ten million euros (€10 million) to fund the first phase of the Out-grower and Value Chain Fund(OVCF) in 2010. In 2015, the KfW also provided an amount of twenty-three million euros(€23million) to support the second phased of the project. The Fund has so far reached a total of 4,610 farmers out of a target of 6,412 and covered 6,657 hectares.

    Mr Speaker, the important thing is that the farmers have been reached and the objectives of the programmes have also been achieved. With the

    issue of the marketing aspect from the off-takers after production, the commercial farmers are responsible for processing the produce into agro- processing.

    In the Juaben Oil Palm Industry, for example, the fruits are transported from the farmer's farm to the Juaben Oil Palm and Mill to be milled and processed. So, the off-takers have already been identified.

    Mr Speaker, again, the recovery rate has been well implemented and managed. With your permission, I beg to quote paragraph 6.5 which is headed “Rate of Recovery”.

    “The Committee was informed that the rate of recovery for all the credit given out was 100 per cent.''

    This has never happened in most of the loans on credits given to farmers. The only person who did something similar to that did not get the 100 per cent correct.

    The Hon Member of Parliament for Anlo when he ran the scheme project was able to get around 70 per cent on that small holder credit scheme. He did a good job and I commend him for that.

    Mr Speaker, we should also appreciate the fact that, the rationale for subsidised credit is to assist the small holder farmer who has limited capacity to pay his or her bills because he or she also has limited opportunities available to him or her. This OVCF credit scheme, which I also call

    subsidised credit, is to support both the commercial farmer and the small holder farmer.

    Mr Speaker, with these few words, I invite the whole House to adopt and support this all important programme which is meant to move Ghana forward in agricultural development.

    Mr Speaker, I thank you.
    Mr Clement K. Humado (NDC -- Anlo) 2:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I also wish to contribute to the Motion on the floor of the House.
    Mr Speaker, agricultural financing has been problematic over the years; at least, for the past 20 years, any time I attend international conference on the subject of agricultural financing, Ghana is found to be doing poorly when even compared to our sister countries like Burkina Faso and Cote d'Ivoire.
    I recall that after the Poverty Reduction Strategy 2 and a policy programme which was instituted by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture called FASDEP, where this financing gap was clearly identified, it was then that the German Government intervened and offered to provide credit funds to solve part of the problem. That was why under Phase I, we received €10million and €23 million under Phase II, which made a total of €33 million.
    Mr Speaker, Hon Members who contributed earlier extoled the
    virtuousness of the OVCF, but I would want to comment on one aspect that did not come out very clearly. The concept and arrangement are such that, it is a tripartheid arrangement where the out-grower most probably as a farmer-based organisation that is in a group links up with a technical operator who may be a nucleus farmer or an agro processor or has the warehousing.
    That entity is the off-taker that buys immediately when the out-growers produce. These two parties are linked to a participating bank, so when they are bidding for the funds under the OVCF, these three parties bid together and approval is given to them together. This is a very good design that the project, together with the German Fund, came up with because it minimises a lot of risks associated with value chain financing.
    Mr Speaker, another issue I would want to point is that, the terms of the loan are very straightforward, clear and attractive. The utilisation of the funds has also been going on, but I would want to comment on one aspect. The delay between funds available and the disbursement are a bit worrisome.
    In the schedule 1, a total of €33 million was acquired for Phases I and II, but the total amount disbursed as at February 2019 was €11.29 million and that gap is a bit of a concern. The recovery rates which are denominated in cedis are perfect and so, it should not mislead one to compare it with the Euro.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:26 p.m.
    Leadership of the Majority.
    Second Deputy Majority Whip (Mr Moses Anim): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to contribute.

    welcome. We have already had Phases I and II and they have been very successful. The Report indicates that the rate of recovery had been 100 percent, and we are also told that the interest rate to farmers is very moderate. Currently, the credit line for out growers' scheme stands at 18 per cent per annum and therefore, this is a lower rate that would enhance productivity.

    Mr Speaker, we really want to increase production, and if we want to do so, then it means the value chain is very critical. We have identified one aspect of the value chain, which is Out growers' Scheme, and it is a way of putting together the farmers so that accessing and recovering of credit become easy. Also, giving them extension services and training as a group would become very easy.

    Mr Speaker, some of the crops that have been identified, in my view, are very important. For instance, rice, if we are able to increase its production through this facility and Out growers Scheme, definitely, we would reduce our rice import and in so doing, strengthen our cedi, which is also one of the critical economic indicators.

    Mr Speaker, then I come to pineapple. The MD2 that came in, we were compelled to go for it. In terms of quality, we could not sustain the technology for MD2 even though it had the export market in terms of colour, the sugar and acid levels and blending it to make organoleptic.

    As a result, we could not keep the seed for the smooth cayenne which was so tropical in nature for our production. We have now lost the smooth cayenne and we need the Out-growers Scheme to bring back the smooth cayenne because the MD2 technology could not be sustained.

    We could not provide the precooling chain facility and for that matter, we were not able to take the export market for the MD2. For now, the smooth cayenne is gone and we are left with the sugarloaf, which cannot be processed because of its high sugar level; the blending nature cannot be done. Therefore, we need to go back to the smooth cayenne and cultivate it for production.

    Astech is coming back, and if it is coming back and we are putting more processing plants for fruit juice, then we need to go back and look at our pineapple and also the oranges. But for now, it is pineapple production that this facility is being extended to. Therefore, I think that these are critical areas that we have to do that.

    Mr Speaker, also, there are post- harvest handling and post-harvest processing. If we are able to put the farmers together as out-growers, then we should be able to let them know how to handle those perishable products like pineapple that does not have a long shelf life, and we would be able to train them in that direction. In my view, this is a facility worth supporting, and as much as we can, we should be able to do that.

    Mr Speaker, we know we are challenged with land. We have lost most of our lands for residential purposes. I think it is high time we began to look at land banks that can be put to use for agricultural purposes. My constituency was the food basket for Accra. When we were young at Pokuase and its environs, we produced maize and all that to supply Accra.

    Now, my constituency is an entire residential Municipality. There is no place to cultivate; there is no place for agriculture. As it is extending, we are getting to Nsawam. Mr Speaker, Ankwa Dobro has also linked up to Nsawam, and so the Pokuase- Kumasi road, which hitherto had a land for agricultural purposes, is becoming a residential area.

