Debates of 4 Apr 2019

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:18 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker 10:18 a.m.
Hon Members, Correction of Votes and Proceedings of 3rd April, 2019.

Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Ras Mubarak 10:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am very grateful. On page 8, I have been captured as absent even though I was right here in the Chamber.
Mr Speaker, if you look at page 30, there was a Committee meeting yesterday that I took part in as well, and my name appeared there.
Having said this, I am sure the whole House would join me in offering you our warmest birthday wishes. Congratulations, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 10:18 a.m.
I thank you very much.
You very much appreciate how to add to what you want to say in the
appropriate manner. [Laughter.] You had an opportunity to get on your feet too to add what you wanted to say, having said this, I appreciate that.
Yes, Hon Members, pages 12,
13…17 --
Yes, Hon Member?
Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah 10:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, item numbered 3 on page 17, the amendment to delete “immovable” and insert “landed” was moved by the Hon Deputy Majority Leader and not Hon Bernard Ahiafor.
Mr Speaker 10:18 a.m.
Very well, thank you.
Page 18 ... 32.
Hon Members, the Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 3rd April, 2019 as corrected is hereby admitted as the true record of proceedings.
Hon Members, we have the Official Report of 5th March, 2019.
Mr Speaker 10:18 a.m.
Hon Members, item listed 3; an Urgent Question that stands in the name of the Hon Member for Hohoe and addressed to the Hon Minister for Regional Reorganisation and Development.
Dr Bernice Adiku Heloo 10:18 a.m.
I thank you, Mr Speaker.
URGENT QUESTIONS 10:18 a.m.
MINISTRY OF REGIONAL 10:18 a.m.
REORGANISATION AND 10:18 a.m.
DEVELOPMENT 10:18 a.m.
Minister for Regional Reorganisation and Development (Mr Daniel Kwaku Botwe) 10:28 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the processes for the creation of new regions are governed by article 5 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana. Article 5 (2) states, and with your permission I quote:
“(2) If the President, upon a petition being presented to him and, on the advice of the Council of State, is satisfied that there is a substantial demand for —
(a)the creation of a new region;
(b) alter the boundaries of a region; [whether or not the alteration involves the creation of a new region] or
(c) provide for the merger of two or more regions;
he shall, acting in accordance with the advice of the Council of State, appoint a commission of inquiry to inquire into the demand and to make recom- mendations on all the factors involved in the creation, alteration or merger”.
Mr Speaker, article 5(4) of the Constitution also states that 10:28 a.m.
“Where a commission of inquiry appointed under clause (2) or (3) of this article finds that there is the need and a substantial demand for the creation, alteration or merger referred to in either of those clauses, it shall recommend to the President that a referendum be held, specifying the issues to be determined by the referendum and the places where the referendum should be held.”
Mr Speaker, in line with the constitutional provisions, the Justice Brobbey Commission of Inquiry into the Creation of New Regions was set up by His Excellency the President upon the advice at the Council of State to inquire into the need for the creation of new regions.
Mr Speaker, article 5(4) of the Constitution also states that 10:28 a.m.


In the case of the petition received from the Chiefs and people of the then proposed Oti Region, the Commi- ssion recommended the following places where referendum was to be held in respect of the then proposed Oti Region:

1. Jasikan District;

2. Kadjebi District;

3. Biakoye District;

4. Krachi East Municipality;

5. Krachi Nchumuru District;

6. Krachi West District;

7. Nkwanta South Municipality;

8. Nkwanta North District; and

9. Santrokofi, Akpafu, Lolobi and Likpe Traditional Areas.

Mr Speaker, Constitutional Instrument (C.I.) 109 of 2018 Referendum (Creation of New Regions Regulations, 2018) also referred to the places recommended by the Justice Brobbey Commission as per its First Schedule (copy attached). This Constitutional Instrument was in line with article 5(5) of the Constitution, which states again.
Mr Speaker, I quote 10:28 a.m.
“The President shall refer the recommendations to the Elec- toral Commission, and the referendum shall be held in a
manner prescribed by the Electoral Commission.”
Pursuant to C.I. 109, the Electoral Commission (EC) conducted a referendum on 27th December, 2018 in the places or areas listed, as I have just mentioned including Santrokofi, Akpafu, Lolobi and Likpe Traditional Areas.
The people of the Santrokofi, Akpafu, Lolobi and Likpe Traditional Areas and the eight Districts participated in the referendum, and recorded 88.33 per cent voter turnout and 98.64 per cent “YES” votes (copy of gazetted results attached).
With the creation of the Oti Region and the presentation of the C.I. 112 to the chiefs and people of the Oti Region on 15th February, 2019, by His Excellency the President, the Santrokofi, Akpafu, Lolobi and Likpe Traditional Areas currently fall under the Oti Region.
Mr Speaker, the mandate of the Ministry of Regional Reorganisation and Development was to facilitate the creation of new regions and their development.
In this regard, issues relating to administrative subdivisions are not part of the mandate of the Ministry.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
Mr Speaker 10:28 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Minister.
Dr Heloo 10:28 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I will still refer to C. I. 112, which was brought here by the Ministry and calls for the
creation of the Oti Region; it talked about the capital of the region. The Schedule mentions eight districts including municipalities; but Santrokofi, Akpafu, Lolobi and Likpe are described as traditional areas.
Mr Speaker, so, I would want to know where, in our Constitution, an area that constitutes a section of a region is described as a traditional area and not as a district.
Mr Botwe 10:28 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with the detailed explanation I gave, which shows that the process is governed by article 5 of the 1992 Constitution, those processes were duly followed.
The C.I 112 referred to by the Hon Member was created as a result of what the Justice Brobbey Commission recommended, and as was captured in the C.I. 109 which I hold here.
This is because in the First Schedule of the C. I 109, areas that were to take part in the referendum to be part of the Oti Region were defined, and that was the Oti Region out of the Volta Region in C. I. -- Referendum Creation of New Regions Regulation, 2018. It has Biakoye District, Jasikan District, Kejebi District, Krachi East Municipality, Krachi Nchumuru District, Krachi West District, Nkwanta North District, Nkwanta South Municipality, Santrokofi, Akpafu, Lolobi and Likpe Traditional areas.
This was captured in C. I 109, so the Electoral Commission had the referendum on that. They also took part and the results were declared.
Mr Speaker 10:28 a.m.
Hon Minister, thank you very much.
Yes, Hon Member, any further questions?
Dr Heloo 10:28 a.m.
Mr Speaker, administratively, which District do they belong to? This is because the people were carved from my Municipality, and they look up to me as their Hon Member of Parliament because they do not know where they belong to as they are in abeyance.
So what should we tell the people? Supposing we have primaries in my Municipality, which of the Districts do they belong to now?
Mr Speaker 10:28 a.m.
Hon Member, if I heard the Hon Minister rightly say that administrative decisions are not part of his mandate, and the Hon Minister can only tell you the parameters of his mandate.
If your members want answers to matters outside a particular Hon Minister's mandate, then there is a duty on you, the Hon Member, to go and find the answer to their question elsewhere. However, if an Hon Minister says this is not part of his mandate, that is his answer.
Hon Minister, you may want to repeat that because you said that is not your mandate. So, if there are some other administrative issues that
Mr Speaker 10:28 a.m.


you may want to ask other people, that is your job.
Mr Botwe 10:28 a.m.
Mr Speaker, as I stated in my Answer, that is not part of our mandate. I would want to believe that if the Hon Member wants to find answers to some of the questions from her constituency, I may want to proffer that the Local Governance Act, 2016. (Act 936) and its amendment, Act 940, may be of help to her.
Mr Speaker 10:28 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Minister.
Dr Heloo 10:28 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
I am guided, and I will take the question to the appropriate place.
Mr Speaker 10:28 a.m.
Hon Member, explore other avenues and find answers for your people.
Hon Minister, thank you very much for attending to --
Some Hon Member -- rose --
Mr Speaker 10:38 a.m.
I have seen some Hon Members on their feet, and I take this as a constituency specific question and so that specificity will --
Hon Deputy Minority Leader, please let us go by what we ourselves have set out.

Hon Members, item numbered 4 -- Questions.

The Question stands in the name of the Hon Member for Komenda/ Edina/Eguafo/Abrem.

The Hon Minister for Trade and Industry to please take the appropriate seat.
ORAL ANSWERS TO 10:38 a.m.
QUESTIONS 10:38 a.m.
MINISTRY OF TRADE AND 10:38 a.m.
INDUSTRY 10:38 a.m.
Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Alan Kwadwo Kyerematen) 10:38 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Komenda Sugar Factory after its commissioning by the previous Government on 31st May, 2016 has been idle due to serious deficiencies in the planning of the project and other financial, technical and legal challenges.
Mr Speaker in September, 2017, the Ministry commissioned a technical audit of the factory to ascertain its technical and operational status. The findings of the technical audit were as follows:
1. A test run was never completed before the factory was commissioned due to the unavailability of sufficient sugar cane for the test run.
2. The factory on commissioning was not in a position to produce the required white refined sugar due to the absence of the following processing component units, which were not fully installed during the test-run:
Melt clarification units;
Vertical crystallisers,
Dosing system.
Overall, about 35 items had not been installed on commissioning although they are critical for the production of sulphurless white sugar.
3. The land size available for cultivation is far less than the 6,000 acres required to supply sugar cane to run the factory at full capacity.
4. There has been no out- grower scheme developed for small scale farm holders to support a nucleus plantation for the factory.
5. Generally, the soil condition in the factory catchment area is not favourable and requires
significant application of both organic and inorganic fertili- sers to improve yields.
Mr Speaker, the previous Government, in late 2016, went through a process of divesting its majority shares to a private investor. However, the process was aborted due to the failure of the identified investor to fulfil the obligations under the Sale and Purchase Agreement.
Mr Speaker, the Ministry, in an effort to put the factory to viable commercial production, decided to initiate new process in collaboration with the Transaction Advisor, Price Waterhouse Coopers (PwC), to attract a strategic investor to acquire the assets of the Komenda Sugar Factory and manage the company's operations.
Mr Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the bid evaluation process has been completed by the Transaction Advisor, and a recommendation has been made for consideration by the Ministry and Cabinet.
Mr Speaker, I envisage that the final decision in respect of this matter would be taken by the end of April,
2019.
Mr Atta-Mills 10:38 a.m.
Mr Speaker, on the third line of the Hon Minister's Answer, he says it has been left idle due to serious deficiencies. May I ask the Hon Minister what his Ministry has done about these shortcomings since he took over in 2017?
Mr Kyerematen 10:38 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I did indicate that we have undertaken a technical audit of the plant and decided that the best option is for us to look for a new strategic investor, who would take it over and address these technical challenges and also run the plant as a commercially viable enterprise.
It is not in the interest of this Government to run a sugar factory. That is why we are of the view that if we bring in a new strategic investor, that would be the most viable option for us to pursue.
Mr Atta-Mills 10:38 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my second question is that he listed a number of things that need to be done. Mr Speaker, I would want to know what the Ministry has done because doing a technical evaluation does not add up to whatever is supposed to be fixed out there and the 35 things that need to be done.
Mr Speaker 10:38 a.m.
Hon Member, the situation has been put out in extenso that there was no test run at all to even start, there was no capacity to produce what had been envisaged, and the non-installation of relevant inputs.
So, if you want to ask a further questions on this, then you have to put them in line with the Answer given; but in light of this, he has said that they are looking for a strategic investor. So, please put your question within that context - who would take care of these inadequacies that have been listed out previously?
Mr Atta-Mills 10:38 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would go to my next question then.
In Hon Minister's Answer, the last paragraph on page 2 of the Order Paper Addendum, he said that generally, the soil condition in the factory catchment area is not favourable. Mr Speaker, this was the same place that they originally had the sugar factory and the sugar cane farms worked very well, so I would want to know what has changed since the original sugar factory in the 1960s.
Mr Speaker 10:38 a.m.
Hon Minister, what has made it environmentally unconducive?
Mr Kyerematen 10:38 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the conditions under which sugar cane was cultivated when the factory was established has been evaluated by the technical team, and the result is what I have alluded to. It is a matter of a report by a technical evaluation team.
Mr Speaker 10:38 a.m.
Hon Minister, the Hon Member wants to know about those other environs and circumstances beyond the technical issues. How has the environs changed since the ancient days' production?
Hon Minister, I have understood the Hon Member, but do you want him to repeat his question? I do not think that you have answered him and that is why I have called you back.
Mr Kyerematen 10:38 a.m.
Mr Speaker, what I referred to was the fact that I am not in a position to determine whether at the time that the factory
was established the conditions there were most favourable for the siting of the factory, including the conditions of the soil.
What I could say is that on assumption of office, we have done a technical audit by leading experts in the field, and that is the conclusion that they have come to. So I am not in a position to make a declaration on the conditions at that time. I am talking about the conditions of the factory and its environs as of now.
Mr Speaker 10:38 a.m.
Thank You.
Mr Speaker 10:48 a.m.
Hon Member, you may ask your last question.
Mr Atta-Mills 10:48 a.m.
Mr Speaker, so have the 35 items that have not been installed on commissioning been installed now, or who would be responsible for those things? This is because, from my check, all those things have been installed now, but he said that they have not been installed. Have those ones been installed yet?
Mr Kyerematen 10:48 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the previous Government had responsibility for fully installing the plant when it was commissioned. It is a matter of record that some of the critical components were not installed at the time of commission. As I speak now, it is the subject matter of a dispute with the technical consultant because some of these have still not been installed.
In actual fact, if the Hon Member looks at the text of the response, he would realise that it is partly the reason the type and quality of sugar that
we expect from the factory has not been realised. That is exactly why that has been the case.
Mr Speaker 10:48 a.m.
Thank you very much.
Hon Members, in view of the matters ahead of us, I am just about to order a variation of the items on the Order Paper for the Finance Committee to start laying their Papers.
Hon Deputy Minority Leader, if you may nominate one person to ask the question.
Mr James K. Avedzi 10:48 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I have a critical question.
Mr Speaker 10:48 a.m.
I would give you the choice.
Mr Avedzi 10:48 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister said it is not in the interest of this Government to produce sugar. [Interruption.] That was what he said.
Mr Speaker 10:48 a.m.
Hon Members, Order!
Mr Speaker 10:48 a.m.


If the Hon Minister has been misinterpreted, he is capable of answering. Let this not attract anything that would be otherwise.
Mr Avedzi 10:48 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the running of a factory of this nature definitely would have an end result of producing sugar. So, if it is not in the interest of this Government to run a factory, it is equally not in the interest of the Government to produce sugar. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker 10:48 a.m.
Hon Members, Order!
Mr Avedzi 10:48 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my question is that on page 2 of the Addendum Order Paper --
Mr Speaker 10:48 a.m.
Hon Deputy Minority Leader, the first one was not a question, was it a comment?
Mr Avedzi 10:48 a.m.
Yes. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker 10:48 a.m.
All right, Hon Deputy Minority Leader, I would ask the Hon Minister to respond to your comment. Otherwise, that would not be fair.
Hon Minister, please, respond to the comment.
Mr Kyerematen 10:48 a.m.
Mr Speaker, regrettably, I am lost for words. Firstly, I believe the Hon Member did not listen to what I said. It is very unfortunate that he would impute from my statement that I meant the Government was not interested in having the factory managed.
I would want to repeat for record purposes that it is not in our interest as a Government, to run a sugar factory. He cannot transpose that to mean that we are not interested in having the factory run commercially.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 10:48 a.m.
Hon Deputy Minority Leader, you know you got the Hon Minister wrong.
Mr Avedzi 10:48 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is good that --
Mr Speaker 10:48 a.m.
For the sake of the record, I knew exactly what I was doing because from my record here, that was not what the Hon Minister said. But I just wanted you to go on so that you could be answered appropriately. Are you satisfied?
Please go on and ask your question.
Mr Avedzi 10:48 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my question is that on page 2 of the Addendum Order Paper, in the penultimate paragraph, the Hon
Minister indicated that 10:48 a.m.
“There has been no out-grower scheme developed for small scale farm holders to support a nucleus plantation for the factory”.
Mr Speaker, I am aware that the previous Government took a loan of about US$24 million, if I am sure about the figure, to support the small out-grower farmers to produce sugarcane to feed the factory. If the
Hon Minister is aware of that, and if it is true, what has become of that loan the Government of Ghana (GoG) took for the out-grower farmers?
Mr Kyerematen 10:48 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is on record as proceedings of this Honourable House that a loan was approved for the development of a plantation.
I would like to clarify that on assumption of office, because of the technical and financial challenges associated with this project, we had taken a decision not to activate the loan until such time that these matters were resolved.
That was why the response stated that it had not been developed at the time of the technical audit. So, I am responding based on the question that was posed at the time of the technical audit.
Mr Speaker 10:48 a.m.
Hon Deputy Minority Leader, I would want a clarification; you would come again.
This Honourable House is entitled to know the financial and technical difficulties. I, for example, do not understand that. I would also want to know what some of these technical and financial difficulties that prevented you from proceeding with the activities of those companies.
Hon Minister, if you would tell us, this House would be satisfied that we are doing our job. What are some of these technical and financial difficulties?
Mr Kyerematen 10:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, the answer to your question lies in the belly of my response. First, we have talked about the fact that certain critical components that are required for the factory to produce white sugar have not been restored. That is part of the technical challenge.
Secondly, I have alluded to the fact that the size of the land available for cultivation of sugarcane to run the factory at full capacity is also not available. That is part of the technical constraints.
I have also alluded to the fact that the soil conditions is a technical challenge because that would create a fundamental problem of com- petitiveness. I have also said that there was not a viable out-grower scheme that could support nucleus plantation. These are all related to the technical challenges that I have spoken about.

Mr Speaker, in reference to the financial challenges, the previous Government took a loan of US$35 million to establish this factory. We have done a series of financial valuations, and on record, the value that is put now on the factory is significantly less than the value of the plant as one would determine based on the loan that was secured.

In actual fact, the original exercise that was commissioned to divert Government's interest in this factory was clear that most of the bidders were not prepared to pay US$35
Mr Kyerematen 10:58 a.m.


million for the factory, so we have had to deal with that challenge also, and a forensic audit has been commissioned to go into this exercise.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Avedzi 10:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my follow-up question to the earlier one I asked about the Out-grower Scheme is that, having decided to hold on with activating the loan, is there any financial cost to Government for not activating the loan?
Mr Kyerematen 10:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the conditions under which the loan for the plantation development - it was not just out-grower. It includes nucleus and Out-grower scheme. The conditions under which the loan was secured to my mind is still subject to further scrutiny.
I say this because technically, the citing of the factory on the land where it is situated now with the challenge of being able to produce sugarcane to feed the factory is in itself a big challenge, and according to technical requirements for running a factory competitively, the distance that is required to transport sugarcane to the factory to make it competitive is a major factor.
So Mr Speaker, we have taken a position that since the Government is not going to run this factory, we would allow a new strategic investor to determine where they would like to develop the plantation, whether they would require Government to assist
them in terms of financial support and access to financing, in which case a decision would be made by Government to activate the loan or not.
As to whether there are cost implications, I think it does not lie in my capacity to answer that question.
Mr Avedzi 10:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the loan taken by Government and approved by this House has terms and conditions; duration when you can draw down the facility and when the interest payment would kick start.
My question simply demands a yes or a no answer. By delaying the activation of the loan, the draw down, is there any cost to Government or not? That is the question I am asking, the answer should be either yes, there is cost or no, there is no cost. That is what we want from the Hon Minister.
Mr Speaker 10:58 a.m.
Hon Deputy Minority Leader, once Government does not want to proceed by itself, and the others are not proceeding anyway, if those who are taking it up in the first place had been successful, we would not be in any problem today, but now he is looking for a strategic investor, the Hon Minister keeps saying this.
Do you want to take any steps before you get the strategic investor in place -- maybe the Hon Minister would make things clearer after this -- and if not, why not wait, so that there is a holistic application towards the problem? That is what I have gathered from what the Hon Minister
said, so if you want to have an elucidation by yourself, please, make it clear.
Mr Avedzi 10:58 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I also perfectly understood the point that Government is looking for a strategic investor to run the factory, but I am saying that once Parliament approved a loan, it starts running and there is a cost that must be paid by Government. If Govern-ment now decides not to draw down the money, there is a cost to it. That is why I am asking the Hon Minister.
We are not drawing down the money. Time is running. Government is liable to pay certain amounts. Is the Hon Minister confirming that there is a cost to that decision for not drawing down the money, or there is no cost, so that we would be free?
Mr Kyerematen 10:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I want to confirm that I am not in the position to provide that response. However, be that as it may, I am not in a position to determine whether the procurement of that loan was intended for Government to run that plantation by the Government itself, or it was intended for them to provide the financing for a private sector investor to use the facility.
If the latter is the case, then my answer speaks for itself.
Mr Speaker 10:58 a.m.
Hon Minister, thank you very much for attending to the House and answering our Questions.
We wish you well in the quest for a strategic investor.
The Hon Minister for Local Government and Rural Development is here.
Hon Minister, you may take the appropriate chair.
Hon Member for Sene East, your Question is next.
MINISTRY OF LOCAL 10:58 a.m.
GOVERNMENT AND RURAL 10:58 a.m.
DEVELOPMENT 10:58 a.m.
Minister for Local Government and Rural Development (Hajia Alima Mahama) 10:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, section 182 of the Local Government Act 2016 (Act 936) states that:
(4) A by-law shall not have effect until the by-law has been
(a)posted on the premises of the District Assembly
[HAJIA MAHAMA][HAJIA MAHAMA]

concerned and in at least one other public place within the district, and

(b)published in a daily newspaper of national circulation or in the Gazette.

Mr Speaker, section 232 (1) of Act 936 requires the Minister to, by Legislative Instrument, make Regulations for carrying into effect the provisions of this Act and in particular

(a)for the procedure to secure a permit;

(b)for the provision of notices;

(c)to prescribe activities that may be carried out without a permit; and

(d)for consultations between the District Planning Authority and public agencies and local communities.

Mr Speaker, I appeared before this House on 14th March, 2019 to answer a Question on the issuance of Regulations on Act 936.

I assured this House that, the Ministry is in the process of finalising the Legislative Instrument on the Act which should include Regulations on the provision of notices required by Section 232 of Act 936.

Mr Speaker, section 41 of Act 936 on participation in by-laws and fee-

fixing resolutions requires the dissemination of any by-law and fee- fixing resolutions as wide as possible.

In 2017, I issued Fee-Fixing Guidelines to guide MMDAs in the preparation of their fee-fixing resolutions. Stakeholders including Advertising and Telecommunication Companies, Association of Ghana Industries, Professional Bodies et cetera were engaged on the Guidelines.

All MMDAs have prepared their fee-fixing resolutions based on their fee-fixing Guidelines.

The Ministry has engaged the Ghana Publishing Company Limited (Assembly Press) on the high cost of gazetting the by-laws and fee-fixing resolutions after receiving complaints from the Assemblies. The Assembly Press informed us that they will bring the issue up at their next Board meeting.

Mr Speaker, the Ministry was also informed that the Assembly Press is working towards establishing an electronic Gazetting System, which is expected to lower the cost and delays in the gazetting process.

Unfortunately, the Minister cannot by Legislative Instrument liberate the District Assemblies from high cost of gazetting by-laws and fee-fixing resolutions. The mother Act, Act 936 requires that, by-laws are published in daily newspapers of national circulation or in the Gazette. It is therefore a legal requirement.

Mr Speaker, gazetting is expensive; the Fee-Fixing Guidelines is a document of 60 pages; MMDAs normally select the relevant or District specific revenue items which ranges from 20-50 pages for their fee-fixing resolutions.

The cost for a page of fee-fixing resolution as we have been informed by the Assembly Press is two hundred Ghana cedis (GH¢200.00). Although this is exorbitant, Mr. Speaker, as a Minister I can only negotiate with the Assembly Press but cannot use a Regulation to reduce the cost.

An option would be, to amend the law. The Ministry is reviewing the situation and will make a decision as to whether an amendment would be appropriate or not.
Mr Speaker 10:58 a.m.
Thank you, Hon Member.
Mr Napare 10:58 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, your Committee had just returned from a monitoring visit to the District Assemblies, and most of the District Assemblies are still not able to gazette their by-laws.
Mr Speaker, the Question specifically asked is when the Regulations would be brought to Parliament by the Hon Minister. If we look at the validity of bye-laws in section 182, it is indicated in subsection 4 that by-laws shall be
given effect when it is posted on the premises of the District Assemblies.
These are notices and that is why the Question is posed, asking when Regulations would be brought to operationalise the Act under Regulations, which is captured under section 232(1)(b), which indicates that the Hon Minister shall make Regulations.
Mr Speaker, there is an option for the Assemblies not to go to the Assembly Press to gazette their bye- laws entirely, when Regulations are brought to operationalise the notices. Once they post it on their District Assemblies' notices and then publish it in the national dailies, they would not need to go to the Assembly Press to gazette, and that would save them the cost. This is the import of the Question.
Mr Speaker, therefore, we would want to know from the Hon Minister, when the Regulations would be made, so that they would not even go to the Assembly Press at all, not to talk of the high cost of gazetting the bye- laws.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
Mr Speaker 10:58 a.m.
Hon Minister, would the Regulation come at all, and if so, when?
Hajia Mahama: Mr Speaker, if we refer to section 182 of the Local Governance Act, 2016 (Act 936), under validity of by-laws -- the respective area referred to by the Hon Member is section 182(4).

Mr Speaker, section 182(4) has two specific sections and my legal studies in interpretation tells me that when it says “and”, it does not give us an option to take it as “either or”. It is only when it says “or” that it gives us that option.
Mr Speaker, section 182(4) says, and with your permission I read 10:58 a.m.
“A bye-law shall not have effect until the by-law has been
(a)Posted on the premises of the District Assembly concerned and in at least one other public place within the district”.
Mr Speaker, this does not stand alone, as paragraph (a), but it goes on to paragraph (b) to say;
“and;
(b)published in a daily newspaper of national circulation or in the Gazette.”
Mr Speaker, therefore the only option there is either in a national circulation or in a Gazette, but posting it at the District Assemblies does not exonerate them or take away the requirement that they should as well publish them in either a national circulation newspaper or gazette it. So, that does not come in at all.
Mr Speaker, Assemblies have indicated that publishing in the dailies
is more expensive than gazetting, and I have a receipt here as evidence. The cost per page of the resolutions or the bye-laws is about GH¢3,000, and I have the receipt here.
I went to the public press to inquire, and it is so. So if they publish something of about 30 pages, then it means that we would multiply it by GH¢3,000. So the option for the Assemblies is to gazette because they find that cheaper than publishing it in the national dailies. That is the situation, and we cannot run away from that.
Mr Speaker, therefore, the interpretation is not just allowing only for notices. One has to provide the notice all right at the Assembly's premises and other public places within the District Assembly, but one is legally required to also gazette or publish it in the newspapers.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
Mr Speaker 10:58 a.m.
Thank you very much.
Mr Napare 10:58 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, the Question is on when Regulations would be brought, but I believe that in either way, Regulations must be brought as per the Act, and that is why we are asking the Hon Minister when these Regulations would be brought.
Mr Speaker, however, on the question of section 182 (4)(b), the Hon Minister is saying that the option
Mr Speaker 10:58 a.m.
Hon Member, please, speak into the microphone.
Mr Napare 11:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the question is, when would the Regulation be brought to Parliament to be ratified?
Mr Speaker 11:18 a.m.
Hon Minister, there is the need for promulgation.
Hajia Mahama: Mr Speaker, as I indicated on 14th March, 2019, when I appeared before this House, the Regulations are being prepared. It is subject to a whole lot of stakeholder consultations, and we
would endeavour to bring it to the House in the last quarter of this year.
Mr Speaker 11:18 a.m.
Hon Member, I can see that you are satisfied.
Hon Minister, thank you very much for attending to the House to answer our Questions. You are respectfully discharged.
Hon Members, we would move to the Commencement of Public Business -- item listed 6.
Item numbered 6(a).
Ms Safo 11:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Report of the Committee on Mines and Energy listed as item 6(a) is not ready and so is the item numbered 6(b).
Mr Speaker 11:18 a.m.
Shall we go step by step? Is item numbered 6(a) ready?
Ms Safo 11:18 a.m.
No, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 11:18 a.m.
Is item numbered 6(b) ready?
Ms Safo 11:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is not ready.
Mr Speaker 11:18 a.m.
Item numbered 6(c).
Ms Safo 11:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, item numbered 6(c) is ready.
Mr Speaker 11:18 a.m.
Is the item numbered 6(c) ready?
Ms Safo 11:18 a.m.
Rightly so, Mr Speaker.
rose
Mr Speaker 11:18 a.m.
Hon Minority Chief Whip, you are on your feet, but you are addressing others. If you would please take your seat for a moment.
Shall we deal with the item numbered 6(d) so that the distribution of the Reports could take place, if they are ready, while we also look at other matters?
Are items numbered 6(d)(i) and (ii) ready?
Hon Chairman of the Committee?
PAPERS 11:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:18 a.m.
Item numbered 6(c).
By the Chairman of the Commi- ttee --
Twenty-Second Report of the Appointments Committee on H.E. the President's Nomination for Ministerial Appointment.
Mr Speaker 11:18 a.m.
Item numbered 7.
Ms Safo 11:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we just laid the Report for the item numbered 7 and Hon Chairman of the Committee has indicated to me that it is being circulated.
Mr Speaker 11:18 a.m.
Very well, that circulation is in the process. We will wait a bit. It is for distribution, so, you would have to be patient.
Ms Safo 11:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, just as the Hon Chairman of the Committee has indicated, the Report is being circulated so, respectfully, we can take the item numbered 12 -- Considera- tion Stage of the State Interests and Governance Authority Bill, 2019 which we started yesterday.
Mr Speaker 11:18 a.m.
Hon Deputy Majority Leader, can we not take the item listed 9? Is there any reason we cannot take it?
Ms Safo 11:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we cannot take the item numbered 9 because yesterday, when the Hon First Deputy Speaker was in the Chair, one clause was still outstanding -- I think it is clause 25 -- and the Hon Majority Leader had to confer with the Economic Management Team (EMT) and Dr Akoto Osei on a few issues before we can take a decision on the outstanding clause. Mr Speaker, so, that is why we cannot take the item numbered 9.
Mr Speaker 11:18 a.m.
What is the position on the item numbered 10?
Ms Safo 11:18 a.m.
For the items numbered 10 and 11, the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Roads and Transport has also indicated that their Report is not ready. That is why, respectfully, we are asking that we move on to the Consideration Stage of the State Interests and Governance Authority Bill, 2019.
Mr Speaker 11:18 a.m.
Hon Members, we shall go on to item listed 12 as
suggested and for which matter, Mr First Deputy Speaker would take the Chair.
Matters relating to items numbered 7 and 8 would be fully taken tomorrow. Hon Deputy Minority Leader, please leave this for the time being. So, we now move to the Consideration Stage. You may go on. --[Pause]-- Yes, Hon Minority Chief Whip?
Alhaji Muntaka 11:28 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I tried to catch your eye during the Statement period but I could not.
Mr Speaker 11:28 a.m.
Please, go on.
Alhaji Muntaka 11:28 a.m.
Now that we are at the Consideration Stage that the rules are even more relaxed, I would like to take this special opportunity to wish you a very happy birthday. [Hear! Hear!] --
Mr Speaker, the reason I chose to do this is that, to be seventy-five years today, is a blessing from God because whether one takes the Bible or the Quran, it is said that to hit sixty, it is a great blessing; to have crossed sixty, crossed seventy, and hitting seventy- five, is a great blessing. And it is our wish that you continue to live young and much younger to be able to carry the affairs of the State even beyond ninety years old.
Mr Speaker, I am also saying this because we tend to eulogise one another when one is dead. And I have said on this Floor, time without
Alhaji Muntaka 11:28 a.m.


number that we must change this habit of waiting until people are dead then, we come to speak good of them.

It is better to start doing this and taking the opportunity to speak good of people while they are alive so that at least, it would help the younger generation to know that when one serves and serves well, even while alive, people would commend that.

Mr Speaker, on this special occasion, I would want to stand here on my own behalf and on behalf of the whole House to sincerely wish you a happy birthday. We wish you long life and good health so that you would continue to lead this House to finish your term and beyond.

Mr Speaker, happy birthday. And even though the Standing Orders do not allow us to sing, but Mr Speaker, at this stage that the rules of the House are relaxed with the Mace tilted, meaning that the rules are very flexible, I would want to use my cockroach voice to sing:

[Hon Members sing a happy birthday to song for Mr Speaker].
Alhaji Muntaka 11:28 a.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker 11:28 a.m.
Order!
Yes, Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
Ms Safo 11:38 a.m.
Mr Speaker, we also rise to support the statement that has been made by the Hon Minority Chief Whip.
Mr Speaker, today is a very special day for you and for Ghana and for your family. Today is a day that the Lord has made for us to rejoice and be glad in Him because he has given us an able Professor; an astute politician; a diplomat; a Reverend Minister -- Mr Speaker, if I should go on, the appellations would be uncountable.
We are very much appreciative of what you have done for Mother Ghana and on this special day, we could only say that you have really impacted the lives of many including my good self. Mr Speaker, I am a good student of yours and when you left your big Seat in the Constituency, I stepped in your shoes.
So for some of us in the Constituency, today is also a very big day for us because you have risen to be the third gentleman of this country being the Speaker of this great House for the Seventh Parliament.
Mr Speaker, on behalf of all of us, especially the Women's Caucus; you have been very supportive also of pushing the Women Agenda. And I see my Vice Chairperson, Hon Comfort Doyoe smiling happily in
recognition of your efforts to promote the agenda of women representation in Parliament.
So, Mr Speaker, on this day, this is a continuation of our congratulatory messages to you at pre-Sitting and we thought that on the floor of Parliament, we should also do so.