    I know as we keep going down there, it would happen in the same way. There should be a land policy that we can, at least, take hold of certain lands as land banks for agricultural purposes.

    We really want to develop this country. We have One District, One Factory (1D1F) and other policies that would strengthen our cedi, and what would not make us take loans everywhere is agriculture. Therefore, I believe that this facility needs support and I encourage all of us to put our hands on deck and support it for its intended purposes.

    Members of Parliament around must also show interest in their constituency as well. Members of Parliament who now have lands for

    agricultural purposes, this is a facility for all of us to go back to our constituencies and encourage our people to go into Out-growers Scheme, which is difficult to handle at times.

    Sometimes, our own people, after giving them the facility and putting up a payment structure for them, when they cultivate the crops and sell them out, coming back to pay becomes an issue for them. This is where we can all help the Ministry to make sure that we get peasant farmers who are really serious. Let us all support this Motion.

    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:26 p.m.
    Hon Members, item numbered 8 -- Resolution.
    RESOLUTIONS 2:26 p.m.
    THIS HONOURABLE HOUSE 2:26 p.m.
    HEREBY RESOLVES AS 2:26 p.m.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Resolved accordingly.
    Ms Safo 2:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we can take item numbered 13 on the Order Paper; the State Interests and Governance Authority Bill, 2019.
    We are left with a few clauses on the Ghana Iron and Steel Development Corporation Bill. But the indication I have from the Hon Majority Leader is that he wants to be present while we deal with those ones.
    Mr Speaker, so we have the Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee and the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance ready for us to take the State Interests and Governance Authority Bill, 2019. Respectfully, if we can begin with that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:26 p.m.
    I notice that we have done only two clauses, but you said we have only a few left, or did I not hear you right?
    Ms Safo 2:26 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, reference was made to the Ghana Iron and Steel Development Corporation Bill and not the Companies Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:26 p.m.
    Very well.

    Hon Deputy Majority Leader, how far should we go before we suspend or would we go through to the end?
    Ms Safo 2:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we could start and conclude with clause 12. With the indication I am having from the Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee, that would bring us to about 3:30 p.m. and then we could suspend and come back. [Hear! Hear!]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:36 p.m.
    What is the Hear! Hear! about? Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee, are you in agreement of sitting up for the next one hour? [Interruption.] - - Very well, we would try our best.
    State Interests and Governance Authority Bill, 2019 at the Con- sideration Stage.
    STAGE 2:36 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:36 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would start from clause 1. There is no advertised amendment, so, I would put the Question.
    Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2 -- Establishment of the Authority
    Mr Bernard Ahiafor 2:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, though there is no advertised amendment, with your leave, I beg to move, that in line with the previous Bills that we have done, we delete “immovable” and “movable”. [Pause.]
    Ms Sarah A. Safo 2:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the proposed amendment because I think it is in line with what we have done with the previous Bills. For consistency, I support the proposed amendment.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:36 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee, were you on your feet or you were just walking to --
    Mr Banda 2:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am opposed to the proposed amendment because, “immovable” must stay. My reason is simple: we need to read clause 2 as a whole. For instance, if
    we read clause 2(2), it states and with your permission, I quote:
    “The Authority can acquire movable and immovable property.”

    Mr Speaker, I was talking to the Hon Minister, so I thought you were
    -- 2:36 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:36 p.m.
    Yes, you were not paying attention. Your road is harassing you -- [Laughter.]
    Yes, Hon Bernard Ahiafor?
    Mr Ahiafor 2:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are talking about clause 2(2) and with your permission, I quote:
    “The Authority may for the performance of the functions acquire and hold movable and immovable property, dispose off property and enter into a contract or any other tran- sactions relating to the object of the Authority.”
    Mr Speaker, the reason we canvass for this and which has been accepted by the House is that property is either movable or immovable.
    So, once we mention “property”, we are as well referring to movable and immovable property, so there is no need having “movable and immovable” before, “property” in the clause.
    Mr Speaker, this has been accepted and adopted by the House.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Ahiafor 2:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, still on clause 2(3), I think we should change the “immovable property” to “landed property” for consistency sake.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:36 p.m.
    Very well -- [Interruption] -- Yes, Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee?
    Chairman of the Committee (Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah) 2:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to find out from the Hon Member the legislation in which “immovable” has been changed to “landed”. Has that Bill been passed by this House. So, what is his reference point?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:36 p.m.
    The House has adopted that and in its consideration approved that we remove “movable” and “immovable” as prefixes to “property”.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what if the House had a Second Consideration Stage?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:36 p.m.
    If that goes through a Second Consideration Stage, this can also go through same.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:36 p.m.
    That is the more reason -- [Uproar.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:36 p.m.
    Hon Member, you do not have the Floor.
    Yes, Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
    Ms Safo 2:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Chairman of the Finance Committee is just being too difficult. Not too long ago, we did same for the Ghana Iron and Steel Development Corporation Bill, 2019 and the Chartered Institute of Bankers (Ghana) Bill, 2018.
    Mr Speaker, actually, this proposed amendment was an improvement by your good self when we were torn between just maintaining “immovable property” and deleting it. You proffered a cleaner and more precise proposal which was adopted by the House by qualifying it with, “landed”.
    It is because of the referral to the State Lands Act, 1962 (Act 125), it cannot be referred to any other property other than a landed one. So, the Chairman is rather too late in the day because we have been consistent in adopting this style.
    Mr Speaker, I think it is for purposes of cleaning and making our legislative drafting process more acceptable. So, we would go by, “landed property” as proposed by Hon Ahiafor.
    Dr A. A. Osei 2:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Deputy Majority Leader, except that she tried to bring you into the debate when she said you proffered the amendment.
    Mr Speaker guided the House; you did not proffer the amendment. So, the records should show that it
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:36 p.m.
    Now, I would put the Question on the proposed amendment to clause 2 (3).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 2 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 3 -- Objects of the Authority
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, paragraph (a), line 2, before “profitable” insert “where applicable”.
    Mr Speaker, this would read 2:46 p.m.
    “(a) promote within the framework of government policy the efficient or where applicable profitable operations of specified entities.”
    Mr Speaker, this Bill covers the operations of State-owned Enterprise (SoEs), joint ventures and some regulatory bodies and not all of them are profitable ventures.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:46 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mrs Safo 2:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the proposed amendment to the
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:46 p.m.
    Item numbered (ii), by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:46 p.m.
    Yes?
    Ms Safo 2:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I know that there have been instances in this House where the rules have been relaxed to accommodate some of these back and forth with the provisions. Just to draw your attention to clause 2(1), I think that it was an oversight on our part. Hon Chireh, in two of the Bills that we just finished considering, proposed a better amendment which I think was moved by the Hon Majority Leader.
    This is where he said by the Act establishing the authority, we should do away with the words “to be known as” and make it clearer. Hon Chireh proposed a better amendment to it and so, this is just for your direction so that the draftspersons could take that into consideration for re-drafting. It reads:
    “There is established by this Act, a body corporate with perpetual succession to be known as”.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that this House adopted that particular style.
    Mr Chireh 2:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I so move that the amendment should be:
    ‘There is established by this Act the State Interest and Governance Authority as a body corporate with perpetual succession.'
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 2 as variously amended ordered to stand part of the Bill
    Clause 3 -- Objects of the Authority.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, paragraph (c), delete and insert the following:
    “co-ordinate the sale or acquisition of the State interest in specified entities and advise the Minister accordingly”.
    Mr Speaker, we are directly lifting this from clause 4(m) to replace clause 3(c). The reason being that the Authority will not be directly engaged in the acquisition of assets.
    As an object, the Authority should be involved in the coordination or acquisition of the sale. So, we agreed that we should lift this clause 4(m) to clause 3(c).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:46 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee on
    Constitutional, Legal and Parlia- mentary Affairs?
    Mr Banda 2:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have no problem with the proposed amendment except to add an ‘s' to “interest”. So that it will read; ‘co- ordinate the sale or acquisition of the State Interests'.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:46 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, paragraph (d), line 2, after “oversee” insert, “and administer”.
    Ms Safo 2:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the proposed amendment except to say that the use of “specified entities” -- if after using it the first time, a referral can be made to it as ‘the' so that we are making particular reference to specified entities as defined and to particularise it. For instance, clause 3 (a) has it that:
    ‘The objects of the Authority are to
    (a)promote within the framework of Government policy, the efficient or where applicable pro- fitable operations of specified entities'
    Mr Speaker, we have made reference to specified entities so that in subsequent referrals, we should make reference to a definite one and
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:46 p.m.
    What about if we create more? So far, if you say; ‘the', it means they are identified in the Bill but there is the probability of creating more State entities which may not have been covered in the Bill now.
    Ms Safo 2:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would still not be running into problems because if you look at the Interpretation section, clause 36 on page 16, paragraph (c), it makes provision for “other state entity”.
    So that the ones that are already listed in paragraph (a) a state-owned enterprise, paragraph (b) a joint venture company or paragraph (c) other state entity --
    Mr Speaker, where there are other ones that are created later, I believe that those ones would be covered under the provision of paragraph (c) under the Interpretation section.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I get the drift of the argument but in this particular case, you will note the Hon Deputy Majority Leader, in clause 3(a), states “specified entities”, which is not qualified with any article. If we are going to do that, then we have to draft it in the singular and change “entities” into “entity” which
    will read, ‘the specified entity'. The way it stands, there is no --
    Dr A. A. Osei 2:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the further amendment being proposed by the Hon Ranking Member of the Committee on Judiciary. This is because “specified entity” is the one you find so that there is no ambiguity. I believe that consequential amendments can be made from “specified entity” to ‘a specified entity'.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:46 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Daboya/ Mankarigu?
    Mr Shaibu Mahama 2:46 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support all the amendments but I am still struggling to find where paragraph (d) line 2 is.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:46 p.m.
    How does paragraph (d), line 2, come in?
    Mr S. Mahama 2:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought that I was holding a different Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:56 p.m.
    So, did you agree on the proposed amendment because what is defined does not have the article? The definition for clause 36 (c) -- “other state entity” means an entity other than -- “specified entity” means --
    Dr A. A. Osei 2:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so the amendment should read, “profitable operations of a specified entity”, and then the rest would follow.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:56 p.m.