Mr Speaker, on this blessed day, we are also very grateful to the great woman who gave birth to such a great man. Women cannot be left out of the -- Your mother should be celebrated just as Catholics do celebrate Mary who gave us the Messiah who died for the sins of mankind. Today, we celebrate your mother for giving birth to such a great man.
Mr Speaker 11:38 a.m.
Thank you all very much for your good wishes and the Lord bless you all. This is a pleasant surprise, I must say.
Very well, we are the Consideration Stage of the State Interests and Governance Authority Bill and the Hon First Deputy Speaker would take the Chair in the process. We would deal with the matter that concerns Motion numbered 8 tomorrow, since I am
advised at this stage that there is no unanimity yet. We would deliberate that further tomorrow.
Item numbered 12 -- State Interests and Governance Authority Bill, 2019 at the Consideration Stage.
MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 11:41 a.m.
STAGE 11:41 a.m.
  • [Continuation of debate from 3/ 04/2019.]
    • Chairman of the Committee (Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah) 11:41 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we ended at clause 4 yesterday, so we would start from clause 5.
    Clause 5 -- Governing body of the Authority
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:41 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5 -- subclause (1), paragraph (a), delete “nominated by the President”.
    The new rendition would read, “a chairperson”. In subclause (2), it is stated that the President would do the appointment, so if we delete “nominated by the President”, it is taken care of in subclause (2).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:41 a.m.
    Item numbered 12(ii), amendment proposed by the Chairman of the Committee.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:41 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5 -- subclause (1) paragraph (d), delete “Minister” and insert “Institute of Chartered Accountants, Ghana”.
    Clause 5 (d) would now read:
    “(d) one chartered accountant of good standing with considerable experience in corporate and commercial industry practice, nominated by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, Ghana”.
    Dr A. A. Osei 11:41 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the Bill I have, clause 5(d) says “a representative of the Ministry responsible for Finance”. That is what I have. [Interruption.] I had the Ghana Iron and Steel Development Corporation Bill, sorry. [Laughter.]
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:41 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister has to apologise to the House. [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:41 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, I thought you were a very tolerant Chairman.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:41 a.m.
    Hon Minister, it is all right. Errors are permitted, so let us proceed.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:41 a.m.
    Item numbered 12 (iii)?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:41 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5 -- subclause (1) paragraph (e), delete and insert the following:
    “one legal practitioner of good standing of not less than ten years at the Bar, with relevant professional experience in corporate and commercial law practice, nominated by the Ghana Bar Association;”
    Mr Speaker, again, for best practice, we want the nomination to be done by the Ghana Bar Associa- tion and not the Attorney-General.
    Mr James Klutse Avedzi 11:41 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the case of clause 5(d), there is no time frame like it is said in clause 5(e), giving a 10 year experience. In the case of clause 5(d), it only says, “with considerable experience”. Can the Hon Chairman give reasons why in the case of the legal practice, it should be 10 years minimum?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:41 a.m.
    At the Bar, if you are less than 10 years, you are a junior practitioner, so you would not represent the Bar Association.
    Mr Patrick Yaw Boamah 11:41 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, still on clause 5(d), why is the nomination not by the Institute of Chartered Accountants?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:41 a.m.
    Hon Member, we have already taken a decision on clause 5(d) and you are also raising a matter we have dealt with. This means that you were not paying attention even though you were in the Chamber. [Laughter.]
    Mr Avedzi 11:41 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 5(e), why -- Sorry.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:41 a.m.
    Can all Hon Members return to the House from wherever they went? [Laugh- ter.] This is the third occasion for only two amendments.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:41 a.m.
    Item numbered 12(iv), Chairman of the Committee?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:48 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause -- subclause (2), line 1, delete “paragraph (a)” and insert “paragraphs (a), (b)”.
    Mr Speaker, in clause 5(2), the President is supposed to have regard to the expert knowledge of persons appointed and paragraph (a) is referenced, but the President also does the nomination in paragraph (b) and that is why we have added paragraph (b). So that in appointing
    persons under paragraphs (a), (b) and (g), the President would have regard to their expert knowledge.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 5 as variously amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 6 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 9 -- Meetings of the Board
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:48 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause -- subclause (1), line 2, delete “the times and places” and insert “a time and place”.
    Mr Speaker, they are consequential amendments that run through, so if they could all be effected by your directive -- one of such amendments is also in item numbered 13(iv).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:48 a.m.
    Very well. Rather than going by a motion, I direct that the draftsperson should effect the changes and revert them to the singular - instead of ‘'times and places'', it should be substituted with ‘'time and place'' at every part of the Bill unless, a context otherwise suggests.
    Mr Chireh 11:48 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am sorry I have to take you back. I believe the cross referencing in clause 8(6) has a problem. It says:
    “Where there is a vacancy
    (a)under subsection (3) or subsection (5) of section
    9….''
    Mr Chireh 11:48 a.m.


    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that in clause 8(6) line two, delete ‘'subsection (3) or''.

    This is because clause 9(5) is what is referred to. The clause 9 talks about quorum and the subclause (3) of it refers to quorum and not appointment of a member or a member ceasing to be a member.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:48 a.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, in subsection (3) of clause 9, it says:
    “The quorum at a meeting of the Board is five members of the Board''.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:48 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, unless my reading and interpretation is wrong, the subsection (3) refers to subsection (3) of clause 8 which says:
    “Where there is a vacancy
    (a)under subsection (3)…''
    It also says:
    “….or subsection (5) of section
    9…''
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:48 a.m.
    It may also be read:
    “under subsection (3) or subsection (5) of section 9.
    The point the Hon Member raised is right. If we want to refer to subsection (3) of clause 8, then we must insert, ‘'of clause 8''. Otherwise, it is open to confusion.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 11:48 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is the intendment -- when we saw subsection (3), we thought of section 8. The interpretations of the Hon Chairman of the Committee and the Hon Member are right.
    It could be that, section 9 also qualifies subsection (3). Because we are still on clause 8, [Interruption] -- the Hon Member took us back to clause 8, so we are on clause 8.
    Mr Speaker, we could insert “of this section'' after “subclause (3).
    The new rendition would be:
    “Where there is a vacancy
    (a)under subsection (3) of this section, ….
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:48 a.m.
    Hon Members, I have allowed recon- sideration of clause 8.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, the proposed amendment is that we should insert “of this section'' after “subsection (3)''.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:48 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have no objection.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Chireh 11:48 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, con- sequentially, we would have to look at ‘'subject to subsection (3)'' again, in the last but one line. So, the same thing should apply.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:48 a.m.
    Very well.
    In clause 8(6), the last but one line insert “of this section'' after “subsection (3)''.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 8 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:48 a.m.
    We would return to clause 9.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, you were dealing with your amendment.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:48 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, you directed that the consequential amendment in item numbered 13(vi) also be effected, so I would move on to item numbered 13(vii).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:48 a.m.
    Very well.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:48 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9 -- subclause (8), line 1, delete “shall be” and insert “is”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition shall read 11:48 a.m.
    “A meeting conducted in accordance with subsection (7) is deemed to be duly convened.”
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 11:58 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the amendment, except that in your directive, you were very clear, but because we did not raise it, I do not know whether the draftsperson will capture it.
    Mr Speaker, in the amendment in clause 9, item numbered (v), after the insertion of the indefinite article, it would qualify “place and time”. When we go to item numbered (v), with the amendment proposed, it is “time and place”.
    So I am just urging that we should not create the impression that we are talking about two different things. We are talking about time and place, and the order should be such that in the next provision, it should be time and place; at a time and a place.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:58 a.m.
    I gave the consequential direction that unless the context otherwise admits, and so —
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:58 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9 - subclause (9), line 2, delete “shall be” and insert “is”.
    Mr Speaker, this follows from the one we just effected. So clause 9 subclause (9) would now read:
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:58 a.m.


    “A person who participates in a meeting conducted under subsection (7) is deemed to be present at the meeting.”

    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:58 a.m.
    Item numbered (ix).
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:58 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 9 -- subclause (12), line 1, delete “A minute” and insert “The minutes” and in line 2, delete “purported”.
    Mr Speaker, we say, “the minutes of a meeting” and not “a minute of a meeting”. So that is the right phrase. And then line 2 says:
    “(12) A minute signed by the chairperson under subsection (11) is prima facie evidence of the proceedings of the meeting.” And not “the purported proceedings of the meeting.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 9 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 12 — Management Committee
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:58 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12, subclause (4), line 1, before “time”, delete “the” and insert “a”.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment in item numbered (x) would be taken care of as per your directive. So I will now go on and move the amendment in item numbered (xi).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:58 a.m.
    I do not understand what you mean by that.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:58 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the directive you gave with regards to the amendment that dealt with “time” and “place”, this amendment is in the same spirit.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:58 a.m.
    No, with this you are asking that before “time”, we delete “the” and insert “a”.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:58 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 12 subclause (4) reads:
    “The Committee shall meet at least once a month at the time and place determined by the chairperson.”
    And the amendment being proposed here is before “time”, delete “the” and insert “a”, so that it would read:
    “The Committee shall meet at least once a month at a time and place determined by the Chairperson.”
    Mr Speaker, this flows from what we did earlier and I thought your directive would have taken care of it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:58 a.m.
    What we did earlier was to substitute singular for the plural and this deals with articles. Unless there are many of this and you want me to give a consequential direction. If it is so, please do apply.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:58 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you can put the Question on this particular one.
    Ms Safo 11:58 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment of the Hon Chairman was in relation to what we did in clause 9 and I think it is consequential. He is substituting “a time and place”. And we just did it in clause 9, item numbered (vi) of page 5 of the Order Paper. And we deleted it from plural into singular but also inserted “a time and place”. And what he seeks to do is for it to be consequential.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:58 a.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:58 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 12, subclause (5), delete and insert the following:
    “The Director-General shall preside at meetings of the Management Committee.”
    Mr Speaker, what is being deleted in subclause (5) is taken care of in subclause (1). Subclause (1) says, and I beg to quote:
    “Without limiting subsection (1) of section 11, there is established a Management Committee.”
    Mr Speaker, for the avoidance of doubt, we want to state in subclause (5) that at meetings of the Management Committee, the Director-General shall preside.
    Mr Avedzi 11:58 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not against that new subclause. But it has no correlation with the clause we have in the Bill. The clause we have in the Bill says, and I beg to quote clause 12 subclause (5):
    “For purposes of this section, “Committee” means the Mana- gement Committee established under subsection (1).”
    Mr Speaker, if they are deleting this, then they should do so completely and then come with a new subclause. But he should not say we should delete this and then substitute with a new subject altogether. It does not relate. So, he should delete this one and add a new subclause in the next page; that should be the style.
    Mr Chireh 12:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we cannot define a “Committee” when there is a definition for it already. When we delete it -- [Interruption] -- Is there a new subclause? All right -- [Interruption] -- I think that is what the Hon Chairman of the Committee implies.
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, whereas the amendment being proposed is not related to this, like the Hon Deputy Majority Leader said, my worry is we are trying to legislate management meeting. This is really new to almost all the Bills that we have done.

    Yes, the whole of clause 12 tries to state that only a Director-General could chair a Management meeting. These are standards of practice in almost every organisation. Why do we want to put it in the law?

    Mr Speaker, you may agree yourself, that there are instances where you have chaired an agency of the State before. The Chief Executive Officer may not be there and he may authorise others to hold the meeting or even a subcommittee -- The moment we put this in the law, we would restrict how they could conduct themselves in terms of Management meetings.

    I believe that if there is no good reason, the whole of clause 12 is unnecessary because, with what we have in clause 11, given the omnibus clause to set up a committee, it suffices. If we even state in clause 12 that all such meetings shall be chaired by the Director-General, it is

    problematic. Let us be careful. Clause 11 should be able to take care of all the concerns of clause 12, unless there is a very good reason why this should be done.

    Mr Speaker, specifically, with the amendment that he has moved, why must the Director-General be the only person to chair? It states that “The Director-General shall…” -- He can set up subcommittees of the Management and ask others to chair the Management Committee.
    Mr Bernard Ahiafor 12:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity.
    I would want to plead with my Chief Whip, that this is not the first time we would be making provision for chairing of a subcommittee of a Board or Management Committee.
    In the previous legislation where the Board is supposed to have committees, we normally state in the Bill that, if members and non- members of the Board compose a committee, it must be chaired by a member of the Board.
    Mr Speaker, now, this one talks about Management meeting. The rendition states and with your permission, I read:
    “The Director-General shall preside at meetings of the Management Committee.”
    The provision says that, if there is going to be a Management meeting, then such meeting would have to be
    presided over by the Director- General.
    Mr Chireh 12:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would beg my Leaders not to oppose this one because, this is a Management Committee and the Director-General is head of the Management.
    Secondly, anytime the Director- General is not there, anybody acting in his stead becomes the Director- General, so, the meeting could come off.
    Again, the important thing is what we are creating; we are creating a public body with powers that the Director-General should be in charge of management activities. It is not new as my Hon Colleague already said. They are specific cases where we may even have created a Directorate.
    Mr Speaker, when we were passing the law on the Ghana Immigration Service, we talked about the Director-General, so, the position is clear; this particular person is in charge of this particular position.
    We also have in various laws that we should have a standing committee which -- There are some committees that are technical. When we set up the universities, there were committees that were for specific purposes. Their composition and leadership of such committees are determined.
    Apart from that, if we create a committee of board members and non-board members, we would also
    decide who should chair; whether a board member or a person with certain specific qualification should chair. So Mr Speaker, this is not new.
    If anyone asks why the mention of the Director-General, anytime he is not there, someone acts in his stead. In our Constitution, anybody who acts and performs a function is as valid as the one who is substantively appointed.
    Mr Ohemeng-Tinyase 12:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Yieleh Chireh on the issue, that for all management issues, the onus finally rests with whoever is the head. In this particular instance, the head is the Director-General.
    So Mr Speaker, for meetings of Management which takes a collective decision on the day-to-day administration of any sound organisation, the Director-General, if not absent or has not delegated his functions to any other person, should head the meeting.
    Mr Speaker, there has been instances where there has been violations of the proper code of ethics of business, where people try to undermine Management by trying to pass certain actions and approve certain things without the knowledge of the Director-General or whoever is the head of Management. It is right in perspective and in accordance with the ethics of business that the Director-General heads Management meetings.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:08 p.m.
    I think there is very little controversy over this matter.
    Mr Avedzi 12:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Director-General is a head of that entity -- [Interruption] -- said by the law.
    Mr Speaker, I see no reason, for instance, there is a meeting of Management and the Director- General is present with his deputy, and the deputy would challenge the Director-General to chair the meeting. It would never happen anywhere. [Interruption] --
    While the Director-General is present, why would his deputy challenge him in chairing a meeting? It is only when the Director-General is not there, then, definitely, in an acting capacity, a deputy would chair that meeting. Why would we want to legislate on this?
    Mr Speaker, is there any dispute over who chairs Management meetings? No! Automatically, it is the Director-General who chairs. In the case of subcommittees of Boards, when they are established, they are all of equal level. That is why the law says that if a member of the Board is
    a member of that subcommittee, he or somebody with expertise chairs. The law is specific on that but in the case of Management, the head of Management is the Director-General and, for that matter, he would automatically chair all meetings. In his absence, the acting deputy chairs, so there is no need to legislate on this matter.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I understand the Hon Minority Chief Whip and the Hon Deputy Minority Leader, but they should understand that the core function of this body that we are setting up, is to govern other institutions, and we would not want it to grapple with internal issues. That is why the law has to be explicit.
    Mr Speaker, in fact, if we go a little further down, we will see that we are even legislating the appointment of general managers and their functions, so that there is no ambiguity as to what this body and its appointees are supposed to do. This is not the same as setting up the governing body for a fund or some institute. This is a governance body, so it has to get its own internal governance right. There is nothing wrong in being explicit about who has what authority and who performs what functions.
    Mr Mahama Ayariga 12:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
    I also agree that for purposes of good management practice, even if we do not legislate the establishment of a Management Committee, if we look
    at the composition of the Management Committee, proper governance within the organisation will require that they meet routinely to deal with issues of the organisation. In this case, their role does not contest the powers of the Board because they are answerable to the Board. If we look at clause 12(2), it says that:
    “The Committee is answerable to the Board for the technical operations of the Authority”.
    Mr Speaker, there is no contest of authority here. So, I believe that it is alright for the Management Committee to exist, except that I notice that:
    “(4) The Committee shall meet at least once a month at the time and place determined by the chairperson”.
    Are we referring here to the chairperson of the Board or the person presiding over the Manage- ment Committee? This is because if we say that the committee shall meet at the time and place determined by the chairperson, it means that the chairperson could disable the functioning of this committee by failing to provide information on where and when they should meet.
    Mr Speaker, so, if we intend that it should be the person presiding, which is the Director-General -- the amendment here is that the Director- General shall preside at meetings of the Management Committee. So,
    does “chairperson” here refer to the Director-General? Then the terminology here will confuse us because if we go to clause 11, “chairperson” is used; but my understanding is that it is the chairperson of the Board.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:18 p.m.
    Hon Member, we are dealing with the Management Committee. So the definition of “chairperson” should be gleaned from the Management Committee and not outside it.
    Mr Ayariga 12:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is so. That is why, perhaps, it should be that:
    “The Director-General shall chair the meetings of the Management Committee”.
    This is because when you say that he shall preside at the meeting of the Management Committee, then the chairperson shall convene a meeting -- we know of a presiding officer and not of a chairperson. So, for internal consistency in terms of language, we should say that:
    “The Director-General shall chair meetings of the Management Committee”.
    Then when we say that the chairperson shall determine the date and time of meetings, we know that it is the Director-General who chairs the meeting.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not have a difficulty with what he said, but let us finish what we were
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, where as I said this was the first time, people quoted the Ghana Immigration (Amendment) Act to say that this is not the first time.
    Mr Speaker, this is a House of records. I have in my hand, the Ghana
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:18 p.m.
    What I see in your hand is a mobile phone.
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no. You know that the Acts are now in Portable Document Format (PDF), which we could download.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:18 p.m.
    No, there is no Act in your hand. What is in your hand is a mobile phone.
    Alhaji Muntaka 12:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have downloaded (Act 848) and it is here. [Interruption.] If we want to do it for the first time and give a reason, that is fine; but where I said that we have not done it before and people said that we have done it and this is an example, they will have to provide it.
    This is because in the example they gave, the only one that we did with the Ghana Immigration (Amendment) Act was immigration quota, which involved a large Ministry.
    Mr Speaker, in the National Health Insurance Act, we were target specific but not Management Committee. The Management Committee that we wish to insert in the Act is superfluous because of clause 11.
    If for any good reason we would want to maintain it, let us say that we are doing it because we believe that it is very relevant but we should not say that we have done it before. This is because we have not put “Manage-
    ment Committee” in an Act; and we want to regulate how it should run; but if they insist that they want to do it, that is fine.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:18 p.m.
    Hon Members, I have heard enough. I would want to put the issue to good.
    Yes, Hon Chairman.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member for Bawku Central further amended the amendment I proposed. Could we get his rendition?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:18 p.m.
    So, the new rendition will be:
    ‘A Director-General shall chair meetings of the Management Committee'.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:18 p.m.
    I will put the Question.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:18 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, you are arresting my vote.
    Mr Banda 12:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
    I just want to effect a little amendment to improve upon what the House has done with respect to the
    Director-General being the chairperson of the Management Committee.
    I would want to draft this in the present instead of the future, so that it will read:
    “The Director-General is the chairperson of meetings of the Management Committee”.
    These days, we are told to legislate in the present and not in the future. I believe that when it is so done, it would still carry the same meaning.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:28 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the meetings themselves are futuristic, so, it should be:
    “The Director-General shall chair meetings of the Management Committee”.
    Mr Speaker, if we say that “the Director-General is the chairperson of meetings of the Management Committee”, I believe that it is the same argument that the Hon Member advanced; that sounds futuristic. These meetings are yet to happen, so, if we keep it as proposed, it will read better.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:28 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just a minor amendment. If we accept the amendment, we cannot say “chairs at meetings”, it should be “chairs the meetings”.
    Mr Banda 12:28 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not have a fixation about it; except to draw my Hon Colleague's attention to clause 5 of the Bill, which says that the “Governing body of the Authority is a Board”. Mr Speaker, though the Board is yet to be established, we used the present tense.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:28 p.m.
    Once it is established, it stays.
    Mr Banda 12:28 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as I said, I do not have any entrenched position on this.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:28 p.m.
    Thank you so much.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 12 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 13 -- Allowances
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:28 p.m.
    There are no advertised amendments to clause 13, so I would put the Question.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:28 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the old Bill, the “Minister” here meant the Minister responsible for Finance.
    I anticipate an amendment in the definition of the “Minister” so we have to be very careful. Mr Speaker, I am just reminding the Hon Chairman that the definition of “Minister” would change, so we have to be careful when we insert “Minister”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:28 p.m.
    The definition of “Minister” in this Bill is also the Hon Minister for Finance, and there is also a definition for the “Sector Minister”.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:28 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we had got to clause 14, that matter would have been cleared. Mr Speaker, you would see the advertised amendment in clause 14. “Minister” is used throughout the Bill and not just in clause 13; it has been used in clause 4, 8 and several other parts of the Bill. As defined, “Minister” is the Minister for Finance.
    Mr Speaker, at the Committee level, there was some confusion but we went back to the Attorney- General's Department, and their definition is what we have captured as an amendment to clause 14 on the Order Paper.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:28 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation, do you propose an amendment to clause 13?
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:28 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would take his guidance. I said that we are supposed to amend the definition of “Minister” at the end, but I do not know if the Hon Chairman
    has that definition. Mr Speaker, when we do that, then this would not be exactly correct, and that was why I drew his attention.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:28 p.m.
    “Members of the Board and members of the committee of the Board shall be paid allowances approved by the Minister.”
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:28 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that “Minister” is not the Minister responsible for Finance because generally speaking, the sector Minister determines it in consultation with the Hon Minister for Finance. Mr Speaker, but that was not the amendment, so I just drew his attention.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:28 p.m.
    There is no advertised amendment. If I put the Question, then clause 13 would stay as it is unless it goes through a Second Consideration Stage.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:28 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that was why I brought it to his attention because he knows that an amendment would come.