    Is it necessary?
    Mr Chireh 2:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, since the singular also applies to the plural, what we could do -- if she wants us to indicate, it should not be “the” but “a” to read “a specified entity”. So, if we make the amendment to go back to “a” in that clause, we should start with “a specified entity”, which has been defined.
    Instead of repeating “specified entities” -- of course, the law we are making is not for one entity but a number of them. The draftsperson is also not wrong to have indicated this, but the drafting rule is that drafting should always be done in singular. That is why the singular has been defined in clause 36.
    Mr Banda 2:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to support Hon Chireh's rendition because if we read the definition section on “specified entity”, we would realise that it does not make reference to any specific State enterprise. Mr Speaker, that is why under the definition column, it uses the indefinite article “a state-owned enterprise” or “a joint venture company.”
    Mr Speaker, so I believe that if we use “a specified entity”, that would solve the problem. Apart from that, once I am on my feet, in that same line under paragraph (d), all along, the phrase that has been used throughout the Bill is “State Interest” but we would realise under paragraph (d) that “Interest of the State” has been used. Mr Speaker, but in the Interpretation column, the wording is “State
    Interest”; so I would want to propose that for the sake of consistency --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:56 p.m.
    Hon Member, read it out and see if --
    You have not said the proposed amendment, but it is clear -- see if it will sit well. “Oversee State interests of --
    It would be out of place.
    Mr Banda 2:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “oversee and administer State interests in a specified entity”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:56 p.m.
    Hon Ranking Member?
    Alhaji Fuseini 2:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “State interests” is not a term of art. “State interest” is the interest of the State, so it is not something that is not amenable to change. If it were a term of art, then we are bound to use it that way; but it is not a term of art.
    Dr A. A. Osei 2:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, except that “State Interests” has been defined, so it has to remain “State interests”.
    Mr Speaker, on that matter, if you accept the amendment, then you may have to give a consequential directive because it looks like in most parts of the Bill, instead of “a specified entity”, it reads “specified entities”.
    So, you may have to give a consequential directive to the draftspersons that wherever they see “specified entities”, they should change it.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to find out the harm it would cause if we leave it at “specified entities” because a lot of the amendments that we are doing now are grammatical, like prepositions --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:56 p.m.
    Hon Bedzrah?
    Mr Emmanuel K. Bedzrah 2:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am surprised at my Hon Colleague's issue. We are here to proffer amendments to Bills. We are not here to look at the Bills and just allow them to pass.
    We are here to proffer amendments, so if there are dots and nots that we need to do at the Consideration Stage, we have to because this is our work. That is why we are here, so he should allow us to do our amendments.
    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:56 p.m.
    Let me first deal with the proposed amendment on the Order Paper, and then I would consider any other.
    The amendment was on paragraph (d), line (1), after “oversee”, insert “and administer”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:56 p.m.
    Is there any further amendment on that paragraph?
    Mr Banda 2:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I said that in that same paragraph, “Interest of the State” has been used; but the correct terminology is “State Interest”. That is what runs through and what has been defined in the Interpretation section, so my further proposed amendment is that “Interest of the State” should be changed to “State interest”. It would be “oversee and administer the State interest in a specified entity …”
    Mr K. A. Kwarteng 2:56 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is the danger we would get into if we begin to match the exact form of the words as they appear in the Bill and under the Interpretation section. I see a number of these, and I think that we should just revert to the normal wisdom that the singular form effectively defines the plural as well.
    Mr Speaker, then we could make quick progress; but if we get into this, then I would see a lot of such changes that have to be made and it would get in the way of a neat Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:56 p.m.
    Hon Member for Wa West?
    Mr Chireh 3:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the proposers of this Bill do not want us to change a word. Of course, in this particular case, “State interest” is the one that has been defined, so “Interest of the State”, is a longer way of saying it.
    Mr Speaker, he says we should just be consistent and say “State interest”. That is all in it. It does not change the meaning. It is style, as the Hon Chairman of the Committee said. Some could say “State interest” and define it; others could say “interest of the State” and it carries the same meaning.
    Mr Speaker, because this one is defined, we should prefer how often it is used. This is because if you look at it and the whole Bill, it has “State interest”, so it would be better for us to change it at this point to run through. However, if, in this Bill, we have both “State interest” and “interest of the State”, we have to be consistent to choose one of them.
    There is no difference in the meaning. These are not substantial changes; it is the style of drafting and elegance that we are looking for.
    Dr A. A. Osei 3:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is more than elegance. If they did not want to use “State interest”, they would not have defined it. We cannot pretend that it means the same. We have to be careful and --
    By the way, it is not true that the sponsors of the Bill do not want it touched. He needs to withdraw that statement. It is not true. [Interruption.] He did not say that. Our job is to legislate well, and that is what we are doing. The right thing must be done.
    Mr Ahiafor 3:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman, in proposing the amendment, said we should add “s” to “interest” to make it “state interests”; but if we look at the Interpretation section at page 17 of the Bill, it is “State interest” that is defined and not “State interests”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:06 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader, you said we would get to what clause by 3.30 p.m.?
    Ms Safo 3:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 12.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:06 p.m.
    So far, we have spent 30 minutes on one clause, and you want us to get to clause 12 though.
    Very well.
    Ms Safo 3:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think Hon Ahiafor is misconstruing the proposed amendment by the Hon Chairman of the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs.
    Mr Speaker, he proposed that we use “State interest” instead of “interest of the State”. That is what we are discussing now. That is what is on the Floor.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:06 p.m.
    Any other proposed amendment to clause
    3?
    Dr A. A. Osei 3:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment he offered is not what you just read. I heard him say “State interest in a specified entity”. That is not what you read. [Interruption.] He said that and I heard him. He qualified it, but that is not what Mr Speaker read.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:06 p.m.
    The clauses in contention are either “State interest” or “interest of the State”.
    Dr A. A. Osei 3:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, but his proposal said - Please listen carefully. He said it. [Interruption.]
    Mr Opare-Ansah 3:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is what he said.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:06 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parlia- mentary Affairs?
    Mr Banda 3:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, after effecting my amendment, I read the whole rendition as amended. Before I proposed my amendment, specified entities had been amended to read “in a specified entity”. If that has not been taken, it means the new rendition would then read by specifying what I intended to do.
    I emphasise “State interest” but not “interest of the State” because the two are not the same. [Interruption.] No, I thought the understanding initially was that specified entities had been amended to read “in a specified entity”. Is that not the case?
    This is because the argument was that in the Interpretation section, it is “specified entity”, which has been defined, but not “specified entities”.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 3:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, earlier, in subparagraph (ii), when I moved the amendment and said that we should move clause 4(m) to clause 3(c), the Hon Chairman of the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee said that the amendment is “State interest”, and he offered an amendment that “s” be added. It is not “State interests” that is defined, but he added the “s”.
    With this bit about specified entities, should we look at what is defined? Then we should not have accepted his amendment when he said we should add “s” to “interest” in subparagraph (ii). We lifted clause 4(m) to clause 3(c). Over there in clause 4(m), we had “s”, but what is defined is “State interest” without the “s”.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 3:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not think we need to nitpick the words here if there is no need. We are already referring to the Interpretation section. I do not think we lack the capacity, as a Parliament, to go to the Interpretation section and define “specified entities”.