    Mr Speaker, it says that Members of the Board and members of a committee. [Interruption.] Mr

    Speaker, Management Committee is a committee of the Board. “The Board may establish committees consisting of -- [Interruption.] Clause 11 is clear, and we should not create a situation where Management Committee members would take allowances.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:28 p.m.
    Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation, why do you say that clauses 11 and 12 are the same? They are not.
    Hon Member for Suhum.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:28 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we read clause 12 (1), it says that:
    “Without limiting subsection (1) of section (11), there is established a Management Committee.”
    Mr Speaker, clause 11 (1) says that the Board may establish committees so clearly; it has put the Management Committee in the category of the committees that could be established by the Board. So, without limiting that, this law would go ahead to even establish a Management Committee, which is a committee of the Board.
    We need to simply exempt the Management Committee in clause 13 from taking the allowances. If we look at the composition of the Management Committee, it is made up of appointees of the organisation.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:28 p.m.
    Hon Chairman.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:28 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not think that the Management Committee is a committee of the Board because clause 11 (1) says that “the Board may establish committees.”
    Now, clause 12 (1) says that “There is established a Management Committee”… This is already established. We have established the Management Committee in the Act.
    Mr Speaker, clause 11(1) says that the Board may establish committees, so the Management Committee is not a committee of the Board.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:28 p.m.
    Hon Members, let us look at “Without limiting subsection (1)”. All what it says is that subsection (1) gives power to the Board to establish committees; however, we are establishing a Management Committee without the Board. So, it is not by the Board because this is a committee established by the Act.
    Hon Deputy Minister for Finance.
    Mr Kwarteng 12:28 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it would not hurt to create an exception under clause 13 that members of the committee of the Board -- and for the avoidance of doubt, the Management Committee is not a committee of the Board.
    Mr Speaker, because I worry about the way clause 12 (1) takes us to clause 11, and clause 12 (2) goes to --
    Mr Speaker, with the way the public sector works, people always look for opportunities to have entitlements. To have a situation that would give opportunity to people to say that they are also answerable to the Board so they should enjoy allowances after Management meetings would be unhelpful.
    So, I think that it would be helpful if we could cure that by inserting a provision that would take it away completely.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:28 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there are Management Committees in a number of institutions, and they are not paid allowances. More so, this Management Committee is chaired by the Director-General. I think that it is clear. [Interruption.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:28 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, are you done with your contribution?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:38 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if for the avoidance of doubt we would want to add, what do you suggest? Mr Speaker, in that case, we would have:
    “Members of the Board and members of a committee of the Board, except the Management Committee, shall be paid allowances approved by the Minister”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
    But they can also define “committees of the Board to exclude” the Management Committee. That is another way to look at it.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:38 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is dangerous to do that because they are answerable to the Board.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
    Management is answerable to the Board, but it does not make them a committee of the Board.
    Yes, Hon Member for Asikuma/ Odoben/Brakwa?
    Mr Anthony Effah 12:38 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    I think there is a clear distinction between a Management Committee and a committee of the Board.
    The committee of the Board makes reference to sub-committees whose membership are typically Board members, but who are assigned some responsibilities of the Board to conclude and come back to the Board.
    For instance, we have the finance and administration committee, if you look at the order of business for them and we have operations -- So the Board itself may establish subcommittees for which members of the Board would handle specific assignments or referrals made to them, but they are to come back to the Board to report.
    I think that in clause 11 (1), we could say that:
    “The Board may establish subcommittees consisting members of the Board”.
    So, reference is with the members of the Board constituting a small committee to deal with matters related to the Board.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Ayariga?
    Mr Ayariga 12:38 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment on the Floor is that; “members of the Board and members of a committee of the Board, except members of the Management Committee, shall be paid allowances approved by the Minister”.
    Mr Speaker, we would not be there. We would sit here, the Authority would be there. One early morning, they would get up and say that what the clause, as the new rendition makes it look like, says that allowances of all other committees should be approved by the Minister; but for them, their allowances should not be approved by the Minister. That is how it reads.
    Mr Speaker, read it carefully. It says that 12:38 p.m.
    “Members of the Board and members of a committee of the Board, except the Management Committee, shall be paid allowances approved by the minister”.
    They would get up one morning and say their allowances are not to be approved by the Minister, and they
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
    Yes, let me hear the Hon Member for Kade?
    Mr Kwabena Ohemeng- Tinyase 12:38 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity.
    Just as he rightly said, we could eliminate Management Committee and still have the clause perfectly settled, that members of the committees set up by the Board would be paid allowances approved by the Board, so that there is no ambiguity in Management Committee members being part of that particular clause.
    This is because in the ordinary, we know that in Management Committee
    meetings, the members are paid staff; therefore, they do not pay any allowances for the job they do because it is part of their requirement.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
    Hon Member for Wa West.
    Mr Chireh 12:38 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with the absurdity that my Hon Colleague made, we already know that Management Committees do not pay themselves allowances in many institutions, but he said that they can interpret it to mean that they would set up their own.
    They cannot because a Board has to approve many of the decisions they make, including paying themselves. They are a committee of the Board as seen in the opening phrase. So, if they go and start to pay themselves and the Board agrees, that is a different Board game.
    It is not anticipated that such a thing would happen because any allowance they want to pay has to be approved, at least, by the Board. So, I think the rendition is correct.
    On the other hand, we can go back clause 12 where the Management Committee is established, and say members of the Management Committee shall not be entitled to any allowances.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:38 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the proposal by the Hon Member for Kade, except to correct his saying that it should be approved by the Board. The rendition here has approval by the Minister. So taken correctly, it should read:
    “Members of the Board and members of a committee established by the Board shall be paid allowances approved by the Minister.”
    Mr Speaker, the real difference between what we are discussing is committees that would be established by the Board, subsequent to the passage of this Bill, and the Management Committee, which is clearly established by this Act.
    However, we argue that collectively, they are all committees of the Board. So, the distinction is the other committees, which we want the allowances to be paid, would be established by the Board, and the Management Committee is esta- blished by the Act. If we go by his rendition, I think the problem gets solved.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee?
    Mr Banda 12:38 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the issue is who is entitled to allowances, and there is no doubt that members of the Board and members of a committee of the Board, as captured under clause 13, are entitled to allowances. Except to say that, members of the Management Committee are not entitled to allowances. That is all that we are saying.
    Mr Speaker, that being the case, we could put this issue beyond doubt by creating a subclause under clause

    Very well.

    Then, Mr Speaker, I think that we could create subclauses 13(1) and 13(2) with the new provision, putting it beyond doubt that members of the Management Committee are not entitled to committee allowances. That solves the problem.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
    Yes, the Hon Deputy Minority Leader?
    Mr Avedzi 12:38 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I oppose the proposed amendment. Clause 13 is very clear. It says:
    “Members of the Board and members of a committee of the Board, shall be paid allowances approved by the Minister.”
    Why is he talking about the Management Committee? Is it a subcommittee of the Board? No, the Management Committee is not a subcommittee of the Board.
    Mr Speaker, I oppose it. Clause 13 should stand as it is.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
    Yes, the Hon Member for Wa West.
    Mr Chireh 12:38 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Deputy Minority Leader just came in. He did not know that we have passed this argument.
    What we are saying now is that we should have clause 13, and support the amendment proposed by the Hon
    Mr Kwarteng 12:48 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am proposing, and it is consistent with what Hon Abdallah suggested, that we come to clause 12(6) and just state there clearly that members of the Management Committee shall not be entitled to allowances at their meetings. It is neat. -- [Interruptions.]
    Mr Chireh 12:48 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to remind the Hon Deputy Minister that the headnote denotes what we are talking about, and that is why they have all these members; he said allowances. That is why we should put it, so I support his amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
    They can add a subcluase to clause 13, and we would say subsection (1) does not apply to members of the Management Committee. Is that possible?
    We could break clause 13 down into clause 13(1) and (2), and suggest that 13(2) would say that 13(1) does not apply to members of the Management Committee. Clause 13(1) deals with allowances, then clause 13(2) would say that clause 13(1), which is the allowances, does not apply to members of the Management Committee.
    Would that solve the problem?
    Mr Kwarteng 12:48 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it solves the problem, except that it does “not apply”, mean that their allowances would be determined otherwise? If we could state it clearly --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
    What does clause 13 say? It says:
    “Members of the Board and members of the committee of the Board shall be paid allowances approved by the Minister”.
    Mr Speaker, it does not apply to -- so all the clauses there would not apply. Is that alright?
    Mr Banda 12:48 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it appears that if we put it the way you suggested, it would still admit ambiguity because if we say that clause 13 does not apply, it may presuppose that they could be paid allowances elsewhere.
    That is the way I would be compelled to understand it, but if we put it beyond that, members of the Management Committee shall not be entitled to committee allowances --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
    What is the difference? It is clause 13, as it is now, that introduces the payment of allowances and the approval. So, if you say it does not apply to them, neither the payment nor the approval applies to them.
    Mr Ayariga 12:48 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if your policy objective is to make it such that the workers who are on a committee do not get paid allowances, that is capable of being defeated by an earlier clause that we have already approved.
    The clause enabling the establishment of committees says that committees could be made up of board members and non-board members, so the non-board members of the committee could be the regular staff of the Authority.
    If committees set up by the Authority could be paid allowances, and non-board members of the committee set up by the Board would get allowances, what would then be the justification for saying that the Management Committee which is also made up of non-board members should not be given any allowances?
    So if the policy is that we should prohibit every staff who serves on a committee set up by the Authority from receiving allowances, then we should state it very clearly.
    Otherwise, as the Director- General, the very functions that the Management Committee is supposed to serve in order to get allowances, we can instigate the Board to set up another committee made up almost entirely of the Management Committee members, assign them those same functions, and once they are a committee set up by the Authority or Board, then they would be entitled to the same allowances that we seek to prevent them from getting now.
    So, let us be clear on how we would achieve the policy objective, which is what we are pursuing now.
    Mr Chireh 12:48 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we talk as if this is the first time we would discuss corporate governance of public institutions.
    The thing is clear. If anybody wants to be innovative in paying himself allowances, he could always do so. We are not saying here that a staff of the Authority cannot be a member of any committee.
    Once established by the Board, whatever qualities they see in a person to be a member of that committee, one is entitled to allowances; but where one is a Management Committee member, in fact, the reason we are excluding them is that they are already Management Committee. They enjoy benefits, and that is their normal duties.
    They should make sure that management of the place is good. They are supposed to ensure good governance and, therefore, cannot be paid again. Otherwise, every day, they would call such meetings.
    So I think that the Hon Member's argument goes out completely to imagine something that is not -- our practice now is that we are disqualifying -- In any case, the Director-General is a member of the Board, so we are disqualifying the other people because that is the work they are supposed to do every day. They should not be paid additional allowances for doing their work.
    Mr Chireh 12:48 p.m.


    That is why the last amendment you read should be supported, and I recommend it highly for everybody to endorse.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, would you move the amendment, so I would put the Question?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:48 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, at the last point, we had broken it down to a clause 13(1) and (2).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
    Clause 13(2), the rendition is that: “clause 13(1) shall not apply to members of the Management Committee”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 13 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 14 - Ministerial directives
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:48 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, first, in clause 14, the headnote would be deleted and a new headnote “Executive Oversight” inserted.
    Mr Speaker, I want to emphasise that the headnote would also change in clause 14. Any time we effect an amendment, it does not affect the headnote.
    It is only the clause, so, in this case, the headnote is affected, and that is why I am drawing attention to it.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:48 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman's proposed amendment, which sits in the Order Paper, clearly includes the headnote. We see where it says “insert the following”.
    It clearly includes the headnote, so I do not know what he is trying to do to first delete the headnote.
    The “delete” in his proposed amendment includes the deletion of the headnote.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:48 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 14, delete and insert the following:
    “Executive oversight
    14. (1) The Authority shall be responsible to the President.
    (2)The Minister may, with the approval of the President give directives in writing on matters of policy to the Board and the Board shall comply with directives.”
    Mr Ahiafor 12:58 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Chairman, except for the headnote. Having regard to the rendition, I propose that the headnote should be captured as “policy directives”.
    All along in the laws that we have passed, including the Ghana Iron and Steel Development Corporation Bill, we captured it as “policy directives,” and not “Executive oversight”.
    Mr Speaker, also the rendition is the same as the way it is in the current Bill. I may even support it by quoting section (12) of the Ghana Iron and Steel Development Corporation Bill, and with your permission I read:
    “Policy directives;
    The Minister may give directives on matters of general Government policy to the Board and the Board shall comply.”
    Mr Speaker, it is the same thing that we are saying over here.
    rose
    Mr first Deputy Speaker 12:58 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Suhum?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:58 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Member for Akatsi somewhere -- Akatsi South. He is right. In most --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:58 p.m.
    Hon Member, is there any constituency called “Akatsi somewhere?”
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:58 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I said Akatsi South.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:58 p.m.
    You first said “Akatsi somewhere”.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 12:58 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as one gets older, one sometimes have to search for these south, east and west.
    Mr Speaker, I hope your constituency is still Bekwai, and there is no central, west --
    Mr Speaker, I am therefore supporting the Hon Member's proposal to change “Executive oversight” to “Policy directives.” In fact, in almost every legislation that we passed in this House, when we get to this particular provision, the headnote is “Policy directives.”
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:58 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Bolgatanga East?
    Dr Dominic Ayine 12:58 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the antecedent discussions, the idea for this amendment was to make the Authority directly responsible to the President.
    In other words, there would be no Ministerial oversight, except where the President designates an Hon Minister to have oversight over the Authority. So, it is not just about policy direction, but it is also about executive oversight of the Authority.
    Mr Speaker, what I would therefore want to propose here is a little amendment to the effect that the President may delegate his authority to the Minister, designated by the President.
    Otherwise, the question of Ministerial policy cannot be dealt with, except where the President makes it the responsibility of a sector Minister.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:58 p.m.
    This is the State Interests and Governance Authority Bill. Is it any different from any other, such that we are bringing the President in? This is the first time that I am hearing that the President is being brought into a Bill, rather than a Minister.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:58 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation?
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:58 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the background is important. If we accept the amendment, then the new clause 14 (1) does not fit, but the intendment of this change is not to make the Hon Minister for Finance the responsible Minister.
    That authority is vested in the Presidency, and the President shall appoint somebody there to do it, and that is why there is a bit of confusion here. It is very important that we understand that. If we do not understand that -- because it works to the Office of the President. Therefore, it is very important that we understand that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:58 p.m.
    I would want to listen to everybody on this matter.
    Yes, Hon Ayariga, I would want to listen to you on this matter.
    Mr Mahama Ayariga 12:58 p.m.
    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that we must be careful in the design of institutions. I am not saying that I am the most experienced in this House, or that I am the most diligent, but I have not seen any legislation, in which we have set up an authority and said that the authority would be responsible to the President.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that oversight should be by a Minister, but the President could define the Minister to be any Minister. Yes, we have done that before, where the President could define the Minister.
    Mr Speaker, I recall -- when we were doing the Ghana Investment Promotion Council legislation, where there was an issue as to which Minister should be responsible, and we resolved that issue by saying that the President should determine which sector Minister should have oversight over that agency, so that the agency would be answerable to the Presidency, but then through a Minister designated by the President.
    Mr Speaker, but for us to say that he should be answerable directly to the President, which organisation is not answerable to the President?
    I should be shown an organisation, which is an executive institution in this country, which is not ultimately answerable to the President. However, we have designed it in such a way that nobody could hold the President directly responsible.
    Mr Speaker, in this case, what we are going to do, is to open up to the President. He is directly responsible. In this case, that is what it means, if we say that the Authority is answerable to the President.
    In any case, how can one head an Authority that is answerable to the President, and be given policy directives by a Minister? How is that possible, when one has direct access to the President and is answerable to him? What then differentiates him from a Minister, such that he would take policy directives from him?
    Mr Speaker, we should therefore not do this. We could say that the President should define the Minister to be any Minister that he desires, so that we would not know whether it is going to be the Finance Minister or the Monitoring and Evaluation Minister.
    It should be a Minister that the President would decide to make responsible for this specific Authority. However, to say that the Authority should be directly answerable to the President sets a very bad precedent.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:58 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:58 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to refer the House to the Ghana Aids Commission Act, 2016, Act (938). Section (11) has “executive oversight”, and that is what has been lifted here.
    Mr Speaker, section 11(1) of Act (938) says, and with your permission I read 12:58 p.m.
    “The Commission is responsible to the President.”
    Mr Speaker, subsection (2) also reads 12:58 p.m.
    “the President shall in writing designate a Minister to have oversight responsibility for the Commission.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:58 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, you should address me.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:58 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we lifted this directly from the Ghana Aids Commission Bill, and at the Committee --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:58 p.m.
    I would want to understand what we would want to achieve.
    Hon Chairman, give me one moment. I would want us to be clear on what we would want to achieve. Would we want to set up an organisation that is directly responsible to the President and not be under any Minister? Is that what our intendment is? A public institution, which does not operate under any Minister? Is that what we intend to do?
    Dr. A. A. Osei 12:58 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not know why the draftpersons put it this way, but the intention is that the President would appoint a Minister responsible for this Authority. So,
    Dr. A. A. Osei 12:58 p.m.


    once it defines, for instance, that a Minister means a “Minister appointed by the President, responsible for the Authority”, we do not have a problem.