    Why would we now haggle over “specified entity” because in the Interpretation section, it is defined. We are not there yet. I do not see anything wrong with the formulation. We would just go back to the Interpretation section when we get there to define “specified entities”.
    It is a drafting style. If we would want to go back -- It is true. If we would want to use a drafting style that uses the singular, the amendment should be to delete “specified entities” and put “a specified entity”. The proponents of the Bill want “specified entities”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:06 p.m.
    Actually, that is what is provided everywhere in the Bill. If the Interpretation makes it singular, we would amend it to be plural to cover all because, as of now, we would amend at every stage from singular to plural.
    Dr A. A. Osei 3:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with you if they suggest that they intend to do that. In the Order Paper, there is no intention shown, and they have not sent it.
    Let me take you to page 14, clause 34, the proponents say it is “specify entity”. They should signal that is what they would want to do. They would not have any difficulty.
    But they cannot say that -- We have to know where we are going. If it is singular, I think your point is correct, but they have not signalled.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:06 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Yieleh Chireh?
    Mr Chireh 3:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the issue we have is that having listened to the Hon Chairman of the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee. When the Hon Chairman moved the Motion and said that he had lifted paragraph (m) -- when we read paragraph (m), it was “interests” and therefore, we voted on that.
    If, subsequently, we take a decision to remove “s” wherever “interests” appears to draft in this singular, this does not require us to debate again.
    Mr Speaker, please direct the draftspersons that once we have agreed on this, consequentially, wherever “interests” appears in the Bill -- on the other hand, we could also take the decision, which is that in this particular case, we want to draft in the plural, which also connotes a singular; so it is a directive you should give.
    At this stage, we cannot be adding “s” and move a Motion. It is not part of the amendments. Once we change to “interests” because singular is defined and “specified” is defined, we just rule that way and we can move on because it does not change the meaning.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 3:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as a matter of fact, on page 15 on today's Order Paper, item numbered (xl), the interpretation of “State
    Mr Opare-Ansah 3:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have followed this argument of “State interests”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
    The Question has been put already, so I would move on.
    Hon Chairman, item numbered (iv)?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 3:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3, paragraph (e), subparagraph (i), lines 3 and 4, delete “the growth of agriculture, industry and services” and insert “ socio-economic development”.
    Mr Speaker, socio-economic development is all encompassing, so we felt that was a better terminology than saying growth of the subsectors.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr A. A.Osei 3:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just want to understand something. Did you make a ruling on the “specified entity”, so that, at least, my mind is very clear?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:16 p.m.
    Which “specified entity”?
    Dr A.A.Osei 3:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there was a proposal in clause 3(a), so I just want to be clear if we have not taken a decision. [Interruption.]
    Clause 3 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 4 -- Functions of the authority
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 3:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, paragraph (b), delete and insert the following:
    “ensure adherence to the terms and conditions of the annual performance contracts signed by the Authority with state owned- enterprises and other specified entities;”
    Mr Speaker, here in the Bill, in paragraph (b), the Authority was to sign annual performance contracts. The Authority itself is not the entity to sign performance contracts, so the Authority is to ensure adherence to the terms and conditions of annual performance contracts.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 3:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, paragraph (f), delete.
    Mr Speaker, paragraph (f) says, “prepare and submit to the Minister an annual assessment report on the
    governance and social…” This is captured in other functions of the Authority elsewhere. [Pause.] “communicate to specified entities, relevant government policies and guidelines for implementation…”
    Mr Speaker, I think the conclusion was that paragraph (f) does not belong here.
    Dr A.A.Osei 3:16 p.m.
    That is right, Mr Speaker. It is the sector Ministers that communicate the policies to the Ministries.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this does not say that they rather would formulate the policies. They are to communicate to the specified entities, relevant Government policies as may have been communicated or delivered by the Minister to the Authority.
    Mr Speaker, what I am seeing here, and I must admit, that I have not been with the Committee -- it says:
    “The Authority shall commu- nicate to specified entities relevant government policies and guidelines for implementation and ensure adherence to the policies and guidelines”.
    My understanding is that the sponsoring Minister would have relayed to the Authority the general Government policies, and then they communicate same to the specified entities. Is that not the case?
    Dr A. A.Osei 3:16 p.m.
    No, that is precisely the problem. We do not want conflicts between the State Interests and Governance Authority (SIGA) and the Ministers. As we make laws, we say the Minister would give policy directives, and the Authorities shall comply.
    We do not want the Authority to say that it is in charge of communicating Government policy. That is at the domain of the sector Ministers. That is precisely why we are deleting this.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 3:26 a.m.
    All the State entities are already part of established Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs), and they are under the jurisdiction of their respective Ministries. A policy is a function of the Executive to be taken at the Cabinet level, so we thought that we should not superimpose a responsibility on the Authority, which in the first place would not sit in Cabinet.
    Two, it would duplicate the functions of the Minister, that is why it was decided that the function could best be communicated by the Hon Minister.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:26 a.m.
    Hon Members, we would move on to item numbered 13 (vii), by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 3:26 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, paragraph (g), lines 2 and 3, delete “in accordance with the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921)”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would then read 3:26 a.m.
    “assess borrowing levels of State-owned enterprises and other State entities and advise the Minister accordingly.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:26 a.m.
    What I read here is “…advise the Minister”, and not “apply”.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 3:26 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I said “advise the Minister”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:26 a.m.
    Yes, so, it would be “…state-owned enterprises and other State entities and advise the Minister accordingly.”
    Hon Chairman, is that the rendition?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 3:26 a.m.
    Rightly so, Mr Speaker.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:26 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Wa West?
    Mr Chireh 3:26 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if he is amending clause 4, paragraph (g), then the last part that he is talking about is not in the amendment. This is because he says, “assess borrowing levels of State-owned enterprises and other State entities…” I would want to know whether that is what the Hon Chairman wants. He added “advise the Minister”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:26 a.m.
    Hon Member, the phrase is there. After “(Act 921)”, “advise the Minister accordingly” follows it. It is not on the Order Paper, but it is already in the Act. We are to delete the words in between and leave that one.
    Mr Chireh 3:26 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it seems I am holding the wrong Bill. If I am to read the whole thing, clause 4, paragraph (g) says, and with your permission I read:
    “Assess borrowing levels of State-owned enterprises and other State entities in accordance with the Public Financial Management Act…”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:26 a.m.
    Hon Member, that is not deleted. We are to delete up to “(Act 921)”.
    Mr Chireh 3:26 a.m.
    All right, Mr Speaker, I have seen it.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:26 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, we would move on to item numbered 13 (viii).
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 3:26 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, paragraph (j), delete.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:26 a.m.
    What was the Rt Hon Speaker's accolade for you? He says you are a very competent Hon Chairman. [Laughter.]
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:26 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Deputy Minister for Finance.
    Mr Kwarteng 3:26 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    Mr Speaker, if we look at clause 4, paragraph (j), as it stands, it says, and with your permission, I read:
    “develop and implement risk management strategy for state- owned enterprises and other State entities…”