    Once we define the Minister properly, then we do not have a problem, and that is really the intendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:58 p.m.
    Yes, Hon available Leader?
    Mr Chireh 1:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with the amendment they were talking about, lifting it directly from the Ghana Aids Commission Authority Act is not correct.
    We should not say this, because with many institutions, when one is put under the Presidency and not even under the President, they become orphans, and we all know that.
    Mr Speaker, that is one of the problems of the current organisation, the State Enterprise Commission (SEC), so we should do away with that oversight and then capture what is in the Ghana Aids Commission Act for the President to designate a Minister.
    This is because in the Ghana Aids Commission Act, everybody knows that AIDS is a disease or a condition and it should be supervised by the Hon Minister for Health, but for a long time, it was always a different person who was designated.
    The President has the authority to say that it is a particular Minister so, that is all we should do and not to put oversight responsibility for the President.
    Mr Speaker, as my Hon Colleague said, if we do that, we would undermine everything. If we think this is so important that the President must oversee it, then it is ridiculous.
    He should designate so, the second part which gives the President the authority to designate a Minister -- That is why he earlier talked about the possible change of the Minister. This means a Minister for Finance can change.
    Mr Speaker, if it is so, this is the appropriate thing to do so, but at this time, we should still say that the President would designate a Minister and that is all we should do.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:08 p.m.
    I do not think at this point, we should include “the President shall designate a Minister” in the body.
    When it comes to definition of “Minister”, we would put it there that “Minister” means a Minister designated by the President”', but if we put it in the body that the President is directly responsible, I think we would muddy the waters.
    Let me listen to the Hon Deputy Minister.
    Mr Kwarteng 1:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if that is the pleasure of the House that clause 14(1) from the amendment
    goes away, it may be so, but we need to advert our minds to something.
    If you go to the Bill as it stands, clause 4(g), under “Functions of the Authority”, it says:
    “To achieve the objects under section 3, the Authority shall
    (g) assess borrowing levels of State-owned enterprises and other State entities in accordance with the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921) and advise the Minister accordingly;”
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:08 p.m.
    We have changed it.
    Mr Kwarteng 1:08 p.m.
    We have not changed it. Yesterday, that was what happened here.
    When you proceed to clause 4(h), it says:
    “where a request for a government guarantee, financing of capital expenditure or investment plan is submitted by a specified entity, advise the Minister;”.
    Clause 4(m) reads:
    “co-ordinate the sale or acquisition of the State interests in specified entities and advise the Minister accordingly;”.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:08 p.m.
    It was moved to clause 3(c).
    Mr Kwarteng 1:08 p.m.
    Was it moved to clause 3(c)?
    Mr Speaker, clause 13 reads 1:08 p.m.
    “Members of the Board and members of a committee of the Board shall be paid allowances approved by the Minister.”
    Mr Speaker, we can, again, go to clause 27(3) and it says 1:08 p.m.
    “The Auditor-General shall, within four months after the end of the immediately preceding financial year, audit the accounts and forward a copy each of the audit report to the Minister and the Board.”
    Clause 28(1) reads:
    “The Board shall within thirty days after the receipt of the audit report, submit to the Minister an annual report covering the activities and operations of the Authority for the year to which the report relates.”
    In fact, if we go to clause 28 (2), (3) and (4), you would see the provisions.
    Clause 33 reads:
    “The Minister may in consultation with the Board, by notice in Gazette declare an entity other than a State-owned enterprise or joint venture
    Mr Speaker, I will finish shortly. Clause 35, “Regulations”, reads 1:08 p.m.
    “The Minister may, on the advice of the Board, by legislative instrument, make Regulations generally for the effective implementation of this Act.”
    Under clause 36, “Interpretation”, you would read:
    ‘“annual performance contract” means a document agreed on by the Minister and a relevant sector Minister specifying key performance indicators and obligations of a State-owned enterprise or other State entity;”'
    Mr Speaker, if you look at all these provisions, the suggestion that the President may designate some other Minister other than the Minister for Finance would mean that the entire Bill would have be re-woven.
    The Attorney-General, working with the Ministry of Finance, were minded by the communication we received that there ought to be some accountability directly to the President.
    That is what motivated the changes we brought in clause 14, but the question of a Minister, other than the Minister for Finance, directly supervising this entity would suggest that this Bill would have to be rewritten. That is my sincere view.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:08 p.m.
    I do not think so. Anyway, let me listen to the Hon Member for Old Tafo.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is important that when we do Government business, we are very careful. There has been a Cabinet directive and I am surprised that the Hon Deputy Minister is here arguing the case. We should not do this to ourselves.
    There has been a Cabinet directive as to why this amendment was being made and he has been here trying to argue the case why the Minister should be responsible for that. It is not healthy and I believe we should step it down --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:08 p.m.
    With all due deference to you, the Cabinet directive is not before us. In this House, if you argue your point --
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:08 p.m.
    They are supposed to bring it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:08 p.m.
    At this point, these are Hon Members of Parliament making their arguments. If there is a Cabinet directive, let it be informed by your argument.
    Let me listen to Hon Ahiafor; he has not spoken in a while.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, all the provisions read by the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance talk about a “Minister”. Therefore, if in the Interpretation, that Minister is defined
    to be a “Minister designated by the President”, there is no problem about the law.
    So, whether it is the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation or the Minister for Planning, that would have to be a designation -- It would not affect the Bill at all once “Minister” is defined.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when you look at the import of the proposed amendment by the Hon Chairman, it is clear that they want to give responsibility of the Authority to the President and what we are trying to do now is to shape the legislation to give that effect.
    The simple thing to do here is to take off clause 14(1) as proposed and amend clause 14(2) to take away “with the approval of the President” so that it reads:
    “The Minister may give directives in writing on matters of policy to the Board and the Board shall comply with directives.”
    Mr Speaker, once we do this and we get to the Interpretation section, we can then define “Minister” to mean -- with your permission, let me quote the provision we have in the National Identification Authority Act. This is the definition of Minister.
    “Minister” means Minister assigned responsibility for the National Identification system.”
    I remember at the inception of this Parliament, the responsibility of the national identification system was given to the Ministry of Commu- nications. Subsequently, it was moved to the Minister responsible for Monitoring and Evaluation.
    So, the law has provided the flexibility to the President to determine where he wants to sit this matter at any time and so, clearly, the idea that we want the President to have that direct authority is expressed through his appointments and determination of which Minister has responsibility.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:08 p.m.
    I think it is the same thing with the National Security Act. The person responsible is who the President designates.
    .
    Mr Ayariga 1:18 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance has a very strong case. When you refer to the clauses that he referred us to, they have specific finance functions. They are related to finance activities. Even the Public Manage- ment Act defines the Ministry of Finance carrying out those functions.
    And we just passed the Public Financial Management Regulations and many of the things that he has referred to, it is the Minister for Finance that must do them. So, if we pass another legislation outlining those functions in relation to an authority and subsequently go and define the
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:18 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we went by what the Hon Member for Bawku Central just said, then, in
    the end, what would we achieve? If there are roles that are going to be carried out by the Minister for Finance — then, let us say this one is given to the Minister for Planning, in the end, the Director-General is reporting to the Minister -[Interruption]- it is not practical that in the end, another Minister other than the Minister for Finance has oversight.
    The whole essence of having this Bill is that there is a lot poor corporate governance; these SOEs are not being run well and we want to bring them properly under the Ministry of Finance. Otherwise, in my view, this Bill must go back. In my view, if this thing is not going to sit under the Ministry of Finance, then, this Bill must be withdrawn and properly sent to wherever it is going.
    Mr Speaker, excuse me, in the end, all that we are doing would be a waste of time if this thing is not going to sit with the Ministry of Finance, then, we might as well not pass it.
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:18 a.m.
    I am very surprised that the debate is going this way. It may be wise to step it down so that we do the proper thing.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:18 a.m.
    Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation, in this House, those of us; the Hon Chairman of your Com- mittee, myself and Hon Members on the other Side, do not sit in Cabinet. You have not tabled any Cabinet decision here.
    It is in your head and that should inform your argument but if I disagree with you, it does not mean I am subverting Cabinet directive. This is because no Cabinet Memorandum has been brought before us here.
    Dr Osei 1:18 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is a background to why I said that. this is not the first time it is—
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:18 a.m.
    Well, but in this House, I do not think anybody is subverting Cabinet decision. This is a House of debate and Hon Members are entitled to speaking their mind.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:18 a.m.
    I would come to you but let me listen to the Hon available Leader.
    Mr Chireh 1:18 a.m.
    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. What the Hon Member for Bawku Central referred to is that anytime we are passing a Bill and we want to assign a responsibility to a particular Minister who is not the one sponsoring the Bill, we would name that Minister.
    For example, in the AIDS Com- mission Authority Bill, what we did was where the Minister for Health was
    to do something, we specified the Minister for Health. But at the end the of day, we still said — so, what he meant was that we could define the Minister to be any Minister designated by the President. But look at the Bill where we have loan approvals in the Constitution, it is only the Minister for Finance who is given that responsibility.
    So, wherever we see a function of the Ministry of Finance, we should indicate that one clearly so, that we do not have the confusion so that at the end, even if we designate another Minister, what would happen is that after that Minister has done this, he could still and have that responsibility performed by the Ministry of Finance.
    So, I think that definition of the Minister or designation by the Minister by the President is in order, but let us look at the Bill, where specific functions are related to the Ministry of Finance, and it must be done by them. We should specify that one.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:18 a.m.
    Let me listen to the Hon Minister for Works and Housing.
    Mr Samuel Atta Akyea 1:18 a.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity. I think it is a fundamental problem and I agree with you that without this House being informed about the Cabinet position, we might be wasting precious time on this matter.
    So, my humble view is that we should inform the Hon Chairman of the Committee properly and your good self with the decision and we
    Mr Samuel Atta Akyea 1:18 a.m.


    would be able to have a clear understanding and harmony in relation to this.

    But for my part, I could say that if we look at the tenure of what we are trying to do, I would not want to come to the conclusion that without the Minister for Finance, no other Minister would be able to answer to the issues here. I do not agree at all. It is like you saying that well, the President, in his wisdom, would want to assign certain responsibilities to other Ministers and leave the Minister for Finance alone because probably, he is over-subscribed. What do you say about that?

    Mr Speaker, I am of the view that you wanted to see a position from Cabinet and we should give the space to provide it and that would curtail all the confusion.

    So, when it is coming from one of our own, it is very important he sees it and then, it would be in sync with what we are doing.

    Mr Speaker, that is my humble suggestion.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:18 a.m.
    Let us battle with the policy position first before we add our law.
    Yes, Hon Deputy Minister for Finance?
    Mr Kwarteng 1:18 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to say something further
    to what Hon Yieleh Chireh said. I agree with him.
    He started by drawing the House's attention to the fact that when we have a Bill and there is a role that a Minister, other than the Minister sponsoring the Bill would have to play, then, we state that in the law. If we consider that there are roles that other Ministers either than Minister for Finance would have to play, the law would have to make that clear.
    It is not to say that this time round, the sponsoring Minister rather, are those that we should specify. And that it is not when other functions have to be performed by other Ministers that it is to conflict even the initial basis that he put across, I take the view that we could go through the Bill also and to see those ministerial responsibilities that could be performed better by other Ministers and perhaps, bring amendments to reflect those.
    I thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:18 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, my point is very simple; this particular Bill has gone through Cabinet and if we look at page 16 of the Bill, “Minister” is defined. And Minister means, Minister responsible for Finance.
    So, I urge this House to proceed with the Bill based on the definition of “Minister” provided on page 16 of the Bill having regard to the fact that the entire Bill has gone through Cabinet.
    Now, if we get to the definition on page 16, the onus lies on whoever is alleging that it should not be the
    Minister for Finance but a Minister designated by the President.
    Then we can go back to look at the various provisions in the law and determine whether it should be a Minister for Finance or a Minister designated by the President. So, I do not see the confusion.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:28 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in light of the argument advanced by Hon Ahiafor, I would withdraw the amendment in clause 14 and then we would stick with what is in the Bill.
    Let us proceed and when we get to the Interpretation, when the Cabinet decision is properly before the Chairman, then we would decide on the next --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:28 a.m.
    Very well. In that case, there is no advertised amendment to clause 14, so I would put the Question.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:28 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in that case, I beg to move, clause 14, delete headnote and insert “Policy directives”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:28 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 14, line 2, delete “give effect to the directives” and insert “comply”. It would then read:
    “The Minister may give directives in writing on matters of Government policy to the
    Board and the Board shall comply.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 14 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 15 and 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 17 -- Appointment of Director-General
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:28 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 17, subclause (3), paragraph (a), delete “postgraduate”
    Mr Speaker, the original rendition read 1:28 a.m.
    “(3) A person qualifies for appointment as Director- General if that person has
    (a)a relevant postgraduate degree”
    Mr Speaker, we felt that was unnecessary because a relevant degree should suffice. For us to legislate that he or she should have a relevant postgraduate --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:28 a.m.
    So, is a Chartered Accountant a degree holder? If I am a Chartered Accountant, I have been practising in the industry for years and have sufficient experience, do I not qualify just because I do not have a degree? [Pause.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:28 a.m.


    I suggest that we look at maybe “requisite qualification and experience” rather than “degree” because not all the qualifications are called degrees.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:28 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree. It was in the same spirit that we deleted this fascination with a postgraduate degree. We felt that a graduate degree should suffice, but we can amend it further to say “the relevant qualification”. So that clause 17 (3) (a) would read:
    “(3) A person qualifies for appointment as Director- General if that person has
    (a)the requisite qualification”.
    Mr Speaker, because of the use of “a person qualifies” in the opening sentence, we cannot say “requisite qualification”.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:28 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we thought that such a person must have a degree at the Master's level but we also know that we are a country in transition.
    So, people can have just a first degree but with many years of experience, and that was why we deleted “postgraduate”. We cannot take an illiterate to be the head. [Interruption.] We cannot legislate for an illiterate to be the head.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:28 a.m.
    What about the Chartered Accountant? Is he a degree holder?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:28 a.m.
    A Chartered Accountant is not a degree holder.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:28 a.m.
    So, if I am a Chartered Accountant and I have practiced, led organisations and have sufficient experience and expertise, do I not qualify? That is why I am worried about the use of “degree”.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:28 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, “Chartered Accountant” did not agitate our minds. We were thinking about those who would go to universities to obtain first degrees, but your observation is right.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:28 a.m.
    That is the point we are making.
    Mr Fuseini Issah 1:28 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, even for the Chartered Accountancy courses these days, at a certain level, for the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) with stage 2, it is seen as equivalent to a degree.
    So, if we could couch it to say a degree or its equivalent, then a Chartered Accountant at a certain stage of the qualification process would qualify to hold such a position.
    Mr Chireh 1:28 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, there are two ways to resolve this. If we leave “degree”, we can put in “equivalent” but the most appropriate thing to do is talk about requisite professional qualification. [Interruption.] If it is in paragraph (b), then “degree or its equivalent” would be a better rendition.
    Ms Safo 1:28 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the referral being made by Hon Chireh is actually captured in clause 17 (3) (b) where it talks about the relevant professional competence.
    I think in paragraph (a), what we seek to do is not to limit the qualification to only degree holders or postgraduate degree holders because there might be professional programmes and courses that might be taken that make other people very competent to take up the position.
    So, I hear the whispering going on and I propose we take “academic”, so that for paragraph (a), we are talking about a relevant academic qualification.
    So that whether a person is a degree holder or a professional certificate holder, once he or she has that relevant academic qualification, he or she could take up - and then paragraphs (b) and (c) would accordingly follow.
    Mr Ayariga 1:38 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is no advertised amendment to this effect, but to legislate and say that the President may appoint somebody to head an organisation and we further detail the degrees and the years is to belittle the President.
    How could we say that the person should have a postgraduate degree? There are people with PhDs in this country who cannot effectively function.
    We should just say that the President shall appoint somebody as Director General and leave him to decide the qualification of the person that he would assign. Why do we want to say that the President could designate any Hon Minister to perform the function when we all know that these are matters that relate to finance?
    Yet, we say the President could designate any Hon Minister including the Hon Minister for Environment, Science, Technology and Innovation who could have been the oversight Hon Minister for this function.
    Mr Speaker, if we want to give the President that level of latitude, then he should also be given the latitude to appoint a Director General. We should leave it to him to decide who should be the Director-General.
    Mr Speaker, if I would even accept it, I would accept the proposal of the Hon Deputy Majority Leader that the person should have the relevant academic qualifications. But to say that the person must have a post graduate degree and have 10 years working experience, is too much.
    This, in my opinion, belittles the President because he has been entrusted with the mandate to run the country and we trust his judgement and also trust that when we give him the power to appoint people, he would appoint competent people.
    So to give him the power to appoint and to go behind and tie his hands and say that the person should have a particular degree and have a
    Mr Ayariga 1:38 p.m.


    particular number of years of working experience should be left to the Board who would assess the competence of that person.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
    Hon Member, you have made your point.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:38 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member said that there are people with PhDs in this country who cannot function. I would want to know from him whether he was referring to me. [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
    Hon Member, he was not referring to you and he did not even talk about the kind of function.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:38 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 17, subclause (3), paragraph (c), delete “ten years postgraduate” and insert “fifteen years”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 1:38 p.m.
    ‘‘not less than fifteen years working experience with a minimum of five years working experience at a senior management level''.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, ‘‘working experience'' in what? If a person worked as a bus or train conductor for 15 years in London or
    USA, is that a working experience? We want the relevant working experience.
    Mr Chireh 1:38 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, because of what we did in paragraph (a), obviously, if a person is a graduate with some academic qualification and is a conductor and has 15 years experience --
    The important thing is that, because this person would superintend over institutions with State interest in various areas which involve professional and qualified people, then the level of the person's experience must be such that he would be able to -- the current head is in the House and if we do not qualify it like that, it would be a problem.
    The other qualifications in this clause would also be contingent upon the 15 years, so it cannot be any ‘'bus conductor''.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:38 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we do not need any other qualification to want the Hon Chairman of the Committee's proposed amendment. This is because in the full rendition after his amendment, it would be realised that he deleted ‘‘ten years postgraduate'' and inserted ‘'fifteen years''. The new rendition would then be:
    “not less than fifteen years working experience with a minimum of five years working experience at a senior management level''
    Mr Speaker, with respect, it cannot be the ‘'bus conductor'' that you described.
    Mr Quashigah 1:38 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, leaving it the way it is, still does not meet the necessary expectation because as you raised earlier, if we say “post graduate working experience with the minimum of'' -- [Interruption.]
    It has been deleted? Even with that there should be a relevant working experience because if we say ‘'a relevant degree'', the individual could have all the relevant qualification and with the working experience, it could so happen that he had worked in different areas that are related to -- like managing a public toilet.
    Mr Speaker, ‘'relevant working experience'' is necessary, so I would want to suggest that, it should be added.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
    I do not know which senior management position one could have in what you suggested. [Laughter.]
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Wireko-Brobby 1:38 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your leave, I would want to go back to clause 15.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
    Hon Member, we have not finished with clause 17.
    Clause 17 as variously amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
    Hon Member, please, hold on. Hon Opare-Ansah had earlier drawn my attention to something in clause 15.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:48 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we juxtapose clause 15(2), with clause 22 which is “Appointment of other staff'', it would be realised that engaging some staff of the Authority to head the divisions fall under the “engagement of other staff”.

    Clause15 says that the Authority on its own would be able to go and engage some staff to head divisions. And when we come to clause 22, it reads, and I beg to quote:

    “(1)The President shall, in accordance with article 195 of the Constitution, appoint for the Authority other employees that are necessary for the proper and efficient performance of the functions of the Authority.”

    Mr Speaker, so clearly, the heads of the divisions to be created in clause 15 subclause (1) would fall under those appointments to be made by the President in clause 22. So my contention is that we should delete clause 15 subclause (2).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
    No, I do not think so. Clause 15 subclause (2) reads:
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.


    “(2) The Board shall engage staff of the Authority to head the divisions of the Authority.”

    Probably, we should change “engage” to “assign” so that there would be no confusion. Instead of using, “The Board shall engage staff of the Authority to head the divisions of the Authority”, we should rather make it, “The Board shall assign staff of the Authority to head the divisions of the Authority.” That may avoid any confusion. Is that right?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:48 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you could listen to the Hon Member for Hemang Lower Denkyira. He earlier said he had something on clause 15.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
    I will listen to him but would the “assign” be all right?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:48 p.m.
    Mr Speaker the Chairman has no objection.
    Mr Wireko-Brobby 1:48 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is just about the same thing, except that I would go for “appoint”. — [Interruption.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
    The “appoint” may confuse that with the powers of the President to appoint.
    Mr Wireko-Brobby 1:48 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my main issue had to do with the word “engage” and so if it is now “assign”, then I am fine.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, so I will put the Question on clause 15 subclause (2). And the Question is, clause 15, subclause (2), line 1, after “shall”, delete “engage” and insert “assign”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 15 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 18 — Functions of the Director-General
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:48 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 18, subclause (1), paragraph (a), delete “under” and insert “in”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would now read 1:48 p.m.
    “(1) The Director-General
    (a)is responsible for the day to day administration of the affairs of the Authority and is answerable to the Board in the performance of functions in this Act, and”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 18 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 19 — Appointment of General Managers
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:48 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, add the following new subclause:
    “The President may delegate the power of appointment under subclause (1), in accordance with clause 2 of article 195 of the Constitution.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
    Do we need to legislate this? Because it is already in the Constitution.
    Mr Chireh 1:48 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I oppose the way the amendment is being put. The President cannot be delegating. Indeed, he has already appointed other people somewhere in clause 22.
    So, as for those delegations, it is “assignment” as we early on said. It is somebody within the Authority that should assign these people and not by the appointment of the President.
    Mr Speaker, again, once the President is appointing the Director- General, naturally, it should be that they all come under that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
    In fact, the same thing is in clause 22, which reads:
    “(2) The President may, in accordance with clause (2) of article 195 of the Constitution, delegate the power of appoint- ment in subsection (1).”
    And so this is not necessary.
    Hon Chairman, you will abandon item numbered (xvi). It is already provided for.
    Mr Ahiafor 1:48 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I will urge the Hon Chairman to abandon this amendment in the sense that, clause 19 says and I beg to read:
    “(1) The President shall, in accordance with article 195 of the Constitution, appoint two General Managers.”
    Mr Speaker, if we go to article 295 of the Constitution, the President already has the power to delegate. So, once the power to delegate is also in accordance with article 195, and the President is to do appointment in accordance with article 195, it is left with him to decide whether to delegate or not. So there is no need providing for the absolute in the law.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 1:48 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member has even gone far. Subclause (1) says that the Managing Director shall be appointed by the President in accordance with article 195, simplicita, and not article 195(1), (2) or (3).
    Article 195 includes article 195 (2) and so we do not need that provision in there.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, I am directing that you abandon the proposed amendment of clause 19 in item numbered (xvi) on the Order Paper.

    Now, let us move to item numbered (xvii) on the Order Paper.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:48 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19 subclause (3), paragraph (a), delete “qualifications set out in subsection (3) of section 17” and insert “relevant professional compe- tence and experience”.
    Mr Speaker, you would recall that earlier in clause 17, we talked about postgraduate degree et cetera, and we deleted all of those. So, we just want to leave this at, “relevant professional competence and experience”.
    Mr Avedzi 1:48 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am following the amendment which says, “subclause (3) paragraph (a)”, and if we look at clause 19 subclause (3), there is no paragraph (a) —
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
    Of section 17.
    Mr Avedzi 1:48 p.m.
    All right.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:48 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the proposal of the Hon Chairman, except to add “academic”. The proposal of the Hon Chairman says, “relevant professional competence and experience”, and I want him to consider adding, “relevant academic professional competence and experience”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 19 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader, should we extend Sitting beyond 2.00 p.m.?
    Ms Safo 1:58 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, we could do up to 2:30 p.m. and suspend and then come back. [Interruption.] Rightly so, except if Mr Speaker has any other directions.
    Mr Speaker, the Companies Bill, 2019 is also slated for consideration; the one we are considering is time bound. We should be able to finish within today and tomorrow.
    Respectfully, I would want to seek the indulgence of Hon Members to take it up to 2:30 p.m., we would suspend and come back to continue with this Bill. We could do thirty more minutes.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
    I do not have a problem but, once it is 2:00 p.m., I might either extend Sitting or bring it to a close and that is why I am asking.
    Ms Safo 1:58 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, we could extend Sitting.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
    Very well, Hon Members, in accordance with Order 40(3), and having regard to the state of Business in the House, I direct that the House Sits outside the regular Sitting hours.
    Clause 20 -- Functions of General Manager
    Mr Opare-Ansah 1:58 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we read clause 20(1), with your permission:
    “A General Manager appointed in accordance with section 19 shall be responsible for each of the following;”
    Mr Speaker, it is not very clear that the two General Managers would each have responsibility for either of them, so, I beg to move, line 2 delete “each” and insert “one”. This would read:
    “A General Manager appointed in accordance with section 19 shall be responsible for one of the following;”
    Mr Speaker, so, the two General Managers, clearly, would have responsibility for the two items listed there.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
    Or we could just insert “one” before “each” to read, “One each of the following”.
    Very well, Hon Members, the proposed amendment is for the consideration of the House. I would want to be sure which one: whether it is “one each” or “one”.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:58 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would delete “each” and insert “one”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 20 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 21 -- Secretary to the Board
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:58 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 21, subclause (1), line (1) delete “to be”, so that it would read:
    “The Authority shall have an officer designated as the Secretary to the Board.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:58 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 21, subclause (2), paragraph (a), line 1, delete “obtained” and in line 2, delete “enables” and insert “equips” so that clause 21 (2) (a) would read:
    “A person shall not be engaged as Secretary to the Board unless that person (a) has a pro- fessional qualification or a tertiary level qualification that equips that person to have the requisite knowledge and experience to perform the functions under subsection (3)”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
    It does not sound well.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:58 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is convoluted.
    Mr Chireh 1:58 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is because the Hon Chairman of the Committee did not delete “have” and
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
    Hon Member, so, instead of inserting, “to”, we rather delete “have” and insert “with”? [Interruption] - That would be better. So, it would read:
    “….has a professional qualification or tertiary level qualification that equips that person with the requisite knowledge and experience to perform the functions under subsection (3)”.
    I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 21 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 22 -- Appointment of other staff
    Mr Bernard Ahiafor 1:58 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is a consequential amendment to clause 22 (2). With your permission, it reads:
    “The President may in accordance with clause (2) of article 195 of the Constitution, delegate the power of the appointment in subsection (1).”
    Mr Speaker, for the reason canvassed in clause 19, I believe the same reason would call for a deletion of clause 22(2).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
    Well, Hon Member, we have, by practice, lifted the Constitution and added it to most of our Bills but because he was adding the same thing when it was here, that is why we thought it was superfluous. I think that if it is here under, “Appointment of other staff”, it is only a repeat of the constitutional provision.
    Mr Bernard Ahiafor 1:58 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, then, the same thing should apply to clause 19. We deleted --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
    He introduced an amendment which is the same thing because “other staff” would cover that one.
    Mr Bernard Ahiafor 1:58 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you look at the amendment in clause 19, he was introducing a clause to read:
    “The President may delegate the powers of appointment under subclause (1) in accordance with clause 2 of article 195 of the Constitution.”
    Mr Speaker, we impressed upon him that the Constitution has already taken care of it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
    It is more because you said clause 22 covers “other staff” including those in clause 19.
    So, I would put the Question.
    Mr Banda 1:58 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am wondering why we are using, “shall” under clause 22 (1). It reads:
    “The President shall, in accordance with…”
    What it would mean is that, even if there is no necessity for the appointment of other employees, because of that word, “shall”, the President is mandated to appoint but I do not think that is the intendment of this provision.
    Mr Speaker, so, I would want to propose, “may” instead of “shall” but in making the appointment, it shall be in accordance with article 195 of the Constitution.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
    In fact, if you look at the Constitution, it says, “The President may subject to --” I think, “may” should be the appropriate word.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:58 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, is it not for which reason we have the clause 22(2), so that if the President may delegate -- [Interruption.]
    The clause 22(2) takes care of the clause 22(1) in instances where the President is not bound by the word, “shall”. If the President does not want to, then, he delegates.
    Mr Chireh 2:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that it is because of the immediate following phrase that the “shall” is important. “…shall, in accordance with article 195…” However, if it says; “may”, some of the “shall” -- as he knows as a draftsperson, they are force ‘must' and this is one of them. But because you would want the President to do so in accordance with article 195, he has no option in this.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    I support the position of the Hon Chairman for the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parlia- mentary Affairs. It should be ‘may' because the President may make those appointments as and when the necessity for making the appointments falls due and that is why it should be “may” and not “shall”.
    It is not in relation to the provisions of article 195 that the “shall” -- it is in relation to the making of the appointment and so, it should be ‘may'.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the “shall” is right. It should not be ‘may'. What the provision is simply saying is that in the appointment of other staff, the President has exclusive jurisdiction.
    That is what it means. If he intends to exercise that exclusive jurisdiction, he must do it in accordance with article 195.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:08 p.m.


    Mr Speaker, clause 22(2) then says that even though he has exclusive jurisdiction, he can delegate. So, it is not in relation to -- clause 22(1) is establishing his authority to appoint and he shall appoint. If he exercises that authority, it shall be in accordance with article 195.

    [Interruption] --

    Mr Speaker, no -- ‘may' is permissible and so, if he is sharing that power with any other person, the ‘may' would have been the right word but the President is not sharing that power. That is why it is “shall” in sub clause (1) but ‘may delegate' in sub clause (2).
    Mr Banda 2:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is a difference. The difference is that in accordance with article 195 of the Constitution, it is a non-restrictive phrase. It is not going with “shall” and that is why the comma punctuation mark is there.
    The controlling verb for “The President shall,” is “appoint” and so, if we re-word the provision, it is going to read; ‘The President shall appoint for the Authority in accordance with article 195 of the Constitution'.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:08 p.m.
    The fact that there is a comma before and after “in accordance with the Constitution”, shows clearly that it is distinguishing that part from the sentence. So, the “shall” refers to the “appoint” but you cannot force the President to appoint. He will choose to appoint other staff or not.
    Yes, Hon Deputy Minority Leader?
    Mr Avedzi 2:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are establishing an Authority and it needs human resource to work with. If we use ‘may' and the President says that he is not going to appoint other staff, what happens to the Authority we are establishing? The power to appoint is vested in the President and so, he “shall” do it. However, if he feels that he does not want to do it, he may delegate that power to somebody to do it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:08 p.m.
    Or he may not want to do it. If he does not want to do it, can we force him?
    Mr Avedzi 2:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if he does not want to do it, we have to force him because that is why we are asking him to do it since he has the power to do it. I do not have the power --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:08 p.m.
    He delegates only if he wants to do it but wants it done through somebody else.
    Mr Avedzi 2:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have to look at it from the point that the Authority that we are establishing needs to function. If we give that liberty to the President to say that he will not appoint, then why are we establishing the Authority in the first place?
    This is because you and I would not appoint, he is the one who has been given the power by the Constitution to appoint and so, he shall do it. However, if he does not want to do it then he should delegate.
    Mr Speaker, so, the “shall” is appropriate.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 2:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let us break this down a little bit. “The President shall,” -- and we all agree for now that it has nothing to do with ‘in accordance with article' and so, let us dispense with that and read it as follows: ‘The President shall appoint for the Authority'. Who shall he appoint? Other employees that are necessary for the proper and efficient performance of the functions of the Authority.
    So, what you are saying is that anytime that the need arises for the appointment or the need for people to be appointed for the proper and efficient running of the Authority, the President shall appoint. However, we are saying that it should be ‘may' because he is the President and has a better purview of the entire needs of the nation.
    At that point, it is not about whether he will delegate or not; it is about whether that is the fit and proper time that he wants to make that appointment. That is why he should be able to have the discretion as to whether he will appoint at all or not and that is what the ‘may' does for him.
    Mr Speaker, so, yes, the Authority may establish -- and we need people for so and so function and because of that the President may appoint. It is not that anytime the Authority comes
    up with some needs then even without -- the Ministry of Finance says, well, their finances cannot handle that at this time, the President still goes ahead and does the appointment.
    So, it should be ‘may'.
    Mr Chireh 2:08 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have mentioned article 195 for a long time now and I think that it is better for us to be guided by what is in the Constitution. It says:
    (1) “ Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the power to appoint persons to hold or to act in an office in the public services shall vest in the President, acting in accordance with the advice of the governing council of the service concerned given in consultation with the Public Services Commission.”
    (2) The President may, subject to such conditions as he may think fit, delegate some of his functions under this article by directions in writing to the governing council concerned or to a committee of the council or to any member of that governing council or to any public officer.
    (3) The power to appoint persons to hold or act in an office in a body of higher education, research or professional training, shall vest in the council or other governing body of that institution or body.”