    It would require that State Interests and Governance Authority (SIGA) would have such wide expertise across various sectors. So, we consider this function must sit with the traditional Ministries that would supervise these entities. That is the reason we believe it must go.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:26 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Dr A. A. Osei 3:26 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in addition, if we understand the genesis
    of this Bill, originally, it would have been a Department that does these things under the Ministry of Finance. It does not have the capacity to do this function, so this reverts back to the Ministry under the New Public Financial Management Act (PFMA).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:26 a.m.
    Very well, the competent Hon Chairman has remembered. [Laughter.]
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:26 a.m.
    Hon Members, we would take item numbered 13 (ix), an amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 3:26 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, paragraph (k), delete.
    Mr Speaker, it is not the function of the Authority to promote relevant training programmes for members of the Board and senior management staff.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:26 a.m.
    Hon Members, we would move on to item numbered 13 (x), an amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 3:26 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, paragraph (m), delete.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:26 a.m.
    Hon Members, we would move on to item 13(xi), by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 3:26 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4, paragraph (o), line 1, delete “under this Act or which are”.
    Mr Speaker, “under this Act or which are…” adds no value.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 4 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:26 a.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, we proposed that we would suspend at 3.30 p.m. It is 36 minutes past three o'clock now.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:26 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I plead that we go back to item numbered 11. I believe we would not waste time on this. In two minutes, we would finish and then take the suspension.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:26 a.m.
    Hon Member, which one?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:26 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, item numbered 11.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:26 a.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, Consideration of the State Interests Governance Authority Bill, 2019 is suspended.
    We would now move on to item numbered 11 -- Ghana Iron and Steel Development Corporation Bill, 2019 at the Consideration Stage.
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 3:26 a.m.
    STAGE 3:26 a.m.
  • [Continuation of debate from 2/ 04/2019]
    • rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:26 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we could take item numbered 11(i).
    We are to continue the debate on these two clauses and we needed to do further consultations, which we have done, so I guess we can conclude it today.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:36 p.m.
    Hon Members, there are new proposed clauses, so we would start with the item numbered 11(i). The debate is to continue.
    Dr A. A. Osei 3:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Vice Chairman of the Committee is not here, but I would want to go
    back to where we did the argument and take our minds back to when we did the Ghana Integrated Aluminium and Bauxite Development Bill.
    Mr Speaker, this Bill was modelled almost exactly under the Ghana Integrated Aluminium and Bauxite Development Bill. In the Mem- orandum of both legislations, there is no intention of bringing in such a huge policy. It defeats the purpose of bringing in foreign direct investment and that is why I pleaded with the Hon Vice Chairman to step it down.
    If you look at the Memorandum of the Ghana Integrated Aluminium and Bauxite Development Act, which is similar to that of this Bill, it is a similar enterprise. In fact, in doing the Ghana Iron and Steel Development Authority Bill, almost everything was lifted from the Ghana Integrated Aluminium and Bauxite Development Bill and nowhere is the Government's intention to propose such a major policy change. That is why I pleaded with the Hon Vice Chairman that it defeats the Bill.
    Mr Speaker, if we adopt that Bill, we might as well not have any person in the iron and steel industry. I am sorry the Hon Vice Chairman is not here. We need to step it down. Yesterday, the issue also came up at another policy meeting.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe we have done sufficient consultation on this, but my Hon Colleague said that it has come
    Some Hon Members 3:36 p.m.
    Which Obinim? [Laughter.]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:36 p.m.
    Prophet Obinim who says there are some consultations at different levels, and that some people climb up to level 7 or beyond.
    Mr Speaker, we have had consultations and we brought on board some professionals who really helped in these Bills and we are ad idem, that we can go on the path that we have suggested.
    Mr Speaker, the implications of this cannot be to the detriment of the State. They proposed that:
    “Where dividends are not declared and paid, the State shall be entitled be to a minimum 4per cent …”
    How is the four per cent to be determined and so, to provide some comfort to investors, we just say:
    “Where dividends are not declared and paid, the State shall be entitled to a minimum percentage of the total annual turnover to be determined by the Board.”
    Mr Speaker, the Board certainly would take inspiration from the sponsoring Minister and they would not be capricious to just say that they
    Mr Speaker, what we agreed on is that 3:36 p.m.
    “Where after five years of production by the mill, dividends are not declared and paid at the end of a financial year, the State shall be entitled to a minimum percent of the total annual turnover determined by the Board.”
    We know that, inherently, some of the companies massage the figures such that at the end of the day - and that is why to cure whatever is mischief, if you go to subclause (2) of the new clause, the provision is that:
    “any advance payment made at any time to the State or to any other person directed by the State shall be deducted from any future divided payment to which the State is entitled”
    So that going forward, these things would be taken care of.
    Mr Speaker, as I said, we have done broad consultations at where this came from. [Interruption.] We have done consultations and brought in experts and consultants. In fact, even yesterday in the night, we had meetings on this. We cannot go forward and backwards on this.
    Mr Chireh 3:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we support the principle of the Hon Majority Leader, but what is advertised is completely different from what he said. I thought that after the consultation, he should have put in the words that they agreed on.
    We have no problem because he is the last person to have done the consultations with the consultants and he is the Leader of Government Business. He cannot be wrong. If any Hon Minister comes with a different view, he is estopped from expressing it here. So we fully support the --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:36 p.m.
    No Hon Minister is estopped from expressing any view here.
    Hon Majority Leader, let us be clear: Why are we removing the specific requirement of four per cent and giving discretion to anybody to negotiate anything?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the reason is that now, we are not too sure of the quantum of profit or dividends. We cannot conjecture and that is why we are saying that it should be -- Even the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) is now moving towards that practice.
    That is what they even do now. If a company does not declare dividends, they ask for their books, peruse them and exact something on the turnover. That is what GRA has started doing. It has done that over the past three years.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:36 p.m.
    I am not leaving anybody out. Would you trust anybody to negotiate on behalf of the country with any foreign person? Would you trust even me or yourself? I would rather put one per cent there than say leave it to anybody. It is a huge danger. I do not trust anybody in Ghana to represent Ghana fairly in a matter like this.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 3:36 p.m.
    Maybe, what could be done is to say “up to 4 per cent”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:36 p.m.
    It could be “not exceeding 4 per cent”.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 3:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we could say something like that, but if we just say “minimum of 4 per cent”, it is just like declaring one person profit. We support the principle, but we should not leave the discretion to people; it must be limited.
    Dr A. A. Osei 3:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my Hon Leader said he had consultations last night. I just want to also let him know that at the Economic Management Team (EMT), there was also consultations. The two consultations did not meet, and as he knows, it is all part of a group. So if one group has consultations here and
    the other there, there is no coordination. If we have two different consultations, we need to consult properly, because I was convinced yesterday --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:36 p.m.
    In the circumstances, we should suspend the consideration of this matter for the two groups to confer and complete consultations.
    Mr Chireh 3:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Leader is right. The EMT only advises Cabinet so Cabinet takes a decision. In this particular case, Cabinet refused their decision, and working through their leader in Parliament, who is the Leader of Government Business, agreed that we should put it the way the Hon Majority Leader agreed.

    3. 46 p. m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:36 p.m.
    Hon Member for Suhum, I want to hear you.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 3:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member for Wa West says that the EMT only advises the President and Cabinet. Did he not hear them today on — they spoke to the whole nation. [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:36 p.m.
    Let me listen to the Hon Leader of Government Business.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, I believe this is on the lighter side because in all seriousness, if we must be blunt, the EMT does not have any locus in this House. They do not.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:36 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, I am suggesting that you must reconcile your differences.
    Hon Member for Suhum, let me listen to you.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 3:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not too sure what is advising the proposition of this particular amendment, but it seems to me that it may not help the growth of the sector. And my reason is that this kind of proposition is usually punitive.
    You would recall when the telecom networks refused to allow the monitoring system to be connected onto their systems, this House then proposed a similar thing to punish them if they refused, that five per cent of their gross annual revenue would be charged if they refuse to allow connectivity. So, clearly, we invoked this as a punitive measure.
    The other instance is where those funds are put into a common fund, usually administered or managed by industry itself. And an example of that is Ghana Investment Fund for Electronic Communication (GIFEC) where one per cent of the gross revenues of all the telcos are put there and it is managed by a Board which sits in majority by the operators themselves to bridge the digital gap in the country.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:36 p.m.
    If I recall correctly, the issue has been that some of the big extractive industries have worked for years and have never declared dividends.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 3:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as a matter of fact, I belong to APLIFT which is African Parliamentarians against Illicit Financial Flows and Taxation, so I stand against that practice.
    But we must remember that we are going on this path with the assumption that the only reason why these entities would not declare dividends at any time would be because of malpractice. That is why we are making this provision.
    But it might not necessarily be so; you may have conditions pertaining in the country which would not enable them to declare dividends. And for those periods, we are suggesting then, that we must find money to pay our four per cent of their revenue which becomes part of the cost of doing business and by itself, can collapse the industry.
    There are other mechanisms, in my view, which could be improved and tightened to ensure that the kind of reports that they use in reporting their books to the nation in respect of the taxes that they pay, are rather tightened than to put this kind of punitive measure in our laws.
    Thank you.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:36 p.m.
    Let me listen to other Hon Members. Yes, Hon Member for Kade?
    Mr Kwabena Ohemeng- Tinyase 3:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity. Just as Hon Opare- Ansah said, these are punitive measures for industry players who try to undermine the laws of the country in diverse ways; under-invoicing, inflating prices in all instances that they could, importing equipment to bring down at a higher price than it should be, all with the aim of increasing cost of operation to reduce profit.
    So, in most industrial set-ups, there is a time limit of a waiver or a holiday concession which is granted to the organisation to be able to fit itself properly for profitability.
    And thereafter, we expect the organisation to make proper profit but then, as it normally happens with some of the exploitative industries and companies, especially the foreign ones that operate in developing countries, they try to still make sure that their cost of operation is high to minimise the profitability and sometimes, even to zero the profitable position of the organisation.
    The first way to check this is to put in a proper monitoring procedure because for the best of times, most of these operations that they go through are not the first of their kind in the developing countries that they are operating in. So, by best practices, some other countries try to impose a clause like this to deter from reducing -- by either over-invoicing or under- invoicing to reduce their profit position.
    But then, it becomes a deterrent to the industry, especially in situations where the firm or the industry itself is really making losses out of factors that are external or internal.
    So I would implore that in such circumstances, we look at best practices; we look at putting in monitoring mechanisms that could look at their balance sheets, look at their cost of operation and make sure that all the practices which would make them to under-declare the profitability position of their operation is reduced to the barest minimum, if not completely eliminated. And all other clauses or concessions that might have been given to that particular sector could be reduced so that we know the true position of it.
    Mr Speaker, with the aim that we want to make sure that the organisation itself gives us the true position of its profit to make us get the true value of our dividends, the monitoring factor is the greatest option for us to succeed.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:36 p.m.
    Hon Member for Keta?
    Mr Quashigah 3:36 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that you have summarised the entire concern because, like you indicated earlier, we cannot even trust you to give the nation the best deal because, obviously, we have had past experiences. Therefore, there must be some specificity as to what the State would be getting. I think that what the
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 3:56 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not know what my Hon Colleague was advocating for. We are talking about the monetisation of our carried interest; the monetisation of a carried interest not taking equity participation in the company.
    If Government takes equity participation in the Steel and Iron Industry, then we are in a joint-venture relationship, so monitoring would be specific and directed.
    But we are talking about a company coming to Ghana, investing in our natural resources, and giving us a carried interest which has not been properly defined like Mr Speaker rightly observed.
    In all the extractive industries, we have not received anything for our carried interest. This is the first real attempt to have something paid for our current interest. [Interruption.] Is the Hon Member representing the company or the country?
    Mr Speaker, the second thing is that we should not close our eyes to world reality. If we have carried interest, it is not monetised.
    The company is neither paying nor making profit, so what do we get for the exploitation of our natural resources? We get only income tax. Apart from that, we get nothing. We do not get corporate tax because they say they are not making profit.
    For us, the minerals are here and we want to put on them an obligation to be efficient. We are not saying that they must pay us four per cent; we are saying they must make profit. If they fail to make profit, they should pay us up to four per cent.
    What is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with that. If they make profit, we are not taking anything and they would pay us our dividends. However, if they are not making profit, they must be forced to make profit.
    Mr Speaker, we support the amendment but the only amendment I am prepared to -- [Interruption.] I do not know whether blue eyed capitalists are in this House. What we are saying is that, this is our resource and we have a responsibility to protect it.
    For up to four per cent, we cannot start it from year one, so the amendment must contemplate a time period within which we expect. [Interruption.] You have said so in the amendment, so I fully support you, and Mr Speaker, you can put it to a vote.
    Dr A. A. Osei 3:56 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I know that my Hon good Friend, Hon Inusah Fuseini, is a social democrat and I can sympathise with him. Let me, however, give him an example.
    If the company is not making profit because of intermittent power supply due to the Government's perfor- mance, are we saying it should give the Government money? From 2011 to 2015, there was intermittent power supply which was not the company's doing. They did not make profit and the Hon Member is saying that in spite of their doing --
    Secondly, if his people cannot monitor -- they gave their books and said they are making losses. They cannot detect that and because they cannot detect that, he is saying that they are inefficient, so they should be given money. That logic is warped. There are several reasons they may not make a profit which is not their doing.