    Mr Speaker, so, these are the three subclauses under article 195. Indeed, what he is saying should be ‘may' -- that is, if he wants to appoint but he shall do so only in accordance with this -- [Interruption.] It is not a wrong interpretation, I first opposed it but I now agree with him.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:08 p.m.
    Hon Members, so, clause 22(1), delete “shall” in the first line and insert ‘may'.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 22 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 23 -- Monitoring fee
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 23, subclause (1), line 1, delete “paragraphs (b) and (e)” and insert “paragraph (b)” and in line 3, delete “the”.
    Mr Speaker, so that clause 23(1) would read 2:18 p.m.
    “For purposes of paragraph (b) of section 4, the Authority shall monitor specified entities to ensure compliance with this Act and Regulations.”
    Mr Speaker, in clause 4, paragraph (b) referred to the signing of annual performance contracts, and paragraph (e) was the preparation and submission to the Minister of an
    annual assessment report of the governance and institutional performance.
    Mr Speaker, I think the reason was that it is actually only paragraph (b) that is --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:18 p.m.
    Very well.
    I would put the Question.
    Mr Avedzi 2:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman is deleting “the” in line 3, before Regulations. Then it would read:
    “For purposes of paragraph (b) of section 4, the Authority shall monitor specified entities to ensure compliance with this Act and Regulations.”
    Mr Speaker, which Regulations? It should be “the Regulations”, but if he is deleting “the”, then which Regulations would it be?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:18 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, we could add “and Regulations there under made' or ‘Regulations made under this Act”.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to further propose that we add “Regulations made under this Act”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:18 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 23, subclause (2), lines 1 and 2, delete “joint venture
    company, state-owned enterprise and other State entity” and insert “ specified entity”.
    Mr Speaker, “specified entity”, as per our definition, means state-owned enterprise, joint venture or other State entity.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 2:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we support the amendment because all that is specified entity.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 23 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 24 -- Funds of the Authority
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 24, paragraph (b), line 3, at end, add “as determined by the Minster”.
    Mr Speaker, it would read 2:18 p.m.
    “Not more than five per cent of dividends received and accrued to state-owned enterprises and joint venture companies on annual basis as determined by the Minister.”
    Mr Chireh 2:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, a consequential amendment at where we have repeated the “state-owned enterprises and joint venture companies” should read “specified
    entities”. Mr Speaker, it is consequential to what we did in clause 23 (2), where we inserted “specified entity”.
    Mr Speaker, but when we come to line 2 of paragraph (b), we still have “state-owned enterprises and joint venture companies”, but this should really be replaced by “specified entities”.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “specified entities” means state-owned enterprise, joint venture companies or other State entity, but the “other State entity” is missing here.
    Mr Speaker, and here we are talking about the payment of dividends, and it relates only to state- owned enterprises and joint venture companies. So, other state entities, regulators and so on would not come in here. That is why we have omitted that.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:18 p.m.
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader, there is only one amendment to clause 27, so we would take that and suspend Sitting.
    Clause 27 -- Accounts and audit
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 27, delete and insert the following:
    Ms Safo 2:18 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the language proposed in clause 27 is not what is in the Constitution and if I recollect properly, when we considered the Ghana Iron and Steel Development Corporation Bill, 2019 and the Chartered Institute of
    Bankers (Ghana) Bill, 2018, we agreed that instead of using “shall keep books of account”, we shall use what is in the Constitution as stated in article 187(3).
    Mr Speaker, that talks about “shall keep, books, records, returns and other documents.”
    Mr Speaker, we went back and forth on that one. I remember we agreed to, instead of using “book of accounts and proper records”, stick to the language in the Constitution -- “books, records, returns and other documents”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Wa West?
    Mr Chireh 2:28 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, she was not here when the Hon Majority Leader was corrected. The latest is a Bill we just finished considering. It has the correct rendition, and this was the correct rendition.
    This is because clause 3 of the article 187 refers to clause 2, which mentions “accounts”. With what we are saying, if we do not mention “books and account”, it would hang. So this is the correct version now, and we should approve it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee?
    Mr Banda 2:28 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I know we have been borrowing the language of the Constitution, but I also know that we are not bound by that language if we are not deviating from the substance of the Constitution.
    Mr Speaker there is a new terminology according to the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), which is a foundation that sees to it that, globally, common terminologies are used for accounting purposes.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
    The Ghanaian accounting system is different from the American accounting system. So, let us use what we know.
    Yes, Hon Avedzi?
    Mr Avedzi 2:28 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Yes, there is international accounting standards that companies with profit motive use internationally, but organisations and agencies that are state-owned use International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS). So, we should not apply the IFRS; we should apply IPSAS. So his is rather outside the line. We should not use it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
    So, I would put the Question. We are in IPSAS now.
    Yes, Hon Deputy Majority Leader?
    Ms Safo 2:28 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, now, I remember the proposition of the Hon Yieleh Chireh that we actually agreed on this.
    Before you put the Question, I have a further amendment to the proposed amendment. In line 2 of the proposed amendment, after “form”, there should be “as”. This is because, again, the constitution says in article 187 (4):
    “… shall be kept in such the form as the Auditor-General shall approve.”
    Here, we have:
    “The Authority shall keep books of account and proper record in the form the Auditor-General shall approve.”
    It is not complete.
    So, before “form”, we delete “the” and insert “such” so that it is neater.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 27 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
    Now, can I close and resume at 4.00 p.m.? [Interruption.] Hwee nni ho; to wit, there is nothing -- but I do not

    trust that you would not introduce new things.

    Very well, clause 28?

    Clause 28 to 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
    Hon Members, the House stands suspended until 4.00 p.m. Please, I would enter at exactly 4.00 p.m. If there is nobody in, I would adjourn proceedings; I promise you.
    2.36 p.m. -- Sitting suspended.
    4.00 p.m. -- Sitting resumed.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
    The Mace is at the appropriate position, is it not? When the House was suspended, we were at Consideration Stage. [Interruption.] We would not start anything afresh.
    Hon Chairman, we would continue at clause 31.
    Clause 31 - Guidelines and code of practice
    Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah 2:28 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 31, headnote, delete “and Code of Practice”.
    Mr Speaker, the headnote would read “Guidelines”. “Code of practice” is to be defined in the Interpretation section, so here would mean guidelines alone.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:28 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the headnote says “Guidelines and code of practice”. “Code of practice”, as mentioned here, is a guideline, so the headnote should just read “Guidelines.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:28 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 31, subclauses (2) and (3), delete.
    Mr Speaker, in the Interpretation section, “code of corporate guidelines,” is defined not “code of practice”. In essence, the Board cannot issue a code of practice for all specified entities so that, for example, if we take the Volta River Authority (VRA), the Board would issue a code of practice, which would be engineering, then one goes to another field.
    The Board of the State Interests and Governance Authority cannot issue codes of practice for different entities. This cannot be a function.
    However, they can issue broad guidelines, and that was why we deleted “code of practice” so that we take subclauses (2) and (3) off, and then we would just have guidelines.
    Mr James Klutse Avedzi 2:28 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we read clause 31(1), it says “the Authority shall furnish”, it did not say it shall issue guidelines; it said “furnish”. Who then issues the guidelines before the Authority furnishes them?
    That is why subclause (2) comes in by issuing. So, if we want to limit it to only guidelines, then we delete “code of practice” because it says that it should furnish all state-owned enterprises and joint ventures with guidelines in respect of their operational procedure. Who then issues these guidelines? That is when the subclause (2) comes in.
    I think that we should maintain subclause (2) by only amending it to delete “code of practice”, so it would read:
    “the Board may issue guidelines for specific entities for the purposes of giving effect to the provisions of this Act”.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:28 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we changed “furnish” to “issue” in subclause (1), that should take care of the Hon Deputy Minority Leader's concern.
    The essence of the amendment we want to effect in subclause (2) is that the Board cannot issue a code of practice because of the varying nature of the entities involved here.
    There are about 89 of these state- owned enterprises and venture
    companies, and they cut across different sectors of the economy. This Board cannot issue codes of practice in all of these entities across board.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
    So, you want to delete “furnish” and substitute that with “issue”. Is that the suggestion?
    “The Authority shall issue all state-owned enterprises, joint venture companies and other State entities in which Govern- ment has majority shares, with guidelines…”
    Is that right?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:28 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes.
    Furthermore, I have realised that in clause 31(3) it is to publish the guidelines on the website. So, clause 31(3) should be maintained, except to delete “and the Code of Practice”, so that:
    “The Authority shall publish the guidelines on the website of the Authority”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member, I was going down to subclause (3).
    Mr Chireh 2:28 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I hope I would not be ruled out. I do not know whether we changed clause 31

    (1) where we have state-owned enterprises, joint venture and all that. That is where we should replace it with specified entities.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, listen to him. He says that -- [Interruption.]
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:28 p.m.
    He says we should use “specified entity”. Mr Speaker, that is fine.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
    To replace state-owned enterprises, joint ventures and so on.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 2:28 p.m.
    So; “The Authority shall issue --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
    “Shall issue to specified entities.”
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let us leave it, because it says that: “…where Government has majority shares...” If the Government does not have majority shares in, let us say, a joint venture, then it would not issue guidelines.
    So, we should leave it as it is, spelling them out as state-owned enterprise, joint venture companies and other State entities where the Government has majority shares. There are venture companies that the Government does not have majority shares.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman?
    Mr Avedzi 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “specified entity” is defined to mean state-owned enterprise, joint venture companies or other State entities. We have already defined what a specified entity is, so let us use that one in place of where we have joint venture.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    In this case, because it is qualified with “those in which Government has majority shares”, that definition would not apply.
    We would want to make guidelines for only those in which the Government has majority shares. So, if the Government has minority shares in a joint venture, we cannot apply the issue of guidelines.
    Mr Avedzi 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in clause 31(1), if we delete “state-owned enterprises, joint venture companies and other State entities” and replace it with “specified entities”, it would then read:
    “The Authority shall issue specified entities, in which Government has majority shares.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Alright, so you would want to substitute “state-owned enterprises, joint venture companies and other State entities” with “specified State entities.” Is that right? [Pause.]
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move a further amendment to add “…shall issue to”….
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    So, kindly read the final rendition before I put the Question.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read:
    “The Authority shall issue to specified entities in which Government has majority shares.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, it should be captured as “specified State entities.”
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the paragraph two would be deleted, because it is an issue with guidelines. So, it would be captured as:
    “The Authority shall issue to specified entities in which Government has majority shares.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, we are to issue guidelines to specified entities. It says:
    “The Authority shall issue to all specified State entities in which Government has majority shares.”
    In that case, you would withdraw --
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we could bring “guidelines” in the first line, so that it would read “the Authority shall issue guidelines to…”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    All right. So, it would be captured as:
    “The Authority shall issue guidelines to all specified State entities, in which Government has majority shares.”
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I heard you include “State”, but it does not come in here. It should be “… to all specified entities…
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    So, it would be to all specified entities in which Government has majority shares.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in respect of their operational procedures.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move that subclause (2) should be deleted.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that in subclause (3), we delete: “…and the Code of practice.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 31 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 32 and 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman, there is a proposed amendment in your name.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your leave, the Hon Member just drew my attention to clause 33 that in line 2, after “Gazette”, there should be a comma.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, I direct the draftsperson to put a comma after the word “Gazette” in clause (33).
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 34, subclause (1), delete and insert the following:
    “(1)A specified entity that fails to comply with guidelines in respect of the operational procedures referred to in subsection (1) of section 31, is liable to pay to the Authority, an Administrative penalty of five hundred penalty units.”
    Mr Speaker, what is in clause 34(1) references “code of practice”, which we deleted earlier.
    Mr Speaker, secondly, we realised that the penalties were not punitive enough and so --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    You repeated the same penalty of five hundred penalty units.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is to come. Still on clause 34, there are about four amendments on clause 34, so --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    In the first amendment that you are inserting, you have also stated an administrative penalty of five hundred penalty units.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:10 p.m.
    Yes, that is in the first instance.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    In the first instance?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:10 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Very well.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:10 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Mr Avedzi 4:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman wanted to say that the proposed penalty unit of five hundred is not punitive enough, but the amendment proposed repeated the same five hundred penalty units.
    What I saw in the amendment is a re-arrangement of the clause, which makes it better, but then it also takes into account the “code of practice” that has been deleted in the amend- ment.
    So, if really the reason is the penalty units, then the Hon Chairman should tell us what should be the actual penalty unit because he said five hundred penalty units and it is the same thing that has been repeated but he said that it was not punitive enough.
    Mr Banda 4:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the intention is not to increase the penalty units, but it is to take away paragraph (b) -- “Code of Practice issued under subsection (2) of section 31”. That is all that the amendment seeks to do, but not to increase the penalty units.
    Mr Chireh 4:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it was the Hon Chairman who said that the penalty units was not punitive enough, but look at the offence. What is the offence that it should be punitive?
    Look at clause 31. If somebody does not issue the guidelines, he should be fined more penalty units than that. It was his comments but the penalty units are alright.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:20 p.m.
    Hon Members, before we take a vote, whom are we directing the sanction against?
    Dr A. A. Osei 4:20 p.m.
    The specified entity.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:20 p.m.
    The specified entity? But the entity has not done anything wrong. It is the directors or managers whose failure -- If the directors' failure results in the State losing more money, what is the point?
    It is a state-owned enterprise but somebody has failed to do something. If somebody who is a paid official has failed to do his a job, the penalty should be suffered by that director, manager or paid individual, not the entity.
    Dr A. A. Osei 4:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought that it is the officers of the entity that would fail to comply so, when we say “specified entity that fails” we are talking about officers. The entity itself cannot comply; somebody in the entity must comply.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:20 p.m.
    Let us look at “specified entity” in the Interpretation. It reads:
    ‘“specified entity” means a
    (a) a state-owned enterprise;
    (b) a joint venture company; or
    (c)other state entity;
    So, if you want the officer to pay, put it in it and not the entity.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 4:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am inclined to agree with you. What we are saying here, in effect is that, if a specified entity does not comply, then we must use the entity's finances to pay the administrative penalties but who suffers?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 4:20 p.m.


    It is the officers who are supposed to ensure that the entity has complied so what we are saying here, and I agree with Mr Speaker, that the sanctions must not be on the entity; it must be on the officers.

    So, we have to drill down a little bit further rather than saying that the entity that fails to do this -- either the Board or the administrative committee or the responsible officer -- we have to define something, but it cannot be the specified entity.
    Alhaji Fuseini 4:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I remember when we were privileged to be invited to be part of this, the Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation raised a very important point.
    If we are to punish the entity and not the officers, and the entity uses its budgetary amount to satisfy the administrative penalty, then the officers would continue indulging in default. They would continue because there is no person liability for a failure to perform a duty imposed on you. So, it would be members of the Board who would be liable to the penalty.
    Dr A. A. Osei 4:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that was why I got up, so he can offer that amendment.
    “The members of the Board of a specified entity that fails to comply with guidelines in respect of the operational procedures referred to in subsection (1) of section 31, is
    liable to pay to the Authority, an administrative penalty of five hundred penalty units.”
    Mr Chireh 4:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, members of the Board are not direct officers. They may give a direction to the officers to do something, so let us put it as “officers of the specified entity” and officers include the Managing Director -- [Interruption.] No, we are not talking about the Authority; we are talking about specified entities.
    I said that compliance with the guidelines is by the officers. They are the ones who carry out the day to day activities. So, if they do not comply with the guidelines, they should be the ones to be held responsible.
    The Board members take decisions and if they do, they would say that they want the officers to do this and they go home. How can we now call them and say, why did they not do that? I think it should be officers.
    Dr A. A. Osei 4:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, officers comply with directives of the Board. We do not go to the officers; we go hold the Board accountable for anything that happens there. So, we cannot go past the Board and go to the officers. It is only the Board that can make sure that it is done. That is why they are members of the Board.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:20 p.m.
    The Board may punish any officer whose default results --
    Mr Ebenezer Kojo Kum 4:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to propose that the amendment reads:
    “The directors of a specified entity that fail to comply with guidelines in respect of the operational procedures referred to in subsection (1) of section 31, are liable to pay to the Authority, an Administrative penalty of five hundred penalty units.”
    Mr Banda 4:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, a specified entity is also a distinct personality on its own. To that extent, it can also be culpable.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:20 p.m.
    We do not intend that an artificial person be held culpable because he cannot take any action. Does “Directors” refer to administrative directors or Board of Directors?
    Mr Opare-Ansah 4:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let me take us to clause 6. In there, you would see the functions of the Board which include:
    “(b) promote and enforce a Code of Corporate Governance …
    (d) ensure the proper and effective performance of the functions of the Authority.”
    So it should be members of the Board.
    Mr Banda 4:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it cannot only be the members of the Board. The officers of the Board go beyond the members of the Board. It could
    either be the members of the Board or the other officers of the specified entity.
    In this particular case, it may include members of the management of the specified entity. [Interruption.] It should not, because the Board is different from the management.
    Mr Speaker, I would want us to borrow the language of the Companies Code. The Company Code says that when a company defaults, every officer of the company that is in default is liable to pay.