    I am not saying that some companies are not misbehaving, but we could find ways of monitoring and doing our proper homework, and then we could hit them with a penalty. This one is ab initio because we are giving
    them a punitive measure and it would not bring them in, at the beginning. That is all this is saying.
    As the Hon Member for Suhum said, this is meant to be a punitive measure but what are we punishing them for? That is the question we must ask. Are they not making profit because of their inefficiencies?
    We have to determine that, but it may be that our inability to do our part might be causing them to not make profit and they should not be punished for that.
    If you look at the global part, you cannot ab initio punish them when you are inefficient. No business will come if we put that here because from the beginning, there is a penalty. Our resources would stay on the floor forever and then we would say we are poor.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:56 a.m.
    Hon Member for Daboya/Mankarigu, after the Hon Majority Leader, I would let you speak.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:56 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are legislating to ensure that, as much as possible, the company is able to operate and does so in a very efficient way. The issue that my Hon Colleague related to, the era of intermittent power supply could affect production.
    But here in clause 22, we have said that the State shall guarantee the continuous availability of power to the integrated iron and steel industry.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:56 a.m.
    I would listen to the Hon Member for Daboya/Mankarigu, but what Question am I putting? Is it what is on the Order Paper or what you proposed?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:56 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment that I proposed which is:
    “Where after five years of production by the mill, dividends are not declared and paid at the end of the financial year, the State shall be entitled to a minimum…”
    My Hon Colleague, Alhaji Fuseini further, amended that it should not exceed four per cent of the total annual turnover determined by the Board.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:56 a.m.
    I agree to that one. Hon Member for Daboya/Mankarigu?
    Mr S. Mahama 3:56 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me the last bite on this. I want to agree completely with the new proposed amendment. I have heard the arguments about discouraging businesses on the contrary, we are protecting State interest.
    Not long ago, we were just looking at State interests, among others. The reason is to make sure that the State has value for wherever it puts its money.
    The five year moratorium is given to the company, after five years, if they cannot declare dividends, why should
    we still keep them in the system? The Hon Majority Leader read out section 22 on the power --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:56 a.m.
    Hon Member for Daboya/Mankarigu, you are not saying anything new, so I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:56 a.m.
    Now, I would put the Question on the new clause under item numbered 11 (i) as amended.
    Dr A. A. Osei 3:56 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to call for a headcount. [Laughter.]
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:56 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, he has not signalled that there has been any infringement on his rights and I may want to know beforehand whose head he wants to count.
    I think that the Hon Chairman has one more amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:06 p.m.
    Are they two under one clause, or they are new clauses?
    Mr Duker 4:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, New clause -- add the following new clause after the new clause 24:
    “Prohibition of Export of Iron Ore
    25.The Corporation shall ensure that there is no export of iron ore in its natural state unless it is processed and value added as prescribed in the Regulations.”
    Mr Speaker, I would want to further amend it, to delete “in its natural state''.
    The new rendition would be:
    “The Corporation shall ensure that there is no export of iron ore unless it is processed and value added as prescribed in the Regulations.''
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:06 p.m.
    I thought we had discussed this earlier.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 4:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, except that the procedure is wrong. You have not put the Question on the entire new clause 24.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:06 p.m.
    When he finishes, I would put the Question on all the new clauses.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 4:06 p.m.
    Very well, Mr Speaker. I agree with the proposed amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    New clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Duker 4:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, Long Title line 1, after “Ghana” insert “Integrated”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Long Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Short Title also has to be amended.
    Mr Duker 4:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move that in the Short Title, the word “integrated'' should be inserted between “Ghana'' and “iron''.
    Question put and amendment agreed to
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have finished with the Consideration Stage of the Ghana Iron and Steel Development Corporation Bill, 2019 and I would want to apply to you so we could consider the Order Paper Addendum before you suspend Sitting or adjourn the House.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:06 p.m.
    Very well. Hon Members, that brings us to the end of the Consideration Stages of the Ghana Iron and Steel Development Corporation Bill, 2019
    and State Interests and Governance Authority Bill, 2019.
    Item numbered 1 on the Order Paper Addendum -- Presentation of Papers.
    Mr Kwaku A. Kwarteng 4:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I seek your leave to withdraw a request for waiver of taxes laid on the 22nd of March, 2019, in respect of the rehabilitation and upgrading of equipment in technical universities, polytechnics, technical and vocational training centres under the Government's Concessional Facility and also, the request for waiver laid on the 21st March, 2019 in respect of the implementation of the improved access to quality health care in the Western Region Project.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:06 p.m.
    Leave is granted for the said Papers to be withdrawn and they are accordingly withdrawn.
    PAPERS 4:06 p.m.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:06 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, it would not be out of order to bring proceedings to a close at this time.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, subject to your own indulgence, we could suspend Sitting and come back, unless maybe, it is the case of the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak on your part.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:06 p.m.
    Hon Minister for Works and Housing, if you want to address the House, speak into the microphone. [Laughter.]
    Mr Samuel A. Akyea 4:06 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wanted to find out from the Hon Majority Leader as to whether he is trying to cast some insinuation that you are not fit to continue, but he said that was not what he wanted to say. [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:16 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, so what do you suggest?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as I said, if you could indulge the House, we could maybe come back at 5.30 p.m. to do some two hours, but of course, we are in your hands. And as he said, I acknowledge that you have been in the Chair for quite a long time.
    So if it is that it has been telling on you, and I see that it has been telling on you, and so we could then take an adjournment and come tomorrow.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:16 p.m.
    I was hoping that somebody would speak for me — [Laughter.] But I am only hearing shouts and nobody is speaking through the microphone.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 4:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am actually sympathetic to his views, except that we are all human and subject to the frailties of life. So, yes, we are entirely in your hands, and if it is your wish to adjourn, the House may be adjourned by you so that we come back tomorrow.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:16 p.m.
    Are we agreeing that we would come
    back exactly at 5.50 p.m.?
    Some Hon Members 4:16 p.m.
    No! No!
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:16 p.m.
    If we agree, I will come to do up to 8.00 p.m.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 4:16 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I guess the sense of the House is that we adjourn.
    ADJOURNMENT 4:16 p.m.
  • The House was adjourned at 4.19 p.m. till Thursday, 4th April, 2019, at 10.00 a.m.