    So, if we are to compare a specified entity to a company and the specified entity defaults, and we cannot slap the specified entity with a penalty, then it should not be members of the Board only, it should be every officer of the specified entity that is in default.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:30 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, that would put a pressure on whoever is exacting the money to conduct an inquisition to find who did or who failed what. In this is case, there is a failure, Board members, you would pay.
    Then, whoever failed to do his work would be held responsible. Otherwise, one would say, I did not do that. Would you go down? It would go down. So, I think to make it easier—
    Yes, Hon Member for Okaikwei Central?
    Mr Boamah 4:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, just to wade into the debate. I am looking at the definition section for specified entities which includes a joint venture company:
    “A joint venture company ought to comply with all the relevant provisions under our Companies Act.”
    It therefore, means that if in the Companies Act, companies could be sued and be asked to pay a certain penalty or fines because of certain breaches, then, when we are applying the law as stated here, companies which include joint venture companies must also be subjected to all those stringent punishments as envisaged under the Companies Act.
    So, it could be the company and the individual --[Interruption]--- it does not matter because a joint venture company with Government participation, places a responsibility on Government as a shareholder to be compliant with the rules so that they do not hide under the cloak of being an irresponsible Government company.
    So, if a joint venture company is held strictly according to the rules of company law, then, both the company and the officers of the company must be held jointly and severally responsible for any breaches.
    That is my view, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Ahiafor 4:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity. The specified entities as defined by the Bill
    is an ‘artificial person' just like a company. And it can only act through the Board. So, the act of the Board would then become the act of the specified entity.
    Clause 31 talks about procedures contained in the guideline that would have to be complied with by that particular specified entity. Then, the specified entity being an ‘artificial person', cannot be held liable for not complying with those procedures.
    But the Board, whose act would be the act of the company, should be held liable for failure to comply with those procedures contained in the guideline. So, the sanction should be on the Board.
    If we talk about the officers of the company, we cannot say the act of the officers of the company per se should be the act of the company. Those officers of the company would take directives from the Board.
    And if the Board gives directives and they fail to comply with those directives, the Board or the Directors can punish them for not complying with their directives. So, the ultimate responsibility should rest on the Board.
    Mr Kwarteng 4:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was thinking that we had concluded on this point until Hon Yaw Boamah came in.
    The objective of this Bill is to save these specified entities from the bad corporate governance practices of the individuals that normally manage
    them. That is the objective of this Bill. So, to punish the victim, is to seek a different objective.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:30 a.m.
    It is the entity that is failing and not the Board members.
    Mr Kwarteng 4:30 a.m.
    So, the members of a specified entity that fails to comply with guidelines in respect of the operational procedures referred to in clause 31(1) is liable to pay to the Authority an administrative penalty of five hundred penalty units. And it is severally— alright, correct it for me.
    Mr Kum 4:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I wish to propose a further amendment to the effect that the members should be jointly and severally liable to pay to the Authority, an administrative penalty of five hundred penalty units.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:30 a.m.
    Start from the beginning because I do not remember—
    Mr Kum 4:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker the new rendition would read:
    “The Board members of a specified entity that fails to comply with the guidelines in respect of the operational procedures referred to in clause 31(1), would be jointly and
    severally held liable to pay to the Authority, an administrative penalty of five hundred penalty units.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:30 a.m.
    So, it is just ‘jointly and severally' that you are introducing, right?
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 4:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with him except that it is not ‘would be'. It is ‘is'. ‘is jointly and severally liable'.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:30 a.m.
    No, Hon Member, the people who are paying are Board members who are jointly and severally liable.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 4:30 a.m.
    Sorry; Board members are jointly and severally liable. [Interruption]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:30 a.m.
    ‘‘The Board members of the entity are…'' so, members of the Board of a specified entity that fails to comply with guidelines in respect of operational procedures referred to in clause 31(1) are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Authority, an administrative penalty of five hundred penalty units.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:30 a.m.
    Item numbered (xxvii), Hon Chairman?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:30 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was trying to get their rendition
    Mr Kum 4:30 a.m.
    The Board members of a specified entity that fails to comply with the code of corporate governance, are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Authority an administrative penalty of two thousand penalty units.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:30 a.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee, that does not sound right to me. ‘members of the Board who fail to observe good corporate governance practices…'. I think that should be individual. It should not be jointly and severally—
    Mr Banda 4:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the language of the Companies Act is that if there is a default, the language is not jointly and severally. It says every officer who is in default is liable but it is not jointly and severally.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:40 a.m.
    But in this case we are talking about good corporate practice, so they would be judged based on decisions and practices jointly.
    If there is a bad investment which they ought to know, knew or ought to have known, yet they got involved in it, then we hold them jointly, unless one can say that he objected and so
    on. I am not sure we are getting the formulation right.
    Hon Member, can you repeat your formulation?
    Mr Kum 4:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to propose a further amendment that:
    “Any member of the Board of a specified entity who fails to comply with the Code of Corporate Governance is liable to pay to the Authority, an administrative penalty of two thousand penalty units.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:40 a.m.
    That is better.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if now we are referring to Members, then I think that 2000 penalty units would be on the high side. That if any member of the Board --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:40 a.m.
    But you had even proposed to send that to 5000.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, previously, as drafted, we were targeting the specified entities but now the focus is on Members of the Board, and in the first instance in subclause (1), it was 500 penalty units.
    Now, if it is Board members, then nobody would want to be a Board member of a specified entity. So, could we limit this one to 500 penalty units?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:40 a.m.
    If a Member is in default, how much does 500 penalty units come to?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:40 a.m.
    GH¢6,000.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:40 a.m.
    GH¢6,000? It is too small.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:40 a.m.
    So, 1,000 penalty units.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:40 a.m.
    1,000 is alright.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, for each offense, if he is in default --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:40 a.m.
    If you pay once, you would not commit another offense.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, how do we justify subclause (1) being 500 penalty units for not complying with guidelines and then in subclause (2), if you do not comply with the Code of Corporate Governance, we are saying 2000 penalty units?
    There has to be some consistency. So, if in the first instance, we said 500 penalty units, maybe 1,000 in the second instance for not complying with the Code of Corporate Governance --
    Mr Ras Mubarak 4:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, looking at the allowances of various Boards across the country, the pegs that come to Board Members vary. For instance, for some Boards, 1,000 penalty units may not be even up to how much they would get in
    allowances for over a year or two. So, to peg it at 1000 penalty units which would amount to GH¢12,000 across board --
    Mr Avedzi 4:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are saying each Member of the Board is liable to this penalty, let us look at it again. Sometimes, the failure to comply is not directly the doing of the Board Members. So, I am a Board member of a specified entity and all of a sudden, there is this penalty and I am asked to pay 1,000 penalty units.
    This would be unfair to members of the Board, so I think that we should maintain 500 penalty units. Even that one, GH¢6,000 is also high but we should still start from there. In this case, each member of the Board is liable and not collectively.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:40 a.m.
    The second one says that any member of the Board of a specified entity who fails to comply with Code of Corporate Governance. If you insist on working for the organisation -- if you bring a contractor for the organisation and you are caught --
    Anyway, the proposal is to reduce the proposed penalty to 500 penalty units.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:40 a.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, that is what I drew your attention to. In the first instance, it was failure to comply with guidelines. In this present instance, it would be
    Dr A. A. Osei 4:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not have any difficulty in reducing them but why should it be administrative penalty? I do not understand why now the individuals are paying administrative penalty. Why is it called administrative penalty?
    Earlier, we targeted the entities, so the administrative penalties came in but now we are targeting the individuals. Why are we calling it administrative penalties?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:40 a.m.
    It is because it is not as a result of a crime. That is why they are administrative charges or penalties, otherwise if it is a fine, it must come upon a conviction.
    So, let me put the Question on the 500 penalty units.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 34, subclause
    (3), line 3, delete “Ghana Cedis” and insert “penalty units”.
    Mr Speaker, secondly, the “one thousand'' would be substituted with “five hundred''.
    Mr Speaker, I would invite the Hon Member for Ahanta West to also propose his amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:50 p.m.
    In this case, we are talking about the specified entity that contravenes clause 32. In this case we are dealing with the entity --
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it was the same specified entity in sub clauses (1) and (2).
    Mr Abban 4:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my proposed amendment would read:
    “The Board members of a specified entity that contravenes section 32 are liable to pay to the Authority an administrative penalty of five hundred penalty units''.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:50 p.m.
    We have used ‘'members of the Board'', so I would want us to be consistent.
    So, it would be:
    “Members of the Board of a specified entity that contravenes section 32 are liable…''.
    If we use “a member'', it may mean we must identify -- but we want to hold them as collectively responsible. We should be clear that we are taking members of the Board as a group who fail to comply.
    Mr Banda 4:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have a little challenge. If we read from clause 31, it says that:
    “...the specified entities shall be furnished with the guidelines by the Authority''
    And the guidelines are to the specified entities and not to the members. In this particular case, who are to comply with the guidelines? It is the specified entities because the guidelines shall be issued by the Authority to the specified entities.
    Mr Speaker, in this particular case if we want to make the members culpable, we could still maintain “a specified entity that fails'' to comply then every officer of that specified entity shall be liable to pay so much. This is because it is the offices that must ensure compliance.
    If we want to absorb the specified entity from liability, then we could still maintain that the specified entity that fails'' then every officer who is in default shall be liable to pay so much, but the way the current rendition has been crafted, the impression would be
    created as though the guidelines are issued specifically to the members, but section 31 is not within that context. Otherwise, that would create a wrong impression when it is read from section
    31.
    Mr Speaker, so though we have gone past clause 34(1), I still want to propose that we maintain “a specified entity that fails to comply with the guidelines'' then every officer of that specified entity that is in default shall be liable.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:50 p.m.
    Hon Member, you are taking us back. You brought this argument and we argued it.
    We have taken the positon that we want the Board to be responsible so that they could hold it -- that is why we keep hitting that “members of the Board would be responsible''. I think the position is the same.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we could hear the full rendition of clause 34(3).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:50 p.m.
    Very well, repeat it.
    Mr Abban 4:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be:
    “The members of the Board of a specified entity that contravenes section 32 are liable to pay to the Authority an administrative penalty of five hundred penalty units''.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 34, add the following new subclause:
    “(#)without limiting subsections (1) and (2), the Authority may, where a contravention continues after payment of the administrative penalty,
    (a)Publish the contra- vention by the specified entity in the media together with the names of the Chief Executive Officer and the chief financial officer of that specified entity;
    (b)Suspend or annul tran- sactions made by the state-owned enterprise or other State entity;
    (c)Recommend to the President the suspen- sion of members of the governing body, chief executive officer and chief financial officer of the state owned enterprise or other State entity until the con- travention is remedied;
    (d)Recommend the appoint- ment of an official administrator to take over the functions of the
    governing body of the specified entity con- cerned for a specified period; and
    (e)Recommend to the President changes in the membership of the governing body of a state-owned enterprise or other State entity.”
    Mr Speaker, except to further delete the paragraph (b).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:50 p.m.
    Frankly what is the purpose of this subclause?
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 4:50 p.m.
    The admini- strative penalties where there is noncompliance with guidelines, code of the corporate governance, periodic report. So, if a person contravenes, there is an administrative penalty of five hundred penalty units.
    The contraventions could be such that some directors would rather prefer paying the administrative penalties.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:50 p.m.
    What are the rules of dealing with appointees? If you continue to misconduct yourself, you would be removed because you are an appointee of the President. Why should we publish your name -- the rules governing appointments and disappointments should apply?
    Mr Avedzi 4:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the first place, the members of the Board would be punished for noncom- pliance, and if this continues, are they saying they would then shift to the CEO and the chief financial officer?
    What is the essence? It is the Board that we want to punish for noncompliance. If they continue to fail to comply with the law, and we do not punish them, we do not have to abandon them and go to the CEO.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment is deemed withdrawn. [Laughter.]

    Clause 34 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 35 — Regulations
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 35, line 1, delete “may” and insert “shall within twenty- four months”.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would urge the Hon Chairman to abandon this proposal. We had a lengthy debate the other day in this House about this matter.
    We agreed that, in the instance where the Act prescribes — And if you remember, we even divided it into two; those that dealt with “shall” were those we had specified, which items they were supposed to come to this House with and we included the timeline.
    But the one which was for the general omnibus provision, we left it at “may”. Because there may not necessarily be immediate need for Regulations.
    But the Hon Chairman is now saying, he shall come within twenty- four months even when there is no need to. So I would urge the Hon Chairman to let this be.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to withdraw the amendment with your indulgence and leave of the House.

    Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 36 — Interpretation
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 36, Interpretation of “State interest”, line 1, delete “interest” and insert “interests”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have an amendment to make although not advertised. We are supposed to define “specified entities” to read:
    “Specified entities” means
    (a) state-owned enterprises
    (b) joint venture companies; or
    (c) other state entities”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    Should we put the Question on the entire clause 36 in view of the policy decision which I think must be agreed? Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation, because of the definition of “Minister”.
    Dr A. A. Osei 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I intend to come on Second Considera- tion Stage and I will seek consultations with the Hon Chairman. It is an important matter and that is why I said we should step it down.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    I will not put the Question on the entire clause 36.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation says he would come back at Second Consideration Stage, which means you can put the Question.
    Dr A. A. Osei 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the proper thing should be done and so we should step it down. We should not gloss over such serious things that are happening.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you recollect, we earlier had a long discussion about the effects of a lot of the provisions we have already done on the presumption that it is the Hon Minister for Finance that is going to be in charge of this Bill.
    On the top of my head, I can give you the example of the determination of committee allowances. For instance, if it is not the Minister for Finance and some other Minister, then that Minister would have to do that in consultation with the Hon Minister for Finance, which is usually the language used in other laws that we make, where it is not the Hon Minister for Finance.
    So, my advice is that, even if we stand this down, we cannot go back changing all those things immediately, unless we come by a Second Consideration Stage to reopen those ones too.
    There are two things; either we close this chapter with “Minister for Finance” as it is, or to redefine “Minister” to some other Minister like we argued earlier, for instance, in the case of National Identification Authority, where it is the Minister designated with the responsibility for it.
    Then we would have to start from the beginning of the Bill and review
    those places where the functions have to be performed by the Minister for Finance before we get to the point where we can change the definition of the “Minister”.
    As at now, you have to put the Question on clause 36 and close this chapter of the Consideration Stage, if my Hon Colleague would under- stand my position.
    Mr Chireh 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the earlier decision we made here was that we should pass this Bill as if it was the Minister for Finance who would be the Minister.
    If the evidence comes that we should change it, that is where we said that in that case, we would go back and look at specific things that a Minister for Finance should do in this Bill, change it and mention, “Minister for Finance” specifically. We should assume that there would be no change. But if there is that change, then we would go along with it.
    Dr A. A. Osei 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought there was a directive earlier in the afternoon that we wait for the Cabinet directive. Mr Speaker said they do not have it and they need to see it, that is why I said it is better to step it down so that we get it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    What I suggested was that, what happens at Cabinet is not before us and so you could factor that in your argument, but somebody may argue against it or otherwise. I later said that, if it is the
    Government position, then I would want that reconciled between you the Hon Minister proposing that and the Hon Chairman of the Committee, supported by the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance.
    But we do not appear to have done anything about it now. The proposal is to close it, and we could come back for a Second Consideration Stage, or else, suspend and defer it until we take a decision. Either way, I am ready. The decision is for the House to take.
    Hon Deputy Majority Leader, what is your position? You are now leading Government Business.
    Ms Safo 5:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I tend to agree with the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Finance and the earlier proposal by the Hon Member for Old Tafo that, indeed, he would come back at Second Consideration Stage.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that once we are done with this Consideration Stage, we can put the Question on the last provision.
    Then, whenever there is the need for us to advert our minds to whether reference is being made to the Minister for Finance or any other Minister that the President would assign for this purpose, at Second Consideration Stage, we can make the relevant changes that ought to be made, if the decision is that, it would not be the Minister for Finance.
    Alhaji I.A.B. Fuseini 5:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this matter has come up and even at your Committee's consideration of the Bill. Upon reading the Bill, one does not get an impression that there is an intention of Cabinet to move, “Minister” as defined here to another Ministry but I do not have any illusions that Cabinet could do that.
    If Cabinet is to do that, as you rightly said, we would need a formal communication because that is a serious policy.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation has indicated to this House that he would consider it and I know that he is very passionate about it. We can put the Question and when he comes back, that could be considered during a Second Consideration Stage. I understand that this is a very important Bill which has to be passed quickly.
    Dr A. A. Osei 5:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, since the Hon Deputy Majority Leader has proposed something and, now, she is the Leader of Government Business, I suggest that, in terms of the Cabinet directive, she reports back to us on it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:10 p.m.
    What should she do?
    Dr A. A. Osei 5:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, she should get the Cabinet directive and report same to the House because she is leading Government Business.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:10 p.m.
    Hon Minister, she is not a member of Cabinet but, currently, she is the Leader of Government Business in the House. You were supposed to confer with her and give her the information. -- [Interruption.] She has no information from you who are members of Cabinet.
    But let me put the Question. There is still opportunity to consider the matters at Second Consideration Stage.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 36 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 38 -- Transitional and savings
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 5:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, headnote, after “Transitional” insert “Provisions” and delete the phrase “and savings”.
    The headnote thus would read:
    “Transitional Provisions”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 5:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 38, subclause 2, closing phrase after paragraph (b), line 1, after “coming” insert “into force”.
    Mr Speaker, the last sentence would read 5:10 p.m.
    “...and another person and in effect immediately before the coming into force.”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:10 p.m.
    Hon Members, I will put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 38 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:10 p.m.
    The Long Title is not covered in the Order Paper, or you do not intend to do it today.
    Very well.
    The Long Title --
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 5:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, Long Title, line 3, after “and” insert “to” to read, “…and to provide for related matters”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:10 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, why should we add “to”? This is not necessary. It reads:
    “AN ACT to establish the State Interests and Governance Authority to oversee and administer the State interests in state-owned enterprises, joint venture companies and other State entities and provide for related matters”.
    It is alright without the “to”.
    Mr Bernard Ahiafor 5:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, for the sake of consistency because in the Chartered Institute of Bankers (Ghana) Bill, 2018, the Long Title states, “and to provide for related matters”.
    Mr Speaker, if we look at the Ghana Iron and Steel Development Corporation Bill, 2019, the Long Title also states, “and to provide for related matters”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:20 p.m.
    ‘An Act to establish … and to provide for related for matters'.
    Hon Members, the proposed amendment is to insert ‘to' after ‘and' which is the last letter on the third line.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Long Title as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Hon Members that brings us to the end of the Consideration of the State Interests and Governance Authority Bill, 2019.

    Hon Deputy Majority Leader, what next?
    Ms Safo 5:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the reason we suspended and came back exactly at 4 o'clock was for us to finish this Bill and if possible, start a little bit of the Companies Bill, 2018 which the Hon Chairman is very much ready to do now.
    Mr Speaker, however, the sense of the House is, and to be fair to your good self as well, you have been sitting for a long time. So, at this juncture, we would invite you to do what the House pleases, which is that we bring closure to the Business of today.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:20 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Deputy Minority Leader?
    Mr Avedzi 5:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague, the Hon Deputy Majority Leader, did the needful.
    In fact, I could even see that some of the Hon Members are dozing off and so, if she had proposed that we continued, I believe that she would have been here alone. So, I support the positon she has taken that we are in your hands.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 5:20 p.m.
    I thank all of you who came back promptly. Reading the sense of the House, I am bringing proceedings to a close. Thank you all who came back after lunch for an extra one hour and fifteen minutes to conclude work on the last Bill.
    ADJOURNMENT 5:20 p.m.